Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation

From Andrew Bolt, my “mate” down under at the Herald Sun, comes this surprise. I’ll have to say, it is to George Monbiot’s credit to do this. I embrace his first statement, because it succinctly sums up the situation:

http://localfoods.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/georgemonbiot.jpg?w=120&h=120

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

- George Monbiot on his personal blog

George seems to realize that, “it’s worse than we thought”.

From Andrew Bolt:

Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…

If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

UPDATE: Here’s the screencap from Monbiot’s blog on the Guardian:

Click to see the original.


Sponsored IT training links:
If want to get quick success in HP0-S27 exam then join our online training. Get certified 642-524 material including 640-553 demo for practice and pass real test on first try.


366 thoughts on “Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation

  1. Quote Monbiot:
    “Yes, the messages were obtained illegally.”

    If the person who copied this data had legitimate password access to the server with the data files, then his dissemination of the data may very well have violated CRU’s policies, but it would not have been “obtained illegally”.

    And this Monbiot guy is supposed to be a journalist?

  2. He’s like oh, a Jonestown follower who drank the Kool-Aid and it didn’t work.When this
    all falls there is going to a gold mine in psychoanalysis and counseling .This will be hard work but it can happen as I have said:E-mail,Forward,E-mail….

  3. Here’s the note I left on George Monbiot’s blog. I think he needs support and encouragement…

    George, thank you for your brave act of journalism, calling for Phil Jones’s resignation and apologising for not being a more demanding reporter.
    However, the last part of your article seemed to say you would not change your mind on AGW until the heavens part and the Almighty Himself makes a pronouncement — or something to that effect. Let me suggest you carefully review the science.

    AGW researchers have NOT accounted for cloud cover effects, for PDO/ENSO effects, for UHI effects (see the temp record manipulations and admissions), for GCR, for ozone interactions. There is a lot still unknown about how our climate works. And, now, the temperature record may be such that there is no “signal” of warming of any kind from any causes in the last 50 years if one properly handles the data pre-1960.

    The AGW advocates’ case is weakly circumstantial. That CO2 causes warming through IR interaction with H2O is a phenomenon demonstrated in the lab but absolutely not demonstrated in the far more complex atmosphere. AGW research lacks some fundamental findings, most importantly the 10KM tropospheric tropical hot spot.

    Most AGW findings seem reasonable only if one assumes that CO2 has an effect on temperatures AND if one assumes there is no other “reasonable” explanation. Well, there ARE other reasonable explanations. It’s just that those would not be “news” and people wouldn’t pay attention and politicians would not see an “issue” on which they can build visions of how they want society to operate.

    George, take this opportunity to step back and re-examine what you believe you know and how you know it. This is very hard to do, I know. But, you now have the chance to help us find truth and not be easily comforted by an ideology (the “green” movement) that allows so many to feel they now have a way to atone for their sins since they no longer believe in the Almighty.
    I wish you well in what now should be a serious phase of investigative journalism for you. How exciting!

  4. Perhaps George could find some of these non-mainstream papers Phil Jones refers to in 1168356704.txt “That darned diagram”

    > This is all getting quite complex. It clearly isn’t something that
    > should be discussed online on RC – at least till we know all
    > the detail and have got the history right as best we can. A lot
    > of this history is likely best left buried, but I hope to summarise
    > enough to avoid all the skeptics wanting copies of these
    > non-mainstream papers. Finding them in CRU may be difficult!

    Dog ate the homework…again?

  5. “I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.”

    This takes the cake!

    George forgets that he wasted that investigative time on pumping up the fear volume and helping to bring into question anyone who dared to be skeptical.

    Yes George, as a journalist, you should have been skeptical. You should have started that way.

  6. Monbiot apologizes for the actions of a few rouge scientists. Does he really think that is all? What would Hansen’s email’s reveal?

  7. The begining of the antidote? or another spin?

    Is there more info that links to more than 3 or 4 dirty hands? If what was released was a sample, then i think so ,,,,, you guys have rammed a hole into Great Ship Global Warming. The cold water is entering, and the rats are scampering. The coverup is worse than the crime.

    Is this Monbiot the Scribe of the CRUtape….. like Toadpipe was in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwtape_Letters

    Will Monbiot like to add more sunshine disinfectant to this expose, or just wash his hands and not harm his friends?

  8. This story from Monbiot is so bizzarre, that it must be read now….. by everyone!

    http://monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/

    “Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here..”

    […]Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.[…]

    I don’t know what this means. Has Monbiot been duped? Is this e-mail Monbiot produces genuine. I am utterly shocked.

    Shocked and speechless.

  9. To admit you have made a mistake is not an easy thing to do. I applaud this action by Monbiot.

    As a seperate point there are quite a few comments at RC regarding the damage being done to reputations by the release of these emails. Is not the reputation of a scientist based to a large degree on their publication record? Is not the concerted action to deny a scientist a chance at a fair peer review in order to get published damaging to their reputation? In one case you have reputations damaged by words and actions unbecoming. In the other case you have reputations and careers damaged by no fault of their own other then their research led them to a conclusion that some in positions of power disagreed with. Imagine who will get my first dose of sympathy.

  10. The water is gushing into the ship, an observant rat notes that, and exclaims “I should have know the timbers were rotten. A pox upon those 3 or 4 termites”

    But does the rat abandon the sinking ship?

    Me thinks the rat is a Toadpipe

  11. Wonder if George supports this sort of behaviour from Susan Solomon? Didn’t Feynmann have a phrase for this (Cargo Cult Science?)

    from 1169238969.txt Shorter presentations at Paris

    “A number of the policy people will be lawyers, and a number will be legalistically looking to find anything that can advance their position. Most of them will however just be looking to ask questions and to better understand, and many will be constructive in how they use the information provided. So it is quite a mix.

    They should not be given input that distracts from the job at hand. “

  12. But how serious was George M when he concludes with the fake e-mail?
    And as for GeorgeW using a Ford Mustang….. I thought they used goats!!

  13. Well, his lucidity only lasted half his article, before he slipped once more into moonbattery and was dragged into that dark place that consumes his reason;-)

  14. This gift just keeps on giving…1169653761.txt Re: 2006

    Kevin (Trenbath)

    > Thanks. The averages of the values in Fig 3.6 over 1961-1990 turned out
    > not to be exactly 0.000 owing to missing data in the reference period (a
    > perennial problem Phil is well aware of). But Susan (?) wanted the SPM
    > curve to average exactly 0.000 in 1961-1990 so the values were shifted
    > by somewhere between 0.02 and 0.03.
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > David Parker

  15. Wow! Impressive and an honorable statement. Now if RC would just fess up. they are still in defensive mode over there.

    Will our politician listen now?

  16. In his text we can feel someone seeing his professional life flash before his eyes. We can only praise him for being honest and humble the way he was, but we must not let him forget his wrong behavior. Journalists are journalists, they have no scientific training and lack the intuition on what a reasonable scientific argument looks like. That could be a valid excuse. However, most of them showed a blatant violation of their impartiality, taking sides, and that’s no excuse. Especially when their stories violate common sense, as they did so many, many times. Common sense exists for a reason!

  17. Uhm anyone read the Monbiot blog post, he is making fun of you, me, us. He does not believe what he posted, it is a sacarsm laden poke in the eye.

    The lead in is simply to set you up for the punchline.

    People be a little wary in our reading of the reactions of AGWers.

  18. Dear Oregonian an every other newspaper,
    Repeat after me,

    “I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.”

    Dear Al,
    Repeat after me,
    “I apologise. I have been championing what I knew to be a sham and have profited mightily while doing so. I encouraged others to trust evidence I knew to be untrustworthy. I was urging those who provided the evidence to find date where none existed. I championed a cause which has been the biggest hoax in history.
    I will return the Nobel and fade away in shame.”

  19. All of this clearly points out the importance of what Anthony has been doing. When garbage goes in, garbage will always be the outcome. Instead of arguing about how the garbage looked smelled or was shaped, researchers should have been working at replacing the garbage input with actual and reliable data.

    Temperature data from the years before satellites should have been know to have margins of error far larger than the small changes that were actually measured and (supposedly) recorded, even if the measurements were done properly and accurately.

    “To err is human, to forgive divine” ~ Alexander Pope

    This time around, I am not about to attempt to do the Almighty’s work for Him.

  20. BBC Richard Black’s Blog update:

    After being shut down for more than 3 days it up and running again.

    Looks like the BBC had a change of heart and realized that the massive cover up that they orchestrated just made them look like the bunch of silly green zealots that they are. We will not forget that they tried to cover up fraud. The BBC were complicit in this entire manipulative alarmist agenda.

    ======================

    Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.

    Update 2 – 0930 GMT Monday 23 November: We have now re-opened comments on this post. However, legal considerations mean that we will not publish comments quoting from e-mails purporting to be those stolen from the University of East Anglia, nor comments linking to other sites quoting from that material.

    Update 3 – 2116 GMT Monday 23 November: As lots of material apparently from the stolen batch of CRU e-mails is now in the public domain, we will not from now on be removing comments simply because they quote from these e-mails.

  21. Well-said:

    “Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

  22. …. and this from the BBC, lifted from another thread:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/11/is_cumbria_a_victim_of_climate.html

    Is this whole thing falling off a cliff ??

    Was this planned ?? With China and Russia and other countries making obvious noises that Copenhagen would be an excellent way to fleece the US and Europe, did someone finally realize that now would be a good time to apply the brakes ?? Better late than never, eh ?? Just thinking aloud.

    If so Phil and the Motley Cru – don’t bother getting up from under the bus. There are plenty more coming.

  23. Will George publish a new book? – A rebuttal of the tones he has written such as “Heat”. Will he refund my time to read his misleading books and the cost of purchases? I doubt it. George Monbiot will capitalise on this and make money. Another Al Gore in the wings.

  24. J.Hansford (20:28:05:
    Well, his lucidity only lasted half his article, before he slipped once more into moonbattery and was dragged into that dark place that consumes his reason;-)

    RIGHT ON. ALWAYS ALWAYS READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT PPL. MONBIOT IS STILL INSINCERE AND UNSTABLE.

    These guys have invested their lives and the institutions they control into this – it’s not just gonna go away politely once the dishonesty has been exposed.

  25. As several others have pointed out, this feels mostly like the apology George was given in Seinfeld by Jason Hanky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apology_(Seinfeld))

    HANKE: (talking with two men in Monk’s) Guys, there’s no doubt that the pay is good. But I don’t just know if I see myself working with ice cream.

    MAN #1: You get pretty buff forearms.

    HANKE: I don’t know if I’m into that.

    GEORGE: (entering Monk’s) Oh, hello, Hanke, others.

    HANKE: George.

    GEORGE: You know, Jason, I, uh, I couldn’t help notice, I… I didn’t get my apology.

    HANKE: Apology? For what?

    GEORGE: A drafty apartment? A… sweaterless friend? A ball-game giveaway Metlife windbreaker?

    HANKE: George, come on, not that neck hole thing.

    GEORGE: Yeah, the neck hole thing, and I would appreciate it if you would say you’re sorry.

    HANKE: No way, you would’ve completely stretched it out.

    GEORGE: You’re an alcoholic! You have to apologize. Step Nine! Step Nine.

    HANKE: All right, George, all right. I’m sorry. I’m very, very sorry. I’m so sorry that I didn’t want your rather bulbous head struggling to find its way through the normal-size neck hole of my finely knit sweater.

  26. “The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.” – Monbiot

    As a scientist, I don’t have much interest in a journalist’s opinion on science. So let’s just take his apology at face value assuming that journalism IS something he knows something about.

  27. Over at the _Grauniad_ site, it has been common for quite some time that any pro-AGW article, by George Monbiot or anyone else, will have the overwhelming majority of skeptical comments promptly editorially censored.

    I have seen a few comment threads there on AGW articles where quite literally nine-tenths of the entries on the page, over and over, consist simply of the stern admonition that

    “This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.”

    So fierce is their desire to dampen out any embers of dissent that you will have your post yanked even if that post simply quotes the _Grauniad_ itself in a manner or context which they consider to cast aspersions upon the AGW theory.

    Of course, the wildest and most hysterical sorts of pro-AGW comments are left entirely alone by the moderators. I’ve never seen one be pulled.

    So does Monbiot’s recantation mean that all of those enormous numbers of vanished skeptical comments will now be restored in full, and that future censorship will not be practiced by the gnomes of the _Grauniad_?

    I doubt it. I doubt it highly.

    Recall that these people took the comical Catlin crew seriously.

  28. In the mean time the AGW propaganda machine is firing from all guns.
    Today prominent in the news: IPCC scientists issue warning. Never before in human history our atmosphere has been so polluted by greenhouse gasses!

    Very scary, very untrue.

    It’s time to smoke this gang of criminals out.

    We need more push and power to get moving.

    Lord Moncton has issued a complaint, read here: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/ but is not sure the British Government will take an action.

    Senator Inhofe has called for an Investigation (which is a good idea because it could force the British Government to undertake action) But the AGW Conspiracy currently relies on the support of Princes, Presidents and Celebs who will look very stupid if the general public finds out they are supporting a bunch of scam artists.

    I say we push this through. The price we have to pay now will be peanuts compared to the price we ahve to pay if those loons turn their scam into legislation.

    So send links from articles, youtube video’s and to your representatives, to the press, and push the scam.
    This has to stop.

  29. Moonbat’s post, now that i have read it, looks like a liberal’s attempt at clever distraction. It is spin, not apology. He is “dismayed and deeply shaken” ….

    He tries to equate the CruTape Letters with a Kooky email from a ?fictious Carbonic Knight, thereby discrediting both. Its a false association and straw man argument disguised in false apology.
    “This (carbonic knight) is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.”

    A real apology would not read that way.

    The real clue: “published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009″. That paper refuses to publish any anti-Watermelon story or column.

  30. Folks, “Me thinks he doth protest too much!” Do NOT fall for his fake sincerity. He is still AGW thru & thru! He is laughing at us all right now!

  31. This week has been an amazing moment in the history of science.

    We had all suspected that behind all the smoke and mirrors the Wizards of Climate Oz were really quite different from what their followers expected,

    and now that the curtain has been pulled back we see how small and petty and pathetic they really are.

    You can hear them screaming ” Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

    just a beautiful moment for those who have labored so hard to pull back the curtain.

    Thank you all so much.

  32. Hey guys. Are you sure Monbiot is not making a practical joke?

    I know its not April Fools but that does seem more likely……

  33. Jeremy,

    Thanks for that update, the BBC and the NYT will make good bed fellows when this is all said and done.

    Oh, wait, I forgot, Revkin is STILL not allowing any of the the emails to be posted on his blog.

  34. As far as forgiving a dolt and a fool. Forget it.

    I read some of the forgiving remarks here and want to puke.

    This is one of the big cheerleaders who has been complicit in a fraudulent manipulative alarmist agenda.

    These journalists are in a unique position of authority to influence millions of people – they are supposed to be the very ones whom we can trust to be independent. They are supposed to behave responsibly. They are required to investigate what they claim.

    The apology of such a fool is not worth anything at all.

  35. I hope this story stays alive for a while. In one of those emails, somebody said a media blitz is coming in December for Copenhagen. We’re going to need all the ammo we can get.

  36. Oh, brother. No way, Jose. Slick Willy has a brother and his name is George. In other words, I’m not buying it. Too easy and too late. If I could think of some other way to communicate a cheap attempt, I would. How about, GADS!!, we are being struck from the rear?

  37. Climate news story breaks on the front news page of the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm

    pity it’s a story about how alarming the science is and that floods, extreme weather and thremaggedon are on the way if we don’t cut co2 now, it must be true the met office say so.

    I’m sick.

    The BBC “we are not biased” have gone to far, they forget they are a public body and this is breaking their charter.

  38. CYA comes to mind, and there will be a lot of that in the days, weeks, and months to come. This whole sorted affair is taking on a life of its own. Now if Congress could only cut off all the funding for climate research immediately like they did with ACORN till this whole affair is sorted out… OK, I won’t hold my breath, but it would send the right message to the conspirators and would be conspirators, and that’s what I demand to be done right now.

  39. How is this possible: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8375248.stm

    With the bill still in Senate, how can the US make any official statement to cut CO2 emissions especially now we know that the entire data on which the IPCC based it’s IPPCC 2007 report has been cooked?

    This is a nothing more but an unprecedented power grab and it’s in conflict with the constitution of the USA.

  40. I think Monbiots post was a tongue in cheek apology.
    He wants to appear as the “reasonable man” to his followers, but will be preaching hellfire come next week.

    If he’s deleted my comment by morning then I’ll know his words were just posturing.

  41. It certainly takes a huge dose of courage and humility to write what he has, but that silly adendum about the “Knights Carbonic” shows that he does not understand the roots of his own world view. You don’t need a vast “conspiracy” like the one depicted in G.K. Chesterton’s “The Man Who Was Thursday”, rather movements that start with the best of intentions and the highest ideals can split and transform into mirror images.

    The Utilitarian School of Philosophy that arose in England during the Enlightenment championed human rights, democracy, an end to slavery, and championed the right pf women to vote. This movement split into a number of parts, one being the “Classical Liberalism” of thinkers like John Stuart Mill, which looked much like our modern Libertarianism and espoused free markets and limited government, while another , under Robert Owen, evolved into modern European Socialism.

    At the beginning of the 20th century The Frankfurt School emerged in Germany, disenchanted Marxists who tried to retain the most intellectually rigorous aspects of Marxian thought and combine them with “modern” Freudian theory. It was oriented toward exposing the ways modern society supresses the individual. Much of modern social science can trace its roots back to these thinkers and tends to dominate the discourse. It is out of this tradition that people Saul Alinsky, and Herbert Marcuse, the Father of the American New Left, originated. The New Left initially opposed oppressive big government aligned with special interests (capitalism), but eventually came to see in big government the answer to social ills as well. This is a point of view which tends to dominate most universities today.

    Which leads us to where we are today. It doesn’t take a vast conspiracy, all it really takes is for a single paradigm to become hegemonic.

  42. “I’m confused though… is the apology sincere? Whats with the clearly ironic email at the end?”

    My thought as well. Where, exactly, did the sarcasm start? He didn’t use the sarcasm font.

  43. Larry M (20:17:28) :

    “Better read the rest of that Monbiot blog. Doesn’t sound like an apology to me.”

    I haven’t read it, but I’m willing to bet you are right. From his vile and nasty attacks on anyone who aren’t “believers,” I doubt his apology is sincere.

    Does this look like the behavior of any sane person you know?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7424785.stm

  44. But is this Saul on the road to Damascus? have the scales fallen from his eyes? or rather a shrewd opportunist who knows when to turn his coat? And do it so artfully that he can now manage to keep a foot in both camps until he perceives how the battle goes? And which way to jump.

    I do not know, but I do know it pays to be on the winning side: and that there are always new fashionable causes to champion with your pen.

    After all Defoe was a master at it: but I do not suppose Monbiot to be any Defoe.

    For make no mistake, as I said on here a few months ago I sensed a change and it seems that battle, so long avoided by the AGW camp, is now joined. It will be a long affair, you cannot turn a great liner on a sixpence and this one has many vast and monied interests.

    Who will win I cannot say, nothing is certain in this world, Pharsalus do you think? I do not know but I do know which side I am on: for I am a true diehard who fights for his beliefs.

    But if I am right then as the walls wash away like those of a sandcastle before the incoming tide how many more of these creatures are we going to see? You may yet be amazed. After all poor things they were deceived you see. They could not possibly be to blame and so deserve our sympathy.

    Well not mine. They may have been hired knaves paid to lift their staves but if so they were well educated ones out to profit from their knavery.

    So I for one will not congratulate Mr. Monbiot, all I see is a shrewd Grub Street hack planning an escape route off what is likely a sinking ship.

    And no matter where an astute rat ends up in some pasture new when he may yet again gorge himself upon the fat of the land: a rat is still a rat. Or longtail if you prefer.

    Kindest Regards

  45. I did a quick search of “sunspot” in those files. They mention that when they (sunspots) return (along with an el-nino coming), there will be another “dramatic upward spike”, somebody says volcano’s often occur “co- incidentally” in sunspot minima periods, there is a “nice correlation” between the last 400 years of sunspots and d18O in N-pachy, and finally, somebody says when the sunspots return, their grandchildren will find it “exceedingly warm.”

    I thought the general consensus among climate researchers was that sunspots play no role in climate?

  46. The way I read it is that he does not like the actions of some of the researchers but has not changed his mind on the topic in general. No suprise that the actions of a few wouldn’t change his outlook.

  47. I don’t trust Monbiot as far as I can spit. I don’t believe his apology is motivated by anything other than damage control, especially after reading the second part of his blog article. He has been a point man for East Anglia for years, don’t forget.

    In the article he calls for the resignation of one man (Dr. Phil Jones), concedes the damaged credibility of three or four others, and suggests that certain data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. But then he sets up his heavily sarcastic Communist World Government fake email with two very interesting sentences that refer to the CRUtape emails:

    “They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.”

    He is still a true believer willing to sacrifice Phil Jones for the cause.

  48. He is acknowledging the mistakes but saying the battle is lost but the war is far from over. Good on him for seeing the mistakes made by jones et al. as being serious.

    Cheers

    Michael

  49. So it was the grant money that corrupted the scientists so it’s not really their fault. It’s the governments fault who dangled the money in front of them. Not. I think finger pointing and laying blame is the first order of business. Everyone who is directly, and those indirectly involved where evidence is found ie government officials, need to be sought out, prosecuted, and justice served to them on a silver platter as soon as possible. Heads must roll.

  50. The CRU crew will now do lunch under the Bus, for that is the ticket they have earned for themselves, and it’s high time for it to be punched.
    I’ll credit Monbiot for standing up and being honest about things.

    Now, don’t forget that Dr. James Hansen is also in on a lot of those emails.
    It’s dead Jim, and so is your credibility.

  51. There is one catch, though. Before re-analysis can take place, data worldwide must be authenticated as being unaltered. That will take years. So be it.

  52. Nothing short of Criminal! A massive and costly scam! I want my tax dollars back and I want criminal charges brought!

  53. Anybody, even the moonbat, can see that there’s trouble ahead.
    His apology came, not in his post but as a response to a commenter who had demanded it.
    He called for Jones’s resignation; that would be a very risky gameplay in the circumstances.
    My impression was that the preponderance of commenters was either sceptics or warmers disavowing Mann, Jones et al. They weren’t all moderated away.
    He’s not doing a U-turn, just ducking down some back alleys. AGW is not dead and he’d look really silly giving it all up in one fell swoop.

  54. Judging by the entire content and context of Monists blog, I can only conclude that while his “faith” in some have been shaken, his conviction that all will be well with the CAGW world remains intact.

    This was no apology.

    I see no conversion on the road to Damascus. The latter 2/3 of his post was extremely sarcastic. Rhetorically, he equated some of our belief that an alleged (albeit false) conspiracy has been revealed – and is mirrored in that fatuous “Carbonic Knights” email.

  55. A Jones: Your writing is why I still long for England after all these generations. Sigh. Well put and with all the correct words. Please now, resume.

  56. The apology was hollow, as evidenced by the fact that he used it as a launching pad for some irrelevant, sardonic social satire. In the future, he will be able to disavow the comments early on in the piece by saying they were part and parcel of the satire that followed.

    He’s a fraud, he’s always been a fraud and that will never change.

  57. I found that last part of the Monbiot piece to be a huge piece of sarcasm, which made me doubt the first part.

  58. Whereas I commend him for saying that Phil Jones should resign dont be fooled by that apology. He is sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek.

    This is what he says:

    “.. do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?.. Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. .. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline.”

    From “Global warming rigged? Here’s the email I’d need to see”

    The email:
    From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
    Sent: 29 October 2009

    To: The Knights Carbonic

    Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.


    Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

    The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

    Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world’s glaciers.

    Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

    The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master’s third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

    Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse’s head turned up in James Hansen’s bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

    Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.

    This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

    What he still cannot see is the confusion between GW and AGW.

  59. Did anyone bother to go to his blog? I kinda get the impression he’s being sarcastic and isn’t apologizing at all–don’t you?

  60. Whatever Monbiot really means, it somehow brings to mind that there must be an awful lot of restraint now taking place at keyboards in CRU. Nobody wants to produce the next interesting email.

  61. David Alan (20:21:29) :

    David, did you read through to the end?

    This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

    To me, this shows that Monbiot is still full of BS (bad science).

  62. Shout out to a. jones (21:14:21) :

    “But is this Saul on the road to Damascus?…”

    Looked at from a far star, humanity has once again come out ahead to thus deserve our lonely place in the Universe. Indeed we both fretted about abusing our good host of a planet and then likewise took unfair advantage of our period instrumental era doubt.

    Now we are set free…to bathe ourselves in glorious realization that we are a benign part of the trees and the algae that pulsate with glowing determinate meaning.

    And so it’s O.K. to slaughter a fat pig and lick our fingers in guilt free joy, secure in the knowledge that spare ribs just more or less no matter what anybody else says, taste like that which God intended good food to taste like.

  63. It is a sad attempt at humour. Monbiot is simply making a tactical move. Admit the obvious, act self righteous and then do exactly what you planned to do in typical Humphrey Appleby style. The satire muddies his intent. But Monbiot fundamental view as a Watermelon has not changed.

  64. I’m with some of the others here (climate heretic, Lucia, etc)…it is not really an apology. It reminds me of how Roy Spencer’s April Fools Day joke actually fooled some people.

  65. steven (20:21:56) :

    Sympathy?

    I give NO sympathy to anyone how cannot exhibit the simplest of actions … honesty. For that is all that was necessary. The simplest of things … honesty. Why is honesty so difficult to find these days?

  66. When reading the complete blog entry, this appears to be a highly sarcastic entry – I don’t think he’s apologising one little bit – and you’re playing right into his hands if you think he is.

    Regards.

  67. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists

    Huh, three or four?

    It’s more than four. And they are the centerpiece of global warming—not just some scientists representing “one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence”. There are no “several hundred lines of evidence”.

  68. Very strange. Yes, Moonbat seems to be willing to slice off an arm (Jones) to save the patient. Other than that, the ‘apology’ is pure sarcasm, amateur damage control.

    Next step: the MSM will weigh in heavily with a full propaganda barrage to discredit the emails.

    nth step: although this is not a conspiracy per se, there are probably people who are orchestrating the true-believing puppets like Hansen, Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al. If one of the puppet masters themselves should defect, the investigation could rapidly work its way up the chain to the IPCC and beyond. This is too great a risk. I suspect that these key people will soon start to turn up dead in UN building stairwells. That is real damage control.

  69. I think what this scandal shows above all else is that the AAM industry is essentially a political narrative using the MSM and bought off stooge ‘scientists’ to provide a fake consensus and a fake veneer of sicentific evidence added to cover the whole thing.
    It looks like the IPCC was set up to filter evidence out that contradicted the narrative, the governments involved used their financing and ‘editorial’ control of scientific institutes like the CRU/Hadley/met office/GISS etc placing toady yes men and paymasters in control of research budgets and buying in the services of green fanatics like FoE/GP/WWF by providing generous funding.
    The close links to all these groups was a compliant MSM science and environment cabal that could be relied upon to report the science as settled.
    It is to be expected that if the scandal cannot be killed and or ignored/downplayed then scapegoats will be presented, a few bad apples will be left out for the wolves in an attempt to kill the story.
    It was just a few bad apples on the edges of the consensus they will say, the science is still robust and the vast bulk of the evidence for AAM is still valid, it should be noted that the MSM is still peddling the Copenhagen manufactured propaganda and it highlights perfectly how the MSM is outdated, incompetent, out of touch, compliant, bought off and ideologically compromised.
    In the UK it looks like the BBC and the met office both with very close links to the government and green groups have been exposed as hugely biased and compromised, the two organisations are staffed and run by people who are very sympathetic to the AAM cause and have close links to green pressure groups, in effect the met office and the BBC are willing tools and have been extremely active in presenting the AAM science as settled, the scandal has yet to reach those two bodies and if it does the whole AAM charade will collapse.

  70. I’ll respect anyone who has the courage to question deeply held beliefs, especially someone in such a prominent and influencial position in media as Monbiot. The world and its issues are complex, and anyone should be forgiven/excused for thinking one way about things when the reality is different.

    So credit indeed to Monbiot, if he is indeed being genuine- which I assumed on first read of his article. Here is is targetting Phil Jones, who is the author of many of the most revealing/damaging emails. It would be a strange move to single out the most guilty if he were simply trying to get a kick out of sceptics by feigning shock/indignation. Calling for Jones’ resignation seems pretty harsh unless the feelings invoked by the hacked emails are genuine feelings.

    If he’s not being sincere, then it’s quite disapppointing. The most revealing thing about the emails to me is the attitude, which doesn’t seem to me the correct attitude for a scientist. At all. Perhaps Monbiot shares this attitude (his other articles which I’ve read suggests he may, or may have), and therefore imagines that the Team and the ‘side’ and argument that the Team represents is beyond reproach. If everything the Team stands for is right, and every argument raised to the contrary wrong, then Monbiot can feel empowered enough to say whatever he likes (even if this may be confusing for a few AGW faithful who are reading his blog at this senstive time).

    Anyway, the emails do seem to have struck a chord with a lot of people. Whatever Monbiot or others do or say now, some kind of cat is out of the bag, and it’s not going to go back in a hurry.

  71. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that…

    More of his caustic, smug sarcasm.

  72. Where’s the apology? I’ve reread his statement here and directly on Monbiot.com but I cannot find an apology. What I do find are several admissions, some damage control, and then an attempt at humor to toss it all aside.

    Monbiot’s effort is focused on admitting several points, offering out a fall guy and “three or four scientists,” and a recheck of one or two recordsets. He’s attempting CYA for himself and the religion of global warming. I do not see this working.

    First, I’ve seen several references in recent days to 42+ and even as many as 75 scientists intimately involved with Jones and the email released so far clearly offer up at least a dozen regularly sharing email and many others intermittently. Elsewhere I recall reading or hearing that there may be 500 leading global warming scientists around the world. The core group is likely much less with most being just followers and wannabes. Anyway, my point is that a significant percent of the leading global warming scientists are likely involved in Jones’ and company shenanagans. As a whole, they no longer have any credibility.

    Second, Montbiot admits to some data problems and suggests (hopes) that only a couple are suspect enough to require rechecking. I’m guessing the bad data is very widespread as data is reused and manipulation appears from the email to be common practice. Who can be trusted to say without rechecking that data A is good and data B is bad?

    Montbiot statement that this is not the final nail in the coffin of global warming theory is about like Nixon saying he wasn’t a crook.

  73. While his carbonic knights spoof email bit was sarcastic, I think in this instance it would be best for our side if we acted the bigger men and took his apology at face value *while holding him to it in the future*. I would encourage everyone to send him things to investigate objectively. The proof of his sincerity will come out in his subsequent actions: Will he lead the charge to ensure Jones is canned? Will he support similar efforts against other bad actors? Will he stand with us in demanding that all climate researchers uphold the highest standards of data transparency, openness and disclosure of raw data, meta data, methods, etc? As these emails demonstrate, the public facades they present at RealClimate are drastically different from their real faces, which lends credence to the argument that all scientific discussion SHOULD be done publicly, in the open, on blogs, in a collaborative manner between investigator, skeptic, peer reviewer, auditor, and the general public. Only by engaging in the entire scientific process in this way in public will science recover the publics trust.

  74. Monbiot’s staging a tactical retreat, he’s not suing for peace.

    But what we’ve got here is that some of the guys implicated in misdeeds by the released data are near the top of the climate-science food chain. This might not cut the head off the snake, but it might just disrupt the organism enough to shake loose some other interesting responses further down.

  75. Climate Heretic (20:30:37) :

    Uhm anyone read the Monbiot blog post, he is making fun of you, me, us. He does not believe what he posted, it is a sacarsm laden poke in the eye.

    The lead in is simply to set you up for the punchline.

    People be a little wary in our reading of the reactions of AGWers.

    Climate Heretic is absolutely correct!

    Anthony, I would strongly suggest that you append this story to include the entire story. Monbiot is ridiculing skeptics, not apologizing for anything. Your story is very misleading as it is!

    I encourage everyone to read all of Monbiot’s blog post, especially the final paragraph. He is simply trying to piss in your eye!

  76. cbullitt (20:33:35) :

    Un-****ing-believable.
    As you say, stout fellow for admitting his gullibility.

    He’s NOT!!! Read his entire blog post! Read ALL of it!

    He’s full of crap and mocking you!

  77. ” Climate Heretic (20:30:37) :

    Uhm anyone read the Monbiot blog post, he is making fun of you, me, us. He does not believe what he posted, it is a sacarsm laden poke in the eye.

    The lead in is simply to set you up for the punchline.

    People be a little wary in our reading of the reactions of AGWers.”

    Heretic,you may be right……….but,
    Having read the rest of the email including that extraordinary riposte, the ‘Knights Carbolic’,I am in two minds.
    1.One is that (sincere or not), he is in survival mode, sees the writing on the wall and apologises first, gaining notoriety (he is getting good press out of this) for doing so, this gives him publicity, and,oddly enough, a foot in both camps as I believe that genuine believers will take a lot of convincing and he could change his mind back again just as quickly. I am suspicious of the speed of conversion.
    2.The other thought is that he is genuinely remorseful and the Knights Carbolic nonsense is literary way of dispelling embarrassment.

    I favour No1.

    I am angry right now about this, these people are not even worthy opponents, my response? I am going out to trim my front bushes to within an inch of their life.

  78. With the fraud now exposed will the Nobel Prize be revoked?

    This would be no different from disqualifying an Olympic Gold Medalist when they test positive for drugs?

    Surely a fraudulently obtained Nobel Prize that was given for the greatest hoax since the Piltdown Man should be returned and awarded to someone actually worthy?

  79. I think some of you need more coffee. GM repents ..er ..yea ..right. In other news Satan injured by rogue snowball. The tags must have been stripped as he was posting

  80. Climate Heretic (20:30:37) :

    Uhm anyone read the Monbiot blog post, he is making fun of you, me, us. He does not believe what he posted, it is a sacarsm laden poke in the eye.

    The lead in is simply to set you up for the punchline.

    People be a little wary in our reading of the reactions of AGWers.

    Please people read Monbiot’s ENTIRE post.

    This is no mea culpa. Its what the Heretic says.

  81. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign.

    What’s the big deal that he says this?? Monboit never understood or cared about the science in the first place. He doesn’t really understand who Phil Jones —or at least he wants everyone to believe that. It’s a simple choice for him to call for his resignation. He’s just downplaying the significance of the scientists involved so he can minimize the damage done from ClimateGate. His activism, or agenda, or whatever is the appropriate term, is more important than these scientists. So—downplay them to minimize the damage to his machine.

    And BTW, who cares who George Monbiot is? He is a mindless propagandist. We already knew that, didn’t we?

  82. …. Hey guys, don’t knock him. He is right for half his article. He admits he was wrong and calls for the science to be reassessed…. That’s fine by me.

    He’s probably hating himself now for his sarcastic lapse…. So hold him to it;-)

  83. Well this is progress. How much and how sincere we can’t know. To me it seems more like Monbiot is just taking a safer postion until he knows the importance of this battle in the larger war.

    He knows this may ebb away with absolutely no valid investigations or adverse effects to those implicated. I haven’t heard of any authority taking actions yet.

    Is it CYA, or rats leaving the ship, or a confession of being gulled? Who knows?

    Dr. Curry has given a statement. With her usual courtesy. She has always supported skeptics on this vital point; Climate Scientists should produce their data and metadata. In nearly every case their work has been publicly funded and disclosure is the law.

    She takes the approach that those involved perceived queries from McIntyre, et al, as somehow evil or threatening. And they reacted in a tribal manner. They would defend by any means necessary because their cause was just and they could not err.

    I disagree somewhat with Curry’s premise. But it is not an unreasonable one and she has considerable experience with some of the people involved.

  84. “If so Phil and the Motley Cru [ha ha!] – don’t bother getting up from under the bus. There are plenty more coming.”

    Over on Malkin’s site (see link above) the thread is headed by a picture of Gore with his hands in a praying gesture below his chin, with his eyes close and head bowed. Malkin’s caption reads, “Yeah, you better pray.”

  85. Squidly is right, Monbiot is mocking the ‘skeptics’. There’s no apology there, just clever sneering.

    I read it, Squidly’s right.

  86. Look, this whole issue is a means to an end.
    It’s not about science, it’s about ideology. Any
    way to get there is fine. There is no scientific
    process, because there are no rules. Lying
    is a moral concept and moral relativism is
    unsustainable and self consuming. They eat
    through their own reality to chase a false god.
    These people are afraid of life because they
    can’t explain it. If they were truly interested
    in science and its processes they would not
    make statements like this: “The fact is that we
    can’t account for the lack of warming at the
    moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.
    Why is that a “travesty” and not a challenge?
    Answer: Ideology.
    George Monbiot is only sorry they got caught.

  87. I don’t know how to say this because I really, really don’t want to offend —I love WUWT—, but

    this post may have been put up in haste. I suggest it is removed.

    Just my 2 cents

    REPLY: I hear what you are saying, and I was aware of the sarcasm in the bottom half when I published, but the fact is that Monbiot went on record with: 1) An apology 2) A call for Dr. Jones resignation. That’s hard news, and just because George can’t keep himself from being smarmy in the other half of the article is no reason to ignore those two points. Later, they will be important. Best to get them on record elsewhere now. – Anthony

  88. Jeremy (22:27:10) :

    With the fraud now exposed will the Nobel Prize be revoked?

    I am still trimming, Jeremy, which one ?

  89. If someone had claimed a week ago that Monbiot would write that the science needs checking and that Jones should resign, who among us would have believed it?
    Spin or no spin, this is huge.

  90. Maybe Mr Monbiot should offer close-captioning for the humor-impaired. Honestly, folks — if you didn’t find his ‘email’ at least mildly amusing, you need to turn off the computer and go outdoors for a while. Maybe a couple of weeks.

    Monbiot earned respect from me today, anyway, and I salute him. It took guts and good humor to write something like that — a rare combination. I’m pretty sure I disagree with him about a lot of things, but I’m ready to pay much more attention to him now, no matter what his views are.

  91. We have sceptics, scammers, squawkers, suckers and skimmers in this debate. The scammers provide fodder for the squawkers, and have now been exposed. The squawkers turn the fodder into fine food for the suckers. The skimmers set up renewables businesses to fleece the suckers, and may also fund the scammers. The suckers swallow the food faster annd faster, and grow the fleece. As for the sceptics, they go hungry, and are covered in vomit from the scammers, squawkers and suckers, but rise above it all, thank goodness. And sometimes a squawker can become a sceptic.

