Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Research Chief Phil Jones Stands Down Pending Inquiry into Leaked Emails
Director denies conspiracy claims and stands by scientists' findings on global warming
The head of the climate research unit that had its emails hacked and posted online will step down from his post while an inquiry into the affair is carried out.
Phil Jones sais he would stand aside until an independent review into the hacked emails had been completed. (Photograph: University of East Anglia) Messages between scientists at the University of East Anglia's
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were posted on the web last week, and
climate-change deniers seized on them as alleged evidence that
scientists have been hiding and manipulating data to support the idea
that the world is warming up.
Professor Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, said he stood by the science produced by his researchers and suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming were "complete rubbish". But he said today that he would stand aside as director of the unit until an independent review into the hacked emails had been completed.
"What is most important is that CRU continues its world-leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible," he said. "After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the university for agreeing to this. The review process will have my full support."
Emails between researchers at the centre were obtained by hackers and then published on websites run by climate sceptics. Some argue that the timing, just before next week's major climate talks in Copenhagen, seems meant to undermine the negotiations.
Critics of the argument that global warming is human-induced say the emails show evidence of collusion by scientists. Some claimed that the contents of some emails suggested scientists prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007. But earlier this week, Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the IPCC, said there was "virtually no possibility" of a few climate scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN. He said that the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.
He was responding in particular to one email from 2004 in which Phil Jones said of two papers he regarded as flawed: "I can't see either … being in the next [IPCC] report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Pachauri said: "People should be discreet … in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet … It is another matter to talk about this to your friends on the telephone or person to person, but to put it down in writing was indiscreet. If someone was to say something like this in an IPCC authors' meeting then there are others who would chew him up."
Peter Liss, a specialist in interaction between the oceans and atmosphere at UEA, will stand in as acting director of the CRU while the review is conducted. The university's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, said: "I have accepted Professor Jones's offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations."
The economist Nick Stern said the views of those who doubted the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming were "muddled and unscientific". He admitted that all views should be heard, but said the degree of scepticism among "real scientists" was very small. The evidence for global warming stretches back more than 800,000 years, he said. "This is evidence that is overwhelming, from all sources, that's the kind of climate science we're talking about. I think it is very important that those with any kind of views on the science or economics have their say - that does not mean that unscientific muddle also has the right to be recognised as searing insight."
He added: "If they are muddled and confused, they do not have the right to be described as anything other than muddled and confused."
The move received a welcome from many involved in environmental non-government organisations.
One leading environmental campaigner said: "It seems like a sensible course of action – finally, the CRU seem to be getting their public response in order. But any reading of the emails in context would lead to the conclusion that nothing untoward happened here at all."
10 Comments so far
Show AllIf it turns out to be, indeed, a phony tempest in a teacup, I hope the uni doesn't sacrifice Jones "in aid of good public relations".
From the article:
He(Pachauri) was responding in particular to one email from 2004 in which Phil Jones said of two papers he regarded as flawed: "I can't see either … being in the next [IPCC] report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
There is too much rigidity on both sides of the issue. Remarks like the above are unconscionable. It reminds me so much of the evolution-creation debacle and it serves no one well. Certainty is almost always the enemy of good science.
One of the sad results of these pillow fights is that they stand in the way of getting something done, to find cleaner alteratives to fossil fuel, which whether it is causing catastrophic climate change or not, is running out and we need to get off our arses and find alternatives.
Herman Schmidt
The main strategy of climate change deniers is NOT to disprove anthropomorphic climate change, but to create doubt and delay action.
The world’s best-qualified scientists agree that climate is changing and that the burning of fossil fuels is mostly to blame. Although there is no debate in peer reviewed science journals, the well-funded and highly organized denialist public relations campaign has left the impression – in mainstream media – of a lively and continuing scientific controversy.
Not to repeat myself a bit, but in engineering, "doubt" is never a reason to not take action when human lives are at stake. There is very serious doubt that the building you are sitting in will ever be subjected to the natural forces the building code requires it to be designed to withstand. But because the consequences of being wrong are loss of life, it's designed for them anyway.
The global warming denialists arguments make as much sense as a movement against building codes. Socialistic building codes are burdening big business! The engineer should have to "prove" to at least 90% confidence that these snows, winds, earthquakes, etc. will _actually_ happen over the buildings life before such costly overdesign is required! An M=7.5 earthquake in San Francisco (or an 8.0 in Rush's home town of Cape Girardeau)? Scaremongering!
Of course, such an approach would mean that 90% of buildings will collapse over their lifetimes.
So, by requiring the scientists to "prove" catastrophic climate change before action will be taken almost guarantees the catastrophe _will_ happen.
"The economist Nick Stern said the views of those who doubted the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming were "muddled and unscientific". He admitted that all views should be heard, but said the degree of scepticism among "real scientists" was very small. The evidence for global warming stretches back more than 800,000 years, he said. "This is evidence that is overwhelming, from all sources, that's the kind of climate science we're talking about. I think it is very important that those with any kind of views on the science or economics have their say - that does not mean that unscientific muddle also has the right to be recognised as searing insight."
He added: "If they are muddled and confused, they do not have the right to be described as anything other than muddled and confused."
++++++++++
Can't wait until Oklahoma's Republican Senator James Inhofe storms the Copenhagen meeting, as he intends, with his views that global warming and climate change with an assist by humans is all hokum.
Maybe he'll give the scientists a lecture on the falsity of EVILution and verify that Adam and Eve were the first humans from whence all human population derived, even though for quite some time that obviously required a steady program of incest.
And maybe the scientists will lose patience and send for some primeval mud, dinosaur bones and some genetically modified rotten eggs and tomatoes to throw at him.
A little comedy relief would do wonderfully just about now.
/cm
Does Inhofe really intend to go to Copenhagen? That _will_ be an occasion of high hilarity!
Whether man made or not is a moot point, it is happening, ask the villagers in Alaska...we do not need to escalate the process though, and clean alternative energy fits the need...anyway, I think some major oil company bought all the US copper mines years ago, just for this moment, they will get their cut, no matter what.
From what I've seen, the hacked emails don't prove much of anything. The researchers don't much like the skeptics. So what?
If anybody hacked the private emails of biologists, undoubtedly the emails would show that biologists don't like the creationists. No surprise here.
In a few cases the emails refer to controversies in the handling or interpretation of data. But these controversies have also been discussed in the published scientific literature, so in that sense there's nothing really new or novel in the emails.
These emails prove nothing. Is this the only dirt the climate-deniers could dig up? Kidding about changing the standards to win, no doubt gave his colleague quite a laugh. Professionals communicating with other professionals often speak in unprofessional-sounding slang to ease the tension in their critical work. Surgeons talk about sports and socializing and kid that they are killing the patient in the middle of operations; pilot's talk about sail-boat insurance and Union politics and talk about crashes they are familiar with and "buying the farm" while they are flying at 500mph.
Environmental Scientists are now charged with the fate of the world, and will break into differing camps of thought and compete vigorously with each other until the peer-review process fleshes out the best theory.
The best theory is that we are turning this place into an oven like Venus. But it is more than a theory. It is an accepted scientific theory that the climate deniers can't argue with. So if Big Oil can't win the AGW argument, plan B is to smear the messenger.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
This is all Mere Amusement.
These emails don't matter. The Change is irreversible, and we are all now just observers.
It was, perhaps, inevitable that we humans would fail like this, given our crappy pretensions of being advanced.