Wednesday
Feb162011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill DECC reaction to SciTech
Feb 16, 2011 Climate: Parliament I have recently obtained a new document under FOI. This is a briefing issued to civil servants at the Department of Energy & Climate Change on the subject of the first Science & Technology Committee inquiry into Climategate. The briefing is dated 31 March 2010.
I was particularly amused by the observation that the committee had found no evidence that Jones had subverted the peer-review process.
Given that they didn't look for evidence and simply took Jones' word for it, that's not very surprising, is it?
Reader Comments (23)
The link isn't working
Follow the link and click on "download the original report" and you can get the document.
J
Ha found is obviously civil service speak for didn't look for.
No surprise in any of that hogwash Bishop, Just the usual double talk that we have become so accustomed to.
Not sure why they felt the need to redact this document, but whoever did so did a really poor job on it, as you can pretty clearly read all of the redacted text, and there doesn't appear to be anything in there that should be hidden, except possibly the name of the person who signed the report.
Definitely no surprise there, with Joan (CND) Ruddock's name on top and the hand of Sir Humphrey DECC having written it.
Skip: Yes you can read the redacted heading as
The author appears to be Alison Lonely? of DECC CESA
George Orwell has good reason to be considered the greatest British writer of the 20th century. His foresight is uncanny. Maybe he just had some very good models.
Possibly the redactor had been reading Catch-22 on his or her coffee break. Amusing to see climatology being treated as a (broken) world of its own: Phil Jones was acting in "'line with common practice within the climate science community' (although noting that these practices should change)"
'Lines to take'. i.e. Silence in the ranks. Thats an order.
Has Professor Jones been let off the hook? Yes
Committee member Graham Stringer does not fully agree with these findings and feels the Muir Russell investigation should have a'sceptical' climate scientist on the panel, Do you agree? No
Is this rushed/ a whitewash? Yes
Two reports on the BBC Science/Environmental website today:
'Global warming will cause more precipitation'
'Global warming will cause more extreme droughts in Africa'...
Take your pick, folks....
Here is another...
Climate change doubled likelihood of devastating UK floods of 2000
All the right scientific credentials... and absolute total and unmitigated b*ll*cks...
Wasn't Joan Ruddock a leading light in CND?
Golf - yes she was. But George Robertson was a CND member too, and he went to become Secretary General of NATO!
Champagne socialists and hypocrits on the make.
Jiminy - flooding, my thoughts exactly - see my comment the Light blogging thread for reasons why.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/16/light-blogging.html#comments
Lapogus
Isn't it wonderful!
We have a tory prime minister, whose father in law has invested in wind power, whilst relying on a CND chaired parliamentary committee, that can't even investigate that which it was asked to investigate.
And the merchants of doom and panic label me a numpty. Doh!
ooh err missus, I started a sentence with "and". I might have to abruptly unsplit some infinitives to make up.
This is straight out of "Yes Prime minister"
Overheard in one of the many subcommity meetings: "Look chaps, the boys at the Beeb are facing a shocking £2000,000. black hole in their pensions, now come on what do you say, are we going to give them a boost or what. Of course we are, they know they can count on us, what ! what!
Presumably there is a similar document for the Oxburgh report and the "sound building" of the CRU work, which is mentioned in the second Key Points paragraph immediately after finding Jones exonerated of all nefariousness.
Hang on... that looks like a minister issuing threats.
"However, those who believe that climate change is real and human induced have nothing to fear and everything to gain from transparency."
Why would any have fear? Fear of what? Fear from what? Who would be fearful?
The mention of transparency suggests the minister is talking coverup of different information
Jiminy: As it was Richard Black that wrote the flooding article, you would expect absolute total and unmitigated b*ll*cks. I don't know how anyone can keep on writing such BS without breaking out in hysterical laughter. I don't think anyone knows Richard Black's background to be able to say why it is that he is made such an idiot of by CAGW alarmists.
@Philip, thanks for the other source précis, Carrington of the Guardian "informed" my good self...
@lapogos, thanks I read you comment... useful info...
If you travel around Europe to nice old towns and cities, on the Churches and Town Halls you will often see a stone inlaid, often many metres above the ground with a date (e.g. 1781) and a line. The flood line.
4 billion years, and suddenly they can prove (isn't it hind casting?), for one year, the increase flooding in a small backwater of the planet called the UK.
This piece of crap would suit a final year grad student. Nice intellectual exercise, but basically that it is. Extrapolating (scientifically) like has been done here, should have any reputable Professor saying, "Good fun, but please get back to something useful."
Instead we have the Minister, Bob "IPCC" Watson, the Media, singing its praises.
We have statements that it could be used in major trails, used by the IPCC to decide which country can buy more Mercs.
The authors know this. The authors know exactly what they are doing. Know exactly which train they have boarded. They can expect a a nice role in the next conference, expenses paid. Expect Nature to be on the phone. Expect the BBC to send round the van. Appearing as expert witnesses in any part of the world that cares to start the blame game.
It is corruption pure and simple. Scientific corruption.
Having said all that, weather is something everyone understands. Understanding weather is not linked to IQ, it is hard wired into us. I just do not think that people buy this rubbish (food to the plebs) so easily...
Floods caused by......absolute total and unmitigated b*ll*cks...
Feb 16, 2011 at 10:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket
If you read the article in the D.T. Jiminy then the article author should have given a clue before reading it! Bless our little "Miss Cut and Paste". Louise hard at work with more propaganda again!
Note that Prof Myles"The big implication in all this for science is that the [FOI Act] is taking away our liberty to use our own judgment" Allen is co-author! Nuf Said!