Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The $22.6 Million Dollar Scientist and a Scandal in New Zealand



November 29, 2009 – Comments (19)

Mish has a great post on Phil Jones, the global warming gangster that has taken $22.6 million of taxpayer money to push his phony science on the unsuspecting. 

So far, the most interesting file I found in the "documents" directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls (Google preview, click) which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.

Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic. See
Briefing Room.

He says that he "can't remember" what he meant by "hiding the decline." Well, let me teach him some English. First, dictionaries say that
hide means

1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where did she hide her jewels?
2. to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one's feelings.
4. to conceal oneself; lie concealed: He hid in the closet.
5. British. a place of concealment for hunting or observing wildlife; hunting blind.
6. hide out, to go into or remain in hiding: After breaking out of jail, he hid out in a deserted farmhouse

LMAO.  Here's the thing about this. Let's say you or I get $20+ million in tax payer funded research grants. Then, along comes a pesky fella that consistently double checks your work, finds errors, forces you to publicly retract, etc.  So you say, "screw it, even though my research is perfomed using public funds, I'm not going to comply with his legal Freedom of Information requests to verify my work.  It's too time consuming."

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

Well, a couple of bloggers have noted that there is something out there that is even more damning than any of the emails.  I agree. I'm hoping to hold off until Monday on posting it.  I've found a couple of excellent videos explaining what the scientists were doing to get the results that lucas1985 posts in his pretty charts.

Speaking of charts, there's a scandal brewing in New Zealand.

Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute (CRU) is alleged to have done.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition today issued this paper saying that a graph published by the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not only wrong but is the result of painstaking and unjustified adjustment of raw temperature data covering the period from 1853 through 2008, Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room announced today.

At issue is a claim by NIWA that the average temperature over New Zealand declined from 1853 to 1909 and then began to rise, and has been rising ever since, at an average rate of +0.92 degree (Celsius) per century.

However, unlike the case with the CRU, NIWA's raw data remain readily available, at least to climate scientists. Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, and his colleagues requested and obtained the data used to produce the NIWA graph. Using these data, they produced a graph of their own. Their graph, shown here, displays no such decline from 1853 to 1909 and consequently no such steep increase from 1909 through 2008 as that shown on the NIWA graph. Instead, according to the CSC, the linear trend is a negligibly gentle +0.06 degree per century since 1853.

Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted. The CSC scientists were able to obtain the adjusted dataset from an un-named associate of Dr. M. James Salinger, formerly of NIWA and, before that, of CRU. Comparison of the two datasets shows significant upward adjustments of the post-1909 data and equally significant downward adjustments of the pre-1909 data, thus producing a downtrend and then an uptrend, instead of the nearly flat trend that Treadgold's group found.

Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room, and also of Investigate magazine, asked Dr. David Wratt, the chief climatologist at NIWA, for comment. Wratt said only that NIWA would issue a press release later that day; none has been forthcoming at the time of this writing.

The CSC scientists, in their paper, conclude that the New Zealand government is relying on an untenable conclusion from the data at hand, and now openly question the need for any cap-and-trade system such as that which Treadgold and his colleagues presume will be under consideration in Copenhagen beginning next Tuesday.

UPDATE: The Climate Change Examiner reports today that NIWA has now issued this press release in answer to their critics, and also supplied this link to further information as to the placement of their weather stations and why, they said, the numbers required adjustment.

"NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses."

Exactly how the CSC has "misled" the public or their colleagues is far from clear from the NIWA statement. NIWA are now claiming that some of the weather stations were moved, and thus the adjustments become necessary to account for such movement. This begs the question of why the stations had to be moved to begin with, why they were moved to different elevations, and why NIWA did not simply reconfigure their indices to make sure that tney always based their average on the same mix of weather stations at various elevations as existed before the movement of any given site or sites.

David in Qatar

19 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 29, 2009 at 2:08 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

More on Phil Jones

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#2) On November 29, 2009 at 3:23 AM, angusthermopylae (37.72) wrote:

I've been following this (probably not as closely as you, I'm sure), and all I can do is laugh my a$$ off.

My family and I have been discussing the whole climate thing for years now.  No, none of us are climatologist.  We're just average people who use our brains daily.  All along, we were coming to the same conclusions:

--It's entirely possible that the world is getting warmer <--that's why the term "denier" absolutely ticks me off.

--If we can read and understand Hawking's exploding black holes, why can't anyone explain clearly (without "we're the experts" involvement) how the whole GW thing is actually happening?

--It's stupid to try and alter then course of humanity over a poorly understood phenomenon...especially when 30 years ago it was "we're gonna die in a global freeze."

With all that said, the whole CRU thing is just hilarious--and sad.  If, by some stretch, AGW is actually, absolutely true, those idiots have just killed their own cause.  Just because they had to be absolutely in the right, right now.*

On the other hand, if it's false, how much damage and distraction have these people caused over the last 10 years?  Resources diverted, political will sapped, economies distorted.  And in less than a month they are still going to have the meeting that could (though I doubt it) try to alter the course of humanity...based on bad data, bad politics, and bad science.

Don't get me wrong--I'm all for doing things cleaner, smarter, and with a long term view in mind.  But "long term" goes for implementing the plan, also.

Haven't heard from our old buddies GradFool et al on this one...funny, that.


*$22+ million are a lot of reasons to be seen as Teh Expert.  Can't wait until someone demands that money back.  What ever happened to that guy in Korea who fraudulently claim a cloning breakthrough?

Report this comment
#3) On November 29, 2009 at 3:31 AM, angusthermopylae (37.72) wrote:

Whoops!  Looks like it's getting bad for CRU even sooner.  Calling for a criminal investigation!

Report this comment
#4) On November 29, 2009 at 7:38 AM, dudemonkey (49.48) wrote:

You're the new alstry

Report this comment
#5) On November 29, 2009 at 8:51 AM, DaretothREdux (52.63) wrote:


Lord Monckton is quickly rising up my favorite peoples list.

+1 Keep the Info coming. I for one am excited about Monday!


Report this comment
#6) On November 29, 2009 at 10:02 AM, dwot (29.28) wrote:

Polar bears are a good example of an animal that is probably on a path to extinction because of the declining ice caps.  Their main food source is seals on the polar ice caps.  In the past 30 years their feeding season has declined 3 weeks because of shrinking ice caps, they form later in the years, disappear sooner and they take longer to reach because they are smaller.  Indeed, how they reach the ice caps is becoming a challenge for polar bears because they are trying to reach the solid ice caps long before they form.  Look at all the talk that soon there will be a year round shipping lane in the north -- that is devastating for the polar bears. 

This stuff is smoke and mirror.  There is too much evidence to suggest there isn't a serious problem.

Report this comment
#7) On November 29, 2009 at 10:16 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


That myth was brought to you by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I suggest you take a closer look at them. You won't like what you find.

1. Unfortunately, reality is the polar bear population has increased.

2. The projected deaths of all these polar bears is based on the assumption that the ice sheet will melt in 50 years.

3. This assumption is based on climate models that are so indefensible you will either laugh or scream when you see how they are programmed.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#8) On November 29, 2009 at 10:24 AM, djkumquat (39.40) wrote:

nutters. back it up with real facts, not smoke and mirrors from the industries that have the most to gain by continuing to pollute. yep, you're the new alstry.

Report this comment
#9) On November 29, 2009 at 10:32 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


If you found out that the programs used to develop climate models were garbage, would you be willing to rethink your position?

David in Qatar

Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really!

No. 551

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

by H. Sterling Burnett

Recently, some scientists have claimed that human-caused global warming poses a significant threat to the survival of many species. For most species at risk, they argue, warming will cause the range of suitable habitat to shift faster than either the species (or their food sources) can move or adapt to a new range. For other species, they say, suitable habitat will cease to exist altogether. Among the species claimed to be at high risk of extinction from human-caused global warming is the charismatic polar bear.

Indeed, in February 2005 the Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to list the polar bear as endangered or threatened. The petition was later joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace. In response, the USFWS initiated a formal status review to determine if the polar bear should be protected throughout its range.

A new NCPA study by Dr. David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research and state climatologist, examines the claim that global warming threatens to cause polar bear extinction and finds little basis for fear. By and large, the study finds that polar bear populations are in good shape.

Is the Arctic Warming? In the study, Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts , Legates reviewed the claims that global warming is causing an unnatural increase in Arctic temperatures, posing a threat to the thickness and extent of sea ice and thus to the polar bears who rely upon it. In particular, he examined assertions made in the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (hereafter, the Arctic Assessment ), an international project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).

Legates finds that their claims of an impending, human-induced Arctic meltdown are not supported by the evidence. For example, the Arctic Assessment proclaimed that Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication that global warming is causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, current research suggests that coastal stations in Greenland are instead experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4°F per decade since measurements began in 1987.

In addition, the Arctic Assessment ignored a relatively recent long-term analysis of records from coastal stations in Russia. Russian coastal-station records of both the extent of sea ice and the thickness of fast ice (ice fixed to the shoreline or seafloor) extending back 125 years show significant variability over 60- to 80-year periods. Moreover, the maximum air temperature reported for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4°F warmer than in 2000. The Russian study concludes that actual temperature measurements do not show the increased warming predicted by computer climate models.

However, even if warming is occurring, it has happened before, as ice cores from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea show. For example, in Alaska, the onset of a warming in 1976-1977 ended the multi-decade cold trend in the mid-20th century and simply returned temperatures to those experienced in the early 20th century. Sharp, substantial fluctuations are typical of the historic pattern of natural climate variability extending back several centuries. And, as expected in response to natural variability, Alaskan ecosystems have responded rapidly and visibly to this recent warmth. By contrast, if the recent warmth were human-induced by constant additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, responses in the Arctic region would be expected to be gradual and modest when viewed within any short time period.


Environmentalists do not have past data on polar bear populations.  They have to guess.

As I said in the comment above, the entire polar bear extinction myth is based on the climate models.  

David in Qatar




Report this comment
#10) On November 29, 2009 at 12:28 PM, ease1 (97.00) wrote:


I think I read in another post somthing to the fact that you believed animals were migrating north because it was too hot down south.

"I live in the North, and no where is global warming more apparent then in the north.  More and more southern species are going further north each year. "

Do we have numbers for these claims?  Personally, I hope your right, I've got some squirrel's and a very persnickety racoon with an attitude problem that I sure wish would migrate out of my yard.

Just yesterday I saw at least 10 or 12 groups of 25 or more snow geese heading south on the migration zone.  I tried to tell them they were headed the wrong way, but they never listened.


Report this comment
#11) On November 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM, mhonarvar (< 20) wrote:

I love how the same people will jump all over this kind of stuff and do whatever they can to publisize it...but when a company hides information about their toxic chemicals leaking, or how they contain waste (or claim they do) it's quickly ignored.

How long did it take Tabbaco companies to admit smoking wasn't good for you??? How many "studies" showed negative results before the truth was revealed???

 I bet if you had stocks in the cigarette industry you wouldn't want that out either. Tehy still seem to be making money...


Go figure!

Report this comment
#12) On November 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM, devoish (78.16) wrote:


I think it is destructive that you are claiming that Scientists falsified data that is hard for a layman to confirm and claiming the globe is not really warming.

Wish you were right.



Report this comment
#13) On November 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM, angusthermopylae (37.72) wrote:


I can't speak for the other David, but for this one, the implication isn't that they falsified the data, but their findings.

In fact, the issue is that they wouldn't release the original data--something that is always suspicious, no matter what industry/job/field. <-- mhonarvar

Report this comment
#14) On November 29, 2009 at 2:49 PM, kdakota630 (29.15) wrote:

I'm all for having a clean planet and I probably do more to keep it that way than the average person.  The bottom line regarding global temperatures is that they've been fluctating for hundreds of millions of years and will continue to fluctuate for hundreds of millions more regardless of what we do.

Report this comment
#15) On November 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:


I snorted so hard at the polar bear thing I had to clean my screen. This is too much ... and let's not confuse pollution with climate change.

We burned people as witches for less than this.

Known as torch lighter nzsvz9

Report this comment
#16) On December 03, 2009 at 12:47 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

So NZ (one of my favorite countries BTW) has been +/- 1 degree celsuis since 1850 or so? Must be AGW.

Aside: angusthermopylae is my favorite MF CAPS name since every time I read it I think "Angus Thermal Pile" and with AGW on the brain it's just too funny ... tee hee.

Sorry. I apologize. My bad. Tee hee ...

Known as the chuckling nzsvz9

Report this comment
#17) On December 03, 2009 at 1:24 PM, angusthermopylae (37.72) wrote:

Why, thank you.  The name comes from one of my favorite characters in the Gap series, by Stephen R. Donaldson:  One of the most cruel, cowardly, selfish humans around who ultimately saves mankind.

...*sigh*...I think I've got the first part down....

Report this comment
#18) On December 03, 2009 at 1:25 PM, JTShideler (52.48) wrote:

I wish I could find the website which listed all of the reported causes of Global Warming.

It was hilarious to see that Global Warming was simultaneously causing the temperature to increase and the temperature to decrease, the ice caps to shrink and expand and also lead to an increase in sexual promiscuity.  When I get home I will see if I can find it.

Even if the climate was warming, the first rule of data research is coorelation does not neccessarily equal causation.

So just because the climate is warmer and carbon in the atmosphere is greater does not mean that carbon caused the climate to be warmer.  All other competing possibilities have to be tested and debunked first.  This has never happened and the e-mail evidence makes it clear that they were deliberately working to keep out all competing views.

I personally believe this issue has nothing to do about the environment and has everything to do about increasing government control by creating a scare that cannot possible be corrected without gigantic governmental intervention.

Report this comment
#19) On December 03, 2009 at 2:58 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

Bingo! to JTShideler

Known as bingo caller nzsvz9

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners