Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges

Yesterday the London Times broke the latest news on the fate of disgraced British climatologist Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia (UEA). Jones breached the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. The Times reports that the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.

What the Times and the rest of the media are overlooking is that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), not the ICO, is responsible for announcing the results of the police investigation into the Climategate scandal. The ICO is merely a non-departmental public body which reports directly to Parliament, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice and deals solely with data protection, FOIA regulations, privacy, electronic communications regulations and environmental regulations.

What is not being intelligently reported is that Jones is still liable as lead conspirator in the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and may face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act (2006). If convicted of the offense of fraud by either false representation, failing to disclose information or fraud by abuse of his position, he stands liable to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

In this article I shall demonstrate that the fuss over the FOIA infringement, although in itself succeeding in achieving no conviction, does demonstrate that the ICO has acted improperly and may have prejudiced the outcome of any prosecution Jones may face for far more serious offenses for false representation (section 2) and failing to disclose information (section 3) under the Fraud Act (2006).

I strongly urge interested readers to study the article shown here, written by Norman Baird, for a fuller explanation of the scope of the Fraud Act (2006) and the implications in the Professor Jones scandal.

Although the offense of fraud may be committed in three ways, we shall only need to apply two in finding reasonable grounds to bring a prosecution in this case. All three forms of the offense require proof of dishonesty and an intention (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. “Gain” and “loss” are limited to gains or losses in terms of money or other property.

The forms of fraud directly relating to Phil Jones are:

Fraud by false representation (section 2)

    A fraudulent representation is an assertion which is untrue or misleading and which the person making it knows is, or might be, untrue or misleading. ( s2(2) ).Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. There are no restrictions or limitations in the way in which a representation is communicated. It may be written or spoken and may be transmitted by email or by way of website.

Fraud by failing to disclose information (section 3)

    This form of the offense applies where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information that he is under a legal duty to disclose. The ICO admits Jones is guilty of failing to disclose climate data. The question whether a legal duty exists is a matter of the general law. A legal duty may arise by virtue of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust between two or more parties).

The CRU Email Evidence

From a full examination of excerpts from leaked CRU emails cited below, it is readily demonstrable that the police and Crown Prosecution Service currently possess sufficient evidence to charge Phil Jones under both sections 2 & 3 of the Fraud Act (2006). I shall cite liberally from Jones’ own email admissions, in conjunction with also citing liberally the much-acclaimed analysis of all the leaked UEA emails by Australian physicist, John Costella. Dr. Costella’s excellent study is available here.

I have used my own judgment to assess which of Jones’ emails are the most damning. Bear in mind that a defendant incriminates himself by any admission he may make.

On January 16, 2004, in leaked CRU email 1074277559 exchange Jones frantically urges Penn State University climatologist, Michael Mann, to delete data:

Subject: Climatic Change needs your advice—YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!


This is for YOUR EYES ONLY. Delete after reading—please! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Christian Pfister said you should make all available!! Pot calling the kettle black—Christian doesn’t make his methods available. … I told Steve separately, and told him to get more advice from a few others, as well as Kluwer (publishers), and the legal department.

PLEASE DELETE—just for you, not even for Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

Dr. John Costella’s commentary on the above is, “Jones’s blind panic—in private to Mann—speaks volumes. He is so scared of the ramifications that he even asks that Mann destroy the email immediately. Are these the actions of scientists with nothing to hide?”

In the leaked emails of February 4, 2004, email 1076083097 exchange, we read that a large number of climate con collaborators are discussing ways to avoid providing independent Canadian climate analyst, Steve McIntyre, with enough of the computer programs to actually check their results. Linda Mearns, Senior Scientist at the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, writes:

My point about the computer programs is still that “providing the programs” can be interpreted a lot of ways. I have thought about this, and imagined if in one of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide all the programs. I could do that just by sending the pieces with a summary file explaining what each piece was used for. It still theoretically allows someone to see how the programming was done. And I do think that is a far sight easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am suggesting that one could do the minimum. Then the point is, one isn’t faced with garish headlines about “refusal to provide programs”. I think it is harder to come up with a garish headline about “refusal to provide completely documented programs with appropriate instructions files and hand-holding for running it.

