The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.The reporter is remaining mum about why he didn't do much.
One of its reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.
Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.
This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC’s unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet.
It was only after the same emails were published on a blog called Air Vent that Look North climate correspondent Mr Hudson owned up in his own blog to the fact he had also had the material.How typical of a reporter to think that he is above answering questions. Would a reporter ever let a politician get away with such a stonewall?
In a bizarre twist, he claimed the leak had been triggered by an article he had written that questioned global warming.
Mr Hudson, 38, last night declined to comment. A BBC spokesman said: ‘Paul has nothing to add to what he has already said in his blog.'
This story underlines the hypothesis that the emails were leaked by someone at the Climate Research Unit. Interesting.
If you want an informed and interesting look at some more of what is in the CRU cache, check out the guest post by Willis Eschenbach at Watt's Up With That? Eschenbach goes through a series of emails between Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth with Wibjörn Karlén, a man-made global warming skeptic who is a professor emeritus at Stockholm University about the CRU and IPCC results. As you read through the emails and read Eschenbach's analysis it's clear that the CRU guys were lying to Eschenbach about what was in their research such as whether or not they were excluding major cities since, of course, the temperatures would be warmer in the vicinity of a major city. The CRU guys claim that they excluded such data, yet Eschenbach demonstrates that they included many large cities in their data. Read the whole thing.