Telegraph's Booker on the "climategate" scandal

Excerpts from the Telegraph:

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” (Note: Delingpole reports via email he got it from WUWT, commenter Bulldust coined the phrase at 3:52PM PST Nov 19th – Anthony) to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian‘s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

Read the complete essay at the Telegraph

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Curmudgeon Geographer
November 29, 2009 12:01 am

It will be interesting to watch the output of the climate science journals in the coming months to see how they any have been affected by this. The quality of reviews, quality of publication, etc.

Phillip Bratby
November 29, 2009 12:03 am

Please support Christopher by putting in comments below his article. I have.

November 29, 2009 12:07 am

Maybe, just maybe the MSM will look further and deeper into the murky depths of this scandal. And a scandal it is………

November 29, 2009 12:11 am

Booker writes a damning article…. and rightly so. The scientific conduct of CRU is nothing less, then an absolute scandal.
The people, as our Politicians repeat over and over again, who Write the “Science”, are nothing less then proven scoundrels, who have been caught cooking the books.
The hypothesis of AGW is flawed and a fraud to boot.

November 29, 2009 12:21 am

But they were right, things are “heating up.”

Dr A Burns
November 29, 2009 12:27 am

Meanwhile back at the ranch, our Sydney Morning Herald today runs this headline : “Commonwealth unites against climate change” and as you guessed, still no mention of ClimateGate !
Is the silence of the mainstream press just politics and/or are the media mogels somehow set up to make mega bucks out of emissions trading ? Follow the money for a real story.

Phillip Bratby
November 29, 2009 12:29 am

But the BBC remains largely silent on the issue. Is this internal bias or government pressure? UK citizens, complain to the BBC and write to your MP.

November 29, 2009 12:34 am

IWth all due respest it didn’t take much imagination to coin the term ‘Climategate’
Almost every scandal since Watergate has included the suffix -gate

November 29, 2009 12:34 am

Excellent article. Not too much technical gibberish. Gets the relevant points across nicely!!

November 29, 2009 12:37 am

Russia Today has 2 clips online,one has an interview with Ex Uk minister.
“A group of scientists are so loyal to each other that they’re determined to agree with each other even more than they are determined to agree with the facts. So if the facts no longer correspond with their theories, they try and change the facts rather than their theories. And the people who benefit from it are the scientists themselves: they feel morally superior leading a crusade apparently to save the world and they get large grants from the government,” Lilley said.

November 29, 2009 12:38 am

Here in Aus there is still very little reporting in the msm – except of course from Andrew Bolt, unfortunately he is labelled a denier who doesn’t care about the future. The rest of the MSM especially the ABC see the whole issue as irrelevant. From what I read of the scandal so do most of the governments of the world and it is full steam ahead with Emission Trading Schemes and Copenhagen. Surely some government needs to say whoa, lets check the facts

November 29, 2009 12:39 am

That’s it. Impossible to cover up, beyond the inevitable attempts we will have to witness from the political establishment. Booker appears in actual print. Delingpole, bless his cotton socks, has been banging the drum in the online only edition. The Times is finally reporting too.
Largely thanks to you at WUWT, and the commenters here.
I’d be ecstatic if it wasn’t for the collateral damage these guys have caused, to science, their honest colleagues, to fantastic old institutions like the Royal Society – motto ‘Nullius in Verba’, On the Word of No-one.
Sad. But so relieved.
Now to turn the tanker round.

November 29, 2009 12:51 am

Bull Dust dubbed it first and I recorded his contribution for posterity.
“TonyB (16:11:29) :
Bulldust (15:52:36) : said
“Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?”
At 15:52:36, Bulldog”

Michael in New Zealand
November 29, 2009 12:57 am

I do science for a living and I am apalled! Deleting raw data is the most heinous crime that can be committed by any scientist. The actions of the CRU are criminal by all scientific principals and ethics, That they are supported by other climate scientists around the world (in both hemispheres) is disgusting!

Michael in New Zealand
November 29, 2009 1:00 am

oops, “principles”… I am so angry I hit submit too soon

November 29, 2009 1:04 am

Astounding article. I never thought I would see something like this in MSM print. Even the Economist has been a lot more guarded with its two articles on Climategate this week. 100+ years of high integrity history or advertising revenue for them to consider.
The 9am Andrew Marr show (BBC) has just started and they have the leader of the green party in, with no counterweight by the looks of it. A mention of global warming science being overplayed but it’ll just be a whitewash. Now I do make myself angry for this Sunday by watching it or not…!

November 29, 2009 1:19 am

“The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.
One of its reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.
Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.
This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC’s unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet. “

November 29, 2009 1:29 am
Expat in France
November 29, 2009 1:33 am

I left a comment, and usually do. I just think that for the most part we are really going to get nowhere. Just watching the Marr show on BBC with Mariella Frostrup and Matthew Paris reviewing the papers. They (and everybody else on the telly, for that matter) seem to accept that there will be agreement and eventually legislation on climate change, and they all seem to accept that it’s real and something needs to be done. No-one questions that the science could be wrong, or that the figures are fiddled, climate change is just happening, and it’s all out fault, and by introducing global governance it’s all going to be stopped dead in its tracks. Marr also interviewed that horrendous green woman, Caroline Lucas and hung on her every word without question.
She said, in defence of the CRU, that “you can’t equate climate to temperature”, amongst other things when the question of the E mail leaks was raised, and just brushed over the whole issue as a “bit of an embarrassment”, and that “although temperatures over the last 10 years may have shown cooling, over the last 100 years, they have been rising”
It’s truly unbelievable how apparently intelligent people can take all this on board without question, or batting an eyelid – are they aware of the possible consequences? Do they care?
It’ll all be too late, soon. We’ll’ be sold down the river, our economies ruined (more so than they are already), deprived of our way of life, robbed of our cash and probably freezing to boot.

Expat in France
November 29, 2009 1:35 am

“out fault” should, of course be “our fault”. Fingers not working this morning.

November 29, 2009 1:36 am

I think what is happening is this is causing people who never otherwise would have, to take a look at the other side. Instead of finding wild loonies intent on destroying the planet, they are finding a much more methodical and open approach that has uncovered some serious doubts that need to be discussed.
There is the email, which leads to the code, which leads to the non reproducibility, which ultimately leads people to look how some of this is actually derived. At that point you see things like temp records being grafted onto truncated proxy records, you see data being adjusted to fit models, you see intentional misrepresentation in graphs, and everyone with high school math gasps. You just can’t do some of that stuff, not even when baking a cake.
Then another article gets written.

November 29, 2009 1:37 am

There seems to be a substantial separation between the power brokers – politicians, media, activists and the self styled ‘urban elite’, and the bulk of ordinary people.
The uprising is occurring in phenomenal numbers against what they’ve passively seen for years as a blatant fraud / con trick, but have previously viewed merely as a minority issue fit for green cranks and extremists. Now it’s at the forefront of the political agenda and the threat is suddenly very real.
We’ve had enough and the people are revolting!

Roger Knights
November 29, 2009 1:39 am


Colin Porter
November 29, 2009 1:43 am

Thank you Christopher for being almost the only source of information and comment in the UK on the climate fraud.
It’s a pity that The Telegraph has such a Jekyll & Hyde attitude on the subject and that much of your good work is often neutralized by the propaganda writings of Leane, Gray et al. Don’t the editors ever read the response to the numerous articles on both sides which show a massive majority of its readers don’t believe the AGW rubbish and that the Telegraph is doing a great disservice not only to truth, but to the opinions and interests of its own readership and the interests of the UK and society as a whole?
Perhaps in view of these latest revelations, you will now be allowed to report on that other great scandal emanating from the same institution, the UEA CRU and on which you have been noticeably silent, the “One Tree” Briffa saga.

martin brumby
November 29, 2009 1:49 am

We certainly need a high profile Public Inquiry into Climategate. (Whether we get one is another matter.)
It is absolutely the case, however, that Lord Rees is absolutely unacceptable as he has completely bemired himself – and the Royal Society – in the AGW hoax.
Lord Rees would be as good a choice as getting Harold Shipman to Chair an Inquiry into Health Patient Care or to use Tom Cruise to conduct an Inquiry into religious cults.
It is no good suggesting Lord Monckton, obviously. But the Inquiry has to be Chaired by someone like a senior High Court Judge who has no entrenched views on AGW.
I have written to my MP and Phil Willis MP who chairs the House of Commons Select Committee on Science & Technology, urging this course of action. Isuggest other UK readers do the same.
I don’t think we’ll succeed. But we must try.

