Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Game just changed again | Main | Two years later »

Corporate worms starting to turn

The corporate world has been misled by its public relations advisers for far too long. The softly, softly approach they have taken to attacks by environmentalists has not served them well, and in many areas business has ground to a halt. 

It's nice then to see a company that is willing to take a stand.

In 2013 [Canadian forestry business] Resolute sued Greenpeace for “defamation, malicious falsehood and intentional interference with economic relations” and sought $7 million Canadian in damages. The company has clearly been harmed by Greenpeace’s fact-challenged denunciations of logging in Canada’s vast boreal forest. As a result of the green media campaign, Resolute says it has lost U.S. customers including Best Buy. Greenpeace says in its court filings that its publications on Resolute “present fair comment based on true facts” and that the company is “engaged in destructive forest operations.”

As part of the court proceedings, Resolute is seeking Greenpeace correspondence, which should be lots of fun if it ever sees the light of day.

But Greenpeace may be forced to defend those comments. In January 2015 an Ontario court refused to consider an appeal of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Then last June Superior Court Justice F. B. Fitzpatrick rejected Greenpeace’s motion to strike part of the Resolute complaint that details the environmental group’s activities around the world.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (103)

Upthread I was asked

Phil Clarke, do you know more about the Climategate release of E-Mails than the Police?

Now Doug, apparently, does.

Do share.

Mar 22, 2016 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Oh Phil - You keep trying but just do not seem to realise that it is immaterial HOW the data was released.

Someone knew where it was

Someone went in and got it

The ripples of truth are still washing over the hubris as we write.

Climate "Science" was never the same again.

I don't want to be rude about any UK Police Force - but the real joke is that even you must now see that irony is REALLY not your strong point.

Mar 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterDougUK

Norfolk police's logic was: "We can't prove anybody internally did it therefore it was external" which is a long way from proving it was external.

You might also also be interested in this

Greenpeace has been writhing for two years to avoid its day in court, but its appeals have been turned down time and again. Not only has the possible penalty got its attention, but the ENGO is likely concerned that the discovery process – when defendants are cross-examined by the plaintiff’s lawyers — will expose the web of global coercive activity that is ENGOs’ modus operandi.

Evidence of this global network has become obvious as the attack on Resolute has been joined by the grandmother of ENGOs, the WWF, and the Forest Stewardship Council, FSC.

The FSC’s certification programmes are at the heart of the ENGO agenda of global control of the forestry industry. Sold as a kind of good planet-keeping seal of approval, they are more like a protection racket: sign on, or your customers will receive a visit.

It was hardly coincidental that Resolute had two of its FSC certifications withdrawn in the wake of its Greenpeace suit. Greenpeace was one of the founders of the FSC.

It all seems to be linked.

Mar 22, 2016 at 12:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Here's an interesting video about Greenpeace

Mar 22, 2016 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

I don't know about you but many decades of experience has taught me to be very wary of phrases like "Forestry Stewardship Council". It almost invariably is a front for some self-seeking, self-righteous, self-appointed guardians of something that they want humanity to keep their hands off — usually to humanity's detriment.

Mar 22, 2016 at 12:52 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

TerryS .... Would that be an opinion piece by the same Peter Foster who was successfully sued by Andrew Weaver for defamation? Because, according to the Judge he was "careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts,” and “more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts.”

I rather think it is. A comment nails it:

Peter Foster's 'journalism' is symptomatic of why Postmedia is losing millions each quarter and why Conrad Black even begged at their last shareholders' meeting for a 'Return to Quality'!

Mar 22, 2016 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Everyone knows it was Tallbloke who dunnit

My money is still on HurryUp Harry.

Mar 22, 2016 at 3:41 PM | Unregistered Commentermojo

I look forward to Greenpeace, WWF and FSC litigating against Peter Foster for the above piece.

Oh, hold on, they aren't. Probably because there isn't anything remotely actionable in the piece.

Mar 22, 2016 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Actionable, no. Paranoid conspiracy fantasies are not actually illegal.

Mar 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Oh Dear again Phil:-

Actionable, no. Paranoid conspiracy fantasies are not actually illegal.

Mar 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM | Phil Clarke



Phil Clarke, do you know more about the Climategate release of E-Mails than the Police?

Now Doug, apparently, does.

Do share.

Mar 22, 2016 at 11:14 AM | Phil Clarke

So apparently my mild pee-take at you re Charlies Angels Interpol and the FBI allows your paranoia to conclude that others know more than Norfolk Police?

(which is not difficult given the NFN tag applied to a fair few............)

Do you come from Norfolk Phil?

It could explain a lot.........

Mar 22, 2016 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterDougUK

Come on Phil Clarke! You normally support Non Violent Direct Action don't you? And NO criminal charges either! No physical injury was inflicted. It might even have helped save the world from stupidity.

Why does ClimateGate annoy you?

Mar 22, 2016 at 6:45 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Why does ClimateGate annoy you?

It doesn't. Like almost everyone, I regarded it as a sideshow at the time and a footnote now, as Stephen Mosher, who wrote a book on the faux scandal, wrote: 'Nothing in the mails changes the SCIENCE'

It did of course, make a lot of people look entertainingly foolish as they tried to spin carefully-mined, out of context quotes into a grandiose game-changing conspiracy, but there you go.

Back on topic, Greenpeace were of course involved in an incident of unambiguous and lethal state-sponsored terrorism, when covert operatives, acting from orders at the highest level of Government, attached limpet mines to a manned vessel, sinking it and killing a photographer. Puts things in perspective.

Mar 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

'Nothing in the emails changed the science' - eh, Phil Clarke? You have a very poor reading history (got round to HSI yet?) so I guess you never bothered to read the HARRY-READ-ME file, nor any other of the key emails from the likes of Jones?

If you had you might have realised that 'the SCIENCE' is not all it's cracked up to be and was open to much fiddling. But of course, if that's the way you like your science....

Mar 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Good case in point. 'Harry' was Ian Harris and at the time he was working on a legacy product CRU TS 2.1. As someone with a software engineering background, I sympathised with his frustrations, documented over 4 years. However the product is now at 3.4, and his travails had nothing whatsoever to do with the flagship HADCRUT products.

Thanks for keeping the entertainment up, though.

any other of the key emails from the likes of Jones?

Go on, give it your best shot, what was the most damning, incriminating, red-handed example of scientists behaving badly, and what changed as a result?

Mar 23, 2016 at 9:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, just because Michael Mann claims that the Climategate inquiries found him, and Climate Science wholly innocent of all accusations, does not prove Michael Mann and Climate Science have behaved impeccably throughout. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but only if Climate Science allows you to express it.

Michael Mann may be invited to back up his 'claims to innocence' in court, but for some reason, does not seem too enthusiastic.

Mar 23, 2016 at 1:21 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

My Android tablet started life as 'KitKat 3.something', and it was great. After many, many 'fixes' it is now 'Lollipop 5.1.1' - and it is acknowledged around the world that it is crap - and it is. Never mind, as long as the version numbers keep climbing I'm sure it's for the better.

The thing is, even if the versions improve, the original science was conducted with and the hypotheses constructed on the crap code of years ago. And those hypotheses are considered "the word" - not to be denied.

Mar 23, 2016 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Except CRU TS is a land-only multi-variable dataset, the global combined land+sea temperature dataset, as used (one of many inputs, strange that University of Berkeley, NASA, NOAA all had the same 'crap code', huh?) by IPCC is a completely separate product. Sorry to sledgehammer the point, it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

There are many ways to assess software quality and I've used several, oddly none of the methodogies include the instruction: 'grab the developer's' rough notes and quote-mine them'.

Android has 1.4 billion users.

Mar 23, 2016 at 1:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

just because Michael Mann claims that the Climategate inquiries found him, and Climate Science wholly innocent of all accusations, does not prove Michael Mann and Climate Science have behaved impeccably throughout.

