UPDATED: Better video quality in this copy on YouTube. Previous copy was low-res. Beck’s summary of the CRU email exchanges is very strong.
Transcript follows, thanks to Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters for it.
GLENN BECK, HOST: A potentially major scandal is unfolding after someone released thousands of e-mails and documents sent between prominent scientists of global warming debate. The New York Times has verified that these e-mails are legitimate which wasn’t too hard because some of them were written by and to one of their reporters. More on that here in just a second. But first let’s start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What do these guys say behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he’s a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it.
How about Phil Jones, head of of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, “I have just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline.” Yes, he is talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures. Incredible. But it doesn’t stop there.
How about when scientific journals published material that Jones didn’t like? Quote “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report…Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is” end quote. Think about that next time you hear about, oh, “the consensus,” and “the science is settled,” and Al Gore is bragging about the peer reviewed journals
Now what happens to a peer reviewed paper when they disagree with what gets published? Quote “…our only choice is to ignore this paper. They have already achieved what they wanted.” But at least they are not intentionally deleting documents or hiding information, right? Oh, no, they’re doing that, too. Here is Phil Jones writing Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with that Hockey Stick graph, that one. He said, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re: AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will get Caspar to do likewise.” Count them. There’s Jones, Mike, Keith, Gene, and Caspar, whoever they are, potentially deleting e-mails supposedly about supposed science.
So why all the secrecy? Well, we find out from another e-mail from Michael Mann about skeptic Steven McIntyre. “I’m sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals [you know, the one’s they’re cycling! ] but all they have to do is put it up on their blog and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear. Pretty soon Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck and their ilk are parroting the claims.”
So you see, if McIntyre sees the data, he’ll find the tricks that are in it to hide the decline, and then crazy people like me might just let you know about it. Oh, the horror what will happen to cap and trade? That e-mail was sent from one of the scientists to a New York Times reporter. That same reporter, Andrew Revkin, thankfully did report on the story for the New York Times, but he will not post the documents because, quote “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” Oh, well, I know, the New York Times would never post or print anything that wasn’t intended for the public eye, like, maybe, the way we monitor terrorists or specific strategies to protect our troops in the field. No, no, the New York Times, they’re above that.
Deleting e-mails, hiding declines, incorrect data, inadequate systems, redefining scientific peer reviews for their own uses! This is what appears to be going on behind the scenes and literally trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us. If your gut said, “Wait a minute, this global warming thing sounds like a scam.” Well, I think you’re seeing it now. We told you this was going on, without proof, because we listened to our gut. You’d never believe me, but once again, here we are with yet another brand new reality.
Indeed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You may not like Beck, but you will die of asphyxia before you see anyone else cover this story.
What strikes me about the “MSM” here is that this is normally the type of thing that would have the investigative reporters salivating.
Although I’ve read a few relatively even-handed accounts, I haven’t seen any real digging yet, and many of those reporting on this are shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone would have the audacity to hack into a large and powerful organizations IT system and extract embarassing information.
I wonder what they teach these guys in journalism school these days.
Oh please… the usual “if Fox has it that’s bad”…
Well, Beck is specifically named… he has every right to be furious at these guys, and report on it.
Also, you can’t fault his observation that Revkin’s NYT position is utter crap. The NYT will expose anything they can if it furthers their agenda… this doesn’t, so they won’t.
I have an old account sign-in over at Little Green Footballs, which is Charles Johnson’s site. I used it a couple of times in recent days to (mildly) refute some of the claims there.
Incredibly, he has blocked my account. This is Charles Johnson, the guy who helped bring down Dan Rather with his great work on the word docs.
What is it about this subject that causes people to become so close-minded?
And of course there is the irony of Johnson fulminating about the “ranting and fuming” by “right-wing” bloggers, while in essence putting fingers in his ears and shouting “I can’t hear you”.
‘Anjeela’? That’s not particularly bright of him.
Other than that, it was fun – I’m no fan of Beck though.
The only guy on TV that really has picked up the story and you guys are upset. You people should be cheering this guy because the other stations will not give you the time of day.
The fact is that FOX represents are very rare but extremely important position on US TV as just about all of the alternative major media outlets are left leaning.
Anyhow, still waiting on CNN to do its piece 🙂
That’s O.K. He just needs to get his old friend Lord Monckton on to explain it. Monckton has already called the perpetrators criminals. Its up in blaring headlines at Climate Depot.
Like him or not, at least 2.5 million or more people now know about CRU-gate:
From the Drudge Report:
CABLE NEWS RACE
NOV. 18, 2009
FOXNEWS HANNITY/PALIN 4,200,000…
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,868,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,512,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,383,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,235,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,980,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,041,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,036,000
MSNBC MADDOW 957,000
CNN KING 835,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 625,000
CNN COOPER 611,000
This is also good, Russia Today, with an interview with former MP Peter Lilley:
He don’t think it’s a conspiracy (which I think is good) but he also don’t think that this will really stop the largerly invested fat AGW-bastard. :/
Oh, and I see he deleted my previous posts discussing the CRU programmer’s comments found in the hacked code.
Can’t have such outrageous commentary disturb the echo chamber, I guess.
It’s truly bizarre behaviour from someone who used to trumpet the ability of the Internet to unearth information.
