CRU Director Phil Jones To Step Down Pending Investigation Into Hacked Emails

Phil Jones, the Director of the Climate Research Unit, announced today that he will step down from his position pending investigation into the matter of the emails stolen from the University of East Anglia servers.

Here’s the news release [h/t Andy Revkin]:

Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.

Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible.  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.”  

Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said: “I have accepted Professor Jones’s offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations. We will announce details of the independent review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Professor Peter Liss, FRS, CBE, will become acting director.”


It’s a lose-lose. If he stays active, then they are accused of not doing anything. He steps aside, people will say there’s something to the crazy claims. Still, this is the best choice. Better than a resignation, which would have ‘guilt’ written all over it.

The independent review will not convince the crazies, but the rest of us want to know if anything took place. The FOI stuff is really all that concerns me so far.

With their work having been independently reproduced elsewhere, I do not see the argument for data manipulation or fraud.

Still waiting for those emails from The Heartland Institute. LOL.

well there is some question of how independent the “independently produced work” is. The common perception at this moment is that these different groups are a little too cozy.

One Climate criminal has stepped down!
Now lets have the rest from Mann to Albore!

And it gets better. Lord Monckton is pressing for criminal charges for fraud and racketering for these vermin.

Lord Moncton? Now that’s a laugh. That fellow only has credibility among the loonies. Since the British Information Commissioner is not likely to belong to them Moncton rightly says that he is ‘not holding his breath’ that the Commissioner will do what the Viscount asks him to do. Good to see that Lord Babblebops has a vestige of realism left.

An even greater laugh is that Fred Singer, a man with whom I would only want to be in touch through the point of my shoe, has urged the same course of action.

It is useless to ask whether these people have no shame. Their actions have answered that question long ago.

Mark, that is where you are mistaken. It is precisely because they witheld information, even when requested by other academics, that their work has not and cannot be replicated.

Under these circumstances all Jones et al papers using this withheld data must now be withdrawn.
They are unproven and worthless.

Have at least the decency to wait for the outcome of that review. The University (rather than just Jones) has thus far maintained that it has strictly adhered to FOI regulations. Where the CRU had to withhold data it was bound to do so because it had obtained these from others so that they were not theirs to give away. A case in point is Briffa’s Yamal data. McIntyre has been insinuating for years that B. was deliberately withholding part of these so that he could cherry pick at his heart’s content. Briffa however had advised McIntyre to address himself with his request to the Russian scientists who had given him the data. Later it turned out that McIntyre had, by his own admission, already obtained these data from these same Russians in 2004. But it looks as if he didn’t let a good occasion go by to sow distrust …

It also appears to be the case that the overwhelming amount of the data asked for was already publicly available. It was not the CRU’s task to teach people searching skills.

As to the reliability of the CRU data this remark by a climate scientist on the blog of Andrew Revkin. the Science editor of the New York Times, is to the purpose:

“1. CRU is not the only group in the world that is tracking the change in global-average near-surface temperature. There are at least three other groups, two in the U.S. (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA), and one in Japan (Japan Meteorological Agency, JMA).

2. As presented below, the temperature record of each of these groups (available at the URLs given at the bottom of this message) shows the same features: (i) a warming of about 0.9°C (1.6°F) over the past 150 years and (ii) natural variability with both short and long periods.”

Auditioning for Fenton Communications?

Why not urge people to focus on the hacker/leaker; that may cool things down for the Alarmists.

This suspected Russian may have been irreparably heat-addled by his country’s announced “hottest October (2008) on record” and wanted to get even.

Require a mandatory extensive background check seeing he/she is the criminal here. If he/she is found to have taken Full Service for a fillup and consented to the complimentary peak under the hood?

Bought and paid for by Big Oil! Much more has been made of much less.

The article YankeeBubba refers to is certain not to win Monbiot’s “Christopher Booker Prize for Climate Change Bullshit” because it was written by the Master himself - and published in the British Daily Telegraph which is the maximum guarantee for reliability.

Let us see what else Booker has asserted in the Telegraph over time:

“Via his long-running column in the UK’s Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was “disproved” in 2008[1], that white asbestos is “chemically identical to talcum powder” and poses a “non-existent risk” to human health[2], that “scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people’s smoke causes cancer simply does not exist”[3] and that there is “no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans”[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions”.


The illustrious company on this thread keeps expanding: Moncton, Singer, Booker. Who next?

Barely adequate tap dance.

Pray tell, what of the Russian september/october (2008) surface temperatures?

And the language; please!

Another tobacco denialist. How surprising - not. Incidently, I’ve seen one or two denialist comments on other blogs try to compare the scientists in the CRU emails to tobacco company shills. This is proof that denialists are capable of learning some, though not well; they will use our arguments against us, but they can’t use our arguments convincingly.

Classic denialist deception:
“chemically identical to talcum powder.

Which is perfectly true, but it is also a red herring - what actually kills is not the chemistry but the mechanical effect of the small needles pinching the lung tissue.

Some people have no decency - and those who have are referred to as leftists by the indecent ones.

Nobody in the UK reads the Telegraph! They still think that Britain has an empire.

