It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
Alex welcomes Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and inventor. Monckton has been at the forefront of criticizing the CRU emails and the fraudulent climate change scam.
What deletion practices?
You mean deleting private and confidential emails related to IPCC business? Nothing to defend, they can delete them. The FOI request was refused, it would never be allowed for such information.
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected.
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Your obfuscation is getting ridiculous. Anyone who's ever prepared an FOIA request or responded to one (I've done both) knows the procedure.
You do not legitimately "reject" a request. You respond with docs or you cite exemptions. The burden is initially on the responding party. It shifts after the response to the requesting party to show why the exemption claimed (if one is claimed) is not legitimate, is itself limited, or that the docs produced (if any) are not responsive to the request.
The agency in possession does not (legally or legitimately) "reject" anything.
Your non-responsive posts add nothing but misdirection and mis-characterizations. "Cutesy" responses serve only to further reveal your true nature.
Originally posted by melatonin
Unless you think my responding with the actual facts of FOI laws in the UK, in the face of your moustache curling and denigration of scientists and public workers in general, along with inane responses like...
I don't see an exemption there for fraud, deceit, fairy tales, and hiding under mum's skirt.
...is not addressing your ignorance of FOI in the UK.
j, your ignorance of how research funding works in academia is not evidence of Phil Jones making millions in personal wealth.
[Repeat the second quote of mine here] - acquire clue.
The UK’s National Weather Service. A Trading Fund within the Ministry of Defence, operating on a commercial basis under set targets.
Established 1854 as a small department within the Board of Trade as a service to mariners under Captain Robert FitzRoy. We later become part of the Ministry of Defence.
As civil servants Met Office staff adhere to the Civil Service code.
The Met Office Hadley Centre is the UK’s foremost climate change research centre. We produce world-class guidance on the science of climate change and provide a focus in the UK for the scientific issues associated with climate change.
Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia maintain the global climate record for the WMO.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide?
The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.
This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.
Originally posted by rizla
Just about sums this thread and whole non-story up.
Originally posted by melatonin
Because the same well-worn tactics are being used.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by rizla
Just about sums this thread and whole non-story up.
Just about sums up your contribution level to the understanding of science and Climate Change, which is less than zero...
Again, going about claiming these emails "are a non story" is just the claims of AGW religious fanatics who have no defense in favor of their AGW religion....
[edit on 29-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]
Update - Climategate - CRU Source Code Explained
I discuss the actual source code that was released in the recent hack of the CRU.
The source code confirms the manipulation of climate data by climate scientists.
Supporting documentation here: fascistsoup.com...
Climategate update: Report filed with UK Information Commissioner
Lord Monckton of Brenchley joins The Corbett Report once again to discuss the report that he has filed jointly with Professor Fred Singer against the scientists connected to the ongoing climategate scandal. We discuss the basis of the report, what is likely to happen from this point, a timeframe for the possible criminal investigation stemming from this report and how people can stay up to date with this issue.
For more information, please visit the homepage of Science and Public Policy at:
Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal
Download pdf here
UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
LONDON — Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.
The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.
Originally posted by mushibrainUnfortunately, it may well be a non-story, but not because it doesn't have enough importance to be a story, but because it will be very underreported, compared to other stories that are recycled over and over, like Copenhagen meeting. Considering that most people do not read papers and watch only TV, the situation is dire. In USA it seems that only Fox has mentioned it (this puzzles me, why Fox?), in UK there is complete silence. it was briefly mentioned on a late night show on BBC. Europe I think is even worse. the only channel that talked at length in geographical, not political, Europe was Russia Today. Thanks for satellite TV in Europe and ability to tune in to 30 odd satellites from all over the world.
Ice Break: Top scientist resigns over 'Climate Hoax' scandal
A scientist at the centre of a "Climategate" row has stepped down from his post as research director at the University of East Anglia in England. Professor Phil Jones is accused of manipulating data after his emails were hacked into and leaked on the internet. He says he will stand aside while an independent review is carried out.
Originally posted by zeddissad
While I agree with most of yours views I don't understand why is this act irresponsible. For right decisions on such complex matters like climate and ecology are we need right data. This leakage may provide us with means to demand real data and oppose feed of junk science.
I don't think that many people are in "personal battle with science". Science is historically contingent and still evolving social construct. Geocentric system was scientific view for thousand years. Science isn't holly cow for me and I'm very critical to positivist notion of it. But I'm in no way in "battle" with it. Science is very powerful descriptive system but there are areas where purely scientific notion is not able to grasp reality adequately. Every GOOD scientist is aware of it.
Obama goes to Copenhagen armed with an "endangerment finding" by the Environmental Protection Agency that warns of the negative impact of carbon dioxide. That finding gives Obama regulatory authority to put limits on U.S. output, a tool that he can promote at Copenhagen Inhofe, who appeared with Markey, called the EPA finding an effort to try to "intimidate Congress into passing" legislation that he says will send jobs oversees. He added that the Senate version of the Markey-Waxman bill is dead and the lack of legislation limits the president's ability to make pledges on behalf of the United States.
The initial reductions he's talking about are what you find in Markey's bill, and that isn't going to happen. And of course, that bill's dead. It will never even be brought up again. ... So it has to come down to what can the president do without legislation. And I think that is highly limited," Inhofe said.
Originally posted by plumranch
Looks like all Obama can do over in Copenhagen is promote saving the rain forests and give away money to developing nations to improve emissions! He won't be able to make any sweeping promises on CO2 that will send more jobs oversees and Mexico.
The scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' row over global warming hid data 'because it was standard practice', it emerged today.
Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's prestigious climatic research unit, today admitted to MPs that the centre withheld raw station data about global temperatures from around the world.