JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

More emails: Phil Jones paid £13.7 million in grants but “not a public servant”

Up to £13.7 million in grants have been paid to Professor Phil Jones, from a number of funding bodies including the European Union, NATO, and the US Department of Energy. But the intellectual and philosophical climate is so weak that Jones doesn’t even consider himself to be paid to serve the citizens of those countries. No wonder he feels that people asking for “his” data are nuisances and pests.

Usually in Science-World, scientists don’t have to deal with pesky FOI’s — because they make their data and methods available for free upon request. It should never come down to legal action for citizens to get what is rightfully theirs.

Phil Jones is Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. He’s one of the key climate scientists behind the IPCC reports (he and James Hansen of GISS in NASA are the two leading alarmist climate scientists).

Emails released in ClimateGate II that show he deletes emails, rationalizes that he is a not really a public servant, and discusses ways to hide from FOI requests, even as he admits the models are all wrong.

Prof Phil Jones

<4443> Jones in 2004:

“Basic problem is that all models are wrong

– not got enough middle and low level clouds.”

———————————————————————————————–

Phil Jones is in denial that he serves the public

 date: Mon Aug 24 14:54:00 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: transparency
to: Harold Ambler

[[[unsent draft?]]]

Dear Harold,
You have come up with a whole list of motives for my actions, all of which are wrong.

I don’t consider myself a public servant, and I doubt many working in the University sector in the UK would either.

University workers in the UK are not what we call civil servants.

Phil

—————————————————————

Phil Jones tells Mann to hide his data behind the excuse of Intellectual Property Rights

date: Fri Feb  6 16:04:29 2004

from: Phil Jones

subject: Re: Fwd: 2003RG000143R Receipt of revised MS by Reviews of

to: “Michael E. Mann”

Mike,

I just click. I didn’t need a userid/pw to resubmit on Wednesday.

The CC saga is dragging on!  An email yesterday suggested that you should provide the code, but just for MM to check – and not to expect to run it !! I responded to this (and have just been seconded by Tom K. and Rik Leemans) saying it is ludicrous. I said even if you gave them the code (all the options as well as which proxies to use for which periods etc) and the data, they still wouldn’t be able to get it to work. They would then complain they couldn’t get it to work. Suggested also you likely have some library routines re some of the PCA work.

Then I got to thinking! In their comment to Nature they try in Fig 4 to replicate  what you  did in MBH98. They get an r-value of 0.89. They say this is due to some data series being different and the unavailability of the CRU temperature data you used!

I remember you saying you were going to put that onto your web site, so that can’t be the real reason. So, I reckon they can’t replicate what you did and want your code to sort this out. I briefly implied this back to CC and said asking for the code infringes your IPR. [Intellectual property rights]

When Steve does respond – he’s been away, in Japan, I think – remind him of IPR. It may seem odd to hide behind this, but you’ve given the method details in the original paper  and in others. This should be all they need. I think our Orthogonal Spatial Regression technique would give much closer results than 0.89. When we did some work with Ed comparing Canonical Correlation with OSR, the results were almost identical when  the networks were complete.

When we do reviews we agree not to discuss the papers with others etc. If you give them the code, what guarantee do you have that they will delete it once the review is finished.

Apologies if you’ve waded through all this and already had much the same thoughts.

Cheers

Phil

——————————————————————————-

More thoughts from Phil:

 

<4778> Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

<1788> Jones responds to Melissa, at the PR Office of UEA. She says the TV crew are asking for someone with “other views” on extreme weather to interview as well (someone who thinks it might be natural variation). Here the media are trying to present both sides, but Jones won’t have any of it. Jones doesn’t think UEA ought to have debate on this complex topic — there’s a “party line” on the answer.

Date: Mon Aug 23 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Tonight with Trevor Macdonald
to: Melissa

Melissa,
There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views - at least not a
climatologist. It would also look odd if the two people interviewed with opposite views were from UEA.
Maybe you should reply and say we can’t find one, saying that most climate experts
would take the same view as Dave. The programme could easily dredge someone up, but they
wouldn’t be an expert on the climate. This is the whole point of the debate recently. The
people the media find to put the contrary view are not climate experts.
Phil

<4085> Jones:

GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.

<1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.

For more from ClimateGate I, See Andrew Bolt

Please add more into the comment thread.

———————————————————————————

UPDATE: Harold Ambler writes in comment #25

Harold Ambler

I’m uncertain why Jones’ e-mail to me appears as “[[[unsent draft?]]]” as he did send it and I did receive it.

I bent over backwards in my correspondence with him to get him to see why it looked bad, and was bad, for him to claim to have no responsibility to the public and, specifically, to make data unavailable because he didn’t like the person who was after it (Steve McIntyre).

When he refused to cede even an inch, I grew frustrated and sent the following:

As your funding comes largely from the United States Department of Energy, I thought you might want to familiarize yourself with its policy regarding climate change research:

“Open sharing of all program data among researchers (and with the interested public) is critical to advancing the program’s mission … a copy of underlying data and a clear description of the method(s) of data analysis must be provided to any requester in a timely way … ”

There is not only no mention of exceptions, or “academics-only” privileges, but specific insistence upon sharing with “all requesters.” Your argument that you are “not a public servant” is falsified.

There is no need to discuss motives or anything of the kind.

Jones was, at best, slippery in my correspondence with him.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (70 votes cast)
More emails: Phil Jones paid £13.7 million in grants but "not a public servant", 9.3 out of 10 based on 70 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/6nbfxsd

133 comments to More emails: Phil Jones paid £13.7 million in grants but “not a public servant”

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    UEA is a third rate University (you can’t get much lower). It doesn’t even have a physics department, which possibly explains why CRU doesn’t understand anything about the physics of the climate. Phil Jones would struggle to maintain a job as a technician if he had to find a job in the real world. His qualifications as a climate “scientist” are zero. He has tried to explain some of the damning emails he wrote at http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/phrasesexplained

    He should be sacked and all his pension rights removed for his crimes agains science and against society.

    00

    • #
      mikemUK

      I second that, PB.

      Jones shows out to be far from the shy, retiring, innocent academic as portrayed in the media.
      It’s even clearer now that he’s used his grubby influence to undermine the efforts of all and sundry who might disagree with his wretched “Team” view, at the expense of the science and most likely their careers.

      Voluntary resignation would be too honourable.

      00

    • #

      “UEA is a third rate University”. Apparently the students there commonly interpret the initials as standing for the University of Easy Access, I kid you not …

      Pointman

      00

    • #
      Phillip Bratby

      pointman:

      And don’t forget the Monty Python village idiot sketch. 2.42 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E

      00

    • #
      brc

      While I love a bit of rhetoric in the morning, being sacked immediately and stripped of rights is a bit harsh.

      What needs to happen is a proper, independent enquiry needs to take place.

      While Jones’ behaviour as seen in emails is distasteful, it’s quite likely he was operating within the rules – in that there were no rules. He was using whatever means necessary for ‘the cause’ as far as he was concerned. I’m not saying he didn’t break the rules, but we can’t all go around and declare him guilty without fair investigation and trial. While acting morally wrong is repugnant, you can’t strip a man of his pension and other earned entitlements just because you want to retroactively tighten up the way a university department has been acting. We would all expect this same treatment under the law so the same has to be extended to Jones, no matter how much we personally dislike the guy.

      An independent review – of the royal commission type – which both looked at any possible breach of laws and of recommendations for the future is required. Hopefully an outcome of this process would be greater transparency of politically motivated/aligned science research (ie full publishing of results and methods as a consequence of accepting public funds). Part of this might be a requirement that science media reporting must include uncertainties in any communcations, in the same way people have to declare financial interests. Part of the issue is that ‘hurricanes have a 10% chance of increase due to 40% increase in co2 in 50 years time’ translates to ‘OMG DEATH BY HURRICANE NEXT YEAR UNLESS YOU STOP DRIVING’ by the time it hits the newsstand.

      Just trying to lynch Jones et al doesn’t help the underlying problem, which is to fix the way this entire charade has been able to perpetuate. Public lynching will just make the next WWF/Greenpeace aligned ’cause’ more careful in covering their tracks. If the data had been available and the uncertainties properly communicated this whole thing would never have gotten off the ground, and Al Gore would have been laughed out of the cinema.

      The court of public opinion and peer opinion is most important to people like Jones. His actions will be judged by those around him and he will get his just desserts this way.

      00

      • #
        Hasbeen

        A very large number of people, who have done less harm, & intentional harm I may say, have been held in custody, while their sins are investigated.

        The least we could do is lock the “B” up for a couple of years, while we check how many have died, as a result of his “research” indirectly, & his promotion of global warming mitigation, directly.

        00

  • #
    MattB

    University employees are not public servants. I sometimes referred to it as quasi public service as the conditions are/can be similar, but it is 100% crystal clear in my mind that university employees are not public servants.

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Good for you Matt! I’m glad you have it all figured out.

      Unfortunately when they’re running on public dollars, yes they are servants of those who pay them. But set that aside for a moment. No matter who their master is they have a responsibility for honesty and their masters have a responsibility to see to it that things are in fact, honest. Oops!

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        It’s not quite as clear cut as that. I hate to admit it, but MattB has a point (chaos theory, I expect).

        Being a Public Servant under the Westminster system is not about who pays you, but rather who holds your employment contract (consultants are paid on public dollars, but are not public servants) .

        PJ et al, would be employed by the University, which will have many, and complex, revenue streams from various sources, one of which will be the Crown.

        But from the Crown’s point of view, the University is a contractor that is under contract to deliver various outcomes – education being primary one, and research outcomes being another.

        The question is actually around the provision, in the contracts, over the ownership of the Intellectual Property for the research.

        If he has received funding from the European Union, NATO, and the US Department of Energy, as Jo states, then they will probably also own the IP for the research they have paid for. These organisations are not subject to the FOIA, which gives Prof Jones a convenient wall to hide behind.

        It is not clear cut. I wish it were – it is a distraction.

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Rereke, good as it reads, your argument is moot.

          While the CRU as an institution may be defined as you have described, with complications over IPR stemming from “who funds the research”, since 1994 the Directorship (and three most senior staff positions) have been directly funded by the university as administrative positions with security of tenure (presumably to free them from the very complications you have written about).

          So, while it can be argued (as you do) that:

          If he CRU has received funding from the European Union, NATO, and the US Department of Energy, as Jo states, then they will probably also own the IP for the research they have paid for. These organisations are not subject to the FOIA, which gives Prof Jones a convenient wall to hide behind.

          the same “convenient wall to hide behind ” does not apply to the Director.

          Jones has been the Director since 1998.

          00

        • #
          brc

          But we know they are subject to FOI because the FOI people pinged them about not responding in time. In climategate 1 they were found to have breached the FOI act but only got away with it because the statute of limitations had expired.

          Thus we know Jones et al fall under FOI and therefore whether he is a public servant or not by classification is moot.

          They are required to hand over the information when requested. The ruling is clear.

          00

        • #
          John Trigge

          Aren’t “European Union, NATO, and the US Department of Energy” also publicly funded, hence the public owns the results of any research they (we?) pay for?

          00

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      MattB,

      Haven’t you heard that calling something by a different name does not change the nature of the thing? The thing is still the same no matter what words you use to describe it.

      Just because they don’t think of and call themselves “public servants” does not change the fact that they are paid from public funds. The funds were not a no-strings-attached gift. They were funds granted to perform scientific research on a specific topic on the behalf of the paying public. Unless and until they can produce a PRIOR legal agreement that they own all intellectual property created in pursuance of that research in spite of the source of funds they used, the results are PUBLIC PROPERTY because the public paid for them.

      Apparently, for you and they, it is all a matter of what “is” is and, whatever the secret thinking is, the thoughts are to replace what actually is. If the so called research was not about what actually is, what is it about? Imagination? Fantasy? Whim? Orders from a higher authority? Other? Perhaps but it was not science in any way shape or form beyond the mere technicality that it was called science. Which, in and of itself does not make the process scientific (See first paragraph).

      Now for a pop quiz:

      1) Does a name make the thing named or is the thing what it is without regard to what it is called?

      2) If we call a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs does the sheep have?

      3) If we call a cat, a Canary, and a canary, a Cat, do we feed the cat, bird seed, and the canary, a mouse?

      Answer with care. For you, they may be trick questions.

      00

      • #
        MattB

        Lionell. If a sheep’s tail was called a leg, and legs were also called legs, then sheep would have 5 legs. What is it you have trouble with there?

        00

      • #
        MattB

        Yes if a canary was called a cat, and a cat a canary, we’d feed the cat bird seed, as a cat is a type of bird. And yes we’d feed mice to the canary.

        00

    • #
      Pete H

      MattB
      November 25, 2011 at 1:41 am · Reply
      The fact that FOIA’s and parliamentary committee would seem to prove that others in governments circles would disagree with you MattB

      00

    • #
      Tom

      Matt, it’s simple: if our dollars pay your wages, we own your output, for better or worse. It’s called accountability. It’s only if you you have a real job in the private sector that you may be able to claim IPR – if it’s in your contract.

      00

    • #
      brc

      While I understand the point you’re coming from, the simple fact of the matter is that they fall under the FOIA act as we well know.

      If you fall under the FOIA act, well, basically you’re not an employee of a private company.

      If you’re not an employee of a private company….well – if we exclude all things that are known, whatever left has to be the answer.

      I’ve worked as a contractor at places where they are mostly or wholly government funded but still live under the delusion that they aren’t public servants, presumably because of the stigma of being a public servant.

      The funny thing was they did indeed keep an eye on the wages, conditions and perks of other public servants to make sure they were getting the same deal.

      The wiggling of Phil Jones away from public servant status is to try and keep his data private. Unfortunately for him his own employment designation is moot, because they squarely fall under the FOI act.

      At least you’re not trying to defend his words and actions. Are you?

      00

    • #

      Mattb, ethically, if public universities do not serve the public, who do they serve?

      00

      • #
        Bush bunny

        They serve themselves and the employees who call themselves lecturers. And some aren’t too honest when they have $$$’s waved in their face, to order.
        In other words, corrupting the data to suit their hypothesis. Happens all the time. How about the guy who discovered the biblical Noah’s ark up Mt.Ararak.
        He was a university guy. Made a fool of himself, when his peer group pointed out his data was wrong, and he had drawn the wrong conclusions.
        Universities thrive on research money, not teaching students.

        00

      • #
        wes george

        A public servant is a government official whose performance is directly rated by the electorate at the polls, although the civil service is somewhat insulated from this rule. Cops, nurses and centrelink employees might also be consider public servants and they are also directly held to account by their relationship with the public.

        Research workers in universities aren’t public servants. Remember that, Phil Jones, and his office are not about teaching. They select graduate students to advance their own or their institution’s research goals (which might or might not be one and the same), not as a public service to a clientele.

        University researchers aren’t beholden to majority opinion because research goals, which in the end might well be in the best interest of the society in the future, might not coincide with current popular opinion. If you don’t like particular R&D funding projects you should talk to parliamentary representatives not your local university.

        A university researcher represents the goals of his department and university which might well be long term and disconnected from any current public interests. Yet, even that is not always required. A researcher might well be seen as a rogue by the department chair, yet he might have secured independent funding and will not be discouraged from his line of inquiry. The essential freedom to be eccentric is what — when combined with unique insight — led to almost every major scientific break through. That’s how a university researcher serves the public, by maintaining his independence from popular opinion.

        The corrupt research that Phil Jones and his team produced would have ultimately been exposed and discarded by the inevitable grinding down of peer review and the scientific method if given the time. Heck, it might have taken decades, a time scale for righting academic wrongs which has been in the past considered perfectly acceptable. After all, very little pure research is performed with the outcome eagerly awaited by screaming masses of fans and reporters at the laboratory door.

        So The Team’s fate was rapidly accelerated when their academic research sudden became direct supporting evidence for some of the biggest and most contentious political investments since WWII. Simply put, these third-rate academics would have fared well at a quiet community college stuffing-up research on, say, Cathar heresy, their errors unrevealed until after their deaths, but when it came time to perform on the world stage to the pace of the modern newscycle they had to cheat, delete, hide and fabricate just to keep their heads above water.

        The problem is not that climate science was performed with no obligation to society, but that it got caught up in way too many obligations and thus lost its way. Power corrupts. Researchers became evangelists and politicians became scientific press agents and in the ensuing fray the science itself was trampled, until today there is nothing but slogans left.

        Instead of a cool headed rational inquiry into nature all we have now is a bitter civil war between opposing cultural camps.

        00

    • #

      MattB, English isn’t your first language or do you have trouble with the term public University ??

      IMO if the University takes public funds for research that research would be intellectual property owned by the public not the Scientist.

      Let’s put it another way if you gave someone money for a home improvement and they didn’t deliver what would you do ??

      The truth here is John Hansen has been shown to be nothing more than a Mercenary. So much for him saving the planet.. It’s the dollars in the mans pocket..that says enough for me.

      00

      • #
        MattB

        Even if that IP were ever owned by “teh public” (it is generally the university as the basic position I think) good luck having the government provide potentailly highly profitable discoveries to the public realm as a public service. I mean seriously guys the whole focus nowadays in universities is commercialisation of IP. You think they should just give it away for free to any mug who askes for it?

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          “Highly profitable discoveries”???????

          .
          Fair suck of the sauce bottle Matt, we’re talking about “climate science research” here.
          What exactly are you expecting them to “discover”?

          A cure for baldness??

          00

        • #
          Madjak

          From what I saw of the code in climategate 1.0, there was no IP worth protecting.

          00

          • #
            Madjak

            There were, however, a couple of functions and comments that I could see they would’ve wanted to protect though.

            :)

            00

        • #
          Mark D.

          MattB your logic here is, well, interesting. These people are busy saving the world and you want them to be able to “protect their intellectual property rights? So you are into saving the world but you expect to make a profit doing it?

          Yes I see now why you support these assholes. You like they want to profit from saving humanity.

          But once I make this clear to you I’m sure you’ll see why it is critical that this information be released immediately! Good god mann the humanity…….

          Never mind that we (USA) paid for the results to be openly disclosed.

          00

    • #
      MattB

      Regardless of FOI etc etc etc he’s simply not a public servant. If a contractor puts in some cable for the NBN Co he’s not a public servant despite the fact that the $$$ come from the govt. When a private iron ore port is built with government funding, it does not make employees public servants.

      To be honest Jo ethics have nothing to do with the question.

      To me universities are institutions that provide an education to students (and incidentally student payments make up 20-25% of a university income). They also do research, for which they require funding, for which they compete with other universities to secure said funding. Yes the government offers funding for research it wants to see undertaken. So do private corporations, with mining collaborations with WA universities very common in WA especially.

      This view of universities as public sector organisations is a throwback to ancient times I’m afraid.

      As I say in the evolution of universities there could well be legislated requirements re: public disclosure/FOI etc, and of course you have to comply with the law. But this idea that the sector is bludging off the public teat is absurd, shoudl we just shut down our tertiary education system?

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        This has already been refuted by Brc @ 2.1.1.2

        Try actually reading the post threads before you comment on them.

        00

        • #
          MattB

          my ass it has. I agree with brc in 2.1.1.2

          I’m not defending anything, btw, other than Jone’s statement in an email that he is not a public servant. That is what I agree with,

          00

          • #
            Bush bunny

            Matt the inference is there. Anyone in any type of service industry, that I say Universities are included, ‘Serve the public’.

            Anyone on an information desk be it at an airport, government, department store, pub,
            club, serves the public.

            I would suggest him saying that and using this term of reference, means he’s working for himself. Strictly speaking the term public servant (such as a cop or government official, politician) or civil servant (UK)(employed by a government department may never come in contact with the public other than by correspondence or emails.

            However, whatever, Phil doesn’t see himself as serving the public. And he certainly did not!!!!

            00

      • #
        justjoshin

        I can see MattB’s point.IP laws are to protect the profit of researchers. The UEA took money from other non-public entities to produce material that would generate profit.

        The mistake that people are making is that they are assuming the “product” of the climate science Universities is research. The extreme left are using these heavily subsidised academic institutions to launder their ideals into “science”. Listen to Eisenhowers farewell address. Everything he warned us about is happening in science. He knew what they were planning 50 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY

        00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      After all is said — and a lot has been said — I would settle for honesty instead of lies, diversions and stonewalling.

      Matt, you can argue all you want to about who owns what IP but the fact will remain that CRU was and is dishonest; those who pull CRU’s strings are dishonest; the IPCC relying on CRU was and is dishonest. And it no doubt goes clear up to UN headquarters.

      When it’s all boiled down to the bare ingredients, global warming is and always has been a fraud. The world has been lied to.

      Do you enjoy being screwed by a bunch of cheating liars? Have you an answer for that? You should because that’s exactly what’s going on. Where do you stand?

      00

  • #
    • #
      Phillip Bratby

      They don’t seem like rough thoughts. It seems you’ve put a lot of thought into it. It certainly would seem that the whistleblower has sensibly created a “get-out-of-jail-free-card”. Very wise. Do you think it is a he and not more than one person? Is the use of “we” a smoke-screen?

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Nicely done.

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Two, with a letter on deposit with a lawyer?

      00

      • #

        There are a lot of ways you could rig the dead man’s hand switch without even including anyone else, which would be better security. For instance, set up a few freebee blogs all over the world with pingbacks to the major skeptic blogs, each with a page giving the pass phrase(s) and scheduled to be automatically published a week hence. Log in once a week and reset the auto-publication date to a week on. If they get nabbed, then they can’t log in and do the reset and all hell breaks loose automatically …

        P

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Good strategy, but the need to log in to the blogs is an exposure. You have to assume you are a suspect, so you will be watched and monitored.

          You need something that looks like regular traffic that is pulled and not pushed. Having another site following you on Twitter might do the job, if that site could then do the required changes to the auto-publication date.

          Of course, you would need to have a reasonable following on Twitter to make smoke, so you would need to be opinionated on a popular subject – not hard to manage – climate scepticism might be one approach.

