There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Undoubtedly. That's why pronouncements of axe-grinding, armchair scientists should be viewed with a great deal more scepticism than published, peer-reviewed science. The latter overwhelmingly supports AGW.
I don't have faith in AGW being true, but I have faith that - in the long run - the scientific method will provide the right answers.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
I think you are very confused about the nature of the computer code that you are discussing. Firstly, there is no University of Norwich involved in climate change research to my knowledge. Secondly, the University of East Anglia, based in Norwich, does not have a "climate change model", in the sense of a computer model that is used to predict the climate. I think the code you are referring to is code that was used to analyse historical temperature observations.
There is no sense in which the science done at UEA was "secret" or "unverifiable". Details of the methods will have been published in scientific journals.
Apologies, yes, I got my fenland universities mixed up.
However, you are quite simply factually wrong when you say that the science done at UEA was not secret and unverifiable. Was the source code, and the underlying termperature historical data, voluntarily released by the UEA, or not? If not, if was secret. If not, it was unverifiable. If not, therefore, it was not science.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
@BethRigby: It's not just the #BCC concerned abt extending paternity leave: John Allan of #FSB: "[It's] a cost that some firms will struggle to afford”
Look on the bright side.
At least none of Labour's announcements so far have been accompanied by an actual car crash.
Yet.
You need to copy the entire link (including the "http" bit at the front), otherwise it thinks it is a local link to PB and doesn't work.
The AGW was instantly *political* not rational shows it in spades.
When Thatcher and Reagan defeated communism, the people who follow it had to come up with a new way of Telling Everybody What to Do.
AGW is just the vehicle for that. Whether man made climate change exists or not is completely irrelevant.
Was Magrit one of those who was in on this wizard wheeze of finding a new way of Telling Everybody What to Do (something to which she wasn't averse)?
'Of all the challenges faced by the world community in those four years, one has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance—I refer to the threat to our global environment.'*
*For the conspiracy theorists, a speech made the day before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Physics seems to be the best example of using the best theory for now and then discarding it when it's proved false. That's one problem with string theory and multiverses. String theory seems to be gradually waning but the multiverse theory is unfalsifiable, because we can't show it isn't there. Thus it's a faith thing.
Attributed to Thomas Huxley "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." If facts are out of reach, it's no longer science.
Mr Dancer and Toms, light is a sneaky little tinker. No one's come up with a better theory for quantum wave theory than the Copenhagen interpretation and that's not any sort of explanation anyway.
No. It's more like Chinese boxes, whereby a new theory should encompass the successful elements of the old one(s). The Copenhagen view is unsettling perhaps as we live, somewhat, in a macroscopic world, but to accuse it of being no theory at all somewhat belies that fact that it best explains the outcomes of experiments within its known limits, in number beyond count---one of the ultimate arbiters. A more general theory will encompass this.
It is now clear that all the pollsters, wether through altering their methodology, or otherwise , have decided together, that UKIP is now on 15 points, will remain on 15 points, and woe betide someone who says otherwise.
There is a big smell about these polls in the last 2-3 weeks, and their convergence on what the polls should say. I know that Mike S, thinks they are the beez kneez. But I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole, let alone a real poll.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
30 years next year doing palaeo-environment studies for industry and research. I stayed away from university research because it didn't pay enough but plenty of reports and research documents for private companies including most of the archaeological units in the UK.
And no I do not frequent climate blogs from either side because I see no value in them. As I have said on here many times before I will not quote from blogs either.
Oh and of course the personal interest because it was my relative who did the first experiments on Green house gases 150 years ago and I have a large collection of his papers and books.
So yes, at a guess, I would say I probably know a million times more than you do about the subject.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
Mr. Anorak, I'd dispute your creationism vs evolution comparison as well. Evolution is tremendously well-documented (we see it even today with things like MRSA or this astounding case http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145601).
By contrast, the Earth's climate has always and will always change. Teasing out the difference between the natural and continual change in climate due to normal factors and any additional changes due to human industrial activity is an entirely different kettle of monkeys.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Micro-evolution, no evidence for macro-evolution. Indeed Darwin said we would find millions of transitional fossils, we haven't found any, hence the nonsensical punctuated equilibrium theory.
Fact is there is no evidence macro-evolution is true and it makes little sense, it's a leap of faith I can't make. It says something that South Park guys managed to debunk it so hilariously in two half hour shows.
Specific to the UK, I don't see what HSBC have done wrong. They have acted legally to help their clients avoid tax. If politicians want to stop it then they need to reform the tax code, not just point at perfectly legal behaviour and shout and scream about it.
As for overseas conduct, there is only an implication that they broke tax laws in other countries, but I'm sure HSBC have their own legal experts to ensure they didn't cross the line. This all seems to be a witch hunt aimed at the wrong people. Wealthy people and banks will use whatever means necessary to reduce tax exposure, it is up to governments worldwide to change the tax code and tax treaties so that avoidance isn't so trivial.
I haven't looked into the detail of what HSBC did.
However, a UK domiciled/resident individual, has an obligation to declare interest earned in foreign bank accounts to HMRC and pay tax on it.
There is nothing wrong with having a foreign bank account (I have one in the US) per se. It's what you do with it. If HSBC had reason to believe - or should have, after due and careful inquiry - then they are at fault*
* @Cyclefree can obviously correct me on any technicalities
The Cook et Al. *97%* paper does seem extremely flawed.
Alan Carlin's paper for instance:
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:
"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."
I think the code you are referring to is code that was used to analyse historical temperature observations.
There is no sense in which the science done at UEA was "secret" or "unverifiable". Details of the methods will have been published in scientific journals.
From recollection, the complaint was that they adjusted the raw data - for what may have been valid reasons - but then refused to disclose the raw information and details of how and why they had changed it.
Mr. Me, arrows aren't generally used in warfare today, though. The climate's natural heating and cooling continues, unless you think the onset of man's industrial activities led to the Earth spontaneously deciding to have a steady state climate which would henceforth only be affected by the gaseous emissions of mankind.
The accepted view is that the Earth would have cooled slightly over the last few decades, had it not been for greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels.
This is because of the effect of a number of largeish volcanic eruptions (Agung, El Chichon, Pinatubo) at a time when there was no change the brightness of the sun, and with the latest solar cycle being a weak one, it is hard to explain the recent record high global mean temperature by reference to natural causes.
@Charles It's fascinating that PB can state quite categorically that eating a bacon sandwich the wrong way will shift polls, but this will have no effect. I will never understand these mysteries of betting.
