From Climategate.tv – see video report below.
This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.
Sitting here now, one year later, it’s becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience’s concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.
Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.
Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” Or where he concludes: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
Or the email where he broke the law by asking Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to delete a series of emails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received.
Or the email where he wrote: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”
Or the other emails where these men of science say they will re-define the peer review process itself in order to keep differing view points out of the scientific literature, or where they discuss ousting a suspected skeptic out of his editorial position in a key scientific journal, or where they fret about how to hide the divergence in temperature proxy records from observed temperatures, or where they openly discuss the complete lack of warming over the last decade or any of the thousands of other emails and documents exposing a laundry list of gross scientific and academic abuses.
Of course, the alarmists continue to argue—as they have ever since they first began to acknowledge the scandal—that climategate is insignificant. Without addressing any of the issues or specific emails, they simply point to the “independent investigations” that they say have vindicated the climategate scientists.
…
Regardless of what one thinks of the veracity or independence of these so-called investigations into the climategate scandal itself, what has followed has been a catastrophic meltdown of the supposedly united front of scientific opinion that manmade CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.
In late November of 2009, just days after the initial release of the climategate emails, the University of East Anglia was in the hotseat again. The CRU was forced to admit they had thrown away most of the raw data that their global temperature calculations were based upon, meaning their work was not reproducible by any outside scientists.
Complete transcript to the video here
The place where all the emails can be searched and read: http://eastangliaemails.com/
I’ve read many of the emails, and the documents. You mentioned media spin?
Here’s a classic….Rules of the Game
http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/documents/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
Last week the Fed Reserve was hacked and they caught the hacker. It appears one year later this storage hacker would have been caught. Must not have been hacked.
Nice synopsis. Not complete in any manner, but nice enough that these acts and correspondence lead to questions that still haven’t been asked. I’m not sure they ever will be. But they are there for all the world to see.
Is a year to the day that i followed a link from a forum, to a place that I had never heard of: Watts Up
After looking at Harry_Read_me.txt, I went from lukewarm to sceptic.
As for Rules of the Game, Futerra have been very busy…
http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking
Rules of the Game
Words That Sell
Branding Biodiversity
Sell the Sizzle – The New Climate Message
New Rules, New Message…
They focus grouped ‘carbon foorprint’ years ago..
I wonder if they had a hand in ‘Global Climate disruption’
Well the co founder Ed Gillspie of Futerra also writes for The Guardian…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ed-gillespie
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/17/climate-change-advertising-standards-authority
“Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy.”
Also, ED Gillspie is part of a group ( a director) called Sandbag, promoting Carbon Offsets (and selling tonnes of CO2) They are campaigning for carbon emmisions trading, and the set up of EU emmisions trading
http://www.sandbag.org.uk/whoweare
A co director – of Sand Bag, is Mike Mason – co founder of Climate Care. (and still MD). This is where Prince Charles and Al Gore can by their carbon offsets, for all their airmiles, and cars, and expensive homes.
http://www.jpmorganclimatecare.com/about/our-organisation/
Climate Care being bought by JP MORGAN CHASE Bank in 2008 (no doubt as a nice earner, post causing a financial crash)
Mike Mason, on the losing side of that Oxford Climate debate, where all he could do was abuse Lord Monckton…Ed Gillspie, is also a commissionar for the London Sustainability Commision.
What a small incestuous vested interest world, ‘the climate change’ industry is
Do they have a whistle blower statute in UK? If not, maybe that is why the whistle blower did not come forward. Or he/she may, even so, fear for her safety—after all, some warm-earthers have called for murder of skeptics. The AGW crowd has become like a herd of cornered rats, and therefore dangerous and unpredictable.
It had to be an inside job—even with a cabal like the warm-earth cult—there is always a small percentage of those with a conscience, or cannot take the dishonor any more.
Very well put Anthony. There was no hack. This was a whistle blower release. And the reason it is not being pursued as a crime is that Britain has extremely tough laws dealing with the rights of whistle blowers. So much so that an institution or individual that wishes to punish or silence a whistle blower will suffer extreme financial penalties. Further ,exposure would only aggravate the damage by revealing the releasing party was aware of a hoax.
Anthony,
Thank you for keeping the discussion alive . . . and for keeping your independent media here . . . . alive.
Happy holidays to you and your family.
John
There are so many references to Travesty in their emails that i’ve have come to the conclusion that they must be some kind of a heretofore unknown secret society of… ‘Travestites’ . This underground network beholds to their self-debunked Pseudo Science but knowingly dress it up anyway and present it!! Alluring until closer inspection!
When I read ” the climate science community would come down hard on me”, I read “Michael Mann would come down hard on me “. I suspect that Briffa was sick of the bullying and pressure to change his results to show a desired outcome. I also suspect (as Jones has alluded to) that there is a LOT more e-mails that would be incredibly damning to these guys. Let us get all this crap out in the open and deal with it, so that climate science can start moving forward again. Ironic that they accuse the skeptics of “delaying climate science”, when in fact it was derailed by an agenda. The silence from the investigators is deafening.