          00

    • #
      incoherent rambler

      The emails that I have read, so far, indicate that in the past I have grossly overestimated the level of synaptic activity from Messrs Jones and Mann. Where did these people buy their qualifications?
      These emails do seem to leave everyone quivering with anticipation about what might exist behind a zip password.
      Given that we have people who are Excel challenged, it is unlikely that they would be capable of protecting their own communications. So lets add more conjecture and imagine the perfect content. For me, the perfect content would be verifiable emails between the “team” and the whitewash enquiries. Something like … “what findings would you like us to produce Phil?”

      00

  • #
    DougS

    The arrogance of these people is breathtaking – exceeded only by their incompetence.

    And some of their ‘explanations’ of their egregious statements wouldn’t fool a child.

    They’ll probably ‘fool’ the next enquiry whitewash though!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So the hand is finally caught right in the cookie jar? I don’t know about anyone else but 13 million in grants just to be screw-up has me boiling. But I now see why Phil Jones could get so depressed after the first email revelation. Did he actually believe he had no responsibility to anyone but himself? It sure looks like it.

    Not withstanding, is anyone willing to bet against me that the second time around won’t get a whitewash job just like the first?

    00

  • #
    PJB

    If there was no prosecution of the fraudsters behind the latest fiscal crisis, why would they even have time to deal with climate criminals?

    Sadly, our Australian friends have been doubly drubbed. Not just their part of the burden to bear but also an onerous taxation of the deadly “carbon” pollution that feeds us all.

    FOIA.org is surely an insider and a witness to the continuing pursuit of climate orthodoxy and has determined that a well-judged flow of information is needed to repeatedly discredit this most egregious enterprise.

    We continue to win the battles, but the war wages on and we must all be vigilant and valiant in our pursuit of fairness and truth for all. They will not pass and we will not fail.

    00

  • #
    Mr. CO2

    Fresh Video humor: Climategate 2

    from MaxFarquar

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG-n3WPTG1g

    00

  • #

    Hi all!

    Generally there appears to be quite som disagreement in the little AGW inner crowd.

    Here Mann looks forward to meet with Briffa, Crowley and one more to try to find some agreement on all the disputes:

    “My guess is that anything that the 4 of us all can find consensus on, is
    probably a good reflection of what the consensus is within the leaders
    in this field, and you could certaintly use that as ammunition in your
    deliberations with Peck and Susan…”

    How is that for a “scientific consensus” ?
    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/1593.txt

    K.R. Frank

    Thanks Jo for digging…!
    Taken from:

    00

  • #
    Pete H

    Over £13!!!!!!!!! Does he use Excel to keep his accounts in order?

    00

    • #
      Bush bunny

      Might have invested in carbon credits and green energy, solar panels and wind turbines or optic fibre or cold fusion. I do hope so…..LOL, cos the fact is Holland has dumped solar and wind subsidies, UK too, and many more will follow, other than us down under to our chagrin. Carbon trading has crashed now selling for 5 Euros a tonne. There was a good cartoon in the local paper. Julia was standing stock whip in hand holding a great big benign gorilla on a chain with Carbon Tax written on its fur. Behind her an unleashed bigger gorilla with Public Opinion written on his fur. Giving her the evil eye. LOL More UTubes like this, like Hide the Decline, still on UTube even though Mann threatened to sue.

      00

  • #

    Just found a little funny one:

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2166.txt

    In 2001 they are talking about who to hire…

    John Shepperd to Mike Hulme and Brian launder

    “Like Brian I would be less nervous if it were someone from the “fraternity”, too, but
    it would all depend on who it was…

    Ha! “The Fraternity”
    Sounds like the KKK…?

    00

  • #

    Anyone remember the “Harry” document from climate gate I?

    Anyways, I think its clear that this “Harry” Is Ian Harris talking about the document here:
    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2169.txt

    (Maybe all nows already ..)

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Just thought I’d post this again here.

    Steve McIntyre will be on Bolt’s TV show on Sunday at 10am and repeated at 4.30pm, later on youtube and Bolt’s blog.

    Steve’s take on climategate 2 emails will be very interesting.

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    Scientists who keep their methods and data private should expect their theories and results to be treated in the same manner as they’re treating the public.

    The unfortunate thing is that the media tend to care not one iota, as long as said scientists are helping them sell their news.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    And still not a peep at the ABC, eh? I guess they are as unbiased in their coverage as the BBC:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/bbcs-kirby-admission-to-phil-jones-on-impartiality/

    I would quote the BBC reporter’s comments here but you have to see them first hand to believe them, they are THAT outrageous.

    00

    • #
      Bulldust

      Speaking of the ABC … and I know there is no love lost for them at The Australian, but it appears APPEA is having a go at the ABC for posting misleading information on CSG (Coal Seam Gas):

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-abc-has-been-accused-of-publishing-erroneous-material-on-a-coal-seam-gas-website/story-fnaxx2sv-1226205678130

      Who would have thought the ABC would post biased information regarding evil CSG? Seriously, what the frack?

      00

    • #
      dlb

      There is a link at the ABC environment website to The Guardian newspaper which describes Climategate Part 2.

      Amusingly they also have a link to news.com.au where Prince Philip describes windfarms as “absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidies and an absolute disgrace” :) I dare say his eldest son may disagree.

      00

      • #
        Bush bunny

        Actually I think I am right. Prince Charles in my opinion is all for Organic farming, not clean energy so much. He’s been pushing this for two decades at least. Save rainforests and the like. But was instrumental in giving farmers, a subsidy to switching to organics for 5 years. This was the time required to shift from chemicals etc., to become more sustainability methods. These do work. I would like to see more on this for Australia. But because of our larger farms etc., it would be quite expensive for the State and Federal governments. No more than useless solar farms etc.
        Or windy in the willows turbines.

        00

  • #
    handjive

    History of the Climatic Research Unit:

    Funding -

    * British Petroleum
    * CEC, often referred to now as EU
    * Greenpeace International
    * International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED)
    * Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates
    * Shell
    * Sultanate of Oman
    * United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP)
    * Wolfson Foundation
    * World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)

    Nothing to look at here. Move along.

    00

    • #
      brc

      Don’t you just love the screams of ‘big oil funded denial’ all the while they are happy to accept funds from BP and Shell.

      Apparently when a skeptic accepts funds from an oil company for research, it’s to further the denial machine.

      When a warmist accepts funds from an oil company for research, it’s a case of the oil company doing good work.

      00

      • #
        Juliar

        Have a look at how much money goes into skeptics research in comparison to “warmists” research. I think that will paint a clearer picture for you.

        00

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      YUP BIG OIL behind that! Oh dear I thought they were funding Jo Nova!!!heaven forbid :D

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Recently discovered emails to/from The World Bank.

      I’ll try to follow the money but maybe someone else can fill in the gaps here.

