Watts & Co Misuse of Blogs

 

"THEY" talk about corruption of peer review

"THEY" talk about climate scientists forcing publication editors to resign.

 

"THEY" find it quite ok trying to destroy a scientists reputation because they disagree with his results - DESPICABLE, TWO-FACED ... etc. etc.

From CA

Anthony Watts

Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

for those that are keeping track, and wish to register a complaint on the statistical methodology being faulty (not to mention the sampling) you can contact:
Professor Robyn Owens

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)

The University of Western Australia, M460

35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009

[full phone email details were included here]

• thefordprefect
  Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Reply
  Your comment is awaiting moderation. well done watts trial by blog is an ideal way to improve science
• HAS
  Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Reply
  Another way in is through the funding agency. L. is part funded through a Discovery Australia Linkage Project LP120100224 “Creating a climate for change: from cognition to consensus” (you can find details of the Australian Research Council site). The administering organisation is the University of NSW who have a contract with the ARC for this funding (the generic contract is on the ARC site). Ben R Newell Assoc Prof @NSW is likely the lead.
  Anyway there a number of points in the ARC contract that are possible breached by L. et al. and the associated publicity around it. A quick scan suggests that those climate sceptics that feel aggrieved should review clause 18.4 and 18.6 of the funding contract that reference the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) (also available at the ARC web site).
  The sections dealing with conflict of interest (L. other blog interests); respect for research participants; reporting results; and communicating research findings (informing interested parties before the media) appear to have been breached. These are matters that could well be referenced regardless of the contract in any communication directly with the UWA. The Code lays down the process for UWA to follow.
  However while UWA may seek to balance Code compliance with academic freedom there is the issue of the ARC contract under which L.’s activities have been part funded. It seems that UWA and the U. of NSW also have a responsibility in this regard that are not balanced by academic freedom, and the ARC as funder has a clear interest in breaches. These could all be approached by anyone who feels L.’s work has breached the code (or any other part of the funding agreement) pointing out these obligations are independent of academic freedom.

The "skeptic's" Warped World View

A real defamation from that oh-so-pure Climate Audit:

achuara Posted Jul 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM | Permalink | Reply
 what about if the “criminals are brought to justice” along with Phil Jones, Mann and the merry bunch? But all boils down to emails and the data released or hacked have not been shown to be altered, or xxxxx –and that is the crux of the issue. They have been xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx data in the Hadley Center for decades, in a clear xxxxxxxx use of public money. But the issue seems to be it was not a leak but a hack! Give me a break!

For my protection I have decided to remove the worst defamatory words - republishing is as bad a initial publishing

McIntyre:
I, for one, don’t believe everything that the police say, just because they say so

!!!!!!!!!.

theduke Posted Jul 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Reply

The “hack,” if it was a crime, was clearly one of conscience or, if you prefer, an act of civil disobedience. If Mosher and Fuller say it was someone (or more than one) with connections to the CRU, then it’s more likely than not that that is true

Mosher is more reliable than the police!

Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Reply 

Too bad that they didn’t provide any evidence to actually dispel the theory that RC/FOIA “was a disgruntled UEA employee”.

!!!!!

Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 18, 2012 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

According to Richard Black, Michael Mann has urged that “criminals be brought to justice”:
...
Peter Gleick was apparently unavailable for comment.

UEA has called the police in to investigate a criminal event (Computer Misuse Act) The police accept that a crime has been committed.

No one has charged Gleick with a criminal act - this is in the hands of Heartland

The whole of the blog has turned to innuendo, conspiracy theories and defamatory comments.

The blocking of comments to these  denialist blogs has become an art form - wordpress must have got some damn fine filtering available to them. It is becoming frustrating!

McIntyre and Acolyte Vigilantyism

The unsupported accusations against Jones, Mann etc continues unabated on the "auditing " site
"Did he add any "
"The prima facie evidence "
"this particular finding of the Inquiry Committee clearly does not follow "
"Watch the pea here, "
"It seems to me that “Professor” Jones "
"I use *might* because it is still not clear that any offense was actually "
"The academics did not describe the conduct as it was. Instead, they misdescribed the conduct and then made findings unsupported by the evidence"

etc.
etc.

Never mind the evidence - Hang em High:


"thefordprefect Posted Sep 4, 2011 at 5:38 AM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.


Trial by Lynch Mob is just sooo American

------------------

thefordprefect Posted Sep 4, 2011 at 5:54 AM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.


Wiki


Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people. It is related to other means of social control that arise in communities, such as charivari, riding the rail, and tarring and feathering. Lynchings have been more frequent in times of social and economic tension, and have often been means used by the politically dominant population to oppress social challengers.

=================

Then of course there is the poor Phil post.

This is just unbelievable. Apparently Jones lost kgs of weight, and aged 10 years just to comply with media management instigated by Neil Wallis.
This is a truly despicable post by someone who claims only to want the truth!!!!

================

If McIntyre is really a climate auditor then should he not be auditing papers such as the Spencer & Braswell paper?? The Cern Cloud report???

No, Perhaps his cognitive function has been clouded by hatred of all things Mann and Jones!

thefordprefect Posted Sep 4, 2011 at 6:21 AM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
McIntyre if you really are a climate auditor then should he not be auditing papers such as the Spencer – Braswell paper?? The Cern Cloud report???
There are so many from both sides.
I suppose you will be reposting all the hide the decline emails soon. It must be over a week since you mentioned these!!!!!


=================
thefordprefect


Posted Sep 7, 2011 at 7:13 AM
Permalink
Reply

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Collected here are data from different past plots on the spencer and braswells discover page


There are many revisions:

Some due to satellite changes (but if temperatures from satellites are accurate then shouldn’t temperature a a fixed altitude be the same from satellite to satellite?)

Some just terminate

Some are just revised by a few 100ths K why? if this is such a clean data source?
Satellites do not give a global snapshot at a time they are a moving window taking hours? days? to complete a global sweep

Is the satellite data corrected for local time?



If satellites recording temp are so variable how can anyone use them to determine the effect of clouds? As far as I’m aware the global temperature derived from satellites is adjused for cloud cover!!!!



Temperatures are derived from someone’s models that derive temperature from radiation+mods for intervening layers etc. Is this really better than surface measurements

McIntyre - the downward spiral into the gutter + more posts that may never make it!

Just so much unsubstantiated crud. Climate AUDIT should audit itself!
Notice how McIntyre never ACTUALLY accuses anyone - innuendo is sufficient for the accolytes to pick it up and embelish it.

"Covert” Operations by East Anglia’s CRU


Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 15, 2011 at 7:47 AM
I wonder how much Outside Organisation contributed to misdirecting the police about international security services, and thus the involvement of Counter-Terrorism officers.

Posted Jul 14, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Remember the apparent disinformation about Russian intelligence agencies. 18 months later, there isn’t (to my knowledge) a shred of evidence for this theory. Nonetheless, this was fed into the press and quickly accepted as gospel by the climate science community. Remember Pierrehumbert’s fulminations at Dot Earth about this. And Andrew Weaver’s talk about international conspiracy. I wonder how much of this stemmed from Outside Organisation’s intervention.


Posted Jul 15, 2011 at 7:02 AM
I agree that the reference to “mobile phone conversations” – of which there isn’t a shred of evidence and was not under discussion at the time = suggests (but doesn’t prove) a connection to Neil Wallis and Outside Organisation, as this surely seems like a specific embellishment that they would have added to the legend being disseminated to the climate science community and to the public.


R.S.Brown Posted Jul 14, 2011 at 7:36 PM
It takes little, if any, imagination to join up the dots between Mr. Willis’s employment by the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) and the spectacular failure of the East Anglia police in investigating the who, what, when and where of the unauthorized release of the Climategate materials
Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 14, 2011 at 10:10 PM
One of the main elements of the disinformation campaign in early December was what may have been the planting of stories that blamed Climategate on Russian security elements. One of the pieces of “evidence” that supposedly pointed to “sophisticated” hackers was East Anglia’s claims to have had a “sophisticated” security system – a claim that seems to be viewed now as a fabrication. I wonder how much Outside Organisation had to with disseminating the idea of “Russian security services”.

Posted Jul 18, 2011 at 5:12 PM
As I reported last year, I was interviewed by a Counter Terrorism officer who had been seconded to Norfolk Constabulary to work on the East Anglia emails. I wonder if Neil Wallis had any involvement in getting Counter Terrorism officers working on East Anglia emails rather than Al Qaeda or such.


pat Posted Jul 17, 2011 at 6:44 PM
the local norfolk newspaper, Eastern Daily Press, which covered wallis and UEA (only to give cover) is owned by a big media company called Archant. here’s the Board:
Richsrd Jewson, Chairman
He is HM Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk and also Chairs the Council for the University of East Anglia.
Richard chairs the remuneration and nominations committees
Adrian Jeakings Chief Executive
He is a governor of Norwich School and a member of the Audit Committee of the University of East Anglia…
Mike Walsh Director
He has had extensive involvement in the charity sector as Worldwide Board member of WWF, Vice Chairman of the British Red Cross, and completed his six-year term as Chairman of the UK Disasters Emergency Committee in March 2011.
http://www.archant.co.uk/about_board.aspx

mpaul Posted Jul 18, 2011 at 9:49 AM
It would seem that one of Wallis’ singular talents was is knowing how to pay-off the Police http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/17/158069.html . This raises important questions about the unusual and unaccounted for payment by UEA to the Norfolk Police Authority http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/22/whats-up-with-norfolk-police.html

. There needs to be a call for a complete explanation of Wallis’ activities while employed by the UEA.

my latest which seems to be in moderation again!!! I'm sure the only blogs to not censor comments (wuwt and ca) cannot be selecting posts!

Walt Man Posted Jul 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM
How do you KNOW that Neil Wallis was requested explicitly by UEA as you IMPLY in your header.
As far as any information is available UEA Employed Outside Organisation to get their point of view to the press.
Wallis was surely provided by Outside Organisation as a suitable person from OO to do the requested work. NOBODY KNEW that he was implicated in hacking at THAT TIME. Can you prove differently?
When your “mineral” prospecting company requires an accountant, do you check the future to see if the accountant provided by an accounting firm will be or has been (but not discovered yet) fiddling the books of another organisation?
Your talents must be amazing, or you are making unsubstantiated accusations!
----
Eric Posted Jul 20, 2011 at 1:19 PM
I read no such implication in the header. Wallis is toxic and we now have evidence that he was hired, through OO, as UEA’s reputation manager. That is all that the header says, and that is enough to merit further investigation.
----
thefordprefect Posted Jul 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Eric Posted Jul 20, 2011 at 1:19 PM I read no such implication in the header. Wallis is toxic and we now have evidence that he was hired, through OO, as UEA’s reputation
University of East Anglia had used Neil Wallis”
“The University of East Anglia was not the only UK institution that employed Wallis”
“That their first instinct was to seek counsel from a former News of the World editor”
“reputation management” problem and the sort of advice that they needed could be obtained from a former News of the World editor (let alone one with Wallis’ baggage).”
Only the first statement has an ounce of truth. The rest are just wrong – the UEA employed OO, OO provided their consultant Wallis. As said above “When your “mineral” prospecting company requires an accountant, do you check the future to see if the accountant provided by an accounting firm will be or has been (but not discovered yet) fiddling the books of another organisation?”
=======
Another never to emerge from moderation perhaps!!!
-Walt Man Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 7:49 AM

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Martin Brumby Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM
Blimey Mate, you are now accusing the notw as a bunch of dishonest hacks before they were even KNOWN to be such.
My company has employed a firm of accoiuntants. I do not KNOW who is actually doing my accounts – it varies from year to year. They certainly do not send me the CVs of this person. The CV is not even likely to say “I have worked in phone hacking” is it? I put my trust in the accountants company. Not the tea boy who probably presses the button on the computer to roll out the 2 accounts documents and the submission to HMRC. I even managed to do it last year (saved £900!!)
UEA employed an agency to get their view to the press. OO has/had plenty of famous names on the books. Why should they not trust the person OO allocates to do this simple job? What is so difficult to understand about this?
===============
That one made it - how about this:
thefordprefect Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 4:29 AM | Permalink | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Richard Drake Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 2:21 AM | Permalink | Reply
What if the person ‘recruiting’ him for UEA knew some of the darker parts of his past, and that this would guarantee he wouldn’t step out of line? That’s the hunch I’ve had.

ZT Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Reply
It appears that British officials are selected exclusively for blackmail potential these days. (Similar to the system employed at the UN).

hro001 Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 2:02 AM | Permalink | Reply
It seems that Wallis was … hmmm … not home alone.

“What if”
“Hunch”
“It appears”
“It seems”

Where’ the EVIDENCE for any of this.

I know for a fact Elvis may be alive
It is absolutely certain that area 51 possibly houses alien artifacts
There is incontrovertible evidence that the moon landings were possibly staged!

=====
Off moderation so posted but how long will it last before deletion!?

walt man
Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 5:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

How times change:

Steve McIntyre, posted on Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 PM
You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect.

This leads to indignation that such a comment can be made (no mention that it was presumed a private email.

Now you plaster all over the web comments where it is stated that Jones brush with suicide was a put up job to get the sympathy vote. Did no one see him present his case to parliament – was he shown by Wallis how to starve himself. Did Wallis show him how to dye his hair just the right side of grey to match his pallid complection. Did Wallis give him acting lessons to get just the right amount of quaver in his voice?

YOU PEOPLE AMAZE ME
and just recently
YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME.
========
Well this got posted then everything got deleted and the whole thread now in disarray. Well done McIntyre!

walt man
Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 7:52 AM | Permalink | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Run???? It took almost 3 months for this to surface. Wouldn’t it have been better to say this after perhaps 1 month for maximum impact?

From The Sunday Times February 7, 2010
Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times that he had thought about killing himself “several times”. He acknowledged similarities to Dr David Kelly, the scientist who committed suicide after being exposed as the source for a BBC report that alleged the government had “sexed up” evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Richard Drake Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 6:18 AM | Permalink | Reply
The very fact you equate someone’s death with a threat of suicide if someone asks someone too many awkward questions shows the moral vacuum in which you are operating.

What!!!
A natural death. A private comment to others:

“Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news !”

That’s it, all of IT, how on earth do you misinterpret this comment? The moral vacuum that I work in is that I at least believe that my grandchildren deserve a better world to live in. That those equatorial dwellers deserve a homeland that is inhabitable.
I unfortunately also believe that it is probable that Man can destroy the environment!

Mcintyre and censorship

As McIntyre ages he becomes more irrascable. Just so many posts disappear from the blog that it eventually collapses in on itself with orphaned posts, and time-mixed posts, and confusion.

A post that will never see the light of day:!
in reply  to david jay who queried if I thought the IPCC should filter for conflicts of interest.

thefordprefect

Posted Jun 18, 2011 at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
David Jay
It should be held to the same standards as blog writers.
from 2003
The Company has operations in Canada and Guyana, and its entire operating activities are related
to the exploration, development and production of petroleum and natural gas.
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc., B.A.
Position Strategic Advisor
Age 56
Experience Steve has more than 28 years of experience in the mineral business. He is the former
President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company
Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. During his career, Steve has
been the President and Chairman of other resource companies as well.

How FOIs are used

Climate Audit seem to be removing my posts as fast as I write them!
So here is stuff I posted about FOIs and requests for Draft Documents

Posted May 30, 2011 at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
No but Holland has in no uncertain terms:

I understand that the Met Office acted as the Technical Support
Unit for Working Group I of the IPCC Third Assessment Report
published in 2001. Please can you tell me what electronic records
the Met office retain? As this is self-evidently environmental
information, this request is made under the Environmental
Information Regulations of 2004.

I order to minimise any effort required I am willing to restrict my
request to Chapter 2, entitled “Observed Climate Variability and
Change”. I am particularly interested in the first and second order
drafts of the chapter and the comments of the Expert and Government
Reviewers together with the annotated responses of the Lead Authors
and all email correspondence in connection with the chapter or
relating generally to the official assessment process.

While I will be happy to receive any information by email if, as I
expect, it is in electronic form, I would prefer it and would be
willing to wait a reasonable time, if you propose to promptly
publish all your TAR information it in its entirety on your website
as I understand to be a legal requirement of the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004, assuming that you possess the
information in electronic form.

Yours sincerely,

David Holland

Dear Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,

I refer to our previous correspondence (EIR 10/2038).

