"Climate fraud": Unravels quietly, as major press outlets seemingly attempt to be "responsible"

(World Tainted Green; c.f. The Times (UK based; Independent; Secular) 29 / 11 | November / 2009; Daily Mail (UK based; Independent; Secular) 26 / 11 | November / 2009 ; Bloomberg (Secular; independent; American; Article) 02 / 12 | December / 2009 ; (Secular; Indpendent; American; Editorial) 02 / 12 | December / 2009)

[English; Afrikaans; français]


Article by Marc Aupiais

Comment by World Tainted Green's Marc Aupiais:

For journalistic integrity: Before even starting this article, I admit that I do lean more towards believing in climate change being caused by emissions, than I do towards the theory involving the sun, fronted by climate skeptics, or rather, I believe that the risk that our impact may be causing climate change, is great enough to warrant at least a personal response in each individual, to attempt to reduce their footprint on the earth. That said, I believe that a transparent press, which shows both sides, giving correct weight to each is required at this time.

While doing so in a sustainable manner, and with mind to the effect economic legislation has on deaths due to poverty, I do think climate change should still be investigated with a cautious realization of its consequences if true, and the consequences to the economy if it is not man-made.

Following the hacking of many of the emails (reportedly seen as genuine by the BBC's climate change expert Paul Hudson [so claims the Daily Mail (UK based; Independent; Secular) 26 / 11 | November / 2009]) which were sent by prominent Climate Change scientists throughout the world, in which some top scientists' behaviour for whatever reason, seems to hint at a more activist stance, than at raw scientific endeavour, it has now emerged, that the major collection of original data, on which the claim of the existence of man-made climate change largely is based, that which was held by the University of East Anglia, which is now at the centre of a transparency scandal, was destroyed right back in the 1980s.

All that reportedly remains, is the altered data, now largely provided to the public by the University. This means that the major body of scientific proof of the existence of climate change due to carbon emissions, is secondary, and not based on original raw data. Without evidence of temperature records, it is hard to prove that there is a direct correlation between specific increases of carbon dioxide, and temperature levels. The world climate is thought to have heated up by just 0.8 degrees over the past 150 (One Hundred and Fifty) years due to Carbon Dioxide emissions. This based on the findings of the University of East Anglia, which has been avoiding requests for information.

The statistical calculations on climate change, specifically, those which correlate with fears of the effects of a 2 degrees Celsius increase in global temperature, cannot be based purely on melting ice caps, and the changes in sea temperature and perceived increase in natural disasters now being reported. With only processed data remaining, any errors by original compilers, could have a massive impact on the accuracy of calculations. Decisions, allegedly taken by scientists to quiet sceptics, and the reported involvement of the top University of East Anglia expert in this, do not lend credibility to their climate change research or statistics, of which the raw data no longer exists, and therefore cannot be peer reviewed.

While the so-called "ClimateGate" emails are getting a lot of attention in the press, what concerns me most about this situation, which I shall further explain now, involving the British University of East Anglia, is the recent release by the University, noted by The Times (UK based; Independent; Secular) 29 / 11 | November / 2009:

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.


The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

[...]


Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity."

According to Bloomberg (Secular; independent; American; Article) 02 / 12 | December / 2009:

"Claims that scientists suppressed data about global warming prompted the head of a British university’s climate research center to step down until the completion of an investigation.

Phil Jones, a professor and director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, U.K., will temporarily relinquish his post, the school said yesterday in a statement. Private e-mails from Jones were among thousands of pieces of correspondence between scientists debating climate change that were stolen and posted on the Internet last month.

The e-mails, dating back as far as 1996, have been cited by skeptics of man’s contribution to global warming as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data to support research. The Climatic Research Unit has said the e-mails were taken out of context and allegations of data manipulation are unfounded.

“They’re conspiring to keep papers out of published journals,” said Marc Morano, a climate skeptic who is editor of a Web site on the issue, referring to the leaked e-mails in a Nov. 24 interview. “You see them as nothing more than a bunch of activists manufacturing science for a political goal.”

Jones said the disclosure of the e-mails ahead of an international meeting on climate change in Copenhagen is an attempt to undermine measures to fight global warming.

“This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks,” Jones said in a statement. “We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.”"

While major press coverage has been given to the word "trick", which was used in the emails, and to discussions on how to avoid Freedom of Information requests, what is further concerning are claims, from the hacked versions of the emails, which prima facie reportedly show Phil Jones attempting to manipulate the peer review process, to quash the views of scientists who were less convinced of climate change.

An editorial in Bloomberg (Secular; Indpendent; American; Editorial) 02 / 12 | December / 2009 claims:

"The real issue here is one of trust and transparency -- values that apparently didn’t matter enough to Professor Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The files made public Nov. 19 include a message from Jones asking other scientists to delete e-mails, apparently as a way of dodging requests under the U.K.’s Freedom of Information law.

Other e-mails discuss trying to oust a journal editor who published skeptical papers and preventing dissenting views from being published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones wrote. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer- review literature is!”"

It appears, that China's decision to set its first emission targets, as released prior the Copenhagen summit, is not as clear as originally seen, EuroNews claims, that the plan is pegged to China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and therefore reportedly means no real reductions as long as China's economy grows. The US, whose president Barack Obama was thought to take Climate Change claims seriously, has based its own emission targets on 2005 levels, rather than on 1990 levels, a reduction which would not be enough, according to some scientists. India, meanwhile has refused any legally enforceable climate restrictions, while Africa's biggest polluter, South Africa, is set to build even more coal powered power plants to combat electricity shortages.

The Australian senate also, recently voted down a climate-change bill. It is feared by those believing in man-made climate change as a threat, that Copenhagen will not result in any enforceable limits.