Climategate: Obama’s boot boys strike back

When I first read this morning that the police . . .

. . . had paid a nocturnal visit to the blogger Tallbloke to confiscate his computers I thought at first it was a non-story. Jolly annoying and inconvenient for Tallbloke, obviously, but nothing too sinister. Tallbloke was one of the first people contacted when mystery whistleblower FOIA 2011 leaked the Climategate 2.0 files onto the internet; the ongoing investigation by Norfolk police into the identity of the Climategate leaker has been singularly unsuccessful; so it seemed sadly inevitable that in their flailing desperation to be seen to be doing something, anything, to get their man, the Norfolk plod would resort to tactics like this. (H/T Sir Gawain Towler)

(To give you an idea of the spirit in which Tallbloke is taking it, here’s what he says at Climateaudit: “The detective- insprctor and his colleagues were polite, well mannered and did not over-react when I declined to give them my wordpress password. I politely explained that they had a warrant to search my house, not my head.”)

But no: it seems the true instigator of this vexatious abuse of power by arbitrary authority may be none other than President Obama.

Here’s Chris Horner with the lowdown in the Washington Examiner:

I have seen apparent proof that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, is working with United Kingdom police to pursue the leaker of the 2009 and 2011 “Climategate” emails.

I have learned that last week DOJ sent a search-and-seizure letter to the host of three climate-change “skeptic” blogs. Last night, UK police raided a blogger’s home and removed computers and equipment.

On December 9, DOJ sent a preservation letter under 18 U.S.C 2703(f) to the publication platform (website host) WordPress. This authority authorizes the government to request an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to preserve all records of a specific account for 90 days while the feds work on a warrant.

Norfolk PD affirmed to the subject of at least one of their raids that this international law enforcement hunt is for the leaker, meaning not for those whose acts the leaker exposed by making public emails containing admissions in their own words.

That last paragraph of Horner’s addresses a conundrum which has been puzzling quite a few of us, viz: why are all these public resources being wasted on the pursuit of somebody who, even if the police catch him, has no case whatsoever to answer. If a whistleblower leaks information in the public interest – as Climategate and Climategate 2.0 clearly are – then he is pretty much immune from prosecution. (Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998)

Sure if you listen to the spivs at the University of Easy Access, the sphincter-burstingly angry propagandists at comedy websites like RealClimate, or to lavishly paid palaeopiezometrists like the Bob Ward, then, yes, the Climategate and Climategate 2.0 emails were “stolen.” But no serious person really believes that. The “stolen” meme was just a shoddy ruse – first promoted by the Warmists’ amen corner the BBC – designed to distract attention from the only genuinely criminal acts of this whole affair: the flagrant and deliberate breach of FOI regulations by sundry Climategate “scientists”; the potentially fraudulent use of millions of pounds and dollars of public money for political ends.

Why this is the sledgehammer being used to crack a nut?

We can but feverishly speculate. My personal favourite theory so far – lent credence by several of the wise comments at Watts Up With That – is that it concerns all those encrypted emails that FOIA 2011 claimed to have in his possession when he unleashed Climategate 2.0. In other words, there may be more juicy stuff – much, much more juicy stuff – to come. It may also be that the names incriminated are not merely those of low-rent types like Phil Jones and Michael Mann, but senior politicians and businessmen with much more to lose if they’re ever found out.

So let’s hope they are, eh?

PS Memo to Norfolk police: if you do pop round this evening to confiscate my computer, that massive porn archive has nothing to do with me. It’s the kids’. Or the cat’s. Something like that.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate investigated by – WTF? – the ‘National Domestic Extremism’ team
  2. Family photos, paedophile scares and the Stasification of Britain
  3. After Libya: where should Cameron strike next?
  4. Murdoch, Hackgate, Climategate, the Guardian and the vile hypocrisy of the Left


Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann

At last, I’ve arrived.

Michael Mann: isn’t he pretty?

Michael Mann, inventor of the Hockey Stick, has written to the Wall Street Journal branding me a “denier” and a “contrarian” and “silly.” These are badges of honour I shall wear with pride.

The letter is interesting for lots of reasons, not least its grotesque hypocrisy. “In recent years”, he writes, “attacks on climate science have become personal” – as if somehow the real victims of all this are not the innocent taxpayers being screwed to pay for the great green boondoggle, but ordinary decent climate scientists like Mann and his Hockey Team just trying to get on and do their job.

Every snowflake is unique, but attacks on climate science all seem the same. I should know. I’ve been one of the climate contrarians’ preferred targets for years.

Has Mann actually read any of the Climategate and Climategate 2.0 emails, I wonder? A lot of them have his name on them, so he must have done at one time or another. But perhaps with all that data-fudging and decline-hiding his brain has been overtaxed of late. So let us gently jog his memory with some examples.

Here’s one from New Zealand. (H/T WUWT) It’s 2003 and a Kiwi scientist called Chris de Freitas has published in a journal called Climate Research a meta-analysis by some Harvard astronomers Soon & Baliunas of all the papers that have been written on the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). The conclusion of Soon & Baliunas? That the vast majority of published, peer-reviewed papers on the MWP conclude that it was both geographically widespread (not, as Warmists and their amen corner in Wikipedia like to pretend, a little local anomaly confined to Northern Europe) and significantly warmer than now.

This irritates Michael Mann and his Hockey Team no end, for it contradicts their view that late 20th century warming is both unprecedented and catastrophic. So how do they respond? Do they counter it with new, learned papers demonstrating in closely illustrated detail just where Soon & Baliunas have got it wrong?

Of course they don’t!

Instead, what they do is gang up to shoot the messenger. They conspire to have Climate Research closed down; to have Chris de Freitas sacked; then, they write to the head of his university in Auckland to see if they can’t get de Freitas deprived of his living too. Nice!

Dr Pat Michaels has another good example of this delightful behaviour by members of Mann’s “Team.”

In Forbes magazine, he writes an open letter to the director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, describing how one of his “most prestigious employees” Dr Tom Wigley sought to have Michaels deprived of his PhD.

Dr Wigley’s evidence for this potentially libellous claim, widely circulated to a large number of his fellow climate “scientists”? None whatsoever.

But hey, as Mann has taught us many times over the years, who needs evidence or facts when you can go straight in for good old character assassination instead.

This, though, is wearisomely familiar stuff to anyone who has been following the Climategate story. What’s perhaps more interesting about Mann’s WSJ letter is his citation of the lead-in-petrol example from a few years back to try to bolster the credibility of his own brand of climate junk science. As we’ll see, he may have cause to regret this.

Here’s what he says in the letter:

Climate scientists can also find kinship with Dr. Herbert Needleman, who identified a link between lead contamination and impaired childhood brain development in the 1970s. The lead industry accused him of misconduct. Later, the National Institutes of Health exonerated him.

Hmm. The Needleman affair is covered very thoroughly in Christopher Booker’s and Richard North’s Scared To Death (Continuum). It does not reflect at all well on the junk science scare industry.

Dr Herbert Needleman was a US child psychologist who generated headlines in 1979 with his research paper showing that lead poisoning was dramatically affecting children’s IQs. This “evidence” became a vital plank in the case of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations from 1986 onwards to have almost all lead removed from petrol. Just one problem: Needleman’s study was about as reliable as Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick.

In the Needleman affair, the McIntyre/McKitrick role was played by another academic child psychologist Dr Claire Ernhart, who worked in the same field as Needleman. She noted that Needleman’s research was based on serious methodological flaws. In particular, she claimed that he had not sufficiently allowed for “confounding variables” that might have explained the difference in IQ scores such as poor schools or parental neglect.

When an expert panel from the EPA tried looking into this, however, Needleman proved as reluctant to reveal the basis of his research as Mann did with raw data underpinning his Hockey Stick.

According to Booker/North:

“When in 1983 the panel visited Needleman’s laboratory to look at his data, he handed over six books of computer printouts, but said that only two panel members could examine them, and only for two hours.”

“Even during this cursory study, the panel found enough evidence to arouse profound doubts about Needleman’s research. Although starting with 3,329 children, he had winnowed out so many, often for apparently arbitrary reasons, that he had ended up basing his conclusions first on 270 subjects, then on just 158. ‘Exclusion of large numbers of eligible participants’ the panel concluded, ‘could have resulted in systematic bias’. In other words, it looked to the panel as though he might have selected his evidence to give the results he wanted.”

Lone bristlecone pines, anyone?

The expert panel concluded that Needleman’s studies “neither support nor refute the hypothesis that low or moderate levels of Pb (lead) exposure lead to cognitive or other behavioural impairments in children.” In other words, that his researches were valueless.

But hey, guess what happened then. Pressure was applied. The expert panel – for reasons which were never satisfactorily explained – completely reversed its decision. And the head of the EPA William Ruckelshaus (the same man responsible for the DDT ban which effectively condemned millions in the third world to die of malaria) was able to use Needleman’s study as the basis for doing what the EPA and environmental campaigners had been wanting to do anyway: ban lead from petrol.

Unsurprisingly, the EU soon eagerly followed suit. As even the Eu Commission admitted, the new rules would cost consumers an additional £4.8 billion a year, raise the average cost of a car by up to £600 a year and force oil companies into £70 billion-worth of new investment. Oh, and also, EU studies estimated, the switch to unleaded (it being less efficient than leaded) would also result in the creation of 15-17 million tonnes a year more greenhouse gas emissions.

But hey, as Michael Mann and his Team could surely tell us, when you’re trying to save the world from non-existent threat no price is too great to pay.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: sack ‘no longer credible’ Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist
  2. Michael Mann as innocent as OJ – possibly more so – finds internal Penn State investigation
  3. Inventor of Mann-made global warming feels the heat
  4. Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science


Climategate 2.0: The Not Nice and Clueless Phil Jones

Ever since Climategate . . .

Would you trust this man with an adjusted data set?

. . . whenever the UEA’s Phil Jones has appeared on television or been interviewed, he has always come over like a particularly gloomy bloodhound who has just been denied his Bonio. Obviously one can understand this. a) it can’t be fun when your once lavishly funded, globally respected science department is suddenly associated with FOI-breaching, data-losing, evidence-tweaking, scientific-method-abusing junk  and b) it of course elides perfectly with the narrative so assiduously and cynically promoted by the science establishment since Climategate: that these poor scientists are men more sinned against then sinning; just honest men trying to do their job while fighting off vexatious FOI requests by nasty strangers like Steve McIntyre and being sent death threats and driven almost to suicide by horrid bloggers and know-nothing non-scientists who will never understand the mysterious ways of the white-coated illuminati with their magically transforming data adjustments and magnificently accurate computer models….

Well fine. Except the Phil Jones who emerges from the Climategate and Climategate 2.0 emails doesn’t sound at all like a man deserving of our pity, let alone our sympathy. In fact he emerges as bullying, irascible, intolerant, incompetent and slippery as an extra-lubricated bag of jellied eel marinaded in KY. The excellent Maurizio Morabito has unearthed a good example of this on his blog, which not only catches Jones up to his usual trick of trying to dodge FOI requests, but scorning a hapless older colleague for having the temerity to teach climate science using actual, proper facts rather than the approved IPCC quasi-religious drivel.


date: Fri Sep 25 10:53:32 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: [Fwd: CCNet: The Sun Could Be Heading Into A Period of
to: santer1, Tom Wigley

