Andrew Bolt interview with Steve McIntyre from the Climate Audit blog, who exposed the infamous “hockey stick”, talking about the leaked emails that expose the warming scare.
Watch below:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
artwest says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:38 pm
….Conversely, we will know we are seeing the death throes of CAGW when media figures who are of the centre or left are openly sceptical. There may well be a number who are already privately sceptical but are unlikely to risk social and career suicide in the present atmosphere.
________________________________________
This statement sums up the mass media. A pack of lemmings.
The media is not interested in reporting the truth or even in doing EASY investigative reporting. Instead it is only interested in being a propaganda tool for those interested in enslaving whole populations. They use “Socialism” as the cloak they hide behind to make the changes we would fight against more “Palatable”
Would people, even whole countries, be willing to commit economic suicide without the three or four generations worth of brain washing by the Progressives? An economic suicide based on an easily revealed lie that the media refuses to look at?
He should sue them for saying things that offend him.
All those who voted for this law.
All those who have used it against him.
Pandoras box
Hex &H20, or space and then — — —- —- —– etc, founds the personal emails,
for every big climate boss. Gray eminences have a diffrent story.
Try it with FOIA grepper, whitc in on WUWT.
Help me, too much work for me alone.
Ilkka.
David Ball says:
December 1, 2011 at 8:53 pm
At the Chicago ICCC, Steve’s talk disappointed many people there. They expected to hear from a white knight charging on a gallant steed to take down all things related to bad climate science.
Instead, they heard from someone whose primary motivation was to understand the data behind the hockey stick and share his findings. Nothing more. In fact, he commented he almost wished he hadn’t been so public and made it clear he had no goal of being a public spokesperson leading the charge.
Basically, he’s no Lord Monckton. That’s neither good nor bad. Actually mostly good – we need both types.
Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I know you guys love Andrew Bolt because he opposes climate alarmism, but that’s a case of the stopped watch being right once in a while. Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia, and rightly so – he’s famous for making deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris watson, you are totally wrong. Your comment is misleading. It is a strawman.
I havebeen following Bolt for some time now. He makes comments NOT, as you say, “he’s famous for making deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities.”, but he is highly critical of Labour’s policies on ILLEGAL migrants.
Jojn Howard’s government had managed to get the numbers of illegals to zero.
Juliar Guillard’s government has opened up the slave-trade again, with many poor illegals drowning in the cruel seas. Juliar’s policies are causing deaths and suffering on the high seas.
If we have to save people from extreme conditions, such as famine, tyrannical politicans, then what we should do is get them SAFELY and LEGALLY on a plane, in a ship, a train or something but not in a ricketty boat with a 50% risk of drowning.
Juliar is killing people. That’s what.
Shame on you.
Just thought that I would defend Bolt as well from the pig ignorant remaks of Watson.
Bolt is the best journalist in Australia by a very wide margin. He hates racism, Nazism, Stalanism or any totalitarian ideology with a vengance as he has stated many times over the years.
The left of course love totalitarianism and groupthink as practised by Hitler , Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc and detest anyone who state their own point of view with clarity and strength.
Andrew Bolt even had Paul Howes the Labor left leader of Australia’s biggest union defend him in regard to his right to free speech in the recent court case. He said Andrew was a friend and acted honourably at all times. Mark Steyn and many others praised Andrew at the same meeting.
Andrew is probably the most accurate and honest Journalist I’ve yet found and at his best he has very few equals. He is easily the most widely read and admired person in the Australian media.
Just for the final proof of his worth, the looney, delusional left hate him , so you know he must be doing a good job.
Conflicting opinions abound about Andrew Bolt. That is to be expected, he is a deliberately polarising character. His success as a writer and broadcaster hinges on his ability to generate controversy. His expressed views on most topics tend to the far right, politically, so those who are liberal minded (including the majority of the Australian media) consider him to be a close relative of Satan. He is not universally liked by conservatives, as he is abrupt and sometimes rather rude.
That said, the Australian media desperately needs some conservative voices and Mr Bolt seems to fill that need. In the current media landscape, it is unlikely that a conservative who is less abrasive than Mr Bolt would get any attention at all.
Ric Werme says:
December 2, 2011 at 5:04 am
Well said. My Dad has been accused of being “too political”. He knew what was going on and realized, as evidenced by the 2 rafts of emails that these fellows were doing anything but science. He risked EVERYTHING for the scientific method at great personal cost ( they are still smearing him). To say this latest batch of emails show “less than the first” is beyond ridiculous. Purely politically driven.
