Comments on: Climategate: McIntyre and the ‘Divergence Problem’ http://www.climategate.com/climategate-mcintyre-and-the-divergence-problem Anthropogenic Global Warming, history's biggest scam Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:21:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: artesian http://www.climategate.com/climategate-mcintyre-and-the-divergence-problem/comment-page-1#comment-397 artesian Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:02:23 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=489#comment-397 Climategate Forecast... “• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.] Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.” AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation. Climategate Forecast…
“• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.

]]> By: John O'Sullivan http://www.climategate.com/climategate-mcintyre-and-the-divergence-problem/comment-page-1#comment-67 John O'Sullivan Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:11:55 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=489#comment-67 Climategate Professor Phil Jones is very much in the frame to be indicted under US federal laws for conspiracy to defraud US tax funding. The leaked CRU emails include much of his correspondence with American-based climatologists, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, etc. They are all key contributors to the IPCC policy statements process and influential advisers. Between them they have influenced the spending of over $50 billion spent worldwide by governments seeking to prove a link between co2 and climate.In the leaked email entitled, 1120676865.txt, Jones says: “Neville, Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! 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. I’ll send on one other email received for interest. Cheers Phil” Note the worried tone in his comment? Jones ( or more precisely, his department) has benefited to the tune of almost $20 million in funding from US and UK government sources. Both jurisdictions have similar laws relating to malfeasance of public office as well as safeguards for public interest under their separate freedom of information acts. The UK and US have exemplary extradition treaties under the Hague Convention and Professor Jones has made himself a prime candidate on RICO racketeering charges as well as spoliation (destruction of evidence) being that he admits destroying data. If he is convicted for those offences he may serve a maximum penalty of 20 years in jail and/or a fine of up to $250,000. If I were him I'd be a very worried man. As they say in New York, he'd better get lawyered up damn quick! Any court action will be preceded by lengthy discovery process. What I noticed last night was that the University of East Anglia, contrary to the public statement 10 days ago, has removed pages from their website that contained portions of the disputed data. This may be indicative of a presumption that litigation (criminal and/or civil) is in the pipeline. This story is going to run and run! Climategate Professor Phil Jones is very much in the frame to be indicted under US federal laws for conspiracy to defraud US tax funding. The leaked CRU emails include much of his correspondence with American-based climatologists, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, etc. They are all key contributors to the IPCC policy statements process and influential advisers. Between them they have influenced the spending of over $50 billion spent worldwide by governments seeking to prove a link between co2 and climate.In the leaked email entitled, 1120676865.txt, Jones says:
“Neville,
Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! 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. I’ll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil”
Note the worried tone in his comment? Jones ( or more precisely, his department) has benefited to the tune of almost $20 million in funding from US and UK government sources. Both jurisdictions have similar laws relating to malfeasance of public office as well as safeguards for public interest under their separate freedom of information acts. The UK and US have exemplary extradition treaties under the Hague Convention and Professor Jones has made himself a prime candidate on RICO racketeering charges as well as spoliation (destruction of evidence) being that he admits destroying data. If he is convicted for those offences he may serve a maximum penalty of 20 years in jail and/or a fine of up to $250,000. If I were him I’d be a very worried man. As they say in New York, he’d better get lawyered up damn quick!
Any court action will be preceded by lengthy discovery process. What I noticed last night was that the University of East Anglia, contrary to the public statement 10 days ago, has removed pages from their website that contained portions of the disputed data. This may be indicative of a presumption that litigation (criminal and/or civil) is in the pipeline. This story is going to run and run!

]]>