Climategate is very frustrating to me. There were some bad things done, but there was more incompetence. That the two sides cannot agree on the issues of Climategate is a pretty good indicator of how bad the issue has drifted from science.
Not that science has ever been as pure as wind driven snow. Some people try, but assumptions always creep into results. 100 years ago there were just as many contentious issues as there are today. Personality has always played a role.
There is no doubt that there are serious problems that were shown by Climategate, but lets also admit that we are not really surprised by some of what was found. Yes they want to be proven right, most scientists do. Yes the choices they made in data went in the direction they wanted it too.
The real problems of deleting things and being incompetent are things that are over the line. Discarding 30 years of tree ring data is also a nasty bit.
In the end reality will end the debate. Odds are very good that the skeptics will be proven correct. That is what really matters.
theinconvenientskeptic.com
Following the orthodoxy still has it’s rewards.
http://www.sandbag.org.uk/blog/2010/nov/19/sandbag-founder-appointed-house-lords/
Paul “the Menace” Dennis has denied “whistleblowing” Climategate. But some authoritative and knowledgeable insider self-evidently did collate and then clandestinely distribute these extraordinarily incriminating files. Lacking character and integrity, exposed as a complicit fraud, der grosse Herr Professor Jones is off the hook. That leaves Keith Briffa, who has never actually denied the charge.
Like Watergate’s Deep Throat revelator in 1973 – ’74, it may take thirty years to know the facts. But we suspect that, somehow, truth will out. As climate hysteria fades to a bad joke, recusant Warmists will emerge to take credit for their own demise.
RT: ‘Climategate’: Cooking data in UK since 1990
Odd that no one has mentioned it, but back in the Sixties, the term “sandbag” meant to decieve through misdirection. As in “blind-siding” or “sucker-punching” someone.
Are these guys just clueless, a Freudian slip, or are they really that cynical? L
” Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.”
Oh, I’d say all of the regular readers of WUWT, the exceptions being those that passed to the Great Beyond that week, read most of the e-mails and documents. You just couldn’t help it.
What was even better was the influx of new visitors to WUWT who showed up only because of Climategate. I’ve certainly appreciated reading the comments of those WUWT ‘newbies’ that have stayed stuck around to become regular contributors. That was one heck of a month for Anthony and The Mods (doop-do, do-waaah!).
P.S. I’m still a relative newbie having only started to visit regularly around the time “How Not To Measure Temperature – #50(ish)” was posted. There s still a passel of people who got hooked very early on and are still here; no surprise to me.
Possibly the best post yet on Climategate.
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for your wonderful blog and relentless effort in unmasking these cheats.
I can remember reading the emails and was struck but the obvious lack of corporate governance. In one email the auther stated that he can fund a trip from some funds left-over from another grant. Now, to my mind, that is not the way we were allowed to operate when I was still working. An approved budget was only allowed to be used for the scope and business described in the budget item.
Is budget abuse so common in journalistic circles that none of them mentioned this obvious miss use of funds?
It is becoming clearer every day that studies of past and current global temperatures are deeply flawed. Yet we are still asked to accept that the planet is warming and further, that that will be harmful to us, other life forms in general and our children. On the back of that acceptance are imposed two burdens; the first that we restrict access to energy and the second, that we accept a higher price for the energy that we are allowed.
The first is promoted by green organisations and the second by financial organisations. The two however, are not linked. The Greens call only for reduced consumption and the Traders/Taxers only for a slice of turnover. The two have no common ground, other than ambition and the realisation that rising global temperatures present them a huge opportunity to further that.
There is however, a third group emerging which combines both those burdens in the name of Global Governance. For that ambition to succeed, it is necessary to have a global threat and a global revenue stream. For them, the demonising of CO2 and invention of carbon trade, both by others, is a perfect storm on which to move.
We have had years to understand Greens & Capitalists, many of us are a bit of both if we are honest with ourselves. We have no experience of Global Government (outside of novels) but we do have experience of unelected government which continually shows examples of stupidity, brutality, largesse and hegemony.
I believe the whistle-blower of CRU served a very important role in the history of mankind. For now anonymous, so the only reward we can bestow is to continue vigilance against the manipulation of fact to serve an agenda.
What we need is a catchy little phrase, like “Duty! Honor! Science!”. You know, something to inspire the kids who are wandering around now and waiting for their turn at the wheel. Hummm… “Duty! Honor! Science!” What do you think? Too old fashioned? Not hip enough?
L says: November 20, 2010 at 9:16 am
Odd that no one has mentioned it, but back in the Sixties, the term “sandbag” meant to decieve through misdirection. As in “blind-siding” or “sucker-punching” someone.
Are these guys just clueless, a Freudian slip, or are they really that cynical? L
———————————————————————————-
I noticed that too and concluded that it was intentional. Cynical ? -maybe. Descriptive of their motive? – Definitely.
Douglas
American politician Inhofe, 11/18/10:
Declares 2010 “Year of Vindication”. Also talks about the EPA Endangerment CO2 regulation which begins enforcement on January 2, 2011 without approval of Congress
I have just posted this over at climate sight where Kate has an article up on this subject. Mosh has just posted a comment there as well.
Kate”
I agree with True Sceptic.I have tried to move back on topic several times but people then keep referring, out of context, to something I’ve said. So back to your topic.
Firstly, congratulations. I thought it was a very nicely written and succinct paper. I don’t agree with most of your conclusions though.
I am British so the CRU emails are of particular interest to me. Having met Prof Jones I have enormous personal sympathy for him and what this matter has done to his health. Anyone issuing death threats or harassing him should be prosecuted.
On a professional basis I have rather less sympathy. He came to believe that the data he worked on with public money was his own and refused to allow anyone to see it, which precipitated the FOIA requests (cites follow)
We tend to have two types of inquiries over here. The first veers towards the intensive and thorough ten year inquiry we had into ‘Bloody Sunday’ which cost 100 million pounds. The second type- and much more frequent- will be familiar to any readers here who watch that old British TV series ‘Yes Minister’.
In that series politicians, or the civil service, try to thwart the aims of the opposite side who want to get to the bottom of something by agreeing to hold an inquiry. The intention is for nothing to be actually done. It is called kicking the ball into the long grass.
This is particularly popular at awkward times like before an election or where some flaw in Govt policy might come to light and is usually achieved by having terms of reference that don’t allow proper investigation or by appointing chairmen who are sympathetic to what the desired end result is.
The British enquiries you mention fell into many of these categories-one of the inquiries interviewed those involved for 1 day in total. (cites follow)
A number of investigations have been carried out into the official inquiries that you are quoting in your article. This is a good one as it deals with all of the British ones plus that from Penn State.
This sets the scene.
http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/1532-damning-new-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries.html
This is the report itself
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
(the author gained a degree in Chemistry then became a Chartered accountant which explains his forensic mind).
Here are some of the opening remarks of this ‘inquiry into the inquiries’ as made by Lord Turnbull;
(Andrew Turnbull was in the British Govt for some years, first as Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; then as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05. He is now a Crossbench member of the House of Lords.
(Turnbull being a former head of the civil service is especially pertinent as he knows how these enquiries are intended to work)
* these enquiries were hurried
* the terms of reference were unclear
• insufficient care was taken with the choice of panel members to ensure
balance and independence
• insufficient care was taken to ensure the process was independent of those being investigated, eg the Royal Society allowed CRU to suggest the papers it should read
• Sir Muir Russell failed to attend the session with the CRU’s Director Professor
Jones and only four of fourteen members of the Science and Technology Select Committee attended the crucial final meeting to sign off their report.
• record keeping was poor.
The following comments come from early on in the linked report;
” *The Climate Change Emails Review headed by Sir Muir Russell included several vocal supporters of the manmade global warming hypothesis.
*One member had worked at UEA for 18 years.
*Only CRU scientists were interviewed and no oral evidence was taken from critics.
* The panel failed even to ask witnesses whether emails had been deleted.
* The panel simply said they had not seen any evidence that information subject to FOI had been deleted, despite strong evidence to the contrary.”
The allegations were not properly or meaningfully investigated but equally-because of that- they remain neither proven or unproven. In classic ‘Yes Minister’ style the ball has been kicked into the long grass and whether it will ever be found again remains to be seen.
Personally I feel that CRU have not lived up to the expectations created by its first director Hubert Lamb. If anyone wants to get a proper well balanced view of our changing climate in a historic context I can recommend his book ‘Climate history and the modern world.’
I have no particular comment on Penn state as I do not have sufficient knowledge of how that inquiry was conducted.
tonyb
Oh, but they are innocent according to the “official” studies down by their friends and beneficiaries.
Hi bubbagyro
They do have whistleblower legislation. It’s called the Public Information Disclosure Act. However, disclosures are only protected if referred to the appropriate government department and are not protected if disclosed to the media. Possibly it would be the Environment Ministry in this case. However, as you know, the government and civil service in the UK and especially the Environment Ministry are so overwhelmingly warmist biased there would be no hope of a whistleblower being protected in these circumstances.
Very good video.
Cancun will be the last collective attempt to force global legislation upon us.
After that they will adopt to regional and national policies to achieve similar goals and launch another scare but remember this: THEY WILL NEVER GIVE UP
Therefore fact finding and bringing out the truth, resistance to any scheme or taxation will be of utmost importance and so is the quest for finding a way to prosecute them.
And with them I mean scientist and politicians. This is about our freedom which makes this fight inevitable.
No surrender.