February 26, 2010 
Here’s the webpage hosting the “memoranda” submitted to the committee. I think it would be a good idea to review the contents of the memoranda, don’t you? Let’s pick a few and review the content.
Here, for example, is one from Steve McIntyre, in which he comes right out and states it — the CRU deliberately and arbitrarily adjusted, ‘bodged’, deleted, manipulated, cherry picked and withheld data:
Summary
1. Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been an highly visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly “independent” of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment (“bodging“), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data. The problem is deeply rooted in the sense that some forms of data manipulation and withholding are so embedded that the practitioners and peer reviewers in the specialty seem either to no longer notice or are unoffended by the practices. Specialists have fiercely resisted efforts by outside statisticians questioning these practices – the resistance being evident in the Climategate letters. These letters are rich in detail of individual incidents. My submission today will not comment on these individual incidents (some of which I’ve commented on already at Climate Audit), but to try to place the incidents into context and show why they matter to the research record. I will not comment in this submission on CRUTEM issues only for space reasons.[my emphasis]
You can read the rest of the submission for yourself, but what really made me throw up in my mouth laugh was this:
“The Climategate Letters are replete with examples of unprofessional language, which on occasion rises to defamation”
There’s a pot and kettle situation if there ever was one.
Here’s where McI’s chorus is so important — he starts a smear and then his chorus finishes it so that he appears lily white, just an honest skeptic, doing what he does in good faith.
The whining is so pathetic it makes me throw up in my own mouth sick.
As to the content of his submission, nothing none of us who have been there haven’t seen before.
Mosher’s submission, by the way, sounded actually quite reasonable, considering what he writes on various websites. My only cringe-worthy moment was this:
“On my view Global warming is a potential threat to our planet and consequently the evidence in support of global warming and the software analyzing that data should be of the highest quality. During the course of 2007 to 2009 the papers I had read and the limited data I had reviewed gave me reason to doubt the accuracy of underlying data, the robustness of the calculations described in papers, and the reliability of the results.”
He’s so concerned about global warming that he’s taking part in its discrediting – actually reveling in it. Making money off it now.
Here’s another laugh:
In July of 2009 I was witness to a series of FOIA requests made by Steve McIntyre and others requesting the underlying data of the global temperature index . In addition I myself sent in an FOIA request to CRU. That request asked to see the confidentiality agreements that CRU had made contradictory claims about.[my emphasis]
If you actually go to the CRU FOI thread, you can see he practically orchestrates it and the near-manic nature of his participation on that thread. Below are copies of his posts on that thread showing he was clearly more than a mere witness.
steven mosher
Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 12:56 PM | Permalink | ReplyPost of those remaining.
After you FOI, copy this list. Remove those you requested and repost.
AJ AZERBAIJAN
AL ALBANIA
AM ARMENIA
AN ANDORRA~~~
Just did these
NIGERIA,NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, NEPAL,NAURU
~~~
Re 22. Chris I added some additional requests.
1. A copy of policies and procedures covering employee responsibilities entering into confidentiality agreements.
2. A copy of policies and procedures covering employee responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements.
3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into verbal agreements.
4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests.~~~
Easier way to do this steve. Below Find a list of countries NOT REQUESTED YET.
1. Select 5.
2. Send your mail.
3. Post a NEW LIST of countries not requested removing the 5 you requestedACORES
~~~
Ok PP thanks.
1. Select 5.
2. Send your mail.
3. Post a NEW LIST of countries not requested removing the 5 you requestedCountries LEFT to Request
ACORES
ALBANIA~~~
Updated after dan white.
1. Select 5.
2. Send your mail.
3. Post a NEW LIST of countries not requested removing the 5 you requested
Countries LEFT to RequestARGENTINA
~~~
Re 55 Sorry Steve has rectified things.
Come on everybody we are over halfway done.
~~~
Tidy List of countries remaining after Joe Shill and Micheal Jennings
1. Pick 5.
2. Delete from List
3. Post list
4. Send FOI~~~
RE 106. I left notes on AW site yesterday and lucia site as well.
~~~
Tidy List of countries remaining after #110 observation
~~~
Thanks. Sarah.
That leaves:
COSTA RICA
COTE D’IVOIRE~~~
Tidy List after 135.
HUNGARY
JAMAICA
MADAGASCAR
MALAWILast 4.
~~~
good job everybody!
~~~
So, his participation is more than just as a witness — he was a key coordinator and cheerleader, helping to organize the multiple requests, which were clearly meant to harass the CRU.
On the Met Office FOI thread, he’s seen giving advice on how to proceed:
SM,
you have, I assume, the listing of stations from CRU. You also have a listing of stations from GISS and others who release their data. I suppose a cross check of those could be helpful in determining which countries ( if any) and which meterological organizations, if any, would have put a restriction on Jones ( if at all). If one could make a stab at which organizations ( again if any) have required confidentiality with Jone, then one could inquire with them.
Also, Think of this. Jones continues to get get data from these sources. It would seem a reasonable request for him to ask the CURRENT suppliers of data if they require confidentiality. In fact, Since he has lost his records it would see that one could demand that he or the organization he works for should be required to bring their records up to date~~~
Also think about pinning Jones down a bit. According to the MET Jones has informed them that the data is confidential and that he didnt keep records. You should probably FOI that statement. Also, usually with every request for documents I ever got I had to sign a statement stating that I made a diligent search. Failure to keep good records ( in my case ) could result in charges. So, folks should start to go after the communication with Jones about this matter.
What rules of due diligence is he subject to. Was he advised to make a complete search. Are there codes of conduct with regard to the keeping of records. has he supplied the data to others ( webster) FOI those communications. the cover up …
~~~
Bishop,
Can you post your requests so that others can follow suit. I recall when Steve did that a bunch of us took his request, made our own versions and got some results ( AR4 FOI).
This whole exercise was, in my opinion, one intended to harass the CRU and Met Office, NOAA and NASA and all the others for data they had no intention of doing more than find small errors so they could cast unwarranted doubt over the scientists, their motives and their findings.
The biggest joke is this:
This is an easy matter within the scientific community if the scientific method is followed. What follows is a series of recommendations which will allow the community of researchers to settle the questions associated with the series.
The “community of researchers’ — note how he’s including himself in this category. I love this redefinition of ‘scientific community’ to include the self-appointed auditors.
Hogwash.
I’m sure there’s more gems to be mined out of these submissions and I look forward to finding others.
The Policy Lass 
The University of East Anglia’s submission is getting attention here:
University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece
Susann, are you going to please provide some evidence of your own to counter this hogwash? Someone has to counter the spam.
Yes, McIntyre is lying if he states for the record that he was merely “a witness”. That is utter BS, and he knows it, someone needs to call him on it in the enquiry, and investigate his role is orchestrating vexatious FOIs. Thanks for looking into this, M&M are probably so delusional that they believe that they can get away with lying. Can criminal charges be filed for filing vexatious FOIs?
You mention above that “Making money off it now”. Could you please elaborate? If this is true, then it is big news and needs to be substantiated. Thanks.
MapleLeaf, the comment on making money was about Mosher, not McIntyre, although McI also has a tip jar on his blog and even if he only got a dollar from each ‘follower’ he’d be getting a tidy sum. None of us know who his funders are since he is ‘semi-retired’ and has his blog. Mosher has a book on climategate so I think he has a direct conflict of interest in this matter, both as a participant in the events themselves and as someone who is now making money off it through books sales.
As to the evidence to counter the hogwash — the only evidence that matters is over at CA. The entire blog is evidence.
Thank you for continuing to expose this behavior.
MapleLeaf,
I think she’s referring to Mosher and Tom Fuller’s book, which basically prints various contents of personal emails and adds their own “interpretation” of events.
At the risk of making Susann throw up again (don’t read on a full stomach), it’s worth pointing out a comments (as part of a series of inane comments) made by Tom Fuller on Tim Lambert’s blog, not long before the CRU emails were stolen.
“I actually don’t believe men of honour publish correspondence without permission. Nor do I believe men of honour would select portions of the email that don’t correspond to the entire message.”
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2044149
Feel free to turn that into a separate blog post, Susann. Are there any climate contrarians who have any honour left, and don’t come across as shameless hypocrites?
There are many who make money off global warming denial and tabloid trash. Mosher and Fuller aren’t the first and won’t be the last. Public appetite for such things is insatiable.
Not criminal, but there are clear guidelines on vexatious requests available to read:
Freedom of Information Act: Vexatious requests – a short guide
Click to access vexatious_requests_a_short_guide.pdf
The long version:
Freedom of Information Act: Vexatious or repeated requests
Click to access awareness_guidance_22_vexatious_and_repeated_requests_final.pdf
To summarise:
Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
Would complying with the request impose a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction?
Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?
“…If the request forms part of a wider campaign or pattern of requests, the purpose or value must justify both the request itself and the lengths to which the campaign or pattern of behaviour has been taken….”
More on vexatious FOIA requests at the Department for Constitutional Affairs:
http://www.foi.gov.uk/guidance/proguide/chap03.htm
” There are a number of ways in which it may be possible to identify individual requests as being vexatious. The following list is not designed to be exhaustive, but rather to illustrate a general approach:
* The applicant makes clear his or her intention: If an applicant explicitly states that it is his or her intention to cause a public authority the maximum inconvenience through a request, it will almost certainly make that request vexatious.
* The authority has independent knowledge of the intention of the applicant: Similarly, if an applicant (or an organisation to which the applicant belongs, such as a campaign group) has previously indicated an intention to cause a public authority the maximum inconvenience through making requests, it will usually be possible to regard that request as being vexatious.
* The request clearly does not have any serious purpose or value. It will usually be easier to recognise such cases than define them. Although the Act does not require the person making a request to disclose any reason or motivation, there may be cases which are so lacking in serious purpose or value that they can only be fairly treated as “vexatious” – for instance a request for the number of unmarried employees an organisation may have, may be able to be classified justifiably as a vexatious request. Such cases are especially likely to arise where there has been a series of requests. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, a public authority should be careful to consider any explanation which the applicant gives as to the value in disclosing the information which may be made in the course of an appeal against refusal (see below).
* The request can fairly be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable. It will usually be easier to recognise such cases than define them. They will be exceptional – public authorities must have valid reasons for making such a judgement. An apparently tedious request, which in fact relates to a genuine concern, must not be dismissed. But a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request which a reasonable person would describe as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable. It will obviously be easier to identify such requests when there has been frequent prior contact with requester or the request otherwise forms part of a pattern, for instance when the same individual submits successive requests for information. Although such requests may not be “repeated” in the sense that they are requests for the same information taken together they may form evidence of a pattern of obsessive requests so that an authority may reasonably regard the most recent as vexatious“
Just found out that FOIA rules are now a part of the Ministry of Justice’s remit:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-procedural-vexatious.htm
“The Information Tribunal has found that the history and context of a request are important in assessing if it is vexatious, taking account of such matters as:
* the requester already being in possession of the information requested
* the use of tendentious language, suggesting that the requester’s true purpose is to argue rather than to seek information
* the requester seeking to reopen issues already visited
* the lack of justification for a request likely to cause distress or irritation. (A distinction was drawn between unjustified distress or irritation caused by a vexatious freedom of information request and the justified distress or irritation which might be caused by the issue of a parking ticket.)
The Tribunal found that a request that on its face is reasonable but forms part of a wider trend of vexatious behaviour can be vexatious.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has also issued guidance on vexatious requests. It agrees that history and context are important and it has published a set of criteria that form a suggested general approach. This is contained in the ICO freedom of information ‘Awareness Guidance 22: Vexatious and repeated requests’.
The Tribunal has said that it finds the ICO’s framework helpful, but it has not adopted its definition.
This guidance will be updated as more decisions by the Tribunal on vexatious requests become available.
Repeated requests
Public authorities may sometimes be faced with a requester who sends in request after request, often slightly differently worded, but essentially asking the same question. Sometimes, in doing this, the requester may be trying to vindicate a long-standing grievance against an authority.
Handling such requests can be very resource intensive, in particular where the request is accompanied by a stream of correspondence, detailed representations and comments to which the applicant seeks to get the public authority to respond.
If a public authority has previously complied with a request for information that was made by a person, it does not need to comply with a repeated request from the same person (that is, an identical or substantially similar request), unless a ‘reasonable interval’ has elapsed between compliance with the first request and receipt of the second (section 14(2)).”
Susann,
I don’t understand your point. You are quoting McIntyre and Mosher but you are not saying anything to disprove them or even call their statements into question. You seem to think that just quoting them is enough to show they are wrong. It isn’t. I have read McIntyre’s entire submission and found it well-constrained.
For example, McIntyre did not even mention Jones’ request that Michael Mann delete emails responsive to FOI requests or Mann’s promise to do so. I supposed McIntyre did not comment on that sorry episode because he feels others will do so.
Every complaint McIntyre makes is provable and he provides the evidence at every turn. When did you decide you should become a defense attorney for the criminals at CRU? I don’t understand how your position here helps you in the least. You are destroying any credibility you might have ever had.
If you want to make some contribution to this discussion, try focusing on the facts. Stop making personal attacks. They are worthless to your cause. Michael Mann used to tell everyone that McIntyre was funded by Big Oil, but no one believes Mann anymore. McIntyre has been proven right time and time again. If the strategy once was to marginalize McIntyre – to dismiss him with name-calling and snide remarks… well, that time is over. McIntyre has published in the peer-reviewed literature. He has testified before Congress, before NAS and many other panels. He has the most strongly respected science blog on the planet. If you want to defeat McIntyre, you can only do it by winning on facts. But you have not even addressed the evidence. You have not shown one place where he is wrong.
This has become like a disease with you. You cannot think straight right now. Try to get a hold of yourself. Consider what an impartial observer would say about your comments. You are losing it and you don’t even know it.
Ron, thank you for your deep concern about my well-being. The only thing currently vexing me is this attack on science — this witch hunt of Inhofe’s and the assault on truth that I see in the climate wars. Other than that, I’m happy as a lark, OK? So calm yourself.
As to McI’s submission — it’s all his interpretation. Every point is arguable.
Here’s the bodge passage:
Science has many ‘fudge factors’. I think one of the biggest is ‘^’ – the cosomological constant developed by Einstein to account for what he believed was a stationary universe. Should the American government have prosecuted Albert for bodging his data? Like Einstein, Briffa reported the “bodge” in the original article. Some bodge! Bodges amongs criminals are usually not reported openly in the newspapers, or in this case, the scientific literature for all the scientific world to see.
Then we have the Polar Urals ‘hiding adverse data’ allegation — Briffa reports his data as of 1995. The data shows a cold MWP and a warmer CWP. Then, the data is updated with new cores in 1998 and later, Esper02 reports an updated chronology that shows different findings to Briffa95. This is seen as evidence of malfeasance? Are we even sure that Esper02 is valid? How long did it take for Einstein to accept that he was wrong about ^? Should we throw him in jail and reject all his work as deceitful because he had an honest scientific disargeement about evidence and data? Briffa didn’t publish this new data — Esper did.
McI of course wrote to the editor of Science to demand that all the data and methods for a number of articles published in it by Briffa and Esper and others and making threats and demands if his requests are not met.
Here’s McI in his letter to Hanson:
Is it just me or does anyone else see something in this demand — grandiosity? This is a threat. It includes demands which are couched in terms of ‘advice’ and a threat that if the demands are not met, the public reputation of Hanson will be attacked on McI publicly — presumably on his
public truncheonblog.Is that not what McI is doing here and claiming?
I think a psychiatrist would have a label for this kind of behavior.
There’s more but I have a life. More later.
It seems the University of East Anglia is in trouble because they told Parliament the ICO had cleared them. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece
Susann,
BTW, while you are tossing away any shred of credibility you had, you might also want to comment on the submission by the Institute of Physics. McIntyre blogged about at http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/26/institute-of-physics-submission/
Ron, give your posts on this blog over the course of its existence, and the way you either misunderstand or misrepresent evidence, if I had any credibility with you, I’m glad it’s gone.
Not speaking for Susann…
Clearly not. Just read through this blog alone, but I’m sure you’re aware of the others anyway. In the absence of any kind of accountability that can be brought to bear on the blogospherical denialsphere your claim is nonsensical.
Tu Quoque. If that’s the case, when did McIntyre appoint himself prosecutor in a kangaroo court? Your use of the word “criminal” is completely bogus and outrageous ‘argument by emotive language’, alluding to a conviction before a case has even been heard or evidence presented to reasonable people under reasonable circumstances. Or do you have some kind of divine insight no others are privvy to?
Bandwagon fallacy.
Ummm… http://www.realclimate.org and skepticalscience.com, the latter’s iPhone app recently ranked alongside Tetris.
Why repeat what others do on a regular basis?
I also notice you use the word “defeat”, implying there’s a war or competition which therefore must have a goal and a clear purpose, and McIntyre is your leader. Very interesting, thanks for the insight.
Hey, thanks for laying it all out for me, Ron. Criminals?
What happened to innocent until guilty or is the kangaroo court of CA and denialosphere blogs all the jurisprudence you need to try and convict scientists?
And if I’m considered a defense attorney of the Inhofe 17, so be it, but please, this is a personal blog and I am no one. There are far better and more talented defense attorneys out there. I’m more like the little mouse in the kangaroo court room hiding under the floorboards, listening to the kangaroos as they knock each other silly, hoping for a few crumbs.
Susann, yes, criminals. Didn’t you hear? Suborning obstruction of FOI is very naughty. Even Michael Mann admitted Jones should not have asked him to delete emails. But, of course, that is not the only crime. The larger crimes seem to be taking government funding for research and fudging results, refusing access to data and hiding the decline. The government has considerable powers at its disposal if it determines it was defrauded.
This post did not have anything to do with Inhofe. It has to do with the UK Parliamentary investigation, which I think will get farther than anything in the Democrat-controlled US Senate. This is mainly a UK catastrophe, although it does involve some US scientists.
Thankfully, other scientific disciplines are now standing up to the bullying of pseudoscience practiced by the climate scientists. I was very glad to read the submission by the Institute of Physics. This will encourage other disciplines to speak out against the illegitimacy of climate science. I think you can expect to see statements from geologists and meteorolgists sometime soon. More and more scientists are embarrassed to be associated with the actions of people like Jones and Mann. I would not be surprised if the administrators of UEA have to resign after their botched claim that the ICO had cleared the university of wrongdoing.
