Newsbytes: BBC In Cahoots With Climategate Scientists, prime minister “green guru” publicly doubts climate change.

Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change. ‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’ — The Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011

Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives  in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed. The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade. They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output. BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage. — David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011

Labour MP Graham Stringer last night said he would be writing this week to BBC director-general Mark Thompson to demand an investigation into the Corporation’s relationship with UEA. ‘The new leaked emails show that the UEA scientists at the Tyndall Centre and the CRU acted more like campaigners than academics, and that they succeeded in an attempt to influence the output of the BBC,’ Mr Stringer said. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011

Using research money to evangelise one point of view and suppress another defies everything I ever learnt about the scientific method. These emails go to the heart of the BBC’s professed impartiality… its actions must be investigated. –David Davis MP, Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011

Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change. ‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’ Hilton has become a big fan of former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, a vocal critic of the global warming lobby. His new doubts chime with the Prime Minister’s decision to tone down his previous emphasis on environmental measures to concentrate on stimulating economic growth. —Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011

Is the global warming scare the greatest delusion in history? The scare over man-made global warming is not only the scientific scandal of our generation, but a suicidal flight from reality.

On one hand there is the utterly lamentable state of the science which underpins it all, illuminated yet again by “Climategate 2.0”, the latest release of emails between the leading scientists who for years have been at the heart of the warming scare (which I return to below). On the other hand, we see the damage done by the political consequences of this scare, which will directly impinge, in various ways, on all our lives. — Christopher Booker, The Telegraph 27 November 2011

h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

69 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimbo
November 27, 2011 3:16 pm

Crosspatch
The fundamental problem is that the projections of 20 years ago for what we were to expect 10 years ago were wrong. The projections of 10 years ago for what we were to see today were wrong.

The reason is because:

“Basic problem is that all models are wrong,” writes Phil Jones, bluntly, “not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails 2.0

November 27, 2011 3:24 pm

When [SNIP: This is not an endorsement, but that was a step too far. -REP], Steven Chu and Lisa Jackson finally realize they have been duped by the Goracle and Company to support junk science, it will be too late and they will remain laughing stocks for the rest of their lives.
How wonderful it will be to have 3 leading Democrats/environmental wackos/progressives recoginized as BUFOONS AND NINCOMPOOPS!!!

tom
November 27, 2011 3:36 pm

“Durotrigan says:
November 27, 2011 at 11:57 am
It does look suspicious. Although he has not been permitted to appear on BBC television or, to the best of my knowledge radio, Piers Corbyn has been referenced in BBC weather man Paul Hudson’s blog. Paul seems to take a pretty balanced approach to climat and weather and is at least willing to give Corbyn a hearing. However, following Corbyn’s recent dire prognostications with respect to an early blast of severe cold in Britain starting today, I wonder how his reputation will fare, for it is still pretty mild: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2011/11/politics-of-climate-science-energy.html
Give it a chance, the cold is indeed coming and probably snowy for parts of the UK over the next 10days, but the main push is still 24-36hrs away…

mfosdb
November 27, 2011 3:49 pm

Sandy in Derby
Prof Barnham believes that “cold climates may be the new frontier in solar. “There are a lot of underdeveloped regions and communities living high up in the foothills of the Himalayas that could benefit from solar energy,” he says.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21061-himalayas-could-become-the-saudi-arabia-of-solar.html
If his photovoltaics work better in the cold they’re just what we need for an overheating planet :o)

DirkH
November 27, 2011 4:15 pm

mfosdb says:
November 27, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Sandy in Derby
Prof Barnham believes that “cold climates may be the new frontier in solar. “There are a lot of underdeveloped regions and communities living high up in the foothills of the Himalayas that could benefit from solar energy,” he says.””
Scientists have found this out in 2011? That the Andes and the Himalaya get a high yearly insolation?
The state of academia is worse than I thought.

richard verney
November 27, 2011 5:21 pm

DirkH says:
November 27, 2011 at 11:55 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The number of sun hours obviously plays a big part. But that is not the full picture. The angle of incidence is also important. In Northern climes the angle of incidence means that there is far less power getting through the atmosphere and onto the panel.
Solar is an option for countries leike Spain but it is not effective for UK or Germany.

Phil's Dad
November 27, 2011 7:15 pm

neill says: November 27, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Is the ENTIRE political class in Britain already too invested in CAGW to really address this in a meaningful way?

Not the ENTIRE political class no. Some have always been clear that there is scant evidence of success in controlling the climate through the tax system.
It is difficult to overstate though the importance of this coming from Mr Hilton. Expect others to “come out” in the near future.

wayne
November 27, 2011 8:05 pm

But is it the US NSF & DOE who are the real enablers propping up this fiasco? Many say yes. Almost all alarmist papers I read are funded by these two. And does the BBC also have ties to these agencies of any kind? Don’t know, but would like to.