Dear desmobloggers,
Congratulation! You appear to have permanently attracted a bunch of professional trolls, who hijack this blog and lead it ad absurdum. You should implement a delete button. I would not be surprised if the saboteurs are paid for by some libertarians think tanks or Friends of Science or other disturbers. I am sick of reading their destructive bs. Time to kick them out.

Yes, I have returned to this blog after a long time of not visiting it and I am surprised at the disproportionate share of these trolls now. To judge from the ‘ratings’ the readers are not very happy about it either. Most solid commenters seem to have deserted it though.

Of course people get sick after a while of having to react to yet another lie.

“Most solid commenters seem to have deserted”

As long as I’ve been coming here, (painfully long for many I’m sure) this complaint has been popping up.

I don’t see it. This comment section has always had a lot of detractors and a similar number of supporting voices.

Heres a challenge: ignore the dissenters and fill this section with 100 insightful positive comments per post. Lets hear from the silent majority. Don’t ban us - Run us out of town by overwhelming our nattering ways with your superior wisdom.

Don’t like whats being said? Re-define the commenting process.
That and many other lessons can be learned from the Climate Warriors at HadCRUT. Phil Jones may be incommunicado for a while.

Funny thing happens when you surround yourself only with like-minded folks. When you hear opposition two things happen; they are unequivocally wrong and you feel threatened.

I think the troll posts may serve a purpose here; to let people see for themselves how shallow and dishonest most of the denialist arguments are.

The new “trolls” or as they should be more aptly described “honest brokers” are simply a reflection of the diminishing public support for the international global warming treaty movement.
The people on the left dislike global warming as it will create a central world government for big business, the people on the right dislike it becuase it will financially destroy most individuals and people and those in the middle are tired of the corruption and two faced nature of the global warming religion. IE “their are no articles cotrary to global warming in peer reviewed journals, as they are purposefully excluded and receive no grant funding to perform said research” Kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

I look forward to people addressing real environmental issues like clean water, clean air and habitat and species protection. Time to put down the kool aid and get back to reality. Global warming almost led to global communism but I think people are waking up now.

First, the people on the left are the general public outside Alberta/Texas/North America. And this left angle only appears when you look at it from the far right. In reality, these “leftists” are mainstream centre people - normal people. All over the world.

The far right, unfeathered free market is exclusively a North American thing (maybe with a bit of a British tinge; see Thatcherism; Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson etc.)

Thew world government story is total bogus and fear mongering by the far right - problem is, some people here tend to believe the most absurd stuff, especially the far religious right - after all, any religion is based on fear and belief. Don’t forget, global warming is not just discussed in small town North America. World government socialism fear does not exist outside of North America, with the exeption of perhaps Brenchley.

Global warming religion: cheap shot by religous people. How many “warmists” are actually religious, compared to how many of the the North American far political right?

Science and religion are almost mutually exclusive. See Darwinism vs. intelligent design.

A friend of mine reported of a columnist in the Globe and Mail today, who writes: “climate science is too important to be left to the scientists”.
My friend says: “I’m pleased that governments aren’t taking their climate advice from journalists, because then all they’d get would be climate opinion. And as we’ve seen, any f*cking idiot can have an opinion”.

Nothing to be added.

Barry Cooper strikes again - in a concerted CanWest Global effort with Lorne Gunter:

We remember:

At least, Cooper uses non-emotive language - as opposed to Gunter.,1518,664685,00.html

The emails created a debate, particularly among those, who have always known that AGW is fiction, who felt confirmed in their opinion.

…not a single proof of systematic manipulation…

…some behaviour of scientists that requires explanation…

concluding:…the degree of sceptisism of the existence of AGW among “real scientists” is very small.

Der Spiegel is a weekly magazine published in Germany:

the degree of skeptism of the EXISTENCE OF AGW among real scientists is very small? - no kidding. So it is among EVERYBODY else.

The question is not whether there is some degree of warming associated with the extra CO2. The fuzzy part is what that means for the future. Thats the problem. We question the scientific community’s ability to see into the future. We think they are dreamers about what they think they know about the future.

Der spiegel, that like quoting Karl Marx the economist. Even they had to concede that their are serious problems in science, but as I said before getting Der spiegel to print the whole story is like getting an alchoholic to go cold turkey.

Not a single proof systematic manipulation, other than revealing ocrruption within the peer review process in climate science on three continents, a computer program designed to manipulate data. Yeah good timing to announce that before the investigations.
Probably the funniest thing I saw was when the computer code was debunked people said but we got simmilar results from other data sets. Oh really, then if the data set is fudged at EAU and other places get similar results, what does that tell you?

The skepticism among climate scientists in regards to Arhenius green house theory is small. That really is a non issue, the degree of skepticism among scientists comes into play when you add “tipping points” and argue that the artic will disapear in 5 years Like Bishop hansen asserts. Then you have some real skepticism on your hands.

The issue is wether AGW is even worth dealing with as the effects are so minimal. Time to get the religious alarmism out of science.

It really is time to stop the banter with the email fraud. It is getting hard to read meaning dialogue and is just high school silliness. The ability of the deniers to hijack the agenda increases with their ability to get into legitimate forums like this.

The process of science is different from the process of endless bantering and useless name calling. Pull the plug and delete this stuff.