....or the cutting and pasting unverifiable theories for fun and profit

Documenting climatology's fascination with regurgitation. Here is a popular example to get you started: Luterbacher and Jones borrow their text from the Mann.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Michael Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky

Michael Mann, defends the fake/inept (your choice) statistics of Stephan Lewandowsky. From 'Michael Mann, Scientist(?)'s Facebook page.
Michael E. Mann says: 'Stephen McIntyre goes back to same dishonest "recipe for manufacturing doubt" behind his attacks on Hockey Stick. His latest attacks on Professor Stephen Lewandowski's new study on climate change denialism actually exploits the same sleight of hand (throwing out important signals in a dataset) behind his original attacks on the Hockey Stick reconstruction, as detailed in "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars"'

Tuesday, September 11, 2012


Stephan Lewandowsky publishes widely on topics that interest him. Lewandowsky is an authority on the relative merits of pie and bar charts, for example. (See http://smr.sagepub.com/content/18/2-3/200.short). More recently Lewandowsky has published on the topic of myth debunking - explaining to others the steps necessary to remove incorrect thoughts from the minds of simpletons (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf). The following graphic is an example of this cutting edge cognitive psychology, taken from Lewandowsky's 'Debunking Handbook':

It turns out that Lewandowsky has recently conducted a survey of 'skeptic' thinking and its relation to climate change research. Lewandowsky sent surveys to 'skeptic' and 'warmist' web sites and collated the results obtained. Unfortunately none of the skeptic sites publicized the survey. Somewhat surprisingly then, many conclusions about skeptic thought were obtained. Apparently, warmist respondees had taken it upon themselves to answer as skeptics. The resulting 'fake', 'bogus', 'erroneous' (etc.) responses likely skew the findings of the survey, as pointed out by Steve McIntyre here: http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/08/lewandowsky-scam/.

Lewandowsky, in the spirit of open scientific endeavor, has now taken to removing questions on this from the forum he operates - as shown below in the two posts from 10-September 2012 (before and after Lewandowsky, or Lewandowsky's moderator's edits).



I don't think that this was either inflammatory or an accusation of deception, I was simply asking about the logic of the paper, and what Lewandowsky might do next based on his apparent logic.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Can Phil Jones Cut-and-Paste?

Looking through the ClimateGate II emails, I noticed a while back this message from Phil Jones to Osborn, Briffa, and Amman:

date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:00:05 +0100 (BST) 
from: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk 
subject: CA 
to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, ammannatXYZxyzr.edu 

This is a confidential email 

Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the 
responses and letters up. 

There are three threads - two beginning with Fortress and 
a third later one. 

Worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards - can you do this Tim? 

Most are just rants, but his seem to imply he knows 
what he's talking about. 


PS - don't think I've forgotten Wengen. The best thing to stuff 
this lot is the Wengen paper coming out. 

This reveals that:

  • Phil and colleague read Climate Audit in detail, even in 2008
  • Phil parses the responses carefully - concluding that Jim Edwards "knows what he's talking about"
  • Phil asks Osborn to save Jim Edwards' comments (can Phil not cut-and-paste for himself?!)

I checked one of the Climate Audit posts in question. It is here. Sure enough, Jim Edwards is helpfully providing arguments to the CRU, as he skeptically picks through the information presented by Steve. No wonder Phil was interested! Did Osborn manage to cut-and-paste any of Edwards' arguments into future FOI responses? These guys can't even evade FOI requests on their own - they needed to plagiarize their legal arguments!

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Real Climate Comment Deletion Ongoing

In recent days there has been a fascinating exchange of information concerning Yamal (see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/ and http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/09/uea-submission-to-tribunal-on-wahl-foi/ (and follow up postings on ClimateAudit).

Things seem to be looking difficult to explain - without considering the possibility of 'unscientific' rocessing of scientific data by the CRU team. Strangely Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have strenuously occupied them selves claiming that this is a 'molehill' (Mann) and worthy of intensive positioning posts (Schmidt).

I (ZT) made a comment or two on the Real Climate thread linked above, pointing out where Gavin Schmidt's comments were factually incorrect. Strangely my posts were permitted, except the one above, which took issue with a reply to one of ZT's earlier comments. This particular comment did not wind up in the Bore Hole - and I assure you that I entered the captcha code correctly. So it seems that Real Climate are continuing their time tested tradition of deleting comments.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Are There Fingerprints in the Climategate Archives?

Are there differences in the recipients of Climategate I and II email messages? To analyze this I used the following commands:
egrep -i "^To:" *.txt |\
       tr -cs A-Za-z0-9 '\012' |\
       tr A-Z a-z |\
       awk '{ count[$1]++}END{for(w in count){print w " " count[w]}}' |\
       sort -n -k2
These commands pull out the 'To:' line(s) from each email, turns these lines into a set of individual words, lowercase these strings, then count the frequency of occurrence of each string. Finally the results are sorted numerically, based on the count field. The results of this is a long screenful of output with some extraneous strings, such as 'txt' with a count number, like this:
mann 918
phil 603
keith 624
ucar 640
de 645
t 791
hulme 815
osborn 885
com 903
m 970
k 1086
p 1181
briffa 1548
jones 1753
gov 1892
edu 2746
uea 4654
to 5729
txt 5736
ac 6404
uk 7232
Filtering this by hand to remove the strings like 'txt' and 'uk' yields the following counts for the top five recipients and senders:
mann 183
osborn 200
jones 313
briffa 373
hulme 815
osborn 885
briffa 1548
jones 1753
So - Keith Briffa was the leading recipient of emails in CG I and Jones is the leading recipient of emails in CG II. Whether this is symptomatic of significantly different sources for the email archives, I do not know for sure, but it is suggestive of a difference.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Climatology, the Mayans, Etc.

As commented on Watts Up With That:
The basic 6 point plan if you want to run society….

1. Claim that some natural variation is caused by sin (of some sort)
2. Demonstrate the validity of your assertion through convenient observations (black death, drought, climate fluctuations, etc.)
3. Keep all the records yourself
4. Institute no-sin policies (that do not apply to you)
5. Collect taxes to fund your organization
6. Wait for your cult to be overthrown in 1,000-2,000 years or so

Worked for the Mayans, etc. why does everyone keep spoiling things for the Climatologists?

And the WUWT moderator, Robt, appended: ["run" society, or "ruin" society? Robt]

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Watching the (Atmospheric) Detectives

I had an interesting discussion with some climate modeling experts over at the 'National Center for Atmospheric Science recently. (Currently summarized here: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2012/on-comparing-models-and-observations).

This was about a post apparently comparing models and observations, so I asked about the time period considered suitable for falsifying climate models (apparently 17 years) and how climate models can be verified.

I learnt that reversing a CFD model in time is not mathematically trivial - but is possible - as many papers have been published on this topic. Hence a viable means of proving the validity of GCMs may be reversing time and predicting past climatic events.

Unfortunately, this suggestion was not enthusiastically embraced by the eager modeling 'scientists'!

I pointed out that 'time reversed' temperature models are quite common - for example - medical examiners employ such models to determine the time of death from postmortem temperature measurements.

The modelers argued that not only were the GCMs impossible to validate by comparison with observation (really) but they must also be supplied by the supposed temperature trend ('forcings') in order to make their 'predictions'!

This is similar to telling the medical examiner to determine the time of death, and that by the way it should be exactly 1 am in the morning! I noted that this form of 'forensic' evidence might not seem appropriate, should one ever find oneself in the dock, though a lazy detective might appreciate the convenience of not actually have to prove the facts.

Sadly, this comment was snipped. Such snippings (which are typical of the behavior of the warmist sites) are not really the stuff of openness and honesty, are they?

Much more the behavior of evidence destroying rotten cops - I am not impressed.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Manngling Models

Michael E. Mann has released a TED talk on the web in recent days. You can watch it here: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxPSU-Michael-Mann-A-Look-Int

The talk dates from 13 November 2011 (according to this page: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/lectures/index.php)

Mann includes an interesting comparison between Hansen's models made in 1988 and actual temperatures. Here is the graphic which Mann shows:

Another comparison can be viewed here: http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/

This comparison shows poor agreement between the predictions and the actual temperatures.

Why the discrepancy?

It turns out that:

1) Mann truncated actual temperatures at 2005 (strange given the fact that the talk was recorded in late 2011)

2) Mann says that the 'medium model' was 'pretty much spot on'. Actually the 'low model' was as close to observation as the 'medium model' - and including years after 2005 shows that the 'low' model is in better agreement with observation.

3) Mann misrepresented the 'high', 'medium' and 'low' models. These were actually assuming increased, constant, or reduced CO2 output. We have not reduced CO2 output since 1988 (quite the opposite) so the appropriate model for comparison would be what Mann called the 'high model'.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Clare Goodess from Compliance to Avoidance in a Matter of Months

In Feb 2005 Clare Goodess announced to the CRU that they would be complying with the Freedom of Information Act:


cc: cruatXYZxyz.ac.uk
date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:39:31 +0000
from: Clare Goodess
subject: Freedom of Information Act
to: cru.internalatXYZxyz.ac.uk

Dear all

All CRU staff should have received important emails from Alan Preece on 14
and 29 January concerning the Freedom of Information Act which came into
full force on 1 January 2005 - together with a leaflet. (If you are a
member of staff and haven't received these, please let me know).

It is important that we all comply with this act. If anybody in CRU (staff
or student) receives a request which refers to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), please forward it immediately to the Faculty of Science FOIA
contact - Mike McGarvie (x 3229, m.mcgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk) and copy it to Phil
and myself. If you are unsure about the request or it is unusual, please
copy to Phil and myself and we'll decide if we need to consult Mike McGarvie.

Best wishes, Clare

Dr Clare Goodess
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia

But by September 2005, Clare had decided that FOIs are complicated and 'politically sensitive'...


Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 11:31 AM
To: McGarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) k364
Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (CRU) f055
Subject: RE: Re: Freedom of Information Act


The whole situation is quite complicated and politically sensitive.

Would it be possible for Tim and Dave to meet to discuss this. I
think this would be the most efficient way of handling things.


Thursday, December 1, 2011

Fred Pearce, Journalist

Wondering how the BBC-shills compared with reputable journalists, I made a collection of the Climategate 2.0 references to Fred Pearce. (See below) What one sees is that Pearce, although of a generally warmist inclination, is looking for a story, and looking for corroboration for the facts that he picks up. In short he is shown to be a journalist, not an activist. (In stark contrast to Roger Harrabin, for example). Here are the links:


This message, 3991.txt, is odd as Mike Hulme has apparently been complaining to Pearce about data not being released by other scientists, and Pearce is asking for additional information. As usual, Pearce is behaving like a typical journalist looking for a story. Hulme on the other hand is probably just seeding some rumours.

...It is unclear whether Hulme decided to submit and FOI to obtain the data he wanted from whichever group he was bad mouthing. I suppose badmouthing them was better than harassing them, right?

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Shilling for a Living

As posted at Bishop Hills. The BBC are paid by the taxpayer, the UEA are paid by the taxpayer. Why shouldn't the BBC and UEA get together and make sure that the taxpayer continues to be terrified into paying more?

I wonder who else at the BBC is a shill? Here's a list...

Jonathan.stewart@bbc.co.uk 2315.txt

Matt.McGrath@bbc.co.uk 1033.txt

Michael.Duffy@bbc.co.uk 2747.txt

alex.kirby@bbc.co.uk 4894.txt

christine.mcgourty@bbc.co.uk 1883.txt

dan.tapster@bbc.co.uk 1724.txt

david.akerman@bbc.co.uk 3841.txt

david.shukman@bbc.co.uk 3526.txt

joanna.malton.01@bbc.co.uk 0999.txt

john.walton.02@bbc.co.uk 3957.txt

jonathan.renouf@bbc.co.uk 1683.txt

julia.barry@bbc.co.uk 2073.txt

mary.colwell@bbc.co.uk 4157.txt


naomi.law@bbc.co.uk 3174.txt

nora.dennehy@bbc.co.uk 3526.txt

pam.rutherford@bbc.co.uk 0216.txt

philip.eden@bbc.co.uk 4689.txt

richard.black@bbc.co.uk enough said

roger.harrabin@bbc.co.uk enough said

roland.pease@bbc.co.uk 1428.txt

sarah.mukherjee@bbc.co.uk 1428.txt

sian.buckley@bbc.co.uk 1428.txt

vicki.barker@bbc.co.uk 1428.txt

...long list, isn't it?

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Eco Energy Cities Plc - A Joint Venture Between The University of East Anglia, Davis Langdon and China Developments Plc - I Kid You Not

As posted on Bishop Hill - an odd link between the UEA, Trevor Davies, and a Chinese development company.


A press release of some sort - which ends with the footer...

"Eco Energy Cities Plc – A Joint Venture between the University of East Anglia,
Davis Langdon and China Developments Plc "

Trevor Davies' bio shows up on their site...


Because Trevor Davies is listed as a director:

Here's another blurb linking the UEA with this firm:

Strange stuff - but the UEA and Davies are profiting from the fear that they generate with their tax-payer funded media manipulation.

Keeping Up With The Joneses

An interesting illustration of the advanced workings of climatology are revealed in the following email written by Phil Jones. When faced with a specific request for data from the physicist Jonathan Jones from Oxford, Phil Jones rather than providing the requested data interrogates his son, Matthew Jones, on what he may know about their distant relative, Jones-the-Physicist. Such is the heady world of advanced climatology and its advanced data sharing policies.


date: Wed Sep 9 09:19:13 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: Heard of this person?
to: Matthew Jones
Have you heard of this person?
He is putting in Freedom of Information Requests for CRU climate data - see below.
Was he one of the people you applied to do a PhD with Oxford some time ago? I know he's in
but it mentions NMR on his web site - it does seem more quantum physics than chemistry.

From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)"
To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr
(ACAD)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" ,
"Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)"
Sender: "Baker Jane Mrs (LIB)"
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:33:59 +0100
Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117;
EIR_09-14) - Response
Thread-Topic: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request
(FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response
Thread-Index: AcocuvbRB/fNSyVpSGSv6dbZ6S0BIQKS1IxQADPsplA=
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2009 12:34:00.0686 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1EE58E0:01CA27DB]
Dear All,
We have received an appeal from Prof. Jonathan Jones regarding our response to his
request for the following information:
"a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from
CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and
June 25, 2009".
I have sent out an acknowledgement letter. We have until 24th September 2009 to respond.
Kind regards,
Jane Baker
LaRC Co-ordinator / Blackboard support
Learning and Resources Centre (LaRC)
Norwich NR4 7TJ
01603 59 3483

For LaRC enquiries please email larcatXYZxyz.ac.uk
For Blackboard enquiries please email the Staff or Student IT Helpdesk
staff.helpatXYZxyz.ac.uk or it.helpdesk@uea.ac.uk

My office days are Wednesday to Friday
Bob Heath is in the office Mondays and Tuesdays
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Jones [[2]mailto:Jonathan.JonesatXYZxyzit.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:10 PM
To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Cc: Heath Robert Mr (LIB); Baker Jane Mrs (LIB)
Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14)
- Response
Dear Mr Palmer,
Thank you for your letter dated 14 August, reference ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
REGULATIONS 2004 - INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) in response to my request
for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent
from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1,
2007 and June 25, 2009".
I regret that I do not consider your response satisfactory, and am therefore appealing
your decision. As I understand you are currently on holiday I am copying this to Bob
Heath (r.heathatXYZxyz.ac.uk) and Jane Baker (jane.baker@uea.ac.uk) as you requested in your
vacation message.
You have refused my request on three grounds, all of which are incorrect.
1. Reg. 12(4)(b) - Request is manifestly unreasonable: Information is available
You claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other
sources" namely the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU. It is
factually incorrect to claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already
available from other sources" and your argument cannot stand. A "subset of data already
available" would mean that the data I requested could be obtained from "the gridded data
made available by the GHCN and the CRU" by downloading some or all of this data and
deleting selected parts. The data I have requested cannot be obtained in this manner.
I refer you to the discussion of the gridding process at
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ .
You further claim that "it is unreasonable for the University to spend public resources
on providing information in a different format to that which is already available".
However I asked for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that
has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between
January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009". I have only requested a copy of a data set which has
already been prepared by the university, and so is already available. Once again your
statement is factually incorrect and your argument cannot stand.
2. Reg. 12(5)(a) - Adverse effect on international relations: Release would damage
relations with scientists & institutions from other nations
3. Reg. 12(5)(f) - Adverse effect on the person providing information: Information is
covered by a confidentiality agreement
I will take these two points together as they are in essence the same. I begin by
noting that it is wholly perverse to claim simultaneously that the data is "already
available" and that the data is "confidential". Clearly these two statements cannot
simultaneously be true.
With regard to Reg. 12(5)(a) you state that releasing this information "would damage the
trust that other national scientists and institutions have in UK-based public sector
organisations" and consequently "would damage the ability of the University and other UK
institutions to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other
countries". I draw your attention to resolution 40 of the World Meteorological
Organization which states that "WMO commits itself to broadening and enhancing the free
and unrestricted international exchange of meteorological and related data and
products". It is perverse to claim that acting in accordance with this resolution could
endanger cooperation with meteorological organizations.
With regard to Reg. 12(5)(f), the data I requested has already been provided to at least
one other individual, namely Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. Clearly this data cannot be
covered by a strict confidentiality agreement.
It is, of course, true that this data could be covered by limited confidentiality
agreements. The FOI and EIR are quite clear on the responsibilities of organizations
claiming exemption on grounds of confidentiality. The exemption "only applies if a
breach of confidence would be 'actionable'". Courts will only recognise that a person
holds information subject to a duty of confidence in two types of situations:
a) where that person expressly agrees or undertakes to keep information confidential:
there is an express duty of confidence
b) where the nature of the information of the circumstances in which the information is
obtained imply that the person should keep the information confidential: there is an
implied duty of confidence
>From your letter it appears that UEA is claiming an exemption of the first kind, as you
cite a number of supposed confidentiality agreements that you do hold, which are
available at [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ . In fact the great
majority of these are not clearly confidentiality agreements:
a) The 1994 FAX to the Met Office is simply a statement from Dr Hulme about the planned
use of the data; there is no reply as to the conditions under which the data is
b) The 1993 letter from DNMI is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal
agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to
claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with DNMI that an express duty
of confidentiality still applies.
c) The form in Spanish simply states that the data should only be used for the specified
purpose, and as no purpose was specified this cannot establish a duty of
d) The web page is simply a statement by the Met Office of its own policies; this
provides no evidence whatsoever of any duties under which UEA might hold data. It
further notes that NERC data centres may make the data available under certain
circumstances, so there is no absolute duty of confidence.
e) The 1994 letter from Bahrain International Airport is a limited request for
confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO
Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first
establish with Bahrain International Airport that an express duty of confidentiality
still applies.
I understand that in the past UEA has refused to release the data I have requested and
related data because the request came from a person who was not an academic. I remind
you that "No regard may be had to the identity of the person who is requesting the
information nor to the purpose to which they will put the information." I also remind
you that "When considering the balance of interests, public authorities must have regard
to the interests of the person to whom the duty of confidence is owed; the public
authority's own interests in non-disclosure are not relevant to the application of this
exemption." I further remind you that "If you receive a request for information which,
although it was confidential when it was obtained, was obtained a long time ago, you
should consider carefully whether the disclosure of that information would still
constitute an actionable breach of confidence within the meaning of section 41."
At best UEA has limited evidence for the existence of limited confidentiality agreements
covering part of the data I have requested. It is not clear to me that these documents
in any way establish an express duty of confidence. However, even if they do, the
responsibilities of UEA under Reg. 12(11) of the EIR are clear.
Regulation 12 (11) says: (11) Nothing in these Regulations shall authorise a refusal to
make available any environmental information contained in or otherwise held with other
information which is withheld by virtue of these Regulations unless it is not reasonably
capable of being separated from the other information for the purpose of making
available that information.
Thus UEA is certainly required to provide me with all the data I have requested with the
possible exception of data held under an express duty of confidence (for data withheld
it is required to establish that such an express duty of confidence does in fact
exist). Please note that if it is not possible to identify which data is covered by
supposed confidence agreements, then it is difficult to maintain that the release of
this data will breach such agreements.
I therefore appeal your decision, and reiterate my request for "a copy of any digital
version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster
and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009".
Prof Jonathan A. Jones web page at [5]http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk
Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation and Brasenose College Oxford
From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[6]mailto:David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk]
Sent: 14 August 2009 09:41
To: Jonathan Jones
Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) -
Prof. Jones

Attached please find a response to your request received on 24 July 2009. If you have
any questions don't hesitate to contact me.

Cheers, Dave Palmer

David Palmer
Information Policy & Compliance Manager
University of East Anglia
Norwich, England
Information Services
Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523
Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk

Geoffrey Boulton's Lie

As posted at Bishop Hill's on 11/27/2011, http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/27/climategate-20-in-context.html.

Geoffrey Boulton is revealed to be dishonest by the Climategate 2.0 emails.

On Feb 15, 2010 the Muir Russell review site quoted Boulton as saying: "At the Review press conference (on February 11), I pointed out that I had worked full-time in the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA from its inception in 1968 to 1980, and that I had a part-time appointment between 1980 and 1986, whilst working primarily in the University of Amsterdam. Since then, I have had no professional contact with the University of East Anglia or the Climatic Research Unit."


However, several Climategate 2.0 emails show professional contact between Boulton and the UEA at a high level. Here are messages in which Boulton's name appears.

0702.txt 8 Jun 1998

1327.txt 9 Aug 2004

0040.txt 28 Apr 2000

0361.txt 21 May 2002

0458.txt 11 Dec 2007

0658.txt 6 Aug 1999

3845.txt 2 Jun 1998

4377.txt 12 Jun 2001

5075.txt 22 Mar 2002

Given Boulton's central role in the Muir-Russell activities - and Boulton's evident dishonesty - will the inquiry's report be withdrawn?

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Even the Climatologists Notice the Plagiarism

From the Climategate 2.0 email files....apparently even the climatologists noticed the endemic plagiarism...

date: Wed Aug 23 08:26:26 2000
from: Mike Hulme
subject: Re: Seeking some advice re CR
to: "Whetton, Peter"

Never quite dealt with this issue before - I think you are right to point it out at this
stage and give the authors opportunity to re-write. Without having read the paragraphs in
question, there is sometimes a fine line between plagiarism and summarising (and properly
citing) work that has been published elsewhere. But it is always best to err on the safe
At 13:28 23/08/00 +1000, you wrote:

Sorry to bother you again, but I would appreciate your (private) advice on
another matter.
It concerns the Lal et al manuscript you passed on to me to deal with in my
capacity as an editor for Climate Research. I have what I think is an unsual
issue to deal with, and your editorial experience might be useful to draw
upon. I may decide to consult with one or more current CR editors in an
official manner, but I am unfamiliar with what is normal practice, and I
would appreciate your views. I also don't want to consult any more widely
than is essential (for reasons that will become obvious).
I have three reviews and my decision is that the paper needs major revision
and re-review. That's fine. The issue is that some portions of the paper
(model descriptions and some of the discussion) are clearly not the authors'
own writing. Indeed, some of the material at issue is almost verbatim use
of WGI TAR draft text (not written by the paper's authors). However, I have
no doubts about the originality of the core of the paper. The reviewers'
comments do not mention this issue, but in responding to their comments, the
authors would need, in any case, to substantially modify the offending bits.
I also see that if the paper is re-reviewed, the reviewers will have to be
alerted to the issue.
I was hoping that you might comment on how I have dealt with this issue in
the attached draft of my covering letter to the authors (paragraph three is
the key bit). The fact that the lead author is well known to me doesn't
help. (I don't know the communicating author).
If you would rather not comment, that is fine.

Monday, November 21, 2011

BBC's Mr Climate Change Accepted £15,000 In Grants From University Rocked By Climategate

BBC's Mr Climate Change Accepted £15,000 In Grants From University Rocked By Climategate

...Plagiarized from the Mail!... (for some reason the Mail version has been taken down)

Sunday, 20 November 2011 07:56 David Rose, Mail on Sunday
E-mail Print PDF

A senior BBC journalist accepted £15,000 in grants from the university at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ scandal – and later went on to cover the story without declaring an interest to viewers.

Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’, used the money from the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research to fund an ‘ad hoc’ partnership he ran with a friend.

Mr Harrabin, an influential figure who both broadcasts and advises other BBC journalists, later reported extensively about Climategate. The scandal erupted two years ago when emails were leaked from the Tyndall Centre’s sister department, the Climatic Research Unit at the same university.

High profile: Sir David Attenborough in the Arctic as part of his new documentary series Frozen Planet

The leaks left the scientific community in disarray after claims that key data was manipulated in the run-up to a major climate change summit.

An official inquiry later found that although there had been no scientific fraud, there was ‘a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA’.

In none of Mr Harrabin’s reports on the subject were the grants that he and his friend Dr Joe Smith had received from UEA ever mentioned. However, BBC insiders claim that the use to which the money was put – annual Real World seminars for top BBC executives on issues including climate change – had a significant impact on the Corporation’s output.

‘The seminars organised by Roger and his friend were part of a process which has effectively stifled all debate within the BBC about man-made global warming,’ said one senior journalist. ‘As far as the high-ups are concerned, the science is settled.’

Last night, Mr Harrabin insisted he does not derive any personal financial benefit from the grants and that far from making him more sympathetic to UEA, the sponsorship – of which the BBC had been aware – ‘made me doubly determined to investigate Climategate. If I had been misled by UEA I wanted to be among the first to know’.

He added: ‘The funding from the Tyndall Centre came long before Climategate. And I was forensic in exposing it. So any suggestion that I was biased or soft on Climategate in any way is completely untrue as demonstrated by my reporting.

‘I was praised by the world’s leading climate sceptics for my reporting. Those seminars – for which I received no personal gain – included contributions from sceptics.”

He said his report into the subsequent inquiry into Climategate, led by Lord Oxburgh, was praised for its ‘forensic impartiality’.
Influential: Roger Harrabin advises other BBC journalists and later reported about Climategate

Influential: Roger Harrabin advises other BBC journalists and later reported about Climategate

Disclosure of the payments to Mr Harrabin’s private partnership comes in the wake of a damning report last week by the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee.

It revealed ‘sponsored’ documentaries on environmental issues, whose production costs had been met by ‘non-commercial’ bodies such as the UN Environmental Programme, have been shown frequently on the BBC World news channel without viewers being made properly aware of their funding.

Trust investigators discovered that of a sample of 60 sponsored programmes broadcast between February and July this year, a total of 15 breached the BBC’s editorial guidelines.

The investigators said some of the breaches involved direct conflicts of interests – with the funders being the subjects of the programmes they were paying for – and that others failed to observe BBC rules on telling viewers where the programme budget had come from.

Two films in the latter category, part of BBC World’s Earth Reporters series, had Dr Smith as their chief scientific adviser. He is a climate change specialist at the Open University.

He said yesterday that the Open University sought to ensure that the programmes they co-produced were factually accurate, but beyond the usual formally agreed acknowledgement of the university, programme credits were the ‘concern of the BBC’. Dr Smith agreed with the Trust’s conclusions on the matter.

However, it is clear that sponsored programmes about the environment of the type the Trust now deplores have been made on a huge scale for years.

Almost all the £1.4 million annual income of TVE, the production company behind the Earth Reporters series, comes from non-commercial bodies, including the EU, UN agencies and campaign groups such as WWF, which co-founded the company 27 years ago. Jenny Richards, TVE’s deputy chief executive, said the firm had made ‘hundreds’ of programmes for the BBC, and described the Trust’s criticisms as a ‘slap on the wrist’.

The Trust has demanded sweeping changes to the BBC’s commissioning process, and the Corporation has agreed that from now on programmes sponsored by non-commercial bodies will be forbidden. Those from independent production companies will be scrutinised for possible conflicts of interest.

Dr Smith has acted as a scientific consultant to dozens of other BBC programmes, including high-profile documentaries about climate change fronted by Sir David Attenborough.

A Trust spokeswoman said: ‘Anything that affects the trust of viewers is a serious matter and the steps we are taking to prevent it from happening in future are very clear.’

Mr Harrabin’s partnership with Dr Smith – the Cambridge Media Environment Programme (CMEP) – began in 1996. That was when Mr Harrabin spent a sabbatical at Cambridge University, where Dr Smith was working at the time.

From then until 2009 they organised their seminars, which Dr Smith described as an ‘ad hoc’ arrangement. ‘It was just a light touch thing. These were occasional seminars held in an academic environment that brought a diverse mix of research, business and policy people together with media people,’ he said.

While Dr Smith was paid less than £5,000 for organising each conference, Mr Harrabin did not benefit financially. Dr Smith added that people with dissenting views on climate change were represented, and the purpose of the events was to encourage reflective thinking away from the pressure of deadlines.
Partnership: None of the grants given to Mr Harrabin and Dr Joe Smith, pictured, by the UEA were mentioned

Partnership: None of the grants given to Mr Harrabin and Dr Joe Smith, pictured, by the UEA were mentioned

His own opinion, which he sets out on his website, is that ‘everyday human activity – moving, eating, keeping warm or cool – is gently stoking a slow-boil apocalypse’. He calls climate change ‘one of the challenges of the age’ and urges the world to take radical action. A Freedom of

Information Act disclosure obtained by Andrew Montford, who writes the climate-change blog Bishop Hill, reveals that the Tyndall Centre provided £5,000 a year for three years from 2002.

The centre’s newsletter said then it was giving CMEP the money ‘because we share its commitment to the effective communication of climate change information to increase knowledge and inspire discussion and debate in society’.

In addition to the Tyndall Centre, the CMEP received funding from energy giant BG, HSBC, Vivendi, the Bowring Trust and the WWF.

Dr Smith has acted as a scientific consultant to dozens of other BBC programmes, including high-profile documentaries about climate change fronted by Sir David Attenborough.

He was also involved in the BBC2 drama series Burn Up, in which a central character argued that the world had only five years to save itself before global warming became irreversible.

A BBC spokeswoman said: ‘The BBC is aware of the funding arrangements for the Real World seminars. They have been considered against our editorial guidelines and raised no issues about impartiality for the BBC or its output.’

Mail on Sunday, 20 November 2011

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Orbach 2011 copies Airhart 2010

An interesting example of the standards of climatology. As noted by Bishop Hill, Ray Orbach published in Reports on Progress in Physics a laughable 'review' of matters climatological. Among many problems with this review, detailed here by Bishop Hill http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/10/12/this-is-science-this-is-progress.html, it is apparent that Orbach took much of his text from web writings by Airhart.

Orbach: 'In 1900, scientists published results of a laboratory experiment interpreted at the time to signify that all the long wavelength radiation emitted by Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere already, and that therefore, adding more CO2 could not possibly make a difference.'

Airhart: 'In 1900, scientists published results of a laboratory experiment interpreted at the time to signify that all of the long wavelength radiation emitted by Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere already, and that therefore, adding more CO2 couldn’t possibly make a difference.'

Would it not be simpler to prove the case rather than cutting and pasting nonsense?

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Another Copied Introduction

(Click on the image for a close up)

(Click on the image for a close up)

A direct copy of the introduction from one chapter recycled into another chapter.



"Mountain systems cover about one-fifth of the earth's continental areas and are all inhabited to a greater or lesser extent except for Antarctica. Mountains provide direct life support for close to 10% of the world's population, and indirectly to over half. Because of their great altitudinal range, mountains such as the Himalayas, the Rockies, the Andes, and the Alps, exhibit, within short
horizontal distances, climatic regimes which are similar to those of widely separated latitudinal belts; they consequently feature high biodiversity. Indeed, there is such a close link between mountain vegetation and climate that vegetation belt typology has been extensively used to define climatic zones and their altitudinal and latitudinal transitions (cf. for example Klötzli, 1984, 1991, 1994;
Ozenda, 1985; Quezel and Barbero, 1990; Rameau et al., 1993)."

And strangely - the later publication does not cite the earlier publication.

Steve Jones, the Ice Cores, and What They Shows

As posted at Bishop Hill. I suppose this is what happens when you consider that you are paid by the page. I guess that Steve Jones and climatologists share this 'consensus' as to the true value of science.

How to make money the Professor Steve Jones (easy) way...

From the Steve Jones 'impartiality' report: "Ice cores shows [sic] that for half a million years before the Industrial Revolution its level fluctuated between 180 and 300 parts per million."

see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality.pdf (2011)

From the New Scientist: "Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years."

see: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html (2007)


"Analysis of air bubbles from polar ice cores shows that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has remained between 180 and 300 parts per million (ppm) during the past 420,000 years ..."

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_material_cycles (2007)

So Professor Steve Jones' contribution is to jumble up the words a bit and introduce a small error (similar then to Phil Jones contribution to climatology).

Monday, August 15, 2011

Rioting for Beginners

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8702412/Mother-of-13-year-old-who-smashed-up-shop-blames-government.html

"He then crawled inside and used a £100 golf club he had stolen to smash windows. The shop suffered £20,000 in damage.

His mother [...'She is on benefits, does not live with the boy's father and has 10 other children, the court heard'...] described him as a ''good lad'' who had never been in any trouble before and had gone out to visit his grandmother when he got caught up in the violence."

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Steve Jones, Jean Richer, and the London/Paris Pendulum

As posted on http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/8/2/professor-jones-is-angry.html in reference to a Steve Jones story posted here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/steve-jones/8675729/Scientists-always-anger-those-who-prefer-the-Earth-to-be-flat.html, it appears that Steve Jones copied a misconception about Jean Richer from the world of geology into a recent article in the Telegraph.

Is it possible that Professor Geoffrey Boulton (the world famous geologist) has been feeding Professor Steve Jones garbled geological folklore to cut-and-paste into his tall tales?!

Here is what I posted on Bishop Hill:

Jones: "He was told by a sailor that his ship's pendulum clock, accurate in London, lost two minutes a day at the equator."

Geology undergraduate html text on gravity from the web: http://gretchen.geo.rpi.edu/roecker/AppGeo96/lectures/gravity/latitude.html: 'Newton based his assessment of the earth's shape on a set of observations provided to him by a friend who happened to be a navigator on a ship, named Richer. Richer observed that a pendulum clock that ran accurately in London, consistently lost 2 minutes a day near the equator.'

Likely closer to the truth: http://books.google.com/books?id=uHNEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT11#v=onepage&q&f=false

...which says: "In 1672, M. Richer, going to Cayenne, in order to make astronomical observations, found, that his pendulum clock, which at Paris had been regulated to the mean motion of the sun, when carried to this island, which is about five degrees distant from the equator, lost every day two minutes and twenty eight seconds."

Perhaps there should be a Steve Jones award for cut-and-paste scientific story 'creation'?

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Steve Jones and the BBC Auto Reply Lie

Here are my observations on Auto Replies with the BBC Trust Science Review and Steve Jones. The attached graphic shows the exchange (click for a closer view). I submitted some comments online - using the BBC form. Then I received fairly immediately a seemingly personal note of thanks from Steve Jones saying that he had read my comments with interest. (Somewhat unlikely as the message was sent at 3:30am, and his response was titled 'Auto Response'). So much for either honesty or intelligence at the BBC.

Here are the texts of the messages. They are rather sadly funny. The BBC is organizing a 'Trust Science Review' and wants to be doing the 'right' thing. But in the process the BBC just cannot be honest. Then there is the "Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately." What is the point of the BBC sending email if the resulting text cannot be used in any way? I presume that the lawyers intended this to say 'If you have received this in error, then...' but perhaps the lawyers don't like to check up on how people are using their portion of the licence fee.

Anyway -I shall be most interested to see if I receive a threatening letter from the BBC on this post! (I may post it here!).

Trust Science to me; Subject: Trust Science (Auto Reply Message)
show details 9/22/10

Thank you very much for your email and your contribution to the BBC Trust's Impartiality Review of Science Coverage which I've read with interest.

The findings of the Review will be published in spring 2011.

Background notes about this Review can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/march/science_impartiality.shtml

Thank you for contacting us.

Professor Steve Jones Author,
Impartiality Review of Science Coverage

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

Z T to Trust; Subject: Re: Trust Science (Auto Reply Message)
show details 9/22/10
Hey Steve,

Thanks for reading my message at ~3:30am UK time and titling your reply 'Auto Reply Message'. Something tells me you aren't being completely honest (that is - you haven't really read my message with interest). Let's call that my hypothesis.

I would be delighted to be proved wrong on this hypothesis - this would be what we call 'falsification' (in science).

So - I would also like to submit this exchange to your 'trust science' review as an example of the lack of intrinsic honesty currently transparently apparent at the BBC.

I doubt that Steve Jones has had much to do with this particular email trail yet (another hypothesis). Though, Steve, you should be careful how your name is being employed in these dishonest messages.

However, someone or some people at the BBC have thought that it would be 'nice' to give the impression that my input had already been factored into Steve Jones' thinking. This is not honest or factual. (Assuming my hypothesis is correct).

Science is about the facts, about how things actually are. Not about how we would like them to be or how we would like people to 'feel'.

So - when someone is lying about something in science - like hiding the discrepancy between temperature proxies and thermometers - it should not be hidden - it should be reported on and discussed. If the BBC, of all organizations, cannot deal with this - then god help us all.

...No reply...

Steve Jones Borrowing Friedman on Ashkenazi DNA

As posted on Bishop Hill

Doug Keenan demonstrated quite painlessly that the current climate alarm-ism is bogus. His WSJ article is accessible to everyone: journalists, scientists, politicians, even climatologists.

However, it seems that reporting in the UK media is more concerned with activism (e.g. the BBC), plagiarism (Hari), and corruption (operation Motorman).

Intrigued, I had an attack of Mashey-ism (hopefully it is not genetic)....and.....

Found, for example, in a 2010 Steve Jones article, this lilting phrase 'Judaism is inherited down the female line – as are mitochondria.' and thought I'd check where else that might have appeared:

Interestingly, this sentence: 'They used the complete sequence of DNA to trace their ancestry down the female line and found 40% of present-day Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four women'. Was written by J Friedman, published in 2009, in 'Tay-Sachs Desease'. Just a little commonality as far as google is concerned. Common words, strongly related subject, no big deal.

But then Jones goes on to say 'Around half descend from just four women...' A nice match for the 'descended from just four women' written by Friedman. So it would appear to me to be a significant coincidence, or evidence that Jones has used Friedman (unattributed) as the source of some of the text in his popular genetics article.




Copying text from one place to another for profit is clearly not a practice limited to climatology. I wonder if Steve Jones does this much? I wonder if Steve Jones would care to comment?