Climategate 2.0 email 4894.txt shows just what Alex Kirby of BBC thinks of climate skeptics as he conveys it to Dr. Phil Jones. Clearly, there an incestuous relationship between climate science and the BBC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby” <alex.kirby@bbc.xxx.xx>
At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:
Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can
well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we
are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any
coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and
being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it
clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
—–Original Message—–
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
h/t to WUWT reader “varco”. If I lived in the UK, I’d stop paying my BBC TV and radio license.
Here’s the Wikipedia bio on Kirby:
Alex Kirby is a British journalist, specializing in environmental issues. He worked in various capacities at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for nearly 20 years. From 1987 to 1996, he was the environmental correspondent for BBC News, in radio and television. He left the BBC in 1998 to work as a freelance journalist. He also provides media skills training to companies, universities and NGOs. He is also currently the environmental correspondent for BBC News Online, and hosted BBC Radio 4‘s environment series, Costing the Earth. He has no formal scientific training.
He writes a regular column for BBC Wildlife magazine.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t have a TV or a TV license and have not had one for about three years now since the “The Great Global Warming Swindle”,it was clear that a few people were determined to censor what could or could not be broadcast on british television.I am not going to pay a license to be told what I can watch.
BBC Churnalism where they just cut and paste government press releases…
Story covered by Biased BBC
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2011/11/bbc-churnalism.html
Complaint sent to BBC, not holding breath.
RE: DJ: (November 24, 2011 at 11:17 am)
“Kirby’s stated mission:”
It is obvious that Kirby believes in what he is saying. I am reminded of a denial of obvious bigotry in the literature of the past:
“I know nothing of the arcana of the Roman Catholic religion, and I am not a bigot in matters of theology, but I suspect the root of this precocious impurity, so obvious, so general in Popish countries, is to be found in the discipline if not the doctrines of the Church of Rome. I record what I have seen. These girls belonged to what are called the respectable ranks of society. They had all been carefully brought up, yet was the mass of them mentally depraved. So much for the general view; now for one or two selected specimens.”
‘The Professor’
Charlotte Bronté
BBC – Britsh Bias Confirmation
That video of Kirby is interesting. Two notable sentences, along the lines of….
“If this keeps up (skepticism), we will struggle to keepmour jobs…..”
“governments keep telling us to tell people how we are shaping a better world….”
In other words, AGW is all about, keeping your job, and social politics. Interesting.
.
My television packed up two years ago. I was laid up at the time, so I couldn’t go out and get a replacement. After three weeks or so I realised I didn’t miss it, so I never did replace it. No more license fee. I am told, however, that license inspectors sometimes get a tame magistrate to issue a search warrant, even though not having a license is no evidence of wrongdoing! It’s so nice to live in a free country. 🙁
“”””””“If I lived in the UK, I’d stop paying my BBC TV and radio license.”
Anyone who is caught watching a tv without a licence in the UK faces the death penalty.
REPLY: No, they don’t. That’s ridiculous. Just a fine. – Anthony””””””””””””
Actually 10% of court cases in magistrate courts in England are for non payment of the BBC tv licence, it averages out at 150,000 a year, several million people down the years have been prosecuted and thousands HAVE actually been jailed also.
There are 200 countries in the world the BBC’s annual income is also bigger than the entire GDP of 60 of them, 60!
@Jason “I have to agree with another commenter. Nobody knows or cares about C2.0. Its not even been mentioned on most news channels. It has been smoothly raked over.”
Indeed, the journalists and broadcasters had decided and agreed in advance what to do with another Climategate dump of emails.
This needs to be written up by someone with ‘auctoritas’, who can compile a summary of all that has been going on, referencing the emails placed in an appendix. It won’t get traction coming from relatively unknown climate sceptics. Few men and women of influence in a senior public position are going to put their head above the parapet because they will be shot at and character assassinated. It has to be from someone who is practically beyond that sniping. It needs to be someone who has the confidence of the public to be believed, even admired, for telling it as it is and delivering them from deception and certain ruin.