1. In your response dated 29 October 2010, you say that draft
information and internal communications have been withheld. Could
you please provide a full list of information that has been
withheld.

2. You have disclosed several letters/emails to Prof Beddington
that appear to have no responses. Could you please check to see if
you have missed the replies to these messages.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Montford

So apart from Holland, Cuccinelli, ATI, Montford, other FOIs not on the web there OBVIOUSLY have been no requests for drafts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


=======

And of course McIntyre also requests pre-publication stuff:
From UEA refusal:

Regulation 12(4)(d) is cited because the 1,001 composite data sets and the lists of sites from which the data is drawn was created in 2006 as a first ‘draft’ of work that was meant to be carried forward and refined with a view to future publication. Whilst there has been the passage of some time since the creation of the first set of 1,001 composite records, staff at the CRU have returned to this data recently as part of a project funded by NERC, which commenced in May 2010, that encapsulates this NW Eurasian tree-ring study, and which will be completed no later than October 2012. The data will be revised in the near future as the project moves towards publication of papers based on the work in constructing the composites

=======
Further uses of FOIs fom this site:
John Brown

26 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I
would like to know about any funds provided to the University of
East Anglia for climate-related research. For Financial Years
1999/00 to 2008/09 please provide the following information:

(a) a list of all grants/awards from the Met Office that were made
to the University for climate-related research, advice or
consultancy;

(b) For each of the items listed in response to (a), please
identify the total amount spent by financial year;

(c) For each of the listed in response to (a) & (b), please
identify the University Department, Unit, Team or researcher
responsible for undertaking the work.

Please provide the above information in electronic form.

Yours faithfully,

John Brown
==========
Was the info used or useful?
==========
James Snowdome

24 July 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to request, under the Freedom of Information Act, any
agreements between the Met Office and Peter Webster regarding the
use and/or release of climate date held by the Met Office
(including data that originally came from Phil Jones).

Best regards

Yours faithfully,

James Snowdome
==========
Was the info used or useful?
==========
James Snowdome

24 July 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

I request, under the Environmental Information Act, a copy of all
raw weather station data currently held by Phil Jones,

Where data is not able to be disclosed due to agreements
restricting access to the data I would like to receive a copy of
each agreement detailing which weather stations are restricted.

I would like data for all unrestricted weather stations regardless
of the above.

Yours faithfully,

James Snowdome

==========
How many people asked for this
==========
John Walker

25 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

Please supply a copy of the dataset that was used to create the
Climate Research Unit's temperature record.

Or failing that, details of where a copy of the dataset may be
obtained.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

=========
that's another one
=========
John Walker

5 December 2009
Dear University of East Anglia,

Please supply copies of the accounts for the Climatic Research Unit
for each of the last five years.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

==========
another financial prod
==========
John Walker

2 December 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

In view of Mr Jones's decision to step down:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

please supply copies of all correspondence relating to this
decision between Mr Jones and any other person.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

==========
Why!!!???
==========
John Walker

21 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

Please supply copies of all correspondence (including emails)
between Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU),
and Michael Mann from 1st January 2008 to the present date.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

==========
one of how many requests??
==========

John Walker

27 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

Please supply copies of all correspondence (including emails)
between the UEA Chief Librarian and Phil Jones, Director of the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU), from 1st January 2008 to the present
date.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

===========
Its surprising Mr Walker does not request the time spent by Jones at the urinals!
===========
John Walker

26 December 2009
Dear University of East Anglia,

Reference:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cl...

The CRU receives money in the form of grants etc.

Please explain how this money is accounted for and give details of
the checks and balances that are in place to ensure that this money
is properly spent.

How is this money audited?

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

==========
was this useful?
==========

Dear University of East Anglia,

Please supply copies of all emails (addresses, subject lines and
main body) from or to members of the UEA council since 1st October
2009 that
include one, or more than one, of the following words/phrases:

'Common Purpose', 'PwC', 'KPMG', 'Charles Clarke', 'Climatic
Research Unit', 'Penn State', 'Jones', 'Mann', 'CRU', 'police',
'Norfolk Constabulary', 'Chief Constable', 'special branch', 'Julia
Middleton', 'David Bell', 'climategate', 'Monckton', 'cpexposed',
'stopcp', 'Oxburgh', 'Nurse'.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

=========
yet another "show me all"
=========
Andrew Montford

24 May 2010
Dear Imperial College London,

Professor David Hand of the Department of Mathematics served on
Lord Oxburgh's inquiry into the Climatic Research Unit of the
University of East Anglia. I would like to receive copies of all
correspondence or other documents held by Imperial related to the
Oxburgh inquiry.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Montford
=========
yet another "show me all" trying to incriminate someone other than Jones!
=========
Andrew Montford

29 May 2010
Dear University of Reading,

I understand that Sir Brian Hoskins was involved in providing
advice to the University of East Anglia and others on the setting
up of Lord Oxburgh's inquiry into the Climatic Research Unit at UEA
in the wake of the release of emails from the unit last November.

I would like to receive copies of Sir Brian's emails in relation to
the East Anglia emails affair, including, but not restricted to:
the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry, Lord
Oxburgh's inquiry and Sir Muir Russell's Climate Change Emails
Review.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Montford

==========
Yet another try to incriminate people
==========

OK I'm bored with this so some numbers

ONLLY FROM THE SITE http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
How many private FOIs have been sent?

