A series of events appears to be unfolding in the UK that provide for a serial story. As they say in the news biz “it has legs”.
Two more stories have emerged from the Guardian by Fred Pearce. They read like Climate Audit narratives rather than Guardian stories we’ve come to know in the past. In fact, Climate Audit is heavily cited, a first that I can recall.
Here are the two headlines:
and this one….
The Guardian is keeping up the pressure on UEA/CRU and Dr. Jones. It’s almost like a “death spiral” to borrow a phrase from Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC.
I would not be surprised if resignations are being considered.
h/t to Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum for links
UPDATE: It appears that the Guardian reporter has tipped his hand. WUWT commenter “dodgy geezer” writes:
…note this comment from the Guardian, explaining why they seem to be addressing the skeptical line for the first time. It seems they are building the story into a big ‘disproof’ of the skeptical position. Find it at:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Question – What is the purpose for publishing all these articles by Fred Pearce?
Many thanks for your comments and questions. The fall-out from the hacked UEA emails is the hottest story in climate science at the moment and a lot of claims about what they tell us have been flying around since they were made public in November.
The Guardian’s editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions, but that does not mean we are blind to contradictory evidence. It would be remiss of us journalistically to ignore a story like this where the actions of leading scientists are being seriously called into question.
We asked Fred to do a thorough investigation into some of the unanswered questions.
Is there evidence in the emails of data manipulation? Is there evidence of abuse of peer review and FOI? Is there evidence of “hiding” temperature declines? Is there evidence of fraud and conspiracy? etc etc
The answer to most of these questions turned out to be no. But it would be wrong of us not to have asked them. The aim of this investigation (which continues tomorrow) was to produce a more nuanced account of what went on behind the scenes of climate science than has appeared elsewhere. Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.
J Randerson
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
It may be that Jones will be made the sacrifice for the FoI transgressions, so that they can get the bus back on the road.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fred Pearce is convinced that the withheld data does not undermine the science.
I wonder if it has occurred to him that is exactly the reason the data was withheld?
Bizarre, I had to do a double take when trolling over there. Similarly the Newsnight report of last night was equally surreal. Perhaps we are finally turning the corner on this AGW scam.
The Guardian finally is doing honor to it’s name.
Guarding the truth! The only way for our media to protect our freedom.
Hopefully other media will see the light too.
This process is inevitable and can not be stopped.
Truth in a scientific process plays the same role as gravity on a flying object.
What goes up, finally comes down.
All fraudsters will be caught, it’s inevitable.
Although it’s great they are finally not just drinking the Kool-Aid, it doesn’t seem too bad. Rather, the headlines appear to be more of the same old “Yeah, they withheld some data and were mean to sceptics, but the data itself is fine and climate change is real.” I was reminded of how real it all is last night when the global warming storm dropped almost 4 inches of climate change crystals instead of the flurries we were supposed to get. It is worse than we thought and the period of change has become as little as 24 hours!!!
Think it’s time to reward the Guardian for being brave. I’ve pledged to buy at least one copy a day for all of next week.
All are welcome to join me.
It would be nice to ask all those reporters a simple question…in their own judgment, what if anything would undermine the IPCC science?
No, the Guardian is NOT guarding the truth! Look down the list of comments for the Yamal piece, and you will find that this is a planned series which is intended to show that, though there are problems, the fundamental AGW science is sound. Here is a quote from one of the comments, apparently from a sub-editor called J Randerson:
………………………………………
“The Guardian’s editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions, but that does not mean we are blind to contradictory evidence. It would be remiss of us journalistically to ignore a story like this where the actions of leading scientists are being seriously called into question.
We asked Fred to do a thorough investigation into some of the unanswered questions.
Is there evidence in the emails of data manipulation? Is there evidence of abuse of peer review and FOI? Is there evidence of “hiding” temperature declines? Is there evidence of fraud and conspiracy? etc etc
The answer to most of these questions turned out to be no. But it would be wrong of us not to have asked them. The aim of this investigation (which continues tomorrow) was to produce a more nuanced account of what went on behind the scenes of climate science than has appeared elsewhere. Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged…
The Guardian wants Jones and others to go away quickly, so that they can get back on track pushing alarmism 24×7.
Withholding data? Cannot be repeated or verified? Scumbags!
Just imagine if Millikan had withheld his oil drop experiment data and stated that people should just believe him? Or Arthur Compton withholding his x-ray scattering data?
Science is not proven science until independent scientist can reproduce the experimental results.
Fed has only recently allowed himself to look at the other side. Give him time for this new information to sink in. I wonder what he will be writing in a month? 🙂
Mike Ramsey
What is the purpose of the glass sphere in the Gloomian (oops Guardian) photo of the Yamal weather station?
REPLY: Its a Campbell-Stokes sunshine duration recorder – Anthony
Fred Pearce seems to be all about spinning this as some kind of “win-win” soft-controversy and using Steve McIntyre’s famous humility to do so. While Steve is correct in saying:
“…the results do not in any way show that AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is a ‘fraud’, nor that this particular study was a ‘fraud’.”
This is Steve using a cleverly silent tongue on what it does in fact say. You see, the spin being applied here is turning a deliberate and specific witholding of information from the public that led directly to IPCC conclusions lifted from the pages of magazines and tour guides is being deftly spun into something like, “oh, some scientists were less than open. but that’s ok because we caught it in time.”
