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.
I liked how Beck points out; “trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us”. This is the #1 reason for the outrage over the scam.
I have to brush my teeth. What a moron that guy is – he would help a lot more if he just talked about something else.
Beck? Yeah he is a sensationalist, but you have to love him simply because he is airing it and other MSM is not. Good on him. (And yes, I was upset with his pronunciation of Anglia. The goof.)
“Beck is a sensationalist” … Unlike:
“death trains” … Hansen
“100 months to act” … Prince Charles
“drowning polar bears” and similar crap ad nauseum by “Al Baby” Gore
And the best one of all from our own Grand Poobah of Eco-weenie-ism, Dave Suzuki who wrote on December 2, 1989, “We no longer have the luxury of time … we only have a decade to turn things around.”
(Posted this before. ☺)
Go Glenn!! ☺ ☺ Be as sensational as you have to be.
Clive
From the not-so-frozen North … and like they say at McDonald “I’m lovin’ it” ☺
Love him or hate him he is getting the point across. Those of you who make fun of him because he mispronounced a word are opting for the nonessential. I think Glen is great even though he spends a lot of time grimicing and grunting. But, thats what gets popular attention!!! So don’t knock it!
Really interesting behaviour on the Google.co.uk news page
I picked up the story on Google news very early and then I came to this site to find out more about what had happened. I was impressed because it was being covered by Google UK news page so early and highlighted as being an important story.
The story got taken down a couple of days ago, and there were a few silly AGW scare stories appearing again.
Tonight the CRU story reappeared in the “spotlight” section where instead of a choice only a single link to a page in Real Climate was being highlighted by Google, this time it as just about about nasty people stealing unnewsworthy information to discredit real science, and since then Google have changed the story in spotlight to a link to the NYT on the same theme.
Obviously this is being orchestrated high up in Google to smother the real story. Only if you start searching using the news box on words like climategate or CRU do you get the real story, then tens of them come up all hostile to the CRU. But Google are putting up a front to innoent visitors to their news page that the only story worth reading is on Realclimate and NYT. Interesting!
By the way congratulations everyone, this site and CA are changing history
Beck’s good. This issue just got about 80 million viewers, right there, along with Hannity.
FWIW I agree that there is a lot of media bias here. If e-mails were released from a tobacco company which e-mails disclosed just ten percent of the sketchy behavior disclosed here, you’d never hear the end of it from the major networks and newspapers.
Everyone,
Please don’t try to “kill the messenger” here. Glenn Beck uses humor to get his points across. You may like that or you may not. I happen to like humor (e.g. Monty Python, SNL). The Anita Dunn red phone stunt was classic (“Anita – please call me if I’m wrong!”) – and she never recovered after the infamous “Mao” speech (what I called the :mousey tongue” speech) was revealed.
Remember that his audience are ordinary folks, and though he may mispronounce names or be a little over the top at times, remember that the main point is to get the basic message out there – to his 2.5 million viewers.
Great job Glen Beck. Those of you who have been looking down their noses, have you checked out the code? Maybe the replots of some of the data without the falsifications. Remember Gore got an Oscar and a Nobel based on this nonsense. Obama, Boxer, Waxman, Pelosi and Lisa Jackson are trying to kill our economy based on this corruption. The MSM with Katie Couric has demonized CO2 based on these corrupted politically motivated “researchers”. The IPPC is driving for global control based on the these manipulated numbers. More help for Anthony and Steve great!
Mufcdiver (17:11:57) :
It’s a ‘piss take’ from the warmist to coincide with Sweden!
———-
Would that be Copenhagen, Sweden ??
Since no doubt Al Gore’s going, maybe it will be possible to walk over from Sweden !!!
On East Angila – I’m guessing that whoever typed it into the teleprompter text was typing a little too qucikly.
I have to stand up for having Beck as a pro “skeptic” advocate. Sure, he’s an entertainer and says that. He also encourages asking questions of his topics and of himself and he will show you what resources he uses. People like him for that approach.
Skeptic? I’d say so. Legitimate? Make up your own mind. Presentation? Entertaining, and/or agitating (pov). Passion? Genuine, business or both – I think he is risking too much to be faking it.
