UEA/CRU: Who are the “Deniers” now?

On Friday I went to Norwich at the invitation of the Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia (UEA), home of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) which has been much in the news in the last twelve months.

I had been invited following a correspondence with one of UEA’s academic staff.  A couple of months before, I had asked if I could bring a couple of colleagues.  They said yes.  A week or so later, they asked for the names (and any special dietary requirements).  I replied Lord Monckton of Brenchley, and James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph.  For the next week or so I held my breath, fearing that they might not like to receive two prominent sceptics, but there was no further response.  Not, at least, until a couple of days before the meeting, when I received an apologetic e-mail.  They had just noticed who my proposed companions were.

Apparently protocol would not allow the VC to meet “political activists”.  If Lord Monckton and Delingpole  had any questions, they were free to approach the UEA’s Press Office.  (In passing, I have to say it seems rather odd to describe Lord Monckton as a “political activist”.  An hereditary Peer of the Realm, a former adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a highly respected commentator on the climate issue, and Deputy Leader of the party that came in second place in the 2009 euro-elections.  In any case, I like to regard myself, in my small way, as a political activist, and the VC was prepared to see me.)

I replied that this was deeply embarrassing to me, as I knew that Lord Monckton had made extensive (and expensive) changes to his travel schedule, between a financial conference in China and a business meeting in New York, specifically to attend the UEA meeting.  In reply, they made an extraordinary proposal: Lord Monckton could not meet the VC with me, but he could have a separate meeting after my meeting was concluded.  I decided to invite, on my own initiative, another MEP, Stuart Agnew of Eastern Region.  They could scarcely refuse another parliamentarian.

On arrival, I found Lord Monckton already there.  Stuart Agnew and I were ushered into the VC’s office, where we found the VC with three CRU professors – though not Phil Jones, nor the others whose names have become celebrated in the e-mails saga.  I immediately made one last appeal.  It was absurd that Lord Monckton and I, who know each other well and have worked together on the very issue we had come to discuss, should have two separate meetings with the VC.  But the VC was adamant: a joint meeting would create an unacceptable precedent.  Monckton would have to come later.  It was the VC’s university, so I reluctantly accepted his dictum.

Then we got to the business of the leaked e-mails.  At one point the VC referred to sceptics as “climate change deniers”, and I pulled him up sharp.  I have yet to meet anyone who denies the plain fact that the climate changes.  Indeed if the climate never changed, we should hardly need a word to describe it. The climate is only interesting because it changes.

Meantime the VC and his colleagues simply denied that any wrong-doing had taken place.  The quotes which seemed to imply guilt were “selective”, and had been “taken out of context”.  The VC relied heavily on the several academic/legalistic reviews of the scandal, in which the establishment has striven at all costs to justify the e-mails, to deny any guilt, and to protect the current climate orthodoxy.  The VC insisted that if I had not read all of these reports (the thickness of a telephone directory) then I was in no position to comment.

But the quotes are quite clear.    The “Hockey Team”, which has a stranglehold on the IPCC process, and of which the UEA/CRU forms a key part, did indeed conspire to prevent the publication of dissenting opinions.  They have indeed sought the dismissal of editors of learned journals whom they found insufficiently compliant, and too inclined to publish other views.  They did indeed cobble together unrelated data sets (without explaining what they had done) to ensure that their “Hockey Stick Graph” complied with their expectations, and in order (in their words) to “hide the decline”.  They conspired to subvert the peer-review process.

The e-mails are explicit.  They are the smoking gun.  They cannot be justified by any amount of context.

As I said to the VC, if I catch someone with their hand in my back pocket removing my wallet, I shall conclude that they are a thief and a pick-pocket, and I shall be unimpressed if they tell me that I have taken their actions “out of context”.

In a way I am reminded of a meeting earlier in the week, in Brussels, with three North Korean diplomats.  They presented an entirely fanciful account of peace, freedom and prosperity in North Korea, and seemed uncomfortable when I explained that we knew, and they knew, that their description was nonsense, and hopelessly out-of touch with reality.  But as we and they knew, they were obliged by reason of their positions and their employment to parrot the Party line.  I fear that the UEA is under similar pressures.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to UEA/CRU: Who are the “Deniers” now?

  1. Robert Darke says:

    I`m glad you corrected “Climate change deniers”.
    Perhaps “unacceptable precedent” is code for a reality check or even a comprehensive defeat.
    Some feedback from the UEA meeting with Lord Monckton would be interesting too as he may have read the telephone directory!

  2. Fay Tuncay says:

    Hi Roger,

    An interesting encounter. But I think it’s good to hear the term ‘activist’ for our side of the debate at last! I attended the Battle of Ideas event yesterday at the Royal College of Art in London, “Can we trust the evidence? The IPCC – a case study“. The answer is unequivocally NO! [BTW Fora TV – The world is not thinking, was there so a video will follow] It was interesting to note that there were about a dozen empty seats – certainly not your usual ‘wall to wall greens’, indicating perhaps that the IPCC and global warming, has gone off the boil and is not such a hot ticket any more.

    And, I might add that, in a sense – from the greens perspective – this event was very much an opportunity for the them to publicly re-group, to wash their dirty laundry, to acknowledge and confess the past sins of the IPCC and to say: “Okay the IPCC is guilty of overt cheating and made mistakes, but essentially the science is sound and we just want to put all of that ‘Climategate’ affair behind us and move on“.

    In a nutshell, this was the purpose of Fred Pearce (New Scientist), who argued this case, [and is obviously attempting to maintain his credibility and readership], and I must admit I do find him an able journalist, who sadly just hasn’t yet cottoned on to the fact that he has become a cheerleader for high-risk speculative capitalism i.e. carbon trading.

    He is still under the delusion that this debate is about the science and the environment, which of course we know it is not – it’s about carbon taxes, sucking the wealth out of Britain; it’s about creating a new carbon/climate change banking system [lots more of our dosh going in to the pockets of the bankers]; essentially this debate is about power, greed, and the conflict, within capitalism between as I mentioned high-risk speculative capitalism v investment capitalism, and if the carbon traders win we will undoubtedly be further robbed of our democratic rights and freedoms, to say nothing of the imposition of devastating regressive carbon taxes on our poorest citizens.

  3. Derek says:

    It seems that the CRU leadership relies on the feeble inquiries coupled with denial of any wrong-doing in the hope that this will be enough to fool the public. But, as you say, the evidence is very clear and flat denial only serves to make them look ridiculous.

  4. Andrew30 says:

    The cause of “Hockey Stick Graph”:

    Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus


  5. David Watt says:

    The ruse of conducting reviews of Climategate that could be depended on producing a whitewash does not seem to have worked.

    A recent poll shows that 81% of the Scientific American readers think the IPCC is corrupt and political, 65% think that even if “Climate Change” exists we can do nothing to stop it and 76% are unwilling to pay anything to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change.

    This is no longer the end of the beginning. It is the beginning of the end.

  6. Richard J says:

    We anticipate a return visit in due course for you and your guests to collect your respective honorary degrees.

  7. Tapestry says:

    No. The nation states must be bankrupted with climate taxes and expenses, and that’s all there is to it.

  8. Paul Cottingham says:

    Debate about Climate Change has taken off in the Mensa Magazine today, this is my article.

    Climate Change is now the most important scientific subject of the age but the quality of Scientific Journalism and Teaching of this subject is so poor that people want more debate. Since the Enlightenment, science has thrived through debate and truth has nothing to fear as it always wins in debate. I want to debate Man-made Climate Change because I am convinced by the facts and observations in Astronomy both about the Sun, Neptune as well as CO2 warming on Mars that it is an irrelevance in influencing Climate. My SpaceSIG article “Climate Change from Space” is on the Mensa International Science Forum. The more scientific debate about anthropogenic global warming and Creationism the more people will realise that those who believe in them are fools. Here are some important facts from my article. The Warming on Mars raises the average surface temperature by 3 Kelvin to 210 Kelvin from 207 Kelvin. Both Planets can cool much faster than they can warm up, so Mars with almost a 100 percent transparent dry CO2 Atmosphere and without the problems with feedback (other than dust storms) from Water Vapour, Clouds, Oceans or an Atmospheric Mass 2,600 times that of CO2. Then Mars is the perfect example to use to test the theory of CO2 warming on Earth. The Black Body Temperature of Mars is 81.5 percent that of the Earth. The surface has a 7 millibar CO2 atmosphere. So the equivalent 7 millibar CO2 Atmosphere on Earth would produce a temperature of 3.68 Kelvin. If you deduct the 0.24 Kelvin increase for a doubling of CO2, four times you get 2.72 Kelvin for a 0.4375 millibar Atmosphere. This makes 2.7 Kelvin for a 0.39 millibar Atmosphere. The 2.7 Kelvin includes, 1.2 Kelvin for CO2 absorption only, plus half of the 1.5 Kelvin that CO2 absorption shares with Water vapour. Confirming that the CO2 induced Warming on Earth is about 2 Kelvin. Man-made CO2 is natural CO2 which has been fossilised for millions of years and does not have the Carbon-14 Isotope. Levels of this Isotope show that 4 percent or 15ppm of the increase in CO2 in over 100 years is due to Man & 85ppm due to Nature, Ice core data shows that this is mainly due to the 800 year lag in the changes in deep ocean CO2 levels after the Medieval Warm Period, the ocean contains 93.5 percent of the Earths CO2. The increase has added only 0.1 Kelvin to the 2 Kelvin that CO2 gives to the Warming of the Earths Surface Temperature. This means that man-made CO2 has only increased the Global temperature by 0.015 Kelvin. The Solar Cycle Amplitude and more importantly the Solar Cycle Length and the Forbush Effect being responsible for the further increase. The largest effect on Climate Change is the Length of the Solar Cycle, short Solar Cycles cause a warming and long Solar Cycles cause a cooling. Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years. The last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years. Short Solar Cycles cause a decrease in cosmic rays when Solar activity is high, decreasing cloud cover and leading to the enhancement of Global Warming on the Earth, a 1 percent decrease in cosmic rays causes a 0.13 Kelvin increase in Global temperature. The speed of the centre of the sun relative to the centre of mass of the solar system determines the length of the solar cycle, this in turn is caused by the orbits of the Planets, this means that short term Climate Change can be predicted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s