Climate Research scandal-what it means-CREDIBILITY GAP! News for Kiwis, Aussies, Canucks, and Am's!

  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
Orson's picture
Submitted by Orson on Thu, 2009-11-26 11:48

What does the scandal over the emails, data, and code released from Britain's Climate research Unit (CRU) mean? Climate science authorities are caught in an expanding gap between their claims and public believability.

I am an environmental scientist who has spent much of his time living in the nearest US equivalent to Britain's CRU, the university and federal research institutions on atmospheric science in and around Boulder, Colorado. I have found myself on both sides of this issure through two decades, and have hobnobbed with some of the leading critics and authorities in climate research. Here is what I’ve found.

(An aside: A good beginner's place to catch up on the science and politics of global warming is Chris Horner’s “Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” — especially chapters 5 “The ‘Consensus’ Lie” and 6 “Getting hot in Here?”)

The current CRU scandal is, as Iain Murray says (below), a lot like the Pentagon Papers, probing documents published on the front page of the New York Times in 1971. This was a top-secret DOD history of the Vietnam War, leaked by an insider, casting deep doubts about the veracity of authorities, creating a widening 'credibility gap.'

In the CRU data dump, the leaker, again, is most likely an insider. And in the world of global warming science, CRU is analogous to the Pentagon — defacto headquarters of the IPCC. Accordingly, many lead IPCC report authors are either from CRU or else inside the cabal (eg, Keven Trenberth now at National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, or Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, near San Francisco ).

Now, what is at stake? Nothing less than almost everything the IPCC wants the world to do. Why? Because CRU - together with NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Science, home of Al Gore's guru James Hansen - manage the world’s surface temperature records claiming unprecedented warming in the last few decades. And everything predicted to happen and the costly choices they are pressing depend on these temperature records being true. Here’s what is claimed by the IPCC, based on CRUs work:

Increases in temperature are accelerating, it shows ominously. (Never mind that IPCC co-chair Dr Susan Solomon admitted in Denver, Colorado this August that recent years have indeed been cooler in the world.) Despite this claim, attempts to check this work and spring raw data and methods from CRU (as well as GISS) have failed. They claim these are either already public or else subject to confidentiality agreements. Neither is true, and satellite measurements do not support these surface temperature claims.

To simplify where this is going and why, lets look at another concurrent scandal breaking in New Zealand. The government there also claims unprecedented recent warming, and this alarm is used to justify its support of cap and trade policies to control CO2 emissions.

Here is the Official Temperature History the government cites. The rate of rise is 0.92C degrees per century.

But the actual RAW temperature compiled shows something quite different. A 0.06C degrees rise per century. Almost flat - and in this case, consistent with the satellite data.

What’s happened? Investigation shows that a number of “adjustments” in the Official Record have pushed down earlier 20th century temperatures, and pushed up later 20th century temperatures.

A similar “adjustment” procedure has been evident in US temperature records as kept by GISS. Suspicions have long been aroused that similar “adjustments” are going on with world temperature records kept by CRU.

For example, Canadian statistics expert Steven McIntyre and Guelph University environmental economist Ross McKitrick have published this chart showing that the 1990s CRU temperature rise was a result of station drop off from colder high latitude locations like Siberia, hotting up mean numbers, as the Fall of Communism closed shop on remote weather stations. Curious minds want to know more!

The first to file FOIA requests was Willis Eschenbach. This maybe twenty-eight page long and email document-rich account is compiled from past attempts to spring the relevant records aided by the new cache, but it ended in 2007. Perhaps a couple of lawyerly readers know where to go from here?

Evidence indicates collusion to deny FOIA records between scientists and FOI officers at the University of East Anglia, where CRU is located. Eschenbach rightly argues that transparency is the basis of all sound science, because only then is replication possible. And only then should IPCCs serious claims be accepted and acted upon.

For background or general readers, here is sequential primer — the best three set of articles I’ve come across on the CRU scandal. I’ve been sharing them with friends to ”get them up to speed” on the story.

1) ”ClimateGate: The Fix is In”-ROBERT TRACINSKI

2) ”ClimateGate: Violating the Social Contract of Science”-CHARLIE MARTIN
Martin updates with news that Competitive Enterprise Institute's Chris Horner has filed notice of intent to file against NASAs GISS to liberate data and code covering US records.

3) ”Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate”-IAIN MURRAY


Now, breaking news: the Aussie ETS debate in Parliament is covered on a US global warming skeptics blog
Ripples of ClimateGate in Australia's Parliament?

In "The Great Global Warming Swindle," we've all met Dr Tim Ball, emeritus professor from University of Winnipeg, Canada. He earned his PhD from the University of London, becoming Canada's first PhD in climatology.

On Thursday overnight (November 26th), Dr. Ball will be interviewed for two hours on global warming and the CRU scandal on the syndicated radio program "Coast To Coast" with host George Noory. A podcast will be available under the button "Past Shows" above.

I've heard Dr. Ball twice before on this program for a total of three hours. Compelling and informative.

Stultified by Institutions

F L Light's picture

No man unstultifying reason might
Sustain where institutions must be right.

"Arrest the crimatologists"

William Scott Scherk's picture

Desmogblog reports a new internet entrant dedicated to the Climategate affair -- I seems mostly to be a collection point for posts and stories occurring elsewhere, but highlights some interesting videos. Here's the conspiracy nutcase Alex Jones interviewing Christopher Monckton. I assume Monckton doesn't share the fears of black helicopters, death camps and 9/11 inside jobs . . . (video is part one of five).

For those interested in the ins and outs of the New Zealand 'scandal,' there is further information at NZ's 'Hot Topic" and at Stuff.


Pachauri puts scandal to bed...

Marcus's picture

Well, that's OK then. Nothing to see here people!


Ross Elliot's picture a genuine hero.

He gets it in the most fundamental terms, and long may he have his say.

Lord Monckton at Copenhagen

Marcus's picture


It looks like MSM might be admitting that there is a debate to be had!!!

From The Times

December 3, 2009

Fight Club: Is Man largely responsible for global warming?

Two climate science experts go head to head

YES, says Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum and Professor of Climate Science at University College London

"The evidence is sufficiently compelling for the science academies of America, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom to conclude: “There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.”

NO, says Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

"Or rather, we can’t tell. “Global warming” refers to changes in an index known as the global mean temperature anomaly. This index has increased irregularly by about 0.75C since the Industrial Revolution began, but it always shows some warming or cooling, and fluctuations of 0.5C are common. Claims of record-breaking years hinge on fluctuations of tenths of a degree. Such changes go unnoticed because local fluctuations are much larger and significantly uncorrelated with the global index. Nevertheless, when the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its statement that man was likely responsible for most of the warming since 1957, it was essentially referring to this index. The statement was hardly alarming and was consistent with Man having a small impact."

Another "date which will live in infamy"?

Ellen Stuttle's picture

See Wikipedia's exact rendering of the usual quote "A day which will live in infamy."

Did the Copenhagen conference organizers realize that the conference was being started on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day?


Press invited to the

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Press invited to the Copenhagen Climate Challenge
What: Copenhagen Climate Challenge Conference Program
When: December 8th and 9th
Where: Dansk Forfatterforening, Store Strandstraede 6, 1401 Kobenhaven K
Why: The controversy concerning Anthropogenic Climate Change is not settled, the debate is emphatically not over and there is no scientific consensus. We, therefore, challenge the media, the politicians and all policy makers to give a fair hearing to the dissenting views of the speakers at our conference. In key fields regarding the Earth’s climate, world renowned scientists will present their findings. At the very least it proves that the science is not settled, if not that the scientific conclusions of the IPCC are wrong. Please take part, ask questions and form your own opinions
Contact at bottom of release
Conference Programme
Tuesday 8 Dec. 10.00am Doors open/coffee
10.30-11.30 Professor Nils-Axel Morner
11.30-12.15 Professor Cliff Ollier
12.15-1.00 Stuart Wheeler
1.00 - 1.30 Light lunch provided
1.30 - 2.30 Professor Ian Plimer
2.30 - 3.15 Professor Henrik Svensmark
3.15 - 4 .00 Film by Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen

Wednesday 9 Dec 10.00am Doors open/coffee
10.30-11.30 Professor S Fred Singer
11.30-12.15 Martin Ågerup
12.15-1.00 Light lunch will be provided
1.00 - 1.45 Professor David Gress
1.45 - 2.45 H Leighton Steward
3.00 pm Lord Christopher Monckton
Our Chairman
Craig Rucker: Is the Executive director and Co-Founder of CFACT. He has worked extensively on numerous environmental issues.
Our Speakers
Professor S. Fred Singer: Is now President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He is internationally known for his work on energy and environmental issues.
Lord Christopher Monckton: Is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute and was policy advisor to the UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
Professor Ian Plimer: Is Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He has recently published a definitive book on the Earth's Climate Heaven and Earth.
H. Leighton Steward: Is a geologist, environmentalist and sometime energy industry executive. He is currently engaged in explaining the benefits of CO2 as it relates to the eco-systems of life on Earth.
Professor Niklas Nils-Axel Morner: Is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University. He is an expert on world sea levels and has conducted and exhaustive study of the Maldive Islands. He has recently returned from Bangladesh where his research on sea levels has produced some surprising results.
Professor Cliff Ollier: Is a geologist and emeritus professor at the School of Earth and Environmental Studies, University of Western Australia. He is an expert on Glaciers and Ice Caps.
Martin Ågerup: Is the President and CEO of the Centre for Policy Studies (CEPOS) based in Copenhagen. The Centre has carried out a study of the Danish experience of wind turbines. He is one of the most cited opinion leaders in Denmark.
David Gress: Is a Danish American historian who was awarded a doctorate in medieval history from Bryn Mawr College. He was Professor of the History of Civilization at Boston University and a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute.)
Stuart Wheeler: Is a British businessman who first practiced as a barrister and later became an investment banker. His company IG Index pioneered spread betting. He has long been active in British politics and is a passionate campaigner against the alarmist climate change industry. He is a well known philanthropist and supports AI and Human Right Watch

The Copenhagen climate Challenge Conference is arranged by Climate-Sense in association with CFACT (www.CFACT.TV ) and the NIPCC, , , (0045) 54 76 31 40 / 42 mobil: 20 73 45 80, Jens Robdrup Blans Hovedvej 17, 4941 Bandholm, DK

Additional Contacts:
· US Broadcast Bookings contact: Audrey Mullen at , (703)548-1160

· Media Inquiries contact: Lene Johansen, , +45 30 74 39 04

· Media Inquiries: Christina Wilson, , 1 (218) 590-1632, +45 30 74 39 07

· Please note: Danish numbers will be in use from December 7 through 18th.

If you would rather not receive future communications from CFACT, let us know by clicking here. CFACT, PO Box 65722, Washington, DC 20035 United States

Climate change campaign leaked from Siberian 'closed city'

Marcus's picture

Ooooh! The delicious irony! Typical statist strategy. Shoot the messenger, ignore the message!

Daily Mail

Emalis that rocked climate change campaign leaked from Siberian 'closed city' university built by KGB

By Will Stewart and Martin Delgado
06th December 2009

Suspicions were growing last night that Russian security services were behind the leaking of the notorious British ‘Climategate’ emails which threaten to undermine tomorrow’s Copenhagen global warming summit.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has discovered that the explosive hacked emails from the University of East Anglia were leaked via a small web server in the formerly closed city of Tomsk in Siberia.

The leaks scandal has left the scientific community in disarray after claims that key climate change data was manipulated in the run-up to the climate change summit of world leaders.

The row erupted when hundreds of messages between scientists at the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and their colleagues around the world were placed on the internet along with other documents.

The CRU is internationally recognised as one of the most important sources of information on the rise in global temperatures.

Its data is relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body which co-ordinates the world response to climate change.

But now the CRU’s findings are under suspicion.

The leaked emails appear to show that CRU director Professor Phil Jones and colleagues attempted to manipulate the figures and hide their raw data from researchers with opposing views.

Prof Jones has stepped aside from his post while claims are investigated that he wanted certain papers excluded from the United Nations’ next major assessment of climate science.

Russia – one of the world’s largest producers and users of oil and gas – has a vested interest in opposing sweeping new agreements to cut emissions, which will be discussed by world leaders in Copenhagen tomorrow.

Russia believes current rules are stacked against it, and has threatened to pull the plug on Copenhagen without concessions to Kremlin concerns.
The Mail on Sunday understands that the hundreds of hacked emails were released to the world via a tiny internet server in a red brick building in a snow-clad street in Tomsk...

Read more:

Prof. Watson calls Morano an 'asshole' on Newsnight!

Marcus's picture

The clip as promised...

Cross-posting my last post to

Mark Hubbard's picture

Cross-posting my last post to

But, another interesting development as of five minutes ago, I have NASA on my Twitter, and they have just tweeted that their data (which they have been trying to keep under wraps, or at least I ‘assume’ this is the data that is subject of the previously mentioned lawsuit, I can’t be sure because they don’t mention the lawsuit, or why they are putting this up) … [lost track of myself] Nasa have just tweeted that their data is now online, here:

I find Nasa’s actual Tweet interesting, being, quote:

Global warming? The annual figures, analyses & methods from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies are online.

The interesting thing is they have put a question mark after global warming, implying they’re not actually committed to either the warmist or denier line, well, not now anyway. Of course the issue with Climategate is how this data has been possibly manipulated by East Anglia, as spoken to in the emails, but at least this information is ‘out there’, so it will be interesting to follow developments.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

If climate researchers became doctors...

"Step up on the scale, Mr. Naughton.”

“Sure, Doctor. I’m looking forward to seeing this myself.”

“Let’s see … slide this over a bit … hmm, pretty bad. Your weight is up again.”

“Uh … Doctor, you mind getting your foot off the scale?”

“Oh, okay.”

“So … you want to weigh me again now?”

“Sorry, I’ve already recorded the results. You can step down now.”


“Just as I predicted. Man-made body enlarging. I told you to stop consuming so much animal fat.”

“There’s nothing wrong with eating–”

“If this keeps up, you’ll weigh 650 pounds by the year 2030. It’s a looming disaster.”

“Doctor, excuse me, but there’s no way I’m gaining weight. Look at me. I had to buy a smaller belt last month.”

“That’s a temporary anomaly. I’m more interested in the long-term trend.”

“I’ve been shrinking for two years now. I’ve also been eating more animal fat. So it can’t be making me fatter. Your theory doesn’t hold up.”

“Do you weigh more than you did 40 years ago?”

“Yes, I was a skinny runt 40 years ago.”

“And did your fat consumption go up during the past 40 years?”

“I was 11 years old 40 years ago! Of course I eat more now.”

“Aha! So you agree there’s a long-term trend in your body enlargement.”

“Those are natural forces at work. I’m pretty sure that’s been happening forever.”

“But the rate of the enlargement has accelerated. Look at your weight chart. See there? All nice and even for two decades, then it shoots up here at the end. It looks like a hockey stick.”

“That chart is bull@#$%!”

“It can’t be. I showed it to a bunch of doctors who are friends of mine and they agreed: it looks like a hockey stick. We even wrote a paper about it.”

“Look, Doctor, I went through period in my thirties when I was fatter than I am today, and I wasn’t eating animal fat because I was a vegetarian. Now I’m experiencing a thinning trend, even though I eat a lot of fat. So obviously, fat isn’t the problem, and that chart is bull.”

“I see. So you’re a denialist.”


“I suppose you don’t believe the Holocaust happened either?”

“No! I mean, yes, I believe it happened. There’s evidence it happened. But there’s no evidence that I’m gaining weight!”

“Who’s paying you to say this? The dairy industry? The cattle ranchers?”

“Nobody’s paying me! Just use your senses! I’m smaller!”

“This is the worst case of denial I’ve ever seen. I’m afraid we’re going to have to institute a fat-and-trade system. Every time you consume fat, you’ll need to pay me a stiff fine. Or you can buy a fat credit from another tubbo who’s willing to go without butter for a week. It’s the only way to stop you from getting larger.”


“Yes, you are. It says so right here in my computer data.”

“Let me see that.”

“No. I will not have you second-guessing my data. I don’t have to show you anything.”

“Yes, you do, Doctor. And if you don’t, I’ll call my lawyer and have him file the papers.”

“Damn! I was hoping you didn’t know about that law. Now I have to destroy the data.”


“Nothing. I didn’t say anything.”

“Give me that book!”

“Hey! Give that back!”

“Back off, Doctor, or I’ll smack you. Let’s see … Hey, what’s with all the emails and notes?”

“Nothing. Just doctor’s notes.”

“Nothing, my @##. Look at this: ‘James - I figured out how to apply Mike’s trick of mixing belt-ring data with actual weight measurements to hide Mr. Naughton’s mid-thirties fattening period.’ What the hell is that supposed to mean?”

“It doesn’t mean anything! ‘Trick’ is a common term in medical research. Give me that back!”

“And here’s a coding comment from the guy who designed your computer program. What does he mean, he’s having a hard time writing code that produces the results you want?”

“You know … just programmer lingo. That’s how they talk.”

“And this one: ‘James - Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues to boycott medical journals that publish articles by doctors who have seen people lose weight on high-fat diets. By the way, please delete this after reading.’ And you printed it out? What are you, an idiot?”

“Oh, I see. Already reduced to resorting to attacks on my character, huh?”

“And what’s up with this one: ‘James. That fact is that we cannot account for Mr. Naughton’s failure to gain weight in recent years, and it’s a travesty that we can’t.’”

“Well, uh …you see, the theory is still correct, because uh … I mean it’s not like we have anything to hide!”

“Let me get this straight … you wouldn’t give me your data, you threatened to destroy your data so I wouldn’t see it, your programmer was upset because he was having a hard time producing the data you wanted, you applied ‘tricks’ to your data, and in spite of all that, your colleague thinks it’s a travesty that you can’t explain why I’m not actually gaining weight. I’d say you were hiding something, Doctor.”

“But the theory is still correct! I’m sure of it! To hell with your annoying weight loss.”

“No, to hell with you, to hell with your theory, and to hell with your fat-and-trade fines. I’m leaving.”

“Don’t go outside while you’re angry, Mr. Naughton! You’ll get heat exhaustion!”

“It’s snowing, you moron.”


gregster's picture

Good find, that man is one of us.

Rex Murphy on CBC...

Marcus's picture


CRU's programming 'way below expected standards'

Yes, Climategate really is

Mark Hubbard's picture

Yes, Climategate really is picking up pace now. Per my last post to Hickey's, I believe the sensible position to AGW now is as follows (copied and pasted from that forum, so not on all fours with this thread):

I simply have laid out the logical premise: that is, East Anglia were the main supplier of data to the IPCC on which that organisation has formed its platform, Climategate has shown that the East Anglia scientists have deliberately corrupted the peer review process, and the dataset showing the warming itself, and have destroyed that data – why? (It’s easy to draw conclusions from the email trail). The other repository of data used by the IPCC was NASA – why are NASA using taxpayer money to fight a lawsuit currently that is trying to make them release their data?

There is enough wrong here for any reasonable person to say, before we transform the entire world economy – and it is logical to assume that the forced limiting of carbon output will result in human deaths as man will be starving itself of the energy needed for food production, mechanisation, heating, etc – then the onus is now not on the ‘denier’, but on the warmists to retrieve the data they have previously based their pronouncements on, make it public, and from scratch, show us the science supporting an AGW.

As stated, this is a compromise, and quite reasonable position. Copenhagen should not even be going ahead until these issues are resolved. No ETS should be implemented before these issues are resolved.

(By the way, the main gist of the warmist arguments on this thread are the ‘intuitive’ one: there’s lots of humans, they’re using finite resources, this must lead to disaster. Where I disagree completely with this is that it is intuitive, it ’seems to fit’, it is not science, and particularly, it ignores time frames. I know with certainty the Sun will swallow the Earth in something like 10 billion years – that is therefore an irrelevant problem in 2009. Quite possibly these other issues are also, and the best way to resolves them is to let the entrepreneurship of free markets provide the solutions as and when they are needed. Doomsaying in the meantime is irrelevant. The biggest damage done by East Anglia is to corrupt the peer review process, and thereby put science itself into disrepute, when it should be mans most powerful tool.)

Climategate scandal goes global!

Marcus's picture

That is the headline of BBC Newsnight!

They have just announced they will be interviewing Marc Morano of Climate Depot!

Update: Well Morano was acting like the cat who got the cream. Watson, the climate scientist he debated, called him an asshole at the very end of the segment!

All Watson could say is that there is nothing to see here, that the science was still settled.

All Morano had time to say was that there were many climate scientists who were NOW calling the whole science into question, such as Mick Hulme, following the e-mail scandal.

In other words it was not that informative.

Update: Presenter just apologised for the 'asshole' remark. They must be concerned at the number of complaints already coming in.


Marcus's picture

...the alarmist lobby are still trying to say that the 'hacked' e-mail scandal was designed to derail Copenhagen. Without admitting of course it is the words of their own pro-alarmist scientists that is threatening to derail it.

It would be a bit like George W. Bush complaining that the Iraq war was orchestrated by Saddam Hussein to make the Republican party unpopular.

How delusional can these guys get?


Marcus's picture

Without having checked out the newspapers yet...

I don't know if I dreamt this or not, but this morning on BBC Radio News, I heard the headline that Saudi Arabia is withdrawing from Copenhagen over the e-mail scandal and the head of the IPCC has finally admitted that the scandal is a problem.

Edit: OK, sorry for being half-asleep when this came on my radio-alarm clock this morning. Saudi Arabia hasn't pulled out.

Climate e-mail hack 'will impact on Copenhagen summit'

"E-mails hacked from a climate research institute suggest climate change does not have a human cause, according to Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator.

Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that the issue will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit, with countries unwilling to cut emissions."

Friday, 4 December 2009

UN body wants probe of climate e-mail row

The UN panel on climate change says claims UK scientists manipulated global warming data to boost the argument it is man-made should be investigated.

The allegations emerged after e-mails written by members of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were posted on the internet.

Robert Watson, one of the government's chief scientific advisors, has called for all the raw data to be published.

Norfolk police are investigating whether computers were hacked.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for assessing climate change science.

The organisation's chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri told BBC Radio 4's The Report programme the claims were serious and he wants them investigated.

"We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it," he said.

"We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail."...

Wellington Counter Protest:

gregster's picture

Wellington Counter Protest: Help To Wake The People Up Who Haven't Yet Heard About Climategate

"Some of those who still believe the threat of "climate change" is a reality, as they have not been advised about the thousands of leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, that show "man-made global warming" is a scam, will be meeting on Saturday, the 5th of December at Civic Square in Wellington at 1pm, and marching to parliament to unwittingly promote world government and global tyranny, that will be foisted upon the public via the global warming fraud.

All the well-informed people left in Wellington, are called on to be there with signs and placards to stand and challenge these ill-informed souls.

The counter protest/march starts at 12.45pm and meets at Civic Square next to the ill-informed "climate change" advocates. Be sure to bring some good signs and we will march with those who have been brainwashed by the mainstream media to parliament together. Hopefully, some of them may wake up on the way."

Yahoo poll

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Are humans causing climate change?

Currently 48% no, 43% yes. Go vote:

Telegraph blog News Round-Plimer-Daily Express-Reason mag

Orson's picture

Shock waves of ClimateGate news continue to radiate out of London. The Telegraph blog by
James Delingpole has an optimistic roundup of stories under the title ”Cimategate; its all unravelling now.”

First, Australia votes down the ETS scheme in the Senate. Next, as the eve of the Copenhagen summit on post-Kyoto treaty negotiations looms, it turns out Danes are mired in carbon credit fraud.

Delingpole notes that the bankrupt energy-trading firm Enron under president Ken Lay created this scheme. What readers here do not know that Enron lawyer Christopher Horner was part of the invention.

Who is Chris Horner? Only the author of ”The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” and ”Red Hot Lies,” now affiliated with the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Of the Danes rectitude, Delingpole tartly observes that carbon trading
”is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig.”

Delingpole rounds out his dispatch with three more stories on BBC ClimateGate coverage - or none coverage - of Phil Jones stepping down from heading CRU, and IPCC co-chair Pachauri’s nonsense. But the biggest is ClimateGate making the front page of the Daily Express - the first daily newspaper to put the story front and center:

”The piece was inspired by another bravura performance by Professor Ian Plimer” - the Australian geologist and author of the reliable ”Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - the Missing Science" - was in London talking before the public. Sometimes one needs to hear to obvious, and here are my excerpts and comments below:

”Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as ’climate comrades’ keeping the ’gravy train’ going.

”If you have to argue your science using fraud, your science is not valid”.

[Plimer] said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.

“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”

But Vicky Pope, head of Met Office Climate Change Advice, said: “We are seeing changes in climate on a timescale we have not seen before.

“There clearly are natural variations. But the only way we can explain these trends is when we include both man-made and natural changes to the climate.

Two replies to Pope. If your measures of temperature for ”changes in climate” are not sound, how can you know that you have not seen such changes before?

Pope then invokes the IPCC chart of continental temperatures from two posts ago, covering the 20th century. In that chart, the black line is the allegedly recorded temperatures, the blue streaked area the claimed ”natural ’temperature, and the red streaked area the warming presumed to have been caused by ACO2.

This claim is based on computer simulations of past temperatures. Unfortunately their reliability has been invalidated by the last decade’s cooling temperatures, which they did not predict. Furthermore, if you ”validate” your computer climate models against bogus temperature data, shouldn’t one expect the resulting projection to be garbage? Of course.

Obviously, Pope is yet to get the memo on ClimateGate. She is still struck-in what Dr. Tim Ball called ”denial”. (See earlier post.)

Finally, Reason magazine has a lengthy climategate story by its science editor Ron Bailey. Bailey has been a lukewarmer - ie, one who think AGW is a problem and something has to be done about, despite reluctance to do so.

Bailey’s lukewarmer reluctance to accept the painful truth is evident in two respects: the title is rather grandiosely put, ”The Scientific Tragedy of Climategate.” And secondly, in its thesis.

Bailey observes that the CRU Climategate memos show that the best scientific information was kept from policymakers. Therefore, ”the real tragedy of the Climategate scandal is that a lack of confidence in climate data will seriously impair mankind's ability to assess and react properly to a potentially huge problem.”

As detective John McClane said from the Nakaomi building, "Welcome to the party, pal!”

Is ClimateGate the biggest news story of the year?

Orson's picture

Thank you Ellen.

A Denver libertarian/conservative think-tank director Jon Caldara said on a radio-show tonight that he thinks ClimateGate is the most important news story of the year. And it may be, considering the tax and spend gravy train that cap-and-trade represents for governments around the world.

I heard Dr Tim Ball on "Coast To Coast AM" (only for five minutes) - also tonight - saying that he thought the media would be all over it. Not yet. Not quite.

Ellen, your list of motives is quite a laundry list. I thought I could simply say that if you cluck at the death of your opponents - as happened over retired marine engineer in Tasmania turned data-intensive blogger, John Daly - or that simply turning to fraud indicates a devoted religious commitment. Very thoughtful.

MITs Richard Lindzen has a thoughtful, short scientific "101" piece from the Wall Street Journal for AGW skeptics and - as he describes himself now - a proud "denier."

His area of work is devoted to the chief puzzle he finds, clouds.


Ellen Stuttle's picture

Orson asks -- #81768:

Scientists - at least good scientists - are supposed to be devout skeptics. Could it indeed be ’groupthink’ at work above, as the New York Times science reporter John Tierney argued (see earlier post)? Or is it - indeed - a religious commitment? Here are the blind who do not see, do not want to see. How can one divine the difference?

It can be awfully difficult in any particular case.

There's a set of motivations; cases differ as to which are operative.

One is financial - there's an enormous amount of money available for persons doing research which seems to support alarmism; also for research into alternate energy.

One is what my husband and I call "the Eric syndrome" -- basically "the ends justify the means," a belief that there are tremendously important ends to be served, so lying about the degree of certainty and outright fudging of data is justified. The "Eric" referred to was a waiter with whom we got into conversation several summers back who told us, at first expecting our agreement, that the populace is dumb and sluggish and has to be alarmed to get them aroused for desirable ends. In his case, the end sought was "protecting the environment." There are other ends sought, a cessation of dependence on Mideast oil being an important one. I've talked to many in the physics community who hated George Bush, hate the Iraq war, want an end to war for the sake of oil resources, furthermore hate what they see as the noise, congestion, clutter of the modern American lifestyle. They play "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" with whatever doubts they entertain about the science.

One is power-lust. I think that some of the scientists at the forefront have had power-lust go to their heads.

In some cases, there's protection of reputation. Mann of course came to fame with his hockey stick model and doesn't want to admit that it's wrong. Hansen is another whose career would be dust if the amount of just plain bad science at the base of alarmism were admitted (and that's before one even gets to outright fraudulence).

A motive for younger scientists keeping quiet -- though this doesn't apply to those engineering the fraud -- is fear for their careers. I know of many younger faculty members, persons who don't yet have tenure, who say that they'll speak out if they get tenure but don't want to now. University administrations like the money from grants and exert pressure on faculty to stay quiet with doubts.

Another, which again doesn't apply to those at the forefront, is just wanting to be left alone to do unrelated work and not wanting the hassle which would result from speaking up.

Another, which is involved in the slowness of the scientific community at large to scream murder, is that scientists don't expect to be lied to by their colleagues. For example, there's the case of one physicist I know who himself has some out-of-the-mainstream views on cosmology and related issues but who responded, when Larry first started telling him how poor the AGW science is, with, "But Goddard supports it; surely Hansen has checked it out; and what of all the peer-reviewed material and the endorsements by the professional organizations?" He's typical of disbelief on scientists' parts that they're being faced with widespread fraud and collusion within the scientific ranks. Scientists had cause to become suspicious as soon as all the talk of "consensus" got going, but many of them can hardly even now believe the amount of corruption -- and they're reluctant to face what the existence of that much corruption bodes for the way science is being funded. A few of them realize that government funding needs to go, but most are terribly reluctant to come to this conclusion. "Who will pay for the accelerators?," they ask horrified.

There are probably other motives I'm not thinking of. A kind of religious commitment might be operative, though I think that this is much more prevalent in the wider environmental movement than it is amongst the scientists themselves.


PS: Orson, thanks for the material you're posting. The story is immense in its ramifications, and some of what you're posting I hadn't seen elsewhere -- for instance, I hadn't heard of Karlen, the Swedish professor featured in the post I've quoted; neither had Larry.