JP Miller
November 29, 2009 1:50 am

Booker’s article is the best summary of the leaked materials and their implications. It will stand scrutiny from anyone reading the raw material. Send it to everyone you can think of: in government, in MSM, in academia, in your social circles. If the MSM won’t deal with this, then we have to. “Viral” commuincation can make a difference if everyone does their part. Investigations are being launched in the UK and US, but they will only have legs if it is clear that people are paying attention and give a hoot.

Phillip Bratby
November 29, 2009 1:57 am

Expat in France:
You say “It’s truly unbelievable how apparently intelligent people can take all this on board without question, or batting an eyelid – are they aware of the possible consequences? Do they care?” They either suspend belief or are just born liars, so it’s not unbelievable. It’s the politics of lie, lie, lie.

November 29, 2009 1:57 am

Climate Change Research:
Institutions Ranked by Citations

November 29, 2009 2:02 am

PhilW (01:29:14) :
“Maybe it’s time to give Nick Griffin our support, he’s off to Copenhagen…..”
For the information of those non-UK visitors to this blog, Griffin leads a racist party of the far right. As a sceptic I would strongly suggest shunning him and his views. I hope that PhilW was being ironic – but remember many Americans don’t do irony!

November 29, 2009 2:07 am

Expat in France stated that a prominent AGW pusher said, ““although temperatures over the last 10 years may have shown cooling, over the last 100 years, they have been rising”. She simply cannot get the fact that the data has been so manipulated – and we cannot check it now against the original data – that we DON’T KNOW if it has been rising or not or by how much if it has. That’s the problem.

November 29, 2009 2:09 am

Hat trick – more tricks
UEA and CRU have not, it seems, stopped their tricks. Here, at the bottom of their recent release, are two graphs. The first graph was prepared for the WMO and it shows three separate proxy temperature reconstructions (from Jones et al, Mann et al, and Briffa et al) smoothly spliced to the proper thermometer record. The second looks like it has been prepared in a hurry… separating the coloured proxy curves from the black temperature curves.
Superimpose the second graph on the first to glimpse the differences
Home in closer – the first is to “hide the decline” but – oops – it’s clearly there in all recons when the thermometer records are separated out.
Home in still closer to count six tricky tricking tricks.
(1-3) Each proxy record starts to show a decline from 1960 on, the red (Jones), the blue (Mann), the green (Briffa).
(4) The splices used in the original graphs SOAR up to year 2000 – to outdo both the proxies and the thermometer record. [snip]
(5) The original is said to be anomalies from 1961-1990 baseline. But when we see the 1961 and 1990 lines, the baseline looks way off. [snip]
(6) There are TWO black temperature lines. The notes say instrumental temperatures (annual & summer in black) shown separately but summer temperatures should be consistently higher than annual, not criss-crossing as here. [snip]
Reply: You know better Lucy. ~ ctm

November 29, 2009 2:16 am

The EU sending Nick Griffin, an obvious racist and as it happens also a skeptic, is clearly an attempt at ‘slander by association’. This may be OT as it is obviously the political side vs the science side, but if people finally decide to have a closer look and it ends up coming from that guy, it will be the last look most will ever take.
I think it is very important to call this one for what it is, and do so early.

Phillip Bratby
November 29, 2009 2:22 am

Pingo: don’t watch, it’s bad for the blood pressure. There are far better things for you to do. Comment on the Telegraph site and show support for Christopher. Email your MP. Complain to the BBC.

November 29, 2009 2:37 am

The kingpins of AGW Science have been shown up to no good.
Now, the World+Dog is getting it: The wheels came off the hayride.
If the IPCC & UN try to run thier Carbon Emission scheme, the foundations of such are known publicly to be based on monkeybusiness.
All claims of legitimacy are shot.
A lot of people who have hitched their wagons to AGW are in for a very rough ride and ruination.

Phillip Bratby
November 29, 2009 2:39 am

Martin Brumby:
I’ve written to my MP (LibDem) suggesting he put my name forward to sit on the inquiry (based on two physics degrees, experience of Fortran since mid 60s and extensive knowledge of scientific methodology and quality management systems). Based on experience of the real world of politicians, expectation = zero.

November 29, 2009 2:44 am

Phillip Bratby (00:29:51) :
”But the BBC remains largely silent on the issue. ”
Yes, and, as Graham says above, there is now talk (in Daily Mail) of them suspected of suppressing the story.
Another Telegraph, author Damian Thompson today discusses it as a suspected suppression of the story:
But these reporters may have this wrong…
Remember the BBC’s Paul Hudson who wrote blogged ‘Whatever happened to global warming?’ 9 Oct?
Well, last Tuesday Hudson made the claim that he had seen some of the emails that involved criticism of his story long before 17 Nov.
His language is not entirely clear about what he got, and then what happened at the BBC. Anyway, it appears to me that all he is saying is that he can authenticate some of the email – at least in the sense that he can find matches to the ones he was Cc-ed at the time.
It looks like these guys got it wrong…but not on lame coverage by the BBC and the real possibility that Hudson has been told to claim busy and leave coverage to his Alarmist colleagues.

November 29, 2009 2:54 am

Stoic (02:02:33) :
For the information of those non-UK visitors to this blog, Griffin leads a racist party of the far right. As a sceptic I would strongly suggest shunning him and his views.
I think that the incoming Conservative government has only one term to fix this labour mess and then people will start voting for extreme right wing parties in their droves.
Griffins policies also include leaving the EU and leaving NATO and he accepts that Global Warming is a hoax, all of which I would agree with at the moment. But yes they are still a racist party so do not have mainstream support, but in 5 years time, who knows.

November 29, 2009 2:55 am

. And as Baldrick put it,steelery either 🙂 But back to business, the LA Times fails to mention Climategate in their edition Sat 28th but they do have a rant about nuclear power in which they continue to rattle on about climate change as if nothing has happened in the past weeks .This is an editorial no less.,0,5919110.story

November 29, 2009 2:57 am

sorry ctm, I thought that one was ok, shall not do it again.

Charles. U. Farley
November 29, 2009 2:59 am

Neil Hamilton does a full page critique of the global warming scam in todays Sunday Express.

Mike from Canmore
November 29, 2009 3:25 am

Pingo and other Brits
According to Lord Monckton in an interview on the Roy Green Show yesterday (Nov 28), he was supposed to be opposite the Green Party head. Apparently, after she heard he was going to be sitting across from her, she refused to appear. In their spineless way, they told him he would not be on, instead of her. He now says he refuses to pay a licensing fee to BBC and told them to have him arrested if they wish.
You can listen to it on the CKNW audio vault. (, He was on sometime after 1 p.m. I caught the last couple of minutes and haven’t listened to the full interview yet. Lawrence Solomon is on immediately afterwards.

November 29, 2009 3:32 am

I’ve read the terms which usually accompany federal grants and contracts back in the day when I worked in a university environment. I’m going to be watching to see if any of “The Hockey Team” start lawyering up. There could be some serious criminal wrongdoing revealed in what some of the hacked/leaked documents reveal, to the extent the work was conducted under the auspice of US federal grants and contracts.

John Edmondson
November 29, 2009 3:35 am

Credibility Lost
Once lost it can never return. Which is bad news for CRU, GISS and Al Gore etc.
However it is very good news for those of us who seek the truth.
The climate models are the work of the people who have just lost their credibility.
Therefore, the climate models are finished in their current format.
Now a new debate can begin. The difference being CRU,GISS and Al Gore etc. will not be part of it.

John F. Hultquist
November 29, 2009 3:40 am

So given the enormous and sudden interest in all things climate, I suggest each WUWT-regular commenting on blogs around the world add a reference or two to a reputable item or report for the new lookie-loos to follow up on.
For example, it continues to get cold over the Arctic Ocean each NH winter season and ice still forms. Send them to the two side-bars posted here on WUWT.

Bernie in Pipewell
November 29, 2009 3:52 am

Peter Hitchens in the mail on Sunday, Uk.
The inconvenient truths Mr Gore and his fanatical friends DIDN’T tell you about climate change.
Theres also a quite a long article on the coments page of the Sunday Express, UK. But I cant find it online. Perhaps some one who is more web savvey than me can.
Iv’e left both links to Hitchens, one I grabed myself, the other came free with the Headline
Read more:

Bernie in Pipewell
November 29, 2009 3:55 am

Too much excitement, forgot the authers name in the Sunday Express. It’s Niel Hamilton

November 29, 2009 3:56 am

“According to Lord Monckton in an interview on the Roy Green Show yesterday (Nov 28), he was supposed to be opposite the Green Party head. Apparently, after she heard he was going to be sitting across from her, she refused to appear. In their spineless way, they told him he would not be on, instead of her. He now says he refuses to pay a licensing fee to BBC and told them to have him arrested if they wish.”
Shameful of Caroline Lucas, shameful of the BBC.
Same old story then.
Evasion of honest debate seems to be one of the hallmarks of these scammers.
PS Philip – I have emailed Hillary Benn, my local MP. I suggest all Britons do the same via the Find Your MP website. Make your voice count.

November 29, 2009 4:09 am

The battle is huge amidst media blackouts, complete silence by large sections of the press, even Google cencoring their search engine and Wikipedia giving the Realclimate version of “hiding the decline” and locking further editing – so much for it being The “Free” Encyclopedia.
They do say “This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.
This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected. “

November 29, 2009 4:13 am

“The EU sending Nick Griffin, an obvious racist and as it happens also a skeptic, is clearly an attempt at ’slander by association.”
Well debrieul, skeptics have already been associated with the far right in some eyes. I remember a recent newspaper article which contained the assertion that Conservative MEP’s were busy making alliances with the “Far Right” and “Climate change deniers.” Although it might be obvious that the Far Right and Skeptics are two different groups, they are seen as the same in many peoples eyes. Having beaten back the charges of “Moon landing deniers” skeptics now have to beat off the charges of being Far Right – whatever that means.

Julian in Wales
November 29, 2009 4:21 am

Booker is an excellent journalist and good communicator who exposes new and interesting stories every week. He has close associations with the EUReferendum blog which started as a forum for people wanting a referendum on the EU and where a researcher called Dr Richard North and his colleague Helen S. provides detailed news on the EU, the military and climate. Dr North also is a researcher for various members of Parliament.
I visit only two blogs; WUWT and EUReferendum and find this keeps me better informed than reading newspapers.
The bad news is that Booker and North are often shunned by the rest of the MSM. I do not fully understand why this happens, perhaps it is that they are too truthful and that others are jealous, I do not know. It sometimes feels that there is a conspiracy amongst the media not to take up the stories he and Richard find, that said Booker and EU Referendum have many influential friends. They never give up and always research their material meticulously. They have had substantial input on the debate inside government circles about military hardware in Afghanistan and Iraq and changed the landscape in the debate on the UK membership in the UK. You could not have better friends.
The reference to Nick Griffin of the BNP is a bit alarming to me.. This man does speak some sense sometimes but is widely seen as the closet racist leader of an extreme nationalist right wing party. The BNP are blackballed by the British media and for many people any association with this party carries a stigma. Somehow it has been engineered that the BNP will be carrying the banner of Climategate in the EU institutions, with all the other main parties being on the warmist side. Personally I think this is a disaster because the technique that the warmists like to use is to find labels to attack their opponents with, so for instance a conversation will go like this;
“global warming is a myth”,
“no it isn’t, the scientists all agree that it really is happening”
“no they don’t, haven’t you seen the business of throwing away and manipulating data at CRU”
“Oh you dont believe that stuff from that right wing racist Nick Griffin, he will say anything for publicity, are you a BNP supporter”
I cannot understand why not believing in AGW and wanting open and rational scientific debate is “rightwing”. I do dislike this label.

Julian in Wales
November 29, 2009 4:23 am

sorry- typo – should have read membership of the EU

November 29, 2009 4:29 am

No, its not the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Its the worst economical, social, politics and scientific scandal of the all existence of our civilization. Copenhagen is a conference of lies and center of the world corruption. Is the place where the business will be done. Sure that the “green jobs” are working. Secretarys, coordinators, activists to put polar-bears dresses, etc, etc. All this efforts not to save the planet or the green or the whales but to save the north-european-kings. What happen with US ? Will this great country submit yourself to blue-blood-monarchy ?

November 29, 2009 4:30 am

There are various comments as to why the Copenhagen beanfest continues and officialdom ignores climategate. It is because the scale of vested interest is so great. If I mention names, it is not to personally denigrate them it is to demonstrate with their own information the linkages that exist. I leave others to judge the appropriateness of their official positions to their private positions.
One of the most influential documents in the global warming “debate” is the Stern Review. Lord Stern is a former World Bank Chief Economist and became head of the UK Government Economic Service. The Stern Review was commissioned by Gordon Brown with major input from the Tyndall Centre and Phil Jones’ Climate Research Centre.
It came out conveniently at the time of the US mid-term elections and was designed to embarrass Bush. In May last year, Lord Stern published a set of proposals for a global deal on climate change at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
The document, was called Key Elements of a Global Deal.
“Developed countries will need to take on immediate and binding national emissions targets, demonstrate that they can achieve low carbon growth, and transfer resources and technologies to developing countries, before developing countries take on binding national targets of their own by 2020.”
Stern mentions some of the contributors to his plan: It has several contributors, with participants from HSBC, IdeaCarbon, Judge Business School at Cambridge University, Lehman Brothers and McKinsey and Company and has been inspired by a number of discussions with international policymakers, financiers and academics. For an interesting article on Lehman Brothers and Global Warming, check here:
Did global warming send Lehman Brothers broke?
Lord Stern mentions a group called IdeaCarbon, this is what they do: “Empowering global carbon markets IDEAcarbon is an independent and professional provider of ratings, research and strategic advice on carbon finance”
Check out the IdeaCarbon links at the top of their page, fascinating linkages with UNFCC, World Bank etc.
Of note amongst their advisors is:
Lord Nicholas Stern, Advisor to IDEAglobal Group, parent company of IDEAcarbon
“Author of the seminal Review on the Economics of Climate Change and former Chief Economist at the World Bank, currently the IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government at the London School of Economics, heading a new India Observatory within the LSE’s Asia Research Centre and also a Visiting Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford. He was Adviser to the UK Government on the Economics of Climate Change and Development, reporting to the Prime Minister from 2003-2007.”
He was instrumental in founding IdeaCarbon:
Stern to launch carbon rating agency, 16 Jun 2008.
Nicholas Stern, the British economist and author of a 2006 review that put the cost of inaction on global warming at 20% of global GDP by 2050, is set to launch a rating service for carbon credits in an attempt to boost investment in the nascent market. IDEAglobal, the Singapore-based research company of which Lord Stern is vice-chairman, will publish detailed ratings covering about 30 emissions-reduction projects on June 25, according to a spokesman. The company will extend its offering to all geographies and sectors, enabling investors to compare schemes, the spokesman said.
Also listed is: Dr Sam Fankhauser
“Sam served on the 1995, 2001 and 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also gained hands-on experience in the design of emission reduction projects as a climate change economist for the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank. Sam joined IDEAcarbon from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, where his most recent position was Deputy Chief Economist. Sam is a Senior Advisor to IDEAcarbon Strategic and a Fellow of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.”
Dr Fankhauser is also a member of the UK Climate Change Committee and of its Mitigation sub-committee, advising the UK government on emissions control and low carbon energy.
Fankhauser is also the Chief Economist at an outfit called Globe International:
“GLOBE facilitates high level negotiated policy positions from leading legislators from across the G8+5 parliaments and from regional dialogues, which are informed by business leaders and key international experts.
Internationally, GLOBE is focused on progressive leadership from G8 leaders and the leaders of the major emerging economies as well as formal negotiations within the United Nations. GLOBE has a particular interest in the role that International Financial Institutions can play.
GLOBE shadows the formal G8 negotiations and allows legislators to work together outside the formal international negotiations. Without the burden of formal governmental negotiating positions, legislators have the freedom to push the boundaries of what can be politically achieved. ”
The President of Globe International is UK MP and Tony Blair colleague, Stephen Byers.
“Mr Byers will be closely supported in this role by the Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce MP, Chairman of the UK Select Committee for International Development, and Lord Michael Jay, former head of the UK Foreign Office and the UK’s G8 Sherpa in 2005 & 2006”
US Senator Barack Obama’s Keynote statement to the GLOBE Tokyo Legislations Forum, 28 June 2008
GLOBE & Club of Rome Challenge the G20 29/01/09
Following a two day dialogue between GLOBE and the Club of Rome addressed by Mr. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC and Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, UK Secretary of State for Climate and Energy and GLOBE’s President challenged the G20 Chairman, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown MP, to ensure the London G20 Summit addresses the inter connected challenges of the economic crisis, climate change, energy security and ecosystems decline.
The International Commission on Climate & Energy Security was launched in the US Congress in Washington DC on Monday 30th March 2009. This Commission comprises of senior legislators from each of the major economies, selected due to their closeness to their Prime Minister or President. The Commission met for two days under the Chairmanship of US Congressman Ed Markey and Lord Michael Jay of the UK House of Lords. The Commission was launched with the support of the Danish Prime Minister, the UK Prime Minister, the Brazilian President and the Italian G8 Presidency. The aim of the Commission is to produce a major report to the GLOBE Copenhagen Forum in October, presenting its conclusions to the Danish Prime Minister and the major economies at a critical time, just ahead of the formal UNFCCC COP. In Washington the Commission met in private to identify the specific policy areas that the legislators wanted to focus on. These include a very specific body of work being developed by the legislators in the following areas:
Dr Fankhauser has worked on climate change issues at the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank and served on the 1995, 2001 and 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Bet you never heard of the Global Environment Facility either?
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is a global partnership among 178 countries, international institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector to address global environmental issues while supporting national sustainable development initiatives.
The GEF is also the designated financial mechanism for a number of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) or conventions; as such the GEF assists countries in meeting their obligations under the conventions that they have signed and ratified.
How’s that to be going on with? That’s without going into the Grantham Institutes, the LSE and Global Governance, the rest of the UK Climate Change Committee, the UK Research Councils and their governance, Defra, Decc, the UK Foreign Office and its links with NGO’s, UK politicians with direct involvement in low carbon companies that will benefit from current UK legislation, etc etc…
Have a look at E3G and read some of their submissions.
Look at the profiles of John Ashton, Britain’s climate change czar, check the profiles of Nick Mabey, Tom Burke, Mathew Findlay, Jennifer Morgan.
Science? What Science?

