How the Climategate Weasels Wriggled Free

The mainstream fails again

Delingpole tries to flee lunch engagement at University of East Anglia

Delingpole tries to flee lunch engagement at University of East Anglia

This week marks the anniversary of Climategate but even though I helped break and name the story I’m certainly not celebrating. That’s because, despite the marked shift it effected in public opinion, its effect on public policy-making has been close to zilch.

For chapter and verse on the horrifying disjunct between what all sane, informed people know about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (ie, it’s a crock)  and what our governments are doing in response (i.e., “Nyah nyah. Not listening. We’re going to go ahead with our crazy tax, regulation and wind farm schemes anyway”) I refer you to this superb summary by M’Learned Friend Booker.

Since then, despite a series of unconvincing attempts to clear the Climategate scientists, it has become clear that the 20-year-old climate scare is dying on its feet. The money draining away from the Chicago exchange speaks louder than all those inquiries – and the same point will be made obvious in a fortnight’s time in Cancun, Mexico, as the UN attempts to salvage something from the wreckage at a conference that will draw scarcely a tenth of the numbers that met in Copenhagen.

But to all this deflation of the bubble our political class in Britain remains quite impervious. Our governments in London and Brussels charge on with completely unreal and damaging policies which increasingly look as much of a shambles as the warming scare which inspired them. Scarcely a single politician dares question the Climate Change Act, by far the most expensive law in history, which commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to reducing its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years. By the Government’s own estimates, this will cost up to £18 billion a year. Any hope that we could begin to meet such a target without closing down most of our economy is as fanciful as the idea that we can meet our EU commitment to generate 30 per cent of our electricity by 2020 from “renewable” sources, such as wind and solar.

And why is this so? In part, at least, it is because of the abject, ongoing failure of our Mainstream Media to report environmental issues with the robust scepticism that ought to be the natural tack of responsible journalists. Too many environmental reporters are still regurgitating press releases handed to them by activist organisations like the WWF, Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth. In the MSM, as in government, it’s like Climategate never happened.

Those few pieces on Climategate which HAVE appeared in the MSM tend to have consisted of the various guilty parties trying to spin their way out of it. The disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method-abusing Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, for example, has granted tame interviews in Nature magazine and the Times presenting himself as a man far more sinned against than sinning. Michael Mann has been doing a similar auto-whitewash job in the US. But if you want to see an ecotard Houdini act at its most sublimely nuanced and slippery, I highly recommend this piece of sophistry from Mike Hulme in the Guardian.

Here’s the bit where it gets really evil:

Second, there has been a re-framing of climate change. The simple linear frame of “here’s the consensus science, now let’s make climate policy” has lost out to the more ambiguous frame: “What combination of contested political values, diverse human ideals and emergent scientific evidence can drive climate policy?” The events of the past year have finally buried the notion that scientific predictions about future climate change can be certain or precise enough to force global policy-making.

The meta-framing of climate change has therefore moved from being bi-polar – that either the scientific evidence is strong enough for action or else it is too weak for action – to being multi-polar – that narratives of climate change mobilise widely differing values which can’t be homogenised through appeals to science. Those actors who have long favoured a linear connection between climate science and climate policy – spanning environmentalists, contrarians and some scientists and politicians – have been forced to rethink. It is clearer today that the battle lines around climate change have to be drawn using the language of politics, values and ethics rather than the one-dimensional language of scientific consensus or lack thereof.

And when I say “evil” I really do mean “evil.” Mike Hulme is professor of climate change at the school of environmental science at the University of East Anglia. In other words he’s not just in the belly of the beast but right up its digestive tract. Yet miraculously, he has managed to emerge from the Climategate scandal smelling of violets. How?

Well there’s a clue in that phrase “the meta-framing of climate change”. Like his fellow arch-fiend Jerome Ravetz (co-inventor of Post Normal Science, the cod-intellectual movement that made Climategate possible) he is fluent in pseudo-academic gobbledegook designed to mean whatever listeners want it to mean. It sounds reasonable to many people because it doesn’t sound dogmatic. But the reason it doesn’t sound dogmatic is because like all postmodern waffle it’s not interested in trivial issues like truth or untruth, right and wrong. For people like Hulme, the science of “Climate Change” is a means to an end – and that end is advancing the goals of the liberal Left through ever more involved and constrictive policy-making.

Translate Hulme’s speech from academese into plain English and what it actually means is something like this: “All right. You rumbled us on Climate Change. But that’s OK. There’s always ocean acidification. And biodiversity. And whatever urgent crisis we dream up next…”

Like the Bourbons, the watermelons of the global green movement have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from Climategate. For them, AGW has never been about science or objective truth. It has always been just a pretext.

Or, metatext, perhaps, if your name is Mike Hulme.

Related posts:

  1. On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours
  2. Steven Mosher: the real hero of Climategate?
  3. Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief
  4. Climategate 2.0

2 thoughts on “How the Climategate weasels wriggled free”

  1. Velocity says:20th November 2010 at 1:46 amHulme has consumed the snake-oil management-speak of Gov’t.

    In short he has dis-functioned the English language and like the professional classes (lawyers, accountants etc), turned words of substance into trigger words that mean something in your head but in truth are hollow, designed purely for deceipt and to bamboozle.

    These people are crooks, dysfunctional, phsycopaths. Welcome to the inner workings of socialism

  2. Groper says:25th November 2010 at 12:37 pmHey Delingpole, what’s with a picture of a muscle man when a picture of a puny spectacled chinless wonder sitting behind a desk typing away articles of faith on hate on all would be enemies of your libertarian movement would be more apt? Bit like those old pictures of Heinrich Himmler sitting behind a desk. Come to think of it, how uncanny!

Comments are closed.

Climategate: The IPCC Is Over Says UEA Climate Scientist

Could this be the beginning of the end for the IPCC-endorsed AGW scam? UEA climate science professor Mike Hulme has expressed these reservations before. But Climategate is the game-changer that will make people listen. Here’s what he has to say in response to the leaked files:

[Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. […] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? 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 – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.

For his full statement go to Watts Up With That.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the Russian distraction
  2. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  3. Climategate: CRU scientists deserve Nobel Prizes – and very probably Knighthoods too – claims reasonable and unbiased New Scientist magazine
  4. Climategate: sack ‘no longer credible’ Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist

3 Responses to “Climategate: the IPCC is over says UEA climate scientist”

  1. Struth says:November 28, 2009 at 10:38 amThe Yoghurt Weavers are becoming very hysterical down here in Orstralia now, James.
    An internet driven plebian revolt against the ETS and AGW swindle has made our opposition come to its senses at the 11th hour. The Left/Green useful idiots from the ABC and Fairfax are into propaganda hyperdrive.
  2. Maddie says:November 28, 2009 at 2:35 pmThank you so much for your continued work on this. I’ve spent the past few days catching up and I’m blown away over the silence on this issue. The biggest scam of our generation EXPOSED and barely a word is uttered about AGW being driven by made-up science and if it is mentioned, it’s to reassure the left that Climategate not a big deal.

    It appears getting the truth disseminated is going to be up to good eggs like you. Please, please, please don’t let the MSM be successful in whitewashing this!


  3. Colonel Neville. says:November 29, 2009 at 11:10 amDear hep cats:

    Hey, so the GTS local large tax is bad. Check. While the massive ETS global tied tax is so very good. Got it. That’s Labour Party nuance.

    Ah, how will it go? It certainly IS a load of it. Gee, I imagine that the bankrupt monopoly of the outstandingly dull Oz media will continue to become more boring, useless and irrelevant regards empirical insight into anything based in any self funded and productive known reality. No really.

    I watched Insiders on the ABC this morning and without alcohol.

    Julia Gillard is the Acting Prime Minister and she spoke of the known facts as “the knowEN facts!” Excellent. I can see why she has been so essential to the Labour education revolution, comrades. Who would have thought a university Marxist, trade union lawyer and Labour politician of the left, would be so er, socialist and control freaky.

    Like the megalomaniac wanna be Boy King of the U.N, Kevin zippy Rudd, the Gillard Monster defines all people who use their democratic right to dissent and question as “extremist, sceptics and deniers”, without a sense of originality or a shred of any decent awareness of what “denier” means for Jewish people and people like er, me. Gee, and I thought scepticism was the default essential pillar of the scientific method.

    Nope, apparently it’s based on how many people agree on something. I never knew science could be settled by frauds with big grants, media hacks and politicians. Phew! That’s settled then. To the tumbrels and the firing squads with the enemies of the Glorious Peoples Green Revolution!

    But then her mentor said this, and I kid you not:

    ‘…instead of imparting knowledge, education had to be “part of a socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than an instrument of the capitalist system”. Was it Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot or Che the child killer Guevara?
    Nope. Ex-Victorian Labour Premier Joan Kirner In a speech to the Fabian Society in the mid-1980s.,25197,26215156-7583,00.html

    Now THAT’S funny.

    And who said this rather recently? “What is at stake is to launch a reform process of the general UN system in view of fostering a new global agenda and building a New World Order.” The U.N did, and who is in charge of that brief? The person who said this:

    “I sounded it out first with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown [who are supporters and held a meeting for this insane smiley faced fascist plan at 10 Downing Street. No really.] and “they said, ‘You’d be terrific at that…” New Zealand PM Helen Clark and actual long term member of a group called, now wait for it, “Socialist International”.

    And that’s even funnier.

    Dig the U.N’s Earth Charter. It’s a barrel of laughs.

    To watch the ironically named Insiders, [a show that apart from the courageous and lone Andrew Bolt] mentioned Tiger Woods but NOT Climategate/GAIACON once, is er, something that tells you everything about the Bolshevik Knitting Circle that is the ABC and most of the Australian media. No really.

    Now gee, Malcolm Turnbull is an uber-rich $150,000,000 merchant banker. The banks will golly, make big money out of this massive ETS and the rest of the carbon thin air trade et al. Just as Al Gore has made around $100,000,000 since 2001 and is set to become a billionaire via cap n’ trade etc. Turnbull too, is a witless, phony disgrace.

    I’ll wager that like most profoundly unread, incurious logical fallacy spouting politicians and others who babble about “Climate Change” Inc and the faux “science” of it, he could not explain a damn thing about it cos gee, he knows nothing but cliché’s.

    Why? They don’t need to know ANYTHING about it if NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS. They just need to speak fluent regulation and the resultant cash-flow.

    Turnbull called the Liberal Party “progressive!” Like cancer maybe… It’s supposed to be a Conservative Party, and thus a party of the proven principles of free speech, limited government, low tax etc, and NOT a Utopian socialist one. Not for a long, long time and not even under John Howard, who neither lowered taxes nor reduced government. And like the left and other totalitarian fascists always do, but he’s a pretty much conservative!, he still disarmed the people. What a guy.

    And now nearly every politician it seems, drivels that “the people of Australia” want MORE TAX! Riiight. I know I do. Er, no. These mediocrities can spin any internationalist big lie bunkum they want within their chummy unaccountable, unreachable, unreadable and unwatchable world. No really. Go figure.