♫ You've got…that vexatious feeling ♫

It started out simple enough, a standard “righteous” FOIA request to UEA/CRU’s David Palmer, the FOI officer, from a researcher in Britain no less. This is email 0584.txt Dr. Phil Jones take on it didn’t seem to impress FOI agent Palmer at all.

>>X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender

>>to <REDACTED> using -f

>>Subject: Freedom of Information

>>Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:56 +0100

>>X-MS-Has-Attach:

>>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:

>>Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information

>>Thread-Index: Acoc/QT7+Yv13Ew0Q5SXODkiAy56LA==

>>Priority: Urgent

>>From: “Keiller, Donald” <REDACTED>

>>To: <REDACTED>, <REDACTED>

>>Cc: <REDACTED>

Dear Mrs Palmer,

I have been reading with increasing disbelief the litany of excuses offered by CRU FOI Officers to Steve McIntyre at “Climate Audit” (http://www.climateaudit.org/) to refuse release of original temperature data held at CRU.

The refusal of FOI requests on the basis of confidentiality agreements which were either “verbal”, or “lost” is clearly illegal. If you cannot substantiate these agreements, then they are null and void.

Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry.

Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay

and must be withdrawn.

Accordingly I make the following FOI request, confirming that

I am a academic who has published in the area of climate change in the past and that I

currently work in an academic institution.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) “General right of access to information held by public authorities”

In this Act any reference to a “request for information” is a reference to such a request which-

(a) is in writing,

(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for

correspondence, and

(c) describes the information requested.

For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request-

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,

(b) is received in legible form, and

(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

I hereby request:

1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009

2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or  disclosure.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. D.R. Keiller.

Department of Life Sciences,

Anglia Ruskin University,

East Road,

Cambridge,

CB1 1PT

Here’s Dr. Jones response to Dave Palmer

>—–Original Message—–

>From: Phil Jones [REDACTEDREDACTED]

>Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 5:00 PM

>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)

>Subject: Fwd: Freedom of Information

>

>

> Dave,

> From the language in this request, I’d regard it as vexatious.

> Cheers

> Phil

>

And Dave Palmer’s response to Dr. Jones

cc: “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” <REDACTED>

date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:58:28 +0100

from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” <REDACTED>

subject: RE: Freedom of Information [FOI-09-129]

to: “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)” <REDACTED>

Phil,

Whilst it’s getting close, I would not regard the language as sufficiently abusive or argumentative as to render this request as vexatious. In fact, I logged it and acknowledged it prior to my departure on hols but didn’t get around to circulating the request it seems… (I would, however, appreciate my proper gender being recognised! Lol)

As it is very much in line with other such requests, I presumed our response would be very much the same…

Cheers, Dave

It seems as if Palmer is duty bound by all that “vexatious” extra work that these requests supposedly caused CRU scientists, but it seems all Dr. Phil Jones has to do is dismiss each with a wave of the hand.

It seems Dr. Jones finally figured out “the mole” was their own open FTP server with inconvenient bytes lying around. Apparently, that’s vexatious too.

From: Phil Jones [[1] REDACTEDREDACTED]

Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:06 PM

To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)

Subject: Fwd: RE: Station data

Dave,

REDACTEDSee this link below. This message sent by someone at the Hadley Centre. I guess we don’t rise to the bait. Can we say taunting is vexatious?

Cheers

Phil

[2]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644#comments

This suggests to me that as there is no way that Dan would be aware its not him. Could it be that Mr. M sniffed the FTP site and ahs led everyone a merry dance. Can you log when that file was accessed? One for Mike and IT support at your end?

Prof. Phil Jones

Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)REDACTED

School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)REDACTED

University of East Anglia

NorwichREDACTED Email REDACTED

NR4 7TJ

UK

For the record, from I still don’t have a photograph of “the mole” as alluded to in CA comments by “vexatious” commenter “The Ford Prefect”. I do however have a screencap of that event and the file of interest (red arrow). Of course that’s not the file(s) Dr. Keiller and others have been seeking.

BTW there are many emails with “vexatious” in them

1. 0584

…cc: “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:58:28 +0100 from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” subject: RE: Freedom of Information [FOI-09-129] to: “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)” Phil, Whilst it’s getting…

2. 1131

…This message sent by someone at the Hadley Centre. I guess we don’t rise to the bait. Can we say taunting is vexatious? Cheers Phil [2]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644#comments This suggests to me…

3. 1184

…However, not having the information, or it being available elsewhere, or some 20-odd other exemptions are valid and I’m happy to see what of these may apply to the raw data… As to the request itself…

4. 1473

…and I think we might have a case under EIR ‘manifestly unreasonable’ grounds as that definition is wider than that for ‘vexatious’ requests under FOIA). Cheers, Dave…

5. 1577

…McIntyre that agreements prevented us from disclosing information – I doubt that they will see the nuances that only some of the information was covered by such agreements & we cannot release the lot…

6. 1599

…I said the bit about records not being kept should be removed. Our FOI person has ruled that if we get an FOI request from Harmon we can treat it as vexatious! I’m surprised that your press office have…

7. 2200

…Dave Palmer (Chris – he is the central FOIA contact) has mentioned that we can refuse to deal with a request if we perceive it to be vexatious. The tone and content of the message to Dr Wang is clearly…

8. 2289

…date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:34:21 +0100 from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: “Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)” , “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” , “Osborn Timothy…

9. 2475

…date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:28:22 +0100 from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: “Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)” , “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” , “Osborn Timothy…

10. 2655

…there is no ‘appropriate limit’) BUT there are more advantages to treating it under EIR. For example, we can extend response time to 40 working days, and, the only ‘vexatious’ test is manifest unreasonableness…

11. 3108

…cc: “Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)” , “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)” date: Fri, 9 May 2008 09:10:05 +0100 from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act 1998 / Environmental Information to…

12. 3791

…The way things seem to be going, I think it best if we discuss all FOI, EIR, Data Protection requests in person wherever possible, rather than via email. It’s such a shame that the skeptics’ vexatious…

13. 4083

…This encouragement of others to join his campaign/war might eventually help us, if it is enough to count as vexatious. Tim — Dr. Tim Osborn RCUK Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental…

14. 4089

…date: Mon Aug 24 17:00:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Freedom of Information to: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” Dave, From the language in this request, I’d regard it as vexatious. Cheers Phil X-Authentication-Warning…

15. 4131

…> However, not having the information, or it being available elsewhere, or > some 20-odd other exemptions are valid and I’m happy to see what of > these may apply to the raw data… > As to the request…

16. 4522

…I said the bit about records not being kept should be removed. Our FOI person has ruled that if we get an FOI request from Harmon we can treat it as vexatious! I’m surprised that your press office have…

17. 4878

…This message sent by someone at the Hadley Centre. I guess we don’t rise to the bait. Can we say taunting is vexatious? Cheers Phil [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644#comments This suggests to me…

18. 5065

…It might be useful to have the other emails as well if, for example, we wish to consider a claim for a vexatious request under s.14…. Cheers, Dave >—–Original Message—– >From: Phil Jones 8…

Advertisements

54 thoughts on “♫ You've got…that vexatious feeling ♫

  1. Thankyou for expanding my English, I had to look it up
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vexatious
    Once I saw the explanation of the word I cracked up laughing
    causing vexation; troublesome; annoying: a vexatious situation.
    Amazing how someone wanting to “peer review” someone elses work in the scientific field is somehow vexatious.
    I don’t understand why these people haven’t had their accreditations stripped away, it is appauling how “untouchable” they have become.

  2. Well I must say that I have been fairly “vexed” by the imposition of an emissions trading scheme and taxations based on the data in question. Given this very significant cost I think it fair to “bother” them with this…don’t you?

  3. Canada just added its objection to “wealth transfer” oops I mean $100 BILIION with a B Climate fund.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-adds-its-objections-to-100-billion-climate-fund/article2252782/comments/
    This house of cards can not possibly have very many left in support. Politically it is virtually dead. Now just a little deprogramming (the facts of the misdeeds by “the team for the cause” should do nicely) of the population and history will start to write the story of the greatest scientific fraud in history.
    What really bothers me is the damage to science these people have done.

  4. “…or some 20-odd other exemptions are valid and I’m happy to see what of these may apply to the raw data…”
    …and if none of those work, we’ll say we lost the data. And if that doesn’t work, we’ll say we never had the data. And if that doesn’t work, we’ll say that data got a role on a sci fi TV series, and you have to pay the TV tax to see it. If they try and pay the TV tax, we can say that we don’t accept payment by credit card, cheque, or cash, we only take postage stamps and they have to be pre war postage stamps. Which war? Let’s say the 100 year war, we had stamps back then didn’t we? No? Well PERFECT then, we’ll go with that!

  5. seeing as we’re having a laugh….
    29 Nov: UK Telegraph: Durban Climate Change Conference 2011 opens in disarray
    The United Nations climate change summit opened in disarray after violent storms, the late arrival of the host president and a major rift emerging between some of the world’s biggest polluters.
    By Aislinn Laing, Durban and Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
    Artur Runge-Metzger, the EU’s negotiator at the summit, said both developing and developed countries had to make firm commitments to emissions caps this year or risk the public “losing confidence in this travelling circus”…
    Canada has already said it will not commit to a second term and yesterday it emerged that it could withdraw before the original deal expires. The country’s national broadcaster said it would be announced next month that Canada will withdraw from the protocol – a move its Green Party warned would make it a “global pariah” at Durban.
    Within the European Union grouping, which speaks at the summit with one voice, cracks were already beginning to emerge after the publication of a report suggesting the UK was backing a controversial plan by Canada to extract oil from swampland – something the EU has made clear it is against because of the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
    Those watching the talks begin said it was an inauspicious start…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8921491/Durban-Climate-Change-Conference-2011-opens-in-disarray.html

  6. major rift emerging between some of the world’s biggest polluters

    Provided one considers CO2 to be “pollution”. The entire exercise is turning out to be one big giant scam. I wonder how long before someone has a contract to let and says “We don’t want UEA anywhere near this, we want someone with an objective view”. How long before these institutions discover that their beating the AGW drum is not a desirable attribute.

  7. pat;
    The country’s national broadcaster said it would be announced next month that Canada will withdraw from the protocol – a move its Green Party warned would make it a “global pariah” at Durban.>>>
    Nice catch. The Globe and Mail had to work really hard to find a negative comment by someone so of course they approached the Green Party which really represents the opposition in Canada with a total of…uhm….one…members of parliament. Well, at least with only one member they don’t wind up contradicting themselves like the other parties do so often. Well, at least not usually. OK, so not more than twice in a day.
    Frankly, as a Canadian, I’m good with being a “global pariah” at Durban. Perhaps we could hand out leadlets saying we’re putting up a new and improved statue of liberty for ourselves, and we’ve come up with a neat new slogan:
    Bring us your tired, your poor, your hungry, and your factories, and your head offices, and your your mining equipment (lots of mining equipment!!) and your refineries and your shipping companies and your ports and…low taxes, stable economy, stable banking system, good neighbourhood (we don’t even bother to lock up at the border when we got to bed at night) and don’t worry about those rumours about 40 below in the winter, we hear there’s a warming trend on the way….

  8. yikes! I messed up. scratch the low taxes, insert free health care.
    (If anyone asks how long the line ups are, just shout loudly, FREE HEALTHCARE until they stop asking)

  9. I posted this in tips but it goes well with pats posts so going to hit it again here…
    “Industrialized nations emit far less carbon dioxide than the Third World, according to latest evidence from Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).”
    “Indeed, the map at which JAXA spokesman Sasano was pointing been expected by most experts to show that western nations are to blame for substantial increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, causing global warming. But to an officious looking TV interviewer Sasano turned greenhouse gas theory on it’s head.”
    “Sasano proceeded to explain the color-coding system of the iconic maps showing where regions were either absorbing or emitting the trace atmospheric gas. Regions were alternately colored red (for high CO2 emission), white (low or neutral CO2 emissions) and green (no emissions: CO2 absorbers).
    “Bizarrely, the IBUKU maps prove exactly the opposite of all conventional expectations revealing that the least industrialized regions are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases on the planet.
    Yes, you read that correctly: the U.S. and western European nations are areas where CO2 levels are lowest. This new evidence defies the consensus view promoted by mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times.”
    http://co2insanity.com/2011/11/15/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon-dioxide-climate-theory/
    Not a good start for the doomday cultists “choosing of the virgins to sacrifice to appease the gods” ritual.

  10. “Vexatious” can be a legal term as used in English courts and is commonly used here. The BBC uses it to stifle debate when a complainant is dissatisfied with a response and complains again. There’s a surprise for you.

  11. And here I thought vexatious was the term used by the governement when the oppostion won’t play nice dog and keeps asking those embrassing questions. Rule number one never embrass your boss or the government funders you are receiving largess from. Those guys are the mosts vexagtious of all.

  12. temp;
    I followed that link and read the article in its entirety. But then I followed the link to the original article as published in Japan:
    http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/30_13.html
    The map they have indeed shows some surprised, but it isn’t anything like what the article you linked to suggested. Yes, there’s a patch of the United States that is light green (absorbs slightly more CO2 than it emmits) but 3/4 of the US and all of Canada are pink (emmit more than they absorb) and Europe is mostly bright red (emmit lots more than they absorb). So I’m confused here because the article you link to and the actual map seem to show two opposite conclusions.

