....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.

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

matt.mcgrath@bbc.co.uk1033.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.

http://www.eco-energy-cities.com/UploadFiles/20075833053913.pdf

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...

http://www.eco-energy-cities.com/UploadFiles/200733122517931.pdf

Because Trevor Davies is listed as a director:
http://www.eco-energy-cities.com/contact.asp

Here's another blurb linking the UEA with this firm:
http://www.eco-energy-cities.com/UploadFiles/200611425414980.pdf

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.

http://climategate2011.blogspot.com/2011/11/2047txt.html

2047.txt
date: Wed Sep 9 09:19:13 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: Heard of this person?
to: Matthew Jones
Matthew,
Have you heard of this person?
[1]http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/323/about-brasenose-31/academic-staff-150/professor-jonathan-jon
es-457.html
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
Physics,
but it mentions NMR on his web site - it does seem more quantum physics than chemistry.
Cheers
Dad

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
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
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
*****************************************************
Jane Baker
LaRC Co-ordinator / Blackboard support
Learning and Resources Centre (LaRC)
Library
UEA
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
elsewhere.
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
provided.
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
confidentiality.
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) -
Response
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
NR4 7TJ
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
NR4 7TJ
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."

http://www.cce-review.org/News.php

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"

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
side!
Mike
At 13:28 23/08/00 +1000, you wrote:

Mike,
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.
Cheers
Peter

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