Andrew Montford 48 FOIs
David Holland 28 FOIs
John Walker 311 FOIs (not all climate related)
John Brown 24 FOIs (not all climate related)
trevor cooper 2 FOIs

Met Office 50 FOIs found
University of East Anglia 50 FOIs found
UEA 121 FOIs found (Included: some from University of East Anglia)
CRU 98 FOIs found (Included UEA etc)
climategate 28 FOIs found (Included UEA etc)


============


UVA David Schnare and ATI
Thanks for the belated response. David Schnare Posted Jun 3, 2011 at 10:20
PM | Permalink | Reply
... We have asked for the Mann documents because we want to know what was
going on at that point in time. McIntyre is a private citizen, so he is not
subject to FOIA.
Your request to UVA is not limiting itself to just Mann and co-workers - indeed
I should like to point out this inconsistency in your comment and your FOI

"All documents that constitute or that are in any way related to correspondence,
messages or emails sent by Dr. Michael Mann to, or received from, any of the
following persons:
(x) Stephen McIntyre"

More significantly, he has made all his work about as public as possible.
He is also helping build the history. He is part of it too, but not in the same
way as Mann.
Your UVA FOI is not just requesting data,code documents it is requesting emails
and things - why. One can only assume this is to create another misinterpretation
the email type of scandal c.f. LEA. If not then why request such things? If
it is genuinely requesting the information for background then emails MUST be
requested from all others involved in the climate debate. Otherwise it is one
sided.
McKitrick, like McIntyre, is pretty much an open book. If someone had found
that he appeared to refuse to play nice in the sandbox, we’d take a look at
his work, but that doesn’t seem to have happened yet.
How do you know that McKitrick and others did no conspire to discredit invalidly
other's documents ?
Wegman is one for which we have requested his work. GMU gave it to us in
an extremely timely manner
"Timely manner"!!! the 2 fois are completely different kettles of
fish. One you demand a life history including any doodles made on the way. Wegman
you ask for very little (and get it!)
Singer is a colleague, but is an elder statesman as well. (That’s a nice
way to say he’s been retired a long time.) No one has questioned his work, and
his recent efforts are very public.
Mann's data had been deleted from their system. It was not until a disused
server was found could any data be retrieved. Being OLD does not make you honest!.
Indeed being old makes it more likely that you do not care what happens in the
future - you'll be dead! How can you say "no one has questioned his work"
that is just not true.
Lindzen is subject to FOIA, but who wants to take him on.
No one wants to take on the Mafia but that does not make it right to allow
them to escape punishment!
You didn’t mention Pat Michaels, also from UVA. ... he is an open
book and no one has seriously suggested any of his work or efforts reflect “political”
science or bad science or anything else.
I did not mention many people who disagree with AGW. That is what the ETC.
is for. He's an open book - yes he admitted to being funded 40% by the oil industry.
Do you not think that perhaps his emails may be of some slight interest (of
course he would have to be pretty dumb to have used UVA email system - but you
never know unless you request)
We believe that when the public pays a scientist to do science at a public
academic institution, they should not only have the opportunity to see all of
what they bought, but have a legal right to see how that work was done.
Fine, but do you not just purchase the final report and the data and calculation.
Do you really purchase his life?
Because Mann has been accused of less than honorable behavior, the public
has a right to know whether his papers reflect such behavior or exonerate him.
Is this accusation a legal one? Or is it a blogging one? Can I accuse all the
anti-AGW scientists similarly and cause you to then FOI their lives?
To me, sir, it appears you are going after one man for the purpose of discrediting
climate science.

Will you publicly state that you are honestly requesting the information solely
to understand the history?
Will you also publicly state that you have not been financed by parties (possibly
energy related) interested in disproving AGW?

holding post for a briffa fest + other posts

Repository of posts (and other stuff) sent to McIntyres blog - they sometimes get deleted!!!
=========================================
thefordprefect Posted Mar 31, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Some time ago I did an experiment using a digital camera at night (the camera tries to adjust for the lack of light by making the sensor more sensitive. this allows random thermal noise to produce the typical digital noise on such photos - this can only be reduced by operating the sensor at ultra low temperatures)


It is a good technique for producing pictures in near impossible conditions - take a binary number of photos, combine them in pairs using the "add" function in paintshop pro, take each summed photo and add to another summed photo. Continue adding together only 2 photos at a time until the required result is obtained.
What was the purpose:
To show that a signal buried in random noise can be extracted by averaging over many data sources.

I.e. take enough trees. Average the ring data and any common factors in the data may become visible - fertilisation, lack of nutrients; too much water, too little water; etc get reduced. but the temperature/CO2 fertilisation are not locally different and any of these or similar effects should become dominant in the averaged data. By junking obvious non responders (invalid photos of kids etc) the common signal is obtained more quickly. We what the temperature has done over the last few hundred years - is it therefore wrong to dump trees that do not conform? I knew that my photos contained no ships so why should I average my ship photos into the photo of the back garden?



Does anyone suggest that a proxy record is an exact representation of past temperatures - I have not seen such words used. All these proxies are simply work in progress (and done over a decade ago!). Reports generated a decade ago are not necessarily fixed in stone more recent ideas/data can displace such ancient documents. Why are these constantly paraded before us?



The photo experiment can be seen here:

http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2009/10/noise-tree-rings-and-stuff.html
================================================
I see no magenta style plot on these papers – can you direct me to the correct one please?

Seeing the Wood from the Trees
Keith R. Briffa and Timothy J. Osborn*
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5416/926.full?ijkey=c5d71e39f7f85ed34e518d0ce7473549cc903585&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha


High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures
P. D. Jones, K. R. Briffa, T. P. Barnett and S. F. B. Tett The Holocene 1998
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/8/4/455.full.pdf

Low frequencty temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network
Briffa et al 2001
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/Briffa2001.pdf

from the blog:
thefordprefect Posted Mar 26, 2011 at 7:52 AM
I’ll reply here but it will probably get pulled.
Watts is observing the current state of temperature proxies (LIG thermometers, Pt resistance thermometers, Thermistors etc in various enclosures. These all respond in a certain way to temperature – not always linear (lig will have a boiling point where it becomes decidedly non linear. They are all placed over different surfaces Snow, rain, grass growth, new tarmac, etc will all influence the air temperature measured.
Watts then removes manually any he considers does not CURRENTLY (and have not in the past?) meet the standards he is applying (cherry picking). This leaves the “good reponder” proxies.
All thermometers require calibration against kmown standards

Briffa does not have this luxury. His proxies are dead trees – there is no possibility of determining which are to be good proxies for their life. Rivers may change course affecting the water table. All trees have a inverted cup shape growth with temperature. There will be an optimum below and above which growth rates will be lower. This optimum will depend on available nutrients, surrounding competition etc. all of which will change over the life of the tree.
Trees need calibrating against known standards – the intrumental data.

McIntyre’s blog has already castigated Briffa for throwing away trees that are not good proxies (cherry picking). This leaves the good proxies. Briffa is now being called “names” for removing bad data that does not give a good proxy for temperature but which is taken from trees that for some of the period are good responders. This sounds very much like Watts is doing!

The plot Hodrick-Prescott Filtered cf 50 year average taken from data on second page of spreadsheet residing in the basement repository with "beware tigers" on the door. No info Just Briffa et al as a column heading - was this published, was this an intermediary file. Who knows? McIntyre does NOT. But McIntryre assumes much! Also chose your smoothing and end padding to get the results you require.

data from
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones1998/jonesdata.xls

Adding in the data suggested by commenter with more severe filtering to untangle the spagetti a bit

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/jgrdata2

A link to AR4 where the failing data is discussed:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

to WUWT 11-05-03

Richard S Courtney says: May 2, 2011 at 5:00 pm

Wind farms are expensive, polluting, environmentally damaging bird swatters that produce no useful electricity at any time: they merely displace power stations onto standby mode (when the power stations continue to consume their fuel and to produce their emissions) during the periods when the wind is strong enough but not too strong for the wind turbines to generate electricity.
What do you not understand about conservation of resources. A power station runing without producing power (spinning reserve, warm start) consumes very little energy to when fully loaded. This surely is obvious? Otherwise where does the excess fuel energy go?
The RSPB consider a correctly placed windturbine to be OK.
How many birds do windows on your house wipe out (we get perhaps 4 deaths/year despite stickers on the panes).
How many birds/animals does your traveling in road vehicles wipe out?
What is the "bird slicers" to vehicles/homes ratio?
What evidence do you have that wind turbines are polluting. According to Vestas 80% of a turbine can be recycled.
From Vestas web site:

For example, a V90-3.0 MW offshore wind turbine will pay for itself more than 35 times during its lifetime – producing 284,600 MWh over the course of 20 years in
The complete life cycle analysis of a wind turbine:

http://www.vestas.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fEN%2fSustainability%2fLCA%2fLCA_V112_Study_Report_2011.pdf

Neodymium is not always used:

ENERCON news ENERCON WECs produce clean energy without neodymium

29.04. 2011

ENERCON wind energy converters (WECs) generate electricity in an environmentally friendly way without the use of the controversial element, neodymium. The gearless WEC design on which all WEC types – from the E-33/330 kW to the E-126/7.5 MW – are based includes a separately excited annular generator. The magnetic fields required by the generator to produce electricity are created electrically. By design, and unlike the majority of competing products, ENERCON WECs do without permanent magnets whose production requires neodymium.
No one thinks that a 1kW generator will produce economic electricity to the grid. But connect up a 3+MW generator and for the 28% of the time it produces power it is saving an equivalent in fossil fuels that future generations can use. Is this a bad thing?
No one expects a few hundred turbines to REPLACE fossil/nuclear generators. All know that there are times of no wind. BUT they do displace convenient energy to the future. And they do reduce all pollution.
All those you tube videos of burning and destructing turbines are good propaganda but one has to compare the permanent exclusion zone round a failed turbine to the exclusion zone round a failed reactor.
thefordprefect


Posted May 24, 2011 at 7:03 AM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Mosher,
Good grief this is getting ridiculous!
If I wrote a paper on the JET fusion processes and why I need to use beryllium tungsten walls.
Who would review it – geologists? research chemists? joe bloggs, the blogging king?, or would it be other researchers in the field of fusion reactions and material scientists.
Would I know these others?
Yes.
I would be in email, telephonic, and even social contact with them. Some would even be friends! Pals (to you).


For you to complain about my reviewers, you would have to call them dishonest. Would you be prepared to do that?
You ARE prepared to do that to climate scientist reviewers.

The Unholy Quest of McIntyre

thefordprefect Posted Nov 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Reply
McIntyre
I think that you need to ask yourself where you are leading with all of this and to what purpose you are pursuing these people and the UEA.

Firstly
If you get the UEA funding terminated (kill the university) by your insinuations and if you get the team imprisoned for FOI procedure irregularities just what will it achieve.

The data is the same. It all shows increased warming. No one believes tree rings make perfect thermometers. The hockey stick remains (just slightly different shape). GHGs are still increasing. GHGs still warm the earth.

Secondly
What is your purpose?:

Get Jones arrested?
Get Mann arrested?
Destroy the UEA?
Destroy the reputation of numerous people who ran enquiries?

Or is it simply to get kudos from your Acolytes?
Or do you have some other purpose?

You must be very sure of your position here. I think the statement made by Rep. Bob Inglis at the House Science & Technology Subcommittee Hearing on Climate Change is very apt. He says that it is important that this hearing is on record (many times) and quotes Australian Ambassador Kim Beazley who when he runs into a sceptic says – make sure to say that very publicly because I want our grandchildren to read what you said and what I said.

I am not sure of the outcome of AGW. But I know that my actions will/may reduce our profligate lifestyles and pollution but will not cause irreparable damage to the ecosystem if I am wrong.
What do you know that makes this single minded pursuit of Jones et al so important?

What information are you privy to that suggests climate scientists are 100% wrong and must be stopped at any cost?
Let’s ASSUME that Jones acted illegally in his handling of FOI requests.
Would he knowing break the law?
Or was it simply an oversight?
Your attack leave no option but to deny wrong doing. You have left him no escape route – any admission of error leads to prison. Is he really a criminal?
It has got so bad on this blog that you even have your followers putting a price on Jones’ head!!
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/26/east-anglia-more-sucking-and-blowing/#comment-246177

Mike

More pointless attacks on Jones.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/27/did-jones-delete-emails/

Did Jones Delete Emails?
It turns out that Muir Russell didn’t bother asking, since that would have exposed Jones to potential liability.

But in a surprising new turn of events, it seems that VC Acton sort-of did what Muir Russell was supposed to do – ask Jones whether he had deleted emails. The Guardian reports Acton’s testimony as follows:

Prof Phil Jones told the University of East Anglia’s boss that he did not delete any of the emails that were released from the university last November, despite apparently saying he would in one of those emails.
In the narrowest sense, the very existence of the Climategate emails seems to show that, whatever Jones may or may not have attempted to do, he had not deleted the emails that survived on the back up server.


thefordprefect
Posted Oct 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM | Permalink | ReplyKeep trying with the irrelevancies McIntyre.

You may be able to change the result of a midterm election and perhaps the next climate debate in Mexico. But attacking a man will not change the fact that the world is warming and it is more than likely caused by man. I hope you are correct in your stance for I would not be able to live with myself if I (and watts) have helped to wreck the lives of our children.

Mike

Even if Jones was guilty of all that watts and McIntyre claim, just what is the relevance. His CRUTEMP record has been shown to agree with other records.
These all show a temperature rise greater than elsewhere in the instrumental record. What is the point in continuing this horrendous attack on Jones and Mann?

my post today:
So lets see if I have this correct [you claim]

Jones acted illegally
Muir Russell and co workers are incompetent
Oxburgh and co workers are incompetent
The UK Parliamentary Process has been bought by lefties
The UEA is complicit in all this illegality

Hmmmm £1300 is all it costs to bring a defamation action (it costs lawyer/QC costs to defend your innocence, and you ARE guilty until you can show otherwise. A Norwich Pharmacal will provide your names and addresses from your ISP for free!). Living outside UK does not make you immune to prosecution. I hope you have plenty of evidence that proves (legally!!!) all your comments. Good Luck!

your words:
mpaul
Posted Oct 28, 2010 at 9:59 AM | Permalink | ReplyJones was the head of the unit. He was directing people to delete emails that were subject of a FOIA.

geronimo
Posted Oct 29, 2010 at 10:21 AM | Permalink | ReplyRussell has form, he’s a serial incompetent

JEM
Posted Oct 29, 2010 at 9:42 AM | Permalink | ReplyOne would think that if the Russell cabal’s ineptitude

McIntyre
It is almost impossible to fully dissect the negligence of the Muir Russell inquiry

T G Watkins
Posted Oct 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM | Permalink | ReplyI have every confidence in the British system of Parliamentary inquiries. Confident that they will duck and dive,
John Whitman
Posted Oct 27, 2010 at 10:56 AM | Permalink | ReplyAm I just being naïve to think that any reasonable independently minded person will find doubt about the innocence of the UEA/CRU personnel
just a few more defamations:Steve McIntyre
Posted Oct 26, 2010 at 7:54 PM | Permalink | ReplyOne of the undiscussed aspects of Muir Russell is the role of PR firm Luther Pendragon and its employees Mike Granatt and Kate Moffatt. The latter is profiled here as having also assisted Pew Charitable Trusts. All very “objective”, I’m sure.

and:
Who Recommended Oxburgh?

most of:
Fiona Fox and the Babe Magnet

etc. etc.

[most of this post got snipped making it ridiculous!]

thefordprefect
Posted Oct 30, 2010 at 8:03 PM | Permalink | ReplyMcIntyre
You have stopped any form of scientific investigation on CRU science.
You are now single mindedly going after its personnel. I just do not see the purpose.

As far as I am aware the main contention about the science is the hide the decline (the graphic on the front of a simple WMO pamphlet).

You now seem to going after the inclusion of some research in the IPCC document that should not have been included due to it not having been published in time. Not because the SCIENCE was wrong.
This blog now seems to be a “lets destroy the UEA and especially the CRU” mouthpiece.

The FOI act became law in 2005, 3 years before the destroy the email email. Was Jones educated in FOI by this time?

The University system in the UK is being destroyed in this country by its poor funding. Sowing seeds of doubt about the UEA may have very detrimental effects on its financial and hence physical future.

Very sad. Just what is the purpose here?????

More Defaming on CA

The latest thread titled
The Botched Examination of the Back-Up Server

Now accuses Peter Sommer of incompetance

This is risky stuff!

His CV:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/informationSystems/pdf/staffPublications/SommerCV.pdf

Interestingly he is the author of the Hackers Handbook!!

More stupidity on CA about defamation

jim edwards
Posted Jul 7, 2010 at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Reply
Sorry, FordPrefect:

1. “publication” is a legal term of art that does not have the meaning you appear to be ascribing to it.

Publication does not require, e.g., printing leaflets or shouting comments in a crowded theatre.
++++
steven Mosher
Posted Jul 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM | Permalink | Reply
ford isn’t the sharpest legal tool in the box. He even misses the fact that Mann writes to other potential reviewers of McIntyre and says that steve is a fraud. On one occasion without reading the paper in question it would appear.


My response
http://www.out-law.com/page-5624
Confidentiality
Though one thinks of email as a direct means of communication, a message is often relayed through several servers before reaching its intended recipient. At each stage, a third party may have an opportunity to read its contents.

Does this constitute publication?
Publication, for the purposes of defamation, requires communication to a third person. That third person must actually become aware of the defamatory material. So, transmission from server to server probably does not amount to publication if the words are not read by anybody. However, if someone who is not the intended recipient were to intercept and read the email, it is likely that the Courts would consider this to be a publication. It is common for people to give access to their e-mail system to others. In such cases, where another has access, there is publication for the purposes of defamation.
---------------------------------
Responsibility for publication
(1)In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that—
(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,
(b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and
(c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.
(2) For this purpose “author”, “editor” and “publisher” have the following meanings, which are further explained in subsection (3)—
“author” means the originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not intend that his statement be published at all;
“editor” means a person having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it; and
“publisher” means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960031_en_1#pb1-l1g1


Your point 5 is just wrong!

Mr Mosher
I can find
Mr. fraudit: Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:54:44 +0100
ClimateFraudit 17:07 29/07/2009
If *others* want to say that their actions represent scientific fraud, Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:37:03 -0500
this fraud Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:22:02 -0500
paper is pure scientific fraud Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:52:53 -0500

2 valid fraud statements to others on emails not seen by non named recipients.

on the other hand I posted this:
Wow good going McIntyre The whole blog sanitized of fraud claims.
Just searched and found none - I though perhaps I had misjudged/misread this blog
all the palinizations removed!

but then...

Google - fraud site:http://climateaudit.org/ gets 464 hits

464 hits for the F word remained published in this site for many months (I think I saved the pages somewhere!!)

------------------
Posted Jul 9, 2010 at 1:00 PM
I agree with your comment re publishing to the email recipient. You could defame me in private emails between only us and I would have no recourse.
[www.] law.unimelb.edu.au/cmcl/publications/def3.pdf
There is no doubt that to give rise to a cause of action there must be a publication by the defendant. That is the foundation of the action....If the statement is sent straight to the person of whom it is written, there
is no publication of it; for you cannot publish a libel of a man to himself... each communication of defamatory material is a separate publication, and therefore a separate cause of action;...but a defendant is not liable for a letter that has been wrongfully intercepted by another ...everyone who “takes part” in publishing defamatory material is a publisher, and is therefore liable for defamation...

[www.] lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/7116-WJ-Defamation-Common%20Defences.htm

[www.]website-law.co.uk/resources/website-libel.html
Interesting stuff esp. No7

(www.] ashford.gov.uk/council_democracy/council/constitution/part_5_-_codes_and_protocols/appendix_5_-__defamation_and.aspx
(b) Qualified Privilege - exists where
the person who makes a communication has an interest or duty (whether legal, social or moral) to make it to the person to whom it is made; and
the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it; and
the person who makes the communication is not motivated by malice.

So publishing in UK law happens on every repeat - you copy the email defaming McIntyre from eaemails and post it on a blog which someone else copies to their Blog - McIntyre to claim defamation from Jones would also have to claim from eaemails, you, and the copier of your blog.

However Jones corresponding to Mann comes under the last quote above - privilege; they both have similar views on the subject - and so it is unlikely to be actionable.

Publishing texts on blogs with high readership (millions for wuwt) that suggest impropriety (or even fraud) on the Team's part, or even questioning their competence, would open a real drum of worms should those defamed turn nasty. In the UK there is a statute of limitation of 1 year for any claim - but that is timed from the last publication.

It should be noted from one of the references that editing a blog is bad. You should only react to complaints. Editing implies that you approve of the posts that remain.
"In order to have the best chance of taking advantage of these defences, a host should not as a matter of course monitor/edit the content of websites that it hosts; however as soon as the host becomes aware of potentially defamatory content, that content should be quickly removed. "

Jones v McIntyre

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/
Why does McIntyre want the data?
...But McIntyre insists hat he’s not interested in challenging the science of climate change, or in nit-picking; rather he is simply asking that the “data be made available”.

...He’s especially aggrieved by the fact that hurricane expert Peter Webster at Georgia Tech University was recently provided with data that had been refused to him. McIntyre’s point here is that he should be treated as a legitimate academic given his background and publication record

But Webster points out that he was allowed access because of the nature of his request, which was very specific and will result in a joint publication with Phil Jones. “Reasonable requests should be fulfilled because making data available advances science”, says Webster, “but it has to be an authentic request because otherwise you’d be swamped".

Once the data become publicly available, Jones wants McIntyre to produce a global temperature record. “Science advances that way. He might then realize how robust the global temperature record is”, says Jones. Asked if he would take on the challenge, McIntyre said that it’s not a priority for him, but added “if someone wanted to hire me, I’d do it”.

====================

So McIntyre does not want the data he just wants others unamed to have the data.
Webster got the data because it will result in a joint Jones Webster publication.
seems different conditions to me