  13. Bio-fueled starvation, greenish fuel-poverty, and bird-slicers
    go far, far beyond mere ‘vexatious’.
    We mustn’t ever forget that the Warmistas’ faux morality,
    their self-anointed status as Planetary Saviors,
    their shrill moralistic pseudo-piety
    comprise the cover for utterly reckless statist lunacies
    wallowing in immorality.
    Those who resist their collectivist impositions
    hope to do far more than merely ‘vex’ them.
    If we don’t defeat their bad ideas,
    those very ideas will permanently impoverish the world.

  14. As Mike Spilligan says, the term vexatious and specifically “vexatious litigant” is a defined English legal term. I suppose equivalent to harassment in contemporary language. Someone who repeatedly brings legal actions without merit.

  15. ‘Vexatious’ has a legal connotation in this context. For example, an action can be dismissed, and sanctions applied on the litigant for being ‘vexatious’. As per Wikipedia:
    “Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.”
    Clearly Phil Jones and UEA are viewing FOI requests, even from other researchers, in this light, and are justifying their non-co-operation in that light. If brought to some tribunal about this they will surely use that excuse that they considered FOI requests to be vexatious, and such language would be readily understood by lawyers.

  16. — Would you mind passing the salt, please?
    — Salt has been an important component of human diet.
    — No, really, would you mind passing the salt?
    — How vexatious of you!!!!

  17. I believe one of these ill-behaved playpen mates said something about the lack of warming also being vexatious a while back. Or something to that affect.

  18. John O’Sullivan when his suite101 was closed down – http://climaterealists.com/?id=8588
    John O’Sullivan: Popular Skeptic Writer Fired for Exposing Carbon Climate Fraud
    Wednesday, November 2nd 2011, 3:13 AM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin) Friends,
    “I write to announce my employment with my publishers, Suite101 was terminated today without prior notice or explanation and all my articles published over a two-year period with them are now removed from the Internet. I believe this is in retaliation for my latest article ‘New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory’ revealing the shocking fact that the Japanese ‘IBUKI’ satellite measuring surface carbon dioxide emissions shows that Third World regions are emitting considerably more CO2 than western, industrial nations. [1.]”
    Now on: http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/41060.html

  19. Its an explicit behavioral fact that defending a position with scorn, browbeating, derision, or evasion means that the subject matter being defended is [tendentious ] and devoid of truth.
    If there were truth to it, then there would be no need for these behavioral problems exhibited, particularly by Mann and Jones. Scientists who have any assurance that they are onto a verifiable hypothesis just do not exhibit psychopathic and defensive behaviour.

  20. I think Jones needs to learn two new words “Conspiracy” and “Solicitation”. It may well be that the FOI legislation has a time limit of six months from when an offence is commited however I believe there is no time limit for criminal conspiracy?
    “Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act. It differs from solicitation in that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, whereas solicitation can be committed by one person alone.”

  21. “Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry.
    Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay
    and must be withdrawn.”
    Most people who believe in the integrity of science would fully agree with these sentiments. But people who are involved in fraud and who actively support the corruption of science would doubtless find this to be extremely vexatious….
    Chris

  22. Jones needs to learn a new word “conspiracy”
    It may well be that FOIA has a satute of limitation of six months however criminal conspiracy has no such limit?

  23. @crosspatch “I wonder how long before someone has a contract to let and says “We don’t want UEA anywhere near this, we want someone with an objective view”.
    You’ve got it. That’s the key, the only key, and nothing but the key. The scam keeps running at the academic level because all the grantors are interested in bad science. Governments, foundations, investment banks, insurance companies: all stand to gain power and money from keeping the game running. Thus they only give money to bad scientists.
    If a MAJOR grantor ever makes the offer you hope for, good science will start to take over.
    I don’t see it happening, though. There’s no way for anyone to get money or power from good science. It’s much more likely that the grantors will stop supporting all research because they’re broke and bankrupt.

  24. I think we may need to be careful here. Dr Jones has behaved abominably by what seems, to all of us, fair standards of behaviour and of science.
    However, by his own standards, and by the standards of many around him, he has worked tirelessly, to the best of his ability, in the service of the planet – and we are stopping him from doing the work needed so he is frantic. He lost weight, could not sleep, etc.
    He has suffered. He has had death threats. OK, I know some of us have had them too, but he probably doesn’t know that and we probably can’t get this message through to him. So we need to put the message out, that we not only wish him no personal harm (despite the harm he’s effectively done to others, Science, and the planet) and we certainly do not condone the use of death threats.
    So I say, take it very easy with anything that could be seen as taunting.