They didn’t catch it in time, no how, no way. The people who buy into that c**d are about to be disappointed again and again and again… We are witnessing a “total protonic reversal” (to make a movie reference) in the AGW debate. I predict that from here on out, the conversation will be dominated by questions pointed at the conclusions rather than the absurd mantra of “the science is settled”. This alone should be staggeringly humiliating to all the people who kept assuring us that the science was in fact settled while refusing to hear what anyone else had to say about it.
The warmists have had their last say and they’ll be backpedaling forever because they have stoutly refused to look at their own methods with a wholly honest eye.
Interesting juxtaposition of apostrophes from the first article
…
to avoid the charge that “bogus science” was being “hidden”.
..
I think it’s where you put the apostrophes defines whether you are a believer or a sceptic
… what if anything would undermine the IPCC science?
Well, since IPCC “science” is just pure religious faith mixed with politics: I would say nothing would undermine it in the eyes of the true believers. Nothing.
omnologos (15:15:34) :
It would be nice to ask all those reporters a simple question…in their own judgment, what if anything would undermine the IPCC science?
Their Chief scientist?
Why would they hide the decline?
What is a decline?
What does hide mean?
Who exactly is they?
So, Ancient trees dragged from a Siberian bog don’t do anything to disprove the theory of AGW that is largely based on these trees?
Who is the denier now?
“the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.”
WOW. Perhaps this is the tact that the Roger Harrabin of the BBC will try to take. It is already clear that Richard Black is adopting this strategy.
Token investigative journalism. Spoken with “authority” of the Guardian’s highly respected scientifically trained researchers.
Admit that it ain’t pretty – however the blogs you see everywhere which claim these revelations are serious and undermine AGW are run by complete nutjobs and the skeptics who post there regularly are all paranoid schitzoid idiots.
So please sheeple (err folks) move along now, as the science is absolutely rock solid: action to curb CO2 is “crucial for humanity’s future”!
George Monbiot is smart (think otherwise at your peril!).
He picked up on Climategate instantly, and immediately set the scene for Phil Jones to be the scapegoat.
After PJ has gone, it will be business as usual, with enhanced teflon.
omnologos asks the right question : in their own judgment, what if anything would undermine the IPCC science?
sorry “tact” should say “tack” in comment above
The Guardian and the BBC are, at the end of the day, going to find that the allegations against the CRU and the IPCC are groundless. The problem is that the real issues of dispute and wrong doing are not being explained. Despite what many WUWT readers believe there is very little evidence that data is being manipulated. There is, though, plenty of evidence that dodgy reconstructions have been presented to show that the MWP was a non event. The messages are becoming blurred. Forget all the guff about GISS, HadCrut etc.
Steve McIntyre should respond to any invitation from the Guardian or BBC to provide a piece which details the “trick”, it’s significance, and it’s relevance to the hockey stick.
omnologos (15:15:34) :
Religions do not die overnight and the true believers will never accept reality.
“The aim of this investigation (which continues tomorrow) was to produce a more nuanced account of what went on behind the scenes of climate science than has appeared elsewhere. Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.”
The Guardian has NOT changed is position. Its another case of “we have the answer, now lets just go out and get the right sound bite to support our answer.”
I don’t remotely believe that we are witnessing some Damascene conversion by the Guardian and certainly, absolutely, not by Fred Pearce … popes … bears etc. This is quite clear from their reiterated belief in AGW, even in these supposedly critical articles. You only have to look at this appalling piece from today’s issue (the Graun is supposed to be a serious newspaper) to see that:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/bbc-climate-change-denier
This is the language of witch-hunting and the auto-da-fe. These are the people you’re dealing with.
The motive has inevitably to be to find some means to get this locomotive back on the tracks by offloading the now weaker vessels but still holding onto the essentials. They have too much invested (in all sorts of ways) in their relationships with the pressure groups, the quangos, the deluded middle-class believers and, most importantly, with the government itself. They have no great reason to fear the new government after our election in relation to this issue: both likely candidates, Labour and Tory, are fully committed ideologically to AGW and are extremely unlikely to quibble at a devious (and now opportune) fix which permits the craziness to continue after dumping the Jonahs at CRU.
On the other hand, the Grauniad *does have a very great deal to fear from the Tories because of the paper’s overall political stance and its fanatic attachment to NuLabour. Kissing Tory arse on AGW may be seen as a way to remain useful to the incoming bunch of warmists and as a damage limitation exercise which lets the paper stay in business when/if it loses its enormously lucrative government sponsorship.
I for one am not getting overly happy about this. Beware. Be very, very careful, they will use and abuse their contacts with decent and honest sceptics to eventually defame and discredit them. If a contributor like Hundal in the article above can attack the BBC – the BBC ! for God’s sake – for being heretic lovers and deniers, don’t imagine the Guardian will treat sceptics as anything but an infestation that needs to be controlled and, preferably, silenced.
PaulH (15:23:35) :
What is the purpose of the glass sphere in the Gloomian (oops Guardian) photo of the Yamal weather station?
REPLY: Its a Campbell-Stokes sunshine duration recorder – Anthony
Ohhh. I thought it was the crystal ball they forecasted the weather with.