The Met Office: making a list – tries to prop up the image of the CRU

Next time some irrationalist complains about a skeptic sponsored list, that includes scientists that are not climatologists, saying such lists are irrelevant, show them this. Show them also the unspoken pressure that some signers have worried about.

From The Times (emphasis mine):

Top scientists rally to the defence of the Met Office

Julia Slingo

Julia Slingo, (posing in front of "deep black" the Supercomputer) the Met Office's chief scientist, insisted that no one was pressured to sign its petition

The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.

Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which claims man-made climate change has been exaggerated, said the petition showed that the Met Office was rattled.

Complete story here at The Times: Top scientists rally to the defence of the Met Office


Share

About these ads

204 thoughts on “The Met Office: making a list – tries to prop up the image of the CRU

  1. Question is:
    Can the signees really know that there is no reason to doubt the honesty of the Climategate-implicated individuals?
    And if so – how do they know this?

  2. Yeah, I’m sure I would feel no pressure to sign if my funding or my paycheck were in any way dependent on CRU. What a joke. We’ve already seen how they behave and what they think of anyone who disagrees in private. This is like ACORN polling its employees about how trustworthy they think their organization is. Ridiculous.

  3. There’s little chance that many of them have bothered to familiarise themselves with the facts. Is this a good time to remind everyone that it was only about a dozen years ago that the Director-General and Chief Executive of the Met Office left over some infelicity to do with money? (And please don’r guffaw when I say that he ended up on the Labour benches in the House of Lords.)

  4. The best analogy to all of this is “Big Tobacco”.
    The way “Big Climate” operates is reminiscent of the now defunct “Tobacco Institute.”

  5. Here they go with the authority argument again. Adding to that, pressure to sign. Are they really so stupid they don’t think this will get out and make them look even worse for the effort? What morons.

    Mark

  6. If you’d like to be amoung the rats on this sinking ship, please sign here. Of course one has the option of jumping overboard and drowning immediately, should one so desire… No hurry, no pressure, please take your time.

  7. They’re making a list.
    They’re checking it twice.
    Gonna find out who’s naughty or nice.

    So if you study climate, you want to be nice. Just sign Santa’s list and let him know you’re nice. Keep those presents (funding) coming.

  8. Not surprising that most are eager to sign. It’s their gravy train after all. Once again we will hear about the “consensus” of scientists who support the research as proof of the validity of the science. These so-called scientists should be ashamed of themselves.

  9. What’s this got to do with science? Vouching for one another’s work isn’t much in the way of tightly reasoned argument.

  10. This once fine institution seems rather poor in the UK. Its now like a PR company to justify the pro-government stance. They used to be good at predicting weather – had an excellent standard and understood the climate when they focussed on observation and understanding. I’m sure if they returned to the techniques of meteorology hitherto used, they might once again predict the weather.

  11. Is ClimateGate equivalent to the …
    The Ninety-Five Theses 1073 e-mails on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences Anthropogenic Global Warming ?

  12. I used this once before when the Met Office released that data subset as proof that CRU didn’t fudge the data and the proof contained adjusted data from CRU.

    This is an alleged counterfeiter, handing over a counterfeit $20 bill to prove they are not a counterfeiter.

  13. A computer model is programmed to show warming for given inputs of CO2, positive & negative feedbacks are guessed at best based on assumptions that may or may not be correct on how thousands of parameters that go to make up climate actually respond to one another or in groups of varying amounts of composition. The net result though is to show a warming atmosphere at the end. This computer is no Deep Thought & cannot draw its own conlcusions based on its own assessments, it has to be told by humans what to do by programmers. These guys have really lost it IMHO.
    I recall a team in France carrying out experimentation & gathering data to “prove” that Homeopathic medicine actually (no offence anybody) works scientifically, some years ago now. When their data did actually show this, the results were undone in minutes when analysed INDEPENDENTLY. It was pointed out to them that they had accidentally pre-ordained the result by their experimental methods which had become corrupted, simply because the team director believed the medicine did work & wanted to prove it. They were devastated, naturally. Such thoughts cannot be far from the brains of these climate guys, to admit they could be wrong would destroy careers, jobs, pensions, departments, whole universites, every thing & anything associated with it.

    For any given argument, the guys who are screaming blue bloody murder at the tops of their voices on one particular side, are usually in the wrong!

  14. Same old same old

    Skeptics: There are some serious scientific questions about AGW evidence

    AGW Proponents: No, No it’s okay trust us.

  15. How ironic that a profession dedicated to “truth” can be pressured into lying. Bring on the cold!! Sorry Pam, desperate situations require desperate solutions.

  16. As a Brit, I am ashamed of the way in British science has been corrupted into “post-modernist science”

  17. I especially like the quote from Professor Slingo that “The response has been absolutely spontaneous”. A truly Orwellian inversion of meaning.
    When the authorities need to drum up petitions in support of a scientific theory it is truly on its last legs.

  18. So since the Met Office is quite sure; even “unequivocally” so that the “e-mails” were STOLEN, can we please have along with this listof 1700 British Climate luminaries, the name of the individual, or a list of the several individuals who carried out this theft; since only by identifying who STOLE the materials and HOW THEY DID THAT can anyone be certain; even “unequivocal” that the materials were in fact stolen; rather than leaked by somebody internal, who had clear knowledge of which files were sensitive.

    Otherwise, please shut up; or shut the hell up; whichever you understand in the UK.

  19. This has to be the ultimate vehicle for fraudsters; turning thin air into hard cash on the basis of the greatest scientific fraud in history.

    From the Telegraph

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6778003/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Carbon-trading-fraudsters-in-Europe-pocket-5bn.html

    Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe pocket €5bn

    Carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90% of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn) mainly in Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland, according to Europol, the European law enforcement agency.

    10 Dec 2009

    Carbon trading fraud accounts for 90% of all market activity in Europe.

    The revelation caused embarrassment for European Union negotiators at the Copenhagen climate change summit yesterday, where they have been pushing for an expansion of their system across the globe to penalise heavy emitters of carbon dioxide. Rob Wainwright, the director of serious crime squad, said large-scale organised criminal activity had “endangered the credibility” of the current carbon trading system.

    “We have been talking to Europol over the last weeks,” said one EU senior delegate, after she was asked whether the European Union-run scheme was still viable. “We are making some fixes.”

    Yesterday, the UK delegation released a paper calling for the “expansion of carbon markets”, in order to use the profits for a fund to help developing nations tackle climate change.

    Suspicions about an unprecedented level of carbon crime over the last 18 months have led investigators to believe criminals are using “missing trader” techniques to buy up carbon credits elsewhere in Europe where there is a cheaper rate of VAT. Then they sell on the credits in the UK, charging the domestic rate, and pocket the difference. This has been commonplace among trading of very mobile commodities across European borders, such as phones, computer chips and cigarettes. British investigators made seven arrests earlier this year over a suspected £38m VAT scam.

    The London platform, the ICE European Climate Exchange, where the big banks and energy companies tend to trade, is not affected by the fraud because it does not offer spot contracts – the only form of emissions trading on which VAT is payable. But British traders can still defraud HM Revenue and Customs by buying and selling permits on other European exchanges.

    Europol said it had reason to believe the sophisticated techniques developed in the carbon market could soon “migrate” to the gas and electricity sectors. It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities,” a Europol spokesman said, after Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands brought in emergency VAT suspensions on carbon allowances to limit the fraud this year.

    Figures from New Energy Finance show the value of the global market falling from $38bn (£23bn) in the second quarter to $30bn in the three months to the end of September after several countries cracked down, with volumes falling from 2.1bn tonnes to 1.7bn tonnes.

    Europol has now set up a special unit to “identify and disrupt the organised criminal structures behind these fraud schemes”.

  20. The loudest voice protesting his innocence is the guilty man. The calmest voices, with little or no disgust or surprise at the blight of the victim, are the guilty man’s friends and professional associates. Go figure! Science is dying a slow death by cancer.

  21. I rather think they’ve (the warmers) have lost the battle for hearts and minds, judging by the comment thread on this Times story and every other newspaper and magazine column that I’ve seen recently.

  22. “I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list
    Of society offenders who might well be underground,
    And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!”

    – The Mikado: W S Gilbert

    At least we know who to look out for.

  23. Look at the oh-so clever picture. The implication is that climate research has been carried out on big supercomputers such as these. We know what we are doing…

    I dont blame the Meteorological Office for this – it is the message-mongers.

  24. Has anyone seen anything, like any graph or data, that bears any correlation to the quite sudden rise in temperatures in 1980? Clearly (I think) it cannot be CO2 or any other greenhouse gas because surely there would be a fairly gradual effect from them. But if you look at the graph of world temperatures you see a very gradual rise in the late 1970s (which could simply be natural and normal variance) and then this sudden growth. This is shown graphically here in the CET – which closely follows global temps. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html

    What could have happened in 1980 (or immediately around 1980) to cause this?

  25. So this list is less valid than the Oregon petition then. Exactly the same arguments can be listed against both, except the Oregon petition has far far far more names on it!

    So whenever anyone mentions this meaningless letter, I shall point them to the Oregon petition. ;-)

  26. Check out just how deeply the Chairman of the Met Office, the eco-imperialist Robert Napier, has his fingers in all the ecofascist pies, here:

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/eco-imperialism-every-environmentalists-dream/

    And see just how quickly Julia Slingo fell into line to support the garbage from the Met Office once she got the job of Chief Scientist there:

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/met-office-fraudcast/

    Remember, the Met Office is an agency of the British Ministry of Defence. It is anything but an honest broker. People like Napier have an iron fist backed by government to get his own way.

  27. Actually, this is like science by popularity, isn’t it?

    How can scientists who aren’t climatepsychics vouch for the hokum pokum , er I mean science?

    Basically, the Met Office just issued a threat to a load of well known brains demanding that they speak up. This used to be called Fascism, and we are the poor bastards who are paying for it.

  28. Yes it is a massive gravy-train now. My fellow Brit (Alan) has it entirely right. An entire generation of climate scientists has been brought up to believe in AGW. They are even to teaching it to primary school kids as fact. Certainly many who have worked for the Met Office in climate science showed no sign of a mind of there own. These people from John Houghton on were believers and I am sure that no one ever worked on anything other than “warming”. If it all became obvious tomorrow that AGW was miniscule, think how many around the world would be out of work. Could the world economy survive the unemployment???!!!

  29. Nice Sierra! My old stats professor used to love marking up our work with the old garbage in, garbage out line. Oddly enough, same guy also taught me a lot about Causation vs. Correlation… Maybe Al should have sat in on that class.

  30. “This is like ACORN polling its employees about how trustworthy they think their organization is. Ridiculous.”

    Most people outside the US do not know what ACORN is.

    So for a more meaningful analogy, it would be like the Vatican polling it’s cardinals about the reliability in the claims that Jesus is the son of God.

    [sarc] you know I was having doubts about AGW, until the employees of the MET Office were polled to see if they supported the agenda that pays their mortgages. Gee! Now I’m convinced! [/sarc]

  31. It says the evidence for man-made global warming is “deep and extensive” and comes from “decades of painstaking and meticulous research by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity”.

    Well, they would say that wouldn’t they?

  32. <blockquote.The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

    “Ken Hall (08:43:35) :

    So this list is less valid than the Oregon petition then. Exactly the same arguments can be listed against both, except the Oregon petition has far far far more names on it!

    So whenever anyone mentions this meaningless letter, I shall point them to the Oregon petition. ;-)”

    Exactly.

  33. Why would anyone doubt them ,,,

    Why don’t they just bogey on over to the microphone and say they want to make sure all researchers in the world have access to the raw data. Start with asking NASA to open up their datasets, and then after we see the raw data, we won’t need the AGW fraudulent science as gatekeepers anymore.

    OK, I am waiting … But not holding my breath, I believe in exhaling my used up CO2.

  34. For anyone still working on the ‘Smoking Code’ example posted on 5th Dec. My guess (with contributions from Carsten Arnholm, Norway, thanks) is that the filenames in the Fortran code correspond as follows:

    29. harryfn=[‘nwcan’,’wnam’,’cecan’,’nweur’,’sweur’,’nsib’,’csib’,’tib’,$
    30. ‘esib’,’allsites’]

    nwcan = North West Canada
    wnam = Western North America
    cecan = Central Canada
    nweur = North West Europe
    sweur = South West Europe
    nsib = North Siberia
    csib = Central Siberia
    tib = Tibet
    esib = East Siberia

    Don’t know what allsites means but sounds dodgy. Double counting?

  35. “I’d really like you to sign this union card since we don’t need no secret ballot election… and don’t pay no mind to my buddy here with the baseball bat.”

  36. Post Normal Science or PNS. look it up. first postulated by this chap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Ravetz.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

    a certain Mike Hulme recently collaborated with mr Ravetz wrote this piece for the beeb advocating it called show your working: what climategate means:

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

    a travesty that will take a generation to disentangle from some british scientific institutions.

    ‘Because of this, advocates of post-normal science suggest that there must be an “extended peer community” consisting of all those affected by an issue who are prepared to enter into dialogue on it. [like politicians and pressure groups, my edit]They bring their “extended facts”, that will include local knowledge and materials not originally intended for publication such as leaked official information. There is a political case for this extension of the franchise of science; but Funtowicz and Ravetz also argue that this extension is necessary for assuring the quality of the process and of the product.’ PRODUCT???? does that sound like science?

  37. I will believe in what the Met office says only if they hire Steve McIntyre for a year to perform an independent audit, and let him lead a group of 50 scientists of his own choosing with access to all temperature records and all temperature-massaging and modeling software worldwide. Also, if they had access to old emails at GISS, NOAA, NCAR/UCAR, the Met Office, CRU etc., it would help them to find the problems more quickly.

    Make it a wholly open process with all data available on the web, in order to leverage the free labor of groups such as the readers of WUWT. Certain tasks such as data collection could be formally farmed out to groups of amateurs (e.g. the surface stations project). The global warmists want the people of the world to get involved, but I suppose this may not be what they had in mind.

  38. Posing in front of that “Deep Black” thing… looks like a “New Age” witch.
    Seems like saying: “We can´t be wrong cause we got this computer”…
    Come on!

  39. “So since the Met Office is quite sure; even “unequivocally” so that the “e-mails” were STOLEN, can we please have along with this listof 1700 British Climate luminaries, the name of the individual, or a list of the several individuals who carried out this theft;”
    ——————————————–

    Seeing that the recent publication on WUWT of the analysis of the data showed that it was far more likely that this data was compiled by the people at CRU, and therefore that this was an inside job, and the complete lack of proof of any “hacker stealing” this data, it does paint a very poor picture of these alarmists not only being very poor scientists, but of being “tinfoil-hat conspiracy nuts” as well.

    Just because this data was posted to a Russian site, does NOT mean that Russians stole it. Especially since the BBC had this data a full month before it appeared on the Russian server.

  40. Well I went through just one page of comments, but did not find a single favourable one – Should I go on to page two?

  41. I’ve heard quite often people equate CO2 footprints to breathing and it made me wonder if this was an actual measure used seriously by the alarmists when talking about carbon footprints.

    Am I wrong? but isn’t the carbon we exhale not just carbon that was already in the air in the first place? Isn’t breathing carbon neutral in the same way as bio-fuel?

  42. The best definition ever: “Hollywood Science” (Prof.Khabibulo Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory, Saint Petersburg) when asked about “climate change”).

  43. It doesn’t matter how many brilliant, or honorable scientists sign any paper about the integrity of any study, if the source of the data is questionable, or poor, or the data itself has been corrupted, modified, or manipulated in any inappropriate way, the conclusions are still junk! Honesty and integrity are no substitute for bad data, or bad methodology, or misdirected conclusions. I don’t care how honest the operator, garbage going into the machine equals garbage out! If 90% of the data is garbage, and then you add more garbage to modify the original garbage, what percent of the conclusion is also garbage? It is amazing that so called intelligent and educated people can demonstrate so much ignorance… But, it has been thus in all of history. It is no wonder that scientists have to die before the next generation is allowed to progress!!!
    Stephen

  44. When the boss goes around to at-will employees who can be fired for any reason, or for no reason at all, and ‘asks’ them to sign a petition, who is going to refuse? And they call that “spontaneous”. The Met officials lie like a child.

    The OISM Petition, on the other hand, was entirely voluntary, although there was still some employment risk involved for those willing to sign their names to it.

    The OISM Petition was voluntarily circulated during the run-up to Kyoto. To refresh everyone’s memory, the Petition states:

    …The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

    Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. [emphasis added]

    More than 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition. They were required to have degrees in the hard sciences [Chemistry, Physics, etc.], and the Petition was restricted to U.S. residents. The credentials of all signers were verified.

    The OISM signers could not email their petition. They had to download and print it, or get a hard copy; sign and date it, apply postage and mail it in. The fact that far more of them did that voluntarily [compared with the Met’s thuggish tactics], shows conclusively that the claims of AGW “consensus” is as much based on fraud as the Met’s strong-arm tactics [the unspoken message: “Sign this, or your job is at risk.”]

    As one quoted Met employee said, “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming.”

    Any defenders of the Met’s underhanded tactics: please tell us how the Met’s ‘statement’ means anything at all.

  45. wws (08:42:22) :

    This is the same thing as a government demanding loyalty oaths.
    ———————————————————————————–

    My reaction, exactly. “You’re either with us or against us.”

    So much for the principles of good science.

  46. Note that the wording of the Met Office petition says that it includes students; so not only are not all these people climate scientists, some may not yet be qualified scientists in any field.

    Some shock news just in:

    10,000,000 British turkeys vote to abolish Christmas (and 50,000,000 US turkeys vote to abolish Thanksgiving).

  47. OK they have 1700 scientists who signed their statement. We, the skeptics, have 31,000 who signed the petition on Global Warming

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    and 700 who signed the Manhattan Declaration

    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

    They can attack our list and we can attack theirs. But the important point is that the science is absolutely not settled. We should not be embarking on treaties or legislation based on claims of scientific consensus when there clearly is no consensus.

  48. Would you trust a scientist who backs an organisation that can’t give reliable weather information for tomorrow but knows what will happen in 10, 20 , 30,… years’ time?
    This whole charade is a clear sign of panic let’s hope some sensible people in government see the light.

  49. Is there any way to get a list of the “scientists” at the associated institutions that DIDN’T sign? If there were none, then the coercion is obvious.

  50. “Top” scientists, says the Times. In what sense are they “top”?
    I have looked at the list and there does not seem to be any evidence for this.

  51. Good news at last. Climate change is NOT happening in the UK, and its official!

    Here are some links to UK government climate monitoring data recorded automatically and independent of the Met Office and CRU ‘homogenisation’. And guess what, it is virtually impossible to discern any significant trends in any of the monitored indicators (beyond expected normal variation associated with localised micro-climates, UHI etc) except for a recent drop in annual mean temperature. I guess they forgot to ‘hide the decline’ in this dataset.

    The Environmental Change Network (ECN) http://www.ecn.ac.uk/aboutecn.htm is the UK’s long-term environmental monitoring programme sponsored by a consortium of 14 UK government departments and agencies. The objective is to monitor climate change using a series of physical, chemical and biological indicators.

    Monitoring stations

    http://www.ecn.ac.uk/sites.htm

    Number of annual ‘Hot Days’

    http://www.ecn.ac.uk/CCI/hotdays.asp

    Number of annual ‘Cold Days’

    http://www.ecn.ac.uk/CCI/colddays.asp

    Annual Mean Temperature

    http://www.ecn.ac.uk/CCI/avg_tmp.asp

    Percentage of precipitation falling in winter

    http://www.ecn.ac.uk/CCI/precipitation.asp

    Peak flight time of the orange tip butterfly

    http://www.ecn.ac.uk/CCI/ap_orangetip.asp

    A peer reviewed article appears in Biological Conservation magazine (behind paywall). The abstract is distinctly non-alarmist, given 15 years of monitoring. WUWT?