"Richard Brooks transcript from the Today programme
You’re referring to the Agreement that was signed between the UK & Switzerland government in October 2007. The aim there was to bring in billions of pounds in unpaid…
RB: 2011. That was signed in 2011. It was… David Gauke, Tax Minister, and David Hartnett the senior tax official, started negotiating it straight after they’d received this data from the French authorities, so they knew that there was a mass of evidence of tax evasion at the heart of HSBC. They set about negotiating agreement with the Swiss Government which says – I’ve got the words in front of me – it says that, “It is highly unlikely to be in the public interest of the United Kingdom that professional advisors, Swiss paying agents and their employees – in other words bankers – will be subject to a criminal investigation investigation by HMRC.” So knowing they’re sitting on all this evidence they’ve simply washed their hands of it and said we’re not going to prosecute. And that’s why no one has come before the courts in five years. Richard Brooks, BBC Radio 4: Today, 9 February 2015
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
I am otherwise occupied today writing up a study on occupation of mainland Britain in the Bølling-Allerød interstadial (which is a lot more interesting than it sounds) so I am being restrained in my response.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
Mr. Tyndall may not have the one silver bullet to slay climate change, but he has shown on here many times that he knows the questions to ask that should make the unthinking climate changers stop dead in their tracks....
Too many have too much to lose in the climate change industry. It is very much a religion - those who want to believe are easily pleased with the evidence on offer, even though - to my mind - in many areas it is confusing, contradictory and offers few discernible trends.
The fourth rule of comedy is not to take the p out of people's names, because however creative a comic genius you are, they will have heard it before (possibly in a speech from Michael Heseltine).
I can attest to that.
I've heard every single possible variation of joke about my name.
The frustrating thing is that everyone who makes a comment along those lines believes that they are spell-blindingly original...
I think you are very confused about the nature of the computer code that you are discussing. Firstly, there is no University of Norwich involved in climate change research to my knowledge. Secondly, the University of East Anglia, based in Norwich, does not have a "climate change model", in the sense of a computer model that is used to predict the climate. I think the code you are referring to is code that was used to analyse historical temperature observations.
There is no sense in which the science done at UEA was "secret" or "unverifiable". Details of the methods will have been published in scientific journals.
Apologies, yes, I got my fenland universities mixed up.
However, you are quite simply factually wrong when you say that the science done at UEA was not secret and unverifiable. Was the source code, and the underlying termperature historical data, voluntarily released by the UEA, or not? If not, if was secret. If not, it was unverifiable. If not, therefore, it was not science.
There are a number of different teams analysing historical records of temperatures, and they all come to the same conclusions that the team at UEA came to. So in terms of how science proceeds the work has been verified by being replicated independently by other scientists.
No-one needs to audit their code. Their scientific conclusions have been more robustly confirmed by other groups writing their own code and performing their own analysis independently of the UEA group. That's science.
The AGW was instantly *political* not rational shows it in spades.
When Thatcher and Reagan defeated communism, the people who follow it had to come up with a new way of Telling Everybody What to Do.
AGW is just the vehicle for that. Whether man made climate change exists or not is completely irrelevant.
Was Magrit one of those who was in on this wizard wheeze of finding a new way of Telling Everybody What to Do (something to which she wasn't averse)?
'Of all the challenges faced by the world community in those four years, one has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance—I refer to the threat to our global environment.'*
*For the conspiracy theorists, a speech made the day before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Reading Charles Moore's authorised biography of Lady Thatcher she believed in global warming for two reasons.
1) She was a scientist herself
2) During the Falklands War, the Met office produced very accurate weather forecasts, after she always believed anything the Met office gave her.
HSBC have considered taking its HQ away from London in the past. We may think that we have lost hundreds of millions in tax, but the public attacks on HSBC may lead to several billions of lost tax. There are also other entities out there willing to step into the role that HSBC played, so not all the hundreds of millions in tax would have been retained. Anyway today it is the public stocks for HSBC.
@Charles It's fascinating that PB can state quite categorically that eating a bacon sandwich the wrong way will shift polls, but this will have no effect. I will never understand these mysteries of betting.
"Richard Brooks transcript from the Today programme
You’re referring to the Agreement that was signed between the UK & Switzerland government in October 2007. The aim there was to bring in billions of pounds in unpaid…
RB: 2011. That was signed in 2011. It was… David Gauke, Tax Minister, and David Hartnett the senior tax official, started negotiating it straight after they’d received this data from the French authorities, so they knew that there was a mass of evidence of tax evasion at the heart of HSBC. They set about negotiating agreement with the Swiss Government which says – I’ve got the words in front of me – it says that, “It is highly unlikely to be in the public interest of the United Kingdom that professional advisors, Swiss paying agents and their employees – in other words bankers – will be subject to a criminal investigation investigation by HMRC.” So knowing they’re sitting on all this evidence they’ve simply washed their hands of it and said we’re not going to prosecute. And that’s why no one has come before the courts in five years. Richard Brooks, BBC Radio 4: Today, 9 February 2015
PB has always been like that.
Dave would have to resign because he rode a horse or because he went shopping in Morrisons.
Or who can forget George Osborne having to resign after crying at a funeral.
I think you are very confused about the nature of the computer code that you are discussing. Firstly, there is no University of Norwich involved in climate change research to my knowledge. Secondly, the University of East Anglia, based in Norwich, does not have a "climate change model", in the sense of a computer model that is used to predict the climate. I think the code you are referring to is code that was used to analyse historical temperature observations.
There is no sense in which the science done at UEA was "secret" or "unverifiable". Details of the methods will have been published in scientific journals.
Apologies, yes, I got my fenland universities mixed up.
However, you are quite simply factually wrong when you say that the science done at UEA was not secret and unverifiable. Was the source code, and the underlying termperature historical data, voluntarily released by the UEA, or not? If not, if was secret. If not, it was unverifiable. If not, therefore, it was not science.
There are a number of different teams analysing historical records of temperatures, and they all come to the same conclusions that the team at UEA came to. So in terms of how science proceeds the work has been verified by being replicated independently by other scientists.
No-one needs to audit their code. Their scientific conclusions have been more robustly confirmed by other groups writing their own code and performing their own analysis independently of the UEA group. That's science.
Can you point me to a peer reviewed paper (Or 3) of your choice on the matter, I genuinely hold no horse in this race and would like to work out the truth
"The Copenhagen view is unsettling perhaps as we live, somewhat, in a macroscopic world, but to accuse it of being no theory at all somewhat belies that fact that it best explains the outcomes of experiments within its known limits, in number beyond count---one of the ultimate arbiters."
I haven't said it's no theory at all, I've said it's no explanation at all. "Just shut up and do the math" as the saying goes. It works but what is going on?
I'm aware the maths supports eleven dimensions but what are they? Don't say coiled up so we can't see them - I said what, not where.
Hawking's 'explanation' of time beginning at the big bang is odd. Think of the South Pole - there's nothing further south. Yes, there is, the earth hangs in space and you can draw a line under it.
Removing time helps mathematics because it has no arrow of time.
We can always fall back on the turtles or just say it's beyond our ken.
HSBC have considered taking its HQ away from London in the past. We may think that we have lost hundreds of millions in tax, but the public attacks on HSBC may lead to several billions of lost tax. There are also other entities out there willing to step into the role that HSBC played, so not all the hundreds of millions in tax would have been retained. Anyway today it is the public stocks for HSBC.
The Beeb and The Guardian have got together to resurrect something that was exposed when Labour were in power but are trying to smear the Tories with it. Anyone would think that an election is coming!