Mearns’ argument is effectively this: if we are forced to provide the computer programs, then let’s break them up into the smallest possible pieces, so that McIntyre can see roughly what we have done, but would have an almost impossible task putting the pieces back together again so that it could be used—sort of a “Humpty Dumpty.”

Phil Jones realizes that this won’t fool many: if they had done the science properly, then the computer programs and supporting documentation would be readily available for anyone to use, without any further work.

Jones then replies:

So now it seems that we’re separating “providing the programs” from “running the programs.”

I can’t see the purpose of one without the other. Even if Mike Mann complies, I suspect there will need to be several sessions of interaction to explain how to run the programs, which neither side will be very keen on.

Jones is savvy enough to understand that providing un-runnable programs will lead to an immediate request or demand for assistance in actually getting them to run.

Jones then admits that, even with possession of the programs and the data, a lot of “fiddling” is needed to get to their claimed results:

As I said before, I know that running the programs will involve lots of combinations (for different time periods with different temperature proxies).

Jones further realizes that validating their programs would require validating their mathematical “number-crunching” programs—often shared between different programs, and hence called “library routines”:

Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the mathematical approach that we use, that there will be library routines. We don’t want McIntyre (and McKitrick) to come out and say that he can’t get it to work after a few days.

Jones continues:

So, it is far from simple. I’m still against the computer programs being given out. Mike has made the data available. That is all they should need. The method of calculations is detailed in the original paper … and also in several other papers Mike has written. In other words, the skeptics have a description of what was done which should be enough.

Then this bombshell:

As an aside, Mike Mann is now using a different method from the paper of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes of 1998.

So even if McIntyre and colleagues follow the method described in the 1998 paper, they still won’t obtain agreement with what Mann is now doing! Could there be any clearer argument for providing the exact computer programs and methodology used for each and every published paper? Jones apparently can’t fathom the ridiculousness of his own words.

He continues:

It might appear that they want the programs to check whether their version works properly. If this is the case, then there are issues of Intellectual Property Rights. So, if they get the programs, how do we stop them using it for anything other than this review?

God forbid that any other scientists should be given assistance in researching this issue of critical importance to humanity! Jones’s treatment of their data and research as “private property”, for them to exploit and profit from—to the exclusion of all other scientists—is obnoxious and unlawful, particularly as it is paid for by taxpayers and subject to full FOIA disclosure!

Phil Jones replies to an email from another climatologist, Van Ommen, on February 9, 2004 in email 1076336623 exchange copying in Mike Mann:

Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about the Antarctic data (yet), nor about any of the data used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 Geophysical Research Letters one with Mike. I suspect (hope) that he won’t. I had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature data we use here in Climatic Research Unit. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly from Met(eorological) Services through the Global Tele-communications Service (GTS) or through the Global Climate Observing System.

We here start to learn about the tricks that Jones and colleagues have used to thwart attempts to get access to the dodgy data that their published claims are based on. In this case, Jones is trying to argue that data provided by individuals does not need to be provided for independent scrutiny—another intent to conceal fraud.

Jones continues:

Emails have also been sent to some other paleoclimatology people asking for data sets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith Briffa here got a request, for example. Here, they have also been in contact with some of Keith’s Russian contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get data that we’ve used. In the Russian case, issues relate to the Russian (Rashit Hantemirov) having a paper out with the same data that Keith used ….The data are different for two reasons. One reason is that Keith used (a mathematical method on the data); and, secondly, Rashit has added some data since Keith got the data a couple of years ago.

Jones is here giving yet more reasons why the original data should be made available. So what will he do?

I’ll just sit tight here and do nothing. Mike will likely do the same, but we’ll expect another publication in the nearish future.

This is clearly the guilty mind legal component, or ‘mens rea’ – intent to cover the fraud by ‘sitting tight’ – refusing to comply with FOIA disclosure – and implies Jones conspired to do so with Michael Mann.

So not only will they ignore all requests for the data—and hide behind dubious loopholes to do so—but they are moreover planning to continue publishing papers based on all this “private” (fraudulent) data, adjusted by their own private mathematical methods!

On January 21, 2005 Jones corresponds again in email 1106338806 exchange.

Phil Jones is confident that it won’t be a problem in continuing to decline FOIA requests:

On the Freedom Of Information Act, there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It doesn’t really clarify what we might have to do regarding programs or data. Like all things in Britain, we will only find out when the first person or organization asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the Freedom Of Information Act in Britain. I don’t think the University of East Anglia really knows what’s involved.

However, he also starts the process of finding loopholes in the legislation with fellow climate scientist conspirator, Tom Wigley:

As you’re no longer an employee, I would use this argument if anything comes along.

Tom Wigley replies:

Thanks for the quick reply. The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by the University of East Anglia so they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer programs would be covered by the Freedom Of Information Act. My concern was if Sarah is/was still employed by the University of East Anglia. I guess she could claim that she had only written one tenth of the programs, and therefore only release every tenth line of the programs.

Another interesting attempt to conspire to fraudulently wrangle a loophole, albeit unlikely to succeed. Phil Jones replies, refining the loophole even further:

As for the Freedom Of Information Act, Sarah isn’t technically employed by the University of East Anglia and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.

Not that she wouldn’t be covered by the Act: merely that she would be paid by a different University!

Jones continues:

I wouldn’t worry about the computer programs. If the Freedom Of Information Act does ever get used by anyone, there is also Intellectual Property Rights to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at the University of East Anglia who has been given a post to deal with them.

On February 2, 2005 in email 1107454306 exchange Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann:

Just sent loads of … data to Scott Rutherford. Make sure he documents everything better this time!

So it isn’t until 2005 that they decide it is time to document what they are doing?

And don’t leave stuff lying around on anonymous download sites—you never know who is trawling them. McIntyre and McKitrick have been after the Climatic Research Unit … data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.

Bingo! Proof of intention (mens rea) to commit a criminal destruction of evidence–all we need now is proof of the destruction/loss of data the (actus reus) to have the two requisite components of a crime ( the guilty state of mind and the actual commission of the crime).

Jones then discusses (conspires) to find other way to unlawfully subvert the FOIA law:

We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind.

Again, “hide behind” reveals intent to conceal the original fraud of falsification of climate data.

Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it—he thought people could ask him for his computer programs. He has retired officially from the University of East Anglia so he can hide behind that….Intellectual Property Rights should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at the University of East Anglia who’ll say we must adhere to the Freedom of Information Act!

Again, proof Jones will “argue” against compliance betraying his guilty frame of mind, in seeking to pervert the law — further deepening his admissions to commit a crime.

On February 21, 2005 in email 1109021312 exchange Phil Jones writes to colleagues, Mike Mann, Ray Badley, and Malcolm Hughes, regarding news reports that Mann will be forced to release his data:

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! …

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! ….PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the Climatic Research Unit … temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the United Kingdom has a Freedom of Information Act!

Again, we have Jones admitting to coercion of others to join him in and conspire to conceal the legal duty he has as CRU leader and hide his climate data fraud.

On July 5, 2005 Jones makes further damning admissions in email 1120593115 exchange where Phil Jones sends an article and a blog entry to climate scientist John Christy:

This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

Again, Jones’s ability to concisely summarize the key facets of this climate temperature fraud is remarkable. While Jones is admitting to the truth in private, he has CRU making public statements that are knowingly fraudulent under the terms of the Fraud Act. Can you imagine how intimidated the more junior scientists would be?

On August 4, 2005 email 1123163394 exchange Jones now makes a remarkable comment, about something that is elementary to even high-school science experiments:

There is an issue coming up in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Every graph needs uncertainty bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether they are right or how they are used.

In other words, he is only concerned that they give the appearance of estimating the uncertainties in their predictions, rather than actually getting those (subtle and difficult) vital calculations right –- an obvious deceitful act and thus a further offence under the UK Fraud Act — fraud by false representation (Section 2)

On January 5, 2007, the email 1168022320 exchange from Phil Jones to many:

I’ve added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to see if we can definitively determine where Figure 7.1c from the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report comes from. The background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I’d like to prove that it is a schematic and it isn’t based on real data, but on presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s.

Wonderful! Fake graphs presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report—but only disclose that once the skeptics take note of it? More fraud by false representation (see: Fraud Act, Section 2).

Ascertaining Phil Jones’ Guilt

The UK Crown Prosecution Service may fairly construe in their case that Professor Jones et al. continued in their concealment (the act of the offense) throughout the course of those FOIA applications. Thus, this constitutes an offense of continuous unlawful conduct that would, in turn constitute what is known in English criminal law as a “compound allegation.”

The continuing act will continue for as long as the defendant sets about the business of committing or covering up the crime. Jones was covering up his criminal acts right up to November 19, 2009. His concealing of his crimes until that date keeps all such offenses “live” because the act of covering up the crime is, itself, a crime.

The Fraud Act (2006)

The Fraud Act (2006) tells us we must ask the following questions to ascertain the measure of the defendant’s guilt:

“whether a defendant’s behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.”

Subsection (1)(b) requires that the person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised by sections 3 and 4.

Subsection (2) defines the meaning of “false” in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of “representation”. A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website.

Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information

Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of “legal duty” is explained in the Law Commission’s Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:

    “7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute [ e.g. obligation to release data as per a Freedom of Information (FOI) request]”

Section 7: Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

Section 7 makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer to supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used to commit or facilitate fraud. [e.g. a computer model designed to falsely represent warming global temperatures]. Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this offense is 10 years.

Section 8: “Article”

Section 8 extends the meaning of “article” for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 and certain other connected provisions so as to include any program or data held in electronic form.

For a full and detailed explanation of every facet of the Fraud Act (2006) visit this Crown Prosecution website page.


In conclusion, we may determine that Professor Jones’ conduct may be found by a Crown prosecutor to be sufficient to obtain a conviction against him for obtaining services dishonestly (government climate research grant funds) and of possessing, making and supplying articles for use in frauds (climate data, graphs, computer models).

The Fraud Act creates serious offenses of dishonesty and the statute of limitations is six years. Unless the factors against prosecution outweigh those in favour, a prosecution will normally take place. The offense is triable either way and carries maximum 10-year sentence or a fine (or both) on indictment.

Possibly related posts:

  1. Prosecutor humiliated in Climategate U-turn:
    charges “tainted”
  2. UK Freedom of Information Act “flaw” prohibits prosecution in Climategate scandal
  3. British climate professor John Mitchell may face fraud charges
  4. Phil Jones admits withholding scientific data
  5. Exclusive: Q&A on Climategate with Britain’s Chief Police Officers

92 Responses to “Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges”

  1. [...] Online is now reporting the story and, via Bolt, so too is the Norwich Evening Times. Update II: John O’Sullivan at Climategate is suggesting that Phil Jones can still be prosecuted for fraud under the UK Fraud Act (2006). [...]

  2. Dave N says:

    The only thing that worries me is whether the emails can be used as evidence, considering the way in which they were obtained?

    • Dave, the emails were not unlawfully obtained by the Crown Prosecution, but either leaked or hacked by a third party. Jones admitted they were accurate, thus they stand as evidence- their provenance is not an issue.

  3. Taruni says:

    Latest Amounts received by CRU of East Anglia and Mann of Penn State sould be diverted to the Whistleblower for exremely valuable services rendered to the people of MOTHER EARTH.

  4. [...] Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges Doctor Phillip Climategate Jones [...]

  5. I LOVE CO2 says:

    Opportunities and Obstacles for Television Weathercasters to Report on Climate Change


  6. [...] tip to John O Sullivan at Climategate.com Posted in Climategate, Green Lies. Tags: Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climategate, CRU, Phil [...]

  7. I LOVE CO2 says:

    IPCC = Greenpeace

    Greenpeace and the Nobel-Winning Climate Report
    Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.

    Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace – an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.) …

    … Where does Greenpeace stop and the IPCC begin? Sometimes it’s difficult to tell.


    * Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands
    * ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK
    * Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07
    * Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
    * GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07
    * Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.
    * Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
    * Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07


  8. Tom Roe says:

    Thank you sharing your expertise in the law with us John. Insuffcient courage and vitality among the academic elite has pitched them head-long into this moral ghetto of defending the indefensible past the last exit. Each day’s cold winter sun brings fresh revelations, mea culpas, and publically wagging fingers to long withheld by the guardians of the ivory tower. Thats all to the good. They need an occasional sweeping. That said justice is unlikely to come from a panel of peers looking over their own well padded shoulders. We the people are the victims of this swindle and we get our justice through the law. In court, under oath, examined by our skilled interlocutor is where these grifters are headed.

    • Tom, thanks for your support. I must emphasise that the Fraud Act (2006) is a much better drafted statute that the FOIA. The simplicity of it permits even a layperson to determine that Jones’s conduct renders him liable to a jail term.

      • Buffy Minton says:

        Unfortunately, you are barking up the wrong tree. Norfolk Police aren’t investigating “The Climategate Scandal”. They are investigating the leaking/hacking of emails. They are not in the least bit concerned with the FOI infringement which is entirely the remit of the ICO.
        Also, I presume that you are American by your assumption that Jones “could get 10 years”? In the UK, these days, murderers only get about 5 years in an open prison so “fraud” would be community service only, I’m afraid.

        • MartinGAtkins says:

          Unfortunately, you are barking up the wrong tree. Norfolk Police aren’t investigating “The Climategate Scandal”. They are investigating the leaking/hacking of emails. They are not in the least bit concerned with the FOI infringement which is entirely the remit of the ICO.

          Police only issue a bland statement to the public. They at no time say that a particular aspect of any investigation is the only subject of examination. If they discover another offense during the course of the investigation they will pursue it if they feel it warranted.

          Jones “could get 10 years”? In the UK, these days, murderers only get about 5 years in an open prison so “fraud” would be community service only,

          This last statement by you brings to mind the saying “It is better to remain silent and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it”.

          British law sets the maximum sentence for any offense. It’s up to the judge to weigh the magnitude of the crime and any mitigating circumstances before imposing any penalty.

          • Buffy Minton says:

            I might be a fool, sweetheart, but at least I have a sense of humour and I would wager that I am more familiar with the sentencing trends in the British courts than you are.
            If you really think anyone will be prosecuted for fraud, you are living in a dream world, or America……
            The UK is not America. There are no grand juries or Hollywood style whistleblowers who burst into the court at the end of the movie and say “*He* did it!”. The UK is still run as a class ridden, old boys club. Scientists don’t go to prison, especially not if they went to the right school or university.
            And fraud? Are you familiar with the MP’s expenses “scandal”? MP’s have fiddled tens of thousands of pounds each, sometimes hundreds of thousands, and they have, so far, all been allowed to dismiss this rather blatant fraud as an “accounting error”. Where are the CPS?
            Yes, you read on the internet that British law sets the maximum sentence. Now go on the internet and find someone in the UK who recently received the maximum sentence for fraud. Or, if you really want a challenge, find someone who served their full sentence for fraud (or any other crime where there is no minimum term) because, in the UK, convicted criminals generally serve 50% or less of their stated sentence.

