This is a repost from Climate Audit
“Covert” Operations by East Anglia’s CRU
Today brings news of the arrest of the managing director of a firm hired by the University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climatic Research Unit) to carry out “covert” operations – h/t reader Chu here). Neil Wallis of Outside Organisation was arrested today in connection with the spreading News of the World scandal.
Last year, Wallis’ partner at Outside Organisation , Alan Edwards, was profiled in Music Week in a story that led with:
Don’t tell the conspiracy theorists. But one PR company was at the centre of the Michael Jackson funeral, Climategate and Naomi Campbell’s appearance at Charles Taylor’s trial in The Hague.
Edwards is described as the “man who has also helped shape the careers of Amy Winehouse, Blondie, The Rolling Stones, Jimmy Cliff, David Bowie, Spice Girls, David Beckham, P Diddy, Kevin Pietersen and Shayne Ward” and the man who masterminded PR for Naomi Campbell’s trial. Outside Organisation’s handling of Climategate for CRU was described as “more covert”.
Less apparent is its work in the corporate field, where its activities tend to be rather more covert. [my bold]
“We don’t advertise a lot of the things we do,” says Edwards, who was called in by the University of East Anglia when Climategate blew up. “That was really interesting. It’s very high level, and you’re very much in the background on that sort of thing.”
The university’s Climatic Research Unit wanted Outside to fire back some shots on the scientists’ behalf after leaked emails from the unit gave climate change skeptics ammunition and led to an avalanche of negative press about whether global warming was a real possibility.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No surprises down in the sewer.
I am laughing out loud at this. It is hilerious. Just how deep is the hole CRU dug?
fredb says:
Fred, this isn’t for me a question of guilt by association. The throbbing thumb is:
Why does a”Climate Research Unit” of an English university need to employ PR consultants and spin doctors in the first place? What advice were they given. This is public mony being spent, you know.
Well Rebekah Brooks has finally caved into the relentless media pressure and as of about 10:30 BST today has resigned
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/rebekah-brooks-resigns-phone-hacking-scandal?intcmp=239
“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_by_the_sword,_die_by_the_sword
Neo-AGW Progress Report.
Oz’s AGW/carbon tax debate:
Real crap.
…-
Prime Minister Ms:
“Asked how the media should cover the climate change debate, Ms Gillard was blunt: “Don’t write crap. Can’t be that hard.””
Opposition leader Abbott:
“I think that climate change is real,” he told the Brisbane audience.
“This is not a debate about climate change, this is a debate over how to deal with it.
“The argument is `Do you want a new tax or do you want direct action?’ That’s the discussion.””
“Carbon tax blamed for retail slump”
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2011/07/15/357821_latest-news.html
Did the Murdoch people invent the things some of their reporters got caught doing?
No. Think of Dan Rather and the phony Texas Air Nat. Guard papers he was pushing (and still pushes). Think of Food Lion and ABC.Think of how the media has walked away from reporting on climate science as journalists.
Will the media complex pull out the knives and go after Murdoch as hard as possible?
You betcha.
Alexander points a harsh truth: we are increasing those things that will harm us and destroying those things that have helped us. Think of GE, whose chairman is so close to Obama, and whose company pays no taxes. Think of America walking away from manned space and weakening the JSC in Houston, home of the largest and most experienced group of people familiar with manned spaceflight.
Look at Australia, whose PM felt comfortable enough to lie about her intentions to tax CO2 in a way that will not change the world climate at all, but will harm Australia greatly that she simply lied to her people about it. Look at the US, being held hostage to an unnecessary government default in order to force a raise in taxes, even though in Dec. 2010 an agreement was given to not change the tax rate. And no actual spending cuts are offered
To whatever extent Murdoch’s groups did wrong, they should be punished. But my bet is the investigation and punishment will be done in such a way as to allow other media to ignore their systemic problems,and for industry and government to use this as a distraction from the damage they are doing.
Talk about applying lipstick to a pig, trouble is they spun the pig around and lipsticked its backside, I suppose in climate “new speak science” that would be considered “hind casting”…
Friends:
It is a matter of record that I am repulsed by the behaviours of CRU and the rest of the ‘Team’. For example, I provided unsolicited evidence to the UK Parliamentary enquiry (that turned out to be a ‘whitewash’) into ‘Climategate’.
But I share the concerns of some others (stated above) concerning the above article.
‘Climategate provided CRU and the UEA with a PR disaster and, therefore, it was both reasonable and sensible for them to seek expert advice and help in their response(s) to that disaster. They could not have known that now (i.e. years later) the source from which they obtained the help would be seen to be tainted. Furthermore, that taint is – as yet – merely suspicion and not proven.
There are very many reasons to critcise the behaviour of CRU and the UEA but this is not one of them. And, in my opinion, a fuss about this matter weakens the strength of the much more genuine criticisms of CRU and the UEA, especially if the suspicions about Neil Wallace are proved to be unfounded (which, although unlikely, is possible).
Richard
Fred B – re your first post.
I think it likely that comments here are in fact speculating that the company was engaged precisely because of its ability to move in questionable circles.
fredb says:
So if I hire a tax consultant who later turns out to have committed fraud in some other activity, I’ve done something wrong too?
Not necessarily. But you can bet your bippy that the IRS, Revenue Canada, HMRC, ATO, or whatever your federal government’s tax attack dogs are called where you live, just might be taking a wee peek at your records along the way, just to see. And if there’s even a hint at impropriety, you can count on them crawling so far up your apologist butt that they’ll be tasting your food before you do.
Such implied guilt is a paving stone on the path to vigilantism.
Oh Please! Now THAT sir, is unproductive hyperbole!
Alexander Feht says:
July 15, 2011 at 12:06 am
“”””Let’s take a stock of the situation.””””
“”””Is there any reason for optimism, ladies and gentlemen?””””
——
Alexander Feht,
No need for despair and pessimism. Those things you speak of are the actions of people who know what they, themselves, are. Thus, they are easily perceived by independents and then can be sufficiently dealt with in the ongoing intellectual battle.
Hint – just look for climate science related people who seek to keep info and acts hidden by manifold techniques.
John
Fred B, I think you miss the point, the question is why did CRU need a COVERT pr group? And why did it employ a tabloid (NOTW! Hardly premium journalism!) hack to do it?
Also how much did this cost and why did someone think it was worth this amount of money?
(Disclaimer: I’m sad NOTW no longer exists, I think papers like it and the National Enquirer in the US are the only papers doing any kind of investigative journalism. The so called “respectable” media couldn’t find a piss up in a speak-easy in 20s Chicago … )
Who paid for this? I am assuming that Mr. Edwards does not work for free? When a university has to spend student and taxpayer money on this sort of thing, then you know they are pretty much done with real research and science.
Is it just me or does UEA’s CRU hiring Outside Org seem like the Dept of State hiring Blackwatch? Seriously do you hire that big of a gun unless you think you might actually need that big of a gun? My magic 8 ball says this rabbit hole goes quite a bit deeper, I for one would like to know which media organizations have been compromised, what happens to freedom of the press when the press is an extension of a for hire PR firm? Well at least the TV publishes a disclaimer before they air an infomercial, my trade pubs publish a disclaimer when they publish a manufacturer supplied article, I guess that that is too much integrity for MSM and the Journals.
Richard S Courtney says:
July 15, 2011 at 5:24 am
“”””Friends:
. . . . There are very many reasons to criticize the behavior of CRU and the UEA but this is not one of them. And, in my opinion, a fuss about this matter weakens the strength of the much more genuine criticisms of CRU and the UEA, especially if the suspicions about Neil Wallace are proved to be unfounded (which, although unlikely, is possible).
Richard””””
——
Richard,
I appreciate your appeal to temperance in associating any of Wallis’ alleged NoW misdeeds with his covert activities in CRU’s post-Climategate PR cleanup.
Also, however, consider what the media investigative reporters and police detectives would typically do when conducting inquiries. They would look at the know associates (including clients and policemen) of the accused in periods before, during and after the alleged crime of interest (NoW).
Richard, we as free individuals have abilities to figure things out just as the media and police do . . . without being illegal in the process. I think it serves to keep the police and the media honest.
I aways read your comments and pay a lot of attention to them.
John
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2011 at 11:45 pm
http://eastangliaemails.com seems to have been offline for some weeks now. I wonder if someone got threatened with legal action.
If the data was obtained illegally then publishing it is also illegal. Please read the BRITISH computer Misuse Act. There is no escape if you tamper with data without permission on someone elses computer!
The immediate aftermath of climategate was a number of investigations that were stacked against skepticism, and failed to ask the most important questions raised by the e-mails. Now comes word that UEA hired a PR firm that deals “covertly” and has just been outed as participatory in a phone hacking scandal.
Again, lets be crystal clear here..
—> Emminent scientists whose reputation on the world stage is such that political bodies move on their words had been refusing to share data for years. They had closed ranks and declared IP rights would be violated.
—> These same scientists had the exact data people had been requesting and some of their e-mails put on the internet.
—> The response from the university to this sequence of events was to hire a PR firm.
—> Numerous “investigations” of the matter turned out to be whitewashes, not asking the appropriate lines of questioning to get to the heart of the matters revealed in the leaked documents.
—> The PR firm is later implicated in illegal activity.
There is zero benefit of the doubt left. Men whose reputation is staked on being HONEST and COMPLETE in their communications of how the universe works (scientists) have gone so far to hide what they’ve done they have hired criminals to defend them. The very association is inexcusable.
fredb says:
July 15, 2011 at 1:21 am
Alexander Feht made some statements which are interesting to take stock of, and indicative of the general blogsphere propensity to speak in hyperbole, which in my opinion is unhelpful. Other statements are, yes, very worrying.
