Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

The LA Times could use some input:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-hacker22-2009nov22,0,913036.story

Warmaholic Gate.

“…There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C
on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility…”
This is priceless. I hope the incriminating information just keeps trickling out bit by bit for the next few months, like the ACORN slime.
Death by a thousand cuts is how this beastly fraud deserves to die.

From a friend:
…You mean it isn’t all about a few ill-considered insults in emails stolen by some evil hacker?
–S.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones
The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones Icon – Comments 173
Andrew Bolt
Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 12:19pm
These are the emails that should have Professor Phil Jones most worried about his future.
Jones, head of the CRU unit whose emails were leaked, has been under most fire so far over one email in particular in which he boasted of using a ‘“trick” to “hide the decline” that would have otherwise spoiled his graph showing temperatures soaring ever-upward.
But far more serious – at least in a legal sense – may be his apparent boasting of destroying data to stop sceptics from checking this alarmist work. If, as some emails suggest, he destroyed it to thwart FOI requests from Professor Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, who’d already exposed as fake the Michael Mann “hockey stick”, Jones, one of the most active of the IPCC lead authors, could even face criminal charges.
(Note: in saying that, I should add that these emails may simply be poorly worded, out of context or even altered by the whistleblower who leaked them. Jones may also not knowingly have done anything wrong, and there is no proof that he did anything against the law.
UPDATE:
Several updates on Jones below, including his “selfish” wish to see global warming “regardless of the consequences” just to be proved right.)
Whether laws were broken or not, the emails prove beyond doubt how resistant Jones and his colleagues were to having their work properly scrutinised by anyone not of their “team”. No wonder, perhaps, when the documents reveal Jones has so far attracted $25 million in
grants.)
The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick:
===>
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
From: Phil Jones
To: santer1@XXXX
Subject: Re: A quick question
Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008
Ben,
Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!
McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.
Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these
– all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil:
From: Phil Jones To:
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al.
(1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica).
Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this…
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Email 1182255717.txt
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al.
(1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit
.2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil
…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.
This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil
Dear Mr Palmer,
Request for Information concerning the IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process
Drs Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn of your Climatic Research Unit served as lead authors on the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which by international agreement was required to be undertaken on an comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis.1 On 31 March 2008, I asked Dr Briffa for important specific information, not so far released, on his work as a lead author to which I have had no reply or acknowledgement, but have, through other FoI enquiries, been given a copy of his email dated 1 April 2008, to several other IPCC participants including Dr Philip Jones, and to which my letter was attached. He told his colleagues his response to me would be brief when he got round to it. Also included in the documents released to me is an email dated 14 March 2008 to Dr Briffa, among others, from Susan Solomon, Co-Chair of WGI, advising the addressees not to disclose information beyond that (which I consider inadequate) already in the public domain.
Accordingly, I hereby request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
From: Phil Jones
To: santer, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –
<===
Ain’t peer reivew grand? You only get to be checked by the people you know will agree.
Incidentally, where in FOI legislation does it say man-made warming sceptics are banned from using it?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_the_australian_link
The global warmist conspiracy – and the Australian link Andrew Bolt Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 06:20am
The leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit indicate an astonishing conspiracy of the world’s leading warmist scientists, involving collusion, rigged evidence, suppression of dissent, the possibly illegal destruction of evidence under FOI request, and the smearing of sceptical scientists.
(To the BBC, however, it’s just about naughty hackers – not whistleblowers. To the Guardian, it’s about poor scientists being frustrated by the “intense scrutiny”, with the celebration of the death of mild-mannered sceptic John Daly being scientists ”reacting badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics]”.)
I’ve published some of the most extraordinary of the emails so far, but now there’s also an Australian link which shows just how closely activists and these scientists, as well as possibly the CSIRO, worked together to present the most alarmist scenarios. Here’s the 0933255789.txt, from Adam Markham, head of the Clean Cool Air Planet, which sells global warming “solutions”, to Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia and founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, who actually seems to have had second thoughts about the “consensus” in the decade since he received this email :
===>
From: Adam Markham
To: m.hulme@XXXX, n.sheard@XXXX
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Cc: mrae@XXXX
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO.
In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50% of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a particularly important issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is:
“The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999, p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding “the decline”, and Jones explained he was not trying to mislead.
“No, that’s completely wrong. In the sense that they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.
“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=445
Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxx]>
Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like – half the years to
2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014
We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.
Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.
Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement.
From: Tom Wigley
To: Kevin Trenberth
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
Cc: Michael Mann , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Kevin, I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was ”we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two different things—the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking.
Tom
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not agree with this.
Tom.
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
Kevin
… That is why it is important for us to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money….
From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@XXX
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
Keith,
Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send it to you.
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.
Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.
Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
At 08:54 12/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote:
Phil,
there may be some money this FY, substantial sums. Management here are casting around for ideas. As its to be spent this FY its largely going to be consultant work as we never have a cats chance in hell of recruiting on that timescale. What resource do you think we could contract from CRU (you, Harry, others?) ….
Your chapter on “Observations: Surface and atmospheric climate change” is a key chapter in WGI and it is important that what we say in our chapter in WGII follows from and agrees with your chapter. I would be very happy to discuss ways to ensure effective communication between our two chapters.Specific aspects from your chapter of relevance to our chapter include observed changes in regional temperature and precipitation, both means and extremes. We plan to use a figure in our chapter showing a global map of observed temperature trends over the last 30 years (?) overlaid with locations of significant observed changes in natural and managed systems. We want to make sure that this is based on the same dataset(s) that you will be using to show the observed temperature trends.In practice, almost everything in your chapter will be relevant to our chapter. I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of your ZOD after it is completed, so that I can make sure that our chapter is consistent with yours. I am happy to send you a copy of our ZOD, if you would like to read it.
1106322460 txt
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
:
#1047388489
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
#1047390562
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
#1051156418
“This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on)…. deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).”
#1051190249
“Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.”
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess….
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology? ….Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden. I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
<===
(Thanks for the terrific help of readers.)

If skeptics were hacked, Gore and Hansen would probably defend the act as “civil disobedience”..

Phil Clarke (03:21:59) :
My rights under the Fourth Amendment …
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
have been violated, however.
Dr. Phil and CRU clan have to Fourth Ammendment right unless they are U.S. citizens living in the jurisdiction of the U.S.. This CRU clan is most likely to be indicted for obstruction and conspiracy. The actions of Dr. Phil around manipulating, hiding and deleting data satisfy British common law for agreement and intent.
Further, we do not know that these emails are not a leak by a CRU whistleblower. If they are they have certain protections under British law. And international law recognizes that company emails written on company computers regarding company business – belong to the company. And in this case the company belongs to the British people.

Lord Lawson in the Times calls for a full independent enquiry into ClimateGate:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece

AGW, the University of East Anglia, the Freedom of Information Act and evidence of BBC bias. This is heady news. The debate on climate change will never be the same again.
By a strange and highly relevant coincidence the BBC was obliged just this week to respond under the FOI Act to a request for a disclosure of policy on climate change. This is the first publication of exactly what response was forthcoming.
The initial response has been with regard to the BBC Trust, the governing body. No reply has yet been obtained covering the Executive, but the statement of BBC policy at the top level is highly revealing. What are asserted to be the only words on file within the Trust addressing AGW are few in number and contained within just a few paragraphs.
Since these words are so critical it is important that we are precise in establishing definitions. AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming as a proposition embodies two statements, each addressed separately in the BBC statement of policy. GW , the global warming component, asserts that there has been an increase in global mean temperature, but that would be a meaningless statement if not quantified. The accepted level at which temperature rise becomes GW, that is an increase demanding political countermeasures, has been set for the purposes of the Copenhagen meeting as a rate of not less that 2 degrees C per century. The factual climate change issue is whether or not that level has been exceeded.
The second component, A, makes a statement about causation. The 26 word IPCC conclusion is that ‘most’ of GW is ‘very likely’ due to A, that is an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In plain English it has got warmer and its CO2 wot done it. For the purposes of Copenhagen however the ‘most’ and ‘very likely’ have been dropped so that the only issue of the agenda is how to limit CO2 emissions.
In the light of this understanding of the AGW issue we can usefully look at the stated BBC stance. It appears as a paragraph in the document setting out the BBC approach to impartiality, “Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century”, http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/century21.shtml
Although the FOI response contained the following wording, this cannot be held to apply to the wording of the above document already in the public domain. They are in any case strange words to append to a response under the provisions of the FOI Act.
“Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.”
We may therefore reasonably consider what was cited as the only material relevant to the information request which was worded as follows:-
“Is there, or has there been, within the BBC Trust any document dealing with editorial policy on matters relating to climate change?”
The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:-
“There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. “
The first sentence addresses the GW issue but according to the wording of the second sentence is not considered to have even a small minority of intelligent and articulate opponents. It is therefore accorded the status of fact establishing that, in words commonly used by the government, ‘the issue is settled’. It is unsurprising that under the dictates of this policy no airtime is given to those who dispute the GW proposition.
The second sentence addresses the A issue, accepting that there is an opposing case but relegating it to that of a small minority. It is on this assessment that the next paragraph is deemed to be applicable.
“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to
the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate.”
On the A issue therefore, that of human attribution, debate on the BBC airwaves is authorized but the proportionality is restricted to that determined by the judgment that this is a small minority. This is reflected in the very limited exposure given to views contesting the A thesis.
What is also revealed is that the ‘small minority’ assessment is derived from a seminar of scientific experts. If the selection criteria were in line with those used by the IPCC then this conclusion was inevitable. What is now evident is that it is dramatically out of line with public opinion, where the most recent survey indicates that more dispute the AGW proposition than support it. The case for an open debate in which the proportionality of airtime allocated reflects the public perception is unanswerable.
On the first issue however it is clear that the BBC is plain wrong. The actuality of GW is NOT settled. The figures produced by Hadley, the University of East Anglia unit, show temperature gains over the last ten years at no more than one third of the 2 degree rate of gain that qualifies as a GW occurrence. The satellite figures, both more recent and more reliable, indicate a level barely one tenth of qualification as GW and with a margin of statistical error that rule it improper to assert definitively that there is now any temperature gain at all.
We now have a situation where it has been disclosed that the Hadley figures on which so much reliance is placed to assert the occurrence of GW have been manipulated. It is in the reporting of that sensational revelation that the BBC bias is put to its most significant test.
There are two items of news contained in the information now divulged. The first is that information internal to Hadley has been made public, either by hacking or whisteblowing release. Since Hadley do not handle security nor defence data, and the material contains no breach of personal data of a confidential nature, this is a very minor story of only localized interest.
The second factor however, the revelation that the crucial Hadley statisitics appear to have been overtly and deliberately manipulated to deceive, is very big news indeed.
The BBC, as we can now see observing the dictates of the official BBC Trust policy, reported the first item and withheld information on the second. Why that should have been the position is very clear from a reading of the policy statement, now revealed under the FOI as the ONLY guidance issued on this matter by the BBC’s governing body.
This is a serious matter. The BBC is owned by us, the licence payers, not the members of the government nor the experts of the scientific community. We are entitled to some answers, and to a very substantial and publicly declared change of policy.

CLIMATE CHANGE?
A wry look at climate change and the peddlers of doom.
Climate,first of all there is a silent b missing
climbate setting b = plan
claim planet ,planet is earth,and one stakes a claim
earth’s stake =>earth is stake,where is becomes isos [=]
steak = earth
setting steak as fillet,now a fillet in welding is not the most sound of welds let me set this as a butt = water
water = earth
finding hidden code:
dividing by rate gives
w = h
wxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuv
hijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefg
water left hand side comes down
water = hlepc = help c
earth on the right moves up
earth = tpgiw = p twig
help c = twig p
The best way to detect water is with a twig i.e. by dowsing removing sin = god w
help c = god wp
god = go d[in Geordie go = gan] =>gand extending gand becomes g ampersand = &g amperes&
help c = &g amperes&*wp
when one requires help one phones the operator = or or a pet = || a pet|| now t on the left hand side[LHS] becomes s
||sea p|| = &g amperes& wp
Setting sea as north = |rth| setting rth as the 18th prime number =>|61|
|||61|||+||p|| = &g amperes& wp
Amperes is a measure of electrical current setting this as current = present = gift = horse = shore = sea = north =>|61| and setting g as the acceleration due to earth’s gravity = 10m/ss when rounded up.
|||61|||+||p|| = &10*|61|& wp
Setting p = piano = quiet in music = sh and setting wsh = wish = hope => wester = west of,west is poor pronunciation of rest, rest of = |fest| ft cancel =>|se| = |et|
|||61|||+||p|| = &10*|61|&*|et|
|||61||| = |||00110110+00110001||| = |||0111+0101+11+11+1+1|||binary = ||20|| = ||00110010+00110000|| = ||0101+0100+11+10+1+1|| = |16| = 20
||p|| = ||01010000|| = ||1100+10+1|| = |15| = |00110001+00110101| = |0101+0111+11+11+1+1| = 20
40 = &10*|61|&*|et|
RHS:|61| = 20
&200& = &00110010*00110000*00110000& = &0100*0100*0100*00*00*00*0*0*0&binary = 64*[00]3 *[0]3 ,where 00 = .. = i and 0 = . = e
64* ie*ie*ie=>64*eg*eg*eg = 4*[10e]3 , where e = natural log = 2.7818…..
40 = 1285472 * |et|
|et| = |00110101+00111111+00110101| = |0111+0111+0111+11+11+11+1+1+1| = 33
40 = 42420576
Unity[U] = 1060514,rounded down
U = 1.060514*106 ,where 10 = -. = n and setting n as the pH of water = 7 next running the system through to the 4th derivative [4th = 4th prime = 7]
U1ST = 1.060514*76 = 124768
U2ND = 6*1.060514*75 = 106944
U3RD = 30*1.060514*74 = 76389
U4TH = 120*1.060514*73 = 43651
Finding the U average [UA] = 87938
Standard displacement from the main[U]
U = {(U1ST-UA)2+…..+(U4TH- UA)2)/4}1/2 = 30872
Set this as the total rainfall for England in milimeters dumped on us by the North sea in the standard years to come= 30.872 metres = 1222.5312” this equates to 33.9592 yards of rain for the standard years ahead.If I now divide this equally amongst the number of counties in England i.e 48
33.9592/48 = 0.7074833 yards of rain per county per year in England which equates to 25.4694”.
Kind regards,
Col

1500 comments! Tell me about unprecedented times.
Cheers
Phil

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”Henry Louis Mencken….
Professor Jones has had £13.7 million in grants from the British government ($22m). You don’t hand over that money without knowing what you are paying for. The IPCC has always been a political body with “somebody” rewriting the scientists conclusion to take out all the “if”s & “may”s. This scam has been pushed by government since the Berlin Wall fell because they needed a new scare.