The evidence was released yesterday by top skeptic science blog, Watts up With That (WUWT)

Professors Jones and Acton had vigorously sought to defend themselves last week under cross-examination at the Parliamentary Select Committee Hearing against accusations that their university criminally defied demands under the Freedom of Infrormation Act (FOIA). In his testimony Jones claimed various nations, including Sweden, would not authorise release of their climate data and this was why he could not comply with FOIA requests. But the Swedes’ evidence proves this is a lie. SMHI have just released the following PDF files as proof:

Request from Professor Phil Jones regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset dnr SMHI

Data from the HadCRUT dataset_100304

DOC111209

The much respected SMHI objected strongly to Jones’s flagrantly false testimony by releasing evidence to the public that proves Swedish climate data was readily available in the public domain. In fact, the new evidence shows that the Swedes had merely refused Jones’s request to attribute his ‘homogenized’ data to them. This revelation is so far the most disturbing because it constitutes blatant deceit by Climategate conspirators perpetrated directly upon Parliamentary investigators.

Professor Acton, head of the University of East Anglia, backed up Jones and may also be proven to have conspired to mislead Parliament about withholding data as shown by his answer in the Committee’s transcript (as per Q94) :

Chairman: “Why did you hide it then?”

Professor Acton:  “Unfortunately, several of these countries impose conditions and say you are not allowed to pass it on…. Seven countries have said, ‘No you cannot publish it’ [including] Sweden.”

Uncorrected Transcript of Oral Evidence

Both discredited professors may now stand accused of conspiring to commit fraud by false representation. Climate skeptics have long argued that the CRU was using a ‘homogenizing’ process on climate data to falsely make global temperatures appear warmer than they actually are. This latest news certainly gives further credibility to the accusation that Jones deliberately, rather than accidentally, ‘lost’ his data. Jones has already narrowly escaped criminal prosecution under the Freedom of Information Act by way of a technicality. But police now have a mounting case to charge Jones for conspiracy to commit fraud where no such technicalities will this time save the errant professor.

We now expect other nations to follow the Swedes and to defend themselves against the false statements of climatologists who refuse to release their climate data. Another key Climategate fraud suspect, Michael Mann, of Penn. State University has been named by US Senator Inhofe among a further dozen potentially criminal climate fraudsters exposed in the leaked CRU emails of November 2009. Without doubt this unravelling story is still set to cause further embarrassment to the British and other world governments who have premised trillion dollar ‘green’ tax raising policies on such discredited and fraudulently obtained junk science.

Hanuman’s statement reads:

“From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations.”

The former post-graduate now working as an Independent Legal Services Professional, claims to have submitted physical evidence that proves systemic fraud that “was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices.” If confirmed by the inquiry that such evidence relates to conduct of researchers inside the CRU, it would ensure a full-scale police investigation far greater than anyone might have anticipated.

This revelation adds further woe to the CRU on top of the damning submission to the Parliamentary Committee last week from the 36,000 scientists of the Institute of Physics agreeing with climate skeptics that the leaked emails prove:

“prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.”

This scandal has now opened up a can of worms for a British Labour Government eager to play down the climate controversy so close to the country’s general election this Spring.

The full text of Lalu Hanuman’s submission reads as follows:

Memorandum submitted by Lalu Hanuman (CRU 07)

1. As a former postgraduate student of the University of East Anglia [UEA], and a British Citizen, I would like to comment on your committee’s planned review of the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit [CRU] at the UEA. In particular the issue of : “Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA, adequate”.

2. The current furore that the UEA has created by it’s falsifying of climate change information, has undermined global climate change action at the recent Copenhagen talks, with some countries relying on these UEA revelations to question the validity of climate change. The resultant catastrophic effect of the UEA’s actions on future generations, cannot be exaggerated, as it has helped delay united action against looming climate change. A robust and thorough transparent inquiry is called for. Sir Muir Russell’s review is inadequate at least as far as point 3 of his remit goes ie “Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations for the release of data”.

3. From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations. Hence the CRU in distorting information was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices. There is an urgent need for a wider remit, namely to look into the institutional failings of the UEA itself.

