I tried a couple of times to engage with the zealots on other blogs and have learned that the only thing to do with them is watch in mild amusement as they live in their world.

……………………………

In particular, the statement by Professor Jones that “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider” is one of the most anti-science statements by a prominent scientist in my lifetime.

Taken together with other evidence of unlawful attempts to avoid FOI law and copyright law, expressed in other disclosed CRU emails, there should be a high level police investigation on the general basis of fraud, including the uncertainty of whether the emails were “hacked” or “divulged”.

…………………………….
SOME EARLY PDJ PAPERS: SETTING THE BASIS OF THE PROBLEM.

Here, I discuss one paper to provide examples. It dealt with Urban Heat Island effects in East Australia, China and parts of Russia.

Reference: Jones, P.D., Groisman, P.Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. and Karl, T.R., 1990 “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land.” Nature 347, 169-172.

In later years, such early CRU work has been found to be troublesome.

Some of the confusion about the Australian part is described below as a main part of this submission.

Controversy has arisen about the Chinese part, with direct allegations of data fabrication, for example at http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/18/did-jones-et-al-1990-fabricate-its-quality-control-claims/

The Russian part has been questioned also, e.g. in the Newspaper “Kommersant” of 16th December 2009. http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html
“Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. These examples from each country align with the present Terms of Reference, notably being “….. at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.”
There is no contained inference that these are the only relevant examples in this submission.

In the fullness of time and disclosure, they might be found to have explanations. At present, it is not possible to judge. In part, this is because the first public release of CRU temperature data was made partially by the UK Meteorological Office at Hadley on or about 8th December 2009 with more on 4th February 2010.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/data.html

There has been inadequate time for detailed CRU/Hadley data study. Also, these data are named “value added” by Hadley, because they have been adjusted from raw values. The raw values appear still to be unobtainable; but earlier graphical data and selected tables have ample evidence of selective data use.
……………………….

This is more evidence of neglect of contentious papers.

1) Where are these emails that haven’t been deleted?

2) Case closed….. verdict, GUILTY

How much time, money and effort has been put into delaying the inevitable? It’s really quite a joke…..

How sad are these people?

This does not discount the possibility that 1) they lied and 2) the emails were retrieved from backup.