The 'Theory of Evolution' on the other hand is very well established indeed.
Fossil record shows otherwise alongside what we see around us. The fossil record of an evolutionary progression typically consists of species that suddenly appear, and ultimately disappear, in many cases close to a million years later, without any change in external appearance. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
PS I don't endorse Gould, a noted Marxist and fraud.
Re HSBC. A friend of my Father who runs a Mosque and sends donations to Palestine and Pakistan had his account closed by HSBC last year because he was outside their risk appetite.
Interesting whom HSBC like to keep within their risk appetite.
Mr. Me, of course that's the 'accepted view'. If the accepted view were that the Earth would've warmed naturally anyway that'd rather undermine the argument AGW proponents propound.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
Mr. Tyndall may not have the one silver bullet to slay climate change, but he has shown on here many times that he knows the questions to ask that should make the unthinking climate changers stop dead in their tracks....
Too many have too much to lose in the climate change industry. It is very much a religion - those who want to believe are easily pleased with the evidence on offer, even though - to my mind - in many areas it is confusing, contradictory and offers few discernible trends.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
I am otherwise occupied today writing up a study on occupation of mainland Britain in the Bølling-Allerød interstadial (which is a lot more interesting than it sounds) so I am being restrained in my response.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
Mr. Tyndall may not have the one silver bullet to slay climate change, but he has shown on here many times that he knows the questions to ask that should make the unthinking climate changers stop dead in their tracks....
Too many have too much to lose in the climate change industry. It is very much a religion - those who want to believe are easily pleased with the evidence on offer, even though - to my mind - in many areas it is confusing, contradictory and offers few discernible trends.
I'm sure he has better things to do with his time, as do we all
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
The fourth rule of comedy is not to take the p out of people's names, because however creative a comic genius you are, they will have heard it before (possibly in a speech from Michael Heseltine).
I can attest to that.
I've heard every single possible variation of joke about my name.
The frustrating thing is that everyone who makes a comment along those lines believes that they are spell-blindingly original...
It was that sort of statement which mean you should see why I, as a scientist, was flabbergasted.
I'm sorry, but the suggestion that no-one needs to be able to check the workings of a theoretical model is completely alien to the scientific method.
There is no getting around this. I have no particular axe to grind - on balance, I think that it is likely that the climate-change models are broadly right. I certainly thought that was the case until it was revealed that the models had never been peer-reviewed, and indeed that the UEA were actively trying to prevent their workings being checked.
Specific to the UK, I don't see what HSBC have done wrong. They have acted legally to help their clients avoid tax. If politicians want to stop it then they need to reform the tax code, not just point at perfectly legal behaviour and shout and scream about it.
As for overseas conduct, there is only an implication that they broke tax laws in other countries, but I'm sure HSBC have their own legal experts to ensure they didn't cross the line. This all seems to be a witch hunt aimed at the wrong people. Wealthy people and banks will use whatever means necessary to reduce tax exposure, it is up to governments worldwide to change the tax code and tax treaties so that avoidance isn't so trivial.
I haven't looked into the detail of what HSBC did.
However, a UK domiciled/resident individual, has an obligation to declare interest earned in foreign bank accounts to HMRC and pay tax on it.
There is nothing wrong with having a foreign bank account (I have one in the US) per se. It's what you do with it. If HSBC had reason to believe - or should have, after due and careful inquiry - then they are at fault*
* @Cyclefree can obviously correct me on any technicalities
Correct. You can have an account in an overseas country but any interest earned must be declared and tax paid. Banks are under an obligation to Know their Customers so a bank in say, the Isle of Man, when opening an account should know what the source of funds are. If they don't or don't make reasonable inquiries or, worse, know or strongly suspect that the account opener is putting money into the account to hide it then they are being very naughty indeed. In that case, the account owner may well be evading tax in two ways: in relation to the income tax payable on the interest earned - which is generally small and more likely that the capital sum was money earned on which tax should have been paid but wasn't. For some time now banks in places like IoM, Jersey etc have either withheld tax from any interest earned and/or shared information about UK-based account holders with the UK authorities.
But the world pre-2007 was a different world. Switzerland's banking secrecy was its USP. That model is now dead and they are having to find a new USP.
The difficulty with all these things is that if there is another reasonably safe/secure territory where money can be put that is where the money - or some of it anyway - will go e.g. Singapore.
Catching tax evaders is important but it is equally important IMO to simplify the tax code in a way that creates far fewer loopholes for the rich - whether individuals or companies - to exploit - at the expense of the honest.
Some interesting responses from HSBC here. That could be summarised as we bought a Swiss bank, it had some questionable practices, we initially managed it at arms length and then in 2007 started clamping down on it and customer numbers cut and funds managed cut. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc-responds-revelations-misconduct-swiss-bank?CMP=share_btn_tw PS "providing client data to foreign authorities would itself constitute a criminal offence under Swiss law."
On his methodology, Powell notes, he only verified that two out of the 10,885 articles he found concluded that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is wrong: “It is a safe assumption that virtually all the other 10883 do not reject–that is, they accept–AGW but I can’t say for sure that each one of them does.”
Not rejecting something is vastly, vastly different to accepting it.
Re HSBC. A friend of my Father who runs a Mosque and sends donations to Palestine and Pakistan had his account closed by HSBC last year because he was outside their risk appetite.
Interesting whom HSBC like to keep within their risk appetite.
That would apply to all banks, not just HSBC, and it's because those countries would be classified by AML teams as "high risk" countries, for fairly obvious reasons, rather than - necessarily - anything to do with your father's friend.
The fourth rule of comedy is not to take the p out of people's names, because however creative a comic genius you are, they will have heard it before (possibly in a speech from Michael Heseltine).
I can attest to that. I've heard every single possible variation of joke about my name. The frustrating thing is that everyone who makes a comment along those lines believes that they are spell-blindingly original...
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
So yes, at a guess, I would say I probably know a million times more than you do about the subject.
I think you are very confused about the nature of the computer code that you are discussing. Firstly, there is no University of Norwich involved in climate change research to my knowledge. Secondly, the University of East Anglia, based in Norwich, does not have a "climate change model", in the sense of a computer model that is used to predict the climate. I think the code you are referring to is code that was used to analyse historical temperature observations.
There is no sense in which the science done at UEA was "secret" or "unverifiable". Details of the methods will have been published in scientific journals.
Apologies, yes, I got my fenland universities mixed up.
However, you are quite simply factually wrong when you say that the science done at UEA was not secret and unverifiable. Was the source code, and the underlying termperature historical data, voluntarily released by the UEA, or not? If not, if was secret. If not, it was unverifiable. If not, therefore, it was not science.
There are a number of different teams analysing historical records of temperatures, and they all come to the same conclusions that the team at UEA came to. So in terms of how science proceeds the work has been verified by being replicated independently by other scientists.
No-one needs to audit their code. Their scientific conclusions have been more robustly confirmed by other groups writing their own code and performing their own analysis independently of the UEA group. That's science.