Let me make it clear. Jones and Mann need good attorneys. They have a constitutional right to attorneys and the best defense they can put forward. But they need separate attorneys in case they turn on each other. Only the very best attorney can represent people like this without it hurting their reputation. For you to step forward and try to protect them is just going to make people doubt your judgment. It is not good for your career.
At least in this latest comment you attempted to deal with one of the pieces of evidence put forward – the Briffa bodge. Your strongest point was Einstein’s ^. But the analogy is not really apt, is it? Briffa was attempting to make the graphic “look right” while Einstein was dealing with a theoretical concept. Briffa’s bodge was hidden in the literature. The documents prepared for policymakers did not mention the Briffa bodge (which never should have made it past peer-reviewers) or any increased uncertainty from Briffa’s fiction.
As for truncating data, again it is mentioned in the literature but is hidden from policymakers. Why should adverse data be hidden from policymakers? Are you really defending this behavior? How will policymakers feel about your presentations in the future if they know you think it is okay to hide important information from them?
Don’t you understand, Susann? You are not thinking straight. This is going to hurt your reputation and your career. You cannot defend the actions of these people because they are indefensible. I am trying to help you here.
JBowers,
You did not write compelling, just a series of unsubstantiated claims. Try reading through McIntyre’s submission to the UK committee and find a factual error in it. You claim this blog has shown errors but it has not. All Susann did in the top post was quote McIntyre as if that proved anything. But every word McIntyre wrote was true and he demonstrates it in his submission.
It is perfectly fine for Susann not to like what McIntyre wrote. If you are a defense attorney, you will not like it when the prosecutor is telling the truth about your client. But it does not help to quote the prosecutor. If the prosecutor is wrong, point out the wrong. Susann did not do that. In her latest comment to me, she did address some evidence put forward by McIntyre but her points were not apt and she ended up defending truncating data so policymakers would not know important facts. It is sad, really.
Climateaudit.org is the most respected science blog on the planet. In one sense, Steve did not have anything to do with Climategate. In another sense, he caused it. In my view, it was his FOI requests which caused someone inside CRU to leak the emails and data responsive to Steve’s requests. When the data was released, it came in a zip file folder titled FOIA2009.
Steve’s blog is read by senior climate scientists all over the globe. Most of them do not like him, but they are all reading it. WUWT has more readers because it deals with the science more from a layman’s perspective. But no blog is more respected than McIntyre’s. RealClimate has lost almost all of its former credibility. Michael Mann is now seen as a liar and bully of journal editors and others. Gavin Schmidt is seen as an advocate and not a scientist. The one real benefit to all of this is that the moderation at RealClimate has opened up some. Skeptical comments are allowed now which never would have been allowed through before. RealClimate will probably pick up some traffic because of that. Many people had completely written them off before so the new openness is winning people back, but they will never regain their former credibility.
Ron, I just don’t know what to think about your post.
First, ‘criminal’ means to have been charged with and convicted of a crime, at least in my world. I don’t know about yours but I believe it’s the same. Until one has been charged and convicted, one is not a ‘criminal’ and that’s the way it should stay.
As to taking funds and fudging research, none of what you claim has been proven anywhere but in the minds of deniers, contrarians and the gullible on blogs and in trashy media. Until it has, it is merely accusation and allegation.
I’d love to talk about it, because there’s lots of evidence that many global warming deniers have taken money from vested interests and have published utter dreck that only convinces the choir. I know a small bit about that due to research in my graduate work and if you really want to take about taking money and deception, we can do a whole post on the API.
As to the question of hiding important information from policy makers — Ron, have you studied the public policy process? Have you worked in public policy such that you know how things are done?
Let me give you a clue — policy makers only want the big picture. They leave the small details to their science advisors, who would know about the caveats and provisos and notes about data. The policy makers trust that the science advisors have read the literature and know the issues and have the capability of discerning what is important when it comes to formulating policy and making policy decisions.
We would have to disagree that any information has been hidden that is so important that a policy maker would want to hear about. They only want to hear what the key message is.
If we take the example of “hide the decline”, I put it to you that a full explication of the divergence issue is not something the policy maker (politician) wants to know about. They only want to know from their science advisors — is it warming? If it is warming, with what confidence can we say that it is?
Politicians do not want to know that some paleoclimate proxy reconstructions used some trees in some elevations in some species that stopped responding to local warming due to yet unknown factors, but the best scientists think it is likely ozone depletion or aerosols from pollution and that regardless, these same trees still correlate well with other trees that DO respond to current warming and so are used prior to 1960 but data from them isn’t included post 1960 because it would bias the results since we have instrumental record that shows warming after 1960…
They want to know — is it warming?
They want to know — or should want to know, at least the ones with integrity — the bottom line: Do the majority of climate scientists say global warming is happening? With what confidence do they say that? Is it caused by CO2? Is it a potential threat? Can we do something about it? What are the costs of acting? Of not acting? What are the political costs?
The answer to the first four questions according to the IPCC AR4 is yes, yes, yes, and yes. The answers to the final questions have yet to be determined.
The details of methodology and debates about the quality of proxy evidence are important — to scientists who are trying to determine the best way to study climate change.
This comes back to the whole issue of the separation of science from policy and the necessity of keeping them separate. Let scientists do the research and have their debates about data and methods and theories – the “what is” part of the equation.
The policy makers have to deal with the policies and decide “what to do.”
What I see happening is that some vested interests – primarily those in the fossil fuel industry and those who are reliant on them, or those politically adverse to government regulation of any kind (extremist libertarians) are afraid that the science is too compelling and so are doing their level best to discredit it in any way possible in the hopes of preventing government from acting. They are not only trying to make the political cost of acting unacceptable by swaying public opinion against climate science through smear and innuendo, they are trying to change the science itself through astroturfing and bogus science.
This is a policy war that is now threatening the institution of science itself. The threat is not from a legitimate debate over proxy evidence amongst dendros or from old databases that need to be updated, or from scientists who refuse to provide data and methods to non-academics. It’s from politicians and vested interests attacking scientists and science, criminalizing what should be part of normal science.
If the vested interests would play fair and on their own turf — providing sound cases supported by solid evidence on why climate legislation is too harmful to the economy to proceed instead of this assault on science, then I would not be here blogging. Business interests have a legitimate voice in any policy decision because they will be affected and their interests have to be considered in the policy process. But they aren’t playing fair and this isn’t legitimate.
Only if it’s in one’s head. Your use of nouns leaves something to be desired in their accuracy and appropriateness.
Just in case anyone missed the source:http://wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/2010/02/i-highly-reccommend-this-iphoneitouch-app/
I recall a certain petition to American Physical Society members getting somewhere around 0.45% support and shot down in flames after the denialsphere had been jumping up and down as if they had, finally, been vindicated. Don’t you lot ever learn? You do like to set yourselves up for a fall.
The IOP submission simply asks that their concerns be addressed to see if there was actual misconduct. There are a number of uses of the words ‘maybe’ and ‘prima facie’ and ‘doubt’ and ‘possibility’. We’ll see, but all other respected scientific organisations and journals have made their opinions on the emails known and they are in stark contrast to what you imply about the IOP, with a few exceptions who are mainly undecided. Those statements still stand, as they do on whether climate change is heavily inlfuenced man. Your CAngaroo court will not be the judge.
By the way, just because there are inquiries on the scientists, don’t imagine for a single minute that the same can’t happen for those who may be judged as having been vexatious in their efforts to disrupt the legitimate work of others, especially if time reveals there’s more to their story than meets the eye. The press and popular opinion are fickle. Don’t expect friends in high places to stick around should the worm turn, and the worm turns oh so very easily.
Quid pro quo, Ron.
But not the most respected for clear thinking. The Woody Guthrie Award for a Thinking Blogger goes to…. Skeptical Scence.
http://wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/2010/02/i-highly-reccommend-this-iphoneitouch-app/
“A few months back I was given the Woody Guthrie Award for a Thinking Blogger by Mike Kaulbars at Greenfyre’s. The recipient is supposed to pass it on to someone he feels is worthy of it.
So, after enjoying the award for a bit longer than I should have, I hereby award it to John Cook of Skeptical Science.“
I like something he later says…
“Scientific Facts Live Independently of Public Opinion.”
Ron, you keep mentioning my career being hurt by my defense of science and scientists doing their work free of political intereference.
This is very disconcerting. My employer has no claim over what I do in my personal time as long as it is not illegal or unethical. My political beliefs or private opinions and actions are not subject to my employer’s approval. I am doing nothing unethical or illegal, so I don’t know why you are warning me.
Are you going to try to report me to my employer or something of that nature?
Isn’t that what McCarthy used to threaten?
Stalin must also be laughing in his grave.
So Ron Cram, in his desperation, resorts to veiled threats as quoted @21. Maybe not, but his “concern” is bogus. That and Cram has been known to distort and lie elsewhere on the web, so bind is his faith in the denialist ideology.
It is truly mind boggling how obsessive and brain washed the CA acolytes are. Blind faith, uni-directional skepticism and blinding bias. That and stuck in 1998 in their microcosm.
JBowers and MarkB thanks for the feedback. McI’s “evidence” cannot go unanswered. He is lying, as Susann showed. And that is probably just the tip of the ice berg.
I would do more, and feel bad deferring responsibility, but I have my hands full with another battle with the deniers right now details of which I cannot reveal…sorry.
Guys, ignore Cram, PLEASE don’t feed the likes of Cram and just focus on exposing McIntyre for what he is…a manipulative and mendacious egotist who has not interest whatsoever in advancing climate science.
He needs to walk way from this episode with egg on his face, if he does not we only have ourselves to blame b/c the evidence against him is damning and out there for everyone to see.
Susann, thanks for clarifying about the money. You can use FIPPA to request to see his UofT emails. And McK’s uni email account also falls under the access to info:
http://www.fippa.utoronto.ca/about.htm
I strongly urge you or someone else to pursue this. You do not know if you don’t try. We need to know what McI’s role is in the vexatious requests. What did he do behind the scenes. Who did he contact? Why? There are very valid and legitimate reasons for accessing his and MK’s emails.
Thanks.
@Susann:
There are many really shoddy contributions to that parliament investigation. It clearly has attracted quite a few crackpots and people with an axe to grind. Just a few examples:
1. Edward Dilley offers the fundamentally flawed books of Plimer and Booker to the committee. Hmmm…maybe somebody should investigated Plimer’s book and go after REAL data manipulation and distortion. Plenty of evidence around for that one!
2. Stuart Huggett is the first on the list to refer to the lies about the surface station record of GISTEMP and NOAA. Another nice courtcase that would be: getting a judge to determine whether Watts, Smith and D’Aleo are merely very incompetent, or are deliberately manipulating data and promoting falsehoods.
3. Walter Radtke has an axe to grind, coming with steady-state cosmology as being suppressed.
4. G.R. Ryan is doing an Eschenbach: since he can’t find evidence that a certain correction is made, he considers sea level rise “suspect to say the least”. Mr. Ryan, look up “inverse barometer”.
5. Geoffrey Sherrington puts Mike Mann in charge at GISS.
6. Lalu Hanuman is another with an axe to grind. He’s been rejected his degree from UEA many years ago, even went to the European court, and got zero.
7. Susan Ewens calls for a supposed truly independent enquiry, but already asks not to include anyone with “AGW” partisanship. Well, that’ll exclude the vast majority of climate scientists, and a considerable majority of scientists in general!
8. Michael Simons makes the laughable comparison to patents. I can tell you that I can demand all the data I want in relationship to a patent, but wouldn’t even get a comma. The only way for me to challenge the patent is to do the analysis myself, with my own data, and show the others to be wrong. He also points to WUWT. Major fail. For someone with a PhD in particular.
9. David Shaw is another who points to the flawed Watts/Smith/D’Aleo analysis (although not mentioning it by name). He also claims satellites do not really show warming, and that Nils-Axel Mörner (although not mentioned by name) is the world’s leading expert on sea level change.
10. Don Keiller is yet another who points to the flawed Watts/Smith/D’Aleo analysis.
I’m sure there are a few more in the list point to the Watts/Smith/D’Aleo lies, but I just had to stop with all the stupidity these people are willing to flaunt. And then Ron warns you of hurting your reputation and career…
@Marco.
Yes, a pretty sorry list of submissions, overall.
Sorry MapleLeaf, can’t let this one slide…
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICOcorrespondence
These confirm that no further evidence had been sought or obtained by the ICO with regard to an alleged breach of Section 77 and that with regard to the Section 50 complaint no decision notice had been issued and no alleged breaches had been put to the University for comment. Any assertion that the University has been found in breach of any part the Freedom of Information Act is incorrect. The ICO had not communicated with the University before issuing the statement and has still not completed any investigations into this matter. Media reports have been inaccurate.”
The Times and the Sunday Times are a collection of useless muppets, as demonstrated over at Deltoid.
The Watts/Smith/D’Aleo “analysis” has been soundly refuted by Menne et al. (2010, JGR) and by Tamino’s excellent work.
The crackpots need submitting “evidence” to be countered and their true colours exposed. If it is not, it will be a sad day for science. There is a golden opportunity here to expose the fraudulent pseudo-science of those in denial, let us not squander it!
No worries JBowers, thanks for exposing another lie. Sigh.
There fortunately are some good submissions, too, like those of the Royal Society of Chemistry. It explicitely asks for taking into account the misinformation spread by certain people. Tim Osborn also has a quite damning reaction.
Someone on RealClimate just noted that the IOP organised a presentation by Jaworowski on ice cores in 2008. So much for their credibility…
“There are many really shoddy contributions to that parliament investigation. It clearly has attracted quite a few crackpots and people with an axe to grind. ”
The usual suspects are there. Seems like anyone with a heartbeat can submit a memorandum (McIntyre, Benny Peiser, etc.). If it’s not already covered, it might be good for folks to submit a memorandum detailing McIntyre’s behavior. Doug Keenan’s too.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disappoints/
The primary “evidence” being looked at is selectively stolen and propagated emails from climate scientists – ones that inherently lack loads of context.
Marco, #28
The IOP is quite credible. They are just not embroiled day-to-day in this confrontation. Although their submission is somewhat naive I can’t object to anything they say. There is rarely a good time to claim (not that you do) that who is not with us is against us.
Well, keep that submission by McIntyre. For years he and his followers have claimed that McIntyre has never accused the objects of his … obsession … of being guilty of research fraud.
He’s always resorted to innuendo, rather than explicit statements.
He’s on the hook, now.
In a way it’s good to have all the cards on the table.
I am very glad I don’t live in Ron Cram’s world, I must say, and that I’m unable to read his mind. I’d hate to be detached from reality to that extent.
Tom, read the statement in detail. It contains two grievous errors. First it claims that the ICO already established that UEA did not comply with FOI requests. This is incorrect:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICO+response+to+UEA
The section 50 investigation is still under investigation.
Second, it claims that the subject of the FOI requests was the various proxy reconstructions. Wrong again.
I’m not saying the IOP is “against” ‘us’, but it clearly isn’t well informed on the subject of climate change. Inviting Jaworowski for a talk on ice cores (and he probably discussed Beck’s analysis as well) is indicative that they don’t really know what is going on.
They’re actually a bit confused over the ICO “prima facie” evidence that there’s been a FOI violation, though it’s not their fault. UEA has been confused because they’ve not been notified of any decision, as required by law, so they didn’t know what the statement made to the press referred to, nor the the ICO spokesperson make it clear.
It’s not related to the FOI requests for data.
They’re talking about prima facie evidence that Phil Jones violated Section 77 (wherever that is) of the FOI by e-mailing colleagues and suggesting they delete e-mail.
I think that’s the one thing exposed by the e-mails that everyone reasonable agrees was a very bad move on Jones fault – even though he followed up soon with a note saying the FOI compliance people said “you can’t do that!”.
Anyway, the ICO has clarified the situation at the request of UEA.
Hi, dhogaza, do you have a link to a document in which this is clarified — Jones’ emailing the ICO and learning it was not a good idea to delete emails and then retracting his advice? If it exists I’d like to see it and have it on record.
The problem (from the FOI point of view) is that he mailed others suggesting they do so *before* checking with the compliance people.
That’s a relatively major blunder, IMO, for the head of CRU to make. I should think in that position he should either be somewhat aware of FOI implications, or at least the need to talk to a compliance officer.
Jones has shown himself to be somewhat naive of the real world, as shown in the BBC Q&A that he worded so carefully to be precise and correct and … eminently quote-mineable.
Oh, and to be sure I’m understood, I don’t think there was any malice on Jones part, just frustration and a naive view of the FOI process, and of course it doesn’t mean squat to the science.
Why would you conspire to rob a bank, and then go to the police to tell them you’re thinking of doing a bank job and need to know if it’s okay to do? Because the emails were redacted by the thief, we don’t know if Jones immediately sent an email to say, “Don’t delete anything yet! I need to check with the FOI people first!”
Anyone believing they think the emails are solid proof of criminal activity is a moron with a single digit IQ.
Well, I’d like to think I have more than a single digit IQ, thank you very much.
Now, with a little research, it does appear that the ICO is overreaching. The only obvious thing that Jones has done, is to have e-mail suggesting that messages be deleted. Implied in the ICO “prima facie” evidence claim – which they stand by and reiterate in their response to UEA, in case you’ve not read the actual correspondance – is that the act of suggesting deletion is itself in violation of Section 77.
That’s the understanding I based my comment on.
I’ve googled a bit more, and found this:
So apparently it takes the actual destruction of records, not suggesting that there be destruction, under Section 77. My bad. I’d also say – the ICO’s bad, because there’s no evidence that any destruction took place. Only the solicitation (and even if Jones followed up immediately saying he needed to check with the FOI compliance people, if solicitation itself were illegal, the deed would’ve been done).
And BTW …
They’re not the police, that’s not a good analogy. They work for the university, not the ICO – counsel would be more accurate. It’s clear that Jones was angry. A “oh shit, what did I do in anger?” followed by asking the UEA compliance officer “did I screw up horribly?” isn’t really out of the picture. It’s obvious that he didn’t know that deleting e-mail would be a criminal act when he sent that e-mail out. Hard to defend that. Boneheaded. I won’t accuse him of having single-digit IQ, though.
Not the ICO commission – do you mean the UEA information compliance officer?
