Next time some irrationalist complains about a skeptic sponsored list, that includes scientists that are not climatologists, saying such lists are irrelevant, show them this. Show them also the unspoken pressure that some signers have worried about.
From The Times (emphasis mine):
Top scientists rally to the defence of the Met Office
The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.
More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.
One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.
…
One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.
…
Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which claims man-made climate change has been exaggerated, said the petition showed that the Met Office was rattled.
Complete story here at The Times: Top scientists rally to the defence of the Met Office
“Top” scientists, says the Times. In what sense are they “top”?
I have looked at the list and there does not seem to be any evidence for this.
Good news at last. Climate change is NOT happening in the UK, and its official!
Here are some links to UK government climate monitoring data recorded automatically and independent of the Met Office and CRU ‘homogenisation’. And guess what, it is virtually impossible to discern any significant trends in any of the monitored indicators (beyond expected normal variation associated with localised micro-climates, UHI etc) except for a recent drop in annual mean temperature. I guess they forgot to ‘hide the decline’ in this dataset.
The Environmental Change Network (ECN) http://www.ecn.ac.uk/aboutecn.htm is the UK’s long-term environmental monitoring programme sponsored by a consortium of 14 UK government departments and agencies. The objective is to monitor climate change using a series of physical, chemical and biological indicators.
Monitoring stations
http://www.ecn.ac.uk/sites.htm
Number of annual ‘Hot Days’
http://www.ecn.ac.uk/CCI/hotdays.asp
Number of annual ‘Cold Days’
http://www.ecn.ac.uk/CCI/colddays.asp
Annual Mean Temperature
http://www.ecn.ac.uk/CCI/avg_tmp.asp
Percentage of precipitation falling in winter
http://www.ecn.ac.uk/CCI/precipitation.asp
Peak flight time of the orange tip butterfly
http://www.ecn.ac.uk/CCI/ap_orangetip.asp
A peer reviewed article appears in Biological Conservation magazine (behind paywall). The abstract is distinctly non-alarmist, given 15 years of monitoring. WUWT?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-4X7FRPW-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1129376288&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=857a30dca62283b183aa35099d24909b
Richard Saumarez (08:26:59) :
“As a Brit, I am ashamed of the way in British science has been corrupted into “post-modernist science””
There seems to some confusion about this. It is officially called “Post-Normal Science”. It’s just Lysenkoism 2.0 really.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Post-Normal+Science&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=b36c7832dbb01be6
“Professor Slingo denied that the Met Office had put anyone under pressure. “The response has been absolutely spontaneous. As a scientist you sign things you agree with, not because you are worried about what the Met Office might think of you,” she said.”
Yes, but was it a “robust response” as all there other responses have been?
So, where can I sign the petition to the contrary?
A request to add my signature came across my desk 6 times between Friday and Monday of this week. I didn’t sign it for several reasons.
The first is that the request came from an email circular (copied below) sent by the Met Office that bounced around several lists but clearly went to all Climate, Environment, Oceanography plus other science departments in the UK and possibly international. The request did not contain a draft text of the subsequent press release and I for one would never add my signature to a letter that I had not seen.
Secondly the email contained a series of assumptions that can only be answered after the results of the inquiry/review are known.
From: Gilbert, Pip On Behalf Of Slingo, Julia (Chief Scientist)
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 10:33 AM
To: Climate_Research; Met R&D all staff
Subject: URGENT: Supporting the science
Importance: High
Dear All,
As you are very aware, the science of climate change is under an
unprecedented attack and I know that many of you feel that we, as the
science community in the UK, should try to make our voice heard too. We
are therefore seeking a groundswell of support for a simple statement
that we, the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the
science base that underpins the evidence for global warming. That
evidence has been arrived at through decades of painstaking and
meticulous research by many scientists across the world, who adhere to
the highest levels of integrity and honesty, the hallmarks of true
scientific endeavour. We come together now to defend our profession
against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of
climate change.
I know this is very short notice but we would like to gather a list of
names from you and your scientific colleagues who support this move. We
would like to collect these names over the weekend and on Monday so that
a short letter, basically saying the above, can be released to the press
on your behalf on Tuesday, at the latest. If we can reach 100 signatures
or more from the UK academic community that would be a fantastic
response. Please can I request your help by asking you to not only
respond yourself, but also to send this on to scientific colleagues as a
matter of urgency.
The Met Office is able to provide help to pull these names together and
if you wish to support this statement then please send an email to:
julia.slingo@metoffice.gov.uk with ‘Yes’ in the Subject.