November 29, 2009 4:30 am

It looks like these guys got it wrong…but not on lame coverage by the BBC and the real possibility that Hudson has been told to claim busy and leave coverage to his Alarmist colleagues.

My guess is that apart from anything else, the BBC have spent a huge sum of money on warmist programmes in the schedule leading up to Copenhagen and this throws it all off. How ridiculous do they look now?
I would love to see a new Panorama, hosted by Dr Ian Stewart (warmist presenter in chief), explaining how sorry he is for driving around with Mann’s hockey stick painted onto the side of a van!

John prendergast
November 29, 2009 4:52 am

Booker is sometimes a bit to one side of an argument but in this instance he is being accurate and his pursuit of the truth is entirley honourable and diligent. It is not a bit flamboyant, unlike the self heating lot such as Lovelock, Moon Batr, Zac Goldsmith, Mad Millipede, Jones, Ben, Lucas, Stdern, and uncle Tom Cobleigh and all.

Arthur Glass
November 29, 2009 4:54 am

‘… many Americans don’t do irony!’
At least not since the invention of permanent-press clothing.

Ursus maritimus
November 29, 2009 4:56 am

@ Lucy:
I’m a simple-minded lay-bear, but I think another trick might be that they don’t show the data until 2009. Why cut it off in 2000 if actual temperature measurements are spliced onto the end of the graph?

Bob Layson
November 29, 2009 5:00 am

Wonderful, wonderful Copenhokum.

November 29, 2009 5:21 am

Will someone PLEASE produce a SIMPLE GRAPHIC.
(preferably by a respected scientist in the field)
A pie chart, bar graph, ANYTHING that gets the message easily across
showing % Natural Greenhouse Gase VS MANMADE Gases
ie 85% water vapour, etc,etc
The AGW people are STILL WINNING the main stream media debate.
because us sceptics are CRAP are presentation/media…
Put this graphic on the front page of EVERY website about climate gate.
For the cleverer among you put together, pictorially,
The relative % warming effect, broken down into the gases, h20, co2, methane, etc VS man made CO2 contribution.
BEING crap at the media/handling the general public, is how real scientists ALLOWED the AGW side, get away with it for so long

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
November 29, 2009 5:25 am

The political elites don’t give a damn about all your noise making about truth and freedom. They’re pushing climate deals as hard as they can to make them even more powerful and influential than ever before.
Raising your voice on the internet does not constitute a threat to them.

November 29, 2009 5:31 am

lookatthecode (05:21:55),

Phillip Bratby
November 29, 2009 5:33 am

Robinson (04:30:58) :
Unfortunately Iain Stewart (Prof of geosciences communication (is that propaganda) at Plymouth University) has a new programme “Hot Planet” coming up on BBC1. Read about it in Radio Times 5-11 December. The article in RT is full of the usual alarmist mistruths (lies we can now call them) about heat waves, drowning Bangladeshis etc. But rest assured, it’s “based on the findings of thousands of scientists worldwide”, so it must be true then. No scientist funded by governments would lie would they?
He says “So strong is the evidence, that the claims of the climate sceptics are now ‘largely untenable'”. Oh yeah.

November 29, 2009 5:35 am

Curmugeon Geographer raises an interesting question.
What will be the response of the climate journals?
I’d guess they’ll divide into two camps; those who have published and re-published papers by the AGW camp who will be at a bit of a loss and may decide to adopt a neutral tone, and those where the AGW campe have attempted to interfere with their editorial policy and their peer review process, where there have been attempts to boycott them for publishing skeptic views and who might be tempted to exact some sort of retribution.
Of course, they may all take the long view that taking sides with the outcome uncertain is not a good policy and hence we may read even less from them that is specifically critical except some general concern that the science should be “open and transparent”, platidues and cliches maybe?

Ron de Haan
November 29, 2009 5:38 am

Pachauri is at it again.
Western life styles unsustainable.
Let’s jail this loon and put him on water and bread!

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
November 29, 2009 5:44 am

I’ve updated the John Christy debate as a playlist and added climategate and cru as tags

Ron de Haan
November 29, 2009 5:49 am
Ron de Haan
November 29, 2009 5:52 am

Nov 28, 2009
Galileo silenced again
The American Geophysical Union is sending science back four hundred years
By Willie Soon and David R. Legates

November 29, 2009 5:54 am

“I would love to see a new Panorama, hosted by Dr Ian Stewart (warmist presenter in chief), ”
You might have a long wait. I’m hoping Martin Durkin has been following all this.
“No, its not the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Its the worst economical, social, politics and scientific scandal of the all existence of our civilization.”
Unfortunately, the MSM don’t get the enormity of it at all. They are so far behind the curve on this, they can’t even see the curve, much less ride it. When you consider the coverage given to the British MP’s expense scandals – pages and pages of outraged analysis that ran almost daily for weeks. A real storm in a teacup that was. And yesterday, the Daily Mail ran an article entitled “Who else is guilty in the greatest scandal of our time?”
Hoping to see that a mainstream newspaper is tackling the climategate scandal, I was quickly disappointed. The opening paragraph began “Already it is obvious that the 4 man panel that constitutes the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq . . .”
However, I believe that the speed in which the world responds to a scandal is inversely related to its enormity and complexity. The exposure of the British MP’s expense scandal was rapid and intense because it was such a simple and focussed issue – and it rapidly burnt out. The “Greatest scandal of our time” of Iraq has taken far longer to play out because of greater complexity, involving conspiracy and falsification of data and legal questions of legitimacy.
Climategate is far more complex than the Iraq war, involving collusion and conspiracy on a vast scale, manipulation of data, persecution of individuals, suppression of dissent, difficult to comprehend and arcane issues related to data and its statistical analysis, all of which interrelate in a myriad of different ways.
I would expect that this episode will take many years to unfold, with long periods of relative quiet interspersed by new revelations, as skeptical scientists gradually get to grips with the raw data and methods and open minded journalists fit together more and more pieces of the jigsaw. Eventually, when the real “Greatest scandal of all time” is finally recognised, it will have come up on the world so slowly and with so little announcement, that we will scarsely recognise it as a scandal. Its true magnitude will only be comprehended by generations in the future, learning about it not over years as it unfolds, but in a single moment of distilled shock and disbelief as they open their history books and turn to these chapters for the first time in their lives.