No-one has clearly emerged in that role, and until they do this cabal of journalists, scientists, broadcasters and environmentalists will continue to propagate lies.
Might just be that this is a case of seeing just what we want to see here. . . . AGW is still the consensus position, ie the neutral position – regardless of what the majority of commenters on here might think of it . . . . . . it’s therefore reasonable to expect that those who accept it in full (which may well be a completely reasonable thing to do. .) will be scathing about those who don’t go for it. Clearly Kirkby is a believer himself and though he takes a swipe (serious or not?) at the BBC’s neutrality it can’t definitely (or even reasonably) be deduced that he’s suggesting this is the case in relation to AGW.
The perceived truth is that for a majority of scientists AGW is the orthodoxy and scepticism is seen as no more significant and just as contrary as most of the conspiracy theories that most of us scoff at, or for example, claiming that smoking isn’t injurious to health. A neutral position isn’t halfway between an idiot or at least very weak position (how sceptics are seen by most of the relevant scientific community as yet) and the orthodoxy; it’s with the orthodoxy. Between two competing positions seen as equally possible then the situation would be different: neutrality would be somewhere between and the likes of the bbc would have to give equal weighting to both. AGW scepticism .hasn’t reached that stage yet, however confident any of us might be that the science is far from settled.
To assess the real value of these emails we have to strive resolutely to see the content objectively – not an easy thing to do.
Vince Causey says:
November 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Jason,
“I think the death penalty thing may have been a joke, possibly lost in trans-atlantic-lation….”
Hoorah, someone got the joke. Maybe I should have put a smiley at the end 🙂
Good idea. Must do that with my (even more 🙂 ) obscure jokes.
I haven’t had a TV for 15 years, but the licensing mob sent letter after letter for years, behaviour which would anywhere else be called harassment. This was in spite of being told repeatedly, in writing and by phone, that I do not have a TV. Eventually, one of their ‘inspectors’ turned up on the doorstep, but when I offered to let him in to check, he went away.
I have heard that if you point out to them that the BBC receives money illegally from the EU (more corruption; this is against the BBC charter), that they stop pestering you. (unconfirmed)
Thought you might like to see this email. It is a classic of BBC propaganda methodology. My comments are in the wiggly brackets.
date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:56:57 +0100
from: “Jonathan Renouf”
subject: Final thoughts
to: “Keith Briffa”
Hi Keith,
Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we’re hoping to get
out of filming tomorrow.
1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul
Rose, he’ll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he’s
understood that the world is currently getting warmer. [b]But on the other he’s discovered
lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate
changes naturally all the time. [/b] In trying to resolve this paradox he’s come across this
thing called the hockey stick curve, and he’s come to you to explain it to him.
{{Ah, yes, the old propaganda technique of ‘I was a skeptic, but now I am a believer’ (cue the Monkees theme tune…}}
2) [b]Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just
another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. [/b] The hockey stick curve is a
crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present
warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. [b]This is a very big
moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global
warming. [/b]
{{This is a very big moment in the film, when we shall dupe the gullible public into believing our lies.}}
3) [b]The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze
Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren’t quite as
dramatic as he thought. [/b] They’re there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.
{{But let’s not point out to the gullible fools in the BBC audience that the Hockey Stick had already been discredited by late 2005.}}
4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you
work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the “natural”
fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it’s down to changes in
the sun’s output, volcanoes etc)
[b]Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve. [/b]
{{It sure does, Jonathan, it sure does – deception and propaganda.}}
Look forward to tomorrow.
All best
Jonathan
Jonathan Renouf
Series Producer
Science Department
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
Thought you might like to see this email. It is a classic of BBC propaganda methodology. My bold, and my comments are in the wiggly brackets.
date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:56:57 +0100
from: “Jonathan Renouf”
subject: Final thoughts
to: “Keith Briffa”
Hi Keith,
Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we’re hoping to get
out of filming tomorrow.
