Eduardo Zorita on Climategate
Eric Gisin
November 28, 2009, 14:40:10 | nor...@blogger.com (Roger Pielke, Jr.)
Eduardo Zorita, a climate scientist at the GKSS Resaerch Center near Hamburg , Germany, has posted
these comments up on his website:
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.
A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry,
publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few
research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of
my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author
in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again,
not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past
millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'. And it happens that
some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made
public recently on the internet.
To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words
later.
I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science
has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from
the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real
research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The
scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.
These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it
is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick
atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of
alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal,
have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to
tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about
climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide
these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area
of research.
I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter
of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other
IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge
of the hockey-stick graph.
Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a layer. It seems that if the files had been
hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower
action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself
entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of
our work on the 'hockey stick graph' or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work
from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal
information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists,
together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.