the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Interesting Rreply

Posted by Jeff Id on March 24, 2010

From UK government: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22924

I don’t think I signed this petition but the government response to it is pretty interesting.

H/T again Kondelar

——-

UEACRU – epetition response

We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.”

Details of Petition:

“The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is a “leading centre” for the investigation of “manmade global warming” and government policy relies on the integrity of these statistics. Several claims have been made: that data was “cherry picked” to make the 20th century temperature rise look exceptional in historical terms; emails suggest the unit has colluded in “tricks” to “hide the decline” in a high profile scientific journal, and this unit has colluded in active, secret and highly political campaigning through the website “realclimate”. The preparation of climate statistics require many judgements: stations move & sites become surrounded by urban sprawl (urban heating) & a judgement must be made of the size of the offset to apply to the global temperature record. The University accepts most emails are genuine so it appears the Unit has been acting in a highly partisan way incompatible with that of a neutral body preparing and interpreting government data. We call on the PM to suspend all further use of the climate research unit until all pertinent allegations have been investigated and any action (if any) has been taken.”

· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage

Read the Government’s response

The Government believes that all these allegations should be investigated transparently.

An independent review is currently examining the scientific conduct of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and is due to report its findings later in the spring.  More information on the review can be found at: http://www.cce-review.org/.  The University of East Anglia also recently announced that there will be a separate review to examine the CRU’s key scientific publications.  The findings of both these reviews will be made public.

The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is also investigating the matter.  On 1 March the Select Committee heard evidence from a wide range of contributors, including Professor Jones, who has temporarily stepped down from his post as Director of CRU.

CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by, prepared for, or published by the Government. The resulting outputs are not Government statistics.

Our confidence that the Earth is warming is taken from multiple sources of evidence and not only the HadCRUT temperature record, which CRU scientists contribute to.  The same warming trend is seen in two independent analyses carried out in the United States, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  These analyses draw on the same pool of temperature data as HadCRUT, but use different methodologies to produce analyses of temperature change through time.  Further evidence of this warming is found in data from instruments on satellites, and in trends of declining arctic sea ice and rising sea levels.

Science is giving us an increasingly clear picture of the risks we face from climate change.  With more research, we can better understand those risks, and how to manage them.  That is why the Government funds a number of institutions, including the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.

11 Responses to “Interesting Rreply”

  1. HotRod said

    The temptation to have said somewhere in there ‘and confidence that this warming is in good part man-made’ must have been quite strong, interesting that they didn’t. Slightly the dog that didn’t bark?

  2. Kondealer said

    Here’s my response to the Government’s response (for all the good it will do).

    Many thanks for alerting me to the Government’s response. However the science on which the Government has based its response is deeply flawed. Please see response with my comments (with confirmable factual support), below.

    The Government believes that all these allegations should be investigated transparently.
    An independent review is currently examining the scientific conduct of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and is due to report its findings later in the spring. More information on the review can be found at: http://www.cce-review.org/. The University of East Anglia also recently announced that there will be a separate review to examine the CRU’s key scientific publications. The findings of both these reviews will be made public

    (unfortunately neither of these reviews will command credibility as both panels include members with clear conflicts of interest, Geoffrey Boulton and Lord Oxburgh- the latter, in particular has much to gain from finding “nothing wrong” as he is a director of Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment, which stands to profit from carbon trading.)

    The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is also investigating the matter. On 1 March the Select Committee heard evidence from a wide range of contributors, including Professor Jones, who has temporarily stepped down from his post as Director of CRU.
    CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by, prepared for, or published by the Government. The resulting outputs are not Government statistics.
    Our confidence that the Earth is warming is taken from multiple sources of evidence and not only the HadCRUT temperature record, which CRU scientists contribute to. The same warming trend is seen in two independent analyses carried out in the United States, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These analyses draw on the same pool of temperature data as HadCRUT, but use different methodologies to produce analyses of temperature change through time. Further evidence of this warming is found in data from instruments on satellites

    (which show a lot less warming than the other urban heat island effect contaminated ground-based data Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114),

    and in trends of declining arctic sea ice

    (last time I looked Arctic sea ice was recovering and Global sea ice is close to normal http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) and rising sea levels (the point here is that it is not the fact that sea level is rising- it has been since the end of the last Ice-Age, but that the rate of rise is not increasing- in fact it is slowing http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/).

    Science is giving us an increasingly clear picture of the risks

    (what risks? Droughts, floods and hurricanes show no change from historic average, in fact World cyclone activity is at the 30 year low http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/)

    we face from climate change. With more research, we can better understand those risks, and how to manage them. That is why the Government funds a number of institutions, including the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.

  3. Jeff Id said

    I find it tnteresting that they reply in the second to last paragraph about global warming when the issue discussed was corruption of a dataset and ingoring of urban warming. It’s like you’re assumed to be a climate change denier automatically. Nobody even discussed ‘denial of climate change’.

  4. Chuckles said

    #3
    Jeff,

    Please get serious,we are talking about the UK Govt. here. If you dare to sign such a petition of course you are a denier.

  5. curious said

    “CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by, prepared for, or published by the Government. The resulting outputs are not Government statistics.”

    This makes me think CRU have some liability issues they should consider.

  6. Layman Lurker said

    Here is a site that sheds some light on CRU’s funding:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    From the site:

    Since its inception in 1972 until 1994, the only scientist who had a guaranteed salary from ENV/UEA funding was the Director. Every other research scientist relied on ‘soft money’ – grants and contracts – to continue his or her work. Since 1994, the situation has improved and now three of the senior staff are fully funded by ENV/UEA and two others have part of their salaries paid.

    An acknowledgement of “soft money” supporters:

    This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

    British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

    In addition to ENV/UEA, why would the following acknowledgements – Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) – be made if CRU is not funded by government?

  7. Layman Lurker said

    After some thought, to answer my own question the soft money from government is likely provided for specific policy related projects, rather than “analysis of temperature records”.

  8. “CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by, prepared for, or published by the Government. The resulting outputs are not Government statistics.”

    This gives the impression of trying to create some distance.

    But is it consistent with this?

    “That is why the Government funds a number of institutions, including the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.”

    So, CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by the Government but the Government funds a number of institutions, including the University of East Anglia, of which CRU is part. None of the Government funding finds its way to the analysis of temperature records at CRU. Really?

  9. Layman Lurker said

    #8

    ENV/UEA funding of CRU in itself is ipso facto contradiction of the governments response to the petition – for the very reasons you state.

  10. mrpkw said

    # 2
    “However the science on which the Government has based its response is deeply flawed.”
    ——————————————————–
    Even if the science isn’t “deeply flawed”, even the most rational adult should be able to see that it is at least marginally questionable and should be willing to investigate a little more before destroying national economies.

    And yes, I do agree that it is deeply flawed.

  11. tarpon said

    May as well realize it, the government is going to hang with the lies, as long as they think there is any chance, no matter how small, they can guilt trip the public into paying more taxes for the government’s hoax.

    It’s a ruthless quest to control people, no matter the costs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers

%d bloggers like this: