I've been away for a few days and have only just caught up with the story of the hacked e-mail accounts at the University of East Anglia's Climactic Research Unit (CRU). Juliet Elperin has a nice rundown in The Washington Post. From what I've gathered, the stolen e-mails reveal that climatologists are: a) engaged in a lot of boring and dry data-crunching, b) extremely hostile toward global-warming skeptics like Cato's Pat Michaels, and c) not always nice people. But does this add up to a "scandal," as folks like James Inhofe are crowing? Well, yes and no.
One major question is whether any of the stolen e-mails show that climate scientists are somehow fudging data. And the answer, as best I can tell, is "certainly not." A lot of the early press coverage focused on CRU director Phil Jones's missive to colleagues about using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. That sounds nefarious at first, but as Gavin Schmidt explains, Jones is simply referring to a method of concatenating two different data sets—this "trick" has been openly discussed in scientific journals like Nature since 1998. There's nothing in the e-mails I've seen (here's a long index compiled by a climate skeptic) to suggest the vast body of research on climate change—which extends well beyond the handful of scientists represented here—is suspect. Nothing to suggest fraud.
There is a separate issue, though—the stance some of the scientists take toward skeptics. At one point, CRU's Phil Jones refers to two papers that question the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and rising temperatures and tells a colleague, "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!" In another e-mail exchange, Jones and Penn State's Michael Mann talk about pressuring a journal not to accept work by global-warming deniers. That sounds bad, doesn't it?
First, some background: It appears that Jones and Mann are referring to a particular episode from 2003, when the journal Climate Research published a miserable paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas disputing the widely held notion that the rate of warming in the twentieth century has been unprecedented. Climate scientists from around the world began writing in, unsolicited, to point out fatal flaws in the paper (noting especially that the paper's own evidence didn't even support its conclusion), and eventually half the journal's editorial board resigned in protest.
Now, do these e-mails really reflect badly on the scientific process? You could make a good argument that they don't. After all, if a paper's that badly flawed—and if it's likely to give ammunition to politically motivated deniers—then it ought to be protested, no? Shoddy research should be excluded from IPCC assessments. (To be sure, IPCC chapter heads have to respond to every single objection they receive—so nothing's ever "excluded" entirely.) If I was trying my hardest to slip an intelligent-design paper into a biology journal, it'd be greeted with the same overt hostility. As Tyler Cowen observes, "it's very often that scientific consensus 'sounds that way.' " And while a consensus can sometimes be wrong and get overturned, that doesn't mean we should just abandon the peer-review process entirely and accept all research as equally valid.
On the other hand, I agree with George Monbiot here: Some of these e-mails are unseemly, and it's unwise to brush them off. The scientific community absolutely has to take the high ground on the climate issue—it doesn't matter that deniers behave far worse, or that scientists feel beleaguered after years of being smeared by conspiracy nuts on the right. And, true, science has never been as "clean" as people like to romanticize; scientists have acted like agenda-wielding jerks throughout history, yet the process remains robust. But on an issue this politicized, that process has to be as pristine as humanly possible. I'm not sure if Jones should resign as head of CRU, as Monbiot suggests, or if the U.S. peer-review process needs to become more transparent, as is happening in Europe, or what. But trying to ignore this whole episode doesn't strike me as viable. Even if this story changes nothing about climate science itself, perceptions do matter.
More: Maggie Koerth-Baker has a smart, balanced take raising similar concerns (she focuses on CRU's refusal to release certain data sets, which may be understandable but doesn't seem to have been handled well) and also provides a nice, comprehensive link round-up.
(Flickr photo credit: lwtclearningcommons)
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (14)
Mr. Plumer, with all due respect, your take on this seems to be missing the forest for the trees; but perhaps this is attributable to your having been persuaded (as have many, apparently) by the likes of Al Gore, whose AIT blockbuster has been found - by the High Court in London, U.K. - to contain at least 9 errors of fact (although there are 35 in total).
Science does not arrive at conclusions by "consensus", but by rigorous examination of data and reproducible results - by others. This is scientific "peer review". The powers-that-be in the "warmist" tribe, have been very reluctant to submit their data to other professionals for review. This is, IMHO, very alarming - primarily because ... view full comment
Mr. Plumer, with all due respect, your take on this seems to be missing the forest for the trees; but perhaps this is attributable to your having been persuaded (as have many, apparently) by the likes of Al Gore, whose AIT blockbuster has been found - by the High Court in London, U.K. - to contain at least 9 errors of fact (although there are 35 in total).
Science does not arrive at conclusions by "consensus", but by rigorous examination of data and reproducible results - by others. This is scientific "peer review". The powers-that-be in the "warmist" tribe, have been very reluctant to submit their data to other professionals for review. This is, IMHO, very alarming - primarily because of the policy implications of their "conclusions" which, coincidentally, seem to mesh with those of the IPPC.
The reality is "climate changes". It always has, and it always will. Anthropogenic [this is the scientific word for "man-made/caused"] climate change (formerly known as "global warming"-which data shows hasn't happened) is known by those who have examined the data more rigourously than either the IPPC or the CRU crowd, is a myth.
From http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3:
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
A further thought occurs to me. By far the majority of articles I've seen to date on the CRU kerfuffle or confidence crisis [depending one's perspective] assume that the notorious and voluminous emails were acquired by a "hacker". Yet there is -an albeit as yet unproven - possibility [if not probability] that this was an "inside job" by a whisleblower.
Contrast this "assumption" with the standard media [not to mention Presidential] PC response to the "Allahu Akbar" shouting treasonous murderer at Fort Hood, whom we are urged to "not judge" until all the facts are known.
Methinks there is something rotten in the state of ... uh... Denmark?! In any event, there is something definitel ... view full comment
A further thought occurs to me. By far the majority of articles I've seen to date on the CRU kerfuffle or confidence crisis [depending one's perspective] assume that the notorious and voluminous emails were acquired by a "hacker". Yet there is -an albeit as yet unproven - possibility [if not probability] that this was an "inside job" by a whisleblower.
Contrast this "assumption" with the standard media [not to mention Presidential] PC response to the "Allahu Akbar" shouting treasonous murderer at Fort Hood, whom we are urged to "not judge" until all the facts are known.
Methinks there is something rotten in the state of ... uh... Denmark?! In any event, there is something definitely wrong with this picture
Hold the presses! Science is politicized. Who'd'a thunk? Next thing you know we'll be hearing that religion is politicized. Come to think of it, they are exhibiting an increasing similarity.
Hold the presses! Science is politicized. Who'd'a thunk? Next thing you know we'll be hearing that religion is politicized. Come to think of it, they are exhibiting an increasing similarity.
Yes, scientists need to remain true to our best practices, the scientific method and open publication and review. Yes, I am a member of that tribe (although not in climate science). We need to state scientific conclusions in clear language that respects the assumptions and limitations of the data and models used. We need to make it clear where the line between personal opinion and professional opinion lie. In my experience, most scientists do this successfully.
A fundamental tenet of science is that you have to accept the answer you get, even if it is not the answer you want. If you think the answer you get is wrong or suspect, you should look thoroughly and skeptically at the data used, assu ... view full comment
Yes, scientists need to remain true to our best practices, the scientific method and open publication and review. Yes, I am a member of that tribe (although not in climate science). We need to state scientific conclusions in clear language that respects the assumptions and limitations of the data and models used. We need to make it clear where the line between personal opinion and professional opinion lie. In my experience, most scientists do this successfully.
