Phil Jones steps down – pending independent review

From a University of East Anglia Press Release

CRU Update 1 December

Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.

Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible.  After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director’s role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this.  The Review process will have my full  support.”

Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said: “I have accepted Professor Jones’s offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations.

“We will announce details of the Independent Review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Professor Peter Liss, FRS, CBE, will become acting director.”

An AP story is here

h/t to Jeff  Id of The Air Vent

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate. Bookmark the permalink.

318 Responses to Phil Jones steps down – pending independent review

  1. Larey says:

    Will that be a peer-reviewed investigation?

  2. mrpkw says:

    WOO HOO !!
    A small step for mankind……………..

  3. Phillip Bratby says:

    Good news travels fast

  4. Lance says:

    Define Independant Review…..

  5. tallbloke says:

    Great time of year for him to gt acquainted with his garden. That’ll learn him something about global warming. It’s bloody cold in the UK tonight.

    PARTY TIME!

  6. Mom2girls says:

    Goal!

  7. mike smith says:

    In other words he’ll step down till they exonerate him of all wrongdoing with their investigation?

  8. JR says:

    Hide the decline!

  9. pwl says:

    The cracks revealed in the facade of the consensus begin to deepen into actual fractures.

    Al baby, Monckton is coming for you and it ain’t to debate anymore! http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/too-late-for-resignations-in-climategate-as-requests-for-charages-are-being-filed

  10. Robert M. says:

    That is really good news.

    Will the investigation be genuine?

    Stay tuned!

  11. Chris says:

    Cheers!

  12. APE says:

    AP story link isn’t functioning

  13. Reed Coray says:

    As the old golf joke goes, I recommend Phil Jones give his work a three-week layoff, then quit.

  14. Neal Asher says:

    Whitewash on the way. If the media have any focus at all it’ll focus on him, leading it away from the fact that they’re all charlatans.

  15. Jean says:

    Is there anyone implicated in the emails, who is also on the agenda at Copenhagen?

  16. Jack Thompson says:

    Steps aside not steps down; presumably on full pay. What about his acolytes? What about Dr Mann?

  17. tim c says:

    Have the Brits still got the pillory?

  18. Anton says:

    Does anybody here know if UEA has any administrators with guts? Or is a whitewash preordained? I’m sure they’re pretty happy with all the loot Jones has been pulling in with his ‘research’ over the last decade.

  19. Sunfighter says:

    All the evidence has been destroyed already, so its a wise move to act like you are gonna be all noble and step aside till they find nothing.

  20. Bill P says:

    That (and the review of Michael Mann at Penn State) should clear the air for Copenhagen. (Not.)

    But, as said above, “one small step.”

  21. David Brent says:

    I’m with Mike Smith here. I don’t have too much hope for an honest ‘independent’ investigation.

  22. debreuil says:

    Oh he’ll be back,even if they have to redefine what ‘independent investigation’ means.

  23. rbateman says:

    Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.

    What is missing here?
    until the completion = makes no mention of abiding by the results/decision of the investigation. Is this an omission?
    Calls for a clarification.
    Please specify what will happen if the investigation uncovers wrongdoing.

  24. Greg Goodknight says:

    This should wake up some of the media remaining on the sidelines.

  25. manfredkintop says:

    This “temporary” sidestep may or may not further implicate Jones, CRU researchers and their “peers”. Kinda like betting on the weather. Flip a coin.

  26. yonason says:

    SPOT THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT

    “It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally…”

    If by “normally” they mean “business as usual,” the problem has not only not been solved, but may even have an opportunity to worsen.

  27. Invariant says:

    By all means, this is good news, but let us show that we also have a warm and human side here at WUWT – we all do mistakes!

  28. TerryS says:

    It will be interesting to see who the chair is and what the terms of reference are.

    Since this scandal largely revolves around hidden data, methods etc will they make the report and any evidence/transcripts public?

  29. Al Gore's Holy Ghost says:

    They’ll just conclude he was being silly in his emails

  30. Bob Ramar says:

    Mike: No, he won’t be exonerated. His steping down is the first step in a higher education institute to termination. Dr. Jones almost certainly has tenure which means that he cannot be fired without cause. “Cause” would mean a violation of institutional policy, breaking the law, something that would bring disrepute to the institution and the office Dr. Jones holds. From our perspective here, he is guilty of all of these things. But we ‘don’t’ know all the facts so let the University do it’s due dilligence.

    My guess is that he will eventually resign because of “personal reasons” or to “spend more time with his family”. Victory will really occur though when we see Michael Mann’s and James Hansen’s head on a platter.

  31. Richard Wakefield says:

    Let’s speculate. The Dean of the university gives Jones an ultimatum. Step aside or be suspended, which will look better?

  32. Lee Kington says:

    I note:
    “it is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally”

    I question:
    Is ‘normally’ business as usual and identical to the “Jones Method” of science or would it be an admission that CRU has not been functioning in a ‘normal’ manner under the leadership of Jones?

  33. Carlo says:

    Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.

    Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director’s role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support.”

    Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said: “I have accepted Professor Jones’s offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations.

    “We will announce details of the Independent Review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Professor Peter Liss, FRS, CBE, will become acting director.”

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

  34. Jean says:

    I recall that some of the email discussed meetings with CRU management (ViceChancellor?) to limit the FOIA and suppress data. Will those individuals also resign.

  35. Carlo says:

    Mod can you remove my comment?

    [Done - Evan]

  36. Poptech says:

    Wait, why would he step down? Fenton Communications, I mean RealClimate.org said nobody did anything wrong and the words “trick”, “hide” and “delete” have special scientific meanings not found in any dictionary on the planet. I am confused, maybe the lead spokesman for Fenton Communications, I mean Gavin can shed light on this development in the context of what “stepping down” really means. We all owe Gavin a huge debt for the introduction of new definitions of common words, so new that no dictionary even recognizes them!

  37. Jim Watson says:

    In all of our glee, we should have a moment of silence for the destruction these guys have wrought:

    1) The reputation of science has been trashed in a way that the popes of old could only have dreamt of;

    2) Billions of charitable dollars have been wasted over 20 years when they could have gone towards clean drinking water and high quality of life for the poverty-stricken;

    3) An entire generation of young children–eager to help “save the planet”–will be growing up in the coming years knowing they were lied to, used and minipulated by adults they trusted.

  38. jtom says:

    “Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said: ‘I have accepted Professor Jones’s offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations.’ ”

    Someone needs to clue him into the fact that it was CRU’s normal operation that caused this mess. They should issue no more reports, studies, analysis, or assessments until their complete process of obtaining, adjusting, and analyzing data is reviewed.

    You will know whether this is a serious review by whether or not the doors are open. Anything done behind closed doors screams of whitewash.

  39. Robinson says:

    Wow. Still spinning! Do you really think it was his idea to step aside? After all that’s happened they still give the impression they think we’re all stupid.

  40. George Tobin says:

    Have Mann, Briffa and Trenberth accepted their appointments to the Independent Review panel yet?

  41. hunter says:

    step-by-step
    Mann should be next.
    Hansen and Schmidt soon after.
    Go go go!
    Each nation with a substantial AGW promotion community should move to audit each and every bit of work related communications, code, data, and finance.
    In the US, strict audits according to the federal grant terms.
    A Congress interested in finding out what happened to our ~450 billion or so, and holding intensive and thorough hearings on this would not be a bad thing either.
    Maybe some lawsuits by those here who have been stymied in their FOIA requests would be in order, as well.
    And will someone please do something in a legal sense to shut down that corpulent con artist, Gore?

  42. Jason Bair says:

    just how independent is independent?

  43. Watch for this to be a prelude to the “one bad apple” argument. The climate alarmism crowd has sacrified a queen, in the hope that this will create a firewall against criticism of the field in general and enable them to still achieve check-mate in Copenhagen.

    We need to start widening the scope off this enquiry to the other institutions and “scientists” involved in the fraud if we wish to avoid junk science being turned into junk policy.

  44. tallbloke says:

    The new Boss Peter Liss’ publications since 2000. Lovelock is a name that stands out, but only once.

    PETER LISS – PUBLICATIONS SINCE 2000
    Journal articles
    Hughes, C., Chuck, A.L., Rossetti, H., Mann, P.J., Turner, S.M., Clarke, A., Chance, R.
    and Liss, P.S. (2009) Seasonal cycle of seawater bromoform and dibromomethane
    concentrations in a coastal bay on the western Antarctic Peninsula. Global
    Biogeochem. Cycles 23, GB2024, doi:10.1029/2008GB003268.
    Martino, M., Mills, G.P., Woeltjen, J., Liss, P.S. (2009) A new source of volatile
    organoiodine compounds in surface seawater. Geophysical Research Letters, 36 (1),
    art. no. L01609
    Bell, T.G., Johnson, M.T., Jickells, T.D., Liss, P.S. (2008) Ammonia/ammonium
    dissociation coefficient in seawater: A significant numerical correction.
    Environmental Chemistry, 5, 183-186.
    Zemmelink, H.J., Hintsa, E.J., Houghton, L., Dacey, J.W.H. and Liss, P.S. (2008) DMS
    fluxes over the multi year ice of the western Weddell Sea. Geophysical Research
    Letters 35, art. no. L06603.
    Jickells, T.D., Liss, P.S., Broadgate, W., Turner, S., Kettle, A.J., Read, J., Baker, J.,
    Cardenas, L.M., Carse, F., Hamren-Larssen, M., Spokes, L., Steinke, M., Thompson,
    A., Watson, A., Archer, S.D., Bellerby, R.G.J., Law, C.S., Nightingale, P.D.,
    Liddicoat, M.I., Widdicombe, C.E., Bowie, A., Gilpin, L.C., Moncoiffé, G., Savidge,
    G., Preston, T., Hadziabdic, P., Frost, T., Upstill-Goddard, R., Pedrós-Alió, C., Simó,
    R., Jackson, A., Allen, A., DeGrandpre, M.D. (2008) A Lagrangian biogeochemical
    study of an eddy in the Northeast Atlantic. Progress in Oceanography 76, 366-398.
    Hughes, C., Chuck, A.L., Turner, S.M. and Liss, P.S. (2008) Methyl and ethyl nitrate
    saturation anomalies in the Southern Ocean (3665°S, 3070°W). Environmental
    Chemistry 5, 11-15.
    Hughes, C., Malin, G., Turley, C.M., Keely, B.J., Nightingale, P.D. and Liss, P.S. (2008).
    The production of volatile iodocarbons by biogenic marine aggregates. Limnol.
    Oceanogr. 53, 867-872.
    Vogt, M., Turner, S., Yassaa, N., Steinke, M., Williams, J. and Liss, P.S. (2008).
    Laboratory inter-comparison of dissolved dimethyl sulphide (DMS) measurements
    using purge-and-trap and solid-phase microextraction techniques during a mesocosm
    experiment. Marine Chemistry 108(1-2), 32-39.
    Johnson, M.T., Liss, P.S., Bell, T.G., Lesworth, T.J., Baker, A.R., Hind, A.J., Jickells,
    T.D., Biswas, K.F., Woodward, E.M.S. and Gibb, S.W. (2008). Field observations of
    the ocean-atmosphere exchange of ammonia: fundamental importance of temperature
    as revealed by a comparison of high and low latitudes. Global Biogeochemical Cycles
    22, GB1019, DOI: 10.1029/2007GB003039.
    Liss, P.S. and Lovelock, J.E. (2007). Climate change: the effect of DMS emissions.
    Environmental Chemistry 4, 377-378. DOI: 10.1071/EN07072.
    Bell, T.G., Johnson, M.T., Jickells, T.D. and Liss, P.S. (2007). Ammonia/ammonium
    dissociation coefficient in seawater: a significant numerical correction. Environ.
    Chem. 4, 183-186. doi: 10.1071/EN07032.
    Liss, P.S. (2007). Trace gas emissions from the marine biosphere. Philosophical
    Transactions of the Royal Society A 365, 1697-1704.
    Evans, C., Kadner, S.V., Darroch, L.J., Wilson, W.H., Liss, P.S. and Malin, G. (2007).
    The relative significance of viral lysis and microzooplankton grazing as pathways of
    dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) cleavage: An Emiliania huxleyi culture study.
    Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1036-1045.
    Johnson, M.T., Sanders, R., Avgoustidi, V., Lucas, M., Brown, L., Hansell, D., Moore,
    M., Gibb, S., Liss, P. and Jickells, T., (2007) Ammonium accumulation during a
    silicate limited diatom bloom indicates the potential for ammonia emission events.
    Marine Chemistry 106 (1-2) pp. 63-75.
    Martino, M., Liss, P.S. and Plane, J.M.C. (2006). Wavelength-dependence of the
    photolysis of diiodomethane in seawater. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L06606,
    doi: 10.1029/2005GL025424.
    Evans, C. Malin, G. Wilson, W.H. and Liss, P.S. (2006) Infectious titres of Emiliania
    huxleyi virus EhV-86 are reduced by exposure to millimolar dimethyl sulphide and
    acrylic acid, Limnology and Oceanography, 51, 5, 2468-2471.
    Bell, T.G. Malin, G. McKee, C.M. and Liss, P.S. (2006) A comparison of
    dimethylsulphide (DMS) data from the Atlantic Meridional Transect (AMT)
    programme with proposed algorithms for global surface DMS concentrations, Deep-
    Sea Research II, 53, 1720-1735.
    Hughes, C. Malin, G. Nightingale, P.D. and Liss, P.S. (2006) The effect of light stress on
    the release of volatile iodocarbons by three species of marine microalgae, Limnol.
    Oceanogr. 51, 2849-2854.
    Jickells, T.D. An, Z.S. Andersen, K.K. Baker, A.R. Bergametti, G. Brooks, N. Cao, J.J.
    Boyd, P.W. Duce, R.A. Hunter, K.A. Kawahata, H. Kubilay, N. laRoche, J. Liss, P.S.
    Mahowald, N. Prospero, J.M. Ridgwell, A.J. Tegen, I. and Torres, R. (2005) Global
    iron connections between desert dust, ocean biogeochemistry, and climate, Science,
    308, 67-71.
    Liss, P.S. Chuck, A. Bakker, D. and Turner, S. (2005) Ocean fertilization with iron:
    effects on climate and air quality, Tellus, 57B, 269-271.
    Martino, M. Liss, P.S. and Plane, J.M.C. (2005) The phytolysis of di-halomethanes in
    surface seawater, Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 7097-7101.
    Chuck, A.L. Turner, S.M. and Liss, P.S. (2005) Oceanic distributions and air-sea fluxes
    of biogenic halocarbons in the open ocean, Journal of Geophysical Research, 110,
    C10.
    Zemmelink, H.J. Houghton, L. Dacey, J.W.H. Worby, A.P. and Liss, P.S. (2005)
    Emission of dimethylsulfide from Weddell Sea leads, Geophysical Research Letters,
    32.
    Broadgate, W.J. Malin, G. Küpper, F.C. Thompson, A. and Liss, P.S. (2004) Isoprene
    and other non-methane hydrocarbons from seaweeds: a source of reactive
    hydrocarbons to the atmosphere, Marine Chemistry, 88, 61-73.
    Chuck, A.L. and Liss, P.S. (2004) Ocean-atmosphere biogeochemical interactions: a twoway
    coupling under SOLAS, Indian Journal of Marine Sciences, 33, 65-70.
    Turner, S.M. Harvey, M.J. Law, C.S. Nightingale, P.D. and Liss, P.S. (2004) Ironinduced
    changes in oceanic sulfur biogeochemistry, Geophysical Research Letters,
    31.
    Liss, P.S. Chuck, A.L. Turner, S.M. and Watson, A.J. (2004) Air-sea gas exchange in
    Antarctic waters, Antarctic Science, 16, 517-529.
    Carpenter, L.J. Liss, P.S. Penkett, S.A. (2003) Marine organohalogens in the atmosphere
    over the Atlantic and Southern Oceans, Journal of Geophysical Research, 108, 4256.
    Bigg, G.R. Jickells, T.D. Liss, P.S. and Osborn, T.J. (2003) The role of the oceans in
    climate, International Journal of Climatology, 23, 1127-1159.
    Steinke, M. Malin, G. Archer, S.D. Burkill, P.H. and Liss, P.S. (2002) DMS production
    in a coccolithophorid bloom: evidence for the importance of dinoflagellate DMSP
    lyases, Aquatic Microbial Ecology, 26, 259-270.
    Chuck, A.L. Turner, S.M. and Liss, P.S. (2002) Direct evidence for a marine source of
    C1 and C2 alkyl nitrates, Science, 297, 1151-1154.
    Steinke, M. Malin, G. and Liss, P.S. (2002) Trophic interactions in the sea: an ecological
    role for climate relevant volatiles? Journal of Phycology, 38, 630-638.