Many thanks,
Julia Slingo and John Hirst
Julia Slingo Chief Scientist
Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
Just had a flick through the comments. Somebody earlier in the thread mentions the Oregon petition and an idiot called Edward Eck has already parrotted the official response “And how many have published refereed papers in climatology? “. Obviously hasn’t read and understood the article very well …
My scientists are bigger than your scientists, so there!!
“More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office”
Noticeable absence of saying how many requests were sent out to get that 1700 signatures…
John Silver;
“So, where can I sign the petition to the contrary?”
So it seems that anyone could email Ms Slingo with a simple No in the Subject line. Sort of a wake-up call from the real world.
Yes, I shall be voting UKIP too, and not for climate reasons.
Talking of image – I hope this is not too O.T.
The UK Department of Climate Change (yes, we have one) put out some terrible adverts about CO2 – designed to scare children – that have attracted many complaints. This is the interim report on those complaints. (ASA = UK advertising standards authority)
.
.
Dear Sir/ Madam
YOUR COMPLAINT: ACT ON CO2 TV AND PRESS ADS
You complained to the ASA about the Act On CO2 campaign by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. We are writing to update you as to progress.
As you may know, we have received several hundred complaints about ads in both broadcast and non-broadcast media. We are now investigating seven separate points of complaint in relation to the TV advertising and three in relation to the press advertising. Two of the points of complaint about the TV advertising have been referred simultaneously to Ofcom, who are responsible for deciding whether the TV ads constitute political advertising.
We have now received complaints about four press ads [“Three Men in a Tub” (b) “Jack and Jill” (c), “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” (d), and “The Cow Jumped Over the Moon” (e)]. Please find below an updated summary of the points we are investigating:
Many viewers complained about the TV ad (a) because they believed:
1. the ad was political in nature and should not be broadcast;
2. the theme and content of the ad, for example the dog drowning in the storybook and the depiction of the young girl to whom the story was being read, could be distressing for children who saw it;
3. the ad should not have been shown when children were likely to be watching television;
4. the ad was misleading because it presented human induced climate change as a fact, when there was a significant division amongst the scientific community on that point;
5. the claim “over 40% of the CO2 was coming from ordinary everyday things” was misleading;
6. the representation of CO2 as a rising cloud of black smog was misleading;
7. the claims about the possible advent of strange weather and flooding in the UK, and associated imagery in the ads, were exaggerated, distressing and misleading;
8. Many complainants objected to the press ads (b) (c) and (d) on the grounds of (4) and (7) above.
9. One complainant objected to the press ad (e) on the grounds of (5) above
The TV ad (a) will be investigated under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 4 (Political and controversial issues), 5.1.1, 5.1.2 (Misleading advertising: general), 5.2.1 (Misleading advertising: evidence), 5.2.6 (Misleading advertising: environmental claims), 6.4 (Harm and offence: personal distress), 7.4.6 (Children: distress), 7.4.7 (Children: use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) TV Scheduling Code rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children).
The press ads (b), (c), (d) and (e) will be investigated under CAP Code clauses 3.1, 3.2 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress), 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental Claims).
Once we have reached an initial conclusion, we will make a recommendation to the ASA Councils as to whether or not we believe the ads may breach the advertising Codes on one or more points. We will do this as soon as we can, but it is important that we follow our published procedures, and that means we will not be in a position for the Councils to make a final decision on the case until the New Year.
We will write to you again with a copy of our final adjudication and the date it will be published on the ASA website http://www.asa.org.uk. We regret that, due to finite resources, we will not be able to provide another update until then.
We hope you find this information helpful. As before, we ask you to keep confidential all correspondence relating to this case.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Alexander
Investigations Executive
jennya@asa.org.uk
02074922144
As Smokey above says, go here julia.slingo@metoffice.gov.uk
and put ‘NO’ in the subject box.
I also twice tried to post a comment on the TimesOnline website pointing out how the signatures were gathered but it never got through the moderators. Ho hum!
This is starting to feel like an episode of ‘Dad’s Army’.
Who do you think you are kidding…
Your name will also go on the list! What is it?
Don’t tell him Pike!
Don’t panic Mr Mainwaring!
You stupid boy!
Run rabbit, run rabbit, run, run ,run….
This is the beginning of the steam roller which will likely be aimed by all major science research organizations and institutions at us. it is not about being rattled or on the run, or anything else except job protection. And the governments of the world are going to listen to these groups. Hell, the MET office IS the government, as is NASA.
And having nice guys go on a news show against Gavin Schmidtt – well…. yet another PR disaster in my opinion.
