I watched part of the UK Parliamentary Committee Panel investigations with Phil Jones, and my main thought was ferrgoodnesssake! The nation of the Magna Carta, Newton, and the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution: Can’t the UK empire just fly Steven McIntyre in, and sit these two men down in the same room at the same time? You know, ask questions of one then the other, drilling down with no tea-and-cakes breaks, till they sort out each item on a prearranged list?
Billions of lives depend on figuring out whether CO2 matters, and trillions of dollars rest on the scientific output of East Anglia CRU. If it’s so important, why don’t the UK Government get serious? Or for that matter, why doesn’t the IPCC volunteer to arrange this, all televised and restore its credibility; show they are take “unscientific behaviour” seriously?) Note that I’m not suggesting that the panel members aren’t serious, only that they have a long learning curve in this incredibly detailed saga, and McIntyre could save everyone some time.
Steven McIntyre has written an excellent submission (worth reading). That will have to do…
I did like that the dialogue was so civilized (that’s such a rare thing), but it seemed like the slow road to real answers. I guess this is a big new (albeit supranormal “parliamentary”) step on the road where science “gets it right in the long run”.
In Short:
Prof Jones admitted he had withheld data and sent some “pretty awful” emails, and he insisted it was “standard practice” to refuse certain information to other scientists. He also explained that none of the climate scientists reviewing his papers had ever asked for the data. There you have it: what we always knew, that peer review boils down to two anonymous, unpaid “peers” who have barely any vested interest in finding flaws.
Awkwardly for Jones, Steven Mosher points out on WattsUP that, Professor Jones was quite happy to share data with Steven McIntyre in 2002, before he realized that McIntyre was a step ahead and moving on a different path. After that, suddenly there were “confidentiality agreements” to worry about, (though those agreements apparently only applied selectively, since he sent that confidential information to Webster and Rutherford).
The net effect of Phil Jones “Standard Practice” for data requests was:
1. Violate the confidentiality if they are Pro-AGW.
2. Violate the tenets of science if they are Skeptic (hide that information).
The UK Parliamentary site is here, with words from Lord Lawson in the first hour, then Phil Jones starts after 60 minutes. Thanks to Simon at Australian Climate Madness for the youtube version of the Phil Jones’ testimony. Smart move.
It really doesn’t matter whether CO2 is a threat or not. No politician is ever going to vote to cut CO2 if there is a real problem. Your never going to see a bill to take a western county back to a pre-petroleum, pre-electrical time. You’re going to get cap and tax bills to make their friends wealthy.
10
Looks like Jones got soft questions. At leaste he diid poorly on them. His reson to block release of files was dirrerent on his e-mails.
Time to retire.
10
First, Jo, you may not understand that this is a Parliamentary committee — it is not a governmental committee. Unfortunately, however, that means it’s powerless. So, even if it is eventually critical of CRU, the Government can simply ignore it. Nonetheless I thought this review (Climategate hits Westminster: MPs spring a surprise) was interesting — even encouraging. Note how, although the hearing began by giving Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser, the only sceptics invited to give evidence, quite a hard time, as it progressed its attitude changed markedly and it proceeded to give Phil Jones, the UEA team and Muir Russell (heading the UEA’s internal enquiry) an unexpectedly harder time.
Interestingly, the attack on Lawson/Peiser was led by Tim Boswell, one of the few Conservative MPs on the Committee. The Committee’s change of heart was led by Labour MP, Graham Stringer – the only scientist on the Committee.
10
When asked if the data and methods would be given out for inspection during peer review, Jones said, “yes … but they never asked”. This just about says it all.
10
Jo’s posting is up on ABC unleashed:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm
I would encourage everyone to maybe spend a bit of time over there helping to defend her article from the trolls.
The good Lord Monkton got the first comment, by the look of it *tips hat*
10
A Slow Road indeed… Don’t expect any better from the forthcoming enqiry into the E-mails, either…
From:-
Sir Muir Russell, picked to head East Anglia’s enquiry into the emails.
10
From MadJak @ #5:
Oh, Oh. Don’t think so.
Either Lord Monckton isn’t too fussy about miss-spelling his own name, or it’s a Troll !
10
trillions of dollars rests on the scientific output of East Anglia CRU. And for that very reason the last thing the Parliamentary enquiry wants to find out is whether CO2 matters.