  92. Whatever his sentiment is (contrition within defiance) we can all see that this has opened the door for a public airing.

    This is not going away.

    The emails clearly indicate that these jokers have been in the habit of making little “adjustments” where they find it necessary. Now we just need one decent journalist to draw a nice clear picture for the general audience.

  93. I read some of the forgiving remarks here and want to puke.

    This is one of the big cheerleaders who has been complicit in a fraudulent manipulative alarmist agenda.

    Nah. If one is willing to adjust their view because of undeniable evidence then all I can say is good job.

    I would like to think if more forth coming and convincing evidence of global warming were presented to me that I would have an open mind and adjust what i think is true to that evidence. I would also hope that if i did that the people whom I previously disagreed would not chastise me for it.

  94. To those questioning Monbiot’s sincerity or seriousness here, note that there is one thing that he has done unambiguously: he has called for Prof. Phil Jones’ resignation.

    This is, to me, a big step forward, because we all know that Jones isn’t the only one. It must surely send a message to many scientists with similar guilty evidence of scientific fraud committed in the name of ending fossil fuel use that the tide of opinion is suddenly turning against them.

  95. I’m surprised we haven’t seen any Climategate jokes circulating yet. Let’s see, there was an American, an Englishman, and an idiot…. no, no, try again, they were all idiots…

  96. The Globe and Mail Thomson Reuters and Le Figaro have yet to even inform their readership about it. Reuters was busy advertising a Green Fund in Canada…

  97. Mr. Watts,

    You’ve now stated at least twice in the blog entry and in comment replies that Monbiot made “An apology”. I’m missing it and it appears most people writing comments here are missing it. Could you please explicitly show or explain what the apology is?

    Thanks!

    Reply: Look at this comment by GM himself under the main article. ~ ctm

    REPLY2: And this is in the body of the post above, near the end, in bolded italics, hard to miss:

    I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

    Maybe people are not clicking on the

    Read the rest of this entry » in the main page to see the bottom half of the story, but clicking straight through to the comments link?

    -Anthony

  98. He’s laying the foundations for his post Global Warming apocalypse career as a commentator. The call for resignations will be proof in the future that Monbiot was on the sceptic side all along.

  99. Monbiots silly essay clearly shows that he hasn’t got a clue. Nobody disputes that adding CO2 to the atmosphere can give a slight warning. Indeed, reasonable people like Lindtzen, Spencer, Monckton and others have, in different ways, proved that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial 280ppm to 560ppm should give a temperature rise of approx. 1 or 1.1 degree celsius. We may have seen some of that already. It is the unfounded theory of water vapour as a positive forcing which is the problem and the reason for all the hysteria that we are so sceptic about.

  100. The man acknowledges that as a journalist he should have investigated the CRU claims before swallowing them, hook-line-and-sinker, but then proceeds to vow confidence in the wider body of AGW work which he also has not investigated.

    I don’t think this boy has learned a thing from this experience. He simply threw Jones under the bus and resumed “business as usual”.

    CH

  101. New headline at the top of the page at Drudge :

    “Call for Congressional investigation into ClimateGate…”

    http://www.drudgereport.com/

    Whether you like, dislike, or are neutral about Drudge doesn’t matter, IMO. Drudge gets more than 20 million hits every day. We should all be happy about the exposure Drudge gives this story. Even Monbiot should be happy since he is calling for a deeper look in to things!

    BTW I’m in the neutral camp.

  102. The hacking of CRU and general AGW is being discussed on Londons premier radio phone-in, LBC 97.3 at this moment (7.25am). This is as close to main stream I’ve heard.

  103. On the one hand they impose a nanny state for the 1 in 10,000 chance a child bumps their head too hard while riding their bicycle et al, in the name of protecting the children, as opposed to allowing us to teach our children responsibility. On the other hand they scare the hell out of our children giving them nightmares of climate catastrophe. These are sick twisted people we are dealing with. They need to be taught a lesson they will never forget.

  104. And yet in Oz our dear Leader KRudd is still insistent on passing his “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” by the end of this week…. My heart sinks.

  105. Published on Tuesday, November 3, 2009 by The Guardian/UK
    “Climate Change Deniers Are Not Skeptics – They’re Suckers”

    … “These people aren’t sceptics; they’re suckers.”….

    “Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james

    Maybe they remember the warming scare then the cooling scare and now the warming scare. Maybe they also remember many, many “The end is nigh” stories.

    Jimbo

  106. He admits the CRU issue is a major blow but not a final nail in the coffin.

    He goes on to indicate how powerful any such final nail would need to be with his sarcastic invented email.

    To limit damage from the powerful blow he is proposing some limited concessions including the removal of Phil Jones, the disciplining of 3 or 4 others and the re examination of some code.

    He leaves it entirely open as to what further evidence might come to light and has positioned himself as a ‘reasonable guy’ in the meantime.

    Unfortunately he has rather compromised his purpose with the silly fake email section.

    In reality it needs nothing as outlandish as that to provide the final nail.

    Just a lack of confidence on the part of the general public is quite sufficient and that may well have been present even before the CRU revelations.

  107. A new policy at CRU – all email accounts closed & replaced by whiteboards.

    Don’t laugh at that. I have seen companies in Silicon Valley where all the walls are covered with whiteboards. If you meet someone in a hallway and start a conversation, there is a whiteboard right next to you.

  108. Don’t laugh too hard because the laugh is on us. He is taking the mickey that’s all. His life revolves around AGW being true and if he actually ever got to any belief at all in what he has said there he would have ended it all. Don’t worry, he is still the same eco-loonie Moonbat. I believe that it’s really shaken him though and it may be some time before he is back to his obnoxious self.

  109. Guys, wake up! read moonbat again… he thinks he is quite cute and also thinks the ‘science is ok’ – nothing but bs from down under…

  110. Remember the solar minimum is still in full swing for over 2 years now and the planet is continuing to cool. Please keep injecting the science into the conversation when discussing the issue.

  111. The first part said this is a serious matter – not just a few ill-considered emails, as other defenders have said – the second part is for the moonbats that might continue to be followers.

    On balance, a win for skeptics but more to do.

  112. OK some credit due to the Moonbat. But I struggle to take anything printed by the Grauniad very seriously and, after his disgraceful ‘journalism’ over many years, I wouldn’t be all that impressed if Monbiot’s admission (without the smart arsed fake email) was written in a suicide note, discovered ex post facto.

    But, to look on the bright side, this is a great thing to paste into emails to all those AGW True Believer contacts who rubbish everything you send them along the lines that “Well what do you expect from Christopher Brooker” or “Delingpole? – I’m disappointed in you” or “Plimer? – well he’s just an Ozzie Geologist. What would he know?”

  113. Over at realclimate (perhaps to be re-titled realconspiracy) DavidCOG has suggested to all the pro-AGW posters there that they counter sceptics on forums who keep referring to Climategate with this…

    “So? How does that refute any of the *science*?”

    Genius, or what? I mean, that’s stumped me!

  114. Whats central here is not whether the CRU emails destroy/don’t destroy the case for AGW, but the issue of intellectual dishonesty in science. Scientists clearly need to be reminded the the end does not justify the means. Even if the end is as important as ‘saving the world’, that does not justify faking the data. I was amazed that Michael Mann held on to a job in academia, after his work was destroyed by M&M, Wegman etc etc: in that case, again, the charge was essentially intellectual dishonesty, proclaiming a conclusion that the data was not truly able to support – inadequate data/data used inadequately/uncritical ‘buddy’ peer review, were the main findings by Wegman. Much the same is going on at CRU. If Jones is not dismissed (or invited to step down) I shall be astonished. If he holds on to his position, the notion of scientists as experts in any field will be devalued to the point of ridicule.,

  115. OT, but I heard on the radio on the way home tonight that an Aussie lad who’d setup a facebook page ‘coz he was pissed off with the local “Bobby” is being charged under laws governing inflammatory remarks (These laws in Australia at least, apply to people making comments on sites like facebook, but e-mail and blogs too. Also the host of the website can be held responsible too. Scary sheet).

    I guess we now have to be careful who we call an idiot.

  116. There’s one glaring conclusion to be drawn from the conversation going on here: many of you lack the faculties to correctly distinguish between truth and falsehood. Anyone managing to read Monbiot’s piece and not pick up on the blatant sarcasm has a deficiency in their understanding of reading, logic and humour.

    Many equivalent examples can be found among the comments generated on your side of this argument. Like the failure to recognize that FOX NEWS is in part a propaganda tool for corporate interests, and that its populist rhetoric is a tool to attract gullible people (yeah, that’s you guys). Some here even picked up on that but, incredibly enough, failed to make the mental connection that the “skeptic” side is largely fuelled by the same corporate interest. One guy talked about being fooled by Nixon back in the days, but that he now – by golly – was 100% on the right side of things, guaranteed!

    It’s quite clear that you, deep down, are aware of your deficiency in this regard, but that you have jujitsu’d it into an almost religious fervor against what you have wrongfully identified will hurt you. And while I’m sure that once in a while you’re correct about one thing or the other, does it not give you the slightest pause when you detect the abundance of faulty reasoning and sloppy analysis coming from your side? It should. Your analysis of the leaked letters has been as laughably bad as your misreading of Monbiot. And you could stand to learn to see that.

  117. More important than Monbiot are the warmist scientists who are begining to break away from “the Team”.

    Warmer Scientists starting to distance themselves from “The Team”?

    Judy Curry – slightly deprecating? of the team, Yet defending AGW on CA

    Dr. Hans von Storch –

    1. Data must be made public so that “adversaries” may check the analysis. [Now this is the basic prinicple of science]. This must be enforced!
    2. Scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like the IPCC!

    Wow!

    Maybe an appeal should be launched to other genuine warmist scientists that they should also, at the very minimum, endorse these recomendations of Dr. Hans von Storch.

  118. I don’t think that ‘I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed.’ is going to work as an excuse at the Climate Trials.

    ‘He’s got ‘em on the list — he’s got ‘em on the list;
    And they’ll none of ‘em be missed — they’ll none of ‘em be missed.’

  119. hans, your self confidence is sublime, but I fear your perceptions leave much to be desired.

    You need to parse more carefully. You have overlooked not one but both segues and believe it to be all one patch.

    (You should also, perhaps, consider that in a different context in a blog on the other “side of this argument”, your comment would never have survived moderation. Yet here it sits.)

  120. hans (00:50:05) : ..Anyone managing to read Monbiot’s piece and not pick up on the blatant sarcasm has a deficiency in their understanding of reading, logic and humour.

    Many equivalent examples can be found among the comments generated on your side of this argument. Like the failure to recognize that FOX NEWS is in part a propaganda tool for corporate interests, and that its populist rhetoric is a tool to attract gullible people (yeah, that’s you guys). Some here even picked up on that but, incredibly enough, failed to make the mental connection that the “skeptic” side is largely fuelled by the same corporate interest. ..

    ..Your analysis of the leaked letters has been as laughably bad as your misreading of Monbiot. And you could stand to learn to see that.

    hans – you have a defiency if you fail to recognise that Monbiot’s words “..It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them…
    ..there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
    Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign…”

    Are genuine, without any sarcasm whatsoever, and from the heart.

    This alone speaks volumes of you.

  121. The problem I have with the purported apology from the Moonbat is that he is a typical leftie useful idiot for the AGW cause. Useful idiots are usually the very last to accept the fallacy of their central belief even if it is staring them straight in the face.

  122. I would urge reading the Monbiot Guardian article in its original form. I agree entirely with Larry M (20:17:28) and several later posts. This is weasel of an apology. To be sure he’s dumping on his friends at UEA but has he altered his position? Not one bit. This is the man who is on record as demanding Nuremberg-type trials for sceptics. Put no trust in his “apology”. By the way the “comment is free” statement that appears daily in that newspaper is a travesty. They are among the most assiduous deleters of critical emails.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists

  123. This is Mr A. Mohamad the Sudanese UN Ambassador, and currently chairman of the G77 block of developing countries representing them at the Copenhagen summit, giving an interesting interview on HARDTALK at the BBC last night. 23rd Nov 2009.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p4r5t/HARDtalk_Abdalmahmood_Mohamad_Sudanese_UN_Ambassador/

    Basically they want the Wests money, and lots of it. ‘100 Billion Euro’s a year is peanuts’ “We need between 500 and 600 Billion for climate action and a simliar 500 to 600 Billion for adaptation”

    The gravy train is warming up.

  124. Monbiot is just another rat leaving the sinking ship “HMS Global Warming”.

    He’s now trying to save himself, and pretending he was not part of this deceitful, criminal plot.

    He won’t be the only one.

    Time to lawyer-up, you gang of scoundrels.

  125. hans (00:50:05) :

    I’ll trust my own reading and understanding of the issues, thank you very much, despite your certainty that I lack the faculties. I guess I’m just stupid that way. :)

    But I do believe that there is a propaganda war going on right now, as you state. These emails are, in part, just such a window onto that battlefield.

    And actually han, deep down, I fear the continued erosian of scientific integrity in climate science regardless of the CRUtape fallout. Will it be business as usual in six months or a real transarency? I can accept transparency, han, can you?

  126. The BBC had a significant discussion of this last night on ‘Newsnight’ which is the heavyweight political/news discussion programme hostly each evening by senior figures, notably Jeremy ‘Paxo’ Paxman.

    The two figures interviewed were Dr Fred Singer, unfortunately standing on a street in London (seems strange they couldn’t get him a taxi to Wood Lane) and a senior Govt advisor, who was, of course, a warmist.

    Paxman was trying to imply it wasn’t that serious, which it is.

    But at least the BBC is now being required to put 50% coverage of alternative positions in play.

  127. Monbiot plays the game well. remember that he refers to 3 or 4 scientists. He has had to address this because the Guardian as not lost its soul completely.

    But next week or the week after he will be blogging away on Comment is Free if you agree with the same old nonsense. Telling you how disgusted with moderation whilst his censors stifle debate.

    When the centre, gets on board then we can start cheering?

    His and the Guardians love in with our Gav is very moving.

    You must remember this a Trick is just a Trick

    A hide is just a hide

    Upon this you cant Deny as time proves lies.

    Trick or Cheat

    Hidee o Hidee I

  128. “There may come a time” W.C. Fields liked to say: “When one must take the bull by the tail and face the situation.”

    One might have hoped for a better reaction from NYT’s Revkin, whose status as kept poodle has so recently been exposed. He may be one of the last but in the end he too will jump on this crime syndicate.

    And when the tide begins to turn, and it will, the other poodles will then come about with the fierce response of all jilted brides and reformed smokers.

  129. Monbiot is a 100% bought and paid for corporate journalist. He has had no morals or principles since he took the Guardian’s money. He is having a laugh. Sacrificing a few peasant scientists for trillions of dollars of City of London carbon trading is good business.

    Monbiot’s family is upper class and they are politicians of the fairly hard right.

    ****

    Monbiot’s father, Raymond Geoffrey Monbiot, was the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party and Chairman of the National Convention. His mother Rosalie, the elder daughter of Roger Gresham Cooke, M.P. is a Conservative councillor who led South Oxford district council for a decade.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot#Family

    ***********

    London’s financial centre is the main home to the incipient global carbon market. Prof Heal believes that in a decade, the trade could be worth trillions of dollars.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8359397.stm

  130. RC should not be given any respectability. It is obvious it is trying to desperately save face. Do not post there. Just let the team go on as before.

  131. Anthony, I have not read any of the comments here. I’d urge that extreme caution needs to be exercised. As far as I am aware there is no university of Redcar (Redcar is better known for its racecourse), and this guy kattweizel does not seem to exist. I do not think that email is part of the CRU “release”. And it is way, way, way over the top.

    All I can say is that this stinks.

  132. @Eric Smith – quite honestly I find the idea that Monbiot is a closet corporate lackey very unlikely indeed.

    He a genuine pain in the rear leftie as far as I can tell, who clearly, and as some considerable shock to many of us, has some integrity.

  133. The great thing about Truth is this: It remains true even when there isn’t a single person with the spine to stand up and speak It.

    Truth is harder than diamonds and purer than gold. It cannot be eroded.

    Therefore, when people sneer at the Truth, and deem truth-speakers naive and overly trusting, and prefer deciet, they are up against something they can’t defeat. They may get rich, and they may bask in fame, but Truth stands there, watching them…

    ….watching them…

    …………..watching them…….

    Eventually a day comes when the person who has mocked Truth is old, ill and weary. Money can’t cure them, and the flattery of fame can’t cure them. All that seduced them into abandoning Truth has lost its lustre. The party is over.

    On that day they face the Truth, which simply tells them, silently and needing no words, “You have been a liar.”

    I understand Briffa has been ill. Makes me wonder…..

  134. Mr. Watts,
    I earlier saw the statement: “I apologise…” above and in Andrew Bolts blog but it was NOT in either Monbiont’s blog or in his article at the Guardian. After seeing your reply earlier to my query about this I went back to both. It is still NOT in his blog but is a comment reply to his article at the Guardian. The full context in the reply comment is:

    Sabraguy:
    George, congratulations for having the decency to write about this.

    But now I suggest you review your file of correspondence and articles, and figure out who you need to apologize to.

    You can start with your readers.

    And to this Monbiont writes:
    Sabraguy:
    But now I suggest you review your file of correspondence and articles, and figure out who you need to apologize to.

    I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely

    Okay, but this still does not reconcile with the sarcastic article and blog he wrote. Will he now update both his blog and the article to state his apology or leave it buried in the comments? Overall I do not yet sense much contrition on his part. Time will tell…

  135. People read the Guardian because they have a certain world view, they don’t have a certain world view because they read the Guardian. Moonblat is simply doing what all journalists do: satisfying the needs of his audience. Indeed, it seems our scientists have been doing the same!

  136. Now that’s what I would call [snip] amazing!
    It takes a man with a lot of character and courage to do what George has just done.
    My hat’s off.

  137. (You are welcome to spread this! I think humour may be a good way to get a message out! –AE)

    CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOTHING COMPARED TO LIGHT-BULB CHANGE

    The first few jokes in this file are by ahrvid@hotmail.com. Feel free to add your own and share the fun with others!

    Question: How many Climate Gate deniers does it take to change a light bulb? (Q repeated for every answer)

    What light bulb? The EU has banned them for environmental reasons.

    None. Media prefers to stumble around in the dark.

    Thirty. Because when you’ve done you need a whole platoon to dig trenches and put up barbed wire to defend your position to the very last man.

    2501. That’s the number in the Intergovernmental Panel of Light-bulb Change. 2451 of them are only formally members and couldn’t care less, though everyone flies their jet planes to expensive international conferences to get pisssed and allow their names to be used in several thousand pages thick reports, sure to lay substantial areas of forests barren. There are about 50 that sit and cherry-pick the light bulbs that are suited for “the cause”. Of these only about a dozen check that the correct light bulb – and only the correct light bulb – is selected. Finally Al Gore climbs to the very top of the ladder and make sure that everything becomes totally screwed up.

    What a bloody bickering about light bulbs! We will not change light bulbs. The light-bulb science is settled once and for all. You’re only a gang of conspiracy theorists that deny the Holocaust, think the US Government blew up the Twin Towers and see Flying Saucers in the sky.

