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.
Smokey (19:55:34) :
Exactly. Investigate.
That bunch at CRU had tentacles reaching across continents.
Beck’s an former Drunk and Rodeo Clown.This is what Rodeo Clowns do:
I think that Beck is bombastic,outrageous and bit over the top.But i don’t think
he’s afraid of the NYT.It isn’t 1500lbs of muscle and snot trying to kill you
or the Cowboy it just sent off into the dirt…
Wasn’t it the CRU at East Anglia that recently owned up to having lost the original data for its proxies and this why they couldn’t provide them for peer review, by the peerless M&M? Isn’t this the time to remind the world about the CRU’s dog eating its homework?
I like Beck, he talks to the regular people that have had a hard day if they have a job that is. He talks to the older folks like me that didn’t have the opportunity to get as much education as some others. So he likes to jump around and raise a little cain now and then. When he is wrong he comes back and says so. but the best part is that there are millions of people out there that can’t understand the technical jargon on this blog much less that on Climateaudit. So let him rant and rave he is talking the language that his audience understands and these folks are devoted and they vote. THEY VOTE. They are the ones that the politicians understand. These are the folks that will fire them if need be. Glen Beck isn’t talking to the choir he is talking to the great mass of middle America that doesn’t have any college and maybe not even a high school diploma. But they care about America. They are the ones that eventually will have to be answered to. That is why FOX is so good it has commentary for everyone and they cover mostly in a fair way. And if some one is stonewalling they will get in their face and ask again. And they have the guts to go against the grain of the rest of the lame stream media. Yep I watch Bill O. also.
Bill Derryberry
I put up a higher quality version in case WUWT wants to use it.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbxYVa2VjA]
reply; thanks we did
Harry (17:37:09) :
You may not like Beck, but you will die of asphyxia before you see anyone else cover this story.
Except that all of the Fox News shows covered as well as the Fox News Talk Shows… Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Greta…. etc.
Hate to say but there are some really stupid comments here and some people need to give their head a shake to hopefully get a dose of reality. Let’s get this straight…. Can we agree that virtually ALL of the media has been in locked step cahoots with the IPCC/CRU from the get-go on this issue? They have tied themselves to the beast, they have promoted this fairy tale as fact, they have been carrying its water and they have been running cover for them at every step of the way. Investigative journalism is virtually dead around the planet other than Fox. So for all those commenters here mumbling that ‘Beck isn’t my cup of tea, what exactly is it that you want? Are you wishing on a hope and a prayer that a corrupt media will change its course… just this once of course… repent for all their past deeds of running cover for those clowns at the IPCC/CRU and will now report on this story exactly as YOU want them to report it? I hate to prick your balloon but that ain’t going to happen! The media has such a huge investiture in glowbull warmongering that they will never report on the total scope of climategate. I remember a story a few years ago done in Canada called The Denial Machine (I think) and it was put on by the Fifth Estate program of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation – it was of course a total trashing of any scepticism raised by legitimate scientists. Good grief, they went after the ‘deniers’ as if they were part of the clan and progeny of Charles Manson! The CBC is owned by the federal government (which is of course the first problem) but frankly, the private network CTV is even worse…. but regardless, do you really want these same clowns that did the trashing to now be the ones reporting on this story and representing the issue as you think it should be represented? Forget it! You will never get a fair shake out of them. Virtually all of the old media is corrupt to the extent that they don’t even remember how to run a ‘fair and balanced’ program… they are promo pieces for Phil Jones, Michael Mann and David Suzuki and that is from whom they get their talking points directly. Is it really possible to expect them now to eat crow and report something that is fair to the ‘other side’? There is too much inertia for that to happen and besides, they would first have to report on themselves as being either complicit in the scam or perhaps (in a more favourable light) for having been fools to be sucked in on it. Think that will happen? The fact they have been slow on the uptake and are not reporting on it is in fact proof positive of their complicity in action. Even the emails illustrate this point precisely.
I’ll tell you what I want…. I don’t want them to report on it at all! As I said, they can’t be trusted in the least and secondly, if they were to report on the story they would focus on ‘how those poor kind-hearted but beleaguered folks at the CRU were subjected to the outrageous act of having their emails hacked into by some criminal who needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law… and it all has to happen quickly so that those wonderful scientists can get back to their job of saving the planet’. And in the future, when anyone asks anyone in the media why they never reported on this story, they will always be able to point back to that one broadcast and say “bull crap, what are you talking about? Of course we reported on it.” Is that what you want? No? Well that is what you are going to get if old media reports on this story!
At the moment, it is like there are two parallel universes going on that have no connection between them – the internet is wild about this story like there is no tomorrow and the old media is dead silent. Here’s my prediction… the fallout of all this for the networks is that if the buzzing internet has turned this story into a firestorm grassroots movement and they don’t even report on it, the end result will be even lower viewership, even lower credibility and so on. The alphabet networks in the States are already dropping like a rock with consideration by some for dropping news altogether… this just accelerates that process. By the time this is over, you probably could find more observers at an old-timers tiddly winks game. You are witnessing (with a ringside seat) one of the greatest ‘jump the shark moments’ in history… or should I say ‘anti-jump the shark moments’ since it is not what they did but what they didn’t do. This is going to be a 2-4… two for the price of one. A golden opportunity is at hand to drive the last nail into the coffin of the crooked media’s box and lay them to rest along with the IPCC/CRU. So… send out a well penned and well sourced outline of what has gone on to everyone in your address book and encourage each person that receives it to do the same. The story is already out there…..it just needs a little liberation to make it to the ears and eyes of everyone. The old media is not your friend, it is your enemy. The onus is on each of us to get the message out. And if Beck and the others at Fox want to help a bit, God bless them for doing that.
Question for all posters here on another but related note… Who has taken the time to contact their MP, Senators etc and told them that unless they plan on taking the IPCC/CRU to task in Copenhagen for the fraud they have been perpetrating on a worldwide public for the past 10 years, they should stay home? I did and frankly, I was pleasantly stunned at the positive and detailed response I received.
royfomr (17:55:46) : “George Monbiot…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.”
Better read the frogging thing first, folks. It’s a joke.
Lurker surfacing,
For those that want to write off Beck as a goof, he essentially brought down the “green jobs czar” communist Van Jones single-handedly.
I appreciate Beck, sometimes over the top but I think he genuinely cares about the country. He’s also not strictly “anti-Obama” or “anti-Democrat, but with what they are trying to push through including Cap & Steal, that has been the focus recently and I applaud him for it.
Stossel I believe is attached to Fox Business, I don’t flip over to them enough but would think he appears over there regularly.
I did see reports on some of the Fox shows during the day, and as a regular Fox viewer, when they smell blood they will not let it go.
I applaud WUWT, CA, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Free Republic and anyone who will chase all of these crooks out of the shadows.
Good to see Fox having people with brains doing some commentary.. er, . East Angila? Who is this dumb joker? Has he ever been outside the USA?
Andy
I guess it will all go down as Climategate. Or Warminggate
But I think I prefer Weathergate.
Beck makes no claim to being a “journalist”. He is exactly what he says he is, and when I have the time, which is rarely, on occasion I do watch his show and do in fact enjoy his show.
So then, where exactly are all of those “journalists”? What has become of the “investigative” sort? The used to be “watch dogs” of the government have changed into being “guard dogs” of whatever cause the owners and ringmasters of the main stream media circus want them to be a “guard dog” about.
As I recall, scientific method does not begin with speculation. Curiosity, certainly, but not simple speculation alone. First, after curiosity comes observation, and a good deal of it, if done properly. After that comes hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested and tested over again.
When the hypothesis has been tested in every way the hypothesizer can think of, and the results have not varied within the limits of the experimental apparatus available (no need to be embarrassed needlessly), the hypothesis is then put forth as a theory, to be thrown to the wolves of scientific investigation. For a theory to be valid, said theory has to be falsifiable.
To be thrown to those who would in fact be skeptics, and any “scientist” that I have known (a scientist in the same field of science as a proposed theory) worth his/her salt would have considered it part of his/her duty to be skeptical of any new theory proposed by anyone and question that new theory.
