From today's Phil Jones Show, this little nugget from the BBC....
“Professor Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA, told the committee that it was not possible to make the entire international data set available because of a “commercial promise”.
He explained that a number of contributing nations – including Canada, Poland and Sweden – had refused to make their segments of data publicly available.”
Except that Canadian data appears to be available online for free.
It sure would be useful if some Canadian media type could get a response from the Environment Minister regarding Professor Acton's testimony.
Of course, there's always a chance that scores of concerned Canadians might circumvent the media to contact his office and ask them directly about this stunning allegation...
The Honourable Jim Prentice
Tel.: 819-997-1441
Fax: 819-953-0279
Email: Jim.Prentice@ec.gc.ca
Consider it done,and the consequences of a carbon tax were emphasized in my e-mail. Thanks Kate,you go where the CBC won't.
Done. I asked that The Government of Canada would correct this error before the committee of enquiry.
The more the liars speak, the more tangled the web they weave.
Is there a running tally on the number of outright lies these hucksters have told? I want my tax dollars back!!!!
Talked with an engineering buddy of mine last weekend. He works on the roads in our city and requires data for water drainage due to rainfall/snowfall.
The city only had data that was years old as there had been nobody who was maintaining the collection devices regularly and therefore had all but been forgotten.(budget cutbacks he blamed it on) He all but said that he didn't have the manpower and couldn't be bothered.
My buddy asked about the recent rain storms which had come through our area and the guy with the city said that they didn't include any of the data because the rain was too intense and that would skew the data to show too much rainfall. My buddy hit the roof, as this is exactly what he needed for proper road construction.
So, it was the bureaucrat at the city which made the decision about whether or not he "liked" the numbers and whether to add them to the records.
By the way, the rainfall did not happen near the university weather station or near the airport which is located on the flats of the city, but the rain happened in the hills, where they need the proper drainage the most!
Good luck getting an answer of any sort from Jim Prentice.
Done .... and cc'd my MP Bruinooge...............
After the stripping I gave his office and the EDA a few weeks ago I might be blocked ... :)
More allegators for Minister Prentice from Canadian Steve McIntyre.
Minister Prentice:
The Mother of Parliaments is hearing from Canadian Steve McIntyre.
When will our Canadian parliament meet to summon the Warmists to relate their AGW Fraud so that Canadians can sit in judgement on the UN/IPCC "Briffa bodge", etc.?
RSVP.
...-
"Memorandum submitted by Stephen McIntyre (CRU 32)
Summary
1. Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been an highly visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly "independent" of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment ("bodging"), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data. The problem is deeply rooted in the sense that some forms of data manipulation and withholding are so embedded that the practitioners and peer reviewers in the specialty seem either to no longer notice or are unoffended by the practices. Specialists have fiercely resisted efforts by outside statisticians questioning these practices - the resistance being evident in the Climategate letters. These letters are rich in detail of individual incidents. My submission today will not comment on these individual incidents (some of which I've commented on already at Climate Audit), but to try to place the incidents into context and show why they matter to the research record. I will not comment in this submission on CRUTEM issues only for space reasons.
Introduction
2. Together with Ross McKitrick, I have published several peer-reviewed articles on 1000-year reconstructions and reconstructions, made invited presentations to a panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, to a subcommittee of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee and a Union Session of the American Geophysical Union and have in-depth personal knowledge of CRU proxy reconstructions. I was a reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report. I am the "editor" of a prominent climate blog, www.climateaudit.org, which analyzes proxy reconstructions. I am discussed in many Climategate Letters.
Temperature Reconstructions
3. Keith Briffa was Lead Author of the IPCC 2007 section on "recent" paleoclimatology, the Climategate Letters showing that he worked closely with Mann associate, Eugene Wahl (not a listed IPCC expert reviewer). Mann was Lead Author of the corresponding IPCC 2001 section, with the Climategate Letters showing that he worked closely with Briffa and Jones.
4. Jones, Briffa and Osborn were on the editorial boards of multiple climate journals and participated actively both in peer review and the assignment of peer reviewers.
5. CRU scientists (and Climategate correspondent Michael Mann) were coauthors of all three reconstructions in the IPCC 2001 report and coauthors of six (of ten) multiproxy reconstructions in the IPCC 2007 report.
6. CRU tree ring proxies (in particular, Tornetrask, Yamal/Polar Urals, Taymir) were used in all ten IPCC 2007 multiproxy reconstructions.
