Thursday, June 14, 2012


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: "''" <>

Hull Uni may be interested to know what their "Reader Emeritus" is up to...

>-----Original Message-----
>From: []
>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
>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which have not been peer-reviewed.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
>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
>> 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
>> <>, Christopher Monckton
>> Subject: RE: Please take note of potetially serious allegations
>> 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
>> 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
>> '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
>> no reason to doubt their sincerity and honour as scientists, though I
>> 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
>> 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 (
>> Phone:(0044)1482 465369/465385
>> Fax: (0044) 1482 466340
>> TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy
>> " Jennifer Marohasy <>
>> Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer
>> <
>> <
>> must-explain-or-resign/>
>> MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various
>> reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year
>> the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over
>> last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to
>> used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea
>> 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
>> 2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of
>> United Kingdom's Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small
>> subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years
>> 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
>> the 'hockey stick'. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre, in
>> particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre
>> in error or resign.
>> [1] Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September
>> Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD
>> b. National Review Online, 23 September 2009
> <
>> Patrick J. Michaels
>> Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface
>> 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
>> data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have
>> disappeared.
>> Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from
>> discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened,
>> they aren't talking much. And what little they are saying makes no
>> In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of
>> scientists at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia
>> the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world's first
>> comprehensive history of surface temperature. It's known in the trade
>> the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom
>> and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N.
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was
>> record that prompted the IPCC to claim a "discernible human influence
>> 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
>> cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees
>> up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further,
>> documented by the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke Sr., many of
>> stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots
>> 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
>> at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren't specific about what was
>> 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,
>> 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
>> invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you,
>> your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
>> Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-
>> 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
>> Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data,
>> Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of
>> Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited
>> the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial
>> temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn't have the data because
>> 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
>> saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data
>> between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre's blog
>> then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a
>> 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
>> that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming
>> estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those
>> records to independent data from satellites) may have been
>> by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies
>> linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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,
>> 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
>> from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original
>> could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I
>> all of the world's surface barometric pressure data on one such tape
>> 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.
>> letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all,
>> 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
>> that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from
>> docket this fall - whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency
>> 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.
>> 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
>> Don't Want You to Know.) "
> ******************************************************************
>> To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go
>> <>
> ******************************************************************

No comments:

Post a Comment