Thanks to Simon at Australian Climate Madness (ACM) the video of yesterday’s testimony by Dr. Phil Jones of UEA/CRU is now online via YouTube, making it viewable by millions worldwide. There are five parts, each of about 9 or 10 minutes. Jones is accompanied by the Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Prof. Edward Acton. Symon sums up the questioning: “They don’t exactly give PJ a tough ride, do they? To quote the former UK Labour Chancellor Denis Healey, it was like being savaged by a dead sheep…”. Fred Pearce of the Guardian commented that: “…the Commons committee tiptoed round embattled scientist and sidestepped crucial questions”.
Here’s a sampling of what British press has to say. Thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser and his CCNet Newsletter for the roundup.
MPs have quizzed the scientist at the centre of the “climategate” scandal, the first time he has been questioned in public since the row erupted. Professor Phil Jones used his appearance before the science committee to say that he had done nothing wrong. Earlier, critics told the MPs that the stolen e-mails, which appeared on the internet in November, raised questions about the integrity of climate science.
–BBC News, 1 March 2010
Prof Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, is accused of withholding raw data behind his research on global warming. In emails stolen from the university he asks one climate change sceptic: “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?” In a grilling by MPs, Prof Jones admitted he had withheld data and sent some “pretty awful” emails. But he insisted it was “standard practice” to refuse certain information to other scientists.
–Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 2 March 2010
Lord Lawson called for scientists to be more open about their methodologies. “The Freedom of Information Act should not have been brought into this,” former Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby, a longstanding critic of climate policy, told MPs. “Scientists of integrity reveal… all of their data and all their methods. They don’t need Freedom of Information Act requests to get this out of them.”
–BBC News, 1 March 2010
Also giving evidence alongside Lord Lawson was Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He said that sound science was based on “testability, replication, and verification”. Dr Peiser told the committee: “Of course, if you do not have the data sets or methods then you have to trust the word of a scientist. “You cannot even see if he has done these calculations directly on the basis of solid data, and this is the core of this problem – it is not about the overall science, it is about the process.”
–BBC News, 1 March 2010
The integrity of climate change research is in doubt after the disclosure of e-mails that attempt to suppress data, a leading scientific institute has said. The Institute of Physics said that e-mails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had broken “honourable scientific traditions” about disclosing raw data and methods and allowing them to be checked by critics.
–Ben Webster, The Times, 1 March 2010
The body representing 36,000 UK physicists has called for a wider enquiry into the Climategate affair, saying it raises issues of scientific corruption. The Institute of Physics doesn’t pull any punches in the submission, one of around 50 presented to the Commons Select Committee enquiry into the Climategate archive. The IOP says the enquiry should be broadened to examine possible “departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.”
–Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 1 March 2010
The entire 3 hours is available here via Windows Media Player:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979&player=windowsmedia
Sorry, the MP’s don’t seem to have a Mac/Quicktime link.
Select segments about 9-10 minutes each are available below.
Part1
Part2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Vincent (08:53:54) : Tenuc said “It will be interesting to see what ‘Plan B’ the politicians come up with.”
“Choose from the following list: Energy security, green jobs, ocean acidification, climate justice, sustainable development, peak oil and clean energy.”
Astute, Tenuc & Vincent, but you omitted the actual Plan B: the potential for nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic terrorists and wackazoid governments all across the globe. Makes a little global warming look like a summer day at the beach…
maz2 and James Sexton
Rabid environmentalists will say “Not enough!”
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
And a lot more of the same can be found at
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
Jones seems a bit of a wreck.
Acton is just so slimy.
I would normally just swear out loud but this bit, from Acton near the end, prompted me to post:
“I’m immensely proud of what they’ve done. Without them, humanity would be vastly less able to understand climate change”.
Probably been pheasant shooting with (prince) Charles. Accent is so similar. Condescending attitude so apparent. What a *$%^&$. Wonder if Pencil Shadow has bagged a good brace with them on a ‘jolly good afternoon’s shooting, followed by a few brandies in the drawing room, what?’.
