Mr. Jones has some explaining to do. Check out http://www.ClimateDepot.com for latest.
Caught in Another Untruth? THEN: UN IPCC’s Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008: ‘About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all’ –
NOW: UN IPCC’s Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009: ‘We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html

Scientist in climate change ‘cover-up’ storm told to quit
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 9:45 PM on 24th November 2009
The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.
George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.
More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.
In another note, UK researchers dismissed the work of scientists challenging global warming as ‘crap’.
Another appeared to call for pressure on the BBC after a reporter suggested that evidence for rising temperatures since 2001 was thin.
In one of the most damning messages, Professor Jones appeared to respond to the death of a climate sceptic with the words ‘in an odd way this is cheering news!’.
The leak has been a huge embarrassment to the climate unit at the University of East Anglia, which is a global leader in its field.
Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests.
Yesterday, Mr Monbiot, who writes on green issues, said the emails could scarcely be more damaging.

More…
• ‘I won’t let the b*****s out until they’ve done a deal’: Climate change envoy John Prescott reveals unusual approach to solving global warming
• Global warming could lead to increased flooding and rising food prices in UK, claim leading scientists
‘I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken,’ he said. ‘There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.
‘There appears to be evidence of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a Freedom of Information request.
‘Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
‘The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.’
Bob Ward, a climate expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, demanded an independent inquiry.
‘From what I’ve seen of the emails, there’s not been any new questions raised about the way papers have been put together, but there should be an re-examination of the emails,’ he said.
The emails – which appeared last week on a Russian website – appear to have been stolen from a university computer server.
Enlarge

Yesterday, Professor Jones refused to quit and denied that researchers had altered evidence to bolster the case for man-made climate change.
He added: ‘We absolutely stand by the science we produce here at the University of East Anglia and it has been peer reviewed and published.
‘Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.
‘I would never manipulate the data one bit – I would categorically deny that.’ The university is to conduct an independent review of data security and on its response to 60 freedom of information requests over a short period.
˜ At least half the 36 UK officials and ministers travelling to the climate change talks in Copenhagen are going by air rather than by rail.
The Liberal Democrats said the arrangements showed up Labour’s hypocrisy on green issues.
The Government said officials had meetings that limited their travel options next month.

Full coverage at: http://www.thegwpf.org/news/138-pressure-growing-for-public-inquiry-into-cru-data-affair.html

It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
–George Monbiot, The Guardian, 24 November 2009

Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are included; also we have been subject of frequent mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner. Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy “Climate Research”; that we in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike Mann was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.) I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.
–Hans Von Storch, 22 November 2009

===================

Lord Lawson calls for inquiry into cover-up over climate change data

Daily Mail, 24 November 2009 : Lord Lawson yesterday called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading British climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for made-made global warming.

The former Chancellor said the content of hundreds of leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit was a ’scandal’ – and warned that the credibility and integrity of UK science was at stake.

His comments came after it was revealed that 1,000 private emails written by researchers at the world-renowned unit over the last 13 years were stolen and posted on a Russian website.
While most are impossible to interpret out of context, climate change sceptics have seized on some that appear to show scientists manipulating raw data about historical temperatures.
In one alleged email, scientists discussed how climate data should be best spun and presented to selected journalists.

The emails also appear to discuss ways of dodging Freedom of Information requests from a climate change sceptic seeking raw data.

Lord Lawson called for the university and Natural Environment Research Council, which funds the unit, to launch an open, independent inquiry. [....]

George Monbiot Calls for Heads to Roll, Re-Analysis of CRU Climate Data

The Guardian, 24 November 2009 : It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. [....]

Compromised Climate Scientists should be excluded from IPCC, Leading Climate Scientist says

Professor Hans von Storch : [...] There are a number of problematic statements, which will be discussed in the media and the blogosphere. I found the style of communication revealing, speaking about other people and their ideas, joining forces to “kill” papers, exchanges of “improving” presentations without explaining.

Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are included; also we have been subject of frequent mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner. Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy “Climate Research”; that we in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike Mann was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.) I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC. [...]

U.S. Lawmakers Probe Climate E-mails

The Wall Street Journal, 24 November 2009 : Congressional Republicans have started investigating climate scientists whose hacked emails suggest they tried to squelch dissenting views about global warming.

An aide to Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said investigators are studying the documents, which unknown hackers stole last week from the computer of a prominent British climate-research center.

Investigators are focusing on the correspondence of White House Science Adviser John Holdren, he said. Dr. Holdren, a point man for the Obama administration on climate change, sent one of the hacked emails. In the 2003 email, Dr. Holdren, then at the Woods Hole Research Center in Woods Hole, Mass., defended research by Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a scientist who believes global warming is man-made and who also sent some of the hacked emails.

On Monday, Dr. Holden said: “I’m happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange. I think anybody who reads what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious and balanced treatment of the question of ‘burden of proof’ in situations where science germane to public policy is in dispute.”

The aide said investigators are also probing the contributions of dozens of climate scientists to reports published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Environmental Protection Agency, in its recent move to boost regulation of greenhouse gases, based its conclusions on IPCC reports.

The IPCC has said the climate is heating up and humans are almost certainly to blame. Those who disagree that the globe is warming, or on the cause or extent of any warming, complain that their views have been excluded.

The documents, hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals. [...]

Pressure Growing for Public Inquiry into CRU Affair

The Guardian, 23 November 2009

Prominent voices on both sides of the climate change debate today called for an independent inquiry into claims of collusion between climate scientists after it emerged last week that hundreds of their emails and documents had been leaked that allegedly manipulated data and destroyed evidence for Freedom of Information Act requests.

Writing in the Times, Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor and long-time climate change sceptic, said: “The integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.”

Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said: “Once appropriate action has been taken over the hacking, there has to be some process to assess the substance of the email messages as well. The selective disclosure and dissemination of the messages has created the impression of impropriety, and the only way of clearing the air now would be through a rigorous investigation. I have sympathy for the climate researchers at the University of East Anglia and other institutions who have been the target of an aggressive campaign by so-called ’sceptics’ over a number of years. But I fear that only a thorough investigation could now clear their names.” [...]

Is East Antarctica Melting?

The Observatory, 24 November 2009

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/140-is-east-antarctica-melting.html

Dr. David Whitehouse

The East Antarctic ice sheet is the largest mass of ice on our planet and so its stability and potential contribution to global sea level change is of great interest. It was thought to be relatively stable but new research suggests it may have begun to loose mass, although the true significance of the change is unclear.

Measuring the Antarctic ice sheets is difficult. Over the years estimates of its mass balance has swung between positive and negative values. Radar altimetry observations covering the entire continent between 1992 – 2003 suggested that the ice mass balance was between -5 and + 85 GT/yr, although as usual with ice such estimates have large errors. Another satellite-borne technique, Synthetic Aperture Radar, using observations taken over the past decade, suggested that ice loss exceeded model predictions of snow accumulation. The data also indicated a recent increase in mass loss with 196 +/- 92 GT in 2006.

The latest data uses observations taken monthly between 2002 and 2009 from a pair of satellites flying in formation measuring gravity perturbations. Analysing data from the GRACE satellites is tricky and relating them to ice sheet mass estimates involves several steps and assumptions.The new study – published in Nature Geoscience by J Chen and researchers at the University of Texas at Austin in Austin, Texas – say the mass loss for the entire continent is – 190 +/- 77 GT/yr averaged over 2002 – 2009. This is much larger than previous estimates (although consistent with the most recent Synthetic Aperture Radar estimates of 196 +/- 92 GT/yr.)

Loss from the West Antarctic ice sheet is 132 +/- 26 GT/yr. East Antarctica, the researchers say, is losing mass at about 57 +/- 52 GT/yr (note large uncertainty – it could be consistent with zero ice loss). Most of the loss appears to be from coastal regions and to stem from increased ice loss after 2006. The finding is significant because the east of the continent has been regarded as the more stable half. It should be stressed however that although these seem large quantities of ice they are tiny in terms of their significance for global sea level changes.

The importance of this research is that it highlights the close scrutiny needed of the region, especially for the East Antarctic ice cap, to see if its rate of loss increases. At present it is not known if the loss is due to climate change or if such losses are in any way exceptional or cyclical. If the changes persist, and accelerate, then, “Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea-level rise”, the researchers write.

Others have expressed surprise at the results. A study in 2005 suggested that the East Antarctic ice sheet was actually gaining mass. What this latest work indicates is the need for more observations, an appreciation of the large uncertainties in individual measurements and the problem of relating them to each other. Overall it would be unwise to draw strong conclusions from this research.

CCNet is a science and climate policy network edited by Benny Peiser . To subscribe, send an e-mail to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk (”subscribe CCNet-News”). To unsubscribe send an e-mail to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk (”unsubscribe CCNet-News”). Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.

Just so you know, your name comes up quite a bit in these hacked emails. you should download them and read them if you haven’t already. Look at the one labeled “1256765544.txt” when you download them from http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

Regards,

Mark

Publish ?

“There can be little doubt in the minds of those who are involved in attempting to disseminate research results among the entire scientific community that major problems exist. It is well documented that adopting certain stances will result in an inability to publish in the majority of the so-called high impact academic journals.

There are also well documented cases of people experiencing grave difficulties in their place of work and even, on some occasions, being driven out. Amazingly, there are even cases of attempts being made – some successful – to deny research students their doctorates because their theses contain material which may cause embarrassment for some person with an inflated sense of his/her own importance. Again, more and more academics, certainly in British universities, are coming under increasing pressure to draw funds into their establishments. Note the emphasis is not on good research, or even just research, but rather on attracting more and more money.”

and

“The religious nature of global warming hysteria becomes immediately obvious once research is undertaken into the history of similar NRMs and the many apocalyptic panics they have spawned over the past two millennia. And it is largely for this reason that the proponents of global warming insist that only ‘scientific’ contributions can be permitted and that any discussion that is allowed about their claims must take place within the very tightly regulated constraints of a highly specialized scientific field they themselves define and zealously control.”

No point giving you url’s as you won’t check them out. (But Quadrant on line and Thunderbolts post Science in Turmoil) for those wanting to read more.

Good article on Quadrant online : http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/10/the-wisdom-of-skepticism

I can see the AGW people dressed in their sack cloths monotoning their obeisance to the latest apocalypse – Luke would be the crazed leader in a scene that could have come from the Jabberwocky movie.

Luke challenged me to show whether or not inland Queensland Met stations yield a correlation between temperature and rising atmospheric CO2 – [CO2].

Well the first 2, picked at random, Gatton and Toowoomba Airport both yield zero correlation between ther respective annual mean minimum Temperature and annual mean [CO2]. So we have two more black swans to add to the charming flight in Jen’s photograph at the beginning of her walkabout post.

The Gatton QDPI research station has a much longer run (1968-2007) than Toowoomba Airport (only 1996-2009), but evidently was closed down in 2007 in furtherance of Science because of their glaring failure to deliver politically correct correlations between their Temps and [CO2]). Moreover there were 2 years (1985-86) when like the emininent scientists at Mauna Loa Slope Observatory they could not quite summon the energy to keep up daily records. I inserted averages of the year before with year after for the months in question.

Result, same as my data for Mauna Loa at my thread here: NO correlation between Tmin and [CO2] even without going to 1st diffs to get rid of auto-correlation.

SJT, name your favourite location (how about sod’s Potsdam?) and I will show you another black swan. Achtung, back to the drawing board, you AGW guys!

SJT: that last of yours is a travesty. The hockey stick goes back long before the Russians, as does the obfuscation of MBH and Briffa at all times.

Don’t foeget Tim: “we have to get rid of the MWP”. Much is made of the fact that such reconstructions, when shown to be badly done (a la MBH9X), “don’t matter”, but the fact is they do matter and very much – the whole “unprecedented warmth” of the 20thC hangs off such reconstructions. If they are wrong, then “unprecedented” goes away. And without “unprecedented”, 0.8C over 100 years is going to be ignored. In fact, if we were to find out that such changes are normal variation, how many people would then support the sort of massive taxes and subsidies proposed? Not many, I would suspect.
By browsing through SM’s posts over the years, it becomes apparent (to me anyway) that there is something odd going on:
* only approved people who already agree with the conclusions can get the raw data.
* mistakes aren’t mistakes until they become so obviously mistakes it’s no longer deniable. Then they “don’t matter” because they don’t change the conclusions of the paper – of course they don’t change the conclusions, because the conclusions are pre-ordained to “support” AGW! They only change the data analysis results – we can safely ignore this in the conclusion.
* SM has a “fringe blog” and so can be ignored. Of course, in terms of blog ratings, CA is HIGHER than RC, but that’s somewhat inconvenient, so we can ignore it.
* SM is just a statistician – what would he know about climate? We can safely ignore him because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Never mind that he presents some rather compelling arguements that the stats in these papers are dodgy – arguements that have been acknowledged by Wegman no less as being valid.
* SM isn’t part of “the Team”, so even if he put together a paper he wouldn’t be able to get it published because the gatekeeper “specialist” climate scientist reviewers, who remain anonymous, will not recommend publication of a paper that tears apart their pet theories. Of course, as Luke so succinctly put it, E&E doesn’t count.
* “Why should I give you my data, when all you want to do is find mistakes?” – P. Jones, HADCRU.

So maybe there’s nothing wrong with climate science; maybe, it’s all just a terrible coincidence. Riiiight!
They’ve already nailed their colours to the mast, and while it’s expedient, they’ll get plenty of support from those who seek power and the rent seekers. But if they think they won’t get dropped like a hot potatoe by the pollies if, as and when it all comes crashing down, then they’re in for a very rude shock when it does. Because I can guarantee you that the likes of Gore, Rudd, Obama et al will wipe them like a snotty nose with absolutely no compunction just as soon as it suits them to do so – and the only people that will be surprised will be the likes of Hansen et al. But the people who will suffer the most are the ones who should be speaking up right now, but remain silent because they don’t want to rock the boat – that’s gonna bite them on the arse very hard, even though they probably don’t deserve it. I hope scientists will learn from that, but I don’t think they will – it’s been going on since Newton was in shorts, and if they haven’t figured it out in several hundred years…

Publish something useful or perish. And that’s not in E&E – hahahahahahahahahaha

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/07/let-the-backpedalling-begin/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon.php

It’s all just so tawdry.