    None. because you can use the trick of hiding the decline in luminosity.

    What’s a ”light bulb”? We only have camp fires, where we come from, and are almost freezing to death. Oh, how we long for Medieval times! It’s supposed to have been a Warm Period then.

    It will be impossible to change any light bulbs. You see, even if we here on the BBC are about 23 000 employees, every single one of us is fully occupied with making new programmes where we repeat the same old message about “climate change”, day out and day in. That’s public service TV for you!

    Changing a light bulb, you said? I’m from the government and I’m here to help you. Of course you have to pay the light-bulb tax, the electricity tax and of course the CO2 tax, not to forget the climate-change fee, the environment duty and the fossil-fuel charge. What? Well, mortgage your house, for heaven’s sake! Think of the poor panda bears, please. First we must make sure that the light bulb complies with regulation 4.71, paragraph B) in sub section…

    To: Phil@cru.co.uk
    Subject: Annoying idiot wants scientific openness
    Howdy amigo!
    I got this outrageous E-mail by some idiot that wants to check our light-bulb figures. If I see him I promise you I’ll beat the crap out of him. Suggest that you immediately delete everything. Chris will do the same. We can’t have others coming and checking our light bulbs. Scientific scrutiny and freedom of information in my ass! I propose that we gang up and oust this annoying man from everything. BTW, I attached the latest version of our program code, with should fix the travesty about that the increase simply hasn’t happened.
    –Mike
    Ps. Send the money in chunks below 10 000 dollars, so authorities won’t find them, though I know that’s a heck of a job for the 100 billion of tax-payer’s money we have gotten so far.

  138. George has a great title for his piece.

    “The Knights Carbonic”

    It is up there with

    “The Climat-ati”

    Which I read somewhere else.

    S

  139. Look at it this way: OK, GM is performing a modified, limited hangout, which is the absolute minimum the situation calls for. We could say that this isn’t very courageous, etc.

    But still, what he’s done is better than what 95% of his fellow CAWGers have done–they’re still “in denial.” They refuse to give an inch. Think what that implies about them. They can’t even do the minimum!

  140. Moinbot should still debate Plimer. Should this happen Moinbot will have no arms and legs. Have people seem Plimer speak? he is an outback Aussie mining guy as well as a highly qualified academic, cruxifiction cometh…

  141. From the post:

    […]
    “If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly: […]”

    Nahhh… here’s the headline (yes, front page top and center) from my local paper yesterday.

    Since ’97, global warming has just gotten worse
    By Seth Borenstein, Associated Press

    I honestly thought they’d have something about the CRU emails, maybe on page 4 or 5, but they had that instead. Sigh.

    Which just goes to show, you can lead some journalists to water..

    …but they’ll jump back ’cause “it could rise by 20 feet any minute now.”

  142. Late reply, and cheers for having me (despite my confrontational tone)!

    About misreading Monbiot, you may have overlooked the structure of his argument. He’s saying:

    A) OMG, things do look bad
    B) This is how frickin’ bad they’d have to be to change anything

    Due to the extreme sarcasm used in B) he is effectually trivializing A) and what I was reacting to was anyone taking this for an apology. What he’s saying is: your most explosive interpretation of the letters wouldn’t be able to make a dent in the main argument. He supplies a friendly, to your way of looking at things, interpretation of the letters just to drive home his actual point. He’s not really saying that things are all that bad either, but that they can be made to look that way. I do think he was honest when saying that this has not been good for the AGW side and that some details/data should be reanalyzed because of this whole affair; mainly to clear the air of accusations.

  143. Robinson (02:12:48) :
    Summarised best here methinks…

    Anything of a political nature was addressed at some time or other in Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. As Hacker says “…the Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country…”

  144. “In the article he calls for the resignation of one man (Dr. Phil Jones), concedes the damaged credibility of three or four others,” Let us take these words from oakgeo a bit further. Surely there are more folks who have taken part in this fraud? I bet that even the office cat knew what was going on.How many are people actually involved in the institutions ? Are they all as innocent and pure as the driven snow? Should an amnesty be offered to anyone who comes clean and admits to aiding and abetting ?

  145. In troubling situations, people pull on deep unconscious parts of their being to kick in. Almost always IMO there are monsters in the depths as well as angels. I see GM revealing both. What I will watch, however, is what he does with his angel and his monster. Does he use his angel “I am sorry. I would have been a better journalist…” etc to discipline his monster, to write another blog to say “I wrote a dreadful piece about the Carbonic Knight. It was tasteless in the extreme, given the current situation, and uninformed about other skeptical claims, and all I can say is …sorry, again…”

    During Watergate, Nixon’s right-hand man Charles Colson did a complete turnaround. Colson eventually chose to ‘fess where he need not have done, but did it for his conscience’s sake, and as a result he went to prison. What he did there is a testimony to the power of Spirit and Truth to work good in a very bad situation.

  146. Well, I’ll take that back.
    I’ve just read your Knights of Carbonic piece.
    …you’re still a moonbat.

  147. Read this please.

    ” Paul Hudson | 13:07 UK time, Monday, 23 November 2009

    Very busy with forecast duties right now, but I do intend to write a blog regarding the UK Climate research centre (CRU) being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.

    I will add comment on this page as soon as I can free up some time. But I will in the meantime answer the question regarding the chain of e-mails which you have been commenting about on my blog, which can be seen here, and whether they are genuine or part of an elaborate hoax.

    I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article ‘whatever happened to global warming’. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.

    More later. ”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml

  148. Don’t fall for Monbiot’s so called change of heart as I don’t trust him for a second. Jones is obviously expendable and Monbiot is aware of this.. Send in someone else of like mind and get the same result and get a better impact.

  149. Gee whiz, can’t anyone see that Moonbat is simply trying to be too cute? Essentially, he’s making fun of everyone who’s reacting to the CRU emails as though this is the smoking gun of a great AGW conspiracy (which of course, it is).

    The guy is playing you and you’re falling for it.

  150. He’s pratt and a very very bad reporter. Typical of the quality of those employed under the BBC’s need for reporters that can do other things like dancing and singing.

    Pratt, Pratt Monbiot.

  151. kattweizel? Catweazle?
    Wasn’t that a character in a british childrensprogram in the 70’s, a magician/alchymist from the middle ages sent to our time?

  152. Bah, these global warming believers!

    If you discovered that the entire emmental cheese was mouldy, they’d tell you the holes are still edible.

    That’s the trouble with post-modern types; they can always recontextualise everything to suit themselves; which means they get to protect their egos.

    Instead of showing genuine concern that some people have corrupted the process, they dismiss it as irrelevant. I’m sure the police could use the same argument when a few racist officers are found; just dismiss them as a couple of bad apples that in no way reflect upon the force, and anyone who claims the police might have a problem with institutional racism is just a conspiracy nut. The irony is that post-modernism is what brought the deconstruction of institutionalised power structures to everyone’s consciousness. Now they can’t discern their own institutional power structures–how ironic.

    Still, it is the hardest thing to look at one’s self objectively. I don’t think any of these people are bad or evil, they’re just lacking sufficient objectivity in the face of mistakes.

  153. I found this e-mail ewhile searching in anelegantchaos. Does anyonw know what this “Earth Government” is? I am just curious about what this is and would appreciate any tips.
    Thank you.
    Sorry for the lenght of the post.

    From: Earth Government
    Subject: Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
    Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:05:07 -0800

    Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    This Press release from Earth Government is found at
    [1]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/HNewsPR05.htm

    Formation of Earth Government for the good of all

    March 27th, 2003

    To all Peoples of the Earth,

    Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on universal values,
    human rights, global concepts and democracy. Earth Government might as well be created now,
    there is no longer any reason to wait. We are the Earth Community, and we will form the
    Earth Government. Earth management is a priority and is a duty by every responsible person.
    A democratically elected Earth Government will now be formed, and we want you to reflect on
    future effects of such an event on the history of humanity. Certainly one will expect
    extraordinary changes: a reorganizing of human activities all over the planet;
    participation by all societies on the planet in solving local and global problems; new
    alliances forming; north meeting with south (eradication of poverty will be the price to
    pay to get votes from the south) in order to gather more votes within the newly created
    Earth Government to satisfy power struggles between European, Asian and Western countries;
    adoption of democratic principles, human and Earth rights, global concepts, and universal
    values by every human being; expansion of consciousness; gathering and coordinating of
    forces to resolve social and political problems in a peaceful way (no more conflicts or
    wars); gathering and coordinating of forces (technologies, scientific research, exploration
    work, human resources, etc.) to resolve global problems such as global climate,
    environment, availability of resources, poverty, employment, etc. Thousands more changes!

    Let your heart and mind reflect on ‘the good’ of a democratically elected Earth Government.
    Everyone is part of Earth Community by birth and therefore everyone has a right to vote.
    Everyone should be given a chance to vote. Decisions will be made democratically.

    Earth Government is proposing that:

    a) different nations may require different political systems at different times
    b) a democratic system is not a “must have it” to be a responsible member nation of the
    Earth Government
    c) all democracies are to be upgraded, or improved upon, to be a responsible member nation
    of the Earth Government. The Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of the Earth
    Government are the newly added requirements to all democratic systems of the world.

    In today’s Earth Government it is important for our survival to cooperate globally on
    several aspects such as peace, security, pollution in the air, water and land, drug trade,
    shelving the war industry, keeping the world healthy, enforcing global justice for all,
    eradicating poverty worldwide, replacing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the
    Scale of Human and Earth Rights, and entrenching the Charter of Earth Government as a way
    of life for the good of all.

    Earth needs urgently a world system of governance. The United Nations fail to satisfy the
    needs of the people of the 21st Century. It has never improved upon the old ways and
    thinking of the middle of the 20th Century. Its voting system no longer satisfy the 6.157
    billion people on Earth. The challenges are different and require a world organization up
    for dealing with the needs of all these people.

    During the past several years, the Earth Government has been pleading the United Nations
    leaders to make changes in the UN organizational structure and ways of doing things. There
    has been an urgent need for fundamental changes in the United Nations organization. The
    decision of the United States Government to invade the Middle East nations and Afghanistan
    has shown to be a result of this incapacity for changes on the part of the United Nations.
    A lack of leadership at the United Nations is a major threat to the security of the world.
    The world wants a true democratic world organization. The UN is not!

    The most fundamental requirement of a world organization is a democratic system of voting.
    Democracy must be a priority. The right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of
    its number (50% plus one) is a human right. It should be respected. The actual UN system of
    voting is undemocratic, unfair and noone likes it. It does not work! Earth Government has
    proposed a voting system based on democracy.

    Of the 190 Member States of the United Nations, it takes only one of the five permanent
    members to overthrow any decision or proposal during a meeting. This means 1/189 or 0.5% of
    the membership is more powerful than the remaining 99.5%. If that is not a dictature, what
    is it? It does not say much about democracy at the UN. More like a dictature of the five
    permanent members. In the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, it says “WE THE
    PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS ” but in fact it should say “WE THE FIVE PERMANENT MEMBERS”.

    The voting system for Earth Government is very simple and practical. One representative per
    million people. If all countries in the world had decided now to participate with this
    process we would have today 6,114 elected representatives to form Earth Government. They
    would form the Legislative body of Earth Government. They could actually all stay home to
    govern or from some place in their communities. Today communications are more than good
    enough to allow voting and discussing issues, etc. through the Internet and video
    conferencing. That would cut cost of governing down to a minimum, at least administrative
    costs. The Executive body would also govern in this way to cut cost down to a minimum.
    Ministers can administer their Ministries from where they live if they wish to. There will
    be a place for the Headquarters. We will show that it costs very little to administer Earth
    Government, and that we can achieve immense results. There is no limit to the good the
    Earth Government can achieve in the world. Think! What can do a unified 6.114 billion
    people determined to make things work to keep Earth healthy?

    For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity has
    proposed a benchmark:

    * formation of Earth Government
    * formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives
    * the Scale of Human and Earth Rights as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of
    Human Rights
    * an evolved Democracy based on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of
    the Earth Government
    * a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and Earth
    governance: the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
    * the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of the Governance and Mangement of
    the Earth
    * a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade
    * more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business,
    religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for the
    good and well-being of all
    * the event and formation of the human family and the Soul of Humanity
    * proposal to reform the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank,
    the IMF, NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Earth Government, and these
    organizations will be asked to pay a global tax to be administered by Earth Government
    * the Peace Movement of the Earth Government and shelving of the war industry from
    humanity
    * a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes global
    corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, protection of human and Earth rights,
    the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and
    sustainable consumption aspects
    * the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the poor or
    developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the rich
    or industrialized nations to the developing nations
    * establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights

    The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy. Political
    rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced by anyone
    and to anyone or to any community. Every community can and should choose the political
    system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on the
    Scale of Human and Earth Rights. On the other hand, representatives to Earth Government
    must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country may have
    any political system at home but the government of that country will have to ensure (and
    allow verification by Earth Government) that representatives to Earth Government have been
    elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth right of
    electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect
    representatives to form the Earth Government.

    In order to elect representatives to Earth Government it is proposed the following:

    A. Each individual government in the world will administer the election of
    representatives to Earth Government with an NGO and/or members of Earth Government be
    allowed to verify all aspects of the process to the satisfaction of all parties
    involved.
    B. Representatives be elected every five years to form a new Earth Government.
    C. It is proposed here that there will be one elected representative per 1,000,000
    people. A population of 100 million people will elect 100 representatives. This process
    will create a feeling of belonging and participating to the affairs of the Earth
    Community and Earth Government.
    D. A typical community of a million people does not have to be bounded by a geographical
    or political border. It can be a million people living in many different locations all
    over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go
    the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where I live and contained by a
    border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a
    heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.
    E. Earth population is now 6.114 billion people. If all representatives had been elected
    this year there would be 6,114 representatives to form Earth Government. They would be
    the Legislative elected body of Earth Government. They would participate in some ways in
    choosing the Executive and Judiciary bodies of Earth Government.

    Humanity has now a Vision of the Earth in the years to come and a sense of direction.

    May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.
    May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.

    Germain Dufour, President
    Earth Community Organization (ECO) and Earth Government
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    The Newsletter can be found at the following location:
    April 2003 Newsletter
    [2]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/NewsA.htm

    There are no costs in reading our Newsletters
    ([3]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/EarthGovernment.htm).

    The Table of Contents of the Newsletter is shown here.

    Table of Contents

    1.0 President’s Message
    2.0 Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, concerning Peace in the
    Middle East
    3.0 Letter to the American and British Peoples concerning the invasion of the Middle
    East
    4.0 Letter to all Canadians concerning the total and global embargo on all US products,
    all goods and services
    5.0 Letter to the Moslem and the Arab Peoples
    6.0 Letter to Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji of China, and to the Chinese People
    7.0 Letter to the United Nations

    8.0 Articles

    A) How women matter in decreasing world population
    B) The energy we need
    C) Mining the impacts
    D) Symbiotical relationship of religion and global life-support systems
    E) Celebration of Life Day
    F) The hidden agenda: China
    G) Earth Government now a priority
    H) The splitting of America into separate independent states living at peace for the
    good of all
    I) The war industry: the modern evil at work in the Middle East
    J) Earth security
    K) Earth governance
    L) The Earth Court of Justice holds the people of the U.S.A. and Britain as criminals
    M) Foundation for the new world order, Earth Government

    Improved Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace
    Respect and Care for the Global Community of Life
    Ecological Integrity
    Social and Economic Justice
    A new symbiotical relationship between that of spirituality and the
    protection of the global life-support systems
    Scale of Human and Earth Right
    Earth Court of Justice
    Charter of Earth Government

    May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.
    May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.

    Germain Dufour, President
    [4]Earth Community Organization (ECO) and [5]Earth Government

    Website of the Earth Community Organization and of Earth Government
    [6]http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
    [7]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
    Email addresses
    [8]gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    [9]gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    [10]earthgov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    References

    1. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/HNewsPR05.htm
    2. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/NewsA.htm
    3. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/EarthGovernment.htm
    4. http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
    5. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
    6. http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
    7. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
    8. mailto:gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    9. mailto:gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    10. mailto:earthgov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

  154. “This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.”

    Whatever you think of his “email”, the moonbat is exactly right with his closing comment. What he probably doesn’t get, is its now time for to be a journalist and do the hard digging. We have been fortunate to tip over a rock and actually see the roaches scurrying away in broad daylight. It is now incumbent on every profesional journalist to begin to tip over rocks everywhere.

    While we suspect, with good, but inconclusive evidence, that AGW is a con, there is also evidence for the sake of argument, that it is not. Skeptics need to be rigorous, thorough and relentlessly repetitive in their presentation of the counter-science to ensure that a) its valid, and b) everybody knows what the scientific truth really is.

  155. Whatever “Moonbat’s” motives, the fact that this has now made it to the most left-wing of the mainstream British media is gratifying.
    I watched most of “Newsnight’s” 15 minute slot, Fred Singer apeared to be very jet-lagged and the CRU’s Tom Watson did the standard defence, agreeing that enquiry was needed, but mostly to see how the “hack” occured.
    The Strata-Sphere link is good, interesting as the e-mails are, both from the “Office Politics” and the pretty obvious response to the desire to shoe-horn the data to fit the theory and the desires of the politicians and the wish to bury some of it, it’s the data that’s been released that needs scrutinising. That data is showing quite clearly what has been suggested from the sceptical side of things, that there’s precious little evidence that there’s any major Anthropogenic component in any Global Warming.
    Now, as to how far this is going to be taken is the moot point, as all of the mainstream political parties in the UK, are banking on getting a big chunk of money from “Green Taxes”, the EU’s banking on getting even more and I dare say that both the Republicans & Democrats are doing the same.
    Throw out AGW and the voters will really start asking why they’re being taxed this way and it’s going to take very brave politicians to accept that it’s simply because they want the money!

  156. Monbiot:
    “which is to say that the evidence for man-made global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer”
    Huh? So Mr. Monbiot, show the evidence to me!

    Monbiot:
    “And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the last two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence?”

    Hmmm, maybe, just maybe, rapid growth of denial is due to lack of scientific evidence?

  157. Anthony, did Monbiot actually apologise? The word “apologise” does not appear in his blog article. Nor does the word “trusting” etc.

    If you have already responded to this above, I apologise, But I think you could be accused of misrepresenting him here..?

  158. “J.Hansford (20:28:05:
    Well, his lucidity only lasted half his article, before he slipped once more into moonbattery and was dragged into that dark place that consumes his reason;-)”

    Indeed. This is what is known as a limited hang-out in PR terms. Admit and show contrition for a tiny, but ultimately meaningless, sub-set of whatever mistake has been made, and then continue as before as if nothing major has happened.

    Only respond to a single and controllable sub-section of the information and, above all, do NOT get dragged into acknowledging the real significance of the mess!

    As with all the “warmists,” they are only responding to a “few emails” even if they now are beginning to admit that some of them really do seem to mean what they say they mean.

    What they have all refused to touch (with the proverbial barge pole) is the leaked code, the meta data and the comments in that data.

    THAT is where the real damning evidence lays and that is what they are avoiding like the plague.

    That data shows that the entire temperature reconstruction is extremely flaky at best, and completely unreliable and utterly worthless at worst.

    The implication of that is that all the other “peer-reviewed” papers that use that temperature reconstruction are also now suspect and proof (alongside the admissions in the emails) that the peer-review process has utterly failed to stand up to the rigours of impartial science, and instead has been corrupted and this suggests, (or at least these people can not disprove that) it was used to validate papers based on conclusion, rather than the soundness of the actual scientific method or the soundness of the data used.

