Dear Prime Minister Harper,
Re: The Climategate Scandal at the University of East Anglia (CRU)
I am writing to draw your government’s attention to the ongoing scandal unfolding in England regarding the devastating corruption of the science surrounding the now clearly fraudulent claims that Human behaviour is putting our survival – and in fact that of the planet Earth itself – in grave jeopardy.
I feel compelled to write your offices to point out the lies, subterfuge and misinformation in the British Government’s response to this matter, and request that you, as our country’s leader, issue a public statement condemning this continued effort to suppress the truth – a truth that I am under the clear impression Canada’s Steven McIntyre has already brought to your attention several years ago.
There is too much to challenge robustly in one letter. Instead I shall for the moment confine myself to three basic issues; (1.) the use of ‘private’ unaccountable police in the CRU investigation; (2.) the deceitful dropping of 806 ‘cold’ weather stations from the 6000 global set in one year and (3.) the facts on sea level rises that conflict with assertions that “severe impacts” of climate change must be dealt with “now.”
First, I wish to register my protest in the strongest possible terms that a privately run secret police unit, the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET), is conducting the criminal investigation into the CRU scandal – yet only into the theft of the information, blatantly ignoring its clearly criminal nature! If someone had broken into the CRU and found a meth lab, would that not overshadow any search for a mere trespasser?
NDET is directly answerable to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Because ACPO is not a public body but rather a private limited company, NETCU is exempt from freedom of information laws (FOIA) and other kinds of public accountability, even though they are funded by the Home Office and deploy police officers from regional forces. What further disturbs me is that ACPO cannot be relied upon to handle this investigation when ACPO have a vested interest in the outcome being that their pension fund is invested heavily in environmental stocks. So is this truly a reasonable interpretation of an “independent” investigation and will the British Labour Government continue to conduct business like this if re-elected at the upcoming general election?
As to the science, we know at minimum, from the admissions contained in the leaked emails, that the climate data analysis by CRU between 2006-2009 was ‘fudged.’ This has been confirmed by the latest peer-reviewed literature.
Firstly, I wish to refer to the leaked emails and the ‘documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt’ files. These files covers CRU’s latest work from 2006-2009 and CRU scientist, ‘Harry’ admits the climate data CRU possesses is unusable:
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented… “
‘Harry’ then later adds, “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was.”
Clearly, from the evidence to hand, these climatologists are poor data handlers. When you then go beyond the 1,000+ emails and look deeper at the meta data coding within the rest of the leaked 62MB goldmine things get far worse. ‘Harry’ admits he has no training in FORTRAN. He muddles by attempting to teach himself and gamely trying to analyze so much “poor” and “false” data. As we have read, for ‘Harry’ matters go from bad to worse.
Frankly, Prime Minister, to use the words of one of the UK climatologists, this whole charade is a “travesty” and the scientists involved are incompetent. But from incompetence they plunge the depths into wilful deceit and unlawful conduct. The proof of a conspiracy grows as we read the ‘hockey teams’’ own words. For over three years they admit to have been deliberately foiling FOIA requests. Now we have reached the farcical position where neither the UK Government nor the climatologists involved will come clean with the truth in the midst of the most severe winter in 30 years when newspapers predict deaths due to cold in the tens of thousands and Britain’s transport network liable to be thrown into chaos with just a few inches of snowfall. It is a total dereliction of the UK Government’s duties to continue to rely on and defend secretly concocted junk science for what they claim is “an issue of unrivalled public importance.”
I can assure you a cacophony of rage is building online over these matters as more ordinary citizens come to the Internet looking for the facts that the UK Govt. and the mainstream media are reluctant to address. Canada should demand that they uphold the principles of the Freedom of Information Act; expedite the processing and completion of all past and pending FOIA requests so that everyone can see that they value independent analysis within a framework supportive of transparent and honest government.