  45. DennisA says:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=462&filename=1105019698.txt
    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Parker, David (Met Office)” , Neil Plummer
    Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
    Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
    Cc: “Thomas C Peterson”

    Neil,
    Just to reiterate David’s points, I’m hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
    The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a
    different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about
    the 1990s being better observed than the 1960s don’t hold too much
    water with me.

    There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling
    chapters. If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge as it will be hard to do
    things properly for the surface temp and precip as we’d lose loads of
    stations with long records that would then have incomplete normals.
    If we do we will likely achieve it by rezeroing series and maps in
    an ad hoc way.

    There won’t be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it won’t
    help with satellite series or the models. 1981-2000 helps with MSU
    series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete
    SST.

    20 years (1981-2000) isn’t 30 years, but the rationale for 30 years
    isn’t that compelling. The original argument was for 35 years around
    1900 because Bruckner found 35 cycles in some west Russian
    lakes (hence periods like 1881-1915). This went to 30 as it
    easier to compute.

    Personally I don’t want to change the base period till after I retire!

    Sooner than he thought?

  46. a jones says:

    Uh gosh yes, sometimes I wish I were in the whitewash business, always steady demand from politicians and the like of course but it looks as if going to be exceptionally profitable for the next few months.

    What is interesting is how the fallout is gradually spreading despite MSM claims of business as usual. And how muted much of the set piece we’re all doomed propaganda long planned by the MSM in the run up to Copenhagen has become, much is being quietly toned down: and sometimes qualified. At least in the UK.

    As for Australia, although I haven’t heard the results of the Senate vote yet, I suspect a lot of western politicians are going to privately take note. Time will tell.

    Something about the walls of the sandcastle washing away with the incoming tide I think I said on another thread here.

    Kindest Regards

  47. Leon Brozyna says:

    He really had no choice. His very presence was becoming controversial. Stepping aside reduces the heat (pun intended) in Climategate/climate change. It doesn’t, however, really change anything. Any real change in the science will take months, if not years, before it becomes visible.

  48. Oh dear, only one foot out the door? Can someone please give Jones a shove over the cliff edge?

  49. Richard says:

    I hope “the Review process” wont be a whitewash

  50. UKIP says:

    The only dubious character to have published with Liss as far as I can tell is Lovelock.

    Wegman will be pleased.

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.13484!p_liss_formatted.pdf

  51. Nigel Brereton says:

    Surely this cannot be kept out of the mainstream press, which means climategate becomes public with national and international syndication!

  52. UK John says:

    Phil Jones resigning changes very little. He is only a man who allowed his ego to obscure the limits of his ability and what was happening around him, he is not alone.

    The IPCC chose to link itself with politicians and the environmental movement, this was not a wise move for any of them, or us.

    This made deciding what could be a valid science fact from what is a political policy very difficult.

  53. Vorlath says:

    Need an independent investigation. The school investigating their own is only to cover the administration. To say that they did something. Nothing will come of it.

  54. Andy says:

    ….just hide the step down Phil.

  55. BarryW says:

    The independent review will probably be Jones’ confederates and fellow travelers. If independent they will still be academics that have their own skeletons. Result: slap on the wrist.

  56. JackStraw says:

    Meh, probably just giving him some time off so he can head to Copehagen.

    I’ll believe it is a serious investigation when I see it.

  57. P Gosselin says:

    I couldn’t help myself, I posted DEMOLITION at RC too. ;)

  58. John Galt says:

    Independent like peer-review independent, or independent as in actually looking for the truth independent?

    Will it be an open review, or confidential (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/climategate-grows-to-include-other-research-institutions/)?

  59. tallbloke says:

    Invariant (11:56:30) :

    By all means, this is good news, but let us show that we also have a warm and human side here at WUWT – we all do mistakes!

    We don’t all behave unethically though.

  60. tarpon says:

    Does anyone think the UN IPCC is good for anything now but ridicule?

  61. AC says:

    Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. I certainly hope that the people conducting the review aren’t kow-towing stooges.

  62. KeithGuy says:

    If the University is genuinely concerned about the credibility of their Climate Research Unit then they have to make them publish the original data and the computer constructs that they have used to create their global temperature history.
    Of course we know that this isn’t possible because they accidentally pressed the delete key!? (From a sceptical teacher)

  63. Mapou says:

    Will the “independent review” be more like normal peer review? If so, prepare to see this whole affair swept under the rug in a few months.

  64. Bill P says:

    “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading [war against all the slimy charlatans of the world] research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration [and meditation on the Global Right-wing, Nixonian conspirators] I have decided [Mike, Kevin, Tom... Did you burn the e-mails yet?] that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director’s [a horse, a horse, my Kingdom for a horse!] role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this.

    [Shred my memoirs while you're at it.]

  65. Yarmy says:

    Ah, Gardening Leave as it’s known in Blighty. I’m guessing the Inquiry will be as “independent” as the various temperature data sets and proxy reconstructions we all know and love.

  66. BarryW says:

    Oh, and we now know what they’re going to do with the whitewash that was supposed to have been put on the Stevenson Screens.

  67. L Nettles says:

    Will Steve M. be asked to be on the review panel?

  68. Gary Hladik says:

    This just in: The independent review board will consist of Al Gore, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Nicholas Stern, and Rajenda Pachauri.

  69. vukcevic says:

    tallbloke (11:51:33) :
    Meet the new boss…
    http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/lissp

    “ The idea that gases produced by plankton living in the oceans can affect cloudiness and regulate climate was given prominence by the promulgation more than 20 years ago by Charlson, Lovelock, Andreae and Warren of the CLAW hypothesis. In the intervening period it has been difficult to prove or disprove the idea, although much research has flowed from its enunciation. Perhaps its lasting legacy is in the way we view the planet and how research is conducted to try to understand how it operates.”

    The man is obviously thinking outside the box!

    Some 5 years ago I wrote:
    Large amount of CO2 is released by the world’s oceans; they are also large absorbers. It should not be assumed that both sides of this process are always in an equilibrium. The release of CO2 is not, but its absorption may be affected by the Sun.
    Increased UV and gamma radiation are reaching the oceans’ surface during periods of high sunspot activity. There are also charged particles emanating either from solar or galactic activity. All of these to a certain degree damage living cells. UV and gamma radiation have caused increase in skin cancers, while charged particles can have disastrous effect on communications, power grids, satellites and astronauts working in space etc. Clouds provide protection from UV rays, Van-Allen belt provides partial protection from charged particles.
    When solar activity is on increase (as it has been since 1860-s) then amount of all 3 kinds of radiation would be increasing. Coincidently, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field has been decaying during same period (61 to 54 micro Tesla) by about 11%, so radiation protection of Van-Allen belt has also been reduced.
    Increase of the harmful radiation is causing reduction in bio-mass of the oceans’ surface phytoplankton, possibly the largest absorber of CO2 on the Earth’s surface, either through direct destruction of its cells or a process of sterilization by irradiation. Result of this is a reduced uptake of CO2. There are already quantifiable evaluations of reduction in the efficiency of phytoplankton. Reverse process takes place during reductions in the solar activity causing global cooling end may even caused LIA (solar activity was at a minimum between 1645 and1710 causing considerable cooling known as the ‘Little Ice Age’).
    Apparent is a also a link between strength of geomagnetic field and climatic variation on a medium term scale.

  70. Tim S. says:

    I don’t like gloating at someone else’s misfortune, but the CRU e-mails are damning.

    Jones et al. have conspired to suppress and delete information that was subject to freedom of information requests. They have sought to fix data around a predetermined policy of pro-global warming activism. And they have sought to suppress dissenting scientific opinion.

    I don’t see how Jones can come back again. And I think he will be just the first domino to fall.

  71. snowmaneasy says:

    Tobin…very good…very funny…
    I think for Phil Jones this is a very serious matter…tenured staff normally do not step aside…I think he is toast…A head of Dept cannot (even at UEA) be seen to be acting in the manner Jones did…you see chaps its just not cricket..

  72. Chilly Bean says:

    “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. ”

    Read as. We must keep that decline hidden at all costs.

    For the honest people.

    What is most important is that CRU is wound up and all coruupted studies that were based on the fraudulent data are also scrapped.

  73. CO2 Realist says:

    Darn, and just after Phil announced they had recreated the data (humor):

    http://co2realist.com/2009/11/30/climatic-research-unit-lost-data-recreated/

    (Yes, I did have fun writing this last night!

  74. andersm says:

    No one should expect that an internal review will find wrongdoing in their own institution. The investigation is only an exercise in optics to shut down the criticism. It will be a travesty and will disgust a lot of people but Jones and the rest of the fibbers and fabricators will be exonerated. The investigators are part of the same culture that produced these scientists and AGW has given them international standing in the climate debate, along with lavish funding. Too much to lose for them not to circle the wagons to protect their own. They’ll shake off the criticism and keep going on the same track. A low level scientist may be thrown off the bus if the public clamor grows too loud but expect the status quo to otherwise continue unchanged.

  75. G.L. Alston says:

    Jack Thompson — Steps aside not steps down; presumably on full pay. What about his acolytes? What about Dr Mann?

    Mann lacks the requisite class.

  76. agesilaus says:

    Liss is a warmist, involved in the ocean acidification scam

    Liss

    Not somebody the realists are likely to trust.

  77. Dennis Wingo says:

    Chris Monockton should be part of the independent review team.

  78. G.L. Alston says:

    Leon Brozyna — Any real change in the science will take months, if not years, before it becomes visible.

    So? The upshot here is that climate science will all become more public and less secretive. Aircraft carriers don’t turn on a dime, either, but they can still change direction.

  79. Wade says:

    I truly believe he is just stepping down until the heat is off. Meanwhile, he will spend some time out of sight with the millions he has to live off of. The short attention span of our society will cause many to soon forget about Phil Jones — out-of-sight, out-of-mind. The “independent” investigation will take a long time, and by the time it does come out, our attention will have moved on. Then Phil Jones can re-emerge, albeit more discretely and wiser as to to ways he can continue his malfeasance without getting exposed again. He can spend all that free time to come up with plans. He won’t need to work, so he will have lots of time to plan.

    That is just a theory. But I seriously doubt Phil Jones is stepping down because it is the right thing to do.

  80. fabius says:

    Greenwash.

  81. jmbnf says:

    A time for Humility:

    My back gets up when journalist and enviros accuse someone like me of being ignorant or evil because I believe it very difficult to prove that water and CO2 conspire through positive feedback to destroy humanity.

    However, I also find much of what I read on other sites (not necessarily this one) unpalatable when people argue that man has not rose CO2 or all Climate Scientist are frauds.

    I believe climate scientist can sustain themselves by cutting away the cancerous cells without killing the body. Scientists can take what they have learned about ocean cycles and use it to manage fish stocks. Hurricane researchers can hone their craft and save lives. Can we finally ask scientific questions about drought in Senegal without invoking AGW? Can we talk about deforestation on Kilimanjaro and the effect on local rainfall and get our paper published without paying homage to the AGW? Can we work toward real conservation and efficiency without big banks and international bureaucracies reaping gains on the backs of the poor?

    Climate Scientist and other and people who really care about the planet and it’s people need a palatable place to go where they can talk about real issues like energy efficiency, respect for mother Nature, and decorum among people who disagree.

    IF you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;
    If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
    Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
    …Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it

    Thanks to Anthony for not speaking down to commoners like myself and believing that if given information I could be involved in science and make reasonable decisions.

    Phil Jones represents what’s wrong with science, Watts should be what’s right.

  82. SABR Matt says:

    So this guy is a hard core ocean chemistry guy…NOT an AGW leader. That may be a good sign.

  83. Ron de Haan says:

    This is a very sensible decision.
    We know powerful people are shielding him off, so this is a major step forward.

    It’s a warning for all the other frauds. They will pay.

    In the mean time I am scratching my head when I heard this:
    What to think about this message:
    http://www.iceagenow.com/Disastrous_snow_and_cold_in_Mexico.htm

  84. JEM says:

    Bob Ramar – You say Mann and Hansen share a head? Only one head? Or do you mean both, or one or the other?

    The question is ‘what next’? The old way doesn’t work. Letting individuals lock up data and fiddle with it, then promote their findings as blessed by a ‘peer review’ of their acolytes, is wrong.

    We need a public repository of source data, wherein each proposed adjustment and each analysis drawn from the data can quickly be correlated back through every adjustment back to its source, where every dependency is visible without waiting ten years for some insider to have a fortuitous attack of conscience.

  85. Spenc BC says:

    I love watching Domino effects! I have my pop corn right here!

  86. Chris S says:

    This will be a whitewash. They should have the terms of reference set for them.

    “What is most important is that CRU continues its world misleading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible”.

  87. Ric Werme says:

    But, but, but – the interim head is an organic chemist! What are the dear folks at RealClimate.org going to say?

    Congratulations from me at least, Dr. Liss deserves a fair amount of early respect for being willing to take the job.

    However, I’ll be among those holding his feet to the fire.

  88. D. King says:

    Brazil’s new Charlie Brown take -a- way from Copenhagen.

  89. paullm says:

    The longer the “review” the more opportunity to involve the MSM’s “investigations” into AGW. How could the CRU emails possibly become a “settled” issue in the MSM? – by settling Jones, et al as credible and just. Rue that day. Let scrutinized science roar while it can and don’t give the “Reviewers” an opportunity to approve AGW Climategate.

  90. GW says:

    While this sounds like good news at the surface, how do we know that he won’t be sitting in his same old office day after day, doing the same things day after day – just not being “officially” the Director anymore ???

    If possible, he should be pressed to to stay off the grounds, stay out of the network, and not communicate with anyone involved in the CRU or the investigation unless summoned for information.

    Otherwise, it’s just a smoklescreen, or “a rose by any other name……….”

  91. JackStraw says:

    How in the name of common sense can any politician even think about voting on massive re-engineering of society and wealth when the people who created this theory are now being investigated?

    When exactly did we pass through the looking glass?

  92. Paul James says:

    There will be a continuing search for the truth and more details will emerge.

    It’s much worse than they think it is, this is not going to go away.

    Cheers

    Paul

  93. nanny_govt_sucks says:

    So Penn State will investigate Penn State professor Michael Mann, and UEA will investigate UEA-CRU director Phil Jones.

    In related news the Obama administration will investigate president Obama, police have announced that all murder investigations will be turned over to criminal gangs, and black pots will investigate black kettles.

  94. jorgekafkazar says:

    Invariant (11:56:30) : “By all means, this is good news, but let us show that we also have a warm and human side here at WUWT – we all do mistakes!”

    This was no mistake. If the emails are accurate, Jones did much of this deliberately–note that some of these actions were apparently discussed in advance. Having said, that, I’d also like to state that under these circumstances, it would be grossly unfair for this guy to go down by himself. All of the Scheme Team involved in data fabrication, statistical fudging, and suppression of dissent should be fired, sued, castigated, jailed for conspiracy where appropriate, banned from publication, and held up as bad examples for generations to come.

  95. JimB says:

    “Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible.”

    I couldn’t make it past there.

    Anything good further down?…

    JimB

  96. paullm says:

    As the release states Jones is “stepping aside” – not down. Down has yet to be achieved.