November 29, 2009 6:02 am

“I give up, you deserve to lose.
Final time.
Don’t post here…”
Post on the Wall Street Journal, The Times, The NEW York Times,The Telegraph, The NEW York Times.
The BBC website.
Talk in language you art school son or daughter will UNDERSTAND.
LOOK at the BBC website they are true believers of climate change religion…
AGW will march on.
Please get a grip on the MEDIA

November 29, 2009 6:04 am

I hope you have more success in contacting your MPs than I have had. I emailed my MP (Peter Ainsworth)10 days ago – not a dickie bird. Maybe the results of the focus group are not in yet so the Conservative Party cannot formulate a policy.

Ron de Haan
November 29, 2009 6:09 am
Henry chance
November 29, 2009 6:12 am

Global warming
for political reasons, the expression was replaced with Climate change.
As things started cooling and doing so abnormally, climate change was the new expression
The actual expression should be
Climate Data Change
The data is being changed more often than the weather changes.

November 29, 2009 6:14 am

Spen: Unfortunately Peter Ainsworth is fully signed up to the whole caboosh. He is probably wondering what on earth to say in reply, as like you say they have not yet had the answers revealed to them. Search for his speeches on Low Carbon, Sustainability, WWF etc. You will likely find them by searching on the official conservative party website.

November 29, 2009 6:35 am

what are you lot on. don’t post here, post somewhere important
“I give up, you deserve to lose.
Ads by Google
Help Stop Global Warming
Join thousand of people who want to send a message to global leaders
look at the rubbish you are sayin in the comments here, all very witty and clever, AGW will roll, on and on, you little techy smugness, turns off the public…
Final FINAL time.
Don’t post here…”
Post on the Wall Street Journal, The Times, The NEW York Times,The Telegraph, The NEW York Times.
The BBC website.
Talk in language you art school son or daughter will UNDERSTAND.
LOOK at the BBC website they are true believers of climate change religion…
AGW will march on.
Please get a grip on the ME

November 29, 2009 6:39 am

Will everyone please stop referring to the BNP as a right wing party. Their economic policies are all about nationalisation and protectionism – they are pure 1970s old labour, with added racism. The strong majority of their voting base is old labour types who are disgusted with the metropolitan types who run new labour.
This is why the BBC, the broadcast arm of NewLabour, keeps calling them right wing, to try to stop the loss of supposedly core Labour voters.

November 29, 2009 6:53 am

PhilW (01:29:14) :
Maybe it’s time to give Nick Griffin our support, he’s off to Copenhagen…..
I was using the link to highlight the fact that we had a voice in Copenhokum. I know Nick Griffin is dodgy, but that’s what this is all about isn’t it? Lies, corruption and gross immorality amongst ALL parties. On a morality scale, all parties go way off the scale……
The biggest problem I see here is the loss of respect, the politicians, bankers and clergy all respect gone. Who’s next? Gross misconduct from our military leaders, maybe?

Viv Evans
November 29, 2009 6:57 am

Here is an excellent indicator of the way Joe Citizen views this whole AGW con, at least here in Great Britain:
Read the comments, rather than Cameron’s essay.
And that in spite of the brainwashing by the BBC and most major British papers.
There’s hope yet …

Mark Wagner
November 29, 2009 7:05 am

Dallas News reported it (inside of back page) late last week, but with the usual “nothing incriminating” spin. As far as I know, only Wall St Journal, Fox and now the Telegraph have picked up on the manipulation of data shown in the released code.
Most are probably in a “wait and see” mode, giving CRU time to do damage control.
Get off this blog and take a few minutes to type a message to your local “letters to the editor” page. While the emails are telling, the real damage will come from the released code.
Then you can come back here and finish reading 😉
While we’re on the subject of “the code,” now that it’s in the open, it may only be a matter of time before the hundreds or thousands of software engineers figure out how to reverse engineer much of the process. If they can, then we will have proof that their results were artifically inflated; it is unlikely that their temp curves would be reproduced by any other means. Anything less than this and MSM will continue to accept their warmist version. It’s all or nothing. Right here. Right now. In THE CODE.

November 29, 2009 7:19 am

‘Never in the field of climate science, was so much influence exercised on so many by so few.’

November 29, 2009 7:33 am

Stoic (02:02:33) :
PhilW (01:29:14) :
“Maybe it’s time to give Nick Griffin our support, he’s off to Copenhagen…..”
For the information of those non-UK visitors to this blog, Griffin leads a racist party of the far right. As a sceptic I would strongly suggest shunning him and his views.
He has a controversial past, which includes a 1998 conviction for incitement to racial hatred for material denying the Holocaust.
Griffin is a real “denier”.

November 29, 2009 7:52 am

A good follow-on topic will be just exactly why this cabal was so hell-bent (so to speak) on their Holy Hocky Stick? What did they hope to gain? Fame and grants? Or was there a deeper reason, a self-loathing of our prosperity, which at the present is largely based on burning hydrcarbons? Yet, the fraud went hand-in-glove with people who worked to stop nuclear power. Was this a broad commonly-shared near-religious belief that the west should be suppressed to the point we were riding horses and living like serfs?
Even high tech decisionmakers share in the madness, for how many other PhDs insist we will all be better off when electricity costs 10x today’s rates and when private autos would be outlawed?
There is a common madness at work here, a virus that destroys clear thinking. Any suggestions? Gaia worship? Self-loathing? I am at a total loss to understand why these people seem to want to take society where their policies all lead.

P Walker
November 29, 2009 7:55 am

Watching ” This Week ” on ABC at this moment . Paul Krugman is spouting the same old “it’s just scientists talking among each other ” bs . Obviously he and his colleagues at the NYT are determined to whitewash this for as long as possible . I cut to the end of his post , so haven’t read all of the comments , but it seems from what I’ve read over the weekend that this story is growing , at least in the UK . Hopefully more US coverage will emerge this week .

November 29, 2009 7:56 am

Lookat the code
Instead of describing a pie chart, how about a football field (american)
According to figures provided by the U.S. EPA of all the CO2 put in the atmosphere, man is responsible for only 4 %. Let’s put that into perspective, if the entire atmosphere is represented by a football field, and atmospheric CO2 is 385 parts per million, lets do some math.
100 yards is 300 feet or 3600 inches.
385 parts per million is .000385
3600 x .000385 = 1.386 inches. Carbon dioxide is 1.386″ of the field
Less than the width of a hash mark. Man is responsible for only 4%.
1.386 x .04 = .06 of an inch. 1/16 of an inch on the football field of climate is man’s contribution. (1/16 inch is the smallest mark on most tape measurers)
IF CO2 affected temperatures, to impact 1 degree C, would take 25 years of no fossil fuel consumption, no electricity, no transportation, no jobs, no food, no humans.

Gail Combs
November 29, 2009 8:06 am

JoeFromBrazil said
“No, its not the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Its the worst economical, social, politics and scientific scandal of the all existence of our civilization. Copenhagen is a conference of lies and center of the world corruption. Is the place where the business will be done. Sure that the “green jobs” are working. Secretarys, coordinators, activists to put polar-bears dresses, etc, etc. All this efforts not to save the planet or the green or the whales but to save the north-european-kings. What happen with US ? Will this great country submit yourself to blue-blood-monarchy ?”
I agree with you. Copenhagen is the next step in moving from democratic nations to being subservient to an over arching totalitarian government. Already the World Trade Organization sanctions are used as an excuse for allowing international corporations to dictate national laws in the EU and the USA.
you ask
“What happen with US ? Will this great country submit yourself to blue-blood-monarchy ?”
The following is occuring in the USA.
The first step is:
“Tenth Amendment Resolutions” These are resolutions stating the state will assert its tenth Amendment rights. “When a state passes this resolution proclaiming its sovereignty, that state may then claim exemption to most federal mandates under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
The second option is: The US constitution
“The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”….
A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others….
“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).”
The third step is real grass roots opposition. Unfortunately both the Democrats and the Republicans are bought and paid for by those actually running the US government from behind the scenes. This means we HAVE to vote third party instead of “the lessor of two evils” It is now critical to overthrow the power machine in at least one state.
If the people can grab power in one state than NAFTA, WTO the UN and several damaging treaties can be tossed out. I am hoping Texas is the state with the b@!!$ to do it. Unfortunately with California going belly up financially, the airheads in CA are moving to Texas. I saw the same happen in New Hampshire. All sorts of politically correct legislation went through in Mass. The taxes of course went sky high so people moved to NH. They then campaigned for the same idiot laws they moved to get away from! You would think adults would at least grasp the basic concept of cause and effect. More public welfare laws = higher taxes! If you do not want to pay higher taxes do not put in the laws – simple.
Of course making sure the voting is honest (get rid of Diebold voting machines) is a very necessary step too. Volunteering to work at the voting booths is something else we all can do. Someone at another blog pointed out some dicey things being done with absentee ballots.

November 29, 2009 8:13 am

Still barely a peep out of the MSM here is Sydney (other than Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and Jim Ball). People I’ve spoken to recently haven’t heard a thing about it. I was told tonight that “The Antarctic is melting.. isn’t it?” Ummm.. no. Everyone, wish Australia luck this week as our Senate votes on a carbon trading scheme. A member of the Lower House of Parliament said a few weeks ago words to the effect of “We don’t need carbon.” Last time I checked I needed it. This is the standard of politician in this country (with a few exceptions) and I’m embarrassed and saddened.

Evan Jones
November 29, 2009 8:25 am

Posted without further comment . . .

Arn Riewe
November 29, 2009 8:29 am

Lee (00:07:51) :
“Maybe, just maybe the MSM will look further and deeper into the murky depths of this scandal. And a scandal it is………”
Don’t hold your breath. They are way too invested in the narrative, both figuratively and financially (GE/NBC). Others would have to expose their gullibility which doesn’t come easy to the media. Besides, how can you get a bailout for the newspapers if you embarrass the liberal left.

November 29, 2009 8:34 am

About the BBC
Detecting any change in the editorial stand-point of the BBC on an issue as controversial as AGW is like watching your toe-nails grow. If you stand and stare at them you’ll just give yourself a stiff neck, but if you forget about them for a few days and then take another look – amazing they’ve grown.
Well, I believe I may be detecting some subtle signs that the Beeb may be changing .
I’m not sure what it means but I’ve noticed that when discussing the AGW issue BBC commentators are using the phrase, “ Scientists believe…” . Not “the Science tells us…”, or even “most scientists believe…(It must be policy because they’re all doing it)”. Next they’ll be balancing the argument by continuing with “However, other scientists believe…”
Of course the article always continues with the one sided pre-Copenhagen, alarmist propaganda that we are all used to. Never mind there’s hope…
and I was just on the verge of removing the BBC website from my favourites list in protest.

Indiana Bones
November 29, 2009 9:04 am

“When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.”
George Monbiot, Guardian 11/25/2009
repost according to import

Chris Lawrence
November 29, 2009 9:19 am

The most disturbing trend I have noticed is that there is very little reference made in the media to Gobal warming nowadays. The subjext is now refered to as Climate Change. We all know it changes and from now on the carbon counters cannot be wrong.

John M
November 29, 2009 9:29 am

Why the e-mails matter…
While trying to look up what Mann told the US Congress with regard to the accuracy of his proxies (I thought he claimed a small number of tenths of a degree, but I never did find it), I came across this in his written response to a question from the congressional committee.
(Note: all bolds mine)
Written response to U. S. Congress, Michael Mann, Summer of 2006:

Science progresses through an open, self-correcting process whereby scientists place their ideas in the marketplace, typically by publishing articles in peer review journals. The peer review process ensures only that basic mistakes are not made, that the article acknowledges the existing literature on the subject, and that it contributes in some way to the exploration of important scientific issues.


No single paper should ever be used to establish the validity of a particular hypothesis or conclusion. The accuracy of claims, hypotheses, conclusions, indeed theories, can only be established by examining the collective body of peer-reviewed research to date on any particular topic, and the overall thrust of that body of research. Indeed, the importance of broad-based scientific assessments (such as those provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or “IPCC”) is to evaluate the entire body of peer- reviewed literature on a particular topic and to determine the consensus, if there is one, that emerges in that body of literature.
Ignoring for now the sanctimonious and supercilious sentiment of those two passages, let’s see what the good doctor was saying and hearing behind the scenes.
e-mail from Michael Mann to Phil Jones, Mar 11, 2003

In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article [Soon et al.] to me, and he and I have discussed this a bit. I’ve cc’d Mike in on this as well, and I’ve included Peck too. I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted–the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole…
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision. There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?
e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann dated July 8, 2004

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 !
Telling Congress one thing…

November 29, 2009 9:33 am

“This means we HAVE to vote third party instead of “the lessor of two evils” It is now critical to overthrow the power machine in at least one state.”
True, but it is not always necessary to vote for an independant. For example, Peter Schiff is putting himself forward as a candidate for the Republican ticket for Senate. If he wins the nomination he will be an “outsider” carrying the Republican banner.

Ron de Haan
November 29, 2009 9:36 am
November 29, 2009 9:41 am

At least Bernie Madoff had the good grace to admit he was caught. Phil Jones and his CRU cadre are stonewalling right along.
They have contaminated a huge proportion of climate research that has been funded in the past two decades. Every paper and study which cites them needs to be completely revisited.
Next in the sights should be James Hansen and the folks at NOAA. What is being done to step up the pressure on them to show the provenance for their “data”?

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
November 29, 2009 10:02 am

The BBC and The Observer are both making Nick Griffin out to be the public face of disaster skepticism. This desperate attempt by the EU and leftwing media to tar skepticism should be addressed with prominent articles denouncing him as an old school leftwing extremist because his policies are not in favour of the freedoms and equal opportunities which free marketeers believe in. In fact, he advocates the same kinds of one way policies and hegemony which the elites are advocating when they say that the developing world should live on a global welfare system called a “climate fund”. It’s fascist imperialism.

November 29, 2009 10:12 am

How the British are paying to be charged more by their electricity supplier, and the Government gets to crow about how “green” they are forcing us to be by introducing “Big Brother” intrusive technology into our homes.
All homes to get ‘smart’ power meters that measure exact energy use
Every British home is to be issued with a ‘smart’ meter which calculates how much gas or electricity is used each time an appliance is switched on. Families will also know how much they are spending minute-by-minute. Details will be announced by the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband this week.
Old-style meters will be ripped out and replaced with the gadgets, which can be programmed to turn appliances on and off to take advantage of off-peak rates. Older-style electric meters will be phased out to make way for new ‘smart’ meters. Fridges and freezers could be turned off at peak times to save power – but will automatically be switched back on if the temperature inside rises too high.
The utility companies will pay for the £7billion installation programme, though much of the cost is expected to be recouped later from customers.
Mobile phone technology will be used to transmit information on each family’s energy consumption to a central hub. The system, to be introduced over the next ten years, will allow power companies to read meters remotely and mean the end of estimated bills.
Energy suppliers will save billions by doing away with meter readers and call center staff.
Ministers claim families will save money by seeing their costs on a daily basis – and will be encouraged to cut back to reduce bills. The announcement comes days before world leaders arrive in Copenhagen for a climate change summit. The Government hopes to enhance Britain’s ‘green’ credentials by showing it is determined to cut energy consumption.