1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul
Rose, he’ll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he’s
understood that the world is currently getting warmer. But on the other he’s discovered
lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate
changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he’s come across this
thing called the hockey stick curve, and he’s come to you to explain it to him.
2) Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just
another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a
crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present
warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big
moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global
warming.
3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze
Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren’t quite as
dramatic as he thought. They’re there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.
4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you
work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the “natural”
fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it’s down to changes in
the sun’s output, volcanoes etc)
5) In terms of filming my first choice is to do it as a projection in Zicer, where you show
the Mann curve, then flick up as many other ones as you think are important (within
reason!) and elaborate the point that what’s happening now is unprecedented compared to
these historic records. In my ideal world, you walk right up to the projector image and
point things out on the screen, with parts of the projected image falling on your heads and
shoulders. Stills of tree rings or anything else climate related eg ice cores, corals,
would also work as powerpoints, because you could talk about them as egs of proxies.
Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve.
Look forward to tomorrow.
All best
Jonathan
Jonathan Renouf
Series Producer
Science Department
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
Here is the theme tune, to go with Jonathan Renouf’s BBC ‘documentary’ (above).
And what about the reported £15,000 Roger Harrabin received from UEA to press CAGW within the BBC. The BBC refuse to answer any question about this neither do they claim the report wrong.
In the YouTube video of Alex Kirby, he contradicts himself so much, it’s unbelievable! He says on the one hand that correspondents shouldn’t have a message, then says he believes the science of climate change so much that he thinks we should be much more ‘educated’ about it. It’s just this sort of two-faced approach that makes it so easy for it to be accepted by those who control what is broadcast.
Great post. Very interesting, and distressing. Clearly this thing should be dubbed the British Brainwashing Company.
It literally makes want to vomit. I mean really. Orwell. 1984.
OceaniaBrittania.Even though lots of folks say this, let me say it again … The books 1984, Animal Farm and Atlas Shrugged, and the movies They Live, Demolition Man, The Matrix, Idiocracy and the Star Trek Borg episodes, should be taken as warnings, NOT as instruction manuals!
I almost wish they had this coercive BBC arrangement here in the states just so we could destroy it ourselves. PBS (our liberals’ feeble attempt) never could approach the BBC, people would revolt. If they didn’t have Sesame Street they would never had any viewers at all.
This is far more dangerous to British society than a figurehead Queen. What’s next: ‘Hey let’s get rid of the Royals, keep the beeb’. I’ll pray for my British brothers and sisters, but as long as you have this thing you’re in deep trouble. Well, we’re all certainly in deep trouble as long as there are Socialists infesting our countries like diseased rats, but still, you’re in deeper trouble.
Fight the
PowerBBC.openside50 says:
November 25, 2011 at 1:22 am
There are 200 countries in the world the BBC’s annual income is also bigger than the entire GDP of 60 of them, 60!
Over 40 Nations….opsss….41
I’ll add one more …. Fantasy Island. (network television).
From one of the UK Guardian articles on Climategate 2, 23/11/11, by Juliette Jowit & Leo Hickman.
It seems “deadly CO2” has now gone nuclear in the eyes of one of your US Congressmen who’s calling for the email whistleblower/hacker whatever, to be hunted down. Wow! This is getting really serious!
“Further scrutiny was placed on the police investigation on Tuesday when Edward Markey, a Democrat congressman from Massachusetts who has long advocated for political action on climate change, called on the “US intelligence community” to assist the “British and others” in finding the perpetrator.
“If this happened surrounding nuclear arms talks, we would have the full force of the western world’s intelligence community pursuing the perpetrators,” he said. “And yet, with the stability of our climate hanging in the balance with these international climate treaty negotiations, these hackers and their supporters are still on the loose. It is time to bring them to justice.”