  97. JimB says:

    CRU was leading the world, alright…right off the freakin’ CLIFF, and the other agencies were collecting checks and echoing/supporting each others research like a good group of lemmings.

    I’ll raise a glass of good port to Anthony and Steve tonight.

    JimB

  98. mkurbo says:

    Phil Jones is stepping down. Stepping down ???

    Hell, he needs to be prosecuted along with all those that manipulated science to impose their agenda. They have cost people, economies and businesses billions, maybe trillions. Not to mention brainwashing a whole generation of kids and young adults with a story based on fabricated data and faulty science. This is without a doubt the greatest scientific scandal of the modern era – spinning the natural warming/cooling cycles of the earth into a fairy tale of catastrophe climate alarmism to support their far left agenda.

    This is not something where you “allow” people to step down – you throw them in jail !!!

    What the heck is going on here ???

  99. Fred from Canuckistan . . . says:

    So now it is time for Mann to man up.

  100. paullm says:

    The credibility of UEA being at stake must be driven home. It has suffered somewhat, but the extent must be made clear to all in order to deter a recurrence of a Climategate era return. That should include eliminating Jones from leading anything else, at least.

  101. Denbo says:

    Given Dr. Phil Jones brings so much money into the University this appears rather serious. After all… it isn’t as if the media has been hounding them day and night over his actions. Only the Internet has been abuzz over this.

    I am going out on a limb here and say that there are more people who agree with the Guardian’s Monbiot on this matter than meets the eye. He called for Phil Jones to step down.

  102. Chilly Bean says:

    Hey moderators, my comments are no longer published. Have I been blacklisted and if so why. Mail me please, don’t think I’ve been out of line, never been snipped before.

    [REPLY - Not so far as I know. Lots of traffic, and lots of catching up, though. ~ Evan]

  103. JimB says:

    “Invariant (11:56:30) :

    By all means, this is good news, but let us show that we also have a warm and human side here at WUWT – we all do mistakes!”

    I can forgive mistakes, generally, unless someone was hurt…
    What they’ve done for the past 10yrs is not a “mistake”…this is way beyond that. There is nothing innocent in destroying data, deleting emails, subverting peer review processes…those are not mistakes. They are far worse…

    JimB

  104. Trev says:

    As I understand it the ‘independent’ review is by the president of the Royal Society who is blatantly biased in favour of the global warming theory

  105. Richard K says:

    So, does this mean he has been uninvited to Hopenhagain? After all, he is Jones, Phil Jones of his magesty’s secret service of climat change who prefers his data shaken but not stirred. Apoligies to Ian and all 00 agents.

  106. JackStraw says:

    >>As the release states Jones is “stepping aside” – not down. Down has yet to be achieved.

    These guys don’t do down very well.

  107. Trev says:

    ‘continue to operate normally’?

    ‘start’ he means

  108. Mike McMillan says:

    But where will we now get our adjusted data ?

    There is Dr Hansen, of course, but someone without that British accent doesn’t sound as authoritative.

    We’ll just have to muddle through with the real numbers.

  109. Chilly Bean says:

    Now that is strange. The last one appeared ‘awaiting moderation’ but the one before did not and when I tried to re-submit it informed me that it was a duplicate yet it is not here? WordPress problems I guess??

    not to worry.

    [Sometimes posts wind up in spam for a variety of reasons. These don't show up as "waiting for moderation" but we review them and often post them (but sometimes after some delay) ~ Evan]

  110. NK says:

    Unfortunately this is still al part of bureaucratic “circle the wagons.” It could turn out badly for Jones if they find CRU guilty of lost data, improper peer review or other academic violations. Jones resigns with his pension; but Jones is thown under the bus in order to help “the cause”, AGW is true, Jones was an imperfect mesenger, blah, blah, blah. Nothing will change at CRU, they will work doubly hard on email protocols so the don’t get caught next time.

    Cheers

  111. Alba says:

    The BBC, of course, has rushed to report this story. Well, actually… no. Instead they have a report which wonders why in the face of so much scientific evidence the public still don’t accept that there is such a thing as human-induced catastrophic global warming. They even have that well-known scientist Lord Stern telling us how stupid we are not to accept the evidence.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8389547.stm

    This report tells us that “New evidence suggests sea levels could rise by 1.4m (by the end of the century) which would be a potential disaster for some countries.”

    In another report, Craig Bennett tells us that “There’s money to be made in going green.” You’ll bet! But not in the way he means.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8383000/8383547.stm

  112. Kate says:

    Let’s get real here.

    He quit because nobody believes a word he says anymore. That means the CRU can’t function while he’s there. Also, he is under investigation by the Information Commissioner, he is being sued in both civil and criminal courts, and he has to undergo an internal investigation by his employer, the UEA. If he remained in post, the UAE investigation would have meant that he was essentially investigating himself. This put him in a completely untenable position. And never mind what the attention of the media (such that it is) is doing to his reputation with his colleagues and institutions around the world.

  113. KeithGuy says:

    What are the odds that the BBC ignores this story?
    After all the director of the world’s leading (?) climate research centre stepping aside because of suspicions of unethical behaviour… not that newsworthy really is it?

  114. John Whitman says:

    Question in my mind is if Phil Jones is faced with criminal charges due to any ongoing investigation, will he cut a deal with authorities to help them pursue others criminally?

  115. Frank K. says:

    I actually feel a bit sorry for Phil Jones. He’s obviously a smart fellow, but what got him (and his climate cabal buddies) into trouble was *** hubris ***:

    hubris (n): wanton insolence or arrogance resulting from excessive pride or from passion

  116. SJones says:

    This ‘independent’ review is intended to be a whitewash without a doubt; however the efforts of Monckton, Lawson, Holland etc via the law courts will not make that easy for them and in the end circumstances will probably force them to sacrifice Jones et al for the greater good of their university.

    The warmists thought they could bluff their way out of this. Sorry guys it won’t be so simple and you’ve made so many enemies along the way that people will be queuing up to exact their revenge now. We’ve already seen the bullies starting to turn on each other with Monbiot’s call for Jones’ resignation – I think the infighting will get worse as they try to lay the blame off on each other.

    Happy days!

  117. Steve S. says:

    “So, does this mean he has been uninvited to Hopenhagain?”

    Now that is funny.

    And what blow to Jones.

  118. Jean says:

    Who is Harry, of Harry-Read-Me fame?

  119. Dave in Canada says:

    “Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.”

    Independent…. sort of like all the “independent” studies that confirm the “Hockey Stick”, right?

    Dr. Jones will be back soon enough, of that I’m certain.

  120. Jack Green says:

    When is the rest of the data acquired legally or not from HCRU going to be released or posted somewhere? I’m sure that this same person or person’s has a lot more. I’m sure that the coverup has just begun. There are too many involved in this scheme to hide it all. We must quickly identify them and hit ‘em with FOIA requests. I would start with Al Gore and Mr Hansen. The others are busy deleting files for which we probably have copies. Let them dig their own holes deeper before we handcuff them all.

  121. Dave Andrews says:

    This is the end for Jones. He will not come back. UEA have obviously decided the best approach is damage limitation to CRU, though even here they are probably going to fail.

    I’m eagerly awaiting the concomittant ‘fallout’ at the Hadley Centre and its knock on effect on the IPCC.

    These are very interesting times!

  122. Invariant says:

    JimB (12:45:38) : I can forgive mistakes, generally, unless someone was hurt… What they’ve done for the past 10yrs is not a “mistake”…

    Sure – many mistakes. What annoys me the most is that they took full control of the peer review process; this is nasty, see excellent comment #14 below from a nuclear engineer. Still, it is always a danger that our “group think” here at WUWT becomes somewhat nasty too; although WUWT is certainly the most civilised climate blog!

    “ClimateGate exposed the cabal of 20 – 30 scientists (not just at CRU) that peer reviewed each others papers, strong-armed scientific journals to only print their views, and then sat on the IPCC panels as authors judging which published studies go into the IPCC final reports. This is why they always keep shouting “peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies”. They owned the peer review process.”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/11/28/climategate-time-to-postpone-copenhagen/

  123. dean says:

    muse is popular with my son & his friends….this video really gives me hope!

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaj387_muse-uprising-clip_music

  124. Pete Behr says:

    Perhaps another scientific “trick”?

  125. John says:

    Looks like criminal charges are being laid – all climate scientists, politicians, & Al Gore should pay close attention:

    http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/too-late-for-resignations-in-climategate-as-requests-for-charages-are-being-filed/

  126. MattN says:

    Let’s guess the spin:

    “It doesn’t matter…”

  127. Antonio San says:

    Wigley, Mann, Jones, Overpeck etc… should be thrown out of their respective research centers. The IPCC should be disbanded.

    Basically Monbiot told them how to handle it, Jones agreed to and he’ll be back, white as a dove.

  128. Richard deSousa says:

    UEA is doing the CYA dance! But after this white wash is over Phil Jones will be reinstated with not even a slap on the wrist.

  129. Mark Young says:

    Jim Watson (12:00:38) :

    Jim, I feel no glee. I’m sorry that so many people of good will have been so misled and mistreated. I’m sorry that so much money and time was wasted and that so much science has been tainted. I mourn the careers.

    The silver lining is that I and millions like me have become much more intrested and engaged by science. Sure, skeptically, but what’s wrong with that?

    And many, many folks now know that they need to keep an eye on the ivory tower. Learn about what they’re doing. Make sure they’re on the up and up.

    And, lets not forget, many of us are a LOT more educated than we once were thanks to this fiasco. I’m glad for the knowledge.

    M

  130. Plato Says says:

    I’d be very surprised if Jones makes a come back. Letting people ‘stand-aside’ to save face/lawsuits is common over here.

    In a weird way, I feel some pity for Jones et al. Being eaten alive by 13m Google hits would scare the carp out of anyone.

    They brought it on themselves of course, and hoovered up millions in research cash, so perhaps I’m just a softie ; )

  131. latitude says:

    Ocean biochemistry has been completely left out of climate models until this summer.
    It’s the new hot thing.
    So Liss might be a good choice since he’s an organic chemist with an oceanography background.
    This could take proving them wrong to a whole new level.
    Not just statistics any more.

    Now if someone would just tell them that they need to add phosphorus with the iron to make it work.

  132. tarpon says:

    One of the lessons from Sun Tsu, the downfall of the arrogant is always their arrogance. And running around yelling we are all going to melt at the top of their lungs is the height of arrogance.

    So what will Obama do at Hopenhagen?

  133. Robinson says:

    When is the rest of the data acquired legally or not from HCRU going to be released or posted somewhere?

    It needs a good massage first and besides, you don’t want people like Steve McIntyre to get his hands on it with too much time to spare before Fraudenhagen, do you?

  134. ice9 says:

    I believe a website with a clear comma fault IN THE HEADER. Yeah, I do.

    ice9

  135. darwin says:

    As wide spread as this fraud is, and with trillions of dollars to be made … I simply have no faith in this investigation.

    Too many powerful people are involved in this. The results of the investigation will no doubt chastise these “scientists” for their methods, but will also affirm AGW is real and must continue to be investigated.

    This isn’t over. Expect the unexpected.

  136. Dave says:

    I just read on Media Matters how they are claiming that nothing was destroyed, but yet it all looks like lying double talk. MM links to the NY Times, so I’m showing what CRU had said to the NY Times:
    “When you’re looking at climate data, you don’t want stations that are showing urban warming trends,” Jones said, “so we’ve taken them out.” Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. “We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.”

    Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”

    Tom Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are based on several data sets in addition to the CRU, including data from NOAA, NASA and the United Kingdom Met Office. Each of those data sets basically show identical multi-decadal trends, Karl said.
    ………………………………………………
    It sounds like they are saying they didn’t delete anything because they got it all from the NOAA, while at the same time saying that they are different data sets that don’t precisely line up. This was said before Climategate hit the fan, but is now being repeated. I think there should be a clarification that CRU is not NOAA so CRU is lying and “basically” doesn’t count.

  137. tallbloke says:

    Richard deSousa (13:18:26) :

    UEA is doing the CYA dance! But after this white wash is over Phil Jones will be reinstated with not even a slap on the wrist.

    I’m not so sure. The UK public are quite unforgiving when it comes to intellectual dishonesty and enethical behaviour. As the deeds become more widely known, the rumble will rise to an uproar.

  138. rbateman says:

    Jean (13:01:09) :

    Who is Harry, of Harry-Read-Me fame?
    Some say Ian Harris.

  139. Onion says:

    I’m not sure if this deserves its own thread

    Mick Hulme, along with Jerome Ravetz have decided to redefine what science is at the BBC website.

    One of his gems:

    “The classic virtues of scientific objectivity, universality and disinterestedness can no longer be claimed to be automatically effective as the essential properties of scientific knowledge.
    Instead, warranted knowledge – knowledge that is authoritative, reliable and guaranteed on the basis of how it has been acquired – has become more sought after than the ideal of some ultimately true and objective knowledge.”

    On this basis…

    What’s hot:

    - knowledge must emerge from a respectful process in which science’s own internal social norms and practices are adhered to
    - knowledge must also be subject to the scrutiny of an extended community of citizens who have legitimate stakes in the significance of what is being claimed
    - knowledge must be fully exposed to the proliferating new communication media by which such extended peer scrutiny takes place
    - citizen’s panels

    What’s not:

    - falsifiability
    - replication of results
    - Karl Popper (screw you Karl!)

    The link is at the Beeb

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm

    Can we really describe any of this as science? At best, it seems like social studies. They really shouldn’t be describing themselves as scientists at UEA.

  140. geo says:

    I do not think that Dr. Jones will be back as Director (tho will in all likliehood continue as a researcher/professor). The review will exonerate him on the science, and find some fault of leadership. . . whereupon Jones will seize upon the first and step aside permenantly as Director to “concentrate on his research” re the second.

  141. Jean says:

    The data release is part of the coverup. It is not the raw data that matters, it is which data points were selected, how they were selected, and then how they were normalized and adjusted. The public may not see beyond the raw data dump. They even joked about doing it in the emails.

  142. Tenuc says:

    Excellent, this is a watershed for the Climategate expose of bad climate science. Now it’s obvious that the ‘let’s ignore it and it will go away’ strategy isn’t doing the trick, they need a scapegoat to put the blame on.

    There will be so much public scrutiny of this Independent CRU-Review that they cannot risk fudging the result or even more damage will be done to the already smeared UEA.

    The next stage for UEA will be to sever all links with the CRU, as there is enough prima facie evidence in the Climategate files that many other CRU scientists where complicit in these sorry events.

    Stand back everyone, the excrement is really going to hit the fan.

  143. jim says:

    maybe we should make that ‘Hopenchangin’

  144. joe says:

    Maybe this is one of his “tricks”. Clever thing to do of course.

    Sorry couldn’t help myself.

  145. latitude says:

    Dave
    “noted that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are based on several data sets in addition to the CRU, including data from NOAA, NASA and the United Kingdom Met Office. Each of those data sets basically show identical multi-decadal trends, Karl said.”

    Including computer climate programs.

    If it’s true that CRU destroyed most of the raw data when they moved to their new building in 1980 = thirty years ago.

    Then it is true that the only data available since 1980 is the corrupted data.

    Most all computer climate programs were designed after that.

    Then the only data available to program computer climate models was the fudged, manipulated, false, and fraud data.

    These climate models are checked for accuracy against how well they predict the past.
    If their only record of the past was the corrupted data………..

    Didn’t NOAA send their raw data to CRU, then CRU sent it back ‘adjusted’?

  146. Spenc BC says:

    Has anybody seen this yet on Fox. Amazing.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/01/research-scandal-changed-views-global-warming/

    YOU DECIDE

    Thank you for voting!

    Changed. I don’t believe any global warming research now, and think the conference should be canceled. 16% (7,649 votes)
    Unchanged and still believe global warming research is accurate. 3% (1,627 votes)
    Unchanged and still don’t believe global warming research is accurate. 80% (37,097 votes)
    Don’t know. 1% (260 votes)
    Total Votes: 46,633

  147. NK says:

    geo (13:34:47) :

    you’ve got it spot on.

    the review will find the science and Jones’ methods sound, but Jones was guilty of bad leadership and management (hey he got caught) so a more proficient manager is installed, and Jones is free to continue his ‘good works’.

