I’ve been messing with the Antarctic all day. No results yet but an article was sent to me by email today on Climategate. Despite the fact that ‘there is nothing in the emials’, it appears that they have magically eroded public trust. Don’t worry about the university though, “independent” investigations will confirm that its reputation will remain intact.
Last night, Prof Trevor Davies, pro-vice chancellor at UEA, said he believed the university would emerge with its reputation intact, after launching an independent review into how it handles data and responds to FOI requests.
I’ve got to put this little quote up, I mean how untrue can it be and still make the press.
Prof Davies said: “I hope the people of Norfolk and Norwich accept our commitment to the highest quality research and transparency. And I hope that as we are weathering this storm that the local community will support us.”
If nothing else comes out of the emails, Phil Jones got caught colluding with other government employees to block FOIA. As transparent as ink. The comment which is so interesting is here:
The university believes it has been targeted as part of a co-ordinated campaign by climate change sceptics.
There you go folks, now I’m part of the conspiracy. Keep in mind that it doesn’t matter that we have hundreds of documents pointing out (in no uncertain terms) the globalization agenda of the UN and IPCC. You get a tinfoil hat for even thinking about that. However, receive some unintended emails and blog about it, CONSPIRACY!!
Idots.
Here is a link to the article.
Look how ridiculous they are:
A national newspaper yesterday suggested Russian security services could have been behind the breach, which is being investigated by Nor-folk police aided by Scotland Yard.
So I’m sure we would like to help out the crack detectives of Scotland Yard in any way we can. Actually though, this is just another ruse by the governments involved to misdirect.
Here are several reasons that Scotland yard is obviously wrong:
– Would the Russians would hack an email system across several machines and send it to a single, little-known reporter from a paper with an agenda. This is what happened first?
– Would the Russians then use a password to access RC and put the data on their server with a link saying – then a miracle occurred over on their arch enemy’s blog Climate Audit ?
– Would the Russian government then place the adds on technical skeptic blogs?
– And finally, global warming is an issue which communist governments celebrate. The west gives up financial strength for their development! Why would Russia want to disturb our own economic destruction? The only complaints I’ve seen from communist countries about the ignorance of global warming taxation to save the world, is we aren’t giving enough away, we aren’t limiting our output enough and we aren’t doing it fast enough.
It makes no sense, and make no mistake, it makes no sense for a reason. You can figure it out because, there is a way that these unreasonable people do make sense. Perhaps the great Scotland yard is in cahoots with the government on this?
Anyway, I’ve seen several comments here that perhaps Briffa was the leak. I completely disagree, my opinion is that he was smart enough to play the line in his emails but that’s it. His reconstructions were modified to match the consensus and it was done without complaint from him. Yamal, was exaggerated again without complaint. Numerous papers published his results, hiding the decline without complaint. Where Briffa succeeds is in his ability to make bold paper killing statements right before presenting flawed results. Then he can say peer review agreed and it was disclosed in the peerreviewedliterature (as Real Climate already did). So then the false presentations are all ok.
Consider this my fellow conspiratologists, would Keith Briffa (the man who we learned through Climategate, wouldn’t serve on the NAS panel to hide his advocacy) really stoop to putting the data on Real Climate with a link from Climate Audit.
Nope, he’d leak it to someone another way. He’s too old to play childish games like that. However, there are a group of people who would be young enough and know the issues well enough, and even be angry enough to make this happen.
The grad students.
Sure they have a lot at stake, but consider that they are privy to the office talk. Imagine if you were in climatology school and from the office talk, figured out that the issues were not the same as being presented. Imagine having believed in these people, only to find that not everything is above board. Imagine being intelligent enough to understand that almost every single criticism from CA is right on the money. What would you do? Would you and your buddy get together and let the emails rip.
I can write more but IMO — Scotland yard is not being honest with us. The presentation was childish, it was done by students, my guess is grad students who knew the issues.