[…] I have stopped sending data out to anybody after the stupid comment on Climate Audit by Peter Webster. We’ve had over 60 FOI requests for data. They are varied – many can be answered by telling people to read the literature. We’re refusing those for the data. We’re going to send an email to all NMSs thru MOHC and then release those where countries are happy for us to do so.
It is just a pain having to respond to them – someone else at UEA does this though.
I did send one of the requests to Myles as it was from one of his fellow profs in Physics at Oxford! Myles knows him well and he has never talked about climate with Myles – or expressed any views. Myles can’t understand why he’s getting his climate education from Climate Audit and not from colleagues in his own dept!
This annoys me too. I’d read up and talk to people if I were to ever attempt moving to another field! It is just common sense. Neil Adger has taken over the running of First Year course here in ENV. He asked Alan Kendall for the ppt for 2 lectures he gives. He sent them and 40 slides are taken from Climate Audit! A student asked Neil why Alan was saying things opposite to what Neil and Tim Osborn were saying!!!

Alan is retiring at the end of this year….thankfully.

Meanwhile, the Bishop has chanced upon another gem, in which the Grantham Institute’s PR man and palaeopiezometrist Bob Ward forelock-tuggingly requests a steer from Dr Jones only to discover that Jones can’t really help, a) because he obviously can’t be arsed, being too busy eating Christmas pudding and b) because he’s apparently incapable of performing what ought to be – for a man in his position – some fairly routine data analysis.

Here’s Jones flaunting his ignorance:

I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.

What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won’t be statistically significant, but the trend is up.

And here’s Cumbrian Lad’s comment below:

The fact that a scientist who is in charge of a major global data set claims not to be able to plot two columns in a spreadsheet is dumbfounding. Not only that, but he feels sure that relatively few people around him could either.

The line “I had someone do this in early 2006…, ” suggests that it is the sort of menial task he’d leave to a non technical assistant. Now, I’ve some time for delegation of appropriate tasks, and keeping the best brains thinking, not engaged in mundane tasks, but data analysis is part of the science surely.

The last time I had a dig at Phil Jones for being “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing”, his University’s response was to try to use the Press Complaints Commission to bully me into silence. The UEA’s complaint was rejected. Given the latest batch of emails, I think the PCC made the right decision don’t you?

And just to remind ourselves of Jones’s approach to FOI, here is his email in Txt 1577 dated July 28 2009:

 CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t
have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past
is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve
discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are
happy about not releasing the original station data.

I’m sure US readers will be delighted that their Dept of Energy endorses the withholding of publicly funded scientific data from researchers.

And here he is again in May 2009 (txt 2440) advising on how best to evade FOI:

 I’ve been told that IPCC is
above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5
would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.

I agree with George Monbiot, whose immediate response to Climategate was that Phil Jones should go. On the evidence of these emails, he is unfit to run a bath, let alone one of the world’s most important temperature data sets.

Related posts:

  1. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters
  2. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  3. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  4. Climategate 2.0: the most damning email of them all

2 thoughts on “Climategate 2.0: the not nice and clueless Phil Jones”

  1. Ian Summerell says:25th November 2011 at 10:18 pmThe email that had me rolling around on the floor with laughter is from our old friend Prof Jones to Thomas Stocker regarding the Freedom of Information Acts and the IPCC.Email [2440] from: Phil Jones to: Thomas Stocker subject: Re: Data access and IPCC

    I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.

    They think that they have the divine right of kings and are above the law. Because they work for the IPCC they believe that they can delete all the emails to hide their criminal scam. I’d like to remind Prof Jones that someone did not remember to delete the emails. They are all over the internet and called Climategate 2.0.

    1. Nige says:26th November 2011 at 8:57 pm“Scepticism is … directed against the view of the opposition and against minor ramifications of one’s own basic ideas, never against the basic ideas themselves. Attacking the basic ideas evokes taboo reactions … scientists only rarely solve their problems, they make lots of mistakes … one collects ‘facts’ and prejudices, one discusses the matter, and one finally votes. But while a democracy makes some effort to explain the process so that everyone can understand it, scientists either conceal it, or bend it … No scientist will admit that voting plays a role in his subject. Facts, logic, and methodology alone decide – this is what the fairy-tale tells us. … This is how scientists have deceived themselves and everyone else … It is the vote of everyone concerned that decides fundamental issues … and not the authority of big-shots hiding behind a non-existing methodology. … Science itself uses the method of ballot, discussion, vote, though without a clear grasp of its mechanism, and in a heavily biased way.”– Professor Paul Feyerabend, “Against Method”, 1975, final chapter.

