Reposted from Climate Audit:
A savage article in the Times today by Ben Webster about the UEA submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry – the letter in which they tried to “trick” the Committee about the contents of the letter from the Information Commissioner. (A “trick”, according to Gavin Schmidt and the Penn State Inquiry, is a “good way” to solve a problem.)
The article – worth reading in full – re-caps correspondence discussed in yesterday’s post on the topic.
The UEA has now posted up all its correspondence.
Webster provides an interesting new statement from Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Committee:
“It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy.
“It would be a wiser course for the university not to provide any suspicion that they might be seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained.”
Yup.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Whaling worsens carbon release, scientists warn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8538033.stm
Trying to kill two birds with one stone?
New defense: TYPO error (as in Typographical!)
‘………………FROM: WORLD WARMING UNHINDERED BY COLD SPELLS’ (at Sciencedaily) Scientists say global warming is not uniform in all areas and that climate models predict there will likely be greater extremes of cold and heat, floods and droughts. “Global warming is a trend superimposed upon natural variability, variability that still exists despite global warming,” said Kevin Walsh, associate professor of meteorology at the University of Melbourne. “It would be much more surprising if the global average temperature just kept on going up, year after year, without some years of slightly cooler temperatures,” he said in a written reply to questions for the briefing. The scientists also defended the U.N. climate panel after it came under attack for including an error about the estimated thaw of Himalayan glaciers in a major 2007 report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces reports based on the work of thousands of scientists that are the main guides for policymakers on tackling global warming. The discovery of the error has been seized upon by climate skeptics. The 2007 report wrongly said Himalayan glaciers could all melt by 2035, an apparent typographical error that stemmed from using “grey literature” outside peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nicholls said grey literature could play a key role in the climate debate and that not all valuable data or reports were published formally in journals. Such examples included reports on extreme weather events by government meteorological agencies “The IPCC does not exclude the use of that sort of grey literature because it would be stupid to talk about extremes, for instance, and not include that sort of grey literature,” he said. The scientists said more stringent checks were needed for the next IPCC reports but that the inclusion of one or two wrong predictions didn’t undermine the whole peer-reviewed IPCC process because scientific study was always evolving…….’!
lifeguard: “Sir, you can’t get in the pool”
Patchy: “Do you know who I am. I am Patchy Morals!”
lifeguard: “I don’t care. Everyone getting in the pool has to have had a shower in the past month!”
I note that the UEA still says “..the FOI request at issue did not concern raw data but private email exchanges.”
SImply amazing. They have forgotten that old axiom, “when you dug yourself into a hole, STOP DIGGING”.
infimum (09:28:30)
Whaling is bad, carbon is good.
The UEA has decided to enlarge the hole and jump in with the CRU.
It is clear the shool also wants to be distrusted.
If the head of the school was fired, they may get the message.
It’s the devious side of human nature, infesting science: click
Whether the MP’s, or scientists do anything about this discovery doesn’t matter to me anymore. I used to want politicians and the scientific community to do something about Climategate and all of the deceitful science in ‘global warming’. But little progress is made there.
Now, I just want the public to be made aware of everything about ‘global warming’, including this discovery.
After the general populations knows about all this then politicians and the scientific community will do something about ‘global warming’.
Vuk etc. (09:34:45)
yeah, it’s not like killing cows fed with genetically modified food with Monsanto is any better, right?
Smokey (09:44:05) :My theory is that this is not the first historical event, call it conspiracy, authored by the same elite of bankers.
infimum (09:28:30) :
Whaling worsens carbon release, scientists warn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8538033.stm
Trying to kill two birds with one stone?
That must be the flying whales, then.
After the stunning revelation that there has been no significant warning for over 15 years (by one of the Warmist ‘High Command’ no less) surely now must be the right time for a re-assessment of why practically every model has predicted Global Warning when none is apparent.
I’d like to be the first to warn that Global Warming is responsible for the increase in frequency and intensity of earthquakes, due primarily to the expansion of the earth’s crust caused by increased surface temperature and also to extreme low barometric pressures associated with the ever increasing frequency and intensity of storms and cyclones. It is obvious that the only way to reduce this hazard and prevent the earth from becoming a Black Hole is for everyone to remain perfectly still, avoid the use of stairs, and ban basketball and soccer. Where’s my Nobel Prize?
Seriously though, this is the V of UEA telling the Parliament, “Nothing going on here, move along”, “mind the gap”, and all that rubbish. Worked last hundred times or so?
