Worst Scientific Scandal of our Generation

They Must Not Be Allowed to Get Away With It

Christopher Booker, writing in the Telegraph says that the scientific establishment is now hopelessly compromised. New Zealand is named in the scandal.

Booker makes his case for scandalous behaviour, requiring full accountability, by making three indictments.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious . . . is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the [Climatic Research Unit] CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide?

The second indictment is:

(T)he leaked documents . . . show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the "Harry Read Me" file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the "Harry Read Me" file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

Indeed--the matter is so egregious that in the face of all the assertions and "evidences" of rising global temperatures in the previous century one now has to ask, "How do you know the data is actual data?" Moderate sceptics have adopted the position of agreeing that the evidence points to global warming in the twentieth century, but they remain unconvinced that it is due to the release of CO2. Now, however, there is grounds to doubt whether the earth's temperatures have increased at all in the twentieth century since the data recording the increases has been so manipulated, adjusted, and messed up.

Third indictment:

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

The pressure and shame to date has been considerable. The University of East Anglia has now reversed its position and agreed to publish all its data (once necessary permissions have been secured). Healthy scepticism requires that we expect yet another long string of delays and obfuscations. Phil Jones, head of CRU remains in denial. He says he has nothing to fear from the release of data because it essentially is consistent with other,

completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.

Phil Jones still has not grasped the crevasse over which he is now suspended. The e-mails disclose an acceptance amongst the leading scientists in all those institutions to accept the CRU's massaging and adjusting the data, which implies that they are guilty of the same sins. Certainly in New Zealand, the head of NIWA has publicly stated their adjustments to temperature data were consistent with "international standards". That suggests a consensus acceptance of manipulation of data within the cabal. So, it is not just the data which will need to be released, but every adjustment and justification thereof. We also know that the data sets are hopelessly compromised and the base data thoroughly unreliable.

Meanwhile, according to the BBC the University of East Anglia has announced that it will commission a formal independent inquiry into the leaking of the e-mails and what they revealed. the key thing now is whether this inquiry will be a cover-up or a diligent expose.

Professor Sir David King, the former government chief scientist, told BBC News there are three key issues:

* how did the leakage occur - was there any payment in the process?
* the alleged behaviour of the scientists indicated by the e-mails
* does this have any impact on the scientific conclusion?

If an independent inquiry encompassed all three aspects, Professor Sir David said he would support it.

We hope for the best, but fear the worst.