Understanding Climategate: Who's Who – a video

Thanks to MagicJava for putting this into a YouTube video at my request:


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The Dr. Phil Jones section is missing his contribution to the Urban Heat Island discussion. That is: He’s the guy claiming a thermometer parked between two barbeques outside Grand Central Station is going to have the same temperature as a themometer in the same location without all of the buildings, people or heatsources. Within 0.1C, naturally – have to include the error limits.
CRU also actually implements “corrections” for the UHI they claim is so slight. They do this by depressing past measurements instead of by trying to more accurately calculate “what the gridcell temperature would be without the city.” (You don’t actually want a measurement of the city’s temperature, you want a measurement of the average temperature in the quite large gridcell that happens to contain a city.


Can you remove the PSU logo? I’m an alumni, and he does not represent what Penn State is about. His actions speak for him only. Besides, many of his most questionable activities occurred while at Virginia.

Vladimir D.

Wonderful video.
These people are zealots and frauds.They need to go away in shame.
On the other hand maybe it would be better if they stayed where they are, but had their research data completely open to review. With their insider knowledge, if they go underground they could come up with tricks for others and never be called on them.


Dr Mick Kelly is no longer employed by CRU.

John M

Way OT, but the song half-way through the video (“Hurt”) was done very powerfully by Johnny Cash just before he died.
My recommendation: Build a fire, pour yourself a stiff one, and watch.


Good video, I’d have emailed it to Hillary Benn MP with the email I sent him an hour ago about Climategate.




Much that can and should be added to this, but a good start anyway.

M White

I thought it was funny

Spenc BC

Sorry Tucker but if he still works at Penn State the logo should remain, and gotten rid of when he is fired!

Jim Carson

Under no circumstances should the Penn State logo be removed. Live by reputation, die by reputation. Penn State should be more careful about whom they hire, and most especially about what their faculty say.


Just a quick question, I like the music. Anyone got a playlist?
On the video, the text doesn’t look good against some of the backgrounds, unfortunately can be hard to read. Otherwise, a good vid.


If there was going to be a revision to this, I’d suggest just tidying up e.g. don’t need two identical references to the CEI lawsuit, footnote reference for ‘amount’ of arctic ice so as not to leave open to the extent vs thickness question, fix Dr Kelly’s employment status, not sure if there’s really room to discuss UHI.
Let this stand as is and move on to one with media/professional quotes about ‘political’ IPCC, etc. (while I’m dictating work for other folks…)

OT but very interesting comment from an IPCC member found at the Daily Telegraph
If the link doesn’t work – look for a contributor called Ros at 11:48 27th November.
[snip if you think is best]
Here is the verbatim
“I struggle to get Mike Hulme. He is part of the East Anglia crowd and does seem to be a fully paid up member of the supress the “bad guys” mob. He is both a recepient and sender in the CRU emails. As yet I haven’t seen any that suggest that he was opposed to the culture. Maybe it is an understanding that has emerged for him. I did hear him on All in the Mind and was very impressed. Felt he had the ability to penetrate fixed positions, he did imping on mine. But then came the CRU emails. And his role in IPCC
I am a member of the IPCC Task Group on Climate Scenarios for Impacts Assessment and co-Manager of the IPCC Data Distribution Centre for climate scenario information for the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC. I am also a Convening Lead Author for Chapter 13 on climate change scenario development and Lead Author for Chapter 10 on regional climate information in the WGI report of the IPCC TAR.
I am both taken by and yet bothered by his post-normal science position. Particularly worried by the fact that it seems to me that western science has indeed moved to being about risk and regulation (which is what post normal science is about?)with the rest of the world still being about science for production of things and knowledge etc. An eg China and its 40%, as my Engineer husband said, effeciency drive, good idea, and of course it is, it is a subset of China’s energy and economic security policies, not its environmental policies.
Will continue to read Professor Hulme with interest and respect, but.”
Delingpole left a comment asking for Ros to get in touch with him.

PR Guy

Nice. A minor suggestion — on many slides, you have a sub-title followed by a few quotes. So it looks like this:
– Sub-Title
– quote 1
– quote 2
I think it would be more impactful for the uninitiated if you used a format that looked more like:
– “Quote 1”
– “Quote 2”
Where there’s no bullet for the sub-title and each of the quotes is bullet-ed and surrounded by quotation marks.

Robinson – the first track is Depeche Mode – Policy of Truth

R Shearer

Are you sure about the quotes attributed to Tom Wigley concerning weather in Boulder? I think these originated fromKevin Trenberth.

This is so risible – here is the BBC’s Environment reporter’s blog [ Mr Richard Helpful Black] – after getting a total kicking on other BBC blogs that did allow comments – they’ve left the last two posts up for comment. It’s like some weird messageboard where the landlord has gone on holiday and the mods pass anything through = email quotes, other media stories, code excerpts – its bizarre.
Check out the earlier ones full of posts to sites like this and other MSM stories whilst the BBC go la-la-la. I find the whole thing really embarrassing.


Copenhagen is what this is all about; fear of regulation even though most of you folks have no stake in the oil and coal companies, you believe in them no matter what they charge for their products. I’m just a curious journalist with actual training in the sciences so I like facts.
Where is the email that refutes this fact?
“In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment.”


How do we know CO2 is the culprit? The Suess Effect.

Brent Matich

I knew that was Depeche Mode! Just enjoying the unravelling of this lying clique of scientists. They are a disgrace to all science.
Brent in Calgary

John M

marky48 (09:59:42) :
Quite a “journalist” you are. I can just see you after the release of the Whitehouse Tapes:
“Show me the tape that refutes this statement: Richard Nixon has had a long distinguished career as a public servant. He cares about the country and has been trying to do his best during these trying times”.
I trust your “training in the sciences” is a little more rigorous than your investigative reporting skills.

Nigel S

Music really appalling and likely to put people off if they are too lazy to press mute on

I’ve just tripped over this at the end of a documentary.

This should be part 4 – it has loads of very interesting stats.
Just for reference, I’m a political better and have been sharing concerns with others who are stat/probability experts on polling analysis. It’s a totally different field, but we’re only interested in facts rather than theories as we’ve wagered our money on it.

marky48 (10:02:19)
The amount of CO2 emitted by humans is minuscule compared with what the oceans and decaying vegetation outgas: click
According to the Department of Energy and the UN IPCC, out of 793,000 MMtons of CO2 emitted, only 23,000 are emitted by human activities. So realclimate is wrong once again.
And of course, there is zero empirical evidence that CO2 is anything but beneficial. Bet you didn’t know that either, did you?


Text too hard to read against graphics. Music unnecessary. Have to wait for buffer to skip ahead. Might work better as a PowerPoint document.

Cassandra King

Its not the crime that gets them, its the cover up every time.
The attempted cover up in the UK means that only the new media is covering the scandal including MSM bloggers of course and the MSM editors cannot press the squelch button on them without raising suspicions but the main pages of the dailys/TV channels are bare of real coverage, almost as if an off button has been pressed.
The new media has its first big test now, the old media seems to be succumbing to outside pressure to smother and kill the scandal, in the UK the main political parties have identical policies and aims regarding AAM/AGW/MMCC, they are in effect just one party with a shared aim of following the faked consensus regardless of the facts.
I suspect that many arms are being twisted and editors leaned on in the MSM, the cover up attempt will lead to bullying and threats which will lead to a breaking of ranks, a handful of young stud reporters wanting to make a name for themselves will uncover more and more usually led by the NMM until the MSM can no longer ignore the scandal just as happened with the MP expenses scandal earlier in the year.
The BBC with its massive resources has played a huge part in drenching the airwaves with trash pseudo science mumbo jumbo and they are leading the desperate cover up, perhaps they fully realise that if the AGW fraud is exposed then the BBCs leading role will be exposed, a great many vested interests are in peril, a great many people have done well out the scam and they will move heaven and earth to suppress it.
Unfortunately the scandal has expanded to reach Australia/New Zealand/USA/UK and it will be impossible to hold back the tide.


I bet you don’t know the heat trapping capacity of CO2 and that one molecule stays in the atmosphere 100 years. This is all empirical.

Dave Dardinger

Despite what you sometimes see (as in Smokey’s post) there is not real doubt that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily from human burning of fossil fuels. [Smokey and others confuse total emissions with net emissions.] What people at places like RealClimate misrepresent is that there’s no good evidence that CO2 causes anything like the amount of warming that AGW proponents claim. CO2 by itself will produce about .5-1deg C for a doubling. The whole CO2 alarmism comes from assuming that this small warming will lead to a much larger warming due to H20 evaporation. This might make sense except that there are clouds and precipitation to be accounted for and even the warmers admit they haven’t gotten it anyway close to being locked down on those issues. Further, there’s a likelihood bordering on certainty that the atmosphere is in a negative feedback mode under present conditions and that each degree of warming will be largely offset by changes leading to stasis. One well-known skeptic even thinks the feedback will be large enough to reduce the net warming to less than the CO2 only warming would suggest. I’m not sure he’s right, but there’s not a smoking gun on that issue.

John M

marky48 (11:12:33) :

I bet you don’t know the heat trapping capacity of CO2 and that one molecule stays in the atmosphere 100 years. This is all empirical.

Do you know that the “heat trapping capacity” of CO2 and its presumed atmospheric lifetime only leads to about 1.5 deg C of warming for a doubling from 270 ppm? Care to apply your “reporting” and “scientific training” to tell us where the rest of the heating required for catastrophism comes from?

Gene Nemetz

Are the emails about Steve McIntyre that Phil Jones deleted still recoverable from the harddrive? I think they would be.
The harddrives at CRU should be seized by the police immediately before Mike, or others, do some ‘trick’ with them.

marky48 (11:12:33) :
“I bet you don’t know the heat trapping capacity of CO2 and that one molecule stays in the atmosphere 100 years. This is all empirical.”
You’re looking at the UN/IPCC’s incredible opinion of CO2 persistence time: click
And “empirical” means real world evidence — not the IPCC’s 100 year WAG, which is based on no physical [empirical] evidence.

Gene Nemetz

Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.
Robust discussion among (these) scientist.
I don’t know if it’s illegal to instruct someone to do this but it has the appearance of being illegal.

Gene Nemetz

Why does Jones consider it a hassle to release data?? Gives more appearance of hiding wrong-doing.

Gene Nemetz

“…showing them what CA was all about.”
Which was verifying your work, right Mr. Jones? You know, that inconvenient scientific process. You may have heard of it.

Gene Nemetz

Mick Kelly and Shell Oil—there’s your big oil connection trolls.

Gene Nemetz

Mick Kelly and globalization—so much for trolls insisting there is no globalization agenda behind global warming.

Gene Nemetz

How about them ‘recent cold-ish years’ Mick!
You dudes are busted!

Gene Nemetz

Michael Mann, “…best to clean up the code….but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.”
DOH! It got into their hands!

Gene Nemetz

Michal Mann on RC (RealClimate) “Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through…”
So much for RC’s insistence that they don’t do this.
You’re in it up to your eyes Gavin.

Gene Nemetz

Tom Wigley, “….Saiers…we could… get him ousted.”
Deplorable, Tom. And we were told over and over this type of thing NEVER happened!

Gene Nemetz

Tom Wigley tried to ruin Pat Michaels.
Karma police got you Tom.

Gene Nemetz

Tom Wigley tried to sit on heat data.
You in the hot seat now Tom? You made it yourself.

Let’s see:
a) subverting the peer review process
b) stacking the UN IPCC
c) obstruction of the Freedom on Information Act
d) breach of university and state ethics codes
… and we haven’t even talked about the data yet.
Climate Science – the new Ponzi scheme!
p.s. – Is this what Science is all about? Meet the new boss (science), same as the old boss (religion). When are they issuing funny hats to scientists?
p.p.s. – Who needs Wall Street when you have Science?


“According to the Department of Energy and the UN IPCC, out of 793,000 MMtons of CO2 emitted, only 23,000 are emitted by human activities. So realclimate is wrong once again.”
Nope. Sorry Charlie.
“Note the absorption number and the net accumulation in the air – around 50% of the human addition. And this is the same thing, year after year.”
Fake graphs showing what you want won’t help you. NASA puts rovers on Mars and you folks take out the trash. There’s no comparison in the real world.

Wondering Aloud

If it can not be replicated it isn’t science. It really is as simple as that! The refusal to openly share method and data makes any papers etc involved simple rubbish!
Questioning Patrick Michaels degree? I question the degree and the granting instituion of each of these guys. How did you manage to get a PhD in science without ever developing even a high school understanding of scientific method.
What do you call it when a group conspires to block real scietists from publishing, in supposedly scientific journals, while at the same time demonstrating themselves to be incompetent in scientific method. Chutzpah?

John M

marky48 (12:21:52) :
Please address the questions above about CO2 sensitivity and feedbacks.


“Further, there’s a likelihood bordering on certainty that the atmosphere is in a negative feedback mode under present conditions and that each degree of warming will be largely offset by changes leading to stasis”
This is highly unlikely given the accelerated rates of ice loss and the demonstrated positive feedbacks of water vapor under observed forcings of CO2. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Gene Nemetz

I thought there was going to be a flood of comments in this thread. I thought my comments would end up between many other comments. I am posting a lot because over the last 2 1/2 years everything I instinctively felt about what was happening in global warming is revealed to be true in ClimateGate. But seeing it before my eyes it’s a little ‘worse than I thought’.
Everything the trolls have told us was not happening actually was happening.
I’ve received nasty messages and one death threat (I know that’s nothing compared to what others have received) in the last 2 1/2 years. But we’ve told been told by the trolls those thing never happen either.
The trolls have a great track record for accuracy.

marky48 (12:21:52)
“Fake graphs showing what you want won’t help you. NASA puts rovers on Mars and you folks take out the trash.”
I’m taking time out from floor polishing with my rotary buffer to ask: What ‘fake graphs’?