Can you point me to a peer reviewed paper (Or 3) of your choice on the matter, I genuinely hold no horse in this race and would like to work out the truth
There is a link to a paper for the Hadley/CRU data here.
The newest team - BEST - have a list of papers on their website.
There is also a global surface temperature record maintained by NCDC, and there are lower troposphere temperatures from satellites which are often compared with the surface temperatures by teams at UAH and RSS.
Re HSBC. A friend of my Father who runs a Mosque and sends donations to Palestine and Pakistan had his account closed by HSBC last year because he was outside their risk appetite.
Interesting whom HSBC like to keep within their risk appetite.
That would apply to all banks, not just HSBC, and it's because those countries would be classified by AML teams as "high risk" countries, for fairly obvious reasons, rather than - necessarily - anything to do with your father's friend.
The thing is, another friend who works in a similar field, has not encountered any problems with his bank, who aren't HSBC.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
Nope. A statement of fact from someone who actually knows them.
So you say. Spent a long time in the field of climate research, have you? Published in a few journals, no doubt. Or do you just spend an unhealthy amount of time in sceptic echo chambers like "watts up with that"?
Mr. Tyndall may not have the one silver bullet to slay climate change, but he has shown on here many times that he knows the questions to ask that should make the unthinking climate changers stop dead in their tracks....
Too many have too much to lose in the climate change industry. It is very much a religion - those who want to believe are easily pleased with the evidence on offer, even though - to my mind - in many areas it is confusing, contradictory and offers few discernible trends.
I'm sure he has better things to do with his time, as do we all
On AGW, we know that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere (in lab tests), and it's probable that the earth is warming. But my caveats are that the direct link is still lacking. The earth has cycles of warming and cooling and correlation isn't causation. The indirect evidence is strong but it remains indirect. We can't yet predict accurately.
I worry about the rush to judgement. It does remind me of modern physics where they admit that although the maths looks nice some of the theories are untestable. So they say, we're into a new paradigm. To me, it seems indistinguishable from admitting we can't prove it false and normally that would put it outside science so we have to change the definition of science.
It was that sort of statement which mean you should see why I, as a scientist, was flabbergasted.
I'm sorry, but the suggestion that no-one needs to be able to check the workings of a theoretical model is completely alien to the scientific method.
There is no getting around this. I have no particular axe to grind - on balance, I think that it is likely that the climate-change models are broadly right. I certainly thought that was the case until it was revealed that the models had never been peer-reviewed, and indeed that the UEA were actively trying to prevent their workings being checked.
Their workings are published in the scientific journals - so they can be checked.
There is a difference between the method and the specific implementation of a method.
I am much more confident in the results of the different surface temperature analyses knowing that they have all written their code independently, rather than sharing the code with each other.
Andy Nyman (@andynyman) 09/02/2015 12:05 Here's a quote for today - "People who boast about their IQ are losers". Stephen Hawking.
It is in danger of being more misquoted than Thatcher's there's no such thing as society.
Pressed on the number of women he had slept with - "How many are we talking: 10, 20, 30?" - Clegg replied: "No more than 30 ... it's a lot less than that."
From the beeb live blog "More woe for HSBC today, as the judge in charge of a Belgian investigation into the Swiss private banking arm of HSBC is considering issuing an international arrest warrant for the group's directors because they are not cooperating, a prosecution spokeswoman said. Belgium charged the unit with tax fraud and money laundering in November, accusing the bank of offering diamond dealers and other wealthy clients in Belgium ways of hiding cash and evading tax, Reuters reported. A spokesperson for HSBC private bank in Switzerland was not immediately available for comment."
Perhaps they all have an urgent appointment in South America? ;-)
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Rather bizarre to accuse Climate change sceptics of the 'herd' mentality - the herd (as your use of the term 'denier' so well indicates) is all going the other way.
Mr. Me, of course that's the 'accepted view'. If the accepted view were that the Earth would've warmed naturally anyway that'd rather undermine the argument AGW proponents propound.
It is the accepted view because that's what the observations point to. The scientists are only interested in getting the right answer - ideally before another scientist does so.
If the observations were that natural causes would cause a warming then that's what would be published.
Some interesting responses from HSBC here. That could be summarised as we bought a Swiss bank, it had some questionable practices, we initially managed it at arms length and then in 2007 started clamping down on it and customer numbers cut and funds managed cut. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc-responds-revelations-misconduct-swiss-bank?CMP=share_btn_tw PS "providing client data to foreign authorities would itself constitute a criminal offence under Swiss law."
Great use of English...!
"a number of clients who may not have been fully compliant... HSBC's Swiss private bank has reduced its client base by 70% since 2007"
Equally they were by no means the worst offender. The one that sent the most shock waves through the industry was Wegelin. They fully deserved what they got, but how could anyone have been so greedy, so stupid?
Their workings are published in the scientific journals - so they can be checked.
There is a difference between the method and the specific implementation of a method.
I am much more confident in the results of the different surface temperature analyses knowing that they have all written their code independently, rather than sharing the code with each other.
OK, so let's imagine Dr X emails UEA and says ' Hi, I've been trying to reproduce your results but I get a completely different answer. How did you arrive at your figures?'
If the response is: "It's a secret", then it's not science. I really cannot see how anyone even vaguely knowledgeable about the scientific method could dispute this.
Of course, it is also true that you would expect and want other groups to do their own calculations and - very importantly - try to find different ways of verifying the results. But the two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm a scrolling shoot-em-up Doom kinda girl. Though I did clock Tetris back in 1988 and it took about 10hrs. I never got Asteroids.
I'm very susceptible to game play as I've an addictive personality, and toying with buying a PS Thingy for a while.
Frankly, pretending not going all OCD is boring, just more socially acceptable. How can spotting an episode from 200+ shows of a TV show using a single line of dialogue be more normal than how to beat a cyber baddie on L24?
Those of us who love detail and cleverness should say so more often. We notice the dedication others put into a scene or game play sequence.
HSBC have considered taking its HQ away from London in the past. We may think that we have lost hundreds of millions in tax, but the public attacks on HSBC may lead to several billions of lost tax. There are also other entities out there willing to step into the role that HSBC played, so not all the hundreds of millions in tax would have been retained. Anyway today it is the public stocks for HSBC.
The Beeb and The Guardian have got together to resurrect something that was exposed when Labour were in power but are trying to smear the Tories with it. Anyone would think that an election is coming!
I doubt they would have been so excited if a now Tory peer hadn't been running the business. (See Hacking and Trinity Mirror newspapers for further reference).
Amusing to re-read this article that The Guardian published about Green in 2009.
'HSBC chairman Stephen Green is the epitome of the sensible banker demanded by Gordon Brown.'
On AGW, we know that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere (in lab tests), and it's probable that the earth is warming. But my caveats are that the direct link is still lacking. The earth has cycles of warming and cooling and correlation isn't causation. The indirect evidence is strong but it remains indirect. We can't yet predict accurately.
I worry about the rush to judgement. It does remind me of modern physics where they admit that although the maths looks nice some of the theories are untestable. So they say, we're into a new paradigm. To me, it seems indistinguishable from admitting we can't prove it false and normally that would put it outside science so we have to change the definition of science.
