Tuesday, Feb 16th, 2010
The leading scientist involved in the climategate scandal has accused skeptics of man made global warming of “hijacking” the peer review process, when it was he who pledged to “redefine” it to exclude contrary evidence and viewpoints.
In a complete reversal of reality, Phil Jones, the former director of the East Anglia climate center, tells Nature that skeptics are attempting to denigrate the the academic system in order to skew evidence relating to climate change:
…he fears that the aftermath of the climategate affair is undermining the integrity of the scientific review process. “I don’t think we should be taking much notice of what’s on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process,” says Jones.
Jones’ comments are laughable, given that among the thousands of emails and documents hacked or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University last November were several references to their own agenda to shut down scientific debate on global warming by stifling counter-evidence from other scientists.
[efoods]In one of the emails regarding scientific papers not to his liking, Phil Jones himself suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University, “I can’t see either of these papers 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!”
The declaration was all the more damning, given that Jones and Mann have the authority, as climate scientists, to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by leading scientific journals.
Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.
How completely hypocritical it is then for Jones to offer the following comment in the same recent interview with Nature:
It is now essential for climate researchers to stand up for their science, he says. “[I'd] like to see the climate science community supporting the climate science more. Lots of them are trying but they’re being drowned out.”
Drowned out by your own efforts to shut down evidence you do not agree with, regardless of its scientific merit, perhaps Mr Jones?
Last week, Jones admitted that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming and that his data was “probably not as good as it should be”.
Jones also told the BBC that the world may well have been warmer during medieval times than it is now, reversing his position for the first time on issues that the climate lobby and the IPCC has consistently claimed are indisputable.
However, Jones’ continued denial of his own wrong doing betrays the fact that he has adopted a staunch bunker mentality.
As we reported yesterday, the investigation into the emails exchanged by Jones and his colleagues has descended into farce, as it has been revealed that three of the “impartial” six man panel hold strong views on anthropogenic global warming.
This article was posted: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at 8:17 am