Fox News Glenn Beck on Climategate

UPDATED: Better video quality in this copy on YouTube. Previous copy was low-res. Beck’s summary of the CRU email exchanges is very strong.

Transcript follows, thanks to Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters for it.

GLENN BECK, HOST: A potentially major scandal is unfolding after someone released thousands of e-mails and documents sent between prominent scientists of global warming debate. The New York Times has verified that these e-mails are legitimate which wasn’t too hard because some of them were written by and to one of their reporters. More on that here in just a second. But first let’s start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What do these guys say behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he’s a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it.

How about Phil Jones, head of of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, “I have just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline.” Yes, he is talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures. Incredible. But it doesn’t stop there.

How about when scientific journals published material that Jones didn’t like? Quote “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report…Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is” end quote. Think about that next time you hear about, oh, “the consensus,” and “the science is settled,” and Al Gore is bragging about the peer reviewed journals

Now what happens to a peer reviewed paper when they disagree with what gets published? Quote “…our only choice is to ignore this paper. They have already achieved what they wanted.” But at least they are not intentionally deleting documents or hiding information, right? Oh, no, they’re doing that, too. Here is Phil Jones writing Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with that Hockey Stick graph, that one. He said, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re: AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will get Caspar to do likewise.” Count them. There’s Jones, Mike, Keith, Gene, and Caspar, whoever they are, potentially deleting e-mails supposedly about supposed science.

So why all the secrecy? Well, we find out from another e-mail from Michael Mann about skeptic Steven McIntyre. “I’m sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals [you know, the one's they're cycling! ] but all they have to do is put it up on their blog and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear. Pretty soon Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck and their ilk are parroting the claims.”

So you see, if McIntyre sees the data, he’ll find the tricks that are in it to hide the decline, and then crazy people like me might just let you know about it. Oh, the horror what will happen to cap and trade? That e-mail was sent from one of the scientists to a New York Times reporter. That same reporter, Andrew Revkin, thankfully did report on the story for the New York Times, but he will not post the documents because, quote “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” Oh, well, I know, the New York Times would never post or print anything that wasn’t intended for the public eye, like, maybe, the way we monitor terrorists or specific strategies to protect our troops in the field. No, no, the New York Times, they’re above that.

Deleting e-mails, hiding declines, incorrect data, inadequate systems, redefining scientific peer reviews for their own uses! This is what appears to be going on behind the scenes and literally trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us. If your gut said, “Wait a minute, this global warming thing sounds like a scam.” Well, I think you’re seeing it now. We told you this was going on, without proof, because we listened to our gut. You’d never believe me, but once again, here we are with yet another brand new reality.
Indeed.

About these ads
This entry was posted in media. Bookmark the permalink.

176 Responses to Fox News Glenn Beck on Climategate

  1. mark in austin says:

    not a huge beck fan….but sounds great to me!

  2. Roger Knights says:

    He should do a Round 2 of his indictment in a day or two, including in it such items as the peer pressure that forced resignations on the journal that published the Soon paper, and the threatening “message” that affair sent to editors of other journals that might be tempted not to toe the line.

  3. Arn Riewe says:

    Saw this when it aired. Pretty strong, but Glenn was obviously reading the script without a strong background knowledge.

    Stossel would be a better candidate for an in depth look at this. He has some background from his “Give Me a Break” segments.

  4. SABR Matt says:

    Speaking as a climate skeptic…the less we are associated with Glenn Beck, the better off we are. I note that Beck couldn’t even pronounce the e-mails he was reading and that he incorrectly interpreted at least two of them.

    We don’t need Glenn Beck on Fox News telling us what’s wrong with the climate scientists…there are more capable reporters who will, sooner or later, be forced to confront this issue.

  5. wws says:

    The Left is going to howl, of course, now that Beck has picked it up. Personally, I’m neutral on Beck – he’s too histrionic for me to watch, but I get a kick out of how much “outrage” he causes among the politically correct crowd. He seems to be a classic rabble rouser, and they always play a useful role in society. (I prefer the rabble to the elite, anyways)

    But the MSM doesn’t seem to get it – when they see a huge story and hide from it (as the NYT did today) they are just BEGGING someone like Beck to pick up that ball and run with it! Especially since this fits perfectly into Beck’s narrative that the MSM is too cowardly and politically obsessed to bother to do their jobs anymore.

    And so Beck gets to be the Upton Sinclair of the age by default and by the absolute incompetence of the Columbia School of Journalism grads who populate most newsdesks these days.

  6. Marc says:

    Frankly, anything he says is immediately dismissed by most rational people; with friends like him, …

  7. Micajah says:

    I had been wondering whose document request prompted the string of emails asking members of the Team to delete emails. Apparently, it was David Holland’s request. See this post at Power Line:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024996.php

    Commentators like Glenn Beck and others need some help in pulling this together. The folks at Power Line are doing their part in sorting through the efforts to avoid disclosing public records.

  8. Brazil Tony says:

    East AnGILa? Beck is one worldly guy

  9. Hosco says:

    Beck definitely presents only his side of the argument – but he’s the only one covering so much of what I care about that I find I have to watch him. I just make sure I do research on what he’s putting out.

    There have been times that further research made me feel he deceived me but most of the time not. And since I feel both parties here in the US care more about making sure they get reelected rather then doing what is good for the country – and most of the media have picked their horse in the race and supports only them – I feel he is one of the few that is actually puts country before political party – I can’t not watch him.

  10. TurkeyLurkey says:

    I like it.
    Thanks for the link.
    TL

  11. Mufcdiver says:

    The whole ‘leak’ is fake!
    It’s a ‘piss take’ from the warmist to coincide with Sweden!
    Don’t touch it!!!!

  12. ClimateScallop says:

    Haha…Beck really cracks me up with his histrionics.

  13. Adam Soereg says:

    Climategate appeared first in the Hungarian MSM 2 days ago. Most of the reports were based on the articles published by the Guardian and BBC, so they heavily defended the ‘consensus view’. I think that only a very small minority know anything about the real importance of these events in my country.

  14. Steve Huntwork says:

    Marc:

    Drive-by postings are not highly respected around here. If you have specific data to support your statement, then we are more than happy to listen to it.

    Listenting….

  15. paul revere says:

    CUR has also cleared/removed the data for 2009 from there files.

    see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

  16. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Histrionic and rough around the edges? Sure, but Beck has a HUGE following and he’s just assured us that this issue is not going away. Maybe some of you elite sophisticates should keep in mind that Beck is usually right and has a very good research staff. You’d dismiss the message because the messenger can’t pronounce “AN-GLEE-AH”? That’s the sort of argument that allows the Team to dismiss McIntyre and Watts because they aren’t peer-reviewed. Snobs.

  17. Severian says:

    I found this analysis of the LA Times coverage of this to be quite interesting:

    http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?autocom=blog&blogid=7&showentry=4118

    This blogger seems to have decomposed the LA Times piece pretty well. No wonder the Left wants control of the media and wails so about Fox News and conservative bloggers…this is a perfect example of how he who controls the press controls the message.

    There’s enough spin in that LA Times piece to power all of California if they could just attach a generator to it.

  18. mkurbo says:

    Wow, I’m a bit taken back by the nose up attitude towards Glenn Beck.

    I thought most of the people here were about finding the truth and he has been a great proponent on that front. His style might offend some, but his message is basically about asking questions that provide for public discourse on numerous subjects.

    In particular, Glenn has been an advocate against political corruption. In case some of you missed it (like it or not), this battle has been largely won by the natural cycle deniers in the political arena and we could use some help on that side !

  19. player says:

    Beck is a sensationalist – but that being said, if anyone is waiting for the sensible, objective MSM to break this story in an unbiased way, that’s waiting for Godot. Controversial as Beck is, his audience is is in the 10′s of millions. This is news that the general public has to see. About time!

    I believe this is an internal whistle blower, not a hacker. If this was a real breach, CRU would have locked down the site when it occured, not 3-4 days later, when the files became public on tAV. So I see no illegality in discussion the emails – all we have is CRUs statement that these were hacked, and I certainly do not expect they would say anything otherwise, and I definitely will not believe that unless they can produce evidence to that effect.

    With the years of suppression of data and debate and foiling of FOIA attempts behind us, the ends here justify the means. I am happy Beck reported on this – this information would never get out of the blogs without it.

    I am a scientist by training – and am revolted by the contents of zip file. Enough of playing nice and fair with crooks like this. They have destroyed the fundamentals of ethics in science.

  20. Alvin says:

    I listened to his radio show and he said that this story was important enough to bump some of the other items on his schedule today. I am sure if he choose to maintain focus on this matter, he will bring in appropriate specialists to address the issue. The idea of John Stossel is a grand idea with his background in investigative reporting. I remember his special on Health Care that ABC kept bumping and cutting his show to 10 minutes on a Friday night.

  21. doug says:

    I wouls rather not be associated with the like of Glen Beck, but it is a start. Like most Canadians, Steve McIntyre included apparently, my political views are closer to the other party’s. But what the heck, it took the left to get the truth out on Viet Nam, it will be the right to come through on this issue.

  22. Michael says:

    Thanks WUWT, sorry I couldn’t put up a better quality video on Youtube, but it’s the content that matters.

    Here are some blog comments I read from a Climate Depot article;

    (A US blogger retorted yesterday: “If the emails are out of context, CRU should release the rest to prove the point.

    Another, Tom Nelson, “If this crushes the whole climate (fraud) industry, there are going to be a whole lot of kids out there with degrees that are worthless. Not to mention all the little businesses that were set up to cash in on the scam.”)

    Too the second comment I say; Oh Boo Hoo let them sue.

  23. kmye says:

    Ooph, Beck…is it actually a good thing to be drawing attention to him when he’s one’s side of an issue? Or anyone who doesn’t actually know what they’re talking about?

  24. jmt says:

    I like Beck and he is the only main stream presenter calling out this fraud. He reaches millions of spectators. I’m sure that there are lots of place names in the States or England that peoplewould mispronounce if they had never come across them before. I’m on the side of anyone who fights for the truth.

  25. R Dunn says:

    Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on “Climategate”

  26. Harry says:

    You may not like Beck, but you will die of asphyxia before you see anyone else cover this story.