That is how I was taught the way scientific method went, lo those many years ago.
But that was then, and this is now. Scientific method is arduous, expensive and time consuming. Making the effort to analyze whether temperature measuring stations are providing temperatures representative of the actual air surrounding them is needed, and Anthony has been performing a needed and competent effort in this. This is a valid part of scientific method.
It is relatively easy to tell the difference between actual scientists, the cheerleaders, and the players on the fields of sports.
You are doing excellent and worthwhile work, Anthony.
I hope Fox rebroadcasts Beck’s segment on its other programs.
grandpa boris,
“Unfortunately, Glenn Beck is too tainted by proven cases of blatantly lying in order to make his ideology-driven points. ”
You accused, now back it up!! Ideological bull is not appreciated from either side. List them NOW!!!
I have been involved in investigations regarding civil engineering works. One of the things to watch for of any proposed theory is any assumption that has to be actual fact for the theory to be valid as to producing reliable predictions .
If any one of any assumptions required for a theory to produce accurate predictions is demonstrated to not be fact, then the entire theory may be considered as being falsified.
Wow. CNN did cover it, dated Novemeber 23, 1:23 PM EST.
Hmm. “Out of context” and “Cherry Picking” sounds something like in the Wizard of Oz. “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” could be changed to “Pay no attention to those men behind the CRU server”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html
“Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion.”
Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.
“There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax,” he told Threat Level. “There’s no funding by nefarious groups. There’s no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There’s nothing hidden, no manipulation.
“It’s just scientists talking about science, and they’re talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way.”
Trenberth agrees.
“If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists,” he says. “The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.”
Lighten up grandpa boris,
you need to watch Red Eye and maybe, just maybe you could crack a smile. Love this site and will contine to quietly read. I’m just a lowly cook. LarryOldtimer – thanks for your comments.
On East Angila – I’m guessing that whoever typed it into the teleprompter text was typing a little too qucikly.
Taht’s rihgt!
Beck sometimes has less than half of an hour to prepare for a substitute piece of urgent news; proper names, outside the scope of the automatic spelling checks, are often garbled by teleprompter operators.
Posters of debreuil‘s kind are dead wrong, and shoot themselves in the foot. Real world is not your favorite bistro around the corner. If you can’t stand Beck (I sometimes can’t, too), don’t listen to him. But give him a credit for what he is doing: very few people are telling the truth in media, and Beck is one of them, “histrionic” or not.
Glenn Beck is not Steve McIntyre, sure. For a son of a Florida baker without any education to speak of, though, Beck is doing all right; most importantly, his audience doesn’t expect and doesn’t want a very educated or scientifically thinking commentator. They are looking for somebody living and thinking on a level they can identify with. On that level, Beck is doing a tremendously good job.
I’ll Try to help Boris out:
Beck lied about Van Jones being a communist….er skip that one.
Beck lied about Acorn being a crimi….er skip that one too.
Beck lied about Obama wanting a single payer healthca….err skip that one as well.
Oh Pooh I tried Boris
For those looking down on Beck just remember who it was that broke the story about Van Jones, about Acorn continuing ties to Andy Stern and his embezzling brother and much more, just by doing simple research and using their own words against them.
I want all those who are condemning Glenn for mispronouncing East Anglia if you can pronounce this place name you have the right to continue condemning him if you can’t without help shut up and be honest with yourself place name Tooele. Odds are even those who live in the US will not be able to pronounce this but that by no means is an indication of intelligence or lack thereof.
Beck is the ONLY journalist AFAIK who flagged the dollar carry trade, destruction of the dollar and spiralling deficits. His report on that was spot on. The rest of the media seem focussed on cheerleading the rising stock market instead.
He’s one of the few media guys who has been highly critical of the banking oligarchs that have taken over America
He may be a bit ranty, and possibly have his own agenda but those are minor forgivable sins. He is doing an outstanding job on these issues IMO
Glenn Beck speaks the language of the common people, he is direct and up front, he connects the ordinary Joe to the story of the moment in an understandable and direct way.
The chattering classes/Latte swilling pseudo leftist intelectual class hate and fear people like Beck simply because he speaks the language of the ordinary people. The left attempt to lecture and bully the masses by trying to appear superior in both education and enlightenment, they preach from the pulpit of pomposity with a born to rule attitude born mostly from a universtiy education dominated by left wing intelectuals.
You get a real sense of this self styled superiority when being lectured about the supposed settled science about the causes of climate change, its a case of ‘we know best’ and ‘ordinary people cannot hope to grasp the complexities’ etc.
The left are in a way disconnected from the masses, distanced by an over inflated opinion of their worth within the matrix of society.
The lefts long obsession with the ‘equality of humanity’ is in reality a canard to hide their true intentions and feelings, this can be proven by looking at socialist/leftist/Marxist nations, they all end up divided between the elite and the masses with the power syphoned away to the elite with the masses removed from the mechanism of power.
What is the difference between Beck and Gore? Beck is a man who speaks to the common man and Gore is a man who uses the common man.
kuhnkat (22:09:12),
Please google “Glenn Beck lies” and “Glenn beck distortion”, as good departure point, to get the same set of facts I am using. You are entitled to your own interpretation of those facts. Beck is right on a few things. He’s wrong on a lot more things. And on many things he outright distorts reality. But I have no interest in a discussion of Beck, he’s not relevant to this blog’s subject.
I’ll just say this: If you think Beck’s helping your cause, perhaps you and I have different causes. I want good and responsible science, policy based on sound data rather than politics or political contributions, and I want to know what the real climate processes are and what is driving them. I have no political or ideological investment in this.
jorgekafkazar (21:20:46) :
royfomr (17:55:46) : “George Monbiot…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.”
Better read the frogging thing first, folks. It’s a joke.
Read into the comments jk. He’s stopped joking when he apologies. He is dead serious.
Onion said “Beck is the ONLY journalist AFAIK who flagged the dollar carry trade, destruction of the dollar and spiralling deficits. His report on that was spot on.”
Onion illustrates a point many here who think Beck should be avoided are wrong and frankly acting just like the AGW elitist snob crowd of believers. Beck understands better than anyone his style unique. The first time I saw him I thought he was way over the top in melodramatics, but you have to listen to him a while to understand he does his homework and like Onion pointed his piece on “the dollar carry” was spot on. I ask you how many of you that are saying to avoid Beck know what “the dollar carry” is? If you do not then you are “igorant” (in the classic non-insulting definition) of a topic (along with simular finaical topics) that you should be imbarrased you do not know.
Short of some excellent web sites and a few guests speakers on financial shows, Beck is the only TV person that is informing people in layman’s terms of dangers far more dangerous than the junk science of AGW. AGW legislation will indeed cost us all some money, but the “the dollar carry” and similar financial policies by the FED and Treasury will make what AGW legislation cost be pennies by comparison.
The first time I heard Rush he was doing a segment that required him to do simple arithmetic on-air and he blew it. Came off as stupid. Did that first impression actually show me who Rush was or how influential was. No. Rush himself says you have to listen to his show for six weeks to “get it”., and I agree.
The same applies to Beck. He is the only one that consistently brings to light information no others will touch. He is constantly asking questions and he challenges his adversaries to find fault with him. If he makes a mistake the first words out of his mouth on the next show was, “I was wrong about….”
I too sometimes cringe at his antics, but he alone has taken down more of the current administrations bad guys and reveled (even to my skeptical of all politicians mind) people around our President that clearly have a goal to do away with democracy and capitalism.
Rush
Palin
Beck
They all have a following based on a certain charisma and layman’s perspective on life, liberty and getting the facts. Why do you think they are so hated…because they connect with people, they have a large audience and most importation they reveal the MSM bias to fool the people like they have with AGW.
As many here have said Beck just brought the scam to several million people’s attention that most likely would not know about it. And those of you that are acting like the AGW elitist snobs we condemn should rethink your position on Beck.
His delivery may make you cringe, but what he informs about is far more important and will affect your lives much more than the AGW scam.
Teivo/DVD his show and fast forward past the parts you want, but there are gems of information you will get nowhere else.