WUWT – helping to educate UEA students on climate

I can understand Kendall not wanting to tear his University apart himself. However, I wonder how well he understands the legitimate viewpoint of outsiders. If I am one of the sacrificial taxpayers potentially being uselessly charged thousands of dollars, using UEA science as an excuse, that makes me a stakeholder in the conversation, and I have a viewpoint. Particularly because I have work experience fighting stubborn data myths.
And the question in that situation is whether we can successfully get anywhere by asking quietly.Not whether he can get anywhere that way, but whether we can.

I’d call his bluff and constructively suggest that he might ensure consistency between what you say (assuming you give the lectures I used to cover?) and his account – for
the students’ sake at least!
“For the sake of the, er, students!” We wouldn’t want our budding little “scientists” to get too sceptical, eh, and then not tow our ticket for an eternal meal at the government trough, now would we? And after all, it is Climate Science 101! Just how does “Dr.” Kendall think the students will ever get their degree in our Religion?

Oh dear. I guess there was a period of cleansing to “purge” the evil spirits within following the revelation of heretical views being espoused within their very own sepulcher. I wonder if they have resorted to self flagellation yet?

@Getting Warm
The severe problems with the sham pseudo-inquiries have been widely addressed, but I will simply note that your inclusion of the following entities as “truly impartial” shows you in a delusional state of mind:
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
All of the items in your list have severe problems, sham inquiry committees and such, but citing these two entities is like saying “Greenpeace says it so it must be true!”
or maybe you aren’t aware that UCS is merely a left-wing activist front group and the EPA is severely biased (i.e., not ‘truly impartial’).

Anthony,
Love your site. Most of the time we just visit sites to reinforce our views.
You ignored my request to release all of your personal e-mails regarding climate change.
I’m waiting.
REPLY: Why would I take the demand of an anonymous coward, who can’t even bring him/herself to put their own name on their request, as something I would pay attention to? And, you seem unclear on the concept. Private emails by citizens aren’t subject to FOIA or demands from punks like yourself. Public emails at public institutions are. Bugger off. – Anthony

Getting Warm: I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not stupid. Therefore the alternative is, for some reason or another, you are a willing participant in the CAGW disinformation campaign, willingly and knowingly spreading their propaganda, for what reason I neither know or care. While your propaganda may fly elsewhere, the vast majority of the people who visit this site, contribute articles to it and comment on it are intelligent enough to be skeptical of all the CAGW claims, especially since those claims are debunked on a regular basis, ofttimes by contributors. So save yourself the effort of spreading your disinformation here. Instead, read the articles, read the comments, research the sources cited, compare the “skeptical” science to the CAGW “science” and do some real critical thinking. Then you can comment with something substantive, not just canned CAGW propaganda.

Richard M
LOL

I quite like the phrase “Cake Science” as a way of describing how funding becomes a cake which institutions want a slice of.
It also highlights the fact that sponsored research into a subject is not even handed or even based upon or around some grand theory. It rather seems to be based upon what is politically expedient at the present time.
Who is responsible? We are, we created the monster that now smothers science. We allowed Science to be turned into religion. We let the zealots run away at the mouth without check.

Pity it’s so often the shallow comments that get aired first. Yup I’m no doubt guilty too because that is the way things unfold in life.
Anthony, that was Alan Kendall’s first post at BH, first probably in the blogosphere. One should follow the thread thereafter, and read his second and third comments. The second comment includes this important statement

You may be interested to learn that another who has been demonized, Kieth Briffa, was the first to actively and publically defend my right to express my climate change opinions.

and the third comment opens

Woke up this morning with some trepedation – had I stirred up another hornets’ nest by trying to defend Ed Acton’s position? Was very pleasantly surprised and I thank those who tried to understand my own position on these matters and those who have been supportive.

I’d already seen intriguing references to Kendall and did my own emails search which resulted in a long post on the “emails grepper” thread because here was prime evidence, using both the earlier and the later emails, that, contrary to the kneejerk warmist “out of context!” shouts, the recent tranche of emails had helped to put a lot into context. Alan Kendall’s story as extracted from the emails helped me see a story of corruption at UEA over time, and an individual there who did what was within his power to do, to recognize and stand up for integrity, stand up for the freedom to examine all the evidence and to make up one’s own mind, and above all, behave with courtesy.
I have a lot of time for Alan Kendall.

I dont know why theyre having such a hard time.
If its all as certain as theyre saying, then show us the human causal signal in the data and get it over with.
Unless of course, they cant find it…..