UN Scientists Turn On Each Other

Univac Computer

By Marc Morano

A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues “should be barred from the IPCC process.” In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.”

Zorita writes: “Short answer: Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.

Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, Zorita has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. Zorita has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Zorita’s stunning candor continued, noting that scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC climate view were “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,” Zorita explained.

Continuing fallout of ClimateGate

Zorita’s revelations are the latest in a series of continuing fallout to the global warming establishment and to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), since the email and data scandal dubbed “ClimateGate” broke earlier this month.

Zorita’s defection from the global warming establishment comes after the shocking news today that one of the scientists employed at ground zero of what has been termed “ClimateGate” has suggested disbanding the United Nations climate panel, the IPCC. See: Pressure Mounts From Inside: Disband IPCC? Scientist from U. of East Anglia Suggests ‘UN IPCC has run its course…politicizes climate science…authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production’ – Mike Hulme Excerpt: ClimateGate reveals science has become ‘too partisan, too centralized…more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures.” Other UN scientists are weighing in as well. See: Yet Another UN IPCC Scientist — Dr. Vincent Gray — speaks out on ClimateGate: ‘I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise’ – Nov. 27, 2009

Read the rest of this article at Climate Depot.

25 Responses to UN Scientists Turn On Each Other

  1. Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 29, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    Well its about time!!
    I’m glad to see that some scientists are growing a pair. I hope this encourages more scientists who were afraid to step out of the shadows. This is kind of like rape, or molesation victims coming forward after a perpatrator has been caught.
    If you are a victim of professional climate science suppression, and/or extortion, now is the time to tell your story. Fear not!

  2. Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 29, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    The MSM is starting to discuss this. I knew they could not ignore this forever. This means that this story is too big to ignore.

  3. paul wenum November 29, 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    Neil, As I have always said. Truth will prevail! Now the real games begin!! Truth versus propaganda. We shall see who wins won’t we. Let’s hope logic prevails as well as common sense. Damn, I wish they would question the hell out of Gore. Oh well, dreams are dreams. I’m a realist and Reality exists, unfortunately.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 29, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

      Paul I think they may get around to Gore sooner or later. But he is not a scientist. He is an opportunist, liar, and very wealthy so I think the truth needs to be solidified before anyone really goes after him. He will probably just shrink away into obscurity. His movie, and books will be all but forgotten five years from now. I hope. Only time will tell. But isn’t this exciting? I am literally poised on the edge of my seat waiting for the next shoe to drop. I think whoever the hacker is, is a hero. He, or she, is the new Deep Throat!

  4. paul wenum November 30, 2009 at 12:35 am #

    Agree! How about “Deep Six” I’m kind of repulsed by “Deep Throat.” Oh well, I’m an old duffer. On with the games we say!

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 30, 2009 at 7:26 am #

      That’s Deep Throat as in the watergate whistleblower, not from the pornos Paul. Now that you mention it though, that is a horrible name.

  5. Al S December 1, 2009 at 11:39 am #

    Not only is it time to ban the IPCC, it is time to ban the UN. The only thing the UN has demonstrated any level of competence has been in the area of corruption. There is no justification for continuing to pour money into this rathole organization.

  6. Rob N. Hood December 1, 2009 at 5:24 pm #

    So what if someone doesn’t believe the changes in our environment are related to the addiction on fossil fuels?

    They can not deny the fact Fossil Fuels have caused serious global conflict and Immoral alligences. Who wants to continue to be beholden to the Sheiks?

    Subjected to the BS that has been going on in the Middle East for millenia? Who wants to allow them to have US by the balls any Longer?

    And lets be realistic here, both Oil and NG are limited resources because of the time it takes for them to be replenished. so relying on them only secures that resource for maybe several generations. Don’t tell me you’re worried about your descendants when you plan on screwing them by sucking the very last drops out of these reserves.

    Regardless of what entity owns and controls the resource, the rest of US will be subjected to their shortfalls and greed. $4.00/gal because they thought they saw their shadow?- Screw that!

    Not to mention the destruction to obtain it, process it, use it, dispose of it and clean it up after accidents like the Valdez. Who the hell wants to live near this type of industry- The catastrphic potential (spills, fires, explosions) are just for starters, what about the potential for long term, insideous side effects from prolonged exposure?

    The possiblity that fossil fuels may lead to global catastrophes is mute compared to what our addiction has already caused in more mundane terms to average citizens. The argument is not whether Global warming exists, but why the use of non-renewable, dirty energy, must be halted. Global warming is just one of multitudes of relevant reasons.

    The Liberals must stop allowing Conservative to control the conversation and define the perimeters. They have been able to frame Global Warming and Energy as two separate debates. What do I care if legislation to reduce fossil fuel is motivated by the fear of Global warming or a big “Screw you” to the Oil Royals and their corporate henchmen. The positive outcomes are the same.

    • Ben December 1, 2009 at 10:42 pm #

      OK Rob N Hood, let’s do a reality check. In the past two years, food exporting countries have devoted up to a third of their arable farmland to “bio-fuels”, thereby doubling the price of food in third world nations since 2007. Millions have starved as a DIRECT RESULT of this AGW-driven religion, based on bad science you subscribe to. How any free-thinking man can call that a “positive outcome” is mind-boggling. You should be ashamed. Trying to steer the debate away from the falsified data that cost people their lives, by ranting and raving against oil sheiks doesn’t excuse you from the responsibility you share in all of this.

  7. paul wenum December 1, 2009 at 11:36 pm #

    Have at it, love the discourse.

  8. Rob N. Hood December 3, 2009 at 10:25 am #

    I don’t support bio-fuels, especially corn. And you need to back up your “starvation” claim with some data, or I won’t believe it. Unfortunately many many people die of starvation everyday, always have and probably always will. Is capitalism out there saving them? Of course not! Never has and never will, so get off your high horse, and back to reality.

  9. paul wenum December 4, 2009 at 12:36 am #

    Rob, I agree, starvation is a world problem. Is it “global warming?, No. If you live in a desert and there is little water available you probably may starve. If you have too many children in this type of environment, and have no way to feed them, you starve, and children die. That is a fact of life. Do I like it? Hell no, but we cannot be all to everyone. I read a study on potatoes, (I’m not Dan Quayle) wherein if they used spuds worldwide that it may solve more than half the problem. Climate has nothing to do with it. Been to Alaska? I love sweet corn. Cannot find it due to the climate! Hope you love potatoes and cabbage if you live there! As to corn and bio’s. That is the worst thing that we did. Our food prices almost doubled, friends of mine on the farm with beef cattle were on the verge of bankruptcy besides the loss of the water used to make this BS. Take away the 45 cent subsidy and it is more expensive that gas! Enough said.

  10. Rob N. Hood December 4, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    Blaming the starvation of millions on bio-fuels is a statement that I find hard to swallow. Pardon the pun. I don’t endorse bio-fuels, however, there may be some geographical areas that can grow only certain types of crops such as natural grasses that don’t need a lot of water, fertilizer, etc. to grow, (e.g. switchgrass) that maybe someday could provide a cheap and environmentally friendly alternative energy source. But I am not convinced of that at this time either. But again, it is that statement by your Lord M. that undermines everything else he has to say in my opinion anyway.

    • Larry December 4, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

      Why don’t you pull your head out and Google “biofuel and food prices” and see what results you get? Consider that a pretty hefty percentage of the world lives at subsistence and draw you own conclusions as to the effects of converting arable land into biofuel production.

  11. paul wenum December 4, 2009 at 11:14 pm #

    You don’t read. I never said Bio fuels cause starvation. If I live in a desert where nothing grows, I have two options, I move to a better location or I starve. What are you missing??? Oh, that’s right. Let America fly/ship in food daily for 50-100 years to feed them. Why not move or get innovative and finally figure it out? Unfortunately the food/money goes to the dictators that live in luxury as we keep feeding them, not their people. We are a caring nation to a fault. By the way Lord M is not my Lord. I only have ONE LORD!

  12. Rob N. Hood December 5, 2009 at 11:25 am #

    I didn’t say you, Paul. Lord Monckton said it. And I didn’t propose a solution to the starvation problem. Just questioning Lord M, something you guys are apparently incapable of doing. Perhaps you need some reading lessons.

  13. paul wenum December 6, 2009 at 12:37 am #

    Stand corrected.

  14. Rob N. Hood December 6, 2009 at 9:31 am #

    Thank you. I realize that some amount of starvation has probably occurred due to the use of edible plants for bio-fuel, mainly due to the rise in cost of said food. However, there are even greater reasons for the rise in cost of food, mainly the rise in cost of oil. And since fossil fuels are a finite source of energy, and when it runs out we will have global mass starvation, then shall we all work together to fund and discover alternative sources of fuel? Guess not. I guess we’ll just keep our frightened heads buried in the sand and let future generations fight it out, Mad Max style. Yeah, that’s a great idea.

  15. paul wenum December 7, 2009 at 1:41 am #

    Really? What about nuclear? Clean coal? Shale oil in ND, major finds of oil that could fund us for 200 years and more that we can now extract with new technology? Nobody addresses that. Especially not you nor the media..

  16. Ben December 7, 2009 at 7:57 am #

    Rob N Hood demanding facts? That’s rich. You accept man-made global warming with no facts, so why the change in heart?

  17. paul wenum December 10, 2009 at 12:53 am #

    Thank you Ben, we all needed that! Short and to the point!!

  18. Rob N. Hood December 11, 2009 at 5:39 pm #

    I’ve seen the facts Ben. The ones I believe anyway. You believe yours I beleive mine. However, I really hope you flat-earthers are right so we can go right on polluting this old girl we call mother earth till the cows come home- yeeee haaaaa!

  19. Rob N. Hood December 11, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    Oh and FYI there’s no such thing as clean coal, even though Obama has said there is, let alone that oil shale and tar sand- that stuff’s even worse. But don’t worry ya’ll. We humans are goin’ to continue burnin’ them fossil fuels that the good Lord gave us. Just cuz dang nabbit!

  20. paul wenum December 12, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    I like clean coal. It keeps my family warm at 30 below. Is that a problem?

  21. Rob N. Hood December 14, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    You like your fanatsy world don’t you Paul? Well, I don’t blame you. The 1950’s was a nice time for America- white America.

    I am amazed at your capability to swallow corporate propaganda that quickly (clean coal). The truly brainwashed of course is the last to know he/she is brainwashed. (notice I allow that you have a brain? – your welcome)…

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.