It’s all a show anyway, put on for our benefit. Make us think we live in a society where the people get to chose its direction. The Establishment rules and will not give up its rule.
My Bad — second paragraph should be —
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
I had to do this over. Are you sure your computer upgrade is working? Sure hope you haven’t been hacked! Anyway, lets start again.
Its amazing to some of us how caught up in all this we’ve all become. There is a very simple explanation for the entire debate about ‘global warming’.
The whole thing started with a student (maybe not a very good one) speculating about a perceived warming. OK, so some scientist before him had postulated the idea that there were gases in our atmosphere which contributed to an insulation effect that kept our planet warm enough to support life. After experimentation it was shown that the compound gases (water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) were more responsible for this effect than the elemental gases (say oxygen and nitrogen for example).
The theory that mankind could influence the weather was discussed for a while but was discounted by the the 1920’s and 30’s by several different experiments, some undertaken by eminent Nobel prize-winning scientists.
Then we get to the 1960’s and 70’s by which time the whole thing has been overlaid by the Judeao-Christian guilt complex and Lo! it raises its ugly head again. But this time its not just that mankind can affect the weather but our input can only be detrimental.
Hold your horses a second. What do we see? There is a perceived warming of the globe (thank your god for Anthony and others like him for pointing out that the measurements are probably bogus) and the doomsayers have their proof. We’re all going to to die of heat stroke and its all OUR FAULT! They can show that levels of CO2 are rising and, for the life of them, they can’t think of any source other than us, mankind.
In real time, ie geological rather than human, the world is bound to be warming. its emerging from an ice age for crying out loud. Since the solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportionate to temperature, it stands to reason that rising global temperatures would be accompanied by rising levels of atmospheric CO2. The surface of the world is 7/10’s water!
It isn’t necessary to go into the theory of ‘greenhouse gases’ or the saturation of their effect, or to point out that next to H2O, CO2 is insignificant. Its just a case of, ‘beat me, whip me I’m a sinner’. It ain’t science, its religion.
Rant over,
Cheers
For Ted Annonson et al.
Too right fellas. They want to call us ‘deniers’ so that they can link us with something as horrendous as the holocaust. But their own propaganda leads only to (often, but not always unspoken) genocide.
Hey, Al G. Too many people, huh? Wanna be the first into the gas chamber?
RichieP (08:54:05) : Many have here said , way before “climate gate” that the actions of global warmers were punishable by law. Nobody has been punished yet, not only that but none of the perpetrators has even been separated from their jobs. This indicates that the IPCC and all its associated progressive agenda will go on no matter what happends around.
@ur momisugly
‘I suggest that a true victory would be Michael Mann declaring, “Based on the data I then had, the Hockey Stick was good science. But in the light of the new evidence, I agree that recent decades are well within historical range. Maybe the “driver” – if any driver is required – is solar. Whilst we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we now know that its variations are a consequence of temperature changes, not a cause.”’
………….
Mmm, maybe .. but, excuse me, my attention has been drawn to the squadron of flying pigs in the sky outside my window.
Apologies, that last of mine should have commenced:
@Brent Hargreaves (10:39:41)
Jones says that all of the RAW data is available from other organisations then Acton says that CRU do not get RAW data but monthly averages from the respective countries.
Good rant Littlejohn.
I think we all need to re-examine the world around us, in the light of the very apparent fraud and complicity of the media in a HUGE issue.
What other issues are there, where we have to rely on the opinions of the UN or other ‘appointed’ experts? Swine flu? WHO? It’s all the same thing – the same agenda. The same Green Agenda. And the same people behind it.
Investigate the Maurice Strong story to smell the full stench of the corruption that is involved.
They’re into colour coded stuff (revolutions) and numerology.
They are dangerous and they need to be stopped.
They are off their collective trolley.
Bill Gates saying (paraphrased) if we do a really great job with vaccination and health care we can reduce population growth by 10% had to be read twice by me, I must admit… Just saying.