A fundamental tenet of science is that you have to accept the answer you get, even if it is not the answer you want. If you think the answer you get is wrong or suspect, you should look thoroughly and skeptically at the data used, assumptions made, and underlying theory (and you need to remember to do the same when you get the answer you think is right, too). But in the end you get what you get and you have to accept it, even if that means abandoning an idea that you have held dear for years, even if that idea is a fundamental part of how you think things work. Again, in my experience, almost all scientist accept this tenet although everyone has a different timescale for resisting the inevitable. You can consider this a core value. People trained in science who do not accept this usually don't get very far (sooner or later they are exposed), or fall into the category of crusty old guys unwilling to accept change -- the latter are left on the wayside and we shake our heads in sadness that so-and-so failed to adapt.
I find it completely understandable that climate scientists are really pissed off at many climate change deniers. The reason they are pissed off is that the deniers pretend to use the methods of science, not to actually advance knowledge but to confuse (the public) and advance their own political agenda. Science is actually a very open process; the openness is an essential part of the operation of science. Deniers use that openness and subvert it for political ends. Think of it like the way people may use the openness of Western societies as a means of attacking them. Deniers have a well documented record of taking points of out context and distorting them, in exactly the same way that tobacco companies distorted the evidence of health risks of smoking. The malfeasance of most deniers is transparently obvious to the trained eye, but not always so to the untrained eye, and too many in politics and society care only about getting the end result they want, through honest means or not.
So should we destroy the openness that is a core value, in order to prevent people from exploiting that to use against us? (Answer that for American society and for science). My answer is no to both, but on the scientific part of that question, that is easier for me to say because nobody is trying to distort my research for political ends. It is a particular challenge to follow a practice of openness when you know that doing so will subject you to dishonest attacks.
As for the peer review process, having been an Associate Editor or an editorial board member for a couple of journals, I think it actually works quite well as it is. I am skeptical that a more "transparent" process will be better. There are already multiple eyes on each paper and on the process. Some bad papers do get published, and some papers are published but quickly shown to be wrong through a peer-reviewed rebuttal process or through follow-up or competing studies that are peer-reviewed. That is actually how it is supposed to work, and the only practical way it can work. Peer review is supposed to weed out work where the methods or conclusions are wrong or shoddily done, or where conclusions are not supported by the data. It can't prevent a situation where the collection of new data shows that an assumption must have been wrong or that a different conclusion must be reached. Peer review cannot always catch every honest mistake, and sometimes dishonesty can be hidden for a while (but not for very long).
Likewise, you can't keep anything out of the IPCC if it legitimately belongs, because the whole process is open and there are written responses to every objection. Even as as non-specialist in climate, I have objections with some decisions that the IPCC took. For example, they took specific decisions that had the effect of making their estimate of future sea level rise almost certain to be an underestimate, and very likely a significant underestimate. I am far from alone in that opinion, and there is no doubt that this will be reconsidered in the next IPCC report. Likewise, there already have been papers publish that suggest other decisions made by the IPCC were too conservative, in the sense that they underpredict the impacts. The response of scientists has been to work on these areas of research, and the IPCC will have reconsider everything it has done in the light of any new published work between 2005 or so (I can't remember the exact cutoff date) and the cutoff date for the next report. That will happen. It's an open process. No conspiracy, no secret cabal, no systematic suppression of opposing opinions just because they don't fit the consensus. There's a lot of cachet in demolishing a previous consensus, by the way. The most famous scientists tend to be those who have done that. Its just that the bar is set pretty high when the consensus is based on a lot of very strong evidence.
I have not thoroughly read the hacked emails, but I have read the snippets that are supposed to be the most damning. Overall, I think Brad's take on this issue is about right. I am bothered by any discussion of destroying anything subjected to a FOI request, even if it represents anger and frustration and not an action that would be taken (we have to stay above the level of politicians in this respect). Other than that, there are a few statements that are easy to misinterpret, and some slang and expressions that can be taken out of context, and a few things that bother me a little, but that I honestly don't think amount to much in the end. And remember that the CRU are not the only people in the world looking at the data, even if their compilations are very widely used. If they have done anything wrong, it will be found out. The process works.
Yeah well, the other day I overheard one of my students talk about how "the trick" in a legal argument was to present a case in a particular way. Needless to say, post-haste, I brought him before an academic committee for fraud, trickery and treason and had him hung and drawn. What's more, the academic committee found no less than 9 errors in the guy's 233 page dissertation. We had the corpse quartered and affixed to the walls of the class to serve as a warning to others.
The nerve of some people.
JEFF: you know I love you dearly, man, but I - in all seriousness - I am a little sceptical about the rigour of a lot of the analysis that passes for scientific. I actually stopped reading Scient ... view full comment
Yeah well, the other day I overheard one of my students talk about how "the trick" in a legal argument was to present a case in a particular way. Needless to say, post-haste, I brought him before an academic committee for fraud, trickery and treason and had him hung and drawn. What's more, the academic committee found no less than 9 errors in the guy's 233 page dissertation. We had the corpse quartered and affixed to the walls of the class to serve as a warning to others.
The nerve of some people.
JEFF: you know I love you dearly, man, but I - in all seriousness - I am a little sceptical about the rigour of a lot of the analysis that passes for scientific. I actually stopped reading Scientific American for about five years after they refused to publish articles by that pompous windbag Lomberg. There was nothing wrong with the articles - I think the man has jumped the shark by now - but his initial foray into data analysis was useful and should not have been so utterly dismissed by SA and the rest of the scientific community.
As my best friend wrote in a medical journal in reply to a vicious attack by one of, er, scientific colleagues, "there are worse conflicts of interest than being funded by a drug company; it is when one's reputation is tied up in a discredited and dangerous theory or procedure, and when that reputation is used to hamper progress and patient care." And not just in science but in law, as well.
True enough, icarus, both science and law are human endeavors. We can't be perfect, but the system of science is largely self-correcting and self-policing, and that's why it has worked so well (whatever some may think). Even a powerful proponent of a discredited and dangerous theory or procedure can hamper progress only for so long. And while I have seen powerful proponents of some theory hamper progress for a while, I have never seen one of them be able to enforce broad consensus.
I don't know the detailed history of SA vs. Lomborg, but if he has jumped the shark by now, I wonder if there may have been warning signs even at the beginning. But that's just a guess.
True enough, icarus, both science and law are human endeavors. We can't be perfect, but the system of science is largely self-correcting and self-policing, and that's why it has worked so well (whatever some may think). Even a powerful proponent of a discredited and dangerous theory or procedure can hamper progress only for so long. And while I have seen powerful proponents of some theory hamper progress for a while, I have never seen one of them be able to enforce broad consensus.
I don't know the detailed history of SA vs. Lomborg, but if he has jumped the shark by now, I wonder if there may have been warning signs even at the beginning. But that's just a guess.
Icarus, your friend's anecdote reminds me of a session at a meeting a few years ago on subsidence in Louisiana, which had actually been the subject of a bitter quarrel between two groups in the area before Katrina (one said the area was subsiding a lot, the other said no because there were some old (10s of thousands of years) features that supported a low average subsidence. Now, I doubt anything would really have been done to save New Orleans even if this local pissing match had not muddled the matter from a scientific viewpoint, because studies had already shown that the levees were inadequate for a big storm, even if the levees were still at the elevation they thought they were at. But it ... view full comment
Icarus, your friend's anecdote reminds me of a session at a meeting a few years ago on subsidence in Louisiana, which had actually been the subject of a bitter quarrel between two groups in the area before Katrina (one said the area was subsiding a lot, the other said no because there were some old (10s of thousands of years) features that supported a low average subsidence. Now, I doubt anything would really have been done to save New Orleans even if this local pissing match had not muddled the matter from a scientific viewpoint, because studies had already shown that the levees were inadequate for a big storm, even if the levees were still at the elevation they thought they were at. But it sure didn't help anything that the levees in some places were actually a lot lower than they were at the time they were built (there was a relationship between areas of especially fast subsidence rate and where the levees failed).