            As part of your familiarisation program with reality, can I suggest that you read this current news story and then reassess your rather rude assumption that I am a fool?


  9. ADE says:

    Agree with I LOVE CO2, IPCC has the hand of greenpeace all over it,but include the government agencies like DEFRA, Carbon Trust, Energy Saving trust ,etc

  10. Tom Roe says:

    On the political side we will need to guard against Jones, Mann, Parchuari, and their like becoming martrys of science. That would be as ironic as Bernie Madoff becoming the poster boy for free enterprise but I am convinced that the attempt will be made. To date there has been a deafening silence on Climategate from the politicians who’s careers are entangled with it. That will not last. Their current strategy of containing the damage by absorbing the blows will change to a more offensive one as they see us scoring against them. They may be corrupt but they can read polls. It’s going to be a hell of a fight.

  11. Woodsy42 says:

    Good luck with getting them for fraud but I’m still puzzled by the 6 month situation.
    I can understand that the 6 month limit lets them off that particular failure to supply the data under that particular FOI request.
    But surely there is an overarching legal requirement (and almost certainly a university charter requirement) that the University must conform to UK law and must practice due dilligence in adhering to it. I am sure that UK law must require organisations to have in place an effective procedure to deal with FOI and any other data law responsibilities – otherwise nobody would bother!
    Clearly East Anglia had no such effective procedure in place, doesn’t this leave the organisation open to prosecution?

    • If ( its a big ‘if’) we can galvanise public opinion to put pressure on the UK govt to first prosecute Jones, in what their own people in the ICO admit is clear criminality, then we can shoot our ‘ducks’ one by one. But first things first, we must turn their own words against them. With have Jones’s own admissions to wrongdoing; the ICO confirm his acts were criminal. Thus it is up to the CPS to take up the baton and run with the Fraud Act (2006) and bring prosecutions. If they refuse, then we can take them on as corrupt and the issue will fester away and public opinion will force the politicians to apply the law appropriately.
      The way to defeat the global warming scam is by using the law. We were given that lesson in 2007 when Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ was found by the English High Court to contain ‘nine lies.’ Its been downhill for Al since then.

  12. Tom Roe says:

    Happening now. Osama Bin Laden has released a video taped message endorsing global warming and offering various solutions. If this is true he has given us a public relations godsend.

  13. Triple Bay says:

    Thank God this is starting to become public. The bigger issue here for now is to stop any negotiation on climate change with the UN based on IPCC AR4. The main stream media tried to avoid this issue but the evidence is becoming so overwhelming, they can no long avoid it. Neither should the politicians if they hope to get re-elected. Send e-mails to your member of Parliament and MSM.

    We need legitimate legislation, not legislation based on fraudulent science. Whooops, I used the wrong word. This is not science.

  14. Anand says:

    I do agree that the CPS may have enough to prosecute, but the real question is whether there is, the ‘political will’ to prosecute.

  15. [...] as we were speaking of fraud… Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data – Times Online Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges | CLIMATEGATE From the hometown paper: Climategate: Step by step – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review I'm sure there are [...]

  16. GORE LIED says:

    Excellent analysis, John. As Anand said, “the real question is whether there is, the ‘political will’ to prosecute’. Could they prosecute? Of course. Will they? Not likely, but Climategate seems to have put some seeds of skepticism in places that it had never existed before. Witness the heat now put on the IPCC. Skeptics have been calling BS on them for years, and it never went anywhere until now — post-Cimategate. So, will Jones be prosecuted? I’m still doubtful, but I have much more hope than I did a month ago.

    P.S. Love the blog, John. It’s a great addition to our club of skeptical blogs!

