AGW coalition unraveling

The coalition of scientists and politicians involved in (over)selling the concept of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) appears to be unraveling.

The last few hours have seen some extraordinary activity at Anthony Watts' site, WattsUpWithThat. All are connected, in one way or another, either with the Climategate scandal at the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) or the upcoming United Nations Conference on Climate Change at Copenhagen. Among the links:

The Toronto Globe and Mail carried this analysis by Margaret Wente, who called the affair a "public-relations disaster." Wente sums up, not so much the practices revealed by the CRU Archive as the reaction to the affair by other climate researchers and the general public. The concluding paragraph is quite telling:

Academic spats, name-calling, data-massaging and cozy peer review by friends are not exactly rare in the world of science. You'll find them anywhere that careers, reputations and resources are on the line. The difference is we are not usually asked to wager billions on the findings. Given the stakes, it's hard not to conclude that climate science is too important to be left to scientists.

That last sentence clearly shows that Wente likened the much larger issue of AGW to actual warfare, which some observers have historically said is too important to be left to generals. (Watts made this entry, showing a picture of a classic demonstration of a collision of two coal-burning steam locomotives to make his point.)

The University of East Anglia has selected the man to head their "independent review" of Phil Jones, the disgraced CRU director who was forced to step aside pending the inquiry. The BBC revealed that Sir Muir Russell, former Principal of the University of Glasgow and a man with thirty-three years' experience in the Scottish civil service, will lead the inquiry. The University of East Anglia's most recent press release quotes Sir Muir's acceptance statement:

I agreed very willingly to Professor [and Vice Chancellor Edward] Acton’s request to undertake this Independent Review. Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the University or the Climate Science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find. My first task is to scope the project, gather the information I need and source the additional expertise that will be required in order to investigate fully the allegations that have been made. Once this has happened I will be in a position to confirm timescales for publishing the review.

Anthony Watts remains skeptical because, linked to climate science or no, Sir Muir is still a career civil servant, and the issue involves misconduct by one who was a career civil servant in all but name.

Of note is that the CRU web site has been displaying this emergency notice since shortly after the CRU Archive became a public scandal:

This website is currently being served from the CRU Emergency Webserver. Some pages may be out of date. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

Why the "normal service" has not been possible for nearly two calendar weeks is far from clear.

Furthermore, Professor Jones would appear to be losing the few friends he has left. In yet another interview, Michael E. Mann, who faces an investigation into his own conduct as a scientist, said this to BBC Radio 4, as quoted by the London Daily Telegraph:

I can't put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email.

By "that email" Mann means Jones' request to him to delete all his correspondence concerning the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to pass Jones' request along to Eugene R. Wahl, a fellow American climatologist. Mann's immediate response to that email was to acknowledge the request and to pledge his compliance with it. For Mann to say now, in effect, that he cannot imagine what possessed Jones to make the request to begin with, marks a complete reversal of the opinion he once held, to say the least. (Anthony Watts speaks more bluntly of "throwing under the bus.") The above statement is also difficult to reconcile with this statement by Mann of his opinion of the whole affair:

The emails are genuine and have been misrepresented, cherry-picked, mined for single words and phrases that can be completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said, manufactured controversy and the timing of it is not coincidental as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, the Danish newspaper Berlingske announced today that Al Gore had abruptly canceled a lecture he had planned to give at the Copenhagen conference. Three thousand ticket-buyers are involved and have been told to expect a refund. (Translation here.) Watts commented tartly on this story in The Washington Times (which Watts misidentified as The Washington Post) which described the Danish tourism commission as seemingly auctioning off a chance to shake Al Gore's hand in Copenhagen as recently as two days ago.

I wonder how many people have shelled out $1200 to shake Al’s hand? Maybe not enough and he couldn’t cover the expenses for his private jet?

UPDATE: Paul Joseph Watson, at PrisonPlanet.com, is singularly unimpressed with Sir Muir Russell, KCB, as lead investigator in Phil Jones' case. Sir Muir said that he was "not affiliated with either the University or the Climate Science community." According to Watson, the second statement is definitely a lie, and the first is a technical quibble, because though Sir Muir was never connected with the University of East Anglia, he is still a career academic and thinks like one. Watson calls for investigations by the United States Congress and the British Parliament.

Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe above.