Ein unglaublicher Vorgang. Mich überrascht aus der Ecke der Klimaastrologen nichts mehr. Phil Jones durfte die „Beweise“ auswählen, nach der die Oxburgh-Kommission die Begutachtung vornahm und schließlich Phil Jones entlastete.
....Oliver Morton of the Economist about how Oxburgh's Eleven papers were chosen. When he replied, Oxburgh said in essence that he didn't know.
What I received was a list from the university which I understand was chosen by the Royal Society The contact with the RS was I believe through [name redacted] but I don't know who he consulted. [Name redacted], when I asked him, agreed that the original sample was fair.
Well, now we know who the redactions were. The contact through with the Royal Society was through Martin Rees - we knew that already. The other redaction, the other person consulted about whether the sample of papers was reasonable, was...Phil Jones.
Quelle: Hills Blog
Ein Kommentator schrieb:
This is simply a statistical variation of Mike's trick to "Hide the Decline"; it is called Phil's trick to "Hide the Evidence".
In den deutschen Medien liest man darüber natürlich nichts.
Die Ergebnisse aller Kommissionen die „Climategate“ bisher untersucht haben, taugen rein gar nichts. Das sieht auch das US-Energieministerium so, denn die Sunday Times schreibt:
US Dept of Energy Funding For East Anglia Univ. CRU Placed On Hold
The American government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last November’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.
The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work assembling a database of global temperatures.
It has supported the CRU financially since 1990 and gives the unit about £131,000 ($200,000 USD) a year on a rolling three-year contract.
This should have been renewed automatically in April, but the department has suspended all payments since May pending a scientific peer review of the unit’s work.
The leaked emails caused a global furore. They appeared to suggest that CRU scientists were using “tricks” to strengthen the case for man-made climate change and suppressing dissent.