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-4X7FRPW-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1129376288&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=857a30dca62283b183aa35099d24909b

  52. “Professor Slingo denied that the Met Office had put anyone under pressure. “The response has been absolutely spontaneous. As a scientist you sign things you agree with, not because you are worried about what the Met Office might think of you,” she said.”

    Yes, but was it a “robust response” as all there other responses have been?

  53. A request to add my signature came across my desk 6 times between Friday and Monday of this week. I didn’t sign it for several reasons.

    The first is that the request came from an email circular (copied below) sent by the Met Office that bounced around several lists but clearly went to all Climate, Environment, Oceanography plus other science departments in the UK and possibly international. The request did not contain a draft text of the subsequent press release and I for one would never add my signature to a letter that I had not seen.

    Secondly the email contained a series of assumptions that can only be answered after the results of the inquiry/review are known.

    From: Gilbert, Pip On Behalf Of Slingo, Julia (Chief Scientist)
    Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 10:33 AM
    To: Climate_Research; Met R&D all staff
    Subject: URGENT: Supporting the science
    Importance: High

    Dear All,

    As you are very aware, the science of climate change is under an
    unprecedented attack and I know that many of you feel that we, as the
    science community in the UK, should try to make our voice heard too. We
    are therefore seeking a groundswell of support for a simple statement
    that we, the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the
    science base that underpins the evidence for global warming. That
    evidence has been arrived at through decades of painstaking and
    meticulous research by many scientists across the world, who adhere to
    the highest levels of integrity and honesty, the hallmarks of true
    scientific endeavour. We come together now to defend our profession
    against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of
    climate change.

    I know this is very short notice but we would like to gather a list of
    names from you and your scientific colleagues who support this move. We
    would like to collect these names over the weekend and on Monday so that
    a short letter, basically saying the above, can be released to the press
    on your behalf on Tuesday, at the latest. If we can reach 100 signatures
    or more from the UK academic community that would be a fantastic
    response. Please can I request your help by asking you to not only
    respond yourself, but also to send this on to scientific colleagues as a
    matter of urgency.

    The Met Office is able to provide help to pull these names together and
    if you wish to support this statement then please send an email to:

    julia.slingo@metoffice.gov.uk with ‘Yes’ in the Subject.

    Many thanks,

    Julia Slingo and John Hirst

    Julia Slingo Chief Scientist
    Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom
    xxxxxxxx
    xxxxxxxx

  54. Just had a flick through the comments. Somebody earlier in the thread mentions the Oregon petition and an idiot called Edward Eck has already parrotted the official response “And how many have published refereed papers in climatology? “. Obviously hasn’t read and understood the article very well …

  55. “More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office”

    Noticeable absence of saying how many requests were sent out to get that 1700 signatures…

  56. John Silver;

    “So, where can I sign the petition to the contrary?”

    …if you wish to support this statement then please send an email to:

    julia.slingo@metoffice.gov.uk with ‘Yes’ in the Subject.

    Many thanks,

    Julia Slingo and John Hirst

    Julia Slingo Chief Scientist
    Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom

    So it seems that anyone could email Ms Slingo with a simple No in the Subject line. Sort of a wake-up call from the real world.

  57. Talking of image – I hope this is not too O.T.

    The UK Department of Climate Change (yes, we have one) put out some terrible adverts about CO2 – designed to scare children – that have attracted many complaints. This is the interim report on those complaints. (ASA = UK advertising standards authority)

    .
    .

    Dear Sir/ Madam

    YOUR COMPLAINT: ACT ON CO2 TV AND PRESS ADS

    You complained to the ASA about the Act On CO2 campaign by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. We are writing to update you as to progress.

    As you may know, we have received several hundred complaints about ads in both broadcast and non-broadcast media. We are now investigating seven separate points of complaint in relation to the TV advertising and three in relation to the press advertising. Two of the points of complaint about the TV advertising have been referred simultaneously to Ofcom, who are responsible for deciding whether the TV ads constitute political advertising.

    We have now received complaints about four press ads [“Three Men in a Tub” (b) “Jack and Jill” (c), “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” (d), and “The Cow Jumped Over the Moon” (e)]. Please find below an updated summary of the points we are investigating:

    Many viewers complained about the TV ad (a) because they believed:

    1. the ad was political in nature and should not be broadcast;

    2. the theme and content of the ad, for example the dog drowning in the storybook and the depiction of the young girl to whom the story was being read, could be distressing for children who saw it;

    3. the ad should not have been shown when children were likely to be watching television;

    4. the ad was misleading because it presented human induced climate change as a fact, when there was a significant division amongst the scientific community on that point;

    5. the claim “over 40% of the CO2 was coming from ordinary everyday things” was misleading;

    6. the representation of CO2 as a rising cloud of black smog was misleading;

    7. the claims about the possible advent of strange weather and flooding in the UK, and associated imagery in the ads, were exaggerated, distressing and misleading;

    8. Many complainants objected to the press ads (b) (c) and (d) on the grounds of (4) and (7) above.

    9. One complainant objected to the press ad (e) on the grounds of (5) above

    The TV ad (a) will be investigated under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 4 (Political and controversial issues), 5.1.1, 5.1.2 (Misleading advertising: general), 5.2.1 (Misleading advertising: evidence), 5.2.6 (Misleading advertising: environmental claims), 6.4 (Harm and offence: personal distress), 7.4.6 (Children: distress), 7.4.7 (Children: use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) TV Scheduling Code rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children).

    The press ads (b), (c), (d) and (e) will be investigated under CAP Code clauses 3.1, 3.2 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress), 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental Claims).

    Once we have reached an initial conclusion, we will make a recommendation to the ASA Councils as to whether or not we believe the ads may breach the advertising Codes on one or more points. We will do this as soon as we can, but it is important that we follow our published procedures, and that means we will not be in a position for the Councils to make a final decision on the case until the New Year.

    We will write to you again with a copy of our final adjudication and the date it will be published on the ASA website http://www.asa.org.uk. We regret that, due to finite resources, we will not be able to provide another update until then.

    We hope you find this information helpful. As before, we ask you to keep confidential all correspondence relating to this case.

    Yours sincerely

    Jenny Alexander
    Investigations Executive
    jennya@asa.org.uk
    02074922144

  58. This is starting to feel like an episode of ‘Dad’s Army’.

    Who do you think you are kidding…

    Your name will also go on the list! What is it?

    Don’t tell him Pike!

    Don’t panic Mr Mainwaring!

    You stupid boy!

    Run rabbit, run rabbit, run, run ,run….

  59. This is the beginning of the steam roller which will likely be aimed by all major science research organizations and institutions at us. it is not about being rattled or on the run, or anything else except job protection. And the governments of the world are going to listen to these groups. Hell, the MET office IS the government, as is NASA.

    And having nice guys go on a news show against Gavin Schmidtt – well…. yet another PR disaster in my opinion.

    They stick to their talking points lies or not and we try to state the scientific controversy. We are not going to prevail and this, in the media’s eyes is becoming the non-story they thought in the first place. It’s almost as if the media went out of its way to find the two most inexperienced debaters to put up against Schmidtt and Oppenheimer. Our side looked like Nixon against Kennedy in 1960. I saw nothing if I were an on-the-fence John Q. Public to convince me that Climate Gate had any impact. Opeenheimer and Schmidtt vehemently supported the party line – business as usual. They are proving the “nothing to see here” conclusion that they trotted out at the beginning – at least in John Doe’s eyes. I think Christy and McIntyre are in the first rank of our heros, but they should not be occupying the only and precious few spots where our case could have been made to the public. Of course, it doesn’t work that way in our group, so …..

    I hate to say it because I thought the last bunch in D.C. were a pile of fetid cretins, but the mid-term elections just might not be coming soon enough to stop this train. The government is playing the health care card large, and meanwhile slipping the CO2 endangerment card and who knows what else quietly under the table.

    I’m not giving up and have been out lecturing to whomever will listen, but I think we have missed the greatest impact we could have realized from ClimateGate by not making great cases when allowed to do so for the first time EVER in a public forum.

  60. FWIW, we’ve heard about the “data release” from the Met Office for the selected 1500 stations where they had no restrictions on releasing it. Sounds good, 1500 is a reasonable sample. The only problem is it was a “polite deception”. They didn’t release the “raw data” they released the CRUt “pasteurized processed data food product”… Kind of nutty to justify the accuracy of the data molestation by fudge factor via the method of releasing a subset of the product that was fudged…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/met-office-uea-cru-data-release-polite-deception/

    I think it’s time to put “Met Office” on the fraud shopping list too… So, what enforcement agency is in charge of “internal affairs” for the Met Office?

  61. This was not a smart move by the MET PR people.

    I view this act as only further weakening the reputation of this entity.

    Do they think the public is so stupid as to not see that this is a hail mary pass with little to no chance of being caught?

    This is sort of like 1,400 people singing a petition stating they have full faith in Tiger Woods to now be a dedicated, loyal husband to Elin.

  62. @Smokey. 10.27.26

    Slingo is on the UK NERC management committee. (Google “NERC UK” if you are interested in the other members to see their persoanl interests in AGW.)

    NERC is responsible for awarding government grants for scientific research in the UK.

    So, for a UK scientist at least, your idea is a little like telling Stalin to his face that you aren’t going to vote for him.

  63. Are the same people who wrote the CRUtapes Fortran working on the software running on Deep Black?

    Just asking.

  64. Jason F (09:05:19) :

    I’ve heard quite often people equate CO2 footprints to breathing and it made me wonder if this was an actual measure used seriously by the alarmists when talking about carbon footprints.

    Am I wrong? but isn’t the carbon we exhale not just carbon that was already in the air in the first place? Isn’t breathing carbon neutral in the same way as bio-fuel?

    A small fraction of the exhaled CO2 is already in the air you inhaled, but most of it is CO2 produced by the biological combustion of the food you eat. Your body literally burns food to make energy, there is no difference between the CO2 produced by a living organism to produce energy and the CO2 produced by a coal fired power plant to produce electricity. They both result from the oxidation of a fuel containing carbon that at some time in the past was biological biomass.