Patrick Davis (06:16:48) :
Errrmm….election year in the UK!!! In fact very soon, May possibly! I’d say a diversionary tactic as there are no worthy partys in the UK to vote for, well, maybe Monster Raving Loony Party, but you may as well vote Tory, Green or Labour IMO
What. No mention of the XXXXX (I’ll observe Anthony’s request for politeness) Lib Dems?
@ur momisugly John Gill (10:35:37) :
” It was striking to see how assured Lord Lawson (skeptic) was, even though some of the questioning he faced was pretty hostile, compared to Prof. Jones who looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights.”
Lawson’s an old-time political street-fighter and brawler who’s had to stand up to *really* hostile Parliamentary committees many times before (and he had to stand up to Thatcher in the end too, not an enviable position to be placed in). He’ll do fine for the front end in the UK just like, hopefully, Inhofe will in the States. I share neither of these men’s broad politics but they’re both hard men, just what’s needed politically in this battle.
“Lord Lawson showed all the tough assurance that you would expect of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He over-rode interruptions, waved away questions about the funding of his climate-sceptic thinktank, and boomed forth in a husky, magisterial manner.
He argued that ‘proper scientists, scientists of integrity, wish to reveal all their data’. They did not need to be forced by Freedom of Information rules to cough up the facts on which they base their conclusions.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254763/Lord-Lawson-labelled-climate-alarmists.html
Couldn’t believe my ears but in response to a suggestion that a statistician should be on his review panel Muir Russell said he had had a submission from Michael Mann to be that person. If that happens it will confirm the whole thing as a farce.
PaulH from Scotland says:
Well, a ten-minute video can’t talk about everything. And, what is there to address about the logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on CO2 concentration? Everybody agrees that this is the case. Scientists talk about the effect of CO2 in terms of the amount of warming that would occur from a doubling of CO2 concentration precisely because that is the natural thing to talk about (i.e., a given FRACTIONAL change in concentration rather than a given ABSOLUTE change in concentration) for something that depends logarithmically on concentration. End of story.
@Brent Hargreaves
“Fight the disease (self-calibrating data-withholding gravy-train futurological pseudo-science) not the patient.”
I’d agree with this if it were only a matter of reverting and accepting true scientific principles and practice. It’s not though, is it? It’s an enormous political and social careering train-wreck that has to be cleared up before it runs over all of us.
James Taranto is the editor of “Best of the Web” at, dare I mention its name, the Wall Street Journal. He has in the past weighed in with elan on some of the more questionable statements coming from the AGW supporters. The following is his summary of yesterday’s UK hearings.
” Is ‘Climate Science’ Science?
Phil Jones, head of the scandal-plagued Climate Research Center at the University of East Anglia, testified yesterday before a committee of Britain’s Parliament, the Times of London reports:
Professor Jones denied that he had tried to prevent alternative views being published by influencing the process of peer review under which scientific papers are scrutinised.
He said: “I don’t think there is anything in those e-mails that supports any view that I have been trying to pervert the peer review process . . .” He added that it “hasn’t been standard practice” in climate science for all data to be disclosed.
In one of the emails, as the Washington Post reported in November, Jones wrote: “”I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Sounds perverted to us.
As for Jones’s claim that disclosing data “hasn’t been standard practice,” the Times reports on an authoritative rebuttal:
The Institute of Physics said that e-mails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had broken “honourable scientific traditions” about disclosing raw data and methods and allowing them to be checked by critics. . . .
” n (sic) a written submission to the committee, the institute said that, assuming the e-mails were genuine, “worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.”
The e-mails contained “prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law,” it added.
At this point, there’s a real question as to whether “climate science” even deserves to be called science.”
It is a sad commentary on the state of the U.S. news media that the only major U.S. newspaper that reported on the hearing was the LA Times which picked up an AP wire that still felt it necessary to fall back upon the “consensus” argument. They ran the article on its “Science” page:
“Edward Acton, the university’s vice chancellor, argued that the e-mails did not undermine the science of global warming.