Anyway, this session was organized by one guy, who skirted the rules and pretty much gave himself two talks in a row, the first of which he used to savage and ridicule his opponents, who he had scheduled before him. Then he gave his real talk. In one sense, he "got away with it" in the short term, but some of his attacks on the other guys had the effect (for me and others) of discrediting his own work. Even though it is clear to me that he was actually right on the scientific dispute in this particular case; life is complicated and doesn't always fit into a simple morality play as we might like it to.
Isaac Asimov once explained about science -- someone in the establishment will always be against it. The question of science and politics, for me, is always who profits? Drug companies are an example of the mix of profit and science and so is the car industry (safer car parts). When there is conflicting evidence, who profits if we believe that greenhouse gases are dangerous and who profits if we believe they are not? I want to go with the side that profits if we believe they are dangerous.
Isaac Asimov once explained about science -- someone in the establishment will always be against it. The question of science and politics, for me, is always who profits? Drug companies are an example of the mix of profit and science and so is the car industry (safer car parts). When there is conflicting evidence, who profits if we believe that greenhouse gases are dangerous and who profits if we believe they are not? I want to go with the side that profits if we believe they are dangerous.
There are profit mongers on both sides of this issue. So, going with the side that profits if we believe GHG's are dangerous is not perticularly virtuous. Cooking the science in favor of one view or another is reprehensible, whether done by a drug company or a university.
From WSJ
"The findings from East Anglia have been at the core of policy reports by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC does not do its own research but compiles information relating to climate change. It has declared the evidence that the globe is warming to be "unequivocal," a claim routinely cited by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere as authoritative.
The IPCC stresses honest science. According t ... view full comment
There are profit mongers on both sides of this issue. So, going with the side that profits if we believe GHG's are dangerous is not perticularly virtuous. Cooking the science in favor of one view or another is reprehensible, whether done by a drug company or a university.
From WSJ
"The findings from East Anglia have been at the core of policy reports by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC does not do its own research but compiles information relating to climate change. It has declared the evidence that the globe is warming to be "unequivocal," a claim routinely cited by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere as authoritative.
The IPCC stresses honest science. According to its Web site, its goal is to "assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, now faces the inconvenient truth that it relied on scientists who violated scientific process. In one email, the Climate Research Unit's director, Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the relationship between human activity and global warming. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he said. He pledged to "keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal! So what do we do about this? 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."
Other emails include one in which Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit told Mr. Mann that "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same," and in which Mr. Jones said he had employed Mr. Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. A May 2008 email from Mr. Jones with the subject line "IPCC & FOI" asked recipients to "delete any emails you may have had" about data submitted for an IPCC report. The British Freedom of Information Act makes it a crime to delete material subject to an FOI request; such a request had been made earlier that month.
Over the weekend, East Anglia officials disclosed they had disposed years ago of the historic weather data underlying their analysis. This may be one reason they've fought information requests. They say they'll release the data they still have some time next year.
The emails showed how the global-warming group stifled dissent. They controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited "peer review" as evidence of their "consensus." One of the dissident scientists, Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, wrote on his blog that the emails show the "collusion to suppress other scientifically supported views of the climate system, and the human role within it, is a systemic problem with the climate assessment process." "
"The scientific community absolutely has to take the high ground on the climate issue—it doesn't matter that deniers behave far worse, or that scientists feel beleaguered after years of being smeared by conspiracy nuts on the right."
Can you cite an example where deniers have behaved far worse? All I have seen personally were accusations that contrarian data have been suppressed. And this appears to be true.
"The scientific community absolutely has to take the high ground on the climate issue—it doesn't matter that deniers behave far worse, or that scientists feel beleaguered after years of being smeared by conspiracy nuts on the right."
Can you cite an example where deniers have behaved far worse? All I have seen personally were accusations that contrarian data have been suppressed. And this appears to be true.
"Can you cite an example where deniers have behaved far worse?"
Sure: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-delibera...
"Can you cite an example where deniers have behaved far worse?"
Sure: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-delibera...