10
ABC The Drum: Jonathan Holmes: Climate change reporting: balanced or biased?
But there’s no doubt that climate change is concentrating ABC minds. What makes the issue more complicated than most is that the degree of scepticism in the community at large bears little relation to the degree of doubt that exists in the scientific community. Those who know the most are the least dubious that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and perhaps faster than they forecast just a few years ago…
But RN (Radio National) has no plans to ‘balance’ yesterday’s Dawkins interview by giving time in the near future to a proponent of creationism, or its more acceptable face, ‘intelligent design’. It sees no need. Why not? Because creationism is espoused by rather few Australians, and therefore the ABC expects little demand for ‘balance’ on the topic? Or because the overwhelming scientific evidence does indeed support the ‘theory’ of evolution, as against intelligent design? Probably the former reason is far more important than the latter…
But if I were running a science show on the ABC, I might well feel that what should guide me is the science, not shifts in popular opinion. And so far, for all the sound and fury, the vast majority of climate scientists remain convinced that the evidence for anthropogenic warming is getting stronger, not weaker, every year.
Why they think that, surely, is the really important scientific story. Isn’t it? Or should I give time to dissident scientists out of all proportion to the weight of their views within the scientific community, because they reflect views held by a substantial proportion of non-scientists among my listeners?..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/04/2835977.htm?site=thedrum
only two articles on the latest AGW scare (at the same time as qld’s 100-yr drought has broken and the dams are overflowing). ABC only reports CSIRO predicting a possible 50% drop:
ABC: Dire water supply outlook
Australia’s top scientific research organisation says climate change is responsible for a sharp fall in Western Australia’s water resources and that the worst is yet to come.
The CSIRO has released a report showing significant climate change since the mid-1970s has impacted on surface and ground water yields and rainfall over that time has dropped by 10 to 15 per cent…
The report, Water For A Healthy Country, examined a project area stretching from Geraldton to Albany an area home to 89 per cent of the state’s population.
It found that future water yields in the region could possibly fall by half by 2030 and that the climate will get hotter and drier over that time…
The Federal Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water, Penny Wong says the report is essentially a wake up call and highlights the urgent need to plan for the future.
“We all have to face the reality that we do look into a future where we’re likely to have more water difficulties and we’ve got to prepare now for those,” she said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/03/2835782.htm
SMH has an AAP piece with SCIRO predicting a drop between 4% and 49%! Why the alarmist picture, ABC and Mr.Holmes?
SMH: AAP: Perth water supplies could dip 50%: Wong
A CSIRO report has projected a marked decrease in river flows and water yields in Western Australia’s southwest by 2030.
It said under the best-case scenario, surface water yields would decrease by four per cent and in the worst case the reduction would be 49 per cent by 2030…
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/perth-water-supplies-could-dip-50-wong-20100303-pioq.html
10
Why should it surprise anyone that British PM’s would be soft even sympathetic to Jones being found out?
These are the same people from the PM down who were found to have falsified their expense claims and had to repay money.
I have no doubt MPs felt very sorry for themselves when found out and would see this scientist in a similar way.
10
pat,
The consensus, and the default comparison between creationism and evolution, defenses, are tawdry and misleading by the journalists who use them.
The quesitonis this:
Is there any evidence at all that CO2 is causing a climate catastrophe?
10
In Canada, if you give false testimony, or refuse to testify at a parliamentary commission, you can be found in Contempt of Parliament. I wonder if the same applies in Britain?
10
Jo
One point I disagree with you on – where you claim that the peer reviews are “unpaid”. Technically correct, but I’d like to wager that “unpaid” reviewer who didn’t put the ticks in the right boxes would be reviewing their career options pretty soon. Steve McIntyre is not a regular reviewer on “Nature” is he? (Pardon the sarcasm.)
