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.
Well, I guess that gives us an indication of how seriously they will take their “investigation,” or is this in lieu of one?
Richard (15:34:57) :
Read Mr Lean in the (UK) Daily Telegraph every Saturday, not sure if it makes it on line. He is the St Peter of the warmist disciples. On a par with Monboit etc.
Why do they insist on making themselves look soooo stupid. Their long range forecasts are rubbish, their short range forecasts don’t meet their own claims and they still keep putting out this crap.
I garantee that very few of the soon to sign signatories have read the emails, there are, after all, 1079 of the things.
these scientists have the profile of tax cheats & fraudsters1/they lie 2/they collude to deceive 3/they receive funds from sources where there is minimum accountability 4/funds would be sent overseas to socalled experts & they are significant. lets call in the taxman to see why they have compromised their profession & its ethics.
BBC NEWS
Temperature may hit high in 2010
By Mark Kinver
Science and environment reporter, BBC News
The global average temperature could reach a record high in 2010, according to the UK’s Met Office.
Forecasters predict that the annual figure for 2010 will be 14.58C (58.24F), 0.58C (1.04F) above the long-term average of 14.0C (57.2F).
They say the combination of climate change and a moderate warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean are set to drive up temperatures next year.
The current record record is 14.52C (58.14F), which was set in 1998.
“The latest forecast from our climate scientists shows the global temperature is forecast to be almost 0.6C above the 1961-90 long-term average,” a Met Office statement said.
“This means that it is more likely than not 2010 will be the warmest in the instrumental record that dates back to 1860.”
However it added: “A record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty, especially if the current El Nino was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption.
“We will review the forecast during 2010 as observation data become available.”
The Met Office, in collaboration with the University of East Anglia, maintains one of the three global temperature records that is used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Warming world
The current record year, 1998, was dominated by an “extreme El Nino” condition – the warming of surface waters in the eastern Pacific that releases heat stored in the deep ocean into the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally.
Earlier this week, the Met Office and the World Meteorological Organization said that the first decade of this century was “by far” the warmest since the instrumental record began.
Their analyses also showed that 2009 would almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.
Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, had pushed 2009 into the “top 10” years, the organisations explained.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8406839.stm
Published: 2009/12/10 17:52:01 GMT
© BBC MMIX
In biblical times it was the lame helping the blind , nowadays it is the opposite the blind helping the lame .
Sign or the supercomputer gets it.
[snip] the puny 1,700 warm-monger scientists; there are 31,486 scientists (9,029 with PhDs) in America alone who say that there is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming. See: http://petitionproject.org/
Who’s keeping tabs on Obama’s carbon footprint this week? What with jetting to Oslo for some useless sell-aggrandizement ceremony and then off to Hopanchangen. Haven’t they heard of video conferencing?
Is there a website that keeps track of the carbon footprint of all the world leaders and what they are doing to offset their emissions? I can never find any audit or accounting for these emissions, just talk and a lot of hot air.
Obama: “Do what I say, not what I do. Stop breathing! Only I and my rich elitist fascist banker friends can pollute the air with our exhalations. Only we, the rich and powerful, are allowed to eat meat, fly private planes, and have children. The rest of you only exist to pay the taxes that we require to fund our agenda.”
[snip – please, avoid language like that on this site. ~dbstealey, moderator]
Aberdeen University:
(Just by Google): Title , Name, Aberdeen University.
30 signatures which appear to be:
21 Environmental Sciences (Biology, Botany, Ecology, Soil Science etc)
4 Geologists
4 Geographers
1 Not clear (prob EnvSci)
I am sure they are all good men and women true, many appear to be at the top of their game in their specific areas of interest. And I am sure they all have a deep and abiding love of the ecosphere.
But signatures do not prove anything. Surely, as professional scientists, they must know this.
The Met Office are a legend in their own break time when it comes to acurately predicting weather. Invariably they get it wrong making them something of a national joke. If they think a petition is going to alter that perception and pour integrity onto their pals at CRU then they are delusional.
I hope we taxpayers aren’t footing the bill for Julia’s little damage limitation exercise. Oh wait…
What I find interesting about the MO of late is the talk of “we”. The data for example, it seems that in one breath it is their data and in another it is CRU data. So much for independently coming to the same conclusions. It seems that if you pull a loose thread at the CRU it isn’t just the CRU’s clothes that start to unravel.
A vision of 1700 naked but otherwise “independent” signatories – I must stop writing.
Why do I think this was done as a response to the “Copenhagen Climate Challenge” signed by 141 sceptical scientists?
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=55
Could it be that the MET Office are concerned that this shot to pieces the claim that there is “consensus” amongst scientists on AGW and therefore decided to aim for a 10:1 petition to try and indicate that whilst their may not be consensus there is at least a majority of scientists supporting AGW?
The UK government is making a list. They’re checking it twice. They’re going to find out who’s naughty and nice.
Kind of on topic…….
Here is a couple great speeches from Michael Crichton on SPPI.org The first one talks about Consensus and how dangerous it is for science…Really worth reading…
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/crichton_three_speeches.html
If the climategate gang are as pure as they say they are, then why on earth don’t they take the opportunity to sue Lord Monckton for what he said?
The answer is that they are too scared to go to court, because they know that in front of a review process of peers who can’t be pressurised into falling in line, they won’t win the case.
The proof that Manmade Global Warming is fraud, is the way they are scared stiff to see this get anywhere near court.
And those that can (I.e. UK) please make sure you sign the petition:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/
The met office have made global temperature predictions for the last 9 years and each and everyone has been higher than the 50% confidence interval (50% of all years should be above).
So by their own statistics, the chance of their forecast being right is 0.5^9 = 1/512 = 0.2%
So according to Met Office Statistics, there is a 99.8% chance that the model is too high. Which isn’t surprising because they on average predicted warming of I seem to remember 0.04-5 C/year, and it actually cooled by 0.01C/year.
Of course, the Met Office have conveniently removed all the press releases from their site, but – I’ve took copies before they were removed – and as the US has fair use legislation, it would be very good to get someone in the US to publish them so that the world can see how these bogus scientists work!
When there is the amount of money involved there will always be problems. We dont need scientists or big computers to tell us that the weather is changing you can see it happening with sea levels rising, warmer summers, colder winters, etc.
The problem is that as far as any one in power is concerned, the problem while not going away isn’t going to affect them while they are alive. Be honest, do you really care that there is going to be hell on earth a hundred years after your dead and buried? This is the problem, this is how people think. Humans are selfish, humans are problematic, this is what being human is all about – and if it kills us then that is one less problem for Earth. The planet wont die, it will do as it has for millenia: evolve. The Earth will not go away just because sea levels rise and the climate warms, eventually it will calm down and all we will be is another mass extinction.
What I wish is that hell on earth happenes a little sooner so those involved in causing all this fuss, from both sides of the argument – get to live through the decisions they make. Because at the moment no body within the climate debate can be held accountable to what they will say will happen in fifty to a hundred years time, so much as the weather man can be held accountable to the weather in a weeks time, even if that heavy fog they failed to predict kills several people in road accidents.
I too submitted a comment under the Times article pointing out that Julia Slingo, along with other prominent AGW proponents, is on the council of the NERC which is the conduit for UK government funding for environmental research, and suggesting that scientists might have felt pressured by that. It never passed the moderators. They allow a lot of argumentative, name-calling and semi-literate comments through, but anything of substance is censored.
Of the 1.700 “scientists” I have counted around 850 (50%) said to be professors and doctors, including one Lord and one Sir. OK, let’s believe that. What are the other 850?
Interesting to find out only 18 are professors or doctors from a total of 65 signants (+/- 28%) from the University of East Anglia, precisely where the scandal of the Climategate comes from. Quite amazing….
More: from those +/- 200 people only 44 are said to be doctors. In this case percentage comes down to around 21%. Even less than in East Anglia University. Quite amazing again….
(By the way: 200 at least of the 1.700 signants are from the Met Office itself. How many employees do the Met Office has? )
Sorry, the second part of my post was wrongly written. This makes more sense:
……………………….
By the way: 200 at least of the 1.700 signants are from the Met Office itself. How many employees do the Met Office has?
More: from those +/- 200 people only 44 are said to be doctors. In this case percentage comes down to around 21%. Even less than in East Anglia University. Quite amazing again….
This snitched from a Poster on Bishop Hill:
As a retired scientist, I appalled by what has happened to the Scientific Method I was trained in 40 years ago. Back then you preserved your raw data, explained what you did, how you did it, and why you did it; and your results were considered “preliminary” until replicated IDEPENDENTLY. I do not mean by your buddies, but by someone not tied to you. And there was scientific debate. Remember that?
I guess we have the New Science, much like we had the New Math back in the 1960’s –“1 and 1 equal 5 for sufficiently large values of 1” .
I also appreciate the comment about Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, who nearly destroyed the Soviet Union’s agricultural efforts in the 1930’s and 1940’s. He, too, practiced totalitarian science — his way or the Gulag.
So, like Lysenko, I expect the Hockey Team to one day become discredited and go away. And perhaps we will discover the scientific method again, for at least a little while. My only question is just how much it will cost us individually and collectively.
As for the chatter about whether it was a “conspiracy” or not, most such activity does not start as an overt crime. Witness Bernie Madoff. He needed money to look good so he fudged what he was doing. Then it grew like Topsy. Pretty soon his Ponzi scheme topped $50 billion. I am afraid that the Cap and Tax scheme the Hockey Team is fronting for will cost us $50 trillion.
But what is a trillion dollars nowadays? Just ask the US Congress.