Thanks WUWT, I’m sorry I couldn’t upload a higher quality video, but it’s the content that matters. The writer of that piece did a pretty good job on it but alas, they had to throw in something mentioning terrorists. Makes me wonder who the real terrorists are though.
If Beck wants to focus on scandalous material, there’s the story of that guy in a college near Albany who’s being sued for fiddling with some climate data.
Boom. Over two million people have now heard the story. Not a single talking heads debate about this will ever be the same. Finally. Finally. Finally. I really expected the followers of The Hockey Stick Team to be gnashing their teeth over this. I guess I haven’t been reading blogs long enough to have realized that they would in fact act like textbook cult members act when the apocalypse has been called off, which is quite literally indeed what now has the media finally calling into question. The cognitive dissidence between this scandal and the usual supply of alarmist articles that sprinkle every week’s headlines will be interesting to see played out. Suddenly nobody on their side can really have a fair debate about the actual science. Hopefully they will better understand what the skeptics have been going through, namely demonization, slur and slander.
Over at RC is a growing string of literally religious adoration for the noble climate scientists involved. As yourself if *this* is how alarmists behave when faced with the worst possible disgrace, how much of a chance did skeptics have to pry open their closed minds prior to the disgrace?
Y’all are right, Beck is not the guy for us, not erudite enough. Let’s call Fox and tell them we will never watch until he is gone. We will make Fox delete him! /snark off.
I don’t care if you like him or not. He has 2 million viewers and over 8 million radio listeners. That is more then have ever seen WUWT and CA combined. (No offense intended). It is also more viewers than watch any show on CNN, more than watch MSNBC all together.
The whole point now is spreading the word as far and wide as possible. Let’s not get worried about who picks up the story. “Strike while the iron is hot” And his viewers are watching his show.
I first discovered Glenn Beck on the radio. More On Trivia is very funny.
By the way, Inhofe is going to call for Congressional investigation.
Forget the warmist wailings from this video. They will be small beer compared to the hottist howlings that this link will father!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists
Early on, in the comments, George Monbiot apologies for having been too trusting of the integrity of certain climate scientists. His faithful congregation don’t seem too happy with his Damascus Moment- some even admit to being confused.
This is Huge and breathtaking- he’ll get slaughtered for his apostacy.
He needs our help. Get on to the blog before someone pulls the plug and click the support link to the right of his name.
When I left the site, 108 had agreed/ recommended his comment.
Let’s give him a boost folks.
While Beck can be over the top at times, at other times he can be spot on . I’m not really defending the guy , but obviously some of you have never watched his show . If you can get past the histrionics , simply listen to what he has to say .
As an environmental scientist I am not at all surprised by the behavior of Jones et al. I work with these kind of bozos and these are the elite of their ilk.
I too can’t stomach more than few minutes of Beck, but he is going to get a lot more traction on this issue than the blogs. If Beck is our only conduit to get this scandal covered by the MSM, then we just have to let it happen and hope it doesn’t get too mangled in the process.
Kudos to Beck for giving some additional prominence to the story, but Holy Cow, the man is ignorant! If the warmists are to be put out to pasture, it’s going to have to be done by people a lot more serious than this clown.
Frank K. (17:46:20) :
Like him or not, at least 2.5 million or more people now know about CRU-gate:
From the Drudge Report:
CABLE NEWS RACE
NOV. 18, 2009
FOXNEWS HANNITY/PALIN 4,200,000…
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,868,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,512,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,383,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,235,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,980,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,041,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,036,000
MSNBC MADDOW 957,000
CNN KING 835,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 625,000
CNN COOPER 611,000
************
Olbermann is first, like he keeps claiming! Hannity/Palin don’t count together, and MSNBC’s number is further to the right than anyone else. /Liberal off
Excuse me but there’s nothing wrong with Beck, Oreilly or FOX.
Their popularity is a strong signal that millions more repect their work that that of MSNBC etc.
That said, people should recognize that the people propogandizing and advocating the AGW movement while depsparaging Watts, McIntyre, Pielke, Singer Ball etc. are the same people dumping on FOX,and FOR THE SAME REASONS.
I think it’s fantastic that Beck and FOX cover the CRUhack and the AGW scandal.
The more the better for all the right reasons.
chip (17:43:22) :
You’re not alone, check out grouchyconservativepundits.com
What some here refer to as “histrionics” I call a passion for applying logic and common sense in how we manage our human relations and how we expend our limited resources. That AGW/Climate Change is being used without scientific proof to disrupt and inappropriately human activity needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Beck may wave his arms, make faces and produce wild props to get his points across, but at least he is entertaining and successful based on audience ratings. BTW, entertaining messages are more likely to stick with audiences.
He needs that boost for his CV. Who knows, if we put enough tips into the WUWT honey pot, he may soon be joining the over-worked, genuine 21st Century Hockey-Stick Team of Mr Watts’ moderators!
John M (17:39:38) :
Good point ! This is normally the kind of story that even the reporters who have sold out would eat their young to investigate and paste their name all over, yet you can hear a pin drop…
Where is CNN ???
Charles Johnson is just one guy who has decided in favor in AGW. I decided it was useless to discuss AGW on his blog, mainly because he ignored the facts in my postings and responded to others using “consensus” as his main argument, as if science was decided by a vote.
Being a scientist, I would rather be on a science blog, then on a blog worried about birthers, and creationists. Neither subject interests me, but it was amazing what you were labelled with if you were anti-AGW.