From the Corbett Report:
Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball was interviewed to discuss the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. These emails reveal stunning behind-the-scenes details, and Dr. Ball shares his insights on what they show. Of interest is what he has to say about the Wegman report.
The interview was conducted in studio, by telephone and runs about 10 minutes.
See the video below.
The State broadcaster in Ireland,RTE, is also failing to cover this story.I have emailed them to ask why,perhaps they may even reply.
Here is what I emailed to save folks the bother of hacking me mailbox 🙂
“The CRU has been hacked and the Global Warming scam is being exposed in all its shameful manipulations.Why is this story being ignored by RTE? Ireland can’t afford to pay the “carbon taxes” demand by the zealots of the AGW movement. The emails and data revealed by the hacker [or whistle-blower ] show ,for example,a serious manipulation of information being released to the Media. May I ask why this story is not being covered by RTE? “
There may yet be hope for civil debate (tongue in cheek) as the CRU hack thread continues at RealClimate.
To quote Gavin
“Please let me know in the comments, which, as always, should be substantive, non-insulting on on topic.” (yes it says “on on topic” unless they corrected it to “and”)
The CRU hack: Contex – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
They say that “you can’t make this up”. Obviously, now we know, yes they did.
■Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
Don’t take this to Jerry springer. Leave Jerry springer out of this. It appears they want to duke it out. “The science is settled” doesn’t refer to a fist fight.
There’s prpobably a better place for this, but here’s a turn up for the books:
“I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article ‘whatever happened to global warming’. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic. …”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/
SO, what’s the source?
The main UK agencies involved in research and presentation of global warming matters are the Met office, an agency of the Ministry of Defence and it’s research arm, the Hadley Centre, both located within the new Met office Exeter headquarters. They work very closely with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, (CRU), where the Tyndall Centre is based. Also quite a bit more, see: http://www.uea.ac.uk/zicer/ The Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research (ZICER) was officially opened in 2003.
In addition to climate modelling, Hadley publishes the monthly averages for the CET and in conjunction with the Met Office produces an annual climate summary for the UK and a global climate summary. This latter is re-badged by the World Meteorological Organisation, (WMO), as a World Climate Report.
For more detail on the Met Office, Tyndall, Hadley read this: Energy and Environment Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
(pay per document)
Earlier paper dealing with the spinning of temperatures by the Met office is here: Guest papers, “spinning temperature out of control”
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/guest_papers.htm
Here is a front page link (no picture though) to the Wall Street Journal. Good, balanced article that is constantly being updated with new and more damaging information.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories
That’s me in the spotlight
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you
And I don’t know if I can do it
Oh no, I’ve said too much
“Dwarfs of CRU failed to climb on shoulders of giants, even worse, they dug themselves into a hole.”
That is because the dwarfs of CRU thought they were the giants, and the giants were dwarfs. That of course accounts for statements such as “his science is crap” etc. Maybe this would have been a fair observation of a single dissenting scientist, but the fact is, there is hardly a single skeptical scientist who has escaped this invective. When that happens, I am inclined to the belief that a severe case of delusion has crept in. Obviously the dissenting science seemed like crap to them, because it is completely above their heads. After all, they struggled, and continue to struggle with McIntyres criticism of Mann and Briffa (although to his credit, Tom Wigley seemed to comprehend that Briffa’s research was crap).
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”
Climate change skeptics “deniers” attempted to use the Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists didn’t want their email exchanges about the data, and the destruction of that data, to be made public.
…My taxes at work.
The BBC may not have found space to comment on Climategate but I heard an eulogy on Kevin Rudd this morning on “Today”.
I was expecting at any moment that they would start calling him “The Genius of the Antipodes” but I had to stop listening and throw up.
I work for a semiconductor company similar to the ones listed above (Linear Tech, National) and I collect data and do analysis. I can tell you without any hesitation that I have never seen anything like the manipulation documented in the e-mails and the computer codes. It would be unthinkable to massage and edit the data in that manner. If I got caught doing something like that, I’d be fired immediately and would have a lot of trouble finding another job in our tight-knit technical community. However, I’m not honest just to keep my job. As an engineer, I worship at the altar of uncorrupted data and professional ethics. I send curt e-mail at times (even drop the f-bomb when I’m upset), but have never seen anything like those personal attacks, “circling the wagons” and corruption of the peer review process. The whoring of science by the AGW hockey team makes me [snip] angry and you won’t need a FOI request to get that on record.
These 42 people have cost so many people so much money because of their “reconfiguring” of data that it should be possible, when the case is finally proven, to start a Class action against them for damages just like you would a drug company if they did something similar.
In fact, right now I’m looking at data collected from testing. The data doesn’t make our product look very good. What a luxury it would be if I was part of the hockey stiick team. I could:
1. Try various types of filters and mess with the sample spans.
2. Truncate the data.
3. Mix in data from alternate tests.
4. Throw out test runs that don’t align with my expectations.
5. Provide filtered results and hide the underlying data.
6. Insult those critical of my methods and pretend their concerns are stupid.
7. Get compadres to help me attack and discredit my enemies.
How, how grand it would be to be a climate scientist instead of a lowly electrical engineer working in private industry.
BBC Reports That the Climate Change Gravy Train is Unaffected by Massive Data Fraud
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375248.stm
US will announce target for cutting carbon emissions
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
US draft legislation is being re-visited to take account of coal interests.
The US will announce a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions before next month’s UN climate summit, according to a White House official. The target is expected to be in line with figures contained in legislation before the Senate – a reduction of about 17-20% from 2005 levels by 2020. The absence of a US target has widely been seen as the single biggest obstacle to agreement at the summit.
Mr Obama has not yet decided whether to attend the talks in Copenhagen.
At the weekend, the Danish hosts announced that more than 60 heads of state and government had pledged to take part in the two-week negotiating session. Mr Obama will join them if it appears that his presence would increase chances of the 192 parties reaching agreement, the official indicated.
“There’s been recognition that if we want to keep momentum going, numbers have to be put on the table,” said Peter Bahouth, executive director of the US Climate Action Network, a network of organisations lobbying for action on the issue. “There’s been pressure for the US to come (to Copenhagen) with its hands full rather than empty, and I think what we’re seeing are the results of that.”
In the last week, Mr Obama has discussed climate change with a number of other world leaders including Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Hu Jintao of China and Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.
Domestic delays
Although Mr Obama campaigned on a promise to cut emissions, and pledged global leadership on climate change on assuming office, the US position has been constrained by delays in putting legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions through Congress.
The House of Representatives passed a bill in June that would cap emissions and establish a national carbon trading scheme. But progress of a similar bill through the Senate is not likely before March at the earliest.
Administration officials have indicated that the targets are being discussed with senior senators in an attempt to ensure that the Senate will back whatever target Mr Obama takes to Copenhagen.
It is not clear when the target will emerge, but there are now less than two weeks before the summit opens on 7 December. There will also be pressure internationally for the US to say how much money it is prepared to transfer to poorer countries to help them fight climate change, as it is bound to do under the UN climate convention.
Cutting edge
In the UN climate process, targets are conventionally given in comparison with 1990 levels of emissions. On that basis, the likely US figure amounts to a cut of just a few percent, as emissions have risen by about 15% since 1990. This is much less than the EU’s pledge of a 20% cut over the same period, or a 30% cut if there is a global deal; and much less than the 25-40% figure that developing countries are demanding.
EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said at the weekend that the EU should pledge 30% now as a way of showing commitment.
But Saleemul Huq, a climate change specialist with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) who works closely with a number of developing country governments, suggested the target would be well received as a worthy first step. “I think it’s an extremely good signal that the Obama administration is willing to put a target forward and not wait for Congress,” he told BBC News. “The targets that everyone is taking to Copenhagen are the bases for negotiation; and hopefully, the negotiations will see everyone coming up with more ambitious targets – otherwise there’s no point in going to Copenhagen, we could leave it all up to the US Congress. The other important factor is whether President Obama is willing to go to the summit – if he does, that would be a very good sign.”
The list of confirmed attendees includes UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
But neither Mr Obama nor Chinese President Hu Jintao – leaders of the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters – are yet among them.
COPENHAGEN SUMMIT
Planning to attend:
Leaders of Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Australia, Japan, Indonesia and Brazil
Yet to commit:
Leaders of the United States, China and India
Paul Vaughn who wrote earlier gets it right…..
Peter E. (08:37:00) :
And none of the main characters, IPCC or CRU, could be reached for comment.
“could not be reached for comment” is as bad a reply as it gets.
people citing Tim Ball are simply begging to be mocked
“radun (06:47:05) :
Patrick Davis (04:50:23) :
“Lawson also in Telegraph:”
“I cannot believe this idiot has been granted a Lordship.”
I think you made a rush judgement here, which is bad reflection of you rather than Lord Lawson. As you may be aware he was Margaret Thatcher’s right hand financial man for number of years. They transformed UK from a ‘sick man’ of Europe to one of the best run economies of Europe. Political aversion is one thing, but calling a man ‘idiot’ is another.”
He was also responsible for some rather large finacial damage, if you recall, interest rates up to 17% in one day. The Political satirical/spoof TV program “Spitting Image” portrayed him as such, and I’ll stand by my previous comment. It’s no wonder he’s now in the EU parliament, unelected and incompetent.
Hey there fred. Please tell me what you are referring to. This man has stuck to his guns for 30 years, seems to be correct in his assessment of all of this ( the climate and the CRU business), and all you can say is “people citing Tim Ball are begging to be mocked”. Explain further.
it has been several days since this stuff came out. i have seen many blogs offering to support a legal action is there something illegal here or not. are there any lawyers on this site ? or do we all just mop floors at walmart
fred (16:31:57) :
“people citing Tim Ball are simply begging to be mocked”
Fred there are two kinds of scientists: the honest ones and the ‘hockey stick team”.
“If you bury truth in the ground, it will grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.”
Patrick Davis (17:51:22) :
You got it wrong again: 17% interest rates were under chancellor Norman Lamont, and lasted only few days, caused by Sorosh speculations, and his Q fund, made billion, but than few years later lost twice as much. Lawson is in House of Lords and not EU parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Lawson
“radun (07:21:28) :
Patrick Davis (17:51:22) :
You got it wrong again: 17% interest rates were under chancellor Norman Lamont, and lasted only few days, caused by Sorosh speculations, and his Q fund, made billion, but than few years later lost twice as much. Lawson is in House of Lords and not EU parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Lawson”
Only a few days?? LOL
From your link (I don’t fancy wiki as being the font of all reliable knowlege but I will entertain you)…
“Critics of Lawson assert that a combination of the abandonment of monetarism, the adoption of a de facto exchange-rate target of 3 deutschmarks to the pound (ruling out interest-rate rises), and excessive fiscal laxity (in particular the 1988 budget) unleashed an inflationary spiral.”
And Lamont bore the brunt of that, Lawson’s, decision.
“radun (07:21:28) :
Lawson is in House of Lords and not EU parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Lawson”
I stand corrected on my EU Parliament accusation. I will stress, he didn’t “earn” his Lordship (None do). My, main point, still stands.