Bishop Hill Jones and the absence of snow
Nov 24, 2011 Climate: CRU Climate: WG2 An interesting exchange about David Viner's claim that children will not know what snow is in future. In the wake of his statement ITV did a show, and tried to get a dissenting view from UEA (of all places). There are hints of the CMEP agenda being pushed by Jones.
The first email is from the press office at UEA to CRU scientists:
Hello All,
Next Monday night the "Tonight with Trevor Macdonald" show will be about climate change. Dr David Viner is going to be featured on the show, presenting his view that recent extreme weather is due to global warming. I have received a call from David Reddings who is part of the show's team, asking if we have a climate expert who has a different view to Dr Viner - perhaps believing that recent weather has not been caused by global warming but is merely part of the 'natural variability' of the weather. Do we have someone at UEA?
Regards,
Melissa.
Melissa Murphy
Communications Assistant
Press & PR Office
Communications Division
University of East Anglia
The reply from Jones is interesting:
date: Mon Aug 23 15:52:14 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Tonight with Trevor Macdonald
to: "Murphy Melissa
Melissa,There shouldn't be someone else at UEA with different views - at least not a climatologist. It would also look odd if the two people interviewed with opposite views were from UEA. Maybe you should reply and say we can't find one, saying that most climate experts would take the same view as Dave. The programme could easily dredge someone up, but they wouldn't be an expert on the climate. This is the whole point of the debate recently. The people the media find to put the contrary view are not climate experts.
Phil
I'm also sure that in the wake of Climategate 1 lots of people were saying that Viner was a wildcard and nobody agreed with him. Perhaps readers could check this out.
Reader Comments (75)
Brilliant. So Viner's ludicrous 'kids won't know what snow is' assertion was effectively fully supported by Jones and CRU. The question now is how low can UEA's reputation get before they have a complete clear out, and how long will it be before there is a proper and independent investigation of the noble cause corruption, incompetence and dishonesty that appears to be endemic within CRU (and thereby within the IPCC)?
But everyone knows Phil isn't political at all. You naughty people.
I have to say the more I read of Mr Jones the more I dislike the man and his nasty mindset, so different from the public image of a poor broken man all due to the nasty' D' words and their few requests for the truth which have driven him to the edge !, probably explains his his bouts of Tourettes when talking about the 'D' words people !
first real piece of journalism on the matter at hand so far!
(2 pages) 23 Nov: Register: Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails
'All our models are wrong', writes Jones
By Andrew Orlowski
With the release of FOIA2011.zip, the cat’s now well and truly out of the bag...
Clive Crook, a believer in the manmade global warming hypothesis and supporter of carbon reduction measures, expressed it like this:
“The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”...
“Basic problem is that all models are wrong,” writes Phil Jones, bluntly, “not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
If that’s the case, then why isn't this printed as a large health warning on the cover of the IPCC reports? Politicians who devised policy based on estimates of certainty by the IPCC now know they’ve been sold a pup.
In the short term, the issues raised by Climategate I, which subsequent inquiries failed to explore, are back with a vengeance...
So the mewling infant that we call Climate Science – a 40-year-young offshoot of meteorology – has been thrust into a political role long before it’s capable of supporting the claims made on its behalf. From the archives we can see the scientists know that too, and we can read their own reluctance to make those claims, too.
“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?” muses one scientist. “They’ll kill us probably.”
That won’t be necessary.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/23/climategate_2_first_look/
23 Nov: Forbes: James Taylor: Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”...
These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate...
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
According to David Appell, this is just an example of "scientists being scientists".
is this from Climategate II?
cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, "k.briffa Briffa" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:49:18 +0100
from: David Viner <d.viner@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Letter to the Guardian
to: "Vincent Chris Prof ((ENV)) e470" C.Vincent@uea.ac.uk
Dear Chris
Just writing in response to Alan Kendall's letter that has appeared in today's Guardian
(this is his second letter). Whilst Alan may have his own personal views on
climate change (that are not supported by the science) I do not believe he should be using
our School's affiliation on these letters. When I have had letters published in newspapers
that are my opinion and not based upon my work I use my personal address. Alan's letter
can not be supported by any work that has been published by this school and, I believe,
therefore should not be affiliated to our school.
Yours
David
http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/2380.txt
those were the days:
13 Oct 2006: Independent: Dr Alan Kendall: 'Science never used to have a consensus'
Interview by Nick Jackson
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-alan-kendall-science-never-used-to-have-a-consensus-419742.html
He's quite correct. It would be false to give the impression that there was ever any vibrant debate possibly occurring within the hallowed temple of climate orthodoxy ;)
Sounds like someone writing to the Kremlin asking for contrary views on Stalin's five year plan: "zer is no other plan ... the five year plan is working, food production is going up and anyone who believes those stupid stories of people dying is a denier of the party truth".
So we have a consensus built around lies. Himalayan glaciers, snows of Kilamanjaro, Viner's snow job.
It really didn't matter what nonsense a climate scientist would spout that person knew a colleague would back him.
In my career I would have expected (and almost always got) 100% support from my boss in dealing with the outside world. After a further "discussion" in his office I might well need to check and see that I still had the standard issue number of fingers, toes and testicles but anything other than a united front to the customer was very rare.
The concern here is Viner going off the reservation. Why didn't somebody grab him before the programme and point out what a stupid comment he was about to make? Did he really believe what he was saying or was he just showing off?
I also came upon emails between Jones and Mann, discussing the origins of RealClimate (Jones likened it to realIRA) named by Gavin and how they would ensure the BBC was on-message. There was a superb BBC article about natural climate change that they strongly objected to. I suspect this may have triggered Cambridge Media Centre. Unfortunately I forgot to not the email number and I cannot now find it with the search facility. Anybody help?
meanwhile back in the land of unreality:
23 Nov: BBC: Richard Black: Carbon emissions divide 'can be bridged'
The gap between where greenhouse gas emissions are headed and where they need to be for climate targets can be bridged cheaply, says a UN report.
It says that if sectors such as energy, farming, forestry and transport all cut emissions by feasible amounts, global warming can be kept below 2C.
But countries' current pledges are not enough to meet the 2C target...
Currently, global emissions of greenhouse gases each year are equivalent to about 48 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (48GtCO2e).
If nothing changes, that will probably rise to about 56 gigatonnes (Gt) per year by 2020.
Analysis from climate models, meanwhile, suggests that emissions ought to be down to about 44Gt per year in order to have a reasonable chance of meeting the goal of keeping the global average temperature rise since pre-industrial times below 2C.
That goal has widespread support across the international community, although more than half the world's governments prefer the tougher target of 1.5C...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15834103
Nov 24, 2011 at 9:32 AM | Phillip Bratby
"I forgot to not the email number and I cannot now find it with the search facility. Anybody help?"
Is it 1485??
Returning to the matter of SNOW, the subject of this thread, I came across this interesting piece of speculation from H A Pope while reading Judith Curry's blog recently - Pope's Albedo Hypothesis of Temperature Stability. Worth a read, I think!
http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/18/ipcc-special-report-on-extreme-events/#comment-140275
Phillip,
grep ' IRA ' *
1485.txt
------------------
Jones appears to be deliberately misleading the journalist here. He would have known about Kendall and probably Paul Dennis also.
See 3143.txt for an interesting discussion between Viner and Kendall.
Jones:
Never have I seen the circularity put so succinctly. I am an expert because the IPCC says so. All those that agree with me are experts. Even when an expert says something patently ridiculous we all rally round. Anyone who diagrees with this absurdity is not an expert. As experts know that the IPCC is the best science that has ever been produced. Because it chooses us as lead authors we are experts. And on it goes.
"There shouldn't be someone else at UEA with different views - at least not a climatologist. It would also look odd if the two people interviewed with opposite views were from UEA."
Um, that doesn't sound like science. Imagine an astronomer saying that about, say, the chance of life on Europa.
Sounds uncannily like a religion though.
4894 is interesting. From Alex Kirby at the BBC to Phil Jones if I have read it correctly, in the run up to COP-10 in 2004:
Some background to that is provided in email 2245
Thanks, guys, that's the one.
Jones:
I thought it was a good article. They didn't like it up 'em. Jones got it partly right, but they should go on the courses first.
I only did it briefly but search for Davies...
You get the background to Davies' need to raise the profile to the school, brining in funding and students. He needed CAGW to do this. He saw the UEA as in competition for funding.
He was hoping for a full TV series to based around the Climate Studies at UEA. I think CG1 put a stop to that.
Everywhere in those emails is politics, not much science.
Most are pushing the agenda, the "cause".
Gareth: So the BBC admist is biased. Interesting.
mat said,
Well the nasty mindset became clear with his "cheering news" comment on John Daly's death. He became "broken" because he got caught - no other reason.
From Wikipedia on Alex Kirby
So we have evidence that the BBC have deliberately acted in a covert and partisan manner on reporting climate change.
There is no hiding place for the BBC on this, there is noble cause corruption at the heart of the BBC.
Regarding Viner's claim that snow is a thing of the past, I have a vague recollection that Jones dismissed it as a rogue idea, not shared by most climate scientists, actually during his grilling at the HoCSC. Unfortunately I can't find the transcript to confirm.
