Metro Jacksonville

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

QuoteHere are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because â€" though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room â€" he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment â€" minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

    Next
    time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
    the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

    ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K backâ€"I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

    “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to thatâ€"take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

    “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

==================
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

QuoteFrom: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx



Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

WOW, if true, WOW!

Holy sh*t.

I'm a climate change "denier" so I guess I should be happy about this. But there's something so depressing about evidence that scientists have been deliberately altering data. We kind of always knew that James Hansen at NASA was a total lying d-bag, (and the fears that NASA deliberately altered data back in '07-'08) but he's always been more of a political activist than a scientist anyway.

I'd always kind of hoped that not much direct data manipulation was going on ... but hey ... when you have the medieval warm period, pesky ice core sample, and no net temperature rise in 11 years, I guess you have to start making crap up if you want fit in with the orthodoxy.

So all the data released, just so happens that Hadley CRU confirms data was stolen.
Mann is threatening lawsuits to any website or person that hosts those emails, etc...

Big coverup Stephen.

remember, the Hockey Stick is false. Selective data allowed that chart.

Any evidence not in support of my belief system will be discounted.

Quote from: stephendare on November 20, 2009, 07:42:39 PM
that seems to be whats happening, buckethead.

This is science, not politics.

But Mann and Gore and others made AGW political, hence the healthy skepticism that a lot of people have.

And scientific data was manipulated by Gore and Mann and Hadley CRU to support their models. Then state the the science is done, over, finished and anyone not believing them is a scamster or supports big oil.

A real scientist creates a hypothesis, and then proceeds to try to tear it to shreds.
Even as an evolutionist, I still look for the fallacies of that hypothesis, so that it can be improved, corrected or changed if needed.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

QuoteHadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails
November 19, 9:42

The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The FTP link first appeared on a blog called The Air Vent. The blog's owner, identified as "Jeff Id", downloaded the file, examined it, and posted a brief summary on his blog. Another commenter, identified as "Steven Mosher," passed the information on to Steven McIntyre's Climate Audit blog and to another blog, The Blackboard, run by a blogger identified as "Lucia." Most recently, blogger Anthony Watts, who runs a blog titled "Watts Up With That?" mentioned the FTP archive in his own blog.

Commentary on all the blogs involved has been brisk, except, oddly enough, at The Air Vent, where only seven comments have been received.

The FTP server is in a Russian domain and uses the anonymous FTP protocol, which does not require a pre-registered user account or password for downloading. The file is named FOI2009.zip, an apparent reference to US Public Law 89-554, 80 Stat. 383, the Freedom of Information Act.

Several commentators have expressed skepticism as to the authenticity of the archive, pointing to its lack of clear provenance and suggesting that someone was attempting to embarrass, either directly or indirectly, the dignitaries attending the upcoming climate-change conference in Copenhagen. Other commentators who have examined the e-mails in the archive conclude that the header and other information that they contain is too detailed to be a hoax. Thus far, no commentator has found anything in the e-mail headers that appears to be mistaken.

Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous "hockey-stick" graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

The emphasis in the above quote was added.

Mr. Mosher offered this summary of the rest of the e-mails that he had found:

And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre. And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia[.] And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain.. you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy. [Y]ou get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect. I don’t know that its real.. But the CRU code looks real

John Daly (not to be confused with the professional golfer of the same name) is identified in one of the e-mails as a global-warming skeptic who died in January of 2004.

As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average subject/resident of the United Kingdom. The document suggests that it is a precis of a longer document housed at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Developing...

Update: The Russian FTP server administrator appears to have deleted the archive. The text of the link was: <http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip>

Activity on The Air Vent has picked up considerably since this story broke.

Further Update: Two other possessors of the file have uploaded it to two other file-sharing services: MegaUpload and FileDropper.

Further Update: A Pirate Bay torrent link is now available.

Also: The "72 documents" refers to 72 files and folders at the top level of a directory called "documents." In fact, reliable counts indicate at least 3485 documents present, not counting the e-mails.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/28/hadley-cru-discovers-the-mole/

QuoteMet Office/CRU Finds the Mole


by Steve McIntyre on July 28th, 2009
More news on the Met Office/CRU molehunt.

Late yesterday (Eastern time), I learned that the Met Office/CRU had identified the mole. They are now aware that there has in fact been a breach of security. They have confirmed that I am in fact in possession of CRU temperature data, data so sensitive that, according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, “damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector”, interfere with the “effective conduct of international relations”, “hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations” and “seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.”
Although they have confirmed the breach of security, neither the Met Office nor CRU have issued a statement warning the public of the newCRU_tar leak. Nor, it seems, have they notified the various parties to the alleged confidentiality agreements that there has been a breach in those confidentiality agreements, so that the opposite parties can take appropriate counter-measures to cope with the breach of security by UK institutions. Thus far, the only actions by either the Met Office or CRU appear to have been a concerted and prompt effort to cover up the breach of security by attempting to eradicate all traces of the mole’s activities. My guess is that they will not make the slightest effort to discipline the mole.

Nor have either the Met Office or CRU contacted me asking me not to further disseminate the sensitive data nor to destroy the data that I have in my possession.

By not doing so, they are surely opening themselves up to further charges of negligence for the following reasons. Their stated position is that, as a “non-academic”, my possession of the data would be wrongful (a position with which I do not agree, by the way). Now that they are aware that I am in possession of the data (and they are aware, don’t kid yourselves), any prudent lawyer would advise them to immediately to notify me that I am not entitled to be in possession of the data and to ask/instruct me to destroy the data that I have in my possession and not to further disseminate the sensitive data. You send out that sort of letter even if you think that the letter is going to fall on deaf ears.

Since I am always eager to help climate scientists with these conundrums, I’ll help them out a little here. If, prior to midnight Eastern time on Thursday, a senior executive of the Met Office or the University of East Anglia notifies me that I am in wrongful possession of the data and directly requests me to destroy my copies of the CRU station data in question and thereby do my part in the avoidance of newCRU_tar proliferation, I will do so.

I will, of course, continue my FOI requests since I do not believe, for a minute, that their excuses have any validity nor am I convinced that the alleged confidentiality agreements actually exist nor, if they exist, am I convinced that they prohibit the provision of the data to me.

*puts fingers into ears*


"LA LA LA LA LA LA"

There is no doubt the Chinese have reason to discredit the theory... of course if they hacked in and there was nothing to shock the public with we wouldnt be talking about it.

Quote from: stephendare on December 31, 2009, 03:47:02 PM
As it turns out. there really wasnt.

No Stephen, to people like you, there is AGW and it is a fact. You have your ears plugged. To millions of others, the emails and poor coding opened some eyes.

NASA GISS continues to release homogenized weather data, wiping the raw data from all of their servers, Mann is pointing fingers at CRU. The small group of non-scientists who have tried to shove AGW as a fact are being investigated for withholding data under the FOI act of both the UK and the USA.

I posted this on the other GW thread, I think it's valid here as well...
http://pjtv.com/v/2889

Quote from: stephendare on January 03, 2010, 03:41:10 PM
no jandar.  If you are going to argue the minority position, then at least keep it straight that your unscientific faith in 'something---just not what the scientists are saying' is a minority.

By millions of people, I assume you mean that to be the less than one percent at best of the worlds population who believe as you do.

come on stephen one percent of the worlds population, prove it ;).  I need a good reference, no wiki, you and midway would have and orgasm about that.  ;)  I'm sure you read it some where.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/07/global.warming.poll/index.html

http://people-press.org/report/280/little-consensus-on-global-warming

http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091210/FOREIGN/712099853/1017

I found the last poll article to be the most interesting.  It just basically says that the polling data is unreliable and that different polls are giving widely different results.  While I am not convinced that GW is caused by humans, and I am one of those that finds the e-mails to put the scientific data from the involved parties in a "suspicious" category at best, I think it is obvious that the worlds majority does believe in GW and that it is a man made problem. 

This subject will remain in contention and I believe that the actions of our government on this issue will be one of the major factors in the 2010 elections.  (Along with the Health Insurance Bill, the economy/debt and Afghanistan/Iraq.)

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

And it just keeps getting worse for you doesn't Stephen.  But you keep your head buried in the sand, ok?

QuoteSo far, you and your side have only offered political or economic opinion as a balance against the chemistry and climatological evidence pseudoscience and quasi-religious faith.

/fix'd

QuoteAnd in reading the actual article, there isnt any real support for your post.

uh, yeah, stephen.  Except for the fact that the main "scientist" is trying to justify lying to the world and now admits that his data has been extremely altered.  Other than that, no, no support in that article. 


But here's more!

Quote“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

I am old enough to remember when scientists agreed that there would be another ice age by 2000, coupled with a population explosion that would outrun capacity to produce by 3 fold.

Happily they were wrong, and I became skeptical about scientific theories of Apocolypse.

This is prudence, not extremism.

For those of you who don't believe in global warming, or don't think our car emissions are dangerous please try this experiment. Park you car in you garage and close your garage door. Now turn on your car engine and unroll your windows. Sit there for a long period of time and tell me how it turns out.

Nice straw man.

I did not read the story you mention. These theories we spoon fed to me in school.

Quote from: stephendare on February 15, 2010, 09:56:57 AM
You must have gone to the single most credulous school in the history of America.

Did they also teach you that Yoko Ono broke up the Beatles and that Nixon was set up by the liberals?

MCAS-H Jacksonville NC: A public school. . 1st through 3rd grades (just outside the gates of the Marine base where my father was stationed). I learned nothing of the above in school, but they did teach me about Jesus, How to get under my desk and kiss my ass goodbye in the event of a nuclear attack, (yes kids, it was nuclear "new-clear" back then) as well as evolution-creationism (single theory). As you were not yet born, Steven, I don't expect you to believe my account.

As it turns out; scientists and teachers were as fallible as clergymen. Not any more though!

Just tryin' to make you feel young! We are likely the same age, and at ours, a few years is no real difference.

I think I remember a Popular Science cover about the same coming ice age.

Wow, you guys are taking me way back. I remember the "Duck and Cover" drills.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Sbw6Nxf8dYU

You cant go wrong with Lewis Black

I think the media speculation was common in the 60's and 70's.  Many studies contradicted (then, as now).  This issue isn't going away anytime soon.

Answer me this, why did the IPCC hid the Maunder Minimum in their graphs?
Why was there no mention of the MWP in their reports?

I've been trying to find it but cannot.  There was a Popular Science cover sometime in the '70's showing the Statue of Liberty up to her waist in ice and snow.  The article inside was something about the periodic recurrence of Ice Ages and how all of the extra carbon dioxide we had put in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution had warded off one that would have come.

New twist; protective global warming!

"Among Weathercasters, Doubts On Warming"

Article in today's New York Times about the divide in opinion between TV meteorologists and climate scientists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html?ref=earth

Interesting article. What data are TV meteorologists analyzing to make a determination on climate change?

They use the Gaughn Guage.

Wowsers! Sean Hannity Jr really put the kabash on the wingnuts!

Yeah, the Arctic sea ice extent is now at historic 1977-2000 average for 2009-2010. Didn't hear about that from Maddow either now did you? As a matter of fact, instead of decreasing in March like it normally does, it grew.

You know what that means? In simple terms, we don't know squat about the environment still. And our records are but a small sliver of time. (You do believe the earth is billions of years old right?)

Stephen, do yourself a big favor. Stop trying to find stuff that agrees with your quirkiness for having to find something to bash people on. Instead, do your own research. Stop eating from the spoon that all media feeds you.

Hadley CRU conspired to prevent release of information to scientists who did not hold their own stance. They also conspired with journals to prevent release of contrary views.


Now tell me how that was not wrong and perfectly legal?
Sorry Stephen, the IPCC was wrong, used false evidence, used conjecture from a students paper about glaciers melting (with no scientific fact behind it) and other shenanigans to bolster their claims.

I am just one of a bunch of people who are seeing through the lies, media manipulation, etc.
You do realize that MSNBC's major shareholder is GE right?
You do realize the GE stands to profit hundreds of billions of dollars from AGW bills that setup cap and trade right?

GE also stands to make a lot of money from their power generation unit.

QuoteWith more than 12,000 employees operating in 70 countries worldwide, GE’s Oil & Gas business is a global leader in the supply of technology-based equipment and services for the entire oil and gas industry â€" from drilling and completion to production, transportation, refining, processing, petrochemicals and plastics. We offer a wide range of surface and subsea drilling and production systems, equipment for floating production platforms, compressors, turbines, turboexpanders and industrial power generation equipment.

http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/applications/power_gen.htm

I see no lie whatsoever... where is the lying?

QuoteBritish lawmakers issue mixed report on 'Climategate'


By Karla Adam
Special to The Washington Post
Wednesday, March 31, 2010; 5:31 PM

LONDON -- In the first of three investigations into the scandal some have dubbed "Climategate," lawmakers here sharply criticized a British university Wednesday for what they said was a culture of withholding information, but they added that the integrity of its climate change research was not in doubt.

The 14-member parliamentary committee said in its report it had found nothing to challenge the "scientific consensus" that global warming is occurring and influenced by human activity. It also declared that the scientific reputation of Phil Jones, the head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), remains "intact."

In late November, days before a climate change summit in Copenhagen, more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents were allegedly leaked or hacked from the CRU and posted online. Climate-change skeptics said the documents provided evidence that scientific data had been tampered with or buried in an effort to silence alternative views on global warming.

Much of the attention has focused on the correspondence by Jones, who admitted to the committee last month that he had written some "awful" e-mails. In December, Jones stepped down from his director's role pending the university's investigations.


In one of the several e-mails by Jones that have come under scrutiny, he wrote to a colleague that he had used a "trick" of adding in temperatures to "hide the decline" -- phrases some said proved that Jones was deliberately conspiring to suppress information that did not fit his view of global warming.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said that the word "trick" in this context "appears to be a colloquialism for a 'neat' method of handling data" and that the phrase "hide the decline" was meant as "shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous."

But although the committee expressed sympathy for Jones, saying he was a scapegoat for other clashes within the scientific community, they condemned the university for mishandling requests under Britain's freedom-of-information rules from climate-change skeptics.

"The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate-change skeptics. The failure of the university to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable," Phil Willis, the committee chairman, said in a statement.

The panel members said their report was rushed because they wanted it released before the upcoming general election; however, the university has commissioned two other investigations that are expected to be more in-depth. One, headed by Muir Russell, a former civil servant, is investigating allegations of malpractice, while the other, lead by Ernest Oxburgh, a geologist, is reviewing CRU's scientific publications.

Willis urged climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and around the world to practice greater transparency, including publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.

"Governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation," Willis said. "The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable."

I have read the thread and participated in it...

What lie?

The lie that climate-gate was proof that global warming was a hoax.

QuoteThe lie that climate-gate was proof that global warming was a hoax.

I think that^ is a false presumption. The presumption was thus: Data was manipulated in an attempt to sway public opinion in favor of AWG for the purposes of affecting public policy.

Roll the Fox News clips.

I dont watch Fox news.

Heres a good overview of the whole controversy.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

 :D

The entire article is posted in Science and Technology...

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,8112.new.html#new

:D

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18715-climategate-inquiry-points-finger-at-university.html

QuoteClimategate inquiry points finger at university
00:01 31 March 2010 by Fred Pearce


Climate scientists need to swallow their misgivings and share their data and working methods with their critics. So concludes an inquiry by British members of parliament into the "climategate" affair, in which damaging emails were copied from a computer server at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, and published on the internet.