2.5 million viewers – not a bad ally, especially in the media.
All publicity is good? It sure is when you need it! It’s not new to have to deal with the vitriol of the One Worlders (warmists/alarmists/”greenies”, etc.).
Often, I find Beck’s enthusiasm and packaging reassuring.
As far as not being right on everything? I’ve never known any scientist (or layman) to have been perfect, either. No – I won’t take a shot at the CRU crew. “Like hell I won’t! – no punishment they receive will be enough and I hope they are publicly punished and the explanations are understood by all.
Also, Limbaugh was the first big media personalities that I know of who crusaded against CO2 AGW and sited valid references for back up.
And has any politician been vilified by AGW’ers more than Sen. Inhofe? I nominate Steve Mc. and Inhofe for Nobels for REAL.
Should AGW’ers and OneWorlders dictate who says what and why? They come close in the US occaisionally but, so far, get backed down. Aside from the Civil War we have avoided outright violence – so far. Facing the challenges will, hopefully, always be up us.
Sorry, got carried away.
It would be very helpful if someone could sort out the material and present it in a coherent fashion. Beck failed with flying colors, even if he throttled the histrionics way down on this story. I was also quite surprised by the lazy nature of the investigation. So here you have a bunch of climatologists, ID’d only by first names, and you don’t bother to find out who they are and where they work? That’s shabby journalism.
I agree that in this case he helps the debate, simply by making the matter pretty much impossible to sweep under the rug. But someone of a more sober and reflected nature needs to sort out the story, and present it clearly.
Julian in Wales (18:25:38) :
What’s interesting to me is that Google considers RealClimate to be a “news” site.
Someone obviously went out of their way to make that decision.
He’s a great communicator.
Say … you don’t suppose …
[fade out to satanic laughter]
There are two classes of people:
1) Those that are “told” what to think by their controllers and repeat exactly what they were taught to say.
2) Those who actually watched the Glenn Beck show today and understood what David Horiwitz was saying.
Class 1 people will not have clue what David Horowitz said today on the Glenn Beck show.
I’m glad Beck reported this. I’m not actually surprised, as a “Fox Fan” myself I assumed that they would be the only MSM source to air this story, and I was right. You guys have the most watched cable news network, wanting to get this story out. I say that’s cause for appreciation. Anything else is elitism… and I thought this whole story was about having personal opinion get in the way of science.
But, aside from Beck, if you want someone you respect to make this story more widespread, how about the President of the USA? What’s Obama have to say about this? I assume not much, especially since it was a story on Fox News.
The #2 reason for the outrage over the ClimateGate scandel is Al Gore et al are scaring the hell out of our children for no reason. They need to be stopped.
I LOVE Glenn Beck… no, not in a brokebacksorta way…. I mean I like his show. The very problem with this debate is that we haven’t been sufficiently direct or forceful in pressing our opinion. We’ve allowed the Code Pink style of righteous indignation from the far left to go unchallenged. Our side has undertaken this debate from a purely rational, studious examination of the facts, (ever so careful to admit where the other side has any legitimate point) ….while the political machine of sensationalism has essentially run science over. If we remained on this path, we’d lose. We need Beck. God Bless him.
This is Tim Ball speaking to James Corbett on the Corbett report. It’s certainly better than the Glenn Beck piece.
Here are the latest two comments from “David” on the CA thread “CRU Correspondence.” They are insanely great, so I hope re-posting them here is OK:
=========
David: November 23rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Based on what is contained in these emails, it is fair to say that the scientific careers of these individuals may well be at an end. After so many years of attempting to point to the facts and being scorned by others publicly, privately, or just in general for not believing in AGW, perhaps I should feel a tinge of joy. However, much more so, I am saddened by all this.
How many people’s lives and careers were destroyed by their manipulations and cover-up? How many people and institutions were dragged down by this? What about Science magazine, Nature, and GRL? What about public faith in science and the impartiality of scientists in general? How many politicians fell for all this, or went along with it rather than be ridiculed? How many editors were removed as a result of their joint targetted efforts?