    This is damning indeed, and for “eminent” scientists to attempt to cover this up, instead of actually deal with the issues, demonstrates that these people are wholly unfit to be the “guardians” of the AGW theory, or the scientific investigation thereof.

    I wonder how many more times the hull of the good ship AGW can be holed below the water-line and yet still float?

  159. The BBC Newsnight programme had Susan Watts saying “Some climate models have have suggested we may be in for a couple of decades of cooling. Others, like this one here at the Met Office, disagree. So if is no wonder that people can be confused abouts what’s going on and who to believe.”
    Now I’ve heard the the “two decades of cooling” before but thought it was an opinion. Was she right, have some climate models be tourtured enough to give this result?

  160. It’s a good idea not to take Monbiot at all seriously. He’s a character who lives in a black and white world flip-flopping between extremes (largely to feed his insatiable appetite for attention-seeking). Pretty much all of his journalese is infantile (including this piece).

    Yesterday the Guardian was throwing all it had the the CRU scandal to try to rescue its beloved AGW agenda (and was savagely culling damaging comments from CiF). The newspaper [sic] brought in Mark Lynas – which was like presenting a red-rag to a bull, and then George Marshall – who was a laughing stock. Finally it hoiked in Monbiot to try to defuse the situation with this gimmick. It’s like the stuff coming out of pre-fall East Germany all over again. The BBC is pretty-much doing the same.

    Opponents of the AGW scam need to remain ruthlessly focussed at all times.

  161. Couldn’t the journalists just pretend they got hold of some classified Bush terrorist interrogation plans and go with it? Isn’t that what the New York Times did?

    As far as I am concerned, this proved what everybody implicitly knew … All the errors never go one way in nature, without the helping hand of man.

  162. Folks, the main point of that article is some rather heavy-handed sarcasm to demonstrate that the revelation of some ill-chosen words and alleged dodging of FOI of a few individuals does not bring down the entire thesis of AGW. This is not Monbiot deciding he’s been wrong for 20 years, but putting some perspective on the scale of the “problem”. A big dose of perspective would be my prescription, too.

    Actually, I’m not even sure what he’s apologising for not investigating; as far as I’m aware from the summaries I’ve seen in the public domain (I’ve not looked at the files, nor do I intend to, given their provenance) the worst charge is that CRU got themselves into a siege mentality and were sometimes more concerned with defending the message than the science, and that their internal data management and software process have been pretty poor – and, evidently, their data security as well.

    I’m not seeing anything that indicates, for example, that HADCRUT3 is not to be relied on. In fact, there’s a dog that’s not barking in the night here: we’ve been given an illicit view into the dirty laundry of one of the prime data sources and there’s nothing much to see beyond a bit of soup on someone’s tie. So in a way this gives me *more* confidence in that data, not less.

    Put another way: Egg on face for some people, a major boost for those who have always argued the whole process should be open and easily verifiable by the public (that’s partly what WFT is about, of course), but in a month’s time, nothing much else will have changed.

  163. He’s not serious guys. Come on, “The Knights Carbonic?” He’s equating the fake, (joke) email with the “victory” implied by the CRU emails. He’s still an ass.

  164. I have to agree with others here, in that I wouldn’t trust Monbiot AT ALL. He isn’t a good journalist (not even adequate) and I feel sure that he is taking the p*ss. He’s written that piece to say ‘Look, it would have to be this bad before I give up’. PLEASE see him for what he is, just one look at his face tells you everything! It seems to me that many here have fallen for the ‘joke’. It isn’t even good reading, it’s just a silly p*sstake.

  165. I think this is also about throwing Phil Jones under the bus – he is going to be the fall-guy. (Mann will also have to be a fall-guy).

    This will allow them to say “it was just an over-eager researcher, he has resigned now, the science is still sound and settled.”

    Interesting that the emails almost suggest Keith Briffa was going to be sacrificed before this. They all knew that Briffa’s Yamal couldn’t be defended so he was already on his way out.

  166. Thus says the LORD,” Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind
    And makes flesh his strength,
    And whose heart turns away from the LORD.
    Jeremiah 17:5

    Believing in the Almighty leaves me safely skeptical of everyone else including, hopefully, myself.

  167. This is more like “I’m mad at you because you got caught” rather than “I’m mad at what you did”

  168. Bill Illis (04:47:18) :

    Shouldn’t that be ‘throw him off the sledge’ (in the hope of slowing down the wolves)?

    I agree with the rest of your post, a very likely damage limitation strategy.

  169. 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.

  170. Luke Warmer (04:34:39) :

    You mentioned the Beeb, who continue to religiously ignore the growing storm over CRUgate.

    They prefer to run this unbelievably risible item, in their quest to get the word “climate” in every story, whilst avoiding the real story.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375949.stm

    I don’t suppose African conflict has anything to do with, say, religion, or the availability of vastly increased numbers of weapons, or the amount of corrupt money flowing around? No – its all to do with climate!

    We need a thread on BBC Stupidity/Complicity in CRUgate…

  171. ” Hans Erren (04:48:43) :

    Please change the misleading title of this topic, Monbiot isn’t apologizing, though he does think Phil Jones should resign.”

    In his response to a posting by Sabraguy in

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists

    George Monbiot says “I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.”

  172. Like several others, I was worried that the actual apology was not genuine, as it did not appear in the main piece. I was actually starting to think that the ‘apology’ had been fabricated. With great relief I saw that WUWT provided the link to the apology, which was part of the ensuing thread and, as such, easily missed.
    Just a suggestion: it would have been better if WUWT provided a separate link to the apology, as it was not, strictly speaking, part of the main piece.

    Having said that, I feel I must pay tribute to Monbiot for his words and his apology, although the latter part of his post is nonsense. Clearly he’s not going to become a sceptic any time soon. But it does seem quite possible that the seeds of doubt have been sown in his mind. Just a short week ago those quotes would have seemed like utter fantasy. That apology is actually quite stunning.

    I would also like to pay tribute to WUWT for excellent coverage for something that may – if there’s any justice in the world – prove to be a world-chengeing event.

    Now it seems this story has escaped the confines of the Internet. Today’s printed Daily Telegraph has a full page spread on it, though it does include the obligatory photo of a stranded polar bear. With this growing publicity, and a call from the arch-warmer Monbiot for Jones to resign, these people must be feeling very sorry for themselves.
    Chris

  173. What a snake GM is. First he says “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow.” But then he trivializes it, saying “They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence”, and he then goes on to portray the typical AGWers straw man argument of a “global conspiracy” using sarcasm as his weapon of choice to disembowel said straw man.
    I’d trust him about as far as we can throw him.

  174. We really ought to be kinder to poor George Monbiot.

    It is a matter of public record that he suffers from cerebral malaria.

    (Google george monbiot cerebral malaria.)

  175. The problem going forward with this is to maintain the public’s focus. Assuming, of course, that CRUgate has capture the general public’s attention in the first place. The 24 hr news cycle is like a drive by shooting, and the public says: “Oh how terrible. ” Then moves on to the next one a day later.

  176. Bill Illis (04:47:18) :

    “I think this is also about throwing Phil Jones under the bus – he is going to be the fall-guy. (Mann will also have to be a fall-guy).”

    I frankly don’t think any of them will be fired from their current positions, and given their tenacity, I doubt they’ll resign on their own.

    What will be more interesting to me is if the climate and science journals they serve, either as authors and reviewers, will permit their involvement in the future. I think they should be ** banned ** from ever reviewing another paper for anyone, given the obvious collusion and political maneuvering that was so evident in the e-mails. I also think that the scientists who were besmirched by this bunch should collectively call for some action on the part of the professional societies (AGU, AMS, etc.).

  177. From my Company Newsletter (firmly warmist):-

    CLIMATE CHANGE CAMPAIGN….

    HUGE billboard adverts have started to appear in over 900 locations across England today, depicting what the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) describe as “typical British seasons” that could soon look very different because of the impacts of climate change.

    With just 13 days left until the start of negotiations in Copenhagen which will involve 192 countries gathering “to decide the fate of the planet”, DECC say the adverts offer a stark message to climate change sceptics. Energy and Climate Change Minister Joan Ruddock says it is essential that the public are informed and aware of the threats posed by serious climate change.

    A recent poll carried out by DECC revealed that over 50 per cent of people questioned don’t believe climate change will affect them, and only 18 per cent believe that climate change will take effect during their children’s lifetime. Only 26 per cent believe that climate change is already impacting on the UK; 52 per cent of people believe that their actions as an individual can help stop the effects of climate change, and 74 per cent would take immediate action to change their lifestyle now “if they knew that climate change would affect their children’s lives.”

    The advertising campaign has been launched at a time when a British climate change research centre is at the hub of a controversy over the release of world-wide temperature data, information which
    sceptics say undermines the claim that the planet is warming due to manmade emissions. The row over alleged “junk science” involves the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and its involvement with HadCrut, a major project creating a record of global temperatures based on surface weather stations around the world and which assists with short-term weather forecasting including warm, dry, and ‘barbecue summers’ in recent years.

  178. The change of tone at RC is suspicious. Everything is getting through and yes Gavin is saying yes to everything (ie we will post all data). Either he’s been told to adapt or we will shut down the site (Soros et al), or you will have no job,…. or he really has been born again! LOL he certainly is taking it hard

  179. Yes, Jones must go as head of CRU. I’ve been saying it for several days now. That he will be replaced by another warmist is of course inevitable –but that’s not the point. He must be replaced by someone who does not believe that it is the proper course of business to thwart legitimate requests for information/data, subvert the peer review process, destroy data, and just in general act like a mafia godfather.

    Very refreshing to see that some in their own camp are beginning to realize it as well. Until Steve McI and others finish analyzing the data/code parts of the leak, it is hard to say if there is much of a “science” scandal here. But there is clearly a “scientist scandal”, and it is time for accountability to visit Dr. Jones.

  180. BTW if anyone wants to watch the men behind the curtain working in real time rather than from the hack, watch the way this is playing out on its Wikipedia page.

    The article is about 1/10th the size of the discussion and some of the issues are priceless – how they’re trying to control this one.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

    I mean I love this quote in the article: “Leading climate change scientist Kevin Trenberth said that it “may be aimed at undermining talks at next month’s Copenhagen global climate summit”.[8]” which is sourced, however the wiki guys can’t even recognise that some of the FOI requests run back years.

    It’s quite hilarious.

  181. I was once taught examples of how to to tell if a person is a true psychotic. Two folks believed they could walk on water, but the truly psychotic still believed it even after walking out, nearly drowning and having to have CPR on the beach to save his life – and even right after, would wade back out to show everyone how they could actually walk on the water…

    It sort of relates here – we’ll now see who the truly “religiously brainwashed” are versus those that maybe still have some grasp of reason.

  182. Monbiot is apologizing for being embarrassed by Jones. So he wants Jones out. Then nothing else changes.
    Looks like Monbiot has lost face by reason of being gullible in regards to Jones.
    Jones will not be redeemed for the content of his messages by finding a hacker.
    Finding a hacker or leaker won’t change a single biased message.
    For some reason, some shallow minds believe what is don’t with hope of privacy doesn’t matter. Can’t blame the delivery boy or messenger.

  183. It’s fine to post on blogs like this but it is preaching to the converted. Why not also take the time to email your Representative as I do from time to time qv below:-

    Dear David
    Earlier this year I sent you an email warning that the Conservative Party should row back from their naive position of total acceptance of the tenets of AGW which, as I endeavoured to explain at that time, was based on tenuous and highly suspect evidence .
    Now that the blogosphere is full of the material liberated from the University of East Anglia detailing the unprofessional shenanigans of it’s climate scientists and their falsification of data in order to prove their now discredited theories, I again suggest that your party disassociates itself to at least a position of neutrality on the entire concept.
    To have allowed yourselves to become embroiled in this deception to the extent that you are was foolhardy by any standard, but to persist in peddling what may prove to be the scam of the century in the run up to June will lose you the Election.
    As this continues to unfold, and more revelations may well be on the way, any party that continues to support the hysterical output of the green agenda will be taken for either fools or knaves – and I will vote for neither!

    Roger Pascoe

  184. Here in Belgium we heard the news today that the US government will lie on the table concrete target figures for the reduction of GHGs at the climate conference in Copenhagen. The Obama government promises to reduce the emission of CO2 in 2020 with four percent in comparison to 1990.
    It is the first time that the US gives a target figure.

    Is this the end of the U.S. sovereignty and the creation of a new ‘world government’?

  185. Monbiot is mocking those that believe the release of the emails will finish the debate in the favor of the skeptics.

    Monbiot apologised for being too trusting of those he communicated with and that apology seems sincere.

    Monbiot does want the misdeeds as indicated in the emails to be punished.

    I don’t see why anyone would believe that the release of the emails would finish the debate that was already over but has still been going on. The only thing that will finish this debate is that the lack of warming continues and the models are proven statistically unviable or the warming continues in such a way as to make those still doubting irrelevant.

  186. Folks… get a dose of reality! As I posted extensively on the Glenn Beck thread, old media is NOT your friend. They are the ENEMY. They have been in on this scam from the get-go carrying the water and running cover for the IPCC/CRU. Do not read or watch them and do not think that this leopard can be trusted to change its spots. Use your address book and some good pensmanship to get the story out to everyone you know….. and let the corrupt old media die its slow, painful but essential death.

  187. Anthony

    Monbiot states that “They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.”

    Let’s help him out there. With a quiet 2009 Atlantic Hurricane season winding down, Global Hurricane Frequency hitting record lows, the Ocean Temperature Anomaly dropping and Al Gore Photoshoping in hurricanes to try to gloss over these facts, a good synopsis article on hurricanes can damage the credibility of a bunch more scientists (Al Gore has no credibility to damage), raise questions on the integrity of several more lines of evidence and come one step closer to burying the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.

  188. Watt Tyler (05:51:33) :

    Yup. I fell for it too – I thought he was being sincere. He’s going to make another post and ridicule us skeptics on how easy it is to fool us and how gullible we all are.

  189. Me thinks Monbiot is minding his ars. I have heard of these kinds of apologies. One hole says one thing, the other says something else. The apology is genuine but the sphincter had to be tightened to say it. He is likely caught between a rock and a hard place. So he apologized to the rock while protecting his ars.

  190. While I appreciate that one of the most strident AGW advocates has admitted that he was wrong based on overwhelming evidence, I’m not ready to play make up with these guys yet. After years of them advocating for the use of my tax dollars on a bogus scam all the while calling me a denier or a flat earth moron I’m more than happy to let them stew in the mess they created for themselves for a while.

    If he wants to apologize for being a bad journalist he’s welcome to. But that is more an apology to himself than to me.

    I’ll hold off on the kudos until I get my apology. A refund would be nice, too.

  191. Arrrgg! No!
    This guy is making fun of the whole thing. He still thinks it’s some kind of made up conspiracy. The letter to the Knights of Carbonic is thumbing his nose at us. He thinks that’s how we see all this, as some kind of demonic conspiracy.

  192. Yes, he is mocking us.

    It wasn’t an apology at all people. Nor was he admitting to any kind of global warming ‘scam’.

    He’s ‘flipping us the finger’ with a huge dose of sarcasm behind it.

    Reread his blog, it’s all too obvious.

  193. RT (Russian Television on satellite) in English has for the last 24 hours using the hacked emails as its lead story lasting approx 5 minutes saying that the British police have ask there Russian counter parts for help over the hacking. The reporter does a good job in enlightening the viewers as to the costs involved to the world and how much the ‘science’ is distorted.

  194. Monbiot made a nominal apology. So, what? Don’t be deceived. He still believes in AGW as much as ever, he only paused to throw a few former inconvenient friends under the bus. Expect his propaganda to continue, as ever.

    His words say it all: But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence.

  195. Well… I am shocked by this turn of events. By the same token as a skeptic all I have ever wanted was for journalists to actually try to be a little skeptical about the story lines they were being fed. Look unfortunately if you only feed people that global warming is man-made a lot of them are not going to take the time to find out if it is or not, they are simply going to accept it as being man caused. This is unfortunate but many people do not feel like they have the time to get into the complexities of the science. That is why we are supposed to have journalists that do not simply take what people say and parrot it. However it is not simply climate change that they do this in. Many stories about health, dieting, and other scientific endevours are gleefully bandied about without ever trying to find a dissenting view. Seriously if it wasn’t for sensational Journalism may of the stupid ideas people create for themselves in the name of science would not exist.

    I applaud Monboit for his honesty. I hope his ability to be skeptical, whether the science is pro AGW or against AGW. Even as skeptics I have seen people grab onto alternative explanations for the increase in global temperatures much too readily. Science is best left to a questioning mind and is only proved when every question asked arrives at the same conclusion because that is simply all that the data says.

  196. The reactions of various people are somewhat surprising and couldn’t be expected.

    Who could have thought that Monbiot and Juliet Eilpeirin will be essentially shocked by the news?

    And on the other hand, there are others who may have looked more moderate and who are still saying that things are rosy.

    The difference between these two groups probably arise from their different expectations and, therefore, different moral standards. Those who say that everything is fine probably agree with the mafia methods of Jones et al., so they expected them and they are not surprised.

    I don’t really want to say that Monbiot is more ethical in this sense, but I do want to suggest it. ;-)

  197. The very first post on this site says that “I hope that the clamor continues to grow.” Well I can assure you that it will take a tremendous grassroots effort of most on this site. Why? Well for example, did anyone catch NY Times/author Tom Friedman on Charlie Rose last night? He kept saying that we were causing the extinction of the polar bears. Said it numerous times. And Rose? He sat there agreeing, and supporting cap and trade and Obama to stop this mythical tragedy.

  198. Bill Illis (04:47:18) :

    I think this is also about throwing Phil Jones under the bus

    I agree.

    One thing Monbiot can’t sweep under the carpet though is that all the names involved in the emails are the centerpiece scientists of manmade global warming. The general population doesn’t know that yet. Maybe the general population never will know it. That may be what Monbiot and all others on his side may be hoping for; that Jones and Mann will be made to look like over-eager researchers, as you put it, or rogues, that had to be removed from the true science of AGW and AGW marches on.

  199. George, I owe you an apology as well. I see from this you are a good man. I am very sorry about repeatedly twisting your name into an epithet regarding bats and the moon.

    To science!

  200. Mr Monbiot’s sarcastic tone in the second half of his blogpost again makes me doubt the sincerity of his intention to be more questioning in the future. Don’t the conspirators have ultimate control of all the collected data in the field? – Which they won’t share – which they manipulate? From a statement from Dr Ian Ball(rtd),Wegman noted that 42 persons (including the conspirators) were publishing together and also peer reviewing eachother’s ‘research’. It’s not a conspiracy of a handful but of 42 persons at least from ‘Science’ with their media/political backers,many of whom occupy positions of extreme power .Add in the $Trillions WITH A T that this will be used to soak us for,for decades to come,together with the increase in Government and the resultant loss of freedom and it’s the greatest swindle ever perpetrated in the history of the World.

  201. the three headlines at the top of Drudge this morning :

    Climategate: ‘Greatest scandal in modern science’…

    Call for Congressional investigation…

    Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers…

    http://www.drudgereport.com/

    Drudge gets more than 20 million hits a day.

    Monbiot’s damage control may fall short.

  202. To all of us here, For all of us here.

    I am so very proud that even though I rarely had a much to say that was more than an affirmation of what was discussed, or comedic commentary that framed the idiocy of the algorites, I am part of a coven of people who actually thought for themselves.
    We here, labeled fringe, radicals, or climate change deniers, are all in fact simply folowing the principles of real science.

    To seek the truth.

    I would say that each here.. and most notably the esteemed Mr Watts, Lift a glass in cheer.
    and watch the house of hockey sticks, and “settled” science, as it comes tumbling down.

    Mr Gore, a.k.a The president of the world.. im guessing that you are feeling that million degrees, just under your collar…

  203. How anyone can take this guy seriously as a journalist after this is beyond me.
    And some one has to change the title of this post!

    Just wanted to say thanks to Anthony and the Mods for all the hard work. Great work guys.

  204. Prior to global warming there was acid rain- the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program report showed that the claims were overblown. However the acid rain legislation still sailed through Congress and passed into law. Importantly, the career of Ed Krug-who dared to present the evidence of acid rain scaremongering- had his career destroyed. Acid rain was built on flawed computer models and personal destruction- facts meant nothing. It was the template for global warming complete with the threats of what would happen to any researcher that dared to reject a green claim.
    We now have 20 years following SO2 controls and for most acidic waters there is no real improvement. (Because the problem was natural organic acids, suppression of the natural fire cycle etc.) Believe it or not the failure of acid waters to respond to SO2 controls is now linked in some literature to global warming increasing the release of organic acids!
    Be very careful believing that the release of the CRU data will change anything in a meaningful way-some of us have been down this road before. But I still hope.

  205. Maybe I’m missing the point but several people have stressed that the leaking of the CRU’s data was an illegal act.

    Can anyone explain why, given the manifest Public Interest defence and the recent judgement on “The Kingsnorth Six” (the Greenpeace group that stormed a UK power station).

    Their “defence of ‘lawful excuse’ was accepted by the jury – because they were acting to safeguard property around the world ‘in immediate need of protection’ from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal” ?

    ( http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/a-time-comes-more-info )

    Geese, ganders and all that. More sauce, anyone?

    If Greenpeace supporters can damage a power station with impunity because they have strong feelings about an issue of public importance (and I don’t think it’s an altogether unreasonable defence even if inappropriate in this case), why would it not apply to the leaker/hacker/data forwarder in the CRUTAPE Letters case, esp as there was no risk to life and limb, only to egos.

  206. >>forfismum (04:29:09) :
    >>Has anyone managed to read this item at the
    >>Telegraph ? i keep geetina page unavailable message

    This is obviously a spoof message with spoof links. But tell me, Forfismum, are you having fun or trying to pick up our ISP addresses by using false Telegraph newspaper links.

    Please do inform…

    .

  207. I didn’t even know this man existed, but why would I pay him any attention since he’s such a poor writer? I’m no great writer myself, but I do enjoy reading. Monbiot’s comments are confusing and undeserving of deep analysis. Great satire should have the punch and clarity of Swift’s “Proposal.” Great hyperbole should have a clear and profound effect such as Christ’s statement that “he that doesn’t hate father or mother is not worthy of me.” Monbiot’s command of language is so poor that it just causes speculation among the readers instead of causing enjoyment, introspection and education, as it should. Read it if you like, but you won’t get much out of it.

  208. It is depressing reading all the stupid “wow good old George apogised” comments on here. Yes he admitted that the emails were genuine, yes he called for the sacking of Prof Jones but the apology?????

    That was a joke, a piss take, sarcasm …….. don’t you people do irony????

    Maybe you just don’t go to the source and check things out.

    Really you just make the warmists look good and the climate realists look, well kind of dumb.

  209. OT important prop by IPCC:
    I think this garbage should get some rebuttal!

    “Climate Scientists make ‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’
    Deutsch | English 24/11/2009 – Climate change is accelerating beyond expectations, urgent emissions reductions required, say leading scientists.

    Copenhagen Diagnosis cover. Credit: UNSW Climate Change Research Centre
    Joint Media Release by the Authors of The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009

    Global ice-sheets are melting at an increased rate; Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected, and future sea-level rise is now expected to be much higher than previously forecast, according to a new global scientific synthesis prepared by some of the world’s top climate scientists.

    In a special report called ‘The Copenhagen Diagnosis’, the 26 researchers, most of whom are authors of published IPCC reports, conclude that several important aspects of climate change are occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a few years ago.

    The report also notes that global warming continues to track early IPCC projections based on greenhouse gas increases. Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis, which was a year in the making, documents the key findings in climate change science since the publication of the landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

    The new evidence to have emerged includes:

    Satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate.
    Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

    Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may exceed 1 meter by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 meters considered an upper limit by this time. This is much higher than previously projected by the IPCC. Furthermore, beyond 2100, sea level rise of several meters must be expected over the next few centuries.
    In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were ~40% higher than those in 1990. Even if emissions do not grow beyond today’s levels, within just 20 years the world will have used up the allowable emissions to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

    The report concludes that global emissions must peak then decline rapidly within the next five to ten years for the world to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the very worst impacts of climate change.

    To stabilize climate, global emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases need to reach near-zero well within this century, the report states.

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on Latest Climate Science.
    I. Allison, N.L. Bindoff, R.A. Bindschadler, P.M. Cox, N. de Noblet, M.H. England, J.E. Francis, N. Gruber, A.M. Haywood, D.J. Karoly, G. Kaser, C. Le Quéré, T.M. Lenton, M.E. Mann, B.I. McNeil, A.J. Pitman, S. Rahmstorf, E. Rignot, H.J. Schellnhuber, S.H. Schneider, S.C. Sherwood, R.C.J. Somerville, K. Steffen, E.J. Steig, M. Visbeck, A.J. Weaver. University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC), Sydney, Australia, 60pp.

    The full report is available at http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org

    Statements by Authors
    “Sea level is rising much faster and Arctic sea ice cover shrinking more rapidly than we previously expected. Unfortunately, the data now show us that we have underesti­mated the climate crisis in the past.”
    Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans and a Department Head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

    “Carbon dioxide emissions cannot be allowed to continue to rise if humanity intends to limit the risk of unacceptable climate change. The task is urgent and the turning point must come soon. If we are to avoid more than 2 degrees Celsius warming, which many countries have already accepted as a goal, then emissions need to peak before 2020 and then decline rapidly.”
    Professor Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, USA.

    “Our available emissions to ensure a reasonably secure climate future are just about used up. Within just a decade global emissions need to be declining rapidly. An urgent binding treaty is needed to ensure unilateral action among the high emitters.”
    Professor Matthew England, ARC Federation Fellow and joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of NSW, Australia.

    “This is a final scientific call for the climate negotiators from 192 countries who must embark on the climate protection train in Copenhagen. They need to know the stark truth about global warming and the unprecedented risks involved.”
    Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU).

    “The adjustment of glaciers to present climate alone is expected to raise sea level by approximately 18 centimeters. Under warming conditions glaciers may contribute as much as more than half a meter by 2100.”
    Dr. Georg Kaser, Glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck, Austria

    “Warming of the oceans and increased uptake of CO2 is of increasing concern for the marine environment. The loss of biodiversity due to upper ocean warming, ocean acidification and ocean de-oxygenation will add dramatically to the existing threads of overfishing and marine pollution”.
    Professor Martin Visbeck, Professor of Physical Oceanography and Deputy Director of IFM-GEOMAR

    “The climate system does not provide us with a silver bullet. There is no escape but to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.”
    Professor Nicolas Gruber, Professor for Environmental Physics, ETH Zürich

    For more information contact:

    AUSTRALIA:
    Stephen Gray +61 403 802 027 (mobile) or Stephen.Gray@unsw.edu.au
    Matthew England +61 425 264 485 (mobile) or M.England@unsw.edu.au

    US / CANADA:
    Robert Monroe or Mario Aguilera +1 858-534-3624; scrippsnews@ucsd.edu
    Richard Somerville +1 619 977 2713 (mobile) or rsomerville@ucsd.edu
    Andrew Weaver …. or weaver@uvic.ca

    EUROPE:
    PIK Press Office +49 331 288 25 07 or press@pik-potsdam.de
    IFM-GEOMAR Press Office +49 431 600 28 07 or presse@ifm-geomar.de
    Nicolas Gruber, ETH Zürich, +41 44 632 0352 or nicolas.gruber@env.ethz.ch
    Simon Dunford +44 (0)1603 592203 (mobile) or S.Dunford@uea.ac.uk

  210. OT: A surprising story here from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8375884.stm). It talks about winter, temperature and excess deaths. It relates the number of excess deaths in Winter to temperature and, for the first time I can remember, fails to mention how climate change would impact these figures. Curious. I can’t work out why, I mean after all it has the required elements – death and temperature.

  211. Joseph Murphy (07:34:58) :

    I’ll second that.

    And I’m guessing Watt Tyler (05:51:33) might, as well?

    Like any good leftist caught with his paw in whatever cookie jar he happens to be pilfering at the time, Monbiot ”admits” guilt (sort of), passes the buck, attempts damage control and plays the victim. Next he’ll walk off with the cookie jar.

    If you give his words any credibility now, he will only reinvest that credibility to get away with more wackiness in the future.

    When summing over the totality of this experience, paying him homage now for what we think is sincere remorse will only end up costing us in the end. In fact, it bears a striking resemblance to one of those fishing scams, “if you give me $5,000 now, then I’ll send you $1,000,000,000 tomorrow,” except in the realm of social, ideological and moral currency.

  212. MattyS (04:06:14) and others saying where is the apology in the article.

    Monbiot’s apology is in a reply to a poster in the subsequent comments thread, not his original sarcastic article. Its repeated in a different form later in the thread too and appears sincere. Here;

    QUOTE

    23 Nov 2009, 9:18PM
    Sabraguy:”But now I suggest you review your file of correspondence and articles, and figure out who you need to apologize to.”
    Monbiot “I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.”

    ENDQUOTE

    I thought Watson (UK Govt. science advisor) on BBC Newsnight hung Jones out to dry, but in terms of his behaviour as opposed to his competence (i.e. he seemed to accept the rubbishing of skeptics and the FOI emails were genuine.)

    I believe Watson was once Jones’ boss, therefore I surmise Monbiot felt comfortable he was being consistent in the UK Govt. damage limitation policy. (This seems to be to dump Jones for incorrect behaviour rather than bad science.)

    Don’t think you even have to argue conspiracy, presumably Monbiot simply watched the BBC programme?

  213. Well I’m inclined to go with the poke in the eye theory.
    He starts off making sure we know that the released data was illegally stolen. It is becoming increasingly likely that that is not the case; at least as I read the information coming out.
    The FOIA2009 designation indicates a carefully gathered up collection of potentially damning materials, in a single location; right outside the dog’s kennel.
    It would take some really knowledgeable person to go through all the stuff there must be in that institution, to assemble that zip file, without a lot of non inflammable stuff. I haven’t heard a lot about the police being all over that place looking for the break-in, which may not have even occurred.

    I have to say that the Citing by Anthony of this Monbiot piece and the link to his site, is actuallyy the first time I have even looked at or read any of his stuff; although I have seen his name mentioned in dispatches on a very small number of occasions.
    If this is a sample of his work, I am glad I have not wasted my time; gives me the creeps reading just that one “apologetic” post and it’s psychedelic e-mail.
    About the only sane thing he says is calling for Jones to resign. I’m still thinking that Jones looks like a prime candidate for whoever constructed FOIA2009. From there on it gets a little foggier; but it seems he would know all the players.

    What would be of great interest is to see where all the tentacles at the US end link to. It would seem that Penn State, GISS, and RC are fully constrained by the linkages.
    I hope that Senator Inhofe really goes after a full accounting of the US end of this anchor; it certainly seems “shovel ready”.
    But I buy the Monbiot mud in your eye thesis. You can’t even trust these guys, when it appears they are ploaying straight.
    Remember the fable of the boy who cried wolf.
    How are you going to resurrect some credibility, Monbiot. Same goes for Andy Revkin. You got yourself into the lobster pot very simply Andy; now let’s see you get out.

  214. OK. Do we have any idea what the CRU scientists are doing right now? I mean other than Jones stating he doesn’t remember. What are they doing *right now*? Are they cleaning out their offices? Have they consulted legal counsel who (no doubt) has told them to shut up and give no interviews?

    We see what the blog-o-sphere is reacting. How is Mann, Briffa, Overpeck, etc, etc reacting? What are they doing? Business as usual?

  215. “This is obviously a spoof message with spoof links. But tell me, Forfismum, are you having fun or trying to pick up our ISP addresses by using false Telegraph newspaper links.

    Please do inform”

    Are you Moonbat in drag ? That was a genuine message to highlight that 2 links on the Telegraph were not working for some hours this AM. They now have one working at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/conservation/6642790/Climate-change-emails-plot-or-damp-squib.html
    Now ,what is your problem perhaps I can help?

  216. Obviously, all of this will be ignored by the White House …

    Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holden is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

  217. LarryOldtimer (20:32:51) :
    All of this clearly points out the importance of what Anthony has been doing. When garbage goes in, garbage will always be the outcome. Instead of arguing about how the garbage looked smelled or was shaped, researchers should have been working at replacing the garbage input with actual and reliable data.

    I had an interesting idea along these lines. Perhaps what the blogosphere needs is to collect some data. We have shown the ability to check weather station siting, how difficult would it be to obtain our own cores? All we need are standardized tools and methodologies.

    We pick tree types that the dendros think provide the best measure of ‘temperature’. We use GPS and cameras to identify each tree. Put it all on the web. Show a map with elevation and other siting info for each tree. Have graphs that show running averages, divergences, whatever, that get updated when new data is available.

    Being the gate keepers of the data is their chief weapon. That and their strangle hold on peer review. Peer review and data are their two main tactics, along with a tyrranical control of major climate institutions. Data, peer review and the tyrannical control of major institutions are amongst their many weapons.

  218. Ok, I have to go, so I’ll now post the main point of what didn’t appear before.

    Like any good leftist caught with his paw in whatever cookie jar he happens to be pilfering at the time, Monbiot ”admits” guilt (sort of), passes the buck, attempts damage control and plays the victim. Next he’ll walk off with the cookie jar.

  219. What follows is based on the assumption that the data under discussion are not forgeries. Should that turn out to be the case, the following should be ignored.

    @Woodfortrees:
    Sorry, Paul, nice try but, “Actually, I’m not even sure what he’s apologising for not investigating; as far as I’m aware from the summaries I’ve seen in the public domain (I’ve not looked at the files, nor do I intend to, given their provenance) the worst charge is that CRU got themselves into a siege mentality and were sometimes more concerned with defending the message than the science, and that their internal data management and software process have been pretty poor – and, evidently, their data security as well.” won’t wash. The worst charge is that Prof. Jones and others appear to have colluded to suppress evidence, evade the provisions of the law, coerce the editorial boards of journals, etc., etc. while being paid by the taxpayer. This is not only illegal (evasion of FoI law provisions) but deeply unscientific. (It’s unethical as well, but I doubt that cuts much ice, as he appears to be genuinely baffled as to what that might mean).
    As many commenters here and elsewhere have pointed out, this is not something trivial to be laughed off with infantile sarcasm, but a blow at the very foundation of the Man-made Global Warming bandwagon, since most of the so-called “evidence” in support of it either came from or was filtered through CRU, whose leader expressly admits his intentions to prevent publication of contrary evidence and hide the effects of clearly contradictory data.
    For little Moonbat to claim that there are “several hundred” lines of other evidence in support is a new one on me. Where are they? Virtually all the “evidence” starts from the assumption that global temperatures have shown unprecedented rises in the latter half of the twentieth century. The emails and more importantly the programs and databases show that to be untrue, and Jones et al are shown to have been hiding that fact.
    Bear in mind that it is always for the proposer of an hypothesis to supply the evidence in support. It is your job to convince me, Mr. Moonbat, and not vice versa.

  220. Richard: You quoted Dr. Hans von Storch in boldface: “2. Scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like the IPCC!”

    The entire quote in context reads, “I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.”

    There’s a significant diffference.

  221. Today’s Daily Telegraph carries on page 5 an article by Matthew Moore about the e-mails, much of which attempts to downplay the implications.Following this is an article by Geoffrey Lean, one of The Telegraph’s primary ‘environmental commentators’, who could be described as a well mannered and good natured George Monbiot.The content is much the same.There is a lamentable similarity in the environmental ‘reporting’ of the ‘right’ and ‘left’ press in the U.K. however,both The Telegraph and The Guardian are effective for lighting the chiminera.I stopped relying on the U.K. media several years ago for plausible information on climate issues.

  222. The funny thing is, if the AGW believers get their way and limit this fire to “three or four” climatologists, a fat lot of luck getting anyone to fill their roles and pick up this mess where Phil and Mann left off.

    As Phil admitted “this is getting very complex”…. if they weren’t lying then Phil could be replaced easily. But how to do pick up a lie when all the data and documentation has been deleted?

  223. MangoChutney (06:01:07) :

    why is Gavin posting at RC and answering questions / censoring, instead of doing his day job?

    I am so sorry. I apologize. I didn’t tell you he works for James Hansen and is paid by the government? NASA

    We work for them and they do NOT work for us. He is doing the planet a favor.

  224. Disputin: I agree, there’s a lot of bad stuff in there in terms of scientific ethics, FOI etc., and I’m not condoning their behaviour, only (to some extent) explaining it as being down to a misplaced idea that there is some kind of ‘war’ going on – an idea that afflicts both ‘sides’, I might add.

    As far as the data goes, since I use HADCRUT3 as one of the prime sources on WoodForTrees I’m obviously very concerned about its quality. However I’ve not (yet) seen anything that suggests that (paraphrasing) “the programs and databases no longer show that there have been unprecedented rises in the latter half of the twentieth century” – in other words, that the recent data has been polluted in some way.

    OK, if Steve McIntyre or someone else finds a smoking gun of the form

    for(int year=1990; year<2000; year++) temperature+=0.3;

    (Alright, it would be in FORTRAN, but I forgot all that many years ago!)

    then fair enough – but I haven't heard of one yet, and I severely doubt they will. As Monbiot rather clumsily points out, you'd have to believe the same fudge happened to GISTEMP (OK, some here might believe that!), but also RSS and UAH, and all the other indirect indicators. Doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.

    So I'm not saying this doesn't look bad for those involved, but I don't see how it can be extrapolated into "imminent doom of AGW theory", which many seem to be doing. I think that was the point of Monbiot's article, but I agree with someone earlier that he could take some lessons in satire from Swift, or even Python…

  225. It will never cease to amaze me how so called intelligent people lose the ability to have a measure of balance. Why must Monboit divide the world into good and evil? Why must it be that only if AGW is an outright scam will Monboit renege his religion and plead forgiveness for all those he called deniers of science and frauds.

    Monboit has exposed himself… not evil just simple.

  226. To PASKMP those are the two items that I tried to link to earlier but the article by Geoffrey Lean has disappeared from the online edition of the Telegraph,perhaps it was too dreary to leave there? Lean is not very good and his comment section gets a lot of abuse . Sorry to take up space in this column but it is strange to see how the Telegraph are handling this matter.I must try to get hold of a print version of that newspaper.

  227. Apology? I can find no link to Monbiot actually writing the alleged apology….only to Andrew Bolt’s saying he apologized.