  148. Antonio San says:

    The Canadian way…

    Not only the Globe and Mail in Canada obfuscated the climategate news on their website, but now they try to intimidate me to even comment on the subject:

    GlobeandMailgate is next!!!

    —–Original Message—–
    From: “Lxxxxxxxx
    To: “xxxxxxxxx
    Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:48:56 -0500
    Subject: Your comment on the globeandmail.com

    > Please do not post the same comment on multiple stories. Also, please make sure that your comment is relevant to the story it is posted in.
    >
    > I’ve removed your three comments on Phil Jones stepping down. Two of them were posted on stories that had nothing to do with climate change. The third comment was on a relevant story, but for legal reasons, we can not allow you to reproduce large segments of an AP story on our comment board.
    >
    > In the future, if you want to draw attention to an ent on another site that is relevant to the story, a short summary and a link will work.
    >
    > Thank you,
    >
    > SxxxxLxxxx
    > GlobeandMail.com

    Considering the AP story was about 10 lines…

  149. Subject: FOIA Request – “Climategate”
    From: ntsa@*****************
    Date: Tue, December 1, 2009 9:39 pm
    To: dpa.officer@bbc.co.uk
    Cc: ntsa@**************
    Priority: High
    Read receipt: requested [Send read receipt now]
    Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version | Download this as a file | View Message details

    Dear Sir/Madam –

    Pursuiant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

    I would be most grateful if you could please send me the minutes of any
    editorial meetings pertinant to the BBCs decision not to cover the
    “Climategate”* story and any reports, papers or internal correspondence
    dealing with this issue.

    *For the purposes of disambuguation “Climategate” in this context refers
    to the recent release of emails and documents by a whistleblower at the
    University of East Anglia and the subsequent suspension of the Phil Jones,
    lead author of the IPCC findings and the Director of Climate Research for
    the above institution, pending investigation into allegations of
    scientific fraud.

    Please address all correpondance in relation to this matter either to
    ntsa@************ or to the following postal address:

  150. Chris says:

    Hansen did an interview with Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle (Hansen is speaking in Houston). More comments regarding nazism and slavery. Here’s the link (probably deserves its own topic heading).

    http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/12/james_hansen_the_interview_in_its_entirety.html#more

  151. Jack Green says:

    I just had a thought that would greatly help with this leak, release, or data dump.

    The HCRU historical data has been destroyed supposedly; but we have the computer code now. Lets put in the data set that we do have and see what the results are. Now that would be fun to publish wouldn’t it. Lets see what their computer model says with trusted data.

  152. WakeUpMaggy says:

    JimB (12:37:09) :

    “Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible.”

    I couldn’t make it past there.

    Me neither.
    That’s usually where I tab out and run over to WUWT for instant brain rescue before I throw up.
    Glen Beck would say, “That made blood shoot out of my EYES!”

  153. Michael says:

    Climategate is no longer a suggest search topic on Bing or Google now. Hmm.

  154. KlausB says:

    re: Invariant (11:56:30) :

    [citation]
    By all means, this is good news, but let us show that we also have a warm and human side here at WUWT – we all do mistakes!
    [/citation]
    yep, but fortunately we have our good operators here, snipping it when it’s
    way off appropriate. Poor ol’ sod Jones didn’t have one to correct him.

  155. Kate says:

    ” John Whitman (12:56:40) :
    Question in my mind is if Phil Jones is faced with criminal charges due to any ongoing investigation, will he cut a deal with authorities to help them pursue others criminally?”

    …If he does that, his reputation and career are over. He has not, at the moment, been charged with any criminal offense. But he is facing a criminal investigation because of his handling of the CRU data and the attempts to frustrate the workings of the Freedom of Information Act. These are potential criminal charges, but at the moment we are at the stage of complaints being made by various parties which must be investigated to see what, if any, charges are brought against him.

    The civil suits, some of which have already been filed, are also related to the handling of the data and attempts to circumvent the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Significant damages are being sought.

  156. Antonio San says:

    In Canada the Globe and Mail did not mention Climategate on their website. Yet the gatekeepers do not hesitate to intimidate in order to keep Climategate quiet:

    Here is the emai I just received:

    —–Original Message—–
    From: “xxxxxx, Scott”
    To: “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:48:56 -0500
    Subject: Your comment on the globeandmail.com

    > Please do not post the same comment on multiple stories. Also, please make sure that your comment is relevant to the story it is posted in.
    >
    > I’ve removed your three comments on Phil Jones stepping down. Two of them were posted on stories that had nothing to do with climate change. The third comment was on a relevant story, but for legal reasons, we can not allow you to reproduce large segments of an AP story on our comment board.
    >
    > In the future, if you want to draw attention to an ent on another site that is relevant to the story, a short summary and a link will work.
    >
    > Thank you,
    >
    > Scott xxxxxxxx
    > GlobeandMail.com

    The AP article was 10 lines long…

  157. tallbloke says:

    Strong words softly spoken by Viscount Monckton

  158. KlausB says:

    [citation]
    Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said: “I have accepted Professor Jones’s offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations.
    [/citation]

    Hummh, speculation, did they get his offer by point of a gun, literally?
    If yes, “Hasta la vista, baby”.

  159. Jeremy says:

    Good riddance.

    However, the fraudulent manipulation of science and fact is an absolutely atrocious scandal that goes to the very heart of IPCC organization. After all, Phil Jones at al are the very basis upon which an entire belief system of “man-made” climate change has been built by the IPCC.

    This must only be the start…

    Keep fighting and keep writing to the ignorant media and your local politicians…

  160. rbateman says:

    Spenc BC (13:42:08) :

    Yes, and I voted in it.

    And also this:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html
    Others have had the distinct displeasure of finding thier scientific questioning fall under the heels of the cabal.
    The rebuttal at the end, well… not exactly a professional argument that one would expect from a scientist.

  161. Gary Crough says:

    Scientists who had their work suppressed are not going to accept a whitewash. In addition, initial investigations will lead to investigations of others … this is the beginning of the end for the individuals who were driven mostly by politics rather than science.

    If you are a political animal and a crook does that mean you get to have your work peer-reviewed by political animals and crooks?

  162. jonk says:

    A victory, but a small one. I’m afraid that this will be all that comes from this scandal. I’m probably just being cynical, but the media is still trying to bury this story and they figure this will appease some people and make the story fade. I even checked google news for this story and it didn’t show up on the main news page. The suggestion fill in for had no auto suggest for “phil jones” no matter how many letters you put in.

    The MSM is just sitting with their fingers in their ears chanting LA LA LA hoping for enough time to get the Compenhagen treaty done and Cap and Tax passed. We’re not reaching enough people to be effictive and, while I should be happy, I’m just getting more depressed. I guess feeling powerless to stop the insanity does that to you :(

  163. Alba says:

    Anthony, you’ve been keeping something from us! Please will you tell us when you won the Jackpot. This is what one idiot submitted to a BBC thread:

    “The hacking episode being discussed was part of an absurdly selective extraction of minor presentational discussions. what it demonstrates is how far so-called ‘sceptics’ will go to create doubt about climate science in the in the public perception. These people are well-funded professionals in manipulative PR, playing with the public’s human tendency towards denial, ie, their psychological defence mechanisms.”

    So, your secret is out. You are a well-funded professional! Lucky you.

  164. Indiana Bones says:

    So, finally there is some real acceptance of the light being shown upon this travesty:

    BBC News: December 1, 2009
    “It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the IPCC has now largely run its course.

    Perhaps, through its structural tendency to politicise climate change science, it has helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalising and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”

    Mike Hulme – School of Environmental Sciences at the U of East Anglia
    Dr Jerome Ravetz, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) at Oxford University

    We must not be afraid to point to the nefarious actions of the culpable academics. Nor their associates’ concerted attempt to use false science to extort funds from industrialized nations. The IPCC is smack in the center of this, confirming it is a purely political organization. As such it cannot and has not done science for the past twenty years. It is time to scrap the institution and start again. Without the pathetic injection of politics from either spectrum.

  165. rickM says:

    A review conducted much like the methods the Team has used in it’s climate machinations is no review.

    I am not holding my breath when it’s not just Dr Jones at issue, but the corporate climate – no pun intended – that has allowed this behavior to exit in the first place.

  166. tallbloke says:

    Wanna get your flesh pressed by a vice president?
    Get your wallet out and flash the cash…

    http://ow.ly/HCtK

  167. stumpy says:

    Phil Jones = Sacrificial lamb

    I only hope the review is *actually* independant and they dont just hire someone from the “team” to confirm everything is OK

  168. Mark M says:

    Sorry to talk Politics, but that is what this news is about …

    “Stepping aside” is UK Public Sector-speak for “fired”, he wont be coming back. People at his level are rarely sacked outright, they are usually “invited to step down”

    Whatever we may think here about the science issues, I’ll lay odds that is was the Information Commissioner investigation into the FOI stuff and the security breach that allowed internal emails to be leaked that did it.

    For any senior public sector manager that sort of stuff is “throw the book at them” territory. The only suprise is that its taken them so long. My guess is pressure from Whitehall to try and keep the lid on it until after Copenhagen delayed it, but the viral spread of the story on the net had forced their hand.

    Play the game of politics, and you have to live with the consequences when it goes pear shaped Im afraid.

  169. Suzanne says:

    The Wall Street Journal
    WSJ Blogs
    By Russell Gold
    December 1, 2009

    Excerpt: “On the other side of the pond, Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, who was included in some of the 1,000 emails, is also subject of an internal “inquiry” by the university that will determine whether a full investigation is warranted.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/12/01/climategate-update-internal-investigations-at-cru-penn-state/

  170. jim says:

    Penn State student newspaper talks about an ‘inquiry’ regarding Mann:

    http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx

  171. Pops says:

    Perhaps Michael Mann will be the next to walk the plank… he’ll just have time for one quick re-evaluation of the tree rings as he takes the plunge.

  172. FINN says:

    Jones’ comments about the investigation gives me chills… he seems pretty self confident and it sounds like HE was the one asking for it?

    Sounds like a whitewash for me… AARGH, someone put an END TO THIS MADNESS!

  173. Billyquiz says:

    After a quick scan through the Climategate mails it seems like there isn’t much of a link between Jones and the temporary “Acting Director” Peter Liss:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=104&filename=925823304.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=122&filename=930934311.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=134&filename=937153268.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=144&filename=939003588.txt

    The most recent of these mails was over 10 years ago. Maybe things are looking up (unlike temperatures!).

  174. Julian in Wales says:

    Nature report Phil Jones stepping down here: http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/12/director_of_east_anglia_climat.html

    Maybe a good place for some of you scientists to initiate a debate and to put down comments for the scientific community to see?

  175. ToddE says:

    Maybe Dr. Jones, when writing his memior, will use Mike’s Nature trick to hide his decline? ;-)

  176. Reed Coray says:

    In the eloquent word of Edmond Dantes:

    “One”

  177. John Whitman says:

    Kate (13:51:11) :

    Maybe I have been reading too many mystery/detective thrillers recently where suspects cut deals with the prosecution to reduce/avoid any punishment. :)

  178. Jordan says:

    BBC just repeated its article on the failure to convince the Brits of climate change. Nick Stern and Benny Peiser comment on it.

    They say most governments accept the science but sceptics (Peiser) worry that we are rushing into a poor deision.

    “Challenge is convincing the public it is really worth it.”

    No mention of CRU or Jones. Seems that news takes time to filter through to the BBC newroom.

  179. Richard Briscoe says:

    The BBC have finally acknowledged that Climategate exists – and means something.
    They’ve posted a long article by Mick Hulme (of UAE) and Jerome Ravetz. It must be read to be believed.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm
    No, actually that’s wrong. I read it and I still don’t believe it.

  180. Dave says:

    I came across this in the emails and I think LLNL needs to be investigated as well. This is from Ben Santer and if you look at this and other emails, you’ll see that Santer and CRU are part of their own private club:
    “In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
    climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style
    investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to
    send McIntyre the ‘derived’ model data he requests, since all of the
    primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely
    available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the
    future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
    correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should
    not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.”
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=934&filename=1226451442.txt
    This guy at LLNL is paid by the taxpayer – it’s our property, not his! The FOIA isn’t for picking and choosing to only hand over taxpayer-paid data to the people you like. This whole worldwide crew feel like they’ve got their own fiefdoms with everyone else being peasants. These guys are government employees!

  181. Jordan says:

    BBC just mentioned the latest development in the Tiger Woods case.

    Reporter Andy Gallagher live from Miami – they’re right up with it on that one.

    Model of public service on matters of public interest.

  182. Michael says:

    George Orwell has said that the biggest lies are lies of omission.
    CNN and the rest of their MSM ilk who do not report on Climategate are the biggest liars. They lie constantly and everybody knows it.

  183. boballab says:

    Now here is something interesting. Go take a look at RC and they have nothing on Phil stepping down that I saw. No seperate thread and nothing in 2 threads that I glanced at. It’s been over an hour since the news broke, you would think the team would have some type of spin ready to go up on RC when the news was released.

  184. James Sexton says:

    Hopefully, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Keep fighting the good fight!!!

  185. Charles. U. Farley says:

    This ones for Al Gore and the rest of the global alarmist warming community.

    Good to see the nobel prize went to someone worthy of it……

  186. Parse Error says:

    Alba (12:52:57) :
    The BBC, of course, has rushed to report this story. Well, actually… no. Instead they have a report which wonders why in the face of so much scientific evidence the public still don’t accept that there is such a thing as human-induced catastrophic global warming.

    Even better is this steaming pile of postmodernist apologetics:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm

    We argue that the evolving practice of science in the contemporary world must be different from the classic view of disinterested – almost robotic – humans establishing objective claims to universal truth…
    The classic virtues of scientific objectivity, universality and disinterestedness can no longer be claimed to be automatically effective as the essential properties of scientific knowledge.

    So apparently science no longer needs to be objective or empirical, since that might be politically inconvenient.

  187. Charles. U. Farley says:

    Darn it, posted it too fast and didnt include the link-

    Here it is.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/15/nobel-committee-bypassed-holocaust-savior-al-gore

  188. wobble says:

    “Gary Crough (13:56:49) :

    Scientists who had their work suppressed are not going to accept a whitewash. In addition, initial investigations will lead to investigations of others … this is the beginning of the end for the individuals who were driven mostly by politics rather than science. ”

    I agree. I’ve seen risk adverse administrators take surprising actions once the spotlight was on them. Why should they take a fall for a renegade scientist?

    I’d love to see someone start a boycott of universities which refuse to properly investigate their questionable scientists. The boycott should be advertised to parents of college bound students.

    Penn State and University at Albany should be the first on the list. If just one of these universities does the right thing, it could start to snowball.

  189. Max says:

    Nice article from Wall Street Journal

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

    “Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.

    Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?”

    I want my money back!

  190. DaveE says:

    Jean (13:01:09) :

    Who is Harry, of Harry-Read-Me fame?

    Harry is the recipient, Ian ‘Harry’ Harris!

    The writer I believe comments here!

    DaveE.

  191. Chilly Bean says:

    tallbloke (13:33:20) :
    I’m not so sure. The UK public are quite unforgiving when it comes to intellectual dishonesty and enethical behaviour.

    At least all us ‘old’ people are. Anyone under 30 falls into the useful stupid category nowadays. At least we have an ageing population so if we educate the grannies to the fr aud they can smack their naughty Mann generation children and cure their grandchildren of the disease. I used to say to my kids (all under 10) that all movies are just pretend but the news is about real things. After being confronted by my children for shouting liars to BBC News 24, I no longer watch news 24 and have educated them about the fraud as best I can given their age. Main stream media is dead for me now and I do my best to educate the stupid.

    Keep it up Anthony.

