The Global Warming Conspiracy - Damage Control
bo^n-o
Call in an independent investigator!
November 25 2009
Now for the explanations. The University of East Anglia has released
statements from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research,
Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, and from the CRU,
from which the leaked emails of the warming conspiracy were stolen. And they
are a disgrace.
The money quotes.
Davies:
***"The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a
sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been
designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent
action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to,
climate change."
No admission of the fact that this "vexatious campaign" has so far resulted
in the debunking, for instance, of two infamous "hockey sticks" and the
correction of the entire climate record for the US.
And this denial of allegations of possibly criminal destruction of material
under FOI request:
***"No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any
fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of
the requested information. "
That's a denial which seems strongly at odds with the suggestions in the
emails themselves, and it's made before the University has actually done the
full check it now promises:
***"an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information
requests"
Nor is there mention of the repeated emails discussing ways to thwart the
disclosure of data, censor sceptical scientists, pay grants into private
bank accounts to avoid tax, hide flaws in the work of CRU deputy director
Keith Briffa and cheat on deadlines to sneak pro-warmist material into the
IPCC. Not a word.
This seems another case of what the emails so clearly exposed - mutual
self-protection league of scientists determined to reject even well-founded
criticism or scrutiny.
Call in an independent investigator.
As for Jones:
First the messianic hype:
***"we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this
planet"
Then this blithe assurance - from a man who sees no debate and acknowledges
no sceptic, and seems not to have read all the emails, either:
***"The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to
manipulate them."
If so, why do it?
***"We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately
and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner."
But where's the explanation for the emails from Jones himself urging
colleagues to delete material, and saying he'd rather delete data than hand
it over to an FOI request?
Where's the defence against the other revelations - of bullying, censoring
sceptics, driving sceptics from science magazines, keeping data from the
IPCC, refusing to publicly admit to private doubts and the rest?
Again, not a word.
The CRU:
***"A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and
misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present
an unrealistic picture of global warming. This conclusion is entirely
unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with
independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world."
The CRU cites in particular its HadCRU data measuring world temperatures,
which was not actually the primary focus of interest in the leaked
documents. The Briffa tree-sample "hockey stick" and the cover-up of its
flaws was far more damning - but that is not even discussed by CRU.
***"My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read
well."
But those emails are precisely the ones we need answers for.
Why is none given?
***"The IPCC in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded
that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal. "
Yes, we've heard that before.
But please explain the emails in which IPCC authors privately confess they
are frustrated by - and cannot explain - the fact that the world has
actually cooled this decade?
This, believe it or not, is the only reference to what was extensively
discussed in the emails - the dodgy use of data by CRU deputy director Keith
Briffa to compile his now discredit Yamal tree-ring graph:
***"CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily
for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such
as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar
temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups
around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for
temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature
change shown by the instrumental data. "
Yes, that's it.
No mention of Briffa.
No mention that he used an astonishingly small sample to produce "proof" of
warming, ignoring a much bigger sample which indicated cooling.
No mention of the attempt by Michael Mann to deceive a journalist about the
flaws.
No mention of the conspiring to produce public solidarity by the scientists
in response to the flaws exposed by the Climate Audit blog.
No mention of the email expressing surprise that Science even published the
work.
No mention of the emails in which private admissions of its sloppiness were
expressed at the same time that the work was defended publicly.
The only explanation of any substance is of the email in which Jones said he'd
"hide the decline" in temperatures indicated by tree rings:
***"The use of the term 'hiding the decline' was in an email written in
haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a
number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of,
this recent tree-ring decline..."
Steve McIntyre shows why he doubts that explanation.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810
And where is the defence of the many other references in the emails to
hiding evidence of recent cooling, changing data to match our records and
the rest?
This is a scandal that needs full and public examination, involving
independent experts - by people completely outside the Jones clique.
This whitewash will not do.
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Surfer
>
>
>Call in an independent investigator!
>
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html#cnnSTCText
<Start extract>
"....Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently
confirm what proportion of this material is genuine."
<snip>
The stolen cache includes more than 1,000 e-mails and more than 3,000
documents, some containing code. They were posted anonymously to an
FTP server in Russia.
<End extract>
george
> "....Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently
> confirm what proportion of this material is genuine."
There is just to much that matches for this to be some sort of fraud.
These 'scientists' have been caught in concerted collusion to retain
and increase funding for a nonexistant condition.
Stick around for 40 years and see what hasn't happened.