Also, the fact that “A” will review “B”‘s paper and vice-versa, turns the peer review process into a Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum exercise. Apparently, they don’t even need data for this process! So why should we, eh?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
@ madjak #5
thanks for the Link
@ Jo Great Post on ABC. I have stated several times that it is, has and always will be about the money! Although big oil may have to endure a few inconveniences the greens, by virtue of their opposition to fossil fuels, make oil more difficult to extract and therefore more expensive and profitable. Although some scientists believe that the Earth is always creating more oil most scientists believe it is a finite substance. Either way, virtually all the “easy” oil has already been discovered. Despite record sums being spent in recent years on exploration and production there is even less oil available to the market because of production and decline in existing fields than there was before the current recession started. Big oil would be more than happy to see an artificial restraint on demand from the greens because it helps to avoid an “oil crisis.” Big oil can maintain a premium price (US$70-80) during a recession and continue to sell at an even higher price after the economy recovers. Meanwhile, the Greens get to be the “fall guy” when prices eventually rise and citizens scream about high oil prices. if you have a finite product, why not sell it at as high a price as possible? No worrying by big oil about prosecution for violating the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act and the Greens get to feel good because they win a pyrrhic victory. Unfortunately, the average citizen will bear the financial brunt of this symbiotic relationship.
Jo, you omitted to mention in your posting at the ABC the CRU’s funding from Energy. Here is an interesting link http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/university-of-east-anglia-cru-unit-major-researcher-for-the-last-four-ipcc-reports-wasis-funded-by-multi-national-companies-opec-countries-nuclear-groups-and-big-oil/
Regarding the Slow Road, the wheels of justice may grind slow but they do grind exceedingly small. As elections loom and the handwriting on the wall become decipherable to even the most reticent politicians their instinct for survival will compel them to take action against the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated upon the people of the world.
Patience, Vigilance and Action!
10
Michael not Mann; March 4th, 2010 at 4:42 I agree with you. Although I’m convinced that the AGW thesis is a fraud, I’m almost convinced the new taxes you speak about are inevitable. If not as part of the AGW fraud then as part of some other fraud (eg, global cooling if that starts to become the next game in town). It’s all about governments of all persuasions treating their constituents as fools and slaves. In many ways it’s the people’s fault since they vote them in and keep voting them in even when the majority of the people recognize the fraud. It’s also due to the large number of non-thinking voters who either couldn’t give a dam or are too lazy to even contemplate the obvious solution is to keep voting out a government until we one day get one that deserves a second term, which is probably never. In any case we eventually come to the same place as we keep spiraling down until we end up with the Orwellian and corrupt governments we deserve thanks to the large numbers of non-thinking people. So, all us thinking people can do is to prepare ourselves. I’m not suggesting we give up the fight – no way. We should continue to expose this and future frauds.
10
When the ratbags say their secrecy and intimidation is standard practice among scientists, they should be asked to name one scientist from outside the climate gang who does that, and to give examples. Can they name a medical researcher who stifles argument and “artificially adjusts” data? How about an aeronautics scientist who keeps hides data that shows metal fatigue in a plane?
10
Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries pocketing an estimated €5bn in a period of 3 months. So the fraud alone in carbon trading in the EU brings in about €20bn / year for criminals approx, AU$30,000,000,000. (Caveat: If you are stuck for money do not under any circumstances rob a bank, become a carbon trading criminal instead)
But it is not a victimless crime, we pay for this via higher energy costs. Carbon Trading / Trading Air, whatever you want to call it the biggest swindle of all time. The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (or EU ETS) has operated since 2005 and has had zero impact on CO2 levels. Actually the very nature of it being a business activity that see traders, politicans and regulators travelling the world first class has probably been a net contributor to CO2 since inception. And thankfully so. Because if some precitions are correct and we are entering a period of cooling we need to have higher CO2 levels for higher crop production yields.
10
NASA’s James Hansen says Australia in effect, is becoming a drug dealer for the world.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/were-dealing-to-coal-addicts-hansen-20100303-pj3v.html
“Dr Hansen said the problem was particularly relevant for Australia because it continues to be a huge consumer and exporter of coal: ”If [Australia] continues to increase its export of coal it is, in effect, becoming a drug dealer for the world.”
These international celebrity climate fiction writers are everywhere, Leonardo and Cruise better watch out, they are stealing their limelight.
10
The funniest joke no one ever tells: Enron helped develop the Carbon Trading Scheme
http://www.climategate.com/enron-helped-develop-carbon-trading-scheme
” ……the company that helped draft the initial concept for a carbon trading system: everyone’s favorite, now-defunct, energy trading firm, Enron.