  27. John M says:

    What strikes me about the “MSM” here is that this is normally the type of thing that would have the investigative reporters salivating.

    Although I’ve read a few relatively even-handed accounts, I haven’t seen any real digging yet, and many of those reporting on this are shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone would have the audacity to hack into a large and powerful organizations IT system and extract embarassing information.

    I wonder what they teach these guys in journalism school these days.

  28. CodeTech says:

    Oh please… the usual “if Fox has it that’s bad”…

    Well, Beck is specifically named… he has every right to be furious at these guys, and report on it.

    Also, you can’t fault his observation that Revkin’s NYT position is utter crap. The NYT will expose anything they can if it furthers their agenda… this doesn’t, so they won’t.

  29. chip says:

    I have an old account sign-in over at Little Green Footballs, which is Charles Johnson’s site. I used it a couple of times in recent days to (mildly) refute some of the claims there.

    Incredibly, he has blocked my account. This is Charles Johnson, the guy who helped bring down Dan Rather with his great work on the word docs.

    What is it about this subject that causes people to become so close-minded?

    And of course there is the irony of Johnson fulminating about the “ranting and fuming” by “right-wing” bloggers, while in essence putting fingers in his ears and shouting “I can’t hear you”.

  30. M Yoxon says:

    ‘Anjeela’? That’s not particularly bright of him.

    Other than that, it was fun – I’m no fan of Beck though.

  31. Privet Ein says:

    The only guy on TV that really has picked up the story and you guys are upset. You people should be cheering this guy because the other stations will not give you the time of day.

    The fact is that FOX represents are very rare but extremely important position on US TV as just about all of the alternative major media outlets are left leaning.

    Anyhow, still waiting on CNN to do its piece :)

  32. Iren says:

    That’s O.K. He just needs to get his old friend Lord Monckton on to explain it. Monckton has already called the perpetrators criminals. Its up in blaring headlines at Climate Depot.

  33. Frank K. says:

    Like him or not, at least 2.5 million or more people now know about CRU-gate:

    From the Drudge Report:

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    NOV. 18, 2009

    FOXNEWS HANNITY/PALIN 4,200,000…
    FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,868,000
    FOXNEWS BECK 2,512,000
    FOXNEWS GRETA 2,383,000
    FOXNEWS BAIER 2,235,000
    FOXNEWS SHEP 1,980,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,041,000
    CNNHN GRACE 1,036,000
    MSNBC MADDOW 957,000
    CNN KING 835,000
    MSNBC HARDBALL 625,000
    CNN COOPER 611,000

  34. Magnus A says:

    This is also good, Russia Today, with an interview with former MP Peter Lilley:

    He don’t think it’s a conspiracy (which I think is good) but he also don’t think that this will really stop the largerly invested fat AGW-bastard. :/

  35. chip says:

    Oh, and I see he deleted my previous posts discussing the CRU programmer’s comments found in the hacked code.

    Can’t have such outrageous commentary disturb the echo chamber, I guess.

    It’s truly bizarre behaviour from someone who used to trumpet the ability of the Internet to unearth information.

  36. Michael says:

    Thanks WUWT, I’m sorry I couldn’t upload a higher quality video, but it’s the content that matters. The writer of that piece did a pretty good job on it but alas, they had to throw in something mentioning terrorists. Makes me wonder who the real terrorists are though.

  37. Roger Knights says:

    If Beck wants to focus on scandalous material, there’s the story of that guy in a college near Albany who’s being sued for fiddling with some climate data.

  38. NikFromNYC says:

    Boom. Over two million people have now heard the story. Not a single talking heads debate about this will ever be the same. Finally. Finally. Finally. I really expected the followers of The Hockey Stick Team to be gnashing their teeth over this. I guess I haven’t been reading blogs long enough to have realized that they would in fact act like textbook cult members act when the apocalypse has been called off, which is quite literally indeed what now has the media finally calling into question. The cognitive dissidence between this scandal and the usual supply of alarmist articles that sprinkle every week’s headlines will be interesting to see played out. Suddenly nobody on their side can really have a fair debate about the actual science. Hopefully they will better understand what the skeptics have been going through, namely demonization, slur and slander.

    Over at RC is a growing string of literally religious adoration for the noble climate scientists involved. As yourself if *this* is how alarmists behave when faced with the worst possible disgrace, how much of a chance did skeptics have to pry open their closed minds prior to the disgrace?

  39. Bob_L says:

    Y’all are right, Beck is not the guy for us, not erudite enough. Let’s call Fox and tell them we will never watch until he is gone. We will make Fox delete him! /snark off.

    I don’t care if you like him or not. He has 2 million viewers and over 8 million radio listeners. That is more then have ever seen WUWT and CA combined. (No offense intended). It is also more viewers than watch any show on CNN, more than watch MSNBC all together.

    The whole point now is spreading the word as far and wide as possible. Let’s not get worried about who picks up the story. “Strike while the iron is hot” And his viewers are watching his show.

    I first discovered Glenn Beck on the radio. More On Trivia is very funny.

    By the way, Inhofe is going to call for Congressional investigation.

  40. royfomr says:

    Forget the warmist wailings from this video. They will be small beer compared to the hottist howlings that this link will father!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists
    Early on, in the comments, George Monbiot apologies for having been too trusting of the integrity of certain climate scientists. His faithful congregation don’t seem too happy with his Damascus Moment- some even admit to being confused.
    This is Huge and breathtaking- he’ll get slaughtered for his apostacy.
    He needs our help. Get on to the blog before someone pulls the plug and click the support link to the right of his name.
    When I left the site, 108 had agreed/ recommended his comment.
    Let’s give him a boost folks.

  41. P Walker says:

    While Beck can be over the top at times, at other times he can be spot on . I’m not really defending the guy , but obviously some of you have never watched his show . If you can get past the histrionics , simply listen to what he has to say .

  42. Doug in Seattle says:

    As an environmental scientist I am not at all surprised by the behavior of Jones et al. I work with these kind of bozos and these are the elite of their ilk.

    I too can’t stomach more than few minutes of Beck, but he is going to get a lot more traction on this issue than the blogs. If Beck is our only conduit to get this scandal covered by the MSM, then we just have to let it happen and hope it doesn’t get too mangled in the process.

  43. New Brunswick Barry says:

    Kudos to Beck for giving some additional prominence to the story, but Holy Cow, the man is ignorant! If the warmists are to be put out to pasture, it’s going to have to be done by people a lot more serious than this clown.

  44. Glenn says:

    Frank K. (17:46:20) :

    Like him or not, at least 2.5 million or more people now know about CRU-gate:

    From the Drudge Report:

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    NOV. 18, 2009

    FOXNEWS HANNITY/PALIN 4,200,000…
    FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,868,000
    FOXNEWS BECK 2,512,000
    FOXNEWS GRETA 2,383,000
    FOXNEWS BAIER 2,235,000
    FOXNEWS SHEP 1,980,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,041,000
    CNNHN GRACE 1,036,000
    MSNBC MADDOW 957,000
    CNN KING 835,000
    MSNBC HARDBALL 625,000
    CNN COOPER 611,000
    ************

    Olbermann is first, like he keeps claiming! Hannity/Palin don’t count together, and MSNBC’s number is further to the right than anyone else. /Liberal off

  45. Steve S. says:

    Excuse me but there’s nothing wrong with Beck, Oreilly or FOX.
    Their popularity is a strong signal that millions more repect their work that that of MSNBC etc.
    That said, people should recognize that the people propogandizing and advocating the AGW movement while depsparaging Watts, McIntyre, Pielke, Singer Ball etc. are the same people dumping on FOX,and FOR THE SAME REASONS.

    I think it’s fantastic that Beck and FOX cover the CRUhack and the AGW scandal.
    The more the better for all the right reasons.

  46. fred says:

    chip (17:43:22) :

    You’re not alone, check out grouchyconservativepundits.com

  47. actuator says:

    What some here refer to as “histrionics” I call a passion for applying logic and common sense in how we manage our human relations and how we expend our limited resources. That AGW/Climate Change is being used without scientific proof to disrupt and inappropriately human activity needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Beck may wave his arms, make faces and produce wild props to get his points across, but at least he is entertaining and successful based on audience ratings. BTW, entertaining messages are more likely to stick with audiences.

  48. royfomr says:

    He needs that boost for his CV. Who knows, if we put enough tips into the WUWT honey pot, he may soon be joining the over-worked, genuine 21st Century Hockey-Stick Team of Mr Watts’ moderators!

  49. mkurbo says:

    John M (17:39:38) :

    Good point ! This is normally the kind of story that even the reporters who have sold out would eat their young to investigate and paste their name all over, yet you can hear a pin drop…

    Where is CNN ???

  50. Karl B, says:

    Charles Johnson is just one guy who has decided in favor in AGW. I decided it was useless to discuss AGW on his blog, mainly because he ignored the facts in my postings and responded to others using “consensus” as his main argument, as if science was decided by a vote.

    Being a scientist, I would rather be on a science blog, then on a blog worried about birthers, and creationists. Neither subject interests me, but it was amazing what you were labelled with if you were anti-AGW.

  51. Michael says:

    I liked how Beck points out; “trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us”. This is the #1 reason for the outrage over the scam.

  52. debreuil says:

    I have to brush my teeth. What a moron that guy is – he would help a lot more if he just talked about something else.

  53. Clive says:

    Beck? Yeah he is a sensationalist, but you have to love him simply because he is airing it and other MSM is not. Good on him. (And yes, I was upset with his pronunciation of Anglia. The goof.)

    “Beck is a sensationalist” … Unlike:
    death trains” … Hansen
    100 months to act” … Prince Charles
    drowning polar bears” and similar crap ad nauseum by “Al Baby” Gore

    And the best one of all from our own Grand Poobah of Eco-weenie-ism, Dave Suzuki who wrote on December 2, 1989, “We no longer have the luxury of time … we only have a decade to turn things around.
    (Posted this before. ☺)

    Go Glenn!! ☺ ☺ Be as sensational as you have to be.

