Wednesday
Nov232011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Comedy from UEA
Nov 23, 2011 Climate: CRU Maurizio Morabito has a very funny post about a first year course at UEA's School of Environment.
Nov 23, 2011 Climate: CRU 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
May 2 - Thomas
on
Launched my very own online store. -
Apr 29 - Harry Kevin
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (37)
Yes, Alan Kendall seems to have been a bit of a denier. Was a senior lecturer in geology.
2006 Independent article
Priceless
No no. The 40 slides from ClimateAudit were to show how all that complex coding and data used by Steve McIntyre could be replaced by the right trend obtained from two columns in excel with Harry applying a fudge factor. That's the way to do statistics CRU-style. Much simpler and, with the right fudge factor you always get the answer you want.
Too good!
What you mean they did not use Jo Abbess's website?
Surely not.
Mind control obviously!
Since we are having a laugh, here's another funny one -- all in time for Durban
Sea Ice Loss ‘Unprecedented’ in 1,450 Years
That's one of the eight (or so) mails in which Phil and friends run round trying to work out who I am and what I'm up to. Unfortunately these are quite hard to find (yes, I'm ego-surfing) as obviously "Jones" is not a good search term, and "Jonathan" is little better, what with the large number of Overpecks and Colam-Frenches in these files.
And I was wondering why hengist had taken a suddent interest in my site...
now I know!! 8-)
ps trackbacks from this site aren't working. I got one from CA mentioning BH.
Alan Kendal ---Hero?
2008
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: Re: [Env.faculty] New climate degree title
to: "Alan Kendall" <REDACTED>
Alan,
It would be unfair to get involved in a bit with you, as I know
a couple of things you don't.
1. The Arctic issue. We're getting SST data in from ships travelling around
in regions where we haven't had any data from for theREDACTEDbase period.
We're still figuring out how to use these. However we do it, it will only
raise temperatures.
2. SST is being measured differently now than it was in the 1980s. Before
about 1990 it was almost exclusively from ships. Automatic instruments called
drifters began to be deployed (by both research and some merchant ships). They
do what the name implies - drift around - and send SST an sea-level pressure
measurements back to ground stations by satellites. They work for a few years
till they pack up or get beached. The issue is that they now (2008) form about
85% of the SST data coming in. With now about 15 years of overlap, we are
learning that their SST measurements are about 0.1 deg C cooler than the ships -
probably because on average they measure at slightly different depths than
the ships. Any way theREDACTEDbase period is a ship-based base period,
so when the adjustments have been completed we will likely raise SST values
by about 0.1 deg C now, reducing to zero gradually back to the mid-1990s. This
type of adjustment has to be made, and it can only be made in retrospect. How
the temperature is measured is as important as the temperature value itself.
The drifters are giving us much better spatial coverage - especially the Southern Oceans.
We will probably have to revise ourREDACTEDaverages for these regions, now we
have many more observations for them - not just drifters but satellite estimates as well.
I discussed this issue in my lectures to the MSc students last week. There will
be a paper submitted on the work in the spring. Land data are unaffected.
Measuring surface temperature is not as easy it may appear.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:55 20/10/2008, you wrote:
Dear all, I don't intend to get into a debate about this (my suggestion was made
primarily on the basis that climate changes are different in varied parts of the Earth)
but Phil's disparaging comment about "a few Russian mavericks" denies the existence of
almost an entire group of specialists worldwide - the solar physicists - who seem to
have had a particularly rough time in recent years - being demonized by AGW advocates
for their views about climate that fly counter to the "IPCC consensus".
I've offered my opinion on the degree title: but I won't be teaching on it and its
really up to those who will contribute to decide (with advice from Admissions). The
important thing is to get a degree proposal out there now and not be pipped to the post
by someone else.
AlanK
PS Phil, I'd be willing to make a small bet with you that over the next 5 years we will
have increasing evidence of a cooling - with the PDO entered into a cool phase; cycle 24
of the Sun still not officially arriving yet and increasing "Earthshine" I think I would
be onto a winner. But then I'm probably a maverick! Shall we say
08:38:53 -0000
from: "Alan Kendall" <REDACTED>
subject: Re: FOI - CRU requests
to: "Phil Jones" <REDACTED>
Phil, I can assure you that Dave Palmer did not know about the particular threadline that I
drew his attention to because, during my telephone conversation with him, his voice
expressed surprise (and perhaps resignation?) as he opened up the website and because he
thanked me for drawing the information to his attention.
I repeat, I am not primarily interested in the dispute between yourself and ClimateAudit
and will keep my opinions to myself. However when I read that people are suggested methods
of legal redress against the University for not supplying research data, I felt that I
needed to act. I could not contact you by telephone, so resorted to informing Dave
Palmer. I would do exactly the same if similar circumstances arose again.
AlanK
REDACTEDOriginal Message -----
From: [1]Phil Jones
To: [2]Alan Kendall
Cc: [3]C Vincent
Sent: Friday, MarchREDACTED:02 PM
Subject: Re: FOI - CRU requests
Alan,
REDACTEDI have told these people on several occasions that some of the data are
restricted. They refuse to believe this. We make all the gridded data available
on the CRU web site. 99.9% of climate scientists are happy with this, and
out data are widely used.
REDACTEDI have met Dave Palmer and told him of the web site and that his first
response letter appeared there, so he did know about it. These same
people are also sending similar requests to US people using their FOI.
REDACTEDThe work they are referring to is from 1990 by the way - a paper in
Nature that has been regularly cited. There has never been an attempt in
Nature to send in a comment on it.
REDACTEDAlso, these people are self-appointed auditors. They have no interest in
doing their own work. I suggested once that they produce their own
gridded temperature database, but they said they weren't interested in
that. This to me tells me where they are coming from - and it isn't
the science. I have tried engaging with them in 2003/4 but realised after
a few months it was pointless.
REDACTEDAnyway, we can differ on this. Glad to hear you look at Real Climate.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:43 16/03/2007, Alan Kendall wrote:
Phil, I'm sorry you take exception to my contacting David Palmer about this matter. I
felt that, since the University was being "slagged off" on a much read website and
people were advancing possible legal ways in which the information they request could be
obtained from the university, it was important to warn David Palmer about this
development. I assumed that you would be aware of what might be being said on that
website, whereas David Palmer would not be expected to be so informed. In fact he was
not, and thanked me for the information
I'm not exactly sure what you are complaining about and if the same situation arose
again I think I would act in exactly the same way again.
What you do with your data is not my concern, nor was it ever. I would not presume to
interfere in this area, nor have I done so. I am, however, concerned that UEA will be
beset by possible legal challanges and I consider it only prudent to warn those
involved. Here ends any further envolvement.
Also please don't you presume to lecture me about what particular website I should or
should not be consulting. I'll make my own mind up. In actual fact , I read both
ClimateAudit and RealClimate.
AlanK
REDACTED--- Original Message -----
REDACTEDFrom: [4]Phil Jones
REDACTEDTo: [5]REDACTED
REDACTEDCc: [6]Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
REDACTEDSent: Friday, MarchREDACTED:02 AM
REDACTEDSubject: FW: FOI - CRU requests
REDACTEDAlan,
REDACTED I appreciate your concern about UEA and ENV's image, but I don't
REDACTEDappreciate you calling our press office about what is happening
REDACTEDon the Climate Audit website. The website is run by a self
REDACTEDappointed group, who ignore most climate facts. They are not
REDACTEDinterested in getting at the truth.If you want to learn more
REDACTEDabout the subject I would suggest the Real Climate website.
REDACTED[7]http://www.realclimate.org/
REDACTEDI do occasionally look at Climate Audit. The group are clearly very right
REDACTEDof centre, and just make things up to suit their arguments. I can tell
REDACTEDyou that we are not altering any of the data in the last 15 years.