Orson's picture

Exhausted by my last post, let me defer this GOOD NEWS to others.

Feel free to discuss here too~

Arguing with NASAs GISS and CRU on UHI about temperature

Orson's picture

The importance of getting temperature data right, and how it gets done wrong, has been made before in previous posts. This time we look at the US, and then a CRU attempt to deflect a well-informed scientific critic.

Below we have a very easy to understand five minute video, showing how official US temperature data can be accessed (NASAs Goddard Institute of Space Studies), processed, analyzed, and displayed to show the contrasting impact of Urban Heat Islands (UHI)/Land Use Change (LUC) on the record.

From some 29 sites back through most of the last century, two paired records from 30 to 100 miles apart are chosen. The urban sites are from 150,000 to 8 million people in size; the rural are all less than 10,000.

The results? The US urban records from across the continent (in RED below) show a strong increasing warming over time; by contrast, the rural temperatures (in GREEN below) are almost flat.

Obviously, if the two kinds of records are conflated, there will be a more upward temperature bias in the recent record. Naturally, this is the one seen in official global record like the IPCCs.

Below is the 20th century temperature records by continent as they appear in the last Assessment Report (AR), in 2007:

From Caption: ”Comparison of observed continental- and global-scale changes in surface temperature with results simulated by climate models using natural and anthropogenic forcings. Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906 to 2005 (black line) plotted against the centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for 1901–1950. ”

Notice the kink around 1980 and the subsequent rising temperature records - the black line is the ”measured” temperature - now known to be false or at least misleading (as discussed in previous posts).

Next, we have an insider story compiled from the liberated CRU emails. The players? Phil Jones at CRU, Kevin Trenberth (who I believe is a Kiwi), and Professor Wibjorn Karlen in Sweden
(Department of Social and Economic Geography, Uppsala University).

Willis Eschenbach ”got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor...Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC [temperature] results [in Northern Europe, Australia, and elsewhere].”

The problem for Professor Karlen is that his own temperature records for the Scandinavian region do not comport with the records the CRU supplied and published with the IPCC, In Eschenbach’s words. ”He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers” from these CRU scientists. Why?

Before we answer that last question, here’s the story, complete with pictures, in detail. Below is my synopsis.

Observe the last chart’s temperature lines: rising from 1900 until the 1930s, then falling until the mid or late 1970s, then rising somewhat sharply.

”Karlen to Trenberth: A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C above the level 1940 is reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been searching for this recent increase, which is very important for the discussion about a possible human influence on climate, but I have basically failed to find an increase above the late 1930s.

”[In a letter] I included diagram showing the mean annual temperature of the Nordic countries (1890-ca 2001) presented on the net by the database NORDKLIM, a joint project between the meteorological institutes in the Nordic countries. Except for Denmark, the data sets show an increase after the 1970s to the same level as in the late 1930s or lower [SEE BELOW]. None demonstrates the distinct increase IPCC indicates.

Did you catch it? None of Karlen’s independent records demonstrate the exceptional rise seen in the IPCC record above (SEE the Europe area in the IPPC one above this one).

Eschenback continues: ”You can see [ABOVE] that, as Professor Karlen said, this does not show what the ’Northern Europe’ part of the IPCC graph shows. It is exactly as Professor Karlen stated, in the NORDKLIM data it rises until 1930, there is a drop from 1930 to 1970, followed by an increase after the 1970s to a temperature slightly lower than the 1930s. (In fact, the rise from 1880 until 1930 dwarfs the recent rise since the 1970’s). Here, for comparison, is a blowup of the ’Northern Europe’ graph from” another IPCC chart with a finer continental breakdown of temperature histories:

The ”NEU” or Northern European Union part kinks far above in recent decades, very unlike the NORDKLIM record that does not.

Escehnback again: ”This claims that there is a full degree temperature rise from 1970 to 2000, ending way warmer than the 1930s. You can see why Professor Karlen is wondering how the IPCC got such a different answer.”

Now Karlen asks Trenberth about an equally mysterious temperature rise in Australia:

Another example is Australia. NASA only presents 3 stations covering the period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based on?
If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period
(1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially.
The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps
of changes and trends.

As we have seen in a previous post, Karlen is correct. Australia does not show recent decades of rising temperatures, and there are many other available stations there not included in the IPCCs chart, and these do not show any rapid temperature rise.

I’ll let Eschenbach carry the Karlen-Trenberth dialog forward:

[Karlen] I have noticed that major cities often demonstrate a major urban effect (Buenos Aires, Osaka, New York Central Park, etc). Have data from major cities been used by the laboratories sending data to IPCC?  Lennart Bengtsson and other claims that the urban effect is accounted for but from what I read, it seems like the technique used has been a simplistic
[Trenberth] Major inner cities are excluded: their climate change is real but very
[Eschenbach's comment] It is true that the IPCC Chapter 3 FAQ says this:
Additional warming occurs in cities and urban areas (often referred to as the urban heat island effect), but is confined in spatial extent, and its effects are allowed for both by excluding as many of the affected sites as possible from the global temperature data and by increasing the error range (the blue band in the figure).

To check this claim, I took the list of temperature stations used by CRU (which I had to use an FOI to get), and checked them against the GISS list. The GISS list categorizes stations as “Urban” or “Rural”. It also uses satellite photos to categorize the amount of light that shows at night, with big cities being brightest. It puts them into three categories, A, B, and C. C is the brightest.

It turns out that there are over 500 cities in the CRU database that the GISS database categorizes as “Urban C”, the brightest of cities. These include, among many others:


[Eschenbach:] So the CRU is using Tokyo? Beijing? Seoul? Shanghai? Moscow? Their claim is entirely false. In other words, once again the good folk of the CRU are blowing smoke. I can understand why it took me [ie, Eschenbach] a Freedom of Information request to get the station list.
- - -
[Karlen:] It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase in temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole area is urbanized....

So, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring temperature increase because of increased human release of CO2. In fact, the warming seems to be limited to densely populated areas. The often mentioned correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing. If there is a factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is solar irradiation. There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation but papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2 release will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how

[Trenberth] You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and
you need to have a basis, which you have not established. 
You seem to
doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are
very wrong. 
But of course there is a lot of variability and looking at
one spot narrowly is not the way to see the big picture.

[Eschenbach’s comment] Professor Karlen was quite correct. The claims made by the CRU, and repeated in the IPCC document, were false. Karlen was looking at the evidence.

[Karlen] In my mind, we have to accept that it is great if we can reduce the release of CO2 because we are using up a resource the earth will be short of in the future, but we are in error if we claims a global warming caused by CO2.
[Trenberth] I disagree.
[Karlen] I also think we had to protest when erroneous data like the claim that winter temperature in Abisko increased by 5.5 deg C during the last 100 years. The real increase is 0.4 deg C. The 5.5 deg C figure has been repeated a number of times in TV-programs. This kind of exaggerations is not supporting attempts to save fossil fuel.

Karlen closes by offering to share many more charts via email substantiating his claims. More discussion and details about regions like the Arctic ensue.

Eschenback concludes cautiously: ”Now, I have not taken a stand on whether the machinations of the CRU extended to actually altering the global temperature figures. It seems quite clear from Professor Karlen’s observations, however, that they have gotten it very wrong in at least the Fennoscandian region. Since this region has very good records and a lot of them, this does not bode well for the rest of the globe …”

Finally, back to my question, ’Why”? Why do the CRU scientists Jones and Trenberth not see the clear and contradictory evidence that Karlen sees?

After Karlen points out ”A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C above the level 1940 is reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been searching for this recent increase, which is very important for the discussion about a possible human influence on climate, but I have basically failed to find an increase above the late 1930s.

Trenberth replies by waffling about data gaps, arctic curves, sea ice, sea surface temperatures, finally referring Karlen to the IPCC (the classic cop out of AGW-believers). But seas surface temperatures and sea ice have nothing to do with the graphs which are about land temperatures.

Scientists - at least good scientists - are supposed to be devout skeptics. Could it indeed be ’groupthink’ at work above, as the New York Times science reporter John Tierney argued (see earlier post)? Or is it - indeed - a religious commitment? Here are the blind who do not see, do not want to see. How can one divine the difference?

”UK Scientist FOR collectivist science”-Shades of Atlas Shrugged

Orson's picture

”UK Scientist FOR Collectivism in science”- Shades of ’Atlas Shrugged’!
Depressingly sad but true.

Dr. Joe Smith - co-author of the Open University’s climate change textbook - says in the light of the Climategate scandal that the current practices of climate science need to be reappraised. Why? Because they are no good at producing a consensus:

“The dominant model of science is one of aggressive individual or lab-based competition to break new ground and get the most convincing arguments supported by evidence….I think that that can be an unproductive form of ‘knowledge generation’. One thing for sure is that it isn’t designed to produce consensus around such a complex topic as climate change. ”

The context suggests that it is the sceptics who are the aggressive individualists preventing the desirable consensus from forming....O-Kay...?

We might dismiss Dr Joe as merely the social scientist he is, according to the BBC, until his earth scientist colleague at the Open University, Bob Spicer, comes on to spout nonsense uncertainty and certainty about how the last time the earth had so much CO2 during this century, ie, 20 million years ago - ”and we know what the world was like back then.”

[Ominous kettle drums: Dum, Dum, Dum!]*

”The only thing we are unsure about is how long it will take for the Earth system to display those atmospheric changes as climate change phenomena." [Emphasis mine.] [Add sirens for alarm sound effects.]

Well, it may not be real science, but at least the money's good! as the Wall Street Journal reports. The telling subtitle is: "Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God."

*THIS is funny, because as viewers of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" know, real science tells us that warming produces increased CO2 many hundreds of years later - never the reverse, according to the geological record. (Recall Prof Ian Clark, Earth Sciences at thee University Of Ottawa.) And thus my closing about priesthood and belief in God.

Aussies Do Right-New York Times Tries Too-groupthink?

Orson's picture

In Australia, good-sense prevailed Monday. The Liberal opposition turned out the PM Rudd-toady Turnbull.

”Mr Turnbull stood his ground”, citing ”insurance” against the unproven threat of AGW.
The cited the usual establishment natural climate change deniers.

Replacing Turnbull is Tony Abbott, ensuring the defeat of the ETS (aka, Cap and trade carbon) scheme soon.

The New York Times’ one libertarian, who is also a science writer, John Tierney, explains how ’group-think’ took over climate scientists at CRU. While the programmers in charge of the CRUs data base scream at their impossible tasks of bringing order out of chaos,

...the scientists denigrate their critics in the e-mail messages, they seem oblivious to one of the greatest dangers in the climate-change debate: smug groupthink. These researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.

Consider, for instance, the phrase that has been turned into a music video by gleeful climate skeptics: “hide the decline,”* used in an e-mail message by Phil Jones, the head of the university’s Climatic Research Unit. He was discussing the preparation of a graph for the cover of a 1999 report from the World Meteorological Organization [WMO] showing that temperatures in the past several decades were the highest of the past millennium.

Most of the graph was based on analyses of tree rings and other “proxy” records like ice cores and lake sediments. These indirect measurements indicated that temperatures declined in the middle of the millennium and then rose in the first half of the 20th century, which jibes with other records. But the tree-ring analyses don’t reveal a sharp warming in the late 20th century — in fact, they show a decline in temperatures, contradicting what has been directly measured with thermometers.

Because they considered that recent decline to be spurious, Dr. Jones and his colleagues removed it from part of the graph and used direct thermometer readings instead. In a statement last week, Dr. Jones said there was nothing nefarious in what they had done, because the problems with the tree-ring data had been openly identified earlier and were known to experts.

But the graph adorned the cover of a report intended for policy makers and journalists. The nonexperts wouldn’t have realized that the scariest part of that graph — the recent temperatures soaring far above anything in the previous millennium — was based on a completely different measurement from the earlier portion. It looked like one smooth, continuous line leading straight upward to certain doom.

In other words, why disclose the scientifically detailed uncertainties for a Great and Noble Truth? The Global Warming Message justified all means. Science had to be sacrificed to political ends.

Tierney again: ”Contempt for critics is evident over and over again in the hacked e-mail messages, as if the scientists were a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians.”

Tierney denies this proves fraud, when unscrupulous failure to disclose methods used surely invite it. Is this merely ”groupthink”? No. Tierney’s judgement deserves stern challenge, but if this is the best a left-wing cheerleading rag can do these days, we’ll take it.


Toronto-based statistics expert Steve Mcintyre has been looking into just how much Jones and Briffa and others at or around CRU were hiding in the "hide the decline" graph presented to the WMO.

Here's is what they presented:

Notice how temperatures shoot up on thee right end? - very impressive, no, startling results!

Now look at where the real proxy data went:

Look at the right thick line in magenta. Not at all startling. The data is unsupportive of AGW conclusions.

In fact, it goes beyond the length or height - the valence of change is absolutely wrong in the one presented. If this cannot be called fraudulent, what can?

MORE details here.

TED, you can add the IPCCs

Orson's picture

TED, you can add the IPCCs failure to live up to its on declarations of openness. Many cases like getting them to post reviewers comments or even archive material came only under veiled legal threat.

More Wikipedia fraud

Ted Keer's picture

About a year ago I attempted to reword the following opening paragraph of the IPCC article at wikipedia to remove the word "scientific" from the first sentence:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations. The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.[3]

The IPCC does no research. Its members are political appointees. Properly, the word "scientific" should be political. My challenges were met with the addition of a link to the IPCC's own website, where it vaguely describes itself as "scientific" as opposed, to, one might think, astrological. Citing an agency's own literature to describe it is a no-no. One could hardly quote Andy Kaufman's descrition of himself as the greatest performer ever to have lived as objective fact.

In any case, there are apparently enough hacks who treat the article as their own private property to prevent edits to the text.

Clive Crook Shocked, just SHOCKED at scientists gambling....

Orson's picture

IN the US, at the very East coast establishment magazine, ”The Atlantic,” comes a breathtaking mea culpa from a very establishment writer, Clive Crook - the Financial Times columnist based in Washinton, DC -

More on Climategate:

In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu. It goes to the core of that process.

One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence.... Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.   

I'm also surprised by the IPCC's response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure....At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri* that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side "deniers".


The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.

Crook again: "The IPCC process needs to be fixed, as a matter of the greatest urgency. Read [economist] David Henderson or the [2006] Wegman report to see how. And in the meantime, let's have some independent inquiries into what has been going on. "

The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side "deniers". WOW!


IPCC co-chair Pachauri claims the virtual impossibility of bias entering the scientific vetting they do.

Excerpt: "Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."

Skeptics finally got the comments done during the science "Working Group I" put online.
On examining them the "reasons...clearly specified" turn out to be cheerleading when their aims are endorsed and rejection or neglect if they aren't. The most prolific commenter is atmospheric chemist in New Zealand, Dr Vincent Gray, posting upwards of two-thousand critical comments.

It was Gray who gave the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" its key term "swindle" - his description of the IPCC "process." How prescient.

Fast work

gregster's picture

The Uni works a lot faster than any normal inquiry if they expect a result before Hopenhagen.

It'll be a whitewash.

BBC News: Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails

Marcus's picture

Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails

Details of a university inquiry into e-mails stolen from scientists at one of the UK's leading climate research units are likely to be made public next week.

Announcement of a chair of the inquiry and terms of reference will probably be made on Monday, a source says...

CRU Secret Data to be published-Glasnost or circling wagons?

Orson's picture

”Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row”

Does this mean victory? Has CRU capitulated? No. This is clearly a ”circling the wagons” strategy. If you’ll recall old Hollywood westerns, when the indians attacked the wagon train, their defensive maneuver was to fortify defenses by circling the wagons, putting vulnerable women and children and deepest behind the fortified wall of gear. Thus, is a new era of openess about to arrive with government supported scientists leading us to world-wide carbon regulation? Or are they stalling for renewed battle in the face of embarrassing scandal?

CRU Director Phil Jones says: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."
- - -
Professor Trevor Davies, the [UEA's] Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement, said yesterday: "CRU's full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Thus, the fate of CRUs scientific work is now tied to other research centers holding similar data sets on temperature like NASAs GISS, at Columbia University. But is it true they hold the same data?

While we do have the CRU on record saying they’ve lost their initial data on which their ”adjustments” are based, no one outside of the circles of scientific privilege knows whether or not other organizations are in a similarly corrupt condition or not.

Meanwhile, one insider disputes Jones claim of other organization’s ”complete independence,” raising suspicions that they might be. Instead, while nominally independent because if distance, they’ve all worked off similar understandings of what to do. Thus, this clearly isn’t ”independence, but rather coordination.

The insider is climatologist Roger A. Pielke, Sr, at the University of Colorado at Boulder:

These claims of that the surface temperature series are “completely independent” is false and Phil Jones knows that.... Jones meant that the groups of scientists are completely independent, not that the series are independent.  It is correct that the three groups [CRU, GISS, NCDC] completing the analyses work with different (independent) agencies.  However, they do interact closely with each other so they are not "completely independent" even with this interpretation of what he meant.  

More significantly and what I interpreted from Jones's statement that "[e]ven if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results” indicates to me that he is implying that their findings are independent confirmations of the CRU findings. They are not.

Pielke culls further details from official publications to backup his assertions: “The global surface air temperature data sets used in this report are to a large extent based on data readily exchanged internationally.... The data sets are distinguished from one another by differences in the details of their construction.” Thus, they not in any substantive sense truly independent. Can we be sure?

In another post, Pielke, Sr. shows that the emails demonstrate the success of the US National Climate Data Center’s [NCDC] director Tom Karl to ”To Suppress Biases and Uncertainties In the Assessment Surface Temperature Trends” - in short, the same problems CRU data is expected to present.

It is worth remembering Ayn Rand’s words from Atlas Shrugged. Free scientific inquiry is a redundancy, and government science is a contradiction in terms.

When I grew up in America’s upper mid-west in a state bordering Canada, we played games of ”cowboys and Indians.” It didn’t matter which side you took - settlers or renegades. This time I’m rooting for the Indians.

Pielke, Sr., corrects The Economist's new story trivializing the importance of the leaked CRU emails.

Apparently, The Economist continues to reinforce the "consensus science" claim. But Pielke's own published research, largely ignored by the IPCC, confirms that there are three viable stances.

1) climate change is natural and man-made CO2 (ACO2) has minimal influence;
2) climate change is natural and subject to a variety of man-made influences;
3 climate change is primarily a consequence of ACO2.

The IPCC subscribes to (3), but Pielke, Sr, to (2).

Mark Steyn, a Must Read

Ted Keer's picture

"Canadian (Brit in America?) Mark Styne dubs it "WamerGate--another wag sees the leaker 'FOIA' as the modern day Martin Luther!"

The columnist and author of the groundbreaking bestseller America Alone (about the demographic demise of Europe and the Old West) Mark Steyn is one of the best writers around. He writes for National Review, Macleans' and the Orange County Register. He is a regular sit-in for Rush Limbaugh. He is a Canadian-born British subject educated in England and currently residing in Vermont.

Here is his website:

Here he is testifying against the Canadian Human Rifhts Commission which brought him up on hate speech charges which they had to drop.

And BTW, he is drop-dead witty. He writes keen broadway reviews and biting obituaries. (No, he's not gay, he's Jewish.) Bookmark him and read him regularly.

Here's an excerpt from his take on the Canadian Sperm Donor law:

Do you notice anything shrivelling?

We’ve never had more personal sexual liberty. And less freedom of almost every other kind.

The other day CTV reported the astonishing statistic that in the whole of Canada there are just 33 sperm donors. That seems awfully low for a nation of 30 million people. Three sperm donors per province plus one per territory? Surely we can do better than that. All hands on deck!

Ah, but it’s not as simple as that. Apparently, the 2004 Assisted Human Reproduction Act makes it illegal to pay donors for sperm. I mean, it wasn’t even the usual Canadian Wheat Board-type racket whereby you’d only be able to sell your seed to the Canadian Sperm Board at a price agreed upon by representatives of the federal-provincial Semen Commissions. Instead, they just nixed the whole deal, and, once Johnny Canuck found out he wasn’t going to be remunerated, virtually the entire supply dried up.

As a result, this once proud Dominion now has to import sperm. According to CTV, 80 per cent of Canadian women who conceive through donor sperm are getting it from the United States, mainly from men in Georgia and northern Florida. Canada’s future is now in American hands.

You know how it is: you wait ages for a good sperm story and then they all come at once. It seems there’s also a shortage of the stuff in Sweden. But, in contrast to Canada, this is caused not by government intervention in supply but by a surge in demand, from Swedish lesbian couples anxious to conceive. Inga and Britta had been trying for a child for ages but nothing seemed to work. Then it occurred to them this might be because they’re both women. So they headed off to the sperm clinic, whereupon the Sapphic demand ran into the problem of male inability to satisfy it. There appear to be higher than usual levels of non-functioning sperm.

Don’t worry, I’m not being Swedophobic in mocking the watery emissions of Nordic manhood. It’s a widespread problem: “Concern As Sperm Count Falls By A Third In UK Men” (the Daily Mail, 2004). Don’t ask me why: I’d blame Tony Blair’s cozying up to Bush were it not for “Sperm Count Drops 25 Per Cent In Younger Men” (the Independent, 1996), so maybe it was John Major pulling out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Still, even for a demographic doom-monger such as myself, you could hardly ask for a more poignant fin de civilisation image than a stampede of broody lesbians stymied only by defective semen, like some strange dystopian collaboration between Robert Heinlein and Russ Meyer set in a world divided into muff divers and duff donors.

I wouldn’t want to overly extrapolate from two minor news items, and I’d be quite happy to do cheap lesbo-seminal gags to the foot of the page, but the thought does occur that a visitor from the day before yesterday—say, the mid-20th century—would be befuddled by the problems we face in the dawn of the new millennium. The other day the Toronto Star, ever on the cutting edge in the hunt for new bigotries, turned in a fascinating report on the problems of air travel and . . . Go on, take a wild guess. Racial profiling? Ha! You piker! We’re talking about gender profiling—in the sense that most of these squaresville Homeland Security types think there are men and there are women and that’s pretty much it. As a result, many pre-operative transsexuals run into difficulties south of the border or when flying trans Atlantically, and that’s before the introduction of “Whole Body Imaging” scanners where you may show up naked on the security screen packing a few too many extras. “Travelling for transpeople is always fraught with uncertainty,” Ontario lawyer Nicole Nussbaum told the Star. “The current system doesn’t match up with transpeople’s lives.”

Of course, no “system” could. I see that what I quaintly thought of as the Toronto Gay Pride Parade was officially billed this year as a parade to celebrate “the LGBTTIQQ2S communities.”

LGBTTIQQ2S? Oh, come on. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning and 2-Spirited. Where ya bin? 2-Spirited doesn’t mean too spirited, as in Anne of Green Gables, but is supposedly some First Nations thing. Anyway, you can see why the “current system” of airport security has a hard time keeping up. Any day now, they’ll introduce Intergendered and Transspirited, and by the time Mayor Miller has stumbled through the acronym in his official proclamation, the parade’ll be over. So, when a Bigendering person shows up at the frontier, don’t be surprised if the border guard comes over all 2-Questioning. Travel, explains the Star’s Julia Steinecke, is “complicated for those who live in the grey area between genders.”

finish the article

Correct Booker link

Ellen Stuttle's picture

In Orson's post "What were they hiding? [...]" the link to Booker's Telegraph article "Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation" doesn't work.

Here is the correct link.

There were 137 comments when I started reading the comments yesterday; there are now 570.


Since Orson...

Marcus's picture

...seems to have climategate well covered over here. I will stop covering it for the moment as our posts are often duplicated.

I will instead cover the continuing march of the alarmists as this latest scandal has not dampened their spirits any.

It's still important to know what the bad guys are up to.

What were they hiding? What is to be done-again?

Orson's picture

Over at the todays Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker is on the case. He recapitulates much of what readers here already know.

Here are a couple points, however, not yet made.

First, what were these CRU scientists so desperate to hide?

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story.
- - -
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Messages within the CRU data dump from 12 days ago in the HARRYREADME file answers this. Here are just two of them made by programmers while trying to set right the CRU data processing programs:

What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no )’supposed’, I can make it up. So I have … So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option – to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a year late.

The second email:

OH FU*K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.

This confesses several things, none of them good. Making up data on weather stations, probably about locations and temperature, because they have done it before. ”bad data bases go unnoticed” while good ones go bad. And a general, futile frustration at the project being one year late.

In other words, the delays and deceptions on handling FOIA requests were carried out in order to prevent full disclosure that the CRUs data was a mess and fraudulent. Coverup.

And if you’ve seen the old 1970s movie ”Watergate, ” you might recall the conclusion: the coverup was worse than the crime itself. But crime it remained. Hence, the label "ClimateGate" today is not all that inapt.

Second, what is to be done? If there was a deep ethical breach, fraud, and scientific malpractice at CRU, then what do we do about it?

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

”Shameless propagandist”? Is this true?

Yes, the Royal Society has indeed shilled for the authority of global warming based on IPCC diktat, trying to staunch dissent via letter and on their website. Ironically, the motto of this once great institution is ”nulus in verba” - on no one’s word. The Royal Society of London was supposed to be about establishing the truth of scientific matters through experiment and evidence rather than through the citation of authority. Yet there it is, doing just that on behalf of AGW-belief, hacking away at those questioning their work in science.

The Royal Society’s version of events from 2006from Bob Ward can be read here. David Whitehouse’s version, then with the BBC, is here.
And the letter ”Climate Scientists Rebuke Royal Society for ’Bullying’ in Scientific Controversy” is here. Most of its signatories will be familiar to viewers of ”The Great Global Warming Swindle”.


Sam Pierson's picture

They've agreed to release their numbers;

But, wow, they've lost the raw data;

Ummmm... please explain...

It is too late for that!

Marcus's picture

"If they go with 2 and come clean they set themselves back probably 10-15 years."

Now we know they are willing to delete and doctor the data, who would believe the data once they released it?


Sam Pierson's picture


I agree there's a long way to go, but what are the options here for the climate scientists?

1. Stonewall, and hold to their line that the science is sound.

2. Go transparent. Open up the data and importantly the programs that do the modelling.

While they stay with 1, this issue don't go away: that is, the concern that their data and methods are not scientific. Outside the ivory tower they will viewed as suspect, inside the ivory tower they will be doubting their own enterprise & motives for it.

It's perhaps a short term, but not a medium/long term option. Of course we're seeing that approach now while folk catch a breath.

If they go with 2 and come clean they set themselves back probably 10-15 years. The current guard will have to go while a new guard moves in.

In *both* cases the momentum and importantly the authority of the scientific consensus is over. At which point, few will care about it anymore. eg, they'll attract fewer graduates into their ranks, and less in dollars.

From the evidence of the leaked emails and docs, both the data and the modelling programs are a mess and unsound. That perception cannot be quickly undone.

The Rand quote / Penn State on Mann

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Thanks, Sam, for the Rand quote.

She hadn't an inkling of how immense the power play would become, and how much money would be involved.

Re: "This is a shockwave through the *scientific* world, a world which is still intellectual, and grounds policy. It's in that world that it is over."

There's a long way to go before it's over in the scientific world; too many reputations are at stake, along with the funding.

For a glimpse of the obstacles, here's a link via wattsupwiththat to Penn State's statement about Mann.

Notice the lack of mention of the Wegman Report, the placing credence on the National Academy of Sciences report, the continuing reference to "well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals," the indication that it's going to be a long, slow -- and off-records -- examination.


PS: In case anyone here doesn't already know about Climate Depot, it has probably the most compendious collection of links to articles and news stories.

Man-made Global Warming-one falsifiable prediction falsified

Orson's picture

”With global warming, there will be more extreme temperature events, including more record high temperatures...."

Who here now reading has not heard this? IPCC co-chair Dr Susan Solomon repeated this only last August in Denver.

Putting the claim in Popperian terms (ie, modus tollens), the hypothesis predicts this novel result: if there is AGW, then there will be more record high temperatures; if there are not more record high temperatures, then there is no AGW.

So let’s test it.

The US has the longest, largest set of uninterrupted temperature records in the world. Here is a bar chart of record highs for the 50 US states, updated to 2008. (Sorry - the slide is smeary.)

As you can see, the last 20 years have had a bump up above average, then a sharp decline in the current one. This ”recent warming” is far outweighed by the record temperature highs experienced during the 1930s and years close to that decade.

This was before the post-World War Two era of rapid industrial growth and consequent rise in ACO2 levels. And thus this earlier warming had to have been the product of natural climate variations.

The above chart divides the data by decade. Thus ”recent warming” is not unprecedented. The AGW-hypothesis is therefore falsified.

Other climatologists have also made this case in the peer reviewed literature, looking at data from China and the Soviet Union.

Yet even the records the US maintains are of poor quality when looked at in closer detail. When the AGW-establishment failed to check the weather station's integrity, meteorologist Anthony Watts decided to spear-head a volunteer effort to do so. His project has now documented 82% of the more than 1200 stations in the official record. What he finds isn't pretty.

(BLUE and GREEN dots best quality weather stations: YELLOW, ORANGE, and RED dots, worst, respectively.)

Only 13% of all stations meet the soundest standards set by the World Meteorological Organization of the UN - ironically, the same sponsoring out fit for the IPCC. And that is the best maintained surface data set of temperatures in the world.

But the IPCC, led by personnel and studies from CRU, have generally ignored this falsification of their pet theory. They get to decide what counts as ”peer reviewed”. Instead, as the ClimateGate emails demonstrate, they have aggressively protected AGW from serious scrutiny, and attacked and blocked people who would do so from getting published.

This is why the fraudulence of CRU record keeping is so passionately at issue. While fraud in FOIA requests and bad manners in ”peer review” are important - possibly decisive among elites - revising the past to support and protect AGW is something the public can grasp as seriously wrong.

Can this perceived damage be undone? If the scandal keeps snowballing, it is hard to see exactly how.

The actual Rand quote

Sam Pierson's picture

If, after the failure of such accusations as “Capitalism leads you to the poorhouse” and “Capitalism leads you to war,” the New Left is left with nothing better than: “Capitalism defiles the beauty of your countryside,” one may justifiably conclude that, as an intellectual power, the collectivist movement is through.

- Return of the Primitive

AGW, with all its freaks & Gaia-worshippers & crisis-mongers, was grounded in *scientific* authority, and that gave it its intellectual power which in turn motivated public policy for a 'global' solution. "Climategate" has exposed that science as shoddy and suspect. This is a shockwave through the *scientific* world, a world which is still intellectual, and grounds policy. It's in that world that it is over.

I'm not saying environmentalism will die quickly, but what's happening is, that like Christianity in the West, it's going the way of things ok to practice in private as opposed to something of legitimate concern to all, requiring moral allegiance & conformity.

It is a Luther moment. The establishment has been challenged & called out.

WarmerGate-'FOIA' leaker is Martin Luther to Green Hellmongers

Orson's picture

Canadian (Brit in America?) Mark Styne dubs it "WamerGate--another wag sees the leaker 'FOIA' as the modern day Martin Luther!

The international scope and impact of this scandal continues to unfold online.

Widely admired Australian blogger Tim Blair has an eight link roundup of recent scandal news. Those more technically inclined will enjoy WUWT or "watts up with that", named after meteorologist turned science blogger Anthony Watts, based in Northern California.

Tim Blair uses Mark Styne's pointed coinage "WarmerGate". (Steyn is an American conservative from Canada, living in New Hampshire; he sometimes substitutes for the famous talk radio program "for "Rush Limbaugh," affectoing an Enlgish accent from spending many years in England)

Among Tim's finds is this arresting one:

Col. Douglas Mortimer: “You know, when you consider that ‘We’re Saving The Planet’ is the biggest power/money grabbing scam since ‘We’re Saving Your Souls,’ whoever leaked/released those e-mails and such is kind of like the modern scientific equivalent of Martin Luther. This person/persons may well have broken the backs of the Global Warming Priests who did everything in their power to make sure that the common man, and those who would oppose them, had no direct access to the Spoken Word of God.”

Remember these words and this analogy:

'FOIA' "is kind of like the modern scientific equivalent of Martin Luther. This person/persons may well have broken the backs of the Global Warming Priests who did everything in their power to make sure that the common man, and those who would oppose them, had no direct access to the Spoken Word of God.”

If weather isn't the personification 'God' in the context of modern day Green worship - what is?

Is this BIG? Watts reports that "climategate" has now surpassed "global warming" as a search term on google.

global warming – 10,100,000

climategate – 10,400,000


”The Great Climate Change Scandal” LINK FIXED.
The Sunday Times (London) is appalled by the abuse of the peer review process revealed by warmergate.

About this story by Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor, a reader conveys his cynical surprise: "Wow, after all of the alarmist stuff Leake has been writing for the past year, he's finally written a balanced piece. In the light of the climategate revelations, the 'conviction' against man made CO2 emissions is unsafe to put it mildly. Jonathan, this was a brave piece, I hope the scales have fallen from your eyes." We'll see.

The Sunday Times, ”Climate Change Data Dumped”-CRU records and calculations therefore cannot be checked. IPPC case for man-made global warming is junk science.

And Pennsylvania State University (or ”Penn State”), home of paleoclimatologist Michael Mann parodied in the "Hide The decline" video (posted above), has initiated an investigation to determine if there was any wrong-doing.


gregster's picture

I agree almost. It will take something momentous to unravel the Marxist hold on environmentalism and Western politically correct thought. The education system has been corrupted by the hippie Progressives, aided and abetted by teachers' Unions. That was a generational reaction to the war-time politics of the day that didn't sit well with free-love, Flower Power and dope smoking. I'm wishfully thinking that the event that turns things around will be the monumental economic failure that President BO is perpetrating. The globe in the meantime will stubbornly refuse to warm and with the MSM's influence having lost relevance to the internet, we should see many people coming around again to a new 'Conservatism.' The eternal Objectivist battle of ideas will go on.

I wish I could agree with Sam, BUT

Kasper's picture

I personally struggle to see how the ecological movement particularly in the arena of global warming is coming to an end. If anything it appears to be in the boom. The opportunism for global governments to collaborate with the third world and for common goals to be set will lead to the establishment of a global government that will over see carbon emissions, production and the goal of equality. The fact that the ideas are flawed by no means weakens the assault on individual liberty. Religion and socialism are case in points with devastating histories. Socialism isn't dead. It was retracted and re-packaged and it's coming out, guns blazing. Socialism has an enormous advantage. The slogans of equality, social responsibility, caring for the needy and the like, appeal to peoples hearts. The politics of it don't have to be rational because it rides on an even more powerful vehicle, peoples morality, alturism. From virtually every corner of the globe, split-economies, religion, socialism and communism - which represent 99.9999 percent of the peoples of the globe, the political goals of socialism require little persuation.

AR on environmentalism - question

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Sam Pierson: "Rand said that the New Left had turned to environmentalism as Marxism lost intellectual credibility, and she said that it was a rather poor & weak substitute, not long for this world. Looks like its end is now here."

Did she include the part about environmentalism being a rather poor and weak substitute which wouldn't last long?

If so, I think she mispredicted there. Environmentalism is a stronger method of control than trying to control economies directly. And it's insidious. It easily mutates. Shoot down one thesis, another is waiting. The featured danger can be changed -- it can slide like an amoeba into a new form, somewhat changing the metaphor.

And the current generation of children is being taught Green religion from the start -- and *not* being trained in correct scientific method.

I don't think the end of environmentalism is nigh. (And I think the environmentalist movement is well infiltrated by Marxists who know just what they're after.)


MSM silence

Sam Pierson's picture

The MSM silence is deafening, apart from Fox. It clearly hasn't penetrated their consciousness yet as they are so settled on the idea that 'the science is settled.' This is big. 'Liberal' assumptions are about to be shattered by reality. Gonna take a while and a few tantrums.

Rand said that the New Left had turned to environmentalism as Marxism lost intellectual credibility, and she said that it was a rather poor & weak substitute, not long for this world. Looks like its end is now here. (What's next? There's a vacuum opening...)

And don't the authoritarianism within that AGW scientific community stick out like dogs balls? "Peer review" now means "to bully & intimidate." They look worse than the 17th century Catholic church. Perhaps they now sympathise with the church rather than revere Gallileo?

Fascinating. Exciting times. Good summary Orson.

UAE Scientist-Disband the IPCC! Why is Media Coverage Silent?

Orson's picture

Despite a holiday in America and a weekend elsewhere in the world, news on ”ClimateGate” is breaking so fast it is difficult to keep up with. What is to be done in the face of fraud at the Climate research Unit? The Pentagon of the UN sponsored IPCCs quest to regulate and reduce man-made CO2 emissions?-and "save the world" from catastrophe?

The media has been quiet and indeed submissive to environmental activist interests by simply not reporting the story. But victims are speaking up. And surprisingly key climate scientists are calling for radical action. Mike Hulme at the University of East Anglia, where CRU is located, now calls for the IPCC to disband because scientific information has become too dangerously centralized.

At first, reaction from participants like CRU director Phil Jones were dismissive and defensive, denying doing anything wrong. Days later a headline appeared on the US news aggregating web-site reading that Jones could not be found, and ”seems to have dropped of the earth.”

Canadian climatologist and AGW-skeptic Dr. Tim Ball calls these the first two stages of the crisis, shock and denial.

The mass media reflects shock and denial by simply not covering it. The BBC reported the story only as a cyber break-in at CRU by Russian hackers. In the US, national news outlets except cable channel Fox News have simply not covered it, until CNN followed the BBCs example. Recent google search data, however, show interest in the ClimateGate keeps growing by as much as one-million hits a day.

In the US, when former Vice President Al Gore appeared before the Society of Environmental Journalists last spring, the organizers prevented a hostile questioner from continuing. While reporter love to keep up an appearance of objectivity, the SEJ has entirely abandoned it. They have been mouth pieces for environmental activists and their propaganda.

The world's media is no better elsewhere, and probably worse. But there are increasing signs of AGW-advocates changing sides. In this matter, at least.

For example, the New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin’s emails are all over thee CRU emails. He frequently asks the CRU scientists, how shall I report this? His credibility is so shot that Tom Yulsman - a science journalism professor at the University of Colorado - declares himself on outraged George Monbiot's side: "I believe the CRU should agree to an independent examination of what prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again."

Gerald Warner, blogging at the London Telegraph, summarizes how the US is leading the shifting awareness: "The reaction [to ClimateGate] is growing exponentially [in America]. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed."

Historical climatologists based in Germany - Hans Von Storch and Edourado Zorita - have taken to their blogs to demand that several scientists in the scandal like Phil Jones be banned from participating in the next IPCC exercise.

However, one of the most cited climate scientists, goes farther. Mike Hulme at UAE, reacting to the tribalism evident in the emails, thinks that the process climate scientists rely on has gone too far - too partisan and too centralized. ”The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production” than is wise or sustainable. Perhaps the time has arrived to disband it?

Politicians, diplomats, and an army of bureaucrats are converging on Copenhagen, including Barack Obama - president of the world. Thee machinery to find a successor to the Kyoto protocol is at the ready. For AGW-skeptics, the day the IPCC disbands cannot arrive soon enough.

PS natch Ted!

Obama bows to the head of the Communist Party

Ted Keer's picture

You mean as a Superbower?

Ted Keer's picture

Ted- I'm glad you noticed how

Orson's picture


I'm glad you noticed how observant I am of Obama's New Order (TM); this is how we are to present ourselves abroad, small. From now on, nowhere, will this country declare itself so BIG and self-importantly outsized in a world of 191 other nations!

Think. What are you doing, comrade? "Duty Now and To The Future!" as an electronic rock band once declared. Devolution NOW!

Manipulated Temp Data? Long Kiwi, Aussie Political Updates

Orson's picture

The manipulatiion of New Zealand’s temperatures to show invented warming, has gained the notice of James Delingpole at the London Telegraph.

New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmosphere has issued a press release, denying it has manipulated any data. And claiming:

Warming over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal.

However, at his excellent site the Briefing Room, NZ-based reporter Ian Wishart – author of ”Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming” – points out the striking similarities with the CRU scandal.

Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data

Wishart explains his view on ClimateGate:

As the fallout from CRUHACK grows, the biggest story is not actually whether data was manipulated in individual cases, although in my view that's bad. And it's not that global warming scientists were so arrogant in 2004 as to mock the death of an opponent, although that too is bad.

