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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not next month, not next week but right now, ANY journalist, editorial writer, politician or scientist who doesn’t recognize this massive fraud for what it is, is doing so deliberately.
If CRU leadership or signatories think they are helping either the AGW science or their own reputations and futures by this stunt they are far more gone than they are able to fathom.
Every name on there will go down in infamy as the last shameless holdouts of the largest scandal in global human history.
What a stunningly ignorant ploy.
I’m quite amazed they are not imagining how this will continue to unravel. The broad evidentiary display of malfeasance is now so significant that their credulity in presuming they’ll salvage the mission is sickeningly hilarious.
This is the ultimate, “Are you kidding me?”
Barry Foster (08:43:02), in addition to the thermometer situation I just read somewhere else that there were 4% fewer clouds in the 80s and 90s. I think it was in one of the recent threads on WUWT.
Back on topic, the first thing I thought of has already been mentioned. Einstein would have a field day with this. If anyone asks me about this petition I would just quote good old Albert.
AJStrata: (08:18:10)
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11824
Thank you, AJStrata.
I recommend reading this.
It articulates many of the misgivings I have felt and adds more as well. I could never get my brain around all the fudging of data that seems to be accepted practice in climate “science”. It is refreshing to step back from all the CRU rubbish and sweep it into the bin where it belongs.
I looked up a few of the names to try and discover what field of “Science” in which they were involved. I append below just three of the findings regarding names taken at random. I have not endeavoured to delve any further to try and ascertain the funding source(s) for any of the persons who signed this Met Office begging letter, though such research could be rewarding.
Nematode resistance in rice – mapping quantitative resistance genes for marker-assisted breeding ROSHI SHRESTHA, MIKE WILSON & ADAM PRICE (Aberdeen University, UK
Professor Adrian Hartley
Research areas
•Evolution of the Central Andes, particularly Cenozoic sedimentology, tectonics and climate
•Tectonic geomorphology and drainage development in compressional and extensional terranes
•Sedimentological characterisation and correlation within hydrocarbon reservoirs
•Clastic sedimentology, processes and products
STAFF PROFILE – Jennifer Dungait
Careers summary
• Senior Research Scientist (Biogeochemist), Soil & Water Team (2008 – present)
• Postdoctoral Research Associate OGU, University of Bristol (2006 – 2008)
• Postdoctoral Research Assistant Organic Geochemistry Unit (OGU), University of Bristol (2005 – 2006)
• PhD. Organic Geochemistry: ‘Molecular and Compound-Specific Stable Carbon Isotope Investigation of the Fate of Dung Carbon in a Temperate Grassland Soil’, University of Bristol (2001 – 2005)
Emma Stone
Postgraduate Student
Background
MSc in Applied Meteorology, University of Reading (2006)
Dissertation: “Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): How much difference will it make to global warming?”
What planet do these people live on?
Seventeen hundred scientist (some with broken fingers and others with split lips) assure us of the “professional integrity” of global warming research. Whose idea was this? Phil Jones, or perhaps Ed Miliband…?
@ur momisugly Dr. Burns.
The full petition is here, together with a list who have signed it so far.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6950783.ece
vukcevic (11:09:43) :If you do that you will be nominated for a Nobel prize.
“Sign ze papers, old man!”
“I cannot sign the papers” (weeping) “And what do the papers say?”
“They are merely a statement saying you have not been mistreated…”
Then the interrogator burns the prisoner with a cigarette and Chong says “Oh wow man, he stuck it in his eye…” etc., etc.
Cheech & Chong – Big Bambu (1972)
The list made interesting reading, as I know many of the people who signed. One of the eminent “scientists” is the chief engineer (retired) of a NERC research ship.
From a cursory scan, I was glad to see that Nick Owens (director of BAS) is not on there. Good on ya Nicko!
The Met Office web site says in its link to the names of “supporters”:
“The response of the science community to the ongoing questioning of core climate science and methods.”
I don’t know for sure, but I guess that this was by invitation only to the heads of organisations that depend on the Met Office for work.
What if we clock up an enormous number of genuine NEGATIVE responses by email, or whatever? The Met Office would probably ignore these responses, but if they were logged in some way (perhaps by Anthony and his technology) then we could confront the Met Office at a later date with very embarrasing facts such as negative feedback to their request that they chose to ignore.
Does this have any support and technical possibility?
Remember AGW Rule One: Don’t discuss the science; attack the messenger; and repeat the mantra.
The argument has now been shifted from the science to numbers.
The counter to this AGW ploy, is to submit the names of the 32,000 scientists who signed a petition skeptical of man-made global warming and Senator Inhofe’s 700 plus scientists who also deny man-made global warming.
There is the possibility in a overlap between the two lists, but, as the AGWers know, redundancy only helps the cause.
This makes me sick in the stomach, furious, and frightened, all at the same time. Also the Met Office published a leaflet issued with every copy of “The Independent” a couple days ago. I’ve never seen so many lies jostling for space.
This is an attack on truth (what Jesus maintained was his work), and on democracy, as well as an attack on Science. And it has been going on a long time, not as an attack but as a slide in values. Someone said, “it only takes good people to do nothing, for evil to triumph”.
I would really appreciate articles here on “What Can I Do?” Though all here have my sympathies, as Steve Mc would say, “no more piling on please”. Can we do more to turn those feelings of sickness, anger, fear, depression, “told ya so”, resignation, etc. into productive channels, please? More “way forward” please! I’ve joined a small group trying to establish some basic records info online, but this is still in development.
Doesn’t 007 work for Julia Slingo? I swear I’ve seen her in the movies!
Here is a choice of two dotted lines
We are confident you know which to sign
But just to be sure you’re in no doubt
We took the step of striking one out.
We have just added a beta CRU document search capability to our CRU email search capability.
http://www.yourvoicematters.org/cru
This quote from Catch-22 also seems amusingly apt:
Without realizing how it had come about, the combat men in the squadron discovered themselves dominated by the administrators appointed to serve them. They were bullied, insulted, harassed and shoved about all day long by one after the other. When they voiced objection, Captain Black replied that people who were loyal would not mind signing all the loyalty oaths they had to. To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the loyalty oaths, he replied that people who really did owe allegiance to their country would be proud to pledge it as often as he forced them to. And to anyone who questioned the morality, he replied that “The Star-Spangled Banner” was the greatest piece of music ever composed. The more loyalty oaths a person signed, the more loyal he was; to Captain Black it was as simple as that, and he had Corporal Kolodny sign hundreds with his name each day so that he could always prove he was more loyal than anyone else.
…
“The important thing is to keep them pledging,” he explained to his cohorts. “It doesn’t matter whether they mean it or not. That’s why they make little kids pledge allegiance even before they know what ‘pledge’ and ‘allegiance’ means.”
…
“Of course, it’s up to you,” Captain Black pointed out. “Nobody’s trying to pressure you. But everyone else is making them sign loyalty oaths, and it’s going to look mighty funny to the F.B.I. if you two are the only ones who don’t care enough about your country to make them sign loyalty oaths, too. If you want to get a bad reputation, that’s nobody’s business but your own. All we’re trying to do is help.”
More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research.
That is rubbish.
Here is a poster from Bishop Hill
CENSORSHIP at the Times
I have tried to post a comment at the Times Online regarding the Met Office signatories. I didn’t save the original text but it is along the lines of:
‘The Met Office acquired 1700 signatories by passing an email circular around. This circular came across my desk at least 5 times from different sources. I refused to sign it even though I’m an active palaeoclimate scientist. The email circular did not contain a draft text for the Press Release and so I presume that 1700 scientists signed up to a letter they hadn’t read until it appeared. This is rather like signing a blank cheque, or dare I say it the ‘blind leading the blind’ springs to mind. It is thoughtless and immature.’
This comment has not appeared within the 2 hours since I posted it despite others appearing. Perhaps the truth is too much for Ben Webster, Environment Correspondent to handle, or perhaps he’s too busy enjoying Copenhagen.
December 10, 2009 | Splice
I say:
Sign in haste repent at leisure.
They just don’t get it, do they?
The trust thing is about the SCIENCE!
IIF the experiments can be independently repeated, and come up with the same results, THEN the science is proved, and can be trusted.
Loyalty Oaths as per Catch 22 are NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOFS
So, Slingo, show us your data and your methods!
They signed an email circular and the Statement was attached later.
/rant
Sorry about that!
So except for the 2 or 3 who wrote that statement the rest who signed it can read it now online like the rest of us
The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.
How many were janitors, receptionists, accounts clerks, the paper boy?
Met Office predict 2010 will be warmest on record
The new forecast predicted 2010 will warmer than 1998, that was 0.9F (0.5C) above average and the hottest year on record so far. The warming is expected because of the El Nino, an atmospheric phenomenon over the Pacific, which warms the Southern Oceans.
I hope they are right, hate cold.
“I will believe in what the Met office says only if they hire Steve McIntyre for a year to perform an independent audit, and let him lead a group of 50 scientists of his own choosing with access to all temperature records and all temperature-massaging and modeling software worldwide. Also, if they had access to old emails at GISS, NOAA, NCAR/UCAR, the Met Office, CRU etc., it would help them to find the problems more quickly.”
I’m afraid I can’t do that, Dave.