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.
They are trying the “Nothing going on here, move along” AGAIN. They tried that when the CRU emails were first leaked and look where that got them. You can’t con a con and politicians are consumate liers and many are lawyers too.
I am a bit confused regarding this whole climate gate scandal.
I downloaded the CRU data last year, all 1.7 million monthly averages and thought about how best to display it. I am working on placing it my my site. Being an analyst, I simply took an analytical approach to historic data, take a look here.
http://www.knowyourplanet.com/climate-data
What I can see is that most countries seem to be warming the last 30 years. And I tried overlaying the CRU data with Danish weather data (From DMI). Now being Danish myself, I find it pretty hart to believe that a Danish weather body, hundreds of years old, are falsifying data in collaboration with the UN, CRU or whoever. That would just be ridiculous to even suggest that some hundreds of meteorologists in Denmark are hiding something with thousands from other parts of the world.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing what people think of the data I have published so for on my site. And if anyone would bother contacting their local weather station and find any discrepancy with the data I have here I would be very glad to hear on mark@knowyourplanet.com
Thanks, Ben Webster, for keeping the spotlight of public attention focused on the climate scandal.
There is a lot of filth beneath the Climategate iceberg that will explain the involvement of research institutions, news media, politicians, and scientific journals in creating a situation here like that described in George Orwell’s Book, “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
@ur momisugly Robert Marshall
Have you considered that there earthquakes might be the direct result of the relief of pressure on the earth’s crustal plates as the air just above the surface heats, and hence weighs less?
A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html
“What’s the story again? I have to wonder if the writer in the Times knows what prima facie means.”
Yeah, someone somewhere in there seems to be confusing the terms prima facie and circumstantial. They’re not the same.
Now on another topic: My question is when is there going to be a similar inquiry on the role of environmental reporters in this whole mess? It seems like far too many of them are not reporters as much as they are propagandists for one side in the debate. They’re like sports reporters covering the home team, and not truly independent journalists trying to find the best, most unbiased information for their readers. What the CRU leak revealed about Andrew Revkin should be very disturbing to any one interested in professional journalistic standards. If the IOP can question the scientific methods and standards of the CRU scientists, isn’t there some professional journalistic body that can do the same for environmental journalism? A review of standards is surely in order.
mark (12:29:49) :
From the looks of your graph, there was clear evidence that the Earth was warming in the 30’s, 40’s as well as cooling in other periods.
To say that since the graph clearly shows the Earth warming the past 30 years doesn’t not preclude that it will fall right back down again.
i.e.- what is there that says “This time, things will be different”?
And how would that apply equally to the Ice Age scare in the 1970’s and 1890’s?
Sou,
“What’s the story again? I have to wonder if the writer in the Times knows what prima facie means.”
With all the “he said that he said that he said,” it sounds more complicated than it really is. But it all seems to boil down to this. After the Times reported that ICO had alleged there was primae facia evidence for an offense under section 77, Acton told the parliamentray committe that ICO had said that the evidence “was only primae facia.” Then the actual letter was released and revealed that ICO had said that they could not imagine stronger primae facia evidence than this. In other words, Acton is hoping to misrepresent the strength of the ICO complaint.
I wouldn’t like to be in Acton’s shoes when he appears before the committee. He has basically been caught with his fingers in the till.
rbateman, well. At least now the CRU data is out there for everyone to see. I cant be asked adding more graphs today but in a week there will be loads.
Hope you enjoy it and lets all hope and prey that the entire scientific community is wrong.
George… Good one! I’m not really familiar with her, just happened to stumble across that web page and thought the link to her interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner might be of interest to Anthony and his readers.
Mark
We are still coming out of the ‘Little Ice Age’ so periods of warming are to be expected, to cause alarm we would need to see a rate of increase in the last 30 years greater than pre 45 when CO2 levels were lower. The rate of increase for the last 30 years is not greater than the 20’s 30’s rate of increase, so the cause cannot be seen as being related to CO2.
In the UK the same raw data shows only warming from Urban Heating since 1880.
Note that the MET office has not released any raw data as yet, whatthey have released has ‘Corrections’ added, supposidly for Urban Heating but are actually the opposite.
“Rupert (12:18:22) :
[…]
Does anyone have any proof that they die deep down?”
Whale carcasses of course get devoured by organisms, e.g. by this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_worm
They also float and organic material rains down from them…
“DirkH (15:10:11) :
[…]
They also float and organic material rains down from them…”
Oh sorry, i misunderstood the meaning of “whale fall” – a whale fall is actually when the remains of the whale fall to the ocean floor.
OT (somewhat)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html
“With all this mighty army of gullible politicians, dutiful officials, busy carbon traders, eager “renewables” developers and compliant, funding-hungry academics standing to benefit from the greatest perversion of the principles of true science the world has ever seen, who are we to protest that their emperor has no clothes? (How apt that that fairy tale should have been written in Copenhagen.) Let all that fluffy white “global warming” continue to fall from the skies, while people shiver in homes that, increasingly, they will find they can no longer afford to heat. We have called into being a true Frankenstein’s monster. It will take a mighty long time to cut it down to size. “
mark (14:30:08) :
-Gulp!- The entire scientific community:
The Gores are coming, the Gores are coming.
One if by AGW, Two if by Climate Change.
Actually, my favorite is still In Search of The Coming Ice Age…starring Spock.
Keep a close eye on Baffin Island. “Geologists are convinced”.
Shoot, I gotta go watch it again.
Live long & prosper.
I am also confused as no one disputes this. The dispute in question is the amount of warming caused by UHI, “value added”, Yamal, homogenisation etc., etc., that is the problem. Are you confused about the MWP? Was it as warm if not warmer than the last 30 years you refer to? If it was as warm then are you troubled by the last 30 years?
mark (12:29:49):
“I am a bit confused regarding this whole climate gate scandal.
…
What I can see is that most countries seem to be warming the last 30 years.”
30 years seems to be the usual duration of a warm phase of the PDO. Don’t forget that the entire atmosphere contains as much heat as the top 2.5 meters of the oceans. And we had an El Ninjo in January. That explains the temperature peak.
Linda (10:12:37) :
“…. http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2010/nilsaxelmorner/ ….”
Yes, and;
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Tens of billions spent on climate research over the past x number of years, and, speaking for taxpayers everywhere, may I say, “We want our money back!”
Uh, that goes for the bailed-out bankers, too. Just two different varieties of scam artist: climate “scientist” vs. commercial banker.
More extracts from Booker’s column at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html
Robert M. Marshall (10:12:07) : “…Where’s my Nobel Prize?”
You might want to look here, Robert:
http://www.crackerjack.com/home.htm
The AGW hoax is still alive and well as anyone can plainly see. Despite all the revelations of altered data, lies, exaggerations, etc., the scam is as strong as ever. It will continue to be so as long as no one is jailed for committing any of these illegal acts. Sad but true. By all means we will continue to bitch and complain but until at least some of the leaders of the AGW fraud are put behind bars, that’s all that will happen. The simple reason is the western political leaders are part of the game and they will not alter their support for the AGW scam.
mark (12:29:49) :
Over the past year I’ve read a time or two that the data you downloaded and posted are somewhat tarnished. Thus, simply to download, post, and comment on those data doesn’t add much to the discussion. If those numbers are pristine and accurate, I stand corrected.
Kcom – the problem lies with editors, who presumably assign people with certain world views to become environmental reporters.
Their brief seems to be – “seek out [scientists] who will mouth statements that you agree with and publish these”.
There is no journalism involved, no analysis, no critical appraisal.
What is needed is the ability to cut and paste
and to do it, economically.
Thank you ‘Kwik’ for the follow on. I absolutely love this site and the information the stakeholders here contribute to it. It’s a contstruct that involves the total community one step at a time and one contribution at a time, educating each of us while moving the ‘ball’ forward…