Very interesting Brad. Thanks. I can see that using 2002 vs 1980 as a base year can produce a distorted picture. But, even using 1980 as a base year, it appears to me that the temperature increas has tended downward, not upward, and result in a 100 year increase well under 2 deg C. That IPCC has predicted 2.4, 3, 3.9, 4.7 and 5.3 deg C rises is not a fabrication on Monckton's part. The actual data from 1980 do not support those assertions, and I suspect that they are exaggerated for impact.
I also am amused by the use of "stolen" in the title of this blog. Apparently this was requested under the UK Freedom of Information law with no result. The Pentagon Papers were "stolen" for similar reason ... view full comment
Very interesting Brad. Thanks. I can see that using 2002 vs 1980 as a base year can produce a distorted picture. But, even using 1980 as a base year, it appears to me that the temperature increas has tended downward, not upward, and result in a 100 year increase well under 2 deg C. That IPCC has predicted 2.4, 3, 3.9, 4.7 and 5.3 deg C rises is not a fabrication on Monckton's part. The actual data from 1980 do not support those assertions, and I suspect that they are exaggerated for impact.
I also am amused by the use of "stolen" in the title of this blog. Apparently this was requested under the UK Freedom of Information law with no result. The Pentagon Papers were "stolen" for similar reasons.
You really should consider looking into global warming a little more deeply...others are. A major breach of accepted scientific method may have occurred, and may be continuing. Even an hour's reading of the released text and code comments is shocking...and far beyond normal sausage making gore among professionals. Scientists, after all, have human DNA and are susceptible to the hubris and the debasement that represents the dark side of human conduct.
Our lifestyle, much of our accumulated wealth, and our national destiny may be at stake in the global warming experience. It's unseemly to ask common people to make massive lifestyle changes based on an elitist "trust me" exhortation, accompanied ... view full comment
You really should consider looking into global warming a little more deeply...others are. A major breach of accepted scientific method may have occurred, and may be continuing. Even an hour's reading of the released text and code comments is shocking...and far beyond normal sausage making gore among professionals. Scientists, after all, have human DNA and are susceptible to the hubris and the debasement that represents the dark side of human conduct.
Our lifestyle, much of our accumulated wealth, and our national destiny may be at stake in the global warming experience. It's unseemly to ask common people to make massive lifestyle changes based on an elitist "trust me" exhortation, accompanied by opaque science. Obviously, the risk that professional science will lose popular credibility for a generation or more is much higher and more immediate than the global turning point proclaimed by some global warming scientists.
1. Evidence in the so-called "documents" subfolders of the CRU release indicates that raw data was repeatedly manipulated to cause temperature history to conform to the hockey stick shape that activists and politicians need to sway public opinion. That scientist misconduct could approach distortion with the intent to deceive.
2. The customary peer review process that protects us from scientific advocacy and fraud was clearly stacked in favor of the AGW hypothesis and actively repressed dissenting views.
3. Many recent developments within climate science cast substantial doubt that the AGW hypothesis is valid and predictive. As discussed in their own posts, and related comments in the computer code, hiding the recent temperature decline has absorbed much energy at East Anglia. Maybe they should spend some of that time evaluating alternative hypotheses.
Finally, in reading the MSM on this subject, an embarrassing role reversal is noticeable. The more detailed and thoughtful information is found in readers comments, while the main articles seem vague, confused, and opaque in comparison. All the current and informed infrmation is being circulated on the internet. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
For further research inquire into the following:
A. http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php
B. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-...
C. http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/still-hiding-the-decline/
D. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-...
This inquiry has begun among the proletariat...it should be constructively led by the MSM, focused on an interest in truth and the integrity of professional science.
If you want to see how far Britain is ahead of the US in this arena try the following from FT authored by an MIT scientist. Where's the NYT and WP? And wheres NR?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html
If you want to see how far Britain is ahead of the US in this arena try the following from FT authored by an MIT scientist. Where's the NYT and WP? And wheres NR?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html