4. Declaration of interests: None.

5. DPA: I give permission for my name, and contact details, to be released.

Lalu Hanuman
January 2010

Jones’s conduct has already been formally condemned by almost 80,000 scientists from the Royal Insitute of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics who submitted their own reports to Parliament last week.

In his testimony Jones admitted to unlawfully concealing data.

The former chief of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (CRU) looked bedraggled and forlorn as he testified that it was “standard practice” to refuse submitting data to other scientists who sought to check climate research. Climate skeptics have been quick to pick apart the apparent contradictions in his testimony which contraverts Jones’ conduct prior to 2002, when he first dealt with data sharing requests from McIntyre.

Labour MP Graham Stringer asked Jones why he refused to comply with requests to share data to which Jones answered:

“Because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.”

To which Mr. Stringer again challenged Jones:

“But scientists make a name by proving and disproving things, don’t they? The statement seems to be anti-scientific. It is an absolutely clear denial of the man’s attempt to get at what you were doing. He wanted your information and you refused to give it to him? Why?”

Jones’ answer:

“Because we had invested a lot of work and resources in it, and this was before FOI started.”

Despite his damning claim that crucial climate data disproving the theory of man made global warming was withheld due to ‘standard’ practice’ Jones can be shown to have freely obeyed data sharing requests up until 2002.

By examination of revealing correspondence with independent climate analyst, Canadian Steve McIntyre we can reveal that Jones freely submitted data upon all such requests. This was despite Jones’s awareness of confidentiality agreements which he later used as his reason for not releasing data.

In stating to Parliament that it was ‘standard practice’ not to release climate data Jones may have perjured himself as per the following facts.

Respected unpaid auditor, McIntyre has spent much of the last decade investigating the claims of climate scientists and is noted for spotting an error in NASA’s climate data whereby NASA wrongly attributed the warmest year of the 20th Century to 1998 when, in fact, it was proven that 1934 was the warmest year in the American records. NASA grudgingly corrected their facts. Climate skeptics have since exposed other government climate data as false and global warming advocates, such as Jones have been circling the wagons against further public scrutiny.

McIntyre recounts the former openness of Jones that disproves his testimony from yesterday:

“At that time, I was surprised by the promptness of the response and the extra effort that Jones had put into the response. (I think that I noted Jones’ courtesy as a correspondent from time to time in the first years of the blog.)”

Jones had helpfully released to McIntyre temperature data for 5,159 global weather stations, a most revealing act never since repeated. Thus this contraverts Jones’ testimony to Parliament that it was ‘standard practice’ to withhold data. Such ‘practice’ only began after 2002 when skeptics began to uncover climate data irregularities.

McIntyre cites the correspondence he received from Jones on this issue. Jones replied to the Canadian making the following statement that was never honored:

“Once the paper comes out in the Journal of Climate, I will be putting the station temperature and all the gridded databases onto our web site.”

In 2007, when Willis Eschenbach, another independent analyst, also sought station data he, too, was refused under various pretexts. After three or four further FOIA requests Jones partially relented and gave access to just 4,138 of the stations, placing them on the CRU website.

The question not yet asked of Jones is why was there a change of policy that was blatantly contradictory to the Freedom of Information laws, after 2002. The ‘standard practice’ Jones refers to can only be proven to have occurred between 2002 and 2009.

Jones has repeatedly defended his unlawful conduct by alluding to problems created by various countries refusing to make their data freely available. Yet Jones refuses to point the finger at any such countries that continue to stymie FOIA requests.

Skeptics will claim this is proof of willful criminal conduct, or ‘trick’ committed by Jones in a self-serving fashion to ‘hide the decline’ in the standard practice of climate science perfomed at CRU. I would suggest that Jones would be more forthcoming on this issue if he faced stern cross-examination in a court of law, a place where this scandal will surely now be finally determined.

“scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.”

The RSC now stands shoulder to shoulder with the 36,000 strong Institute of Physics in speaking out against the cover up and destruction of data by unethical and criminal climate researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

With these public statements on the conduct of climate scientists from other scientists, we are seeing a monumental groundswell of scientific opinion against the crooked methods of advocates of global warming theory such as disgraced CRU Professor Phil Jones.