The Kirby quote gives refuseniks a justification that might stand up in court.
Yo-ho-ho.
Jolly Roger
Actually it is not BBC licence non-payers but smokers who are regarded as the most evil of transgressors. In Britain, Smoking in a public place could let to immediate incarceration or even beheading in the Tower.
.
I was scanning the emails, and found a few tidbits for you. The wiggly brackets are my comments. {{ }}
.
date: Tue Dec 7 16:23:04 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: FYI
to: Kevin
Kevin,
Wasn’t rung about this one !
What an utter load of rubbish. He should go back to the oil company who pays his salary. He should take the logic course he says we should go on. Claims climate can’t be predicted (as the weather can’t) and we can’t modify the climate anyway.
He should be working for the Bush govt, with this sort of logic !
Phil
{{ Not sure who this email is about – but he is a skeptic, and must be working for the oil companies ….. you know it makes sense. }}
.
date: Wed Feb 13 09:17:10 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Feb 7-8
to: “James Hansen”
Jim,
Even though it’s been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
Cheers
Phil
{{ Ah, I see. Not waiting for AGW to ride to the rescue, but waiting for El Nino. Shame we got a big La Nina instead… 😉 }}
a French scientist called Vincent Courtillot. He is making Edouard Bard’s life awful in French. If you’re there on the Friday when Vincent is talking then tell him he’s just completely wrong. He will likely say the climate isn’t warming and even if it was it has little to do with greenhouse gases. So shouldn’t be difficult!! If you’re not there on the Friday, just make sure one or two reasonable scientists are aware that they have invited a bit of rogue!
Cheers
Phil
{{ If you are not a ‘believer’, then you are wrong and a ‘bit of a rogue’, and in need of dusting up a bit. Just threaten his grant supply, that will do it. }}
.
From Phil Jones
To Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter,
Chris – I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts. Maybe because I’m in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk) it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
{{ How dare you say the weather is ‘freezing’. Stay on message, the weather is simply ‘not as hot as during the summer’ }}
Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like – half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998! I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
{{ Stay on message, Chris. I told you before, a lack of warming is ‘not warming quite as much as before’. }}
.
date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:39:06 -0000
from: “Robert Matthews” BBC Focus Magazine
subject: Re: BBC Focus magazine
to: “Phil Jones”
Great – thanks ! I see the (skeptic) story has been picked up on CC-NET; perhaps you should post this really handy rebuttal on there, before this story “gets legs” and is picked up by all the usual suspects. It’s the Christmas silly season, and the papers are desperate for stories……
Robert
{{ This is the BBC urging Phil Jones to stop a ‘cooling’ story on the net. They don’t call them the Biased Broadcasting Corporation for nothing. }}
.
date: Thu Nov 13 16:19:22 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: [Env.faculty] Global Environmental Change Projects
to: Claire Reeves
To almost all in-government circles (including the US from) the science is done and dusted. The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made. There is, however, still a vociferous and small majority of climate change skeptics (also called deniers, but these almost entirely exclude any climate-trained climate scientists) who engage the public/govt/media through web sites.
{{ The good old Biased broadcasting Corporation can always be relied upon to be, well, biased. }}
.
date: Thu Jul 15 16:25:46 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Paleo data
to: Gabi
Dear All, Gabi,
I was answering one of the skeptics yesterday. The answer is below.
Susan Solomon was here on Tuesday getting an honorary degree. She says we will
have to deal with all these crackpots in the IPCC !
As for your email, there was some press activity related to this skeptic below {{McIntyre}}, but
managed to talk the BBC out of doing anything.
{{ The BBC were about to tell the truth, for once, but managed to talk them out of any such heresy. Pheww!! Can’t have the ‘great unwashed, knowing the truth. }}
.
date: 14 Oct 2009 18:21:07 -0400
from: Gavin Schmidt
subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
to: Michael Mann
cc: Tom Wigley , Kevin Trenberth , “Philip D. Jones”, Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on ‘where the heck is global warming’? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
Extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
{{ Extremely disappointing to see the BBC telling the truth. Where was our pet rodent (Black), while all this was going on? – I’ll have words with him. No more freebee trips to exotic locations for at least two months….. }}
.
date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:48:13 -0000
from: “Gillian Watson”
subject: RE: sceptics
to: “Mike Hulme”
Mike,
I heard the Stott vs. Houghton item on the BBC Today programme this morning… There are a series of links to related web pages at the BBC online article today on “Sceptics denounce climate science ‘lie’ “ at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1833000/1833902.stm.
Links are included to the ESEF web site (http://www.scienceforum.net/) and the sites for George C Marshall Institute (http://www.marshall.org/) and Philip Stott (http://www.ecotrop.org/). Note also that the Tyndall web site is listed 3rd on the internet links section…
Gillie
{{ Oo-err, the BBC has twigged the truth. All hands on deck…. }}
.
From: Mike Hulme
Sent: 25 February 2002 12:35
To:
Subject: sceptics
Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today {{BBC}} radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of {{BBC}} reporting at source.
{{ In other words, if the media tells the truth (even the BBC, for once), you slap them down via as many political friends as possible. }}
In the meantime the Carbon Trust were very annoyed by the piece (also an article in The Daily Mail – surprise, surprise) and have talked to me about their best line of action. I have pursuaded them that a knee-jerk reaction is not the best. However:
Two questions can anyone help me with:
Are there any on-line web sources reporting on the US Panel that reported to Bush last June on the credibility of the IPCC Assessments?
Can anyone find out about this European organisation that published this report that has caused the flurry of activity? I’ve heard of it before but is there a web site?
{{ So we can send the CRU heavies around, with baseball bats. }}
Simon, could we have a chat about this soon, and Vanessa, please could you
buy me a Daily Mail today?
Thanks,
Mike
{{ Oh, the ignominy of it, Mike Hulme having to buy a ‘Daily Mail’ (a UK newspaper slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan) }}
.
date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:06:31 +0100
from: “Michael Duffy”
subject: BBC Documentary
to: Phil Jones
Hi Phil,
Mike Duffy here from the BBC factual programming department. I wonder if you can help me. We’re researching a documentary about snow which will include the history of British winters. We’d love to do a bit about the Little Ice Age, taking in its causes and how it affected Britain socially and economically.
{{ This email appears to have gone unanswered… Ha, ha, ha….. }}
.
date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:07:00 -0000
from: “Bob Ward”
subject: RE: More nonsense on climate change
to: “Phil Jones”
Dear Phil,
Thanks for responding so comprehensively. I have plotted the data before, and as you observe, the trend is up but the result isn’t statistically significant, which I think makes it open to attack. …… I’m not sure how to argue against this point – it appears to imply that there is no statistically significant trend in the global temperature record over the past few years.
From: Phil Jones
Sent: 20 December 2007 13:58
To: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: More nonsense on climate change
Bob,
Quickly re-reading this it sounds as though I’m getting at you. I’m not – just at the idiots who continue to spout this nonsense. It isn’t an issue with climatologists. All understand. If I tried to publish this I would be told by my peers it was obvious and banal.
I will try and hide it in a paper at some point. I could put it on the CRU web site. I would have thought that this writer would have know better! I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I’m not
adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.
What you have to do is … work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. Trend won’t be statistically significant, but the trend is up.
{{ More hiding of the decline (or the ‘no significant trend’). }}
.
cc: Tom Crowley
date: Tue Aug 10 15:47:04 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Mann and Jones (2003)
to: Gabi Hegerl , “Michael E. Mann”
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
In the process of trying to clean it up, I realized I had something a bit odd, not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference. It seems that I used the ‘long’ NH instrumental series back to 1753 that we calculated ….. Not sure why I used this, rather than using the CRU NH record back to 1856 for this purpose. …. Turns it, this has the net effect of decreasing the amplitude of the NH reconstruction by a factor of 0.11/0.14 = 1.29.