    Clive
    From the not-so-frozen North … and like they say at McDonald “I’m lovin’ it” ☺

  54. Bob Wood says:

    Love him or hate him he is getting the point across. Those of you who make fun of him because he mispronounced a word are opting for the nonessential. I think Glen is great even though he spends a lot of time grimicing and grunting. But, thats what gets popular attention!!! So don’t knock it!

  55. Julian in Wales says:

    Really interesting behaviour on the Google.co.uk news page

    I picked up the story on Google news very early and then I came to this site to find out more about what had happened. I was impressed because it was being covered by Google UK news page so early and highlighted as being an important story.

    The story got taken down a couple of days ago, and there were a few silly AGW scare stories appearing again.

    Tonight the CRU story reappeared in the “spotlight” section where instead of a choice only a single link to a page in Real Climate was being highlighted by Google, this time it as just about about nasty people stealing unnewsworthy information to discredit real science, and since then Google have changed the story in spotlight to a link to the NYT on the same theme.

    Obviously this is being orchestrated high up in Google to smother the real story. Only if you start searching using the news box on words like climategate or CRU do you get the real story, then tens of them come up all hostile to the CRU. But Google are putting up a front to innoent visitors to their news page that the only story worth reading is on Realclimate and NYT. Interesting!

    By the way congratulations everyone, this site and CA are changing history

  56. J.Hansford says:

    Beck’s good. This issue just got about 80 million viewers, right there, along with Hannity.

  57. brazil84 says:

    FWIW I agree that there is a lot of media bias here. If e-mails were released from a tobacco company which e-mails disclosed just ten percent of the sketchy behavior disclosed here, you’d never hear the end of it from the major networks and newspapers.

  58. Frank K. says:

    Everyone,

    Please don’t try to “kill the messenger” here. Glenn Beck uses humor to get his points across. You may like that or you may not. I happen to like humor (e.g. Monty Python, SNL). The Anita Dunn red phone stunt was classic (“Anita – please call me if I’m wrong!”) – and she never recovered after the infamous “Mao” speech (what I called the :mousey tongue” speech) was revealed.

    Remember that his audience are ordinary folks, and though he may mispronounce names or be a little over the top at times, remember that the main point is to get the basic message out there – to his 2.5 million viewers.

  59. TerryBixler says:

    Great job Glen Beck. Those of you who have been looking down their noses, have you checked out the code? Maybe the replots of some of the data without the falsifications. Remember Gore got an Oscar and a Nobel based on this nonsense. Obama, Boxer, Waxman, Pelosi and Lisa Jackson are trying to kill our economy based on this corruption. The MSM with Katie Couric has demonized CO2 based on these corrupted politically motivated “researchers”. The IPPC is driving for global control based on the these manipulated numbers. More help for Anthony and Steve great!

  60. philincalifornia says:

    Mufcdiver (17:11:57) :

    It’s a ‘piss take’ from the warmist to coincide with Sweden!
    ———-

    Would that be Copenhagen, Sweden ??

    Since no doubt Al Gore’s going, maybe it will be possible to walk over from Sweden !!!

    On East Angila – I’m guessing that whoever typed it into the teleprompter text was typing a little too qucikly.

  61. paullm says:

    I have to stand up for having Beck as a pro “skeptic” advocate. Sure, he’s an entertainer and says that. He also encourages asking questions of his topics and of himself and he will show you what resources he uses. People like him for that approach.

    Skeptic? I’d say so. Legitimate? Make up your own mind. Presentation? Entertaining, and/or agitating (pov). Passion? Genuine, business or both – I think he is risking too much to be faking it.

    2.5 million viewers – not a bad ally, especially in the media.

    All publicity is good? It sure is when you need it! It’s not new to have to deal with the vitriol of the One Worlders (warmists/alarmists/”greenies”, etc.).

    Often, I find Beck’s enthusiasm and packaging reassuring.

    As far as not being right on everything? I’ve never known any scientist (or layman) to have been perfect, either. No – I won’t take a shot at the CRU crew. “Like hell I won’t! – no punishment they receive will be enough and I hope they are publicly punished and the explanations are understood by all.

    Also, Limbaugh was the first big media personalities that I know of who crusaded against CO2 AGW and sited valid references for back up.

    And has any politician been vilified by AGW’ers more than Sen. Inhofe? I nominate Steve Mc. and Inhofe for Nobels for REAL.

    Should AGW’ers and OneWorlders dictate who says what and why? They come close in the US occaisionally but, so far, get backed down. Aside from the Civil War we have avoided outright violence – so far. Facing the challenges will, hopefully, always be up us.

    Sorry, got carried away.

  62. Tor Hansson says:

    It would be very helpful if someone could sort out the material and present it in a coherent fashion. Beck failed with flying colors, even if he throttled the histrionics way down on this story. I was also quite surprised by the lazy nature of the investigation. So here you have a bunch of climatologists, ID’d only by first names, and you don’t bother to find out who they are and where they work? That’s shabby journalism.

    I agree that in this case he helps the debate, simply by making the matter pretty much impossible to sweep under the rug. But someone of a more sober and reflected nature needs to sort out the story, and present it clearly.

  63. John M says:

    Julian in Wales (18:25:38) :

    What’s interesting to me is that Google considers RealClimate to be a “news” site.

    Someone obviously went out of their way to make that decision.

  64. Roger Knights says:

    He’s a great communicator.

    Say … you don’t suppose …

    [fade out to satanic laughter]

  65. Steve Huntwork says:

    There are two classes of people:

    1) Those that are “told” what to think by their controllers and repeat exactly what they were taught to say.

    2) Those who actually watched the Glenn Beck show today and understood what David Horiwitz was saying.

    Class 1 people will not have clue what David Horowitz said today on the Glenn Beck show.

  66. RJC says:

    I’m glad Beck reported this. I’m not actually surprised, as a “Fox Fan” myself I assumed that they would be the only MSM source to air this story, and I was right. You guys have the most watched cable news network, wanting to get this story out. I say that’s cause for appreciation. Anything else is elitism… and I thought this whole story was about having personal opinion get in the way of science.

    But, aside from Beck, if you want someone you respect to make this story more widespread, how about the President of the USA? What’s Obama have to say about this? I assume not much, especially since it was a story on Fox News.

  67. Michael says:

    The #2 reason for the outrage over the ClimateGate scandel is Al Gore et al are scaring the hell out of our children for no reason. They need to be stopped.

  68. Polar bears and BBQ sauce says:

    I LOVE Glenn Beck… no, not in a brokebacksorta way…. I mean I like his show. The very problem with this debate is that we haven’t been sufficiently direct or forceful in pressing our opinion. We’ve allowed the Code Pink style of righteous indignation from the far left to go unchallenged. Our side has undertaken this debate from a purely rational, studious examination of the facts, (ever so careful to admit where the other side has any legitimate point) ….while the political machine of sensationalism has essentially run science over. If we remained on this path, we’d lose. We need Beck. God Bless him.

  69. Tor Hansson says:

    This is Tim Ball speaking to James Corbett on the Corbett report. It’s certainly better than the Glenn Beck piece.

  70. Roger Knights says:

    Here are the latest two comments from “David” on the CA thread “CRU Correspondence.” They are insanely great, so I hope re-posting them here is OK:
    =========

    David: November 23rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    Based on what is contained in these emails, it is fair to say that the scientific careers of these individuals may well be at an end. After so many years of attempting to point to the facts and being scorned by others publicly, privately, or just in general for not believing in AGW, perhaps I should feel a tinge of joy. However, much more so, I am saddened by all this.

    How many people’s lives and careers were destroyed by their manipulations and cover-up? How many people and institutions were dragged down by this? What about Science magazine, Nature, and GRL? What about public faith in science and the impartiality of scientists in general? How many politicians fell for all this, or went along with it rather than be ridiculed? How many editors were removed as a result of their joint targetted efforts?

    And by all means, they could not have got this far alone, who else is complicit in all this? At Science, at Nature, at any other number of once(?) venerated science publications? How were they able to get their own people into these publications and why did no one question this? Where was the National Academy of Sciences? Why did they not question all this, and to the extent they had a few tepid remarks of rebuke (“cannot be supported”) and trying to go along with the political zeitgeist rather than stick up for the scientific facts?

    What about the poltical careers of dupes(?), fellow travelers(?), or opportunists like Sir David King, Al Gore, and however many countless other politicians that will forever be associated with this mess.

    And now that we are at the climate change Waterloo, why in the world did it take a whistleblower’s effort to release these emails to finally get the scientific community to stand-up and say this is wrong? Was it really that difficult to see what was happening without the emails?

    Finally, couldn’t ALL of our time, effort, and money have been better spent solving actual problems in the world rather than trying to debunk what any reasonably intelligent person could have seen was if not a total fabrication of facts a deeply manipulated set of facts.
    #
    355 David: November 23rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm

    And if I might just add, how is it possible that this group of what I might call climate charlatans was able to nearly convince the entire world to sign up to reduce their economic growth in the name of … what exactly? Have they now shame? Should Kyoto or Copenhagen have ever been fully implemented (with the U.S., India, and China) how many BILLIONS of people would see their fortunes turn for the worse over this travesty. The developing world would have seen its development slowed or halted and the developed world the same.

    It is with cold comfort that I must recall the adage, “never underestimate the power of human stupidity”.

  71. Dane Skold says:

    Limbaugh spent about half an hour on climategate this morning. That’s what, another 10 million people introduced to the topic?

    The Salt Lake Tribune ran two pro AGW commentaries last weekend. One by Tom Friedman, which was a joke, and another by a local University of Utah professor Robert Davies.

    If these guys had an ounce of integrity they’d be calling for the source data and actual programming to see if the results could be replicated. After all, that is science.

    Isn’t it?

  72. Tor Hansson says:

    “On East Angila – I’m guessing that whoever typed it into the teleprompter text was typing a little too qucikly.”

    Sure, but if you’re a professional journalist you catch that. No big deal, embarrassing nonetheless.

  73. Charlie says:

    Beck, as many other reporters didn’t catch the nuances of the “hide the decline”.

    They tend to conflate the cooling / flat temperatures of the last decade with the more obscure problem of divergence of proxies vs temperature over the last few decades.

    The Mann Nature trick is a way to disguise the failure of tree rings to work as proxies — as “wooden thermometers”. Mann wants to be able to claim that tree rings reliably reflect temperature and temperature only.