“There’s absolutely nothing hidden … it’s so overly endorsed by scientists, I’m puzzled we should be working on a savoring of doubt when in fact there is no doubt,” he told lawmakers and global warming skeptics.
The scientific community appears to agree with Acton — more than 1,700 researchers signed a statement defending the evidence for climate change late last year.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/wire/sns-ap-eu-britain-hacked-e-mails,0,6578153.story
Even more staggering are the interviews with Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It beggars belief that these people hold the positions they do.
@Patrick Davis (06:16:48) :
“Errrmm….election year in the UK!!! In fact very soon, May possibly! I’d say a diversionary tactic as there are no worthy partys in the UK to vote for, well, maybe Monster Raving Loony Party, but you may as well vote Tory, Green or Labour IMO”
That’s the problem we, the average punters, face in Britain – political parties that are either utter clones of each other on this issue (Tories aka BlueLab, Nuliebore, Limp Dems) or total no-hopers electorally like UKIP. This issue just isn’t, short of a miracle, going to be thrashed out between the usual political suspects here, as it may well be in the US. If it isn’t sorted out outside Parliament, by the evident and convincing destruction of the millennialist agw position, they won’t bother to do anything and will go with the flow, mostly the flow of the gravy train. Oh, and there’s the EU too, an even bigger and utterly unacountable (democratically and financially) AGW gravy train.
Let me say that the only parties worth voting for in the UK are those which propose withdrawal from the EU.
Anything else is voting for the EU / UN carbon tax, global government/governance, climate statistics massaging, international basnkster (I could go on) route.
Let us instead use out votes in the democratic process to vote for withdrawal from the system, including, but not limited to, the climate bollocks. It must include ALL the bollocks. The men and women who speak that message – they are those who will gain our trust.
Mexico and Rio are coming up. There is a battle to be fought folks. I think they’ve learnt their lesson after Copenhagen:
This time there will be no mistakes. No blizzards, no cold temperatures.
Little John (11:41:23) :
‘beat me, whip me I’m a sinner’. Yeah, this sorry episode says more about people than it does about physics.
If ‘Neoapocalypticism’ isn’t a word, well it ought to be. This scare is just the latest in a series of imagined threats, from The Impending Flood, via Barbarians at the Gates and Flying Saucers and several more. It seems that such fears are hard-wired into us, a useful survival feature, which makes us (the great unwashed public) suckers for a silver-tongued Jeremiah (or is that a Goremiah?) chanting, “Repent, ye sinners, for the end is nigh.”
But – lucky us! – we sons of Galileo have Scientific Method to protect us from runaway poppycock. It can’t prevent King Kong escaping and climbing up the Empire State Building (telepathy, cold fusion, AGW) but the biplanes will eventually arrive to give ‘im a good strafing. The AGW hypothesis was always destined to collapse when the pesky planet refused to cooperate; even corrupting the data could only delay the day of reckoning. But without Messrs Watts and McIntyre’s dogged auditing the gravy train would’ve rolled on for longer.
It’s going to be fun watching the whole corrupt edifice come off the rails. Anybody fancy some futurology?! IPCC disbands in, what, 2012? 2015?
What we need now is an american equivalent to these proceedings but with Mann and Al Gore in the hot seat….
Something is happening, and you don’t know what it is , do you, Mr Jones.
Bob Dylan song
RichieP (12:56:43) :
‘It’s an enormous political and social careering train-wreck that has to be cleared up before it runs over all of us.’
Maybe you’re right, Ritchie, and the AGW lobby’s momentum will prevent its collapse. But the mighty blows against it in the past four months have been thrilling, and many a climatologist will now be anxious to demonstrate proper practice. This should correct unconscious bias as well as conscious fraud leading, I hope, to Panic Over Day and annual public celebrations thereafter. 😉
I hope that the UEA mole will eventually reveal himself/herself. That person deserves an award.
“It’s going to be fun watching the whole corrupt edifice come off the rails”
I wish.
Think we have to gather together enough human strength to push it off the rails, It’s like one of those magnet railways – strong forces hold it on track…