Video: Dr. Tim Ball on the CRU emails

From the Corbett Report:

Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball was interviewed to discuss the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. These emails reveal stunning behind-the-scenes details, and Dr. Ball shares his insights on what they show. Of interest is what he has to say about the Wegman report.

The interview was conducted in studio, by telephone and runs about 10 minutes.

See the video below.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Great piece from Dr. Ball. Unfortunately, we are all Winston now…
[ ]

November 22, 2009 6:37 pm

Nice reply with the Orwell/Winston clip. Love that. What I want to see is Gore and suzuki in jail, as well as these other crooks at the CRU.

November 22, 2009 6:49 pm

A little OT perhaps, but just learned of an unusual ETF trade on the 18th. Someone dumped 20 times the normal trading volume of a green fund. First Trust NASDAQ® Clean Edge® Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) . “The index is a modified market capitalization weighted index designed to track the performance of clean energy companies that are publicly traded in the United States and includes companies engaged in manufacturing, development, distribution and installation of emerging clean-energy technologies including, but not limited to, solar photovoltaics, biofuels and advanced batteries. ”
Draw your own conclusions, but either someone was very on the ball, or had a heads up on the Hadley business. Tomorrow should be interesting on FoxBusiness and others. etf/ETFpricehistory.aspx?Ticker=QCLN

Gene Nemetz
November 22, 2009 6:51 pm

I agree with Timothy Ball that there must have been some law broken in their manipulation of data.

November 22, 2009 6:57 pm

Dr. Ball is correct when he says that it is a troubling time for climate scientists. They all look like those economists who two years ago claimed that the collapse of major banks is impossible. What a pathetic group of clowns. I cry no tears for them.

Doug in Seattle
November 22, 2009 7:00 pm

Curiousgeorge (18:49:11) :
Since this material actually became available on the 17th, perhaps someone downloaded when they first saw the links that were spread then.

Jim G.
November 22, 2009 7:01 pm

You mean like allegedly deliberately deleting, and encouraging (conspiring with others) to delete material that had been requested under FOI statues?
Yeah. Perhaps a few.
The real question is will there be a congressional investigation, a hold placed on all climate legislation, etc, etc. (sadly not very likley, since the legislation has little to do with protecting the world.)

November 22, 2009 7:05 pm

Repeat after me:
Not Hadley.
Not Hadley.
Not Hadley.
Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. Hell, if people here can’t keep it straight, then this is not going where it should.
REPLY: suggest to them then to rename the temperature product they produce to something other than HadCRUT. That is where much of the confusion is rooted. – Anthony

November 22, 2009 7:05 pm

It is high time to get legal opinions on these revelations — this is not an academic ‘tempest in a teapot’. The AGW ‘science’ is a serious political conspiracy that deserves and requires a serious and organized response. The cabal has captured a number of scientific organizations such as the American Chemical Society, and it is time for the rank and file to rebel.

Layne Blanchard
November 22, 2009 7:15 pm

Incredible revelations. But will they be enough?

November 22, 2009 7:16 pm

We have Fairfax press in Australia continuing to completely ignore that any of this has happened. All this will do is clearly show the public that they are a dinosaur that is no longer credible. The collusion between all these parties is incredible and appalling!

Curmudgeon Geographer
November 22, 2009 7:19 pm

Has there been any commenting from the scientific journals that were targeted. The ones that either rolled over or resisted?
I’d be interested to read some confirmation along the lines “yeah, we got emails threatening to withdraw from publishing with us in the future”, or “yeah, we noticed a sharp drop in submissions from these particular scientists after we published so and so”.

November 22, 2009 7:23 pm

Doug in Seattle (19:00:11) :
What time (eastern) on the 17th did FOIA make his post? Whoever made that trade acted very fast. The majority of the trade happened within an hour of market open on Wed. Run the 5 day chart at .
Very “on the ball” as I mentioned. We’ll see in the next few days, if it was a smart move or not.

November 22, 2009 7:24 pm

Confirms what I have suspected: They got into weather data worldwide and corrupted it.
I have one burning question now:
Where does one turn to find the data that existed before the CRU/IPCC began purging it to suit thier own purposes?

November 22, 2009 7:27 pm

If you don’t understand something, think money. There is a major money trail leading to the coffers of the “Hockey Team.” Government grants, major grants — big money. The “Hockey Team” is an organized group of bandits; they have manipulated data, perverted science, destroyed reputations of fellow scientists, intimidated editorial boards, conspired to restrict the publication of works that do not support AGW, colluded with other groups to spread AGW propaganda, and instigated an elaborate shield to prevent public examination of their data and methodology. Bandits! Not scientists. So powerful did they become that they assumed effective control of the IPCC, and as such, gained international influence with many governing bodies. Power and arrogance! This is a great EVIL. It must be prosecuted in the courtroom. Until then, I propose that the “Hockey Team” be shunned. If “Cap & Trade” is passed or EPA greenhouse gas emissions regulations are imposed, these e-mail and data files must be taken into the courtroom and presented as evidence to expose this fraudulent hoax. Sometimes I wish I was a lawyer.

Ron de Haan
November 22, 2009 7:28 pm

Very good.
A clan of 42 insiders controlling the peer review process, creating their own climate fantasy by cooking the data. Brilliant. I
This puts a bomb under the IPCC2007 report and it’s conclusions.
As a consequence, any Government and any politician engaging in a decision making process based on suspect data is liable.
So what we have to do is make an inventory which reports and which data in the IPCC 2007 report could be tempered with and inform the politicians what’s going on.
I don’t think that you will find any politician who sticks his head in a sling voluntarily.
They detest public scams. Bad for the career.
Time for a lawyer and an investigation me thinks.

Jeff L
November 22, 2009 7:29 pm

Jim G. (19:01:04) :
I have seen no commentary from any politicos about the CRU emails. I hope they are aware of the situation. I really hope it isn’t as you said – seeing this is political & has nothing to do with protecting the world.
Is any one aware of any commentary from any one in the political realm, esp from the US?

November 22, 2009 7:44 pm
November 22, 2009 7:47 pm

the spike appears to have been on the 16th rather than the 18th. but, i’m certainly no expert in this stuff. i’m just an engineer.
but, at least i DO know that science does NOT involve hiding data.

Paul Vaughan
November 22, 2009 7:49 pm

CTV (Canadian Television) won’t touch this story. I encourage Canadians to write to them.
Unlike others who have posted above, I don’t see this as being about revenge. We are dealing with a problem so fundamental that revenge is irrelevant.
Don’t misunderstand me Alarmists:
I’m not in favor of toxic pollution; I’m opposed to misinformation about [anthropogenic] climate change and I walk &/or sea-kayak 95% of the time when I travel.
You are blocking research oriented towards understanding nature deeply – and as an ecologist and longtime advocate of parks & natural forests, I have disgust of the deepest variety for the costs you are bringing upon the reputation of the environmental movement.
You appear to appreciate nature less than your unsupportable, abstract notions about it.
I sincerely hope Anthony will soon be free to change the channel back to inspiring science articles, because administrative politics is sickening & draining.

November 22, 2009 7:53 pm

It’s interesting to read the big Real Climate comments since this broke – Gavin is spinning like a top. There’s a desperation present that’s never been there before – he’s running scared!

November 22, 2009 7:54 pm

I went to the web site this clip comes from. Do you really want to be associated with 9/11 Truthers? This is exactly why the mainstream media feels comfortable in ignoring any opposition to warmist orthodoxy.

November 22, 2009 7:55 pm

Gentlemen (and Ladies!)….
A suggestion from my Brother, Dr. Daley Hugoson – “The proper term is
de-canonization”, which means the REMOVAL of the Phd status by the “canonizing” institute.
Now judging by the general “integrity” of Universities these days (i.e. NONE,
“SOLD the HIGHEST BIDDER”, “Sold, the the LEFTMOST WING..” etc., Harvard
is planning an changing “Lux et Veritas” (Light and Truth) to “Obscurum quod Subjectio” (Darkness and Falsehood)..We doubt highly that the “spheres between the legs” are big enough on ANY University administration to have a hope of the audacity to WITHDRAW a Phd from any of our CRU Academic Felons.
However, stranger things than this have happened in life.
And movements start somewhere.
SO let us therefore move to have Phd’s REMOVED from the likes of Jones,
Mann (particularily MANN..the error on his data analysis is agregious and really UNFORGIVABLE)…Software QUALITY ASSURANCE is an ESTABLISHED DISCIPLINE, and these Yo-Yo’s doing NONE of that, deserve NOTHING. NO salary, no status, no recognition.
It’s time was start a movement to DEMAND THIS.
Any seconds on the motion?
So moved? The vote is?
Well, if analysed by the CRU it would be 1000 to Zero.

DJ Meredith
November 22, 2009 7:57 pm

Could this turn into Al Gore’s Teapot Dome?
…The irony there is Elk Hills….Sold by the Clinton administration under rather, uh, unusual conditions to Occidental Petroleum, which Gore had a stake in….
Prepare yourself for some of the finest double-speak the world has ever heard as spin doctoring takes a hot new twist.

Henry chance
November 22, 2009 7:58 pm

Mann and Jones are busted. Funding for them will dry up and it should and they may get demoted the way passive agressive universitys operate.

Douglas DC
November 22, 2009 7:58 pm

My own E-mail friendship with John Daly was a privilege.His memory is served best by
pursuit of this to the end.E-mail E-mail E-mail.Don’t quit.Congress,or your own legislative body. I wonder what Monckton is up to?

November 22, 2009 7:59 pm

That was a awesome interview. He succinctly stated the major issues associated with this new information.

Mann O Mann
November 22, 2009 8:02 pm

Anyone notice the exchange at 1255558867.txt (
It is about the October 2009 BBC article “doing a U turn” on temps no longer warming.
That is Mike Mann throwing Gavin Schmidt under the bus when Tom Wigley states : “there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.
Mike Mann quibbles a bit looking for an explanation for models failing to address cooling and then says: “perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after all)”
Mann offers Wigley this statement after Mann had told Wigley to look at Schmidt’s graph that is “worth a thousand words” at . Wigley looked at it and makes the “dishonesty” charge.
Mann flails and throws Gavin at a critic who doesn’t buy his BS and who is on to his intimidation game.
Hey Gavin – they will throw you to the wolves if it means saving their own skins.

Neil O'Rourke
November 22, 2009 8:06 pm

Note that the link for the stock is broken:
But, the statement is quite correct; there was a huge spike in trading volume on the 18th.

November 22, 2009 8:07 pm

Curiousgeorge (18:49:11) :
The link was posted at Jeff Id’s on the 17th just before 10:00 p.m. There are reports in the media that FOIA tried to post it at RC but was prevented by the alertness of the crew there, who notified CRU… but then didn’t follow through with details… and the authorities were not called in… you don’t suppose….????

R Shearer
November 22, 2009 8:09 pm

What about financial fraud, tax evasion? Were the following taken out of context or just “tricks”?
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes
From: “Tatiana M. Dedkova”
“….Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day)
will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.”

P Gosselin
November 22, 2009 8:09 pm

The Problem is Europe.
It’s the Vatican of the Climate religion. Now the foundation of this religion is crumbling.
How do you react when your religion is shown to be bogus?
You just don’t come out and admit you’ve been stupid and duped for years. Nor do you admit you have been defrauding and duping your followers.
No, like in the Middle Ages, extreme means will be used to keep it alive. Don’t expect the media and Europe governments to just give up their religion.
The tone in Copenhagen will be interesting to watch.
This ball is going to be hard to stop.
Excellent commentary by Mr. Ball.

November 22, 2009 8:11 pm

Nothing to see here, move along please.
This is normal argy-bargy between scientists, who write e-mails not expecting them to be hacked by some Russian Big Oil funded terrorists.
I cannot believe how you all have been so successfully duped by the Scam of the Century!!!

Keith Minto
November 22, 2009 8:14 pm

Very clear and coherent response. It is good to have an audio and video confirmation of this revelation that to now has only been in text. I feel that the message will be be understood better when television, radio and the web begin a discussion on this.
This is monday morning in Australia and so far the Australian (front page) and the Courier Mail have this in print, the Sydney Morning Herald to my disappointment failed to print anything.
As a previous commentator said, time is on our side.

Henry chance
November 22, 2009 8:14 pm

Dr Ball
“getting rid of the mideival warm period”
I also noticed that. Climate progress hails all the recent floods as CO2 caused. When the floods of 1919 are just as bad, he gets rid of it. Delete/censor the post.

November 22, 2009 8:14 pm

Seems like the code also is worse than the emails;

Frederick Michael
November 22, 2009 8:25 pm
November 22, 2009 8:28 pm

How quickly ten minutes passes when you are enjoying yourself.

Barry L.
November 22, 2009 8:30 pm

A little off topic, but worthy of noting as I have not seen any comments in this regard….
The biggest question of the day: Why have the MSM downplayed Climategate????
Their owners will loose billions… er trillions if this gets out. Green will be the new brown. The coverup MSM is providing almost makes them look as guilty as the climate science puppets so recently exposed.
A little history on MSM:

D. Ch.
November 22, 2009 8:44 pm

Before going too far down the road saying all this politicized science must have broken some law, etc., you should contemplate that scientists and engineers who work for large companies in the private sector are well aware of how directors and supervisors would prefer one sort of data-set, or one type of result, over another, and how there are always helpful employees with good engineering and science credentials who are happy to support this preference (the “party line”, if you will). Time and again you will find little tolerance for information that points to flaws in past technical decisions or current technical policies (you see, there’s always some important person or group of people responsible for those decisions and policies). If climate change played out the same way this sort of thing routinely plays out in large private companies, it wouldn’t be discredited until the evidence against it became impossible to deny — say the world’s average temperature falling 5 degrees over the next 5 years — or the refusal to face reality began to hurt the bottom line badly enough to effect the CEO’s bonus! Really, as soon as scientists, engineers, and so on become players in how large amounts of money are allocated, it’s silly to expect dispassionate analysis on the merits of the technical and scientific issues under discussion. In the private sector, fortunately, people can waste time and effort any way they please without affecting most of the rest of us. When the same sort of self-interested science takes hold in the public sector, however, it’s much less tolerable, for obvious reasons. I’m sure if you dug into NASA emails, and the emails at the top levels of the defense-industrial complex, you would see the same sort of East-Anglia nastiness at play — probably worse, in fact, since those areas of government supported science and engineering have been in operation for many more decades. Always remember, the more expensive an experiment has been to perform, the less likely it is to be declared a failure …

Bob Wood
November 22, 2009 8:55 pm

this puts the finger of suspiscion on all politicians pushing climate change legislation. I hope it helps blow out their flame!!!!

November 22, 2009 8:56 pm

Robert E. Phelan (20:07:52) :
Curiousgeorge (18:49:11) :
The link was posted at Jeff Id’s on the 17th just before 10:00 p.m. There are reports in the media that FOIA tried to post it at RC but was prevented by the alertness of the crew there, who notified CRU… but then didn’t follow through with details… and the authorities were not called in… you don’t suppose….????

You know, it’s probably a huge stretch, but, if RC was the first attempt, and CRU and RC knew about what was going to happen, and they are the people knowing what the contents are and what was “really” going on within the emails and codes, it is not inconceivable that one, or many of them that may indeed have these kinds of investments, would perhaps opt to quickly dump them, “just in case”. This would at least be a step towards protecting their investments. What would be YOUR first reaction if it were you? After all, portions of ClimateGate certainly illustrate functions of money and possible monetary motivations.
Would be interesting if someone were able to do a little research to find out exactly which companies had their stocks suddenly dumped, then, if there is a way, tie them back to any of the “usual” suspects, even Gore, or Soros, etc… After all, Gore, Soros, Fenton, etc.., all have close ties to and the entire ClimateGate “team”.

David S
November 22, 2009 9:00 pm

Suppose that the people behind this control the mainstream media. What are the odds the media will report it?
Suppose the people behind this own most of the politicians. What are the odds the politicians will do anything?
Suppose the American people are so dumbed down they’d rather watch Desperate Housewives than pay attention to important events. Will the people do anything?

November 22, 2009 9:15 pm

Curiousgeorge (19:23:40) : Very “on the ball” as I mentioned. We’ll see in the next few days, if it was a smart move or not.
The major trading houses (Goldman is stellar at this) have a full time person or three assigned to each major stock, ETF, sector, … Their job is to see and know everything about their sector or stock prior to market open each day. If anything that looks “big” is in the wind, they are to take major market positions FAST.
So if this was “out” prior to the open, I’d expect the “market maker” to know it and the major trading houses to know it AND I’d expect them to act within minutes of the open. This also would trigger a bunch of folks with “stop loss orders” in a cascade…
The real indicator for a smart operator doing manipulation would be if there was a spike in options trading ahead of the stock move… Buy puts, short stock… cover in..

November 22, 2009 9:17 pm

Robert E. Phelan (20:07:52) :
Curiousgeorge (18:49:11) :
“The link was posted at Jeff Id’s on the 17th just before 10:00 p.m. There are reports in the media that FOIA tried to post it at RC but was prevented by the alertness of the crew there, who notified CRU… but then didn’t follow through with details… and the authorities were not called in… you don’t suppose….????”
Nor TMK was the UEA computer system locked down days before. Then there’s the motive for wanting to upload a large zip to – realclimate? Then there’s the issue of the file being prevented from loading…in that case, what authorities would they have alerted? I heard Gavin claimed that they had alerted authorities 2 or 3 days before the bomb hit JeffID.

Gene Nemetz
November 22, 2009 9:38 pm

FatBigot (20:28:15) :
How quickly ten minutes passes when you are enjoying yourself.
On Thursday when this story first broke hours of reading went by and 2:00 am came pretty quickly.

November 22, 2009 9:41 pm

Squidly (20:56:16) :
So, in addition to moving funds around to hide failure to comply with grant money from NOAA [1056478635.txt] to ostensibly avoid paying taxes (and the FBI gets involved in stuff like that) you have the prospect of SEC violations in the dumping of stocks.
Whoa. This Climategate thing is one hot potato.
The lads at CRU might be getting a visit from Scotland Yard, don’t you think?

November 22, 2009 10:00 pm

Curious George:
The link you provided didn’t work for me…. it may require special permissions. Any chance you could follow up? I’d be very interested if any of the transaction involved Australia and the companies Windesal Limited, Velocitimage Group Pty ltd, or Harrop Trust.
Squidly’s “huge stretch” (which it is and would be too good to be true) would be a violation of SEC regulations.
I wonder what the market will be doing tomorrow.

Patrick Davis
November 22, 2009 10:20 pm

Got some coverage here in Australia on SMH…
Seems like it’s being played down a bit to me.

November 22, 2009 10:24 pm

Robert E. Phelan (22:00:38) :
Woodward & Bernstein didn’t have anything like this.
The really big players will have little choice but to throw CRU under the bus at this point, otherwise it will cascade onto them. It may do that anyway.

November 22, 2009 10:39 pm

Surely there is someone around who will take this to court? I’d donate to a legal challenge on the evidence.

November 22, 2009 10:47 pm

Hmm.. No options available on QCLN … This chart:
Shows a large volume increase, but the price does not plunge until the 19th. As though someone was dumping volume before the news got to the market maker or the market maker was dumping inventory prior to letting the public know. Very unusual… But the whole market dropped that next day so the price action is in keeping with a market maker responding to the broader market moves.
And the volume has several spikes (this is 5 minute ticks) as though different parties got notice… But it also happens after a long run up as we’ve had a “failure to advance” and a return to the SMA Simple Moving Average stack from the bottom (after a failed advance). The “Last Exit” call for timid traders. It is possible this is an ordinary trader who is a little inexperienced and could not call the first “exit call” at the top of the failure to advance. (Which I did call, btw…)
That chart will only work for a few days. They only keep the daily detail data for about 2 weeks, so if you want his data, you need to save the image.
I did a quick look at some other alternative energy ETFs (TAN, FAN, PBW) but the volume and price move the next day. HOWEVER … GEX the EUROPEAN alternative energy fund has a broad large volume run … though it is less ‘out of character’ with prior months volume:
The volume is also a bit later in the day. Like someone’s broker was dumping first one, then the other…
This is just odd. The stocks inside QCLN are biased toward semiconductors. It’s a novice tool for “clean energy” not something a market smart trader would use. The individual stocks inside QCLN do not show a big dump (some even went up).

Top 10 Holdings
 Company Name  % of Total
 First Solar Inc  9.26%
 Linear Technology Corp  7.66%
 MEMC Electronic Materials Inc  6.52%
 ON Semiconductor Corp  6.11%
 National Semiconductor Corp  5.92%
 Itron Inc  4.31%
 Cree Inc  4.24%
 AVX Corp  3.73%
 Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd  3.59%
 Ormat Technologies Inc  3.40%

So things like CREE and STP (Suntech) and FSLR are LED lighting / solar oriented, but National Semi? And the other “mostly semiconductor” companies?
This just looks like something being dumped by a novice at trading (to whom it was sold as a ‘green basket’ without looking inside.)
GEX is a ‘better basket’ but still has overlap (FSLR, CREE, ITRI, WFR -MEMC) so owning both as ‘diversification’ is another ‘newbie’ mistake. It also includes Vestas wind and some other Euro oriented holdings.
After looking at this, I suspect a modestly “low clue” holder was dumping positions that the market maker could easily cover in the much higher trade volume underlaying stocks, so he took the volume and moved on. The “novice” was dumping, but for no real good reason other than perhaps a return to the SMA stack after a “head and shoulders” failure to advance pattern. A fairly simple trader pattern (one of the first folks learn). GEX has been nearly dead flat for 6 months, so I don’t know why anyone would be trading it now anyway.
Frankly, while it’s an amusing “sidebar”; and maybe someone in the UK was dumping their personal positions, it looks more to me like no real news here. The stocks in the basket didn’t move the needle on this volume and there is little to indicate a savvy trader doing some kind of exploit. Just a thinly traded ETF being liquidated by a mediocre hand… though on a pretty good day to do it.
This will end my analysis of this particular stock “issue”. I just see much “there there”…

November 22, 2009 10:57 pm

That ought to have said ” I just DO NOT see much there there “..

November 22, 2009 10:58 pm

The media battle is the crucial one.
Here are some headlines with links:
“The Day Global Warming Stood Still”
Posted 11/20/2009 07:46 PM ET
The above was also qouted verbatim, alas, guess where? – The Tehran Times
“In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes”
Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward skeptics
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Christian Science Monitor
“Hacked climate emails: conspiracy or tempest in a teapot? “
By Pete Spotts | 11.21.09
The Wall Street Journal
NOVEMBER 23, 2009.
Climate Emails Stoke Debate
Scientists’ Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming
The New York Times
“Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute”
Published: November 20, 2009
“The Science is Far from Settled”
Written by Barnaby Joyce Monday, 23 November 2009 15:57
From the above “..the emails that have come to light in the media overnight show Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the US Centre for Atmospheric Research and a supporter of the theory of man made climate change, stated in one email, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Considering that Mr Trenberth was the lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) this statement is completely damning of the current premis for an ETS. It is, however, a very illuminating insight and honest appraisal of the science that underpins the current lack of balance in the Australian emission trading debate. If Mr Trenberth can not explain cooling when we should have warming then it appears ludicrous that Mr Rudd and Minister Wong can. Furthermore, the implementation of a new Australian Tax to fix an uncertainty is insanity.

November 22, 2009 11:01 pm

Patrick Davis (22:20:42) :
Got some coverage here in Australia on SMH…
That’s basically a rehash of the AP article. You need to send letters to the editor, your legislators and all your friends urging them to do the same. Over at Jeff Id’s blog we have a thread going that contains a few ideas on what to write:
We need to get people to read the stuff for themselves and then have them start channeling Howard Beale.

November 22, 2009 11:10 pm

Ruddy Rudd (and our Ruddy John Key is no better, if not worse) – both would be better served as Polar Bear fodder –
“Warming to the climate con job
* By Tim Blair
* From: The Daily Telegraph November 23, 2009 12:00AM
DISPLAYING his usual keen grasp of science, and not in any way seeking a distraction from events involving certain Sri Lankan boating enthusiasts, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last week addressed the Parliament.
There had been, Rudd revealed, a crucial incident in Melbourne.
It was an incident that would shape our national future and determine core government policy. An incident pivotal in Australia’s history. An incident that, were it not for Rudd’s insight, may have passed with little notice.
Melbourne, he told Parliament, had experienced a hot November evening.
This is apparently all the evidence Rudd needs to be convinced anew of global warming, which previously was understood to be global. Now that it’s fully contained within a city on Victoria’s southern coast…”

November 22, 2009 11:13 pm

E.M.Smith (22:47:58)
Aw, nothing like asking an expert to puncture your balloon. I didn’t understand much of that, but I’m impressed. So at best, it’s just a veggie-burger. Ih well.

November 22, 2009 11:15 pm

… and still the BBC won;t report any of this, prefering to delete all comments made on Richard Black’s blog.
The BBC is funded by a government charter, so has to keep the government sweet each time it’s up for renewal. I can’t believe therte is not one real journalist in the BBC left with any integrity.

November 22, 2009 11:42 pm

… and the Mail have even made an editorial comment!
“Could it be that the pernicious culture of spin and deception which ruined our belief in politicians has now infected the world of science?
Researchers at one of the world’s leading climate change centres stand accused of manipulating data to exaggerate the extent of global warming – a deception which would represent a scandalous betrayal of trust.
We rely on scientists to give us the truth about these complex and crucial issues. If they are now twisting the facts to support their own doomsday theories, they are no better than Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell, who fabricated the ‘dodgy dossier’ of lies on which we were dragged into the disastrous Iraq war. ”

Nigel Brereton
November 23, 2009 12:12 am

This morning Lord Lawson Conservative party elder statesman calls for indepent revue of CRU data on BBC radio 4’s prestigious breakfast programme. There will probably be a podcast of the programme available later.

November 23, 2009 12:28 am
November 23, 2009 12:34 am

It’s about time the Sydney Morning Herald said something about this issue. I’ve been waiting since Firday for a comment. Their silence was deafening. They waited until 2:14pm on Monday to say anything? I know it was a hot weekend (and thank the Lord for the blissful cold change that hit my place at 1am) but I managed to read about this issue for hours. I then emailed all 12 of my NSW senators declaring my intention to never vote for a parliamentarian who votes for an ETS this week. I long for the day journalism returns to its unbiased roots and leaves behind the notion that they can make the news rather than report it.
As for the senators, the only ones whose staff have replied are the Nationals senators, Heffernan and Nash. I’m sure all Aussie politicians this week have been bombarded with correspondence on this issue with the vote coming up. Let’s hope for some “robust” and honest debate in parliament!

November 23, 2009 12:56 am

“I went to the web site this clip comes from. Do you really want to be associated with 9/11 Truthers?”
Since I thought the reason for this blog was the pursuit of scientific truth, then I, for one, don’t really mind. After all since when has the pursuit of truth, wherever that may lead, been a bad thing? Whether it be climatology or the search for who knew what when on 9/11 and who was derelict, or worse, in their duty to protect America that day, (they failed BTW, and NOBODY has been fired for that, let alone prosecuted) the pursuit of truth is the same.
Who is going to give us the truth? Since both chairmen and the chief legal council for the official 9/11 commission report all now have stated publicly that the report is NOT the truth and that they were hampered in their investigation and that the report does NOT give a truthful account of what actually happened on that tragic day. This is NOT abscure conspiracy theory. This is the heads of the OFFICIAL 9/11 commission themselves stating that their own report is not a truthful account of what happened that day! If THEY don’t believe it. why should I or anyone else? I believe that we should have a full and independent inquiry to establish the truth.
After all, like the climate theories, a huge amount of policy is based on what the “official” truth is. IF (big IF) the “official” truth is wrong, then how can we allow policy to go unchallenged, or the “truth” that these policies are based on to go unchallenged?
Just as there are hundreds of different climate change theories, there are hundreds of different 9/11 conspiracy theories, most of them very poor indeed. The problem is, there is no single conspiracy theory that clearly and unambiguously and obviously tells the whole truth, INCLUDING the official 9/11 commission report. In fact, that report is a rather poor conspiracy theory. Like wise, we cannot yet reliably claim any one single climate theory is the ultimate and correct truth. Unlike what the alarmists are claiming, there are competing theories and several are plausible and somewhat match the perceived observable evidence, hence no consensus.
But since when has the pursuit of truth been a bad thing? Only if you are politically uncomfortable with what that truth may unveil.
I fully support linking to the clip.

November 23, 2009 1:28 am

The lamestream media line on this is still, “a few emails taken out of context by cyber terrorists and deniers intent on scuppering a deal to save the planet at Copenhagen. Oh those poor scientists, see what they have to put up with?”
The media are doing their level best to downplay the significance of the data which has been uncovered and to distract or discourage their viewers and readers from looking at this themselves.
With the code being examined, and found sorely wanting, how long will that line hold?

November 23, 2009 1:37 am

Even if this furore does blow over, it will taint all future climate pronouncements. Everything from Hadcrut will now be under suspicion, with more balanced media outlets (ie, not the BBC) asking if this is kosher data or more manipulated detritus.
The stink of manipulation and fraud will hang over East Anglia Uni like the smog from a Chinese power station (the very power station championed by climatologists, as they strive to shut down Western industry).

November 23, 2009 1:47 am

Wow. Yes, just look at that spike in Green shares on the 18th, just before this all became public. Someone not only hacked Hadcrut, they also made a killing on the stockmarket.
Well, they only have themselves to blame. Mr T Blair became a capitalist-socialist and celebrated the champaign-socialist lifestyle – and this is capitalism at its best (worst). Nothing like a little insider trading to make a tidy profit and then run for the Caribbean beaches.

November 23, 2009 1:58 am

Lord Lawson Calls for a High-level Inquiry into Hadley/CRU
In the Times today
This is from the end of the article:
“Moreover, the scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia.
Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.
Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.
It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (, which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy. At the very least, open and reasoned debate on this issue cannot be anything but healthy. The absence of debate between political parties at the present time makes our contribution all the more necessary.”
Lord Lawson of Blaby was Chancellor of the Exchequer 1983-89. He will be speaking at an Institute of Economic Affairs debate on climate change at the Institute of Directors in London today.

Alexander Harvey
November 23, 2009 5:07 am

Regarding Lord Lawson,
I watched him on Newsnight (7.4.2008, I checked!) with Jeremy Paxman, when he said: “There has been no global warming at all this century”.
The best bit was the look on Jeremy Paxman’s face (Jeremy is a hugely respected, journalist, and presenter, and generally very knowledgeable).
Jeremy looked stunned.
He turned to Chris Ripley, (I expect he was looking for a countering statement) who replied “it is factually correct that the temperature has not gone up this century.”
Jeremy said: “This is amazing.”
It is rare for Jeremy not to be on top of his subject matter, and it is obvious that he had no idea that there was an issue. That is how deep the ingraining goes. Journalist’s in isolation from other “credible” opinions can easily accept that it is a one way street.

November 23, 2009 5:34 am

RE: QCLN comments. Sorry about the busted link to CNN Money. I guess the javascript requires everyone to do a new search. Just go to: and type in the symbol. That will get you to the tech/charting page and you can recreate it suit yourself. The “advanced charting” option lets you see it hourly, etc.
There was a minor uptick in price in the few days leading up to the high volume trade on the 18th, which was accompanied by a price drop. But as has been mentioned it might just be coincidental (and very lucky for someone ). However, now that the dirty laundry has been on the line since then, I’ll be very interested in any further financial news on this. If it starts to look like a run ( from these kinds of ETF’s and other “green ” companies ) it will be all over FoxBiz, Bloomberg, et al. Call it the CO2 bubble bursting; kind of like all the fizz bubbling out of your club soda.

Ron de Haan
November 23, 2009 5:47 am

David (23:38:10) :
“This just in:
The title should have been:
How climate change scientists dodged sceptics and the IPCC dodged politics!

November 23, 2009 6:47 am

Patrick Davis (04:50:23) :
“Lawson also in Telegraph:”
“I cannot believe this idiot has been granted a Lordship.”
I think you made a rush judgement here, which is bad reflection of you rather than Lord Lawson. As you may be aware he was Margaret Thatcher’s right hand financial man for number of years. They transformed UK from a ‘sick man’ of Europe to one of the best run economies of Europe. Political aversion is one thing, but calling a man ‘idiot’ is another.

November 23, 2009 7:03 am

Fascinating interview with Dr. Tim Ball.
Unfortunately the ‘Team’ of dwarfs has taken over.
“Who sees further a dwarf or a giant?
Surely a giant for his eyes are situated at a higher level than those of the dwarf. But if the dwarf is placed on the shoulders of the giant who sees further?”
Dwarfs of CRU failed to climb on shoulders of giants, even worse, they dug themselves into a hole.

November 23, 2009 7:08 am

The State broadcaster in Ireland,RTE, is also failing to cover this story.I have emailed them to ask why,perhaps they may even reply.
Here is what I emailed to save folks the bother of hacking me mailbox 🙂
“The CRU has been hacked and the Global Warming scam is being exposed in all its shameful manipulations.Why is this story being ignored by RTE? Ireland can’t afford to pay the “carbon taxes” demand by the zealots of the AGW movement. The emails and data revealed by the hacker [or whistle-blower ] show ,for example,a serious manipulation of information being released to the Media. May I ask why this story is not being covered by RTE? “

R Dunn
November 23, 2009 7:08 am

There may yet be hope for civil debate (tongue in cheek) as the CRU hack thread continues at RealClimate.
To quote Gavin
“Please let me know in the comments, which, as always, should be substantive, non-insulting on on topic.” (yes it says “on on topic” unless they corrected it to “and”)
The CRU hack: Contex –

November 23, 2009 7:17 am

They say that “you can’t make this up”. Obviously, now we know, yes they did.

Henry chance
November 23, 2009 7:25 am

■Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
Don’t take this to Jerry springer. Leave Jerry springer out of this. It appears they want to duke it out. “The science is settled” doesn’t refer to a fist fight.

November 23, 2009 7:33 am

There’s prpobably a better place for this, but here’s a turn up for the books:
“I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article ‘whatever happened to global warming’. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic. …”
SO, what’s the source?

November 23, 2009 8:16 am

The main UK agencies involved in research and presentation of global warming matters are the Met office, an agency of the Ministry of Defence and it’s research arm, the Hadley Centre, both located within the new Met office Exeter headquarters. They work very closely with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, (CRU), where the Tyndall Centre is based. Also quite a bit more, see: The Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research (ZICER) was officially opened in 2003.
In addition to climate modelling, Hadley publishes the monthly averages for the CET and in conjunction with the Met Office produces an annual climate summary for the UK and a global climate summary. This latter is re-badged by the World Meteorological Organisation, (WMO), as a World Climate Report.
For more detail on the Met Office, Tyndall, Hadley read this: Energy and Environment Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
(pay per document)
Earlier paper dealing with the spinning of temperatures by the Met office is here: Guest papers, “spinning temperature out of control”

Peter E.
November 23, 2009 8:37 am

Here is a front page link (no picture though) to the Wall Street Journal. Good, balanced article that is constantly being updated with new and more damaging information.

Evan Jones
November 23, 2009 10:06 am

That’s me in the spotlight
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you
And I don’t know if I can do it
Oh no, I’ve said too much

November 23, 2009 10:47 am

“Dwarfs of CRU failed to climb on shoulders of giants, even worse, they dug themselves into a hole.”
That is because the dwarfs of CRU thought they were the giants, and the giants were dwarfs. That of course accounts for statements such as “his science is crap” etc. Maybe this would have been a fair observation of a single dissenting scientist, but the fact is, there is hardly a single skeptical scientist who has escaped this invective. When that happens, I am inclined to the belief that a severe case of delusion has crept in. Obviously the dissenting science seemed like crap to them, because it is completely above their heads. After all, they struggled, and continue to struggle with McIntyres criticism of Mann and Briffa (although to his credit, Tom Wigley seemed to comprehend that Briffa’s research was crap).

November 23, 2009 10:54 am

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”
Climate change skeptics “deniers” attempted to use the Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists didn’t want their email exchanges about the data, and the destruction of that data, to be made public.
…My taxes at work.

martin brumby
November 23, 2009 11:14 am

The BBC may not have found space to comment on Climategate but I heard an eulogy on Kevin Rudd this morning on “Today”.
I was expecting at any moment that they would start calling him “The Genius of the Antipodes” but I had to stop listening and throw up.

November 23, 2009 12:14 pm

I work for a semiconductor company similar to the ones listed above (Linear Tech, National) and I collect data and do analysis. I can tell you without any hesitation that I have never seen anything like the manipulation documented in the e-mails and the computer codes. It would be unthinkable to massage and edit the data in that manner. If I got caught doing something like that, I’d be fired immediately and would have a lot of trouble finding another job in our tight-knit technical community. However, I’m not honest just to keep my job. As an engineer, I worship at the altar of uncorrupted data and professional ethics. I send curt e-mail at times (even drop the f-bomb when I’m upset), but have never seen anything like those personal attacks, “circling the wagons” and corruption of the peer review process. The whoring of science by the AGW hockey team makes me [snip] angry and you won’t need a FOI request to get that on record.

November 23, 2009 1:53 pm

These 42 people have cost so many people so much money because of their “reconfiguring” of data that it should be possible, when the case is finally proven, to start a Class action against them for damages just like you would a drug company if they did something similar.

November 23, 2009 2:22 pm

In fact, right now I’m looking at data collected from testing. The data doesn’t make our product look very good. What a luxury it would be if I was part of the hockey stiick team. I could:
1. Try various types of filters and mess with the sample spans.
2. Truncate the data.
3. Mix in data from alternate tests.
4. Throw out test runs that don’t align with my expectations.
5. Provide filtered results and hide the underlying data.
6. Insult those critical of my methods and pretend their concerns are stupid.
7. Get compadres to help me attack and discredit my enemies.
How, how grand it would be to be a climate scientist instead of a lowly electrical engineer working in private industry.

November 23, 2009 3:20 pm

BBC Reports That the Climate Change Gravy Train is Unaffected by Massive Data Fraud
US will announce target for cutting carbon emissions
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
US draft legislation is being re-visited to take account of coal interests.
The US will announce a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions before next month’s UN climate summit, according to a White House official. The target is expected to be in line with figures contained in legislation before the Senate – a reduction of about 17-20% from 2005 levels by 2020. The absence of a US target has widely been seen as the single biggest obstacle to agreement at the summit.
Mr Obama has not yet decided whether to attend the talks in Copenhagen.
At the weekend, the Danish hosts announced that more than 60 heads of state and government had pledged to take part in the two-week negotiating session. Mr Obama will join them if it appears that his presence would increase chances of the 192 parties reaching agreement, the official indicated.
“There’s been recognition that if we want to keep momentum going, numbers have to be put on the table,” said Peter Bahouth, executive director of the US Climate Action Network, a network of organisations lobbying for action on the issue. “There’s been pressure for the US to come (to Copenhagen) with its hands full rather than empty, and I think what we’re seeing are the results of that.”
In the last week, Mr Obama has discussed climate change with a number of other world leaders including Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Hu Jintao of China and Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.
Domestic delays
Although Mr Obama campaigned on a promise to cut emissions, and pledged global leadership on climate change on assuming office, the US position has been constrained by delays in putting legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions through Congress.
The House of Representatives passed a bill in June that would cap emissions and establish a national carbon trading scheme. But progress of a similar bill through the Senate is not likely before March at the earliest.
Administration officials have indicated that the targets are being discussed with senior senators in an attempt to ensure that the Senate will back whatever target Mr Obama takes to Copenhagen.
It is not clear when the target will emerge, but there are now less than two weeks before the summit opens on 7 December. There will also be pressure internationally for the US to say how much money it is prepared to transfer to poorer countries to help them fight climate change, as it is bound to do under the UN climate convention.
Cutting edge
In the UN climate process, targets are conventionally given in comparison with 1990 levels of emissions. On that basis, the likely US figure amounts to a cut of just a few percent, as emissions have risen by about 15% since 1990. This is much less than the EU’s pledge of a 20% cut over the same period, or a 30% cut if there is a global deal; and much less than the 25-40% figure that developing countries are demanding.
EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said at the weekend that the EU should pledge 30% now as a way of showing commitment.
But Saleemul Huq, a climate change specialist with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) who works closely with a number of developing country governments, suggested the target would be well received as a worthy first step. “I think it’s an extremely good signal that the Obama administration is willing to put a target forward and not wait for Congress,” he told BBC News. “The targets that everyone is taking to Copenhagen are the bases for negotiation; and hopefully, the negotiations will see everyone coming up with more ambitious targets – otherwise there’s no point in going to Copenhagen, we could leave it all up to the US Congress. The other important factor is whether President Obama is willing to go to the summit – if he does, that would be a very good sign.”
The list of confirmed attendees includes UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
But neither Mr Obama nor Chinese President Hu Jintao – leaders of the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters – are yet among them.
Planning to attend:
Leaders of Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Australia, Japan, Indonesia and Brazil
Yet to commit:
Leaders of the United States, China and India

November 23, 2009 4:11 pm

Paul Vaughn who wrote earlier gets it right…..

November 23, 2009 4:28 pm

Peter E. (08:37:00) :
And none of the main characters, IPCC or CRU, could be reached for comment.
“could not be reached for comment” is as bad a reply as it gets.

November 23, 2009 4:31 pm

people citing Tim Ball are simply begging to be mocked

Patrick Davis
November 23, 2009 5:51 pm

“radun (06:47:05) :
Patrick Davis (04:50:23) :
“Lawson also in Telegraph:”
“I cannot believe this idiot has been granted a Lordship.”
I think you made a rush judgement here, which is bad reflection of you rather than Lord Lawson. As you may be aware he was Margaret Thatcher’s right hand financial man for number of years. They transformed UK from a ‘sick man’ of Europe to one of the best run economies of Europe. Political aversion is one thing, but calling a man ‘idiot’ is another.”
He was also responsible for some rather large finacial damage, if you recall, interest rates up to 17% in one day. The Political satirical/spoof TV program “Spitting Image” portrayed him as such, and I’ll stand by my previous comment. It’s no wonder he’s now in the EU parliament, unelected and incompetent.

David Ball
November 23, 2009 7:12 pm

Hey there fred. Please tell me what you are referring to. This man has stuck to his guns for 30 years, seems to be correct in his assessment of all of this ( the climate and the CRU business), and all you can say is “people citing Tim Ball are begging to be mocked”. Explain further.

November 23, 2009 8:12 pm

it has been several days since this stuff came out. i have seen many blogs offering to support a legal action is there something illegal here or not. are there any lawyers on this site ? or do we all just mop floors at walmart

November 24, 2009 7:17 am

fred (16:31:57) :
“people citing Tim Ball are simply begging to be mocked”
Fred there are two kinds of scientists: the honest ones and the ‘hockey stick team”.
“If you bury truth in the ground, it will grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.”

November 24, 2009 7:21 am

Patrick Davis (17:51:22) :
You got it wrong again: 17% interest rates were under chancellor Norman Lamont, and lasted only few days, caused by Sorosh speculations, and his Q fund, made billion, but than few years later lost twice as much. Lawson is in House of Lords and not EU parliament.

Patrick Davis
November 25, 2009 5:37 am

“radun (07:21:28) :
Patrick Davis (17:51:22) :
You got it wrong again: 17% interest rates were under chancellor Norman Lamont, and lasted only few days, caused by Sorosh speculations, and his Q fund, made billion, but than few years later lost twice as much. Lawson is in House of Lords and not EU parliament.
Only a few days?? LOL
From your link (I don’t fancy wiki as being the font of all reliable knowlege but I will entertain you)…
“Critics of Lawson assert that a combination of the abandonment of monetarism, the adoption of a de facto exchange-rate target of 3 deutschmarks to the pound (ruling out interest-rate rises), and excessive fiscal laxity (in particular the 1988 budget) unleashed an inflationary spiral.”
And Lamont bore the brunt of that, Lawson’s, decision.

Patrick Davis
November 25, 2009 6:14 am

“radun (07:21:28) :
Lawson is in House of Lords and not EU parliament.
I stand corrected on my EU Parliament accusation. I will stress, he didn’t “earn” his Lordship (None do). My, main point, still stands.

Michael Glennon
November 25, 2009 11:39 am

Had the data and science remained apolitical, the reputation of the climatologists would have remained untarnished. It would have been a purely scientific debate. As soon as Al Gore jumped on the bandwagon, that was the end of the end of the profession.

David Ball
November 26, 2009 6:34 am

Well, fred?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights