Institute Of Physics Calls for Climate-gate Enquiry

[BlasterBates]

BB - This quote from a postgrad, which is his contribution made under an open request for submissions. Would that be Lalu Hanuman, whose degree was withheld by the University ... and who took the University to court under the Human Rights Act (and lost), and who might conceivably have a little bit of an axe to grind?

What exactly is Hanuman's expertise on the workings of the CRU? Was he a student there? Did he ever actually set foot in the place? Please do tell.

Yes he does but then again most Whistleblowers do have an axe to grind...check out Enron.
and he claims to have documentary evidence so lets have a look shall we and see.

...and what did this e-mail mean?

trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years… to hide the decline.”

That alone makes his allegations substantive.

...and why did they refuse to hand out the data??

...and if it all so harmless why is there a parliamentary enquiry, from a government that openly supports them?

There are serious allegations, and they're being condemned by the Istitute of Physics, Chemists and Statisticians.

Not exactly a bunch of denialists.

[pjclarke]

Hide the Decline

...and what did this e-mail mean?

See here ... The following email, which I can confirm is genuine, has caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight.

The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.

Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.

The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.

Indeed, the scientists were so depearate to conceal the decline in question (in tree-ring proxies) that they er, published a paper on it, which is an odd way to keep a secret.

The 'substantive' quote, like so many others, turns out to be totally innocent and innocuous.

[BlasterBates]

...and what did this e-mail mean?

See here ... The following email, which I can confirm is genuine, has caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight.

The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.

Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.

The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.

Indeed, the scientists were so depearate to conceal the decline in question (in tree-ring proxies) that they er, published a paper on it, which is an odd way to keep a secret.

The 'substantive' quote, like so many others, turns out to be totally innocent and innocuous.

really ?

but then again

http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/m...-nature-trick/

I think I'll await the outcome of the enquiry, that documentary evidence may help in resolving what really went on.

[EternalOptimist]

I would hate to be accused of taking this one out of context (from 2005)

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott [Rutherford]. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McIntyre and McKittrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !




my bold
IPR = intellectual property rights.

The guy is putting a lot of energy into hiding stuff

[Spacecadet]

Indeed, the scientists were so depearate to conceal the decline in question (in tree-ring proxies) that they er, published a paper on it, which is an odd way to keep a secret.

Being published proves nothing untill the research and results being published have been backed up independantly, which is good scientific practice which itself is the point behind the IOP statement i.e. goos scientific practice is not being carried out.

Anyway, Nature are hardly whiter than white on this issue
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...orycode=410381

[pjclarke]

If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone

Do you not recognise hyperbole when you read it !? These data were a large part of Jones' 'life work' and it is not plausible that he is being serious here.

If he had written 'I'll send it over my dead body', would you have taken that as a serious suicide threat? Remember that these are snippets lifted selectively from long correspondences, we are seeing just what the hacker wants us to see.

Anyhow, in the event the station list was released.

[BlasterBates]

Lets just remind ourselves of what the Institute of Physics has said:

The body representing 36,000 UK physicists has called for a wider enquiry into the Climategate affair, saying it raises issues of scientific corruption.

It deplores the climate scientists’ "intolerance to challenge" and the "suppression of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements."

sums it up well I think

[pjclarke]

Er, you (or maybe The Register) dropped a word from your quote. Before the word 'suppression', was the word 'apparent'.

In fact nobody has shown any actual suppression, deletion or manipulation of any data whatsoever.

Looks like a small subgroup, with links to the Energy Industry, within the IOP were largely responsible for this submission.

[BlasterBates]

Er, you (or maybe The Register) dropped a word from your quote. Before the word 'suppression', was the word 'apparent'.

In fact nobody has shown any actual suppression, deletion or manipulation of any data whatsoever.

Looks like a small subgroup, with links to the Energy Industry, within the IOP were largely responsible for this submission.

well it's an accusation not a fact so fine....but that's why they ask for an enquiry.

...and lets see that documentary evidence and then maybe we can drop the word apparent, and if that's the case I think a few careers will have ended.

[pjclarke]

The 'documentary evidence' is supplied by the former UEA Postgrad who unsuccessfully sued the University and refers to the UEA as an institution. He is inferring that because he believes the University lacks integrity, therefore the CRU must also. He has no documentary evidence against the CRU specifically, would be my guess.

Translation: a postgrad was turned down for a degree, unsuccessfully appealed, took the his case to the courts [ELR 685], lost again and is now using this enquiry as a vehicle to further his campaign. An irrelevance to the issues in hand.