The Guardian Is “Bemused”
by Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, 6 August 2011
David Leigh of the Guardian has been added to the list of UK journalists who’ve engaged in phone hacking and other illegal/unethical conduct. Some of the more questionable conduct by UK journalists has involved their acquisition of information from police that police were not legally entitled to disclose either for payment or as a favour. David Leigh also had a role in the Empire Strikes Back phase of Climategate early last year and, in today’s post, I’ll discuss the connection.
Leigh’s admission of phone hacking is discussed at Bishop Hill here; Guido Fawkes here. Leigh himself admitted here.
There is certainly a voyeuristic thrill in hearing another person’s private messages…
Leigh differentiated his illegal phone hacking from that practised by News of the World because his cause was noble:
unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless tittle-tattle about the royal family. I was looking for evidence of bribery and corruption.
Now the Climategate connection.
In February 2010, a couple of months after Neil Wallis of Outside Organisation had been retained by the University of East Anglia to help them strike back against critics, Leigh authored a smear against Paul Dennis of the University of East Anglia, entitled:
Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks: University of East Anglia scientist Paul Dennis denies leaking material, but links to climate change sceptics in US drew him to attention of the investigators
Leigh’s smear began by reporting that Norfolk police had interviewed Paul Dennis (as, presumably, other faculty of the University of East Anglia.) However, Dennis had “refused to sign a petition in support of Jones when the scandal broke”. Furthermore, according to Leigh’s apparently disapproving “university sources”, Dennis was reported to have sent a letter to UEA head of department Jacquie Burgess “calling for more open release of data” – suspicious activity indeed. Dennis had also refused to observe the fatwa against communication with climate blogs that were critical of CRU and the Team and had even sent an article on isotopes to Jeff Id.
Leigh’s article disclosed two pieces of information that were not in the public domain.
First, Leigh “outed” Jeff Id by name, occupation and hometown. To that point, “Jeff Id” had been anonymous. His registration at WordPress was anonymous and his gmail account was anonymous. To Jeff’s knowledge, there was no public information that would enable Leigh to identify him.
Complete writeup here at Climate Audit
=======================================================
Bishop Hill writes here:
Leigh’s name has come to prominence in recent days, with the UK’s premier political blogger, Guido Fawkes, accusing the Guardian man of being involved in phone hacking. The evidence seems pretty incontrovertible, and Leigh appears to be highly unamused to have it broadcast to all and sundry. All good clean family fun.
h/t to Benny Peiser at The GWPF.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David Leigh
“Some clown called Harry Cole aka Guido Fawkes says I’m having a go at him because he has an embarassing tale abt me. Dream on, son”
July 11, 2011 4:36 pm
Not sure what Leigh is up to here – maybe a bit of pre-emptive libel avoidance – because, as even he could have checked with a few keystrokes, Harry Cole is NOT Guido Fawkes’ real name.
J. Felton says:
August 6, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Pete H said
“High five to Guido Fawkes for breaking the story. By the way, Leigh also used Guido’s real name in a Tweet
Typical Guardian, wrong again, Harry is Robin to Guido’s Batman (dubbed ‘Neo Guido’ by some). Guido’s real identity is on Wiki and he’s on the telly quite a lot.
Daily Mailgate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAvYK1O-ic
Brian;
I’m just curious after seeing your comments in a few different threads. Is there some goal you are trying to accomplish? Some actual science you want to present? Facts to discuss? Anything of any value, validity, or pertinance at all?
davidmhoffer;
Sorry Dave, you’re got the wrong Brian – there are two of us.
Dave, looks like there are more than two Brians. This one is obviously a “skeptic”
Brian says:
August 5, 2011 at 9:21 pm
What the hell is Climate Disruption?
I just love it when trolls like Shaun and Brian “contribute” such pearls of wisdom to the discussion – it makes me feel so balanced and normal. There is nothing like rational discussion to promote understanding of a viewpoint (and I have seen nothing approaching rational discussion from those of their ilk).
The Guardian is also known as the Grauniad after its record of missprints including its own name over the years. It has a falling circulation.
Peter, please don’t refer to me (Brian) as a troll. Up to the last couple of day I have not posted to any climate skeptic website but it’s been an interesting exercise.
Dave says you can only post to these sites if you have something of scientific significance to say.
Well, from what I have read, that would rule out over 90% of comments.
I have been following the science of carbon dioxide warming for over 25 years but am now concentrating my efforts on positive action.
I would be very worried about peak oil too – despite what skeptics and industry PR agents say.
For many in the UK, the Guardian represents the thinking of a self-appointed government sector ‘elite’, who have little idea how the real world works, but who are always ready to impose their ‘enlightened wisdom’ and theories on the ‘uninformed masses’.
Anyone of a conservative bent and who is voluntarily seeking an apoplexy about government waste, need only open the paper on a Wednesday morning to find over 100 pages of mostly non-jobs in the government sector – ‘assistant to the assistant director’s assistant for gender awareness in the Borough of Hackney’ could be a typical example. Basically, it is this source of advertising which keeps this sad excuse for a newspaper alive.
As for David Leigh and Climategate, there is no comparison. The former was the deliberate and unlawful hacking of private individuals for personal gain. The latter was a leak/compilation of emails by an unknown individual for no personal gain, who sought to expose the widespread deceit and abuse of science by individuals working in the public sector.
Out of interest, guys, are any editors of the US dead tree press likely to be kept awake at nights by the possibility of such a scandal crossing the Pond?
Brian: Your
Up to the last couple of day I have not posted to any climate skeptic website but it’s been an interesting exercise.
Just started looking at the other side, after 25 years? hmmmmm. I have been looking at both sides since Rio 1992. At different times, I have been on either side of the argument. I am a regular reader and contributor at RC and other CAGW sites. I have over 20 bookmarks to these sites. (note that our host here also links to CAGW sites. try to find reciprocation on any CAGW site.)
Dave says you can only post to these sites if you have something of scientific significance to say.
Well, from what I have read, that would rule out over 90% of comments.
Dave said “pertinent”. But yes, 90% with no intrinsic value is about right. Here and the AGW sites both, BTW.
I have been following the science of carbon dioxide warming for over 25 years but am now concentrating my efforts on positive action.
Really? 25 years of study on a highly divisive subject, and only now you look at the other arguments? And only now are you starting positive action? I have been reducing CO2 emissions for over 20 years, and I am a so-called skeptic.
I would be very worried about peak oil too – despite what skeptics and industry PR agents say.
There is always some imminent disaster, isn’t there? But peak oil? Its been predicted since the late 1800s, and new predictions come at about 10 year intervals. Each prediction has proven false. Lets look at the facts:
1. The US has the worlds largest coal reserves. Newly developed Coal to liquid technology is relatively cheap, at 30-40 dollars per bbl.
2. The US has a few hundred years of natural gas in the shales.
3. North America has the largest oil reserves in the world, between the oil shales, oil sands and conventional oil. The Canadian oil sands, by themselves, will produce for at least 150 years, and probably more.
To recap, you are self-admittedly: highly subjective, with little desire for an objective view; extremely slow to action; and believe in conspiratorial doomsday scenarios in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Sound about right?
Brian, I will happily withdraw the charge of troll if you will refrain from what to me appears to be troll-like activity. What value do you think your posting of such gems as the Youtube video have. You are simply regurgitating opinion, not facts.
I realise that engaging with you also does not contribute much to the debate. I am not a climate scientist and struggle with a lot of the more technical and statistical posts. However I feel that after a career as a professional communicator I am qualified to comment on what appears to me as irrational, ill-informed or misleading comment, and this is usually when I feel it is worth contributing.
As for my stance – I have always questioned authority of all sorts, I believe in liberal values but from an apolitical standpoint. I have an open mind (yes,truly, an open mind) on climate issues and my interest started when I was truly scared by the prediction of runaway global warming.
What set alarm bells ringing was when I was told that the science was settled and the consensus view was, of course, correct. The history of science tells us the closing of minds to new or alternative possibilities suggests more about the pride of “scientists”, vested interests and political motivation than it does about true scientific enquiry. Can I suggest reading “Scientific Blunders – A brief history of how wrong scientists can sometimes be” by Robert M Youngson.
People who come on this site who deliberately set out to provoke or insult do not add anything to the debate. They waste large numbers of comments by people who feel they have to try to engage in dialogue, when the original contributors have no interest in discussion.
Brian, are you interested in debate? If so. try to frame your comments in a less provocative manner. If you are not interested in debate, don’t waste your and our time.
And on the subject of the Climategate e-mails, ask yourself why, after such a long time, as far as I know, the police have failed to even issue an update on the investigations into the manner of their release, let alone identify the culprit (hero?) and the reasons for the release.
None of the subsequent enquiries into the leaks considered the science referred to in the e-mails, they looked at the motives of the individuals concerned and based their decisions on a one-sided view of the evidence. It is interesting that subsequently the Information Commissioner has ruled that the records initially requested by Steve McIntyre (which really started this whole ball rolling) should be released, and indeed have been.
There are certain people in society that believe that the law does not apply to them. They believe that they have a higher moral duty and as such they are beholden to follow their own codes. Oddly enough, these very same people demand that the rest of us follow the law without question and/or accept their peculiar definitions of what is right and wrong. Many of these people are not elected representatives or leaders of accepted social groups. They act as self appointed, self indulgent messiahs. Unfortunately, it would seem that these people have moved their activities from journalism, politics and law into the field of, what some people call, climate science. When their actions are challenged they are often the first to demand the very rights that they have been undermining via their own actions. For example, they seem it right that they can have access to individuals’ private conversations but in turn we have no right to theirs. Or in climate science, they feel it right that they benefit from a castrated (or perverted) form of peer review yet demand others jump through even more hoops, or even deny the very right, to have work reviewed.
Fortunately, most people are fair, just and transparent in their dealings. It is these later people (Such as Anthony at WUWT) who we rely to shine light upon the murky dealings of the former.
It must be remembered that the Police investigation is being handled by the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET), effectively a private Police force who are only accountable to the Association of Chief Police Officers ( ACPO) which is a private company.
Neither ACPO or NDET are answerable to FOI requests and won’t be obliged to uphold normal Police standards.
Thank you Flamenco.
I read through all the emails and the analysis, that is more than a nail in the coffin of AGW it is a spike big enough to kill vampires. The white washes of this are as complicit as the original perps. It is clear from these emails that the team have known for 15 years that what they were doing was political and not science. History will not treat them kindly they will be not famous but infamous.
Personal password discipline needs to be taught before shaving to our kids.
It’s interesting that those with skeletons in their closets assume that everyone else does too, and by revealing information (actual names, personal info), surely some dirt will come up.. I highly respect those with the integrity to be transparent in their professional and private activity. Thank you, and my sympathy for all the crap you have to put up with.
Life brings up many rich ironies; the fates appear to have a wonderful sense of humour.
Shaun Dunne = merchant banker more English slang
David Leigh of the Guardian
“unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless tittle-tattle about the royal family. I was looking for evidence of bribery and corruption”
Seems mr Leigh can’t see the wood for the trees or is/was not aware of the law regarding bribery and corruption of police officers.
Hope Jeff makes an official complaint to the Police and information commissioner.
Whats the odds on any of this making to the MSM???
The Green leaning Guardian is kept afloat by its very non green subsiduary http://www.autotrader.co.uk
Ohh the irony, it preaches against the CO2 belching car that its very existance depends on.
On its own the Guardian would be bankrupt.
Its got a mention in a British newspaper
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023113/Now-Guardian-reporter-quizzed-police-admitting-phone-hacking.html
But this is far more interesting
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023196/Shocktopuss-Horrifying-moment-squid-comes-life-jumps-plate.html
“Horrifying moment squid comes back to life and jumps off plate”
I find it interesting that “There are two Brians here.” At least one of them hasn’t understood anything about the horizontal drilling technology and the developments in waterless tar sand extractions, he’s still babbling about “Peak Oil.”
Let’s see now, the U.S. is again a net natural gas exporter, after 20+ years, hmmm. 1.225mbbl of oil waiting for transport from the shale production regions of Texas alone, because the pipeline infrastructure is still being built… Nah, peak oil’s the real thing, just like CO2 runaway temperatures.
Apparentley, the Guardian Media Group’s 50.1 percent stake in Trader Media Group gives it a portfolio of magazine titles, including Auto Trader, Top Marques, Bike Trader, and Truck Trader. It also owns of 32.9 percent of Emap.
I wonder how they balance their green credentials against their greed crendentials? Profits from industry obviously pay off debts of consience in this case. I’ll never have a Guardian reader lecture me about big oil again!
flamenco says:
August 6, 2011 at 1:58 pm
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
My thanks, also, Flamenco. While I have a full copy of the e-mails, and I have seen various parsings of the mails, the one you posted is by far the most linear, understandable, and complete dissection I have seen. “Damning” is the word that comes to mind. Its painfully obvious that NONE of the investigations on either side of the pond looked at the e-mails in depth.