I’m sorry Anthony, I know this is OT, but don’t know how else to get this to you. Have you heard this?
http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2010/nilsaxelmorner/
REPLY: That’s what the Tips and Notes to WUWT section is for, but thanks. -A
Here is the link to the Times article in question.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece
Thanks Anthony, I’ll remember that for the future. I’m a bit of a novice at this…
reply to infimum story about whaling:
Quote: “So many more groups are looking at the importance of these large animals in the carbon cycle. ”
Unf’ingbelievable. Killing of whales over the past century being linked to global warming. These people need to be institutionalised and xanaxed. How many groups are getting funding for this environ mental research?
Global warming/cooling is not uniform in all areas.
Extremes in cold & heat in a given area are relative to that area, are due mainly to drier conditions, and have little to do with global warming or cooling.
Any given area has it’s own unique set of responses to warming/cooling.
It’s in the area’s history, and was NOT born in a model yesterday.
Floods happen to be responses due the erratic nature of precipitation of an area, and have little to do with the global state of temperature.
Again, each area has it’s own unique set of precipitation responses and is acted upon from outside.
It is up to observation to keep an accurate record of responses in an area in order to better understand what is possible. Models do NOT make observations, nor do they make records.
To allow models to usurp observation is to throw any vestige of climate science in the trash and resort to coin-flipping. Which is how you get forecasts devoid of any sense, and institutions with a bad name.
To err in observation is human.
To really foul up the record takes a computer model.
“to enable the wrong impression to be gained”
for any non-English readers struggling to penetrate this phrase, this is more normally expressed as “to lie”
If I have this right, the University said the Information Commissioner said the Information Commissioner said the evidence was prima facie. The Deputy Information Commissioner confirmed that he said the evidence was prima facie. And the Times wrote a whole article on the fact that they both said that the Deputy Information Commissioner was basing his comments on no more than prima facie ‘evidence’ from a bunch of stolen emails. And then the University said it would fully cooperate if there was to be an investigation by the Information Commissioner.
What’s the story again? I have to wonder if the writer in the Times knows what prima facie means.
Linda,
Linking an article written by someone named “Kim Greenhouse” is a great way to derail a thread! Let the bad puns flow…
I hope she has a PhD so she can go on news programs as “Dr. Greenhouse.” 🙂
I’m simply in awe of the UEA’s audacity in its willingness to completely ignore the material facts in their own summary, while linking the material facts that contradict it from the same page.
Even defence lawyers don’t try to pretend that their clients aren’t suspected of wrong-doing, just because an investigation hasn’t YET been concluded and they haven’t YET been brought to trial.. but the UEA would have us all believe that the ICO suspects nothing. Even when the ICO reiterates, on clarification, exactly the contrary.
It all seems so slick, so well-rehearsed.. like this kind of misrepresentation is what they do every day.
It all reminds me of the IPCC Summary For Policy Makers, misrepresenting the substance of the report contained therein. Is there a connection to be made there, I wonder?
“The ICO read e-mails and came to assumptions but has not investigated or demonstrated any evidence that what may have been said in emails was actually carried out.” -UEA
They still don’t get it. Asking people to delete the email due to FOI is already against the law. It doesn’t matter if it was carried out.
Lemme see. As I recall, the birth of the scientific method was when philosophy was replaced by experiment. That is, when actual data became the basis of conclusions rather than simple musings. And now the Warmists want us to go back to the days of the perfect circle as an orbit?
debreuil:
I agree. In this case it is the prima facie case or, in the vernacular, “the smoking gun”.
I found this fairly straightforward and relevant example:
Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or an element that needs to be proved in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used in both civil and Criminal Law. For example, if the prosecution in a murder case presents a videotape showing the defendant screaming death threats at the victim, such evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, an element that must be proved by the prosecution before the defendant may be convicted of murder. On its face, the evidence indicates that the defendant intended to kill the victim.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie
In other words, it is an email asking others to destroy emails subject to FOI is “a smoking gun”.
So whales release their carbon store when killed by whalers which contributes to AGW. If they had not been killed then there would be less carbon released.
The obvious question follows as to whether this carbon is not released when they die naturally. Those clever chaps at Maine Uni have thought about this and come up with a slick answer. They do but this does not affect the planet because apparently they all die deep down in the ocean, which then stores this carbon. Does anyone have any proof that they die deep down? It’s just that I have seen plenty of media coverage over the years of whales dead on beaches. Surely they must die across a range of depths or am I missing something?
What is the male of cow dung?