Once again you attempt to shift the goalposts, (and drag in your bogeyman) nobody behaves impeccably all the time; that was not the claim. There is evidence in the mails of poor judgement, especially around avoiding FOI, and offensive remarks. I wonder what we would find if we published your inbox? What I did say was that none of this affects the science; there is precisely zero evidence of improper data manipulation, fraud or malpractice.

To summarise the conspiracy ....

1. The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process

2. The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."

3. The [Penn State University] inquiry committee determined on 3 February 2010 that there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed emails, information and/or data related to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or misused privileged or confidential information. 

4. The second Investigatory Committee reported on 4 June 2010 that it had "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community." Mann's extensive recognitions within the research community demonstrated that "his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists." It agreed unanimously that "there is no substance" to the allegations against Mann.

5. First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.[106] The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.[107] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.

6. The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions [to reconsider its endangerment finding], which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."[113] In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy" and provided "no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare."

7. The report, [from the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce] issued on 18 February 2011, cleared the researchers and "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures".

8. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation closed an investigation on 15 August 2011 that exonerated Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University of charges of scientific misconduct. It found no evidence of research misconduct, and confirmed the results of earlier inquiries

Mar 23, 2016 at 2:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Go on, give it your best shot, what was the most damning, incriminating, red-handed example of scientists behaving badly, and what changed as a result?


Mar 23, 2016 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, you are the one dragging Hockey Stick shaped goal posts around, and further through the mud, while most 'in-the-know' climate science afficionados are keeping quiet. Has it occurred to you, to wonder why?

Are those exonerations of Mann that you quote, going to be relied on in court by Mann?

Mar 23, 2016 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mann’s claim that the Oxburgh panel “exonerated” Mann on counts ranging from scientific misconduct to statistical manipulation to proper conduct and fair presentation of results has no more validity than his claim to have been awarded a Nobel prize for his supposedly seminal work “document[ing] the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s.”

Mar 24, 2016 at 1:04 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Go on, give it your best shot, what was the most damning, incriminating, red-handed example of scientists behaving badly, and what changed as a result?

Like an Aristophanes satire, like Hamlet, it opens with two slaves, spear-carriers, little people.

Mar 24, 2016 at 1:12 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

PS Harry_read_me.txt: the climategate gun that does not smoke
Mar 23, 2016 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Obviously you didn't read the comments...

"Sir, when you state that "A lack of data integrity is not the same as bad data." I just had to laugh; but then I realised that you were serious ... !!!"

Mar 24, 2016 at 1:49 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Like an Aristophanes satire, like Hamlet, it opens with two slaves, spear-carriers, little people.

TL; DR. Do you really think I'm gong to wade through all that? I got as far as if scientists are allowed to put a creative spin on facts, I can certainly do so.

Surely it is possible, after all this time, to present in one paragraph an example of why 'ClimateGate' should not be dismissed as an irrelevance?

Mar 24, 2016 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I think it is fair to say that no degree of exoneration would ever have satisfied Mcintyre; he starts from a position of bad faith and assumes all climate scientists are guilty until proven guilty. He is also known for quote-mining, and <a href=""<cherry-picking and harrassment..

Who to believe?

Mar 24, 2016 at 9:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

You really are in denial aren't you Phil.


Mar 24, 2016 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterDougUK

Phil Clarke: I have very little time for the shysters of this world who are quite happy to take huge copy 'n' paste (with some editing to throw off the scent) items from, of all places, Wiki, and present them with no acknowledgement as their own fount of wisdom. If you are bothered again to drop comments into BH have the good grace to cite your sources when they are not your original thoughts. You don't influence any debate by trying to turn BH into Wiki-minor.

Mar 24, 2016 at 10:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield


Six years on there is not much of a debate. Shorter Phil: Numerous panels of people with heavyweight and distinguished reputations to lose, including the US EPA which is subject to judicial review, reviewed and reported on the purloined mails and found zero evidence of fraud, malpractice, data manipluation or anything capable of changing the science.

