Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support

One of the favorite put-downs from people who think they have the moral high ground in the climate debate is to accuse skeptics with this phrase: “You are nothing but a shill for Big Oil”

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) from Flixter - click for details

Who amongst us hasn’t seen variants of that pointed finger repeated thousands of times? The paradigm has shifted. Now it appears CRU is the one looking for “big oil” money. See the email:

See the entire email here:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt

There’s more.

click to enlarge

But wait that’s not all!

Further down in that email,  look at who else they were looking to for money. Oh, this is horrible, it just can’t be, they wouldn’t. They were looking to not only BP but, but EXXON in its Esso incarnation:

See the entire email here:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=156&filename=947541692.txt

Now who is the shill for Big Oil again? Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.

h/t and thanks to WUWT reader “boballab”


Sponsored IT training links:
Need help for SY0-201 exam? Join the 70-640 training program to successfully pass 70-680 exam.


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

223 Responses to Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support

  1. Ray says:

    More importantly… look at the year of the email… 2000 !!!

  2. David says:

    Mick Kelly is involved in an email exchange that made me raise the old eyebrows.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt

  3. singularian says:

    There’s also uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc in the documents.

    Talks of possible funding for Tyndall center from Shell in return for Shell being able to partially set the research agenda.

  4. INGSOC says:

    I laughed out loud when I saw the accompanying clip with the headline! LOLOLOL!

    Finally the news is rolling out today like never before! I feel happy!!!

    Truth is indeed winning!

  5. Lance says:

    Imagine if DeSmogBlog had found emails from Richard Lindzen to Pat Micheals outilining a strategy of partnering with big oil companies to fund their research.

    The warmers would be howling!

    But I’m sure they will either ignore these emails or actually promote them as a sign that even big oil has joined their pseudo-religion.

  6. Greg S says:

    A partial list of CRU financial backers.

    British Petroleum,
    Eastern Electricity,
    Greenpeace International,
    Leverhulme Trust,
    National Power,
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
    Shell,
    Sultanate of Oman,
    World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)

  7. JonesII says:

    A naive question: Which would it be Shell’s benefit?
    Another naive question: Was it a competitor or someone not funded the whistleblower?

  8. Gary says:

    It is a “shell game” according to Steve McIntyre who always says to watch the pea under the thimble as they move the argument all around.

  9. Henry chance says:

    I remember when Exxon was big in oil shale and all the majors had coal divisions. They get hammered so long and sell struggling units. I suspect the Majors will spend money on climate research. it effects their economic forcasts for heating oil and natural gas. It costs a lot of money to evacuate drilling platforms and refineries. They have a duty to follow and study the weather. They are a lot cleaner in research and modeling than are the other earth scientists. Contrary to the claims from the extremists, the Oil companies are good citizens. Exxon collects and remits 100 billion dollars a year in taxes. During the Clinton years, everyone fed the erotic passion for the dot.coms. Well other than some payroll taxes, they were not paying income taxes. They lost money.

  10. Michael says:

    If the enviro wackos are so against big oil, why don’t the campaign against the huge taxpayer subsidies and tax loopholes given to big oil?

  11. JEM says:

    Big Oil is not in the oil business, they’re in the money business. If a firm sees a competitive advantage in causing their competitors distress (witness the UPS-vs-FedEx railway-labor-law dispute) then they’re going to do so. And they will pay attention to the political winds.

    CO2 is the perfect trading commodity – it’s a product literally pulled out of thin air, and about which the general public has been convinced there’s something nefarious.

    Want to get people’s attention? Start by banning carbonated soft drinks. More health benefit than a world of cap-and-trade laws.

  12. Gary Pearse says:

    I think an investigation of industry supporters to Penn State, etc. etc. should be done and widely published to show that the hypocrisy is broader than we thought. Anybody know how to do this? Maybe an FOI request!!!

  13. JHFolsom says:

    @Jonsell

    Shell is hedging bets versus legislation, if legislation like cap and trade comes down the pike, their lobbyists could use the fact that they were funding AGW research to earn them free credits, perhaps enough to be exempt from the program effectively, and perhaps even enough to sell at a profit.

  14. Robert Coté says:

    Out, damn’d spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then
    ’tis time to do’t.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and
    afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our
    pow’r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to
    have had so much blood in him?

    [N.B. may not be original. Attribution and sourcing of original data has been destroyed but only by accident. Trust me.]

  15. wobble says:

    “I think an investigation of industry supporters to Penn State, etc. etc. ”

    Just make sure that the University at Albany is one of those et ceteras.

  16. MattN says:

    I believe I read one where they also met with Siemens.

    Corporate toadies….

  17. INGSOC says:

    I may even have to change my moniker again to reflect my brightening nature! I will however continue to bear the onerous handle of INGSOC until freedom and truth are again prominent features in science. Heck, in life as well! Looks like it may not be a long wait.
    I must say though, and I apologize for being a tad OT in editorializing a bit here. But as much as my hopes are lifting with the news these days, I am chagrined at the damage that has been wrought by those who supposedly spoke for environmentalism. The truly saddening thing is that real environmentalism was hijacked by what can only be described as a large and malevolent group of ideologues bent on advancing a religio-political agenda at the expense of what should be a noble goal. Environmentalism will have a tough time recovering from the damage brought upon it from the likes of Gore, Suzuki, Mann/Jones/Schmidt/Hanson etc. etc. I believe the political left in North America has also been corrupted by the same conniving wannabee dictators. I know a poor few friends that are still “left of centre” that are also skeptics, but are more or less without political affiliation due to their adherence to truth; and the sorry lack of a party on the left that places honesty before a corrupt ideology.

    Things are looking up though!

  18. profligatewaste says:

    Based on the enviro-pandering ads some of the oil companies have been putting out, I’m not surprised.

  19. fFreddy says:

    “A naive question: Which would it be Shell’s benefit?”

    As background, Shell has a lot of off-shore gas rigs in the North Sea and a large part of the undersea pipeline network which brings the gas onshore. These fields are approaching the end of their useful life.
    I went to a conference at the Royal Society a few years back, which had the chairman of Shell as one of the speakers. He was spouting the normal warmist line and going on about carbon-capture coal power stations.
    His interest was in pumping the CO2 out through the pipeline network to the offshore rigs, and pumping it down into the exhausted gas reservoirs.
    Naturally, Shell would be paid for getting rid of the CO2. Also, they would defer the abandonment costs of the pipe and rig infrastructure for a couple of decades.

    When the government is offering taxpayers’ money for free, you don’t need much of a commercial instinct to figure a way to get your snout into the trough.

  20. DJ Meredith says:

    Cru looks to Big Oil for support, except when they can seize an opportunity to bash Evil Big Oil……Even Patchauri????????

    ————————————————-
    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote
    Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:00:59 -0400
    From: “SSI Mailbox”
    ******************* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ********************
    ISSUE: Today – April 19, 2002, the Intergovernmental Panel
    on Climate Change (IPCC) plenary voted for Dr. Rajendra
    Pachauri as the sole chair of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri, an
    economist and engineer, will replace Dr. Robert Watson, an
    atmospheric chemist, as chair of the IPCC. This outcome was
    actively sought by the Bush Administration at the behest of
    the most conservative elements of the fossil fuel industry.
    This development threatens to undermine the scientific
    credibility and integrity of the IPCC and may weaken the job
    this extraordinary body has done to bring the world’s
    attention to one of the most pressing environmental
    problems….

    …….
    By supporting Dr. Pachauri for primarily political purposes,
    the Bush Administration has seriously threatened the
    scientific credibility of the IPCC process. The conservative
    fossil fuel interests should be exposed for their role in
    influencing the US government’s stance on this issue, and
    the IPCC process must remain a scientifically credible and
    non-politicized process………

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt

  21. Sean Peake says:

    If you’re not in the game you’re assured of losing. I don’t blame Shell et al from getting involved. New energy sources, new energy markets, grants, and legislation demanding they do as ordered. It’s a legitimate business hedge. Large banks are also involved as they set up mechanisms for carbon trading etc, though I wonder if those investments have now gone south and they’ll be stuck with big write-offs… again.

    It’s nice to see that the warmers went gun-in-hand to extort money. To bad that, even though the gun was loaded, the barrel was pointed the wrong way when it went off.

  22. JonesII says:

    Gary Pearse (11:59:49) :

    I think an investigation of industry supporters to Penn State, etc. etc. should be done and widely published
    It is already widely published here in WUWT!!! didn’t you notice it?
    That’s enough!

  23. Methow Ken says:

    Hat tip to Ray in 1st comment on this thread, where his sharp eye caught caught the year = 2000 in the email header. IOW:
    They’ve been trying to milk this for almost TEN YEARS.

    JHFolsom is also correct: Shell is just hedging its bets versus legislation; in an ever-more hostile legislative environment. Can’t blame them for that.
    BUT: IF there was any justice (don’t count on it), this would be the end of the shrill ”skeptics are just shills for Big Oil” mantra by the AGW crowd.

  24. 40 Shades of Green says:

    The interest of Shell, BP, Exxon and all these companies in promoting climate fears is obvious. The bigger the scare, the higher the price of oil, the more profits they make.

  25. rbateman says:

    What a tangled web they wove.
    My oh my, the power brokering was astounding.

  26. Mike Core says:

    @Robert Cote.

    Youre MacBeth is pretty appropriate.

    Here is some more from Dick III.

    The cat, the rat and Lovell the dog all rulen England under a Hog.

    And my favourite: (pinned to the Duke of Norfolks tent on Bosworth Eve)

    Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold for Dickon, thy master is bought and sold.

  27. Kate says:

    In Britain, Shell has been the sponsor of many 30-page full-color glossy pull-outs of every AGW propaganda story you have ever heard. These have all appeared in the left-wing “New Statesman” magazine this year.

  28. rokag3 says:

    It’s time to convert the name of Oil company with Energy Company. To offer the guarantee of a high price for oil(reference base for the cost of energy) through higher taxes, Get those tax back through money to invest in new fields for free and get the profit of this very expensive energy(because indexed on oil) for the stock holder and bonus to gain much more power on a weaker government.
    This is the real consequence of Governementalitisme drive the people by all means so they self impose slavery

  29. Michael says:

    How about the billions the warmers are giving to big coal?

    Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is one of the major reasons for promoting the fraud of man-made global warming. Billions of tax payer dollars are now being spent to make a select few filthy rich from this useless technology. Senator John D Rockefeller is the major player behind this scam.
    Rockefeller is a longtime champion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Earlier this year, he helped secure $3.4 billion for the Fossil Energy Research and Development programs, including CCS research, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
    http://rockefeller.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=317677&amp

  30. Charles Higley says:

    The oil companies are not stupid. They are on board with cap and trade as they also stand to make a lot of money as cap and trade makes everything more expensive and they can trade and sell carbon credits and such. There is such a morass of potential trading and “green” (stupid) ideas, e..g., sequestering CO2, that they almost cannot lose money.

  31. Charles Higley says:

    The oil companies are not stupid. They are on board with cap and trade as they also stand to make a lot of money as cap and trade makes everything more expensive and they can trade and sell carbon credits and such. There is such a morass of potential trading and “green” (stupid) ideas, e..g., sequestering CO2, that they almost cannot lose money.

  32. Mark says:

    There is also this email
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1041&filename=1254832684.txt

    Which reads, in part:
    “Hi Phil,
    is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I’m
    in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million
    employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here
    in the UK – looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into
    question (again) observed temperature increases – I thought we’d moved the debate beyond
    this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).
    Kind regards,
    Andrew”

  33. rbateman says:

    Now what do the Big Oil boys do when all the Green-Energy commericials that the Agenda arm-twisted them into producing suddenly look stupid?
    Ooh, ooh, I know, throw the crumbling Copenhagen Agenda on the Barbie.
    Brilliant !!
    Hmm… interesting thought.
    All those cc’ed emails.
    Nah. Couldn’t be that simple, could it?
    Boxer-get-the-hackers-ignore-the-emails
    CYA, barking up the wrong tree, transfixed on dangling carrot or out-on-a-limb?
    Choices, choices.

  34. Michael says:

    “After the hearing, Rep. Sensenbrenner said the refusal of committee Democrats or President Obama’s representatives to take the leaked emails seriously indicated that the “the President’s science advisers are at the bottom of the whole climate change debate,” and just as intent as the East Anglia scientists in not having a full and open airing of the issue.”

    WSJ
    Climategate? What Climategate?
    Congressional Democrats are Climategate deniers.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574576021674770950.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

  35. vukcevic says:

    Oil companies look at this from different aspect. It is more preferable to make large profit with a minimum investment than huge sales at low prices. Unrestricted sales push prices and margins down, resources run out, huge investment is required for development of new fields.
    Restricted sales by elevated ‘AGW’ taxation provide more room for pushing up producers profit margins, resources are depleted at lower rate, larger part of profits can be distributed to shareholders rather than ring fenced for exploration.
    Additionally if they are in government’s ‘good book’ less likely imposition of ‘windfall tax’.

  36. Kum Dollison says:

    The “Payoff” was that the Watermelons would Turn On Biofuels. Especially, Ethanol. Really, really, especially, corn ethanol.

    Before you start howling at me, think. The Truth IS coming out, now.

  37. Max says:

    Anyone wishing to email Channel4 news can do so news@channel4.com

  38. Sean Peake says:

    IMHO, your photo for this post is bloody brilliant! I’m still laughing.

  39. Back2Bat says:

    Big business LOVES big government since regulation DISPROPORTIONATELY affects its smaller and nimbler competitors. It effectively prevents new start ups by making new entry costs prohibitive. Big business thrives off big government.

  40. rbateman says:

    Charles Higley (12:23:04) :

    Big Oil isn’t stupid, and they are NOT going down with someone’s pet project ship, especially not when they see it listing that heavily.

  41. Glenn says:

    “Shill” out of context? What stinkin context. We don need no stinkin context.
    Cheers,
    Phil and da boys.

  42. Ray says:

    Maybe CRU and GISS are like the mafia of AGW… they “ask” for money (for “protection” against bad publicity) from all the polluters and when certain polluters don’t want to pay anymore, they go and do business assassination. Maybe this is why Henson is so against the coal industry… they said no to him. I guess Al Gore is the Godfather then.

  43. Neo says:

    Gerald R. Davis and Douglas D McKay of Shell International Limited, London mentioned …

    Thank all of you who have attended the SRES Lead Authors’ meeting (17-19 September 1997) (0876171248).
    Meeting at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California to review the work progress of the four modeling groups (0884731847).
    Request for firm number of attendees to IPCC SRES Meeting (0885318160).
    Report of minutes of minutes of the SRES informal modelers’ meeting (0887665729).
    RE-schedule of the next IPCC-SRES Full Authors meeting will be held the week of 27 April 1998 (0888364876).
    Info on upcoming IPCC SRES meeting (0888611422).
    A solicitation for review of the influence of social and economic policies on future carbon emissions for the SRES (0889047457).
    Sending you a copy of Ged Davis’ IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on storylines and scenarios (0889554019).
    Change of venue for Lead Authors meeting (0893188400).
    Guidelines on how to present the IS99 storylines and scenarios (0894639050).
    Info on upcoming next SRES Lead Authors meeting in Beijing, China (0904080701).
    Request for RSVPs to next SRES Meeting (0904762907).
    A solicitation of input for the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) AR3 (0914013281).

  44. Steve says:

    Actually, this is standard operating procedure for “researchers” and certain foundations with a politically-leaning “green” agenda.

    It’s a shakedown; nothing more.

    As “strategic partner” surely means “someone we can get a lot of money from,” the idea is to bilk these oil corporations into jumping onto the green bandwagon. It’s a form of extortion that the large energy companies are generally more than happy to comply with, as it “covers” them in what could be, in their minds, a growing public sentiment that “oil companies are bad meanies that kill the envoirnlent.”

    It’s a P.R. move for them, and most, like shell, even have entire departments dedicated to throwing the company’s money around at researchers and foundations such as the CRU.

    This is insurance policy for what they see as a stark possibility of more and more world leaders and policies that wish to strip them of every future dollar they generate. Regardless of what the truth is, and regardless of what the data shows, Shell’s responsibility is to protect it’s assets, and this is one way for them to attempt keeping their company, if many world leaders had their way right now.

    Shake.

    Down.

  45. Gareth says:

    The understandable concerns of the past (however shaky the science was and remains) were rapidly commandeered by politicians and corporations because there was capital to be made by both. The green agenda will aways attract those with an eye for an opportunity to grab power, money or both.

  46. Douglas DC says:

    BTW here is a big big game changer:
    http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/10/20/the-amazing-shale-race.aspx

    Shale gas is going global. Just as AGW is going room temperature…

  47. AdderW says:

    The Guardian:
    The carbon-cutting crew’s faulty logic

    If localism is a cure for climate change then the assumptions that the scientific consensus rests upon are wrong

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/04/climate-change-carbon-emissions

  48. SandyInDerby says:

    MattN (12:09:29) :

    I believe I read one where they also met with Siemens.

    Corporate toadies….

    Of course it had nothing to do with this

    http://www.energy.siemens.com/entry/energy/hq/en/?tab=energy-1213565-1213615-Renewables

  49. R Dunn says:

    “Each day I enter the marketplace where lies are bought. Hopefully, I take my place among the sellers.”

    Bertolt Brecht

  50. Kate says:

    Channel 4 news has revealed that the British Government had to justify running the infamous climate change advert about the little girl and the drowning puppy and bunny rabbit.
    http://www.channel4.com/news/

    See the advert here
    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/government+forced+to+defend+climate+change+advert/3450237

    Updated on 04 December 2009

    By Cathy Newman

    The government’s chief scientist has been forced to justify controversial claims in the government’s latest climate change advertisement, Channel 4 News has learnt.

    The “storybook” TV campaign features a father reading his daughter a frightening bedtime story about global warming. This programme understands that Clearcast, the body responsible for vetting TV adverts, has questioned the scientific evidence used in the campaign.

    Clearcast’s role is to check that adverts touching on issues of public controversy are impartial – in line with broadcasting rules. After learning that questions had been raised, the government’s top scientific advisers penned a furious retort to Clearcast.

    The letter, seen by Channel 4 News, states: “We are concerned that the basic scientific inferences referred to in the latest…campaign are being brought into question by Clearcast. We are both surprised and disturbed that the premise of the television campaign is being questioned, given the incontrovertible nature of the science that underpins the campaign material.”

    Download the letter from the government to Clearcast in full here:
    http://www.channel4.com/news/media/2009/12/day04/climate_change_letter.doc
    (The full text is at the bottom of this post.)

    The government says it hasn’t broken the rules because the advert is based on fact. It was eventually cleared for broadcast, but is now being investigating by the advertising watchdog after triggering 785 complaints from members of the public.

    The fresh dispute comes after a week of allegations that scientists are manipulating official data. Leaked emails have led to charges the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has distorted the evidence on global warming.

    The chief scientist John Beddington and the energy department’s main scientific adviser Robert Watson wrote the letter to Clearcast. It’s emerged that Professor Watson is director of strategic development at the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit.

    A ‘mendacious’ advert
    Lord Lawson, the Conservative former chancellor who has just launched a think tank devoted to challenging conventional wisdom about climate change, told Channel 4 News the advert was “mendacious”.

    He said: “There are two things wrong with this ad. First, I am sure that if a commercial organisation had tried an ad which is as imaginative, as inventive as this one and as mendacious, it would not be permitted. The second thing is the focus of the ad is to scare young children and I think that’s positively immoral.”

    But the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told the programme: “The problem is that the sceptics who want to cast doubt on this are the modern equivalent of the Flat Earth Society because the science is very clear about this. Climate change is real. It’s happening. It’s man-made.

    “Frankly it’s irresponsible to suggest that it isn’t happening and it isn’t man-made and it’s trying to suggest that there is an easy way out of climate change. Well I’m afraid there isn’t an easy way out. We want to make it as financially possible as possible for people to make the transition but the truth is these are hard decisions that we have to make in order to make this transition. It’s necessary and the science is very clear.”

    Climate change survey
    Private research commissioned by the energy department – and seen by Channel 4 News – shows the scale of the challenge facing the government as it attempts to persuade people to combat the threat from global warming. Those surveyed didn’t see climate change “having a serious impact in the UK”. And they wanted the government to do more about the problem before they individually would do their bit.

    Worryingly for the government, the research also found “a lack of understanding…of what climate change actually is, how it is caused, what the impact will be, what that might mean to human life and when the consequences might happen”.

    Not only do ministers have to convince a sceptical public about the effects of global warming, but they also have to persuade people to pay for measures to fight it. The government estimates that by 2020 the average household energy bill will increase by £92 a year as energy companies pass on to consumers the cost of tackling climate change. On top of that, many householders will have to dig into their own pockets for energy saving devices around the home.

    The government is to encourage householders to pay for loft lagging, cavity wall insulation and other green initiatives by applying for long-term loans from supermarkets, banks, local authorities and energy companies.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    What the letter said…

    Letter from Governmental science advisors for Clearcast substantiation

    Department of Energy & Climate Change
    3 Whitehall Place,
    London SW1A 2AW
    http://www.decc.gov.uk
    23 September 2009

    To whom it may concern

    RE: AMV-BBDO/Department of Energy Change’s climate literacy campaign (‘Storybook’)

    We are concerned that the basic scientific inferences referred to in the latest DECC ACT ON CO2 public engagement campaign are being brought into question by Clearcast.

    We are both surprised and disturbed that the premise of the television campaign is being questioned, given the incontrovertible nature of the science that underpins the campaign material, which is founded on basic physics, a vast body of peer-reviewed scientific literature, and an overwhelming consensus of climate science experts.

    A remarkable and compelling degree of international scientific consensus exists on the relationship between rising CO2 levels, global temperature increase, sea level rise and changes to weather patterns. Indeed, there is now absolutely no doubt that some future change is inevitable.

    In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the most authoritative source of information on the subject of climate change, issued its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Its conclusions and its summary texts were agreed by every nation on Earth. The IPCC AR4 was clear and unequivocal in asserting that global temperatures continue to rise and human greenhouse gas emissions are very likely the ultimate cause:

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”
    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”

    The AR4 also laid out the observed changes to weather patterns as a result of climate change, demonstrating the prevalence of more severe weather events:

    “At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones”

    The conclusions of the AR4 have been further strengthened by more recent scientific findings, as reported at the International Climate Science Congress that was held in Copenhagen in March this year. The report from this congress delivered six key messages from the scientific community to the world leaders, which highlighted the need for a successful global agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen talks this December.

    There is also compelling support from other quarters for the scientific basis for climate change. In June this year, the National Science Academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa all signed a joint statement on climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future . It called on world leaders to undertake a range of actions, saying:

    “… climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”

    The scientific basis is now accepted by world leaders, for example President Obama delivered a speech yesterday to the United Nations General Assembly saying, “No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”

    The UK Government bases its response to the threat of dangerous climate change on the IPCC’s findings and these other robust assessments; and DECC’s campaign needs to provide simple messages based on this overwhelming scientific consensus. The purpose of the campaign is to raise public understanding of the causes of climate change and its effects. In particular, it aims to show that climate change is an issue which affects us all and which requires co-ordinated action, domestically and internationally.

    We recognise and strongly support your role in ensuring TV advertising is accurate and substantiated. In this instance we are clear that the fundamental science underpinning DECC’s script is entirely consistent with these principles. It is imperative that we communicate clearly and authoritatively the strong, peer-reviewed evidence linking manmade CO2 emissions with climate change and its impact on the UK. In the context of the forthcoming critical talks in Copenhagen in December it is crucial that we help the public to understand the serious challenges facing the UK and the rest of the world due to climate change. Unless we are able to present the evidence in a valid and compelling way, we believe the campaign’s immediate objectives and arguably the Government’s overall objective to reduce CO2 emissions could be compromised.