      “The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a ‘peer’ reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus’s heliocentric system, Galileo’s mechanics, Newton’s grand synthesis – these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors’ friends. … Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin’s friends. … the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. … ‘peer’ review is NOT peer review.”

      – Professor Frank J. Tipler, Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?

      In 2006, the bestsellers by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit “Not Even Wrong” and “The Trouble with Physics” were published, showing that superstring theory has become a dogmatic consensus, like epicycles being “defended” by less-than-objective methods. Right on cue, the world’s greatest genius behind M-theory, Ed Witten, happened to write a letter to Nature (v. 444, p. 265, 16 November 2006), headlined:

      Answering critics can add fuel to controversy.

      “SIR — Your Editorial “To build bridges, or to burn them” and News Feature “In the name of nature” raise important points about criticism of science and how scientists should best respond (Nature 443, 481 and 498–501; 2006). The News Feature concerns radical environmentalists and animal-rights activists, but the problem covers a wider area, often involving more enlightened criticism of science from outside the scientific establishment and even, sometimes, from within.

      “The critics feel … that their viewpoints have been unfairly neglected by the establishment. … They bring into the public arena technical claims that few can properly evaluate. … We all know examples from our own fields … Responding to this kind of criticism can be very difficult. It is hard to answer unfair charges of élitism without sounding élitist to
      non-experts. A direct response may just add fuel to controversies. Critics, who are often prepared to devote immense energies to their efforts, can thrive on the resulting ‘he said,
      she said’ situation. [Critics must never be permitted to thrive.] “Scientists in this type of situation would do well to heed the advice in Nature’s Editorial. Keep doing what you are doing. And when you have the chance, try to patiently explain why what you are doing is interesting and exciting, and may even be useful one day.

      “Edward Witten
      Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive,
      Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA.”

      The next letter on that Nature page (from genetics engineer Boris Striepen) stated: “How and why did our public image
      change from harmless geeks to state- and industry-sponsored evil-doers worthy to be a target? More importantly, what do we do about it? And how do we communicate more effectively what we are doing, why we are doing it and what the opportunities and challenges of modern science are?”

      The whole reason why “scientists” get depreciated today is the reason why famous mathematical physicist Ptolemy was depreciated in history: an insistence on patiently “explaining” to critics “why what you are doing is interesting and exciting, and may even be useful one day.” Self-deluded egotistical dictatorship is not an adequate response to critics of nonsense hype that censors alternative ideas. It is exactly what a bad politician does when in serious difficulty. It amounts to dictatorship: ignoring the criticism and then stereotyping all critics as ignorant morons who will benefit from a little “nickel-worth of free advice,” or educational brainwashing in mainstream dogma.

      “Centralization of information and decision-making at the top has been destructive to most organizations. The Greeks had a word for the notion that the best decisions can only be made on the basis of the fullest information at the highest level. They called it hubris. In a living scientific organization, decisions must be pushed down to the lowest level at which they can be sensibly made. … Leadership would be decentralized throughout, not concentrated at the top. … It would also facilitate the downward transmission of goals, the only things that can be usefully passed down from above, and make room for the upward transmission of results, which should be the basis for reward. It should be obvious that this structure need not be imposed from above. There is no reason to await a decision from the top to do so. Everyone in the chain has the flexibility to organize his own life and thereby to decide whether he is to be a manager or a leader.”

      – Gregory H. Canavan, The Leadership of Philosopher Kings, Los Alamos National Laboratory, report LA-12198-MS, December 1992.

Comments are closed.

Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!

Breaking news:

Two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011’ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website.Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent.

I particularly like the ones expressing deep reservations about the narrative put about by the IPCC:

/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence.  What is it?

And here’s our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.

<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)

Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate “scientists” to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:

<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[…] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” […] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef […] It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers […] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change […] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media


I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global


What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

I’ll have a deeper dig through the emails this afternoon and see what else I come up with. If I were a climate activist off to COP 17 in Durban later this month, I don’t think I’d be feeling a very happy little drowning Polie, right now. In fact I might be inclined to think that the game was well and truly up.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  2. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  3. Global Warming? Yeah, right
  4. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!

2 thoughts on “Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!”

  1. Gordonrear says:27th November 2011 at 5:26 pmQuote mining? Oh great Delingpole, is that how your science works? Oh look, here’s somemore quote mining…

    Keith Briffa “picture of the unprecedented warming over the last millennium or so”

    Andrew Kerr “a bleak future for the environment, already suffering from the serious impacts of global warming including rising sea-levels, rising sea temperatures, and increased extreme weather patterns to name just a few,”

    That’s why they look at the overall picture, that’s why the IPCC AR4 has over 1500 reviewers, that’s why they have a consensus amongst those in the field (something you will never comprehend), because scientists will have opinions, will agree and disagree, will argue, will debate. Why don’t you release your decade worth of private emails to the public, let the public start quote mining you on whether you’re just a half crazed wingnut.

  2. Archive Protocol says:28th November 2011 at 1:31 pm“FOIA” deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to forestall the impoverishment of humanity by another $37 trillion. But I don’t think I’ll hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Comments are closed.

Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief

Climategate 2.0 – the gift that goes on giving.

And you know how good it is from the reaction of the trolls. They’re going mental. On the one hand they’d like to insist it’s a non-story. On the other hand, the more shrilly they shriek it’s a non-story the more evident it becomes just what a great story it is.

Here’s an amusing analysis of the warmist trolls’ various lines of defence, which I picked up from the comments at Watts Up With That: (H/T Alix James – and a big thanks to all those of you who helped me find him)

Stage 1: they aren’t real emails
Stage 2: they are real emails but they aren’t in context
Stage 3: they are in context, but that’s how scientists work
Stage 4: ok, this isn’t really science, but you guys stole the emails!
Stage 5: this is old stuff
Stage 6: this is nothing
Stage 7: look everyone! Winter storm! See, we have proof of our theories now.

Repeat as needed

Related posts:

  1. Warmists: ‘We can’t win the game, so let’s change the rules’
  2. Climategate: how the ‘greatest scientific scandal of our generation’ got its name
  3. Climategate: the IPCC is over says UEA climate scientist
  4. Watching the Climategate scandal explode makes me feel like a proud parent

2 thoughts on “Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief”

  1. Gordonrear says:25th November 2011 at 11:27 amOh dear, here we go again, the denialists are on the prowl again.

    Climategate 1.0, they had two years with the emails and all they could show was a few cherry picked words, scientists arguing and discussing opinions.

    Where’s the conspiracy? Oh yeah, forgot, ‘hide the decline’ aka ‘the divergence problem’, was so well hidden Jones glaringly published it the IPCC AR4 Chapter 6 page 40 onwards for the whole world to see. And Trenberth’s ‘travesty’ email? The travesty is none of the denialists could be bothered to read the full email.

  2. Frankkorzec125 says:1st December 2011 at 7:58 pmDelingpole is on the right about everything..he should grow up and realise where the wealth of this country really lies, with the working people of the U.K. and Clarkson is a first class pratt however you look at his rants.

Comments are closed.

Climategate 2.0: the most damning email of them all

“What was the most damning email in the entire Climategate saga?” future historians will no doubt ask.

The magic of Christmas from Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth

“Was it the Hide the Decline one? Was it maybe the one where Michael Mann tries to recruit private detectives to spy on Steve McIntyre for the crime of debunking his Hockey Stick? Was it the one where Kevin Trenberth describes it as a “travesty” that he and his climate conspirators can’t account for the lack of warming?”