In response we have the opinion of blogger Steve McIntyre, a man given to bad faith - all climate scientists are guilty until proven guilty - nitpicking, harrassment and cherry-picking. (including examples to back up this opinion caused the nonappearance of an earlier comment) and a long screed from one Michael Kelly, author of 'Why I Love Victor Mature's eyelids' which admits from the off that it is 'a creative spin on facts'

I think you have a credibility problem ;-)

Mar 24, 2016 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I think you have a credibility problem ;-)

Says the one who, by his own admission, will not look at the evidence because there is too much of it!

Mar 24, 2016 at 11:15 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I'd take the credibility of McIntyre over you, Clarke. At least his work is original - and he shares all of it with others. Now there's a novelty: showing your work, data and code. Mann and Jones could learn a thing or three from him. (Mann would not show his data/code until forced to do so years later; and Jones 'lost' all his - but then, as a man challenged by the technicalities of Excel, I'm not at all surprised.

BTW: I notice you didn't deny your earlier LONG post was all plagiarised - from WIKI!!! Ho ho.....who has a credibility problem now?

Yours, with extremely bad faith.....

Mar 24, 2016 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Mann would not show his data/code until forced to do so years later; and Jones 'lost' all his


Mar 24, 2016 at 12:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

"Baloney", Clarke? Further up thread someone said you were a 'denier' - of truth, they meant. He was right. If you could steal yourself to read Steve McIntyre's saga of getting hold of the data/code from Mann, or even HSI you would know. But you won't. The truth would hurt you so you'd rather close your eyes to it and pretend that if you don't look at it it doesn't exist. You are a pitiful individual. But, so what, go over to CA and make the same 'baloney' claim there - but please tell us here when you do so; we could all do with the entertainment as you are defenestrated.

Mar 24, 2016 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

HP: +1

"Clarke ... go over to CA and make the same 'baloney' claim there "

Yep, go on Phil Boy, show some real cojones and do that.

And only then bother to come back here.

Mar 24, 2016 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

[blockquote]“Dear Mr. McIntyre, I apologize if my last electronic message was not clear but let me clarify the US NSF’s view in this current message. Dr. Mann and his other US colleagues are under no obligation to provide you with any additional data beyond the extensive data sets they have already made available. He is not required to provide you with computer programs, codes, etc. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his. The passing of time and evolving new knowledge about Earth’s climate will eventually tell the full story of changing climate. I would expect that you would respect the views of the US NSF on the issue of data access and intellectual property for US investigators as articulated by me to you in my last message under the advisement of the US NSF’s Office of General Counsel.
David J. Verardo,
Director, Paleoclimate Program,
Division of Atmospheric Sciences.”


Mail to McIntyre from the NSF confirming that Dr Mann disclosed everything that he was obliged to; all data necessary to reproduce the study were freely available on the internet.

[blockquote]To be specific, they claimed that the hockey stick was an artifact of four supposed “categories of errors”: “collation errors,” “unjustified truncation and extrapolation,” “obsolete data,” and “calculation mistakes.” As we noted in a reply to a McIntyre and McKitrick comment on MBH98 that had been submitted to and rejected by Nature (because their comment was rejected anyway, our reply would not appear there either), those claims were false, resulting from their misunderstanding of the format of a spreadsheet version of the dataset they had specifically requested from my associate, Scott Rutherford. None of the problems they cited were present in the raw, publicly available version of our dataset, which was available at that time at

Mann, Michael E. (2012-01-24). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (p. 263). Columbia University Press. Kindle Edition. [which I have read]

Footnote confirming the above.

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years.  We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies. The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements.  Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).[/blockquote]

UEA Press release.

Clearly the absurd claim that 'Mann would not show his data/code until forced to do so years later; and Jones 'lost' all his'

Is utter bollux, unless data can simultaneously be lost and 95% available. Lol. Denier Doublethink?

Mar 24, 2016 at 2:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

With Phil Clarke quoting the EPA's assessment of Mann's credibility as being superior to BH bloggers interpretations, it could be embarrassing if a Court sides with Climate Audit and BH Bloggers as being more reliable than Mann or the EPA, or Wikipedia.

Setting such a Precedent would not be Unprecedented in climate science.

Mar 24, 2016 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

With Phil Clarke quoting the EPA's assessment of Mann's credibility as being superior to BH bloggers interpretations

What the flip are you talking about? What assessment?

Mar 24, 2016 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

As this discussion was getting so way off thread I decided to open a discussion thread should anyone wish to continue it.

I think Mr Clarke needs to set aside his obvious bias and do some reading - at CA. I have provided adequate links for him to start with on the discussion page. (But I doubt he'll bother - much the same way as he hasn't read the HSI, yet feels qualified to comment on it).

Mar 24, 2016 at 3:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

My link to the discussion thread failed: Please find it here.

Mar 24, 2016 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Phil Clarke, whose assessment of Mann's credibility are you relying on then? The Wikipedia entry written by .......? The SKS version of events written by ......? Real Climates version of events written by......... Michael Mann?

You are normally quick to provide links to climate science approved sources, only you seem to have forgotten as Harry Passfield pointed out above. You are quick to dismiss anything from Bishop Hill or Climate Audit, based on somebody else's opinions, preferring self proclaimed Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann. Don't your preferred sources explain Mann's actual Nobel Prize Status, or would that conflict with his credibility as a reliable witness about anything?

Mar 24, 2016 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mann's scientific credibility derives primarily from his 190+ publications, and is reflected in the respect he receives from fellow scientists, eg made a Fellow of the AMS.

Neither the daily Three Minute Hate he receives around here nor a pettifogging confusion about whether IPCC Lead Authors are prize winners rather than contributors to a Nobel Prize winning body will change that.

And Dr Mann is only one amongst thousands of climate scientists and 100% of scientific organisations that endorse the IPCC conclusions.

Mar 24, 2016 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Has anyone heard from Phil Clarke recently? I'm starting to worry. It's been several minutes since he was all superior. Is he still OK?

Mar 24, 2016 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans

Phil Clarke, you have made your comprehension of what constitutes reliability in climate science abundantly clear.

Mann and climate science underpin each other. It is that solid.

Mar 24, 2016 at 5:55 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil - What makes someone who was once deeply concerned about the alarming projections start to dare to ask questions?

For me it was seeing in black and white – the stark words that Phil Jones would rather destroy the CRU data than release it! - If you do not know that NOT releasing data is the most anti-science “sin” a person of science can commit then I feel genuinely sorry for you Phil. Your whole demeanour on here seems to be hero worship.

Science progresses by discussion and testing. To actually state that as head of the CRU Jones did not want his data checked by others because they may upset his nice little applecart was just such an anathema to me that I started REALLY looking at the data.

That was my particular Road to Damascus. Those of us from differing scientific backgrounds look at what standards seem to be acceptable within “climate science” and are genuinely appalled.

Your stating that what these emails show are somehow irrelevant indicate that you yourself are incapable of seeing the facts for what they are.

What the rest of the world sees but sadly you don’t it seems is that a) whoever released the data had to know what was there and why it was important to release it. So inside job/outside job? Irrelevant.

and b) why when all other areas of science openly share data in a spirit of openness do Climate Scientists state that they will not release their data because others may want to challenge it?

The point is that someone realised this info was being withheld and that the behavior of the “scientists” was appalling and did something about it.

As a result the Climate “scientists” lost the control they once had. People started looking, people stated questioning – and worst of all for those who benefited from their own alarming projections - people started to change their minds.

And thats when we got the stupidity of "The Scientists have spoken!" "The time for debate is over!"

Mar 24, 2016 at 9:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterDougUK

Science progresses by discussion and testing. To actually state that as head of the CRU Jones did not want his data checked by others because they may upset his nice little applecart was just such an anathema to me that I started REALLY looking at the data.

You're doing exactly what the propagandists want you to do: assuming that a single poorly-worded email (to someone with a history of baseless accusations of fraud) and a handful of hyperbolic internal emails from 4 authors out of hundred of thousands of communications over a decade are representative of an entire discipline.