    Yours faithfully,

    Professor John Beddington
    Government Chief Scientific Adviser
    Professor Bob Watson
    Defra Chief Scientific Adviser and acting
    DECC Chief Scientific Adviser

  51. John Whitman says:

    OT (sorry)

    In leaked email 1256735067.txt. We get following dialog:

    “At 17:07 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

    Hi Phil,
    Thanks–we know that. The point is simply that if we want to talk about about a
    meaningful “2009″ anomaly, every additional month that is available from which to
    calculate an annual mean makes the number more credible. We already have this for
    GISTEMP, but have been awaiting HadCRU to be able to do a more decisive update of the
    status of the disingenuous “globe is cooling” contrarian talking point,
    mike
    p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy
    him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like”

    Question I have is who is the “Andy” that Mann indicates is “not as predictable as we’d like”? Is Andy Revkin or Prof Andrew J. Watson (UEA) or someone else?

    I still trying to understand who might have been dissatisfied with Mann/Jones/Briffa enough to . . . . . .

    Anyone looked at this?

    John

  52. Anon says:

    The AGW theory couldn´t be 100% proven, due to quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, and quantum fluctuations, as well as, if true, it´s not, solved by socialism, i.e. Cap and Trade, with a total world price tag of $145 trillion.

    Say No To Climategate!!!

  53. PhilW says:

    From: Ben Santer
    To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: Re: Good news! Plus less good news
    Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:13:21 -0800
    Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    Dear Phil,

    Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it
    to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=954&filename=1233245601.txt

  54. chainpin says:

    I haven’t listened to the whole thing yet, but these guys would best be advised to keep their mouths shut:

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/04/press-call-michael-mann-gavin-schmidt-and-michael-oppenheimer-climategat/

  55. rbateman says:

    For a generous donation now..
    “I will gladly pay you double next Tuesday for a hamburger today.”

  56. chainpin says:

    Oops, forgot to add this chestnut from Mann:

    Michael Mann:“Decades of research [has been conducted.] There is a very robust consensus that humans are warming the planet and changing the Earth’s climate.”

    “There are a handful of people and organizations who have tried to cloud the debate…. They have engaged in this 11th-hour smear campaign, where they have stolen personal emails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context to twist their words, and I think this is rather telling…. Those advocating inaction don’t have the science on their side, so they turn to this last minute smear campaign.”

  57. bushy says:

    Gordon Brown sounding off and calling sceptics “flat earthers”. The man is blinkered and needs to go. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/flat-earth-climate-change-copenhagen

  58. Layne Blanchard says:

    The horror of this situation is the idea that “Big Oil” began switching sides when they were informed there was enough profit in this “Brave, new, Green world” for everyone who helped to ram it down our throats. For so called “renewables” to compete, Fossil fuels need to “necessarily skyrocket”. And Big Oil would dislike this …..?

  59. pwl says:

    Awe inspiring hypocrisy, deeply and profoundly awe inspiring hypocrisy on the part of the alarmists.

  60. G.L. Alston says:

    The ‘shill for big oil’ argument is absurd on the face of it.

    If less oil is needed, the price tends to go up. There’s this magical thing called supply and demand. The oil companies would be better off if global warming were real and intense. We’ll still need plastics, lubricants, and yes, gasoline and jet fuel. There ain’t no electric jets.

    On the other hand I’ve noted that rarely is the accuser familiar with economics or even capitalism, seeming to favour some sort of command economy mental model.

  61. bushy says:

    Actually this has really made me mad. “Ed Miliband gave his most damning assessment of the sceptics yet, describing them as “dangerous and deceitful”.
    Exactly who has been deceitful here? Not the sceptics. These polijokers are digging a big hole for themselves but it doesnt bode well for a free and fair enquiry into the climategate issue.
    “”Ideological dinosaurs, whether in Saudi Arabia or in the Conservative party, who deny climate change must not be allowed to hide behind some leaked correspondence to support their outdated theories,” Clegg said.—sigh!

  62. R Taylor says:

    You think the oil majors don’t understand political compromise? They have to deal with the likes of Hugo Chavez! The scandal here is the orthodoxy that makes the UEA-CRU a seller of indulgences.

  63. Leon Palmer says:

    folloing this line of hypocrisy is Gavin’s put-down of climate gate on realclimate ”

    “More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research…”

    Now we hear from Roger Pielke Jr that

    “Thus, it was with some interest that I received an email today announcing a press conference by Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, organized with the Center for American Progress. ”

    Which, was pointed out by a commenter on Roger Pielke Jr’s blog

    “What exactly is The Center for American Progress and more importantly, who funds it ?

    In 2003, George Soros promised to financially support the organization by donating up to three million dollars…. Soros is (reputedly) the highest paid hedge fund manager on Wall Street and the man who’s currency speculation did enormous damage to the Russian, British, and Australian economies and a few countries in South East Asia.”

    Who needs “Big Oil” when one has “Big Hedge” :-)

  64. James F. Evans says:

    Big business and finance left the station long ago and put money down on AGW.

    Goldman-Sachs into carbon credit trading schemes big time looking to be a regular Enron.

    That big business is funding the people who question AGW is one of the Big Lies of the AGW proponents.

    In truth, it is the other way around, Big business has been in bed with the AGW crowd for years.

    Why?

    Because they know they can “game” the system.

  65. PhilW says:

    Please tell me this isn’t real..

  66. Ron de Haan says:

    Shell has a big refinery in The Netherlands and reading the e-mails I found out that the Dutch are also involved in Climate Gate.

    Shell is currently involved in a test for Carbon Capture and Storage under the city of Dordrecht.
    This sounds very odd to me because one of the objectives is to find out if their CCS concept is safe. I always learned that any personal risks should be avoided in an experiment that has to proof the safety of a concept, so I wonder why they risk the lives of an entire city population of a town to proof safety?

    I personally would not like to live in a town where they have a 200 Bar Liquid CO2
    system to pump CO2 under the ground.

    In one of the e-mails between Phil Jones and Michael Mann the KNMI was mentioned
    and Van Engelen et al, a report about the Dutch winters from the year 800 to today.
    The report concludes that the hottest winters happened in the past fifty years from the current and past century, in perfect support with the Mann’s Hockeystick Graph.
    There is more interesting information in this e-mail here:
    http://climate-gate.com/email.php?eid=178&keyword=KNMI

    I also found an e-mail where the Dutch request for cooperation to get a 100 million Euro grand, see here: http://climate-gate.com/email.php?eid=293&keyword=Pavel

    So if we make a fast calculation:
    The last e-mail i about a 100.000.000 Euro grand, the Shell CCS project is about 680.000.000 Euro in grands and participations, totals 780 million Euro = over one billion dollar, a lot of money to keep the scam alive. And that’s only the Netherlands.

  67. Roger Knights says:

    Sean Peake (12:11:42) :

    “If you’re not in the game you’re assured of losing.”

    A more pungent version goes, “If you’re not at the table you’re on the menu.”

  68. WestHoustonGeo says:

    BP and it’s absorbed Amoco were very “green” for the last decade or so. If I were not a cynic by nature I might think them sincere*. Their HQ in Houston has a big solar array on one of its many garages. Incidentally, it is covered with snow today in the earliest snowfall in the history of weather records hereabouts (and still accumulating). Unsurprising that BP would fund the enemy – perhaps they thought that the greens might give them a break – or, again, they could be sincere.

    The greens shamelessly bash big oil while taking their filthy lucre. Apparantly they don’t “stay bought”. No honor among shills on that side of the equation, eh?.

    * But, really “beyond petroleum”? Give me a break!

  69. Ron de Haan says:

    PhilW (13:26:29) :

    Please tell me this isn’t real..

    Yes it is and Ben Santer is also in the ClimateGate E-mails.
    See here: http://climate-gate.com/email.php?eid=7&keyword=Santer

  70. Mif says:

    I did a research on internet after I heard about a meeting in the White House, 4.th of August 1997 between Bill Clinton, Al Gore, government officials and 7 energy exectutives, one of them was Lord Browne of BP. I have reedited an essay that I put up on a blog in Norway some days ago.

    About the Kyoto Protocol.
    It was signed the 11th Desember 1997, and from Wikipedia, pr now it is signed 187 nations. The Protocol says that 37 developed nations have to reduce their discharge of anthropogenic gases by 5.2 % within 2012 compared to the levels in 1990.

    But, it is possible to avoid this demand by Emission trading, from Wikipedia:

    The Protocol provides for several “flexible mechanisms” which enable Annex I countries to meet their GHG emission targets by acquiring GHG emission reductions credits. The credits are acquired by an Annex I country financing projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I countries or other Annex I countries, or by purchasing credits from Annex I countries with excess credits. The flexible mechanisms are emissions trading, the clean development mechanism (CDM) and joint implementation.

    Bying and selling CO2-quota have grown into big business. From Wikipedia:

    Since allowances and carbon credits are tradeable instruments with a transparent price, financial investors can buy them on the spot market for speculation purposes, or link them to futures contracts. A high volume of trading in this secondary market helps price discovery and liquidity, and in this way helps to keep down costs and set a clear price signal in CO2 which helps businesses to plan investments. This market has grown substantially, with banks, brokers, funds, arbitrageurs and private traders now participating in a market valued at about $60 billion in 2007.[14] Emissions Trading PLC, for example, was floated on the London Stock Exchange’s AIM market in 2005 with the specific remit of investing in emissions instruments.

    From Tim Carneys webside, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/business.htm . At the end of 2008 the value of CO2-quota, cap and trade, will be ca $ 126 bn, the origin mainly from Europe.By 2020 the value vil increase to $ 3.1 tn. But he the volume of trading will be about $ 20 tn, according to Matt Taibi´s essay in Rolling Stone. The Obama administrations is planning to sell CO2-quota for the amount of $ 646 bn.

    From other source I have learned that investment bank like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are positioning themselves for this market. The government in Norway now offer CO2-quotas to private person.

    Question is, can cap and trade have any influence on emmisions and global temperature. Probable very little. The calculated effect of the Kyoto Protocol was to lower the global mean temperature below 0,06 oC at 2050.

    The cost for every single person will be huge. In USA, for every family it will increase to about $ 4600 in 2035. In Norway we are paying 15 c pr liter of gasoline and oil in CO2-taxes. We have to pay for socalled green certificates, increased to $ 140 in 2020 to the utilities. From next year we have to pay a CO2-tax on our renewabel hydro electric power to EU. And the government is bying CO2-quotas for million of dollars, many of the scemes are obscure. The government tactic in Norway is to deversify the carbon taxes.

    Then back to Tim Carneys webside, how late Kenneth Lay, CEO of ENRON, was one of the main arcitects of the Kyoto Protocol and cap and trade. The 4th of August 1997 it was a decisive meeting in The White House, 3 months before the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. Attendees were Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ken Lay, Lord Browne of BP an 6 other energy executives. Kenneth Lay managed to convince the others that there should be a market approach to the reduction of anthropogenic gases. That was the reasen behind the artical 17 in the Kyoto Protocol, cap an trade.

    There are to important things to notice in TC webside. First, before the meeting in The White House, the Oil Industri was negativ to anthropogenic global warming, AGW. But, they became convinced, they could benefit of the new of cap and trade. THEY CHANGED THEIR POSITION IN 1997! The NGO´has not told us. Some years ago there was a big row in UK when a hospital had to by CO2-quotas, and from where they had their origin.

    The second point is that after 1997 the Big Oils started to support NGO´s financially. ENRON had knitted into new alliances and started to fund NGO´s like Greenpeece and World Wild Life Fund:

    From TC: In addition, Enron began to cultivate new friends in the environmental community. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation gave nearly $1 million to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promoted global warming theories. Another $1.5 million was donated to other groups advocating international controls to curb global warming, including Greenpeace.

    ENRON´s business plan was to parasite, profitt on the coal dependant industries:

    From TC: In 1997, Enron set about to promote an international treaty to impose cuts in CO2 emissions while allowing emission rights trading. Such an agreement would produce a gigantic windfall for Enron because it would boost the usage of natural gas at the expense of coal and it would help Enron’s growing commodity trading business.

    They created institusions that should marginalize AGW sceptics; Bjoern Lomberg became one of their victims:

    From TC: As the push for a treaty gained more support around the world, Enron CEO Ken Lay and other business leaders wrote to President Bill Clinton on September 1, 1998, asking him to create a bipartisan blue ribbon commission that would essentially shut off the scientific debate on global warming and discredit those scientists who opposed the treaty and did not support the global warming theory.

    ENRON studied AGW. The conclusion was not obvious, but they managed to attach the most prominent experts on the field:

    From TC: Simultaneously, Enron commissioned an internal study of global warming science, only to find the results did not support the theory. In conclusion, the report noted, “The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed.”A primary consultant for that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, the very same scientist who now castigates the Bush administration for its stance on Kyoto and who trashes scientists who dispute global warming as being in the hip pocket of big business. That certainly did not keep Mr. Hansen from cashing Enron’s check.

  71. SpencBC says:

    Clive Mather was on our campus here in BC last month schilling for CC and the CRU, with dire predictions and such. Turns out he is the former president of Shell Oil, and they call us ‘skeptics’ for big oil! Big oil is up to their necks in this boondogel!

    When I asked him why we should make such huge financial commitments based on bad science he responded, “I agree that the science is not settled but we have to do something”. Then he tried to turn the tables on me and said “what would you do?” To which I responded, “more and better science before I acted!” It did not sit well with him or, unfortunately, with many of my university colleagues. It blows me away how thoughtless and irrational PhD’s can sometimes be! If you can imagine, here was a guy in the humanities challenging the science, while my fellow science faculty members remained scilent. Amazing!

  72. Tim S. says:

    Google search results for “climategate” as of 4:35pm EST today:

    Results 1 – 10 of about 13,800,000 for climategate. (0.10 seconds)

    Earlier this morning, it was 30,000,000 — NOT 13,800,000.

    Perhaps there is a valid reason for this, but it seems odd because I have been watching it steadily grow all week long.

  73. SpencBC says:

    Well at least the kids vid ends appropriately. The last clip should be the lead clip!

  74. Dave says:

    Here’s showing where the big money is out. Obama handing out almost $1B right here:
    http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200912041510DOWJONESDJONLINE000671_FORTUNE5.htm
    Also it was Enron who promoted these sorts of things. A lot of people who are behind AGW don’t realize they’re getting in bed with Kenny Boy Lay…or for that matter all these other companies, like Shell, BP, Esso, etc as has already been pointed out. Paul Krugman worked for Enron, so is it any surprise he accuses others of being paid corporate shills as a form of projection? Krugman should own up and say how many billions/trillions of dollars are involved and what big businesses stand to gain.

  75. Ron de Haan says:

    The Dutch:
    http://climate-gate.com/email.php?eid=293&keyword=pavel
    Netherlands Centre of Excellence (partly virtual) institute, modelled after
    Tyndall. Leading parties in this effort are all well known to you:
    Wageningen (kabat)
    VU Amsterdam (vellinga)
    RIVM (metz)
    KNMI (Komen)
    ICIS (Rotmans)
    ECN (Bruggink)
    plus another almost 50 parties.

    Yesterday, in the middle of Climate Gate there was a renewed call from the Dutch to perform more climate research because the warming was accelerating and we alse were in need of further research into the thechnologies for CCS and clean energy.

    I think they have spend their 100.000.000 Euro budget and want fresh money!

  76. Paul Vaughan says:

    It shouldn’t come as a surprise to naive lefties that big oil supports fake environmental problems. The naivety is astounding.

  77. maz2 says:

    Relevant to Big Al?

    “Just as there is a Green Party everywhere – and that’s a poster case for an association of Pods – why not a Nonpod Party everywhere? ”

    “From Meccania to Atlantis – Part 1: The March of the Body Snatchers”

    “A good name already exists in literature’s archives. It is the fictional Meccania – an oppressive police tyranny regimented and controlled by the government as much as errant garbage recyclers are monitored by CCTV cameras in the UK, cartoonists are kept in check by the PC compliance pashas of Eurabia, and unruly bananas are proscribed by EC Commission Regulation No 2257/94.

    The neat thing is that Gregory Owen’s Meccania, the Super-State was published in 1918. And the other neat thing is that Meccania, probably attempting to conjure a mechanized society of the future, has the name Mecca in it.”

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3612

  78. CO2 Realist says:

    Nobody’s mentioned it, but I assume many of you saw the Shell ad campaign on the Scientific American website along with those two wonderful apologist stories on Climategate.

    It’s pretty hilarious. With a Shell ad in the right sidebar, there’s this in the copy:

    “That’s not something some folks want to see, primarily those working in the fossil fuel extraction and/or burning business.

    There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action.”

    In case the ads have changed, I’ve got it documented here:
    http://co2realist.com/2009/12/03/scientific-american-and-shell-partners-in-climate/

  79. Michael says:

    Good old fashioned Ice storms are back in the forecast for the North East too. The Weather Channel is so much fun to watch today.

  80. JoeFromBrazil says:

    My code:
    :
    ; Its free, and you can improve it:
    ;
    If (planet==cooling) {
    minusfood=true;
    morefamine=true;
    morediseases=true;
    if (youhidethis && saythatplanetiswarming) {
    youareacriminous=true;
    jailtoyou=true;
    algore=-nobel;
    copenhagen=false;
    WUWT++;
    }
    }

  81. hunter says:

    CO2 realist,
    Irony, thy name is climate gate.

  82. Indiana Bones says:

    I am now coining the term “Climavirus” as the underlying affliction of people who act in mild-mannered, sincere ways whilst spreading AGW propaganda. You can tell a person afflicted with Climavirus by their refusal to admit their AGW campaign went wrong. Or that ClimateGate has international impact. Or that climate change is a fabrication of a small cultist clan who hoped to bamboozle industrialized nations into paying for one-world socialism.

    People in the final stages of this disease are on the lookout for those uninfected. If they find such people – they quickly assume the pose of Donald Sutherland in the photo above. Creepy is Climavirus.

    NOTE: Climavirus is a fictional invention based on zero medical or scientific evidence – mostly.

  83. Indiana Bones says:

    I am coining the term “Climavirus” as the underlying affliction of people who act in mild-mannered, sincere ways whilst spreading AGW propaganda. You can tell a person afflicted with Climavirus by their refusal to admit their AGW campaign went wrong. Or that ClimateGate has international impact. Or that climate change is a fabrication of a small cultist clan who hoped to bamboozle industrialized nations into paying for one-world socialism.

    People in the final stages of this disease are on the lookout for those uninfected. If they find such people – they quickly assume the pose of Donald Sutherland in the photo above. Creepy is Climavirus.

    NOTE: Climavirus is a fictional invention based on zero medical or scientific evidence – mostly.

  84. StuartR says:

    It seems that there isn’t any stigma accepting Oil money if the money goes to the “right” scientists.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=204&filename=973374325.txt

    In this email exchange Mike Hulme is alerted by Simon J Shackley:

    “looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from
    this largesse?”

    Pretty sure TC is the Tyndall Centre which Mike Hulme was the founding Director 200-2007 acccording to http://mikehulme.org/

  85. twawki says:

    Aaaah Carbonhagen here we come – 2 weeks of vested interests – I wonder if big oil are attending?

  86. Eko says:

    I am this site for several years in France without learning to read English through translations of the net …
    My message is translated the same way …
    I beg you to excuse me for my imperfect message.
    I complained on the forums French complicity between the IPCC (IPCC English) and CEA (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique) has long been here but no one hears me?
    The CEA funds the IPCC and all agencies of climate research in France!
    It is time that someone in the U.S. survey on this subject, I think the biggest fish here at CEA …

    Thank you, I spent dozens of hours you read, is always with renewed pleasure that I return here.
    read comments from people of integrity gives me the balm to the heart.

    THANK YOU.

    Nobel peace: Researchers at the Laboratory of Climate and the Environment (LSCE), Saclay have participated in the IPCC:

    http://www-centre-saclay.cea.fr/fr/fr/La-recherche/Actualites-scientifiques-de-Saclay/Prix-Nobel-de-la-paix-Des-chercheurs-du-Laboratoire-des-sciences-du-climat-et-de-l-environnement-LSCE-de-Saclay-ont-participe-aux-travaux-du-GIEC

    Welcome to LSCE:

    http://www.lsce.ipsl.fr/

    CEA :

    http://www.cea.fr/le_cea/actualites/evolution_preoccupante_du_taux_de_co2_present_da-4500

  87. How can we get Obama to know that we do not want any part of the Copenhagen treaty with its world goverment control, wealth redistribution and control and taxes?

  88. R Taylor says:

    PhilW (13:26:29)
    ____________________
    Just don’t watch it with an Illegal Smile.

  89. Chris says:

    Made a comment on climate progress. Since they were only 3 positive replies, I’m assuming romm is deleting negative posts. Wonder how long mine stays up?

  90. April E. Coggins says:

    Dear Mr. Matthews,
    Unfortunately Phil Jones is travelling and will probably be unable to offer a separate reply. Since your comments involve work that is his as well, I have therefore taken the liberty of copying your inquiry and this reply to several of his British colleagues. The comparisons made in our paper are well explained therein, and your statements belie the clearly-stated qualifications in our conclusions with regard to separate analyses of the Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and globe. An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that the comments you refer to are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-reviewed
    literature, but rather, on a website that, according to published accounts, is run by individuals sponsored by ExxonMobile corportation, hardly an objective source of information.

    Owing to pressures on my time, I will not be able to respond to any further inquiries from you. Given your extremely poor past record of reporting on climate change issues, however, will leave you with some final words. Professional journalists I am used to dealing with do not rely upon un-peer-reviewed claims off internet sites for their sources ofinformation. They rely instead on peer-reviewed scientific research, and mainstream, rather
    than fringe, scientific opinion. Sincerely,
    Michael E. Mann

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=362&filename=1065125462.txt

  91. Tim S. says:

    @Indiana Bones (13:56:47) :

    “NOTE: Climavirus is a fictional invention based on zero medical or scientific evidence – mostly.”

    Members of the Church of Climatology are known carriers of this virus.

  92. Ray says:

    Indiana Bones (13:56:47) :

    Give the patient some Climacillium and a few Tylenols.

  93. Ray says:

    Indiana Bones (13:56:47) :

    or… Climacillin (for the drug).

  94. David says:

    CO2 Realist (13:46:36) :

    Well, the ad is only there because we exposed the big oil conspiracy, and now they are trying to make us a part of it. You see, the same hackers that put these emails out also hacked in to our website and put that ad up. Then they hacked a bunch of fake checks into our bank account. No, really! They are trying to distract you from the truth. The truth that the Earth is warming because it suspects the oil companies too.

  95. David says:

    I am sure that C&T has nothing to do with this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=F07

    Hey, who is in charge of handling the carbon credits?

  96. Leon Brozyna says:

    Hypocrisy, thy name is legion.

  97. manfredkintop says:

    “I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

    The Bard’s “Scottish Play” succinctly comments on the psychology of wrongdoing.

    Those of us who read or studied Macbeth know the eventuality of it’s title character.

  98. April E. Coggins says:

    Mike

    BGS are now on board, so please leave them in the text : I have drafted a
    letter for David Falvey to sign and sent it. I hope we shall get it back in
    time…

    The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they’re having to get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer )just a few weeks ago, so we’ve had to work around the new CE, to whom all this is news…). They know the deadline and will do their best for us.

    Finally, my short informal CV is attached, as requested.

    Hope the drafting is coming together well.

    John

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=159&filename=951431850.txt

  99. vukcevic says:

    For WUWT attention:
    MET OFFICE TO RE-EXAMINE 160 YEARS OF CLIMATE DATA
    From The Times December 5, 2009
    Ben Webster, Environment Editor
    The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/article6945445.ece

  100. D. King says:

    Indiana Bones (13:56:47) :
    Tim S. (14:15:44) :
    Ray (14:16:07) :

    We are the three….Climanistas!
    Arrrriba!

    You guys are killing me.

  101. Rowgeo says:

    Here is an interesting article referring to a Royal Society communication to ExxonMobil a few years back demanding ‘that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.’

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business

    Another interesting quote in the same article comes from Christopher Rapley (Science Museum Prove It! campaign) in the last paragraph:

    ‘The Royal Society’s move emerged as Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, warned that the polar ice caps were breaking up at a faster rate than glaciologists thought possible, with profound consequences for global sea levels. Professor Rapley said the change was almost certainly down to global warming. “It’s like opening a window and seeing what’s going on and the message is that it’s worse than we thought,” he said.’

  102. Jimbo says:

    I am lost for words. The utter hypocracy stinks to high heavens. I have just bookmarked the emails just in case I am accused of being supported by oil. In fact where’s my check?