Hmm ...
Both could be right but ...
WIth the physics I think we're pushing against the boundaries of what is actually knowable with the various universe theories, and with the GW industrialised civilisation has not been around for long enough to come to definite conclusions.
I'm sorry, but the suggestion that no-one needs to be able to check the workings of a theoretical model is completely alien to the scientific method.
As far as I understood it, the team at CRU produce statistical analyses of surface temperature observations. Explaining the statistical methods used should be relatively simple to do in a paper and for any halfway competent PhD student to reproduce.
UEA/CRU also do not hold the source data - that all comes from the different Meteorological agencies across the globe. I think this was the source of the issue with CRU not releasing their source data. They didn't have permission from the Meteorological agencies to do so.
Generally speaking the national meteorological agencies like to make money by selling their observational data, and if you want to use it for "research purposes" you have to promise not to release it into the public domain. I think this lead to some negotiations so that this could be changed, and a lot of this data is now available to the public.
They also don't have a "theoretical model" in the way that the different climate modelling teams have models of the Earth's climate for making predictions for the future climate.
HSBC have considered taking its HQ away from London in the past. We may think that we have lost hundreds of millions in tax, but the public attacks on HSBC may lead to several billions of lost tax. There are also other entities out there willing to step into the role that HSBC played, so not all the hundreds of millions in tax would have been retained. Anyway today it is the public stocks for HSBC.
Personally I've always felt that an argument which says that we must allow people / entities to get away with criminal behaviour because otherwise they might leave and we won't have all the benefit of their criminal activity to be rather weak not to mention somewhat lacking in a moral compass.
But - to a greater or lesser extent - it has been the argument run by UK governments of whatever political hue for some time now.
If that changes significantly then all the rest of us will have to pay up - and we're not talking small sums - for those public services we're all told we treasure mightily.
HSBC have considered taking its HQ away from London in the past. We may think that we have lost hundreds of millions in tax, but the public attacks on HSBC may lead to several billions of lost tax. There are also other entities out there willing to step into the role that HSBC played, so not all the hundreds of millions in tax would have been retained. Anyway today it is the public stocks for HSBC.
Personally I've always felt that an argument which says that we must allow people / entities to get away with criminal behaviour because otherwise they might leave and we won't have all the benefit of their criminal activity to be rather weak not to mention somewhat lacking in a moral compass.
But - to a greater or lesser extent - it has been the argument run by UK governments of whatever political hue for some time now.
If that changes significantly then all the rest of us will have to pay up - and we're not talking small sums - for those public services we're all told we treasure mightily.
It's the same sort of argument that has kept us in thrall to the House of Saud for donkeys' years.
Re HSBC. A friend of my Father who runs a Mosque and sends donations to Palestine and Pakistan had his account closed by HSBC last year because he was outside their risk appetite.
Interesting whom HSBC like to keep within their risk appetite.
That would apply to all banks, not just HSBC, and it's because those countries would be classified by AML teams as "high risk" countries, for fairly obvious reasons, rather than - necessarily - anything to do with your father's friend.
The thing is, another friend who works in a similar field, has not encountered any problems with his bank, who aren't HSBC.
HSBC will be doing a massive remediation exercise following the fine they had. The fact that another bank - unspecified - isn't doing the same thing does not mean that your friend is being discriminated against unfairly. It may simply mean that that bank has not got good enough procedures, does not realise what it needs to do, your other friend's circumstances are different etc. It could also mean that they are complying or have been required to comply with other provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act.
All banks are - or should be - super-sensitive these days to monies being sent to high-risk countries, particularly countries in the Middle East or those with a high risk of terrorism. Pakistan and Palestine are two such countries.
Their workings are published in the scientific journals - so they can be checked.
There is a difference between the method and the specific implementation of a method.
I am much more confident in the results of the different surface temperature analyses knowing that they have all written their code independently, rather than sharing the code with each other.
OK, so let's imagine Dr X emails UEA and says ' Hi, I've been trying to reproduce your results but I get a completely different answer. How did you arrive at your figures?'
If the response is: "It's a secret", then it's not science. I really cannot see how anyone even vaguely knowledgeable about the scientific method could dispute this.
Of course, it is also true that you would expect and want other groups to do their own calculations and - very importantly - try to find different ways of verifying the results. But the two are not mutually exclusive.
Have they found any evidence of wrongdoing now they have the data, or have they apologised to Prof Jones?
No man says "a lot less than that" with the qualifier of *30*
It's pathetic. Did he want it to be 30, or what? Otherwise he'd never have said it.
If he bagged less than 30 [entirely believable] - why mention it unless he wanted to be a stud by association?
There is nothing to redeem Cleggers here. Nothing at all.
Those with public bed post notches are flashing them about as they count towards approval or condemnation from others. Clegg is a politician - he clearly was angling to be a lady-killer. It's so sad/pathetic as a vote winning strategy.
Andy Nyman (@andynyman) 09/02/2015 12:05 Here's a quote for today - "People who boast about their IQ are losers". Stephen Hawking.
It is in danger of being more misquoted than Thatcher's there's no such thing as society.
Pressed on the number of women he had slept with - "How many are we talking: 10, 20, 30?" - Clegg replied: "No more than 30 ... it's a lot less than that."
Re HSBC. A friend of my Father who runs a Mosque and sends donations to Palestine and Pakistan had his account closed by HSBC last year because he was outside their risk appetite.
Interesting whom HSBC like to keep within their risk appetite.
That would apply to all banks, not just HSBC, and it's because those countries would be classified by AML teams as "high risk" countries, for fairly obvious reasons, rather than - necessarily - anything to do with your father's friend.
The thing is, another friend who works in a similar field, has not encountered any problems with his bank, who aren't HSBC.
HSBC will be doing a massive remediation exercise following the fine they had. The fact that another bank - unspecified - isn't doing the same thing does not mean that your friend is being discriminated against unfairly. It may simply mean that that bank has not got good enough procedures, does not realise what it needs to do, your other friend's circumstances are different etc. It could also mean that they are complying or have been required to comply with other provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act.
All banks are - or should be - super-sensitive these days to monies being sent to high-risk countries, particularly countries in the Middle East or those with a high risk of terrorism. Pakistan and Palestine are two such countries.
You don't think HSBC should have said
Dear Mr Ahmed, you're sending money to these countries, can you explain what this is for?
Some interesting responses from HSBC here. That could be summarised as we bought a Swiss bank, it had some questionable practices, we initially managed it at arms length and then in 2007 started clamping down on it and customer numbers cut and funds managed cut. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc-responds-revelations-misconduct-swiss-bank?CMP=share_btn_tw PS "providing client data to foreign authorities would itself constitute a criminal offence under Swiss law."
Great use of English...!
"a number of clients who may not have been fully compliant... HSBC's Swiss private bank has reduced its client base by 70% since 2007"
Equally they were by no means the worst offender. The one that sent the most shock waves through the industry was Wegelin. They fully deserved what they got, but how could anyone have been so greedy, so stupid?
