Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, November 29, 2009

According to TimesOnline "scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based."

"Just one little problem with this latest tempest in a teapot no data was destroyed. And the article at The Times, oddly enough, just happens to leave out that part of Phil Jones' explanation."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

johnny_hotsauce

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

www.timesonline.co.uk

I don't know about you, but I believe Phil Jones (wink, wink).

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil:"

"The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !"

"Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things don't pass on either
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil"

"1. Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit
.2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer's at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil"

"If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil"

Phil Jones - "Ain't peer review grand? You only get to be checked by the people you know will agree."

Link:

sweetness-light.com

Once again, a story that refutes any wrong doing makes it straight to the front. What makes the NYT so credible, Rcade? Everyone knows that they are extremely left wing and hardly unbiased. The reason it is so hard to get the email story from a source that you would deem credible is because the MSM is so overwhelmingly liberal. What else do you expect?

"What makes the NYT so credible...? "

History.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data."

Translation, we have the information you need, but we don't have the data to support it. Bad boys. These guys need peer review.

History.

Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-30 03:42 PM | Reply

"What makes the NYT so credible...? "

Idiots like Dan.

For 128 years!

You cannot make this stuff up folks.

And yes Danny, they ARE history. You can bet your Van Jones jammies on that one.

Sorry, I thought this was on the front page. My mistake.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable