UPDATE: UEA/CRU has responded!
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement
Looks like a homogenized data comparison. h/t to WUWT reader “splice”
==============================
It looks like Doug Keenan has been right all along. He must feel vindicated tonight. See more about Doug’s long road here in an earlier WUWT report.
Excerpts from the Independent and the Guardian
Climategate scientist ‘hid flaws in data’, say sceptics
Professor in leaked email scandal tried to hide fact that numbers he used were wrong
The “climategate” controversy intensified last night when the senior British scientist at its centre, Professor Phil Jones, faced fresh accusations that he attempted to withhold data that could cast doubt on evidence for rising world temperatures.
…
But the new allegations go beyond refusing FOI requests and concern data that Professor Jones and other scientists have used to support a record of recent world temperatures that shows an upward trend.
Climate sceptics have suggested that some of the higher readings may be due not to a warmer atmosphere, but to the so-called “urban heat island effect”, where cities become reservoirs of heat and are warmer than the surrounding countryside, especially during the night hours.
Professor Jones and a colleague, Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York at Albany suggested in an influential 1990 paper in the journal Nature that the urban heat island effect was minimal – and cited as supporting evidence a long series of temperature measurements from Chinese weather stations, half in the countryside and half in cities, supplied by Professor Wei-Chyung. The Nature paper was used as evidence in the most recent report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, it has been reported that when climate sceptics asked for the precise locations of the 84 stations, Professor Jones at first declined to release the details. And when eventually he did release them, it was found that for the ones supposed to be in the countryside, there was no location given.
Climate sceptics have demanded the two professors now withdraw their heat island paper. Professor Wei-Chyung was investigated by his university, but exonerated, but the emails indicate there was also concern among Professor Jones’ s colleagues at UEA, including from Dr Tom Wigley, his predecessor as head of the CRU, about the Chinese weather station data and Professor Jones’s continuing reliance on it.
From The Guardian:
Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws
Exclusive: Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures
By Fred Pearce
Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.
A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.
Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.
Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones’s collaborator, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had “screwed up”.
…
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN’s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.
It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.
The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 – and UEA having been criticised last week by the deputy information commissioner for refusing valid requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Guardian has learned that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Jones headed up to the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
The temperature data from the Chinese weather stations measured the warming there over the past half century and appeared in a 1990 paper in the prestigious journal Nature, which was cited by the IPCC’s latest report in 2007.
Climate change sceptics asked the UEA, via FOI requests, for location data for the 84 weather stations in eastern China, half of which were urban and half rural.
The history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang’s 1990 study, as it concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of global climate changes rather the warming effects of expanding cities.
The IPCC’s 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that “any urban-related trend” in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two “coordinating lead authors” for the relevant chapter.
The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang’s work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. “Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?” he asked Jones. He continued: “Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?”
Read the complete report at the Guardian here
See also this story from the Guardian:
• How the location of weather stations in China undermines data
As I’ve been saying for a long time, the dodgy surface data is the key and UHI is a real issue. The Menne et al 2010 preemptive strike against my surfacestations work (using my own early data they purloined) shows just how desperate NCDC’s Tom Karl is becoming.
What I find most interesting though is that Phil Jones appeared to have a crisis of conscience, because in 2007 he authored a paper that appeared in JGR without much notice (but known now thanks to Warwick Hughes).
The paper is titled: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China
In it, Jones identifies an urban warming signal in China of 0.1 degrees C per decade. Or, if you prefer, 1 degree C per century. Not negligible by any means. Here is the abstract:
Global surface temperature trends, based on land and marine data, show warming of about 0.8°C over the last 100 years. This rate of warming is sometimes questioned because of the existence of well-known Urban Heat Islands (UHIs). We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time. In the main part of the paper, for China, we compare a new homogenized station data set with gridded temperature products and attempt to assess possible urban influences using sea surface temperature (SST) data sets for the area east of the Chinese mainland. We show that all the land-based data sets for China agree exceptionally well and that their residual warming compared to the SST series since 1951 is relatively small compared to the large-scale warming. Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period.
Even though Jones tries to minimize the UHI effect elsewhere, saying the UHI trends don’t contribute to warming in London and Vienna, what is notable about the paper is that Jones has been minimizing the UHI issues for years and now does an about face on China.
It was almost as if Jones was trying to appease his own conscience by publishing a paper that supported a UHI effect in China.
But then we see in his comments about my praise of the paper and WUWT commenters as a “load of plonkers”
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=965&filename=1237474374.txt
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: FYI
Date: Thu Mar 19 10:52:54 2009
Gavin, Mike,
See the link below! Don’t alert anyone up to this for a while. See if they figure it out for themselves.