    This then lets him generate generate a history of temperatures back to the first millenium that supports the theory that today’s warming is unprecedented. If the tree rings show a decline in temperature since 1960 or 1980, then they aren’t good wooden thermometers.

    THIS is the decline that he wanted to hide (but replacing the proxy data with thermometer based info after 1960, or 1980 or whenever its needed).

    The discussion is very specifically about the graphic on the front cover of a WMO report entitled WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999.

    The authors credited for the graphics are ……… drumroll …………….

    PD Jones, KR Briffa, and T Osborn University of E. Anglia
    M E Mann, U of Va
    RS Bradley, U of Mass.
    MK Hughes, Univ of Arizona

  74. David Alan says:

    One site has compiled a large collection of articles regarding climategate, with both pro and con AGW views:

    http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/the-cru-hack/

    Now what I do find to be a WUWT moment, is how that website and google handle climategate or cru hacked queries and/or sites by relevance.

    I did a web search on both terms and the top 3 sites, not including the news header, produced in this order: The Examiner from Atlanta, Real Climate and then WUWT. How is it that The Air Vent or Climate Audit or this site not rank above RC in my search query? Beltwayblips also assumes that same order of relevance.

    The Examiner I understand, was the first media outlet to cover the story, so that makes since. But to see RC come in #2 on search results is a bit questionable. Is google being manipulative as well?

    RC took days to enter the climategate discussion, well after AV, CA, WUWT, and others. I don’t get it.

    Oh wait. I forgot. Gore invented the internet. n/m.

  75. MattN says:

    I am in agreement with SABR Matt. Glenn Beck is way too extreme to “help” this issue. Someone more moderate like Stossel would have been perfect.

  76. Charlie says:

    Slightly off topic, but ….. the Climate Change and Earth Science Communication team at NASA portray the smoothed temperature graph of the last few years as a PERFECTLY flat straight line.

    See http://climate.nasa.gov/images/GlobalTempGraphicAnim3.gif or for more context,
    http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#GlobalTemperature

    The graph is straight from the homepage of the CRU, but with the graphic altered to avoid even the slightest downturn.

    My Request for Correction to NASA from mid August is still unanswered. This whole CRU e-mail fiasco reminded me to put in a follow up e-mail.

    Just like “hiding the decline” in the front page graphics of the WMO report, this NASA page is not peer reviewed literature. It is simply what is used everyday by teachers when doing lessons on science and climate. It would be nice to get it fixed, though.

  77. Chris C. says:

    As someone who used to visit Little Green Footballs on a regular basis, I remember one of Charles Johnson’s bugaboos was that he thought conservatives had become anti-science and were relying on religeous faith to explain everything. Because of that he eventually moved towards supporting the AGW side because the detractors were obvisouly “not looking at the science”. He is just looking at the world through his own template and making things fit, when in reality it is actually the pro-AGW crowd this is not following the science and is in fact following based on religeous faith.

  78. Tor Hansson says:

    Tim Ball gives a nice plug to WUWT and CA at the end of his talk. Neato.

  79. Michael says:

    Amazing Arianna Huffington’s Huffington Post has no real story on ClimateGate. Wasn’t she wining about the wall to wall coverage of the “balloon boy” while the MSM ignored real news? What a hypocrite she is.

  80. player says:

    royfomr (17:55:46) :

    Oh – my – God! Monibot – the high priest of AGW asking Phil Jones to resign! I never thought I’d see the day…..!!!

  81. Roger Knights says:

    It’ll be fun to see what the next poll numbers show about public support for CAWG!!!

  82. E.M.Smith says:

    Hey, I *LIKE* Beck.

    (Then again, I like the BBC and used to listen to Radio Moscow during the cold war along with Wall Street Journal… guess I have eclectic tastes…)

    Glen Beck is entertaining, has passion, insists that the evidence support a position, and is willing to laugh at his own foibles. I can live with that.

    Much better than the “cry in their Latté” milquetoast on MSNBC who can pronounce everything perfectly and understand nothing…

    Or the CNN echo chamber where you know what the story will be before you ever turn it on. Oh for the days of “Live From Iraq” when they did actual cutting edge news coverage… never knew what was next and glued to the screen for hours on end. Now I don’t even put it in the rotation. They almost had me with Lou Dobbs and some unexpected controversy, but they “fixed” that…

    So I’m happy with Glen Beck, and I’m happy with the folks who watch his show. And I’m Really Happy somebody, anybody, is giving this air time on the TV (where most folks live…).

    Look, he has to have some kind of “over the top” from time to time to pull folks away from Jerry Springer, Oprah, Alien vs Predator, SNL … It’s hard to get people to think against their will.

  83. Alvin says:

    Here’s a cleaner image of Beck.

    _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evx9D19gmtE

  84. debreuil says:

    The one thing that makes me skeptical about the whole GW thing is my bs detector goes off every time I look (can’t release data, no one is allowed to disagree, it is too important to spend time debating, etc etc.

    Watching Glen Beck, those same bs detctors go all fireworks. The CA approach is much more productive. If this is just about picking a side, then lets talk about New Moon.

  85. anonymong says:

    See README in \FOIA\documents\osborn-tree3

    “This directory is for chronologies and regional timeseries normalised over
    1901-40, not 1901-70. And for new regional definitions!”

  86. savethesharks says:

    For those of you who immediately close off Glenn Beck ’cause he ain’t your style….keep in mind that…truth is truth…wherever it may be found.

    Yeah, I squirmed when he couldn’t pronounce the region in the UK that got its name from our lingua franca forbears here (hey we all use “Anglish” on this blog), you know, that area named after the Angles. [Poor Saxons….their name was lost.}

    So I squirmed at that. But other than that….he was spot on, because he knows a scam when he sees it, just like the rest of us.

    Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck….smells like a duck’s arse…as has been said on here. :-)

    You want to see something to laugh at? Then I give you Congressman Waxman’s speech that the North Pole is “evaporating.”

    Cue Charlie Brown Laugh: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Or check out Al Gore’s hurricane in the North Atlantic (for his brand new “book”) rotating the wrong direction.

    That…..THAT….my friends….is laughable.

    And THESE people…these rather dim DIM “wizards” of the “Illuminati”…are running this planet??

    How’d they get in control???

    Their days are numbered.

    Let the revolution begin!!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  87. Michael says:

    If someone could do a Digg on this video, it would be nice.

  88. mkurbo says:

    Roger Knights (18:50:56) :

    David: November 23rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    “Finally, couldn’t ALL of our time, effort, and money have been better spent solving actual problems in the world”…

    ..Yes !!!
    That and messing with children’s minds on this subject are the REAL crimes here.

  89. Brute says:

    I think Beck get’s a bad rap, (his fault).

    Sure he’s goofy and melodramatic….. but he gets the point across in his “showmanship” fashion.

    He has a medium size megaphone and he’s been correct about the dodgy science all along.

    As someone wrote above…..Stossel probably would’ve been better……but doesn’t attract the audience. Maybe Stossel as a guest reporter would be more credible.

  90. Gene Nemetz says:

    Glenn Beck is watched by millions. Millions of more people know about ClimateGate than did before they watched his show today.

    The general population is becoming more and more aware that collusion took place between the top global warming scientists. As time goes by the number of people aware of ClimateGate is going to grow. Others in the media will cover it. They know how juicy this story is—especially when the Cap N Trade debate heats up in Senate early next year.

    There is no way of repairing the damage to AGW that this story is doing. Collusion, deleting of data, intimidation of science journals—everyone knows these tactics belong in the world of politics, in the world of organized crime, etc., not in science.

    Your end is near AGW. Good luck with your Cap N Trade thingy.

  91. King of Cool says:

    Harry (17:37:09) :
    You may not like Beck, but you will die of asphyxia before you see anyone else cover this story.

    I’m with you Harry. I have been listening to a barrage of one sided garbage for so long with hardly a whimper of questioning that Beck’s message is sweet music to my ears. Being brought up near East Anjeela, I don’t even mind if he calls me an Anjeelan.

  92. Tom FP says:

    Nice, but spoiled a bit when he pronounces East Anglia “East Angeela”….

  93. Gene Nemetz says:

    I would like to see another hour of Glenn Beck with Lord Monckton this time covering all the 62 mb of ClimateGate. Maybe I’ll send a short email to both requesting it.

  94. twawki says:

    Monbiot apologises,
    Australian parliament in hot debate, politicians angry
    Green fruad bigger than Madoff
    http://www.twawki.wordpress.com
    interesting times!

  95. Richard M says:

    For those who don’t like Glen Beck this issue was also covered during other Fox News shows today. Also, Glen Beck has been reborn a little bit on Fox News. It’s probably more due to the current political climate than anything else. When Bush was president Glen was a lost puppy trying to defend some things that were not defensible. Now, he gets to be on the attack. That plays much more to his strengths.

    However, the entire episode was most likely put together by a staff member. Glen just read it. He is not that into the whole GW thing as was clear during the Moncton interview. It’s also not an issue to most Americans. They have no idea what is going on and what cap&trade will do to them. Most Americans are concerned with the economy/deficit and the health care debate. Nothing else is going to get much air time right now.

    Finally, I think the real issue here is the peer review portions of the emails. The only thing holding AGW together is the view that the scientific evidence vastly supports the hypothesis. That is why NAS, APS, AMS, etc. support AGW. We need to focus on the failure of peer review and these organizations will have no choice but to back down. Once they do … the game is over.

  96. Henry chance says:

    Rush Limbaugh has had this in front of 30 million audience. Rush has had this Friday and Today.
    I know many people hate Rush, but tripping in front of him is the best stumble evah.

    Rush even said today he had been saying this for years and it played out like he described it a long time. The “scientists” were manipulating numbers.

  97. Smokey says:

    Maybe Beck is having a beneficial effect. Sen. Inhofe calls for an investigation into Climategate: click

  98. grandpa boris says:

    Unfortunately, Glenn Beck is too tainted by proven cases of blatantly lying in order to make his ideology-driven points. Having Beck as an ally in “climate skepticism” is probably doing more damage to the fine scientists and researchers who are trying to get real science and sanity back into the climate change discussion.

    Beck seems to have a “single fundamental issue” platform: oppose anything Democrats are in favor of and anything Obama supports. So in an improbable fantasy scenario where tomorrow Obama were to switch from an AGW booster to a “climate skeptic” because real science convinced him that the “hockey stick” is bunk, I am convinced that Glenn Beck would immediately reverse his position as well and become a hard-core AGW alarmist.

  99. rbateman says:

    Blown wide open by Beck.
    He has 2.5 million viewers, plus almost everybody who tunes into Fox.
    Somewhere about 10 million American now know a lot more than the MSM will ever tell them about what’s inside the CRU bucket ‘o’ fun.
    And those 10 million are going to be talking, to friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers et al.
    Skeptics, you just won a battle, but beware, they have sabotaged the way forward through 5th column activities.
    Now America, for the real damage to the climate data, start looking at your home town and the surviving compromised records. AGW hinges on temp data, and believe you me, they got to it. Don’t take my word for it, go and discover for yourselves. Then figure out what will happen when climate scientists start reconstructing the Global Climate history with booby-trapped data.
    How do you tell the genuine data from the altered?
    One word: Provenance.
    Sorry to keep harping on this, folks, but until I get some feedback from those who will take the time to look, I’m going to keep at it.

  100. rbateman says:

    Smokey (19:55:34) :

    Exactly. Investigate.
    That bunch at CRU had tentacles reaching across continents.

  101. Douglas DC says:

    Beck’s an former Drunk and Rodeo Clown.This is what Rodeo Clowns do:

    I think that Beck is bombastic,outrageous and bit over the top.But i don’t think
    he’s afraid of the NYT.It isn’t 1500lbs of muscle and snot trying to kill you
    or the Cowboy it just sent off into the dirt…

  102. Son of a Pig and a Monkey says:

    Wasn’t it the CRU at East Anglia that recently owned up to having lost the original data for its proxies and this why they couldn’t provide them for peer review, by the peerless M&M? Isn’t this the time to remind the world about the CRU’s dog eating its homework?

  103. Bill in Vigo says:

    I like Beck, he talks to the regular people that have had a hard day if they have a job that is. He talks to the older folks like me that didn’t have the opportunity to get as much education as some others. So he likes to jump around and raise a little cain now and then. When he is wrong he comes back and says so. but the best part is that there are millions of people out there that can’t understand the technical jargon on this blog much less that on Climateaudit. So let him rant and rave he is talking the language that his audience understands and these folks are devoted and they vote. THEY VOTE. They are the ones that the politicians understand. These are the folks that will fire them if need be. Glen Beck isn’t talking to the choir he is talking to the great mass of middle America that doesn’t have any college and maybe not even a high school diploma. But they care about America. They are the ones that eventually will have to be answered to. That is why FOX is so good it has commentary for everyone and they cover mostly in a fair way. And if some one is stonewalling they will get in their face and ask again. And they have the guts to go against the grain of the rest of the lame stream media. Yep I watch Bill O. also.

    Bill Derryberry

  104. Michael says:

    I put up a higher quality version in case WUWT wants to use it.
    [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbxYVa2VjA]

    reply; thanks we did

  105. Lee Kington says:

    Harry (17:37:09) :
    You may not like Beck, but you will die of asphyxia before you see anyone else cover this story.

    Except that all of the Fox News shows covered as well as the Fox News Talk Shows… Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Greta…. etc.

  106. Vern says:

    Hate to say but there are some really stupid comments here and some people need to give their head a shake to hopefully get a dose of reality. Let’s get this straight…. Can we agree that virtually ALL of the media has been in locked step cahoots with the IPCC/CRU from the get-go on this issue? They have tied themselves to the beast, they have promoted this fairy tale as fact, they have been carrying its water and they have been running cover for them at every step of the way. Investigative journalism is virtually dead around the planet other than Fox. So for all those commenters here mumbling that ‘Beck isn’t my cup of tea, what exactly is it that you want? Are you wishing on a hope and a prayer that a corrupt media will change its course… just this once of course… repent for all their past deeds of running cover for those clowns at the IPCC/CRU and will now report on this story exactly as YOU want them to report it? I hate to prick your balloon but that ain’t going to happen! The media has such a huge investiture in glowbull warmongering that they will never report on the total scope of climategate. I remember a story a few years ago done in Canada called The Denial Machine (I think) and it was put on by the Fifth Estate program of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation – it was of course a total trashing of any scepticism raised by legitimate scientists. Good grief, they went after the ‘deniers’ as if they were part of the clan and progeny of Charles Manson! The CBC is owned by the federal government (which is of course the first problem) but frankly, the private network CTV is even worse…. but regardless, do you really want these same clowns that did the trashing to now be the ones reporting on this story and representing the issue as you think it should be represented? Forget it! You will never get a fair shake out of them. Virtually all of the old media is corrupt to the extent that they don’t even remember how to run a ‘fair and balanced’ program… they are promo pieces for Phil Jones, Michael Mann and David Suzuki and that is from whom they get their talking points directly. Is it really possible to expect them now to eat crow and report something that is fair to the ‘other side’? There is too much inertia for that to happen and besides, they would first have to report on themselves as being either complicit in the scam or perhaps (in a more favourable light) for having been fools to be sucked in on it. Think that will happen? The fact they have been slow on the uptake and are not reporting on it is in fact proof positive of their complicity in action. Even the emails illustrate this point precisely.

    I’ll tell you what I want…. I don’t want them to report on it at all! As I said, they can’t be trusted in the least and secondly, if they were to report on the story they would focus on ‘how those poor kind-hearted but beleaguered folks at the CRU were subjected to the outrageous act of having their emails hacked into by some criminal who needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law… and it all has to happen quickly so that those wonderful scientists can get back to their job of saving the planet’. And in the future, when anyone asks anyone in the media why they never reported on this story, they will always be able to point back to that one broadcast and say “bull crap, what are you talking about? Of course we reported on it.” Is that what you want? No? Well that is what you are going to get if old media reports on this story!

    At the moment, it is like there are two parallel universes going on that have no connection between them – the internet is wild about this story like there is no tomorrow and the old media is dead silent. Here’s my prediction… the fallout of all this for the networks is that if the buzzing internet has turned this story into a firestorm grassroots movement and they don’t even report on it, the end result will be even lower viewership, even lower credibility and so on. The alphabet networks in the States are already dropping like a rock with consideration by some for dropping news altogether… this just accelerates that process. By the time this is over, you probably could find more observers at an old-timers tiddly winks game. You are witnessing (with a ringside seat) one of the greatest ‘jump the shark moments’ in history… or should I say ‘anti-jump the shark moments’ since it is not what they did but what they didn’t do. This is going to be a 2-4… two for the price of one. A golden opportunity is at hand to drive the last nail into the coffin of the crooked media’s box and lay them to rest along with the IPCC/CRU. So… send out a well penned and well sourced outline of what has gone on to everyone in your address book and encourage each person that receives it to do the same. The story is already out there…..it just needs a little liberation to make it to the ears and eyes of everyone. The old media is not your friend, it is your enemy. The onus is on each of us to get the message out. And if Beck and the others at Fox want to help a bit, God bless them for doing that.

    Question for all posters here on another but related note… Who has taken the time to contact their MP, Senators etc and told them that unless they plan on taking the IPCC/CRU to task in Copenhagen for the fraud they have been perpetrating on a worldwide public for the past 10 years, they should stay home? I did and frankly, I was pleasantly stunned at the positive and detailed response I received.

  107. royfomr (17:55:46) : “George Monbiot…needs our help. Get on to the blog before someone pulls the plug and click the support link to the right of his name.
    When I left the site, 108 had agreed/ recommended his comment. Let’s give him a boost folks.”

    Better read the frogging thing first, folks. It’s a joke.

  108. Rich says:

    Lurker surfacing,

    For those that want to write off Beck as a goof, he essentially brought down the “green jobs czar” communist Van Jones single-handedly.

    I appreciate Beck, sometimes over the top but I think he genuinely cares about the country. He’s also not strictly “anti-Obama” or “anti-Democrat, but with what they are trying to push through including Cap & Steal, that has been the focus recently and I applaud him for it.

    Stossel I believe is attached to Fox Business, I don’t flip over to them enough but would think he appears over there regularly.

    I did see reports on some of the Fox shows during the day, and as a regular Fox viewer, when they smell blood they will not let it go.

    I applaud WUWT, CA, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Free Republic and anyone who will chase all of these crooks out of the shadows.

  109. AndyW says:

    Good to see Fox having people with brains doing some commentary.. er, . East Angila? Who is this dumb joker? Has he ever been outside the USA?

    Andy

  110. evanmjones says:

    I guess it will all go down as Climategate. Or Warminggate

    But I think I prefer Weathergate.

  111. LarryOldtimer says:

    Beck makes no claim to being a “journalist”. He is exactly what he says he is, and when I have the time, which is rarely, on occasion I do watch his show and do in fact enjoy his show.

    So then, where exactly are all of those “journalists”? What has become of the “investigative” sort? The used to be “watch dogs” of the government have changed into being “guard dogs” of whatever cause the owners and ringmasters of the main stream media circus want them to be a “guard dog” about.

    As I recall, scientific method does not begin with speculation. Curiosity, certainly, but not simple speculation alone. First, after curiosity comes observation, and a good deal of it, if done properly. After that comes hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested and tested over again.

    When the hypothesis has been tested in every way the hypothesizer can think of, and the results have not varied within the limits of the experimental apparatus available (no need to be embarrassed needlessly), the hypothesis is then put forth as a theory, to be thrown to the wolves of scientific investigation. For a theory to be valid, said theory has to be falsifiable.

    To be thrown to those who would in fact be skeptics, and any “scientist” that I have known (a scientist in the same field of science as a proposed theory) worth his/her salt would have considered it part of his/her duty to be skeptical of any new theory proposed by anyone and question that new theory.

    That is how I was taught the way scientific method went, lo those many years ago.

    But that was then, and this is now. Scientific method is arduous, expensive and time consuming. Making the effort to analyze whether temperature measuring stations are providing temperatures representative of the actual air surrounding them is needed, and Anthony has been performing a needed and competent effort in this. This is a valid part of scientific method.

