CRU’s Climategate finally makes the news in Norwich

New twist in UEA climate change row

Last updated: 28/01/2010 10:03:00

Norwich’s flagship university was at the centre of a new row today after it emerged it broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny in the climate change row over stolen emails.

Professor Phil  Jones, director of the University of East Anglia

Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit

The reputation of the University of East Anglia’s world renowned climatic research unit (CRU)was shaken to the core last year after emails posted on the internet from researchers including its director Prof Phil Jones appeared to suggest ways of avoiding freedom of information requests together with a “trick” to explain away an apparent fall in global temperatures.

Police including a team from Scotland yard were called in to investigate amid speculation that the leaks were part of a smear campaign by climate change sceptics to discredit the UEA in the run up the Copenhagen summit last year.

Other theories were that the leaks were the work of a disgruntled insider angry at the way the university was handling FOI requests.

The row has reverberated around the world and it emerged today the Norwich university breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided the UEA failed in its duties under the act but said it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.

Read the complete story at Norwich Evening News

See the press release and background from ICO previously covered on WUWT here:

CRU inquiry prompts sought after changes in UK law, citing failure of CRU’s FOIA officer

Loophole in UK FOIA law will apparently allow CRU to avoid prosecution

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

132 Responses to CRU’s Climategate finally makes the news in Norwich

  1. I live in East Anglia, and this is slow even for hereabouts! Surely there aren’t powerful vested interests (like millionaire lifestyles) at stake?

    [REPLY - Even worse! It's YOUR lifestyle that's at stake. (Power over your lifestyle, that is.) ~ Evan]

  2. STEPHEN PARKER says:

    The media smells blood in this story and they will hunt it down.Here in the uk the tipping point has been reached and we’re looking down the other side.

  3. Henry chance says:

    So they are guilty.
    Where are all the hyennas this week? Last night Obama promoted nuclear power generation.

  4. Curious says:

    Surely it is possible to resubmit the requests for information? Then either they hand it over or they get prosecuted within the time frame?

  5. John Galt says:

    There’s even been some progress in the American MSM:

    Can Climate Forecasts Still Be Trusted?
    Confidence Melting Away: Doubts Grow in Climate Change Debate

    http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9685251

    H/T ClimateDepot.com for the link

  6. Jack Hughes says:

    Jones is having a divergence problem with his fingers. He doesn’t look happy.

  7. Mike Bryant says:

    Since Jones says that the emails were “taken out of context” this is the perfect time to file requesting the release of every email and all the data so they can be put back into context, right?

  8. Graham UK says:

    The BBC finally gave some time on the 10.30 pm news tonight to the concerns over Global Warming claims, quoting the Government Scientific Adviser.

    It was pretty lukewarm, but acknowledged that people are sceptical over the issue.

    I think the tide is turning, but making governments change direction will require a lot more effort.

  9. A few minutes after posting to Lucias site about the mails, I contacted
    Andrew Revkin of the NYT and told him to Follow the FOIA.
    Perhaps because of pressure he couldnt do that, or maybe other more pressing matters came up. he a good egg. nevertheless I’m glad to see the press on the real trail.

    Hey we are on Lulu with an ebook version

    http://www.lulu.com/content/e-book/climategate-the-crutape-letters/8243144

  10. Ron de Haan says:

    [deleted due to policy violation - a valid email address is required]

  11. Ron de Haan says:

    [comment deleted due to policy violation]

    REPLY: Ron, you are back to using an email address that goes nowhere – this is my second and last notice. A valid email address is required for all comments. – Anthony

  12. max says:

    The newspaper report starts off wrong but almost gets the story right, pretty good for most climate coverage I’ve seen in the press. I’m trying to figure out if the reporter just got confused or someone is trying to spin this. I cannot figure out the advantage to this type of spin so I’m inclined to accept that it was just a confused reporter but perhaps someone smarter than I can figure out how the mistake can benefit some spinner.

    Major thing wrong in the story: UEA is not in trouble for refusing to hand over “raw data”, Holland did not FOIA raw data, he requested e-mails.

  13. Capn Jack says:

    Shameless Plug Mosh.

    Hang your head in shame. he he.

    On topic, a lot of people wont admit they were conned. They just won’t.

    Can you imagine how these people feel after giving Mt Olympus lectures with the might of the invincible pantheon of Gods on imminent Planetary doom, launching lightning bolts at anyone daring to challenge as heretics in need of a good crucifiction or stoning.

    It’s been forced back down after back down.

    (And before someone gets up my ribs, I know that Mosh and his mate have been doing their stuff at starvation for a long time).

    The rational side of this debate has to do it with rubber bands and duct tape, no MSM assistance and stuff all Government support of any kind. Ad Hom atack and vilification.

    I Like a bit of humor in a thread. This site has always been technical but there was time for some humor.

  14. mpaul says:

    The Mann report is due tomorrow isn’t it?

    REPLY: By Monday I believe, though if it’s embarrassing, they’ll likely release tomorrow at 5PM EST to minimize press coverage. -A

  15. Oldjim says:

    By God he’s aged hasn’t he

  16. Henry chance says:

    A lot of studies are now coming out.
    One of course involves the quality of sites and it is out prematurely
    A lot of attacks of an insult nature for skeptics. Even the Resident of the Whitehouse

    Some of this is to fake looking busy. If you are not busy, you get laid off. If you don’t push out noise, your funding gets cut

    We are seeing an explosion of dirty water claims, extinction of species (4-5)
    and even a crisis like your green lawn is pure pollution.
    The buzzword generators are busy. robest, devastating, life threating, tipping point etc ramp up the drama.

    Hansen wants officers of corporations held in prison and tried later.
    Is this spiritual warfare? Like the drug violence in Mexico?

  17. Jeef says:

    I see from the news report that Prince Charles recently visited and pledged his support for the university’s climate work. That’s the kiss of death for them!

  18. Daniel H says:

    Well at least they’ve FINALLY taken a recent picture of Professor Jones instead of using that other picture that looked like it was taken in 1986. I was beginning to think that was the only picture of Jones in existence.

  19. Thank you, thank you, thank you for keeping the spotlight of public attention focused on the Climategate scandal.

    Government support for basic scientific research has been historically based on national security in a world divided by competing national interests.

    For many years I was therefore unable to understand why the NAS, NASA and DOE hid or ignored empirical evidence of an iron-rich Sun heated by neutron repulsion.

    The Climategate scandal has recently exposed the shadowy image of the UN’s IPCC as part of an even larger international alliance of politicians, scientists, news media and publishers that have been using science as a propaganda tool to try to control the world.

    On behalf of future generations I say again, “Thank you!”

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Science

  20. Ron de Haan says:

    [deleted due to policy violation - a valid email address is required.]

  21. JonesII says:

    It seems that anthropogenic global warming promoters will turn to another story to attain their purposes of breaking down the first world economies and getting a global Brave New World ( AH1N1 or something like that). As you all know Europe and the USA production units now are located in third world countries…just to begin with, Germany was the first one to fell under the Green Spell with their Green Party…
    It proves that if you search for fools you´ll find a lot up there.
    So, don´t stick to the Climate Change/Global Warming story only. Search for other similar stories. This one, for all practical purposes IS OVER as far as the
    chess pwans were exposed.