    Most of your biological energy comes from the biological oxidation of glucose, which is the same as cellulose. Cellulose (biomass) is simply another form of hydrocarbon in the form of sugars, which combines glucose in to very large molecules to form cellulose.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose

    The CO2 produced by our breathing and biological oxidation is no more CO2 neutral than the CO2 coming out of the tail pipe of your car. Both are produced by the oxidation of hydrocarbons, and in both cases those hydrocarbons were formed by natural processes from pre-existing carbon and hydrogen, either by biological processes (plants) or geological processes, (heat and pressure on carbon and hydrogen bearing compounds).

    When you specify “carbon neutral” you really have to specify over what time scale you are talking about. Coal is carbon neutral if you realize it came from very old plant mass that has been modified by deep burial and heat and pressure. The only difference is the plant mass that made your wheat chex this morning, grew a year or two ago, and the plant mass that made the coal burned in the power plant to run your refrigerator grew thousands of years ago. In both cases plants fixed the carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere and turned it into carbohydrates like sugar and cellulose.

    Larry

  65. Kate (08:29:56) :
    This has to be the ultimate vehicle for fraudsters; turning thin air into hard cash on the basis of the greatest scientific fraud in history.

    Nice summary. FWIW, this is, IMHO, just a re-working of a much older Crown shake down racket based on carbon control. Everything old is new again:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_tax_post

    Given the historical precedent, and that The Crown will have well remembered all that lucre and lusted for days gone by…

    Given the Big Push for CAP and tax…

    Given the pattern of UEA and Met Office as key “cheerleaders”…

    It does look a lot like someone who knew a bit of “tax history” was lusting for “the good old days” and tried to bring them back, by hook or by crook.

  66. I took a look at the 88 names from Oxford, the institution I know best. Only 16 of the names work in atmospheric physics and only 8 of those are faculty. About a quarter of the names are graduate students. A clear majority of the names are from the various branches of geography and earth sciences, including the environmental change unit. Most amusing are the three archaeologists.

  67. @chris the englishman

    Good to see other people picking up the issue of “Post Normal Science”. That BBC article by Ravetz and Hulme (Hulme by the way for those who didn’t already know is one of the participants in the Climategate emails and a member of staff at UEA), is a very watered down version of what these Orwellian scientists actually intend.

    I’ve been spending some time on the issue recently:

    http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2009/12/green-snake-in-grass.html

    The influence of this thinking appears to have a substantial reach, so I’ve started cataloging which scientists express support for it and noting the institutions they work for, or are affiliated with.

    By way of a very inadequate precis: What PNS is about is ejecting the idea of truth as the most important aspect of science and replacing it instead with the question of how science can be used to achieve certain social goals. No, I’m not exaggerating.

    I’m finding this all very depressing (climatgate, PNS, the incredible contrast between what the media are saying and what the general public appear to be saying when they have the chance to speak in comments on articles etc). I’ve been working at a science lab for three years now and am seriously reconsidering it as a career. I simply cannot see how its possible to proceed and keep one’s integrity intact, and integrity is very important to me.

  68. Paul Dennis (10:14:46) :

    Whats that? A confederacy of dunces?

    that is a sign of pure mediocrity. Its like Mozart sending a petition to the courts asking for their signatures to say he is the greatest musical genius, so he can show it off wherever he goes. Trouble is, he’s already painfully aware that his talent sets him apart.

    Salieri is the sort who gets eclipsed by Mozart and needs to crawl to the courts for their good words and support.

    “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”

  69. Barry Foster (08:43:02) : Has anyone seen anything, like any graph or data, that bears any correlation to the quite sudden rise in temperatures in 1980?

    Yes.

    It is the inverse of this graph:

    “The Great Dying of Thermometers” where NCDC started cutting the cold thermometers out of the GHCN data set. You know, that same GHCN that is 98% the same as the CRUT input data? That same GHCN that is 98% of the input data (by area covered) in GIStemp. That same data that, produced by NCDC, is the NCDC product. That same data that is the input to the Japanese data food product.

    If you would understand the “land data hockey stick” you must understand the selective deletion of thermometer records. It is only done for the recent data and is strongly biased to cold locations. Leave the Andes IN for the baseline, but take them OUT for the recent past. Leave the Canadian North West Territories and Yukon IN for the baseline, take them OUT for the recent past. Leave the Japanese snowy mountains IN for the baseline, delete them in the recent past. Repeat for the whole globe Gory details here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/

    They delete roughly 90% of the recent thermometer records. This does things like leave the USA with 90+% of thermometers at airports.

  70. I’ve just emailed the Met Office to register that as a scientist, I have absolutely zero confidence in them. I explained why.

    I hope they get more than comments like that.

  71. Barry Foster (10:32:17) :
    “As Smokey above says, go here julia.slingo@metoffice.gov.uk
    and put ‘NO’ in the subject box.”

    On occasion or two I was told that I promote ‘pseudoscience’ and as such ‘a danger to society’. So it would be fun to get my name among ‘top scientists’, hence I am sending big YES, whatever that may mean. All NOs will be deleted automatically by the email filtering.

  72. vukcevic,

    I had not thought of that angle. But it brought up another thought: how would she react to “Maybe”? Or: “The science isn’t settled”?

  73. MikeE (09:24:20) : Some shock news just in:

    10,000,000 British turkeys vote to abolish Christmas (and 50,000,000 US turkeys vote to abolish Thanksgiving).

    Ducks and Geese walk out in sympathy… demand end to fowl discrimination…

    Pigs, polled on this issues, were “on the fence” Said one: “On the one ham, it would be good to abolish it, on the other, we would hate to see Turkeys given unequal favorable rights under the law via a ‘Fowl Hate Crime’ ruling…”

  74. watt tyler (08:33:54) : I understand why voting UKIP in the next UK GE is appealing – but unless you live in John Bercow’s constituency – it’s pointless.

    Farage has the best chance of unseating him – UKIP have zero prospect in any other seat.

  75. Slingo writes in her email ‘request':
    “We are therefore seeking a groundswell of support….”

    That’s interesting, I thought a groundswell, by its very definition, came from below, the people on the ground. This is a top sought groundswell. So spontaneous.

  76. News just in: The Royal Society of Turkeys has just released a petition stating ‘Christmas is a totally unecessary festival and should be banned herewith’. There has been a 98% signage take-up among RST members.

  77. It reminds me the “unanimous support” the Soviet scientists expressed in combating genetics and cybernetics, those “whores serving the international imperialism”. My colleagues immigrants from the Union know what I am talking about and can explain it to the colleagues from the first world countries who are re-inventing the “wide support of 1700 scientists” wheel. One can also recall wide spread support the contemporary scientists expressed to Pope in the case of Pope against Galileo. Also, there is an intriguing increase of cases when laymen asking scientists “do you believe…” questions, and scientists… answering these questions! Didn’t we learn from Newton that scientists believe outside the science. Mann et al should be ostracized simply based on their “believe – don’t believe” approach to science and urgency of enforcing their believe. We, scientists, know that Mann et al simply prostituting in order to gain funding and glory. I would add to the list Ken Caldeira from Stanford, who in his 3 minutes of fame declared on NPR that he proposes spreading of sufer particles in upper atmosphere to combat the global warming and cool the Eath. It is time to explain laymen what is going on and confess that most of us, scientists who filled “Greater Impact” section of their proposals for funding are similarly guilty of such prostitution, just on the smaller level and in not so important issues.

  78. “Top scientists”, those scientists at the top of the concocting climate fraud pot, hiding cooked data soup in it.

  79. Of course they voted yes. It was for the same reason that the population of Iraq always voted for Saddam Hussein.

  80. On the 24th November the British Met office issued a joint press statement on Climate Science. I can only assume this is in the wake of the CRU e-mail hack and was an attempt to assure the public on the veracity and openness of Climate Science

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091124a.html

    Authors were those of the highest reputation:-
    Prof. Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist, Met Office
    Prof. Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive, Natural Environment Research Council
    Lord Rees, President, the Royal Society

    This statement included the following passage:-

    “Year-on-year the evidence is growing that damaging climate and weather events — potentially intensified by global warming — are already happening and beginning to affect society and ecosystems. This includes:
    In the UK, heavier daily rainfall leading to local flooding such as in the summer of 2007.”
    Anybody reading this passage is left with the strong impression that Scientific Evidence existed that proved the floods of 2007 were caused by Climate Change or were part of likely climate change scenarios for the UK. I am further confused because the next line down says that the summer drought and heat wave of 2003 was also part of likely climate change scenarios. So according to the statement a cool wet summer in UK and a hot dry summer are both indicators of trends caused by CO2 induced climate change !!!!!!!

    I was unlucky enough to be directly involved in the 2007 Avon/Severn flooding, I got my feet wet! so I did, out of interest, keep up to date with any science reporting of the likely cause.

    An excellent scientific analysis was produced on the 2007 floods by CEH a part of Prof. Alan Thorpe’s Natural Environment Research Council.

    http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/news_archive/2008_news_item_05.html

    And I quote from this report:
    Lead author, Terry Marsh, comments: “The river floods of summer 2007 were a very singular episode, which does not form part of any clear historical trend or show consistency with currently favoured climate change scenarios.”

    Mr Marsh adds: “The exceptional river flooding last summer fuelled speculation that flood risk is increasing due to global warming. Due to the inherent variability of the UK climate, any extreme hydrological event cannot readily be linked directly to climate change.”

    So what do I make of all of that?

    At best the Climate Statement passage is a mistake, which coming from such an authoritative source is inexcusable! Or perhaps the authors know of “science” that proves the floods were part of a likely climate change scenario.

    At worst some would see this as an attempt to mislead the public. It diminishes the credibility of the whole statement.

    I wish the authors to publicly accept this mistake and withdraw this part of the statement. However I expect that they will not! if only just to protect the reputation of the esteemed authors.

    Perhaps there is something wrong with Climate Science.! their actions will inform us!

  81. Didn’t the Nazis already try this in 1936 with Relativity?
    I seem to recall they published a petition of 1000 scientists refuting relativity.
    Einsteins comment on it was “If they could prove me wrong, one scientist should be all thats needed”
    Look how far downhill it’s gone. Scientists refusing to release data and methods (so they can’t be traditionally or validated), perversions in the peer review process, journalistic propaganda pieces and politicians (or ex politicians) using a theory as a way of managing their approval level (or lack thereof).
    sickening.

  82. Confidence?
    Is this about belief or science?
    They should really ask how many scientists associated with climate change had thoroughly reviewed the various reports, the underlying “value added” temperature data and it extraction from the raw data and could confirm that the reports are sound and valid.
    I bet they’d have a few fewer signatories then.
    But if this is about belief, then these should none of them be scientists.
    They may ask if they have confidence in the management of the weather centre, but not (in the terms expressed and especially as some are not climate scientists) in the reports or data. That they can either accept on trust or authenticate through their own evaluations.

  83. hotrod (10:48:18) :
    Very well put. I was going to post similarly put you beat me to the punch!

    As others have said, to any one who is thinking, this whole petition in light of what has transpired only weakens their case.

    At the risk of being a little too Al Gore-like, I will quoate Shakespeare:

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

  84. Dear Dr employee.

    As you know, our great institution has been attacked by those who would do us harm. Please consider signing this paper which validates our support for global warming and the integrity of your institution of employment. Your support at this time is invaluable to continuing our already anemic and strained rate of funding.

    Thank you,
    the Boss

    P.S. In a carbon offset measure for the power consumption of deep black It is office policy to use recycled paper for our TPS forms.

  85. I’d like to see the full content. Does anyone know where I can read the petition ?

    I can’t find it on the Met Office site … I did come across this clanger though under “The Age of Stupid – A climate scientist’s view of 2055″ “Sea-level rise is projected to add around 20 cm, on average, to coastlines around the world”. Stupidly, an increasing coastline implies a falling sea level.

  86. The UK Met Office site is quite a laugh. If ever you were in doubt, here is the vital evidence in full, proving that man’s CO2 is causing global warming:

    “Are you sure there’s a link between temperature rise and CO2

    Yes. Temperature and CO2 are linked. Studies of polar-ice layers show that in the past, rises in temperature have been followed by an increase in CO2. Now, it is a rise in CO2 that is causing the temperature to rise.

    Concentrations of CO2 have increased by more than 35% since industrialisation began, and they are now at their highest for at least 800,000 years.

    When natural factors alone are considered, computer models do not reproduce the climate warming we have observed. Only when man-made greenhouse gases are included do they accurately recreate what has happened in the real world.”

  87. To paraphrase Twain… and when I am far on the road to conviction, and 1,700 men, be they workers in climate science or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the Met’s professional integrity too; and not only seen it but ‘hefted’ it, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire hockey team had testified as to its authenticity.

  88. Perhaps we should all email julia.slingo.

    We need to express our feelings that the AGW team has lost all credibility.

    If they wish to regain any credibility they need to really open up the review of everything they have done to date and from this point forward.

    The review should be “Open Source” similar to the projects that developed LINUX, Open Office, Mozilla, Firefox, etc..

    I am sure Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Watts could oversee this effort, of course they have both done way more than most of us and they deserve our eternal gratitude.

  89. Not next month, not next week but right now, ANY journalist, editorial writer, politician or scientist who doesn’t recognize this massive fraud for what it is, is doing so deliberately.

    If CRU leadership or signatories think they are helping either the AGW science or their own reputations and futures by this stunt they are far more gone than they are able to fathom.

    Every name on there will go down in infamy as the last shameless holdouts of the largest scandal in global human history.

    What a stunningly ignorant ploy.

    I’m quite amazed they are not imagining how this will continue to unravel. The broad evidentiary display of malfeasance is now so significant that their credulity in presuming they’ll salvage the mission is sickeningly hilarious.

    This is the ultimate, “Are you kidding me?”

  90. Barry Foster (08:43:02), in addition to the thermometer situation I just read somewhere else that there were 4% fewer clouds in the 80s and 90s. I think it was in one of the recent threads on WUWT.

    Back on topic, the first thing I thought of has already been mentioned. Einstein would have a field day with this. If anyone asks me about this petition I would just quote good old Albert.

  91. AJStrata: (08:18:10)

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11824

    Thank you, AJStrata.
    I recommend reading this.
    It articulates many of the misgivings I have felt and adds more as well. I could never get my brain around all the fudging of data that seems to be accepted practice in climate “science”. It is refreshing to step back from all the CRU rubbish and sweep it into the bin where it belongs.

  92. I looked up a few of the names to try and discover what field of “Science” in which they were involved. I append below just three of the findings regarding names taken at random. I have not endeavoured to delve any further to try and ascertain the funding source(s) for any of the persons who signed this Met Office begging letter, though such research could be rewarding.

    Nematode resistance in rice – mapping quantitative resistance genes for marker-assisted breeding ROSHI SHRESTHA, MIKE WILSON & ADAM PRICE (Aberdeen University, UK

    Professor Adrian Hartley
    Research areas
    •Evolution of the Central Andes, particularly Cenozoic sedimentology, tectonics and climate
    •Tectonic geomorphology and drainage development in compressional and extensional terranes
    •Sedimentological characterisation and correlation within hydrocarbon reservoirs
    •Clastic sedimentology, processes and products

    STAFF PROFILE – Jennifer Dungait
    Careers summary
    • Senior Research Scientist (Biogeochemist), Soil & Water Team (2008 – present)
    • Postdoctoral Research Associate OGU, University of Bristol (2006 – 2008)
    • Postdoctoral Research Assistant Organic Geochemistry Unit (OGU), University of Bristol (2005 – 2006)
    • PhD. Organic Geochemistry: ‘Molecular and Compound-Specific Stable Carbon Isotope Investigation of the Fate of Dung Carbon in a Temperate Grassland Soil’, University of Bristol (2001 – 2005)

    Emma Stone
    Postgraduate Student
    Background
    MSc in Applied Meteorology, University of Reading (2006)
    Dissertation: “Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): How much difference will it make to global warming?”

  93. What planet do these people live on?

    Seventeen hundred scientist (some with broken fingers and others with split lips) assure us of the “professional integrity” of global warming research. Whose idea was this? Phil Jones, or perhaps Ed Miliband…?

  94. “Sign ze papers, old man!”

    “I cannot sign the papers” (weeping) “And what do the papers say?”

    “They are merely a statement saying you have not been mistreated…”

    Then the interrogator burns the prisoner with a cigarette and Chong says “Oh wow man, he stuck it in his eye…” etc., etc.

    Cheech & Chong – Big Bambu (1972)

  95. The list made interesting reading, as I know many of the people who signed. One of the eminent “scientists” is the chief engineer (retired) of a NERC research ship.
    From a cursory scan, I was glad to see that Nick Owens (director of BAS) is not on there. Good on ya Nicko!

  96. The Met Office web site says in its link to the names of “supporters”:

    “The response of the science community to the ongoing questioning of core climate science and methods.”

    I don’t know for sure, but I guess that this was by invitation only to the heads of organisations that depend on the Met Office for work.

    What if we clock up an enormous number of genuine NEGATIVE responses by email, or whatever? The Met Office would probably ignore these responses, but if they were logged in some way (perhaps by Anthony and his technology) then we could confront the Met Office at a later date with very embarrasing facts such as negative feedback to their request that they chose to ignore.

    Does this have any support and technical possibility?

  97. Remember AGW Rule One: Don’t discuss the science; attack the messenger; and repeat the mantra.

    The argument has now been shifted from the science to numbers.

    The counter to this AGW ploy, is to submit the names of the 32,000 scientists who signed a petition skeptical of man-made global warming and Senator Inhofe’s 700 plus scientists who also deny man-made global warming.

    There is the possibility in a overlap between the two lists, but, as the AGWers know, redundancy only helps the cause.

  98. This makes me sick in the stomach, furious, and frightened, all at the same time. Also the Met Office published a leaflet issued with every copy of “The Independent” a couple days ago. I’ve never seen so many lies jostling for space.

    This is an attack on truth (what Jesus maintained was his work), and on democracy, as well as an attack on Science. And it has been going on a long time, not as an attack but as a slide in values. Someone said, “it only takes good people to do nothing, for evil to triumph”.

    I would really appreciate articles here on “What Can I Do?” Though all here have my sympathies, as Steve Mc would say, “no more piling on please”. Can we do more to turn those feelings of sickness, anger, fear, depression, “told ya so”, resignation, etc. into productive channels, please? More “way forward” please! I’ve joined a small group trying to establish some basic records info online, but this is still in development.

  99. Here is a choice of two dotted lines
    We are confident you know which to sign
    But just to be sure you’re in no doubt
    We took the step of striking one out.

  100. This quote from Catch-22 also seems amusingly apt:

    Without realizing how it had come about, the combat men in the squadron discovered themselves dominated by the administrators appointed to serve them. They were bullied, insulted, harassed and shoved about all day long by one after the other. When they voiced objection, Captain Black replied that people who were loyal would not mind signing all the loyalty oaths they had to. To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the loyalty oaths, he replied that people who really did owe allegiance to their country would be proud to pledge it as often as he forced them to. And to anyone who questioned the morality, he replied that “The Star-Spangled Banner” was the greatest piece of music ever composed. The more loyalty oaths a person signed, the more loyal he was; to Captain Black it was as simple as that, and he had Corporal Kolodny sign hundreds with his name each day so that he could always prove he was more loyal than anyone else.

    “The important thing is to keep them pledging,” he explained to his cohorts. “It doesn’t matter whether they mean it or not. That’s why they make little kids pledge allegiance even before they know what ‘pledge’ and ‘allegiance’ means.”

    “Of course, it’s up to you,” Captain Black pointed out. “Nobody’s trying to pressure you. But everyone else is making them sign loyalty oaths, and it’s going to look mighty funny to the F.B.I. if you two are the only ones who don’t care enough about your country to make them sign loyalty oaths, too. If you want to get a bad reputation, that’s nobody’s business but your own. All we’re trying to do is help.”

  101. More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research.

    That is rubbish.