In 1997, then Enron CEO, Ken Lay wrote an op-ed entitled “For Prevention’s Sake: Focus on Climate Solutions.” In it he strongly advocated the Kyoto Protocol, which would cap carbon emissions worldwide.”
10
Bob, PIcarl, Gorebull,
These could all be really good comments over at the ABC unleashed site here:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm
Jo has posted a really good article there and the resident trolls are out to try and discredit it.
10
Spot on, Jo. It’s a disgrace that Steve M and others were not included. The questioning was far from ‘robust’ and some of the answers from ‘poor’ Phil Jones, that were not challenged, were laughable.
I have no great hopes of any sensible outcome from this inquiry.
Maybe,just maybe, the scientific inquiry which follows may address the AGW hypothesis, as well as data collection processes, particularly after statements from Physics, Chemistry and Statistics.
Where are the GEOLOGISTS.
10
[…] Henny penny shivers, Bureaucracy getting in the way of justice, […]
10
Hey everybody,
When you are done here beat feet over to the ABC and pitch in. There are so many green zombies it is like a B monster flick on acid! Jo could use your support!
10
Some scurilous blogger is posting arrant nonsense over there, at ABC, in the name of
lord monkton :
Now we know the real Lord Monckton doesn’t indulge in such on-line comment, so who could be trying to smear him ?
10
hunter – i posted the holmes piece as a laugh. if anyone deserves the ‘creationist’ tag, it would have to be the CAGW-ers.
btw transcript is now up:
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUB-COMMITTEE
THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
Q78 Ian Stewart…Professor Jones, there has been some speculation that the primary data has been lost and manipulated. Are all the raw data used in your various analyses accessible and verifiable?
Professor Jones: The simple answer is yes, most of the same basic data are available in the United States in something called the Global Historical Climatology Network.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc387-i/uc38702.htm
is that a ‘yes’ but ‘no’ phil? ‘most’ is surely not ‘all’…
an appropriate starting date!
Nasdaq: UK Government To Start Mandatory CRC CO2 Reduction Plan Apr 1
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201002281915dowjonesdjonline000274&title=uk-government-to-start-mandatory-crc-co2-reduction-plan-apr-1
10
The Intolerance of our ABC
“
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/abc-gags-bob-carter
10
I have seen it suggested that the committee went soft on Jones because he has mentioned the “s” word in an interview. They didn’t want a repeat of the fate of David Kelly.
10
Just spent some time over at the ABC (Abundant B***S**T Committee???) and feel DIRTY!!! It is amazing how people PREFER to be deluded and REFUSE to actually look at any unadulterated evidence. I almost wish that the CPRS would go thru so that these morons (in the original psychiatric definition) will SEE how gullible and stupid they are!
10
The investigation won’t find any issues with CRU, just poor manners and housekeeping. Governments are all running big deficits and really need income from carbon taxing to get them out of the financial fix they’re in now.
10
Just came across this on a news site, the latest on post-Katrina litigation arising from global warming. Speaks for itself
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Environment/2010/03/04/Katrina_victims_seek_to_sue_436023.html
10
Hi Jo,
Its should be borne in mind that that Dr. David Kelly appeared before one of these committees shortly before his “suicide”. Maybe they took one look at Jones and though…lets not go there again!
It should be noted that the questioning was, to say the least, gentle but the committee will have gone through all the written submissions by Steve McIntyre etc, and the real fun will begin once the report/conclusions on the hearings/written submissions is sent to the Parliament. We will then know the conclusions and the Government reaction.
Now, as Brown is still calling the skeptics “Flat Earthers and the fact that elections in the UK are but a few weeks away will they have time to report?
I am so looking forward to reading the report as it is the nearest thing yet to an independent inquiry.
10
Pat @ 9
I also read this at Weatherzone. When checking WA’s rainfall on the BOM site (weather summaries), it shows that WA has actually had above average rainfall over the past 5 years. 2005 and 2009 were slightly below average but the other 3 years were above with 2006 being very wet.
You would not expect that if CC were true. Seems cyclical to me.
They also claim Broome had the driest February on record with 6.4mm. Yet Feb 1937 had only 1.6mm. More scares – no checking the data.