PhilW
November 27, 2011 11:40 pm

4663
date: Thu Nov 13 16:19:22 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: [Env.faculty] Global Environmental Change Projects
to: Claire Reeves
“The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the
BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made.”

richard uren
November 27, 2011 11:44 pm

How long is this going to go on? The science is suspect to say the least, sceptics are silenced and the great climate change con goes on and on. We need some people at the top to stand up , I live in hope

John Marshall
November 28, 2011 2:18 am

The truth about ‘renewables’ is slowly emerging. AGW adherents are falling by the wayside. Some are changing horses to try the sceptic approach.
Meanwhile we must keep the pressure on governments and the BBC to get back into the real world.

Kaboom
November 28, 2011 3:47 am

The last guy to get the memo that they’ve been made is Germany’s federal minister for the environment Norbert Röttgen who just demanded a CO2 limit for every human being on earth.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,800206,00.html

John Law
November 28, 2011 4:53 am

“His new doubts chime with the Prime Minister’s decision to tone down his previous emphasis on environmental measures to concentrate on stimulating economic growth”
Let’s hope this change of heart has come in time to prevent the desecration of beautiful parts of Wales and the destruction of the UK economy in the name of wind power.

Myrrh
November 28, 2011 7:39 am

David L. Hagen says:
November 27, 2011 at 2:11 pm

See also “BBC’s principles: Accuracy”
3.2.3 The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences’ trust in our content.
========
That should be easy to show, assuming we can get real scientists to deconstruct it, in the ‘experiment’ the Beeb showed to push the AGW agenda – comparing heating jar of air with jar of carbon dioxide, and the skeptics in the audience suddenly saw the light..

Neo
November 28, 2011 10:39 am

A “scare over man-made global warming” or a “man-made global warming scare” ?

dave ward
November 28, 2011 11:07 am

“UEA’s Tyndall Centre rejects Mail on Sunday claims over influencing BBC policy”
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/uea_s_tyndall_centre_rejects_mail_on_sunday_claims_over_influencing_bbc_policy_1_1138178

Myrrh
November 28, 2011 4:55 pm

wayne says:
November 27, 2011 at 8:05 pm
But is it the US NSF & DOE who are the real enablers propping up this fiasco? Many say yes. Almost all alarmist papers I read are funded by these two. And does the BBC also have ties to these agencies of any kind? Don’t know, but would like to.
=============
Jones picks some emails to explain, http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/phrasesexplained,one of which is this:

Email 1577: “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder…in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
‘Hidden’ refers here to some of the work on data collection and management. This is a common issue in some areas of climate research and refers to issues of an operational nature and research aspects. An obvious example is updating earlier data sets within a new project. Most funders are fully aware that this is common practice.


Here’s what the email really said: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1527

“CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t
have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past
is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve
discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are
happy about not releasing the original station data.”

I’d certainly like to have more details about this “main funder”, how much and for how long, how much influence this has had on the British government’s introduction of more crippling green taxes, and so on. The Americans would be interested I imagine for the EPA connection – they did try at some point, don’t have the emails up now, to get EPA legislation stopped by saying the CRU data unreliable, unsuccessfully.

Myrrh
November 28, 2011 8:03 pm

P.S. to my post above to Wayne http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/newsbytes-bbc-in-cahoots-with-climategate-scientists-prime-minister-green-guru-publicly-doubts-climate-change/#comment-811901
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1255100876.txt&search=Bank
This is what I’d found on the EPA –
From: Ben Santer
To: ???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700
Reply-to: ???@llnl.gov

“Dear Phil,
I’ve known Rick Piltz for many years. He’s a good guy. I believe he used
to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
I’ll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.
The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is
of crucial importance – it changed the way the world thinks about human
effects on climate. Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now.”
With best wishes,
Ben

The exchange began with an email sent by Rick Piltz:

“Rick Piltz wrote:
>>> Gentlemen–
>>>
>>> I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
>>> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
>>> a re-opening of public comment on EPA’s prospective “endangerment”
>>> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
>>> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
>>> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
>>> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
>>> record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in
>>> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
>>>
>>> The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below).
>>> They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as
>>> someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation
>>> campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don’t have a technical
>>> response to their allegations.
>>>
>>> Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
>>> Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
>>> exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
>>> authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
>>> some collective coherence.
>>>
>>> I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website
>>> as soon as I think I can do so appropriately. I am most interested in
>>> what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in
>>> perspective — either on or off the record, whichever you wish. Will
>>> someone please explain this to me?”
>>>
>>> Best regrads,
>>> Rick

I can’t tell off-hand if this is from Climategate I or II – does seem very familiar, probably I? I wonder if they’re going to have another go against the EPA with more examples of the bad science practice?

Brian H
December 6, 2011 12:08 am

Harold Lewis’ parting shot, calling global warming the ‘most successful pseudoscientific f***d I have seen,’ seems to have had a significant effect. IMO, it helped embolden many who are now speaking up.
Thanks again, Harold.
________
And a fan of Nigel Lawson in the UK cabinet! In charge of Official Greenness! Next, we’ll have an official endorsement of frak gas as a way to rescue its economy from suicidal ruin! Or maybe that’s a few steps further down the road. But we can see it from here …
[reposted starring out Lewis’ use of a verboten WP filter-word.]