  103. jh says:

    Prof Watson of UEA having bleated about character asasination on BBC Newsnight was heard to remark at the end of the interview with Morita? – ex Senate Climate Cttee – “What an *sshole!”

    Nice touch

  104. Not much ClimateGate news in Norwegian media today. They are still silent and are more interested in when and how long Obama stays in Oslo for the so called peace prize. And of course they continue to send the usuall green propaganda.

    However one interesting report on the main state TV channel today talked about the close connection between the Norwegian green organizations and big business, including Statoil.
    It seams to me that this is more a form of protection money for bad press and blackmail than as a mean of free money contribution.
    The greens here, well they are not short of money.

    Here is the link !
    You can go to Google and have it translated

  105. Trev says:

    A professor Watson from UEA had a confrontation with A US sceptic, on BBC Newsnight (4 Dec) – in the dying second as the thing wound up he muttered ‘what an asshole’

    Sums up the unwillingness of the AGW brigade to engage. They are blinkered arogant and pompous in their outlook and in the case of UEA probably scared shitless at what an enquiry will find.

  106. Onion says:

    Newsnight bbc2 just now

    hilarious – an argument between a UEA prof andrew Watson and marc morano ( communications director us senate environmental committee)

    the uk prof accuses sceptics of relying on ad hominem attacks, tells the other guy to shut up, and just as they finish says “what an asshole”. He also admits not knowing anything about data deletion

    excellent. Should be available on the BBC website soon (sorry I can’t YouTube this)

  107. vukcevic says:

    re: MET OFFICE TO RE-EXAMINE 160 YEARS OF CLIMATE DATA
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
    link inoperative.

    The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
    The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
    The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
    The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
    The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.
    The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.
    Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.
    The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.
    The development will add to fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.
    The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.

  108. UKIP says:

    Did anyone catch the end of Newsnight (BBC2 10:35pm ish)?

    I’m sure a professor at East Anglia called Marc Morano an a**hole live on air. Did I catch that right?

  109. Jimbo says:

    Just found this thread on the BBC. Around 80% + of comments are sceptical of AGW!!! Is the tide turning?

    “Will the climate change e-mail claims affect Copenhagen?”
    http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7310&edition=2&ttl=20091204223149

  110. Andew P. says:

    OT but breaking news – just seen Morano verses Watson on Newsnight (BBC2m UK). After bizarrely accusing the sceptics of charactor assasinations rather than science – Watson was clearly heard stating “what an asshole” at the end of the discussion! Good to finally see the BBC finally covering clomategate (and Channel 4 earlier this evening) but both interviewers were clearly uninformed/biased – in that they only mentioned the emails, when the real meat is in the programmers’ code and notes.

  111. Jeremy says:

    Oil Companies are like anybody else. They are run by people. They have been duped just as much as anyone. Even their own science experts jumped on the “end-of-the-world” bandwagon – it makes for puffing out your chest, it sure beats another petrochemical patent for cracking hydrocarbons and being able to sound real important at global conferences and executive tables and those who shout loud enough are often so good they can be promoted to “distinguished lecturer” at the Society of Petroleum Engineers.

    Big Oil is run by people – just like you or me – they are just as gullible – and please don’t forget – they are doing a service to mankind – they are often far more environmentally conscious than all other market sectors because of the risks involved and the sensitivity of the public to oil spills. Their people are extremely hard working and passionate about the good work they do. Remember that energy produces the food we eat and transports it to market, not to mention heating our homes. The days of Rockefeller and secret behavior & collusion of Big Oil is long long long over…

  112. Jeremy says:

    Oil Companies are like anybody else. They are run by people. They have been duped just as much as anyone. Even their own science experts jumped on the “end-of-the-world” bandwagon – it makes for puffing out your chest, it sure beats another obscure petrochemical patent for cracking hydrocarbons. The science experts at big oil jumped on the AGW chance to be able to sound real important at global conferences and executive tables and those who shout loud enough are often so good they can be promoted to “distinguished lecturer” at the Society of Petroleum Engineers.

    Big Oil is run by people – just like you or me – they are just as gullible – and please don’t forget – they are doing a service to mankind – they are often far more environmentally conscious than all other market sectors because of the risks involved and the sensitivity of the public to oil spills. Their people are extremely hard working and passionate about the good work they do as well as being more often Green than not. Remember that energy produces the food we eat and transports it to market, not to mention heating our homes. The days of Rockefeller and secret behavior & collusion of Big Oil is long long long over…

  113. Sean Peake says:

    There has GOT to be another batch of “editor’s choice” emails and files coming. Maybe they will incriminate Choo-Choo Pachauri and the UN Cabel?

  114. John M says:

    Oil, shcmoil.

    I’ve just discovered the evil force behind this whole thing!

    It’s dry ice manufacturers! They’re plotting to force the world to capture CO2, thereby flooding the market with their cheap raw material. Then, they have colluded with government officials to popularize cheap parlor tricks thatconsume dry ice, thereby increasing the market for their product.

    Cheap raw material, bigger market. They’ll make a fortune!

    Don’t believe me?

    (Zoom to ~4:30)

  115. Bill Schulte says:

    OT but
    Am I the only one who had to watch the video 30 or so times before I noticed the bunny slippers?
    Tree right away, deer eventually, but did not notice the slippers until I got to wondering why two bunny rabbits.

  116. Chris S says:

    Jh

    Just watched that….brilliant. I thought the CRU Prof was debating Morano though. The presenter, Martha Kearney just had to apologize for the bad language.
    Soon to be seen on youtube (and here I guess) the Prof makes a real fool of himself.

  117. Phil A says:

    As I understand it, here in the UK the oil companies are busy making millions selling carbon credits e.g. to our National Health Service (it doesn’t have to make sense, it’s to save the planet…). I’ve also heard that whilst oil does suffer somewhat in usage under proposed AGW restrictions, they do also have the key effects of boosting demand for gas, reducing demand for coal and raising the price of both oil and gas – all of which are good for the oil companies.

    So why wouldn’t the oil companies now want to push the AGW agenda?

  118. AMW says:

    @UKIP Yes, I nearly fell off my sofa laughing. I’ve watched it several times. What is particularly delicious is that his whole beef with Mark Morano (who completely wiped the floor with Watson) was that the skeptic’s only device was character assassination! What with him and Bob Ward being annihilated by the chap from the Spectator, it’s been a good day! :-)

  119. For WUWT attention:
    MET OFFICE TO RE-EXAMINE 160 YEARS OF CLIMATE DATA
    From The Times December 5, 2009
    Ben Webster, Environment Editor
    The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/article6945445.ece

    That’s interesting, but I get a 404 Error when I try that link….

  120. Ron de Haan says:

    Andew P. (14:57:38) :
    Do you have a link?

  121. Trev says:

    “interviewers were clearly uninformed/biased – in that they only mentioned the emails, when the real meat is in the programmers’ code and notes.”

    Correct – but the BBC talking heads are terminally ignorant and self satisfied in their approach to ALL interviews no matter what the content. We can guarantee they are ill informed – which would be fine except they think they are so clever.

    Sorry if I sound like a UEA scientist.

    PS
    Gosh – I thought ‘I’ was quick re[porting the ‘asshole’ comment !!

    needless to say there was only one asshole on Newsnight tonight.

  122. snopercod says:

    Major integrated oil companies have long been supporters of the ‘environmental movement’.

    Chevron, Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. fund these groups which clamor (and sue) for tighter ‘environmental’ restrictions, with the intent of raising the barrier to market entry. This keeps out any possible smaller competitors and protects their monopoly.

    I thought people would have caught on to this scam by now.

  123. P Walker says:

    The environmentalists have blamed “Big Oil” for almost everything that has happened in the world ( at least everything they hate ) for the last forty years . They have passed that hatred down to the next generation of eco types who have become even more radical in their beliefs . In the process , the petroleum industry has gone from being the scapegoat for the environmentalist’s failures to the Satan of the new dogma . It would never occur to these people to examine their own hypocrisy .

  124. View from the Solent says:

    There’s even a MS error routine for it. The MMGW BSOD. (scroll down a little)

    http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-happens-when-you-run-climate.html

    (mods, feel free to snip the following, contains potentially offensive language)

    And more on googlegate

    http://grumpyoldtwat.blogspot.com/2009/12/googlegate.html

  125. John Lish says:

    vukcevic (14:28:32) :
    HadCRUT being abandoned by the Met Office this quickly is surprising. Perhaps some sense of professional pride still exists there. To blame it on public confidence is a slight of hand…

  126. TerrySkinner says:

    Another politician frantically ties himself to a sinking ship. From:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6729833/Gordon-Brown-climate-change-sceptics-are-flat-earthers.html
    “Mr Brown last night insisted that the science on climate change in settled, and accused those who question the consensus of being outdated.”

    He said: “With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.” ”

    For those in other countries Mr Brown is Gordon Brown the British Prime Minister who single handedly saved the world last year at the time of the Banking crisis.

    I know many politicians are rogues. The trouble with the present lot is that they seem to be very stupid rogues. Blair and Clinton were pretty slick and slippery but I never got the impression that either was a half-wit.

    I don’t know who I will vote for next year but I know who I won’t vote for.

    I think this tells us what will happen to the Downing Street petition.

  127. Dave says:

    It turns out that Obama is paying Mann as part of the stimulus:
    http://online.worldmag.com/2009/12/04/stimulating-climategate/
    Also undermining AGW as “settled” here’s a $15 million dollar grant for cloud modelling:
    “The goal of MMAP is to break the ‘deadlock’ that has stalled the progress of climate research for several decades. Climate models are physically based and include representations of the atmosphere, the ocean, the land-surface, and the cryosphere. They run on the most powerful computers available. They are now providing predictions of future climate change due to anthropogenic changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. These predictions are being used as input to policy decisions that have enormous economic implications for the U.S. and the world. It has been true for decades now that our inability to simulate the interactions of clouds with large-scale atmospheric circulations is one of the most important limitations on the reliability of climate-change simulations…The legacy of MMAP will include important new modeling tools that will provide substantially more reliable predictions of anthropogenic climate change.”
    http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0425247
    Looks like “Hockey Stick” Mann also got money for reconstructions (the grant is still active):
    “The rationale behind the research is that quantitative comparison of reconstructions and simulations of climate over the past two millennia can provide an assessment of the extent to which natural and anthropogenic forcing can explain observed patterns of climatic change.”
    http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0542356

  128. Paul Vaughan says:

    Phil A (15:14:55) “So why wouldn’t the oil companies now want to push the AGW agenda?”

    And so, slowly, lights started coming on.

    People started realizing: 2+2=4

    … just a little too late to stop the capitalist schemes that are well-underway. [ :

    Staggering to see how many lefties whole-heartedly & naively bought into what has been a right-wing ploy all along.

    i.e. watch the spin change the narrative now…

  129. Roger says:

    I thought this thread was as likely a place as any for this post. It looks like George Soros is also looking to get on the “Big Oil” payola:

    Hedge Funds Bet High Oil, Snap Up Suncor
    By Scott Haggett

    (Reuters) – Some of the largest hedge funds are betting heavily that high oil prices are here to stay as they have added to stakes in Suncor Energy Inc., one of the large-cap energy stocks most sensitive to the price of oil.

    Among those increasing their stakes in the third quarter were George Soros’ Soros Fund Management LLC, which snapped up an additional two million shares, and Richard Chilton’s Chilton Investment Co., which added 42,000 shares, according to data compiled by Thomson Reuters.

    Suncor, fresh off its $22.5 billion friendly acquisition of Petro-Canada, is one of the largest owners of oilsands in the world — as much as 22 billion bbls’ worth, or almost three billion bbls more than the entire proven oil reserves of the United States.

    But because oil in the Canadian sands is among the most difficult and expensive to extract, Suncor’s value can seesaw dramatically as the price of oil rises and falls. Back in May 2008, as oil was hitting $120 a bbl, Suncor’s stock topped $70 only to tumble below $20 six months later when the price of oil collapsed. The stock has since climbed back to $37.

    “Suncor is viewed as among the companies best-levered to oil prices,” said Chris Feltin, an analyst at Macquarie Securities Canada. “It provides the highest leverage to increasing or decreasing oil prices.”

    That leverage has attracted plenty of buyers to Canada’s largest energy producer. Suncor was the most popular new purchase in the third quarter among the largest equity hedge funds, according to data compiled by Thomson Reuters.

    Along with Soros and Chilton, Diamondback Capital Management LLC and other funds also boosted their Suncor stakes over the quarter, with Diamondback adding 386,000 shares. Representatives of those funds declined comment or could not be reached.

    “By its sheer size, it attracts a lot of attention,” said William Lacey, an analyst at FirstEnergy Capital. “But it also has its focus and its go-forward growth plan within the oilsands business.”

    Buying Petro-Canada, a once state-owned oil company whose shares had suffered as it expanded globally and repeatedly failed to meet profit forecasts, brought Suncor two new Canadian refineries, the second-largest chain of retail gas stations and new oil and natural gas production in Canada, the United States, the North Sea and elsewhere.

    But the driver behind the deal was the heft the expanded company brought to the oilsands of northern Alberta. After completing planned asset sales of $2 billion to $4 billion, 65% of Suncor’s production will come from oilsands, up from 50% now, Chief Executive Rick George said last month.

    Canada’s oilsands have the largest oil reserve outside the Middle East but exploiting the resource is expensive and technically challenging.

    The multibillion-dollar oilsands projects have been buffeted by severe inflation, with costs rising 50% or more from their original budgets, as producers competed for scarce materials and skilled labor.

    The rampant inflation and technical challenges make the oilsands one of the most expensive sources of oil. More than $100 billion worth of projects planned for the region were canceled, delayed or deferred after oil prices plunged last year because of the recession.

    But Suncor’s new size brings economies of scale. The company estimates that buying Petro-Canada shaved $400 million in combined operating costs and saved $1 billion in capital expenditures, along with giving the market power to command lower costs from suppliers.

    The company, which expects to produce 300,000 bbls of oil per day from its oilsands operations, said in November it aims to boost production by as much as 12% per year through 2020 and make a 15% profit from its operations with oil prices at $70 per bbl.

    © Reuters 2009.

  130. Roger says:

    This is the link to the original Reuters article:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B24ZV20091203

  131. Ray says:

    D. King (14:32:30) :

    Lots of new words can be invented from this…

    Here is a new one;

    Climatlantis: a place that exists only in imagination; a place said to exist in fictional or religious writings.

  132. Michael says:

    On Youtube I searched “Solar Minimum” and my video came up at the top of the list. If you want to have your video at top of the list, make a video with Solar Minimum in the title.
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=solar+minimum&search_type=&aq=f

  133. Brian Macker says:

    The shakedown. Pay us a little lot of money and we won’t make a stink. Another of the pecuniary benefits of crying wolf.

  134. Lindsay H. says:

    could someone please rebut this article in New Scientist yesterday

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?full=true

    They buy their whitewash by the barrel

  135. Michael says:

    A WUWT Solar Minimum Youtube video contest explaining the current solar minimum and its connection to climate would be pretty cool.

  136. James F. Evans says:

    The banality of evil is the best camouflage of all.

  137. Michael says:

    I would be willing to donate $50 toward in a Chipin or tip jar to pay Solar Minimum video contest winners.

  138. Roger says:

    illya (16:31:57) :
    That story has all of the regular poo!
    News flash! Somebody tried to infiltrate a building posing as someone legit and steal wallets! er, DATA, yeah, yeah, they tried to steal data, that was it. No reputable or confirmed sources, mind you. Just inuendo, including BIG OIL!

  139. Buddenbrook says:

    This is just chilling. From the Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

    “The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.”

    The Times should be pressed for their source on this claim, and if validated, then this should be top news. Unbeliveable.

  140. April E. Coggins says:

    Exxon-Led Group Is Giving a Climate Grant to Stanford
    by Andrew Revkin

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm

    Big Oil has been a supporter of the pro-global warming crowd for a long time.
    Google your favorite research university and Exxon has probably donated money to it for “climate change” research.

  141. Gail Combs says:

    Greg S (11:46:29) :

    A partial list of CRU financial backers.

    British Petroleum,
    Eastern Electricity,
    Greenpeace International,
    Leverhulme Trust,
    National Power,
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
    Shell,
    Sultanate of Oman,
    World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)

    Interesting!

    Then checkout WHO funds WWF
    Goldman Environmental Foundation, Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller foundations(4)

    And Greenpeace
    the Rockefeller foundations(4) Among others

    It is fun to browse through the foundations (click at the top) at activist cash to see who is in the pay of whom. http://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/103

  142. DeNihilist says:

    How about just maybe finally, an economical way to produce hydrogen?

    http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/021

  143. Gail Combs says:

    JEM (11:58:11) :

    …Want to get people’s attention? Start by banning carbonated soft drinks. More health benefit than a world of cap-and-trade laws.

    What a brilliant Idea. Maybe we should campaign to get those soft drinks banned INSTEAD of cap and trade. At least it directly addresses the supposed problem and does not hurt people….

    Let us see Barbara Boxer et al try and wiggle out of that one.

  144. MikeE says:

    Gordon Brown is not a half-wit – he is probably smarter than Blair was, and better-informed – it’s just that he’s terminally unluckly, at least as leader (he had a good run of luck as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but now even that’s blown up in his face as the financial meltdown is seen as having been conceived while on his financial watch).

    His nailing his colours so firmly to the good ship Man-Made-Global-Warming will surely hole it beneath the water line (“No Gordon, that’s not the sea rising, it’s the ship sinking!).

  145. Dave says:

    If journalists were to do their job they could make Obama and other politicians real uncomfortable. For instance someone could ask Obama (or other high ranking politician) what the carbon footprint of:
    1) The war in Afghanistan
    2) The military in general
    3) The federal government
    Then if they can’t answer ask why not given what they are trying to do us. If they do give some answer, then ask what the carbon offsets will cost. Of course Obama isn’t going to subject himself to what private businesses are going to have to pay, so he’ll say he wont offset the massive carbon he’s putting out to fight the war in Afghanistan, the military in general or the entire federal government. It could make Obama and a number of others who support Copenhagen very uncomfortable because it will look like they’re applying a huge double standard on one hand while on the other hand it would show how crushing the cost could be (I’d expect the cost to the federal budget would exacerbate the deficit) if the federal government (or just the military) had to buy carbon offsets, like what they want to impose on the public.

    Here’s an article talking about the carbon footprint of the Iraq war and the Pentagon in general:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/27/ethicalliving.carbonfootprints
    It looks like they have a HUGE footprint (the military consumes more oil than most countries), but you aren’t going to hear Obama taking responsible for his own use and all the heat he’d get on running up the deficit…he’ll just do that to businesses.

  146. Noelene says:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
    Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

  147. Paul Vaughan says:

    illya (16:31:57) “Anybody know anything about this new hack? True or not: http://www.desmogblog.com/breaking-impersonators-attempt-access-canadian-government-centre-for-climate-modeling-and-analysis

    That is alarmism at its best.

    That is a standard practice of thieves operating on university campuses. At a university where I had a contract a few years ago, thieves would pull tricks like that and make off with thousands of dollars worth of goodies. I remember one case where a $10000 projector was taken down in front of a whole lecture theater full of students, as the prof lectured. No one asked for ID. E-mails from angry administrators then went out saying: “Ask for ID.” Thieves usually flee if/when asked for ID.

    It’s not uncommon to see these leaps of reasoning from alarmists. Here the logic seems to be: They left when asked for ID; therefore they must be associated with climategate. Perfectly logical (by some standards).

  148. Back2Bat says:

    Gail Combs (17:08:16) :

    What a brilliant Idea. Maybe we should campaign to get those soft drinks banned INSTEAD of cap and trade. At least it directly addresses the supposed problem and does not hurt people….

    CO2 is a byproduct of fermentation…

    AGW folk, I double triple dare you!

  149. Philemon says:

    “snopercod (15:34:56) :
    Major integrated oil companies have long been supporters of the ‘environmental movement’.
    Chevron, Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. fund these groups which clamor (and sue) for tighter ‘environmental’ restrictions, with the intent of raising the barrier to market entry. This keeps out any possible smaller competitors and protects their monopoly.
    I thought people would have caught on to this scam by now.”

    Are you implying that Rockefeller support for environmental causes is not entirely altruistic?

    Next you’ll be telling me the Easter Bunny is a fertility symbol!

  150. Ron de Haan says:

    The BBC is testing if their years of publishing alarmist climate stories are effected by ClimateGate and if it will influence Copenhagen:

    If you sign in you can leave a message:
    http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7310&edition=2&ttl=20091205011807

  151. Gail Combs says:

    INGSOC (12:09:55) :

    …. I believe the political left in North America has also been corrupted by the same conniving wannabee dictators. I know a poor few friends that are still “left of centre” that are also skeptics, but are more or less without political affiliation due to their adherence to truth; and the sorry lack of a party on the left that places honesty before a corrupt ideology.

    Things are looking up though!

    AHhh an enlightened one. Yes the Megalomaniacs figured out they could hide behind environmentalism and socialism to use Political Activists to gain money and power. The UN NGOs are the perfect vehicle to seduce bright young things into thinking they are saving the world while advancing the UN s power plays.

    Once you see that it is clear the democrats are used for the big steps forward. The Federal Reserve Act in 1913, The World Trade Organization in 1995 and now Copenhagen. All are about handing control of money, then food and trade and now energy over to an elite cabal.

    Simple really once you catch on.

  152. Michael Jankowski says:

    RE: PhilW (13:26:29) ,

    LOL! Suzanne at the start sounds like Jennifer Lopez from “Taco Flovored Kisses”

  153. P Wilson says:

    On an entertaining note, read this from Ed Milliband’s petition page:

    “We, the undersigned, believe climate change is real and man-made, as demonstrated by the science, and we must take action as citizens of Doncaster to tackle climate change. Doing so is necessary for the environment and future generations, and can be good for our economy and society.”

    so climate change is man made, and can all be remedied from Doncaster. (Population: 67,977)

  154. Dave says:

    “‘The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.’
    The Times should be pressed for their source on this claim, and if validated, then this should be top news. Unbeliveable.”

    From the show “Yes Minister!”:
    “If people don’t know what you’re doing, they don’t know what you’re doing wrong.”
    “The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets it is to protect officials.”
    Since when did the FOIA have anything to do with who was receiving it? I noticed this same thing said by Ben Santer when CRU and others were coordinating their FOIA obstruction…it doesn’t matter who are why people are asking for it, the FOIA isn’t just for the government to give the information to only the people it likes!

  155. rbateman says:

    And finally, news of ClimateGate hits MSM. Our local ABC station carried the story of the Hollywood conservatives wanting to yank Al Gore’s Oscar over the global warming scandal.
    Oooohhhh!

  156. Gail Combs says:

    Remember folks it is us not the corporations that will end up paying for all of this. A company makes a profit, changes their business so they make a profit or they go out of business. None of the oil/coal companies stand to lose from any of this just the poor and middle class who have another tax added to their backs while the bankers and politicians make more money.

  157. Roger says:

    Buddenbrook (17:01:27) :

    “This is just chilling. From the Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

    “The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.” ”

    This is “cheering news, in a strange way….”
    I was waiting for an disinterested but affected party to realize their jeopardy and the Met has. If this is to be a transparent re-assesment, as they claim, it is what skeptic and alarmist alike should relish!

  158. AdderW says:

    Noelene (17:14:54) :

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
    Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

    Hopefully they will invite people from “both sides of the fence” as well as posting their progress in every detail as it develops so everything is wide open.
    Transparency will be a must otherwise this will go on for ever.

  159. Bill Illis says:

    Does the story from the TimesOnline say the UK Met Office just threw the Hadcrut temperature series under the bus? Because they can’t trust it?

    It is going to take them three years to re-do it?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

    To that I say, it is about time. The ClimateGate emails really seem to be waking people up (even those in the catastrophic global warming Met Office).

  160. John Simpson says:

    Whats up with climateGate on Twitter. No posts?

  161. INGSOC says:

    Paul Vaughan (16:08:36) :

    “Staggering to see how many lefties whole-heartedly & naively bought into what has been a right-wing ploy all along.

    i.e. watch the spin change the narrative now…”

    Intriguing. I would point out however, that getting one’s enemies to “carry water for the cause” is an Alinskyite tactic, played masterfully by those behind neo-environmentalism. I would argue that it is the right that has been naive in falling for such a ploy. I do marvel at the fiendish genius behind the neo-enviro movement. It took a long time to pull the curtains open and reveal the lies and skulduggery that make up the agw confidence trick. And as you say, it may well be too late to stop it now! Now the right is going to have to weasel out of something they didn’t really believe in anyway. Truly brilliant tactics. The supposed admissions and pronouncements that have been occurring today are, I believe, just the start of a major PR offensive by the warmists. They aren’t finished yet! After all, it is clear from the fine article above that the eco-deist’s have Shell Oil among others to finance their deceit: As well as the force of government in many nations. It has become “too big to fail” in their eyes.

    I still remain guardedly optimistic.

  162. ROM says:

    For what it is worth, I believe I recall that Cool Climate, the releaser of the files also said or implied that there is more information and possibly some further files to be released sometime in the future.
    It is known that there are still a lot of e-mails from CRU that are not in the currently released file.
    One of those still missing e-mails was Jones somewhat infamous e-mail to Warwick Hughes of the “Errors in IPCC climate science” blog where Jones simply dismisses Hughes request for data with the contemptuous ” Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. … Cheers Phil”

    Could get even more interesting if Cool Climate decides to go for the kill regardless of the personal consequences and releases another file or files and further lot of coding.

  163. Gail Combs says:

    manfredkintop (14:24:53) :Said

    “I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more,…

    Speaking of blood this quote is more appropriate for Copenhagen since I am sure members past or present of the IMF will be there.

    “”Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal.

    With those words, Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF)… “

  164. Bulldust says:

    I love the way Gavin Schmidt is fighting a running battle on RC now that they finally decided not to moderate non-consensus views. He thinks the CRU emails aren’t a big deal, and it will all blow away. That and the fact that he is ever so unbiased in his position, of course. Laughable …

  165. Mike Lorrey says:

    MattN (12:09:29) :

    “I believe I read one where they also met with Siemens.”

    That is one that actually makes sense, as Siemens is huge in nuclear power. Shell is getting into solar power, and has an interest in seeing coal shut down. Virtually all the corporations supporting CRU and other AGW alarmist advocate “researchers” stand to benefit from the elimination of coal as a legal energy source. Coal is such a huge part of most country’s energy infrastructure that its elimination means the other sources of power will see huge rate increases due to scarcity.

    China and India won’t play ball, because their energy systems are generally monopolized so there are no competitors in those nations that stand to benefit from ditching coal.

    I predict that Copenhagen fails, the US ditches cap and trade, China, Brazil, India all tell the IPCC to take a hike. However if/when EMC2 Inc releases to the Navy a positive report on the current round of polywell fusion experiments, you will see movement to ban coal and install polywell reactors in those power plants. Should be late 2010 when we hear something on that.

  166. al-Husayn says:

    Several of the oil companies are among those pushing for the carbon reduction initiatives. Both Shell and BP are fully behind cap and trade for example. Shell is even lobbying the U.S. govt. to remove of any restrictions on carbon credit trading and asking for the allowal of trade in financial derivatives/toxic paper.

    Shells wants very badly to trade in some of those sweet sweet derivaties. Exxon Mobil on the other hand, apparently favours a carbon tax.
    http://www.theage.com.au/business/cfd/shell-calls-for-derivatives-on-carbon-trading-20091117-ij67.html

  167. twawki says:

    Google has ensured that if you are skeptical about global warming alarmism then you DONT have a vote. On the tails of being accused of censoring online searches through restricting autosuggest on Climategate Google’s new actions now show that they are really only interested in one side of the debate – and its not your side!

    more here; http://www.twawki.com

  168. Zorro says:

    LOL, this just in.

    US President Barack Obama has changed his plans to attend the UN summit on climate change, and will be in Copenhagen at the end of the conference rather than the beginning.

    The White House says Mr Obama has moved his appearance from 9 December to 18 December after talks with other leaders and after seeing progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations, the BBC reports.

    The White House says he believes “continued US leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference”.

  169. This may already have been picked up–
    From the Times (London)
    Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

  170. maz2 says:

    Breach in MSM coverup of AGW/CRU fraud.
    …-

    “Breach in global-warming bunker shakes foundations of climate science

    Leaked e-mails from Britain’s Climatic Research Unit threaten to undermine Copenhagen summit on carbon emissions”

    “a crisis of confidence in global-warming science that is threatening to destroy the political consensus around next week’s carbon-policy summit in Copenhagen.”

    “On a political level, coming on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, the controversy has been catastrophic”.

    “Saudi Arabian officials now say that they will argue in Copenhagen that carbon-emission controls are pointless because the CRU scandal has nullified any evidence of human-caused atmospheric temperature increase.”

    “Unusually, even sympathetic scientists and some activists have concluded that the credibility of climate science has been seriously harmed.”

    “Prof. Hulme is one of several scientists calling for the raw data of climate-change research to be made available to everyone, including climate-change skeptics, on the Internet.”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/breach-in-global-warming-bunker-shakes-foundations-of-climate-science/article1389842/

  171. Lucas Taylor says:

    Canada’s national newspaper, the Globe and Mail:
    “If you think that calling global warming an irrational mania is a bit harsh, consider this: Say that a pharmaceutical company’s researchers were caught fudging their tests to make their drug look effective; then, when found out, conveniently lost the non-fudged data. If a doctor prescribed for your child the fraudsters’ drug, would you let her take it? If you said yes, would we not be justified in saying you are acting irrationally?”

    http://bit.ly/6l27U5

    There is no way that a few months ago something like this would make it to this paper. This is a huge turn of events – the MSM are realizing that they quite simply cannot longer ignore this story. The tipping point has been reached.

  172. jorgekafkazar says:

    Speaking of Climategate and Invasion of the Body Snatchers:

    “…But it is the preceding scene – of McCarthy madly trying to flag down cars on a motorway and warn their inhabitants of the pending alien menace – that is the hallmark horror of Siegel’s version, and the leitmotif of all versions since: the lone voice of truth in an unbelieving world, fleeing the lies and easy conceit of a common enemy….” (text by Martin Anderson)

    Eerie. He even got the Mc part.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/8781/versions_invasion_of_the_body_snatchers.html

  173. FWIW I don’t see anything on the Met Office site announcing a re-evaluation of the surface data.

  174. illya says:

    Roger (16:58:40) :

    Thx for the info! It’s sometimes hard to check the facts from the other side of the globe and our dear alarmist friends seem to use every argument they can get hold of nowadays.

  175. Patrick Davis says:

    OT, but finally some MSM attention to “leaked” e-amils:

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-email-mess-hits-australia-20091204-kb39.html

    Only a few weeks late, but still Tiger Woods is headline news *sigh*

  176. brokenstick says:

    LOL. Great pic and great catch.

    Their hypocrisy has no bounds. I love it!

  177. rbateman says:

    Anthony: I finally got a reply from NOAA on the missing data from Weaverville 049490.
    They needed to know when the person named was supposed to be the observer, and they will research it.
    049490 CA 01 WEAVERVILLE RS TRINITY
    049490 01 01 1871 06 30 1893 000000000000000 40 44 122 56 999 999 2050 9999 999 WEAVERVILLE 000000000000000100000000000000000000 9999 9999 1000000000000000 GEORGE E NOONAN 00
    049490 01 01 1894 05 31 1894 000000000000000 40 44 122 56 999 999 2050 9999 999 WEAVERVILLE 010000110000000100000000000000000000 9999 9999 0000000000000000 GUSSIE L STILLER
    and they confirmed the above was correct.

    They needed to know when the person named was supposed to be the observer, and they will research it.
    This could be good.

    REPLY: The guy who ran the drug store in downtown Weaverville. Died about three years ago. His wife has been trying to keep it up, but has been ill too. See the photos in the gallery.surfacestations.org, may help you place it. The sensor is at his house, near the garage. -A

  178. Back2Bat says:

    Gail Combs (17:35:04) :

    None of the oil/coal companies stand to lose from any of this just the poor and middle class who have another tax added to their backs while the bankers and politicians make more money.

    The Great Depression led to WWII. Despite his boasting, Bernanke is powerless to fix the economy. It could not be otherwise since an economy is too complicated for top down control (socialist calculation problem). The PTB had better realize the peril that a Greater Depression will put them in too and LET GO.

    Too much is lining up:
    1. the economy.
    2. Middle East troubles
    3. possible crop losses due to cold weather.

    This is no time to be stupid.

  179. Roger Knights says:

    Looks like the squeaky wheel has been getting some “grease” … er, lubrication, er, oil.

  180. Tom in Texas says:

    maz2 (18:57:57) :

    Maz2, I hope the leaker is reading those statements?/headlines?

    Time to erect a statue and start a defense fund.

  181. rbateman says:

    REPLY: The guy who ran the drug store in downtown Weaverville. Died about three years ago. His wife has been trying to keep it up, but has been ill too. See the photos in the gallery.surfacestations.org, may help you place it. The sensor is at his house, near the garage. -A

    [snipped for observer privacy - contact me offline]

  182. Michael says:

    I’m glad BO moved the date in Cophenhagen. That will give Climategate an extra week to fester in his craw.

  183. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: INGSOC (18:02:43)

    As Gail Combs points out, left/right lines are a tool of the elite.

  184. anon says:

    singularian (11:45:24) :
    There’s also uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc in the documents.
    Talks of possible funding for Tyndall center from Shell in return for Shell being able to partially set the research agenda.

    That document is dated 11.Sep.2000 and signed Mick Kelly. It seems like he e-mailed it (or a close version of it) the same day — see here:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=185&filename=968691929.txt

    From: “Mick Kelly”
    To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: Shell International
    Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:05:29 +0100
    Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    Mike and Tim
    Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
    Sorry about the delay.
    I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably
    the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation
    including the foundation as they seem to have good access to the top
    levels.
    Mick

    Attachment Converted: “c:eudoraattachshell.doc”

    Some points from the document:

    What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.

    1. Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.

    2. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.

  185. April E. Coggins says:

    Obama and Al Gore changing their Copenhagen plans is big. The clever rats are abandoning the ship. The scientists will be the guilty scapegoats. It won’t surprise me to see Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen being hostiley questioned by the same politicians who have whole-heartedly supported global warming in the past.

  186. Steve S. says:

    Question?

    We all know the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the UK acknowledged in response to a freedom of information request under British law that it tossed out much of the raw data that it used to draw up the temperature models that have underpinned much of the science behind global warming.

    Is there a name or names of those who carried out the tossing?

    Or is this one of those Mr. Nobody did it?

    The system did it?

  187. Kevin says:

    There are good reasons why we see the unprecedented agreement between big business, big government, and environmental groups that the climate alarmism scam is the greatest thing to come along. All groups stand to benefit massively.

    Here is an example from Alberta, Canada, where Shell is benefiting to the tune of $865 million. The story dates from October 2009.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Shell+project+captures+865M/2082387/story.html

    “Alberta and the federal government laid down their first big bet in the fight to limit carbon dioxide industrial emissions Thursday, promising Shell Canada Energy $865 million in financial support for its Quest project near Fort Saskatchewan.”

    “Alberta’s ante is $745 million from its $2-billion carbon capture and storage program, while Ottawa is chipping in $120 million from a fund that supports large-scale CO2 projects across Canada.”

    “Shell Quest will not inject any CO2 until 2015. But it aims to eventually inject up to 1.2 million tonnes each year of CO2 produced by the Scotford bitumen upgrader and its expansion, which is now under construction.”

  188. April E. Coggins says:

    Steve S.: I doubt CRU had any believable data in the first place. If they had, the people who gathered the data should be outraged that their work was carelessly tossed. There have been no such people who have come forward. But even if they had, the fact that the process has been so secretive (and then they “lost” the secret) means that the data must be redone. If they truly believe in the science, the carelessness of the global warming scientists have set their science back at least 20 years. Probably longer because of the public relations damage.

  189. Roger says:

    Kevin, you seem to be as disgusted as I am with the profligate waste by our Provincial Government and Premier, Special Ed Stelmach! The self-interest wheel is just starting to turn!

  190. cbullitt says:

    This is unbeatable. The Donald Sutherland image is perfect–he did all his early 1960s work at Hammer studios in the UK– he was on The Avengers for Christ’s sake. Even better, that version (which also had a cameo by Kevin McCarthy from the original) took place in San Francisco.
    Does anyone who represents that bastion of reason have anything to do with Thermageddon legislation?
    Why, why, I just can’t seem to recall, judge.

  191. p.g.sharrow "PG" says:

    The major energy companies have been working both sides of the track since the 1970s funding Eco-greenies on some projects and fighting them on others.
    NOTHING PERSONAL _ JUST BUSINESS.

    Now as the AGW train is heading down hill into Copenhagan it seems to be coming off the tracks. Big Al Gore has abruptly left town without a word. Obama is trying to duck out, and many of the more important partisipants are calling for it to be canceled.

    Isn’t the “net that covers the world” wonderful?
    “May you live in interesting times”

  192. Syl says:

    ““The rationale behind the research is that quantitative comparison of reconstructions and simulations of climate over the past two millennia can provide an assessment of the extent to which natural and anthropogenic forcing can explain observed patterns of climatic change.””

    What a scam. Getting simulations to better compare with reconstructions is why the climate models went kaput in the first place…if they get the past wrong there ain’t no way they’re gonna be able to predict the future.

    I’ve been saying for almost two weeks now that the hockey stick and the team’s insistence on covering for it actually sabotaged the models and climate science.

  193. Mr. Anon says:

    I second the previous poster who pointed out that the energy majors are not primarily in the business of extracting energy. They are in the business of extracting money. I imagine that Shell and BP hope to profit handsomely from carbon credit trading.

    BP has a refinery in Texas they can’t be bothered to fix, and as a result of which they had a large explosion a couple years back, which killed several workers. Why spend money on oil extraction and refining – it’s so much easier to trade paper.

    Goldman-Sachs (otherwise known as the sole owner of the US Treasury Department) is also a big proponent of Cap and Trade. And another early proponent of C&T? ENRON.

    I propose we start referring to all of them – Al Gore too, of course – as “Big Carbon”.

  194. Syl says:

    “Looks like “Hockey Stick” Mann also got money for reconstructions (the grant is still active):”

    You found a job that Obama saved! Unfortunately, it’s not even in America.

    ““The rationale behind the research is that quantitative comparison of reconstructions and simulations of climate over the past two millennia can provide an assessment of the extent to which natural and anthropogenic forcing can explain observed patterns of climatic change.””

    What a scam. Getting simulations to better compare with reconstructions is why the climate models went kaput in the first place…if they get the past wrong there ain’t no way they’re gonna be able to predict the future.

    I’ve been saying for almost two weeks now that the hockey stick and the team’s insistence on covering for it actually sabotaged the models and climate science.

  195. E.M.Smith says:

    One of the newer and more effective “enhanced recovery” techniques for “depleted” oil fields is CO2 injections. Faced with a choice of PAY someone to buy liquid CO2 or GET PAID to take the “evil CO2″ and “sequester it”, well, If I was an oil company with old fields I’d be all in favor of AGW and CO2 “sequestration” too…

  196. tallbloke says:

    The Cru have a new place to dwell
    With Old Nick at his homestead in Hell
    The Earth ain’t too hot
    But Nick says “Worry not”
    We’ll be heated with oil from Shell!

  197. photon without a Higgs says:

    hey trolls,

    remember how many times you said i was paid by big oil?

    OPPS, the oil money is on your side. Sucks to be you.

    ——————-

    I ♥ ClimateGate!

    ——————-

  198. Roger Knights says:

    Reading the statement from Whitehall, it hit me that the warmers are reasoning that since the earth has been warming in recent decades, and since CO2 has been also, the latter is the cause of the first. It also hit me that they think that if warming occurs, something must be forcing it to happen; it couldn’t just happen on its own.

    Somehow it had never struck me so forcefully that they are sincerely in the clutches of such a simplistic paradigm, since it has so often been criticized here and in other contrarian writings. They’re obstinately thinking in terms of a mechanistic model. They really haven’t come to grips with the concept of climate being an inherently unstable, dynamic, chaotic system with an elusive equilibrium point and lots of internal cycles created by chasing that equilibrium. They can’t see that the current uptrend could be just one of those cycles.

    Along with this goes a “Gawdsaker” / reformist mentality: “For Gawd’s sake, do something!” (H.G. Well’s term.) Intrusive, controlling, alarmist, dirigiste. Put them together and you’ve got a censorious CRUsade.

  199. bill hughes says:

    Oh I expect Gavin will say when Big Oil gives money to climate scientists thats different, and because you’re not climate scientists you can’t be expected to understand the difference.

  200. Roger Knights says:

    PS: Given their mental model, they somehow think that contrarians are denying that it’s warming. (We are only claiming that warming has been overstated, not that it isn’t there.)

    Their mental model also accounts for their claim that thousands of scientists support their CAWG thesis, when all that the majority of them are supporting is the fact that the globe has been warming. To the CAWGers, global warming = CAWG, since they believe that warming must be “forced” by some factor, and that as long as that factor increases, so must the warming.

    Our future critiques of the warmists must heavily stress this basic mental model of theirs. We’ve stressed it already, but apparently it needs to be brought more emphatically front and center.

  201. Alexej Buergin says:

    “photon without a Higgs (03:46:33) :
    hey trolls”

    One of rather disappointing results of Climategate is that worthy people like Flanigan, RR Kerpen and Scott Mandela have disappeared.

  202. Bohemond says:

    “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which”

  203. Antony says:

    In the Guardian of December 4 2009 the same Mike Hulme of these e-mails is now suddenly pleading NOT to mix science with politics ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/04/laboratories-limits-leaked-emails-climate? )

    In January 2000 Hulme was looking for (Oil) support for the UEA’s new baby, the Tyndall Centre. Its objectives are ( http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/About/Tyndall-Centre-Objectives ) : “To become an internationally recognised source of high quality and integrated climate-change research, and to exert a seminal influence on the design and achievability of the long-term strategic objectives of UK and international climate policy.”

    Has Hulme turned 180 degrees?

  204. marky48 says:

    http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/environment/climate_change/our_approach_to_climate_change/approach_to_climate_change.html

    Shell Energy
    “Our approach to climate change
    We support urgent and wide-ranging action to address climate change. Our approach includes reducing CO2 emissions from our operations and products; helping customers manage their emissions from using our products; and advocating the wide-ranging policy changes needed from governments.”

    Here’s the Wingerville headline for you: The time’s they are a changin.’

  205. Syl says:

    “Has Hulme turned 180 degrees?”

    He’s covering his you-know-what. He knows which way the wind is blowing. I said as much at dotearth where he is being praised for the things he’s saying today.

  206. lanceman says:

    There is far more profit in oil trading and distribution than in exploration/refining. That is why John D. Rockefeller captured the distribution networks while the wildcatters went broke in a cutthroat competition. Eventually, Rockefeller expanded into banking.

    Big business hates competition and welcomes big government to suppress competition. A leftist historian, Gabriel Kolko documented this in his 1963 book “The Triumph of Conservatism.” By conservatism he meant maintaining the status quo, not political conservatism as we understand it today. Kolko shows how big business actually welcomed the “progressive era” reforms as they would discourage new market entrants and maintain profits.

    With cap & trade, climate taxes etc. big oil would have less pressure to engage in risky exploration. Supply would be capped and prices maximized without high cost exploration and refinery expansion. Unit profits would increase. Any losses due to taxes could be recaptured by political lobbying. In fact it is easier to make profits in the political (and leveraged CO2 exchange) worlds than from consumers.

  207. Paul Vaughan says:

    Roger (22:16:16) “Kevin, you seem to be as disgusted as I am with the profligate waste by our Provincial Government and Premier, Special Ed Stelmach! The self-interest wheel is just starting to turn!”

    Haven’t you guys elected the exact same party in Alberta for something like 38 straight years now? It shouldn’t come as a surprise that they think they have carte blanche to do whatever the h*ll they please!

  208. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: Roger Knights (04:49:53)

    It’s worse than that. They think clouds are a part of weather, but not climate, and they’ve never heard of integrals and boundary conditions.

    …but this is the least of our worries. Whichever way the debate & the politics go, the elite will be running that wagon and truth will only be welcome to play a role in its navigation when that is convenient. Boom & bust, sways left & right – very convenient opportunities for those with sufficient resources since they are positioned to leverage any change. Left & right players in this game are just pawns – the screaming strings being fiddled by the elite bow. Since CRUgate, political neutrality is even more appealing than it was before.

  209. Paul Vaughan says:

    Roger Knights (05:01:49) “Given their mental model, they somehow think that contrarians are denying that it’s warming. (We are only claiming that warming has been overstated, not that it isn’t there.)”

    “Whether or not” warming is overstated is irrelevant.
    “Whether or not” it is warming is irrelevant.

    The important point is that climate change is natural.

    At present, it appears that “big oil” & alarmists have a shared interest in ensuring the public “believes” otherwise. To set an example of the level of extremism expected by investors, “saviors” like Jones are crucified publicly. This is just another example of “ideal opposition”, which can be used to engineer usefully predictable swings of the pendulum.

  210. galileonardo says:

    Heyyyy! No love for me for my reference to the Donald Sutherland “Body Snatchers” image in the comments of the first story on this scandal on 11/19? No biggie. It would have been good to show my wife though since she is sick of me “wasting time” on this topic (I have made it a hobby over the last several months to jump into the AGW fire over at Media Matters for America).

    I have fallen out of the MMfA fray over the last week as my “real” computer is in the shop for upgrades, but I will return to battle soon (poor timing, I know). I have several times made the Body Snatchers reference over there as I believe it does perfectly illustrate the often rabid response to “deniers” (as I mentioned in that initial WUWT comment, one woman said, “I hope you drown yourself when the sea level increases.”). I have taken to calling the cult there “AGW-fraud deniers” as their responses to this story, though predictable, epitomizes the “nothing to see here” mentality (another phrase I frequently drop) prevalent amongst the believers.

    I am glad to see new skeptic blood over on MMfA and I suggest others do the same. Going into “the belly of the beast” there may do more good than you might realize as many people inadvertently pay visit to the site when generically searching through the news and some may not realize just how one-sided their presentation is on AGW. My hope is that my efforts, as well as the efforts of the few other skeptics who raise their voice there, will help to balance it out at least a bit (can be a losing battle many days).

    As for this story, it’s great to see WUWT bring attention to it and my hope is that doing so will increase the visibility of the “Big Oil” angle (and let’s not forget the associated and IMO even more important “Big Redistributionist” angle–still think the Horsman/Kelly document needs more play). We know that the AGW issue has been losing steam among the public for quite a while now, but this story cannot be allowed to go away. The stakes are way too high. So even though Christmas came early this year, there are more presents to be unwrapped yet.

    Keep up the good work here. As the leading voice online attempting to balance the discussion against what is indisputably an overwhelming pro-AGW machine, WUWT and CA are doing the Lord’s work in my opinion. I am raising my son to have a love of science and to be an independent thinker. He is still too young to appreciate this story, but when the time comes I intend on using this topic to illustrate what can happen to scientific investigation when it is corrupted by politics.

  211. CO2 Realist says:

    Shell is spending big with Copenhagen on the horizon. I’m seeing their multi-ad campaign on multiple websites such as Scientific American which I previously mentioned and just today on the Guardian with the Mike Hulme article. Screen capture here:

    http://co2realist.com/2009/12/05/mike-hulme-in-the-guardian/

  212. Smokey says:

    The CRU has been handed millions by groups with an AGW agenda: click

    Some background info

  213. I love this website!

    The CRU’s cozy relationship with Shell (BIG OIL, EGAD!) won’t be covered by Seth Borenstein, but I’m glad you did!

  214. Gary oil says:

    Mick Kelly is involved in an e-mail exchange that made me stop using the old eyebrows Canada's oilsands have the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East, but the use of the resource has been expensive and technically challenging

  215. Phil Kennedy says:

    So, let me get this straight: the climate research unit whose internal discussions are discrediting climate research is on the payroll of big oil? What a surprise, eh?

Comments are closed.