Have they found any evidence of wrongdoing now they have the data, or have they apologised to Prof Jones?
I have no idea, but the apologising should be done by Professor Jones and the UEA. The fact that it took a ruling by the Information Commissioner to get transparency over such a key part of the AGW debate was absolutely shameful.
If it turns out that the data was indeed robust, now that it can be independently verified, then it becomes scientific data. Before that, it's just a black box.
And talk about an own-goal. If they wanted to give ammunition to 'climate change deniers', then the UEA could hardly have done better.
I think you are very confused about the nature of the computer code that you are discussing. Firstly, there is no University of Norwich involved in climate change research to my knowledge. Secondly, the University of East Anglia, based in Norwich, does not have a "climate change model", in the sense of a computer model that is used to predict the climate. I think the code you are referring to is code that was used to analyse historical temperature observations.
There is no sense in which the science done at UEA was "secret" or "unverifiable". Details of the methods will have been published in scientific journals.
Apologies, yes, I got my fenland universities mixed up.
However, you are quite simply factually wrong when you say that the science done at UEA was not secret and unverifiable. Was the source code, and the underlying termperature historical data, voluntarily released by the UEA, or not? If not, if was secret. If not, it was unverifiable. If not, therefore, it was not science.
There are a number of different teams analysing historical records of temperatures, and they all come to the same conclusions that the team at UEA came to. So in terms of how science proceeds the work has been verified by being replicated independently by other scientists.
No-one needs to audit their code. Their scientific conclusions have been more robustly confirmed by other groups writing their own code and performing their own analysis independently of the UEA group. That's science.
Can you point me to a peer reviewed paper (Or 3) of your choice on the matter, I genuinely hold no horse in this race and would like to work out the truth
There is a link to a paper for the Hadley/CRU data here.
The newest team - BEST - have a list of papers on their website.
There is also a global surface temperature record maintained by NCDC, and there are lower troposphere temperatures from satellites which are often compared with the surface temperatures by teams at UAH and RSS.
I notice you don't link to the satellite data. A shame given that they don't show the same trend as the surface station data.
HSBC have considered taking its HQ away from London in the past. We may think that we have lost hundreds of millions in tax, but the public attacks on HSBC may lead to several billions of lost tax. There are also other entities out there willing to step into the role that HSBC played, so not all the hundreds of millions in tax would have been retained. Anyway today it is the public stocks for HSBC.
Personally I've always felt that an argument which says that we must allow people / entities to get away with criminal behaviour because otherwise they might leave and we won't have all the benefit of their criminal activity to be rather weak not to mention somewhat lacking in a moral compass.
But - to a greater or lesser extent - it has been the argument run by UK governments of whatever political hue for some time now.
If that changes significantly then all the rest of us will have to pay up - and we're not talking small sums - for those public services we're all told we treasure mightily.
It's the same sort of argument that has kept us in thrall to the House of Saud for donkeys' years.
\
Quite. The best argument for reducing our dependance on oil is not so much the AGW argument (on which as I am not a scientist I will say nothing) but that it would reduce our dependance on these ghastly countries and their ability to fund terrorism and repellent ideologies around the globe.
Frankly I couldn't give a monkeys about the faux outrage about HSBC. I deal with personal experience. After my wife died HSBC were kind, considerate, helpful and the staff I deal with were just wonderful Not so Nat West who were the complete opposite and who I dumped as soon as I reasonably could.
When it comes to avoiding tax, who helped Ed Miliband avoid tax, or did he and his brother do it?
I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.
It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack
As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.
Your last question is one I have been pondering as well. It's worth a lengthy post in itself. Rather than clutter up this thread I may do something separately and see if OGH is interested. It has relevance not just to banking but to other sectors because the root causes to my mind are very similar.
I do think it relevant to mention that Green is a Tory peer. The HSBC story is not new and one does sometimes wonder whether anyone in government does any due diligence before making appointments. Also he has been quite prominent in talking about his religious beliefs and how they are compatible with banking.
Even if Balls was asleep on the job - and I tend to the view that Labour turned a blind eye to what was going on while the money rolled in because they didn't want to kill the golden goose - all part of the Faustian pact they made with the City - it will still harm the Tories because while better than Labour in at least making some effort to go after tax evaders, they are perceived too often to be on the side of the very wealthy rather than the majority of us.
It's not just finance - something seems to have gone wrong with our culture across multiple areas at the same time. It's not quite corruption, but it's certainly self-seeking.
It's called having Blair set the tone from the top.
Re HSBC. A friend of my Father who runs a Mosque and sends donations to Palestine and Pakistan had his account closed by HSBC last year because he was outside their risk appetite.
Interesting whom HSBC like to keep within their risk appetite.
That would apply to all banks, not just HSBC, and it's because those countries would be classified by AML teams as "high risk" countries, for fairly obvious reasons, rather than - necessarily - anything to do with your father's friend.
The thing is, another friend who works in a similar field, has not encountered any problems with his bank, who aren't HSBC.
HSBC will be doing a massive remediation exercise following the fine they had. The fact that another bank - unspecified - isn't doing the same thing does not mean that your friend is being discriminated against unfairly. It may simply mean that that bank has not got good enough procedures, does not realise what it needs to do, your other friend's circumstances are different etc. It could also mean that they are complying or have been required to comply with other provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act.
All banks are - or should be - super-sensitive these days to monies being sent to high-risk countries, particularly countries in the Middle East or those with a high risk of terrorism. Pakistan and Palestine are two such countries.
You don't think HSBC should have said
Dear Mr Ahmed, you're sending money to these countries, can you explain what this is for?
Rather than assume illegal intentionss.
Three points:-
1. There are limits to what you can ask if you have any sort of suspicion (I am talking in general terms here not about your friend's specific case, just to be clear) because otherwise you may commit the criminal offence of tipping off. 2. Even if the person with the account is pukka and has no unlawful intentions, the bank may not be able to verify this at the other end and does not want to run the risk of falling foul of existing laws/requirements including sanctions against individuals and groups in those countries. 3. It may have decided that it simply does not now want this sort of business because the costs of compliance and the potential reputational risks outweigh any commercial advantages. The balance has now shifted very firmly in favour of the former for most banks, largely as a result of enforcement, and HSBC will be - or ought to be - desperate not to repeat the mistakes which led to the recent fine.
Mr. Anorak, I'd dispute your creationism vs evolution comparison as well. Evolution is tremendously well-documented (we see it even today with things like MRSA or this astounding case http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145601).
By contrast, the Earth's climate has always and will always change. Teasing out the difference between the natural and continual change in climate due to normal factors and any additional changes due to human industrial activity is an entirely different kettle of monkeys.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Micro-evolution, no evidence for macro-evolution. Indeed Darwin said we would find millions of transitional fossils, we haven't found any, hence the nonsensical punctuated equilibrium theory.
Fact is there is no evidence macro-evolution is true and it makes little sense, it's a leap of faith I can't make. It says something that South Park guys managed to debunk it so hilariously in two half hour shows.
