[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: 'Climategate' professor gets his job back 'Climategate' professor gets his job back Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of the 'climategate scandal', is to be reinstated in his role at the University of East Anglia after being cleared of dishonesty by a major review. By By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent Published: 1:02PM BST 07 Jul 2010 Phil Jones, the academic at the centre of the climate change data row Prof Jones lost his job as head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA after personal emails he sent appeared on the internet. The emails referred to a 'trick' used to interpret data and the death of a leading climate change sceptic as "cheering news." Sceptics claimed the stolen emails showed Prof Jones and his colleagues were willing to manipulate key data to exaggerate the rise in global temperatures. The scandal, that became known as 'climategate', caused repercussions around the world as it was used by those who question the case for man made global warming. However a comprehensive review into the case by Sir Muir Russell, a senior UK civil servant, has cleared Prof Jones of dishonest behaviour. Edward Acton, Vice Chancellor of the UEA, immediately announced that Prof Jones will be reinstated as Director of Research in CRU, a role of similar importance to his last post. He said it was a personal vindication for Prof Jones, who has said he considered suicide over the affair. "We hope this means the wilder assertions about the climate science community will stop," he said. However sceptics claimed the report was a whitewash and questioned the reinstatement of Prof Jones. David Holland, one of the leading sceptics on the blogosphere, pointed out that Prof Jones referred to deleting emails in one of his communications. "Would you trust a man who has asked to delete evidence?" he said. The theft of the emails from the UEA at the end of last year caused a worldwide scandal just as the United Nations was meeting in Copenhagen to discuss the threat of global warming. Sceptics said the emails show scientists exaggerated the extent of global warming by cherry picking certain data to show a rise in global temperatures. They repeatedly tried to retrieve the raw data behind the graphs under Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. But after six months of trawling through the emails Sir Muir Russell and his team of experts concluded that there was no evidence of dishonesty. The review group point out that the global temperature records in question can be downloaded in a "matter of minutes" from different sources and show a similar conclusion to UEA. Sir Muir said the report found no evidence the extent of global warming has been exaggerated. "Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness and needed in its conduct," he said. "On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt." However Prof Jones was described as "unhelpful" and "defensive" in dealing with FOI requests, that are required to be answered under law, and the UEA was criticised for its lack of transparency. "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degrees of openness, both on the part of UEA and, who failed to recognise not only the significance of the statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the university and, indeed to the credibility of UK climate science," added Sir Muir. The review also partially upheld the accusation that scientists used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in an iconic graph used to show an increase in global temperatures since industrial times. The graph, which was used in a report published in 1999 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and circulated widely, did not show temperature data from tree-rings once they diverged from actual measurements in the 1960s, falling while real temperatures rose. The review said it was not misleading to omit part of the tree ring temperature series but the process should have been made plain in the graph, caption or text. "We do not find that the [graph] is misleading per se," Sir Muir continued. "But we believe the procedures used should have been made plain." :: The Met Office will continue to provide weather forecasts for the BBC. The 90-year contract was up for annual review and it had been suggested a New Zealand compay would provide forecasts after the 'BBQ summer' furore. But the BBC said the Met Office continues to provide the best service.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: Badeye (#0)
I catch the Canada Free Press every Monday for Dr Tim Ball on the environment and global warming. He has more credibility in his little finger than these a**holes and AlGore have, and he documented the East Anglia stuff months ago. Libtards in academia have zero credibility, I'm glad I graduated from universities with conservative profs, way back when. Libtard profs were fired when I was an undergrad, unless they got tenure first.
Reminds me of Rathergate, and how Jennings and Brokaw tried to prop Danny Rather up after it became clear CBS News tried to perpetrate a hoax designed to affect the outcome of a national election cycle.
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|