I’ve sent this to the Chief Exec of the RMS, who said he was considering changing data policy with the RMS journals. He’s away till next week. I just wanted him to see what a load of plonkers he’s dealing with! I’m hoping someone will pick this up and put it somewhere more prominently.
The responses are even worse than you get on CA. I’ve written up the London paper for the RMS journal Weather, but having trouble with their new editor. He’s coming up with the same naive comments that these responders are. He can’t understand
that London has a UHI of X, but that X has got no bigger since 1900.
I’m away all next week.
Cheers
Phil
“Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK.”
—
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: +1-828-271-4287
Fax: +1-828-271-4876
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Too funny. “X” got no bigger since 1900.
We’ll see when this all gets sorted out who is a “load of plonkers” and who isn’t.
Mods : my appologies if this doesn’t work – it should give some basic data extracted from the UK Met office OXFORD data set : (comes out of Star Office ods sheet)
Overview
Oxford Data
Oxford Graphs
Sheet 1: Oxford Data
Oxford data
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/oxforddata.txt
Tmax : Average Maximum Temperature by month since 1853
Month
Month Tmax Average
Standard Deviation
Maximum Tmax
Minimum Tmax
-1 SD
+1 SD
1
6.7
2.00
10.4
-0.2
4.71
8.71
2
7.4
2.26
11.5
-0.2
5.16
9.67
3
10.0
1.82
15.5
6.0
8.14
11.77
4
13.1
1.54
18.0
9.5
11.60
14.68
5
16.7
1.49
20.4
12.9
15.21
18.18
6
19.9
1.58
24.4
15.9
18.32
21.48
7
21.7
1.94
27.1
17.5
19.80
23.68
8
21.2
1.75
26.4
17.1
19.49
23.00
9
18.5
1.54
23.2
15.2
16.97
20.04
10
14.1
1.34
18.9
11.0
12.79
15.47
11
9.6
1.39
12.9
6.1
8.25
11.03
12
7.3
1.84
10.6
0.2
5.45
9.13
Tmax : Hottest 10 months since 1853
Year
Month
Month’s Max Temp
Month’s Min Temp
2006
7
27.1
14.9
1983
7
26.8
15.4
1995
8
26.4
13.9
1911
7
26.1
13.1
1921
7
26.1
13.3
1976
7
25.9
13.2
1868
7
25.8
12.7
1947
8
25.8
13.1
2003
8
25.5
13.5
1874
7
25.3
11.8
Tmin : Average Minimum Temperature by month since 1853
Month
Month Tmin Average
Standard Deviation
Maximum Tmin
Minimum Tmin
-1 SD
+1 SD
1
1.5
1.95
5.2
-5.8
-0.49
3.41
2
1.5
2.07
5.3
-5.3
-0.55
3.58
3
2.4
1.51
6.4
-1.2
0.93
3.95
4
4.4
1.12
7.0
1.7
3.24
5.49
5
7.2
1.09
9.7
4.7
6.07
8.24
6
10.3
0.89
12.7
8.1
9.38
11.16
7
12.2
0.95
15.4
9.5
11.28
13.18
8
12.0
1.01
15.7
8.8
10.99
13.01
9
9.9
1.18
13.5
7.0
8.71
11.08
10
6.9
1.56
11.1
2.3
5.30
8.43
11
3.7
1.56
8.4
0.0
2.13
5.25
12
2.1
1.88
5.9
-4.0
0.17
3.93
Tmin : Coldest 10 months since 1853
Year
Month
Month’s Max Temp
Month’s Min Temp
1963
1
-0.2
-5.8
1947
2
-0.2
-4.4
1890
12
0.2
-4.0
1986
2
1.0
-4.1
1879
1
1.6
-2.8
1855
2
1.7
-4.5
1963
2
1.7
-3.1
1881
1
1.8
-4.0
1895
2
1.8
-5.3
1940
1
1.9
-4.6
Sheet 2: Oxford Graphs
Once again confused …
from the UEA graph notes … “The 2008 study undertook additional analyses using more extensive data and did conclude that there was a likely urbanization trend in China of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade for the period 1951-2004. But allowing for this, there was still a large-scale climatic warming of 0.15 degrees C per decade over the period 1951-2004 and 0.47 degrees C per decade over the period 1981-2004. The paper concluded that much of the urbanization trend was likely due to the rapid economic development in China since the 1980s, after the period analysed in the 1990 paper.
So .1C per decade warming due to “likely urbanization trend” per period (53 years) compared to .15C per decade (same period) for ” large-scale climatic warming”. Does that leave .05C per decade of real warming?
Also why the period 1981 – 2004? Looking at the graph 1981 seems a lower anomaly year. Why not 1978 which an anomaly roughly 7C higher?
My, UAE, what big slopes you have…
All the better for alarmism my dear
“Well commenters? What is your verdict?”
Put them in the iron maiden.
Yes it truely is amazing ‘Wots Up With Papers’ in the UK.
Today the LCD press (Murdochs ‘Sun’ and Blairs ‘Daily Mirror’) ‘discovered’ Climategate.
Tonight Channel 4 News had Nigel Lawson and Prof Bob Watson at it hammer and tongs.
That only leaves the Biased BBC TV to give us a proper balanced account.
Once that happens it will be game set and match.
If i put you forward Anthony would you accept a Knighthood?
Lord S Wott has a nice ring to it.
BTW – the CET (Central England Tempreature) set is one of the finest unadulterated records going back to 1669. its available at http://www.climategate.com and was in an article dated 15th Jan 2010
These are more substantial versions of the Phil Jones Guardian story from 2008 (when they took place). Any mention of these links was deleted by Guardian moderators. I reckon they are getting their ‘versions’ of Jones’ crimes out first. That is two in the same number of days.
Kafka at Albany
Dr Keenan alleged that in work that has come to be widely cited in climate studies, work that included the collation of data from temperature measuring stations in China, Professor Wang made statements that “cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated.” ……
But Doug Keenan is a tenacious man. In July 2008, after being refused sight of the report, he submitted a formal complaint to the Public Integrity Bureau at the Office of the Attorney General of New York State, alleging criminal fraud . In this complaint
http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2009/03/kafka-at-albany.html
Doug Keenan’s report (which is peer reviewed) –
The Fraud Allegation Against Wei-Chyung Wang
One of the main studies cited by the report to justify that conclusion substantially relies on the claims that Wang fabricated—indeed, Wang is a co-author of the study.The study is authored by Jones et al. (1990). It treats not only China (where Wangwas responsible for supplying the data), but also Russia and Australia (where Wanghad no responsibility). The regions of Russia and Australia are not considered here,but there is some evidence that they too are problematic.4
http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf
Chinese climate scientists tactfully tell the IPCC that surface air temperature (SAT) trends over north China include a large component of urban warming
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=203
Mark Steyn on AGW: click
hese are more substantial versions of the Phil Jones Guardian story from 2008 (when they took place).
Kafka at Albany
Dr Keenan alleged that in work that has come to be widely cited in climate studies, work that included the collation of data from temperature measuring stations in China, Professor Wang made statements that “cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated.” ……
But Doug Keenan is a tenacious man. In July 2008, after being refused sight of the report, he submitted a formal complaint to the Public Integrity Bureau at the Office of the Attorney General of New York State, alleging criminal fraud . In this complaint
http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2009/03/kafka-at-albany.html
Doug Keenan’s report (which is peer reviewed) –
The Fraud Allegation Against Wei-Chyung Wang
One of the main studies cited by the report to justify that conclusion substantially relies on the claims that Wang fabricated—indeed, Wang is a co-author of the study.The study is authored by Jones et al. (1990). It treats not only China (where Wangwas responsible for supplying the data), but also Russia and Australia (where Wanghad no responsibility). The regions of Russia and Australia are not considered here,but there is some evidence that they too are problematic.4
http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf
The UEA response;
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement
The IPCC incompetence story went mainstream BIGTIME tonight in the UK when it was the main feature item on NEWSNIGHT – the nation’s flagship news analysis programme. Anchor-woman Kirsty Wark interviewed Roger Pielke live in the studio with IPCC vice chairman (Field?) desperately trying to hold the gate against reality battering down the door. She hit him repeatedlyL
“they were wrong about the glaciers?” – er, well, rmm, dunno, maybe , ermm
“they were wrong about the rainforests?” – ‘yeh, well , you know how it goes – our data is very robust, it’s a broad pyramid, lots of peer review’
“well the Guardian and the Times both have major articles tomorrow attacking the IPCC credibility – but Pachauri says he will not apologise
..it went on and on – a bloodbath.
Roger Pielke was excellent – he just kept repeating that the only way forward for the IPCC was to STOP defending its errors and initiate an independent review/ audit of all its science procedures.
If you have BBC iPlayer you can see the whole interview there.
The fact that Newsnight treated the IPCC vice chairman so roughly means that the foundations really are crumbling over here. They are in full rout – there was a secret meeting in a rural conferenece centre today – led by professors from LSE – trying to come up with a strategy for ‘rebuilding trust with the public in relation to the Science of climate change’.
The BBC have finally cracked ……..
just watched Newsnight http://www.bbc.co.uk click on ‘bbciplayer’ newsnight.
Kirsty Wark just did a good interview with Prof Pielke versus Prof Field from IPCC.
Sadly she could not get to say climategate it was mainly email hack neme.
also very interesting stuff about some renegade scientists meeting in a country manor house plotting on how to restore the credibility of ‘the science’
well worth a watch – except they are trying to give all the credit for the tumbling walls of jerico to – would you believe the Guardian. our overseas friends must realise that most BBC employees were probably at prep school with the denizons of the Gruiard.
I am led to believe that there can be some strang goings on in private schools in England. nod nod wink wink.
REPLY: Arrrghh! Well the pinheads at BBC won’t let me play it here in America..they put up a disclaimer message. Somebody needs to get it on YouTube please. – Anthony
“patrick healy (15:07:11) :
[…]
tumbling walls of jerico to – would you believe the Guardian.”
Because of the investigative reporting of the Monbiot twins.
Oh and before you go all “The BBC has cracked” please enjoy this Copenhagen-trauma induced piece of writing: Copenhagen – The Munich Of Our Times?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8490935.stm
The comments sound, ahem, largely skeptical.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247973/Leaked-climate-change-emails-scientist-hid-data-flaws.html
The scientist at the heart of the climate change email scandal tried to hide flaws in key data, it is claimed.
Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s prestigious climatic research unit, is said to have refused to release information that could have cast doubt on a widely-quoted study into how the growth of cities affects temperature.
The study, by the professor and a Chinese expert in 1990, concluded the effect of urbanisation was small – so city sprawl alone could not explain recent rapid rises in temperatures.
The research was published in the journal Nature and used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to bolster its case for man-made global warming.
But many sceptics were convinced that cities played a much bigger role and claim Professor Jones refused their Freedom of Information requests for more details.
When he did release the information in 2007 his Chinese colleague, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University of Albany in the U.S., was accused of scientific fraud as he was unable to provide the history of the locations of all the weather stations included in the study.
Dr Wei-Chyung Wang told the Guardian that although he knew all the locations when he started the study, he no longer has the information. He added that his university had cleared him of any scientific fraud.
Professor Jones denied withholding the information, said the study ‘stood up to scrutiny’ and its results had been corroborated by more recent work.
More…
* Caught again! UN climate claims on ice loss melt away
* Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data: But legal loophole means they won’t be prosecuted
* Climate change chief says sorry for hot air claim over melting glaciers
He has already had to defend allegations that his unit manipulated data on global warming and explain an email in which he suggests using a ‘trick’ to massage years of temperature data to ‘hide the decline’.
Picture shows the Himalayan glaciers
Errors: The IPCC has already been forced to make an apology after claims that Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 25 years were exposed as nonsense
The latest claims will pile more pressure on Prof Jones, who has stood aside while an investigation is carried out into the leaked email scandal.
The Climategate row broke in November ahead of the UN Climate Change summit in Copenhagen when hundreds of stolen emails from the world-renowned Climate Research Unit in Norwich were posted online.
The emails appeared to show researchers discussing how to manipulate historical temperature data and dodge requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
This latest revelation comes after a string of embarrassing blunders and gaffes from climate scientists and will fuel concerns that key researchers are too secretive and too arrogant.
The UN’s climate change panel was also caught out this week making unfounded claims for the third time in a fortnight.
The IPCC used a student’s essay and an article from a climbing magazine to make claims about reductions in ice on mountains.
The IPCC has also been found to have used data that had nothing to do with global warming to warn of looming catastrophe in the Amazon rainforest.
“Jeef (11:29:18) :
It looks to me as if Phil Jones is being thrown under the bus in a big way.”
Yes, a Route Master. And “Route” is a naughty word here in Australia.
REPLY: Yes that’s right, and you know what else is amazing? The Guardian authors emailed me this afternoon to make sure I knew about this story. I’ve never been given a tip from the Guardian staff before, evar. – Anthony
This suggests to me not only the signifiance of your blog site (well done, Anthony) in the world of changing climate but also that The Guardian now realises that the debate has turned and they are on the losing side.
This item has been reported in Australia but they wheeled out the wobbly talking heads, yet again, who told us this does not change the underlying science!!!
@Jeef (11:29:18) :”…Still no major stories in NZ press other than the usual “this looks awful but really, it changes nothing” spin.”
Here’s a Kiwigate story.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
Sorry, should have given h/t to climategate.com for that kiwi story.
http://www.climategate.com/
And (non-kiwi) a Washington Times editorial:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/osama-and-obama-on-global-warming/
‘The hitch is that the man-caused catastrophic global warming theory is dead, and it needs to be buried. Evidence had been mounting for years that there were problems with the global warming model; most telling was that the globe refused to warm up. Carbon emissions continued apace, but the world began cooling. This is why true believers abandoned the “global warming” brand name and tried to shift the debate to the more ambiguous label “climate change,” which is something the rest of us like to refer to as “weather.” ‘
It is just after midnight in the UK.
I have just gone on the BBC website and got their latest weather forecast. I do not live in the city centre but rather just within the main orbital ring road, about 10 to 12 miles from the city centre. Apparently, the current temperature is 7C with a minimum forecasted temperature of 3C. I also checked the weather details for a near by town about 7 miles away from me further out from London but still just within the M25 orbital motorway (which for US readers is the main orbital motorway circumventing London). Obviously the High Street of this nearby town is fully urbanised and there is a mixture of terraced, semi detached and detached housing. The town is set is a semi rural area. The current temperature is said to be 3C with a minimum forecasted temperature of 1C.
It will be noted that the difference in current temperature is 4C and the difference in forecasted minimum temperature is 2C.
Where I live in say 1940 would have been very similar to Loughton, ie., semi-rural. You would have to have taken the train from London to my home, now one takes the tube (underground/subway) although the tube station is overground.
It is easy to see from this simple experiment the UHI and the effect of urban sprawl. I do not know where the nearest weather station used for the HADCRU data set is located. However, had there been a station near me in the 1940s it would have yielded similar data to that of Loughton. 60 years on, it is now 4C warmer than Loughton.
Anyone who denies that there are potentially serious problems to data sets caused by UHI and urban sprawl is frankly delusional and the men in white coats should be coming to lock them up.
Anyone else like the irony in Monbiot’s writing on this business?
He says
Wow, anyone got time to unpack all that? First of all, Pearce did not “break the story” in the most meaningful sense — as he acknowledges in his own piece on the subject, it was — who? — skeptics … SKEPTICS … who identified this problem and caused the crisis. In the case of the glacier story, Pearce, being the “brilliant reporter” that he was, certainly understood the documentation difficulties in the original article, and evidently came clean when he saw the writing on the wall and knew the dam was about to break. He had a choice, either come clean or go down with the story.
I can’t believe Monbiot can get away with this raw ad hominem full of inuendo about backroom deals with evil oil conglomerates.
Maybe that’s why McIntyre, Watts et al are all so filthy rich … /irony
Jeff C. (20:34:32) :
“… I guess we should be glad that this story has finally gotten legs, but the blatant cribbing without attribution is annoying. Where were they the last three years?”
As a skeptic I am very happy to see the journalist cribbing from WUWT and others. The NYT has also done it just recently.
I expect they are afraid to acknowledge a source like WUWT, even though we know Anthony works very hard to keep this a decent science blog.
Why, It is almost as bad as getting your tips from a really crazy conspiracy site! /sarc
Mike D. (21:23:56) :
John Whitman (20:54:17): Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury of Independent Thinkers, do you find the accused Dr Jones guilty of crimes against the integrity of Science?
The crime is fraud, and Jones is an accomplice, not the ringleader. Follow the ill-gotten gains.
I second that.
Perhaps the stories are coming out in the UK because the Carbon trading legislation is a done deal and the politicians and money-men really do not care. However they are still trying to push the CAGW laws down out throats here in the USA and also in Australia so the media is still being kept on the leash.
Gail Combs – I agree. Once the bricks crumble, there will be time for a forensic analysis of who broke what when.
Pachauri of ‘Policy Neutral’ IPCC Calls for ‘Grassroots Action’ in Response to Setbacks http://bit.ly/dDxZao
Andrew30 (21:47:07) :
“Just to clarify that list:
They all have links to Carbon Trading and they all either provided fraudulent input to, or published fraudulent output from the IPCC, and are not listed as being direct funders of the CRU. The direct funders are easy.”
The more evidence the better.
How about the banks?
Roger Knights (01:13:07)
“….In the big picture, the most underplayed aspect of this affair (to me) is the ease with which the CRU managed to effect “regulatory capture” of their FOI officer. This has disturbing implications far and wide. I urge the UK press to do a thumb-sucker series on the topic in general. It would be a statesmanlike thing to do.”
The corruption of the FOI officer should certainly have been headline news. It is in the same league as finding out your village coppers are taking bribes in my book.