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.
Echoing SABR Matt’s view on this. Glenn Beck will only erode the substance of the arguments made here on WUWT and elsewhere. This will be used as ammunition by the opposition to invalidate any sense of reason or intellect the skeptic base operates on.
If Beck is the only following this what that does tell us about other journalists?
As a follow-up to SABR Matt, Kip, et al., all you Glenn Beck fans out there, spouting statistics about the number of viewers he has versus the left-wing diehards over at CNN or wherever, are missing the point. It doesn’t matter if he has ratings not seen since Roots — the sheeple will be led by the nose as always. What matters is that policymakers and those who afix their signatures to legally binding international treaties will not be swayed by ignoramuses like Beck, however successful he is at raising awareness among the hoi polloi. The fight against the climate-change fraud is a serious issue that needs serious people leading the charge, not ratings-seeking clowns like Beck, O’Reilly, or Limbaugh, much as I enjoy these guys for their entertainment value.
What’s with all the hatred for Beck? Yes he gets pretty excited – but then, many things he gets excited about would make you, too, if you knew anythign about the topic in question and gave a rip.
Any of those admirably involved in mathematically uncovering all the intentional deceit that’s never been acknowledged (at most hand-waved) previously would now, given this proof material, probably be jumping up and down about it too, if they could get on TV, because it all is that maddening.
But they can’t, and Beck can do it for them. What’s wrong with that?
“Glenn was obviously reading the script without a strong background knowledge”
“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.”
Oh please. I couldn’t listen, but only read the transcript. Didn’t sound too bad for a previously uninformed muckraking generalist.
I’m happy for every sober recounting of the leak, and there are many details that need to be soberly thrown into politicians’ (and “journalists”‘) faces, but Beck certainly brings this to the attention of those who couldn’t help but believe the alarmism, yet will at some point watch this. And there are lots of those in the general population.
…and certainly lots of bandwagon politicians of both parties who need an education. This might start it.
Wow there are a lot of elitist snobs on this site. The whole issue is about the fraud being perpetrated on us by these so-called scientists, and so many of the posts are just people whining about Beck the messenger. So what if Beck is not erudite enough, polished enough, or engages in histrionics! He’s getting a message across that most other reporters don’t have the guts to report on. And a big “SO WHAT!!” to what the AGW crowd thinks of Beck. No matter what he says, he will always be an idiot to them as will anyone else (i.e., most people on this site) who disagree with them.
Instead of shooting the messenger, grow a pair and defend the guy who’s getting the message out. If you can do it better, shut up and do it, and leave the messenger alone.
I have hope for Beck but unless he takes on the banksters, he is mostly a diversion from the root of our problems AND NOT A TRUE FREE MARKETEER.
However, he is doing a good job on exposing a major branch of evil, environmental extremism so I give him due credit. I would love to love the guy but he frustrates me instead. So, is he just a bit ignorant or is he a sophisticated whore for the banksters? And what about Limbaugh? He is a disappointment too.
Untie that other half of your brain, Rush. You apparently need it. Liberals are a walk in the park compared to banksters.
All I’m saying is that we need better messengers than Beck. That’s not being elitist, that’s being smart.
I find the opinions expressed of Beck on this site humorous.
You people whine and complain about how discouraging the pro-AGW manipulation in (newspapers | broadcast tv | web) is in the face of “real” data and yet most of the negative opinions of Beck expressed here are based wholly on being manipulated by (newspapers | broadcast tv | web) sources.
East “Angila”? Has not heard of the Angles, you know, as in “England”?
I guess he’s just a dumb White “Angilo” Saxon Protestant.
Geez…amazing. Here we now have proof that the global warming scientists are a bunch of liars and fixing numbers, and you attack Glenn Beck for practically quoting the e-mails of what they were up top.
My God, you liberals are completely intellectually dishonest. I meant stupid. You’re like little kids who never grew up.
Is the 90s warming period tweaked data? Did the 90s really beat the 40s?
Can recent data be trusted is surely the overriding question here?
Most rational people immediately dismiss what Beck has to say…? It’s that kind of thinking that led to the fiasco we’re all talking about. Forget about the truth, if it’s not dressed up the way I like it or it doesn’t come from within the circle of what I deem acceptable, I’m not going to listen to it. Yeah, eminently rational.
Sorry, NB Barry, and kudos Aeronomer. Elitists care about packaging. Others care about the message, and the AGW message is a fraud. While you’re wringing your hands looking for a ‘smarter’ messenger, this one’s already done the job. It’s real easy to sit on the sidelines and call someone stupid for mispronouncing a word, quite another to be a man and confront these people on a daily basis.
Beck’s intelligence is not the issue. If you don’t like his delivery, switch the channel, or get your own show. I guarantee you’ll be made to look just as stupid as AGW proponents already think you are.
Here is an article from U of Guelph. It tells of Mann’s vindictive style regarding articles that he doesn’t like.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Pope_L.pdf
Mann has a difference of opinion regarding peer review.
I expect he will face some challenges soon.
Looks like Beck will have more on AGW today.
There is a town in Scotland called Lesmahagow. Some years a reporter on BBC called it Leshamagow. If BBC people can’t even pronounce British names correctly, don’t be too hard on an American who made a wee mistake.
Alba (15:08:21) :
“There is a town in Scotland called Lesmahagow. Some years a reporter on BBC called it Leshamagow. If BBC people can’t even pronounce British names correctly, don’t be too hard on an American who made a wee mistake.”
Obama said he didn’t have all the facts, but said the police acted stupidly. He didn’t mispronounce any names though. Let’s put Beck in the White House, and send Obama to Fox News.
Haven’t time right now to read every comment here so apologies if this has been mentioned but two old sayings you may know:
“War makes strange bedfellows”
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”
Histrionic? Have you actually watched the video????? Sure, Beck can display a lot of “histrionics” — emotionally dramatic presentation. But there is absolutely zero such histrionics in this video. If you think otherwise, I have to assume that you’re an elitist snob. Beck is VERY subdued in this video.
note he gets the divergence divergence issue (Hide the decline) backward. They are not hiding “the decline in temp” as Beck says but instead hiding the decline in the proxy by replacing it with modern temp record – which increases over the period.
He should either shut his trap or get his story straight before he becomes the skeptics’ Romm/Mann/Jones and does more harm than good.
rbateman (03:39:13) :
Yes, science has taken the back seat to politics. By the time Congress gets involved, it’s all about posturing and ideology.
George S. (06:03:15) :
“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)?”
I am not clear on what you are asking here.
Data doesn’t “predict” anything. Data tells you what is happening now or has happened in the past. Future events must be predicted by a theory that explains the data’s behavior so far and projects its behavior in the future. If that theory predicts something that subsequently collected data doesn’t confirm, as has been the case with all AGW theories so far, then the the theory is wrong.
Basing policy decisions on unconfirmed, unproven theories that fail to predict outcomes and on incomplete, flawed computer models is a recipe for disaster. When the even the past data has to be “tricked” into confirming a theory’s “postdictions”, any predictions made by that theory can’t possibly be used as a basis for decision making.
Beck, like Limbaugh and O’Reily, is a loud, obnoxious and largely ignorant demagogue. Just because in this case he happens to support a point of view I hold doesn’t make me dislike him any less.
“Frankly, anything he says is immediately dismissed by most rational people; with friends like him, …”
…who needs Michael Mann?
The CBS News blog has picked this up and actually do a pretty good job of digging into it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
Expose the code and bust the Anti-Trust Climate Team
Busted not Robust!
Shiny
Edward
Good old Glenn, always getting the story wrong–or at least twisted a bit.