  25. What will be more “vexatious” for these people is when the major European economies start collapsing from debt – then they’ll have to choose between food and climate science…that will be an easy choice, however…

  26. @AussieAlf – The English language is indeed vexatious. 😉 As I learn conversational spanish, I am struck by the fact that we have a hundred ways to say something, that many other languages have but one. It makes our spelling bees more interesting as well.

  27. Would that include emailing someone and saying they wish to beat someone up? Just checking on the goose gander thing.

  28. davidmhoffer says:
    November 28, 2011 at 9:25 pm
    “Frankly, as a Canadian,”
    Thanks. That narrowed things down considerably. Do you happen to know anyone with the following experience? 😉
    [snip]

  29. Robw says:
    November 28, 2011 at 8:55 pm
    “What really bothers me is the damage to science these people have done.”
    Yes, that is a tragedy. Most US high schoolers of the last decade know that their science teachers and others lied to them or, worse, uncritically passed on the lies of others.

  30. “I hereby request:
    1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set…”
    That would take, at most, a few mouse clicks. How can that possibly be called “vexatious”??

  31. Considering the extensive use of the word, almost makes me wonder if Mr. Jones did some work for the Hawaiian Department of Health and the Hawaiian State Legislature.
    (I know, off-topic…)
    =8-)

  32. Following:
    “Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry.
    Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay
    and must be withdrawn.”
    In the name of science, should all papers relying on the ‘lost’ raw data be withdrawn?

  33. Lucy, I applaud your sentiment, but Phil Jones, Michael Mann and company have helped perpetrate a fraud on mankind. A fraud that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and causing suffering, hardship, and most probably death! In my opinion, Phil Jones has not yet been given what he deserves for his part in this scam.

  34. @Pamela Gray
    November 29, 2011 at 6:20 am
    “Would that include emailing someone and saying they wish to beat someone up? Just checking on the goose gander thing”
    ———————————————————————–
    Santer: “Pamela, you and me in the alley”
    ;o)

  35. There is an unjustifiable proprietary attitude displayed by the “team” towards climate science and the data. If it was a one man hysteria it would be comprehensible, but when a whole “community” displays the same trait, then obviously something else is afoot. This manic resistance to any request for data release goes beyond the reasonable. As for funding or status being sufficient motive for so many educated people to act this way, sorry, but I am not buying it. There must be an alternative explanation that makes more sense.

  36. Within the European Union grouping, which speaks at the summit with one voice, cracks were already beginning to emerge after the publication of a report suggesting the UK was backing a controversial plan by Canada to extract oil from swampland – something the EU has made clear it is against because of the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\
    Good grief! Where have people been over the last 40 years. Why do you think most of the drilling in Canada is done in the winter? It is to minimize environmental impacts in drilling areas much of which has to be accessed in areas susceptible to damage when not frozen. It is responsible development and certainly not new.

  37. Can anyone point to an email which actually shows collusion to tamper with data. This shold not include the DECLINE which is covered in many published papers and so is not HIDDEN! I have searched for word like untruth, lie, invalid, fudge, bodge, etc, etc., But they all refer to others papers who do not support the AGW theory.
    Can anyone also show me where these $billions are going – no one is bragging about new motors, vast estates etc in these emails. Where has it all gone?

  38. you’ve got that vexatious feeling,
    oh-oh that vexatious feeling,
    you’ve got that vexatious feeling,
    now its gone, gone, gone,
    and I can’t go on, no-oh-no.

  39. Looks like you caught the Media in an outright LIE. Someone doctored that Photo or used another one
    This is the original screen capture by Tallbloke: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
    [Moderator note] Nope, not me. – tallmod
    ____________________________________
    davidmhoffer says:
    November 28, 2011 at 10:34 pm
    temp;
    I followed that link and read the article in its entirety. But then I followed the link to the original article as published in Japan:
    http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/30_13.html
    The map they have indeed shows some surprised, but it isn’t anything like what the article you linked to suggested. Yes, there’s a patch of the United States that is light green (absorbs slightly more CO2 than it emmits) but 3/4 of the US and all of Canada are pink (emmit more than they absorb) and Europe is mostly bright red (emmit lots more than they absorb). So I’m confused here because the article you link to and the actual map seem to show two opposite conclusions.
    ___________________________

Comments are closed.