It's not that some of these scientists were sitting on taxpayer-sourced slush funds worth tens of millions of dollars each, for an industry total of somewhere close to US$100 billion, whilst their supporters raised merry-hell about Exxon sponsoring skeptic research to the tune of a few million, although this too is massively hypocritical.

It's not that the scientists show signs of being political activists, and even helping promote a global governance agenda.

No, in my view the biggest scandal to erupt from CRUHACK is the death of peer-reviewed climate science.

We now know the UN IPPC/Global Governance lobby had sufficient political clout to intimidate scientific journals into submission and to run roughshod over the integrity of the peer review process.

The next global warming believer who raises "peer review" as a defence of global warming deserves to be metaphorically tarred and feathered and laughed at for the rest of his or her natural life.

The integrity of climate science died this weekend. It will never be the same.

Given that these are the men and women who've been telling the world's political leaders "trust us", as they shore up plans to introduce massive global taxes, this should give every President and Prime Minister cause for concern.

Powerful opinions from Ian (and lots of useful contexts on the CRU emails). Opinions that appear to have been shared by some politicians elsewhere.

In North America, Dr Tim Ball’s nearly two hour interview on ”Coast-To-Coast” (link to podcast above) concluded with a caller from Australian named Samuel, recapping the impact of ClimateGate on the Senate’s renewed deliberations on ETS (”Emissions trading Scheme”, aka cap and trade).

Spine stiffening by the compliant Liberals now means a Monday election for the party’s leadership - to one opposed to bending on ETS with Rudd. Real oppo? Wow.

Samuel and Tim see this as a ClimateGate success. (But what about media coverage? A subject for a later post.) Maybe. But the Adelaide News reports that Liberal leader Turnbull still believes ETS will soon pass. "Tony Abbott will challenge Malcolm Turnbull", reads an update there.

Mr Turnbull says :
"We agreed with the Government on this deal. We must retain our credibility on taking action on climate change. We cannot be seen as a party of climate sceptics and do-nothings on climate change.

"That is absolutely fatal." Ah. Boldly sucking up for image management, the prima dona!

Finally, have Australia’s weather statistics been manipulated like New Zealand’s and the US?

While the BoM has gained reknown for the high quality of its data keeping, Warwick Hughes - a NZ earth scientist living in Perth - shows how the IPCC cherry picked the stations it uses, with conveniently shorter lengths and greater slopes instead of flatter ones, coinciding with an warming period, conveniently consistent with the alarmist AGW story the CRU wants to tell.

Hughes notes how CRU avoided New South Wales, the area that ”contains the greatest concentration of long term recording stations in Australia. Must be one of the great and complete exclusions in the history of science.”

Hughes pungently concludes: ”I have never been able to discover which stations contribute to their gridded data.” US meteorologist Anthony Watts observes that with ClimateGate, ”Maybe that will change now.”

In contrast to CRU, satellite records show almost no warming the Southern hemisphere over its 30 year span.

Among the comments in Hughes thread (above), former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl reports looking closely at the code in the CUR data dump, and what he finds isn't pretty: ”I am afraid that they don’t know where the stations are and which of them exist themselves – as some of the programmer’s notes in one of the files indicate. The only thing one can safely learn from the CRU hacked documentation is that there is a lot of mess in this enterprise.”

For those interested in the larger context of NZ and Australia’s temperature record, scroll down to ”Plato Says”, with four links to Pacific Basin temperatures. He summarizes: ”the entire Pacific Basin is substantially flat on temperatures. Hard to have ’Global Warming’ if the Pacific is not participating. Australia and New Zealand show warming, but only due to thermometer change artifacts. For New Zealand, it is one single cold thermometer: And when that one is deleted from the whole record, not just the last few years, New Zealand has no ’Global Warming’ either.”


Dr. Tim Ball's nearly two hour interview can be downloaded as a podcast here. Hours three and four of "Coast-To-Coast" only.

The program notes summarize the crisis and Ball's comments this way:


In the latter half of the program, environmental consultant Tim Ball discussed 'Climate Gate,' a coordinated effort to hide information about global warming. Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia and found damaging emails that show that scientists at the Unit created and manipulated false data to preserve the idea that global warming is real.

Since 2002, global temperatures have been declining, and numbers from the past have been pushed down to make the current temps seem warmer, he argued. We're seeing climate change ideas, often based on overly simplistic computer models, used as a vehicle for political purposes, he added.


Ted Keer's picture

"Am's"? Did you mean to say Yanks?

Mirth! How would one live

Orson's picture

Mirth! How would one live without it~

Below, the classic Tommy James and the Shondells song is set to ClimateGate scandal lyrics, the cartoon mug of arch-villain palo-climatologist Michael Mann, and the chorus now made famous from the CRU emails: fixing a temperature chart to "Hide The Decline" of temperatures!

Authoritarians-the circular reasoning IPCC-AGW process exposed!

Orson's picture

Marcus: "Climate scientist"? No. Weather and climate is simply one of the MANY fields germaine to environmental science. We're more like those 19th century dabbling amateurs in science. The chemists, physicists, and -yes- climatologists are more like the real deal. But environmental guy's enjoy ripping them off... ; )

But back to the seriousness of "adjusting" historical temperature records, all of which are dodgy to begin with, now come the gall of what's been known all along.

There has been a concerted effort to "revise the past", as Chris Horner deliciously put it in his Politically Incorrect to Global Warming book. And "crafting obedient computer models....." to scare the public. All of which speaks to how circular AGW "science" has become. If you test models of reality using cooked data, why should anyone be surprised to discover that they all agree? It's getting hotter here! And it is alarming!

But just as a Ponzi scheme "works" so long as its value rises, when goes into reverse, it doesn't. So with man-made global warming today.

Upwardly revised temperature histories look scary so long as it warms. Now that the globe has cooled for about a decade, as so many measurements show, continuing to revise the recent past upward simply looks silly - like the "Global Mean Temperatures" chart from the IPCC at the top . And with ClimateGate, outrageous!!!

Australian Michael Hammer shows how it was done in the US, here. Hammer re-discovered what Steve McIntyre and others knew years before - hence prompting dozens of FOIA requests from CRU and GISS that they became expert in denying.

Compounding the outrageousness of upward temperature adjustments, however, is the across the board neglect of downward adjustments. The skeptics favorite is Urban Heat Island Effects (UHI-also Land Use Change, or LUC). If you take a forest and start farming, the surface temperature will rise. If you replace a field with buildings, asphalt and concrete, the temperature will rise. These materials absorb energy during thee day, giving it up more slowly through the night.

With the rise of commuting lifestyles, everyone knows this because you can feel it and see it on your dashboard thermometer during your afternoon drive back to the suburbs at the end of a hot summer's day. But somehow climate scientists are convinced people don't. Or else they know and just don't want people to know or care.

Thermometers record inflated hot temperatures, elevated by the city and increasing urbanization, but the record is made to "count" towards CO2-caused warming. Hence the outrage over the ClimateGate emails.

Take this study by NASA scientist John Christy:

The bottom record show California counties with less than 100,000 people. The temperature trend of almost a century (1909-1994) is nearly flat. The top one showing large warming over the period is for California counties with populations larger than 1 million. Therefore, the huge effect of UHI/LUC is obvious from the data.

But does the IPCC include such evidence? Not at all! The get to decide what counts as "peer-reviewed." they decide what gets in or out. The get to tell us what the "science" tells us.

In one email, under the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL," CRU director Phil Jones writes to American paleoclimatologist Michael Mann (lead author of the discredited "Hockey Stick" temperature graph studies in 1999): "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The fix is in.

Thanks Orson...

Marcus's picture

...I never realised you were a climate scientist before though!

I hope this scandal will not be buried, and that the sceptical will not allow it to rest!

Joann Nova,

Orson's picture

Joann Nova, Australia:

Politician's jumping off cliff for ETS?

The unfolding ClimateGate scandal shows criminal behaviour from “leading scientists”. It damns the integrity of the IPCC process — which based its reputation on these men and their work. Legal attacks are starting. This is just the beginning. Even the big-name believers in the theory (such as Monbiot) are asking questions they have never asked before. Blogs are coming alive with anger, with disgust, mockery and now the real war begins. Smart well educated (but busy) people like surgeons, lawyers, professors and CEOs are getting motivated. As this top layer of brains and energy coalesces into action, the scandalous neglect of many politicians will be exposed for public consumption.
How will the public feel knowing that each household will pay at least $1,100 per year more in Australia for a scheme that profits bankers and third world mafiosi, but achieves nothing for the environment or their children’s future?

Voters will learn to detest the fake scheme and will deplore those who were so gullible that they could not see the scam.

The realization that the CO2 theory is fraudulent is spreading across the political spectrum, from right to left. Hard nosed realists first, ideologues last. In Australia, the Nationals are aware, and now the Liberals are waking up to it. The ALP will be next. Some Greens may never see it.
- - -
The Australian Labor Party feel strong and superior right now looking at the Liberal disarray, but the rising tide of awareness will sweep through them soon too. The majority of the public will realize that the Labor Government has wrecked the economy over a fraud driven by status-seeking zealots and profit-seeking corporations, and Labor will be very unpopular. Then in the Labor Party the pragmatists will battle the politically correct (who will never concede). Climate change could tear the Labor Party apart sometime in the next few years.

History will condemn the ETS legislation.

Does CRU Tell NZ NIWA how much to adjust temps?

Orson's picture

A provocative comment in the thread linked above, investigating NZs temperature data:

Gary Plyler (16:55:36) :
Originally, I was worried that this was the worst of the worst possible situations, i.e. first New Zealand’s NIWA for some reason adding in these correction factors and submitting adjusted numbers to CRU, second CRU adding an additional correction, and then last New Zealand’s NIWA publishing the doubly corrected annual graph.

I reviewed the file idl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008.pdf which was part of the CRU file dump. The CRU plots out the temp for 20th Century for all 4 seasons.
All 5 graphs (the 4 seasonal graphs in the CRU file dump and the one published by NIWA) appear (by eyeballing) to have a slope of 0.8 C/century.

It could be that NIWA submits the raw temp data to CRU, and then CRU tells NIWA how much they have warmed up?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.