A leading climate researcher announced today that he would temporarily step aside as head of a renowned laboratory while officials investigate statements that he and other scientists made in e-mail messages that were stolen from university servers by hackers. In the latest development in an academic scandal that has been dubbed “Climategate,” the researcher, Phil D. Jones, said he would step down as director of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia during an independent investigation into allegations that he and other climate researchers distorted findings in an effort to show a global-warming trend. “What is most important is that CRU continues its world-leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible,” Mr. Jones said in a statement published on the university’s Web site. “After a good deal of consideration, I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the director’s role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the university for agreeing to this. The review process will have my full support.”
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
10 Responses to Climate Researcher Steps Aside While University Investigates Hacked E-Mail
busterb - December 1, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Yes. Let’s focus on the hacked emails. That’s the big story here.
bag31050 - December 1, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I agree that the hacking is the one of the big stories. However just as important is, if investigation into allegations that he and other climate researchers distorted findings in an effort to show a global-warming trend.
hughtoo - December 1, 2009 at 5:41 pm
The earth is warming, and will get warmer. We are in the middle of a centuries-long warming after a mini-ice age. We do not know if voluntary human activity is connected to the warming in any way, nor do we know if there is anything we can do about the warming. It looks as though the wheels are starting to come off that myth, perhaps in time to keep Messrs. Gore, Obama, et al. from wreaking havoc on our economy and way of life in the name of saving the planet. One can only hope.
physicsprof - December 2, 2009 at 12:02 am
The so-called “climate science” is going to be soon seen as what it actually is — semi-religion, semi-fallacy, semi-politics. What’s unfortunate is that the inevitable backlash is going to be felt by scientists of quite legitimate disciplines.
lcrandal - December 2, 2009 at 9:29 am
“semi-religion. semi fallacy, semi politics” says “physicsprof”. Unfortunately that could characterize way too much of the discussion on both sides of the climate change debate. True, some industries and academicians benefit financially from promoting the most rapid measures to address climate changes that are caused by fossil fuels. But far more powerful interests benefit financially from maintaining status quo by denying that humans and their energy sources play any part in climate change.
ccherry - December 2, 2009 at 10:06 am
lcrandal,Those who argue that we must do something about climate change, and that humans are the main cause of it, are clearly more powerful than the “powerful interests” (presumably oil companies) you mention. Despite the lack of financial power, the climate change theorists have effectively made their view the dominant one in classrooms and with the news media. What unnerves me about this dominant view is its reliance on statistics. Of course statistics are employed in all sciences. But particularly with climate science, arguments are made and unmade seemingly on whimsy. If that is true, or even if the public widely comes to see that is the case, then all of science will suffer, as physicsprof warns. People don’t like to be duped.I wonder if that’s the real fear expressed in these emails. There’s a strong romanticism associated with underdogs and those without financial power. If the romance wanes, will climate change theories follow? Good science doesn’t require romance.
ovenbird - December 2, 2009 at 10:11 am
Robert Stacy reports that the story is being reported.
jesor - December 2, 2009 at 12:05 pm
What unnerves me is that there is no statistically significant evidence that ccherry exists. I mean really, the probablility of finding this theoretical person is one in 4 billion (or so). That’s way less than any level of certainty required by any reputable scientific journal. Personally, while I know that academic bullying exists, this is seemingly along the lines of finding a couple of rude comments in a transcript of discussions between FBI agents in order to prove that there was a second shooter in the JFK assasination. Given that after these allegations surfaced there hasn’t been a flood of poor abused researchers claiming that their careers were stymied or their findings hidden by these supposed miscreants, I find it improbably (there’s those darn statistics again) that there was any sort of significant impact on the findings of the vast majority of climate research.
ccherry - December 2, 2009 at 2:01 pm
jesor,Obviously you find boisterous rants to be good for the circulation, if not the digestion.That a multitude of “poor abused researchers” hasn’t stepped forward now to complain about thwarted careers means nothing. If the researchers cited in the emails have a point, they’ll have to make it on the merits of their research rather than just on fingerpointing to the remarks in these emails. That’s how it should be, and that will take time. But even that won’t be the end of the matter, because scientific inquiry doesn’t end by decree or majority rule. No doubt you know that.Now go ahead and rant again. It’s all the rage, though in defiance of (normal) statistics, ranters think their posturing is original.
fergbutt - December 15, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Those of who watch law/crime shows on TV know that old cases get overturned when a rogue cop or incompetent crime lab are brought to light. Cases have to be retried because of flawed evidence. So, can we expect most of the climate research, most of which is based on the flawed or highly-suspicious CRU data, be reexamined? Does a publication that rests primarily on wrong information get to stand on its own?