But as British officials and scientists appear to have forgotten, please allow me to remind everyone how the scientific method works. It is incumbent on the purveyor of any theory of science to provide the proof and permit sceptical testing of it. In fact, scepticism is the birthright of every scientist. But sceptics cannot test this junk theory because every one of your cited data sources denies examination of their methodologies and calculations – we are only presented with conclusions. Frankly, Minister, that’s just not good enough and history will regard you and your ilk with dismay for your hubris and contempt of reason and fair play.
CRU, like NASA and NOAA, want to treat their information as proprietary to them but unlike private corporations, they have no such privileges. Publicly funded repositories of data for use by educational and research institutions are obliged to properly maintain the original data, make it available to anyone who is qualified to work with it, AND document each and every adjustment made and why. But what I must now confront you with is the charge that government – funded scientists have been systematically and cynically dropping ‘cold’ rural ground measuring stations from the global set so as to skew the official government results. There is now a list of 806 weather stations that were dropped from the total of 6000 worldwide in a single year with no explanation from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). The only fact in common that we can so far deduce from these dropped sites is that they exhibit a tendency to be located in rural areas. You will find further detailed information in regard to those 806 dropped weather stations here :
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/#post-johnosullivan-4521
The Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) tells us that rural stations are free from the levels of secondary heat contamination generally found in cities, towns and airports. The additional heating within UHI areas increases measured temperatures by a magnitude of several degrees (McKitrick and Michaels 2007). The only possible motive I can infer from our ongoing findings is that corrupt climatologists are dropping ‘cold’ ground weather stations to make the world’s climate appear warmer than it actually is.
So far an analysis is still progressing. But already I can report to you that of the dropped Australian and New Zealand stations most are rural stations (e.g. Port Nelson, Ruttan Lake, Joutel). We shall continue to painstakingly analyze all stations on this list to see if we can substantiate what at the moment, appears to be a conspiracy to omit ‘cold’ rural stations. What we are seeing appears to confirm what peer reviewed papers have found, namely that artificial warming is contaminating 30-50% of the data cited by official sources. In effect, rather than adjusting their calculations to remove the UHI effect, the scientists are actually adding extra weighting to increase the distortion from UHI.
It has been determined that the station count for the U.S. (in the GHCN v2_mean file) dropped from 1177 to 136 in April 2006. This has been confirmed by importing the data and by doing a simple count of all station ID’s beginning with “425″ for the year 2006. Replication is straightforward. This is a trivial task for any application developer to write the code to import this data and then analyze it. The most significant observation noted is that most of the stations left in the U.S. are airports (for the years 2006 and going forward). Please check these facts for yourself and see that a fraud has been committed.
Moreover, the lack of transparency and unlawful conduct exhibited by Professor Phil Jones et al. may allow us to infer that the truth is being deliberately and zealously kept from the public. In essence, the conclusions that many cited references provide about the climate are entirely worthless and may be adjudged as GIGO (‘Garbage In, Garbage Out!’).
Also, I cannot conclude without addressing the most absurd assertion made in all of this – that there is a pattern of warming causing rising see levels, attributed by British Minister of State for Climate, Joan Ruddock, to “a direct result of human activities.” This Minister is either inadvertently and ignorantly exaggerating the science or she is flatly lying. To put this crazy statement into perspective, even the MET Office does not dispute that the overall rise in temperature is merely less than one degree centigrade since 1860 and with zero additional rises in sea levels on top of natural variation, so how can the UK Govt. stand by this statement? The matter demands clarification – please quantify and differentiate the amounts of sea level and temperature rise that are being attributed to human behaviour and to nature, and speak to this in the House.
From my understanding, the debate on current and past sea level rises is non-existent. But, I suspect, Ms. Ruddock knows quite well that we currently face no danger of problematic sea level rises because, like any of us, she is able to check the best oceanographers’ peer-reviewed science that refutes the guesstimates and lies of climatologists on this issue. Sea levels are rising no faster than 2mm per annum – a wholly natural rate for the current Holocene interglacial whereby concomitant ice melt has been occurring for the past 11,000 years – way before human industrialization. In 2007 Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, produced a history of global sea level from 1904 to 2003 based upon a set of reliable, long-term observations from nine tide gauge stations scattered around the world and he could not find any sea level rises attributable to man-made emissions of CO2. Holgate is renowned as one of the world’s leading oceanographers
But further, may I also suggest you look at what the oceanographers at the University of Colorado have to say on this issue. They rely on the Jason-1 Calibration and TOPEX Calibration and attribute no sea level rises to mankind in any of their work. Their measurements concur neatly with Holgate’s numbers.
Other oceanographers in peer-reviewed papers such as Antonov et al. (2005); Ishii et al. (2005) and Willis et al. (2005) all report current rises equal to seven inches per century with no human signal whatsoever. These oceanographers have proved that current sea level rise is entirely consistent with natural Holocene ice melt. Thus the statement that sea levels are rising “as a direct result of human activities” is patently false – please demand that the UK Govt. withdraw it or stand accused by their critics as the lying scaremongers that they are!
Ms. Ruddock has also stated, “the temporal and spatial pattern of observed warming cannot be explained by natural causes alone.” This is a vacuous non-statement. No one is disputing that human emissions may have ‘some’ impact on climate. But does the one degree centigrade overall rise we have experienced since 1860 justify the exorbitantly expensive policy measures of being forced upon the peoples of the world without election or referendum? The answer must be a resounding, ’No!’ when we bear in mind that the Earth has shown no warming trend for 15 years, based on analysis of the raw and combined CRU, NASA and NOAA numbers. So with no current decadal warming trend there is no justification in logic for the need to “take action now” as some insist. Look at the weather in England, Prime Minister, and see that after six cooler years in a row we are now in the midst of the worst winter in the northern hemisphere for 30 years. The UK govt is being criticized from all quarters for its policy failures to cope with these winter conditions. The travel chaos and rising death toll associated with severe cold proves the hardships of a colder climate outweigh those of the warmer one we lived through in the last quarter of the old century and which ended in 1998.
As I believe and hope you are already aware, the scientific community is increasingly turning against the ‘theory’ of man made global warming (AGW) because, unlike the period from 1975-1998 warmer temperatures no longer correlate with rising levels of carbon dioxide. Thus with no correlation it is irrational to argue for causation. The so-called consensus among scientists on man-made climate change has evaporated since ‘Climategate’, while the latest peer-reviewed paper by German physicists, Dr’s. Gerlich and Tscheuschner thoroughly debunks the whole greenhouse gas theory. These German scientists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03% so that it is thus impossible for us to witness a greater rate of warming than seen already in the past 150 years. Gerlich and Tscheuschner further disprove that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal ‘forcing’ effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics :
(http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf).
Prime Minister, please help to bring an end to this climate farce. I urge you to conduct a truly independent review of the facts I now present to you rather than rely on fraudulent data that has been exposed as such.
Let me finish by commenting on the cynical and wholly perverse use of children in the perpetrating of this fraud. For example,contrary to the UK High Court ruling made by Mr Justice Burton of 2007, the Al Gore film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is still being shown in UK schools without clarification or caveat that this so called ‘documentary’ contains nine ‘errors’ that his lordship ruled were in ‘ the context of alarmism and exaggeration.‘ Just like Mr. Gore, the UK government has failed to present the facts honestly and with transparency and have turned to falsehoods to claim that climate change, a natural phenomenon is bringing “severe impacts” and it’s our fault. I hope that after the general election we shall see a new government that upholds the truth. But judging by the current climate stance of UK officials, I see little prospect for the world’s youth while their future lies in the hands of those who seek to OBSCENELY profit from a future of crippling taxes as a direct consequence of these and similar policies.
Yours most sincerely,
Adam Cassidy
Vancouver, BC
(Please feel free to replace my name with yours, and copy and paste this into your own email to PM Harper at HarpeS@parl.gc.ca and pm@pm.gc.ca)
Beggarz' Blog 