I have followed global warming for some time now but was surprised recently to discover just how ignorant I have been. I have read excellent articles on the subject from world renown scientists (like this article by Richard Lindzen), but somehow they have missed key information I was unaware of until I watched this video by Lord Moncton, the former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher.
I came across Lord Monckton because I was interested in what was being learned in the release of documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Very little is being reported currently but it is actually quite sensational. If you don’t believe me, try reading Lord Monckton’s summary on it here.
For example, here he lists the steps these major global warming scientists took to thwart scientific verification of their results:
Professor “Phil” Jones, the man chiefly responsible for the Climate Research Unit’s surface-temperature dataset, at first answered all queries about his computer codes and data by saying that he refused to release any information because those requesting it were only asking for it so that they could find out whether it was correct. Well, yes: that is how science works. It is not enough for a scientist merely to declare a result, and then to refuse to say how he obtained it.
Professor Jones’ scientifically-senseless refusal to make all of his data and codes immediately available when other scientists requested it had long aroused suspicion, particularly because his results had a direct bearing on the question of how fast the world is warming, a currently-fashionable political topic, and not least because we, the taxpayers, are writing the checks that fund him and his research.
When the Freedom of Information Act came into force in the UK, Professor Jones and other members of the Team began writing emails to each other about how they could prevent their codes and data from being made available.
Professor Jones’ first advice to fellow-members of the Team, recorded in one of the emails released by the whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, was that they should not let anyone know that there was a Freedom of Information Act in the UK.
Professor Jones subsequently wrote to members of the Team that he would destroy data rather than provide it to researchers who requested it under the Freedom of Information Act.
Professor Jones and his conspirators on the Team then contrived a remarkable number of pretexts for not disclosing data and computer programs to anyone who might request them under the Freedom of Information Act. The Team discussed –
Hiding (they repeatedly used the word) behind public-interest immunity;
Hiding behind the UK’s Data Protection Act, which does not prevent disclosure of data or research paid for by taxpayers;
Hiding behind advice from the office of the Information Commissioner, the UK official who enforces the Freedom of Information Act;
Hiding behind the fact that the UN’s climate panel is an international entity not subject to the UK freedom-of-information law,
Hiding behind reclassification of as much as possible of their work as UN work, so as to evade their obligation at law to disclose requested information; and
Hiding behind contracts between the Climate Research Unit and other national weather bureaux whose data it had received, on the bizarre pretext that weather data that was and is openly published worldwide might be held by some nations to be confidential.
Professor Jones, in another exchange of emails revealed by the whistleblower, discusses with the Team the fact – which the emails deplore – that some scientific journals not only have a policy of requiring all computer codes and data to be archived with the journal at the same time as a learned paper is submitted, but also actually go to the trouble of enforcing the policy. The implication was that submitting papers to such journals was best avoided, because it might lead to publication of the information the Team was, for some reason, so desperately anxious to conceal and to withhold.
Professor Jones then conspired with Freedom of Information Officers at the University of East Anglia to minimize the scope, categories, and quantity of information to be disclosed to those requesting it. A revealing email to members of the Team describes how Professor Jones had shown the University’s Freedom of Information Officers details of the website of one of those requesting information about how he had compiled his global-temperature dataset, and had persuaded them to agree that the person requesting the data ought not to be given anything if possible. Yet there is no provision in the Freedom of Information Act in the UK that allows any such arbitrary discrimination against people whom those who are bound to disclose information happen to fear or dislike.
Professor Jones, in another revelatory email, discloses how a Freedom of Information officer at the University of East Anglia had told him that he must not destroy any emails, except for the purpose of keeping email traffic manageable. These weasel words were, in effect, an open invitation to Jones to destroy as many emails as he liked, in the sure and certain knowledge that the Freedom of Information officer would cover for him, even though the capacity of the servers at the University was and is more than adequate to permit all of the Team’s emails to be permanently stored, tracked, and made available on request.
Numerous emails between Professor Jones and the Team establish that they were particularly anxious to conceal from other researchers the computer code they were using to fabricate their global-temperature record. The reason for this refusal is readily discernible from one of the document files also released by the whistleblower, a series of notes by a exasperated programmers trying to make sense of the numerous segments of apparently meaningless, erroneous, or incomprehensible computer code in the Team’s programs, and of many data files that were missing, incomplete, unlabeled, labeled as duplicates, duplicated, or based on incompatible units of measurement.
The methodology at the University of East Anglia – if the 15,000 lines of commentary by the programmers are right – is little better than simply making the numbers up. In short, there is a very good and obvious reason why Professor Jones wanted to conceal his computer code: any independent researcher examining it – particularly one as competent and diligent as Mr. McIntyre – would at once realize that it was entirely unfit for its purpose, and that the global instrumental temperature record of the past 150 years is little better than a work of fiction.
Finally – and here the evidence of criminality is incontrovertible – in 2008 Professor Jones wrote to several members of the Team inviting them to delete all emails relating to the Team’s participation in the preparation of the previous year’s Fourth Assessment Report of the UN’s climate panel. He wrote this email some three weeks after the University of East Anglia had received a request under the Freedom of Information Act for precisely the information that he was recommending his fellow-members of the Team to emulate him in destroying.