“Science is almost totally corrupted.” –> literal meaning that there is just about no uncorrupted science — that is close to 100% of all science is corrupt! Evidence please … this is unproductive hyperbole!
-> Don’t you mean “liberal” meaning? “Almost” does not mean 100%
“Space exploration is practically dead.” –> literal meaning is that in practice – that is, in the operation of space activities — there is just about no space exploration! Evidence please … this is unproductive hyperbole!
-> Again using your “liberal” meaning. “Practically dead” is pretty far from “no space exploration”
“Businesses without government connections are suffocated by taxes and regulations.” –> In some nations, yes there are indications of this. But not in ALL nations! The USA is not the world — please!
-> Mr. Feht not once mentioned the USA.
“Individual freedoms are disappearing so fast we can’t even trace, when and how they went out.
Unions, public masters (formerly known as “public servants”), and other bleeders of various breeds determine the outcomes of elections, the distribution of national budgets, the energy policy and the foreign policy.” –> In some nations, yes there is indications of this. But not in ALL nations! The USA is not the world — please!
-> Again, Mr. Feht not once mentioned the USA.
Indicative of the general blogsphere propensity to speak in hyperbole? Yes indeed. LOL
Re: unproductive hyperbole
I’ve been around the world, fredb, and in most countries the situation is much worse than in the USA. A European-style welfare state is at the end of its existence, and — if most of the population won’t realize it, which is unlikely — the collapse is inevitable.
I remember the same reaction as yours back in the Soviet Union, circa 1985: most people around me would say that I was “rocking the common boat and exaggerating.” As we know now, my understanding of the situation then was rather an understatement. And rocking the boat that is going to sink anyway may not be such a bad idea. But most people never want to believe that they are following the Black Goat into the abyss.
One of my statements, the truth of which you understood, didn’t sound to you as an unproductive hyperbole. Other statements, the truth of which you don’t understand yet, sound to you as exaggerated. Generally, people tend to laugh at things they don’t understand.
Even if what I said is a hyperbole (it’s not but let us assume for a moment that it is), I have some questions for you:
Why, in your opinion, a hyperbole has no right to exist in blogosphere?
Why, in your opinion, a hyperbole is necessarily unproductive?
Finally, what, in your opinion, would be a productive hyperbole?
[Dear moderators, somebody didn’t close the Italics properly, and now we all express ourselves in rather emphatic mode…]
[WordPress glitch. Fixed. ~dbs, mod.]
Richard S Courtney says:
July 15, 2011 at 5:24 am
I fully agree that there is no reason to declare unilateral ‘guilt by association’ in this instance – but the basic fact remains that a scientific ‘group’ required the services of a PR consultant! This is not the path of normal science, science is science is science – no amount of PR can change the underlying science (in terms of facts! – though of course ‘perception’ is another thing!) and I find it abhorent that a scientific/academic organisation would ever feel the need to protect itself in such a manner.
It smacks of protectionism/elitism and probably loads of other ‘isms’ I cannot think of – but basically pointing to an organisation (instead of a bunch of plain ol’ scientists) feeling that they had something they needed to protect. Now, call me simple, but normally if a scientist gets it wrong or makes a mistake he has to normally issue a retraction and everything is smoothed over again (Ok,Ok – this maybe doesn’t apply to the likes of Mann!) – it is not normal for a scientist (or group thereof) to rush to EMPLOY others to present best ways to commercialise or defuse a situation or defend their honour/data, etc, – as is the intended purpose of PR consultants.
If science needs PR in the normal context of PR – we are in serious trouble, and the level of distrust in science as a whole will only increase significantly!
Mods, looks like an unclosed italics starting here, or the subsequent post.
Grizzled Bear says: July 15, 2011 at 5:27 am
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs.]
John Whitman,
Thank you for moral support.
I am generally of optimistic disposition but it becomes harder and harder lately to trust in human nature. Over the years since WWII, “public education” has done its evil deed.
Yes, there are still many people who see things for what they are — but there were many such people in the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany. The problem was, they could do nothing against the tsunami of believers, idiots, parasites, and cowards.
Then, fortunately, there were different countries with different priorities. These days, the whole Earth is being ruled, in this or another form, by low-brow, cynical thieves and gangsters. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” There is no viable opposing force or alternative.
As Stanislaw Lem aptly put it in one of his last interviews, “Of all the possible futures, humanity has chosen not the most beautiful one.”
fredb says:
July 14, 2011 at 11:47 pm
“So if I hire a tax consultant who later turns out to have committed fraud in some other activity, I’ve done something wrong too?”
No, fredb, it’s the fact that this firm advertises itself as committing fraud for the good of its customers.
Richard S Courtney says:
July 15, 2011 at 5:24 am
If James Hansen hired Brittany Spears’ publicist, what would you conclude? Is there any way you can get something positive or even neutral about Hansen out of his hiring Spears’ publicist? I do not see it.