That doesn’t appear to be in the stolen e-mails (why would they publish it, after all?) My recollection is that one of the real climate people said something along those lines.
This:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=888&filename=1212009215.txt
would indicate that Jones didn’t delete any e-mails, as they (Jones, others mentioned, and a person whose post shows up at the bottom, subject “gents”, who is apparently the UEA compliance person handling this) are discussion whether or not these are confidential, what if anything must be given out, etc.
This is what apparently is considered a smoking gun by some:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt
Which will make you laugh, as it did me, I’m sure.
This looks bad, but the FOIA appears to say it’s a crime to delete stuff asked for under FOIA. “A couple of months ago” would’ve been after the Holland FOI requests had been handled by the “FOI guy” (that’s the “official title” Jones uses :), so they would not have been under FOI control.
Still, probably not a good idea to have deleted them (though of course the university would have archives, so he’s not *really* deleting them in a meaningful way).
And, of course, he ends with
So this particular request isn’t a FOI one anyway (though I imagine it would have similar requirements).
I have no idea what he rules are in the UK for deleting e-mails. I can’t imagine one must retain all spam under the presumption that some one might FOI you for spam you receive, but maybe my imagination is just lacking.
This incitation to delete emails should be contemplated by first knowing that you don’t delete emails unless you hack the server. Which means that the only accusation that should stand is that Jones tried to play the passive-agressive bonehead. As deplorable as it might be, it is understandable.
That said, as the One himself said: “[T]his is essentially a legal matter. Turn it over to lawyers.”
Susann,
You say you don’t know what to make of my comment. First of all, you are correct. The legal meaning of criminals refers to people who have been convicted. I should have used the term preferred by cops – perps. The ICO publicly stated that Phil Jones was the perp who suborned obstruction of FOI.
But, again, the biggest crimes being investigated are taking government funding for research and defrauding the government. This is what the UK Parliament is investigating. They are asking “Did the CRU take our money and then lie to us?” The answer, of course, is yes. The pseudoscientists at CRU bodged the data, truncated data, hid the decline and otherwise tried to spread fear and alarm when uncertainty ruled the science.
The Institute of Physics has come out strongly against the anti-science attitude of the perps at CRU. This is a fantastic development and will encourage other scientists to speak out as well.
Susann, you have not demonstrated an ability to change your statements when your error has been pointed out. You should learn to follow my example in the first lines of this comment.
Based on what is happening around you, you should be able to see that I have your best interests at heart. The positions you have taken are not middle of the road positions. Your defense of Phil Jones in refusing McIntyre the requested data is way off the charts. Even Phil Jones has admitted he was wrong. You are probably the only person on the planet who is still defending Jones for refusing to honor the FOI requests. Your defense of these perps hiding the decline and hiding the uncertainty is way off base. Your claim that policymakers do not want to know everything causes me to question your judgment.
If I was a policymaker who had read this blog and you made a presentation before me, I would ask a number of questions:
1. How certain are you of the data?
2. What are the areas of uncertainty?
3. Is there anything you are not telling me?
4. If one of your co-workers had made this presentation instead of you, would I be learning additional facts?
5. If adverse data were available, would you tell me?
Do you see where I am going? If I was a policymaker who had read your blog, I would have no confidence in your judgment. I would assume you had taken a position on the question in front of me and would only tell me the information you wanted me to know. I would push and push until I learned if there was other information you did not include in the briefing.
Rest assured I have no desire to contact your employer or even to seek to learn who your employer is. I am trying to get you to critically examine your own thinking skills. Examining your own assumptions and thinking patterns is the most important part of critical thinking.
Ron — consider me ignoring you from now on unless and until you have something of actual value to add — that means valid evidence as opposed to unsubstantiated allegations and unsupported opinion. There is no point in engaging you any longer.
I opened this blog and invited skeptics to post their views freely without moderation. I encouraged skeptics to try to convince me to their POV. You would not be able to do this at many other blogs that support AGW, the moderators at which would delete your posts or not approve them. I have been patient and considered everything you have written. You have not convinced me. Your evidence is either discredited by scientists or is not proper evidence — in other words, it is opinion and unsupported at that.
You insist on making this a personal matter, and keep on referring to me personally despite my asking you to refrain from doing so. I am interested in the evidence, not personal matters, yet you keep bringing it back to me personally. Do you have any idea how condescending and patronizing that appears? Obviously not unless it is deliberate.
You obviously know nothing about policy makers.
Before you concern yourself with my abilities at critical thinking, perhaps you should examine yours. I won’t say re-examine because that would imply you actually did already.
Ron, an apology from you to SheWonk is in order. If I were SheWonk, you would have long been gone, not b/c of presenting an alternative view (we leave it to WUWT and CA to edit opposing views) but for, IMHO, abusing her hospitality and good nature and for making this personal when SheWonk has specifically asked you not to do so.
I do not even bother reading your diatribes anymore, and I think I speak for all reasonable people when I say that. Please, go and pontificate at WFUWT.
Like others in complete and utter denial, Ron you disgust me. Now sleep and reflect on that…..
@Ron,
The Institute of Physics has done itself a disservice by putting two major and fundamental mistakes in its statement, thus making itself look like a fool. I will be contacting them, and see if they are willing to correct their mistakes. I’ve already spoken to some IOP members who are dismayed at the incompetence of the IOP statement. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Marco, #32,
I don’t think the IOP has made two grievous errors. Their statement on compliance to the FOI first echoes the words of the ICO. I agree that the IOP is then wrong to state that the ICO found CRU in noncompliance, but the letter by the ICO is pretty damning: “The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. The ICO is not resiling from its position on this.” The difference between “a lack of compliance has been confirmed” and “a lack of compliance has been very strongly suggested” by the ICO is not a grievous one.
The IOP does not claim that the subject of the FOI requests was the various proxy reconstructions. It states “This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.” The IOP claim that such a subject was behind some of the requests is, I believe, correct.
Any organisation will have talks of dubious quality held under its auspices. The presenter may then find they have to face some stiff challenges from the audience. I don’t think this indicates necessarily any naivety from that organisation.
Sorry, Tom, but I have to disagree. The ICO does NOT state that “a lack of compliance has been very strongly suggested”. Worse even, even if there was a section 77 offence, it was deletion of *e-mails*. The IOP refers to data, procedures and materials as being of importance for scrutiny.
And I haven’t see any rejections of FOI requests for any of the data related to the proxy reconstructions. Maybe you have?
In my opinion the whole statement is filled with very poorly worded sections that can very easily be misunderstood (and, of course, are already extensively used to fuel the battle cry of certain people).
Susann #43, stick to your guns and I look forward to a much better S/N ratio here.
Marco,
” The ICO does NOT state that “a lack of compliance has been very strongly suggested”.”
Do you mean IOP? And I’m not saying the IOP did make that statement. Certainly the wording of the letter by the IOC very strongly suggests a lack of compliance.
The FOI requests rejected were to do with email discussions concerning proxies for AR4. In fact the IOP were quite correct that there were differing conclusions being made concerning the proxies (see the most recent post on this site: https://shewonk.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/inquiry-submission-downplaying-uncertainty/)
Such differences can and have been misrepresented. But I regard it as more damaging to withhold these emails than to release them. As Susann make clear, there is nothing in these emails that is damning, rather the opposite. It shows the working out of these disagreements and that AR4 did in fact reflect the email discussions.
@Tom:
I know that there was one FOI request for the IPCC discussion on proxies. But I really think that was it. The other FOI requests were aimed at HADCRU data. The IOP statement really seems to mix things up. I also like to point to point 5, which suggests more than just “different conclusions”. It *very easily* can be seen as a claim that ‘the decline was hidden’ in the IOP’s opinion. It’s just shoddily written.
The wording of the ICO letter suggests that the ICO saw a potential attempt to prevent compliance by asking to delete information. He has no evidence (since not investigated) that this actually happened. He does not even want to investigate, and that, in my opinion, is outright wrong. I hope Muir-Russell does.
Please do note that it is easy to get things mixed up. Most of the discussions on proxies and uncertainty are actually related to AR3, not AR4.
I think a translation of ‘prima facie’ is needed.
‘On first appearance’, or ‘on the face of it’.
If it was absolute proof of guilt there would be more people in prison than out.
Marco, #50
Point 5 is certainly not how I would have written it, but it is not incorrect. There has been plenty of discussion about the reliability of the proxy techniques in the open literature. The emails reveal nothing new here. I also think the word “suppression” is maybe not the best choice. However, the last decades of proxy data were removed in the IPCC graphic and for the clear reason that they disagreed with the instrument data, as the IOP states.
@Tom: the last decades of proxy data are only missing for *one* reconstruction in AR3 (Briffa’s). Most of the other reconstructions have so many proxies that a few divergence issues hardly show up.
Again, I consider it really shoddily written, open to interpretations in so many ways that I can understand the deniosphere is having a field day. They are probably much less enthousiastic about the contribution of the Royal Society of Chemistry when they get to points 10 and 11. It’s clear who the society is pointing at…
WEll, you know, if the committee finds McIntyres claims to be baseless, I wonder if it would be worth taking him to court for libel?
Well, MAY HAVE is a bit weaker than the definitive statement given to the press. That’s much better than the judge-and-jury statement that showed up in the press.
And while I’ve not looked exhaustively, the only reference to actually deleting e-mails I’ve found was after the Holland FOI request had been rejected. McI was asking for them under a different law.
