Thursday
Jan282010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill No prosecutions story hits MSM
Jan 28, 2010 Climate: CRU FOI The news that there will be no prosecutions over CRU's breaches of the Freedom of Information Act has hit the MSM, with both the Times and the BBC covering the story with some prominence.
It's interesting to note that the BBC is now referring to them as "leaked" files, as is the Met Office's Vicky Pope, who has a commentary piece in the Times, which comes across as a remarkably disingenuous piece of spin, repeating the line that the temperature data sets are independent despite the fact that it is known that this is not true.
Update on Jan 28, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Guardian's take on the story here. They're still calling it a hack.
Reader Comments (9)
If CRU, and specifically Phil Jones, "breached rules by withholding data", then at least that bit of the emails has been officially found not to have been taken "completely out of context" as claimed by him.
What about the science and data manipulation implications? Who is supposed to be looking into those?
Then they should be prosecuted under section 1 and 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The leaked E-mails clearly show that their actions were an offence of conspiracy and conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770045_en_1
I read that commentary piece.
These scientists would like to give the impression that this 'climtae thing' is the same level as Quantum physics. And the failure of public trust is due to the ignorance of the masses.
However climate and weather is part of man's make-up. They are part of nature. It is at the same level as language - I have met stupid people who can be stupid in 3 languages fluently. It is part of what we are, as part of nature.
People might not grasp the 'science' but our forebears had to understand climate and nature so as to survive and adapt. Even the most intellectually challenged have an instinctive feel for these things.
That commentary piece was 'ivory tower' at its worst manifestation.
"Trust us you are too stupid too understand" will not work.
The first 29 comments on Vicky Pope's piece can all be summarised as "Pull the other one." Where have all the warmists gone?
Actually, I think the climate scientists have learnt a valuable lesson. Politicians make lying look easy, but getting away with it is harder than you think.
Whenever I see the phrase "basic physics" in relation to climate change as used by Ms Pope in the Times Opinion piece I reach for the marvellous analogy published by Willis Eschenbach on WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/27/the-unbearable-complexity-of-climate-2/
Re the Guardian,
'James Randerson' is a true believer and uses the 'denier' term for anyone not conforming to the Guardian journalist's enviro-meme.
His use of the word 'hack' is similar. Eco-journalism at its all too frequent worst.
This particular journalist (along with, for example, Suzanne Goldenberg) has no credibility.
The Guardian headline is "University in hacked climate change emails row broke FOI rules".
...as opposed to "broke the law".
Vicky Pope is not getting much support in the comments. Most people can see through her spin. My comment is in there.
It's even made it on to the front page of the local paper, The Norwich Evening News.
Up until now they have only carried a few brief mentions of the CRU scandal.
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED28%20Jan%202010%2010%3A05%3A43%3A370