      1. In 1996, Robert Watson joined the World Bank as Senior Scientific adviser in the Environment Department, and then became Chair of IPCC for the next 5 years.
      2. Phil Jones receives funding from the DoE and World Bank, but the head of the DoE has only a tenuous climate connection during his reign to Valero oil’s attempt to block CO2 regulations.
      3. In 2000 Ken Lay told Cheney what Enron wanted from the Government, which included a carbon ETS, and..
      4. within a few months Cheney announces a new USA energy policy most of which was taken verbatim from Enron‘s demands.
      5. Bush’s appointed head of the Department of Energy, Spencer Abraham, previously voted to abolish the DoE!
      6. Early 2001, the World Bank is advising IPCC to remove mention of markets and market distortion from the Mitigation section of IPCC‘s AR4.
      7. Enron goes bankrupt after it is revealed it has tens of billions in debt and had been in need of higher revenue for years.
      8. In 2005 Bush’s assistant secretary of Defense and former steering committee member of the Bilderberg group, Paul Wolfowitz, becomes the head of the World Bank.
      9. In 2006 Spencer Abraham leaves DoE and is appointed Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of AREVA Inc, the nuclear reactor manufacturer.
      10. Abraham’s replacement at DoE, Samuel Bodman, eventually became a director of DuPont, who half own the rights to Teflon, the manufacture of which leaves HFC-23 as a byproduct, which is classfied by AR4 as having GWP of 14,800 times CO2 and thus under Kyoto any manufacturer of Teflon (eg DuPont China and unlicensed copycats) can make more money from destroying HFC-23 than creating it. (Thanks Sam!)
      11. In 2006 The World Bank‘s main recommendation is to use the world’s carbon ETS market to reduce rain forest loss.
      12. In 2007 Bush’s deputy secretary of state (and chairman of the 9/11 Commission) becomes the head of the World Bank.
      13. IPCC‘s AR4 is published.

      Conjecture: Enron was caught before they could profit from their back room deals. The World Bank, DuPont, and the nuclear industry got their favourable treatment out of the carbon ETS scam and ensured their agents got a soft landing before the music stopped.

      00

  • #

    Heres a little “defeat” for the hard core GW group:

    They have rejected some sceptic papers in peer review, and then (darn!) a paper is published anyway.
    Then they decide that this “De Freitas” is doing things wrong.

    “Inner revision” has then checked out things about how De Freitas has handled things, and they conclude:

    >> Conclusions:
    >>
    >> 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented
    >> detailed, critical and helpful evaluations
    >>
    >> 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested
    >> appropriate revisions.
    >>
    >> 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
    >>
    >> Summary:
    >>
    >> Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
    >>
    >> Best wishes,
    >> Otto Kinne
    >> Director, Inter-Research

    ARGH! ICE COLD thumbs down to the GW Hard core crowd.
    And then Tom Wigley (old Head of CRU) goes on


    Thanx — but not quite the end.

    Cant take defeat?
    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2185.txt

    00

  • #

    In the preparations for IPCC AR4, the guidelines of what and how things should be included in the section concerning radiative forcing.

    Guideline:


    The arguments for these series are
    >>>> as follows:
    >>>>
    >>>> a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible (more
    >>>> than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR …

    How do you make sure that series are fully compatible with IPCC´s third report? What if the series show somethig else? Or what do they mean?
    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2188.txt

    00

  • #

    Phil Jones did the most incompetent attempt to analyse UHI. He used London…

    This in incompetent because London was a great multi million city already in year 1900, and at the same time, the whole south central England is one big UHI zone of increasing urbanization.

    Therefore there is hardly any genuine rural station near London to evaluate if London has UHI. A sick approach to use London, hardly a coincidence that he chose London.

    Jones DICTATES to Jenkins from MetOffice:

    Make sure you’re not saying anything to contradict this in the urban annex
    of your report.

    Jones certainly dont want ANY other views than comes from his London (crap) writing.

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2197.txt

    00

  • #

    CRU lost data when they moved… right?

    But:


    You have
    > several things wrong in the email you sent to Dave. CRU has lost no
    > data – if you cannot accept that then there is no point in talking to
    > you.
    If you are going to believe what is on blog sites then again there
    > is no point talking to you.


    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2214.txt

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Wasn’t it the original measurements they lost? I reckon he’s saying the gridded temperature data is available, but that was computed in an unauditable way from original measurements on old tapes that were written over after the office move.
      At least, that’s one way of reconciling his inquiry testimony with this email.

      00

      • #

        Yes, Andrew completely true.

        This “We have the gridded data” is realy desperate blah blah.
        Give us originals.

        But as you will see from a new article coming soon on USA temperatures from RUTI, it is possible to find most Hadcrut stations in unadjusted GHCN, and thus.. data is there to check..!

        K.R. Frank

        00

  • #
    RCS

    The problem with the CRU is that it is staffed by people with poor degrees from 3rd rate Universities and we are supposed to to regard these people as the cream of acedemia.

    I suspct that a hostile audit of their data, their code and their conclusions would bring their entire edife crashing around their ears.

    The problem comes from the top at UEA. A certain Professor Acton. If he had done what a proper academc should have done, demanded a proper rigorous investigation, the UEA might have salvaged its reputation. Instead, he promoted a fraud like Jones to “Director of Research”.

    The academic standards at that junk university defy description. There is a large body of academics who have paid their dues in proper science and will draw their own conclusions.

    Jones should be sacked.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    The fact that he (Jones) isnt done for fraud against the British tax payer is incredible. Just goes to show who is behind the whole episode and how the criminal BBC and the criminal Brit Gov are hiding it.

    00

  • #
    Evcricket

    Are you arguing that anyone that receives a Government grant is a public servant?

    Any company receiving a government grant is owned by the Commonwealth?

    00

    • #
      brc

      You’re confusing ownership of the entity with ownership of the output of the entity. Not unusual, you’re probably a wage slave somewhere with little understanding of this.

      Mostly, unless explicitly otherwise stated, when you pay someone to do something, you own that work and all rights associated with it.

      As already posted, the ‘public servant’ status is moot. The FOI commission has already ruled in the FOI case against Jones after climategate 1. He was guilty but no punishment because the statute of limitations. Pretty much everything he does is open to FOI, including any personal emails he might write on work equipment and work time.

      So whether or not he is a public servant is largely irrelevant. As is whether the commonwealth owns a company – which is a ridiculous argument as you obviously intended. What is at stake here is ownership of the work product.

      Also, grants for research funding are paid to the CRU, not to Jones himself. As Jones is employed by the CRU, any IP he creates under that employment belongs to the CRU, not to Jones, unless he has an explicit carveout to that effect.

      This is standard practice and applies to just about every employment contract in place. Any work I’ve ever done for a government dept explictly places ownership of the resulting IP with the government. Mercifully this has been brief and widely spaced.

      00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      the comment above was “civil servant”. In the UK a civil servant is categorised more tightly than is an Australian public servant. Certainly we might call police and school teachers public servants but they would not be called civil servants in the UK.

      Again… in case someone thinks I am trolling. I am not endorsing his statements as I think other aspects of the context make them damming. His civil servant comments are in keeping with common usage but his attitude in saying this is quite unsettling.

      00

  • #

    I wouldn’t be so quick to tar the whole of UEA with the same hot brush. Agreed, CRU and Jones et al have totally gone way off the deep end; but their actions should be considered separately from that of other schools. As for what Prof Acton did….

    Remember the way CRU is structured is highly isolated from the other schools (the building is even in the shape of a bubble!). Really they should have come under much more internal cross school scrutiny with the significance of what they were doing (i.e. check the maths usage – the School of Mathematics could have assisted, there are also experts on Stats around..) – that alone would have cleaned things up in a flash. Heck, they are 2 minutes walk from SYS (School of Information Systems) – they could have helped with the archiving.

    Cross school collaboration is quite common under normal circumstances…

    00

    • #

      Mebbe they were post-normal circumstances …

      P

      00

    • #
      brc

      I would be tempted to agree with you, but university management got out the whitewash buckets and closed ranks, instead of trying to clean itself and allow a thorough independent investigation. They waited until the storm cleared and then reinstated Jones, who presumably has gone about business since then in exactly the same way (there has been no post 2010 emails, so we can’t say for sure whether he has changed or not).

      It’s the same as Penn State – Mann’s actions notwithstanding – they chose to cover up problems with the coaching side for many years instead of cleaning house.

      It’s funny how time and time again politicians and others think they can stuff skeletons into the closet permanently and expect them to stay there. But they have a nasty habit of rattling around and falling back out.

      So I’ll give a clean pass to UEA when they invite independent scrutiny and are prepared to clean house if that is what is found.

      00

      • #

        I agree, the whitewashing indicates that the central university management must have jobs as painters at the weekend…

        Hopefully with CG II and the ticking archive bomb we might get a bit more real investigation going on – or at the very least a unified ‘one step back’ by the rest of the uni given the pending implosion…

        00

  • #
    janama

    The University of East Anglia is rated 28th in the list of 30 UK Universities.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankings_of_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      No it is 28/115 which is about where you would expect it to be for its type (basically institutional age plus geography predicts ranking in the UK)

      http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/UKHESector/Pages/OverviewSector.aspx

      The Times HES is also a good source of rankings of universities in different disciplines although you need to be a subscriber to see. Maybe someone can see where the Climate group ranks?

      My only experience with UEA is with their very good ecology, conservation and genetics people. Bloody flat out there.

      00

  • #

    I’m uncertain why Jones’ e-mail to me appears as “[[[unsent draft?]]]” as he did send it and I did receive it.

    I bent over backwards in my correspondence with him to get him to see why it looked bad, and was bad, for him to claim to have no responsibility to the public and, specifically, to make data unavailable because he didn’t like the person who was after it (Steve McIntyre).

    When he refused to cede even an inch, I grew frustrated and sent the following:

    As your funding comes largely from the United States Department of Energy, I thought you might want to familiarize yourself with its policy regarding climate change research:

    “Open sharing of all program data among researchers (and with the interested public) is critical to advancing the program’s mission … a copy of underlying data and a clear description of the method(s) of data analysis must be provided to any requester in a timely way … ”

    There is not only no mention of exceptions, or “academics-only” privileges, but specific insistence upon sharing with “all requesters.” Your argument that you are “not a public servant” is falsified.

    There is no need to discuss motives or anything of the kind.

    Jones was, at best, slippery in my correspondence with him.

    00

    • #

      I bent over backwards in my correspondence with him to get him to see why it looked bad, and was bad, for him to claim to have no responsibility to the public and, specifically, to make data unavailable because he didn’t like the person who was after it (Steve McIntyre).

      This is true and can be verified by reading email numbers 0109, 1338, and 1899 all from Aug 24 2009

      00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Two days now and yet to see an artcle in my local rag, The Cairns Post.

    I have yet to see any article on Climatgate 2.0 on any major MSM TV station.

    Are they walking around with their heads jammed up their ARS#$ !!

    Conspiracy me thinks, the media do not want to look like gullible fools.

    00

    • #

      Too late for that now…they do look like gullible fools…no, they ARE gullible fools

      00

    • #
      Madjak

      Yep. Dunno about a conspiracy – more like the fact that journalists don’t exist anymore and editors priorities are based on their budgets and the bottom line.

      I find it utterly disgusting how this stuff is sat on by the fat ones.

      qdos to the australian for touching on it though – a better response than last time.

      face it, most people who become reporters are the same creed as those who get into politics. Often a ba in fine arts is involved.

      But don’t worry, it’s these same sorts of people who make major financial decisions based on complex science whilst being advised by often washed out beurocrats who have even less of a clue.

      I find it really funny listening to these pinkos trying to report on economics. It’s like watching blackadder each night.

      00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Two days now and yet to see an artcle in my local rag…

    Whilst we read this latest release of emails and are dumbfounded at the level of self incrimination, methinks your have seen all the action from the MSM that you are going to get. They will ignore CG 2.0 and they will be successful.
    The latest release of email is not enough to blow the scam out of the water. We can only hope that there is something meatier in the encrypted zip and that it is released in the near future.
    Nothing short of joint secret discussions with the Russian mafia and National leaders will make it to page 2.

    00

  • #

    The University of East Anglia is rated 18th in the list of 30 UK Universities by the Grauniad, but it’s probably a typo.

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    If he sees himself as being above uk foi laws and nota public servant, I would’ve thouht there was a really simple solution.

    The UK govt should cut all funding to the UEA.

    Other goverments who really believe in transparency when spending public money should do the same.

    00

  • #
  • #
    KeithH

    Phil Jones was pushing the “not a public servant” line as early as August 2001 when he attempted to use bluster to bully the late great John L Daly but came off second best. The disgraceful comment on John’s later death as revealed in Climategate 1 revealed the true mean character of Phil Jones!

    From one email exchange between the two men in 2001 which John analysed and answered line for line! A classic on how to put down a bully and stop him in his tracks in my view!

    Phil Jones wrote:

    Also John, remove what you have on your web site about the CRU cock-up. All is now sorted. No data manipulation has occurred. No numbers have been altered, just a small piece of code in a program that extracts my files.

    JD: I never said there had been manipulation. The error was minor and one any of us could make and do make. What was major was CRU’s inability to see it for 2 weeks or so. Numbers *have* been altered. I have the files to prove it. The alterations were not to the monthly averages (as I pointed out), but to the 2001 hemispheric averages – “just a small piece of code” maybe, then again most of your numbers could be described that way.

    PJ: I find it amazing and deplorable that you have posted a personal email from me.

    JD: It was not a personal email. There were other recipients, including someone at the British Met Office, none of whom I know personally or had any dealings with. You also made a veiled accusation against me in that email. That makes it public domain since any of those recipients could have sent the email on to others. I only treat one-on-one emails as confidential and personal.

    PJ: I never gave you permission to do this. Remove it immediately.

    JD: You don’t give orders – not outside CRU anyway. An email to multiple recipients does not require permission for reproduction.

    PJ: By the way there aren’t 40 people in CRU – there are just 15 on the research staff.

    JD: It’s your website, not mine. You sport 40-odd people in your staff photo and staff list. The error I highlighted could have been spotted by even the most junior staff. Perhaps you should check your website more often, not just the data part.

    PJ: All the others are students or support staff. At the moment because it is August there are only 7 of the 15 here and the web manager is away.

    JD: Which is another way of saying CRU is not up to the job any more if you are understaffed?

    PJ: Also we are not a public body. I suppose the University might be classed as one, but we are under no obligation to our funding bodies to put the data on our web site.

    JD: Since CRU’s data is given a lot of credibility (unjustified in my view) by the IPCC and some governments, you *are* a public body knee-deep in the GW controversy, and your university affiliation makes CRU definitely a public body. If you get involved in public affairs, you become accountable to the wider public and open to adverse criticism when your work falls short. Since many sceptics have to deal with accusations of funding, it would be interesting to know who exactly is funding CRU if it is not the taxpayer.

    PJ: So, this is all a storm in a teacup. A complete waste of your time. Also get back to discussing something useful.

    JD: The storm is coming mostly from you. And my time is mine to waste. Quality control, or lack of, is a serious matter when the data thus produced is used to shape public policy affecting billions of people.

    John Daly

    http://www.john-daly.com/cru/emails.htm

    00

    • #
      Bush bunny

      Keith spot on? Listening MattB. In UK, the term is civil servant. In Australia, public servant, one who works for the government and is paid by the civil or public service organisation. Like the departments of clean and green energy, and the climate change department and commission.

      Their job is to carry out the dictates as set down by the civil or public service act. One is if they disagree with anything they are doing they must not give any media interviews etc. One also signs the security paper (Official Secrets Act)that you won’t divulge or comment publically on anything to do with your appointment.

      00

      • #
        MattB

        And certainly in academia one is free to speak one’s mind regardless of government policy. One important factor is whether or not your boss is, or reports to, a Minister. University staff are NOT within the ministerial system. They are not civil/public servants.

        00

        • #
          wes george

          Obviously, MattB’s only experience with academia was once being a bus boy at the student union cafeteria.

          Otherwise he’d know that while technically “in academia one is free to speak one’s mind regardless of government policy,” there are extremely uncomfortable consequence for doing so, should one’s mind speak not concur with the dominant doublespeak.

          So brutally enforced is the groupthink in modern academia that there is literally no dissenting opinion in many departments over what are wide ranging and highly contentious debates elsewhere in our society. Whole intellectual positions invisibly pass unrepresented at our universities as if they simply do not exist. Cognitive selective blindness is the most common untreated ailment of academics in the West (after flatulence, that is.) Interestingly, the same disease is epidemic at our ABC.

          It’s one of the great deceptions of our time is that our universities are bastions of free and rational inquiry. Many departments much more resemble Soviet Potemkin villages where all dissenting opinion was long ago purged starting from the bottom with the grad student selection process right up to awarding tenure and professorships. That’s why so many of the leading lights of the skeptics are emeritus or work outside the university system.

          Oh, and btw, the common meaning of public servant is a government official. Jones can claim he’s not beholden to the public, but since he’s paid with tax-payer raised funds right down to the tax-payer owned computer systems he uses. All his research, code, datasets, paperclips and work emails belong to us. He has no right to privacy in his research work capacity.

          Long live the liberator of the Climategate emails! Finally some real climate justice!

          00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    I thought the USDOE was going to sue the UEA over misappropriation of funds some time ago or they had the lawyers out on the case?

    00

  • #
    pat

    check the graphic at the end of this piece to see how Goldman Sachs is virtually running the EU:

    19 Nov: Zerohedge: The Complete And Annotated Guide To The European Bank Run (Or The Final Phase Of Goldman’s World Domination Plan)
    Masters of the Eurozone
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/complete-and-annotated-guide-european-bank-run

    00

  • #

    What the!

    Have I somehow woken up in a parallel Universe or something?

    Where does the ABC get off allowing this to be Posted at their own site?

    Global warming rate could be less than feared

    Talk about covering your fundament.

    Tony.

    00

    • #
      KeithH

      Tony. I thought the same thing till I read it through.
      They’d just forgotten to add “but it’s still going to be terrible” which the rest of the article goes on to say.

      “The authors of the study stress that global warming is real, and that increases in atmospheric CO2, which has doubled from pre-industrial standards, will have multiple serious impacts.”

      Sadly, “our ABC” leopard does not change its spots!

      00

  • #
    pat

    jo,
    you might want to follow this up. still believing, but:

    25 Nov: ABC: Global warming rate could be less than feared
    By Science Online’s Genelle Weule, wires (AFP)
    High levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have less of an impact on the rate of global warming than feared, a new study suggests…
    But more severe estimates that predict temperatures could rise up to an average of 10 degrees Celsius are unlikely, the researchers report in the journal Science…
    The new study suggests temperatures will rise on average 2.3 degrees under the same conditions.
    “When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last ice age 21,000 years ago – which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum – and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture,” said lead author Andreas Schmittner, from Oregon State University…
    Associate Professor Schmittner notes that many previous studies only looked at periods spanning from 1850 to today, thus not taking into account a fully integrated palaeoclimate data on a global scale…
    Professor Colin Prentice from Macquarie University says he is not surprised by the results.
    Professor Prentice, who was not involved in the study, says the new paper is based on a careful compilation of data and addresses an issue that is “absolutely central”.
    “What it means is we can be a bit more sure about the sort of range of temperature changes that will result from the given change in the amount of fossil fuel and CO2 and other greenhouse gases,” he said.
    “The key point is that there has been ongoing buzz about the possibility that the climate sensitivity may be way, way higher than in mainstream climate models.
    “So for very technical reasons with data just from contemporary observations and observations from the recent historical period, you just haven’t got enough information to really rule out those numbers.
    “What [this study] has shown is that those very high values are ruled out…
    The study was funded by the National Science Foundation.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-25/global-warming-rate-could-be-less-than-feared/3694896/?site=melbourne

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Whether Jones is a civil/public servant will have some ramifications for what processes his employment is subject to but there is a wider issue; that of ethics.

    There are 2 dimensions to the ethics standards by which Jones should be judged; one is the scientific standard of ethics which has been enunciated by Feynman, Popper and Einstein; that is:

    The exception proves that the rule is wrong. That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.

    This principle necessitates transparency and objectivity to be effective; Jones has deliberately avoided both these standards and has, therefore, been scientifically unethical.

    The other standard of ethics is a legal one which attaches to anyone who holds themselves out to be an expert; Jones and his fellow travellers have held themselves out to be experts; they have publically declared a degree of finality in the evidence for AGW which has sustained considerable world-wide policy. Privately their position has been contradictory to that public image; privately they have conceded great uncertainty with that evidence. The position for Jones, therefore, is he has used his experise to publically misrepresent the evidence for AGW. People have acted on his public misrepresentations to their detriment and expense. The situation would seem to be ripe for litigation:

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/11/jo-nova-blog-science-is-out-on-whether.html

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Power corrupts… and this cabal of scientists certainly has been in a position of enormous power… to influence the nature of the climate science reported on by the IPCC. Unfortunately, its work has clearly been biased, it has certainly not been objective and it definitely lacks integrity.

    But don’t worry… that’s ideal stuff governments love for formulating ‘good’ climate change policy… like the insane carbon tax in Australia… and the insane ETS in the EU and NZ.

    Interestingly, now that all this s _ _ t is coming to the fore, notice how the so called consensus of scientists appears to be non-existent. Where is it to defend these swines?

    00

  • #
    Rich

    Emails released in ClimateGate II that show he deletes emails – ironic. 816 of the new crop of emails are from Phil Jones. Second is Keith Briffa at 378. So Phil’s the real star of Climategate 2 despite his best efforts.

    00

  • #
    David

    What a cracking exchange between John L Daly and Phil Jones – no question whatsoever Phil Jones came off second best..!
    Clearly Phil Jones IS a public servant, however you choose to define it – unless of course he is suggesting that the University of East Anglia is a limited company, with shareholders, records at Companies House, etc…

    00

  • #
    dearieme

    Jones may be several sorts of arsehole, but on this point he is right. In many countries – e.g. on the Continent – academics are “civil servants”, to use the British expression, or “public servants” to use the American equivalent. In Britain they are not – they are employees of their University, not of a State or National government. The point is simple, and lots of anger at Jones’s antics won’t alter the fact that on this point he’s right.

    00

  • #
    Hasbeen

    Dearirme, it really doesn’t matter what semantics you use, or how you twist & turn your words, if you are paid by the public, [the tax payer] you are a public servant.

    It doesn’t take much contact with academics, or reading the emails of “climate scientists” to see how they hate to think of them selves that way, they do like to feel superior, but the fact is that if we pay them they are our servant, or should be.

    We do need to clear out these towers of privilege that universities have become, & start again.

    Starting with 5 year contracts, followed by a required year in private enterprise may bring these arrogant fools back under control.

    00

  • #
    RCS

    In any decent university Jones would have been sacked. Instead he’s been made “Director of Reserach”.

    The effect of the CRU on the reputation on UK science makes me cringe.

    00

  • #
    david

    I can’t believe how bad their spelling and grammar is… it’s borderline illiterate.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Joe V.

    Will Durban finally be the event, that drives a stake through the heart of this vicious beast ?

    00

  • #
    dearieme

    “Dearirme, it really doesn’t matter what semantics you use, or how you twist & turn your words” – don’t be such a bloody fool. His status is determined by his contract of employment and by the status of his employer. He ain’t a civil servant: your asserting the contrary is on a par with the sort of rubbish he publishes. Grow up.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I want to share something I came across in the “documents” file of the FOIA2011 release. (simply titled africa.doc)

    This is a draft document for a special IPCC report titled “The Regional Impacts of Climate Change” and it focuses on Africa.

    Here is a section cut n pasted from the above link..

    Several comprehensive descriptions of the climates of Africa exist, most notably those of Thomson (1965) and Griffiths (1972). Surveys of African rainfall have been carried out by Newell et al. (1972), Kraus (1977), Klaus (1978), Tyson (1986), and Nicholson (1994b). These researchers agree that summer rainfall maxima, which are dominant over most of Africa, are controlled primarily by the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). Over land, the ITCZ tends to follow the seasonal march of the sun and oscillates between the fringes of the Sahara in boreal summer and the northern Kalahari desert in the austral summer. The latitude zones of these arid and semi-arid deserts demarcate the tropics from the subtropics. Rainfall in the subtropics is modulated by mid-latitude storms, which may be displaced Equator-ward in winter. Further modification of these broad patterns is provided by natural features such as lakes and mountains, and by the influence of ocean currents. The poleward extremes of the continent have extratropical influences associated with mid-latitude synoptic disturbances, resulting in significant winter rainfall (Griffiths, 1972).

    Anyone reading the above would come away with a conclusion that we have a comprehensive description of the African climate, and that several notable experts agree.

    However, from the FOIA2011 documents file, we get a glimpse into the ‘editing’ that takes place.
    Below is a long paragraph, written by the contributing authors, but deleted by an editor. (my bolding)

    A complete analysis of the climate, hence climatology, of Africa is difficult to achieve due to several factors. Historically, except from the mediterranean belt and Eastern and Southern Africa, where scientific weather observations have longer and relatively consistent and homogeneous records, most meteorological stations on the continent emerged during and after the Second World War (Thomson, 1965). Despite this increase in the number of stations, the network was designed primarily for aviation purposes with little regard to agriculture and other specialised sectors. In addition, vast areas are remote, inhabitable, lack suitable accommodation, water and food for observers, close at night due to poor communications and finance of staff. Due to limited national financial resources, more often than not, the location of a weather station was determined by the existence of radio and other telecommunication facilities. Consequently, the data bases have remained relatively small and their quality highly questionable, to enable necessary climatological descriptions, on a geographical basis, to be made especially in, monitoring the climatic variability, defining the fringes of semi-arid regions bordering deserts for addressing the issue of desertification, (WMO, 1993). Direct and indirect remote sensing (radar and satellite) data are not commonly used in most of the continent, because of the prohibitive cost of the equipment.

    Anyone reading the above would come away with a conclusion that we just don’t have enough knowledge about the African Climate.

    Who would change such an important message of a special IPCC report?

    The editor of the above was one Richard H Moss, who deleted the above paragraph on 9/7/1997 at 10:32pm

    Who is Richard H Moss? a google of his name reveals the following ugly truth.

    About Richard Moss: (boldings mine)

    Meet Richard

    Richard has a passion for the environment that began long before he joined WWF. From turning his mother’s kitchen into an environmental research lab as a teen to being a member of the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) team, Richard brings over 20 years of experience to WWF. Richard is at the forefront of WWF’s efforts to develop conservation plans that account for our changing climate and contribute to rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. He ensures that the best science and information is used in WWF’s planning, and that solutions to climate change are a global priority.

    So here we have a WWF activist, working for the “Gold Standard of Climate science” the IPCC, who is supposed to “ensures that the best science and information is used” but in fact deletes inconvenient facts that might water down “The Message” that this activist wishes to promote.

    I wonder, as some of you may, how would it be if “activists” working for the fossil fuel industry had had of infiltrated the IPCC and had written/edited much of its reports?

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Baa, I think you should ask Jo to make this part of a separate post. It is VERY interesting to me and it would be lost here at the end of an old thread.

      Good for you.

      00

    • #
      wes george

      That’s very interesting, Baa Humbug. Why are environment activists working for the IPPC ? Are there other examples of possible conflict of interest?

      However, Richard Moss actually ameliorated the wrong impression given by original paragraph. It’s true the climatology, especially the record of climate in Africa is weak to non-existent. So this isn’t an example of an activist tweaking a perception to be amenable to the AGW hypothesis. In fact, over at Climate Audit, they have long fretted that the climate data is so thin over vast swaths of the global, particularly in Africa, that the margins of error in modelling could be very large and no one would notice. Uncertainty about Africa weakens certainty about AGW.

      So what you have uncovered is evidence that an IPPC member that also works for the WWF is competent, well-informed and capable of editing IPPC documents WITHOUT inserting evangelical bias.

      00

      • #

        There are many many examples Wes.

        Donna Laframboise of Noconsesus dot com has pages and pages of it plus she wrote a book recently (just 5 bucks for kindle or pdf download) detailing much of the conflicts.

        00

      • #

        Wes I think it’s great that different people can read the same thing but come to different conclusions.

        If this wasn’t the case, we could all call ourselves “The Borg”.

        The key thing for me is that if a report is to be prepared for policy makers, that report must; be impartial, unbiassed and stick to the cold hard facts. There is no room for activists of any kind.

        00

    • #
      MattB

      But if you bolded “before” rather than “he joined WWF” it would suggest he has joined WWF since winning his Nobel prize?

      00

      • #

        Do you reckon I might have thought people wouldn’t read the word ‘before’ because I didn’t highlight it?
        The highlight is the fact that he joined WWF. but if it’ll make you happy, I ask the mods to also highlight the word ‘before’.

        can you see how offensive your comments can be Matt? Your premise is that I am so stupid that i think people wouldn’t notice the word ‘before’.

        00

        • #
          MattB

          No offence intended, but I do think it makes a difference to your angle if he joined WWF only recently, rather than habing been a WWF stooge in the IPCC. It would certainly make a difference to how some may read it and parrot it on the internet.

          00

  • #
    Alan Grey

    Wow…everyone has missed it completely…

    Clearly, Phil Jones is not a public servant. He has not been serving the public at all with his work, only gilding his own nest.

    00

  • #
    Bob Roberts

    I think the most tragic thing, and I suppose many are really thrilled but it really is tragic, is that so many people one would expect to be intelligent so obviously were not. How on Earth did they think that work they knew was fraudulent pretty much from the start, through and through, would not eventually be revealed as such?

    This also puts those who said, “Nothing to see here” after the first release in a terrible light. No amount of whitewash will be enough.

    Now, perhaps, we can get the politics OUT of science and stop all the chicken-little nonsense about how if we don’t immediately go back to the stone age it will be too late?

    Somehow, I doubt it. Some people NEVER LEARN!

    So, they’re still calling Jones a professor? Why, and for how long? Same question RE Mann and the others involved. When will those up the chain realize it is finally time to admit the truth and cut their losses?

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    Good bit of quote mining there Jo. Here’s another one;

    Keith Briffa

    picture of the unprecedented warming over the last millennium or so

    The (Snipped the D name calling word) managed to fool the public with Climategate 1.0, and two years later, the public are still waiting for this so-called “conspiracy”.

    CTS

    00