Eduardo Zorita is  Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany. Zorita has been a small player, a self described infantryman in the IPCC research regarding climate change trends.  On his website, Mr Zorita released a statement that should turn the heads of Climategate deniers.

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.

Before the Moonbats start screaming that its all a lie, what motivation does Mr. Zorita have to lie? As he readily admits this admission may cost him his career:

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

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.

Neither the letters nor Zorita’s claims are anything brand new. Clive Crook reminded us today

…the mainstream of skepticism on AGW are usually somewhat educated in the disciplines of engineering, mathematics, or computer science. People who work with math daily. People who could plainly see that the numbers did not add up and resented it. Most of them do not reject the idea that CO2 causes warming, the fight, for a long time, has been over the degree of warming. The exaggerations and data obfuscation and outright destruction (apparently) have only fed this skepticism.

Most of this stuff is not new. For just about every controversial email, you can google back before this revelation, and find discussion pointing to strong suspicion of the activity involved, from incestuous peer review to obstruction of FOI. For example, when Steve McIntyre’s request for the raw temperature data was declined, he was working at the behest of the National Academy of Science.

Yesterday we found out that the raw temperature data was dumped, so McIntyre will never have access to those numbers.  Until that data can be replicated, any claims of man-made global warming is suspect.