date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:30:37 +0100 from: C G Kilsby subject: RE: FW: Please take note of potetially serious allegations of to: "'P.Jones@uea.ac.uk'" Hull Uni may be interested to know what their "Reader Emeritus" is up to... >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 04 October 2009 10:55 >To: Roger Street >Cc: C G Kilsby >Subject: Re: FW: Please take note of potetially serious allegations of >scientific 'fraud' by CRU and Met Office > > > Roger, > We are aware of all this. You perhaps could reply by saying that >you'll >only consider it if the allegations are masde in the peer-review >literature. These are allegations that have been made on blog sites, >which have not been peer-reviewed. We are looking into the latest one >made on Keith Briffa. > As you're aware also, we only work on the WG with Newcastle. We use >UK >station data to fit the WG to. There is no paleo data involved, no data >other than British data. > I think this is a scurrilous attack and should be treated accordingly. > You should also contact Kathryn. > > Thanks for sending this on - I am going to go further with this! > > Cheers > Phil > >> We received this through our enquiries desk. I assume that you are >aware >> of this person, including those copied on the message. >> >> If we are to respond, it would be to indicate that there are multiple >> sources of supporting evidence and that we continue to place our >> confidence in the international scientific assessment process. This >> confidence has proven to be well placed. >> >> Roger >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen >> Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00 >> To: Stephanie Ferguson >> Cc: "Peiser, Benny" , Patrick David >Henderson >> , Christopher Monckton > >> Subject: RE: Please take note of potetially serious allegations >of >> scientific 'fraud' by CRU and Met Office >> >> >> >> >> Dear Stephanie >> >> I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work is based on the data >provided by >> CRU (as does the work of the IPCC and of course UK climate policy). >> Some of this, very fundamentally, would now seem to be open to >scientific >> challenge, and may even face future legal enquiries. It may be in the >> interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good time and become a little >more >> 'uncertain' about its policy advice. >> >> Perhaps you can comment on the following and pass the allegations >made on >> to the relevant people. >> >> It is beyond my expertise to assess the claims made, but they >would fit >> into my perception of the whole 'man-made global warming' cum energy >> policy debate. I know several of the people involved personally and >have >> no reason to doubt their sincerity and honour as scientists, though I >am >> also aware of their highly critical (of IPCC science) policy positions. >> >> I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross >> McKitrick. Ross McKitrick currently teaches at Westminister Business >> School and who is fully informed about the relevant issues. He >recently >> addressed a meeting of about 50 people in London. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Sonja B-C >> >> Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen >> Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography >> Hull University >> Editor, Energy&Environment >> Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk) >> HULL HU6 7RX >> Phone:(0044)1482 465369/465385 >> Fax: (0044) 1482 466340 >> >> >> TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy >> >> a. THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN >> >> " Jennifer Marohasy >> >> Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer >Marohasy >> < >> scientists-> >> http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate- >scientists- >> must-explain-or-resign/> >> >> MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various >> reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year >of >> the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over >the >> last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to >data >> used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea >that >> there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last >> hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph. >> >> Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data - which he had been asking for >since >> 2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of >the >> United Kingdom's Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small >> subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years >have >> been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is >> used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears >> completely. [1] >> >> Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics >behind >> the 'hockey stick'. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre, in >> particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the >upswing >> in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of >> the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same >> scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently >they >> were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they >> published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a >> journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data >> archiving which it >> enforces. >> >> This week's claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated >with the >> UK Meteorology Bureau have been less than diligent are serious and >> suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for >> anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the >> methodology is laid bare. >> >> This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is >archived >> at the UK Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets that >> spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while >> complete data sets are kept hidden from the public - including from >> scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre. >> >> It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research >Centre >> associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre >is >> in error or resign. >> >> [1] Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September >2009 >> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 >> >> Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD >> >> >> >> b. National Review Online, 23 September 2009 >> > ODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=>By >> Patrick J. Michaels >> >> >> Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface >temperature. >> Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific >> basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical >> footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session >> talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in >> Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because >the >> data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have >> disappeared. >> >> Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from >some >> discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, >and >> they aren't talking much. And what little they are saying makes no >sense. >> In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of >Energy, >> scientists at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia >established >> the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world's first >> comprehensive history of surface temperature. It's known in the trade >as >> the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom >Wigley, >> and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. >> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was >this >> record that prompted the IPCC to claim a "discernible human influence >on >> global climate." >> Putting together such a record isn't at all easy. Weather stations >> weren't really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones >> were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow >into >> cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees >grow >> up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, >as >> documented by the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke Sr., many of >the >> stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots >or >> near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be >> recorded. >> So the weather data that go into the historical climate records >that are >> required to verify models of global warming aren't the original >records >> at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren't specific about what was >done >> to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to >> the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/- 0.2°C in the 20th century. >> >> Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, >wondered >> where that "+/-" came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early >> 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's response to a fellow >> scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or >so >> invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, >when >> your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" >> Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti- >scientific >> thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to "try and find >> something wrong." The ultimate objective of science is to do things so >> well that, indeed, nothing is wrong. >> >> Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech's Peter Webster >told >> Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, >and >> Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of >> Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited >by >> the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial >> temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn't have the data because >he >> wasn't an "academic." So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at >> the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too. >> Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them >all, >> saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data >> between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre's blog >readers >> then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a >handful >> turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in >> very vague language. >> It's worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers >demonstrating >> that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming >trend >> estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those >> records to independent data from satellites) may have been >overestimated >> by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies >> linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have >found >> otherwise). >> Enter the dog that ate global warming. >> >> Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies >at the >> University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones >> responded: >> Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into >existing >> series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations >> within a particular country or if all of an individual record should >be >> freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we >> were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the >> station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, >do >> not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality >> controlled and homogenized) data. >> The statement about "data storage" is balderdash. They got the >records >> from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original >data >> could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I >had >> all of the world's surface barometric pressure data on one such tape >in >> 1979. >> If we are to believe Jones's note to the younger Pielke, CRU >adjusted the >> original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. >The >> letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, >Peter >> Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: >> What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why? >> >> All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears >likely >> that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from >its >> docket this fall - whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency >is >> going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. >> Unlike a law, which can't be challenged on a scientific basis, a >> regulation can. If there are no data, there's no science. U.S. >taxpayers >> deserve to know the answer to the question posed above. (Patrick J. >> Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato >> Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science >They >> Don't Want You to Know.) " >> >> >> >> >> > ****************************************************************** >*********************** >> To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go >to >> >> http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html >> > ****************************************************************** >*********************** >> >> >> >