10
The University of East Anglia CRU comes clean: there WAS a medieval warm period
http://www.climategate.com/university-of-east-anglia-cru-comes-clean-there-was-a-medieval-warm-period?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+climategate/ROux+CLIMATEGATE
10
Lysenkoism and James Hansen
This is the essay Australia’s ABC tried to ban
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/hansenist-climate-alarmism
10
I just posted a copy of the ABC article here with some of my answers to comments. Thanks for all the support in the comments thread there (which havent appeared yet). I note Eddy, George, Mark, MadJak, and others are doing an excellent job. Thanks!
10
George said:
This may just be the medicine needed. Litigation requires disclosure. Finally a light will be shone on pseudo-science. I personally would not like to be the one trying to prove either the existence of anthropogenic global warming or the connection between AGW and a hurricane. Perhaps Ryan Maue will be called for the defence?
10
Regardless of any doubts about the findings of the committee to influence govt policy, it has had one very important effect – to draw the attention of the British PARLIAMENTARY sketch-writers, the very worst sector of the jopurnalistic community into whose lap it could have fallen.
See http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/02/opening-night-reviews-in-the-uk-press/
Unlike the half-educated, half-witted “earth-journalists” whom the press have dutifully employed to pander to the vogue, these guys live and breathe controversy, write witty prose, and can detect b-s at a range of twenty miles, sometimes more. Reading their pieces, you get the feeling they take their lunches in different pubs to the earthies. I suggest that it’s a long time since the Independent, Guardian (craven warmists) Telegraph (lukewarmist) and Mail (whatever was selling papers) carried sketches about climate science that differed so little in tone, or were so ungenerous to the AGW cause. Given that the uncritical compliance of the press was a major plank of the AGW scam, this was a bad day for warmistas.
10
Sorry that should have read the very worst sector of the jopurnalistic community into whose lap it could have fallen if you’re a warmy hoping it will all blow over.
10
Pat:
At #9 you say:
I wonder why you think that because I know of nothing which would support such an assertion.
However, perhaps my Submission to the Select Committee is pertinet to how you have been induced think what you say you do in your words that I quote here.
The following is the Submission (but not its appendices) that I made to the Select Committee.
Richard
A Submission to the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee from Richard S Courtney
1.
This submission concerns the importance of an email (see Appendix A) from me that was among the files hacked (?) from CRU. It demonstrates that in 2003 the self-titled ‘Team’ knew the estimates of average global temperature (mean global temperature, MGT) were worthless, and they acted to prevent publication of proof of this.
2.
Climate change ‘attribution studies’ use computer models to assess possible causes of global climate change. Known effects that cause climate change are input to a computer model of the global climate system, and the resulting output of the model is compared to observations of the real world. Anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) is assumed to be indicated by any rise in MGT that occurred in reality but is not accounted by the known effects in the model. Clearly, any error in determinations of changes to MGT provides incorrect attribution of AGW.
3.
The various determinations of the changes to MGT differ and, therefore, there is no known accurate amount of MGT change. But the erroneous MGT change was being input to the models (garbage in, GI) so the amount of AGW attributed by the studies was wrong (garbage out, GO) because ‘garbage in’ gives ‘garbage out’ (GIGO). The attribution studies that provide indications of AGW are GIGO.
I and others tried to publish a discussion paper (see Appendix B) that attempted to explain the problems with analyses of MGT. We compared the data and trends of the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets. These teams each provide 95% confidence limits for their results. However, the results of the teams differ by more than double those limits in several years, and the data sets provided by the teams have different trends. Since all three data sets are compiled from the same available source data (i.e. the measurements mostly made at weather stations using thermometers), and purport to be the same metric (i.e. MGT anomaly), this is surprising. Clearly, the methods of compilation of MGT time series can generate spurious trends (where ‘spurious’ means different from reality), and such spurious trends must exist in all but at most one of the data sets.
4.
So, we considered MGT according to two interpretations of what it could be; viz.
(i) MGT is a physical parameter that – at least in principle – can be measured;
or
(ii) MGT is a ‘statistic’; i.e. an indicator derived from physical measurements.
These two understandings derive from alternative considerations of the nature of MGT.
5.
If the MGT is assumed to be the mean temperature of the volume of air near the Earth’s surface over a period of time, then MGT is a physical parameter indicated by the thermometers (mostly) at weather stations that is calculated using the method of mixtures (assuming unity volume, specific heat, density etc). We determined that if MGT is considered as a physical parameter that is measured, then the data sets of MGT are functions of their construction. Attributing AGW – or anything else – to a change that is a function of the construction of MGT is inadmissable.
Alternatively:
If the thermometers (mostly) at weather stations are each considered to indicate the air temperature at each measurement site and time, then MGT is a statistic that is computed as being an average of the total number of thermometer indications. But if MGT is considered to be a statistic then it can be computed in several ways to provide a variety of results, each of different use to climatologists. (In such a way, the MGT is similar in nature to a Retail Price Index, which is a statistic that can be computed in different ways to provide a variety of results, each of which has proved useful to economists.) If MGT is considered to be a statistic of this type, then MGT is a form of average. In which case, the word ‘mean’ in ‘mean global temperature’ is a misnomer, because although there are many types of average, a set of measurements can only have one mean. Importantly, if MGT is considered to be an indicative statistic then the differences between the values and trends of the data sets from different teams indicate that the teams are monitoring different climate effects. But if the teams are each monitoring different climate effects then each should provide a unique title for their data set that is indicative of what is being monitored. Also, each team should state explicitly what its data set of MGT purports to be monitoring.
6.
Thus, we determined that – whichever way MGT is considered – MGT is not an appropriate metric for use in attribution studies.
7.
However, the compilers of the MGT data sets frequently alter their published data of past MGT (sometimes they have altered the data in each of several successive months). This is despite the fact that there is no obvious and/or published reason for changing a datum of MGT for years that were decades ago: the temperature measurements were obtained in those years so the change can only be an effect of alterating the method(s) of calculating MGT from the measurements. But the MGT data sets often change. The MGT data always changed between submission of the paper and completion of the peer review process. Thus, the frequent changes to MGT data sets prevented publication of the paper.
8.
Whatever you call this method of preventing publication of a paper, you cannot call it science.
But this method prevented publication of information that proved the estimates of MGT and AGW are wrong and the amount by which they are wrong cannot be known.
(a) I can prove that we submitted the paper for publication.
(b) I can prove that Nature rejected it for a silly reason; viz.
“We publish original data and do not publish comparisons of data sets”
(c) I can prove that whenever we submitted the paper to a journal one or more of the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets changed so either
the paper was rejected because it assessed incorrect data
or
we had to withdraw the paper to correct the data it assessed.
But I cannot prove who or what caused this.
9.
It should also be noted that there is no possible calibration for the estimates of MGT.
The data sets keep changing for unknown (and unpublished) reasons although there is no obvious reason to change a datum for MGT that is for decades in the past. It seems that – in the absence of any possibility of calibration – the compilers of the data sets adjust their data in attempts to agree with each other. Furthermore, they seem to adjust their recent data (i.e. since 1979) to agree with the truly global measurements of MGT obtained using measurements obtained using microwave sounding units (MSU) mounted on orbital satelites since 1979. This adjustment to agree with the MSU data may contribute to the fact that the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets each show no statistically significant rise in MGT since 1995 (i.e. for the last 15 years). However, the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets keep lowering their MGT values for temperatures decades ago.
10.
Methods to correct these problems could have been considered 6 years ago if publication of my paper had not been blocked.
11.
Additionally, I point out that the AGW attribution studies are wrong in principle for two reasons.
Firstly, they are ‘argument from ignorance’.
Such an argument is not new. For example, in the Middle Ages experts said, “We don’t know what causes crops to fail: it must be witches: we must eliminate them.” Now, experts say, “We don’t know what causes global climate change: it must be emissions from human activity: we must eliminate them.” Of course, they phrase it differently saying they can’t match historical climate change with known climate mechanisms unless an anthropogenic effect is included. But evidence for this “anthropogenic effect” is no more than the evidence for witches.
Secondly, they use an attribution study to ‘prove’ what can only be disproved by attribution.
In an attribution study the system is assumed to be behaving in response to suggested mechanism(s) that is modelled, and the behaviour of the model is compared to the empirical data. If the model cannot emulate the empirical data then there is reason to suppose that the suggested mechanism is not the cause (or at least not the sole cause) of the changes recorded in the empirical data.