"Bodging"
7. One of the underlying problems in trying to use tree ring width/density chronologies for temperature reconstructions is a decline in 20th century values at many sites - Briffa's 1992 density (MXD) chronology for the influential Tornetrask site is shown at left below. The MXD chronology had a very high correlation to temperature, but went down in the 20th century relative to what it was "expected" to do and relative to the ring width (RW) chronology (which had a lower correlation to temperature.) So Briffa "adjusted" the MXD chronology, by a linear increase to the latter values (middle), thereby reducing the medieval-modern differential. This adjustment was described in private as the "Briffa bodge" (Melvin and Briffa 2008)."
(more)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3202.htm
Bin there, done that. No reply of course from Jim Prentice. I did however get a reply from my local MP,who said I should take Jim Prentice's public announcements with a grain of salt (paraphrased). What ever that means.
So far, only Maxim Bernier (sp) has had the courage to call the AGW crowd.
Probably what Jones meant was that the "adjusted" and "twisted" data wasn't available.
@ken(k)
Probably because Prentice is a little close to the green whacko /wildsight type himself.
That and I've seen him dissemble when asked questions by people
who would generally be CPC supporters (95% no press present)
- in a relatively closed environment. Not good IMO.
I'm assuming that's what the "grain of salt" comment was about
Does Mr Prentice get so much e-mail that they don't even bother trying to reply? For every one of us contacting him are there a thousand Gaia worshippers writing? I no longer even get an acknowledgement of my communication.
AGW Suicide Note: One e-mail at a time.
(H?T)
The AGW Fraud Conspiracy.
"The integrity of climate change research is in doubt after the disclosure of e-mails that attempt to suppress data, a leading scientific institute has said."
...-
March 2, 2010
"Prof Phil Jones, climate scientist, admits sending ‘awful’ e-mails
The integrity of climate change research is in doubt after the disclosure of e-mails that attempt to suppress data, a leading scientific institute has said.
The Institute of Physics said that e-mails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had broken “honourable scientific traditions” about disclosing raw data and methods and allowing them to be checked by critics.
Professor Jones admitted to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee yesterday that he had “written some very awful e-mails”, including one in which he rejected a request for information on the ground that the person receiving it might criticise his work.
In a written submission to the committee, the institute said that, assuming the e-mails were genuine, “worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context”.
The e-mails contained “prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law”, it added.
The institute said that it was concerned by suggestions in the e-mails that Professor Jones and other scientists had worked together to prevent alternative views on global warming from being published. It said: “The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers.”"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7046036.ece
Perhaps Dr. Phil was borrowing the meaning of "standard" from the argot of British youth. Remember the Armstrong and Miller comedy sketches from EBD's LNR?
Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data at the UK Daily Mail.
Subheadline: "Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits he hid data - because it was 'standard practice.'"
"The Climategate row, which was first revealed by the Daily Mail in November, was triggered when a hacker stole hundreds of emails sent from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
They revealed scientists plotting how to avoid responding to Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics.
Some even appeared to show the researchers discussing how to manipulate raw data from tree rings about historical temperatures.
In one, Professor Jones talks about using a 'trick' to massage figures and 'hide the decline'."
It may just be a rehash, but a pretty thorough one. Check out the complete article at the link.
I've sent a letter to him as well.
"Good luck getting a reply from Prentice" is not an excuse for not writing. He needs to hear calm, rational, and compelling explanations as to why he must state publicly whether Prof. Acton's claims are true.
Prentice, like any politician, knows that many people who write letters to an MP are forwarding them also to Lorrie Goldstein, Rex Murphy etc. etc., and that he can either get out ahead of the story or respond after others have defined it for him.
[quote]Probably what Jones meant was that the "adjusted" and "twisted" data wasn't available[quote] John Luft
John, I actually think the opposite is true. Jones has stated several times that the CRU did not recieve raw data directly, all data was provided to Jones by the IPCC (Susan S)
It is a common management practice to run multiple R&D groups, each unkown to the other, and spike each with solutions made by the other.
IMHO The raw data was manipulated & modeled by the IPCC before it was released to Jones @ CRU
If Jones had released his, so called raw, data it would not have matched the original source.
Jones and the CRU were a Store front (Beard) for research done elsewhere..The IPCC is a criminal enterprise
Jim says he will answer all questions but only after he gets back from Bali and the other exotic locations he needs (wants) to visit before hell freezes over!
When there are already so many lies, what's the marginal cost of one more?
Marginal or exponential?
Syncro
Sent an e-mail to the BBC asking them to take a closer look and find out what Jones was talking about.
Not sure about the specifics of this news story, but in general terms, Canadian historical weather data are freely and relatively easily available from the website of Environment Canada.
If you want to check it out, just go to
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html
and have a look around, it's relatively easy to find historical weather data for all archived stations on a daily or monthly basis, as far back as the stations happen to go.
Just as a test case, try finding the data for October 15, 1954 for Toronto (Pearson A) and nearby stations, that's the date of Hurricane Hazel's post-tropical rampage through the region.
If you have trouble finding it, let me know, and I'll test it out and let you know what the steps are (but I'm guessing you can find it using their instructions, perhaps the UK Metoffice, not so much?) ... perhaps the news story refers to some specific data sets that were sold to them on CD-roms (not everyone wants to spend months writing out the data and manually transferring it to their own systems, which you can do gratis).
mj believe me I do send e-mails they are polite,calm and relevant to a specific topic. I don't give a damn how many e-mails he gets they should be recognized.
The Canadian Government charges for much of the
data that it owns. But "charge" is the operative
word. In return for cash it will usually make the
data available. I suspect that
the UEA people are being disingenuous.
That BTW is why some university-level geography
courses in Canada use US data: US geographical data are free! One may
speculate on the long--term effects of this on
the teaching of geography in Canadian schools ...
Rob C: "I don't give a damn how many e-mails he gets they should be recognized."
Agreed. Mind you, a public statement from Prentice about this issue, and no acknowledgement to me that he received my email, would suit me just fine.
The fatal flaw in the AGW theory is that accurate future projections of the Climate depends upon a total Knowledge of our present Climate, which implies a complete Knowledge of all Climate history….
Such knowledge is in the domain of the Gods, or Mad Hatters
JMHO
"complete Knowledge of all Climate history" What? We all know about the Siberian tree rings. That's sufficient to re-jig the world wide economy right?
Jones' bald-faced lies are both breath taking and pathetic. He's looking more and more like a six year old who's been caught red-handed and is now just scrambling to throw out any number of wild-eyed stories in the vain hope that one of them will stick so he can avoid a spanking.
Where have all the trolls gone?
I think the trolls have gone to sell off their carbon credits before they're totally worthless.
The credits, that is ...
Looking to lay the blame off where ever possible, and what better countries to pick than Canada, Poland and Sweden. Those nice, wholesome countries.
OT, I see Obamalamadingdong is blaming the White House Chefs on his high cholestrol.
Hon. Jim Prentice
Department of the Environment
As you have found, this is a very touchy feely thing which simply will not go away. Most people only have access to 2nd hand information, which is unfortunate, and prevents developing fact based consensus. There are biases everywhere, and no means for the general public to develop a truly informed opinion.
Here’s a thought: Why not sponsor a debate featuring the following (or similar)Al Gore, David Suzuki, Dr Phil Jones and Dr Rajendra Pachauri on the for side; Andrew Montford, Dr Ian Plimer, Roger Pielke, perhaps Steve McIntyre on the against side. To be moderated by Charles Adler, Michael Coren and or Roy Green (3 moderators would provide some relief from an appearance of an inquisition.
Format to be in a closed room, only camera and production staff present, the moderator(s) would be capable of receiving queries for the debaters from both press and public. Communication would have to be by email, and the moderator would have the ability to select the queries, but all queries should be published after the debate is completed, to show impartiallity.
Sponsor: The Government of Canada, Department of the Environment.
To be presented on all Canadian TV and radio networks simultaneously, if feasible.
This would be no small feat, as the climate change supporters/instigators have steadfastly refused to participate in any form of debate, whereas the deniers have usually been open to any kind of discussion. However, the upside would be substantial, as for the first time, the public may become somewhat informed.
Thank you for reading this.
Oh yes. Blame Canada.
“Canada releases its temperature data to anyone who requests it,” Brigitte Lemay, a spokeswoman with Environment Canada, said in an e-mailed response. “We have in the past and we will continue to make our data public. All Environment Canada official climatic data is made available without restriction to the public through our Web site.”
Sorry for the inconvenient truth, Mr. Jones.
Source: Bloomberg
Lies lies lies yeah
(They're gonna get you)
Lie lies lies yeah
(They won't forget you)
Sounds to me like the data from Canada, Poland and Sweden is most likely the data that was most manipulated, omitted, or faked in their efforts to falsly "prove" AGW, and now they are simply trying to shift the blame away from themselves onto the data itself or the host providers.