Nope. None of the above.

The worst, most toecurlingly awful, damning, vile, reprehensible, stomach-churningly dreadful email – the one that shows the Warmist junk-scientists in a light of such festering syphilitic repellance they can never possibly recover is this, the Christmas ditty specially written by Kevin Trenberth in celebration of the Nobel  committee’s comedic decision to award the Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC.

Hold onto your stomachs real tight boys and girls, here we go: (H/T Watts Up With That, via Tallbloke)

0462.txt (h/t to Rog Tallbloke)

date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:58:09 -0700
from: Kevin Trenberth
subject: The first Nobel and other Christmas greetings
to: IPCC-group
Seasons greetings to you all, my fellow Nobel Laureates (even if we did not get to go to
I just want to wish you and your families all the best for the holiday season, and Merry
Christmas to those of you who celebrate that festival. As part of IPCC we have achieved
something to be proud of. Thankyou for being a part of it with me.
At NCAR at the Christmas party a group made up a song that mentions by name all the NCAR
LAs in AR4. The song is below. You may appreciate it. (or not).
All the best for 2008.

Sung to tune of The first Noel
Our First Nobel
Our First Nobel, for the IPCC,
Goes to Beth, Bette, Bill, Jerry, Kathy and Guy.
Kevin, Linda, Paty, Re-to and so many more,
And we’re sharing the honor with Mister Al Gore.
Nobel, Nobel, a story to tell,
We hope our coworkers’ egos don’t swell.
The First Working Group said to sound the alarm,
Rising CO2 levels are causing great harm.
Temperatures and greenhouse gas are racing up neck and neck,
Soon the whole Earth will be hotter than heck.
Nobel, Nobel, the planet’s unwell,
This is the future the models foretell.
The Second Working Group said that change is assured,
&gt;From the melting of glaciers to migration of birds.
&gt;From loss of land and crops to habitats,
How can they make it much clearer than that?
Nobel, Nobel, the oceans swell,
Polar bears search for new places to dwell.
We must work to mitigate, tells us Working Group Three,
Change from fossil consumption to clean energy.
If we all do our share in reversing the trend,
Our children might have a clean Earth in the end.
Nobel, Nobel, sound the warning bell,
Let’s make a future where all can live well.
Nobel, Nobel, we are stars for a day,
Can an Oscar be far away?

Related posts:

  1. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
  2. Climategate 2.0
  3. I’m so addicted to email, Facebook and Twitter, I have to hide it from my wife
  4. RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’

4 thoughts on “Climategate 2.0: the most damning email of them all”

  1. Jingleballix says:24th November 2011 at 2:28 pmLefties……….can’t live with ’em…………can’t chop them up and feed them to pigs.
  2. Mr. Co2 says:24th November 2011 at 11:39 pmFunny climategate 2 video

  3. Tallbloke says:8th December 2011 at 11:31 amHi Dellers,

    Thanks for the h/t to tallblokes talkshop, I noticed the original ‘lyricist’ showed up on the telegraph blog post to fess up.

    I have written a riposte in limerick style, after reading the wikipedia entry on ‘The Anthropocene’: a daft notion that we’re afflictingthe planet so much, we need to have a geological era named after our calumny.

    Some concerned geologists are keen
    On an idea cooked up by Eugene
    It’s touted by Stoermer
    That we’ve made the world warmer
    And started the ‘Anthropocene’.

    But the sceptics are beset with a doubt
    That mankind has really the clout:
    To change the worlds climate
    Takes more than a primate
    Burning oil when he’s out and about!

    So when talking to this or that ‘ologist
    Beware they know not what the knowledge is
    ‘Cos I have a hunch
    They’re all just a bunch
    Of guilt ridden Anthrop-a-pologists.

  4. Tallbloke says:8th December 2011 at 11:31 amOoops – duplicate

Comments are closed.