Does anyone have a copy of: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc387-i/uc38702.htm
@ Gareth - good find - even the BBC Trust would struggle to whitewash Kirby's bias and offensive loonies tag. According to wiki (sorry):
Alex Kirby is a British journalist, specializing in environmental issues. He worked in various capacities at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for nearly 20 years. From 1987 to 1996, he was the environmental correspondent for BBC News, in radio and television. He left the BBC in 1998 to work as a freelance journalist. He also provides media skills training to companies, universities and NGOs. He is also currently the environmental correspondent for BBC News Online, and hosted BBC Radio 4's environment series, Costing the Earth. He has no formal scientific training. He writes a regular column for BBC Wildlife magazine.
sorry, Mac beat me to it.
Nov 24, 2011 at 9:56 AM | Alex
"Um, that doesn't sound like science. Imagine an astronomer saying that about, say, the chance of life on Europa.
Sounds uncannily like a religion though."
That sums up for me the last few years. I'm interested in discussing the science but know there is no point whatsoever in talking about what appears very much to be religious beliefs (or maybe just normal money grabbing, career making type corruption)
Here is trailer for Kirby's BBC Radio 4 Costing The Earth series.
Alex Kirby was also a former BBC religious affairs correspondent.
Peter B
Thanks I had missed that one this nice ! this man is definitely on my Ben Santer 'Next time I see __________ I’ll be tempted to beat the cr*p out of him. Very tempted.” list
@ Mike Jackson (9:31 AM)
Not necessarily, lapogus. It could well be that Jones, perhaps wrongly, is making sure that the organisation speaks publicly with one voice. In my career I would have expected (and almost always got) 100% support from my boss in dealing with the outside world...
That's as may be Mike, but Jones is not working in commerce, he is supposed to a scientist at a university - his objective should be the truth, not the university's public image. If he wished the latter he should have been running the marketing department.
The article that keeps on giving is still there ... here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
mat:
Not so much Poor Phil as Poisonous Phil - though still capable of honesty. Mann and Jones in their different ways scrape the barrel here, though Mann has the edge in maths because he can calculate a trend. Thorne appears almost saintly by comparison.
Simon H
In the HOC committee Phil Jones replied as follows:
"..are you comfortable when your staff ...are quoted as saying that "within a few years winter snowfall will become a rare and exciting event...""
Jones: "That would be exaggerated and I do not think I ever said that. Maybe one of our staff members might have said it but I have never said that."
Ian Steward: "Do you agree with it?"
Jones: "I do not agree with it, I think there is always going to be some snowfall in the future, even in Britain, even if we do get to be four or five degrees warmer. We are still going to have cold spells in winter; maybe not as cold as this particular one but we will still have cold spells during the winters and children will still see some snowfall".
#4655
There seems to have been a fight between Harrabin and Kirby on who is UEA's best friend.
Cumbrian Lad: brilliant, thanks. One of the clearest example of economy with the truth or double standards, depending on who Jones is talking to, that I've seen. Is there a URL for that?
Where did the clown Viner end up?
Head of Climate Change at The British Council on a huge salary circa £100,000.
Doing what?
Travelling the world on business class and f*** all else.
Of course, up until he arrived they had managed quite well,since their inception some seventy years ago, not to need this Mickey Mouse post.
Richard: Sorry no url. I typed it from my 'dead tree stained with dark chemical' version.
“still capable of honesty”
I think that’s Phil’s problem - he’s not quite the used-car salesman that MM is, and still has twinges of conscience.
Mikey has, of course, blown RC’s cover completely with his remark about their existing solely for PR. I’m amazed that Gavin even bothers...
#0794 Having friends in high BBC places
So did Trevor McDonald do the programme and did they find somebody not up to Prof Jones' standard to say that it was possible that by now children would have seen snow? Or did they, like British broadcast media normally do, simply run with the liars?
" It would also look odd if the two people interviewed with opposite views were from UEA". P.J.
Whatever happened to "If everyone is thinking the same thing, then someone is not thinking".
The contempt shown in the emails contempt for 'Deniers' is palpable and obvious, but the big surprise is the outrage directed at otherwise sympathetic scientists, politicians and media who either don't do exactly as they are told, are not precisely on-message enough, or attempt (God forbid) to think for themselves.
This leads me more and more to believe that the leaker is an inside source. Someone at UEA (probably) was sick to death of being spoken to like that by these guys.
Richard Drake, see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/38711.htm
The Guardian story was by our good friend David Adams
The BBC story was by our dear friend Roger Harrabin,
Who was this mystery leaker? Should the Norfolk police be told?
@stuck-record
Hubris
Jonathan: got it, thanks. So we have
playing against
Are we to take it that by March 2010 Jones himself was not a climate expert?
hi andrew,
can you roughly assess how climategate 2 will influence your talk in Munich tomorrow? looking forward to meeting you in person.
cheers!
p.