    Here is a poster from Bishop Hill

    CENSORSHIP at the Times

    I have tried to post a comment at the Times Online regarding the Met Office signatories. I didn’t save the original text but it is along the lines of:

    ‘The Met Office acquired 1700 signatories by passing an email circular around. This circular came across my desk at least 5 times from different sources. I refused to sign it even though I’m an active palaeoclimate scientist. The email circular did not contain a draft text for the Press Release and so I presume that 1700 scientists signed up to a letter they hadn’t read until it appeared. This is rather like signing a blank cheque, or dare I say it the ‘blind leading the blind’ springs to mind. It is thoughtless and immature.’

    This comment has not appeared within the 2 hours since I posted it despite others appearing. Perhaps the truth is too much for Ben Webster, Environment Correspondent to handle, or perhaps he’s too busy enjoying Copenhagen.

    December 10, 2009 | Splice

  102. They just don’t get it, do they?

    The trust thing is about the SCIENCE!

    IIF the experiments can be independently repeated, and come up with the same results, THEN the science is proved, and can be trusted.

    Loyalty Oaths as per Catch 22 are NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOFS

    So, Slingo, show us your data and your methods!

  103. So except for the 2 or 3 who wrote that statement the rest who signed it can read it now online like the rest of us

  104. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

    How many were janitors, receptionists, accounts clerks, the paper boy?

  105. Met Office predict 2010 will be warmest on record

    The new forecast predicted 2010 will warmer than 1998, that was 0.9F (0.5C) above average and the hottest year on record so far. The warming is expected because of the El Nino, an atmospheric phenomenon over the Pacific, which warms the Southern Oceans.

    I hope they are right, hate cold.

  106. “I will believe in what the Met office says only if they hire Steve McIntyre for a year to perform an independent audit, and let him lead a group of 50 scientists of his own choosing with access to all temperature records and all temperature-massaging and modeling software worldwide. Also, if they had access to old emails at GISS, NOAA, NCAR/UCAR, the Met Office, CRU etc., it would help them to find the problems more quickly.”

    I’m afraid I can’t do that, Dave.

  107. This circular came across my desk at least 5 times from different sources
    That’s fine: A sign of desperation….
    Let’s get more popcorn!

  108. It says something when proponents of a scientific theory are reduced to bolstering their position with petitions rather than letting a rigorous, open examination of the evidence speak for them.

    It tells me:

    a) They haven’t got a great deal of confidence in their own position.

    b) This isn’t about science so much as politics.

  109. I haven’t read all the posts, so this may have been mentioned before. But this left me wondering why the Met Office had to start a round robin in defence of the Met Office/CRU. Surely they could have phoned a friend to start one for them. It smacks of “my dad’s bigger than your dad”

  110. While the Meteorological office’s ongoing Damage Control Machine continues the hopeless and pointless effort to salvage the reputation of NOT Climate Change Science , but the five scientists exposed so far at the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit , over NOT stolen e-mails , but leaked and Incriminating documents of Data Manipulation, Suppression of Peer-Review Process, Blacklisting, Data Destruction and Willful Violation of the Freedom of Information Act requests , that the Meteorological office refers to as simply ‘ stolen e-mails ‘ .

    The Meteorological office has gone to such senseless lengths as to have 1,700 scientists sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of Pro-Global Warming Research.

    NOTE : while 1,700 scientists of the Meteorological office’s Pro-Global Warming Research community has signed this particular petition , ” The Petition Project ” on the internet has been signed by 31,486 American scientists , including 9,029 with PhDs states that the IPCC’s position on Global Warming is Inaccurate , now more evident then ever after the release of the ClimateGate Files .

    It is absurd how the Meteorological office could possibly comprehend this petition act as an obvious tentative justification to the Criminal Behavior of five of its own research scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit , the Pennsylvania State University Earth System Science Center , the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research and the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who were Supposed to had ” adhered to the highest levels of professional integrity ” , as the petition had worded .

    Furthermore , reports of some scientists feeling under pressure to sign the petition for fear or risk of losing work plus the acknowledgment by the Meteorological office itself that many of the signers of the petition did not work directly on climate change only solidifies the intent of the Meteorological office’s posture to assume that it could appropriate the opinion of the world thru a coalition of sympathy that the Pro-Anthropological Global Warming community IS the victim of a simple Hack , and not a Conspiracy against the world as the ClimateGate files have revealed .

    How can the Meteorological office and the IPCC insist that Man Made Global Warming is a threat to humanity when it’s sole foundation of their evidence is the very research that the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit , the Pennsylvania State University Earth System Science Center , the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research and the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies were manipulating and furnishing to them ?

    Simply Amazing !

  111. Jason F (09:05:19) :

    I’ve heard quite often people equate CO2 footprints to breathing and it made me wonder if this was an actual measure used seriously by the alarmists when talking about carbon footprints.

    Am I wrong? but isn’t the carbon we exhale not just carbon that was already in the air in the first place? Isn’t breathing carbon neutral in the same way as bio-fuel?

    Yes, I agree with Larry above, but one problem which might bring you under the gun for a “too-big” carbon footprint is that, the more you move around the more other people have move and go around in hydrocarbon fueled or produced vehicles, picking up your exhaled CO2 from the hydrocarbon enhanced systems which are capturing it from the air you lost it to, in order to deliver it back to you so that you can continue on with moving around and exhaling more CO2, depending on your level of physical activity.

    A heavily exercising person can exhale one pound of CO2 per hour, so your best bet to escape notice of being a “suspicious carbon footprinter” – short of dieing – would be to get someone to make sure you stay in a state of, say, thorazine induced catatonia for as much time as possible.

    Conveniently, I am positioning myself to provide just this very service, for a fee depending on what your life is worth to you. There may still be enough time for you to gather enough funds before it’s too late. The Supreme World Dictoriat has started to formulate such “accords” but naturally must exempt itself and people like me to allow you to do your part to prevent “the destruction of Creation”, and thus gain favor with the Master of The Universe, with which “we are partners”.

    I hope that clears things up.

  112. I thought James Taranto a WSJ had an appropriate response this afternoon:

    “The concept of scientists–or journalists, or artists–signing a petition is ludicrous. The idea is that they are lending their authority to whatever cause the petition represents–but in fact they are undermining that authority, which is based on the presumption that they think for themselves.

    The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition’s substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists’ authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the “consensus” rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

    To be sure, Joseph McCarthy was right about communism even though the ways he combated it were wrong and counterproductive. But that’s all the more reason that honest scientists who view global warmism as credible–if such creatures exist–should rise up against these McCarthyite tactics.”

    nuff said!

  113. Pseudo-scientists always rush to defend their belief in their results with every possible trick of the trade, everything goes, except science.

    They always blame others for destroying their reputation, when in fact it’s just that lack of science that invariably sink their little ship of doom and gloom.

    The MannStickBear parade of england only consists of 1700. Even if one doesn’t subtract the number of people who only signed under psychological duress, maybe due to the historical work climate data perhaps, it’s an astonishing low number. Can’t even fill a decent sized soccer stadium.

    So it looks like the heathens, heretics, and deniers, get a bonus point.

  114. vukcevic (13:34:12) : Met Office predict 2010 will be warmest on record

    That means they are expecting Jones to be back in time after his whitewash to cook the records

  115. Richard (14:48:16) : T
    “That means they are expecting Jones to be back in time after his whitewash to cook the records”

    Geoffrey Lean is Britain’s longest-serving environmental correspondent, having pioneered reporting on the subject over 40 years ago:
    “Copenhagen: Hottest year in 2010 forecast will embarrass either the Met Office or climate sceptics .”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100019566/copenhagen-hottest-year-in-2010-forecast-will-embarrass-either-the-met-office-or-climate-sceptics/

  116. Petition:

    As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.”

    Since when is a student or senior professor considered a professional scientist?? Interesting to inquire how many of these people are funded in whole or in part by climate research grants. About 80% of the signers are employees of UK Universities – almost none from independent laboratories or institutes. Hmmm.

    A petition circulated at the place of work that says essentially, “We employees believe the work we do is of value and our paychecks should keep coming.”

    Nice to see 17 employees of the Zoological Society and the Royal Veterinary College, signing.

    Royal Veterinary College, University of London

  117. vukcevic (15:10:28) : Geoffrey Lean is Britain’s longest-serving environmental correspondent, having pioneered reporting on the subject over 40 years ago

    He obviously believes in AGW. He writes:

    “But just suppose the forecast turns out to be right. What will the sceptics do then? At the heart of their case is a claim that the world is cooling down – based on fixing the starting point in the anomalously warm 1998 and drawing a line from there, even though beginning in 1997 or 1999 would give very different results. Statisticians have condemned the practice, but they have gone on with it.”

    1. It is not at the heart of the sceptic case “that the world is cooling down”. That is either a srawman he has manufactured or he has got things quite wrong.
    The warmists claim that warming is ACCELERATING. How can warming be accelerating if there has been no warming for the past 10 years? It has a whole lot of accelerating to do before it can catch up to the IPCC forecasts, in line with CO2 increases

    2. At the heart of the AGW claim is that the past 50 years has been warmer than any time in the past at least 1,000 years. This is clearly based on manipulated data and studies. it was in fact about 0.75 C warmer during the Medieval warm period.

    3. Anthropogenic warming will only start looking plausible if we go outside the natural range of temperature variability of the holocene.

  118. Not very different from the Alcamo request eh? This PR damage-control mechanism of advocacy stinks of politics, not science. See:

    “From: Joseph Alcamo
    To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
    Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
    Reply-to: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    Mike, Rob,

    Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

    I would like to weigh in on two important questions —

    Distribution for Endorsements —
    I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
    possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
    numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
    signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
    without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
    different story.

    Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
    them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
    names!”
    *SNIP*

    Source: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=35&filename=876437553.txt
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    So the Met Office request is different how?

  119. AndrewG (11:44:57) :

    Didn’t the Nazis already try this in 1936 with Relativity?
    I seem to recall they published a petition of 1000 scientists refuting relativity.

    Nothing about a petition. But Johannes Stark, Nobel Prize winner, mounted a vicious attack on “Jewish physics” and relativity in particular.