  22. keith in hastings UK says:

    The more Newspaper articles and blogs and petitions the better, since the key thing is if enough public pressure mounts so that populist politicians begin to row back from unquestioning AGW support. Key here in the UK is David Cameron, leader of the Conservative party (centre – right but with liberal tendencies I think), who is quite likely the next PM. He is rather weak and populist IMHO, so swayable maybe. I shall write with a small campaign donation, which means some functionary will at least read it and probably count one more “sceptic” onto some computer record.
    If their Manifesto (write up of policies) can have at least some statesman like concern that the science must be reviewed, or action paused to allow more facts to be gathered, it would be a great leap forward…

  23. jorgekafkazar says:

    steven mosher (14:46:31) : “…he [Revkin] a good egg. nevertheless I’m glad to see the press on the real trail.

    http://www.lulu.com/content/e-book/climategate-the-crutape-letters/8243144

    Yeah, I think he is trying to be fair. Unfortunately, he’s been heavily propagandized and/or is afraid of something (the “Big Cutoff?”). If there’s anyone I’d like to wave my magic wand at and turn into a skeptic, it’s Andy Revkin.

  24. Speechless in Seattle says:

    David Holland was on the BBC 10 o’clock news

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8484385.stm

  25. West Houston says:

    If I understand it correctly there are still data not yet revealed. So, if someone else were to ask for the data under the FOIA and immediately file a complaint…?

  26. SandyInDerby says:

    CRU’s Climategate finally makes the news on the BBC. Both the the main news at 10pm and Question Time tonight (Thursday). Nigel Lawson leading the Skeptics (2 + 1 neutral). If the tide hasn’t turned, we have reached the slack water stage.

  27. John Whitman says:

    ” steven mosher (14:46:31) : Hey we are on Lulu with an ebook version ”

    Steve

    Yes I saw in your book that you contacted Revkin.

    Hey, I was waiting for some ebook version, but gave up yesterday morning and downloaded Kindle for PC version. I finished your book at midnight the same day. I could read it pretty fast because i’ve been following all the events since early 2009.

    I enjoyed your book very much.

    John

  28. Stefan says:

    It got some good coverage on BBC Question Time. The only alarmist voice left on the panel could only muster commenting, “well even George Bush eventually accepted climate change”, and to which he was challenged, “meaning what?”

  29. jack morrow says:

    Ok, once again I don’t think at present anything is going to happen to these warmest fellows. The ICC has made it a fact that UEA failed to live up to the law relating to the FOI issue plus other indiscretions but won’t prosecute. So, expect nothing but noise. These “team” scientists have huge egos and live in their own little world.They probably wouldn’t last 5 minutes outside it. Their world is to be protected at all costs, so they will hide or falsify anything to protect themselves. The “team” has lots of people trying to help them get through this mess because they too live on handouts from the big names and governments. If bad things happen to these guys, then UEA,NASA,PENN STATE,and the IPCC looks bad. Nothing is going to hurt these big names if they can help it. All we can do is keep hammering away at them and exposing their misdeeds and then maybe (a big maybe) the heat will force the big names to have to act even if they look bad. I expect if this happens the “Team” will get thrown under the bus. I await with bated or baited breath.

  30. capn Jack,

    Ya Shameless. Hopefully I have a nice piece on this coming out at big blog. Lots of people over seas have been asking for the Ebook version and I cant see doing a post just to thump on that, so I’ll drop a little plug now and again.

    Anyways, I’m probably going to keep doing some pieces. there is so much
    to do and it’s a struggle to decide what to do first. target rich enviroment.

  31. Little Britain says:

    The issue with the Data Protection Act in the UK is that if you request data and they don’t comply you then have to allow the offending institution to investigate the matter themselves before you can put in an official complaint to the ICO.
    As complaints have to be made within six months of the request then the offending party can just string it out (if they so require). Also the ICO does not usually take the offending party to court for damages etc. The ICO will rule for or against and if there is an offence then you use this to start court action.
    I have used this a few times in relation to information (taking on banks for unlawful bank charges) and although the ICO is a decent organisation it is undermanned and the legislation was just pushed through by this present administration and it is, like most things they have done, half cocked.
    I found the best way to go if they don’t comply is straight to court and get an injunction – it’s not that expensive in small claims and it doesn’t half get them in a flap!

  32. View from the Solent says:

    OT, but the last few little cartoons at <a href="http://saxontimes.blogspot.com/"http://saxontimes.blogspot.com/ are worth a thousand words. I particularly like the most recent.

  33. I love how reserved Holland is.

    Crazy skeptic conspirators, every last one of them. especially those folks at Watts. Interestingly enough david Holland fits the profile of the CA readers and the WUWT readers.

  34. DirkH says:

    “JonesII (15:26:17) :
    [...]
    just to begin with, Germany was the first one to fell under the Green Spell with their Green Party…”

    From Germany: You’re right, and all our parties more or less are cases of morbus AGW. It must be said, though, that much more devastating was the impact of the reunification; having to rebuild a run down communist state was far more expensive than the subsidies for renewables we pay in the form of inflated energy prices.

    For driving out production labor into places like, say Hungary for example: This is not primarily caused by high energy costs but by the difference in labor costs. Nevertheless, high energy costs drive up all other costs as well so they have an accelerating effect on this labor migration.

    On the positive side, our current government keeps the nuclear plants running, and for each Watt capacity of renewables we have a Watt of gas-powered running reserve so … maybe it ended up the way Maggie Thatcher planned: AGW as propaganda to convince the public that alternatives to foreign countries fossil fuels have to be financed.

    They way it was and is financed borders on the insane, though. Finance development, yes – but why rollout the structure large scale as long as it is not cost-efficient?

    Germany is awash with electricity, it’s only that it’s 4 times as expensive as it should be. A distorted market.

  35. TerryS says:

    Completely off topic but…..

    I have a holiday every year not far from UEA in what must be one of the most beautiful areas of the UK. It is the Norfolk Broads. It is an area of outstanding beauty and one of the most relaxing holidays I have ever had. Hire a boat from one of he many boatyards in the area and spend a week traveling up and down the Broads, I promise you, you will come back completely relaxed and stress free. I’ve been doing his for the last 10 years and have absolutely no reservations in recommending this to anyone.

    DISCLAIMER: I have no association with any person or organisation in the Norfolk Broads but I wish I did have so I could earn commission from the number of people I have recommended.

  36. Mike Ramsey says:

    Graham UK (14:46:06) :

      I think the tide is turning, but making governments change direction will require a lot more effort.

    It’s called an election.

     

    Mike Ramsey

  37. royfomr says:

    In British History Norwich has a pivotal role in the world that we now know. Some say that it started with Alan Partridge aka Steve Coogan, a minority bleated that John Three Chevrons made wicked allusions to the digitally-webbed good people of the Fens, they’re all wrong!
    Twas’ the wicked Cru! It was!
    For those outside the geographical environs of the UK, and many inside as well, none of this makes any sense but let me leave you with the punchline.
    They’re guilty as charged but, thanks to temporal homogenisation , unpunished!

  38. Vargs says:

    The not-quite-so-discredited lion of UK science has spoken. Although he still acquiesces to the “consensus” he’s critical of the CRU scientists for their resistance to information sharing.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8486440.stm

    Maybe the eminent professor might like to review his comments in the light of this new “peer reviewed” paper?

  39. Woodsy42 says:

    The story seems to be all over the media, I just found fairly ‘skeptic friendly’ coverage in the Register, a technology news site – http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/cru_foia_guilty/ .

    I don’t excuse the MSM their climate alarmist bias but I do wonder if the much complained about UK libel laws have added to the media silence over the past months? This story, as it comes from an official legal source, is pretty much libel damage claim proof and it seems to be getting unusually wide coverage.

  40. Brent Matich says:

    Good law, all you have to do is string out the person that requests info under the FOIA for what , six months, and they can’t prosecute you. This law is a great definition for impotence or tits on a bull.

    Brent in Calgary

  41. LeonardYoung says:

    It is appalling that the vast body of media INCLUDING local East Anglia newspapers, have effectively airbrushed a subject which is right on their doorstep, until the national media wakes up, and only when it is forced to. This tells you all you need to know about the printed media: A lazy, complacent, complicit, vested interest mouthpiece that just about gets moving on an issue only when it represents a brick hurled through the shatterered glass of the supine journalist’s greenhouse.

