Met Office scientist in climate report row
THE MET Office has become embroiled in the outcry over manipulation of climate change data, after it was accused of failing to release details of the role played by its top climate change scientist in a report which has been heavily criticised.
Professor John Mitchell, director of climate science at the Exeter-based centre, was involved in a report produced by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report, which won a Nobel Prize in 2007, was lambasted by climate change sceptics, who said historic data had been fudged to back-up a theory that temperatures had steadily increased over the 20th century, after being either level or in decline for hundreds of years. It grabbed headlines for claiming Earth is the hottest it has been in 1,300 years.
-
Critics said the so-called "hockey stick" graph minimised the "medieval warm period" of about 1000AD. Some believe the Earth would have been as warm as it is today during that time.
Climate change sceptics have gathered momentum over the past month, after leaked e-mails between scientists at the University of East Anglia appeared to show information was being manipulated to back up their theories.
Now, Professor Mitchell is in the spotlight over his approval of the final IPCC document, which swept aside concerns over the climatic peak of the medieval warm period. The Met Office has refused to release documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) which would reveal his working papers and correspondence with colleagues. The refusal has been backed by the Ministry of Defence, of which the Met Office is part. Yesterday, a spokesman for the climate change organisation said all relevant documents relating to Professor Mitchell's role were already publicly available.
The applications came from David Holland, an electrical engineer who was among those to successfully secure an Information Commissioner ruling that East Anglia's scientists had acted unlawfully in refusing FoI requests.
Initially, the Met Office claimed Professor Mitchell's records had been deleted. Then, when they admitted their existence, they said his role had nothing to do with the Met Office. They later conceded that the Met Office had paid him for the work – but rejected disclosure on the grounds that it would "inhibit the free and frank provision" of "advice or views" and that it would "prejudice Britain's relationship with an international organisation".
Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the affair further undermined the credibility of the IPCC and those associated with it.
"It's of critical importance that data such as this should be open," he said. "More importantly, the questions being raised about the hockey stick mean that we may have to reassess the climate history of the past 2,000 years."
But Met Office spokesman Dave Britton said the FoI requests had been appropriately dealt with and that all documents relating to the process are publicly available on the IPCC website.
He said Professor Mitchell's role in the report was to co-ordinate, and ensure all views were taken into account.
27 Comments
View all
by Bob, North Devon
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 9:00PM
“@ Henry Blince '......A small number of correspondences between a small number of scientists have been taken entirely out of context and given a spin......'
Which is precisely what you are attempting (unsuccessfully) to do yourself.
Another piece of well-meant advice: If you are trying to be a successful Spin Doctor, don't give up the day job just yet.”
by Theo H, Lifton
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 7:31PM
“Ooops.
My earlier post should have started "Look, it's cold on the _east_ coast of the USA”
by Theo H, Lifton
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 7:26PM
“From the article:
"Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the affair further undermined the credibility of the IPCC and those associated with it."
Peiser is a sports scientist. Not the sort of scientist I would choose to argue the case one way or other on climate change.
You can find out about him on Wiki, or in the Guardian website as well, as he has written some lengthy stuff there.”
by Theo H, Lifton
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 7:19PM
“Look! It's cold on the west coast of the USA!!!!! Climate change is a hoax!
Well, it is going to get cold again here in the Westcountry.
There was a little light hail when I was out working today. And today the wind was coming from the east, then veering to the northeast.
Just as we were told as children...
"The north wind will blow
And we will have snow."
In the USA, the west coast is warm.
And a friend of mine in the Yukon tells me they have been sweltering there.
And they are short of snow for the Winter Olympics.
And the center of Greenland is an extraordinary 8C above average for January.”
by Theo H, Lifton
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 7:08PM
“Pachauri is not the choice of IPCC president of climate scientists. He was imposed on the IPCC by President Bush in 2001, at the request of the USA oil industry.
This was fully covered in the press at the time.
The previous president was Bob Watson, a UK atmospheric scientist. Pachauri was the vice-president at that time.
Bush got Watson sacked as he was seen as a more forceful and well informed person. A scientist - not the economist that is Pachauri's core skill.
Happens I think Pachauri should be sacked - he does not seem up to the job - and a scientist, with appropriate qualifications, should replace him.
-----
Now, let's not get stupid here (please, please, please) but Watson is now the scientific adviser to Defra. I thought the WMN might find this comment interesting.”
by Freethinker, Cornwall
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 12:44PM
“The IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, portrayed himself as an authoritative scientist by some when in fact he is a railway engineer by trade, only made himself look worse by initially attacking climate skeptics as "arrogant" and believers in "voodoo science" when the glaciers issue was highlighted. Of course, Mr. Pachauri later had to retract his words but still refuses to fully apologize. Global Warming is thankfully heading towards the same dustbin of history as SARS and swine flu- another manufactured scare peddled primarly to make fast profits for highly corrupt elites at the expense of the general human population. The entire fraud is collapsing under the weight of its own lies as new revelations continue to come out about the deception of man made climate change. It's thanks to the sterling work of those climate skeptics.
@ henry blince
"The data is irrefutable"
Could you tell me henry blince exactly what that data is? I think we all would like to know the answer. Freethinker”
by henry blince, devon
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 8:16AM
“Bob: " What Climategate is revealing with every passing day is that the peer review process on AGW has been corrupted and controlled by the 'so-called' climate scientisis at UAE, Penn State, NASA and other faculties contributing to the IPCC."
It's revealing no such thing. A small number of correspondences between a small number of scientists have been taken entirely out of context and given a spin to make them look like what they aren't. There is no 'global conspiracy of climate scientists'. The world simply doesn't work like that.”
by henry blince, devon
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 8:12AM
“Charles: " I think you'll have a hard job convincing them of that on the East Coast USA at the moment Henry"
You can't look at one small part of the world and say 'look, that bit's cooling so the rest must be cooling too'. Looked at as a whole, the world is warming. The data is irrefutable.”
by max power, st austell
Tuesday, February 09 2010, 12:20AM
“@Bob
As you are probably aware, India broke away partly because of Pachauri's 'arrogance ' comment to Indias environmental agency Nov. 09. Pachauri misquoted Himilayan glacier melting 2035 instead of 2350 and refused to retract until post COP 15. But Amazongate, Africangate, Netherlands 50% below sea level, etc. are mistakes that would fail student dissertation
let alone peer review...so what is going on?”
by Bob, North Devon
Monday, February 08 2010, 10:37PM
“Oh, dear, Henry '....every single peer reviewed paper ever published on the subject of climate ....;.
The Achilles Heel of the AGW argument. What Climategate is revealing with every passing day is that the peer review process on AGW has been corrupted and controlled by the 'so-called' climate scientisis at UAE, Penn State, NASA and other faculties contributing to the IPCC.
A bit of advice, Henry. Quit while you can,”