In a thinly veiled rebuke the RSC, an organisation that represents 42,000 chemistry scientists, unequivocally agrees with skeptics that scientific data must be made available to the public and be open to scrutiny. They argue that the benefit for the status of science outweighs the perceived risks. To this end the Society has urged the Parliamentary Select Committee to clarify,

“the severity of the acts carried out by those scientists at the CRU involved, i.e. whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.”

We applaud both the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics for making such a valiant stand for the integrity of the scientific method. We are particularly heartened to see that both institutions have taken the view contrary to the politicisation of science, so that such announcements will be of great comfort to climate skeptics so hotly opposed to the skewed advocacy among left-wing environmentalists now popularly referred to as ‘post-normal science.’

A full transcript of the RSC submission may be found here, and are shown below:

Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society of Chemistry (CRU 42)

Summary

- It is essential that the public and all non-specialists remain truly confident in the scientific method to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong decisions can be made. Correspondingly, it is in the interest of scientists and the public that society as a whole has an understanding and an appreciation of science.

- Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and enabling the discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas.

- The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.

Submission

1. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) welcomes the opportunity to submit formal written evidence to the consultation on the disclosure of climate change data from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia.

2. The RSC is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and an international Learned Society for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over 46,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, our activities span education and training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public.

3. The document has been written from the perspective of the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is noteworthy that the University of East Anglia is a member of the RSC Partnership Scheme, however this in no way constitutes a conflict of interest. The RSC’s Royal Charter obliges it “to serve the public interest” by acting in an independent advisory capacity, and we would therefore be very happy for this submission to be put into the public domain.

- What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

4. The apparent resistance of researchers from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) to disclose research data has been widely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research. The true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching consequences for the reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public’s confidence in science.

5. It is essential that the public and all non-specialists remain truly confident in the scientific method to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong decisions can be made. Correspondingly, it is in the interest of scientists and the public that society as a whole has an understanding and an appreciation of science. The RSC strongly supports the dissemination of chemical knowledge to foster and encourage the growth and application of the chemical sciences, as stated in its Royal Charter. This includes the dissemination of scientific knowledge as a means to advance public understanding and the learning of science.

6. The dissemination of scientific information is central to progressing scientific developments, as it is based on a sound knowledge of preceding research.[1] Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and enabling the discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas.

7. It is also imperative that scientific information is made available to the wider community for scrutiny: the validity and essence of research relies upon its ability to stand up to review. In fact, advances in science frequently occur when the prevailing view is challenged by informed scepticism, this is fundamental to the scientific method and should be encouraged, even if controversial. The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, research needs to be presented in an accurate and reliable manner in the correct context in order to optimise this process. It may also be necessary to incorporate an independent auditing system into peer review with the ability to demand access to raw data sets to ensure best practices are being adhered to.

8. With the increased use of electronic media, access to information is widespread for scientists and the public alike. While this is a great benefit to society, the quality and validity of information available raises complex problems as valid scientific information and general opinion are presented side by side. The inability to decipher which information is legitimate, results in confusion, misinterpretation and may lead to mistrust of ‘science’. There needs to be a clearer understanding in the public domain of what constitutes a reliable source, including an appreciation for the process that is used for disseminating research and the advantages of peer review.

9. The peer review system is central to the credibility of science: its purpose to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims and unacceptable interpretations. Formally published scientific research is subject to this authoritative process whereby a community of qualified, impartial experts examine the information and possess the ability to prevent publication. Authors generally protect their data until it has been peer-reviewed and published in a formal publication due to the competitive nature of research.

10. The issue of misinformation in the public domain must also be tackled. Just as the scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree must also provide a clear and verifiable backing for their argument, if they wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreements occur, the validity of the analysis must be established before credence can be given to any opinion. Increased understanding of the process of scientific research, firstly in the government, but also within the media and general public, is vital in order to foster a more open sharing of information.

11. Support from the scientific community is needed to provide context and to explain the process by which conclusions are reached. Encouraging scientists to openly engage with the public can only be achieved if researchers are given the necessary backing in the face of any unfounded arguments against their work. This support must come from the highest levels, sending out a strong message on the importance of scientific methodology and research and promoting open sharing of information between scientists and the wider community.

- Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

12. The terms of reference and scope of the independent review are adequate, although some wider reaching aspects must also be examined. The effect on other researchers working in this area such as independent researchers, as well as those collaborating with CRU, should be explored. The impact of this incident on the public perception of the CRU and UEA as a whole should also be considered as a measuring stick for the implications of such actions in the public domain. The manner in which the findings from the items set out are interpreted and applied will determine their value.

13. As has been set out in the review, it is necessary to investigate the email exchanges which were discovered along with other relevant CRU information to establish whether data have been manipulated or suppressed. This is, not only needed in order to identify any unacceptable behaviour, but also to verify the results which have been published. This is vital in clarifying the severity of the acts carried out by those scientists at the CRU involved, i.e. whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.

14. The review of practices surrounding CRU’s use of peer review and dissemination of data should be used to shed light on how these comply with established best scientific practice. Any failings in this area should be examined in the context of the research methods used and any deviations should be assigned either to the individual researchers or to inadequate updating of the best practice to suit research in the digital age.[2] This will beget more valuable information on the motivation and the reasoning behind the conduct of researchers at CRU.

15. Research institutions should review established protocols regarding the management of, and access to, research data to ensure that they remain up to date and clear. This process must be developed in collaboration with researchers so that its importance can be understood. The current practices in CRU and UEA must be examined to ensure the unit and the institution fulfil public regulations and that they offer support to researchers to ensure compliance.

16. The review of the security issues surrounding the release of information is an important internal issue for CRU and UEA. Furthermore, the RSC supports investigations into the highly irregular manner in which information was obtained from the researchers.

· How independent are the other two international data sets?

17. From the information available, the RSC cannot comment on this issue.

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has prompted the world-renowned Institute of Physics, with a membership of over 36,000 physics-related scientists, to publish a report condemning junk climate science.

The Institute has just submitted its views to the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry set up to investigate the Climategate scandal revealing unethical and criminal conduct by researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The Institute agrees with climate sceptics that the leaked emails prove

“prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.”

The Institute totally vindicates the attempts of independent auditors such as Canadian researcher, Steve McIntyre, to access the hidden and/or destroyed climate data. The illegal refusal to disclose has undermined claims the world’s climate is undergoing ‘catastrophic’ human-influenced change. This powerful lobby group lambastes crooked climate scientists for their “inappropriate” conduct that made it necessary for analysts like McIntyre to waste years seeking appeals via Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the Institute says, the “right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary.”

Thus the voice of tens of thousands of honorable scientists unhappy with climatologists, has been put to Parliament calling for “a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.”

Here is the text of the report:

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia’.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute’s Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the

e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

The Institute of Physics

February 2010

Here was my reply:

I am a legal advocate, totally unpaid in relation to fighting these climate criminals. I have litigated against government corruption for over a decade in the U.S. federal Court Second Circuit as well as the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Appeal Court and Division of Human Rights. I have insight plus I still haven’t lost a case. If that makes me ‘obsessive’ about fighting corruption then count me in.

I am 100% in support of conservation, recycling and prudent use of natural resources. I have close friends who were former members of environment groups until those organizations became heavily politicized in the early 1990’s.

I argue the free market has been most adept at taking care of the supply and demand issues over dwindling fossil fuels. Fuel price rises compel us to conserve regardless of unnecessary government policy. Nationalized industries have an appalling history of waste and inefficiency. Common sense tells us if a commodity becomes more rare it goes up in price, so we become more precious about it. Technological development occurs best in a free market economy so we do not need big government to force us to ‘go green.’
Many so-called green energy alternatives are uneconomic and futile e.g. wind turbines use vast amounts of copper, are wholly unreliable plus extremely expensive to build and maintain. Without huge government subsidies no one would touch them. France runs on 80% nuclear power most efficiently and happily. Nuclear power is the only practicable long-term solution for national base energy loads.

Humans are NOT heating up the planet. Simply check the two oldest and most reliable ground RAW temp records in the world: the CET (England) and the Central European Record (Prague). These prove that for the past several hundred years global warming has been occurring naturally at a rate of 0.25 C per century, entirely normal for the Holocene interglacial period in which we live.

Indeed, the warming blip that climate scaremongers get all hot about is that time from 1975-98, which compares neatly with those entirely natural yet similar blips of 1860-80 and 1910-40 and which no climatologist attributes to human emissions. Therefore, we see no human climate-forcing signal.

The truth is in the science. Science is about facts, not a show of hands. The complexity of climate involves a multiplicity of scientific disciplines. Yet climate scientists have had to rely on a small core of a mere two dozen or so ‘elite’ climate scientists who are responsible for the ‘homogenized’ temp data sets produced from a central WMO source. That is where the fraud lies.

Government agencies GHCN, NOAA and CRU have been artificially heating up the numbers to show a warming signal; they call it ‘homogenisation.’ Independent analysts have now exposed the fraud of homogenization of climate data. The raw data so far examined proves that older temperatures have been pushed down, while recent temperatures have been ramped up–that’s fraud.

Hundreds of honorable climate scientists have been fed the faked numbers so that they have been duped for years, en masse. This is why independent auditors, for the past seven years, have tried to have access to how the homogenization process was done by those few crooks. But they have been declined. Why?

From the leaked Climategate emails we learn that this crooked elite rigged the peer-review process and also admitted to ‘fudging’ the data to ‘hide the decline.’ Discredited Professor Phil Jones of CRU admitted to the BBC that there has been ‘no statistically significant’ temperature rise since 1995, proving the world had been continuously fed the lie that the temperatures were rising at a ‘catastrophic’ rate.

I have analyzed the leaked emails from CRU, and in my opinion they prove a conspiracy to commit fraud. This is the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time. Bernie Madoff is a small fry by comparison. That is why 16 major climate actions have just hit the US courts. The truth is out and the game is up. I care not whether you ‘believe’ in global warming or not–the task of legal advocates, like me, as for honorable scientists, is to work with the facts.

I am actively lobbying the UK police and Attorney General to bring criminal charges against Jones et al. I can assure you, on the lower quantum of proof in civil courts, the likes of Al Gore, Jones, Mann, Hansen, etc. will be fined and made bankrupt. But we need their kind behind bars–they have wasted over $50 billion of taxpayer’s money already. Even this corrupt UK government had to admit that Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests were criminally refused as per ICO investigations. Only self-serving politicians continue to obstruct justice. But as they see their political constituency dwindle they, too, will soon capitulate to facts and reason.

Carbon trading was going to make billions for a select few. That investment bubble has now burst. Climategate has irrevocably changed history. The proposed carbon economy was intended as a global wealth redistribution scheme and green taxes were the thread to sew together all nations into a one world government. Read the Copenhagen Draft Treaty–it spells out in black and white the plan for a new world socialist order–no elected representatives for you, no democracy! Read it, and then try telling me I’m a conspiracy theorist. Just be thankful climate skeptics saved you from that dystopia.

As correctly reported yesterday in American Thinker the civil litigation net will soon be cast far and wide in the U.S. skilfully applying the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Although RICO laws were intended to bust Mafia crimes they have successfully been employed in civil lawsuits, too. RICO-based claims will certainly be wending their way to brokers who did not perform the SEC’s necessary “due diligence” research before peddling those dodgy carbon shares.

But more pointedly for climate sceptics, such litigation will bear the names of co-defendants, Al Gore and that ‘team’ of IPCC scientists who participated in blocking the publication of contrary research, cooking the data and whose annual income skyrocketed from the public hysteria.

Not just in the United States, but throughout the world, leaders are under increasing pressure to respond to the seriousness of these matters. In the U.S. we now have the release of the much-anticipated report from the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW). Spokesman and Minority leader Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has stated the need for an international criminal investigation into what he called, “unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world’s leading climate scientists.”

In his presentation of the EPW’s report, Inhofe emphasized the significant finding of the British Government that data destruction at the CRU was criminal.

This announcement will have considerable impact upon President Barack Obama’s climate change policy that is unravelling in the wake of a barrage of US lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) directives. With the abstaining American press increasingly accused of cronyism to politicians, in Britain the climate data fraud is more conscientiously reported by national daily publications such as, ‘The Telegraph.’

At last, skeptic politicians and large corporations are heeding the advice of legal commentators to use the law as the best way to bust what Inhofe terms, “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation.”

Since the Climategate scandal first broke, I’ve been urging fellow skeptics to stop prevaricating over the esoteric finer points subsumed in the darkened confines of science laboratories and, instead, shine the cold light of legal reason on these crooks in public courtrooms. Only then, under the penalty of perjury, will taxpayers glean the truth from climate fraudsters.

I was pleased to analyse for readers that very detailed and robust legal petition filed by the world’s largest coal company, the Peabody Energy Corporation (PEC), that is a superb template for any litigant looking to file their own suit.

PEC shrewdly argues inter alia that the law requires that the federal agency must articulate a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” as per the case of Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

But I’m not just looking to hit climate fraudsters in their wallets; if we play our political cards right, we must aim to put the ringleaders behind bars. To this end we need only apply the long-established American legal principle known as ‘spoliation of evidence’ to beat this fraud hands down.

As Stuart P. Green of Rutgers Law School, Newark, tells us in American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 42, 2005 there is a history of high profile accused individuals shown to have destroyed, concealed or tampered with evidence (e.g. climate data):

As a result, the person has been prosecuted for obstruction of justice, perjury, false statements, or other similar ‘cover-up’ crime. In some of the cases, such charges have accompanied charges for the underlying crime; in others, they have displaced them.

Green gives us two famous examples from both the American and British courts to illustrate his points. In the U.S. we need only go back to June 2002 and the Arthur Andersen accounting firm scandal. Here convictions were obtained for obstructing justice in connection with the destruction of tens of thousands of pages of documents related to the federal investigation of its client, Enron. At trial, Andersen had argued that, in destroying such documents, it had merely been carrying out its own, pre-existing, so-called document “retention” program.

While in the UK, Green points to July 2001 when British thriller writer and life peer Jeffrey Archer was convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice in connection with a libel case he had initiated fourteen years earlier against the tabloid newspaper, the Daily Star, which had reported that Archer, then deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, had been seeing a prostitute. Archer was alleged to have perverted justice by asking a friend to give him a false alibi, and to have committed perjury by lying in an affidavit to the High Court and during testimony in the libel trial.

Pertinently, even though Professor Jones is a British climatologist employed at a UK university, he made this admission in the leaked CRU emails:

“I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25 years.” [1120676865.txt ]

Thus Jones remains liable to extradition and may conceivably be convicted under both UK and US jurisdictions. To my mind, Professor Jones and his colleague, Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York at Albany may be most liable for fraudulent data handling in an influential 1990 paper in the journal ‘Nature’ that controversially concluded the urban heat island effect was ‘minimal,’ as reported in the excellent science blog, Watts up with that (WUWT).

Thereupon, from the leaked emails we may further establish a conspiratorial link from Jones to other climate crooks, including key American alarmist professor, Michael E. Mann, of Penn. State University. Mann’s data was officially exposed as junk in the Wegman Committee Report (2006).

Mann cooked up his tree-ring data to make the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and thus, without the MWP, recent warm temperatures appear more extraordinary than they actually are. Wegman condemned the work as being,

“sufficiently politicized that this [climate science] community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”

Since ‘Wegman,’ Michael Mann appears to be fairly well lawyered up and primed to plead the Fifth Amendment if dragged before a criminal court. But in a civil court he’s onto a loser as his following ‘plea’ just won’t cut it:

“I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property…” – source

A jury will make up their own minds if Mann refuses to convince the court of his own due diligence and integrity.

But let us not forget, that apart from individual scientists, NASA, too has unlawfully stymied US freedom of information requests and hidden or destroyed their unethical data manipulations.

As Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) who only now has had his three-years-old Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) honored, says:

“This is a damning admission that NASA has been complicit in UN alarmism. This is not science. It is debunked advocacy.“ – source

Skeptic climate scientist, Roger Pielke Sr., among others, has accused top NASA GISS global warmist, James Hansen of misleading the public:

“The GISS news release is symptomatic of the continued attempt to ignore science issues in their data analysis which conflict with their statement in the press release.”

It is scientists such as Pielke who will be called to testify against what he argues are unethical, and perhaps criminal conduct. But as any attorney will tell you, the mere act of misrepresentation with the intention to secure a benefit, is fraud.

Spoliation of Evidence

The theory of the legal doctrine known as ‘spoliation’ is that when a party withholds, manipulates or destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had “consciousness of guilt” or other motivation to avoid the evidence.

In the United States under Federal and most State law spoliation has two consequences: first the act is criminal by statute and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation, secondly case law has established that proceedings which might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a ‘spoliation inference.’

The ‘spoliation inference’ is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party’s destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding, i.e. because Professor Jones admitted he destroyed, concealed or lost his climate data the finder of fact (judge/jury) can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

From my own experience, once any FOIA notice has been served the courts regard this as constituting notice that legal proceedings may be imminent so that any public official who thereinafter impedes, distorts or destroys such evidence may be found guilty of spoliation.

Thus, Jones, who confessed to destroying such evidence to willfully defy FOIA requests, would likely be convicted of fraud and jailed in a criminal court. But on the lower standards of quantum in a civil court, a jury only has to believe on the balance of probability that he and his co-conspirators intended to withhold, manipulate or destroy data to win a civil RICO lawsuit – a far more probable outcome.

While in other countries that operate an English common law-based judicial system such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, litigants can implement legal remedies in my article such as mandamus petitions and judicial revue here.

Suffice to say, I’ll let ‘American Thinker’ have the final word about the climate Ponzi scheme’s most grotesque rogue, Al Gore:

Once it becomes clear to everyone that the AGW theory is based on cleverly manipulated data twisted by rigged computer models controlled by several dozen IPCC politicians/scientists, we can expect that investors who lose millions by investing in these companies will eventually haul Mr. Gore and the insider IPCC scientists into court.

Firstly, ACPO is the statutory consultee for the British Government coordinating national police operations and major investigations. My concern, shared by many others, is that despite the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) affirming that crimes had been committed, no charges were being brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because the statutory time limit had expired.

But this was a disingenuous under-reporting of the facts because criminal charges could still be brought against Professor Phil Jones, chief climate scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRO) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), because he confessed to destroying crucial climate data and the leaked emails appear to suggest a conspiracy among a clique of climate scientists to commit data fraud.

As I have shown in an earlier article, criminal charges may still be brought against Jones and his alleged co-conspirators because under the Fraud Act (2006), conspiracy to commit fraud is not subject to such a statutory time limit.

Question: is it true or false that ACPO, a private limited company with no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, has investments in carbon trading stocks and thus has a personal conflict of interest in investigating ‘Climategate’ thoroughly – a scandal involving alleged global climate data fraud that concomitantly would impact the value of such stocks?

Answer: Firstly, I can confirm that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not have any investment or financial interest of any kind in the trade of carbon stocks.

On a more general point, ACPO became a company limited by guarantee in 1997. This was a pragmatic step taken to maintain independence from Government while enabling the Association to fulfill its functions, including employ staff, enter into contracts for accommodation and allow for transparency in publishing accounts. All funds to ACPO are employed in the public interest.

As a company limited by guarantee, you correctly point out ACPO has no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. However you may be interested to know that the Ministry of Justice has said it intends that ACPO will be added to the list of bodies subject to the Act, an intention which we welcome.

Question: Can you confirm or deny that officers under your sway are following up the recent Information Commissioner’s (ICO) admission that government officials working at the University of East Anglia did, indeed, unlawfully break the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), such offences not being subject to any statute of limitations (see below) so that you are now centering your investigations, not solely on ‘hacking’ of emails, but the illegal conduct and possible data fraud of international climate scientists involving many millions in taxpayer grants?

Answer: On your second request, Norfolk Constabulary has confirmed it is investigating a data breach at the UEA and how the circulation of private e-mails became public, with the assistance of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which is providing advice on Data Protection and FOI. This investigation is led by Norfolk Constabulary and the National Domestic Extremism Team has provided assistance. NDET’s role is to assist police forces: it does not have a remit to carry out investigations independently.

Question: Would you care to comment why the NDET, a non-specialist fraud unit are investigating what some legal commentators are saying is likely to be the greatest science racketeering fraud of all time, a matter more properly dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office?

Answer: NDET has provided assistance as a national police unit with relevant expertise and good background knowledge of the groups involved in climate change issues. Computer forensic expertise is one aspect of that assistance. The Serious Fraud Office has clear case criteria which are a matter for that body.

Question: Would you please relay to us your interpretation of the fraud laws so that our readership may be in no doubt that you recognise that while there may exist a continuum of fraudulent data manipulation, such crimes cannot yet be time barred under the rules of ‘compounded offences’ so that charges may still be lain under the Fraud Act (2006) and ‘conspiracy to corrupt,’ contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Answer: It would be for Norfolk Constabulary to make any comment, if appropriate, on potential outcomes to this investigation. Under legislation, charging decisions are made by the Crown Prosecution Service.

To be frank, no one can reasonably accuse ACPO of foot dragging on this issue. It is simply the duty of ACPO to advise the government that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) as per the recommendations of the Roskill Report (1988) ought to be conducting this case, not Norfolk Police nor NDET.

The SFO is under the sway of that political appointee, the Attorney-General who in turn is accountable to Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. The British Government knows only too well that since the Criminal Justice Act 1987, the Serious Fraud Office is mandated responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of suspected cases of serious or complex fraud where £1 million or more is involved or in cases of multi-national jurisdiction (i.e. the Climategate scandal).

Prime Minister Brown knows the buck stops with him on this but he is so far having an easy ride and not being exposed for his own complicity in this scam. While the mainstream media is yet to pick up on this it is left to the blogosphere to pursue the matter. I will now be writing to the Attorney General, the Director of the SFO and the Chief Constable of Norfolk Police and I urge other British taxpayers who also feel ripped off to help keep the pressure up.

We must ensure that self-serving politicians like Gordon Brown cannot bury Climategate by, as I suspect, unjustly under-employing the powers of the police merely because we are in the run up to a general election this Spring.

—————————————–
Acknowledgment: Gareth Bowden of ACPO

Niagara Falls frozen in 1909

Niagara Falls frozen in 1934

We now see real-world evidence that our planet is facing danger more from cooling than warming. Lucky photographers have been bearing the brutal cold to take spectacular photos of a truly rare event: Niagara Falls freezing over.

The winter of 2009/10 has now joined those years of 1848, 1909, 1936, 1938 and 1949 when the American Falls water flow was reduced to such an extent that it froze over.

Urban Legends’ website tells us that:

“The installation of the ice boom at the mouth of Lake Erie, the building of the International water control dam (which regulates water flow) and milder winters have all but eliminated the possibility of the American Falls ever completely freezing over in modern times.”

So much for those ‘milder winters!’

From these photos we can determine that then, just as now, the falls are not entirely frozen over, with several small spouts of water visible gushing out from beneath the crust of ice crystals, more towards the Canadian side.

Massive stalactites of ice can be seen hanging as if suspended in a moment of time. The best side to view this rarity is not over the Horseshoe Falls on the Canadian side of the border but on the shallower American Falls.

It is said that a layer of ice has been known to form across the waters that can be up to eighty feet thick, while 40 feet is not uncommon. However, visitors are advised to keep off the thick slab of ice because of the obvious perils, as warned in ‘Environment Graffiti’ website.

Tragically, in 1912, an ice bridge broke apart as several people were crossing it, sending three to their deaths as the frozen platform on which they stood plunged them into oblivion.

Andy’s not too bright, you see. He’s not cottoned on that it’s alarmists who not only use weather events such as Hurricane Katrina to make their bogus warming claims, but even have the temerity to get Hollywood dupes like Danny Glover to claim that the earthquake in Haiti was a consequence of man made carbon emissions! Priceless.

Cobb says, if us skeptics won’t toe the green propagandist lie then his viewers should pursue ‘Plan P’ of the ‘debate’ and urinate in our coffee. Andy’s alarmist think tank over there at that third-rate socialist mouthpiece ‘Second City Network’ is doing that dying cause no favors with this brand of lame ‘humor.’