Warmists distancing themselves from Corrupt Scientists

This is from George Monbiot one biggest warmists.

It?s no use pretending that this isn?t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I?m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

The science is corrupted, it is far from settled. What’s the rush Nick and John? Pull back now.

Even warmist Tim Flannery who confronted on Lateline with the emails of the global warming conspiracy, concedes holes in the ?science is settled? argument and admits to what he never has before:

We?re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works? When we come to the last few years when we haven?t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don?t understand all of the factors that create earth?s climate…We just don?t understand the way the whole system works? See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you?ve got a very interesting problem? Sure for the last 10 years we?ve gone through a slight cooling trend.

And on these now-admitted uncertainties we must impose massive new taxes, shut entire industries, hand billions to the Russians and Chinese and change the way we live?

The science isn’t settled.

As for the hacking explanation from the dodgy, cheating scientists. How about this then for an explanation? It meets Occam’s Razor perfectly.

Charles of WUWT offers a new and interesting theory of the file: that the file was not ?stolen?, it was ?found?. See
here. Charles? epithet: ?Never assume malice where stupidity will do?.

Here?s his scenario.

The collation of files was made by the university in connection with the FOI appeal ? an appeal that they were going to thoroughly document because of all the publicity during the summer. They then used the intranet server to share the file among interested parties for the FOI review on Nov 13.

And then between Nov 13 and Nov 17, someone came along and found this astonishing file sitting on the server. Sound impossible?

Read last summer?s posts on the ?Mole? at CRU. Phil Jones had refused to provide station data claiming that it was covered by all sorts of confidentiality agreements (though he couldn?t find the agreements and couldn?t remember who they were with.

One day in late July, I discovered that they had left station data versions from 2003 and 1996 on their server ? without webpage links but accessible all the same. They were stale versions of the requested data, but this data was supposedly hugely ?confidential?. They were just sitting in cyberspace waiting for someone to download.

Charles hypothesizes that that?s what happened here. No hacker, no mole.

This theory could be disproved one way or another by the university?s FOI department. I?m sure that someone will ask them about their role, if any, in compiling the zip file.

Doesn’t anyone find it funny that those who posted copious extracts of Nicky Hagar’s book based on really stolen emails are now leaping to the defense of these hapless, cheating, lying scientists by denouncing the release of the documents as theft and citing privacy issues. There was no such defense when they published all the juicy details of Don Brash’s emails.