But, in an unexpected turn of events, the House of Commons science and technology committee has placed more blame for the debacle on the university than on the scientists at its Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose emails were stolen, and the unit's director Phil Jones.

This verdict, rushed out before parliament is dissolved for the upcoming general election, puts the official university inquiry launched last December in a strange position. Vice-chancellor Edward Acton asked the inquiry to report on possible misdemeanours at CRU. Now MPs suggest that the university itself may be at least as much to blame.

The MPs found that the leaked emails reveal that a "culture of withholding information appears to have pervaded CRU [that] we consider unacceptable". Some information "may have been deleted", possibly in breach of the law. The MPs do not accept CRU's claim that its staff were simply overwhelmed by requests for data, often frivolous. Rather, CRU's "unhelpful approach" to requests led to them "multiplying".

Sympathy for the scientist
Jones and Acton gave evidence to the MPs during oral hearings at the start of March. The MPs were clearly impressed with Jones's sincerity.

"We can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew â€" or perceived â€" were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work." His actions were "inevitably counterproductive," the MPs conclude, but much of it was "common practice in the climate science community".

They call for the climate scientists in general to become more open but conclude that, so far as they can tell, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The MPs say the university shares a lot of the blame for climategate. Its "failure to grasp fully the potential damage [from] non-disclosure of [freedom of information] requests was regrettable", they say. Staff responsible for the implementation of the legislation "found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".

The release onto the internet of the CRU emails led to allegations of data manipulation, fraud, subversion of the peer-review process and conspiracy to withhold data from critics.

The MPs exonerate Jones and his colleagues on the more lurid charges, but admit they did not have the time to go into some other matters. "We would have preferred to carry out a wider inquiry into the science of global warming itself," they say.

The findings could reverberate beyond the Norwich campus. The MPs say the government should review the rules for giving the public access to data "collected and analysed with UK public money".

Exactly.  The hacked emails and subsequent investigation revealed "a culture of withholding information appears to have pervaded CRU [that] we consider unacceptable". Some information "may have been deleted", possibly in breach of the law."

Looks like this will have turned out to be a good thing.  Rather than Mr Jones preaching to us what we could not possibly understand AGW and should simply take his word for it... he and his colleagues will happily share their data with those who doubt their conclusions.

I am still having trouble seeing where someone lied about something though...

QuoteIt is intellectually dishonest at best.

So is claiming someone lied when they cannot show where they did... :)

Just read the entire thread again... if the lie is...

QuoteThe lie that climate-gate was proof that global warming was a hoax.

As Lunican said it was... I can find no mention of that.  I find mention of climate gate as evidence that data has been withheld and possibly altered... which is undeniably true as evidenced by the article Stephen posted and a seperate one I posted.

"the whole thing" was not a lie.

Stephen, the CRU admits to withholding data from scientists that have an alternate view of climate change/global warming. They even have tried to block their papers from getting into peer reviewed journals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7347658/Climategate-professor-admits-to-withholding-information.html

QuoteIn a grilling by MPs, Prof Jones admitted he had withheld data and sent some "pretty awful" emails.

Prof Jones admits to an inquiry that he withheld data.

All sides of science should be looked at, the debate is never settled. Once a scientist is sure he has the answer, he needs to attack it and tear it down to see if it stands up to the test. Not jump on a box and say the science is settled.

You always have to attack the science Stephen, it makes it stronger.

Stephen Hawking attacked Einstein's Theory of Relativity constantly, and what do you know. Its not all correct.
Hell, even Einstein tried to debunk it.

But thats okay, even if Global Warming were manmade, my house is around 80 feet above sea level, so I won't have to move. And the warming will open up new growth areas in Canada, shifting the breadbasket a little north.

And what was debunked, the fact that Prof Jones stated to an inquiry, on public record, that he withheld data?