It is important to note that attribution studies can only be used to reject hypothesis that a mechanism is a cause for an observed effect. Ability to attribute a suggested cause to an effect is not evidence that the suggested cause is the real cause in part or in whole. (To understand this, consider the game of Cludo. At the start of the game it is possible to attribute the ‘murder’ to all the suspects. As each piece of evidence is obtained then one of the suspects can be rejected because he/she can no longer be attributed with the murder).
But the CRU/IPCC attribution studies claim that the ability to attribute AGW as a cause of climate change is evidence that AGW caused the change (because they only consider one suspect for the cause although there could be many suspects both known and unknown).
Then, in addition to those two pieces of pure pseudo-science – as my paper demonstrated – the attribution studies use estimates of climate changes that are known to be wrong!
12.
None of this gives confidence that the MGT data sets provide reliable quantification of change to global temperature.
10
Sadly, too many people who I expected would lodge submissions did not do so. As for the list of those called to be questioned, it is ludicrous. I’ve listened to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry. The line of questioning is sometimes so inadequate, you feel like screaming out the questions that ought to be asked. I have suspected that this and other inquiries in Britain are not serious inquiries, and that very few politicians even want this ‘climategate’ saga to rock the boat, as it could jeopardize the ‘greening’ of Britain. I don’t even think that the individuals on the Parliamentary Inquiry panel have even adequately prepared for the task. Compare this inquiry to the work Senator Inhofe has been doing in the US Senate, where it seems this issue is being taken very seriously indeed.
10
You ask “why don’t the UK Government get serious?”
Hadley may be a UK based organization but the national government does not actually have that much of a say in the climate policy nowadays, most of the UK Climate/environmental policy is now controlled by directives from the pro AGW European Union.
10
Joanne, I just posted your article at GWH.com also…Very good by the way…Of course, I’m biased here, in favor of Jo….
Eddy, Baa, co2isnotevil,you guys were “great”! If I missed any other “Realist”, sorry! I noticed the tone of the conversation after you two started replying started to be more suttle. Then after you two left, it started to go the other way again…There are a few “die hards” there. That’s to be expected. Even saw MattB towards the end and put his 2 cents worth in…
It’s great to see a New Agency that “biased” like most of ours are in America open up for once and see the comments and emotions on both sides…I think it is also because of ClimateGate and the “slow” movement on this story then taking hold…We still have Scientists that do not want to speak up…We had a Chemist visit GWH the other day at the “Chatbox”. I invited him to produce an article about the “hazzards” of being open in relation to keeping one’s job…This was his concern, of course…If it happens, I’ll let all of you know!
I hope this will a beginning for ABC in your neck of the woods…The “biased media’s” here continue to loose ratings…As it should…It’s being more and more evident that the Internet is playing such a “large” role in communicating. I get practically all of my news off the Web..I don’t watch TV hardly at all. With a huge audience involved and slowly getting bigger…Ideals and innovation is becoming increasingly important towards functions and goals of Society itself…And throughout the World….
10
Richard S Courtney: Post 39,
May I have your “permission” to post your submittal at GWH.com? I would appreciate it very much! Out of “due respect” I thought I should ask you.
Denny
10
Black Duck: Post 36,
Yes, there’s litigation but it’s NOT the way I would like to see it!!! Read this article:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2063.last
BD, you are right though, hopefully “all” news medias cover this. That way we can tie our cause into their agenda!
10
Unfortunately Denny, due to the world wide bias in the main stream media, there does not appear any other way to reveal the depth of this sham. I hope that I’m wrong & revelations begin to appear, but even with “climategate” and the British enquiries little is forthcoming.
Don’t get me wrong, introducing “bewigged buffoons” into the equation is far from ideal and the reasoning powers of some judges is to say the least ordinary. However there needs to be something that the media cannot ignore. Maybe this is it.
10
Hey Denny, as I said elsewhere Eddy dragged me to the ABC site I was trying to avoid, and in the end I posted the odd thing but only to him.
One thing I will say is watch out for Hell freezing over, because as far as I could tell Graeme Bird is the only poster over there consistently making sense!!!
10
HMM maybe not only to Eddy… but he dragged me there for sure.
10
MattB
The “Graeme Bird”! that is positively scary.
10
Black Duck: Post 45,
Patience my Man! Patience!…Look how long we had to put up with this “fiasco”…Besides Inhofe is going after “Prophet Gore”! So is Lord Monckton! One step at a time….
Off topic, BD, why a bear as a Avitar and your name is “Black Duck”??? Just curious!!! Kinda! 🙂
10
I know Allen! maybe it was an imposter?
10
MattB: Post 46,
Eddy, dragged YOU…naw! Can’t believe that!!!! Not Eddy..Does He have “something” over you???? LOL! Or has he threaten to crush you into oblivion like he does towards other “Alarmists”! Oh, by the way, you are right about your comment to Eddy, odd indeed!
10
Since we are talking about “Birds” here, I was wondering if you people have seen this video…Greenies are trying to protect Nature and this is what happens!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9srPoOU6_Z4&feature=player_embedded
This Bird IS protected by Law in the U.S.A.. Thought you should know!
10
But the ultimate question is, “It’s a little late for THIS bird, isn’t it???
Now, can you see what will happen if nobody picks up this bird or isn’t taken away by another carnivore?? It will “attract” more buzzards! They will be coming down like flies with DDT on their wings if the wind is blowing!
MattB, that would be a very good “name” for you…Raining Buzzards! But before you do, you might want to check with the Native Indian registry here in the U.S.. That name may be taken, which would hold you in “contempt” of Law…Gosh, a poor Alarmist! Imagine that!!! 🙂
10
Denny in 51 as far as I can tell none of my comments to eddy have been publised – so what is “odd indeed”?
10
MattB: Post 54,
I saw one posting only from you, Matt! I didn’t quite understand what you’ve meant! It was towards the bottom in “comments”. Of course that was an Hour ago…I posted but didn’t see them at all…Didn’t state nothing nasty…As you know I don’t normally get to “harsh”!
10
Denny:
March 5th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Wow denny. I have to eat my words. I never believed windmills would kill birds.
10
The Institute of Physics statement on Climategate to the UK Parliamentary Committee is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
The Royal Society of Chemistry Statement is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm
The Royal Statistical Society statement is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4702.htm
All three make strong critical statements on the scientific/data practices of UEA/CRU.
10
I would just like to thank you Jo and all the others, for all the work you have put in.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men(AND WOMEN) do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
I Hope it is quoted right. In brackets mine. 🙂
Thank You Forever
Z and Family.
10
Denny:
At #43 you ask me:
Of course you can.
You may be interested to read all the Submissions in their entirety. You can find them at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
Richard
10
Denny said:
A journalist whose name escapes me wore the polar bear suit at Copenhagen. Front and back were signs asking “Where is Phil Jones?”. He was equipped with a megaphone and was loudly asking the same question as his signs. Eventually when confronted by several green activists he withdrew.
As I was highly amused by these antics I altered my avatar to a photo taken of the journalist in action.
10
Baa Humbug: Post 56,
Baa, a while back I came across an “Ornithologist” that was studing some bird migration routes in the area where windmills were going up…The windmills were right “in” the route. He pursued further to find some increase of bird kill in the area due to the swirling blades. I’ll have to see if I can find it…It was last year…
10
Black Duck: Post 60,
Thanks for explaining that! I remember this situation occuring…I saw the pic of the bear there…a short caption below it…Cool. My favorite is where the “Realists” put the banner on the Greenies ship “Greenpeace”! The banner stated “Ship of Lies”…Amen to that one! Check it out! Great article!
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1501.post
10
Steve in 57 – it seems that IOP submission is causing quite the stir: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission
10
The sad thing is that this will change nothing, and it makes me ashamed to be British. We have an incompetent political elite who are wrecking our economy, very few of whom now have done a day’s worth of “proper work”, so have little touch with the reality of life outside of their ivory towers. Last month I wrote to my Minister of Parliament, Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat) about the Climate Change scam and this was his reply.
And this is after all the recent “Gates” and a news industry that is at least provide a little (but not much) more balance
They all have their heads in the sand. I’ve written to Mr Williams asking for the proof on which he bases his belief, but he has yet to reply.
10
Hi Baa Humbug,
The article I saw was by Ron House at:
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/wind-farms-do-they-kill-birds
Black Duck,
The journalist with the polar bear suit is Phelim McAleer of Not Evil Just Wrong (easy to find).
There’s also video of him questioning Al Gore and getting his mike shut off!
He’s great, wonder what he’s up to these days.
10