    “In his book, Nationalsocialismus und Wissenschaft (1934) Stark argued that the scientist’s first duty was to the nation. He denounced theoretical physics and stressed the need for research to be carried out that would help industry and arms production. Stark also argued that leading scientific positions in Nazi Germany should only he held by ethnic Germans. ”

    Nothing in the climate debate comes close to this kind of ethnic attack. But we do see a tendency for State-funded institutions to represent the “consensus.”

  120. PaulM (09:53:43) :

    “Top” scientists, says the Times. In what sense are they “top”?
    I have looked at the list and there does not seem to be any evidence for this.

    Possibly, like quarks, for the PC “spin” they are willing to put on their findings.

    Now your “bottom” scientists, …well that ‘s a quark of a different “color” if I may mix the metaphor.

  121. Integrity by consensus, what next, will it be politicians signing a petition “We are honest, honestly.” :)

  122. This is crazy. Scientific truth is not a democracy! A proposition does not become true just because a majority of “scientists” vote for it. Those signing scientists have not independently verified the results and conclusions by repeating the work, and they have no business stating that they as professional scientists merely “believe” it to be true. Belief does not enter into science. Nor does personal integrity. Scientific truth is absolute truth when science is seen to be done, then God’s truth can be found. Either they have independently verified the work, or they have not. We know that they have not, because the data is not available to them.

    They should demand access to all the data and all the methodology and repeat for themselves before they sign anything. What have we become?

  123. The Met is a government agency. So it is not off base that they did this political action.

  124. One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work.

    Huh, one actually spoke up.

  125. “The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change”

    Yeah right like Hannah Griffiths, who graduated last year in Religious Studies from York University. She agrees with others that “We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities.”

  126. Statement from the UK science community
    We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.

    Is this the bloody Inquisition again?

  127. I read about this early this morning at about 5:00 a.m. in the Sacramento Bee, only it quoted 1,600 scientists. I commented and questioned why the Bee did not reference the 30,000 scientists along with John Coleman (Weather Channel) who are suing Al Gore for fraud. Then offered them to bring it to a court of law and hash it out there.

    I checked back later in the day to see what others had to say and was floored to see that the Bee pulled the article completely out. People who know how to use the wayback machine may be able to pull it up again. Maybe it’s only me, but I am sensing that news media are reading the comments and changing their slant to fit the popularity of a certain view.

    With that, I encourage people to keep letting the news media know when they spout mistruths. Perhaps that way the lies will stop, or at least slow down a bit.

  128. F. Ross (16:58:01) :

    Possibly, like quarks, for the PC “spin” they are willing to put on their findings.

    Now your “bottom” scientists, …well that ’s a quark of a different “color” if I may mix the metaphor.

    “Quacks” works too.

  129. Well, I guess that gives us an indication of how seriously they will take their “investigation,” or is this in lieu of one?

  130. Richard (15:34:57) :
    Read Mr Lean in the (UK) Daily Telegraph every Saturday, not sure if it makes it on line. He is the St Peter of the warmist disciples. On a par with Monboit etc.

  131. Why do they insist on making themselves look soooo stupid. Their long range forecasts are rubbish, their short range forecasts don’t meet their own claims and they still keep putting out this crap.

    I garantee that very few of the soon to sign signatories have read the emails, there are, after all, 1079 of the things.

  132. these scientists have the profile of tax cheats & fraudsters1/they lie 2/they collude to deceive 3/they receive funds from sources where there is minimum accountability 4/funds would be sent overseas to socalled experts & they are significant. lets call in the taxman to see why they have compromised their profession & its ethics.

  133. BBC NEWS
    Temperature may hit high in 2010
    By Mark Kinver
    Science and environment reporter, BBC News

    The global average temperature could reach a record high in 2010, according to the UK’s Met Office.

    Forecasters predict that the annual figure for 2010 will be 14.58C (58.24F), 0.58C (1.04F) above the long-term average of 14.0C (57.2F).

    They say the combination of climate change and a moderate warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean are set to drive up temperatures next year.

    The current record record is 14.52C (58.14F), which was set in 1998.

    “The latest forecast from our climate scientists shows the global temperature is forecast to be almost 0.6C above the 1961-90 long-term average,” a Met Office statement said.

    “This means that it is more likely than not 2010 will be the warmest in the instrumental record that dates back to 1860.”

    However it added: “A record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty, especially if the current El Nino was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption.

    “We will review the forecast during 2010 as observation data become available.”

    The Met Office, in collaboration with the University of East Anglia, maintains one of the three global temperature records that is used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Warming world

    The current record year, 1998, was dominated by an “extreme El Nino” condition – the warming of surface waters in the eastern Pacific that releases heat stored in the deep ocean into the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally.

    Earlier this week, the Met Office and the World Meteorological Organization said that the first decade of this century was “by far” the warmest since the instrumental record began.

    Their analyses also showed that 2009 would almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

    Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, had pushed 2009 into the “top 10″ years, the organisations explained.
    Story from BBC NEWS:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8406839.stm

    Published: 2009/12/10 17:52:01 GMT

    © BBC MMIX

  134. In biblical times it was the lame helping the blind , nowadays it is the opposite the blind helping the lame .

  135. [snip] the puny 1,700 warm-monger scientists; there are 31,486 scientists (9,029 with PhDs) in America alone who say that there is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming. See: http://petitionproject.org/

    Who’s keeping tabs on Obama’s carbon footprint this week? What with jetting to Oslo for some useless sell-aggrandizement ceremony and then off to Hopanchangen. Haven’t they heard of video conferencing?

    Is there a website that keeps track of the carbon footprint of all the world leaders and what they are doing to offset their emissions? I can never find any audit or accounting for these emissions, just talk and a lot of hot air.

    Obama: “Do what I say, not what I do. Stop breathing! Only I and my rich elitist fascist banker friends can pollute the air with our exhalations. Only we, the rich and powerful, are allowed to eat meat, fly private planes, and have children. The rest of you only exist to pay the taxes that we require to fund our agenda.”

    [snip – please, avoid language like that on this site. ~dbstealey, moderator]

  136. Aberdeen University:

    (Just by Google): Title , Name, Aberdeen University.

    30 signatures which appear to be:

    21 Environmental Sciences (Biology, Botany, Ecology, Soil Science etc)
    4 Geologists
    4 Geographers
    1 Not clear (prob EnvSci)

    I am sure they are all good men and women true, many appear to be at the top of their game in their specific areas of interest. And I am sure they all have a deep and abiding love of the ecosphere.

    But signatures do not prove anything. Surely, as professional scientists, they must know this.

  137. The Met Office are a legend in their own break time when it comes to acurately predicting weather. Invariably they get it wrong making them something of a national joke. If they think a petition is going to alter that perception and pour integrity onto their pals at CRU then they are delusional.

    I hope we taxpayers aren’t footing the bill for Julia’s little damage limitation exercise. Oh wait…

  138. What I find interesting about the MO of late is the talk of “we”. The data for example, it seems that in one breath it is their data and in another it is CRU data. So much for independently coming to the same conclusions. It seems that if you pull a loose thread at the CRU it isn’t just the CRU’s clothes that start to unravel.

    A vision of 1700 naked but otherwise “independent” signatories – I must stop writing.

  139. Why do I think this was done as a response to the “Copenhagen Climate Challenge” signed by 141 sceptical scientists?

    http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=55

    Could it be that the MET Office are concerned that this shot to pieces the claim that there is “consensus” amongst scientists on AGW and therefore decided to aim for a 10:1 petition to try and indicate that whilst their may not be consensus there is at least a majority of scientists supporting AGW?

  140. The UK government is making a list. They’re checking it twice. They’re going to find out who’s naughty and nice.

  141. If the climategate gang are as pure as they say they are, then why on earth don’t they take the opportunity to sue Lord Monckton for what he said?

    The answer is that they are too scared to go to court, because they know that in front of a review process of peers who can’t be pressurised into falling in line, they won’t win the case.

    The proof that Manmade Global Warming is fraud, is the way they are scared stiff to see this get anywhere near court.

    And those that can (I.e. UK) please make sure you sign the petition:

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/

  142. The met office have made global temperature predictions for the last 9 years and each and everyone has been higher than the 50% confidence interval (50% of all years should be above).

    So by their own statistics, the chance of their forecast being right is 0.5^9 = 1/512 = 0.2%

    So according to Met Office Statistics, there is a 99.8% chance that the model is too high. Which isn’t surprising because they on average predicted warming of I seem to remember 0.04-5 C/year, and it actually cooled by 0.01C/year.

    Of course, the Met Office have conveniently removed all the press releases from their site, but – I’ve took copies before they were removed – and as the US has fair use legislation, it would be very good to get someone in the US to publish them so that the world can see how these bogus scientists work!

  143. When there is the amount of money involved there will always be problems. We dont need scientists or big computers to tell us that the weather is changing you can see it happening with sea levels rising, warmer summers, colder winters, etc.

    The problem is that as far as any one in power is concerned, the problem while not going away isn’t going to affect them while they are alive. Be honest, do you really care that there is going to be hell on earth a hundred years after your dead and buried? This is the problem, this is how people think. Humans are selfish, humans are problematic, this is what being human is all about – and if it kills us then that is one less problem for Earth. The planet wont die, it will do as it has for millenia: evolve. The Earth will not go away just because sea levels rise and the climate warms, eventually it will calm down and all we will be is another mass extinction.

    What I wish is that hell on earth happenes a little sooner so those involved in causing all this fuss, from both sides of the argument – get to live through the decisions they make. Because at the moment no body within the climate debate can be held accountable to what they will say will happen in fifty to a hundred years time, so much as the weather man can be held accountable to the weather in a weeks time, even if that heavy fog they failed to predict kills several people in road accidents.

  144. I too submitted a comment under the Times article pointing out that Julia Slingo, along with other prominent AGW proponents, is on the council of the NERC which is the conduit for UK government funding for environmental research, and suggesting that scientists might have felt pressured by that. It never passed the moderators. They allow a lot of argumentative, name-calling and semi-literate comments through, but anything of substance is censored.