    This developing story is a seminal example of why any intelligent person with critical faculties in place needs to move from reading print to surfing the ‘neet. Of course the internet is also full of nutters, extremists and politically un-announced agendas….but SO is the conventional media.

    Any discerning person can filter out the dross and get up-to-date, intelligent discourse on issues of the day which are far more current, cogent and equally (or better) researched than anything you will find in the Guardian, Mail or Independent.

    Wake up you lazy good-for-nothings in the conventional press!

  42. LeonardYoung says:

    Typo second paragraph: “Net”. Sorry.

  43. Leon Brozyna says:

    A little better than some MSM stories that still report on the matter as a case of stolen or hacked emails. Guess they don’t know how to actually report; probably getting poor guidance from http://www.sej.org/ . Still, the cracks widen. Now, if the integrity of the data were to start being questioned more openly in the media …

  44. Daniel H says:

    I just noticed that this article never once refers to the leaks as a hack, nor is there ever any mention of hacks or hackers. This is amazing. In addition, they later put scare quotes around the word “stolen” when referring to “stolen” emails, thus casting doubt on the veracity of the assertion. Yet they neglected to use scare quotes for the first occurrence of “stolen” which is in the first paragraph of the article. Very odd, but interesting nonetheless!

  45. Robinson says:

    Today’s amusing story in the press concerns the amazing discovery that water vapour is a ‘major cause of global warming and cooling’. When I read this I was literally gobsmacked. I think perhaps a Nobel prize will be on offer to these fine fellows.

  46. Indiana Bones says:

    “The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided the UEA failed in its duties under the act but said it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.”

    Utter tripe. UK law should allow suspension of statutes if there has been a crime committed. And the general public has been deceived or harmed. The Parliamentary investigation has the power to close such a loophole and mete out justice if warranted.

  47. carlbrannen says:

    The phrase that comes to mind is “unindicted co-conspirator.”

  48. A Erickson says:

    I ran across another article from the times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/frank_skinner/article7007054.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2270657 It looks like the walls are crumbling.

  49. JER0ME says:

    A lot of people bag the media for not covering climategate or the sceptical views.

    The sole purpose of the media is to sell advertising. Period. They have no responsibility, or even desire, to tell us the truth, or provide a public service. They are responsible to their clients, the advertisers. If I were to go and do public service activities at the expense of my clients, I’d soon lose clients. They are no different.

    The exception, one would think, is public funded media such as the BBC and ABC (that Oz, not sure if any such service exists in the US?). They are typically politically motivated, however. Ho hum.

    What the MSM need is something sensational that increases ratings and is OK with the advertisers. I think that climategate provided that in spades, but is just starting to be ‘OK’ with the advertisers. I can see most MSM putting a toe in the water to test the temperature. hopefully most will take the plunge once the tide turns.

    The top few hits for news on Google these days is about 40/60 warm/sceptic, down from 90/10 a few months ago. Times are good.

  50. Scotty says:

    @Robinson. Shhh! Sure, anyone with half a brain knows that, but don’t let Algore catch on. He’ll be trying to cap & trade water next.

    See that condensation on your window? That’s £5 worth of H2O credits please.

  51. Andrew30 says:

    So who is going to try to update the Phil Jones page in Wikipedia and add this bit of information?

    You will need to be really fast with the screen shot, it likely won’t last 30 seconds.

  52. artwest says:

    Mike Ramsey (16:19:10) :
    Graham UK (14:46:06)
    I think the tide is turning, but making governments change direction will require a lot more effort.

    It’s called an election.

    ————————————-

    Unfortunately there is no major UK party which is not gung-ho about AGW. No party which stands a chance of being part of the government even in a hung parliament is at all sceptical.

  53. Ayrdale says:

    Well, either the tide has turned or the plug has been pulled on the IPCC. Whatever metaphor you choose to use, things will never be the same, particularly since John Beddington gave AGW sceptics the royal seal of scientific approval.

    And, re Norwich and the CRU, did you know that lonely servicemen in WW2 ended their letters home to their girlfriends and wives with the letters NORWICH ? Standing for (excuse the vulgarity) Nickers off ready when I come home.

  54. maz2 says:

    These 4 lost souls have been added to the UN/Pachauri’s Glacier Endangered Species list.

    The Four even wax and wane; amazing.
    …-

    “British geographers find uncharted glaciers in Albania

    A team of British geographers has discovered a group of previously uncharted glaciers in an inhospitable European mountain range.

    The academics from Manchester University found the four glaciers in the Prokletije or “cursed” mountains of Albania. They have formed at an altitude of 2,000 metres, relatively low for such a southerly latitude. Other glaciers at this latitude survive only on higher mountains further north.

    The Prokletije mountains extend from Northern Albania and Kosovo to Eastern Montenegro in the Western Balkans. The glaciers, the largest of which is the size of six football pitches, vary in size every year according to the amount of winter snowfall and temperatures during the summer.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7007094.ece

  55. DirkH says:

    “Robinson (17:01:02) :

    Today’s amusing story in the press concerns the amazing discovery that water vapour is a ‘major cause of global warming and cooling’. When I read this I was literally gobsmacked. I think perhaps a Nobel prize will be on offer to these fine fellows.”

    Read up about Ferenc Miskolczi. He predicted that. Well actually he says: “If the system were capable of reaching a higher temperature, it needn’t wait for us to increase the CO2 because it has an abundant supply of a far more powerful GHG: Water vapour.” Quoted from memory.

  56. rbateman says:

    Something very weird about “it’s too late to bring charges”.
    In the US, there is no limit on claims resulting in fraud. What’s the big deal?
    They allegedly used US Grant $$$ improperly, and I believe they are being investigated for just that.
    They didn’t get Al Capone on what they were after him for, but that didn’t stop them from bringing him to justice.

  57. rbateman says:

    Robinson (17:01:02) :

    Quick, somebody get that water vapor memo off to Big O, the EPA and the SEC before they pour gas all over our economy and toss a match to it.

  58. Pamela Gray says:

    Someone with a wicked sense of humor needs to quickly get off a book that is over the top sarcastic about Chicken Little! My gawd the author would make a cool bundle! That would release the pent up steam and allow scientists to write the dry, distant, boring stuff (as it should be) related to sensors, refuting bad science, and natural climate variability. Get that gal who draws her own cartoons a publisher! Quick!

  59. P Solar says:

    They got the photo caption wrong. It should read : ex-director.

    BTW this may be worth following up http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef5.htm

    Provides scientific derivation of true proportion of anthropogenic CO2 around 4%, not the somewhat arbitrary guestimate of 21% used in climate models.

    This also implies a much shorter residence of about 5 yrs. This is more in line with air/ocean absorption mechanisms.

  60. RDay says:

    So timely of them. In other news, the USSR launched the first satellite, Sputnik.

  61. Jeff Alberts says:

    together with a “trick” to explain away an apparent fall in global temperatures.

    And they STILL can’t get this right. It was a decline in a RECONSTRUCTION, not a decline in global temperatures.

  62. Carbon-based life form says:

    Maybe a combination of Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried “Wolf”, plus The Emperor’s New Clothes.

  63. Henry chance says:

    Mann is running a little behind in his investigation. I am sure the gravy train is about over. What will happen with the department of dirty data at NASA GISS? are they up for evaluation?

    The sock puppet for convicted felon George soros is extremely aggitated. Romm is snorting and scratching with his hooves.

    After firing, many of the criminal/fraud cases follow. after those run the course, the civil charges fly Companies don’t get very aggressive for being defrauded with research money because of adverse publicity. Meltdown Mann

  64. J.Peden says:

    Read up about Ferenc Miskolczi. He predicted that. Well actually he says: “If the system were capable of reaching a higher temperature, it needn’t wait for us to increase the CO2 because it has an abundant supply of a far more powerful GHG: Water vapour.”

    I’m sure a lot of people have been thinking this way. It’s one of the problems I came up with as a “beginner” some years back in looking at AGW [not that I've advanced much farther since]. I was thinking:

    Why didn’t water vapor already produce a “tipping point” or already do what it could maximally do, given a very large supply for it? If it was inhibited, what stopped it?

    Why would minimal amounts of CO2 make water vapor do what it couldn’t do before?

    Even if CO2 did produce some increase in temp., why wouldn’t it and water vapor be stopped at some relatively low level of temp. increase, too?

    I’m sure there are ways around these questions, at least in theory – but from the point of view of reality, why didn’t even relatively much higer levels of CO2 in the past relate to temps, and why wasn’t there a “disaster”? Even if there was, it’s how we got here.

    What are the benefits of GW?

  65. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – Carbon-based life form (18:58:07) :
    “Maybe a combination of Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried “Wolf”, plus The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
    _________________

    Now you’ve gone and done it. You just rattled off the CIA and MI-6 code names of the top three AGW enemy agents. It’s a good thing you didn’t mention “Mother Goose” (aka Al Gore) or we’d all be in thouble. Ooooops!

  66. davidmhoffer says:

    Maybe a combination of Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried “Wolf”, plus The Emperor’s New Clothes

    I’d think perhaps… “The Sting”
    The plot being as a I recall that the swindlers cheat the mark out of his money in order to set up a bigger operation to cheat him out of massive money.

    Substitute “mark” with “taxpayer”….

  67. Tucci says:

    I agree with an earlier poster on the appearance of Prof. Jones. The man has gone startlingly and completely gray by contrast with the photographs previously available online. It looks more than a bit as if the past few months have driven him down physically as well as professionally.

    It must be hell for the CRU correspondents to have been suddenly kicked off the summit of their profession, and to know that they really haven’t yet seen the worst of what’s going to happen to them.

    Meanwhile, the populiarizers of the AGW fraud – such as James Hoggan – are continuing to spout online and to obliterate responsory posts articulating sound scientific critique of the carbon dioxide forcing concept wherever they can do so.

    Anybody care to speculate on whether or not it might be possible to salvage Wikipedia once the warmist cancer has been cut out

  68. poneke says:

    So who is going to try to update the Phil Jones page in Wikipedia and add this bit of information? You will need to be really fast with the screen shot, it likely won’t last 30 seconds.

    There’s nothing on his page about this, but I see William Connolley has been busy deleting today. This is what he deleted:

    On January 28, 2010, the Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA and Jones had breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece]

    The reference is here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Jones_(climatologist)&diff=340582875&oldid=340582737

  69. Edmund Burke says:

    This is starting to get heavy. The following has been written by Richard Tol, Roger Pielke Jr and Hans von Storch. Expect it to start appearing in more mainstream publications soon. http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2010/01/27/ipcc-reform-now/#comments

  70. DirkH says:

    “J.Peden (19:16:27) :
    [...]
    Why didn’t water vapor already produce a “tipping point” or already do what it could maximally do, given a very large supply for it? If it was inhibited, what stopped it?”

    It does what it does to the maximum extent possible and it always does – except for in an ice age when the cold makes it freeze out, the greenhouse effect breaks down and the cold perpetuates itself.

    Wherever there is not an icecap, the greenhouse effect maximizes itself (through evaporation). And once it’s maxed out it can’t go any further because of the resulting cooling of the UPPER layers and the following reduction in water vapour.

    A REAL positive feedback could be happening through reduction of the icecaps. Less area iced over –> More area where the saturated greenhouse effect occurs. The poles are the only area that can modulate the greenhouse effect.

  71. poneke (19:30:54) :

    Just go add it to the climategate page

  72. davidmhoffer says:

    A REAL positive feedback could be happening through reduction of the icecaps. Less area iced over –> More area where the saturated greenhouse effect occurs. The poles are the only area that can modulate the greenhouse effect>

    extra energy = melting ice
    less ice = more open water
    extra energy has no ice to melt, so warms water instead
    warmer water = higher radiance = negative feedback
    planet cools
    starts to make more ice….

  73. Peter of Sydney says:

    Guilty but can’t be charged! That’s a first in any law abiding country I know about. It now means the FOI laws are useless as anyone can get around them by using delay tactics. So the AGW scam now has uncovered another scam – FOI scam.

  74. DirkH says:

    “davidmhoffer (20:01:58) :
    [...]
    extra energy = melting ice
    less ice = more open water
    extra energy has no ice to melt, so warms water instead
    warmer water = higher radiance = negative feedback”

    Sure. But what i mean is:
    Cold iced-over pole -> no water vapour -> less green house effect over that area -> more radiation to space -> more cold
    This feedback loop could cause an ice age (hypothesis), or, if we run it in the opposite direction, the retreat of an ice age. With two stable endpoints: Icehouse Earth and Greenhouse Earth.

  75. pat says:

    UK Times: Using biofuel in cars ‘may accelerate loss of rainforest’
    Using biofuel in vehicles may be accelerating the destruction of rainforest and resulting in higher greenhouse gas emissions than burning pure petrol and diesel, a watchdog said yesterday.
    The Renewable Fuels Agency also warned that pump prices could rise in April because of the Government’s policy of requiring fuel companies to add biofuel to petrol and diesel…
    Expansion of the industry has made Indonesia the third-largest CO2 emitter after China and the US. A litre of palm oil produced on land converted from Indonesian forest produces roughly three times as much CO2 as ordinary diesel. …
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7007238.ece

    btw is everyone getting in touch with their congress men and women?

    AFP: US sets 17pc carbon emissions reduction target
    THE United States today officially stated a goal to cut carbon emissions by 17 per cent by 2020 off 2005 levels, in a submission to the United Nations as part of last month’s Copenhagen meeting.
    The United States said it expected to cut emissions blamed for global warming “in the range of 17 per cent” and “anticipated” that Congress would approve legislation to meet the target…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/us-sets-17pc-carbon-emissions-reduction-target/story-e6frg6xf-1225824553634

  76. poneke says:

    Just go add it to the climategate page

    It wouldn’t last 30 seconds, as Connolley has bots that alert him to any change to any of “his” pages and he instantly reverts.

    But FWIW, I’ve put it as an update to the relevant article on my blog:

    http://poneke.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/stop-press/

  77. davidmhoffer says:

    Sure. But what i mean is:
    Cold iced-over pole -> no water vapour -> less green house effect over that area -> more radiation to space -> more cold

    YES! and if you were right, you should be able to take temperature data broken up by latitude, from NASA/GISS for example, and show that when the earth is warmer than normal the poles are MUCH warmer, and when the earth is cooler than normal the poles are MUCH cooler… like THIS http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-versus-equatorial-versus-arctic1.png

    and if you want the complete explanation with all the numbers http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/poles-regulate-earth-temperature-data-suggests/

    although I have a follow up to that coming because I confused some cause and effect issues, but yes, the poles regulate the planet’s temperature in my opinion.

  78. WTC says:

    So all this does is encourage lawsuits just short of six months? Or does the prosecutor have to bring charges within six months so they’d have to have a complaint at (say) three months?

    What a ridiculous law.

  79. Sam says:

    My understanding of the emails seems to show that the FOI enforcement officers at CRU were complicit in the refusals, and in collusion with Jones et al at that end. So obviously the ICO are not going to prosecute if they can help it – they would have to prosecute their own officers in a sense (I’m not certain quite what the relationship is FOI/ICO).

    Regarding the hacker/whistleblower question, everything I;ve read ont hat, esp from links to be found on this site under the ‘climategate’ tab, indicate it was a particularly IT-savvy whistleblower: ie an insider.

