The Science and Public Policy Institute
a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry.The new site is also a good source for both background and breaking information regarding the emerging scandal suggesting global warming and climate change data manipulation at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
The site hosts and experts include, among several other notable experts, President, Robert Ferguson, Chief Science advisor, Willie Soon PhD, and Chief Policy Advisor, Lord Monckton of the UK.
Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brechley, and Prof. Fred Singer, were among a number of distinguished individuals who were personally named and attacked in a series of e-mail exchanges and other data, including e-mails dating from back in early March of 1996, and running up through November 12, 2009, all of which were contained in the recent dump on the internet of exposed communications e-mails to and from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Monckton and Singer have now both formally requested that consideration be given by the UK Information Commissioner to criminal charges being filed against various individuals within that small cabal of scientists at the CRU, and others involved in possible violations of Britain's Freedom Of Information Laws. The UK Information Commissioner has enforcement jurisdiction over their FOI laws.
In an interview with James Corbett of Corbett Report.com, Lord Monckton discusses that request, as well as his views regarding the impact of the exposure of the data and e-mails from the CRU at East Anglia, here:
Meanwhile, a real bombshell article authored by Jonathan Leake, and just published in the (London) Sunday "TimesOnLine," entitled "Climate change data dumped," has proved to be the latest damning information released regarding the goings on within the CRU, especially since it came right on the heels of Robert Mendick’s story — "Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row" — that appeared the night before in the Telegraph, saying that climate scientists at East Anglia University would be fully complying with FOI requests that had been pressed by many over a period of years.
According to the lead of the Times story:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
And yet from that Telegraph article:
In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.
A human interest element in the Telegraph story highlighted the experience of one man, an English mechanical engineer named David Holland, who, claiming 40 years of experience, had apparently filed a few FOI requests regarding the climate change data over time. Holland apparently also discovered his name and requests mentioned in an unflattering context among those recently "released" internal e-mails of the CRU.
What clearly seemed like an odd juxtaposition of those two nearly simultaneous stories, of course, was that they created a sort of contradictory scenario with respect to the credibility of the CRU, almost as if to say, "Okay. We agree to release all the data . . . And, by the way, there isn’t any!"
Labels: climate change data scandal, Climate Research Unit (CRU), FOI, Fred Singer, Lord Monckton, University of East Anglia
posted by Trochilus @ 11/30/2009 06:36:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Crickets, I think I hear crickets.
http://mediamatters.org/
Maybe because NO ONE believes you!
Got Kids
Sure, Got Kids.
Maybe it was an echo from the same crickets you hear on election day. What was your last comment? "May the best man win," as I recall?
He did.
And, with respect to the settled science folks, I'm sure that the reason Phil Jones has now stepped down from the CRU at East Anglia is because there was nothing to it as well, eh?
Read the e-mails! He was openly encouraging people to engage in criminal fraud!
Michael "Dirty Laundry" Mann, and his phony "hockey stick" should be next. We'll see.
But the fact is that Steve McIntyre buried the hockey stick earlier this fall -- even before the e-mails we're revealed saying that they had to get around the pesky Medieval Warm Period, or that they had used a 20th Century "trick" with respect to the temperature record.
Mann and the cabal have been deliberately stonewalling McIntyre for years.
Science requires real integrity, Got Kids, not mindless adherence to a left wing political agenda. Those two things, it seems, are mutually exclusive.
Alright Troch,
I did say "may the best man win" and I meant it. I must admit Christie has shown some promise. Though Corzines' accomplishemnts seem to have gained more media traction AFTER the election than during the campaign. Go figure.
And yes I will burn some midnight oil tonight reviewing these claims. I would love for you to be right and we could all forget the global warming issue. Nothing would make me happier than to be able to tell my kids that global warming is a hoax. That I don't have to worry about seeing my Grandkids inherit a vastly different planet than the one my Grandpa fought for me to have. As someone once said to us, I hope Troch is right and pray Kids is wrong.
Best regards to you and yours for the holidays.
Got Kids
Well that didn't take long.
From the Univ of East Anglia website:
Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit. Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.
“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.
So, Phil Jones steps aside during a review, the results of which will be made public, but you would have us believe he has stepped down/resigned in disgrace. Admittadly I have much more work to do Troch but so far this is not looking good for you.
As for the SSPI this sounds painfully like your use of Powerline to provide objective clean energy commentary. Gotta go help the kids with their homework.
Believe their spin if you wish, Got Kids.
One thing should be pretty obvious, however. By already prejudging portions of the outcome -- as was laid out in the defensive PR comments you cited --any neutral observer would begin to suspect that a white wash might well be on the way.
If there was really going to be an objective review, the University would have brought in someone with really good credentials to conduct an independent investigation, not an internal review. And they would make it clear on the record that in no way would any internal interference or attempt to influence that investigation be tolerated. And, further, they would also put it in writing that all members of the CRU community would be expected to fully cooperate with the investigation.
Instead, their statement reeks of denial.
As for your suggestion that this doesn't look good for me -- all I can ask is, what in the world are you talking about? This is not about me. It is about a cabal of scientists whose own words strongly suggest that by their actions (including code manipulation, and fraudulently encouraging the destruction of documents subject to legitimate FOI requests)) and inactions (including improperly withholding data from lawful FOI requests) that they are now, or may have been canting the results of their research, and thereby pressing a political agenda -- one from which they stand to make a great deal of money, by the way.
Got Kids,
If you'd like a little background reading material so you don't appear hopelessly out of touch when you post your comments here, try this article which posits the general view that NASA has been just as recalcitrant in complying with FOI requests as has UEA-CRU.
From the Washington Times story by Stephen Dinan entitled, "Researcher: NASA hiding climate data."
The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
. . .
Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center which runs the GISS laboratory, said they are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.
. . . .
We can all agree or disagree about what the science shows, but it is a violation of the law to simply refuse to comply with a FOI request.
And who knows, GK. Perhaps one of these days, one of the major networks will read about this scandal and actually do a report on it. Of course, GE is so heavily invested in the outcome of cap and trade that NBC will likely continue to ignore the story. But wouldn't you think Charlie Gibson would want to avoid the embarrassment of twice in so many months expressing utter ignorance over a major breaking scandal story, by simply pretending it does not exist?
You did read about the folks from ACORN, didn't you GK?
Post a Comment
<< Home