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.
grandpa boris (01:57:03) :
And look how far attempting to debate the ‘science’ has gotten us.
But, you know this. It’s gotten way too far beyond science to call it back now.
It was about science 10-20 years ago.
The playing field was level more than 20 years ago, but not any more.
It’s a cesspool of deception, altered records, erased records, bought institutions, corrupt politicians, greed, hazing, cronyism and outright strongarming.
If you want to slug it out IN the cesspool, go ahead.
I say we drain the cesspool first.
Let’s also not forget the last time a psuedo-debate took place with a biased moderator who squelched audience questions.
I’ll take Glen Beck calling them out on the rug, as well as Monckton challenging Gore.
The cesspool is the provence of pigs.
The tax payers alliance in the UK are reporting that they have made a complaint about Prof Jones and his colleagues to the UK’s Information Commissioner. The TPA is fairly right wing but if they have made the complaint, then an investigation must follow and the I C is no pushover.
Wikipedia articles that should record this event in a neutral and balanced manner, with journalist-written sources (best to discuss on the talk page, don’t just start editing directly):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Pretty much nails it …
Who is responsible for the warming alarmist Google Ads on WUWT? Rather a disgrace, in light of all that’s happening. Someone needs to cancel that ad agreement.
Bryan Clark,
Google selects the ads, not WUWT. By clicking on them you support this site [and we know you won’t pay attention to what they’re trying to sell].
A click costs them money [but just one click per ad; subsequent clicks don’t pay]. So help support WUWT. Click on alarmist/watermelon ads, then promptly hit your “back” button. Waste their money. It’s fun!
paulID (00:08:14) :
“… Tooele.”
I know, I know… two-ellie!
It’s well known in certain circles.
grandpa boris (01:57:03) :
“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.”
Huh? How about if that data predicts some “undesired” climate change (with huge uncertainty) and the policy becomes to counteract that effect at all cost (including large scale economic disruptions)?
How about balancing responsible science and policy? By the way, very little science is done without patronage. I hope scientists are not deluded into thinking they are doing science for the sake of science. Do they fund themselves? How about their salaries, equipment, travel expenses, etc.?
While scientific findings/conclusions should be based on sound methodology, politics play an important role because they establish a path which societies follow (and often require enormous investment). Guys like Beck are one aspect of checks on the body politic. We need to call out fraud or even our suspicions when so much is at risk. While you and I are unheard voices, someone with Beck’s audience sounds the clarion call.
Good on Beck!
I love the county of East Angeeela.
You say tomaeto, I say tomaato….
.
For all the snotty elitists here, Beck is a regular guy who has a flamboyant way of connecting with millions of regular guys and gals and educating them (because he actually practices investigative journalism and Fox News corporate heads permit and so far encourage it). In this instance he is educating them (us) about science, climate science.
The more people know about the climate-warming scam, the more chances we have to stop this runaway freight train before its wreckage not only takes more of our billions (if not trillions) of dollars, but our national sovereignty as well — as much as we still have left.
Beck (and his courageous group of investigators) said:
1. The science is not settled. He quoted Kevin Trenberth, “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” A plus for the scientific method.
2. Doctored temperature record. Phil Jones, head of the U of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (used by Britain’s MET), “add[ed] in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline.” Whoa! Fraudulent science.
3. Fraud perpetrated on scientific journals, the government, and the public. Scientists have been using this “doctored-temperature-record” trick to get the fraudulent science in peer-review journals, and then their fraud appeared to be the “official truth”.
4. Preventing scientific publication. Phil Jones says, “Kevin and I will keep [papers we don’t like] them out [of peer-reviewed journals] somehow…even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is”. How much power do they have?
-Ignoring papers they disagree with. Ok, I guess we all do that.
-Intentionally deleting documents against FOI requests. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re: AR4 [IPCC document 2007]? Keith will do likewise….Can you email Gene and get him to do the same?” (From Dave Holland) Isn’t it illegal to delete documents in the public record in advance of FOI requests.
-Desstroying the scientific method. Demonizing researchers (Steve McIntyre) who, like any scientist/researcher wanting to verify the validity of research in a field, check the data, the methods, and the computer programming.
What we need now is detail on how the temperature record — the data — has been falsified by Hadley-CRU, NASA-GISSTemp, and UCAR. We also need detail on the physics of CO2 and its role in the atmosphere translated so regular people can get it. Beck is someone who can make this happen.
I think Glenn Beck has made a damn good start. Maybe his stint as a rodeo clown facing 1500 pounds of enraged mammal hurtling at him eliminates the lesser fear of snotty elitists, the entire mainstream media, and the Obama administration. Thanks to Douglas DC (20:19:50-11/23).
I remember when Anthony tentatively started with the ads. If I remember there was talk of the irony of clicking AGW ads to support WUWT.
Since then I’ve gone out of my way to once a day click all the different links I can find.
There’s a tough editorial on this in the Washington Times this morning:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
SABR Matt (17:04:21) :
Speaking as a climate skeptic…the less we are associated with Glenn Beck, the better off we are. I note that Beck couldn’t even pronounce the e-mails he was reading and that he incorrectly interpreted at least two of them.
We don’t need Glenn Beck on Fox News telling us what’s wrong with the climate scientists…there are more capable reporters who will, sooner or later, be forced to confront this issue.
Speaking as a Brit, I think Beck did a good job. He might not have had as strong a grasp of the issues as he might, but we’ve been following this for a lot longer and more single mindedly than him. At least he is making an effort to get the message across to the majority of people who also don’t follow the science as closely as we do.
Don’t pull down people who are doing their best. Why not email him to put him straight on the things he goofed rather than just carping from the sidelines?
The Wall Street Journal has a nice take on the CRU data fraud. Notice how Mann wriggles and squirms, then finally just refuses to answer when asked to explain his working methods, and the content of his emails:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
This is from near the end of the WSJ article:
“…When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn’t work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. “The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we’re all using is this,” he wrote. “IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”
It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren’t averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal,” goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Mr. Mann’s main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.
WHO’S THE “DENIER” NOW?
For the record, when we’ve asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he “won’t dignify that question with a response.” Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he “did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,” but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn’t to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann’s work, much less his right to remain silent.
LET’S CALL A FRAUD “A FRAUD”
However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.”
Julian in Wales (18:25:38) :
Obviously this is being orchestrated high up in Google to smother the real story.
Big investors in Google have a lot to lose here. Kleiner Perkins have invested heavily in ‘clean tech startups. Gore is a non exec director of KP. When a news agency is run by people with special interestes, expect distortion.
I hate agreeing with Glenn Beck.
Hate.
But last week he was right about Al Gore being a hypocrite for continuing to eat meat, too.
This can’t go on.
The thing about Glenn Beck is at the very least he asks questions… Also please point me to something where his research has been wrong. Oh he has opinions as to what it means, of course, but all in all his research is impeccable. He never runs with an unverified story which is more then can be said for even some news organizations…
I’m not a fan of Glenn Beck either, but he gets the ball rolling. Don’t like the rhetoric, can’t argue much with the results.
Something else to get the ball rolling a little faster – Jonah Goldberg indicates he may do a USA Today opinion piece on the CRU scandal shortly:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzE1ODdkMDM1ZDg5ZWUxMGUxYWRkMzI0ZTViNDZlOWY=
I’m not all that disappointed in the MSM coverage just yet. You have to remember this really broke open only five days ago and is not a terribly simple story. I was amazed that Fox News had a front-pager on their website the next day (even if just for a few hours). It takes a little while to digest a data dump like this, to interpret just what it all means, and the longer-term implications. Journalists just don’t have the detailed expertise to do it quickly and hope to be right. Suppose they all jumped on this Friday and CRU released detailed evidence Saturday that it was all a hoax? That was a non-zero possibility last Friday.
I’m reminded of the scene from “Force 10 from Navarone”, after the charges have exploded inside the dam but there’s no visible damage yet….
Weaver: Nothing! We’ve been through all this, and nothing!
Miller: You can’t expect an enormous volcano with three tiny bags of explosives. You have to let nature take her course. Give it time, it’ll work.
For those of you complaining about Beck’s pronunciation of words, you should be aware that he is ADHD and dyslexic. I’m not at all surprised he misreads words sometimes. I’m amazed he gets it correct as much as he does.
The cesspool is the provence of pigs. rbatemen
Until the root of this hysteria is dealt with it will be one imagined or exaggerated fear after another.
That root is our pseudo-capitalism which is based on the government backed banking and money cartel. Ron Paul and others are hacking at this root.
Meanwhile, I hope the true scientific community AND folks such as Glen Beck will severely discipline the so-called scientists in our midst.
Ok, he got the names Anglia and Trenberth wrong, pronouncing them “Angila” and “Tentberth”, but overall, it’s a good hit piece, and I’m not a fan.
When he said “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?”, I laughed, but I think it would have been better to leave off the reference to cap and trade, which is a bit of a red herring there.
I hope there will be more, much more of this type of thing.
Oh, right, it’s all just part of the “contrarian noise machine”, including WUWT. The poor, delusional Alarmists are in denial, as their precious AGW Faith is crumbling.
paul revere (17:23:36) :
CUR has also cleared/removed the data for 2009 from there files.
Try here:-
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Data here:-
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
Unbelievable. It’s those here whining about Beck that are engaging in the same kind of close mindedness that got AGW to where it is today.
Be thankful there is real journalism occuring or get used to new high taxes and trillion dollar government mistakes.
There’s a fair amount of sophomoric ad hom and hauteur goin’ on round here. Reads more like a Moonbat column than WUWT. Everybody, including Glen Beck has got a dog in this fight. Any man with an audience of 8 million who is convinced that AGW is a scam is ok with me.
Now, if scientists believe that robust challenges to theories and studies will eventually reveal the truth and cause the body politic to see the light, so be it. If scientists wish to discourse only with scientists, except when applying for a grant, that’s fine. Science is a full time job, get on with it.
Politics is also a full time job, and lately the agenda seems to have moved, driven, we are told, by science, to a call for more centralized governments and better control of the means of production, the people and the currency. Conversations among scientists are not going to stop the juggernaut that is moving toward the accomplishment of this agenda.
It’s time to stop conversing and put on the gloves. Beck will make that clear to the people who have always done the fighting in this world. He, more than any of his critics, has the lingua franca.
Beck is frequently over-the-top and some of his stuff is downright corny. I think he significantly distracted from the Monckton segment and poor old John Bolton couldn’t really get his viewpoint across. That said, Beck did make many of the critical points regarding the unprofessional behavior of the scientists and the consequences of placing too much trust in the integrity of this type of person. We do have to be careful about assuming that folks with less formal education somehow do not understand key issues. (Ronald Reagan was effective because he could eloquently state what many saw, felt and believed – despite the handwringing of the bicoastal and European elites.) My guess is that he sees the AGW scaremongering and much of this behavior driven by anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, pro-big government , pro-world government ideologies and ideologues. Lord Monckton probably also sees much the same thing.
I, like many here, who have followed the issue may take a narrower view.
That said it would be naive to ignore the positive PR value of informing and mobilizing Beck’s audience.
It is a case of fighting fire with fire. In my opinion, the coordinated defense and response to the CRU events is no accident. They all have downplayed or ignored the illegal behavior around the responses to the FOI requests. Remember that RealClimate is, in part, enabled by Fenton Communications, which is one of a number of PR firms that are run by radicals and closely tied to very left wing agendas. Gavin is a pretty good wordsmith, but in my view the initial RealClimate response smacks of professional PR spinmasters. We may prefer rapier like thrusts, but sometimes a Beck-like blunderbuss is exactly what you need.
I understand why so many seem upset with Beck. Anyone who quotes the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and the written works of the Founders is clearly an extremist nut job. There is no place in our public discourse for anyone who continually points out that the government’s actions violate these old documents.
Reset sarcasm filter to off.