  145. Of the 1.700 “scientists” I have counted around 850 (50%) said to be professors and doctors, including one Lord and one Sir. OK, let’s believe that. What are the other 850?

    Interesting to find out only 18 are professors or doctors from a total of 65 signants (+/- 28%) from the University of East Anglia, precisely where the scandal of the Climategate comes from. Quite amazing….

    More: from those +/- 200 people only 44 are said to be doctors. In this case percentage comes down to around 21%. Even less than in East Anglia University. Quite amazing again….

    (By the way: 200 at least of the 1.700 signants are from the Met Office itself. How many employees do the Met Office has? )

  146. Sorry, the second part of my post was wrongly written. This makes more sense:

    ……………………….

    By the way: 200 at least of the 1.700 signants are from the Met Office itself. How many employees do the Met Office has?

    More: from those +/- 200 people only 44 are said to be doctors. In this case percentage comes down to around 21%. Even less than in East Anglia University. Quite amazing again….

  147. This snitched from a Poster on Bishop Hill:

    As a retired scientist, I appalled by what has happened to the Scientific Method I was trained in 40 years ago. Back then you preserved your raw data, explained what you did, how you did it, and why you did it; and your results were considered “preliminary” until replicated IDEPENDENTLY. I do not mean by your buddies, but by someone not tied to you. And there was scientific debate. Remember that?

    I guess we have the New Science, much like we had the New Math back in the 1960’s –“1 and 1 equal 5 for sufficiently large values of 1” .

    I also appreciate the comment about Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, who nearly destroyed the Soviet Union’s agricultural efforts in the 1930’s and 1940’s. He, too, practiced totalitarian science — his way or the Gulag.

    So, like Lysenko, I expect the Hockey Team to one day become discredited and go away. And perhaps we will discover the scientific method again, for at least a little while. My only question is just how much it will cost us individually and collectively.

    As for the chatter about whether it was a “conspiracy” or not, most such activity does not start as an overt crime. Witness Bernie Madoff. He needed money to look good so he fudged what he was doing. Then it grew like Topsy. Pretty soon his Ponzi scheme topped $50 billion. I am afraid that the Cap and Tax scheme the Hockey Team is fronting for will cost us $50 trillion.

    But what is a trillion dollars nowadays? Just ask the US Congress.

    December 12, 2009 | Don Pablo de la Sierra

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/11/no-conspiracy.html?currentPage=2

  148. Simon, the decisions being made, or attempting to be made by those currently in power are not going to affect climate in any way now, or in a thousand years. All they will succeed in doing is making some people a lot richer, but most people poorer. They are also in the process of destroying the very foundations of science, and of democracy. If that happens, then I suppose it could be called a “hell on earth” of sorts. Don’t look now Simon, but the Alarmists are out to rob you of your future, and that is something that should concern you.

  149. If you have the name and institution of the signers in a file called ‘uk_names.csv’ in the FOIA/mail folder, the following bash script gives you the climategate messages that contain each scientist’s names.

    If you are a journalist (and therefore have a Mac) you should be able to run the script in a bash shell.

    Then you will see that the senior signers on the list are in regular correspondence with the CRU team.

    #!/bin/sh

    awk ‘{FS=”\t”;sub(“Dr “, “”);sub(“Dr. “, “”);sub(“Prof “, “”); print $1;}’ \
    uk_names.csv | while read FULLNAME
    do
    FULLNAME=`echo $FULLNAME | sed ‘s/,//g’`
    echo -n $FULLNAME
    grep “$FULLNAME” *.txt > /dev/null
    ret=$?
    if [ $ret -eq 0 ]
    then
    FILENAMES=`grep -l “$FULLNAME” *.txt`
    echo -e -n “,” $FILENAMES
    else
    echo -e -n “, no exact match”
    fi
    SURNAME=`echo $FULLNAME | awk ‘{print $(NF)}’`
    grep “$SURNAME” *.txt > /dev/null
    ret=$?
    if [ $ret -eq 0 ]
    then
    FILENAMES=`grep -l -i “$SURNAME” *.txt`
    echo -e -n “,?” $FILENAMES
    fi
    echo “”
    done

    And here is some sample output (the normal output of the script is more fulsome – most names hit multiple files – and it also reports possible matches, with a preceding ‘?’):

    Julia Slingo, 1217431501.txt
    John Mitchell, 0925507395.txt
    Pete Smith, 0942953601.txt
    John Waterhouse, 1106934832.txt
    Gareth Jones, 0919310505.txt
    Martin Widmann, 0994187098.txt
    Jo House, 0984799044.txt
    Colin Prentice, 0848695896.txt
    Paul Valdes, 0906136579.txt
    Eric W Wolff, 1137184681.txt
    Andy McLeod, 1038859764.txt
    Gabi Hegerl, 1036182485.txt
    Sandy Tudhope, 1106946949.txt
    Simon Tett, 0845217169.txt
    Peter Cox, 0906136579.txt
    Chris Turney, 1236958090.txt
    Richard Jones, 0968705882.txt
    Sir John Houghton, 0845217169.txt
    Stephen Sitch, 0942953601.txt
    Cath Senior, 1217431501.txt
    David Parker, 0929985154.txt
    David Sexton, 1176746137.txt
    Gareth Jones, 0919310505.txt
    Peter Stott, 0919310505.txt
    Vicky Pope, 1182179459.txt
    James Murphy, 1217431501.txt
    Keith Williams, 1217431501.txt
    Olivier Boucher, 1217431501.txt
    Peter Thorne, 1094483447.txt
    Philip Brohan, 1060021835.txt
    Chris Folland, 0925829267.txt
    Roger Saunders, 1234277656.txt
    Simon Brown, 0990718506.txt
    Tim Johns, 1231166089.txt
    Craig Wallace, 0925823304.txt
    John Shepherd, 0930934311.txt
    Jim Hall, 1208278112.txt
    Mark New, 1035838207.txt
    Myles Allen, 0919310505.txt
    William Ingram, 0925507395.txt
    Peter Thorne, 1094483447.txt
    Maria Noguer, 0900972000.txt
    Jonathan Gregory, 0908385907.txt
    Nigel Arnell, 0937153268.txt
    Paul Hardaker, 1233586975.txt
    Martin Juckes, 1123163394.txt
    Tom Webb, 1167752455.txt
    Ian Woodward, 0848695896.txt
    David Webb, 1086904814.txt
    Rob Wilson, 1053610494.txt
    Davies Siwan, 1106934832.txt
    Roger Street, 1182179459.txt
    Chronis Tzedakis, 1115843111.txt
    Andrew Manning, 1254832684.txt
    Anthony Foot, 1208278112.txt
    Clare Goodess, 1038353689.txt
    Tom Melvin, 1103828684.txt
    Rachel Warren, 1182179459.txt
    Simon Busby, 1221742524.txt

    You can browse the messages by searching on the txt file name on google.

  150. Here’s a wonderful comment on the Lean / Telegraph column:

    Patrick Hadley:

    What will the warmists say in 2020 if we have had another decade with no warming? That’s easy. They will say the same as they are saying after this decade of no warming. They will tell us that we have just equaled the record for the hottest decade ever and that therefore global warming is happening faster than predicted and that we have two weeks to save the planet.”

  151. Geoffrey Lean writes:

    “But just suppose the forecast turns out to be right. What will the sceptics do then? At the heart of their case is a claim that the world is cooling down – based on fixing the starting point in the anomalously warm 1998 and drawing a line from there, even though beginning in 1997 or 1999 would give very different results. Statisticians have condemned the practice, but they have gone on with it.”

    Based on what I’ve read here on WUWT, skeptics are are almost always careful to avoid cherry picking a 1998 start date. The phrases used are these:

    “In the past ten years”
    “In the present century”
    “After 1998″
    “Since 2002″
    “Since 2004″

    And only a minority of skeptics here over-reach to the point of claiming the globe has been cooling during such a lengthy period. When referring to the multi-year period, skeptics generally use words like “plateaued” or “leveled off.”

    It’s usually only when referring to the last three years or so do we say things like “we’re currently in a cooling trend.” If that is done, there is no reliance on a cherry-picked 1998 date to make our case.

  152. photon without a Higgs (05:14:08) :

    “The UK government is making a list. They’re checking it twice. They’re going to find out who’s naughty and nice.

    And the next UK government will have a list of persons who “will not be missed” if their “utmost confidence” turns out wrong.

  153. One would think with the Met Office being full of scientists that the search for truth would be the primary goal. However in May 2009 they announced they had just completed the purchase of a new $50 million super computer which would help process data to fight climate change and give even better forecasts than ever before. It is my preceived opinion as an inveterate weather watcher that since May 2009 their forecasts have been less accurate than ever.

    The Met Office fired up a new $50 million computer in May this year – a one petaflop beast (1000 billion operations per second). It takes 1.2 megawatts of electricity to run, contributing around 10,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. This on top of swish new premises, a cool $120 million.
    The Met office stands no chance of getting forecasts right with this, nor of being able to model climate accurately enough to make predictions into the future because it ignores several of the most important variables.

    On top of which this beast produces more CO2 than ever before. Honestly you couldn’t make it up. So naturally they are closing ranks on this one because if climate gate be true (and I think it is soi) they have just effectively wasted $50 mln and if anyone finds out surely someones head would roll.

    The UK media has plunged into an unusually cretinous feeding frenzy following the “news” that the Met Office headquarters complex in Devon – owing to the presence of a lot of supercomputing hardware there – is considered to lie at 103rd place in a table ranking nearly 30,000 large UK buildings by carbon-emissions footprint.

    The Met Office’s high-power computing gear “has made the Met Office one of the worst public buildings in Britain for pollution”, we learn from the Telegraph. “It has now earned the Met Office’s Exeter headquarters the shame of being named as one of the most polluting buildings in Britain”, says the Times. Indeed, referring to one specific new machine, the BBC tells us that “it produces 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year” (must be one of those coal-powered computers). Most of the articles point out that the Met lads got their long-range summer forecasts wrong to boot, predicting a “barbeque summer” which has actually been rather a washout.

Comments are closed.