    Posters above said:
    “I think the tide is turning, but making governments change direction will require a lot more effort.”
    “”It’s called an election.””

    As others have pointed out, the incoming Conservatives (almost certain to win) are just as wedded to the AGW fiction as the current Govt. Cameron’s best chum and Envoronmental Advisor is Zac Goldsmith, an arch-environmentalist (he’s the millionare son of the late Jimmy Goldsmith).

    The much bigger problem is that all our environmental laws are now in the form of directives from the EU in Brussels, even down to which lightbulbs we use and how to dispose of our rubbish, let alone the draconian directives on renewable energy. And the EU is totally sold on AGW (and the supra-national goverment agenda).

    Richard North and Christopher Booker understand this very well, which is one reason they fight relentlessly for the UK to leave the EU even as they fight the AGW scam. Whilst we are in the EU we have no power under any Govt to escape financial ripoff by the global warming industry and its tax-hungry political supporters. Only UKIP has the policies to counter this scenario, sadly

  80. Patrick Davis says:

    “Brent Matich (16:42:45) :

    Good law, all you have to do is string out the person that requests info under the FOIA for what , six months, and they can’t prosecute you. This law is a great definition for impotence or tits on a bull.

    Brent in Calgary”

    This law, like so many introduced since the time of Thatcher, is working as designed, designed to keep the public away from the ruling elite and politicos.

  81. Sam says:

    By the way, a freind of mine here in East Anglia owns the local news agency. He’s often asked me to explain the issues regarding AGW. I coudl probably get him to place a piece in eg the East Anglian explaining the basic issues, if anyone has (or could write) a summary. I can do it myself (I do a fair bit of journalism on unrelated topics) but I’d need someone more knowledgeable about the science and the sequence of events etc to check it over.

    People don’t realise how much control the Guardian Group has over the MSM local press, Not only do they own a large number of lcoal newspapers outright (all of them in large areas, though not in East Anglia), but they own the Press Association, from whose newsfeed the local papers take almost all their editorial content. Go figure!

    http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%204/indexa.html

    One wonders how much influence they had in the appointment of the current editor of The Daily Telegraph, a paper which a few years ago would have had all this story all over its main pages, instead of all but confined to a couple of online blogs.

  82. geo says:

    Y’know, when you’re a world-famous expert in a particular niche, it’s one thing to be blogged about to those folks who are intensely interested in your area. It’s something else entirely when Joe-the-Plumber-Nextdoor is suddenly giving you sideways glances when you’re both checking the mail.

  83. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    The reputation of the University of East Anglia’s world renowned climatic research unit (CRU)was shaken to the core last year

    Yes, such prestigious men involved. Where have all the heroes gone?

  84. Pragmatic says:

    A Erickson (17:29:19) :

    I ran across another article from the times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/frank_skinner/article7007054.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2270657 It looks like the walls are crumbling.

    Skinner reflects the dour, twisted view of the defeated alarmist. In his rant for scientists to “Get Your Labs in Order,” he stubbornly clings to the hope that:
    “I honestly thought, when I first heard about the climate change threat, that it would be like when alien ships hovered over the planet in the Independence Day movie. I thought the common enemy — the universal danger — would unite us.”

    Yes Frank… Except for that to work we have to have evidence of alien ships being more than the Batman signal projected against night clouds. The conjurers of global warming thought they could bamboozle discerning scientists with scenarios of gloom and doom all based on the improbable claim that “carbon is evil.” The goals included an agitprop socialist agenda and a clumsy “take away” of other peoples’ money.

    Alarmists infused with socialist anger – declared those who made money in the West to be thieves. And their unholy plot was to shame people into believing that their greed and emission of CO2 had brought about the apocalypse. To execute their plot they marshaled their PR machine, media cronies, “science and publishing experts” and gullible student minds to create a movement. Their failure was to heed their own folly.

    For a dozen years, at least since Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” – this lumbering behemoth Global Warming shut its ears to voices of calm, measured pragmatism. So filled with the fervor of climate religion, they lied, cheated, derailed opposition and colluded to destroy evidence. But with each refusal to publish a skeptical view they tightened the noose around their own necks – blindly unable to fathom that censorship, evasion and corruption of truth is the clarion call of the weak; the spiritually impoverished.

    In the last two weeks the bipole has been authorized to switch. What we see now is little more than the well-rehearsed unwinding of a program that died long ago. The only reason it has taken so long and cost so much money – is the exercise of pride. Testimony that the harshest climate exists not in temperature or weather – but in the bleak souls of withered men, unable and unwilling to admit error.

    That alone is the reason for gloom. People who should know better – cling to their decrepit hold on power and pride, and sink an entire enterprise in so doing.

  85. Andrew30 says:

    Sam (22:09:12) : ;
    “People don’t realise how much control the Guardian Group has over the MSM local press”

    Actually if you dig using the names of the principals (the owners of the companies, and the parent companies) involved I think that you can tie The Guardian to New Scientist and thus to the bogus glacier melting thing.

    Google: “Reed Elsevier” “Scott Trust”
    Dig a bit, then get the principals names and dig some more.

    Some of us do realize all that is going on here.

  86. Pragmatic says:

    A Erickson (17:29:19) :

    I ran across another article from the times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/frank_skinner/article7007054.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2270657 It looks like the walls are crumbling.

    Skinner reflects the dour, twisted view of the defeated alarmist. In his rant for scientists to “Get Your Labs in Order,” he stubbornly clings to the hope that:
    “I honestly thought, when I first heard about the climate change threat, that it would be like when alien ships hovered over the planet in the Independence Day movie. I thought the common enemy — the universal danger — would unite us.”

    Yeah Frank… Except for that to work we have to have evidence of alien ships being more than the Batman signal projected against night clouds. The naive conjurers of global warming thought they could bamboozle discerning scientists with scenarios of gloom and doom all based on the improbable claim that “carbon is evil.” The play included their agitprop socialist agenda and a clumsy “take away” of other peoples’ money.

    Alarmists infused with socialist anger – declared those who had money in the West to be thieves. And the unholy plot was to shame people into believing that their greed and emission of CO2 had brought about the apocalypse. To execute their plot they marshaled their PR machine, media cronies, “science experts” and gullible student minds to create a movement. Their failure was to heed their own folly.

    For a dozen years, at least since Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” – this lumbering behemoth Global Warming shut its ears to voices of calm, measured pragmatism. So filled with the fervor of climate religion, they lied, cheated, blocked opposition and colluded to destroy evidence. But with each refusal to publish a skeptical view they tightened the noose around their own necks – blindly unable to fathom that censorship and evasion and corruption of truth is the clarion call of the weak; the spiritually impoverished.

    In the last two weeks the bipole has been authorized to switch. What we see now is little more than the well-rehearsed unwinding of a program that died long ago. The only reason it has taken so long and cost so much money – is the exercise of pride. Testimony that the harshest climate exists not in temperature or weather – but in the bleak souls of withered men, unable and unwilling to admit error.

    That alone is the reason for gloom. People who should know better – cling to their decrepit grasp on power and pride, and sink an entire enterprise in so doing.

  87. RichardJ says:

    One of the issues that keeps coming back and being quoted is that CRU/UEA (and other) institutions were being bombarded by dozens of FOI requests. The requests were frivolous or malicious and were distracting the CRU scientists from the important research they wanted to do. Is this true?

    Does anyone know how many FOI requests CRU/UEA received? How many FOI requests to CRU on climate issues and how many to UEA on all issues?

    I’m not a regular contributor, so please excue this if the information is already out there.

  88. tallbloke says:

    Jack Hughes (14:43:41) :

    Jones is having a divergence problem with his fingers. He doesn’t look happy.

    He’s playing ‘scissors,paper, stone’ with the other person in the photo.