Robert Reis
November 29, 2009 10:28 am

[snip -race issues have no place in this discussion]

Julie L
November 29, 2009 10:33 am

I just posted the Telegraph link as my facebook update. I’ll probably lose friends for doing it, because so many people are addicted to the “OMG!!! The sky is falling!!”, whether it be Peak Oil, AGW, or 2012.
Again, Anthony, THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART for your work. You’ve proved again and again why you won the Best Science Blog of the year last round – this IS the best science blog on the “Intertubes”.
Guys, HIT THE TIP JAR! I did so, yesterday!

November 29, 2009 10:35 am

The met office is claiming that this year will be in the top five warmest since records began and of course, the BBC pushes this on their website with no mention of the climate scandal.
I would love to rubbish their claim, but I doubt if the Met Office is daft enough to make a rash claim “in the current climate” (sorry)
Is the claim true or not?

November 29, 2009 10:43 am

“The met office is claiming that this year will be in the top five warmest since records began.”
Thus, there must be 4 warmer years, quite consistent with the idea that there has been no warming for 10 years.

John M
November 29, 2009 11:06 am

PeterS (10:35:42) :
I’ve been tracking UKMet predictions for a couple of years now.
This year, their prediction is actually looking good for once, and is indeed on track to be “one of the 5 warmest.” In fact through the first ten months of the year, the average anomaly works out to 0.44, which is precisely their prediction. This will be one of the few years where they haven’t over-predicted.
As Vincent points out, tough to match the catastrophic projections if you only set a new record every 5-10 years or so, and even then, only by a few hundrendths of a degree.

Gail Combs
November 29, 2009 11:21 am

lookatthecode said
“.. Don’t post here…”
Post on the Wall Street Journal, The Times, The NEW York Times,The Telegraph, The NEW York Times.
The BBC website.

lookatthecode we come here for a sanity check and to get the bad taste out of our mouths. And yes I am sure most of us are leaving comments elsewhere.
Bye the bye I change the field of battle with the AGW believers. Everyone hates the bankers especially now, so I use that as the lever (Thanks DennisA for added ammo)
This is the latest comment I left please feel free to use any of my stuff. (This one is a bit sarcastic)
You are very correct the Copenhagen summit is very important to the world bankers intent on setting up their totalitarian world government. I am so glad you are supporting the bankers in their quest to reintroduce feudalism and grinding poverty for all but the special few.
Do not believe me? Then check out the document written by Lord Stern, World Bank Chief Economist last May. Lord Stern published a set of proposals for a global deal on climate change at the London School of Economics and Political Science. The document, was called Key Elements of a Global Deal.
Then check out the morality of the World Bank/IMF
“Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal…..”
Or look at Confessions of an Economic Hitman – describing how as a highly paid professional, John Perkins helped the World Bank. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies.
“….He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which—I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There’s no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most—many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country….”
These are the people who are plotting to be our new lords and masters with the help of U.N NGOs and the Political Activists they have duped for years.
Are you going to open your eyes now or wait until it is too late?

Alex Binnie
November 29, 2009 11:23 am

What about “Computer Ball Gazing” as an apt description of what these climatologists have been labeling as science? I have often wondered whether medieval astrologers or alchemists could not have made a better job of it!

November 29, 2009 11:35 am

lookatthecode (05:21:55) :
Will someone PLEASE produce a SIMPLE GRAPHIC.
(preferably by a respected scientist in the field)
A pie chart, bar graph, ANYTHING that gets the message easily across
showing % Natural Greenhouse Gase VS MANMADE Gases

Is this the sort of thing you are looking for?
You might want these, also from that same site.
I’m including those in the event you might have missed them. I almost did, because I had trouble navigating that site. Probably me, but just in case.

Martin Brumby
November 29, 2009 11:53 am

Further to my piece martin brumby (01:49:33), I emailed (on Saturday):-
“Dear Mr Phil Willis,
I write to you as Chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee.
I understand from a report on the BBC News website that the Committee has requested an explanation of the apparent wrongdoing at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, including extensive cherry picking and manipulation of raw data, use of inappropriate statistical methods and computer programming, refusal to comply with legitimate FOI requests and destruction of data that has been requested under FOI and systematic attempts to prevent publication of research papers which conflicted with their opinions.
I respectfully remind you that, whatever your own view of the “science”, that these “scientists” are in receipt of very considerable funds from the public purse and that the computer models they have constructed and the papers they have published have been hugely influential in the policy of all three major Political Parties in the UK and are effectively the only “evidence” (as opposed to bold assertions) that there is any “Dangerous Global Warming” and that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for this.
I suggest that a proper Inquiry into this affair is essential.
I also suggest that the rumoured use of Lord Rees of Ludlow to hold an UEA inquiry is completely unacceptable as he is a well known AGW alarmist.
The same objection applies to Professor Sir John Houghton, chair of the IPCC’s first science panel, who says “he would not support an inquiry as many of those demanding one were biased” And he isn’t perhaps?
I strongly suggest that if anyone is to have confidence that an Inquiry is not just another Greenie alarmist whitewash, this must be a job for a High Court Judge who has not allowed himself to be embedded into either the ‘alarmist’ or ‘skeptic’ camps.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Brumby”
He has now replied:-
“Dear Martin,
Thank you for your email. I am not in a position to make any comment about the UEA emails and to do so would be unacceptable. I have called for an explanation and certain assurances and that information will be placed before the Committee who will then decide IF and WHEN any further action should be taken.
Yours sincerely,
Phil Willis MP”
Don’t hold your breath…..

Ron de Haan
November 29, 2009 1:01 pm

Is Booker censored by Google?
I think it’s time to use Bing instead of Google.
We won’t accept censorship on the web, will we?

F. Ross
November 29, 2009 2:04 pm

FWIW “Climategate” was the front page top story in the Santa Barbara News Press today, Sunday, Nov. 29, 2009. About the equivalent of a couple of columns in all.
Not exactly the New York Times and the coverage/story was just okay, but at least front page; maybe it will open a few local closed AGW minds who will contact their pols as I have.

November 29, 2009 3:57 pm

A good Toronto Sun article: click

Jon Adams
November 29, 2009 5:42 pm

As Mr. Booker states… this may be the biggest scandal… unfortunately, we have had a fair number of other massive science frauds.
Let’s see if we can help sort this out.

November 29, 2009 5:43 pm

Let this be the last.

Mark Wagner
November 29, 2009 6:20 pm

MSM will only pick it up when it’s a scandal. It’s only a scandal when sufficient proof is established that they cooked the books. The proof of cooking the books is in the code.
Keep working the code. Keep the ball rolling.
Work the code that’s been released. Work the politicians to subpoena the rest of the code. Work FOI to release the rest of the code. Work the universities to investigate production of the code. Work the former employees and the janitor that used to empty the shredder in the code room. Whatever.

Daryl M
November 29, 2009 7:01 pm

Congratulations on a great article Chris. I noticed on the Telegraph website that your article is the most popular today. Climategate is the top 2 for today and 3 of the top 5 for the week. This is great news.

Reed Coray
November 29, 2009 8:07 pm

Even though I am a foreigner, I am now a member in good standing of that new British Class: A John Of The Realm. I qualify because for my portion of the $70B spent studying AGW, I got royally scr*******.

some bloke
November 30, 2009 12:24 am

Christopher Booker writes excellently on many subjects including Climategate.
His newspaper, UK Daily Telegraph is finally putting some Climategate stuff onto its news pages probably because its own Climategate bloggers ( Chris, James Delingpole and others ) have headed the most-viewed pages of their online edition ever since the scandal broke and have unprecedented numbers of informed comments.
Chris Bookers blog WAS featured on the top right of the online homepage ” comments & blogs” but they disappeared it. The DT clearly has not yet got the message.

November 30, 2009 4:00 am

Unfortunately I think the revelation of the e-mails is in danger of having little effect on “climate policy”. The damage control has already begun. The mantra from the warmists now is: “These were comments made by sloppy scientists. That’s why the CRU didn’t want them released,” and, “This is normal dialog among scientists when they’re hashing out findings.” Warmists are trying to divert everyone’s attention away from them, pretending they don’t mean anything. It might very well work, at least in the U.S. It’s my view, and I hope I’m wrong, that most Americans are scientifically illiterate, and are not that interested in science to begin with–though we’ll listen to what scientists say, at least at first. I know that polls are saying that most Americans aren’t believing the hype about AGW, and that’s encouraging, but I’m rather doubtful that we’re going this way because we’ve been reading about the science.

November 30, 2009 6:23 am

“Unfortunately I think the revelation of the e-mails is in danger of having little effect on “climate policy”.
I agree. However, I believe that Hadley will be forced to make all of their data and methods available on request (assuming there is still anything left). I believe Inhofe is requesting (demanding?) data from GISS. There may even be a relaxation of the teams death grip around the throat of the peer review process. If this happens, scientists outside of the “tribe” will be able to examine and criticize the dogma AND get their results published. This may in turn lead to a more balanced report in the IPCC AR5.
Not much of a consolation, I know, but better than nothing.

November 30, 2009 7:54 am

Does anyone remember this data fudging guy?
It’s deja vu all over again!

Roger Knights
November 30, 2009 8:36 am

“Unfortunately I think the revelation of the e-mails is in danger of having little effect on “climate policy”.”
Give it time. The partying on the Titanic didn’t stop at once.

December 1, 2009 5:45 am

“Unfortunately I think the revelation of the e-mails is in danger of having little effect on “climate policy”.”
Certainly has little to do with bestowing honors:
“Nobel Prize winner and NC State alumnus Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, a worldwide leader in the study of climate change, will deliver NC State’s commencement address … The IPCC, along with former Vice President Al Gore, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”
(citation: )

December 1, 2009 8:05 am

Google is innocent!
It now appears that the reason why this page disappeared so quickly from search results was that the Telegraph inserted a special piece of code into the page’s HTML to stop it being indexed by all the search engines, because they didn’t want it to go viral. In fact, the code got the page de-indexed, which explains why it vanished from the search results so quickly.

December 3, 2009 3:36 am

I haven’t been able to get it for the last 3 days. Happily, we take the paper Telegraph and I have cut out the article to keep. I also filed a chunk of the comments, not all though, but including some that were very apposite.

December 3, 2009 12:45 pm

Just read Christopher Bookers brilliant book, The Real Global Warming Disaster. The leaked e-mails are the icing on the cake! The question though is why are so many so called experts climbing on the man made warming band wagon? Do the just want fame/recognition at any price? And why is the BBC so supportive. I listened to the Moral Maze last night which was supposed to address the question of whether the science was sound but they skirted round the issues mostly, also the didn’t have Melanie Philips on who was very outspoken as a climate change skeptic on Question Time a week ago. Is it all a deception to cope with the eventual global energy crisis when the fossil fuels run out?

December 5, 2009 3:30 am

I have just seen Orwell’s 1984, again. Saw it first time many years ago. It seems the leftist’s dont realise that Orwells 1984 is really describing a sosialistic system.
And Climategate reminds me of this.
Very strange. One one side, they too wants to choose what car to drive, what broadband connection, what house to buy…. If you confront them in these issues, privately, they want it all.
But on the other hand there is a big disconnect.
They want big control-institutions, like the UN / IPCC mixed with government supported Media …. very strange.
Thank you, al Gore for inventing the Internet! ( A joke)

December 6, 2009 11:26 pm

Well Done Christopher
As an Electronics Engineer and Fellow of the Institution of Engineering & Technology I am particularly insulted by Gordon Brown’s contention that non-believers in Global Warming are “Flat-Earthers”.
Who does HE think he is?
He and others are perverting the course of Science for their own socio-political gains – therefore in my book they are PERVERTS.
At least they cannot change the speed of light!

Bob Lloyd
December 12, 2009 4:13 am

So many people describe themselves in these comments as “skeptics”, and yet they seem to have so little understanding of how science progresses. Instead they rely on their own comfortable assumptions that scientists are all venal, all out to deny the truth, all out to misrepresent the data. Instead of being skeptical about the absurd conspiracy theorists, the assumed dishonesty of scientists, about the political bias of the newspaper journalists, they jump on the denier bandwaggon without much pause for thought.
I’ve read the most appalling pseudescientific gibberish in the Telegraph full of the most basic confusions about scientific measures, techniques, processes. Garbled cut and paste stuff with conclusions unsupported by their premises. But since many Telegraph readers seem to think that science is just about opinion, they seem to ignore the need to subject conclusions to rigorous scrutiny. They’ve swallowed the postmodernist nonsense that science is just another narrative, another opinion, and therefore think that scientific knowledge needs some kind of validation by being acceptable, a sort of plebiscite on the scientific truth. The harsh fact is that scientific knowledge is validated against the real world, and not by opinion in the Telegraph.
Global warming is evidenced whether we like it or not. And shouting accusations at the scientists, and denying the science is futile. It’s like the man who having never heard Latin spoken, insists that there never was a Roman empire. He ignores the coins, the linguistic roots, the temples, the writings, the inscriptions, and insists he won’t believe until he comes across people speaking Latin in the street. In the meantime, all talk of the Roman Empire is false, a con, all made up, distorted data.
Science progresses by having hypotheses disproved, by having the data collected and challenged. That’s been done, the evidence is in. Global warming is a fact and people are largely responsible. Whether Telegraph writers like it or not.

December 27, 2009 11:03 am

Have just read “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Mr Booker. What an eye-opener! It should be required reading by all politicians. Anyone who knows how science works knows that scientists are humans too, with families to support and careers to manage. The scientific process of peer review, experimental repeatability, validation of theory, works well most of the time, (cf “The Trouble with Physics”, by Lee Smolin), like democracy, it may not be perfect but it is the best we’ve got. These two processes are not always mutually beneficial.
No-one denies that the planet heats up and cools down, with causes ranging from solar activity, volcanic activity, asteroidal impacts, atmospheric water vapour, oceanic currents and perhaps carbon dioxide. The con lies in blaming the whole thing on carbon dioxide to the exclusion of everything else and then claiming that we can do anything about it. The naivety of this is breathtaking, bordering on the sinister. Especially as CO2 is the least effective green house gas, and the link to causing global warming is far from proved.

December 27, 2009 12:39 pm

I read the book too. Got it from .
I knew most of the stuff before reading it, but it was “nice” to get a summary. In fact its a bit depressing to see what is going on in the world right now. Will climate science ever recover?

December 27, 2009 2:37 pm

Just read Lydia’s comment above. In my more optimistic moments I too used to think that it was a deep plot to prepare the world for a dearth of oil; but I don’t think that there is anyone intelligent enough in Brown’s government to be so deviously farsighted. Start preparing for the lights to go out!

December 27, 2009 11:57 pm

Bob, maybe you should read the Sceptics handbook;

December 28, 2009 1:37 am

Bob Lloyd (04:13:17) :
“So many people describe themselves in these comments as “skeptics”, and yet they seem to have so little understanding of how science progresses. Instead they rely on their own comfortable assumptions that scientists are all venal, all out to deny the truth, all out to misrepresent the data.”
First of all, Bob, we are not “assuming” anything. They were caught red handed. We have about ten years worth of emails and computer code that would get an “F” if handed in as an assignment.
Second, it isn’t “all” of them, just the ones pretending they have data to support a theory which doesn’t describe reality.
The “appalling pseudescientific gibberish” is what’s coming out of CRU, and it needs to stop.

December 30, 2009 2:31 pm

Forget the BBC, see what happens when I tried to let them know the facts …. DEBATE:
What do you think of the Copenhagen ‘deal’?
04-Dec-2009 22:11
I hope it stops the whole process. we need to examine the precarious position that the world powers have placed us in. World government, have we be ASKED yet? On the basis of the so called facts the CRU of University of East Anglia have systematically refused to allowing any examination of their work via FOI, been ‘encouraged’ to fudge, smooth out the readings they were entrusted to record and extrapolate. The e-mails are real.Facts known by the BBC, gone unreported until now, shame on you!

sherman dye
January 9, 2010 1:32 pm

It appears that peer review has actually been peer-pressure review. This is not how I was instructed in the scientific method!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights