In case you have any doubts about the corruption among climate change scientists, this email from the latest batch of Climategate emails will erase all doubt.
The email is from Phil Jones, who runs the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Jones is a key figure in the Climategate emails – and email #4766 is a damning example of just how corrupt he is – as well as those who work with him around the globe.
Editorial comments are in brackets.
Climategate 2.0 – Email # 4766 from Phil Jones
Dear All, There are several issues you should be aware of:
1. UEA has denied access to the data to McIntyre (and at least two others in the past) – in 2007. One of the three appealed and that appeal was rejected. We would look stupid if you released the data now. I can put your FOI person in touch with the one at UEA. I think they already know each other! [Jones is bragging about denying Steve McIntyre access to the raw data used by CRU to create bogus statistics on “global warming.”]
We put up this page at the time
So they have a list of which stations are used.
2. I have signed agreements with some Met Services (European ones) in the 1990s that I would not pass on their data to third parties. The data could be used in the gridding though and gridded products made available. I never kept a list of which stations these were though, as I never thought such problems would arise. [Jones admits that he has colluded with other agencies to prevent third parties from accessing the raw data to determine if Jones is accurate in his “studies.” In addition, he admits that he doesn’t even know what temperature stations were used in the raw data collection process. This seems rather sloppy for a “scientist.”]
3. Work on the land station data has been funded by the US Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this in 2007. [He admits that bureaucrats inside the U.S. Department of Energy have colluded with him to deny climate data to third parties. This sounds like a conspiracy to me.]
4. You[r] web site says that anyone requesting the data should apply to me, so tell him that’s what they should do. I think you should remove this sentence, by the way. It is this that has opened up the issue again. [He knows that no one will get any of his data by applying to him. He has effectively shut off any accountability.]
5. The data aren’t yours to release! Maybe there is no formal IPR agreement, but there is an implicit one. [He is telling his colleagues that they must not release data to any third parties. Why? Because it would show that he skewed the data to push his personal political agenda.]
6. We’ve altered the version that you have anyway. We’re also in the process of doing more of this. [Altering data? For what reason?]
7. You’d need to waste your time combining the two parts of the data and removing the stations that don’t get used. [In other words, he’s already altered the data to conform to his pre-conceived beliefs. This isn’t science, it’s propaganda and dishonest to the core.]
Read more on the first batch of Climategate emails (released in November 2009) at Brian Sussman’s web site and Climategate: The CRUtape Letters. The second batch of emails were released in November, 2011. A wealth of material on the second batch is available at Anthony Watts’ site and at JunkScience.com.
Read More and Comment: What Else Does Climate Change ‘Scientist’ Phil Jones Have To Say?
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven't already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.