Fanático pede a cabeça de Phil Jones
O escândalo do ClimateGate (aqui e aqui) está a atingir proporções espantosas. Até mesmo George Monbiot, um dos propagandistas mais ferozes da fé no aquecimento global, admite agora que deveria ter sido mais céptico e diz também que a ciência do clima necessita de ser repensada. Eis o que ele afirma no seu blogue:
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.
Neste desabafo de Monbiot está o segredo da mutilação de artigos cépticos enviados para revistas científicas. Os censores e cínicos diziam depois que era reduzido o número de artigos cépticos nas revistas com revisores (peer-reviewers).
Sir David King na entrevista dada ao jornalista Virgílio Azevedo do Expresso (ver entrevista publicada na edição do Expresso de 31 de Outubro de 2009, 1.º Caderno, página 31) disse mesmo que não havia nenhum (!) artigo dos cépticos.
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.
Neste desabafo de Monbiot está o segredo da mutilação de artigos cépticos enviados para revistas científicas. Os censores e cínicos diziam depois que era reduzido o número de artigos cépticos nas revistas com revisores (peer-reviewers).
Sir David King na entrevista dada ao jornalista Virgílio Azevedo do Expresso (ver entrevista publicada na edição do Expresso de 31 de Outubro de 2009, 1.º Caderno, página 31) disse mesmo que não havia nenhum (!) artigo dos cépticos.
posted by Rui G. Moura at 15:33
<< Home