December 12, 2009 | Don Pablo de la Sierra
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/11/no-conspiracy.html?currentPage=2
Simon, the decisions being made, or attempting to be made by those currently in power are not going to affect climate in any way now, or in a thousand years. All they will succeed in doing is making some people a lot richer, but most people poorer. They are also in the process of destroying the very foundations of science, and of democracy. If that happens, then I suppose it could be called a “hell on earth” of sorts. Don’t look now Simon, but the Alarmists are out to rob you of your future, and that is something that should concern you.
If you have the name and institution of the signers in a file called ‘uk_names.csv’ in the FOIA/mail folder, the following bash script gives you the climategate messages that contain each scientist’s names.
If you are a journalist (and therefore have a Mac) you should be able to run the script in a bash shell.
Then you will see that the senior signers on the list are in regular correspondence with the CRU team.
#!/bin/sh
awk ‘{FS=”\t”;sub(“Dr “, “”);sub(“Dr. “, “”);sub(“Prof “, “”); print $1;}’ \
uk_names.csv | while read FULLNAME
do
FULLNAME=`echo $FULLNAME | sed ‘s/,//g’`
echo -n $FULLNAME
grep “$FULLNAME” *.txt > /dev/null
ret=$?
if [ $ret -eq 0 ]
then
FILENAMES=`grep -l “$FULLNAME” *.txt`
echo -e -n “,” $FILENAMES
else
echo -e -n “, no exact match”
fi
SURNAME=`echo $FULLNAME | awk ‘{print $(NF)}’`
grep “$SURNAME” *.txt > /dev/null
ret=$?
if [ $ret -eq 0 ]
then
FILENAMES=`grep -l -i “$SURNAME” *.txt`
echo -e -n “,?” $FILENAMES
fi
echo “”
done
And here is some sample output (the normal output of the script is more fulsome – most names hit multiple files – and it also reports possible matches, with a preceding ‘?’):
Julia Slingo, 1217431501.txt
John Mitchell, 0925507395.txt
Pete Smith, 0942953601.txt
John Waterhouse, 1106934832.txt
Gareth Jones, 0919310505.txt
Martin Widmann, 0994187098.txt
Jo House, 0984799044.txt
Colin Prentice, 0848695896.txt
Paul Valdes, 0906136579.txt
Eric W Wolff, 1137184681.txt
Andy McLeod, 1038859764.txt
Gabi Hegerl, 1036182485.txt
Sandy Tudhope, 1106946949.txt
Simon Tett, 0845217169.txt
Peter Cox, 0906136579.txt
Chris Turney, 1236958090.txt
Richard Jones, 0968705882.txt
Sir John Houghton, 0845217169.txt
Stephen Sitch, 0942953601.txt
Cath Senior, 1217431501.txt
David Parker, 0929985154.txt
David Sexton, 1176746137.txt
Gareth Jones, 0919310505.txt
Peter Stott, 0919310505.txt
Vicky Pope, 1182179459.txt
James Murphy, 1217431501.txt
Keith Williams, 1217431501.txt
Olivier Boucher, 1217431501.txt
Peter Thorne, 1094483447.txt
Philip Brohan, 1060021835.txt
Chris Folland, 0925829267.txt
Roger Saunders, 1234277656.txt
Simon Brown, 0990718506.txt
Tim Johns, 1231166089.txt
Craig Wallace, 0925823304.txt
John Shepherd, 0930934311.txt
Jim Hall, 1208278112.txt
Mark New, 1035838207.txt
Myles Allen, 0919310505.txt
William Ingram, 0925507395.txt
Peter Thorne, 1094483447.txt
Maria Noguer, 0900972000.txt
Jonathan Gregory, 0908385907.txt
Nigel Arnell, 0937153268.txt
Paul Hardaker, 1233586975.txt
Martin Juckes, 1123163394.txt
Tom Webb, 1167752455.txt
Ian Woodward, 0848695896.txt
David Webb, 1086904814.txt
Rob Wilson, 1053610494.txt
Davies Siwan, 1106934832.txt
Roger Street, 1182179459.txt
Chronis Tzedakis, 1115843111.txt
Andrew Manning, 1254832684.txt
Anthony Foot, 1208278112.txt
Clare Goodess, 1038353689.txt
Tom Melvin, 1103828684.txt
Rachel Warren, 1182179459.txt
Simon Busby, 1221742524.txt
You can browse the messages by searching on the txt file name on google.
As Tom Wigley might have said
‘Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible.’
Actually – he did – see 0880476729.txt
e.g. http://www.kore-net.com/mail/0880476729.txt
Here’s a wonderful comment on the Lean / Telegraph column:
Patrick Hadley:
What will the warmists say in 2020 if we have had another decade with no warming? That’s easy. They will say the same as they are saying after this decade of no warming. They will tell us that we have just equaled the record for the hottest decade ever and that therefore global warming is happening faster than predicted and that we have two weeks to save the planet.”