Now we find ourselves back to where we were scientifically 30 years ago. The public should be up in arms, but they don’t know enough about it.
Fortunately there are those few who saw clearly and kept to the scientific path (Watts, Lindzen, McIntyre, Christy, LeGates, Daly, Pielke Sr., sorry if I missed anyone). They were labeled “deniers” by a well positioned politically driven machine.
“A lie travels around the world twice before the truth gets its boots on”.
Anybody able to decode Ilkka Mononen’s cryptic riddles?
Has anybody eye-balled the raw encrypted ‘text’ portion of the latest Climategate dump? Does it come close to resembling MIME format?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME
.
Yes yes, but only the portion what are &&%y7/jjjMMMMM type, they are transmitted
via device using MIME format, messages seems to be important.
On my homepage is MIME page for description, how to use MIME decoder.
But only if OI4PO34IEFMS8((/66.
https://sites.google.com/site/myteurastaja/home
MIME converter, only if necessary.
http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp
Gail Combs says:
December 2, 2011 at 3:45 am:
“This statement sums up the mass media. A pack of lemmings.”
—————————————-
Agreed
—————————————-
“The media is not interested in reporting the truth or even in doing EASY investigative reporting. ”
—————————————————
More or less true.
————————————————–
“Instead it is only interested in being a propaganda tool for those interested in enslaving whole populations.”
————————————————–
That is certainly not how most in the media would see themselves. There would be a whole range of motives ranging from self-interest to “draconian rules are necessary to save the planet from horrible human beings”.
————————————————-
“They use “Socialism” as the cloak they hide behind to make the changes we would fight against more “Palatable””
——————————-
Have to disagree – certainly in Britain.
To use Socialism as a cloak they would have to be claiming to be socialist – they aren’t. Further, using the word socialism to make CAGW attitudes more “palatable” wouldn’t work because most of the population don’t consider themselves to be socialist and would be unimpressed by any attempt to use socialism as a reason for doing anything. The public in the UK tend to distrust ALL political labels and even more so anyone who loudly embraces a political label.
Most of the people in the media would reject the word Socialist as a label for themselves (whatever anyone else might think) and so would most of the public. I think that this is because the perceived (and I stress perceived before this gets pounced upon) political centre is more to the left than it is, say, in the US.
That is why accusations that CAGW is a “Socialist” or “Communist” or “Marxist” plot sound absurd to most UK ears. Many of the people involved would not apply any of those labels to themselves and NEITHER would most other disinterested people.
Neville. says:
December 2, 2011 at 6:13 am
…Just for the final proof of his worth, the looney, delusional left hate him , so you know he must be doing a good job.
______________
Agreed 100%. The litmus test of the truth is when the looney delusional left oppose it. Henc eit must be correct.
Ilkka Mononen December 2, 2011 at 4:57 am
Pandoras box
Hex &H20, or space and then — — —- —- —– etc, founds the personal emails,
for every big climate boss. Gray eminences have a diffrent story.
Try it with FOIA grepper, whitc in on WUWT.
Help me, too much work for me alone.
Ilkka.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Amplification and clarification:
Hex &H20 [in the ‘C’ computer language this would translate to hexadecimal format “0x20” and not the molecular symbology for ‘water’ !], or space [the ASCII blank-space character] and then — — —- —- —– etc, founds the personal emails, for every big climate boss. Gray eminences have a diffrent story.
.
KR: December 1, 2011 at 9:36 pm
You are missing the forest for the trees. There is no context, no interpetation that is ethically acceptable for these behaviors. What you have is a bunch of scientists using KGB-type tactics to force adherence to what is clearly incomplete science at best if not outright fraud. They are attempting to use this so-called science to force governments around the world to spend billions if not trillions of dollars in an attempt to mitigate something that may not be a threat at all. That is the scandal. Go see McIntyre’s most recent post on CA if you doubt me.
@KR
If your point is that Climate Gate 2.0 isn’t resonating outside the skeptical blogosphere, you’re not far off.
Word is not getting out, people.
KR:
Please keep it up! You may yet goad the FOIA leaker to release the rest of the emails. If enough warmistas run off at the mouth, like you, we will have them soon. GK
Okay … so we’re decoding the MIME content attached in the e-mails on this one …
1) Using this file as an example:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2803.txt
2) Stripping the MIME content starting with _this_ line (starting with lines before will not work):
> SU1FIFxAICJkIE1NTU0sIHl5eXkiIBQyIEp1bHksIDE5OTcVCQkNDQ0NUmU6ICBTdGF0ZW1lbnQg
3) and feeding into:
http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp?charset=iso-8859-1&acharset=
4) I get:the following as an output (my redactions below) :
IME \@ur momisugly “d MMMM, yyyy” 2 July, 1997-
Re: Statement of European Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
Dear Colleague,
Attached is a draft Statement that has been informally drawn up by Joe Alcamo, Rob Swart and Mike Hulme working in Europe on climate issues. Its main purpose is to bolster or increase support for controls of emissions of greenhouse gases in European countries in the period leading up to Kyoto. The Statement is intended to be from European scientists, and is aimed towards governments, citizen groups, and media in European countries. The statement has specific goals in specific countries:
In European countries where the government supports controls of greenhouse emissions: In these countries, certain government ministries and other climate stakeholders in the country are trying to get the government to retreat on its policies before Kyoto. Here, the Statement is intended to be used by the government and citizen groups via the national media to support its position.
In European countries where the government does not support controls of greenhouse emissions: Here, the Statement is intended to help citizen groups and other stakeholders in the country to convince the government to support controls of emissions.
On behalf of my colleagues, may I request the following from you at this stage:
Your suggestions for changes in text.
Your recommendations for scientists to contact for commenting on the draft.
Having agreed on a form of words by consulting with a small number of colleagues (a process I am co-ordinating for the UK), we shall proceed to invite about 10 key scientists in the field in Europe (e.g. Crutzen, Houghton, Bolin, etc.) to sponsor the statement. Having gained this prestige endorsement, we shall then endeavour to invite as many additional scientists as possible (100s if not 1000s) to indicate their support for the statement which shall then be presented to the media at a press conference ‘ … with the support of “n” European scientists.’
Please reply as soon as possible at the below address. We look forward to your comments.
With best wishes,
Mike Hulme
email: [redact]@ur momisugly[redact]
fax: [redact] [redact]
phone: [redact] [redact]
and
Joseph Alcamo
Rob Swart
– Statement of European Scientists
on Actions to Protect Global Climate
In 1992 the nations of the world took a significant step to protect global climate by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This year, at the coming Climate Summit in Kyoto*, they have the chance to take an even more important step. It is our opinion that in Kyoto the nations of the world should agree upon immediate and substantive action to ensure the long term protection of global climate by controlling the current increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Our opinion is bolstered by the assessment of scientific knowledge carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which recently published a voluminous report on its findings. The report noted:
Global mean surface air temperature has increased by around 0.3 to 0.60C since the late 19th century.
Recent years have been the warmest since 1860.
Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 cm over the past 100 years and much of the rise may be related to the increase in global mean temperature.
The IPCC also maintained that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate, and that climate is expected to continue to change in the future. These changes will bring with them further increases in sea level, the transformation of forest- and other ecosystems, modifications of crop yield, shifts in the geographic range of carriers of disease of plants, animals and humans, and many other impacts. Some of these impacts may be seen as positive, such as the possible increase in rainfall and crop yield in certain dry regions; and some of these impacts may be adapted to, as in the case of building dikes to protect against slowly rising sea level (where they can be afforded). But many, if not most, impacts of climate change will increase risks to society and nature. Furthermore, many of these impacts will be irreversible. As the IPCC has reported, vulnerability to climate change is of particular importance to people living on arid or semi-arid land, in low-lying coastal areas, in water-limited or flood-prone regions, or on small islands. Risks to nature will be significant in the many areas where natural ecosystems cannot quickly adapt to changing climate, or where they are already under stress from environmental pollution or other factors.
Because of these risks, we find it important for nations to develop long-term climate protection goals, as in setting limits on the increase of global temperature and sea level. Equally important, we recommend that European and industrialized nations use long-term climate protection goals as a guide to determining short-term emission targets. This approach has been adopted, for example, by the European Union and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).
Some may say that action to control emissions should be delayed because of the scientific uncertainties of climate change and its impact. We reply that the risks and irreversibility of many climate impacts require “precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of climate change”, as clearly stated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
We also recognize that there are economic arguments for delaying the control of emissions in Europe and elsewhere. However, after carefully examining the question of timing of emission reductions, we find the arguments against delay to be more compelling. First, delaying action could shift an unfair burden for more severe reductions of emissions to future generations. Second, delaying action will lead to a greater accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and therefore make it more difficult to prevent future climate change when action is finally taken.
Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other industrialized countries to accede to controls of greenhouse emissions as part of a Kyoto agreement. We further believe that some of these emission controls can be achieved at little or no net cost through improvements in the efficiency of energy systems and faster introduction of renewable energy.
As to a quantitative goal for controlling emissions, we believe that the European Union proposal is consistent with long term climate protection. This proposal would reduce by 15% the total collective greenhouse gas emissions from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I countries) by the year 2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger emission reductions will be needed in the future, we see the -15% target as a positive first step “to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” and to lessen risks to society and nature. Such substantive action is needed now.
*Third Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto, Japan, December, 1997.
Version: 4
Date: TIME \@ur momisugly “d MMMM, yyyy” 2 July, 1997-
PAGE 3-
PAGE 3-
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I think JoNova was thinking of KR when she wrote this. BWT: KR have you read all of the emails, of just the ones you’ve filtered through those green colored glasses?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/climategate-ii-handy-guide-to-spot-whitewash-journalism-the-top-10-excuses-for-scientists-behaving-badly/
The top 10 excuses for PR writers who pose as “journalists” to ignore ClimateGate emails
This is standard issue damage control for ClimateGate — protect the cheats and liars, attack the whistleblower, and use excuses and padding-fillers to cover a story without actually giving the public any information on the behavior of scientists who make statements that billions of dollars of public spending is guided by.
1. “The emails are old”
(No one has seen them before, and what makes two-year-old lies acceptable now?).
2. “The timing is suspicious”
(Alarmists release alarming stuff all the time in the lead up to big meetings, but look out, it’s suspicious when a skeptic releases alarming stuff about those scientists at the same time!)
3. “They’re out of context”
(We won’t explain the context, or quote the email, trust us, they just are, OK?)
4. “The emails show a robust scientific debate”
(But that is the whole point isn’t it? We were told the “science was settled”? It is dishonest to discuss uncertainties in private while you tell the public “the debate is over” and call anyone who questions that a “denier”.)
5.“They’ve been investigated”
(Even though the investigations didn’t have these emails, didn’t investigate the science, and were at least in one case, chaired by a windfarm expert, this point is supposed to have credibility?)
6.“They’re hacked” or “stolen”
(After years of investigation there is no evidence they were hacked. They could have been leaked. Police can’t or won’t say. Does this journalist “know” something the police don’t?)
7. “Aren’t the skeptics nasty people?”
(Crikey, imagine reading emails written by paid public servants on the job about their professional work? What victims! Those poor scientists can’t even threaten journal editors, conspire to ignore peer reviewed papers they don’t like, or discuss their ignorance in private… what’s the world coming too?)
8. “This doesn’t change the science”
(Since most of “the science” is merely a consensus of these same experts, whom we are told to respect, then actually it does change “the science” when they are caught cheating.)
9. The emails “mean nothing” according the scientists caught cheating
(The sock puppet earns bonus points if those same scientists also get to slur the whistleblower and skeptics with unsubstantiated implications that “they are funded by fossil fuels”.)
10. The public response is a “yawn”
(And given how few journalists are reporting the actual emails to the public, that’s entirely predictable eh? Circular reasoning strikes again.)
More Soylent Green! says:
December 2, 2011 at 10:17 am
You are correct in the MSM sense. It is more grassroots than that.
The average person will not discuss “climate change”. They have bigger problems to deal with. Ironically, those problems are being brought about by the policies of “climate change” (and all the other BS scare tactics). People are just trying to get by not understanding that their financial difficulties are because of “the cause”. Whatever the hell that is.
The comparatively few in the world that can afford academia have insulated themselves, financially, socially, and intellectually from the general population. Hence the arrogance.
I am ok with anyone disagreeing with me. It is what makes WUWT? a joy to read.
If your results cannot be reproduced it isn’t science. If you hide your data and method than by definition it can not be reproduced. KR, I find it very frightening that you think the emails show nothing important. With or without context several people are conducting a campaign that is absolutely anti science. While the actions and comments reflected in the emails are only borderline criminal, there is absolutely no doubt that the represent the very worst anti scientific campaign I have ever seen.
Andrew Bolt is very good.
His interviews with a conservative and a Labor supporter are particularly interesting and gets them actually debating the issues rather than sprouting slogans.
His interview with the professor was very telling.
The good proff was much more restrained than I have seen him before, as he was obviously nervous being interviewed by someone who actually knows more than a bit about climate.
Bolt made the proff agree that several of Tim Flannery’s wilder sayings had no merit.
I think that he let the Proff get away with a few porkies in the dying seconds of the interview.
I suspect that the iron grip of commercial TV meant that he could not extend the interview to get in the final blow.
But eight out of ten.
I will be interesting to see how many true believing scientists are willing to front Bolt next year.
I doubt that there will be many.
Moderator XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Attention Moderator PLEASE
Please pay attention to what ILLKA and Jim have been saying.
It looks as though ILLKA has cracked the unbreakable code, although her English makes it very hard to understand what she is saying.
Jim on the other hand does seem to understand quite clearly and appears to have translated a large group of encoded text into plain English.
This may be extremely important.
REPLY: All that has happened is that an email attachment encoded in MIME format has been decoded. This happens every day in every email program. That’s nothing close to the AES 256 bit encryption locking the rest of the files. – Anthony
Just laughing to my English, i´have almost newer need to write anything to English,
an i cant, as you see, i must learn. I can read, not write, funny is´it. you must correct
me, i suppose that it takes some weeks te learn to write.
Emails are not decrypted at all, they sometimes are using MIME , beause some of treir
message devices uses it, some kind of FAX, i´, sure that somebody here can
tell us an example.
Whats the point shortly
Person1 = > –
Person2 = > —
Person n. = > —————————–
Person z = > *********************
Person y = > *** ********** , ********
Person d = ???s@yahoo,com
etc. We must iterate a list of pseydonyms.
I.ll do a wep page where to collect “namecodes”, they are not crypted
> ————- is a name, edu , or file.
You must rind strange pharses from tekst and put it to FOIA gepper.
Very lage job, i´m doing a climategate phonebook, starts until tomorrow
on my web page, open to all.
Way that they have hidden data is not illegal, because data was not crypted,
I too stand up for Andrew Bolt, he took on the looney faux academics who used to run off at the mouth with lying exaggerations on any social issue or leftist pretext – He asked them the impossible, to prove their loose and lying statistics, and they could not do so, as none existed. He exposed them for what they were, empty vessels trying to create their own authority to mask the lies they were spreading within the tertiary education system, where no one dared challenge them. He continues to ask the questions that we want asked and sweeps aside political correctness and stupidity to get to the truth.
The hard left and those beaten academics hate him so much, because he exposes the rubbish they spout. We need his journalistic judgement and determination to get to that truth, that is why his column is so popular, so he becomes a target they must suppress by any means possible.
May he continue to challenge and write his exposures on such issues, for the advancement of all decent and thinking Australians.
“” I – like most Australians I know – just can’t do it – because among the other things he believes are some dangerously horrible ones.”
Every single Australian believes what Andrew Bolt says, and also believes lots of things that he probably believes, but would never dare say..
For example, talk with any Australian leftist in private and he will acknowledge that pure blooded aboriginals differ from whites by several standard deviations, with near zero overlap, but Andrew Bolt would never say that out loud in public.
James A. Donald says:
For example, talk with any Australian leftist in private and he will acknowledge that pure blooded aboriginals differ from whites by several standard deviations, with near zero overlap…
Good Lord, man, just where did that come from? Differ in what way? Intelligence, senses, immunities, cell structure? Zero Overlap? That would mean that Aborigines have nothing in common with humans, or any other form of life on the planet! The last time I looked, matings between Aborigines and “humans” produce viable offspring…. something that would not be possible if there was “zero overlap” between Aborigines and whites. Get a grip. The aboriginals may have reached Australia first, but the differences between them and those who arrived later are miniscule. The genetic difference between humans and chimps is less than 5%…
Richard Verney @6.53 & Smokey @7.10
Thanks for posting these videos.
Of interest perhaps in the Urban Heat Warming debate and siting of instruments and averaging of temps is this story from Brisbane, Queensland (Aus).
http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/article/heat-wave-burns-king-george-square-designers/509556.aspx
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/king-george-square-the-hottest-place-in-town/story-e6freoof-1225821004408
Due to the drought and dams not filling (and ?not enough dams and/or capacity for the population) the previous Council Executive Office delivered Brisbane residents with ‘egg-timers’ + suction pads (for their bathroom tiles). This was to ensure everyone knew to have a 3 minute shower. Quarterly reports in graph form of household water consumption compared to the av street h/hold consumption were posted to all residents. I have no idea whether number of individuals per household were taken into account with the production of these reports. Years previously many feature water fountains (inc the Square described in the articles above) had also been turned off or removed.
Twelve months ago Brisbane and surrounding Councils suffered from devastating flooding.