Nobody deleted their emails.
What rock have you been under DCraig?
That's what the whole CRU leaked email scandal is about.
Phil Jones allegedly stated:
"Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
Jones admits he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre – or anyone:
And then this alleged email:
Ben,
Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails - unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.
Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!
And:
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil:
And: On the subject of being either a "good" scientist or a "good" hypothecist:
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil
Maybe Phil Jones is confusing “science” with “hypothesis”. maybe you are a disciple of the high priest Jones, DCraig!
He stood down voluntarily.
Of course ... like he had a choice.
The Times reports that it is unlikely he will resume his position.
Rubbish. There is no reference to destroying data.
Please see above.
Here is an excerpt from a press release from UEA. It makes perfectly clear that some of the data is owned by NMSs and the rest (95%) has been available for years and frivolous FOI orders were never required to obtain it.
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.
The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.
The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).
“We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.
The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.
“CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.
Never in dispute, though anything the CRU releases to the press must now be suspect, coming under the heading of "damage control".
What David Holland wanted to know was: What specific data did Jones and CRU rely on for their submission to the IPCC? Jones had allegedly curve-fitted the data, and this is why he (Jones) refused the FOI request - an illegal act, and he knew it. Bye Bye Phil.
What I want to know is where is the conspiracy? On the other hand, the witch hunt is very easy to spot.
The "conspiracy" is not the usual paranoid type, DCraig, unless you are playing silly now.
The conspiracy is that Phil Jones wanted to cover something up. He was the chief scientist in charge of the submission to the IPCC. That is not disputed. That is why he stood aside. He made an error of professional judgement, and is paying for that now.
Science is transparent. Phil Jones was (allegedly) opaque and obtuse, arrogant and condescending, contemptuous of lesser beings, and attempting to unfairly dominate the science with the hypothesis, instead of vice versa. Quite unprofessional, according to his peers.
Yes, and I have a BSc in Physics (UQ) so what?
Are you a complete tool, DCraig? Don't you have any respect for science. I find your utterance regarding your lack of respect for your basic degree incomprehensible, in a sense. If, as you say you have a B.Sc. then the "so what" should be obvious to you.
It isn't.
On one hand you love to quote your fav Google University transcripts to prove a point, and can quote chapter and verse what the pro-climatologists have put into print. On the other hand, you show complete misunderstanding of the process, and the struggle these climatologists have in interpreting the data, and the tenuous position they find themselves in now, regarding the veracity of the conclusions.
It is correct to be a doubter ... to be Devil's Advocate.
But when you are arguing with a mule, why, sir, the only thing he understands is the stick.
You, sir/madam, are a mule, in any/every sense of the word. You are carrying a load for people you do not know, and of the load itself, you appear to understand little.
Just listen to the statements from respected climatologists. They are NOWHERE near as convinced as you seem to be about this. If there is any consensus it would be this: "The jury is either hung, or it is still out."
What scientists are trying to tell us is that humans MAY be influencing climate - they are just not sure to what extent, what are the risks, how quickly this will occur if at all.
The politicians seize on the "science."
The economists seize on the "science."
Yet the scientists themselves have not taken the closed positions they are credited with.
That is my issue with you, DCraig.
Had you understood the perspective of a scientist/climatologist, you would not support the dogma fanatically. You would still be in the camp of those questioning, searching, enquiring. Your ego (and mine) would be invisible. Instead, we would be having a mature debate about what, if any influence humans are having on the climate, today and forward.
It seems less likely every day that AGW is real. The data do not stack up. But if the planet is indeed warming, then we have to look elsewhere. It is clear that the whole argument is based on the production by humans of CO2. But my studies have shown that CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse emission. Water in the atmosphere has an absolutely HUGE effect. Methane ... ditto. Sulphur ... ditto. And contrary to belief, Ozone has now been found to
protect from any solar heating effect! Surprise! How many years did we hear about the Ozone layer and the end of the world as the sky falls on us?
We can't do anything about that now.
What can we do?
We CAN do something about poverty, and about rampant population increases.
And we CAN cut down on our use of fossil fuels - perhaps reconsider the nuclear card?
And we CAN clean up the planet.
Here's a quote I found that sums it up nicely:
There is no better way to destroy the environment than to have humans living in poverty. People in poverty care little for the environment. Arguments to the contrary are not sound. Taxing CO2 emissions will lead to lower economic growth and more poverty. Government's "green economy" is artificial, planned, and will fail in the way all government planned economies have always failed, and thereby increase poverty and harm the economy.
Instead of fearing CO2, spend your energies fearing the danger of poverty. Work to overcome poverty. Study how to do so first. Overcoming poverty requires creating wealth. So go create some wealth. Create the wealth. Don't steal it, transfer it, or borrow it from the future. Don't pollute when you create the wealth. But CO2 isn't pollution, but rather a beneficial product of the burning of fossil fuels.
Now, SULFUR is a whole different issue. It may be much more reasonable to try to limit sulfur emissions. At least sulfur controls are worth debating. CO2 controls are a foolish, misguided notion.
I like that!
