Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov’t Help Hide Climate Data?

Spread the love

Loading

Are your tax dollars helping hide global warming data from the public? Internal emails leaked as part of “Climategate 2.0” indicate the answer may be “Yes.”

The original Climategate emails — correspondence stolen from servers at a research facility in the U.K. and released on the Internet in late 2009 — shook up the field of climate research. Now a new batch posted in late November to a Russian server shows that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit refused to share their U.S. government-funded data with anyone they thought would disagree with them.

Making that case in 2009, the then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection — and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.“Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.

Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data “has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: “They are happy with me not passing on the station data,” he wrote.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/#ixzz1gk65neSt

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Scientific Method.

One of the foundational components of the scientific method is the idea of reproducibility (Popper 1959).
In order for an experiment to be considered valid it must be replicated.
This process begins with the scientists who originally performed the experiment publishing the details of the experiment.
This description of the experiment is then read by another group of scientists who carry out the experiment, and ascertain whether the results of the new experiment are similar to the original experiment.
If the results are similar enough then the experiment has been replicated.
This process validates the fact that the experiment was not dependent on local conditions, and that the written description of the experiment satisfactorily records the knowledge gained through the experiment.
From Rand and Wilensky 2006

Jones only wanted to allow his own fellow adherents to his philosophical views to share his raw data.
That’s a no-no in research.

Transparency is the heart of real science.
Jones (and his ilk) were trying to destroy real science in order to enrich themselves.

Anyone should have the right to check someone else’s math.
Not just his fans.

When one of Jones’ fans turned critic, after finding some inconsistencies in Jones’ work, he asked Jones for the raw data to try to HELP.
But Jones turned him into an enemy!

Partial transcripts:
Warwick Hughes to Phil Jones, September ‘04:

Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),
Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid point anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file map showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this was due to interpolation…
[1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have larger anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????
This must be explained.
Best regards,
Warwick Hughes

Phil to Warwick:

Warwick,
I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are talking about larger trends then that is a different matter. ….
Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn’t produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me the cells, months and year of the two cells you’ve found ? If I have this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1). ….
Cheers
Phil

But Warwick found more inconsistencies and, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005 Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU temperature record.

Phil Jones famously replied:

Subject: Re: WMO non respondo

… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
Cheers Phil

And the government helped!