    Can anyone give a valid reliable source link to Monbiot’s actually sayoing or writing this and not just another mirror quoting the Bolt piece?

    REPLY: It is in the link to Monbiot’s blog here, as well as posted above. Broaden your reading.

    Since you aren’t the first who can’t find it, I’m going to post a screencap in the body of my article – Anthony

  228. RE: Daryl M (20:36:03) :

    Wow, wonders never cease.

    I previously gave Monbiot some credit based on the portion in this post, but after reading his full apology, I take it back. The garbage he posted about “The Knights Carbonic” is a joke, and a particularly bad one at that.

  229. not important (03:13:12) :

    kattweizel? Catweazle?

    Well done!

    I was wondering how long it would take for someone to get the gag ;-)

    DaveE.

  230. “Moonbat doesn’t honestly believe that what he was doing was journalism, does he?” PaulH

    Sadly, probably so. A poll of those studying for journalism indicated that many (most?) were entering the profession to “save the world”.

    The banksters are driving the world insane.

  231. Re: Hans, Moonbat and others who lack the ability of a useful open mind (i.e.Scientific Research).

    ALL of the clown ‘scientists’ who participated in this fraud would not have gotten even an honorary degree in any decent university…

    Everything they have said, printed, decimated, codified is NOT Trustworthy and we can choose to accept ALL This BS or we can put our Critical Thinking Caps on.

    Moonbat is Very wrong… (maybe he should write novels)

    1) There is a ‘consensus’ from thousands of respected scientists that AGW is not now, nor ever was an issue.

    2) The Earth’s Climate has always been in a constant state of change. Man and his SUV’s have absolutely Nothing to do with this.

    3) Any time a Scientist / Organization says the ‘Science is Settled’ you know you have a fraud at hand –

    4) If the ‘Settled Science’ can not be replicated – For Any Reason – your case is an Unsubstantiated Theory.

    5) The public education (propaganda machine) seems to have neutralized the critical thinking abilities of many in the world.

    6) We owe an eternal debt of gratitude to Anthony Watts, Steve McIntire, and the many other Real Scientists in the world who have researched and verified that AGW is a fraud.

    7) We need to support opposition media worldwide to support thoughtful discussion and the critical thinking that hopefully leads to the truth.

    Thanks.

  232. woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (08:53:13) : … I’ve not (yet) seen anything that suggests that (paraphrasing) “the programs and databases no longer show that there have been unprecedented rises in the latter half of the twentieth century” –

    Paul Clark you have got it very wrong I will explain later in this post.

    ….So I’m not saying this doesn’t look bad for those involved, but I don’t see how it can be extrapolated into “imminent doom of AGW theory”, which many seem to be doing. I think that was the point of Monbiot’s article, but I agree with someone earlier that he could take some lessons in satire from Swift, or even Python…

    I dont think that the point (or the only point) of Monbiot’s article was that “The AGW theory” was not in imminent doom. He was appalled by the deception and manipulation carried out by Phil Jones and others and he called for Phil Jones to resign. There is no satire or sarcasm in that.

    The “trick” in “hiding the decline” does not refer to hiding a decline in the temperature records as many here and even you have wrongly concluded. No no..

    The proxy tree records (as manipulated by Briffa) show rock steady temperatures for the past 2,000 years but decline after 1960. They do not agree with the temperature records!

    Problem! Now what should we do?

    Throw out the lot? Hell NO! We will just keep the part (the last 2 thousand years that wipes out the medieval warm period and little ice age and shows dead steady temperatures like our previous discredited hockey stick) and overlay it with “actual” temperature data, from 1960, which we control anyway, to show a new “peer reviewed” study that confirms the hockey stick.

    That’s a nice “trick” which “hides the decline”.

    So coming back to your last point. “I don’t see how it can be extrapolated into “imminent doom of AGW theory”, which many seem to be doing”.

    You first have to define “the AGW theory”.

    If “the AGW theory” means humans are causing CO2 to rise which may cause some, as yet undetermined rise in temperatures, which are so far undetected amongst the natural rises of the past, then yes, you are right.

    But then this didnt require any proof or falsification.

    If “the AGW theory”, as meant by the alarmists, means a catastrophic and inexorable rise in temperatures due to this small increase in the CO2 extent of our atmosphere, then yes this requires a very rigorous “proof”, specially if the “cure” to this, as alleged and part of this theory, means committing trillions of dollars of tax payers money, debt and economic hara-kiri.

    In this regard if it is found that a small coterie of scientists, who espouse this theory and who have extraordinary influence on the IPCC and thus policy matters and purse strings of the govt, are colluding with each other to keep contrary evidence from being published and apparently engaging in fixing data, then it is natural that doubts be raised and at the very minimum a full and fair enquiry be launched to find the truth of the matter.

    Kevin Trenberth: “..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t…”

    Mr Kevin Trenberth who was the lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports for the IPCC is totally flummoxed by the lack of warming, yet the politicians claim that the science is settled and we must commit to a suicidal battle against this uncertain and possibly imaginary AGW foe.

  233. Wow, part one and part two of that article don’t seem to go together at all.

    1) A grand conspiracy doesn’t require all participants to know, or understand, or even be aware that there is a master plan. Those who seek to secure more power always offer protection in exchange for freedom. These useful idiots (as Stalin would’ve used the term) simply found what they were paid to find by those who always seek to attack liberty.

    2) Please begin to chant the new mantra; academic dishonesty calls for dismissal, revocation of credentials, and a thorough public review of all published materials, peer reviewed or otherwise.

    A mia culpa on the part of these people is not enough. They’ve lost all scientific credibility and need to be run off. Time to storm the castle of academia.

  234. I apologise. I was too trusting … I would have been a better journalist if …

    Journalists shouldn’t trust. Start with the first person you see in the morning – in your bathroom mirror. You might be able to trust that person with a healthy dose of skepticism; as for the rest, the only thing you can trust is that everyone you meet is out to use you due to the nature of your profession. You can then choose to either be a useful idiot or a thorn in the side.

  235. PS
    woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (08:53:13) : … I’ve not (yet) seen anything that suggests that (paraphrasing) “the programs and databases no longer show that there have been unprecedented rises in the latter half of the twentieth century”

    The programs and databases could never show “unprecedented rises in the latter half of the twentieth century”. The rises in the latter half of the twentieth century would only be “unprecedented”, if they are COMPARED with something else previously. That is where the manipulation comes in

  236. RichG (09:20:19): I’ve seen snippets of the “Harry” file but I’m still very uncomfortable with the idea of reading it in full; as (as you’ve realised) a fellow programmer I don’t think I’d like my internal coding diaries to be splashed all over the place. From the snippets I’ve seen it’s clear CRU have had / do have a problem with data standards, metadata and change control – but given the fact they are dealing with global historical data from many different disciplines, that doesn’t surprise me. Change control is an issue even for small companies working on their own products!

    Richard (10:09:33): I agree Monbiot wasn’t been sarcastic in his horror and call for resignation; he is no doubt aware of the damage this is doing to the image, if not the fact, of climate science.

    I think I’m also quite clear about what the “trick” applied to. It was way of linking the proxy data (which had known problems after 1960, documented by the authors, presumably for some technical reason – I don’t know why) with the harder data from direct measurement. My understanding (admittedly from RC) is that this was for a specific *illustration* – not a paper, not a dataset. Although this has got all the attention it seems the weakest charge of all, actually. We programmers talk about tricks and magic and even ‘hiding’ all the time; it doesn’t mean it’s fakery.

    My key point here is not to argue that everything at CRU is/was as clean as driven snow – it probably wasn’t – but that I don’t see any direct effect on the core datasets that I’m most concerned with, and it doesn’t really change anything fundamental.

    What it does, do, though, is hugely strengthen the argument for all the data and algorithms to be public domain so that this phony ‘war’ evaporates – no more need for either FOI requests or mis-conceived attempts to avoid them. So I can see some good coming of this eventually…

  237. Er, the George Mooonbat that I read (at http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/ and again on the Guardian website) is nothing of the sort, he has sucked everyone in and played with them, tongue in cheek, as usual.
    He says
    QUOTE:
    “They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence.”
    END QUOTE:
    which is to significantly underplay the extent of the revelations.
    He then says he has received an email which confirms it all as one great hoax.
    The email is one he has constructed along the lines of the Da Vinci Code.

    This was not an appology, it was business as usual.

    Let me ofer a quote:
    “He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
    It will take and actual ice age to get Moonbat to apologise for anything and even then it will still be just a “blip” in man made global warming.

  238. woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (04:18:55) :

    so in your estimation, these “scientists” are guilty of nothing more than having soup on their collective tie?

    Money laundering and tax evasion . . . at least don’t begin to call their scientific methodology and pronouncements into question.

    As to the rest;
    The mere act of attempting to squelch dissenting opinion certainly begins to do so. A published rebuttal is the only form of dissertation in this forum. Academic threats have always been the scourge of the honest scientist.

    The act of colluding to avoid what amounts to legal subpoenas certainly rises to the level of a crime, and in effect is a tacit admission of academic dishonesty. Why on earth would you hide data if your results could be verified?

    Now, if you want to imply that these emails are nothing more than academic banter, go ahead, but disabuse yourself of the notion that normal people are going to see it that way. And be aware; your defense of this type of activity would tend to incriminate your ethical perspective, if not you directly.

    At the point they began to openly discuss data manipulation (by the way, the meta data doesn’t seem to back up their ‘taken out of context’ alibi), any credibility they had disappears. And as to Monbiot’s notion that there are ‘several hundred lines of evidence’ whose veracity is not hereby called into question, I am proceeding from here to his web-site to throw down a challenge; find me ten INDEPENDENT contemporary lines of evidence for continued AGW. I am not sure there has been any independent research on the topic since about 1992.

  239. P. Jones, M. Mann, et al: Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect your grant money–oh and BTW, apologize to your respective parent institutions for damaging their credibility.,

  240. “It was the first shot in what has now been dubbed “The Aga Wars”. Earlier this year, the environmentalist George Monbiot launched his Campaign Against Agas, claiming that these much-loved cast iron behemoths annually pump nine tons of carbon dioxide into the air. ”

    Just a touch of levity in this debate,but Moonbat must be looking for a new job …in the kitchen appliance field :)

    NB To our American pals, Agas are very large cast-iron cookers which are an institution over here and you ahve not lived until you have experienced the joy of owning one.

    OK back to the fray

  241. I take that back and apologize for my oversight; there’s been no independent research supporting AGW since about 1998.

    The fiddler’s three (or four, I lose count) who together discredited Mann et al, run Climate Audit, and this web-site have been doing what real scientists have always done; following the data where it leads them. Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Pat Micheals, (who am I missing here) There are others as well; Lindzen, Pielke, Schwartz, Spencer, Jack Eddy (still looking for that infinitely complex interface chord, only now from On High), and many others who deserve much gratitude from us laymen for their adherence to a higher purpose, and the ability to shun the disapproval of established academia.

    I apologize for the slight in my former post.

    Further; I highly recommend that if you support the work these people do, and are in a position to afford to do so; contribute to their sites; WUWT and Climate Audit. (and no, I am not affiliated in any way shape or form).

  242. Man in a Shed (01:49:33) :

    Monbiot WAS a radical who was passionately pro enviironment and anti globalisation. So were the Nazis. He has said he is neither socialist or anarchist. In other words he isn’t left wing. His family are descended from French aristocracy and are very senior, establishment right wing politicians.

    If he had even an ounce of integrity, he wouldn’t have spent the last year being paid by the Guardian to call readers ‘deniers’ or ‘astroturfers’. Apart from being infantile, his credibility is now zero.

    ***********

    @Eric Smith – quite honestly I find the idea that Monbiot is a closet corporate lackey very unlikely indeed.

    He a genuine pain in the rear leftie as far as I can tell, who clearly, and as some considerable shock to many of us, has some integrity.

  243. First point:

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Keith Briffa
    Subject: Re: Nature: Review of manuscript 2005-12-14395
    Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:45:26 -0700

    Keith,

    Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your
    response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and
    text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick
    wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off.

    They claim that three cores do not cross-date for TRW.
    They also say (without results) that the same applies to MXD
    (these results may be in their Supp. Mat. — I presume you
    checked this).

    So, all you need say is …

    (1) TRW was not the only data used for cross-dating.
    (2) When MXD is used there are clear t-value peaks,
    contrary to their claim. You can show your Fig. 4 to prove
    this.
    (3) The 3-core-composite cross-dates with other (well-dated)
    chronologies (Yamal and Polurula), confirming the MXD-based
    dating. You can show your Fig. 5 to prove this.

    You could say all this in very few words — not many more than
    I have used above. As it is, your verbosity will leave any reader
    lost.

    There are some problems still. I note that 1032 is not cold in Yamal.
    Seems odd. Is it cold in *all* of the three chronologies at issue?
    Or did a reindeer crap next to one of the trees?

    Also, there seems to be a one-year offset in the 1020s in your
    Fig. 6.

    I hope this is useful. I really think you have to do (and can do) a
    better job in combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature,
    you still have a chance to improve it. Personally, I think it would
    be good for it to appear since, with an improved response, you can
    make MM look like ignorant idiots.

    Tom.

    It may be time to take Tom Wigley off your Christmas list.

  244. Someone needs to ask Monbiot, after all of the papers that these scientists have been involved with have been trashed, what is left to support AGW?

  245. Hi all,
    I think Anthony, you are being far too generous to the Moonbat here. Speaking as a brit (& please please please my american friends don’t take this the wrong way) I think Monibot does not actually mean a word of it and this is a typically british smug satire that he thinks the ‘elites’ will ‘get’ but the ‘brain dead sceptics’ will not.
    He thinks he has written a Ricky Gervais style piece (Gervais can get away with saying some quite extraordinary thing by virtue of inflection and verbal skill) but actually he has written a clumsy attempt at parody that would have Alan Coren spinning in his grave. Hence the confusion. He is just not a good enough writer to pull it off. Therefore the ‘apology’ looks too genuine and the sarcasm at the end too heavy handed..he muffed it up basically.
    Moonbat writes for the Guardian and that paper is staffed by many of the same ilk…ie self loathing upper middle class champagne socialists that complain alot whilst enjoying the opportunity to live a less than productful life. Whilst complaining constantly about the need to ‘look after the poor’ one finds they actually never get to meet ‘the poor’ as they would never live on a council estate in a major city as that would mean actually mixing with the great unwashed. Thier restaurents are trendy bistro’s with prices to keep the factory workers away, and they send their children to the best schools by virtue of having the finances to move to better areas.
    We have lots of these in the UK. Its the same mentality that says its ok to go treking in Vietnam but a bunch of lads going to Prague for a weekend should not be allowed. He is a pseudo intellectual snob and is a classic example of the type of person that makes one think the Khymer Rouge and the Bolsheviks may actually have been onto something…

  246. I am skipping to the end of the comment thread so as to offer my two cents of acknowledgment to George Monbiot. He has demonstrated the most difficult of human emotions – the dispensing of pride. If you consider the vehement rants that Monbiot has directed against skeptics and “deniers” – this about face takes enormous courage.

    To call for Dr. Jones to resign is exactly correct. But Jones does not get to skip town on a pardon. His subterfuge has caused irreparable harm to human civilization in its attempt to extort funds from governments to manufacture a global government. For this he and others who colluded must be held responsible.

    Thank you Mr. Monbiot for doing the most difficult, but right thing.

  247. Will Dr. Phillip Jones go down alone or be allowed to resign to be ensconced in some secured sinecure?

    Or perhaps elevated to PM status if this storm pass away.

  248. Er… Just read Moobat’s “confession” email. Obviously his bogus attempt to debunk skeptics as red-baiting, Maoist hating, whackos.

    Well, I accept your apology for the crimes at UEA and Prof Jones. As for your backhanded, less than clever commie-hating skeptic rant, keep up the good work George. We’re keeping a bed for you at Bellvue.

  249. “this about face takes enormous courage.”

    No it doesn’t.

    He’s just a rat preparing to abandon a sinking ship.

    There will be many more doing this soon.

  250. Why do so many in their comments trying to slam shut an opening door?
    This is an opportunity to improve the scientific process. The starting point should be to resolve the conflicts of interest in the IPCC reports. That is the same group of people who write the original articles, are peer-reviewed by that same group. We then have leading figures of this same group (like Dr Keith Briffa) editing the chapters. The strengths are thus emphasized and the weaknesses relegated to bland phrases and footnotes.
    The current demarcation between science and non-science is belief in the “consensus” or not. This is the opportune moment for the true scientists to regain their discipline from the propagandists and the ideologues. For those who question and doubt to take precedence over those who defend the status quo. For those who recognize the limits of our current knowledge (but wish to objectively and sincerely extend those boundaries) to take precedence over those dogmatically hold onto the existing “truths” and their pretence of reputation.
    At school and at college, whether studying history or economics, I was taught to compare and contrast; to assess both the strengths and the weaknesses of a case; to state the assumptions made; and to look at the orders of magnitude in the data alongside measurement errors.
    If the skeptics are sure of their side then they should welcome any chance to open up the debate and the science.

  251. Anthony, his apology is not genuine it is sarcastic. After all he knows the “Truth”.

    He would know the “Truth” even if you proved all the AGW stuff was lies!

  252. Perhaps Monbiot should now apologise for all the crappy names and accusations he’s heaped on “denialists” over the years. Only then will I believe his sincerity is genuine.

  253. Vincent Shand (15:10:15),

    I agree with most of what you say. But the problem as I see it isn’t the refusal of skeptics to debate. It is the refusal of alarmists to publicly debate their position in a neutral, moderated forum.

    The few times alarmists have publicly debated, they lost decisively.

  254. Adding my note to register outrage.

    Monbiot is a drama queen, let him enjoy his righteousness: but the politicians who are willing to use this scientific demi-monde in their lust for power really do need to be called to account.

  255. Paul, Thank you for your considered reply.

    woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (10:50:49) : Richard (10:09:33): I agree Monbiot wasn’t been sarcastic in his horror and call for resignation; he is no doubt aware of the damage this is doing to the image, if not the fact, of climate science.

    And for this (calling for Jones’ resignation), and for the fact that he admits that there appears to be evidence of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request, to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, and to keep it out of a report by the IPCC, I take my hat off to Monbiot.

    He has proved himself to be an honest man.

    Many people here attack him because he is on the opposite side of the fence in believing in AGW, but that is no reason to attack him, if he honestly believes so. An honest man will eventually admit to incontrovertible evidence, whether this be to prove the alarmist AGW hypothesis or otherwise.

    You too are on the opposite side of the fence to me but I salute you for your honesty. We can all communicate with each other if we are open and honest. It is slimly, secretive dishonesty that is to be abhorred.

    I think I’m also quite clear about what the “trick” applied to. It was way of linking the proxy data (which had known problems after 1960, documented by the authors, presumably for some technical reason – I don’t know why) with the harder data from direct measurement. My understanding (admittedly from RC) is that this was for a specific *illustration* – not a paper, not a dataset. Although this has got all the attention it seems the weakest charge of all, actually. We programmers talk about tricks and magic and even ‘hiding’ all the time; it doesn’t mean it’s fakery.

    I couldnt disagree with you more.

    1. It is unfortunate that you get your understanding from RC who are part and parcel of “the team”, whose integrity is suspect.

    2. “..I’m also quite clear about what the “trick” applied to. It was way of linking the proxy data (which had known problems after 1960, documented by the authors, presumably for some technical reason – I don’t know why)”.

    The “problem” was that the proxy data taken for 2,000 years didnt agree with the temperature data after 1981. It didnt agree because whereas the recorded temperatures went up the proxy records showed it going down.

    So Phil Jones “..completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”.

    Mike is Michael Mann and Keith is Keith Briffa of Yamal proxy hockey stick fame.

    Did it agree with the temperatures of the previous 2,000 years? Well there are no temperature records before 1880 so they are quite safe before that. Of course it may not agree with other proxies showing the various warm periods, little ice-age etc. but then this is the latest peer reviewed data to be trusted above all else.

    Of course Michael Mann had said in 2004 on RC “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

    Hmmm….

    My key point here is not to argue that everything at CRU is/was as clean as driven snow – it probably wasn’t – but that I don’t see any direct effect on the core datasets that I’m most concerned with, and it doesn’t really change anything fundamental….

    The datasets you deal with only start from 1880 to the present. Thus to say that the present warming is “unprecedented” would be correct if you qualify in the temperature records.

    Whether this statement is true for the last 1,000 years, the last 4,000 years or the last 10,000 years is dubious to say the least.

    As I pointed out the present warming is only “unprecedented” relative to some history. If previous warmings were in fact warmer than the present then it would not be “unprecedented”, and that is where the apparent dishonesty lies.

    Then again you have said woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (08:53:13) : ..As far as the data goes, since I use HADCRUT3 as one of the prime sources on WoodForTrees I’m obviously very concerned about its quality. However I’ve not (yet) seen anything that suggests ..the recent data has been polluted in some way.

    OK, if Steve McIntyre or someone else finds a smoking gun .. then fair enough – but I haven’t heard of one yet, and I severely doubt they will.

    Paul, differences maybe very subtle but I strongly suspect HADCRUT data. It is not enough to say that temperature graphs look similar. Since satellite records began, it has showed a higher trend than the satellite records. This alone is cause to treat it with suspicion, whether this be deliberate or otherwise.

    It would be a stretch to assume any tinkering with the data would be to the extent to cause rapid warming instead of intense cooling, but any tinkering of the data towards your desired result would be a deplorable criminal offence.

    Regards – Richard

  256. Temp record for Britain for the last 2 centuries.

    “Hmmm, can’t figure out how to present the data. It’s as if nature herself were conspiring against AGW. It’s so frustrating.”

  257. “Now I’ve heard the the “two decades of cooling” before but thought it was an opinion. Was she right, have some climate models be tortured enough to give this result?”

    The prediction of cooling comes from the PDO’s entering a cooling phase.

  258. Richard,

    Thanks for that, it’s great to have a reasoned discussion, even though everyone else has no doubt moved on to newer threads (maybe those things are correlated? ;-).

    I spent quite a long time looking into this proxy-real “splicing” issue last night, because when I thought about it more, it started to bother me. It clearly is questionable, since the trees may be “peak clipping” the signal during warmer periods – which would of course also mask earlier warmer periods, as you say. Steve McIntyre’s page on this was most helpful:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=529

    But this also confirms what I had suspected; which is that all this was known and out in the open several years ago. So I’m not sure the CRU e-mails add much to this story, except that (again) they appear more concerned with image and selling the story than one might wish (more on this below).

    On HADCRUT3, I agree my interpretation of “unprecedented” was somewhat limited, I was indeed talking about the real temperature records, not the proxies – partly because that’s what CRU deals in, partly because (until last night, and indeed still) I didn’t know much about proxy data.

    But I must just correct the assertion that HADCRUT3 has shown a higher trend than the satellite records. It is indeed higher than UAH, but almost identical to RSS and the other land/ocean series, GISTEMP:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend

    That’s one reason why I still feel inclined to trust it; also, despite the obvious major internal difficulties in data format and change control they have had, in global monthly for it’s highly aggregated. I’m sure the data difficulties add to the error/noise, but I can’t currently see how they would change the trend to any significant degree.

    On the general question of image vs. science. It looks like (on both sides) there has sometimes been more of a concern to present a simply-understood message or advocacy than the real science; not unreasonably, since one is talking about different audiences, and some of the subtlety/uncertainty is inevitably lost at this stage.

    The problem comes when it’s the same group doing both the science and the presentation, because there’s no access to the science-group’s interface, and layers get mixed internally (software types will recognise this as a classic layering problem).

    It seems to me there’s also an analogy with banking here: in the same way that Glass-Steigel separated merchant and retail banking (the repeal of which is blamed by some for our current mess), perhaps we need to separate the pure data capture and processing (which should also be public) from the presentation/advocacy. I think CRU think of themselves as the former, but have clearly shaded into the latter.

    For my own part, I try very hard to remain on the pure data side, and this is probably going to be my only foray into this mire!

    One more thing: Both the complaints about, and attempts to avoid, the “hassle” of FOI and ‘Harry’s nightmares in data control smack to me of the same things: underfunding and haste. This stuff is so critical it should be done slowly, carefully and in public, as most science is; as it is it seems to rest on the shoulders of a very small group under almost intolerable pressure for quick results, but very aware of the global significance of what they do. Not a place I would want to be, personally…

  259. For all the guys saying we should be kinder to Monibot and offer an olive branch..

    ..er..no. We in the UK have to put up with him, we have to read his witterings all the time, so I think, overseas cousins, we may be more sceptical of him than you are?
    You can tell the character of a man by the company he keeps. Monibot works for the Guardian, nuff said. Just about everything that is wrong in the world can be found in the writings of papers like the Guardian and the Independant in the UK. Self serving narcistic and naive.
    If he qualifies his ‘apology’ without the smarm then I’ll review my position…

  260. Oo-er. I feel a typo coming on.

    MONOBOTI or The Sound of One Buttock Talking (pace the Buddhists)

    It must be the effect of listening to his ranting for so long (I actually met him once; an enlightening experience).

    But he has been known to admit an error, if completely backed into a corner.

  261. I was amazed that Mann held on to an academic post after M&M, Wegman and everyone had finished with him after MBH. I’ll be even more amazed if Jones survives professionally. The emails tell a clear tale of intellectual dishonesty, which puts a dagger at the heart of academia. It doesn’t matter how good the ends might be, that is no justification for perverting the means

  262. woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (01:53:19) : A reasoned arguement. Thank you

    The emails confirm that CRU data is not theirs to distribute so FOI requests for this should not be actioned.

    The emails also confirm that those involved believe that their data shows AGW to be a fact.

    Also confirmed is the hassle each FOI request caused. One emails says CRU have had greater than 100 requests (the McIntyre campaign of a few months ago). They also state that they believe that even if they fulfill one request then others are piggybacked – data – then software – then information – and of course every email sent/received (why?). One researcher claims to have spent 6 months debunking a particular published report to the detriment of original research, and wanted nothing to do with supporting FOI requests for yet more time.

    I also believe that there is some truth in the often stated – “give them the raw data and let them replicate the results independently”. Surely raw data + independant replication is better than replication using methods being tested.

    There are 2 US generated temperature databases (raw and modified) on line that provide most of CRU data. CRU data is not owned by CRU and therefore not freely available. What is wrong with using the available data?
    It seems to me the reason the US data is no good is that FOI disruption of researchers will not be accomplished by its use!

    The Harry notes are odd but what is he dealing with – if it is data from the national weather centres then it is not surprising that he has problems handling each different format.

  263. I don’t accept Monbiot’s apology for the following reasons.

    1. He has been the chief purveyor of using Holocaust language against catastrophy skeptics

    2. He has led the charge against energy companies and been a fuel to the fire of many anarchist and communist groups who oppose our freedoms

    3. Together with the closet Islamist and terrorist sympathiser George Galloway, Monbiot formed the Respect Party which has become Britain’s Marxist-Islamist party whose aim is to subvert and end democracy and capitalism

    4. His apology is basically his way of covering his ass

    5. He supports the idea of a global government, which simply cannot be accountable or democratic because of its potential and scope for authoritarian power and corruption

  264. Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (05:07:04) :

    So, you are saying that he’s constitutionally incapable of a sincere apology, and any appearance of same can’t possibly be what it seems?

    Yeah, as I’ve alluded to above, I’m good with that. Hopefully more people will be now, because of your excellent summary.

  265. bill hughes (04:06:31) :

    ” It doesn’t matter how good the ends might be, that is no justification for perverting the means.”

    True, but in this case the ends were not only not good, they were even much fouler than the means.

  266. Jeez, some folks are dense.

    Monbiot is taking the piss out of all AGW deniers in this article. Try reading it, if folks can concentrate that long.

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/

    WattsUp totally fell for it by quoting bits of Monbiot’s article out of context.

    Seriously, everyone that bought WattsUp’s line here is a luzr.

    REPLY: Two things happened that are noteworthy and hard news:

    1) Monbiot apologized for being a poor journalist in the climate change issue
    2) Monbiot called for Dr. Jones to resign, this has been covered in the British press as we did on WUWT.

    The rest I agree is noise, but these two facts are immutable, which is why it was covered here. – Anthony

  267. BobR (11:35:14) :

    Re Anthony’s response.

    When a serial liar is lionized by the very people (some of us) whom he has hated and attacked for years, it’s a sad commentary on our collective state of mind.

    We keep reminding Anthony and others who swallowed Monbiot’s bait that his “apology” is worthless, because he still hates us, and still believes in AGW. In Monbiot’s own words:

    “But do these rev­e­la­tions jus­tify the scep­tics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the cof­fin” of global warm­ing theory?(8,9) Not at all. They dam­age the cred­i­bil­ity of three or four sci­en­tists. They raise ques­tions about the integrity of one or per­haps two out of sev­eral hun­dred lines of evi­dence. To bury man­made cli­mate change, a far wider con­spir­acy would have to be revealed.

    I don’t take issue with Anthony for posting on it, because it is news. But what’s newsworthy isn’t the meaningless posturing, which is like the abusive spouse agreeing that in general abuse is wrong, and he should probably have been “better,” all the while having no intention of changing himself He merely wants to slither out of any consequences of his previous actions.

    What’s newsworthy is the fact that he has to tell such extraordinary lies to avoid the culpability he shares with the pirates at CRU. Not dealing with that aspect of the issue interferes with holding him accountable for his part in the AGW fraud, and is almost certainly exactly what he intended for his “apology” to accomplish.

  268. Ummm, why should we think George Monbiot is actually sincere in his mea culpa? After his initial admission that the hacked e-mails are genuine, Monbiot then uses the rest of his article for an obviously bogus satirical e-mail from a Professor Ernst Kattweigel of the U. of Redcar, neither of which is real. Google it for yourself!

  269. @ DaveE
    was it YOU who sendt the “Knight Carbonic” to Gerorg M.?
    And also you are the one, exposing their “elec-trickery”

  270. Chris McDaniel here in the States. I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you, not that a journalist didn’t do his job, but that he would admit that he had not done his job. We in the States are very used to journalists not doing their jobs, which is how we ended up with the most massive con-job in history–Barack Obama–never being vetted by the so called journalists. However, we are not used to journalists fessing up to their lies. Here in the States, they just reinvent and redefine the history, the science, the quotes and the morality to make their journalism appear to be truthful, such as the rubbish espousing man-made global warming. You who claim to speak truth while knowing otherwise will be damned. The lives and souls you have ruined will haunt you for eternity, as well they should.
    Chris McDaniel
    Baton Rouge, LA

  271. The email below is from Monbiot to Prof. Ian Plimer an extremely well respected Australian scientist.

    Maybe he should apologise to Prof. Plimer as well…. This guy is a propogandist and an [snip]. And he’s in it with Dr Evil… AKA GAvin Schmidt. He is running for cover. Don’t let him off.

    ********************************************

    From: George Monbiot
    Date: 8 September 2009 5:49:32 PM
    To: ‘Ian Plimer’
    Subject: RE: Thursday 12th November 2009

    Dear Ian,

    I can confirm that I have read your book from cover to cover. Now that I am back at my desk I can tell you that the edition I have read is published in the UK by Quartet books, ISBN 978 0 7043 7166 8. I gave the page and figure numbers as they appear in the text of the edition I possess, which, to judge by other people’s references, is the same text (with the same numbers) as in all other editions.

    You say that the answers to your questions lie in this book. But your book answers nothing. It is incoherent, contradictory and, most importantly, plain wrong on page after page. Moreover, your questions are pure pseudoscientific gobbledegook, and designed not to be answered. As you no longer appear to wish to debate me, I will wager you £10 that you are unable to provide cogent, coherent and complete answers to your own questions, which meet the standards you have laid out in this letter. You have two weeks in which to respond.

    But of course the true purpose of your questions is to provide yourself with an excuse for not answering mine. Mine are simple and direct questions based only on the statements you have made in your book. They require no more knowledge than you purport to possess. You are simply kicking up as much dust as possible because you are unable or unwilling to answer them. Gavin Schmidt remarked that yours were:

    “designed to lead to an argument along the lines of ‘Monbiot can’t answer these questions and so knows nothing about the science (and by the way, please don’t notice that I can’t cite any sources for my nonsense or even acknowledge that I can’t answer these questions either)’.”

    Perhaps he has prophetic powers, as this is exactly what you have done here.

    I would remind you that it is not over yet. You still have three days in which to answer my questions, whereupon – once you have also agreed that we may cross-examine each other – I will be delighted to debate you on the date we have agreed. You are the one who requested this debate. If you want it to go ahead, you know what to do.

    But perhaps you feel braver addressing the audience by yourself. If so, I don’t blame you. As our correspondence has shown, you seem to be incapable of meeting a direct challenge.

    With my best wishes,

    George [Monbiot]

  272. There are people in the world sitting in jail for fraud much less than this ,its about time all the scaremongers were rounded up and prosecuted just like anyone else.

  273. There’s a big article on page 13, Saturday’s (28 Nov) Sydney Morning Herald, by Monbiot supporting AGW. It seems the SMH is a bit behind the times (and Guardian). Monbiot claims “the science is in” and “the strongest sceptics are over 60″ and that “there is no evidence to support sceptic arguments”.

  274. I think the message to George is: give a sceptic a nanometre and he’ll take the proverbial mile! I’m sure mixing units is unscientific to you paragons of the method; but to those of you that can handle the maths, the conversion factor is 1 mile = 1 609 344 000 000 nanometres – so that’s some inflation! I’m sure George is regretting his hysterical loss of nerve now, but it’s too late – not for AGW – that is unaffected by this – but for Phil Jones. Jones has resigned the directorship of CRU, pending an “independent inquiry” into the theft of emails. That’s university-speak for “he got us the wrong sort of publicity, so screw the 35 years of service – let’s bury this, and him. Those of us with a sense of perspective are entitled to ask, why an inquiry and why the resignation? The wrong-doer here is the thief, at worst Jones is guilty of silly bravado, he didn’t actually do any of the things he threatened. And let’s not forget, the bravado was to friends in naive “privacy”. It’s a bit like people submitting insulting comments to a blog under a pseudonym, thinking that they’ll never be held to account. Their identity is about as secret as the Queens Official Birthday!

  275. woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (01:53:19) : … I spent quite a long time looking into this proxy-real “splicing” issue last night, because when I thought about it more, it started to bother me. It clearly is questionable, since the trees may be “peak clipping” the signal during warmer periods – which would of course also mask earlier warmer periods, as you say. Steve McIntyre’s page on this was most helpful: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=529

    But this also confirms what I had suspected; which is that all this was known and out in the open several years ago. So I’m not sure the CRU e-mails add much to this story, except that (again) they appear more concerned with image and selling the story than one might wish (more on this below).

    On HADCRUT3, I agree my interpretation of “unprecedented” was somewhat limited, I was indeed talking about the real temperature records, not the proxies – partly because that’s what CRU deals in, partly because (until last night, and indeed still) I didn’t know much about proxy data.

    But I must just correct the assertion that HADCRUT3 has shown a higher trend than the satellite records. It is indeed higher than UAH, but almost identical to RSS and the other land/ocean series, GISTEMP:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend

    That’s one reason why I still feel inclined to trust it; also, despite the obvious major internal difficulties in data format and change control they have had, in global monthly for it’s highly aggregated. I’m sure the data difficulties add to the error/noise, but I can’t currently see how they would change the trend to any significant degree.

    Paul – I was quite surprised to learn that the trends were similar. I had a look at your graphs and then downloaded the data and tried to get the trends, but have done so only for CRU so far – then got caught up with climategate.

    Re: the above – some things have sprung to my mind –

    1. E.M. Smith carried out a study and found that the global warming chart pretty much follows the march of the thermometers towards the equator. He said they were defective.

    2. Someone argued that the satellite temperature graphs were pretty similar to the land based ones. (Now this did strike me as strange because although satellite temperatures “measure”, or are supposed to measure, air temperatures, whereas the land based ones measure air and water temperatures and still the two match)

    3. EM Smith said hey look if you know that some data is faulty, and other sets of data matches that data, then that is a reason to mistrust the other sets. I dismissed that out of hand because I had no reason to doubt the sattelite data.

    4. Now I learn that satellite data do not directly measure temperatures. They derive them from a calibration of the land temperatures. Bingo – this might explain the similarity.

    So I ask you – look on it with a suspicious eye. Is there anyway that satellite data might unwittingly reflect surface data? Thus if surface data is untrustworthy then the satellite data would also reflect that.

    On the general question of image vs. science. It looks like (on both sides) there has sometimes been more of a concern to present a simply-understood message or advocacy than the real science; not unreasonably, since one is talking about different audiences, and some of the subtlety/uncertainty is inevitably lost at this stage.

    The problem comes when it’s the same group doing both the science and the presentation, because there’s no access to the science-group’s interface, and layers get mixed internally (software types will recognise this as a classic layering problem).

    It seems to me there’s also an analogy with banking here: in the same way that Glass-Steigel separated merchant and retail banking (the repeal of which is blamed by some for our current mess), perhaps we need to separate the pure data capture and processing (which should also be public) from the presentation/advocacy. I think CRU think of themselves as the former, but have clearly shaded into the latter.

    For my own part, I try very hard to remain on the pure data side, and this is probably going to be my only foray into this mire!

    One more thing: Both the complaints about, and attempts to avoid, the “hassle” of FOI and ‘Harry’s nightmares in data control smack to me of the same things: underfunding and haste. This stuff is so critical it should be done slowly, carefully and in public, as most science is; as it is it seems to rest on the shoulders of a very small group under almost intolerable pressure for quick results, but very aware of the global significance of what they do. Not a place I would want to be, personally…

    There is no underfunding there as the emails have revealed. But I agree it is critical, and should be done slowly and carefully and in public.

    I hope you will be able to see this and respond

    Regards – Richard

  276. Unless there are protests at the universities about climategate and the fraud being perpetuated, these reviews and investigations are likely to become cover-ups to save reputations and allow AGW to continue becoming the governing principle and religion of a global government.

    It is clear that sunspot activity (aka solar winds, solar mass ejections) interacting with cosmic rays and the resulting cloud cover in our atmosphere are the drivers of the global temperature trends. We cannot allow a fabrication like AGW to continue suppressing and killing poor people and de-industrializing the developed world. AGW is insanity and genocide!

  277. I still have to wonder. Were the lies perpetuated to keep the grants and awards flowing, or is this simply a far far far left bias that the truth kept getting in the way of?

Comments are closed.