.jpg)
Swimming against the tide is never an easy task. Scientists that disagreed with the manmade climate change theory have learned that if you’re swimming against the ‘consensus’ of global warming, it can not only be hard, it can be a nasty business.
For years those who believe other factors beyond man drive the planet’s climate have said they were blocked from publication and been the target of a concerted effort to silence them. Their complaints were largely ignored but with the release of the Climategate documents and emails, the proof shows their claims were not unfounded.
An analysis of the emails from a veritable who’s who in climate science show that some of the world’s top scientists worked directly against dissenting scientists. The scientists worked to discredit other’s work, oust them from professional organizations, exerted pressure on scientific publications and went so far as to consider pushing an educational institution to review the doctorate of a scientist. The moves appear to go far beyond a scientific debate and read more like a vendetta against dissenting opinions.
Complete Climategate Coverage
In January 2005, the scientists were greatly concerned with the work of Stephen McIntyre, the editor of Climate Audit and the man responsible for discrediting the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph. McIntyre had a manuscript published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that was edited by Professor James Saiers and reviewed by three scientists. This did not sit well with the alarmists and Tom Wigley of NCAR wrote to Michal Mann, author of the “Hockey Stick” saying, “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”
Before that, Mann was concerned about the publication “Climate Research.” He wrote to Phil Jones saying “the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” and that the skeptics had staged a coup. The solution as Mann saw it was to begin a concerted effort to discourage scientists to submit to their work to the publication. “I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann said.
The next month, Tom Wigley was also concerned about “Climate Research” and felt ousting the publication’s editor-in-chief, Hans von Storch, was the way to go. Wigley wrote to Tim Carter, Mike Hulme and Phil Jones saying, “Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.”
“Weather”, the monthly magazine of the Royal Meteorological Society was targeted just this year by the scientists. Phil Jones was not getting along with the editor of the publication and was prepared to go over his head. He told Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.”
Santer agreed with Jones and was upset that the RMS dared to make the scientists provide data to back up their research. He wrote back, “If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.”
Some scientists that participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) work have said the work was too political and those who disagreed were silenced. Emails from Phil Jones indicate that he and other scientists worked hard to ensure dissenters’ voices were not heard in the IPCC’s work. He wrote in an email to Mann, “I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Climate Change Examiner on Twitter
Or be notified by email when a new article from the Climate Change Examiner is posted. Click the 'Subscribe' link at the top or bottom of the article and enter your email address.
Dr. Patrick Michaels, a professor with the University of Virginia and the state of Virginia’s state climatologist was targeted for his contrary opinion on anthropogenic climate change and his leading the charge against CRU for its destruction of raw climate data. In just this past October, Tom Wigley felt that going back to the educational institution that gave Michaels his doctorate might be useful. Rather than refuting Michaels’ opinions, Wigley wrote, “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?”
The content of the messages would seem to be clear – dissenting opinions were not welcome. Rather than refute with science, many of those who wrote in the CRU emails chose to resort to other tactics. For them, it was never about honest and open scientific debate. It was about silencing and crushing critics and nothing less would suffice.
Comments
Thanks for the lack of context,Tony. You aren't on salary at this place, are you? Freelancer looking for a break?
Let me help you do your job.
Here are some questions reporters ask:
o Can you tell your readers what happened at ClimRes and whether that timing was similar to the dates on the stolen e-mails? What efforts, if any, did MJW DO at ClimRes? Anything? Anything at all? What was the paper that caused the fuss at ClimRes? Were its findings robust? Do real scientists cite this paper? Do your job and expand on these questions.
o What, specifically, was Michaels "targeted" for. Your vague word needs detail to contextualize "CONCERTED EFFORT!!!!!!!" What was done?
o What ELSE were the "authors" "greatly concerned" about McI? Can you tell us what "effort" McI might have taken to cause this "concern"? Help your readers understand this Tony. Do your job.
Do you have anything concrete? Anything at all? No? Is there even an editor here?
Best,
D
Thank you for your comment, Dano. You ask a lot of questions but offer no answers of your own and do nothing to refute the point that deliberate steps were taken to silence dissenting opinions. Very few of the problematic emails pertaining to this issue discuss the science of the dissenters – that seemed to matter little. The CRU crew only cared that someone disagreed and that person had to be silenced.
As I said in reply to one of your posts on another story… The comment section here can and will be moderated if need be. I don’t care if you agree or disagree with another comment or the story at hand but comments will be respectful and maintain reasonable decorum. I love the debate and welcome it. However, comments that belittle, cuss, resort to childish name calling, etc will be deleted and some, including yours, are pushing the envelope. Your cooperation in maintaining a useful dialogue would be appreciated.
"You ask a lot of questions but offer no answers of your own and do nothing to refute the point that deliberate steps were taken to silence dissenting opinions. Very few of the problematic emails pertaining to this issue discuss the science of the dissenters – that seemed to matter little. The CRU crew only cared that someone disagreed and that person had to be silenced."
I'm asking why YOU aren't asking basic questions:
o What were these deliberate steps, beyond typing an e-mail?
o Who were these steps taken against?
o How were they carried out, and
o Why have we only heard about them now? Wouldn't someone have complained?
o Were these steps successful?
o Was this "silencing" successful?
HTH.
Best,
D
Split hairs all the way to prision guys.. This is fraud of the highest order.. The emails are just the begining.. The other 100mb are the tweaked data.. it was a inside job and the meat is still to come..
Even the strongest supporter of climate change will be silenced.. and heads will roll..
Can you guys call the Seattle Times? Apparently they haven't heard of this story.
One week from today the head environmental guy will walk into the senate and call for a full senate investigation into the UN IPCC and the science behind climate change.. We all know your little hollywood pet cause will fall appart in short order.. Its gone from saving the cause to saving your own rear end.. Watch as they sing and cry about their moral duty to commit fraud..
"Can you guys call the Seattle Times? Apparently they haven't heard of this story. ."
Maybe they asked the questions below. And didn't find anything.
HTH.
Best,
D
"One week from today the head environmental guy will walk into the senate and call for a full senate investigation into the UN IPCC and the science behind climate change.."
He's already done that. Inhofe's going to do it again? Sweet. Maybe there will be something concrete by then he can fulminate and foot-stomp about. Is he calling the Swift Boater back to his offices to help out?
Best,
D
This climategate is outrageous. Even a partially retarded person can easily and cearly see the truth here. You are just one of the people who wants to hide all of this because you are of bad will and a total liar. These people if shown to have acted out on what they wrote- after a LONG and thorough investigation should serve BIG time. This is one of the most serious issues of our time. It effects everyone. Lieing and conspiracy CANNOT by tolerated at all. They should be tried under violation of Federal Law if they were receiving federal grants. This is a total abomination and ANYONE regardless of what they think about man and climate- should want to see these people adequately punished if they acted on these outrageous things.
Keep at it, Tony! Just as they've tried to do with dissenters, the man-made climate change zealots will try to shut down all coverage of this scandal. The fraud they've been committing and their actions to crack down on dissenters needs to be brought to light for everyone to see.
Dano - One example to answer most of your questions… In at least one case in regards to McIntyre’s 2005 GRL paper yes, the scientists appear to have been quite successful. Dr. James Saiers was assigned to be the editor of the paper.
Caspar Ammann and Gene Wahl submitted contrary comments to the paper but those were rejected by Saiers. AGU policy states that this decision should have been final. Curiously, one month later, Saiers was removed, the comment resubmitted and accepted by the new editor, James Famiglietti, the editor in chief of GRL himself.
The archive contains emails from the same time period discussing Saiers extensively including Tom Wigley saying, “we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”
The evidence is as clear as day. The only people speaking against the obvious truth and the statements with include the individuals names- is lying evil people of bad will. Just the truth. These people should be massively investigated, then indicted, and sent to a long prison sentence for what they have done. If they were skewing data that is used to effect the lives of people all over the world- through proposed GW legislation- and if they have federal grants- then this is a federal crime and they should be tried for violating federal law.
I'll wait for the spittle to fly to see what Inhofe makes of it, Tony, and see if an outlet with reporters traces it down. I trust there is some work going on as we read and I'll wait to read it there.
Surely some journal wants to pick it up now for some notoriety, eh? We'll see if it actually can stand...auditing...
But odd how all the hubbub surrounds the same time-wasting tick...
Best,
D
These people should be massively investigated, then indicted, and sent to a long prison sentence for what they have done. If they were skewing data that is used to effect the lives of people all over the world- through proposed GW legislation- and if they have federal grants- then this is a federal crime and they should be tried for violating federal law.
At let this be a lesson and a warning to all and anyone out there who knows of ANY scientific data that is being skewed or falsified- you better come forward with what you know now before you too are exposed- or even worse thrown under the buss by one of the other people you have been in communication with.
read the actual emails here www.eastangliaemails.com
Go search on google news right now using the term "climategate" and tons of articles will be turned up. The university acknowledged that their internal documents and email was hacked into. Scientist that implicated in these email conversations have admitted in AP published articles (now part of the public record) that they authored them - their rather lame contention is that their comments are being taken out of context and misrepresented. The Wall Street journal is now hosting these documents and emails at their site. MD5 hashes can be ran against downloaded documents and compared against the posted MD5 hashes. That way one can be sure to have received the same document that is on the sites and wikis. These cryptographic document handling protocols can be used for when presenting this information in a court of law for civil and/or criminal prosecutions.
The latest tactics of the global warming hoaxers in the run up to Copenhagen is to spread propaganda in the mainstream media (without comment sections) that the planet is cooling much faster than expected. They have also changed direction to try and persuade the millions of people that now know that global warming is a hoax that Copenhagen is in their interest as an agreement would cut pollution and be good for their health. Well a rip-off crippling tax isn't good for anyone's health.
Earlier this year a German team carried out the largest ever study of the Arctic ice using a fixed wing aircraft and sonar. They found that the ice was much thicker than had been previously reported. In the Antarctic ice is up by 45% (University of Colorado).
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!