Een storm waart door klimaatland. De emails van Phil Jones van de Climate Research Unit van universiteit van East Anglia zijn gehackt.
Naast slaapverwekkende en voorspelbare mails staat er ook belastend materiaal tussen. Ik weet nog niet wat ik moet geloven, het is namelijk kindelijk eenvoudig om wat emails er bij te schrijven om het een en ander aan te dikken..
Voor een doorzoekbare index zie:
nieuwsbericht op nu.nl
Tom Fuller beschrijft de waarschijnlijke bron:
Het bestand FOIA2009.zip werd samengesteld door de UK Information Commissioner’s Office (Britse overheidsinstantie die beroepen op de wet openbaarheid bestuur behandelt). Toen het beroep op de Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) werd afgewezen, heeft een klokkeluider dit bestand gelekt.
Citaat uit de britse wetgeving (met dank aan harold):
“If information is held when a FOIA request is received, destroying it
outside of your normal records management policies will result in a
breach of the Act. You must confirm that you hold the information and
consider disclosure, subject to any exemption. It will also be a
criminal offence to conceal or destroy information if this is done with
the intention of preventing disclosure under either FOIA or EIR.”
Duitse klimaatwetenschapper Hans von Storch schrijft op zijn web pagina:
21. November 2009 – A hacker has stolen many e-mails (and other files) from the server at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom. For an account refer to New York Times or to Roger Pielke jr.’s weblog. The hacked mails have been published at several sites, and I got through a journalist a full copy. As far as I myself can judge, and according to responses by others, the files are authentic, but not complete.
Going through the files, which due to the sheer size I can do only in a sampling mode, the mails begin in the late 1990s and extend to about today. They are all mails to/from Phil Jones. There are a number of problematic statements, which will be discussed in the media and the blogosphere. I found the style of communication revealing, speaking about other people and their ideas, joining forces to "kill" papers, exchanges of "improving" presentations without explaining.
Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are included; also we have been subject of frequent mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner. Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy "Climate Research"; that we in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike Mann was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.)
I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.
For an account of our role in the hockey-stick deconstruction, refer to our 2007-article on the nature blog. An account on the problem around "Climate Research" is provided on this web-page of mine from 2003.
Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009
Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
Zelfs George Monbiot, een alarmistische blogger, vindt dat Jones moet opstappen:
I feel desperately sorry for him: he must be walking through hell. But there is no helping it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get. He has a few days left in which to make an honourable exit. Otherwise, like the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, he will linger on until his remaining credibility vanishes, inflicting continuing damage to climate science.