  192. Creepy says:

    What an idiotic sanction from UEA.
    If i run over a person and he dies, do you think it’s enough to abandon my driver licence?
    Confine those fudgers to prison, where they belong.

  193. Richard A. says:

    “Mike: No, he won’t be exonerated. His steping down is the first step in a higher education institute to termination. Dr. Jones almost certainly has tenure which means that he cannot be fired without cause. “Cause” would mean a violation of institutional policy, breaking the law, something that would bring disrepute to the institution and the office Dr. Jones holds. From our perspective here, he is guilty of all of these things. But we ‘don’t’ know all the facts so let the University do it’s due dilligence.”

    My thoughts too. Either he’s playing the part of the gracious victim because he knows he can, or there’s a giant pile of you kno what about to hit the fan and everyone who can is positioning themselves to get as little splatter on them as possible when it does.

  194. Rob says:

    The print edition of the daily express UK are running climatgate on the front page tomorrow, shown on ITV news, tomorrows papers).

  195. R.S.Brown says:

    Folks, you seemed to have missed the message hidden in the statements by
    Phil Jones, Edward Acton, any other UAE personalities, Lord Stern, or other
    quasi-government types:

    Phil Jones is ONLY temporarily stepping down as the DIRECTOR of CRU. He’s not
    off the staff or banished from the facility. He will still have access to the CRU
    computers for data”processing”, emails, and blogging.

    He still had his grad assistants. He can still go to Copenhagen to represent
    Hadley/CRU… just not as the Director.

    Wake up and smell the onions !

  196. davidhmercier says:

    Maybe he’ll talk, turn states evidence like the Mafia used to do to save his skin!

  197. d thompson says:

    He’s done for and the bbc didn’t mention it just a report on antarctic ice melt. They couldn’t mention it because they haven’t publicised cru whistleblower at all. Going to need some big napkins to wipe away the egg on their faces. One other thing the developing world will take what they can get from copenhagen before the wheels come off. They thought they had the winning hand but the river card has screwed them

  198. Invariant says:

    KlausB (13:50:26): yep, but fortunately we have our good operators here

    Indeed. We are fortunate with Anthony Watts and his team of reviewers. Really this is about honesty vs. dishonesty; it’s not an exaggeration to state that people here at WUWT are more interested and fascinated by science itself than trying to benefit anything from science.

  199. Richard Sharpe says:

    Michael says:

    Climategate is no longer a suggest search topic on Bing or Google now. Hmm.

    Yes. Bing no longer suggests it even if you type in all 11 characters. It seems to be being purposely removed.

  200. Michael says:

    [how did this anti semitic rant make it through the other moderators. Dudes! ~ ctm]

  201. Dave UK says:

    O/T:
    Vukcevic mentioned the magnetic field in his post.
    I saw a programme about magnetic polar flip and what they said was that prior to such an event the Earths magnetic field goes into flux.
    The footage of a wobbly hole in the magnetic field above the northern hemosphere looked a lot like the wobbly hole which used to be shown in relation to the missing ozone layer.
    I recently learned on another programme that ozone can be destroyed by sunlight when not protected by the Magnetic shield.
    I never hear of our magnetic field or its fluctuations in any science to do with climate.
    Is there a reason?
    As I said before I flunked school so forgive me if it’s a stupid question.

  202. Clayton Hollowell says:

    Bull excrement.

    Whitewash on the way. Either the “review” will be as independent as my foot is from my ankle, or it will be some one else from the climate change vested interests community.

    Business as usual will continue. I.E. data will be kept hidden, consensus will be generated by rigging the process, results will be made up, genuinely independent review will be rebuffed, the mainstream press will genuflect, and the crooks will keep their sinecures in return for feeding the socialism machine.

  203. Lee says:

    A rather apt quote from Bertrand Russell:

    ‘What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.’

    Sums up warmist and sceptic points of view i think.

  204. patrick healy says:

    From Carnoustie with AGW of minus 6 degrees this morning. It should be good news about Phil Jones stepping aside.
    Just watched the 10 oclock news on the Biased Broadcasting Service – sorry that should read British (damn fingers!). Nary a mention of Climategate. They did have one David Schuchman interviewing (Lord) Sterne giving it the usual Hurricanes, rising sea levels millions threatened, melting icecaps – the full works. An obviously distressed reporter then interviewed a few normal people who told him they were not members of the new faith. Finally he asked the head of the firm which conducted a recent poll who told him the results were 55% non believers, 41% believers. Schuchman looked a beaten man.
    We have a ‘thing’ here called Teletext on freeview TV.
    I keyed in local news for East (England) and found (4th item down – below ‘man bites dog) the following:
    “The research Director at the centre of a row over Climate Change data said he would stand down from the post while there is an independant review.
    Prof Phil Jones,director of the Norwich based UEA CRU, said he stands by his data.
    Sceptics claim the e-mails, leaked after a UEA server was hacked into, showed data was being manipulated.
    The hacking of the computer is being investigated by Norfolk Police.”
    Could not find any mention of the story on either Sky News of ITV.
    So maybe we should not count our chickens just yet.

  205. P Stanislaus says:

    Can’t believe that you media hotshots have not found the BBC report of Phil Jones’ stepping aside! Just go to the BBC main web page; then look for the UK news, then find the ‘England’ section, then look at the drop down bar for the regional news, and scroll down until you find ‘Norfolk’.

    Where else would they put a story of international significance?

    Just to make it easy for y’all
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm

  206. John Whitman says:

    I noticed that media discussion of the UEA CRU emails seem just as often say “leaked” or “whistleblower” as they do “hacked”.

    But, most US media seem to use “hacked” and less so “leaked”.

    So, can some of the WUWT commentors from Britain give me any update on the “leaked”/”whistleblower’ view?

    John

  207. Ed Scott says:

    Follow the money!
    ———————-
    From Phillip Stott’s blog, http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/12/1_Can_You_Believe_It_Alleged_Carbon_Fraud_in…Denmark.html

    Can You Believe It? Alleged Carbon Fraud in…Denmark
    Tuesday, 1 December 2009

    “Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,/ Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,/ Whiles, like a puff’d and reckless libertine, Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads./ And recks not his own rede.” [Ophelia, Act I, Scene III, ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark’. Photo: wind turbines off Copenhagen, by Leonard G., reproduced here under the Creative Commons ShareAlike License 1.0]

    First, there were those infamous hacked e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Now, a mere seven days before the Copenhagen Conference on climate change, this breaking news story takes the breath away. The whole ‘global warming’ shambles is falling apart. Today, The Copenhagen Post declares: “Denmark Rife With CO2 Fraud”:

    “Denmark is the centre of a comprehensive tax scam involving CO2 quotas, in which the cheats exploit a so-called ‘VAT carrousel’, reports Ekstra Bladet newspaper.

    Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries.”

    And the fraud may be of massive proportions:

    “Ekstra Bladet reporters have found examples of people using false addresses and companies that are in liquidation, which haven’t been removed from the register.

    One of the cases, which stems from the Danish register, involves fraud of more than 8 billion kroner. This case, in which nine people have been arrested, is being investigated in England.”

    What can one say?

    We all knew from the start that carbon trading could prove, by its very nature, a crooks’ charter. But such an allegation relating to Denmark, of all places, at the precise moment of the Copenhagen Conference, where such cap-and-trade measures will be at the forefront of debate, must have the Little Mermaid crying so much that sea-levels may indeed rise.

    Simply staggering! How long can this ‘global warming’ nonsense be tolerated? I’m off for a strong, wee dram.

  208. Chilly Bean says:

    Can’t be deleted out all the time sorry. Moderation totally fine but all spam no way. New Id, New IP, New country from tomorrow. Love the site BTW.

    Bye

  209. Stephen Brown says:

    This evening (UK time) I was in an IM conversation with three good friends of mine about an entirely unrelated subject (classic and almost-classic cars). My friends are Professors, in engineering (2) and orthopaedics (1).
    The topic of Phil Jones came up when news of his “stepping aside” broke.
    All three Professors agreed that he’s committed academic suicide. There is no way back into Academia for him. Ever.
    Remember that this is happening in England. Our society might be ravaged by a socialist government but certain standards are still maintained, especially by honest gentlemen.

  210. SteveSadlov says:

    Why not just fire the bast___ outright? What’s with this temporary BS?

  211. royfomr says:

    Perhaps a Whitewash wouldn’t be such a bad thing!
    When Nobel prize winner Steven Chu suggested that we could solve gw by painting buildings white, he was excoriated by Viscount Moncton. Not for the science, of course, our blue-blooded Christopher knows all about the effects of an increased albedo, but by ruthless use of “those pesky numbers” as John Brignell host of that most excellent site numberwatch.co.uk might say.
    In simple terms using paint was economically unviable!
    Whitewash, OTOH may be just the ticket. It reflects light well, it is cheaper to manufacture than paint, mostly harmless, easy to apply but, most importantly, has a high Carbon content.
    In other words Whitewatch is a Carbon sink sans pareil!!!!
    Not only will it suck up Carbon from fossil fuel energy generation but it will
    make Steven Chu a happy man!
    Da*n it, give Phil a big brush, a bucket of Whitewash and he can look forward to years of gainful employment saving the Planet, supplementing his pension and chewing the fat with his old buddies!
    Now Watts Up With That?

  212. DJM says:

    Hopefully this is the first step in the UEA finally realising that the Climate Research Unit at the university was not producing sound science and acts to save its reputation.

    The Mike Hulme article on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm is the first serious comment from the UEA (Mike Hulme being a scientist at that university) on Climategate. It looks like some searching questions must be asked.

    Being located in the UK, I see the Times newspaper has a guest article from a green activist on the online version tonight (by Joss Garman a spokesman for Green Peace and the founder of Plane Stupid (an anti-aviation organisation)). It is possible that an author from this website could get an article placed in the Times to put the sceptical argument across? It is critical with Copenhagen just a week away when the treasonous Labour government will sign anything.

  213. dave ward says:

    “Does anybody here know if UEA has any administrators with guts?”

    “Anything good further down?…”

    Several of you said you couldn’t make it any further, perhaps you should have!

    Here’s a few snippets from the UEA’s press release linked at the top.

    “The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity.”

    “The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign”

    “One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.”

    “A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.”

    Go on – scroll down and see that absolutely nothing has changed at the UEA.

    The local paper still hasn’t given it more than the briefest of mentions. They now have former M.P, and pro warmist, Ian Gibson writing for them – a coincidence?

  214. DRE says:

    I think that UEA will take the ‘temporary’ part more seriously than the ‘climategate’ part. This is likely just a formality. Unless Phil’s grant funding starts to go pear-shaped because of this.

  215. KeithGuy says:

    Professor Jones’s comment on the BBC website:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm
    At the time that the theft of the data was revealed climate sceptics picked up on the word “trick” in one e-mail from 1999 and talk of “hiding the decline”.
    Professor Jones said the e-mail was genuine but taken “completely out of context”.
    He released a copy of the actual e-email which reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
    Professor Jones said: “The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram – not a scientific paper.

    SOME DIAGRAM!!

  216. Stefan P says:

    …… in an odd way this is cheering news…

  217. Stacey says:

    Our Gav, lovely boy, does not find this news cheering.
    We are a little bit worried with all the travelling we do to exotic places I may have to give up all those lovely hotels we used to stay in.

    Oh I dunno, I am sure it’ll all work out ok in the end after all our Gav knows so many clever people . Look at that lovely Mike Mann with his clever party tricks saw him at Halloween, Trick or Cheat I said, seemed a bit annoyed, can’t take a joke see.

  218. yonason says:

    Ed Scott (14:55:39) :

    Ahhhh, so Denmark is “ground zero” of the scam. No wonder they want to meet there to coordinate their next moves.

    The fact they are making arrests sounds promising, as long as they are big fish, and that will interfere with the upcoming fixer meeting.

  219. NickB. says:

    Jim Watson (12:00:38) :

    “3) An entire generation of young children–eager to help “save the planet”–will be growing up in the coming years knowing they were lied to, used and minipulated by adults they trusted”

    ————–

    When I was little I was told: “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE BECAUSE OF THE HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER!!!11!!!1″

    I’m still pissed about the irresponsible science and eco-alarmism I experienced then and it is, in large part, the reason why I never took any of these jokers for face value to begin with

  220. KeithGuy says:

    Stefan P
    Very funny.

  221. Rob says:

    You will Never get an indepenent enquirery in the UK.

  222. yonason says:

    Stephen Brown (15:01:03)

    Looks like a career in politics is all that’s left then. And that’s good news?

    Wait up, Ed Scott (14:55:39), and I’ll accompany you to the pub.

  223. yonason says:

    Ed Scott (14:55:39) :

    Ahhhh, so Denmark is “ground zero” of the scam. No wonder they want to meet there, it’s to coordinate their next moves.

    The fact they are making arrests sounds promising, as long as it’s big fish, and all the better if that will interfere with the upcoming fixer meeting.

  224. tallbloke says:

    Onion (13:33:55) :

    I’m not sure if this deserves its own thread

    Mick Hulme, along with Jerome Ravetz have decided to redefine what science is at the BBC website.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm

    Can we really describe any of this as science? At best, it seems like social studies. They really shouldn’t be describing themselves as scientists at UEA.

    I’ve been swapping emails with Jerry Ravetz over the last few days. I used to attend some of his lectures and seminars at Leeds University when I did my degree there.
    I urged him to let me take part in this piece, but he had already finalised it with Mike Hulme so it was too late. Ravetz isn’t a UEA scientist, he’s an independent writer attached to Insis at Oxford.

    It comes across to me largely as a damage limitation exercise on the part of Mike Hulme, where he makes a couple of nods in the direction of the informed sections of the blogosphere:

    # To be validated, knowledge must also be subject to the scrutiny of an extended community of citizens who have legitimate stakes in the significance of what is being claimed
    # And to be empowered for use in public deliberation and policy-making, knowledge must be fully exposed to the proliferating new communication media by which such extended peer scrutiny takes place.

    There is some contrition for the unethical goings on at CRU, but insufficient disclosure of the extent and nature of the wrongdoing. Mike Hulme is still in denial of climategate to a large extent.

    I think Jerry Ravetz is beginning to realise the depth of the scandal, and the true level of damage this has done to science and the public perception of it. I’m going to keep talking to him, because he’s go some real insight. I hope I can help balance up his viewpoint a bit.

  225. georow says:

    Could I kindly request that UK government department DEFRA demands the return of taxpayer monies paid to UEA/CRU for the supply of the Phil Jones random number generator otherwise known as the ‘Weather Generator’ to the UK Climate Projections project

    http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/941/522/

    “How much did UKCP09 cost?
    Producing the Projections cost about £11 million in total, paid out of Defra’s and DECC’s research budgets.”

    http://ukcp09.defra.gov.uk/content/view/9/9/

    Any science attached to this resource is now valueless given the association with CRU. However, it is useful to know that in my childrens retirement years (2080′s) under a high emmissions scenario, there is a 90 percent probability that the change in mean winter temperature will be plus 5.7 centigrade in London.

    http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/1186/527/

    If it wasn’t so expensive it would be funny.

  226. Ron de Haan says:

    P Gosselin (12:06:26) :

    Couldn’t yo have waited pushing the button until they were all in the building?

  227. Russ R. says:

    John Stossel is going to cover this topic tonight on The O’Reilly Show, on Fox.

    http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/12/01/oreilly-tonight-climategate/

    There are plenty of independents that watch this show. Any pol that thinks this is a non-issue, had better polish up the resume.

  228. yonason says:

    tallbloke (15:29:38) :

    I hope you succeed!

  229. Ron de Haan says:

    SteveSadlov (15:02:15) :

    “Why not just fire the [snip] outright? What’s with this temporary BS?”

    This [snip] shook hand with Prince Charles and he can pull the rug from under a lot of influential people.

    Maybe Guantanamo is an option?

  230. Phil A says:

    “This report tells us that “New evidence suggests sea levels could rise by 1.4m (by the end of the century) which would be a potential disaster for some countries.””

    Ah yes, the new magic of climate science. If it cools, that’s evidence of future warming to come. If it warms, that’s evidence of warming. If it doesn’t do much, then that’s evidence it’s about to warm.

    You almost have to admire them. Almost.

  231. Bill P says:

    The MSM is just sitting with their fingers in their ears chanting LA LA LA hoping for enough time to get the Compenhagen treaty done and Cap and Tax passed.

    I wish it were true. My dentist tells me I must be grinding my teeth in my sleep. I tell him, “No. I listen to NPR.”

    Search NPR “Jones”, and it’s mostly Norah, but the radio news report I heard from NPR about Phil’s decampment was followed by a “this just in”- alarmist reminder from dozens (or was it “hundreds”?) of scientists warning about the shrinking Antarctic icecap and four feet of sea rise in the near future. Four feet, NPR reminds us, calls for massive ark-building. Their online story, meanwhile, cites

    The university’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research Trevor Davies (who) said the investigation would cover data security, whether the university responded properly to Freedom of Information requests, “and any other relevant issues.”

    Was it my misreading, or is Davies heading the investigation? It would seem that might not be too wise. Davies is a defender.

    Davies defended Jones and his colleagues, saying the publication of their e-mails “is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign” to undermine climate science. The sentiment was echoed by Nicholas Stern, a leading climate change economist, who said the person or people who posted the leaked e-mails had muddled the debate at a critical moment.

    “It has created confusion and confusion never helps scientific discussions,” Stern told reporters in London Tuesday. “The degree of skepticism among real scientists is very small.”

    As long as the climate-funded reports keep pouring in, NPR can keep on playing fungoes with them.

  232. philincalifornia says:

    tallbloke (15:29:38) :

    Isn’t Ravetz the guy who invented Post-Normal Science – also known as lying to the public about, and fabricating the data for social reasons ?? How could he be critical of the motley Cru – isn’t it a perfect fit for his invention ??

    (From one blunt Yorkshireman to another)

  233. LittyKitter says:

    [snip]

    First time posting a youtube video so I hope this works! Only 297 hits so far but brillant!

    [REPLY - The good news is that your post worked. The bad news is that it has been decided that video is over the line (we got deluged with it). Sorry 'bout that. ~ Evan]

  234. Zipper dee doo daa zipper dee day.

    Best news I’ve had since the cat died!

  235. tallbloke says:

    philincalifornia (15:46:43) :

    tallbloke (15:29:38) :

    Isn’t Ravetz the guy who invented Post-Normal Science – also known as lying to the public about, and fabricating the data for social reasons ?? How could he be critical of the motley Cru – isn’t it a perfect fit for his invention ??

    (From one blunt Yorkshireman to another)

    That’s the geezer. I think though that post-normal science (PNS) is something which is used and abused by both sides. I think of it more as an insight into the true state of affairs than a method by which one group pulls the wool over the eyes of another.

    Ravetz says on his website:

    “We argue that the quality-assurance of scientific inputs into policy processes requires an ‘extended peer community’, including all the stakeholders in an issue. This new peer community can also deploy ‘extended facts’, including local and personal experience, as well as investigative journalism and leaked sources. So Post-Normal Science is inevitably political, and involves a new extension of legitimacy and power; but we felt it appropriate to launch it on this philosophical foundation.”

    If he put the ‘leaked sources’ bit up there before climategate broke, it’s quite prescient. He said to me that he thinks WUWT “is a great PNS site”, so it seems he sees the irony in the sceptics hoisting the concept of an instutionally delivered PNS on it’s own petard.

    I said to him, “OK, I’ve got my extended facts and my leaked documents, get me to the policy debating table.”

    We’ll see how democratic PNS is intended to be I guess.

  236. Phil Jones is down. Let’s see who else is fond of lying with statistics.

    “Applying the correction in real time in the future will mean that we will always be slightly changing approximately the last 15 years data – because of the filter end effects. Best would seem to be to maintain the present version we have and apply this variance correction every few years ( eg the IPCC cycle !).” – Phil Jones, former director of the CRU (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=116&filename=929044085.txt).

    Grant Foster (Tamino) appears in 18 Climategate e-mails. His is also fond of “filter end effects”.

    Awaiting moderation on Grant’s site is my finally valid destruction (http://i49.tinypic.com/24cfeas.jpg) of his “filter end effects” Hockey Stick that tortures the longest thermometer record into supporting AGW:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/central-england-temperature/

    NikFromNYC // December 1, 2009 at 7:10 am | Reply

    I don’t need homework to BELIEVE MY EYES: the raw data plot does not support his claim. His smoothing doesn’t follow the peaks except at the ends. I have done more homework and with a bit of help from John Ray I have reproduced Tamino’s work from raw data. The two graphs used to prove his point show the opposite of what honest analysis shows. Not knowing how the black box works didn’t stop me from using sample data to see how setting the big knob on top to its lowest setting effects its behavior:

    http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/11/central-england-temperature-series-very.html

    Using Savitzky-Golay smoothing of higher order confirms my point since the filter then follows peaks in the middle instead of hides them:

    http://i48.tinypic.com/28jkvnm.jpg

    Print the raw data plot and ask a kid to trace it with a big red marker to see if he comes up with a Hockey Stick. I can’t. Can you?!

    Not one of the 280 comments mentioned the term “end effect”. Computers were not very fast in 1964 so Savitzky and Golay at Perkin-Elmer who makes spectrometers had to figure out a way to smooth noisy spectra without much computing power. Their paper became one of the top sited of all time. From David I. Wilson’s “The Black Art of Smoothing”: “The SG filters suffer from end effects, but requires minimal storage.”

    Overwhelming evidence may support AGW, but honest analysis shows that the longest running thermometer record does not.

  237. tokyoboy says:

    The new director Peter Liss is a coauthor of “An Introduction to Environmental Chemistry: Second Edition (2003),” which was translated into Japanese in 2005, is a good textbook for starters and treats global issues in a fairly un-biased manner.

  238. artwest says:

    Michael at (14:43:34)

    The warmists would love to paint sceptics as being all right-wing, anti-Semetic conspiracy nuts.
    Congratulations! You’ve just handed them a great big steaming pile of ammunition.
    Lots of new people are here because of the evidence. The evidence. if anything, is going to bring down the AGW edifice, not the slandering of a whole race.
    You’ve just made anyone here who is Jewish, or anyone who doesn’t want to associate with people posting anti-Jewish rantings, think twice about sceptics. With “friends” like you…

  239. Richard says:

    Maybe we are celebrating too early.

    Lets look at it from Jones’ point of view – Stick it out in the face of mounting evidence of manipulation, possible fraud and public outcry? or move into damage control mode, which is what his stepping down is.

    Already he is generating some sympathy even here. (Invariant (11:56:30) :
    By all means, this is good news, but let us show that we also have a warm and human side here at WUWT – we all do mistakes! tallbloke (12:11:12) : We don’t all behave unethically though.

    Lets not forget that this is the guy who prevented others from publishing, got editors removed, refused to give data, destroyed data, manipulated the data all towards perpetuating the greatest fraud in history.

    Let us not forget HE DID NOT DO THIS ALONE!

    He is not the only guilty person.

    Despite massive blackout and pooh poohing by the world media, he has been brought down, (for the moment), by the humble citizens of the blogosphere.

    Let us not stop to crow at the retreating enemy. There is still much to be done. Jones is not the only person exposed by the emails. He is not the only member of the cosy “peer reviewing” clique.

    There is criminality involved. Can any law-savvy person comment on this? Have criminal cases been brought to bear on him and others?

  240. Ron de Haan says:

    jonk (13:58:43) :

    “A victory, but a small one. I’m afraid that this will be all that comes from this scandal. I’m probably just being cynical, but the media is still trying to bury this story and they figure this will appease some people and make the story fade. I even checked google news for this story and it didn’t show up on the main news page. The suggestion fill in for had no auto suggest for “phil jones” no matter how many letters you put in.

    The MSM is just sitting with their fingers in their ears chanting LA LA LA hoping for enough time to get the Compenhagen treaty done and Cap and Tax passed. We’re not reaching enough people to be effictive and, while I should be happy, I’m just getting more depressed. I guess feeling powerless to stop the insanity does that to you :(”

    I think you are too pessimistic.
    This will not stop. Investigations are undertaken and we are all watching.
    forget about MSM, we don’t need them.
    Fox does the job.

    Also look at Australia where MSM ignored the entire scam.
    Internet caused a political switch on the subject and now 80% of the Australians are opposing the EPS (C&P).

    The big public already new Global Warming was a scam.
    They only needed a single sentence about the fraud to consolidate their opinion.

    Besides that, I have discussed the subject with many people with a warmist signature.
    They now say “you have been right all the way, AGW is a scam.

    Our problem is the political establishment that has isolated it’s self.

    Isolation is a major strength when you want to push through political decisions, but a huge disadvantage when the outside world knows what’s happening on the inside.

    Think Hitler making strategic military decisions and his advisers did not tell him the truth. He lost major battles on Russian soil because of that.

    The moment will come when the public gets angry and hit the street in really big numbers.

    That is their biggest scare and they will be served.

  241. Richard says:

    retrieve my post pleease

  242. J. Peden says:

    I say Steve McIntyre helped UEA enormously by showing it that the UEA graph no doubt obtained from CRU still hid the extent of the Briffa tree ring decline, which was then going to implicate UEA in the cover-up – unless they were to force Jones to step down stat, showing also that UEA knew it was being taken for a ride by CRU.

    When is NOAA going to be forced to step down for apparently deleting the post-1960 Briffa data as though it didn’t exist at all?

  243. philincalifornia says:

    tallbloke (16:05:21) :
    He said to me that he thinks WUWT “is a great PNS site”, so it seems he sees the irony in the sceptics hoisting the concept of an instutionally delivered PNS on it’s own petard.
    _________________________

    I hope he lives long enough to see the irony of thinking that WUWT is a great PNS site.

    Enjoy the pre-normal snow !!!

  244. artwest says:

    OK mods, sorry, I realise that Michael was writing for effect. Even if I think it unwise. Please delete my pervious message if poss.
    Apologies

  245. boballab says:

    Still no response from Gavin and RC about Phil stepping aside. Matter of fact RC is as quiet as when ClimateGate first broke. None of the threads has had an updates for at least 2 hours.

  246. royfomr says:

    @stanislous
    Can’t believe that you media hotshots have not found the BBC report of Phil Jones’ stepping aside! Just go to the BBC main web page; then look for the UK news, then find the ‘England’ section, then look at the drop down bar for the regional news, and scroll down until you find ‘Norfolk’.

    Sorry for not giving you the full quote- ain’t always easy to do that on an iPhone.
    Fantastic post mate – 5/5 before adjustments!

  247. yonason says:

    philincalifornia (15:46:43) :

    Now this might explain it.

    I hope that’s not the video they’ve been deluged with. (If so, it’s Monty Pithon’s “4 Yorkshiremen.”)

    It certainly would explain why all that trouble is centered in Britain. Btw, how close to Yorkshire is Hadley, anyway? Isn’t there another center in Yorkshire? Better open that one to scrutiny, too, and ASAP.

  248. tallbloke says:

    I just posted this in the comments section of the Ravetz/Hulme article
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm
    ——————————————————————
    Hi Jerry,

    I’ve got my extended facts and some very interesting leaked documents. Does that mean I get a legitimate place at the policy debating table?

    Can I table the motion that there is no policy required, and the govt can stop wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers money on the antics of fraudulent tree ring ‘scientists’ now?
    ——————————————————————

    Blunt enough for you Phil?

    :-)

  249. Bill P says:

    Stefan P
    Very funny.

    I’ll second that. Something to chuckle about while I cook dinner.

  250. Gary says:

    Somebody get the FOI request for the documents in the “independent investigation” ready.

  251. geo says:

    What I *really* want is the “new guy” to make an unequivocal statement of a new and sincere committment to transparency and sharing data, both past and present.

    There is a real scientific battle going on here, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Making one side fight with one arm tied behind its back is the travesty of science that’s been going on.

  252. Richard says:

    What about Mann’s investigation? Is he being investigated too?

    “Penn State is conducting an inquiry into the controversy surrounding a Penn State professor whose illegally leaked e-mails have sparked an international debate over whether he and his colleagues distorted data on global warming.

    The inquiry will determine if further investigation is warranted, a university spokeswoman said Sunday.”

    http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx

  253. BernieL says:

    Fairfax Press in Australia reporting this new development:
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/uk-climate-scientist-to-temporarily-step-down-20091202-k451.html

    The Age and the SMH have been very reticent to cover climategate (less coverage than the gov’s ABC) however this story does give the Australian audience a clear impression that Climategate (this word not yet used) is having an impact in USA and UK – and so perhaps it should be taken seriously. Let’s see if it makes make the print editions.

  254. Indiana Bones says:

    The AP link at the top of this post is broken – or non-existent.

    They need some help. The global wire service Associated Press has their head in the sand. I have just written them a “press release” repeating the news of Dr. Phil Jones’ resignation.

    info@ap.org

    I think if we want to see this story in MSM they need to hear from us. Take five minutes and write the AP a press release about a Climategate issue. Somehow, with all their ears around the world – they missed this little story.

    Disclosure: I once worked for this outfit. I still love em.

  255. Roger Knights says:

    andersm (12:22:49) :

    “No one should expect that an internal review will find wrongdoing in their own institution. The investigation is only an exercise in optics to shut down the criticism. It will be a travesty and will disgust a lot of people but Jones and the rest of the fibbers and fabricators will be exonerated.

    Don’t be too sure. EAU will be in much worse hot water if it lets Jones off the hook on such a major public scandal. They’re smart enough to recognize this. I agree with the post below:

    Tim S. (12:17:38) :

    “… the CRU e-mails are damning. Jones et al. have conspired to suppress and delete information that was subject to freedom of information requests. They have sought to fix data around a predetermined policy of pro-global warming activism. And they have sought to suppress dissenting scientific opinion. I don’t see how Jones can come back again.”

  256. Jeff B. says:

    The Review process will have my full support

    Yeah, I bet it will Phil. Just like the Peer Review process had your full support.

  257. Roger Knights says:

    Say, is there a University of West Anglia? (Does Anglia need two of them–or four, if there are U’s for the north and south as well?) What are they up to? How do they view this affair? (Maybe they’re no longer envious of their yoke-mate’s world-famous grant-getting CRUdeptartment.)

  258. MikeE says:

    Can’t believe that you media hotshots have not found the BBC report of Phil Jones’ stepping aside! Just go to the BBC main web page; then look for the UK news, then find the ‘England’ section, then look at the drop down bar for the regional news, and scroll down until you find ‘Norfolk’.

    As Stephen Fry might say: “Normal for Norfolk”.

  259. MikeE says:

    It certainly would explain why all that trouble is centered in Britain. Btw, how close to Yorkshire is Hadley, anyway? Isn’t there another center in Yorkshire? Better open that one to scrutiny, too, and ASAP.

    It certainly would explain why all that trouble is centered in Britain. Btw, how close to Yorkshire is Hadley, anyway? Isn’t there another center in Yorkshire? Better open that one to scrutiny, too, and ASAP.
    The Hadley Centre is based within the UK Meterological Office, which is now in Exeter, Devon. It used to be in Bracknell, Berkshire, but relocated some years ago.

    Neither location is especially near Yorkshire!

  260. John in NZ says:

    @Onion (13:33:55) :

    “Can we really describe any of this as science? At best, it seems like social studies. They really shouldn’t be describing themselves as scientists at UEA.”

    You are right. Real scientists try to falsify their hypotheses. The psuedoscientists at UEA instead use arguments from ignorance and hope most people wont notice.

    An argument from ignorance is when you say ” I do not know how it can be caused by this, therefore it must be caused by that.”

    In global warming terms, this is ” I do not know how the recent warming could be caused by nature, therefore it must be caused by man.”

    It is not valid to use a lack of knowledge as an explanation. There are necessarily an infinite number of possible explanations. It is not logical to conclude that because you have eliminated one natural explanation, that the anthropogenic explanation must be correct.

  261. Richard says:

    The next scalp has to be Mann. What are the Americans doing about him?

  262. philincalifornia says:

    yonason (16:25:22) :
    philincalifornia (15:46:43) :

    Isn’t there another center in Yorkshire? Better open that one to scrutiny, too, and ASAP.
    ——————–

    Not sure about that, as I’ve lived in the US for 30 years. East Anglia and Exeter are many miles away. Ravetz did most of his work while at the University of Leeds though.

    Adapting the four Yorkshiremen to AGW in about 20 years will be most amusing though:

    “Polar bears, bloody polar bears, I remember when ……” and so on and so forth.

    Tallbloke, yes very blunt indeed. I wonder if Jones and his friends knew they were willingly participating in Post-Normal science, or were they effectively as misled and misguided as the Catlin Crew ??

  263. Roger Knights says:

    Jones will go. He’s become a big liability to warmism; influential warmists must by now have seen the unavoidable logic of Monbiot’s columns. His allies won’t harpoon their cause to save his skin. Perhaps Jones will resign with a “far far better thing that I have done” statement. That is, saying he’s resigning for the sake of the cause, because staying on would be politically damaging, not that he’s done anything wrong.

    Incidentally, his resignation gives the MSM “news peg” on which to hang Climategate, so we should be seeing more coverage of it soon.

  264. Keith G says:

    The University of East Anglia is now in a difficult position: the most damaging revelation in the Climategate letters is the possible criminality of destroying records pertinent to a legitimate FOI request. If the UEA investigates Jones and exonerates him, and a later criminal investigation establishes guilt, the University administrators would expose themselves to the most severe criticism.

    This matter of failing to comply with an FOI request should be investigated by the police and, if necessary, charges laid and the matter brought before the Courts.

  265. yonason says:

    philincalifornia (17:38:03) :

    “Polar bears, bloody polar bears, I remember when ……” and so on and so forth.

    LOL

    P.S. I’m originally from Leeds, myself. Leeds, Massachusetts, that is. And we had a Hadley, and a Northampton, etc., but not an acre of Yorkshire. We couldn’t afford one, what with the rationing and all…

  266. Richard says:

    Mann is not as pure as driven snow. The manufacturer of the hockey-stick – whats happening about him?

  267. Richard says:

    Or Gavin Schmidt for that matter

  268. Indiana Bones says:

    So far Roger, all we are seeing is this serpentine location for the AP story via a “hosted news” page. A search of AP.org for “climategate” returns nothing. They just don’t want to step on their warm bodies… er, buddies toes.

    I’m gonna check in on “Family Guy” to see if Seth has managed to work Climategate into an episode…

  269. Craig Moore says:

    All of the perfidy revealed by these scientists reminds me of a few points Dr. Pielke, jr. made. One thing he shares with his father is being a true scientist. He wrote this back in 2006: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/do-the-ends-justify-the-means-3921

    From my perspective, a view that bad policy arguments should be acceptable so long as they help us “win” in political battle is exactly the sort of thinking that motivated the Bush Administration’s selling of the Iraq War. Not only did a bad policy result (i.e., one that has not achieved the ends on which it was sold on), but it has harmed the ability of the President to act (maybe a good thing in this case), and certainly diminished the credibility of intelligence. The exact same dynamics are at risk in the climate debate when scientists support their political preferences with bad policy arguments, or stand by silently while others speak for them.

    It’s politics that demand “either you are with me or against me.” It’s science when following the data to transcend the rhetorical politics.

  270. Peter S says:

    Anthony – the Ed Scott (14:55:39) post above might be worth its own story. Here’s a link to the Copenhagen Post article “Denmark rife with CO2 fraud”

    http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/47643-denmark-rife-with-co2-fraud.html

  271. Pamela Gray says:

    “Robin Hood Men In Tights”

    Your name is Peter? Peter…Liss?

    Do you, Maid Maryanne take…Peter Liss…to be your lawfully wedded husband?

    I doooo NOT!!!!!

  272. Barry R. says:

    I talked to a friend who is up on academic politics, though in the US rather than England. His take is that Phil Jones is toast at his current university. I tend to agree, though I have no inside info to support that.

    The reasoning is: If the university was going to try to cover for him they wouldn’t have twisted his arm to have him step aside. As a corollary, he wouldn’t have stepped aside unless the university twisted his arm in a major way.

    The thing to keep in mind is that the primary real goal of a public institution is to maintain or if at all possible expand the resources it gets from the public. In this case that means maintaining or expanding the grants that the center brings into the university. The continuing presence of Phil Jones would expose any grants coming in to increased scrutiny. A new director might actually be able to increase the inflow. The logic is: The climate research is important. It’s currently a mess due to Phil Jones. Therefore it needs additional resources to clean the mess up and restore it to its preeminent position. In other words, keeping Jones reduces cash coming in. Dumping him may even enhance it if they play their cards right.

    Also, the picture I get from the e-mails is of a guy with sharp elbows and a well-developed sense of his own importance. Guys like that are not usually loved by subordinates or peers within their own institutions. Once the perception develops that he has lost power, the knives are likely to come out.

    Looking at a sampling of the e-mails, I kind of suspect that the knives have been out for a while. Whoever gathered those e-mails and the code seems to have known where the bodies were buried–what would hurt the most. Maybe a hacker would be able to figure that out. Someone inside would be more likely to be able to. And I had better stop there. Whoever leaked the stuff did the scientific community a huge favor and I wish them well.

  273. Paul Vaughan says:

    If I were Jones I’d seize the welcome opportunity to get administrative nonsense off my plate so I could focus on more important things like research. Let some other dope pilot through the red tape & crusty stagnation. What would be funny would be if he wants the job back later.

  274. Richard says:

    The University of East Anglia is to decide “The Terms of Reference” and “The Chair”

    These are of vital importance. “The Chair” because “The Chair” can whitewash anything, like the chair of the National academy whitewashing Mann.

    The “The Terms of Reference” because these will give an indication of where the “independent review” will be headed.

    Will they include – Overstated claims on Global Warming? Violation of the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act? Seeking to remove journal editers? Get contrary papers not published? Rejecting contrary papers in a highly conspiratorial manner?

  275. Glo-worming says:

    With this and the State Penn reivew, maybe this is a “trick” to hide the decliners. Perhaps more at bread and circus instead of roundly repudiating the putative wrong peddled by hockeystickers and plied by politickers.

    These seamsters sold and sewed the gossamer threads, spinning yarns and stitching data instead of cloth, or substance. But there is more, this is a 3rd worldview sweatshop. AGWalmart “science” department needs to be dealt with for undercutting any competition, any contribution to the truth.

    The AGW CRU’s ship needs to go down with the captain, taking one for the Team doesn’t suffice. No pleading, no platitudes.

    Free the data, free the code, 100%.

  276. AndyW says:

    tallbloke (11:46:34) said :-

    “It’s bloody cold in the UK tonight”

    It’s December so a cold snap might be expected. Also it seemed colder because of the mild wet weather we have been having due to AGW. It’s now mild again….

    Andy

  277. EricH says:

    The bastion is crumbling. 0600hrs GMT BBC radio 4 news reports, as second item, that Phil Jones is stepping down. Not quite there, however, as it is implied that he has done the “honourable” thing whilst the “theft” of data is being investigated.

  278. NewtLove says:

    I’m an aerospace Technical Fellow of Modeling, Simulation and Analysis (MS&A). I help organize international IEEE.org conferences and referee scientific papers. I’m shocked at the low standards that appear to be normal in climatology. Climategate is adversely impacting the credibility of all science and scientists.

    With UEA conducting an “independent” review of CRU, I would next expect in the next USA DoD scandal, that Lockheed Martin or Boeing be allowed to perform an “independent” audit of one of the own divisions, and it be happily accepted by the government and the MSM. Did the $600 toilet seat and $500 hammer teach them nothing?

    I suggested–through channels–to Sen Inhofe (R-OK), that the climatologists are the SMEs and will battle out the topic, but for the data collection, processing, mining, modeling, simulation and analysis part, UEA and Penn have debauched themselves too much to be trusted to conduct anything close to an independent audit. I proposed that MS&A experts from outside fields, like aerospace, be brought in to evaluate the CRU / Penn work w.r.t. standard practices and procedures used by MS&A practitioners across all industries.

    Given the gravity of the accusations, and the world-wide legislation that has been and is being enacted based on the CRU / Penn, et al work, any audit must be done by a blue-ribbon panel of outside MS&A experts that will make a dispassionate and objective assessment. Only that type of group can avoid being accused of protecting the “home team.”

    Newt Love (my real name)
    newtlove.com

  279. tallbloke says:

    philincalifornia (17:38:03) :

    yonason (16:25:22) :
    philincalifornia (15:46:43) :

    Isn’t there another center in Yorkshire? Better open that one to scrutiny, too, and ASAP.
    ——————–

    Not sure about that, as I’ve lived in the US for 30 years. East Anglia and Exeter are many miles away. Ravetz did most of his work while at the University of Leeds though.

    Adapting the four Yorkshiremen to AGW in about 20 years will be most amusing though:

    “Polar bears, bloody polar bears, I remember when ……” and so on and so forth.

    Tallbloke, yes very blunt indeed. I wonder if Jones and his friends knew they were willingly participating in Post-Normal science, or were they effectively as misled and misguided as the Catlin Crew ??

    Roger Knights should know that Exeter is about as close to West Anglia as he’ll find on the map. :o)

    There was a press release on the Leeds Uni website a couple of weeks ago about a new ‘climate change centre’ for Yorkshire. Wonder how that’ll play out.

    “Linear trendlines? You were lucky, we used to get beaten with those whippy polynomials”

  280. tallbloke says:

    The BBC didn’t publish my first attempt (surprise), so I have had another go:
    ————————————————————–

    I used to attend Jerome Ravetz’ lectures and seminars at Leeds University when I did my degree in Philosophy of Science.

    Jerry has great insight but I feel he has allowed Mike Hulme to subvert his message here. This reads as a damage limitation exercise and an apologia for the tree ring circus which has brought properly done science into disrepute.

    The government and members of the society of environmental journalists at the BBC have connived with CRU and other biased institutions to propagate the exaggerated data and suppress other peer reviewed science which ‘confuses the message’.

    When Truth tries to speak to power, power turns one deaf ear.

  281. Bonnie says:

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

    OK, I read most of the text on the above page. Is what CRU says in its statement about the research data being available false? Or is it talking about the doctored data and not the raw data.

    Thanks.

    - A non-scientist citizen of the US

  282. Another Brit says:

    AS the BBC has had the details of the leaked documents for over a month, I would suggest also that Dr Jones and his crew have also known about about it for a similar time. I cannot imagine that a diligent reporter would not check the facts with them.

    I would therefore opine that CRU and others have had ample time to clear the decks before all this blew into the public domain. A FOI request to the BBC for any emails or correspondence between their staff and the CRU over the relevant period might prove quite revealing! Or am I being to sceptical here?

  283. Bonnie says:

    December 2, 2009 5:00 AM

    Fallout Over “ClimateGate” Data Leak Grows
    Posted by Declan McCullagh

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/02/taking_liberties/entry5860171.shtml

  284. Bonnie says:

    Interesting that McCullagh’s the only one I’ve seen who’s calling them “leaked.”

  285. yonason says:

    tallbloke (23:38:16) :

    “There was a press release on the Leeds Uni website a couple of weeks ago about a new ‘climate change centre’ for Yorkshire.”

    Ohhhh, dear.

    So, Leeds is IN Yorkshire? In Mass it’s in Hampshire county.

    looked it up, and got:
    “An innovative new £50 million research centre will be meeting the global challenge of climate change by harnessing the expertise and research power of Yorkshire universities, including Leeds.”, where the heading reads “Centre for low carbon futures” Is that the one?

    What, you had whippy polynomials?! You don’t know how lucky you were.

  286. michael bristow says:

    The BBC should be ashamed of their biassed reporting. They slavishly report the warmist agenda and one just wonders how much longer they will persist in hushing this one up

  287. NickB. says:

    RE: Bonnie (01:29:30) :
    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

    OK, I read most of the text on the above page. Is what CRU says in its statement about the research data being available false? Or is it talking about the doctored data and not the raw data.
    _____________________

    Absolutely not. The raw data was “lost” if you believe them, and as far as the value-added (doctored) data goes…

    If you actually look at the e-mails (and there are summaries available that speak to this much better than I can) there is a pattern of stonewalling the FOIA requests to not releasing anything, to pointing to already available data from GISS but not revealing what subset was used to produce the CRU records, to now claiming that some of the data used is subject to NDA’s with the organizations/countries that produced the data. Under no circumstances, even now, can anyone other than CRU recreate their record… and that’s assuming even they can do it

    The Read Me Harry file indicates, among many other problems, that portions of their program would produce inconsistent results from one run to another, and that it was even capable of having sections crash without the user ever being notified that there was an error/issue behind the scenes

    Any implication that the CRU temperature records were formed out in the open for all to see is at its face, false

  288. dave ward says:

    I’ve just caught an item on the local BBC TV news (Norfolk) about the leak. They showed some comments on a blog – which I think was this one – but then cut to some pro-AGW woman in London, who tried to brush over the emails as if they were a minor inconvenience! A start, I suppose…..

  289. tallbloke says:

    yonason (08:58:24) :

    tallbloke (23:38:16) :

    “There was a press release on the Leeds Uni website a couple of weeks ago about a new ‘climate change centre’ for Yorkshire.”

    Ohhhh, dear.

    So, Leeds is IN Yorkshire? In Mass it’s in Hampshire county.

    looked it up, and got:
    “An innovative new £50 million research centre will be meeting the global challenge of climate change by harnessing the expertise and research power of Yorkshire universities, including Leeds.”, where the heading reads “Centre for low carbon futures” Is that the one?

    What, you had whippy polynomials?! You don’t know how lucky you were.

    No wonder you yanks are always utterly lost when you come over here.

    Yes, that’s the one. Leeds is one of the universities which has a chunk of NCAS http://www.ncas.ac.uk/ research going on in it’s dept of earth sciences.

    When I were a lad, we’d have ter hold us breath, dive ter t’bottom of t’lake, turn t’mud upside down, and graph t’sediments before breakfast.

  290. evanmjones says:

    OK, I read most of the text on the above page. Is what CRU says in its statement about the research data being available false? Or is it talking about the doctored data and not the raw data.

    They clearly imply it is the raw data. But only imply. And by “available” they may mean not “available from CRU”, but only from the original sources (which would make it MUCH harder to gather).

    They are not specific and it sounds kind of weasly to me.

    We did get the NZ raw data — from NZ. (And we also know the results!)

  291. Kate says:

    As predicted yesterday, Professor Phil Jones has been arrested.

    From the Mail…

    Professor in climate change scandal helps police with inquiries while researchers call for him to be banned

    2nd December 2009

    The scientist at the heart of the climate change email scandal was today interviewed by police about the scandal.

    Two plain clothes officers arrived in an unmarked car in the afternoon and took Professor Phil Jones to Norfolk Police”s headquarters in nearby Wymondham to give a statement. Sources said the interview concerned the theft of emails from the university and alleged death threats since the contents of the emails were released, adding he was being treated as a “victim of crime” rather than a suspect in any criminal investigation. Detective Superintendent Julian Gregory added: “He is one of the people assisting police with their inquiries.”

    A spokeswoman for the University of East Anglia refused to comment and said Professor Jones would not be adding to a statement he released on Tuesday. The professor refused to comment at his detached home in Wicklewood, a few miles outside Norwich.

    Meanwhile, researchers are calling for Professor Jones to be banned from contributing to agenda-setting United Nations reports. Eduardo Zorita, an expert in European climate trends, said that future reports from the UN”s International Panel of Climate Change would lack credibility if Professor Jones was involved in their compilation.

    As director of the University of East Anglia”s prestigious Climatic Research Unit, the professor has provided temperature data key to previous reports used by governments around the world when setting climate change policy. Dr Zorita also said that the content of thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia”s computer system and published on the internet confirmed that some global warming research was riddled with “machination, conspiracies and collusion”. He and colleague Hans von Storch were mentioned in more than 30 documents, with one email referring to Professor von Storch as “frankly an odd individual”.

    Other emails have been seized on by climate change skeptics as evidence that researchers have been manipulating raw data and discussing ways of evading Freedom on Information requests. In one of the most damaging emails, Professor Jones seems to suggest using a “trick” to massage years of temperature data to “hide the decline”. In another, he appears to respond to news of the death of climate skeptic John Daly with the words “in an odd way this is cheering news!” Others show British researchers apparently dismissing the work of scientists challenging the global warming orthodoxy as “crap” and a top American climatologist admitting it was a “travesty” that scientists could not account for the lack of global warming in recent years.

    Dr Zorita, of the Institute for Coastal Research in Geesthacht in northern Germany, is an expert in climate change over the past 1,000 years and contributed to the most recent IPCC report. He said that he was aware that his call for Professor Jones and others who wrote controversial emails to be banned from contributing to future reports could harm his career, but “the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible any more”. He said: “I can 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. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.” The researcher added although he does not believe that man-made climate is a hoax, he and other researchers have been bullied and subtly blackmailed to fit in the scientific mainstream. “In this atmosphere, PhD students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the “politically correct picture”,” he said. “Some, or many, issues about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of these attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture.”

    The comments come in the wake of Professor Jones”s decision to stand down from his university work while an independent investigation is carried out. The professor said that he “absolutely” stands by the science produced by the center – and that suggestions of a conspiracy to boost the evidence for man-made global warming were “complete rubbish”.

    Issues to be probed include data security and whether the university responded to Freedom of Information requests. However, the university was tonight unable to confirm if the data that appears to have been manipulated will be reanalyzed.

    Environmental chemist Professor Peter Liss will become acting director and further details of the review will be released “within days”. Professor von Storch, director of the Institute of Coastal research, said: “This is a brave act on the side of Phil Jones and may be the only way to restore his authority as an excellent scientist. What is left for Phil Jones to do is to restrain from doing review work for journals, and, of course, he should stay away from the IPCC and similar assessment exercises.” He added that the investigation should be led by a non-Briton and include input from climate change skeptics.

    Dr Benny Peiser, director of the British-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: “What is important is that the university comes clean on this and they don”t fudge the inquiry. We need total transparency on this. If they try to set up some kind of whitewash panel which an inquiry that does not have the total trust of the public it will make matters worse. We have called for a High Court judge to chair the inquiry just to make sure that trust is restored.”

  292. yonason says:

    “When I were a lad, we’d have ter hold us breath, dive ter t’bottom of t’lake, turn t’mud upside down, and graph t’sediments before breakfast.”

    What! You were allowed a breath before breakfast! We ad ter drain the lake, take samples of the mud, get ‘em to the lab for analysis, return ‘em were we got ‘em, and refill the lake, all before we even woke up.

    I noticed that a lot of money for the new center (here’s the link, btw)
    http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/139/centre_for_low_carbon_futures
    was coming from something called the “Yorkshire Forward.”
    http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/about/what-we-do

    One senses the vast is the extent of the AGW cancer, with tentacles reaching throughout academia, economics and government. It’s positively frightening.

    They are so invested in this that they cannot afford to ditch AGW. It’s the fantasy foundation that all their activities are based on. I fear that there will be no long term consequences from Climategate. There’s too much momentum behind it. G-d help us.

    Oh, and is there anything this guy hasn’t got his paws into?
    “Results 1 – 10 of about 95 for <b<"Yorkshire Forward" "George Soros". (0.25 seconds)”

  293. Bonnie says:

    Kate, Kate, Kate,

    Where’s the link to this story? Oh, here it is — so simple to do: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232722/Professor-climate-change-scandal-helps-police-enquiries-researchers-banned.html

    And why do you say he was “arrested” when the story clearly says the police said he’s being treated as a victim?

    Has “arrest” got a different meaning over in the UK? Does “arrest” now mean something good? LOL.

  294. MikeE says:

    hm….well “helping the police with their enquiries” often is used as a euphemism for being arrested and questioned.

    What doesn’t quite ring true here is that I thought when the story first broke, the UEA were supposed to have involved the police from the outset, in the investigation of the supposed “hack”, so Jones, et al, including the IT people, should have been assisting the police with their enquiries (literally and not euphemistically) for some time now.

  295. Bonnie says:

    ….well “helping the police with their enquiries” often is used as a euphemism for being arrested and questioned
    ———–

    Do you mean to say that news reporters intentionally misreport things or do you mean to say that the police lie to reporters?

  296. yonason says:

    tallbloke (12:04:59) :

    correction, maybe.

    I don’t know that Soros is connected with Yorkshire Forward, except that they appear in the search results together, and that his writing is featured on the Y.F. website.

    Also, I meant to quote this from the announcement of the new to-be-built Leeds climate center.

    Tom Riordan, Chief Executive of Yorkshire Forward, adds:
    “The Centre for Low Carbon Futures will put our region at the forefront of low carbon technologies. It will allow Yorkshire and Humber’s businesses to address low carbon challenges and access cutting edge solutions which will help them exploit the opportunities arising from climate change. In turn this will help build a competitive, sustainable and carbon efficient regional economy.”

    Notes to editors:

    Context
    According to the 2006 Stern Review – . . . [i.e., it is founded on fantasy]

    (The extra links are to illustrate what a piece of tripe that excerpt is. I hope the censors deem them appropriate)

  297. Kate says:

    Bonnie (12:42:39) :

    Hi. Your question is legitimate, and deserves an answer.

    I am an old hand at reading reports like these, and I can tell you that the British press uses certain words and expressions that mean a lot more than you might at first gather. When the police get involved in a complex situation like this, they will take a party to the police station to “help them with their inquires”. What this actually means is that they have not given the party the option of not responding to a criminal complaint, and, such as in the case of the “cash for honours” scandal, people are arrested under caution, and taken to a police station for formal questioning.

    As far as most people in Britain are concerned, that’s an arrest, and that’s what has happened here. The whole thing may have been spun to the press to make out he is the victim of some crime or other, but we all know there are serious complaints against him which have to be investigated by the police, and that process has now started.

  298. yonason says:

    Craig Moore (19:04:18) :

    Your comment only adds to what I have suspected, that Dr. Pielke Jr., while he may mean well, is not someone I can trust for political insight, and probably not on the climate, either.

    While your use of his gratuitous dig at Bush’s Iraq policy isn’t the best analogy to illustrate the evils of Climategate, it is very illustrative of D.P.J.’s warped perception of reality.

    Just goes to show that good intentions aren’t any guarantee that someone is right. I suspect his views on climate change are equally distorted, based on some of what I’ve read by him.

    Thanks for the info.

  299. Bonnie says:

    Thanks, Kate, but…. It seems to me that if a person is arrested, he would have been booked into custody, give his fingerprints, photograph, and DNA sample. You’re saying that in Great Britain, these things are covered up by the press, that people are actually arrested and the press doesn’t report it? I find that hard to believe, frankly. And you’re also implying that the police lie to the public? Or are you saying both? Sounds dreadful, whichever it is. That’s like saying if I were arrested in London when a visitor there, the police would not tell anyone? I don’t believe it.

  300. dave says:

    Finally, the REAL inconvenient truth is getting out, it was a hoax!!!!!!! Where is the press coverage????

  301. Pamela Gray says:

    Bonnie, you must learn to understand double speak. Instead of coming up with useful phrases for each event, busy people come up with one phrase that covers everything. So it could mean exactly what it says or it could mean something else. That’s what double speak is meant to do. Cover yur arse.

  302. Bonnie says:

    Maybe that’s how it is in the UK, but here, arrests are public information, and a person is either arrested or he’s not. Police don’t hide the arrest status of a person. Maybe you guys do. All I can say is it strikes me as very odd, and I’m not sure I believe it. There’s no concealing an arrest here. If you’re saying that’s what’s done in the UK, I’ll have to check it out somewhere before I’ll buy it. No offense to either of you, of course. But what you’re saying makes no sense at all to me. I apologize for diverting the discussion, though, and perhaps should end my participation in this particular issue.

  303. Roger Knights says:

    “[Zorita] said: “I can 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. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.” The researcher added although he does not believe that man-made climate is a hoax, he and other researchers have been bullied and subtly blackmailed to fit in the scientific mainstream. “In this atmosphere, PhD students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the “politically correct picture”,” he said. “Some, or many, issues about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of these attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture.”

    The boldfaced portions above indicate where we should focus our attack–on the impaired credibility of “the Consensus of Climate Scientists” and the IPCC resulting from their “machination, conspiracies and collusion” and “bullying and subtle blackmailing.” The remedy we propose should be a re-examination of the evidence by a non-partisan IPCC-like body, with oversight by elder statesmen from fields outside of climate science, from major scientific societies, and from prominent scientific climate contrarians.

    That panel, realizing that the whole world is watching, won’t attempt any shell games. As a result, it will issue a responsible, non-catastrophic report, a recantation of the hockey stick, and recommendations for research that does not look to a foregone conclusion, including Monckton’s recommendation for an automated worldwide weather-reporting system. It should also allocate lots of dough to attempts to falsify the CAWG-hypothesis. That’s the scientific method.

    What our side should NOT do is get tempted into making exaggerated claims about:

    * e-mail statements that might have an innocent or semi-innocent interpretation;
    * the extent to which CRU’s force-fitting of the data was culpable or significant;
    * the extent to which the global temperature record is unreliable;
    * the extent to which global warming has been disproved.

    On all those points, and similar ones, our opponents can turn the discussion into a technical matter that the average non-initiate can’t follow, and thereby fight us to a draw, or the appearance of a draw. We must force the fight to occur on a battleground where we have an overwhelming advantage, and not do battle elsewhere. (Did Sun Tzu say something like that? If not, he should have.) Find the weak spot in the enemy’s line and press the attack THERE.

    Here’s an analogy. (There must be better one, but I’m pressed for time.) Let’s say the director of a charitable foundation was discovered to have been diverting some of the donations improperly, and yet not criminally. Let’s say he felt the money would be put to better use if spent on some matter completely unrelated to his charity’s charter, and that he’d done so.

    His critics, who’d always been suspicious of him, would have an open-and-shut case for auditing the charity’s books, and taking away the charity’s book-keeping from his cronies, and suchlike measures.

    However, if that director had powerful allies inside and outside his organization, and if public opinion had been trained to regard him as a saint, his critics would be unwise to claim that he had been acting unethically, or that everything he’d done was wrong, or that the charity to which the money had been diverted was undeserving of a penny from anyone. Those assertions might be true or they might not be, but in the existing situation they would be the wrong cards to play.

    We must not overplay our hand. We need to get mainstream scientific opinion and mainstream journalists and environmentalists to take the first steps toward distancing themselves from the consensus, and then let time and the effects of unbiased examination do their work. We mustn’t try to hustle them into a Saul-to-Paul conversion, which they’ll resist. (For one thing, they won’t like the implicit suggestion that they have heretofore been playing the role of Saul.)

  304. Roger Knights says:

    Here’s a statement by Tim Ball that keeps the focus on the proper place–the untrustworthiness of the CRUsaders:

    “Several scientists have known for years the science was wrong and the CRU with a few others were doing things beyond normal scientific techniques to mislead the public. We couldn’t compete with the deliberate media misinformation, personal attacks and frightening orchestration disclosed in the hacked emails.”

  305. Bonnie says:

    You know why this isn’t in the news?

    It’s because no newsworthy story has emerged except one lawsuit I know of in the UK.

    The news media will cover NEWS.

    So, go make some news for them to cover.

    It’s really as simple as that.

    You either need a lawsuit or a big name to hold a press conference and announce … well, you gotta work on that detail.

    But the point is, they will cover it if it’s NEWS.

    Go
    make
    some
    NEWS!

    Do something. We cannot expect the press to root out corruption that it does not itself see. Do you get it? Do you see what I am saying?

    The guy from MIT sounds like a good candidate….

  306. Bonnie says:

    Here’s a statement by Tim Ball that keeps the focus on the proper place–the untrustworthiness of the CRUsaders:

    “Several scientists have known for years the science was wrong and the CRU with a few others were doing things beyond normal scientific techniques to mislead the public. We couldn’t compete with the deliberate media misinformation, personal attacks and frightening orchestration disclosed in the hacked emails.”
    ______

    OK, that’s a perfect illustration of what is NOT news and will NOT be covered. The media is not out to mediate the warring sides. It is in the business of telling people what has happened.

    You have to DO SOMETHING for it to be reported as HAPPENING.

    Do something; don’t just sit there.

    You will lose this thing unless you do something worthy of being related to other people via the media.

    Think concretely. Media aren’t interested in your editorial thoughts unless they’re in a context of SOMETHINTG HAPPENING — NEWS.

    All right. I’m off my soapbox.

  307. Kate says:

    Bonnie (18:22:14) :
    “That’s like saying if I were arrested in London when a visitor there, the police would not tell anyone? I don’t believe it.”

    …If you were arrested in London and questioned, but not formally charged, at that stage, with a criminal offense, while the police continued elsewhere with their inquiries, you would be described by the police and press alike as “helping the police with their inquiries”. In the US, you would be said to have been “arrested in connection with..” or “arrested on suspicion of…” etc.

  308. Roger Knights says:

    Bonnie wrote:

    “OK, that’s a perfect illustration of what is NOT news and will NOT be covered. The media is not out to mediate the warring sides. It is in the business of telling people what has happened.

    “You have to DO SOMETHING for it to be reported as HAPPENING.”

    There are leaders of the Contrarians’ camp who are going to be interviewed, there are debates that are going to go on within the scientific societies that have endorsed CAWG, there are columnists who are going to be writing op eds, there are bloggers who are going to be weighing in, etc. I’m urging them to focus on the “intangible” aspect of the CRUtape letters–the character of the participants, the politicization of the field, the engineering of consensus, etc.

    There is no harm done in urging these opinion-leaders to play their cards in a certain way when they speak or write.

    Maybe they, or someone else, should do something else as well. I have suggested ways of getting better publicity, primarily urging Stossel (or someone at Fox) to run a regular weekly series of lengthy interviews with Contrarians. (And give warmists a similar time slot for their side.) I’ve urged that someone on our side set up a point/counterpoint website, to rebut the warmists’ rebuttals. I’ve also run a nifty Climategate logo up the flagpole here, but no one’s saluted. (I’ve probably made other practical suggestions, which I can’t immediately recall.)

    I think lawsuits will provide a news peg for the media to hang a story on, but those are hardly going to be filed overnight, and the persons who might file them will do so or not without my input.

    I’m not sure that staging a pseudo-event would necessarily be a winner. The Caitlin expedition, and other warmist attention-getting gimmicks, like protesting the DC power plant, mostly backfired. Fence-sitting scientists, who are going to be the most important ones who will decide this issue, may well be put off by such stunting.

    Even if we somehow made the headlines in a positive manner, I don’t know that it would make much difference. The word is getting out over the Internet, including amusing videos on YouTube, and public opinion is shifting rapidly, without the help of any PR stunts from our side.

    Time is on our side. The warmist Titanic has been torpedoed. There’s no need for emergency publicity because Copenhagen is doomed, and so is the possibility, now, of getting anything through congress within the next year or two; i.e., prior to a re-examination of the case for CAWG by neutral scientific panels. With Climategate, fence-sitting politicians have an excuse (which they’ve wanted all along) for delay. Temperatures will continue to plateau or fall during the interim, and more contrarian voices, hitherto silenced, will peep up. The tide has turned. No need, or not much, for froth.

  309. Bonnie says:

    Wow. I was petulant, wasn’t I? Sorry, Roger. I don’t mean gimmicks, of course, nor frothing, but I guess I asked for that. Or pseudo-events or PR stunts, for that matter. I meant serious actions. I meant to shed light on the actual reason for media behavior. I don’t think it’s necessarily their bias in all cases.

Comments are closed.