And by all means, they could not have got this far alone, who else is complicit in all this? At Science, at Nature, at any other number of once(?) venerated science publications? How were they able to get their own people into these publications and why did no one question this? Where was the National Academy of Sciences? Why did they not question all this, and to the extent they had a few tepid remarks of rebuke (“cannot be supported”) and trying to go along with the political zeitgeist rather than stick up for the scientific facts?
What about the poltical careers of dupes(?), fellow travelers(?), or opportunists like Sir David King, Al Gore, and however many countless other politicians that will forever be associated with this mess.
And now that we are at the climate change Waterloo, why in the world did it take a whistleblower’s effort to release these emails to finally get the scientific community to stand-up and say this is wrong? Was it really that difficult to see what was happening without the emails?
Finally, couldn’t ALL of our time, effort, and money have been better spent solving actual problems in the world rather than trying to debunk what any reasonably intelligent person could have seen was if not a total fabrication of facts a deeply manipulated set of facts.
#
355 David: November 23rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
And if I might just add, how is it possible that this group of what I might call climate charlatans was able to nearly convince the entire world to sign up to reduce their economic growth in the name of … what exactly? Have they now shame? Should Kyoto or Copenhagen have ever been fully implemented (with the U.S., India, and China) how many BILLIONS of people would see their fortunes turn for the worse over this travesty. The developing world would have seen its development slowed or halted and the developed world the same.
It is with cold comfort that I must recall the adage, “never underestimate the power of human stupidity”.
Limbaugh spent about half an hour on climategate this morning. That’s what, another 10 million people introduced to the topic?
The Salt Lake Tribune ran two pro AGW commentaries last weekend. One by Tom Friedman, which was a joke, and another by a local University of Utah professor Robert Davies.
If these guys had an ounce of integrity they’d be calling for the source data and actual programming to see if the results could be replicated. After all, that is science.
Isn’t it?
“On East Angila – I’m guessing that whoever typed it into the teleprompter text was typing a little too qucikly.”
Sure, but if you’re a professional journalist you catch that. No big deal, embarrassing nonetheless.
Beck, as many other reporters didn’t catch the nuances of the “hide the decline”.
They tend to conflate the cooling / flat temperatures of the last decade with the more obscure problem of divergence of proxies vs temperature over the last few decades.
The Mann Nature trick is a way to disguise the failure of tree rings to work as proxies — as “wooden thermometers”. Mann wants to be able to claim that tree rings reliably reflect temperature and temperature only.
This then lets him generate generate a history of temperatures back to the first millenium that supports the theory that today’s warming is unprecedented. If the tree rings show a decline in temperature since 1960 or 1980, then they aren’t good wooden thermometers.
THIS is the decline that he wanted to hide (but replacing the proxy data with thermometer based info after 1960, or 1980 or whenever its needed).
The discussion is very specifically about the graphic on the front cover of a WMO report entitled WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999.
The authors credited for the graphics are ……… drumroll …………….
PD Jones, KR Briffa, and T Osborn University of E. Anglia
M E Mann, U of Va
RS Bradley, U of Mass.
MK Hughes, Univ of Arizona
One site has compiled a large collection of articles regarding climategate, with both pro and con AGW views:
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/the-cru-hack/
Now what I do find to be a WUWT moment, is how that website and google handle climategate or cru hacked queries and/or sites by relevance.
I did a web search on both terms and the top 3 sites, not including the news header, produced in this order: The Examiner from Atlanta, Real Climate and then WUWT. How is it that The Air Vent or Climate Audit or this site not rank above RC in my search query? Beltwayblips also assumes that same order of relevance.
The Examiner I understand, was the first media outlet to cover the story, so that makes since. But to see RC come in #2 on search results is a bit questionable. Is google being manipulative as well?
RC took days to enter the climategate discussion, well after AV, CA, WUWT, and others. I don’t get it.
Oh wait. I forgot. Gore invented the internet. n/m.
I am in agreement with SABR Matt. Glenn Beck is way too extreme to “help” this issue. Someone more moderate like Stossel would have been perfect.