    “It’s man made”

    “It’s natural”

  89. TonyB says:

    RichardJ

    Highly trained scientists and the experienced admin team of a major University know the difference between ‘frivolous’ requests and one submitted by respected researchers such as David Holland, Warwick Hughes or SteveM whose work is well known and can be easily googled.

    Ask yourself why they didn’t WANT to release the information and ultimately the uncomfortable truth is they recognised that there were things within it that they didn’t want made known to those who challenged their views.

    Tonyb

  90. Phillip Bratby says:

    He looks to have aged 100 years, his shirt looks as if he has slept in it and he has to wear a name badge in case he forgets who he is.

  91. RichardJ says:

    Tonyb

    Sorry, this is my fault for not being clear.

    I don’t believe that the FIO requests were frivolous, malicious, time wasting or whatever else. I certainly don’t believe that of those made by David Holland, Warwick Hughes or SteveM.

    I simply wanted to know if the numbers of FIO requests they received could be considered being bombarded. How many have there been? are they all from respected researchers such as the ones we know about? There is an implication that the FOI requests they (CRU/UEA) received were a major hinderance to their work. Unless we know the figures and the nature of all the requests we can’t come to a judgemment about wether this is true or not.

    Just wondered if anyone had any info on this…

  92. Alexander says:

    Last evening, I watched a BBC newscast about the IOC decision to ask for a change in the FOI law to remove the time barrier to prosecutions, which was geniuinely good news, then was made unreasonably angry by the smooth ‘expert’ chatting with the newsreader who raised the old canard that all of those who made requests under FOI were ‘Global Warming Sceptics’ and heavily implying the requests came from the lunatic fringe and the University of East Anglia could justifiably claim those requests were frivolous. I would have expected a ‘respected and balanced news organisation’ would have at least raised Steve M’s requests for data. It would be helpful to know the volume of requests that the university was allegedly bombarded with. Is this information anywhere in the public domain? The Beeb is very obviously not changing its pro AGW views without a fight

  93. P Gosselin says:

    Gee, I wonder if they’d apply the 6-month staute of limitations to the leaker, if they ever found him.

  94. Allan M says:

    P Solar (18:52:44) :

    They got the photo caption wrong. It should read : ex-director.

    Perhaps he could become the ex-Rector of Stiffkey.

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

    (nonpoliticalwiki)

  95. Phil Richardson says:

    To Steve Mosher…

    Hi Steve,

    Just went to Lulu to purchase a copy of your book and it seems that the books format (epub digital editions) excludes most of the book readers on the market including mine (cybook gen 3) and also the digital editions software wont run on my computer (a nifty little linux box. Any chance of having at in a basic epub, pdf or mobi pocket books format.

    Best Regards

    Phil

  96. Dave, UK says:

    Caption: Prof Phil Jones, 39, yesterday discussing the relationship between AGW and premature ageing.

    Oh, and apparently his birth certificate has been lost.

  97. Thanks for the great work by all here – I wanted to share with you the fruits of my labours on the Phil Jones criminal issue – forget the FOIA farce – Jones is facing 10 years in jail under the UK’s Fraud Act (2006)
    http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges#comments

  98. yonason says:

    “Steer clear of that iceberg, and set a course for warmer water.”

    “Aye, Aye, sir.”

    With Pachauri at the helm, and Jones his first mate, it was only a matter of time.

    Must have made a wrong turn at Albuquerque?

  99. Pascvaks says:

    Has anyone else noticed that we do not yet have the “know how” nor “proper tools” to “solve” the riddle of “Weather/Climate”? The press and the public seem to be of a mind that if our great grandparents’ generation could develope the A-Bomb, if our grandparents’ generation could go to the moon, if our parents’ generation could develope cell phones, then –by all means– we should be able to fix anything, do anything, go anywhere, etc. — and still burn our little candles at both ends and run up fantastic debts.

    The problems or issues of a generation say much about the way things are (and are not). The knowledge, technology, organization, science, and politics of today are lacking, wanting, needing, is so many ways. And it is not just the issue of weather/climate, we are stumbling along like a dozen billion blind men in so many areas.

    But be not down dear reader, we are learning. We may be so like the lowly lemming and many will perish one day off a cliff from our fears and stupidity, but remember even among the lemmings of the world there are some who do not jump and live to think another day.

    Life’s a beach; it’s always changing, and always the same.

  100. yonason says:

    Graham UK (14:46:06) :.

    “I think the tide is turning, but making governments change direction will require a lot more effort.”

    BINGO!

    As I’ve said before, the political agenda is the “payload.” AGW was merely the booster rocket to launch it into orbit. Once the booster is no longer needed, it is jettisoned as excess baggage. Now that the “payload” has achieved it’s desired trajectory, it will continue on course unless it can be shot down independent of the faux “science” that got it off the ground.

    So, yeah, the real work has probably just begun.

  101. JMANON says:

    Interesting:
    It is suggested that while he may be immune to FOIA prosecution, there is a possibilty that Phil “climategate” Jones (Welsh naming convention followed) might be at risk of a ten year jail sentence or fraud.
    The suggestion is made here:
    http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges
    Now that would give the Norwich (Narrich) papers something to report.

  102. David L. Hagen says:

    Per JManon
    Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges
    January 28, 2010 by John O’Sullivan

    What is not being intelligently reported is that Jones is still liable as lead conspirator in the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and may face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act (2006). If convicted of the offense of fraud by either false representation, failing to disclose information or fraud by abuse of his position, he stands liable to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

    In this article I shall demonstrate that the fuss over the FOIA infringement, although in itself succeeding in achieving no conviction, does demonstrate that the ICO has acted improperly and may have prejudiced the outcome of any prosecution Jones may face for far more serious offenses for false representation (section 2) and failing to disclose information (section 3) under the Fraud Act (2006).

    He cites:
    The Fraud Act 2006 ( part one ) – a note, Norman Baird

  103. davidmhoffer says:

    The problem with the models is that they all suffer from the same delusion, which is that the temperature of the earth changes at all in the long term. They are so caught up in chasing every last watt and where it goes and how it gets there, that they have lost site of that fact that all they are measuring is a temporary change in energy flow.

    The earth has several energy inputs including radioactive element decay, radiance from the earth’s inner core, friction from tides, but they are all pretty much steady state and tiny compared to the Sun. So…

    The Sun bombards the Earth with about 235 watts per m2 of energy. The Earth radiates EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT BACK TO SPACE. You can change ANY factor you want. Amount of CO2, amount of ice, and print as many reports as you want, the system will balance itself out again and when it is done…. The Sun bombards the Earth with 235 watts per m2, and the Earth radiates EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT BACK TO SPACE.

    UNLESS there is a change to the amount of energy going into the system, the system CANNOT change its over all temperature over the long term. The ONLY thing a change inside the system can accomplish is a change to the circulation patters of energy INSIDE the system IN THE SHORT TERM. So, if someone wants to argue that CO2 will make something (anything) on the planet warmer, then it is only a matter of time before the resulting change in energy flow makes something elsee cooler.

    The question of HOW LONG it will take those processes to come back to steady state is valid. The question of WHIC things will be warmer and WHICH things will be cooler and by how much is also valid. But the over all temperature of the earth will be governed by the following:

    Solar energy in = earth radiance out.
    NOTHING ELSE CAN CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE PLANET EXCEPT TEMPORARILY

    I am not an academic, and this has not been peer reviewed. If I WAS an academic and we submitting this for peer review, I would include references to supporting work of others which would include:

    Albert Einstein
    Isaac Newton
    Bernoulli
    Bohr
    Boltzman
    Planck
    Pascal
    Edison
    Joule
    Ohm

    In fact I don’t have enough time to document the references upon which my statement rests since it goes all the way back to Aristotle. I have more references to dead physicists than all the climate researchers alive. They can twist and turn with all the positive and negative feedback they want, the planet will ALWAYS return to a steady state where:

    Sun Radiance In = Earth Radiance Out.

  104. George M says:

    Mosh: (14:46:31)

    I caught a Revkin interview on BBC America a couple of days ago. He is still strongly pushing the warmers agenda.

  105. Rob says:

    CLIMATEGATE
    Anthropogenic Global Warming, history’s biggest scam, Jones could get 10 years for fraud.

    John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website. He offers his services free to the site and is not a site employee. Any opinions he expresses are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the site owner.

    He should Know what he is talking about, lets hope so.

    http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges/comment-page-1#comment-2114

  106. kzb says:

    davidmhoffer: Yes you are right, at steady state the energy output will equal the energy input.
    However, what you are missing is a serious point, the temperature at steady state can vary. For example, a matt black surface in direct sunlight will reach a higher temperature than a reflective white surface, but the energy radiated by the two will be the same once steady-state is achieved.

    This is the whole crux of the greenhouse effect, if you don’t understand this you understand nothing. The planet does have a greenhouse effect, it always has, and without it the world would be permanently frozen solid.

  107. yonason says:

    yonason (05:10:44) :

    Graham UK (14:46:06) :.

    UPDATE – And here’s the proof that they no longer need AGW. Damn the icebergs, and full speed ahead!

  108. Beth Cooper says:

    A commentator on Lucia’s ‘The Blackboard,’ called VG gives a link to legal advocate, John O’Sullivan’s opinions re Phil Jones liability for prosecution under the Fraud Act 2006.The Act creates serious offences of dishonesty and the statute of limitations is 6 years. As long as someone continues covering up unlawful conduct, under the Act, this keeps the offenses “live,” because the act of covering up the crime is itself a crime. O’Sullivan has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in the US and Britain.

  109. Chuck near Houston says:

    Re: yonason (08:07:55)

    Aye, but here’s the little detail at the end of that short reuters piece:

    “A final emissions reduction target will be submitted, the U.S. said, once the U.S. Congress enacts domestic legislation requiring carbon pollution cuts. But such legislation has an uncertain fate in the Senate.”

    A bit understated, don’t you think? At this point, the probability of the US Congress passing any serious legislation (“cap and trade”) is approaching 0. The elections in November should be interesting.

  110. Sam says:

    Could folk take a look at what’s already been posted before providing links?
    That’s around 6 people now posting up John O’Sullivan’s piece today!

    I try to read everything on here but it gets hard when much is repeated
    Must be even harder for Anthony and the mods!

  111. Smokey says:

    Scientists “broke the law.” From Drudge: click

  112. davidmhoffer says:

    This is the whole crux of the greenhouse effect, if you don’t understand this you understand nothing. The planet does have a greenhouse effect, it always has, and without it the world would be permanently frozen solid.>

    Sigh.
    Same mistakes over and over and over. First of all, the atmosphere is part of the planet, you can’t separate them. Second the atmosphere doesn’t generate new energy via greenhouse or any other effect, it only moves it around.

    Average temperature of a planet with NO atmosphere, and an energy source averaging 235 watts/m2 is about -20 C. The equator would be a lot warmer, and the poles a lot colder.

    Average temperature of a planet WITH an atmosphere, and an energy source averaging 235 watts/m2 is about -20 C. The equator would be a lot warmer and the poles a lot cooler.

    The difference would be that the temperature gradient from (for sake of argument) bottom of the ocean to top of atmosphere would be different, and currents in the atmosphere would redistribute energy around the planet. So if you want to argue that “greenhouse effect” changes energy concentrations at different points on the planet, and at different altitudes, I’m pretty interested in how that works. If you want to argue that the temperature of the planet as a whole changed, I will refer you back to the physicists referenced in my previous post.

    As for your example:

    That’s a classic illustration of the exact same mistake. The matt black surface reflects SOME of the sunlight and absorbs the rest. The relfective white surface reflects MOST of the sunlight and absorbs the rest. At steady state, the two DO NOT radiate the same amount of energy. Since one is hotter than the other, BY DEFINITION it is radiating more energy. The TOTAL of reflected + radiated for the two surfaces will be IDENTICAL.

    If it isn’t, you have invented free energy and a lot of people will be wanting to talk with you.

  113. Smokey says:

    CRU funding [sorry, only goes to 2006]: click

  114. kzb says:

    davidmhoffer: the white surface will REFLECT energy without prior absorption, the matt black surface absorbs energy before re-radiating it. There is a difference and anyone can try this experiment. All you need is to feel the difference between a black car and a white car parked next to each other on a hot sunny day. If what you say is real, the two surfaces would have the same temperature. But they don’t, and anyone can confirm this by experiment.

  115. Ron de Haan says:

    Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office:
    What we have here is a failure to communicate!
    In other words, the research is robust but communication is weak!
    http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/30/vicky-pope-head-of-climate-change-advice-at-the-met-office-what-we-have-here-is-a-failure-to-communicate/

  116. yonason says:

    Chuck near Houston (08:52:10) :

    Yes, I hope you are right. Perhaps the AGW booster was uncoupled too soon, which means the political payload is off course. That’s what it does look like, as you observe, but only time will tell. I mean, with geniuses like them, anything is possible.

  117. davidmhoffer says:

    kzb (09:45:53) :
    davidmhoffer: the white surface will REFLECT energy without prior absorption, the matt black surface absorbs energy before re-radiating it. There is a difference and anyone can try this experiment. All you need is to feel the difference between a black car and a white car parked next to each other on a hot sunny day. If what you say is real, the two surfaces would have the same temperature. But they don’t, and anyone can confirm this by experiment.>

    omigosh. are you related to inspector thompson’s gazelle? Which part of, and I quote, “since one is hotter than the other…” did you not understand? Reflected energy is not part of temperature. When you put your hand on the black car, it feels hot. The white car not so much. But you can’t “feel” the reflected energy from the car on the palm of your hand. do you know why? BECAUSE THERE ISNT ANY YOUR HAND IS NOW INTBETWEEN THE ENERGY SOURCE AND THE CAR SO THE REFLECTIVE COMPONENT WENT AWAY. Or more accuratley, it is shining on the back of your hand.

  118. yonason says:

    yonason (16:57:58) :

    Chuck near Houston (08:52:10) :

    UPDATE: This just in.
    http://www.climategate.com/the-dynamic-duo-james-delingpole-and-alex-jones

    James Delingpole makes the case that it doesn’t matter about the loss of AGW; that it’s a minor inconvenience that they will work around, because the pols everywhere want what AGW was designed to elicit. No more AGW? No problem, he says. They will push on. They have tons of money, lots of cooperation at the highest levels of govt., and their foot in the door, legislatively.

    We’ve, as he said, wounded the beast, but it is far from dead.

  119. yonason says:

    NIGHT OF THE LIVING GREENHOUSE

    @davidmhoffer (10:38:05) :

    “Average temperature of a planet with NO atmosphere, and an energy source averaging 235 watts/m2 is about -20 C. The equator would be a lot warmer, and the poles a lot colder.”

    And night time far cooler still. Just look at the moon, which is just as far from the sun as the earth.
    day side temp = +107 deg C.
    night side temp = -153 deg C.

    The night side of a planet with an atmosphere cools more slowly, while it’s day side is NOT warmed, but COOLED.

    Robert W. Woods falsified greenhouse in 1909, but it’s risen and votes for AGW.

  120. kzb says:

    davidmhoffer:

    This is from the post that I relied to first:

    <>

    I read this as, since the energy hitting the planet is constant, the temperature of the planet must also be constant over the long term.

    I chose an imperfect analogy, that of the black and white surfaces, to show that two bodies in the same irradiance field do not necessarily have the same temperature (this is what your post implied).

    It’s an imperfect analogy for a planet with an atmosphere, it’s not quite the same mechanism. But I think the CO2-warming hypothesis is quite reasonable as a hypothesis.

    If we have two otherwise indentical planets, planet-1 the atmosphere is transparent to electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum, and planet-2 the atmosphere absorbs infra-red, planet-2 will be warmer. This is because some of the visible light heats the planet surface which re-radiates the energy in IR. The atmosphere of planet-2 absorbs this and reaches a higher equilibrium temperature than that of planet-1.

    I don’t think this basic hypothesis is in serious dispute. It’s all the other things built onto this that are in dispute.

  121. D. Patterson says:

    The Independent in Britain is now reporting that Sir David King is claiming the release of the Climategate e-mail and data files was done by a highly sophisticated computer hacking operation by a foreign intelligence agency.

    It appears to be very important to Sir David King, Phil Jones, and others to distract public attention away from the possibility or probability that the files were aggregated by Phil Jones and/or others to obstruct the pending FOIA requests and released by someone in CRU who refused to allow them to violate the FOIA laws and subsequent investigations with complete impunity. King’s claim the release was deliberately timed by a foreign intelligence agency has already been debunked as a farce by Steve McIntyre, who noted the releaseof the files occurred the day after the FOIA request was dishonored by Phil Jones and CRU. Since the date when the FOIA request was dishonored was under the control of Phil Jones and CRU, the timing of the file release was in effect controlled by Phil Jones and CRU, and not by some fantasy or real hacker at a fantasy or real foreign intelligence agency. Sir David Jones appears to owe the public a retraction of at least some of his statement/s and an apology for the obvious errors.

  122. Smokey says:

    kzb (05:23:05) :

    “I chose an imperfect analogy…” Translation: “I was wrong.”

    kzb is also wrong when he says: “I think the CO2-warming hypothesis is quite reasonable as a hypothesis.” Whether the hypothesis sounded reasonable originally, we have learned a lot since then — and the CO2=CAGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. CO2 can not cause catastrophic global warming.

    Over time the climate sensitivity to CO2 has been constantly ratcheted down, even by the IPCC, to the point where the effect of CO2 is so insignificant that it can be completely disregarded. It is simply a non-problem.

    And by all indications, at 0.5 – 1 the current sensitivity number is still too high, even though anything under 1.0 makes the effect of CO2 insignificant. That’s why as CO2 steadily rises [95%+ due to entirely non-human causes], the planet’s temperature has been flat to declining.

    The entire AGW scare is based specifically on CO2 alarmism. With CO2 discredited as a cause, every other cause raised by the alarmist crowd amounts to nothing more than frantic goal post adjustments.

  123. Spector says:

    News Headline: (Telegraph dot co dot UK)

    “At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’”
    James Delingpole –

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024591/at-last-expert-sir-david-king-expertly-reveals-true-identity-of-climategate-hackers/

  124. Spector says:

    News Headline: (Independent dot co dot UK)

    “Climate emails hacked by spies”
    “Interception bore hallmarks of foreign intelligence agency, says expert”
    By Steve Connor, Science Editor

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emails-hacked-by-spies-1885147.html

  125. Smokey says:

    Spector (07:51:26),

    In the Independent’s article referenced by Delingpole, Sir David is quoted:

    “There are are several bodies of people who could do this sort of work. These are national intelligence agencies and it seems to me that it was the work of such a group of people.”

    Translation: “I don’t have the slightest clue about how it was done.”

    Sir David is engaging in rank speculation, intended to take the spotlight off of the criminal wrongdoing committed by CRU scientists and Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and others.

    Why would Russia or China — which stood to gain financially from Copenhagen — derail their chances to cash in as developing countries? And when have those countries ever selectively leaked emails on-line like this? It is completely out of character.

    The same unfounded speculation applies to the “What if…” scenario claiming that a nefarious ‘nerd’ in the skeptic community hacked into a CRU computer. Where is there any evidence of that?

    Obviously, if such a ‘nerd’ had access to CRU emails going back many years, he would have disclosed thousands more. There are clearly a lot of missing/unanswered emails, which were no doubt deleted by the probable insider who posted them on-line, in order to cover the insider’s tracks.

    Law enforcement could probably find the culprit in short order by taking all the emails, including the large number that were not posted on-line, looking at the pattern, and questioning/investigating everyone who had access.

    But neither law enforcement nor the government wants the details to be revealed, and they most certainly do not want charges brought against the dishonest and corrupt scientists who have traded scientific integrity for money and status. If they were indicted, those same scientists would not hesitate to point straight up, in order to save their own skins.

    Because the trail leads too high up. The AGW scam has already netted the perpetrators tens of $billions, with billions and possibly trillions of dollars more, enticing these scientists and their political superiors to promote the increasingly dubious conjecture that CO2, an entirely beneficial and harmless trace gas making up only 0.00038 of the atmosphere could possibly cause runaway global warming.

    Sir David is simply engaging in classic misdirection based on zero evidence, intended to protect higher-ups, in order to continue the AGW scare for base pecuniary reasons at the expense of the taxpaying public they are pretending to protect from a harmless molecule necessary to life on Earth.

  126. kzb says:

    Smokey, what I mean is the physics of the theory must be true. The prediction, in the absence of any feed-back mechanisms, is that CO2 will warm the planet. I don’t think anyone seriously questions the physical principles.
    The problems arise when you try and include all the possible positive and negative feed-back mechanisms in your model. Then it all gets a lot more speculative. Climate models use “CO2 equivalents” when you read the small print. Heaven knows what is included in this.

  127. Smokey says:

    kzb (10:36:34):

    “The prediction, in the absence of any feed-back mechanisms, is that CO2 will warm the planet.”

    It’s not a prediction. Predictions must be validated, and no climate model has been able to accurately predict the climate. That’s why the IPCC calls them “projections.”

    But the real question is: how much will CO2 warm the planet, if at all? Is there any measurable, empirical evidence showing that such warming actually takes place? [I'll save you the trouble of searching. The answer is: No.]

    If warming from CO2 is so insignificant that numerous other natural processes overwhelm its tiny effect, as seems increasingly likely, then there is no reason for concern. And there is certainly no reason to continue funding so inconsequential of a non-problem.

    Provide a reproducible, empirical measurement showing that X amount of global warming results from X amount of CO2. Then we’ll have a starting point for serious discussion. Until then, the CO2=CAGW hypothesis is based on speculation, not on real world evidence.

  128. Spector says:

    RE: Smokey (10:25:56)

    News Headline: (guardian dot co dot UK)

    “David King admits to speculation over source of climate science emails”

    “Former government adviser [Chief Scientist under Tony Blair] backs away from sensational claims over involvement of foreign intelligence or wealthy lobbyists.”
    (by David Leigh and Charles Arthur)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/david-king-climate-emails-speculation

    Yes — It does look like this is a high level and potentially biased speculation.

  129. Smokey says:

    Spector (13:02:55),

    Thanks for that link. The Guardian!! Good thing I was sitting down when I opened it.

  130. davidmhoffer says:

    KZB – all analogies are imperfect. That said, greenhouse gas does not add energy to the system. It only changes the rate at which it comes out, and only on a temporary basis. Over the long term, the amount that goes in and the amount the comes out are identical. You can’t increase the temperature in your house just by putting more insulation in it. You still need a furnace to heat it. If you wrap more insulation around the house, and leave the amount of energy the furnace is putting out constant, then the temperature in the house will go up..for a while. The amount of energy that the house is radiating will also start to rise until it equals the output of the furnace, at which point the temperature rise will level off. The point being that in the long term, the amount of energy going in equals exactly the amount going out. Any model that pretends that more energy can go in than comes out in the long term is proposing perpetual motion.

Comments are closed.