Its just noise: to take the temperature data of the CRU (CRUTEM) and Phil Jones for example: 95% of it has always been available and the difference in the plot from the 95% and the 100% is negligible. In fact it is not actually 'CRU' data; it belongs largely to the National Weather Services who collect it. No doubt you have read the Muir Russell report:

To carry out the analysis we obtained raw primary instrumental temperature station data. This can be obtained either directly from the appropriate National Meteorological Office (NMO) or by consulting the World Weather Records (WWR) …[web links elided] … Anyone working in this area would have knowledge of the availability of data from these sources.” (Page 46, paras 13-14)

Anyone except McIntyre, natch.

“Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data.” (Page 48, para 20).

“The computer code required to read and analyse the instrumental temperature data is straightforward to write based upon the published literature.  It amounts a few hundred lines of executable code (i.e. ignoring spaces and comments). Such code could be written by any research unit which is competent to reproduce or test the CRUTEM analysis.  For the trial analysis of the Review Team, the code was written in less than two days and produced results similar to other independent analyses. No information was required from CRU to do this.” (Page 51, para 33)

So accusations of Jones avoiding data disclosure are wide of the mark, to say the least. If you have really REALLY started 'looking at the data', then you will have discovered that the conclusions based on it are pretty much what the IPCC and others say they are.

Mar 24, 2016 at 10:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Mar 25, 2016 at 1:26 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

And of course Phill - with a name like the IPCC - the IPCC would hardly step up and say anything OTHER than CC is a huge problem - if it did - why the hell would it exist - Surely even you can see that the very thing you accuse others of, - bias, - is hard for those in the IPCC to avoid themselves when their jobs, their mortgage payments and their gravy train requires that catastrophic CC is accepted as a done deal.

Woe betide anyone who dares question the assumption that CC is AGW and it is all mans fault. I do not doubt that Man has a negative effect on the planet - but the opportunity cost of the "Alarmist influence" is now being seen by all. The EU sets biodiesel targets it cannot meet itself because it cannot grow the Palm Oil. So we import it from countries that destroy virgin rain forest to grow palm oil so we in Europe can hit a self set target. Did we want to set up a system to destroy Rain Forests? - no of course not - but the myopic focus on only CO2 as THE issue lead to exactly that.

Similarly but closer to home our towns and cities are poisoned by Nitrous Oxides and carcinogenic particulates from diesel fuel because Governments were influenced by the fact that diesel produces less CO2 than petrol/LPG and so skewed the tax regime such that we now have small inefficient diesel cars in our urban areas quite literally choking and poisoning the population.

Both of the above real issues are directly attributable to the crazy focus on CO2.

And this focus is down to the advocacy contaminated "science" of Climate Change.

Whilst you desperately try to limit the reality of what the Climate Gate data revealed the rest of us with open minds started asking questions. Your mind seems closed to any othet possibility other than the fact that this advocacy/science is correct.

Well you better accept it that greater minds than ours are now having a serious rethink.

Not least because there is a clear audit trail were Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data and states that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over!

Jones then says he will hide behind data protection laws if necessary and says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn.

Wigley is worried he will have to release his model code. (WHY????)

Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.

And that is just a few examples.

But no doubt you have a plausible explanation as to why this is all "tickity boo" and that there is nothing to see here and can we all move along now please.

Mar 25, 2016 at 8:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterDougUK

Not least because there is a clear audit trail were Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data and states that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over!

Have you never engaged in hyperbole in a private email? The CRU had 3-5 members of staff, and at one point were receiving FOI requests at the rate of one every half-hour, each of which had to be dealt with. Faced with such an orchestrated campaign of harrassment, not to mention the constant insinuations of fraud and malpractice and I might just write an intemperate word or two.

The EPA is correct - none of this changes the science.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

Cardinal Richleui

Mar 25, 2016 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I notice that back in 2012 Anthony Watts was referring to Phil Boy - our tame Environmental Sustainability Leader - as "our UK troll supreme Phil Clarke".

Plus ca change.

Mar 25, 2016 at 12:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>