They stick to their talking points lies or not and we try to state the scientific controversy. We are not going to prevail and this, in the media’s eyes is becoming the non-story they thought in the first place. It’s almost as if the media went out of its way to find the two most inexperienced debaters to put up against Schmidtt and Oppenheimer. Our side looked like Nixon against Kennedy in 1960. I saw nothing if I were an on-the-fence John Q. Public to convince me that Climate Gate had any impact. Opeenheimer and Schmidtt vehemently supported the party line – business as usual. They are proving the “nothing to see here” conclusion that they trotted out at the beginning – at least in John Doe’s eyes. I think Christy and McIntyre are in the first rank of our heros, but they should not be occupying the only and precious few spots where our case could have been made to the public. Of course, it doesn’t work that way in our group, so …..
I hate to say it because I thought the last bunch in D.C. were a pile of fetid cretins, but the mid-term elections just might not be coming soon enough to stop this train. The government is playing the health care card large, and meanwhile slipping the CO2 endangerment card and who knows what else quietly under the table.
I’m not giving up and have been out lecturing to whomever will listen, but I think we have missed the greatest impact we could have realized from ClimateGate by not making great cases when allowed to do so for the first time EVER in a public forum.
FWIW, we’ve heard about the “data release” from the Met Office for the selected 1500 stations where they had no restrictions on releasing it. Sounds good, 1500 is a reasonable sample. The only problem is it was a “polite deception”. They didn’t release the “raw data” they released the CRUt “pasteurized processed data food product”… Kind of nutty to justify the accuracy of the data molestation by fudge factor via the method of releasing a subset of the product that was fudged…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/met-office-uea-cru-data-release-polite-deception/
I think it’s time to put “Met Office” on the fraud shopping list too… So, what enforcement agency is in charge of “internal affairs” for the Met Office?
This was not a smart move by the MET PR people.
I view this act as only further weakening the reputation of this entity.
Do they think the public is so stupid as to not see that this is a hail mary pass with little to no chance of being caught?
This is sort of like 1,400 people singing a petition stating they have full faith in Tiger Woods to now be a dedicated, loyal husband to Elin.
So that’s how they redefined peer review?
@Smokey. 10.27.26
Slingo is on the UK NERC management committee. (Google “NERC UK” if you are interested in the other members to see their persoanl interests in AGW.)
NERC is responsible for awarding government grants for scientific research in the UK.
So, for a UK scientist at least, your idea is a little like telling Stalin to his face that you aren’t going to vote for him.
Are the same people who wrote the CRUtapes Fortran working on the software running on Deep Black?
Just asking.
Kate (08:29:56) :
This has to be the ultimate vehicle for fraudsters; turning thin air into hard cash on the basis of the greatest scientific fraud in history.
Nice summary. FWIW, this is, IMHO, just a re-working of a much older Crown shake down racket based on carbon control. Everything old is new again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_tax_post
Given the historical precedent, and that The Crown will have well remembered all that lucre and lusted for days gone by…
Given the Big Push for CAP and tax…
Given the pattern of UEA and Met Office as key “cheerleaders”…
It does look a lot like someone who knew a bit of “tax history” was lusting for “the good old days” and tried to bring them back, by hook or by crook.
I took a look at the 88 names from Oxford, the institution I know best. Only 16 of the names work in atmospheric physics and only 8 of those are faculty. About a quarter of the names are graduate students. A clear majority of the names are from the various branches of geography and earth sciences, including the environmental change unit. Most amusing are the three archaeologists.
@chris the englishman
Good to see other people picking up the issue of “Post Normal Science”. That BBC article by Ravetz and Hulme (Hulme by the way for those who didn’t already know is one of the participants in the Climategate emails and a member of staff at UEA), is a very watered down version of what these Orwellian scientists actually intend.
I’ve been spending some time on the issue recently:
http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2009/12/green-snake-in-grass.html
The influence of this thinking appears to have a substantial reach, so I’ve started cataloging which scientists express support for it and noting the institutions they work for, or are affiliated with.
By way of a very inadequate precis: What PNS is about is ejecting the idea of truth as the most important aspect of science and replacing it instead with the question of how science can be used to achieve certain social goals. No, I’m not exaggerating.
I’m finding this all very depressing (climatgate, PNS, the incredible contrast between what the media are saying and what the general public appear to be saying when they have the chance to speak in comments on articles etc). I’ve been working at a science lab for three years now and am seriously reconsidering it as a career. I simply cannot see how its possible to proceed and keep one’s integrity intact, and integrity is very important to me.