Now another senior British climate scientist–this time Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s Director of Climate Science, is about the face the full force of the blogosphere for contemptuous breaches of the UK’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Mitchell and the UK Meteorological Office have apparently been up to the same tricks as Professor Phil Jones of the now discredited UK Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
The Met Office is refusing to disclose Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with his IPCC colleagues in response to requests filed under the FOIA. The block has been endorsed in writing by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth –- whose department has responsibility for the Met Office. Professor John Mitchell was joint chief fabricator of the absurd headline in the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning IPCC report: that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years. A claim totally at odds with the evidence presented in the IPCC’s First Report of 1990.
Documents obtained by The Daily Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a coordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.
British climatologists have been at the heart of allegations of climate date fraud for several months since the Climategate scandal first broke. After it was announced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that although the CRU had broken the law by refusing to comply with dozens of FOIA requests over several years, head scientist, Phil Jones was branded a criminal by climate skeptics around the world.
"It appears NASA says no warming for last 15 years and we are headed for a mini ice age"
Problem is, NASA claimed no such thing, period. You just made that all up.
NASA does say that minor fluctuations in solar activity have little effect on earth temperature, and that greenhouse gas effects dominate over it. So, when NASA says "less solar activity", that's all it means. It definitely does not mean "heading for a mini ice age."
If the Met has no credibilty ... then why did you start out using them as your primary source?Quote:
You mean this Met office that has no credibility or integrity
You can't have it both ways, declaring the Met is credible when you thought they agreed with you, then flipflopping like a beached halibut the other way as soon as you learned they disagreed with you.
Oh, that's right. None of them happened, because the accusations were proven to all be fabricated BS. The whole phony climategate non-scandal did a face plant into a cow patty. And now you arise, cowchips on your chin, to no doubt claim how that further proves the great conspiracy. In your mind, everything that happens proves the great conspiracy.
The old Soviets used to jail people for doing science that contradicted the party line. I don't see much difference between you and them.