Greedy Climate Changers
Timothy Birdnow
The Climategate scandal just keeps rolling.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/19/appeal-of-ueas-yamal-foi-refusal/
Steve McKintyre has been denied a formal Freedom of Information request by the University of East Anglia for data sets relating to the Yamal tree ring series used in reconstructing Siberian temperatures for 1000 a.d. Yamal was at the heart of the "hockey stick" graph and Keith Briffa is accused of cherry-picking trees to get the outcome he desired; a sudden spike in temperatures during the 20th century. It is known he based his work on just twelve trees.
Yet Muir Russell and other investigators chose to ignore the actual science, focusing instead on what people at East Anglia said about the process. Of course, they said it was fair (rather like asking the Gambinos if they had anything to do with organized crime...)
That UEA would deny McKintyre's request is not surprising, but the reason for doing so is:
"While climate scientists frequently say that they are not in it for the money, UEA’s refusal was based not on the public interest, but on their claim that they would be financially damaged by disclosure of the 2006 chronology, saying that as “copyright holder”, they had “an expectation of making financial gain from” publication of the 2006 chronology and that disclosure would cause them
“financial harm via adverse impact upon reputation, ability to attract research funding, and funding arising from the citation of the publications within the REF process by which universities in the United Kingdom receive funding”.
I have now submitted an appeal to the Information Commissioner. See here for the appeal and here for the prior correspondence. The appeal includes a review of events, commenting unfavorably on a number of untruthful assertions made by CRU and UEA along the way as excuses for not providing data or not complying with FOI/EIR legislation.
Obviously, I think that their arguments are unconvincing. But aside from that, we often hear from the climate community that they are not in it for the money. Any climate scientist who has ever made such a statement should condemn UEA’s placement of the university’s supposed “financial gain” above the public interest. Unfortunately, the climate “community” have, as usual, stood by mutely. Will Michael Tobis or Andrew Dessler speak out against UEA’s refusal? Or will they maintain the silence of the lambs that we have observed in the past."
End excerpt.
Well, well, well!
Whenever anyone challenges Global Warming they are immediately branded as shills for Big Oil by the Gang Green. I should know; my last article on the topic spurred some discussion, and I saw myself impugned as in the pocket of Exxon Mobile (would somebody PLEASE tell me where I can get a chunk of that oil money - I desperately need a new car) and yet who is it that is making money with this? From where I sit it appears that the real folding money is all on the side of the alarmists. They have made an entire industry out of this.
The Climategate scandal just keeps rolling.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/19/appeal-of-ueas-yamal-foi-refusal/
Steve McKintyre has been denied a formal Freedom of Information request by the University of East Anglia for data sets relating to the Yamal tree ring series used in reconstructing Siberian temperatures for 1000 a.d. Yamal was at the heart of the "hockey stick" graph and Keith Briffa is accused of cherry-picking trees to get the outcome he desired; a sudden spike in temperatures during the 20th century. It is known he based his work on just twelve trees.
Yet Muir Russell and other investigators chose to ignore the actual science, focusing instead on what people at East Anglia said about the process. Of course, they said it was fair (rather like asking the Gambinos if they had anything to do with organized crime...)
That UEA would deny McKintyre's request is not surprising, but the reason for doing so is:
"While climate scientists frequently say that they are not in it for the money, UEA’s refusal was based not on the public interest, but on their claim that they would be financially damaged by disclosure of the 2006 chronology, saying that as “copyright holder”, they had “an expectation of making financial gain from” publication of the 2006 chronology and that disclosure would cause them
“financial harm via adverse impact upon reputation, ability to attract research funding, and funding arising from the citation of the publications within the REF process by which universities in the United Kingdom receive funding”.
I have now submitted an appeal to the Information Commissioner. See here for the appeal and here for the prior correspondence. The appeal includes a review of events, commenting unfavorably on a number of untruthful assertions made by CRU and UEA along the way as excuses for not providing data or not complying with FOI/EIR legislation.
Obviously, I think that their arguments are unconvincing. But aside from that, we often hear from the climate community that they are not in it for the money. Any climate scientist who has ever made such a statement should condemn UEA’s placement of the university’s supposed “financial gain” above the public interest. Unfortunately, the climate “community” have, as usual, stood by mutely. Will Michael Tobis or Andrew Dessler speak out against UEA’s refusal? Or will they maintain the silence of the lambs that we have observed in the past."
End excerpt.
Well, well, well!
Whenever anyone challenges Global Warming they are immediately branded as shills for Big Oil by the Gang Green. I should know; my last article on the topic spurred some discussion, and I saw myself impugned as in the pocket of Exxon Mobile (would somebody PLEASE tell me where I can get a chunk of that oil money - I desperately need a new car) and yet who is it that is making money with this? From where I sit it appears that the real folding money is all on the side of the alarmists. They have made an entire industry out of this.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 1:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home