I have just read some of a sequence of emails where another researcher
is asking for the data and list of wx stations.
He has picked up on a point where interpolation has been used between
two wx stations. He notes that the interpolation site is higher than
the two either side. Interpolation should give a value halfway between.
Jones is refusing the info because "He only wants to prove it is wrong".

Jones continues to refuse Freedom of Information requests.

And people think this does not corrupt confidence in the science ?
It is only one small point, but it is consistent with the rest of
the emails.
It has to be remembered over recent times the UEA CRU has been
quoted as the most pre-eminent source of climate temperature information.

Steven,
On the issue of AGW, one needs to understand that many people are obsessed about it. Take the rants of the PM recently and the rant of Turnbull last night, for example. That is why I have never involved myself in the debate. Its like arguing about religion, believers will not accept reason.

I reckoned that IF AGW is one day proven, we will hear about it and in the meantime carry on.

It seems to me that most adocates of AGW are in shock and denial.

But gradually the media is getting the word out about the fraudulent behaviour of the top scientists.

Steven,

I don't dislike you, I just disagree with IMO, haste to judgement. neither do I see Zionist plots everywhere, least of all in this post.

We just disagree on
a. IMO there is perhaps, prima facea evidence for an internal inquiry, at best.
b. That there is insufficient information to hang the people out to dry or AGW.
(Natural justice) much less AGW.
c. I question encouraging (albeit indirectly) yobs to break the law.
d. neither am I currently convinced that whistle-blower immunity is apposite. Especially, given their probable motives.(the mindless desperation) for fame and to discredit AGW.
e. I don't dispute the substance of George Monbiot’s article, just the emotional intensity of his interpretation of the issue. I would dispute some of his reasoning and assertions...I prefer objectivity.

AGW is real, it is far too substantiated by other sources, and the weight of evidence to be the objective crisis Monboit makes it out to be.
IMO it is a crisis in of image, of a university and maybe a few individuals, not necessarily substance.
I have no doubt that the screaming ninnies will prompt the exit of Jones but is it justified? I'll wait for all the facts, context etc.

OUG

<< thats so funny...so it is a debate.. >>

What is funny, OUG, is the fact that someone who rarely posts a readable argument is attempting to pass judgement on others about what is and what isn't classified as debate. Whatever your divine judgement on that, you're never in the debate for me, because I scroll your posts every time and I know I'm not the only one.

<< that explains the lack of fact...or any concern about the truth of the facts.. its so funny reading the opinion of the ignorant of fact.. by the true global hollow cause...your children will cry at your mindless gullability >>

And this from someone whose main source on the topic at hand is that of rightwing reactionary climate sceptics at Prison Planet. I hardly see you, OUG, as having any credibility in commenting on others' so-called gullibility.

stevenlmeyer

<< Bronwyn, So you think a man who threatens to destroy data, who denies other researchers access to data, who tries to silence dissenting voices, who boasts of using tricks to hide things should remain as head of an important research unit. That tells me all I need to know about you. >>

As I've said repeatedly, you're ignoring the context in which these actions have occurred. Yes, some of them will possibly be proven to be sackable offences, but at this stage as the current head of the unit I see Jones' role as one of spokesperson, of taking up the fight and of defending the work of his team, the majority of which is thoroughly defensible. As I've already made clear, yes, he needs to acknowledge any shortcomings and he needs to initiate reform towards greater openess and accountability. But to resign right now would in my view simply be giving a huge free kick to the climate change sceptics, whose only interest is in bringing down the case for reducing carbon emissions.

And quite frankly, Steven, your opinion of me is irrelevant and your attempt to write me out of the discussion will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

JBowyer

<< Bronwyn, first you insult anyone who disagrees with you and call them "Nutters" then you say there is no time too lose on allowing any more argument, we have to act now? Well first your gratuitous insult masks only the weakness of your cause. Secondly we have plenty of time the only reason that you need a quick ETS is so when the drought breaks you can say "See I told you what we needed was an ETS". >>

Yes, personally, I do see them as 'nutters', though granted perhaps 'dinosaurs' would have been a less inflammatory description. Such language however in no way exposes any weakness in the case for urgent action to avert climate disruption. It's purely a sign of frustration at seeing the real debate being highjacked by a highly orchestrated campaign to indiscriminately write off all scientists in the field as cheats, frauds and liars.

Regarding the fallacy that we have plenty of time, scientists have been warning of this impending disaster for over three decades now and in that time many of the indicators have worsened and many of the projected timelines have had to be brought forward. As the predicted changes are occurring and they are, they are now expected to create a tipping point, which will only accelerate the warming and melting already occurring, most probably to beyond a point of any return.

You can sit back and relax, but just stay out of the way of the majority of people who do realise that at the very least the precautionary principle needs to be urgently enacted. It's only those who refuse to read the warnings who truly believe we have plenty of time.

Steven,

I don't dislike you, I just disagree with, IMO, the haste to judgement. Neither do I see Zionist plots everywhere, least of all in this post. I do wonder at your motivation for such haste.

We just disagree on:
a. IMO there is perhaps, prima facea evidence for an internal inquiry, at best.

b. That there is insufficient information to hang the people out to dry (Natural justice), much less AGW.

c. I question encouraging (albeit indirectly) yobs to break the law.

d. Neither am I currently convinced that whistle-blower immunity is apposite. Especially, given their probable motives.(the mindless desperation) for fame and to discredit AGW.

e. I don't dispute the substance of George Monbiot’s article, just the emotional intensity of his interpretation, and some the points in his OPINIONS,and assertions on this issue. ...I prefer objectivity.

AGW is real, it is far too substantiated by other sources, and the weight of evidence to be the 'objective' crisis some deniers make it out to be.

I have no doubt that some axe grinders are attempting to arrange the exit of Jones but that doesn't make it justified? I'll wait for all the facts, context etc.