    It is relatively easy to tell the difference between actual scientists, the cheerleaders, and the players on the fields of sports.

    You are doing excellent and worthwhile work, Anthony.

  112. Roger Knights says:

    I hope Fox rebroadcasts Beck’s segment on its other programs.

  113. kuhnkat says:

    grandpa boris,

    “Unfortunately, Glenn Beck is too tainted by proven cases of blatantly lying in order to make his ideology-driven points. ”

    You accused, now back it up!! Ideological bull is not appreciated from either side. List them NOW!!!

  114. LarryOldtimer says:

    I have been involved in investigations regarding civil engineering works. One of the things to watch for of any proposed theory is any assumption that has to be actual fact for the theory to be valid as to producing reliable predictions .

    If any one of any assumptions required for a theory to produce accurate predictions is demonstrated to not be fact, then the entire theory may be considered as being falsified.

  115. MDDwave says:

    Wow. CNN did cover it, dated Novemeber 23, 1:23 PM EST.

    Hmm. “Out of context” and “Cherry Picking” sounds something like in the Wizard of Oz. “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” could be changed to “Pay no attention to those men behind the CRU server”

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html

    “Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion.”

    Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.

    “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax,” he told Threat Level. “There’s no funding by nefarious groups. There’s no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There’s nothing hidden, no manipulation.

    “It’s just scientists talking about science, and they’re talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way.”

    Trenberth agrees.

    “If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists,” he says. “The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.”

  116. Tripod says:

    Lighten up grandpa boris,

    you need to watch Red Eye and maybe, just maybe you could crack a smile. Love this site and will contine to quietly read. I’m just a lowly cook. LarryOldtimer – thanks for your comments.

  117. On East Angila – I’m guessing that whoever typed it into the teleprompter text was typing a little too qucikly.

    Taht’s rihgt!

    Beck sometimes has less than half of an hour to prepare for a substitute piece of urgent news; proper names, outside the scope of the automatic spelling checks, are often garbled by teleprompter operators.

    Posters of debreuil‘s kind are dead wrong, and shoot themselves in the foot. Real world is not your favorite bistro around the corner. If you can’t stand Beck (I sometimes can’t, too), don’t listen to him. But give him a credit for what he is doing: very few people are telling the truth in media, and Beck is one of them, “histrionic” or not.

    Glenn Beck is not Steve McIntyre, sure. For a son of a Florida baker without any education to speak of, though, Beck is doing all right; most importantly, his audience doesn’t expect and doesn’t want a very educated or scientifically thinking commentator. They are looking for somebody living and thinking on a level they can identify with. On that level, Beck is doing a tremendously good job.

  118. boballab says:

    I’ll Try to help Boris out:

    Beck lied about Van Jones being a communist….er skip that one.
    Beck lied about Acorn being a crimi….er skip that one too.
    Beck lied about Obama wanting a single payer healthca….err skip that one as well.

    Oh Pooh I tried Boris

    For those looking down on Beck just remember who it was that broke the story about Van Jones, about Acorn continuing ties to Andy Stern and his embezzling brother and much more, just by doing simple research and using their own words against them.

  119. paulID says:

    I want all those who are condemning Glenn for mispronouncing East Anglia if you can pronounce this place name you have the right to continue condemning him if you can’t without help shut up and be honest with yourself place name Tooele. Odds are even those who live in the US will not be able to pronounce this but that by no means is an indication of intelligence or lack thereof.

  120. Onion says:

    Beck is the ONLY journalist AFAIK who flagged the dollar carry trade, destruction of the dollar and spiralling deficits. His report on that was spot on. The rest of the media seem focussed on cheerleading the rising stock market instead.

    He’s one of the few media guys who has been highly critical of the banking oligarchs that have taken over America

    He may be a bit ranty, and possibly have his own agenda but those are minor forgivable sins. He is doing an outstanding job on these issues IMO

  121. Cassandra King says:

    Glenn Beck speaks the language of the common people, he is direct and up front, he connects the ordinary Joe to the story of the moment in an understandable and direct way.

    The chattering classes/Latte swilling pseudo leftist intelectual class hate and fear people like Beck simply because he speaks the language of the ordinary people. The left attempt to lecture and bully the masses by trying to appear superior in both education and enlightenment, they preach from the pulpit of pomposity with a born to rule attitude born mostly from a universtiy education dominated by left wing intelectuals.
    You get a real sense of this self styled superiority when being lectured about the supposed settled science about the causes of climate change, its a case of ‘we know best’ and ‘ordinary people cannot hope to grasp the complexities’ etc.
    The left are in a way disconnected from the masses, distanced by an over inflated opinion of their worth within the matrix of society.
    The lefts long obsession with the ‘equality of humanity’ is in reality a canard to hide their true intentions and feelings, this can be proven by looking at socialist/leftist/Marxist nations, they all end up divided between the elite and the masses with the power syphoned away to the elite with the masses removed from the mechanism of power.

    What is the difference between Beck and Gore? Beck is a man who speaks to the common man and Gore is a man who uses the common man.

  122. grandpa boris says:

    kuhnkat (22:09:12),
    Please google “Glenn Beck lies” and “Glenn beck distortion”, as good departure point, to get the same set of facts I am using. You are entitled to your own interpretation of those facts. Beck is right on a few things. He’s wrong on a lot more things. And on many things he outright distorts reality. But I have no interest in a discussion of Beck, he’s not relevant to this blog’s subject.

    I’ll just say this: If you think Beck’s helping your cause, perhaps you and I have different causes. I want good and responsible science, policy based on sound data rather than politics or political contributions, and I want to know what the real climate processes are and what is driving them. I have no political or ideological investment in this.

  123. royfomr says:

    jorgekafkazar (21:20:46) :
    royfomr (17:55:46) : “George Monbiot…needs our help. Get on to the blog before someone pulls the plug and click the support link to the right of his name.
    When I left the site, 108 had agreed/ recommended his comment. Let’s give him a boost folks.”

    Better read the frogging thing first, folks. It’s a joke.

    Read into the comments jk. He’s stopped joking when he apologies. He is dead serious.

  124. Vinnster says:

    Onion said “Beck is the ONLY journalist AFAIK who flagged the dollar carry trade, destruction of the dollar and spiralling deficits. His report on that was spot on.”

    Onion illustrates a point many here who think Beck should be avoided are wrong and frankly acting just like the AGW elitist snob crowd of believers. Beck understands better than anyone his style unique. The first time I saw him I thought he was way over the top in melodramatics, but you have to listen to him a while to understand he does his homework and like Onion pointed his piece on “the dollar carry” was spot on. I ask you how many of you that are saying to avoid Beck know what “the dollar carry” is? If you do not then you are “igorant” (in the classic non-insulting definition) of a topic (along with simular finaical topics) that you should be imbarrased you do not know.

    Short of some excellent web sites and a few guests speakers on financial shows, Beck is the only TV person that is informing people in layman’s terms of dangers far more dangerous than the junk science of AGW. AGW legislation will indeed cost us all some money, but the “the dollar carry” and similar financial policies by the FED and Treasury will make what AGW legislation cost be pennies by comparison.

    The first time I heard Rush he was doing a segment that required him to do simple arithmetic on-air and he blew it. Came off as stupid. Did that first impression actually show me who Rush was or how influential was. No. Rush himself says you have to listen to his show for six weeks to “get it”., and I agree.

    The same applies to Beck. He is the only one that consistently brings to light information no others will touch. He is constantly asking questions and he challenges his adversaries to find fault with him. If he makes a mistake the first words out of his mouth on the next show was, “I was wrong about….”

    I too sometimes cringe at his antics, but he alone has taken down more of the current administrations bad guys and reveled (even to my skeptical of all politicians mind) people around our President that clearly have a goal to do away with democracy and capitalism.

    Rush
    Palin
    Beck

    They all have a following based on a certain charisma and layman’s perspective on life, liberty and getting the facts. Why do you think they are so hated…because they connect with people, they have a large audience and most importation they reveal the MSM bias to fool the people like they have with AGW.

    As many here have said Beck just brought the scam to several million people’s attention that most likely would not know about it. And those of you that are acting like the AGW elitist snobs we condemn should rethink your position on Beck.

    His delivery may make you cringe, but what he informs about is far more important and will affect your lives much more than the AGW scam.

    Teivo/DVD his show and fast forward past the parts you want, but there are gems of information you will get nowhere else.

  125. rbateman says:

    grandpa boris (01:57:03) :

    And look how far attempting to debate the ‘science’ has gotten us.
    But, you know this. It’s gotten way too far beyond science to call it back now.
    It was about science 10-20 years ago.
    The playing field was level more than 20 years ago, but not any more.
    It’s a cesspool of deception, altered records, erased records, bought institutions, corrupt politicians, greed, hazing, cronyism and outright strongarming.
    If you want to slug it out IN the cesspool, go ahead.
    I say we drain the cesspool first.
    Let’s also not forget the last time a psuedo-debate took place with a biased moderator who squelched audience questions.
    I’ll take Glen Beck calling them out on the rug, as well as Monckton challenging Gore.
    The cesspool is the provence of pigs.

  126. Bernie in Pipewell says:

    The tax payers alliance in the UK are reporting that they have made a complaint about Prof Jones and his colleagues to the UK’s Information Commissioner. The TPA is fairly right wing but if they have made the complaint, then an investigation must follow and the I C is no pushover.

  127. gravamen says:

    Wikipedia articles that should record this event in a neutral and balanced manner, with journalist-written sources (best to discuss on the talk page, don’t just start editing directly):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

  128. tarpon says:

    Pretty much nails it …

  129. Bryan Clark says:

    Who is responsible for the warming alarmist Google Ads on WUWT? Rather a disgrace, in light of all that’s happening. Someone needs to cancel that ad agreement.

  130. Smokey says:

    Bryan Clark,

    Google selects the ads, not WUWT. By clicking on them you support this site [and we know you won't pay attention to what they're trying to sell].

    A click costs them money [but just one click per ad; subsequent clicks don't pay]. So help support WUWT. Click on alarmist/watermelon ads, then promptly hit your “back” button. Waste their money. It’s fun!

  131. George S. says:

    paulID (00:08:14) :

    “… Tooele.”

    I know, I know… two-ellie!
    It’s well known in certain circles.

    grandpa boris (01:57:03) :
    “I want good and responsible science, policy based on sound data rather than politics or political contributions, and I want to know what the real climate processes are and what is driving them.”

    Huh? How about if that data predicts some “undesired” climate change (with huge uncertainty) and the policy becomes to counteract that effect at all cost (including large scale economic disruptions)?

    How about balancing responsible science and policy? By the way, very little science is done without patronage. I hope scientists are not deluded into thinking they are doing science for the sake of science. Do they fund themselves? How about their salaries, equipment, travel expenses, etc.?

    While scientific findings/conclusions should be based on sound methodology, politics play an important role because they establish a path which societies follow (and often require enormous investment). Guys like Beck are one aspect of checks on the body politic. We need to call out fraud or even our suspicions when so much is at risk. While you and I are unheard voices, someone with Beck’s audience sounds the clarion call.

    Good on Beck!

  132. ralph says:

    I love the county of East Angeeela.

    You say tomaeto, I say tomaato….

    .

  133. pyromancer76 says:

    For all the snotty elitists here, Beck is a regular guy who has a flamboyant way of connecting with millions of regular guys and gals and educating them (because he actually practices investigative journalism and Fox News corporate heads permit and so far encourage it). In this instance he is educating them (us) about science, climate science.

    The more people know about the climate-warming scam, the more chances we have to stop this runaway freight train before its wreckage not only takes more of our billions (if not trillions) of dollars, but our national sovereignty as well — as much as we still have left.

    Beck (and his courageous group of investigators) said:

    1. The science is not settled. He quoted Kevin Trenberth, “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” A plus for the scientific method.
    2. Doctored temperature record. Phil Jones, head of the U of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (used by Britain’s MET), “add[ed] in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline.” Whoa! Fraudulent science.
    3. Fraud perpetrated on scientific journals, the government, and the public. Scientists have been using this “doctored-temperature-record” trick to get the fraudulent science in peer-review journals, and then their fraud appeared to be the “official truth”.
    4. Preventing scientific publication. Phil Jones says, “Kevin and I will keep [papers we don't like] them out [of peer-reviewed journals] somehow…even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is”. How much power do they have?
    -Ignoring papers they disagree with. Ok, I guess we all do that.
    -Intentionally deleting documents against FOI requests. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re: AR4 [IPCC document 2007]? Keith will do likewise….Can you email Gene and get him to do the same?” (From Dave Holland) Isn’t it illegal to delete documents in the public record in advance of FOI requests.
    -Desstroying the scientific method. Demonizing researchers (Steve McIntyre) who, like any scientist/researcher wanting to verify the validity of research in a field, check the data, the methods, and the computer programming.

    What we need now is detail on how the temperature record — the data — has been falsified by Hadley-CRU, NASA-GISSTemp, and UCAR. We also need detail on the physics of CO2 and its role in the atmosphere translated so regular people can get it. Beck is someone who can make this happen.

    I think Glenn Beck has made a damn good start. Maybe his stint as a rodeo clown facing 1500 pounds of enraged mammal hurtling at him eliminates the lesser fear of snotty elitists, the entire mainstream media, and the Obama administration. Thanks to Douglas DC (20:19:50-11/23).

  134. Hosco says:

    I remember when Anthony tentatively started with the ads. If I remember there was talk of the irony of clicking AGW ads to support WUWT.

    Since then I’ve gone out of my way to once a day click all the different links I can find.

  135. Arn Riewe says:

    There’s a tough editorial on this in the Washington Times this morning:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

  136. tallbloke says:

    SABR Matt (17:04:21) :

    Speaking as a climate skeptic…the less we are associated with Glenn Beck, the better off we are. I note that Beck couldn’t even pronounce the e-mails he was reading and that he incorrectly interpreted at least two of them.

    We don’t need Glenn Beck on Fox News telling us what’s wrong with the climate scientists…there are more capable reporters who will, sooner or later, be forced to confront this issue.

    Speaking as a Brit, I think Beck did a good job. He might not have had as strong a grasp of the issues as he might, but we’ve been following this for a lot longer and more single mindedly than him. At least he is making an effort to get the message across to the majority of people who also don’t follow the science as closely as we do.

    Don’t pull down people who are doing their best. Why not email him to put him straight on the things he goofed rather than just carping from the sidelines?

  137. Kate says:

    The Wall Street Journal has a nice take on the CRU data fraud. Notice how Mann wriggles and squirms, then finally just refuses to answer when asked to explain his working methods, and the content of his emails:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

    This is from near the end of the WSJ article:

    “…When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn’t work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. “The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we’re all using is this,” he wrote. “IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”

    It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren’t averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal,” goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

    Mr. Mann’s main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

    WHO’S THE “DENIER” NOW?
    For the record, when we’ve asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he “won’t dignify that question with a response.” Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he “did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,” but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn’t to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann’s work, much less his right to remain silent.

    LET’S CALL A FRAUD “A FRAUD”
    However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.”

  138. tallbloke says:

    Julian in Wales (18:25:38) :

    Obviously this is being orchestrated high up in Google to smother the real story.

    Big investors in Google have a lot to lose here. Kleiner Perkins have invested heavily in ‘clean tech startups. Gore is a non exec director of KP. When a news agency is run by people with special interestes, expect distortion.

  139. vboring says:

    I hate agreeing with Glenn Beck.

    Hate.

    But last week he was right about Al Gore being a hypocrite for continuing to eat meat, too.

    This can’t go on.

  140. Innocentious says:

    The thing about Glenn Beck is at the very least he asks questions… Also please point me to something where his research has been wrong. Oh he has opinions as to what it means, of course, but all in all his research is impeccable. He never runs with an unverified story which is more then can be said for even some news organizations…

  141. Mark C says:

    I’m not a fan of Glenn Beck either, but he gets the ball rolling. Don’t like the rhetoric, can’t argue much with the results.

    Something else to get the ball rolling a little faster – Jonah Goldberg indicates he may do a USA Today opinion piece on the CRU scandal shortly:
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzE1ODdkMDM1ZDg5ZWUxMGUxYWRkMzI0ZTViNDZlOWY=

    I’m not all that disappointed in the MSM coverage just yet. You have to remember this really broke open only five days ago and is not a terribly simple story. I was amazed that Fox News had a front-pager on their website the next day (even if just for a few hours). It takes a little while to digest a data dump like this, to interpret just what it all means, and the longer-term implications. Journalists just don’t have the detailed expertise to do it quickly and hope to be right. Suppose they all jumped on this Friday and CRU released detailed evidence Saturday that it was all a hoax? That was a non-zero possibility last Friday.

    I’m reminded of the scene from “Force 10 from Navarone”, after the charges have exploded inside the dam but there’s no visible damage yet….

    Weaver: Nothing! We’ve been through all this, and nothing!
    Miller: You can’t expect an enormous volcano with three tiny bags of explosives. You have to let nature take her course. Give it time, it’ll work.

  142. David Kleppinger says:

    For those of you complaining about Beck’s pronunciation of words, you should be aware that he is ADHD and dyslexic. I’m not at all surprised he misreads words sometimes. I’m amazed he gets it correct as much as he does.

  143. Back2Bat says:

    The cesspool is the provence of pigs. rbatemen

    Until the root of this hysteria is dealt with it will be one imagined or exaggerated fear after another.

    That root is our pseudo-capitalism which is based on the government backed banking and money cartel. Ron Paul and others are hacking at this root.

    Meanwhile, I hope the true scientific community AND folks such as Glen Beck will severely discipline the so-called scientists in our midst.

  144. Bruce Cobb says:

    Ok, he got the names Anglia and Trenberth wrong, pronouncing them “Angila” and “Tentberth”, but overall, it’s a good hit piece, and I’m not a fan.
    When he said “So you see, if McIntyre sees the data, he’ll find the tricks that are in it to hide the decline, and then crazy people like me might just let you know about it. Oh, the horror what will happen to cap and trade?”, I laughed, but I think it would have been better to leave off the reference to cap and trade, which is a bit of a red herring there.
    I hope there will be more, much more of this type of thing.
    Oh, right, it’s all just part of the “contrarian noise machine”, including WUWT. The poor, delusional Alarmists are in denial, as their precious AGW Faith is crumbling.

  145. MartinGAtkins says:

    paul revere (17:23:36) :

    CUR has also cleared/removed the data for 2009 from there files.

    Try here:-

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

    Data here:-

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly

  146. Jeff B. says:

    Unbelievable. It’s those here whining about Beck that are engaging in the same kind of close mindedness that got AGW to where it is today.

    Be thankful there is real journalism occuring or get used to new high taxes and trillion dollar government mistakes.

  147. DonS says:

    There’s a fair amount of sophomoric ad hom and hauteur goin’ on round here. Reads more like a Moonbat column than WUWT. Everybody, including Glen Beck has got a dog in this fight. Any man with an audience of 8 million who is convinced that AGW is a scam is ok with me.
    Now, if scientists believe that robust challenges to theories and studies will eventually reveal the truth and cause the body politic to see the light, so be it. If scientists wish to discourse only with scientists, except when applying for a grant, that’s fine. Science is a full time job, get on with it.
    Politics is also a full time job, and lately the agenda seems to have moved, driven, we are told, by science, to a call for more centralized governments and better control of the means of production, the people and the currency. Conversations among scientists are not going to stop the juggernaut that is moving toward the accomplishment of this agenda.
    It’s time to stop conversing and put on the gloves. Beck will make that clear to the people who have always done the fighting in this world. He, more than any of his critics, has the lingua franca.

  148. Bernie says:

    Beck is frequently over-the-top and some of his stuff is downright corny. I think he significantly distracted from the Monckton segment and poor old John Bolton couldn’t really get his viewpoint across. That said, Beck did make many of the critical points regarding the unprofessional behavior of the scientists and the consequences of placing too much trust in the integrity of this type of person. We do have to be careful about assuming that folks with less formal education somehow do not understand key issues. (Ronald Reagan was effective because he could eloquently state what many saw, felt and believed – despite the handwringing of the bicoastal and European elites.) My guess is that he sees the AGW scaremongering and much of this behavior driven by anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, pro-big government , pro-world government ideologies and ideologues. Lord Monckton probably also sees much the same thing.

    I, like many here, who have followed the issue may take a narrower view.
    That said it would be naive to ignore the positive PR value of informing and mobilizing Beck’s audience.

    It is a case of fighting fire with fire. In my opinion, the coordinated defense and response to the CRU events is no accident. They all have downplayed or ignored the illegal behavior around the responses to the FOI requests. Remember that RealClimate is, in part, enabled by Fenton Communications, which is one of a number of PR firms that are run by radicals and closely tied to very left wing agendas. Gavin is a pretty good wordsmith, but in my view the initial RealClimate response smacks of professional PR spinmasters. We may prefer rapier like thrusts, but sometimes a Beck-like blunderbuss is exactly what you need.

  149. Dave says:

    I understand why so many seem upset with Beck. Anyone who quotes the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and the written works of the Founders is clearly an extremist nut job. There is no place in our public discourse for anyone who continually points out that the government’s actions violate these old documents.

    Reset sarcasm filter to off.

  150. Kip says:

    Echoing SABR Matt’s view on this. Glenn Beck will only erode the substance of the arguments made here on WUWT and elsewhere. This will be used as ammunition by the opposition to invalidate any sense of reason or intellect the skeptic base operates on.

  151. lucklucky says:

    If Beck is the only following this what that does tell us about other journalists?

  152. New Brunswick Barry says:

    As a follow-up to SABR Matt, Kip, et al., all you Glenn Beck fans out there, spouting statistics about the number of viewers he has versus the left-wing diehards over at CNN or wherever, are missing the point. It doesn’t matter if he has ratings not seen since Roots — the sheeple will be led by the nose as always. What matters is that policymakers and those who afix their signatures to legally binding international treaties will not be swayed by ignoramuses like Beck, however successful he is at raising awareness among the hoi polloi. The fight against the climate-change fraud is a serious issue that needs serious people leading the charge, not ratings-seeking clowns like Beck, O’Reilly, or Limbaugh, much as I enjoy these guys for their entertainment value.

  153. othercoast says:

    What’s with all the hatred for Beck? Yes he gets pretty excited – but then, many things he gets excited about would make you, too, if you knew anythign about the topic in question and gave a rip.

    Any of those admirably involved in mathematically uncovering all the intentional deceit that’s never been acknowledged (at most hand-waved) previously would now, given this proof material, probably be jumping up and down about it too, if they could get on TV, because it all is that maddening.
    But they can’t, and Beck can do it for them. What’s wrong with that?

    “Glenn was obviously reading the script without a strong background knowledge”
    “Speaking as a climate skeptic…the less we are associated with Glenn Beck, the better off we are. I note that Beck couldn’t even pronounce the e-mails he was reading and that he incorrectly interpreted at least two of them.
    We don’t need Glenn Beck on Fox News telling us what’s wrong with the climate scientists…there are more capable reporters who will, sooner or later, be forced to confront this issue.”

    Oh please. I couldn’t listen, but only read the transcript. Didn’t sound too bad for a previously uninformed muckraking generalist.

    I’m happy for every sober recounting of the leak, and there are many details that need to be soberly thrown into politicians’ (and “journalists”‘) faces, but Beck certainly brings this to the attention of those who couldn’t help but believe the alarmism, yet will at some point watch this. And there are lots of those in the general population.
    …and certainly lots of bandwagon politicians of both parties who need an education. This might start it.

  154. John G. says:

    Wow there are a lot of elitist snobs on this site. The whole issue is about the fraud being perpetrated on us by these so-called scientists, and so many of the posts are just people whining about Beck the messenger. So what if Beck is not erudite enough, polished enough, or engages in histrionics! He’s getting a message across that most other reporters don’t have the guts to report on. And a big “SO WHAT!!” to what the AGW crowd thinks of Beck. No matter what he says, he will always be an idiot to them as will anyone else (i.e., most people on this site) who disagree with them.

    Instead of shooting the messenger, grow a pair and defend the guy who’s getting the message out. If you can do it better, shut up and do it, and leave the messenger alone.

  155. Back2Bat says:

    I have hope for Beck but unless he takes on the banksters, he is mostly a diversion from the root of our problems AND NOT A TRUE FREE MARKETEER.

    However, he is doing a good job on exposing a major branch of evil, environmental extremism so I give him due credit. I would love to love the guy but he frustrates me instead. So, is he just a bit ignorant or is he a sophisticated whore for the banksters? And what about Limbaugh? He is a disappointment too.

    Untie that other half of your brain, Rush. You apparently need it. Liberals are a walk in the park compared to banksters.

  156. New Brunswick Barry says:

    All I’m saying is that we need better messengers than Beck. That’s not being elitist, that’s being smart.

  157. PSU-EMS-Alum says:

    I find the opinions expressed of Beck on this site humorous.

    You people whine and complain about how discouraging the pro-AGW manipulation in (newspapers | broadcast tv | web) is in the face of “real” data and yet most of the negative opinions of Beck expressed here are based wholly on being manipulated by (newspapers | broadcast tv | web) sources.

  158. Duncan Hill says:

    East “Angila”? Has not heard of the Angles, you know, as in “England”?

    I guess he’s just a dumb White “Angilo” Saxon Protestant.

  159. Joe says:

    Geez…amazing. Here we now have proof that the global warming scientists are a bunch of liars and fixing numbers, and you attack Glenn Beck for practically quoting the e-mails of what they were up top.
    My God, you liberals are completely intellectually dishonest. I meant stupid. You’re like little kids who never grew up.

  160. Sandy says:

    Is the 90s warming period tweaked data? Did the 90s really beat the 40s?
    Can recent data be trusted is surely the overriding question here?

  161. Aeronomer says:

    Most rational people immediately dismiss what Beck has to say…? It’s that kind of thinking that led to the fiasco we’re all talking about. Forget about the truth, if it’s not dressed up the way I like it or it doesn’t come from within the circle of what I deem acceptable, I’m not going to listen to it. Yeah, eminently rational.

  162. John G. says:

    Sorry, NB Barry, and kudos Aeronomer. Elitists care about packaging. Others care about the message, and the AGW message is a fraud. While you’re wringing your hands looking for a ‘smarter’ messenger, this one’s already done the job. It’s real easy to sit on the sidelines and call someone stupid for mispronouncing a word, quite another to be a man and confront these people on a daily basis.

    Beck’s intelligence is not the issue. If you don’t like his delivery, switch the channel, or get your own show. I guarantee you’ll be made to look just as stupid as AGW proponents already think you are.

  163. Henry chance says:

    Here is an article from U of Guelph. It tells of Mann’s vindictive style regarding articles that he doesn’t like.

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Pope_L.pdf

    Mann has a difference of opinion regarding peer review.

    I expect he will face some challenges soon.

  164. Richard M says:

    Looks like Beck will have more on AGW today.

  165. Alba says:

    There is a town in Scotland called Lesmahagow. Some years a reporter on BBC called it Leshamagow. If BBC people can’t even pronounce British names correctly, don’t be too hard on an American who made a wee mistake.

  166. Glenn says:

    Alba (15:08:21) :

    “There is a town in Scotland called Lesmahagow. Some years a reporter on BBC called it Leshamagow. If BBC people can’t even pronounce British names correctly, don’t be too hard on an American who made a wee mistake.”

    Obama said he didn’t have all the facts, but said the police acted stupidly. He didn’t mispronounce any names though. Let’s put Beck in the White House, and send Obama to Fox News.

  167. Rob M. says:

    Haven’t time right now to read every comment here so apologies if this has been mentioned but two old sayings you may know:

    “War makes strange bedfellows”

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

  168. Chad Woodburn says:

    Histrionic? Have you actually watched the video????? Sure, Beck can display a lot of “histrionics” — emotionally dramatic presentation. But there is absolutely zero such histrionics in this video. If you think otherwise, I have to assume that you’re an elitist snob. Beck is VERY subdued in this video.

  169. Eric says:

    note he gets the divergence divergence issue (Hide the decline) backward. They are not hiding “the decline in temp” as Beck says but instead hiding the decline in the proxy by replacing it with modern temp record – which increases over the period.

    He should either shut his trap or get his story straight before he becomes the skeptics’ Romm/Mann/Jones and does more harm than good.

  170. grandpa boris says:

    rbateman (03:39:13) :

    Yes, science has taken the back seat to politics. By the time Congress gets involved, it’s all about posturing and ideology.

    George S. (06:03:15) :

    “Huh? How about if that data predicts some “undesired” climate change (with huge uncertainty) and the policy becomes to counteract that effect at all cost (including large scale economic disruptions)?”

    I am not clear on what you are asking here.

    Data doesn’t “predict” anything. Data tells you what is happening now or has happened in the past. Future events must be predicted by a theory that explains the data’s behavior so far and projects its behavior in the future. If that theory predicts something that subsequently collected data doesn’t confirm, as has been the case with all AGW theories so far, then the the theory is wrong.

    Basing policy decisions on unconfirmed, unproven theories that fail to predict outcomes and on incomplete, flawed computer models is a recipe for disaster. When the even the past data has to be “tricked” into confirming a theory’s “postdictions”, any predictions made by that theory can’t possibly be used as a basis for decision making.

    Beck, like Limbaugh and O’Reily, is a loud, obnoxious and largely ignorant demagogue. Just because in this case he happens to support a point of view I hold doesn’t make me dislike him any less.

  171. Pablo says:

    “Frankly, anything he says is immediately dismissed by most rational people; with friends like him, …”

    …who needs Michael Mann?

  172. Arn Riewe says:

    The CBS News blog has picked this up and actually do a pretty good job of digging into it:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml

  173. edward says:

    Expose the code and bust the Anti-Trust Climate Team

    Busted not Robust!

    Shiny
    Edward

  174. Robert says:

    Good old Glenn, always getting the story wrong–or at least twisted a bit.

  175. Lore Herchen says:

    Glenn Beck is passionate and speaks to the general public. He grasps the concepts quickly and is mostly right on..A little glitch in pronunciation compared to the mess we are in , is irrellevant

    Who else is picking up the CRU scam? He is what we need. Go, Glenn, Go

Comments are closed.