Skip to comments.UN scientists turn on each other: Zorita "Colleagues should be barred from the IPCC process."
Posted on 11/28/2009 9:00:40 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues "should be barred from the IPCC process." In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: "CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process."
Zorita writes that the short answer to that question is: Short answer: "Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore."
Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.
Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, Zorita has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. Zorita has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Zorita's stunning candor continued, noting that scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC climate view were "bullied and subtly blackmailed."
"In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research," Zorita explained. [Zorita's full statement is reprinted below.]
Continuing fallout of ClimateGate
Zorita's revelations are the latest in a series of continuing fallout to the global warming establishment and to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), since the email and data scandal dubbed "ClimateGate" broke earlier this month.
Zorita's defection from the global warming establishment comes after the shocking news today that one of the scientists employed at ground zero of what has been termed "ClimateGate" has suggested disbanding the United Nations climate panel, the IPCC. See: Pressure Mounts From Inside: Disband IPCC? Scientist from U. of East Anglia Suggests 'UN IPCC has run its course...politicizes climate science...authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production' - Mike Hulme Excerpt: ClimateGate reveals science has become 'too partisan, too centralized...more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures'
In addition, scientists from around the world are now demanding that the "ClimateGate" scientists be banned from future UN IPCC climate work. See: More ClimateGate Fallout: Prominent German Scientist Declares 'Compromised' UN Scientists should be excluded from IPCC and Peer-Review Process - November 24, 2009 Meanwhile, pressure to fire or resign continues to increase for the man at the center of the ClimateGate scandal, Phil Jones. See: Phil Jones, the Fall Guy? Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit - UK Daily Mail - Nov. 25, 2009
Caught in Another Untruth? THEN: UN IPCC's Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008: 'About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little if anything at all' - NOW: UN IPCC's Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009: 'We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU'
The New 'Deniers': UK Greenie George Monbiot: 'Most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial' -- 'Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away' - Monbiot: 'There is no helping it; Phil Jones has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get' UK Daily Mail Nov. 25, 2009
More Defections! Center for Env. Journalism's Tom Yulsman: 'I'm standing with George Monbiot on this' - Nov. 25, 2009 - 'I believe the CRU (Climate Research Unit) should agree to an independent examination of what happened...to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again'
Shock -- Et Tu, DeSmogBlog?: Climate Alarmists at DeSmogBlog Call for Phil Jones to Offer his Resignation! - Nov. 25, 2009 - 'It would be savvy for Jones to at least offer to step aside before someone in authority makes a move to give him a push'
Et tu? Head of UN IPCC Pachauri Now throwing global warming under the bus?! There is a 'larger problem' than climate fears?! - Nov. 23, 2009 - Urges 'time and space to look at the larger problem of unsustainable development, of which climate change is at best a symptom'
As the UN IPCC's ClimateGate scandal unfolds, it appears New Zealand may have their similar type scandal involving manipulation of temperature data by a government agency. See: More Warmist Woes: New Zealand: Government agency accused of 'cooking the books to create a warming trend where none exists' Nov. 26, 2009
Scientists from around the world now are questioning the propriety of a UN climate conference during all of this unraveling controversy surrounding the credibility of top UN scientists. See: UK Scientist: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed' - Nov. 26, 2009
All of this has caused skepticism of man-made global warming to become the new political expediency. See: Losing Their Religion: 2009 officially declared year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears Oct. 13, 2009 and see: 'Welcome to the delayers': Obama's 'half-hearted climate efforts' welcomed by skeptics - Nov. 17, 2009 [Editor's Note: ClimateGate may have prompted President Obama to attend the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen. There is such a sense of panic in the global warming establishment that they now feel it is "all hands on deck" time to help save the movement. See: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated' August 25, 2009]
New Political Reality: Five Australian MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax - November 26, 2009
NASA Warming Scientist James Hansen says Gore 'deceiving' himself - Nov. 26, 2009 -- Hansen: "What really worries me is that Gore sounds optimistic that we're now on a track to solve this problem. Hansen lets out an incredulous chuckle. "We're not, however, on a track, and that's clear."
Complete Statement of UN IPCC Scientists Dr. Eduardo Zorita on the UN IPCC's "ClimateGate" scandal.
CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.
Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.
To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later. I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.
These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.
I thank explicitly Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it distills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.
Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a lawyer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the 'hockey stick graph' or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior. [End Eduardo Zorita's full statement regarding ClimateGate.]
“The IPCC Process”
What the heck is that? Screw Western nations? Broadcast global fear and hysteria about a non-existent problem? Extort money to give to third world hell-holes? Destroy Western Civilization? Send us all back to a stone-age subsistence living?
FORGET the damn IPCC process!!
Instead they will isolate and destroy a few scientists and proceed forward.
An interesting website:
“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is
pdj_grant_since1990.xls (Google preview, click)
which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants. The major amounts came from HEFCE (6.6 million pounds) and NERC (2.7 million pounds). Later, we will get some idea whether he has used the money to do proper science and whether the truth and objectivity was kept as the key principle, beating a possibility to double the amount. ;-)”
“There are many other interesting files in the “documents” directory. So far, people only focus on the “mail” directory but once they get bored, the “documents” will become the next focus. As an example, “TheRulesOfTheGame.pdf” explains 20 recommendations for a good propagandist - use emotions, connect your alarm with “home” not with “faraway regions”, and so on.”
It seems as he is one of the ones ridiculed or blackmailed into agreeing with things he did not agree with. The outright catching these goons in their scam gives him the credibility and authority to demand something that wasn’t available just a few weeks ago.
Imagine all the rich con artists who gambled on climate change initiatives in the UN... I bet they are fit to be tied right now.
Thanks for posting htis- It’s goign to be fun watchign the IPCC and CRU ‘scientists’ eat eachother’s throats out as they scramble to control the damage this scandal has done to their agenda- They’ll still manage to pull this scam off, (Obama is giving America and the world hte middle finger, and goign right ahead with copenhagen regardless of the fact that it’s a fraud), but perhaps we’ll begin to see some serious lawsuits take shape agaisnt anyone involved i nthis scam, and the democratic party will suffer irreversible damage IF they continue perpetrating this fraud on the world
And bam, bam, BAM! Ouch ouch OUCH!
Hwere’s more on this breaking issue- with any luck, the IPCC and CRU will self-implode and disband (beign hte useless organization that they’ve proven to be, they deserver to self-destruct)
“Pressure Mounts From Inside: Disband IPCC? Scientist from U. of East Anglia Suggests ‘UN IPCC has run its course...politicizes climate science...authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production’
ClimateGate reveals science has become ‘too partisan, too centralized...more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures’ “
“Dot Earth: Insights from Mike Hulme at the University of East Anglia, which was the source of the disclosed files. Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change, has weighed in with these thoughts about the significance of the leaked files and emails. In November 2009, Hulme was listed as the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, between 1999 and 2009. (ScienceWatch, Nov/Dec 2009, see Table 2).
Hulme Key Excerpt: [Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. [...] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”
Listen to the talking points.
It is about Peer Reviewed Now.
The verdict is in.
Save us from Global warming Mr. Gore.
Also, here's something about our friend Mann: check this out - you'll love it:
If there really is a problem, the political nature of the controversy is designed to avoid solving it.
As a measure of CO2 pollution per unit of economic output, China requires nearly 1,900 units of CO2 to produce 1 unit of economic output, whereas the United States only requires 411 units of CO2 to produce an equivalent unit of economic output.
At that rate of efficiency, if and when China matches the United States in terms of overall GDP, it will be producing 28 million tons of CO2, compared to the United States production of 5.8 million tons. China will be producing significantly more CO2 than all the rest of the world put together.
If China were to develop the same standard of living per capita as the United States, its current efficiency would require it to produce 472 million tons of CO2, compared to the United States production of 5.8 million tons of CO2.
The fact is, the developed countries Europe, Japan, and the United States have developed extremely efficient economic control of CO2 production a trend that is likely to continue. They do not and cannot pose the future threat of enormous increases in CO2 production.
If the world community really wanted to decrease CO2 production, it would force production to those nations which have obtained generally through market economics the highest conversion efficiencies.
Of course, that isnt going to happen. Instead, the Copenhagen conference is all about the delicate task of punishing the efficient producers by caps and reductions, while rewarding the inefficient producers with reduced rates of growth that are essentially meaningless. The net effect will be it has to be to impose economic inefficiencies on the efficient producers while encouraging the inefficient producers this can do nothing but increase the overall industrial CO2 production because production will be shifted for economic reasons to inefficient producers.
That is absolutely the opposite result of what should be the goal if CO2 control has anything at all to do with the ostensible result.
The nagging question, however, is that with the enormous uptick in industrial CO2 historically, the annual increases over the past decade have been the largest ever experienced from man-generated sources there has been zero effect on global warming. It was an ideal, almost laboratory test of the hypothesis, tested under ideal conditions of a specific, pronounced, measured increase in CO2 occurring in large, regular increments over a period of time statistically significant in relation to the period for global warming due to CO2 increases is alleged. In addition, as opposed to credibility questions regarding temperature measurements for older data, the modern temperature data has been collected by the most widely distributed, most redundant, most advanced temperature global observation system. That is, in any assessment, it represents the most reliable data.
Indeed, the amount of CO2 forced into the atmosphere from man-caused sources has been far greater during the period of time of no measurable global temperature change, than the amount of CO2 forced into the atmosphere during the period of measured global temperature change. A statistician looking at the numbers without the political implications involved would have to state that, far from a positive statistical correlation of CO2 with rising global temperatures, 1) there is sufficient data to make probability analysis, and 2) that there is no, or even a negative, correlation between man-caused atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature increases.
PS: You should send it to Lord Monckton.
"Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
A very narrow and slanted mandate. Little wonder research groups submitting data tried to manipulate their findings.
We need criminal indictments for fraud and conspiracy for starters.
I bet 'Carbon Credits' are getting pretty cheap. Maybe they can burn them to keep warm...
Yep. I'm one of those who signed.This CRU dump just adds more credence to their position.
Running with the herd doesn't mean you are going in the right direction.
I can't speak for all who signed, but integrity still means something to us. Junk science reflects badly upon us all.
I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I have no letters or honours appended to my name. I, and millions more, are a part of the herd, and we rely on qualified, verified, honest, leadership to ensure we're headed in the right direction. Our society has developed many methods of sensing the truthfulness of the data we're given, and the scientific method of peer reviewed, repeatable results of verified data is a major one. What Mann et al did is the equivalent in my view to scientific genocide - they purposely modified or created the data to provide a fore-ordained (by them) result. They purposely denigrated, derided, and shut out anyone who didn't follow their lead or questioned their results; destroyed the data contrary to their precepts, and made any peer-review of their findings unavailable or unreachable.
If that is true, then they should be stripped of any position and titles they hold including their educational certificates, and put in solitary confinement until they die. Take from them what they crave most - the adoration of those around them, and let them stew in their own pitiful self-worth.
The herd I was referring to in this case was the scientific community, but as a rule, it pays to not get between the lemmings and the cliff.
In a nutshell, although some things are counter-intuitive, most science is just common sense with the application of a little special knowledge, some gadgets to get information, and a few fancy terms.
Most ordinary folks are perfectly capable of understanding the concepts if they don't let the terminology get in the way, terminology which exists because it is simpler (and cheaper) to come up with a name for a process which might take two pages to explain than spend all that extra money on printing costs in the journals.
Science has never been so cut-and dried that there has not been dissent.
I recall a professor of mine talking about fistfights (in the 1950s) between geologists and geophysicists over the then fairly new theory of contitnetal drift (plate tectonics)--pretty much accepted now, and well supported by evidence from the past and present.
Those who are holding with the current beliefs and theories in science place their careers on the line along with their credibility. Some of those positions are considered "safe", some are not. Unless an area is one of your specialization, often not taking a stand is the easiest course of action.
But when governmental policies which are as broad in scope and sweeping in nature as those proposed over the Anthropogenic Global Warming issue, with the potential to seriously affect not only the economies of the freest nations on earth but the entire course of human history, only those who have no knowledge of the issue should fail to take a stand, and those who have the education to study the issue should do so. That does not require a doctorate, and almost anyone who really wants to learn about almost any topic can become very knowledgeabe, even if they do not have a string of letters after their name to show for the education they have obtained.
I, and tens of thousands of colleagues did examine the issue, often independently, learning as much as we could, examining the data available, the data collection methods, the conclusions drawn from that data, and came to the conclusion that the available data (in some instances flawed at collection) did not support the conclusion that human activity was affecting the climate in a harmful way on a global level.
It is not an act taken lightly to have one's name associated with those who find themselves taking a contrary position to a widely accepted and popularized scientific theory. The closer one is to the specialty, the more one places one's credibility and career on the line.
For those who are in academia, the results can be even more disasterous than for those of us in industrial positions.
As for those who intentionally misled the others in their discipline to draw the conclusion that AGW was real and needed drastic governmental action to stop it, they will lose the one thing which makes a scientist respected: credibility. They should be released from positions of influence and suffer all the indignities due them.
If their actions can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be criminal in nature, they should be treated appropriately.
The policies proposed and even those already implemented because of their fraud will have cost the economies of participating nations a fortune.
Those who were misled will suffer plenty of embarassment, but can hopefully recover from that and will become better scientists as a result.
Those who took no stance will neither suffer nor gain.
Those of us who took a stand against the AGW theory and the proposed implementation of governmental policies may gain some credibility, but the lions share of that goes to the standard bearers who did the grunt work, kept a high profile, and kept the issue alive.
'Murder will out!" as Chaucer wrote, and the threads of this apparent conspiracy are unravelling now, to the great relief of those of us (scientist and otherwise) who have seen that the dire predictions of the alarmists did not match reality, but the destruction of economies would have surpassed the predictions of dire consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.