Holland, BTW, is the blogger known as Bishop Hill.
Jones has not been a good boy – I’m not denying that. But to state that a crime’s been shown is going too far. The ICO doesn’t determine Section 77 offenses anyway, they’re tried in court like any other crime, complete with the right to a full legal defense by the defendant. The ICO appears to be able to refer for indictment, or possible indictment, nothing more (or do they prosecute the case in court themselves?).
Eh? Bishop Hill is Andrew Montford.
Oh, sorry, screwed that up.
In my defense, Montford has a FOI history of his own
Darn, the guy’s been busy. He must have been pretty disappointed with quite a few of the answers (“No, Pachauri doesn’t get a penny”, “Here’s Harry’s report (but doesn’t contain anything useful)”, “Here’s a reference to a paper which shows Jones et al had to pay for getting climate data”, “Sorry, no correspondence with UEA!”).
Hmm. Did he ever write about those results on his blog?
An interesting bit of reading I particularly appreciated was the overall correspondance there:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cmep_expenditure
As Bishop Hill says: “well worth a look”.
Wow, willard, I didn’t actually read any of the streams of correspondence. That’s a gem, there. What an ass.
I just posted this on Climate Audit:
Steve,
You write “There has been considerable suspicion that CRU cherry-picked the Yamal
chronology” but then “cherry pick” the Polar Urals rather than Yamal to show the effect on the reconstruction. Given the similar correlation to temperature of both series, there is a good case that both chronologies should be included in any analysis.
I notice there is no mention of the Khadyta substitution in your submission despite all the fuss it made last year. Is that because you were aware of its poor correlation with temperature?
Elsewhere you criticise Briffa for not using the most up-to-date version. But as far as Tornetrask is concerned, you use the Grudd 2006 version, though he published a new chronology in Climate Dynamics in 2008 with much improved correlation with temperature.
It would be interesting to see the reconstruction in which you respond to your own exhortations to avoid “cherry picking” and to include the most up to date chronologies. How does fig. 5 look with both Yamal and Polar Urals included, as well as using the 2008 version of Tornetrask?
To follow up on the earlier post, there is a significant error in McIntyre’s submission. As I posted on Climate Audit:
——————————
Oakwood,
“Steve’s replacement of one with the other was to demonstrate the significance of a single proxy selection on the results.”
It’s not actually clear what Steve has done here. In the text he states that the fig. 5 shows “a version derived merely by substituting the Polar Urals update for Yamal” while the figure caption describes the plot as “varying the Tornetrask and Urals versions to newer versions.”
Whatever point Steve is trying to make, he should be clear exactly what data is going in to his submitted version.
—————–
As this plot is the culmination of McIntyre’s case against Briffa’s reconstruction, I am amazed that his text is in direct contradiction to his own figure caption. I suspect the figure caption is correct, in which case his final sentence “The medieval-modern differential changes with one seemingly inconsequential change of version” is nonsense.
Tom P, you are a brave man. If you are right, people just might accuse McIntyre of making a false statement to parliament. That’s a crime, isn’t it, Ron?
Has anyone screengrabbed or page-saved it?
BTW Section 77 part 1:
My emphasis.
David Holland would never have gotten his sticky fingers on the emails he asked for: they fell under a legitimate exemption, as has been amply established by later FOI practice. So, Phil Jones did not commit any offence. Not even if his deletion email was followed up on, which UEA claim it was not.
Link is here
http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_9
I meant to emphasize thusly: “So, Phil Jones did not commit any offence.“
Marco, #64
McIntyre has admitted the error, but rather surprisingly doesn’t know at the moment what was the basis of his plot.
J Bowers, #65
The submitted version on the UK Parliament website shows the contradictory text and figure captions side by side, though no figures. The pdf version has the figure caption rather clumsily on the following page to the plots. This would make such an error both easier to make and more difficult to spot.
Speaking of the UK Parliament hearing, it’s on a live blog feed at the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/01/parliamentary-climate-emails-inquiry
Live TV coverage here (might not be available outside the UK):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167511.stm
Bit shoddy…will he send a retraction?
Marco, #71
I posted earlier on CA:
Steve,
Have you informed the Science and Technology Select Committee that you are unsure of the basis of figure 5 in your submission and therefore also of the conclusion, namely that “the medieval-modern differential changes with one seemingly inconsequential change of version”, that you draw from it?
Re: #72
The above comment was just snipped from CA:
Tom P
Posted Mar 1, 2010 at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Reply
[Jean S: snip. Send Steve an e-mail if you want to know. Now, take your useless OT questions somewhere else.]
A little surprising that a question on an admitted error in Steve’s written submission to the Parliamentary Committee was off-topic for a thread on the hearings of that very committee.
Did you grab or save it before it was hidden? 😉
On the UK Parliamentary hearing, it looks like Lord Lawson may have lied about availability of data for public release. I thought it had been forgotten, but it looks like the committee now wants to follow up on his evidence and verify what he said. He claimed UAH and RSS data show less warming than GISS and HadCRUT, so I get the feeling he may have to explain that one, too, once the committee gets to know about it.
Couple that with McIntyre’s gaff in his memo, and I suspect the deniers have dealt themselves a pretty serious credibility blow. The issue of vexatious requests was raised a number of times, to which the ex-Information Commisioner said yes they could appear to be vexatious given the jump in number, and a jump from a few to over 60 was significant.
Thanks TomP (for the link too) and now go and take a shower. Jean S is a piece of work….
J Bowers thanks also for drawing our attention to the gaffs made by the contrarians. I sure way for this to backfire is to get them to testify in public in front of a Parliamentary commission.
I hope this backfires on the contrarians, big time, and that they end up the ones being investigated.
J Bowers,
There seems now to be some discomfort at CA that I was snipped in the first place. The excised comments are as quoted above.
I don’t know how you might formally correct a submission to a Parliamentary select committee. At a minimum I would think an email to the members would be in order. I’m sure McIntyre will first determine how exactly he did calculate his figure 5 and then amend his conclusions appropriately.
Looking back at his response to me earlier today, it really is quite breathtaking:
“Thanks for noting the inconsistency. I re-used a graphic and will have to check against the generating script to see which I did. I have a hugely busy week, but will try to post up a turnkey script for the a various results.”
Of all the accusations McIntyre has made against various climate scientists, I don’t think it included publishing plots without knowing quite what they had calculated.
Beddington also criticised the IOP memo, saying it was premature and there had been no damage to UK science.
IMHO it ouwld be a good strategy for CRU et al. to show some graphs of the difference that McI’s sup[posed “superior” analysis shows compared to recent dendro constructions. Correct me if I am wrong Tom, but the difference IMO seem to be trivial. They certainty do not seem to significantly affect the trend in temperature, certainly not since the LAI. And also, nowhere in the last 100+ years have temperatures risen at such a rapid rate. They should then also superimpose the HS or even McI’s reconstruction on reconstructions from sediments, corals, ice cores, borehole data etc. That will clearly show those present that McI is nitpicking to the n’th degree and that all his hyperventilating is essentially about nothing.
A quick note on UAH vs. RSS. In January UAH was warmer than RSS. That said, UAH data have issues, still to this day, and there seems to be some bizarre seasonal bias in the UAH temps. which they cannot explain.
30-yr trend for RSS (as of December 2009) for lower troposphere:
+1.5 C/century
30-yr trend(I think) for UAH (as of December 2009) for lower troposphere:
+1.3 C/century
30-yr NCDC global SAT trend as of December 2009:
+1.6 C/century
They should also show this plot (RATPAC versus NCDC):
http://tinyurl.com/ylxu5gw
They should also not forget the JMA global SAT analysis product.
They should also show Menne et al. (2009)
All in my very humble opinion of course.
Tom P, post it at RC. Just because the session ended today doesn’t mean it can’t be pointed out anyway, given they want John Beddington to report back to them on whether what Lawson said was “correct” or not. I’m sure EAU would be very interested in it, too.
In fact, you can send an email to Ed Miliband, either at his constituency; http://www.edmilibandmp.com/contact-us
Or directly at the Dept of Energy & Climate Change: correspondence@DECC.gsi.gov.uk
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/contact_us/contact_us.aspx
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/miliband/miliband.aspx
TomP et al. this gaff by McI is huge and greatly undermines his credibility. Ironic how he demands to have access to data, just so that he can then go public and screw it up.
Do not let it go unnoticed. Anyone have the ear of the CRU group. They probably have not missed it, but they need to take advantage of McI’s shoddiness.
Yes, everyone needs to be either emailed and/or at the onset of the next meeting fully briefed as to the error and consequences.
Another quick note on the hearing was Prof. Julia Sligo’s statement that the IPCC AR4 wg1 was probably the most peer reviewed document in the history of science, which shot down sceptic MP Graham Stringer’s constant repetition of the same points pretty well 😉
Yes, I really appreciated that statement by Prof Slingo. It is so clear when watching the proceedings that the skeptics are really just trying to raise doubts with very little evidence and that the science is really solid. It’s really only because of the complicity of sleazy journalists, press and bloggers with the denialists that this flimsy evidence has spread so far and wide — that and of course, the zombie-fungus-brained followers.
Here is an interesting part of a CA commenter:
JS got mad. And now CA pays for it. That echoes the third point of **On grabbing the third rail**: NEVER GET MAD.
PS: Thank you for the link, MapleLeaf. Thank you for yesterday’s post, Shewonk: I’ll comment in due time.
Which I think Bob Watson also commented on.
Willard, I saw your question, but could not directly find the quote. I now found it here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climategates-guerrilla-warriors-pesky-foes-or-careful-watchdogs/article1474924/
“There are 10 peer-reviewed articles I could draw out of the Climate Audit posts,” Mr. McIntyre says, “but I’ve got this very large audience. I’ve got to keep feeding the blog.”
Yeah, right. “Audience” implies “show”. Gavin Schmidt manages to fit RC in, on top of his NASA job. They don’t even have a tip box.
The overall discussion by Area_man is interesting:
Jean S forfeits:
But Area_Man was not finished:
Now let’s look at the defense from one of the resident bully:
A bit further, some more jabs, this time from Kenneth Fritsch:
I really like this sentence:
One should never lines over and over again the intent of the blog, then.
J Bowers,
I’ve posted to RC. I’m sure they will convey this to CRU if they think its worthwhile.
McIntyre’s rather cavalier approach to his calculations – publish first and check later – is a story in itself. If indeed he did change two rather than one proxies in his plot it also completely undermines the conclusions he drew from the figure.
I’d normally be up for using McIntyre’s code to try to work out what he’s done here, but in this case he hasn’t posted the relevant programs. I’m sure CRU could quickly turn round a recalculation and it would be rather neat to think of Briffa and Jones performing a ClimateAudit audit.
MapleLeaf:
“Correct me if I am wrong Tom, but the difference IMO seem to be trivial.”
I agree, the rate of change rather than the absolute values are the most important feature of recent warming. I certainly don’t regard the possibility of a warmer medieval as somehow disproving an anthropogenic contribution, or indeed vice versa.
This gaffe will blunt McIntyre’s attacks on Briffa. The important point, though, is as you comment – he has undermined his own credibility. You said I’m a brave man. Actually it’s McIntyre at the moment who is probably feeling a little anxious.
What doesn’t surprise me is that none of the followers seem concerned — or willing to admit as much — about the auditor apparently not doing a very good job of actually producing a carefully checked and correct piece of work on climatic data for a public inquiry on the reliability of climatic data!
Who’s auditing the auditor? Maybe the analogy to Enron and Andersen isn’t so bad after all… Enron hired Andersen as its auditors and they did a bang up job.
Who hired McIntyre? 😀
LMAO!
Thanks TomP, good work!
Just a quick thought or two. The McFraudit’s claim that McI provides all of his code– why the sudden shyness. And can someone please tell the commission that McI is not a statistician!
Yes, and I would love to see Briffa audit McI. Although TomP seems to have done an excellent job of that already– no wonder he is getting so much flack.
SheWonk “Who hired McIntyre?”
Inhofe, Tom Harris, Harper? So many possibilities. That is just one of the many reasons why we need to see their emails;)
There seems to be a good cop / bad cop routine over at CA. McIntyre’s the “good cop” in most public scenarios, pretending to be nice in public as to build up a faux reputation, such that more inane memorandums that throw various smears at climate scientists can be taken more seriously. He’s got many other doing the dirty work – in this case, stifling dissent. I can see McIntyre lightly scolding “Jean S” if Jean is challenged enough by less loyal elements of his following as to make himself appear reasonable. His followers are more than happy to take one for the team (or “cabal” if you prefer).
It was just an inquiry in Parliament. If it were a Congressional hearing I’m sure he would’ve been much more careful.
</snark>
Briffa already audited McIntyre’s claims on Yamal.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/sensit.htm
Marco, #97
These were good responses but Briffa didn’t show here the considerably lower correlation McIntyre’s “Khadyta Variation” had with temperature compared to the original Yamal chronology.
I also think a direct response by CRU to the claims in McIntyre’s submission is a reasonable idea. They are not countered by these previous responses.
Willard,
Another cracker for your collection:
And somewhere else (http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/01/uk-parliamentary-hearings-today/#comment-224566):
rcrejects, the owner of http://rcrejects.wordpress.com/ (Mar 2, 2010 at 5:07 AM):
Area Man (Mar 2, 2010 at 6:51 AM), disregarding the tu quoque:
And now Jean S, for dramatization effect:
Notice the expressions: “trouble”, “single word”, “complaint”, “I do not regret”, “apparently an expert on moderation”, “telling us”, and “hereby”.
A simple acknoledgement of someone else’s work would have prevented all this. History repeats itself, yet again.
@97 Thanks Marco. I completely forgot about that will all the goings on the last few months. I also can’t recall CA’s response, although I can hardy see CA capitulating.
Willard, so is Jean S gone, period?
Ron Cram wrote:
“If you [Susann] want to make some contribution to this discussion, try focusing on the facts. Stop making personal attacks. They are worthless to your cause. Michael Mann used to tell everyone that McIntyre was funded by Big Oil, but no one believes Mann anymore. McIntyre has been proven right time and time again. If the strategy once was to marginalize McIntyre – to dismiss him with name-calling and snide remarks… well, that time is over. McIntyre has published in the peer-reviewed literature. He has testified before Congress, before NAS and many other panels.”
Ron, I admire your patience, but I suspect truth is not a guiding principle for shewonk, at least in this arena.
You know, one gets q
.. [last message accidentally posted too early ] ..
I think that maybe those who truly believe that ‘excess’ CO2 is going to destroy all life (as we know it) feel that the issue is so serious that scruples and manners are seen as an obstacle, with enemies such as Big Oil and the Republicans.
I don’t know whether Susann feels like this, but a lot of commenters who cleave to AGW seem to have discarded politeness when dealing with people who disagree.
Oneuni “discarded politeness when dealing with people who disagree.”
Think why that might be, and I mean really think.
And who the heck said that ” ‘excess’ CO2 is going to destroy all life”? Now you are making up BS like Cram does. In which peer-reviewed paper featured/cited by the IPCC do they say that? I want a reference and will check it out myself.
Those indulging in attacks on science and scientists are Inhofe, McIntyre, Pielke Jnr., Morano, Watts, Christy, Monckton….it is a very long list. McI is very subtle in his attacks he leaves that to his acolytes, well that is when he is not making references to “crack cocaine” or “jihadist” or “fraud”. So please, stop being a hypocrite and lecturing others on “manners” or the pursuit of ‘truth’. This distorting and projecting on your part is a common tactic used by those in denial, don’t take us for fools.
Oh, and oneuni, this post is about “The Inquiry”. So far it has been a failure for the contrarians b/c of their incompetence. No wonder you are trolling here trying to detract from that.
Now you have a delightful day 🙂 See how nice and polite I am?
MapleLeaf #101
The relevant thread on Climate Audit in response to Briffa is here:
As I mentioned above, Briffa might have made a stronger case if he had presented a correlation with temperature for McIntyre’s Khadyta chronology which would have tackled McIntyre’s claims head on. I asked McIntyre for this correlation but although he said he’d get back to me, he became “too busy” commenting on the CRU emails, and I stopped regularly visiting the site.
It was only when the rather nasty Enron post came out that I felt I should bring up the matter again. When rebuffed once more, I found the code to do this had been posted and needed just a little rewriting to calculate what I had suspected, a correlation for McIntyre’s Khadyta significantly below the derided Yamal chronology.
I was therefore not very surprised to find the gaffe in his submission to the Select Committee when I read it yesterday.
McIntyre often exhorts his readers to “watch the pea under the thimble.” It’s sound advice.
Thanks Tom.
There’s a second problem with McIntyre’s submission, ironically partly down to his cutting off a plot just before an incline in temperatures. I just posted this on Climate Audit:
Steve,
There appears to be another issue with your submission. Your version in fig. 5 of what is claimed to be a reproduction of the published Briffa (2000) plot of changes in the northern high-latitude temperature is significantly different from the original. Here is your plot overlain with a displaced version of the original:
http://img13.imageshack.us/i/briffavsmcibriffa.png/
Some of the discrepancies between the plots may be partly down to a different choice in smoothing function. Notably, though, the original does not show the marked difference seen in your version between the medieval warm period and the twentieth century. In fact you cut off your plot before the peak temperatures of the late tenth century seen in the original. The blue line shows that any difference between these two periods in the original is not readily discernible, unlike in your attempted replot. This makes the contrast with your second reconstruction which replaces one, or maybe two, of the chronologies rather less marked.
I think it would be best to first calculate a more accurate reproduction of the Briffa reconstruction including all of the relevant periods before commenting on any differences with your version.
MapleLeaf,
You omitted the “as we know it” portion in your quote, rather changing its meaning – that’s misleading. Life is likely to survive, in one form or another. For humanity, and many species, likely catastrophe is being predicted unless we stop emitting so much CO2.
In 2009, Penny Sackett, Australia’s chief scientist, said that we have six years to radically lower emissions, or face calamitous, unstoppable global warming.
That is the sort of fear that’s been implanted in people – talk of a 6ft sea-level rise by 2100 (Copenhagen, via the Potsdam Institute), melting Himalayan glaciers mostly disappearing by 2050 (IPCC AR4), reduced crop African crop yields (IPCC AR4), and so on.
eg. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE50F76420090116
““The scary thing is that a lot of structures, cities and lifestyles that have been developed in the region over the last 100 years were based on an abundance of water,” Thompson [glaciologist at Ohio State University] said.
“Nearly 2 billion people in China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Bhutan would be hit by water shortages as the rivers slow, Geoff Dabelko, director of the environment and security program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, said by telephone.”
A link to all the available submissions :
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
Oops, the previous link is redundant as it’s already in Susann’s head post.
oneuni, of course you were referring to life as we know it, what else would you be referring to , a parallel universe?
The only one who insist on continually misleading is you. Re what Dr. Sackett told people in Canberra. I asked you “In which peer-reviewed paper featured/cited by the IPCC do they say that?”. “That” being “‘excess’ CO2 is going to destroy *all life* (as we know it)”. And you still have not provided an answer. You just go on to use your response to introduce some more attacks and cherry-picked quotes about some expected regional impacts. And for the record, I do not agree with her statement, it is not consistent with what the IPCC’s position.
Actually SCAR increased its estimates of sea level rise to 1.5 m (~5 ft) in a recent report– and SL will continue to rise post 2100. You forget that the IPCC underestimated the observed sea level rise, they have also underestimated the loss of Arctic sea ice. All in all, their projections have been on the conservative side.
As for observed trends in droughts, read Dai et al. 2004, (J. Climate) and look at their Fig. 7. Look at the drying over Africa (especially the Sahel) as well as other portions of the globe, including Australia. They state:
“During the last two–three decades, there was a tendency of more extreme (either
very dry or very wet) conditions over many regions, including the United States, Europe, east Asia, southern Africa, and the Sahel. Surface air temperature increases over land, which increase the water-holding capacity of the air and thus its demand of moisture, have been a primary cause for the widespread drying during the last two–three decades.”
And
“These results provide observational evidence for the increasing risk of droughts as anthropogenic global warming progresses and produces both increased temperatures
and increased drying.”
Now, I am happy to engage your about the Inquiry or content of the submissions, but I am not entertaining your troll-like behaviour and obfuscation.
I’m not the one spreading stories of ecological catastrophe.. why not ask Dr. Sackett what peer-reviewed literature she based her work on?
Sorry, I meant, which scientific studies did she base her statement on?
You’re welcome to spin your wheels on my slightly alarmist phrasing (intentional), but the phrase does accurately convey the fear of bio-catastrophe that has been spread by some scientists.
Oneuniverse, please debunk these papers and get back to us to tell us why there’s naff all to be concerned about:
Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years. Tripati et al (December 2009)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296
Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data. Lunt et al (December 2009)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo706.html
Here’s a chart to oggle:
Click to access egu2009_ess.pdf
High Earth-system climate sensitivity determined from Pliocene carbon dioxide concentrations. Pagani et al (December 2009)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo724.html
Palaeoclimate: Global warmth with little extra CO2. Schneider & Schneider (January 2010)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/full/ngeo736.html
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100. Breecker et al (October 2009)
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576
What’s Jim Hansen been saying all this time?
I asked you “In which peer-reviewed paper featured/cited by the IPCC do they say that?”. “That” being “‘excess’ CO2 is going to destroy *all life* (as we know it)”.
Glad to hear you concede that you are being alarmist. You fail and bye bye.
JBowers @115. I was not aware of some of the newer papers in your post, thanks.
Here it the latest exchange on Climate Audit concerning McIntyre’s submission. The last comment was pulled into moderation:
Tom P
Posted Mar 3, 2010 at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Reply
Steve,
The bulk of your submission, paragraphs 3 to 18, concerns your issues with the creation and selection of individual proxies. Paragraph 19 concludes your analysis with showing in fig. 5 an example of how such issues might affect a reconstruction (Briffa 2000) that was used in both the third and fourth IPCC reports.
Until you establish the basis for both of your plots in figure 5, it would be difficult to quantify what might be the contribution to a final reconstruction from any of your issues with the individual chronologies.
Given that your submission is currently part of the material being rapidly assessed by the Select Committee for their final report, and that you now will not be able to check how these plots were derived for a “week or so”, it might be worth immediately advising the committee of these uncertainties in your submission.
Steve: As I said before, I’ll doublecheck on the point in question. I like to be precise about calculations and have undertaken to post up scripts. For the point in question, it doesn’t matter whether the variation is Polar Utals/Yamal alone or whether it is Polar Urals/Yamal and Tornetrask. In either case, the result is sensitive to minor variations in version. Obviously the obligation to have reported this rested with Briffa and CRU and they should have reported it long ago. Again, I have personal business this week that interferes with me posting the scripts up as promptly as I would like.
Tom P
Posted Mar 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM | Permalink | ReplyYour comment is awaiting moderation.
Steve,
You write “For the point in question, it doesn’t matter whether the variation is Polar Utals/Yamal alone or whether it is Polar Urals/Yamal and Tornetrask.”
That’s not at all what your submission implies. To quote:
“The above examples show influential CRU site chronologies. However, the number of proxies in a typical IPCC multiproxy reconstruction is sufficiently small that the choice between two versions of a single site chronology can impact the overall reconstruction. For example, Figure 5 compares the published Briffa (2000) reconstruction (left) with a version derived merely by substituting the Polar Urals update for Yamal(right). The medieval-modern differential changes with one seemingly inconsequential change of version.”
The point is repeatedly made: “the choice between two versions of a single site”, “merely by substituting the Polar Urals update for Yamal”, “one seemingly inconsequential change of versions”. In your submission you emphasised that just a single change caused a significant effect. I don’t see how you can now claim “it doesn’t matter”.
Furthermore, even the significance of the change in this reconstruction is questionable. Unlike in your version, there was no noticeable warming of the modern over the medieval in Briffa’s original plot, and Briffa was careful not to claim any significantly warmer twentieth century in his 2002 paper. Of course if the two periods are very close in temperature, their order can easily change with any slight variation in chronology. That, though, does not make such a change significant.
I quite understand that you might not be able to post the scripts for a week or so. But during that time your submission is likely to be considered by the Select Committee for their final report. It is therefore important that they should be made aware now that paragraph 19, “Impact on Reconstructions” contains inconsistencies that you are working to resolve.
Tom P,
Here’s the email address for the Commons Science and Techology Committee. scitechcom@parliament.uk
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/science_technology_contact_details.cfm
Clerk Glenn McKee 020 7219 8367
Second Clerk Richard Ward 020 7219 2792
Committee Specialist Dr Christopher Tyler 020 7219 1352
Committee Specialist Xameerah Malik 020 7219 2118
Senior Committee Assistant Andrew Boyd 020 7219 2793
Committee Assistant Camilla Brace 020 7219 2794
Committee Assistant Dilys Tonge 020 7219 2655
Committee Assistant Melanie Lee 020 7219 2794
Committee Support Assistant Jim Hudson 020 7219 0732
Media Officer Rebecca Jones 020 7219 5693
I don’t think it’s a given that they’ll be notified in due time.
Alternatively, here’s UEA’s contact details:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/co/Contact
Sorry, scrap that last post about UEA. Wrong department
Here’s the email address for CRU
cru@uea.ac.uk
J Bowers- would you mind not putting email addresses up in such a manner? It makes them simple for bots to harvest for spammers to use. Remember to use the internet responsibly.
J Bowers,
Thanks. If there’s no response from McIntyre by tomorrow I’ll give Chris Tyler a call to see how best to proceed. I just posted on Climate Audit:
Steve,
Following on from my comment that’s been pulled into moderation, if you’re too busy to get in contact with the Select Committee, I should be able to get in touch with them tomorrow.
Do it anyway. It’s a free country. 😉
RomanM, missing the point:
Tom P
Posted Mar 3, 2010 at 5:40 PM | Permalink | ReplyYour comment is awaiting moderation.
Steve,
Following on from my comment that’s been pulled into moderation, if you’re too busy to get in contact with the Select Committee, I should be able to get in touch with them tomorrow.
[RomanM: I put this comment into moderation since your behavior is nothing more than common trolling. Steve has told you that he is busy and you will have to wait for a response, however you persist in your nonsense anyway. If I were Steve, I would ban you from the site until you can learn a little common courtesy.]
Tom P
Posted Mar 3, 2010 at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Reply
RomanM,
I’m not asking Steve to give me a response! I can wait. But in the meantime the Select Committee should be made aware that he is working on inconsistencies in his submission. It’s not a case of common courtesy, more one of Steve’s reputation for scientific accuracy.
J Bowers
I have just briefed a very well informed member of staff of the Select Committee on the issues with McIntrye’s submission.
Nice one, Tom, at least they’re aware of it, so it’s up to a re-check by both McIntyre and the committee. No doubt none of the CAccolytes bothered to do the right thing. 😉
Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you actually know what you’re speaking about! Bookmarked. Kindly additionally seek advice from my website =). We may have a link trade agreement among us
You can learn a lot from these consultants for the management of your business and the way of solving the operational
problems. People enjoy looking at what other people
have written concerning your goods. Join all the facebook groups you can get accepted to.
An interesting discussion is definitely worth comment. I think that you should write
more about this issue, it might not be a taboo matter
but usually people do not discuss these issues. To the next!
All the best!!
This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger.
I have joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your great post.
Also, I’ve shared your web site in my social networks!
Thanks great bblog