REDACTEDAll that work was done years ago. If changes are occurring then
REDACTEDthey are because we have more station data going in now than we
REDACTEDused to, or the gridding algorithm has changed.
REDACTEDWe put all the gridded data on the CRU web site. We have signed
REDACTEDagreements with some national Met Services not to pass on
REDACTEDthe raw station data.
REDACTEDCheers
REDACTEDPhil
REDACTEDSubject: FW: FOI - CRU requests
REDACTEDDate: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:12:30 -0000
REDACTEDX-MS-Has-Attach:
REDACTEDX-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
REDACTEDThread-Topic: FOI - CRU requests
REDACTEDThread-Index: AcdnG9I1fXPEzDveTPuufgoyc3swfQAAJ4bw
REDACTEDPriority: Urgent
REDACTEDFrom: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" <REDACTED>
REDACTEDTo: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" <REDACTED>,
REDACTED "Phil Jones" <REDACTED>
REDACTEDX-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.6
REDACTEDX-UEA-Spam-Level:REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED----
REDACTEDX-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
REDACTEDGents,
REDACTEDI won't be in tomorrow but I think you should take a look at what's going on . Phil,
REDACTEDyou are quoted in a comment to the 9 March 2007 posting & might have a view on it.
REDACTEDI don't want to make this a big deal but if others in ENV are noticing this..
REDACTEDCheers, Dave
REDACTED______________________________________________
REDACTEDFrom: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
REDACTEDSent: Thursday, MarchREDACTED:06 PM
REDACTEDTo: Inglis Kitty Ms (LIB)
REDACTEDSubject: FOI - CRU requests
REDACTEDImportance: High
REDACTEDKitty,
REDACTEDGot a call from Alan Kendall, ENV, expressing concern regarding UEA's 'visibility'
REDACTEDon a Climate Audit website. He was quite concerned regarding the comments
REDACTEDsurrounding the publication on this website of our letters of response to requests.
REDACTEDI have subsequently spoken to Annie Ogden because of potential media aspect to this
REDACTEDstory
REDACTEDWebsite is: [8]http://www.climateaudit.org/
REDACTEDYou will soon see the relevant articles and comments.
REDACTEDI'm not sure if this website has a limited readership or is something we need to be
REDACTEDconcerned with but the extent and nature of comments is multiplying rapidly.
REDACTEDNot sure I wanted my '15 minutes of fame' this way lol
REDACTEDCheers, Dave
REDACTED____________________________
REDACTEDDavid Palmer
REDACTEDInformation Policy Officer
REDACTEDUniversity of East Anglia
REDACTEDNorwich, England
REDACTEDNR4 7TJ
REDACTEDProf. Phil Jones
REDACTEDClimatic Research Unit TelephoneREDACTED3 592090
REDACTEDSchool of Environmental Sciences FaxREDACTED3 507784
REDACTEDUniversity of East Anglia
REDACTEDNorwichREDACTEDREDACTED Email REDACTED
REDACTEDNR4 7TJ
REDACTEDUK
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED--
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit TelephoneREDACTED3 592090
School of Environmental Sciences FaxREDACTED3 507784
University of East Anglia
NorwichREDACTEDREDACTED Email REDACTED
NR4 7TJ
UK
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
Phil Jones:
The group are clearly very right of centre, and just make things up to suit their arguments
What a deluded and foolish thing to say.
I had some residual sympathy for Phil Jones. In the latest set, he comes across as particularly nasty - there is but very, very scant nice thoughts about science/data in these emails from him.
(this is just to make the bottom part of John's post legible)
Also please don't you presume to lecture me about what particular website I should or should not be consulting. I'll make my own mind up. In actual fact , I read both ClimateAudit and RealClimate.
AlanK
--- Original Message -----
From: [4]Phil Jones
To: [5]
Cc: [6]Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
Sent: Friday, March :02 AM
Subject: FW: FOI - CRU requests
Alan,
I appreciate your concern about UEA and ENV's image, but I don't appreciate you calling our press office about what is happening on the Climate Audit website. The website is run by a self appointed group, who ignore most climate facts. They are not interested in getting at the truth.If you want to learn more about the subject I would suggest the Real Climate website. [7]http://www.realclimate.org/
I do occasionally look at Climate Audit. The group are clearly very right of centre, and just make things up to suit their arguments. I can tell you that we are not altering any of the data in the last 15 years. All that work was done years ago. If changes are occurring then they are because we have more station data going in now than we used to, or the gridding algorithm has changed. We put all the gridded data on the CRU web site. We have signed agreements with some national Met Services not to pass on the raw station data.
Cheers
Phil
Subject: FW: FOI - CRU requests
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:12:30 -0000
Thread-Topic: FOI - CRU requests
Priority: Urgent
From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" < >
o: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" < >,
"Phil Jones" < >
Gents,
I won't be in tomorrow but I think you should take a look at what's going on . Phil, you are quoted in a comment to the 9 March 2007 posting & might have a view on it. I don't want to make this a big deal but if others in ENV are noticing this..
Cheers, Dave
______________________________________________
From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Sent: Thursday, March :06 PM
To: Inglis Kitty Ms (LIB)
Subject: FOI - CRU requests
Importance: High
Kitty,
Got a call from Alan Kendall, ENV, expressing concern regarding UEA's 'visibility' on a Climate Audit website. He was quite concerned regarding the comments surrounding the publication on this website of our letters of response to requests. I have subsequently spoken to Annie Ogden because of potential media aspect to this story. Website is: [8]http://www.climateaudit.org/ You will soon see the relevant articles and comments. I'm not sure if this website has a limited readership or is something we need to be concerned with but the extent and nature of comments is multiplying rapidly. Not sure I wanted my '15 minutes of fame' this way lol
Cheers, Dave
See this http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/28/guardianletters.climatechange and Kendall's related letter.
Kendall -
(1) he reads both CA and RC and appropriately dismisses Jones' attempt at censoring him
(2) he is willing to take a bet on global cooling happening in the near future
(3) he doesn't want UEA dragged into court over FOIA just because of Phil Jones' incompetence in handling FOIA and not even keeping Dave Palmer informed
I like this man.
Once again I find myself thinking in tune with Shub. Jones comes out the worst of the 5,000 emails. Definitely out of his depth, on many fronts.
Has anybody been fired from CRU around the second half of 2009?
I had always thought that dodgy science would be the undoing of the global warming frenzy, but now I wonder whether it will be ridicule which kills it, as some of the principal players are turning into figures of fun. At what point would their allies and their media friends decide that being associated with them is just too embarrassing? We might see Richard Black, Paul Nurse, David King and Steve Jones (of BBC report fame) gently reverse out of the cul-de-sac they’ve got themselves into; a gradual lowering of the rhetoric perhaps, a stressing of the uncertainties, a need for more studies, possibly even a period of silence from them (silence would be a joy!). As for our Rt Hon Secretary of State for Climate Change, he might just be busy elsewhere.
Summertown
You are right -- what you forgot is only 10% of the population has any really interest in getting to the bottom of this frenzy. Another 10% are part of the frenzy (aka "trolls") while the remaining 80% are too busy living their lives to spend the time to scientifically examine it. BUT they sure do understand the stupidity when they see it. Ridicule will kill it, not scientific proof.
maybe it is time to close the university of easy access...
Maurizio
hengist is a particularly low-grade troll. He might even have a negative IQ. Stop preening! lol
Summertown
I had always thought that dodgy science would be the undoing of the global warming frenzy, but now I wonder whether it will be ridicule which kills it,
---------------------------------------
I said once or twice before that we will really know that CAGW is dead. at least in the UK, when it routinely becomes the butt of jokes on the likes of Have I Got News For You and Mock the Week.
I agree that Jones is the one whose reputation has taken the biggest relative plummet in the last day or so. Before, I could just about imagine him as an unfortunate man who had painted himself into a corner. Now he comes across as hectoring, evangelical, scheming and a downright unpleasant piece of work... not to mention incompetent.
The man who is at the heart of the statistics on which the lives of many are hanging and the economic lives of nations being gambled can't fathom Excel...!!!
The egotism is off the charts.
diogenes
Cute hoors, they are.
Of course CG2 is being played down as irrelevant. Maybe nothing concrete will occur.
In that instance do not be disappointed.
In 20,30 or however many years. When the history books will be written about the greatest Scientific Abberation. The sources they will use are CG1 and CG2. The detail is there. The catalyst is there. The personalities are there writ large.
The players in these emails will get their true place in history.
CG1 and CG2 do serve a purpose even if it may not be so immediate. They are not in vain.
@Shub Nov 23, 2011 at 11:10 PM
Agreed ... well, almost agreed! I was inclined to give "poor Phil" the benefit of the doubt only because of his "deer in the headlights" Nov. 20/09 responses to Ian Wishart:
Seems to me, though, that instead of doing science, Jones has been studying for far too long at the School for Arrogant Self-Appointed Elitists (founded by Mann, Santer and Trenberth) And it certainly shows in this latest release of emails - no doubt those (as he supposedly told Nature's David Adam a year ago):
This "poor Phil" interview in the November 18/10 issue of Nature is well-worth re-reading in light of the more recently disclosed emails. It was in this same article, btw, that David Adam was hand-waving about:
Even Revkin didn't buy Adam's hollow claim. And it just didn't seem to catch on, did it?! But (can't remember off-hand if it was) Harrabin or Black is now spouting a variant of this same meme. Perhaps Adam was the "knowledgeable" source! And who knows, perhaps Neil Wallis - with his "high-powered" connections (and lack of scruples) - was Adam's "source"?!
But speaking of journalists and their un-named sources ... I'm inclined to think that one of the more perspicacious of such sources had the ear of Fred Pearce, who had relayed (circa Dec. 10/09):
Now that is one 'catastrophe' that not only appears to be happening before our very eyes, but also (considering all the good things that have happened in the interim) might give one cause for renewed optimism :-)
My God, I thought Huhne was a profoundly unpleasant specimen - now it appears that he has competition. Not "poor Phil" but "Nasty Phil"
As the Readers’ Digest used to say, laughter is the best medicine - in this case a cure for CAGW (and related lack of sleep, self-worth, snow, etc.)
I see someone with the means, motive and courage to leak.
=======================
hro001 - the question becomes - how many Big Cheeses in UK and US Universities (and other scientific institutions) have studied at the School for Arrogant Self-Appointed Elitists? It's as if we were surronded by David Drumlin characters:
@Maurizio Morabito "how many Big Cheeses in UK and US Universities (and other scientific institutions) have studied at the School for Arrogant Self-Appointed Elitists?"
Elitists wtf? I left school at 16 with 3 "O" levels, English maths and physics. Thirteen years later, ENV accepted me to study Environmental Sciences. Amongst others, these included:
Geophysics. Fred Vine FRS (prof) of Vine and Matthews, a key piece of research for plate tectonics. Neil Chroston was also an ace lecturer, not interested in publishing.
Sedimentology. Nick McCave. Later Woodwardian Professor of Geology at the University of Cambridge Department of Earth Sciences. Also Chris Baldwin, author of the Chapter on Clastic Sediments in Reading (ed) Sedimentary Environments and Facies. The standard text for graduate study.
Geochemistry. Rob Raiswell. Left UEA to take up a senior position at Leeds.
Quaternary Geology. Geoff Boulton. I didn't like him at all (black country boy with a fake oxbridge accent, cravat and tweeds) but he taught a great course.
I went on to do a PhD at Reading. where my "supervisor" (Andrew Parker, a classic Oxford snot) gave me the most important help of my 3 years: "standards have dropped since they stopped requiring Latin for university entrance".
Get a life. UEA's raison d'etre is to give an education to people cut out and cut off from wealth and priviledge. You, Maurizio Morabito, are the classic Oxbridge snot and snob, denying normal people a higher education, and sneering at those who fail the Oxbridge Class test.
Wow, that sounds like I touched a raw nerve.
No worries, I'll be safely ensconcing myself in Cambford!!
Oops..on second reading, it might have been a piece of satire. You can seldom tell, whenever UEA is involved.
Before our American cousins, or any easily offended readers, have a fit, it's probably worth pointing out that in Hector's comment above "black country boy with a fake oxbridge accent" refers to 'the black country' - a part of the English Midlands, and not to any physiological feature of the Oxonian academic mentioned.
I have to say, I'm with Hector on this. The UK academic system is very hierarchical, which is by and large fine, and quite snob about it, which is less so. I know some fine scientists who work in or were educated at middle-to-lower rank universities, and some less impressive ones who were educated at or lecture at Oxbridge. There's an interesting (and, who knows, maybe quite important if we want to avoid such things cropping up again) history/sociology of science question about why CRU at UEA became dominant in the AGW area in the UK. But claiming that it was because the students and academics there are all thick is, frankly, lazy and incorrect. After all, there are plenty of Oxbridge people who are completely sold to the AGW story also. One of the only things that Steve McIntyre gets wrong, in my view, is subscribing to the "UEA are all thickos" theory at times.
Has anybody in this thread suggested uea is full of "thickos"?
Maurizio - not you, sorry. Your comment above that Hector reacted to is completely innocent of what I was talking about! But this theory does seem to crop up a lot, here on Bishop Hill and elsewhere, in the context of discussions on AGW.
Jeremy -
Agreed. Each time I see a post which describes the [relatively low] entrance requirements for UEA, I cringe.
This thread got me interested in Alan Kendall altogether. I decided his whole story was worth extracting from the emails (nothing more)... It speaks of a lot. Whistleblower?? Could be. Who knows?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/25/new-climategate-1-and-2-combined-search-engine/#comment-809108
Early criticisms from “Team” supporters have dismissed email quotes from FOIA 2011 as being taken “out of context”. But stringing together pearls of evidence from searches using “Kendall” is highly revealing. All the Kendall-related emails were released only just now – in other words, the 2.0 Climategate release is, as we already know, putting everything more and more “in context”. The emails tell a whole story of his parting company with his colleagues over time.
Also, tellingly, the references in emails 3114 and 4341 to Douglas Keenan, Steve McIntyre, Willis Eschenbach and Climate Audit show how inappropriate it was to omit all these key witnesses in the Oxburgh and Muir Russell / Boulton “enquiries”. The full references have been omitted in my selection, but they are highly relevant.
I am entering the debate now because my university (UEA) is becoming subject to unnecessary scorn being branded disparingly as "a third-rate university" or the old tag repeated that it is the "University of easy access" in this and other blogs. This derision being made by those who are incensed by a small number of UEA employees, notably in CRU
UEA is a small university, yet is ranked 3rd in the Times Higher Student Experience Survey 2011; ranks in the Top World 150 universities, in the top 100 European universities and in the top 20 UK institutions, For its size it punches considerably above its weight. Iam proud to have taught there and to be associated with it.
Those who are critical of the attempts by some to curtail the type of first-year teaching I used to give also miss a very important point. It was my School (ENV) that allowed me to teach the unashamedly anti-AGW lecture in the first place. More than that I was actively encouraged by the School's Dean at the time. If you wish to find a place where academic freedom showed itself, then you couldn't do better than to quote my case in UEA, a university that to some is a den of malfeasance and thought control. I am, of course, not condoning the actions and mind set of some of my colleagues, but neither have I criticized them - and I don't intend to start now..
LucySkywalker, I'm afraid you are reaching the wrong conclusions about me. I am not the leaker of the Climategate e-mails. My total inadequacy in the realm of computers and the Internet makes me a most unlikely target - I even had to ask a colleague how to create a comment (so this is my first)