We have found thousands of transitional fossils. what on earth are you taking about?
The fourth rule of comedy is not to take the p out of people's names, because however creative a comic genius you are, they will have heard it before (possibly in a speech from Michael Heseltine).
I can attest to that.
I've heard every single possible variation of joke about my name.
The frustrating thing is that everyone who makes a comment along those lines believes that they are spell-blindingly original...
Should nobody hear a joke because one person in the room may have heard it before?
Mr. Anorak, I'd dispute your creationism vs evolution comparison as well. Evolution is tremendously well-documented (we see it even today with things like MRSA or this astounding case http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145601).
By contrast, the Earth's climate has always and will always change. Teasing out the difference between the natural and continual change in climate due to normal factors and any additional changes due to human industrial activity is an entirely different kettle of monkeys.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Micro-evolution, no evidence for macro-evolution. Indeed Darwin said we would find millions of transitional fossils, we haven't found any, hence the nonsensical punctuated equilibrium theory.
Fact is there is no evidence macro-evolution is true and it makes little sense, it's a leap of faith I can't make. It says something that South Park guys managed to debunk it so hilariously in two half hour shows.
We have found thousands of transitional fossils. what on earth are you taking about?
Perhaps you should inform paleontoligists then, also please explain why punctuated equilibrium was developed too.
Comments
I remain stung given they've no idea. I've a few qualifications that tell me I'm already more informed. Nothing has ever irked me more. Ever.
However, you are quite simply factually wrong when you say that the science done at UEA was not secret and unverifiable. Was the source code, and the underlying termperature historical data, voluntarily released by the UEA, or not? If not, if was secret. If not, it was unverifiable. If not, therefore, it was not science.
'Of all the challenges faced by the world community in those four years, one has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance—I refer to the threat to our global environment.'*
*For the conspiracy theorists, a speech made the day before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
And no I do not frequent climate blogs from either side because I see no value in them. As I have said on here many times before I will not quote from blogs either.
Oh and of course the personal interest because it was my relative who did the first experiments on Green house gases 150 years ago and I have a large collection of his papers and books.
So yes, at a guess, I would say I probably know a million times more than you do about the subject.
*blitzkrieg*
However, a UK domiciled/resident individual, has an obligation to declare interest earned in foreign bank accounts to HMRC and pay tax on it.
There is nothing wrong with having a foreign bank account (I have one in the US) per se. It's what you do with it. If HSBC had reason to believe - or should have, after due and careful inquiry - then they are at fault*
* @Cyclefree can obviously correct me on any technicalities
Alan Carlin's paper for instance:
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:
"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."
This is because of the effect of a number of largeish volcanic eruptions (Agung, El Chichon, Pinatubo) at a time when there was no change the brightness of the sun, and with the latest solar cycle being a weak one, it is hard to explain the recent record high global mean temperature by reference to natural causes.
It's fascinating that PB can state quite categorically that eating a bacon sandwich the wrong way will shift polls, but this will have no effect.
I will never understand these mysteries of betting.
"Richard Brooks transcript from the Today programme
You’re referring to the Agreement that was signed between the UK & Switzerland government in October 2007. The aim there was to bring in billions of pounds in unpaid…
RB: 2011. That was signed in 2011. It was… David Gauke, Tax Minister, and David Hartnett the senior tax official, started negotiating it straight after they’d received this data from the French authorities, so they knew that there was a mass of evidence of tax evasion at the heart of HSBC. They set about negotiating agreement with the Swiss Government which says – I’ve got the words in front of me – it says that, “It is highly unlikely to be in the public interest of the United Kingdom that professional advisors, Swiss paying agents and their employees – in other words bankers – will be subject to a criminal investigation investigation by HMRC.” So knowing they’re sitting on all this evidence they’ve simply washed their hands of it and said we’re not going to prosecute. And that’s why no one has come before the courts in five years.
Richard Brooks, BBC Radio 4: Today, 9 February 2015
Too many have too much to lose in the climate change industry. It is very much a religion - those who want to believe are easily pleased with the evidence on offer, even though - to my mind - in many areas it is confusing, contradictory and offers few discernible trends.
I've heard every single possible variation of joke about my name.
The frustrating thing is that everyone who makes a comment along those lines believes that they are spell-blindingly original...
No-one needs to audit their code. Their scientific conclusions have been more robustly confirmed by other groups writing their own code and performing their own analysis independently of the UEA group. That's science.
1) She was a scientist herself
2) During the Falklands War, the Met office produced very accurate weather forecasts, after she always believed anything the Met office gave her.
Too powerful to call to account?
Dave would have to resign because he rode a horse or because he went shopping in Morrisons.
Or who can forget George Osborne having to resign after crying at a funeral.
"The Copenhagen view is unsettling perhaps as we live, somewhat, in a macroscopic world, but to accuse it of being no theory at all somewhat belies that fact that it best explains the outcomes of experiments within its known limits, in number beyond count---one of the ultimate arbiters."
I haven't said it's no theory at all, I've said it's no explanation at all. "Just shut up and do the math" as the saying goes. It works but what is going on?
I'm aware the maths supports eleven dimensions but what are they? Don't say coiled up so we can't see them - I said what, not where.
Hawking's 'explanation' of time beginning at the big bang is odd. Think of the South Pole - there's nothing further south. Yes, there is, the earth hangs in space and you can draw a line under it.
Removing time helps mathematics because it has no arrow of time.
We can always fall back on the turtles or just say it's beyond our ken.
PS I don't endorse Gould, a noted Marxist and fraud.
Interesting whom HSBC like to keep within their risk appetite.
LOL
09/02/2015 12:05
Here's a quote for today - "People who boast about their IQ are losers". Stephen Hawking.
These alleged events occurred up to 10 years ago, but don;t let facts like that get in the way of your prejudice.
Dodgy offshore banks are a thing of the past?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/17/hsbc-executive-resigns-senate
I think that's rather endearing. It weirds out more current contemporaries who've only WTF.
It was that sort of statement which mean you should see why I, as a scientist, was flabbergasted.
I'm sorry, but the suggestion that no-one needs to be able to check the workings of a theoretical model is completely alien to the scientific method.
There is no getting around this. I have no particular axe to grind - on balance, I think that it is likely that the climate-change models are broadly right. I certainly thought that was the case until it was revealed that the models had never been peer-reviewed, and indeed that the UEA were actively trying to prevent their workings being checked.
But the world pre-2007 was a different world. Switzerland's banking secrecy was its USP. That model is now dead and they are having to find a new USP.
The difficulty with all these things is that if there is another reasonably safe/secure territory where money can be put that is where the money - or some of it anyway - will go e.g. Singapore.
Catching tax evaders is important but it is equally important IMO to simplify the tax code in a way that creates far fewer loopholes for the rich - whether individuals or companies - to exploit - at the expense of the honest.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc-responds-revelations-misconduct-swiss-bank?CMP=share_btn_tw
PS "providing client data to foreign authorities would itself constitute a criminal offence under Swiss law."
I would dismiss it as a Salon.com article but it is requoted in Scientific American o_O http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/#respond
Also the logic below is dreadful:
On his methodology, Powell notes, he only verified that two out of the 10,885 articles he found concluded that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is wrong: “It is a safe assumption that virtually all the other 10883 do not reject–that is, they accept–AGW but I can’t say for sure that each one of them does.”
Not rejecting something is vastly, vastly different to accepting it.
The newest team - BEST - have a list of papers on their website.
Similarly for the NASA GISS team.
There is also a global surface temperature record maintained by NCDC, and there are lower troposphere temperatures from satellites which are often compared with the surface temperatures by teams at UAH and RSS.
I remain stunned that he ever said c30. There is no Right Answer for a politician. 1 = naive, 30 = mediocre bragging.
What is the *right* number of bed fellows? I've no idea and would rather not know as it's not my business.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11000794/Muslim-bank-accounts-closed-by-HSBC-in-wake-of-money-laundering-fine.html
On AGW, we know that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere (in lab tests), and it's probable that the earth is warming. But my caveats are that the direct link is still lacking. The earth has cycles of warming and cooling and correlation isn't causation. The indirect evidence is strong but it remains indirect. We can't yet predict accurately.
I worry about the rush to judgement. It does remind me of modern physics where they admit that although the maths looks nice some of the theories are untestable. So they say, we're into a new paradigm. To me, it seems indistinguishable from admitting we can't prove it false and normally that would put it outside science so we have to change the definition of science.
Hmm ...
Both could be right but ...
There is a difference between the method and the specific implementation of a method.
I am much more confident in the results of the different surface temperature analyses knowing that they have all written their code independently, rather than sharing the code with each other.
Pressed on the number of women he had slept with - "How many are we talking: 10, 20, 30?" - Clegg replied: "No more than 30 ... it's a lot less than that."
"More woe for HSBC today, as the judge in charge of a Belgian investigation into the Swiss private banking arm of HSBC is considering issuing an international arrest warrant for the group's directors because they are not cooperating, a prosecution spokeswoman said. Belgium charged the unit with tax fraud and money laundering in November, accusing the bank of offering diamond dealers and other wealthy clients in Belgium ways of hiding cash and evading tax, Reuters reported. A spokesperson for HSBC private bank in Switzerland was not immediately available for comment."
Perhaps they all have an urgent appointment in South America? ;-)
If the observations were that natural causes would cause a warming then that's what would be published.
"a number of clients who may not have been fully compliant... HSBC's Swiss private bank has reduced its client base by 70% since 2007"
Equally they were by no means the worst offender. The one that sent the most shock waves through the industry was Wegelin. They fully deserved what they got, but how could anyone have been so greedy, so stupid?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/05/uk-swissbank-wegelin-crackdown-idUKBRE90401620130105
" but how could anyone have been so greedy, so stupid?"
Because they knew the chances of being caught were very low?
If the response is: "It's a secret", then it's not science. I really cannot see how anyone even vaguely knowledgeable about the scientific method could dispute this.
Well, that is exactly what happened:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/01/climate-data-uea
Of course, it is also true that you would expect and want other groups to do their own calculations and - very importantly - try to find different ways of verifying the results. But the two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm very susceptible to game play as I've an addictive personality, and toying with buying a PS Thingy for a while.
Frankly, pretending not going all OCD is boring, just more socially acceptable. How can spotting an episode from 200+ shows of a TV show using a single line of dialogue be more normal than how to beat a cyber baddie on L24?
Those of us who love detail and cleverness should say so more often. We notice the dedication others put into a scene or game play sequence.
Amusing to re-read this article that The Guardian published about Green in 2009.
'HSBC chairman Stephen Green is the epitome of the sensible banker demanded by Gordon Brown.'
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/mar/02/stephen-green-hsbc-chairman-profile
He seemed to be on good terms with the last Labour government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/7075930/HSBC-chief-Green-attacks-big-bank-bonuses-Brown-claims-global-support-for-bank-levy.html
UEA/CRU also do not hold the source data - that all comes from the different Meteorological agencies across the globe. I think this was the source of the issue with CRU not releasing their source data. They didn't have permission from the Meteorological agencies to do so.
Generally speaking the national meteorological agencies like to make money by selling their observational data, and if you want to use it for "research purposes" you have to promise not to release it into the public domain. I think this lead to some negotiations so that this could be changed, and a lot of this data is now available to the public.
They also don't have a "theoretical model" in the way that the different climate modelling teams have models of the Earth's climate for making predictions for the future climate.
But - to a greater or lesser extent - it has been the argument run by UK governments of whatever political hue for some time now.
If that changes significantly then all the rest of us will have to pay up - and we're not talking small sums - for those public services we're all told we treasure mightily.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9Zm_zTIcAAOJ03.jpg
All banks are - or should be - super-sensitive these days to monies being sent to high-risk countries, particularly countries in the Middle East or those with a high risk of terrorism. Pakistan and Palestine are two such countries.
It's pathetic. Did he want it to be 30, or what? Otherwise he'd never have said it.
If he bagged less than 30 [entirely believable] - why mention it unless he wanted to be a stud by association?
There is nothing to redeem Cleggers here. Nothing at all.
Those with public bed post notches are flashing them about as they count towards approval or condemnation from others. Clegg is a politician - he clearly was angling to be a lady-killer. It's so sad/pathetic as a vote winning strategy.
Dear Mr Ahmed, you're sending money to these countries, can you explain what this is for?
Rather than assume illegal intentionss.
If it turns out that the data was indeed robust, now that it can be independently verified, then it becomes scientific data. Before that, it's just a black box.
And talk about an own-goal. If they wanted to give ammunition to 'climate change deniers', then the UEA could hardly have done better.
Quite. The best argument for reducing our dependance on oil is not so much the AGW argument (on which as I am not a scientist I will say nothing) but that it would reduce our dependance on these ghastly countries and their ability to fund terrorism and repellent ideologies around the globe.
I deal with personal experience. After my wife died HSBC were kind, considerate, helpful and the staff I deal with were just wonderful Not so Nat West who were the complete opposite and who I dumped as soon as I reasonably could.
When it comes to avoiding tax, who helped Ed Miliband avoid tax, or did he and his brother do it?
You are seeing half your money disappear off to state that does not do what it says on the tin.
Its very easy to get greedy and stupid.
1. There are limits to what you can ask if you have any sort of suspicion (I am talking in general terms here not about your friend's specific case, just to be clear) because otherwise you may commit the criminal offence of tipping off.
2. Even if the person with the account is pukka and has no unlawful intentions, the bank may not be able to verify this at the other end and does not want to run the risk of falling foul of existing laws/requirements including sanctions against individuals and groups in those countries.
3. It may have decided that it simply does not now want this sort of business because the costs of compliance and the potential reputational risks outweigh any commercial advantages. The balance has now shifted very firmly in favour of the former for most banks, largely as a result of enforcement, and HSBC will be - or ought to be - desperate not to repeat the mistakes which led to the recent fine.