New twist in UEA climate change row
Last updated: 28/01/2010 10:03:00
Norwich’s flagship university was at the centre of a new row today after it emerged it broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny in the climate change row over stolen emails.
The reputation of the University of East Anglia’s world renowned climatic research unit (CRU)was shaken to the core last year after emails posted on the internet from researchers including its director Prof Phil Jones appeared to suggest ways of avoiding freedom of information requests together with a “trick” to explain away an apparent fall in global temperatures.
Police including a team from Scotland yard were called in to investigate amid speculation that the leaks were part of a smear campaign by climate change sceptics to discredit the UEA in the run up the Copenhagen summit last year.
Other theories were that the leaks were the work of a disgruntled insider angry at the way the university was handling FOI requests.
The row has reverberated around the world and it emerged today the Norwich university breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided the UEA failed in its duties under the act but said it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.
Read the complete story at Norwich Evening News
See the press release and background from ICO previously covered on WUWT here:
CRU inquiry prompts sought after changes in UK law, citing failure of CRU’s FOIA officer
Loophole in UK FOIA law will apparently allow CRU to avoid prosecution
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News Headline: (Independent dot co dot UK)
“Climate emails hacked by spies”
“Interception bore hallmarks of foreign intelligence agency, says expert”
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emails-hacked-by-spies-1885147.html
Spector (07:51:26),
In the Independent’s article referenced by Delingpole, Sir David is quoted:
“There are are several bodies of people who could do this sort of work. These are national intelligence agencies and it seems to me that it was the work of such a group of people.”
Translation: “I don’t have the slightest clue about how it was done.”
Sir David is engaging in rank speculation, intended to take the spotlight off of the criminal wrongdoing committed by CRU scientists and Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and others.
Why would Russia or China — which stood to gain financially from Copenhagen — derail their chances to cash in as developing countries? And when have those countries ever selectively leaked emails on-line like this? It is completely out of character.
The same unfounded speculation applies to the “What if…” scenario claiming that a nefarious ‘nerd’ in the skeptic community hacked into a CRU computer. Where is there any evidence of that?
Obviously, if such a ‘nerd’ had access to CRU emails going back many years, he would have disclosed thousands more. There are clearly a lot of missing/unanswered emails, which were no doubt deleted by the probable insider who posted them on-line, in order to cover the insider’s tracks.
Law enforcement could probably find the culprit in short order by taking all the emails, including the large number that were not posted on-line, looking at the pattern, and questioning/investigating everyone who had access.
But neither law enforcement nor the government wants the details to be revealed, and they most certainly do not want charges brought against the dishonest and corrupt scientists who have traded scientific integrity for money and status. If they were indicted, those same scientists would not hesitate to point straight up, in order to save their own skins.
Because the trail leads too high up. The AGW scam has already netted the perpetrators tens of $billions, with billions and possibly trillions of dollars more, enticing these scientists and their political superiors to promote the increasingly dubious conjecture that CO2, an entirely beneficial and harmless trace gas making up only 0.00038 of the atmosphere could possibly cause runaway global warming.
Sir David is simply engaging in classic misdirection based on zero evidence, intended to protect higher-ups, in order to continue the AGW scare for base pecuniary reasons at the expense of the taxpaying public they are pretending to protect from a harmless molecule necessary to life on Earth.
Smokey, what I mean is the physics of the theory must be true. The prediction, in the absence of any feed-back mechanisms, is that CO2 will warm the planet. I don’t think anyone seriously questions the physical principles.
The problems arise when you try and include all the possible positive and negative feed-back mechanisms in your model. Then it all gets a lot more speculative. Climate models use “CO2 equivalents” when you read the small print. Heaven knows what is included in this.
kzb (10:36:34):
“The prediction, in the absence of any feed-back mechanisms, is that CO2 will warm the planet.”
It’s not a prediction. Predictions must be validated, and no climate model has been able to accurately predict the climate. That’s why the IPCC calls them “projections.”
But the real question is: how much will CO2 warm the planet, if at all? Is there any measurable, empirical evidence showing that such warming actually takes place? [I’ll save you the trouble of searching. The answer is: No.]
If warming from CO2 is so insignificant that numerous other natural processes overwhelm its tiny effect, as seems increasingly likely, then there is no reason for concern. And there is certainly no reason to continue funding so inconsequential of a non-problem.
Provide a reproducible, empirical measurement showing that X amount of global warming results from X amount of CO2. Then we’ll have a starting point for serious discussion. Until then, the CO2=CAGW hypothesis is based on speculation, not on real world evidence.
RE: Smokey (10:25:56)
News Headline: (guardian dot co dot UK)
“David King admits to speculation over source of climate science emails”
“Former government adviser [Chief Scientist under Tony Blair] backs away from sensational claims over involvement of foreign intelligence or wealthy lobbyists.”
(by David Leigh and Charles Arthur)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/david-king-climate-emails-speculation
Yes — It does look like this is a high level and potentially biased speculation.
Spector (13:02:55),
Thanks for that link. The Guardian!! Good thing I was sitting down when I opened it.
KZB – all analogies are imperfect. That said, greenhouse gas does not add energy to the system. It only changes the rate at which it comes out, and only on a temporary basis. Over the long term, the amount that goes in and the amount the comes out are identical. You can’t increase the temperature in your house just by putting more insulation in it. You still need a furnace to heat it. If you wrap more insulation around the house, and leave the amount of energy the furnace is putting out constant, then the temperature in the house will go up..for a while. The amount of energy that the house is radiating will also start to rise until it equals the output of the furnace, at which point the temperature rise will level off. The point being that in the long term, the amount of energy going in equals exactly the amount going out. Any model that pretends that more energy can go in than comes out in the long term is proposing perpetual motion.