  17. John A. Jauregui says:

    Organized and coordinated climate racketeering uncovered. Are you angry about this obvious RICO Act fraud and the national media’s complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue and the related “carbon derivatives” market Obama’s Administration is spinning up? Why pay for propaganda? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The World Wildlife Fund. DEMAND they take you off their donors’ mailing list. They have violated the public trust. KEEP donations local, close to home. MAKE donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. Senator Inhofe, the only politician to refuse the GREEN KOOL AID. Senator Inhofe, the only senator to stand between us and the collective insanity of the ruling class of elitist hucksters led by Al Gore. WRITE your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. WRITE your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. Carbon is the stuff of life. He (Obama) who controls carbon, especially CO2, controls the world. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984”. The mendacity of UK’s John Beddington, Robert Watson and Ed Miliband prove the point. The US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near the truth?



  18. [...] theoretically, Phil Jones could be facing 10 years in prison. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Chinese language – People’s Daily [...]

  19. John, you are right. This reminds me of the quote of great libertarian, Edmund Burke who said, in his letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol (1777), by Edmund Burke, who said,
    “All who have ever written on government are unanimous, that among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.”

  20. Mike Owens says:

    Great article John. Two questions:
    1 Do you intend to make a submission to the UK Parliamnetary Science and Technology Committee enquiry into “The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia” . Your analysis may be of relevance
    2. What if anything could you or anyone else do to enhance the chance of of appropriate prosecution of CRU personnel under the Fraud act.

    • Mike, (1.) the more I’m asked this question the more I feel I may have to, as it seems there is little impetus from anywhere else on the legal issues involved.
      (2.) Simply, the political will to bring prosecutions is all that is problematic from here on in – I am very confident that the case against Jones under the Fraud Act (2006) is sound. While the MSM suppresses this story the govt. public opinion cannot be fairly influenced- we are left with the blogosphere to spread the word, as it did so well when climategate first broke. So, to put it simply, we need to use the Internet once more, to raise awareness of the strong case for UK prosecutions for climate fraud.

  21. TThor says:

    Phil Jones is toast, and belong behind bars alongside Berie Madoff and other such scam artists! A despicable person driven by politics and greed, almost succeeding in getting the hopeless CO2 trading scam into practice that would have had devastating barings on civilization as we know it. Brrrr….

  22. Richard Mackey says:

    I posted the note below about fraud in a debate on What’s Up With That about fraud in relation to the climategate files and related matters. The full discussion is here:




    The successful prosecution of an alleged fraudulent incident is a complex matter fraught with difficulties. It depends crucially on the definition of relevant concepts in statutes, the common law and case law.

    In Australia, where I live, these are the relevant definitions:

    Fraud is an indictable offence:
    A person who defrauds the Commonwealth or a public authority under the Commonwealth is guilty of an indictable offence. Quoted from the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, Section 29D.

    Fraud means:
    Dishonestly obtaining a benefit by deception or other means (includes both tangible and intangible benefits). Quoted from Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines -May 2002, issued by authority of the Commonwealth Attorney-General.

    My reading of a lot of Commonwealth case law is this:
    To commit fraud is to intentionally create a situation prejudicially affecting the Commonwealth in which any of the following occurs:
    -dishonestly causing economic loss to the Commonwealth;
    -dishonestly influencing the exercise of a public duty;
    -inducing the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency to do any act to its detriment.

    I expect that the situation is not much different in the mother country (i.e. United Kingdom) and in Uncle Sam’s place.

    • Richard, I note your corresponding Australian version of the Fraud Act predates the English version by four years. There are a great many similarities – I feel sure Australians could lobby their own government in a similar way as I am doing.

  23. “Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges.”

    If only! There is already a concerted effort by the warmers to proceed as if nothing serious has happened. The UK’s chief scientific adviser claims that there is “no doubt” that the “greenhouse effect” is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise and this has nothing to do with the antics of Jones et al. He can’t have read Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, 23, 275 (2009).

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.