1
Mar
Mar
Phil Jones on witness stand before the UK Parliamentary Inquiry on Climategate
In all seriousness, you can watch this afternoon’s proceedings from the UK Parliament’s Select Committee Hearing on the Climategate Scandal held in the House of Parliament’s Grimond Room, with Phil Jones testifying. We’re watching it right now, so we can’t comment on it yet.
Watch it on this page. Sorry we don’t have an embeddable version (if anyone does give us the link).
Here is the agenda:
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Witnesses:
- Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
- Richard Thomas CBE
- Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia, and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
- Sir Muir Russell KCB, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review
- Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Possibly related posts:
- Complete, unedited video of UK Parliament’s Select Committee Hearing, with Phil Jones and others
- The University of East Anglia CRU comes clean: there WAS a medieval warm period
- Phil Jones admits withholding scientific data
- The shit hits the fan: UK Parliament to investigate CRU
- Climategate Professor perjures himself to Parliamentary Select Committee
Acton is very dramatic in defense of UEA. So many statements they make they go on to contradict.
Jones lies about confidiality of the data. In E-mails, he was willing to give it to anyone except McIntyre. The general tone of the questions show us they have read about the leaks and know Jones is covering himself and to an extent denying the e-mails. Jones did terribly as did Acton.
Just a note – I had to use Internet Explorer, I couldn’t see the Governments web video using Firefox.
The argument that the UEA CRU did nothing wrong because it fell outside the time scale for prosecution is pretty weak and, I think morally, if not legally wrong. It also ignores the fact that an inquiry isn’t a court of law. It is attempting to establish facts and the credibility of the University. To me, it seems that by hiding behind a defect in the workings of the FoI Office the University are sacrificing their reputation.
It’s using another ‘trick’ to avoid culpability and tarnishes their reputation horribly.
Climategate is only the tip of the iceberg. A much larger, long-term forgery is the manufacture of the “late twentieth century warming” of the eighties and nineties. NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office show it as a period of steadily rising temperature. Right in the middle of this period Hansen gets up in front of the Senate and testifies that global warming has started. Its cause, he says, is carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere. But satellites have been observing global temperature for the last thirty years and they do not see any of this warming. What they do see in its place is a multi-year temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree, until real warming is brought by the 1998 super El Nino. These oscillations trace out the warm El Nino and cool La Nina periods of the ENSO system in the Pacific which has a global climate influence. There were five of these cycles within a twenty year period. When you put the satellite temperature curve side by side with say, HadCRUT3 of the Met Office, you see what is going on. They cherry pick the high El Nino peaks and then raise up the intervening low La Nina temperatures to change a horizontal temperature curve into a rising temperature curve. But this works only with the first four El Ninos. The fifth one is too low and gets raised up. And the super El Nino that follows gets gratefully incorporated even though it is not of carbonaceous origin. It was caused by a storm surge in the Indo-Pacific region that dumped a huge amount of warm water at the start of the equatorial counter-current. The counter-current carried it to South America where it spread out and was observed as an unusually warm El Nino. It made 1998 the warmest year of the century. Its warm water lingered and was the cause of the twenty-first century high, a run of six warm years. Most of them are among the ten warmest. Collectively they made the last decade the warmest on record, no thanks to carbon dioxide again. But those compiling HadCRUT3 are not satisfied even with this and have to raise up that entire section of the curve. NOAA is worse – while HadCRUT3 at least retain the greatly-reduced La Nina valleys they stay with the peaks, jettison all low values in between, and raise up the twenty-first century high as well. NASA (Land-Ocean) starts out like HadCRUT3 but they don’t have the nerve to change peaks so they are all in place and so is the twenty-first century high. Only the super El Nino is off because they can’t measure it too well and the data point for 2005 is too high. Such data manipulation revealed by the analysis of these curves is not what climate scientists should be doing. You will find graphical analysis of all this in “What Warming?” available on Amazon.com. It is scientific fraud on a grand scale. And since three organizations are involved it is also a criminal conspiracy. I estimate it started in the late seventies. Only the Piltdown Man forgery has lasted longer. Its consequences have been literally world-shaking. This is what a real investigation should be about.