Mike
{{ Ahh, so under pressure from the ‘idiots’ at WUWT, Michael Mann discovers an error in his computer model. But no worry, it is only 1.29 (presumably 1.29 degrees per century) }}
.
date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
to: Curt Covey,
cc: Gavin Schmidt , Phil Jones, James Hansen
Curt, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What on earth are you thinking?
I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. …..instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior!
Mike Mann
{{ Naughty boy, Covey – stay on message, and don’t talk to anyone with different ideas – you may get, ‘contaminated’, and we may have to ‘deny’ you…. }}
.
This is a nice email from: Rod Eaton, MBA, DMS (Leeds), MCMI, FIET explaining why the CRU is wrong, and why Wiltshire County Council will opt out of the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change (why does Nottingham have any such ‘declaration’? Isn’t local government about emptying the bins and maintaining the schools?)
.
date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:01
from: “Kevin Trenberth”
subject: Re: A couple of things
to: “Phil Jones”
Hi Phil
Kevin,
Finally, that idiot Lord Monckton or Brenchly, is making his own DVD, based on that awful Ch 4 program ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ !
Hopefully soon Ofcom (the UK group who assesses complaints against programs) will have ruled on that program – which had many more errors than Al’s DVD.
Cheers
Phil
{{ Beastly man, that Monckton – threatening our grants like that. Shouldn’t be allowed. }}
.
date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:56:57 +0100
from: “Jonathan Renouf”
subject: Final thoughts
to: “Keith Briffa”
Hi Keith,
Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we’re hoping to get out of filming tomorrow.
1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul Rose, he’ll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he’s understood that the world is currently getting warmer. But on the other he’s discovered lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he’s come across this thing called the hockey stick curve, and he’s come to you to explain it to him.
2) Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global warming.
3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren’t quite as dramatic as he thought. They’re there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.
4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the “natural” fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it’s down to changes in the sun’s output, volcanoes etc)
Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve.
Look forward to tomorrow.
All best
Jonathan
Jonathan Renouf
Series Producer
Science Department
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
{{ How to make a propaganda documentary, in three easy lesson – by a BBC producer. Impartiality? What the hell is that?… }}
And here is the theme tune, to go with Jonathan Renouf’s BBC ‘documentary’ (above).
Vince Causey says:
November 24, 2011 at 11:10 am
“If I lived in the UK, I’d stop paying my BBC TV and radio license.”
Anyone who is caught watching a tv without a licence in the UK faces the death penalty.
REPLY: No, they don’t. That’s ridiculous. Just a fine. – Anthony
Fines, and imprisonment for repeat offenders, apparantly.
I have said this before and I shall say it again as it is appropriate: I have NEVER purchased a TV license in my life, and my TV goes on working just as well, and I haven’t been arrested, fined, imprisoned or shot yet. TV licensing officers have no right of entry into your home – they would need to be accompanied by a police officer with a warrant in order to gain entry, and in order for the police to obtain a warrant they would need reasonable suspicion that a crime is being commited. The fact of simply not owning a TV license is not justifiable cause to suspect the heinous crime of watching an unlicensed TV and break down someone’s door. The reason most people in the UK buy a license is that they are not aware of this simple fact, and think that if an officer comes knocking they must by law let them in. I can say from personal experience that this is not the case. Three times I have refused entry to a licensing officer (the last time was about 10 years ago).
Just don’t watch your TV by a window where prying eyes can see. Although this in itself would not be proof of watching broadcast TV, I would guess it would be enough to allow them to get a warrant.
Beautiful.
“Costing the Earth”, the BBC radio programme has a single underlying message: Development is bad for nature.
I’m shocked, shocked, …