East Anglia Climatic Research Unit shown to be liars by results of latest FOIA ruling and investigation

This will be a top sticky post for a day or two – new stories appear below this one.

In the over 7,000 published stories here on WUWT, I have never used the word “liar” in the headline to refer to CRU and the Yamal affair. That changes with this story.

I’ve always thought that with CRU, simple incompetence is a more likely explanation than malice and/or deception. For example, Phil Jones can’t even plot trends in Excel. In this particular case, I don’t think incompetence is the plausible explanation anymore. As one commenter on CA (Andy) said

“I suspect the cause of all this is an initial small lie, to cover intellectual mistakes, snowballing into a desire not to lose face, exacerbated by greater lies and compounded by group think. “

Given what I’ve witnessed and recalled from the history of the Yamal affair with Steve McIntyre’s latest investigation, I’m now quite comfortable applying the label of “liar” to the CRU regarding their handling of data, of accusations, and of FOIA.

In my opinion, these unscrupulous climate scientists at CRU deserve our scorn, and if UEA had any integrity, they’d be reprimanded and/or shown the door. But as we’ve seen with the handling of the Muir Russell sham “investigation”, key questions to key players weren’t even asked about key points of evidence. For example, Muir Russell didn’t even bother attending the one interview (April 9) in which Jones and Briffa were supposed to be asked about paleoclimate. So UEA/CRU will probably just try to gloss this over with another lie too. – Anthony Watts

McIntyre: Yamal FOI Sheds New Light on Flawed Data

Yamal aerial view

Phil Jones’ first instinct on learning about Climategate was that it was linked to the Yamal controversy that was in the air in the weeks leading up to Climategate. I had speculated that CRU must have done calculations for Yamal along the lines of the regional chronology for Taimyr published in Briffa et al 2008. CRU was offended and issued sweeping denials, but my surmise was confirmed by an email in the Climategate dossier. Unfortunately neither Muir Russell nor Oxburgh investigated the circumstances of the withheld regional chronology, despite my submission drawing attention to this battleground issue.

I subsequently submitted an FOI request for the Yamal-Urals regional chronology and a simple list of sites used in the regional chronology. Both requests were refused by the University of East Anglia. I appealed to the Information Commissioner (ICO).

A week ago, the Information Commissioner notified the University of East Anglia that he would be ruling against them on my longstanding FOI request for the list of sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology referred to in a 2006 Climategate email. East Anglia accordingly sent me a list of the 17 sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology (see here). A decision on the chronology itself is pending. In the absence of the chronology itself, I’ve done an RCS calculation, the results of which do not yield a Hockey Stick.

In today’s post, I’ll also show that important past statements and evidence to Muir Russell by CRU on the topic have been either untruthful or deceptive.

The Relevance of Yamal

The Yamal chronology is relevant both because, since its introduction in 2000, it has been used in virtually all of the supposedly “independent” IPCC multiproxy studies (see an October 2009 discussion here) and because it is particularly influential in contributing an HS-shape to the studies that do not use bristlecones.

IPCC AR4 Box 6.4 showed the eight proxies which have been used the most repetitively (this wasn’t its intent.) Of these eight proxies, Briffa’s Yamal (labelled “NW Russia”) is shown with the biggest HS blade, larger even than Mann’s PC1 (labelled here as “W USA”). See here) and tag yamal.

Figure 1. Yamal Chronology in IPCC AR4 Box 6.4. Labelled as “NW Russia”

In previous posts, I’ve satirized the “addiction” of paleoclimatologists to bristlecones and Yamal as, respectively, heroin and cocaine for climatologists. (In pharmacological terms, upside-down Tiljander would be, I guess, LSD, as the psychedelic Mann et al 2008 is indifferent as to whether proxies are used upside-down or not (cue Jefferson Airplane‘s insightful critique of Mannian statistics.)

Although Yamal and Polar Urals had been long-standing topics at Climate Audit, they first attracted wide attention in late September 2009, when measurement data became available for the three “regional chronologies” of Briffa et al 2008 (Taimyr-Avam, Tornetrask-Finland and Yamal).

The 2008 Taimyr-Avam and Tornetrask-Finland networks were dramatic expansions of the corresponding networks of Briffa (2000), but the Yamal network, which was already much smaller than the other two networks, remained unchanged. Analysis of the previously unavailable Taimyr data showed that Briffa had added measurement data from several Schweingruber sites into the Taimyr-Avam regional chronology (a point not mentioned in the article itself.) Since there were a number of Schweingruber sites (including Polar Urals) in a similarly sized region around Yamal, it seemed almost certain that CRU would have done a corresponding regional chronology calculation at Yamal.

This raised the obvious question of why. Ross posed the question in a contemporary op ed as follows:

Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?

The question applied not just to the Khadyta River site in the original CA post, but to Polar Urals and other nearby sites. These questions resulted in considerable controversy at the time. CRU protested their innocence and posted a lengthy response on October 29, 2009, denying that they had ever even “considered” use of the Schweingruber Khadyta River site, discussed in contemporary Climate Audit posts. In a submission to Muir Russell, they later denied ever re-appraising their Polar Urals chronology.

The Climategate dossier was released in November 2009, a few weeks after the Yamal controversy. As Fred Pearce observed in The Climate Files, the Climategate dossier begins with Yamal and ends with Yamal. Pearce also observed that the word “Yamal” occurs more often than any other “totem” of the disputes, even more than “hockey stick”. Nearly all Climategate documents with unbleached dates were copied after my Yamal posts and Yamal measurement data dominated the earliest documents.

The Climategate dossier revealed that CRU had, after all, calculated a Yamal-Urals regional chronology as early as April 2006. (CG1 – 684. 1146252894.txt). The present FOI request referred to this email.


Read the entire story at Climate Audit here. It is a MUST READ for anyone who has been following Climategate.

My sincerest congratulations to Steve McIntyre for the perseverance to finally get this issue brought into the sunlight.

UPDATE: New visitors might need a primer for this story –

YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World  by Steve McIntyre

Sept. 30, 2009



newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Robert M

I’ll have to digest what Steve has written, but if it makes Anthony release his hope that “The Team” is incompetent rather then criminal, it must be good!!!

Phillip Bratby

The headline needs correcting. It’s the Climatic Research Unit. REPLY: Fixed thanks -A

Gary Hladik

If only CRU had used their powers for good, instead of evil…
Sheldon Cooper is right: graduate schools should do a better job of screening out potential supervillains. 🙂

I’ve said it before elsewhere and I’ll say it again: When a party produces errors consistently to its own advantage, the chances that they are true errors dimish with each case.

Steve (Paris)

At first sight I was shocked to see ‘liar’ in the headline. Not WUWT style at all. Will now read the piece but I have great trust Antony’s insticts.


Steve :
>> At first sight I was shocked to see ‘liar’ in the headline. Not
>> WUWT style at all. Will now read the piece but I have great
>> trust Antony’s insticts.
… let’s hope they are as sound as his instincts !

John F. Hultquist

Some newer readers here might be needing a little context. Start here:
YAD061 – the Most Influential Tree in the World by Steve McIntyre
Sept. 30, 2009
REPLY: Good point, I’ll add that. -Anthony

Village Idiot

“Liars” in a post.
It’s pushing the envelope (= “go beyond commonly accepted boundaries”), but a necessary move to keep the boilers stoked.


Perhaps someone (with more gravtitas than myself) will draw this article (and its headline) to the attention of the UEA (not that I am for one moment suggesting that it might pass unnoticed) suggesting that they may wish to protect the reputation of the University.
Then we could look forward to an interesting FOI in a month or two to assess how these allegations are being handled…

Peter Miller

I have just read Steve’s article twice. An excellent piece of research, no wonder UEA did not want to release any of this data.
The term “Liars” might be a little on the strong side, “purveyors of deceit, manipulation and misinformation” might be a little more appropriate.
It will be amusing to see what our regular alarmist contributors have to say about this.
I would like to see Steve get stuck into Crutem4 to see what he can uncover in the way of deceit, manipulation and misinformation.


Having read Steve McIntyre’s article there can be no denying that the University of Easy Access’ CRU is populated with pathological liars and that the Climategate ‘investigations’ by their pals were nothing more than a dishonest whitewash.

I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html. The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of their monetary and energy policies – and bringing a whole, if not all, of science into disrepute. Even the UK Royal Society has become Lysenkoist.


One wondering if the fact the CRU and so forth openly lied repeatedly in both the press and Muir Russell. Riding Muir Russell hard is probably the best course of action since he might take offense to having been lied to…. or more his reputation being dragged through the mud because he fall for such lies. Muir Russell may show some backbone or maybe not play the willing martyr like some other people have. Is their a chance or way for someone to file ethics complaints against him?
CRU on the other hand couldn’t care less and they are in for coverup mode pretty much since climategate broke. Its doubtful any amount of public pressure will have any effect on them.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive
I had a lot to say, but not sure this is the place to say it (so going to just leave a brief synopsis). Basically, the science part of the battle is basically for all intensive purposes over, and what is left is the political battle for the most part. Sure, there is always going to be the science angle to an extent, but its the same argument over and over again between warmists and sceptics.
We know that the worst of the warmists are liars, and we knew this after climate-gate. They could have been truthful at any point even before then, but after that point was the time for them to come forward and clean their conscience. CRU is just one part of it of course, but there are other spots and other scientists involved in the team portion who told porkers to the media after climate-gate and we can pretty much count on this to continue. So this changes nothing really.
Its the same story as before, what are we going to do to restore science to its rightful state? Going through the normal channels has not worked and I do not believe it will. Perhaps this is something to discuss at some point, ideas that are legal mind you and honest, I don’t want to be part of anything that is illegal, involves lying or anything of that nature, but there must be an honest way to see justice done.


The trouble with falsehoods, as my mum always used to remind me – is that they usually get found out in the end.
I tend to side with the known error and cover up theory, the defending against release of data and emails is all but admission of guilt, and they have compounded their situation ever since. They will now be hoping that enough time has past for it to be swept under the rug…
IMHO, Jones is not an inherent data falsifier, but is largely incompetent – and should have no ‘standing’ in this field, watching his lack of confidence at the parlimentary inquiry, it was pretty obvious he was following a script. He sold his scientific soul…
As for the UEA, they are a disgrace to all genuine academic institutions in the UK – I feel sorry for any UAE graduates, I’d certainly be keeping quiet if either of my degrees came from there!


Once again this shows that you should never under estimate Steve McIntyre’s determination and never pick a fight with him when extraordinary detail is involved.( I know a few accountants but none of them would get anywhere near Steve on being able to bring the significant amount of detail into such a coherant , well costructed and accurate expose)


If this were research in pharmacology or medicine, let’s say for FDA approval of a new med, would this sort of behavior constitute research fraud?? Do respectable scientists operate this way?? Outside of paleo-climatology would this be considered normal and proper research conduct??

Garry Stotel

I will forward this post to someone I know at the UEA.

Nick Stokes

There’s a lot of talk of “liar”.
But what is the actual lie? And who told it?
[ Reply: Perhaps you ought to read the linked article where it is detailed with statements like Again, CRU’s claims not to have “considered” inclusion of Khadyta River (and other similar Schweingruber sites) is refuted by the FOI list. The untruthfulness of this evidence was not commented on by Muir Russell. rather than asking folks to ‘go fish’ for you? -ModE ]


I used the word “liar” nearly five years ago, describing Hansen, when I first learned of the Climate Audit site through a report in the Toronto Star, describing how McIntyre had exposed Hansons “adjustments” of the temperature record. Climate Audit promptly snipped my rash and hot headed comment.
I have always admired Steve McIntyre because he is less hot headed than I am. I have actually learned a lot about controling my temper from his example.
However enough is enough.
Climate Science has had a chance to respond to politeness politely. They failed.
Climate Science has had a chance to admit errors and confess shortcomings. They failed.
Climate Science has been given more chances than I myself ever got in life, and has squandered all those chances, and now is bankrupt.
The question is not whether they are liars. Rather it is what to do about the lie.
In order to face the future we need facts. Lies must be rooted out.


Is there any reason not to apply the terms “research fraud” and “scientific misconduct” to how this paleo-climate data has been (mis)handled by CRU scientists??

I’ve said it before and will say it again, they are without shame!
Putting this into context they are responsible for collating much of the data out there, they are linked to the Met Office and also to the BBC so pretty much control the media and of course it’s their super computer that predicted, wrongly, the warming to come.
When, finally, the rain falls on their parade they will, I guarantee, be shown to be up to their scrawny little necks in stinking mud!
Makes me ashamed to be British!

Rhys Jaggar

Well, this headline leaves CRU in a bit of fix.
Either they ignore it and let the rumour grow that they are liars, or they take you to court to sue you.
It’ll be interesting to see the outcome of the former. Particularly whether it affects long-term research funding………

For me, the general rule of thumb is “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” and coupled with “Intelligence is limited, but stupidity knows no bounds. -E.M.Smith” gives pretty broad coverage.
These are not dumb people. That raises the bar some. Then we have the stark lack of a normal distribution of “error”, that takes a LOT of work. Finally, for me at least, was the incredible degree of whitewash applied when they were flat out caught red handed in deception, self dealing, and various other bad behaviours.
I would have expected termination as most likely, with severe reprimand as the minimum.
Mann got a $5 Million or so grant and UEA/CRU got a “boys will be boys”…
At that point it made sense. These folks have “Top Cover” and are working to a plan. It’s an “operation”, not research.
So yeah, call it deception, call it lying, call it manipulation or any one of a dozen others.
One thing it clearly is NOT: Open and honest science in pursuit of truth and understanding.
So whatever you want to call it, IMHO, it ends up being the same. Malfeasance at best, deliberate deception and manipulation for self dealing gain most likely, fraud can not be ruled out (in the legal sense of the term). When Gleick is in court, with the UEA on the docket too, then I’ll figure there might be some moral fiber around. Until then, it looks a whole lot more like a political put up job…


They are conform towards the political established UNFCCC.
We now at last officially can call the team social liberal or social climate scientist?


This post needs to be put in front of everyone who has even the slightest interest in CAGW or Climategate etc. Sure, the next line of defense will be that it’s just one group of bad apples in science etc. and don’t condemn all climate researchers based upon what is displayed here…… BUT, considering the extent of misbehavior and years of cover-up, it does raise many serious questions about the standards of “climate science” and the effectiveness of “peer review” etc.


In the over 7,000 published stories here on WUWT, I have never used the word “liar” in the headline to refer to CRU and the Yamal affair. That changes with this story.

I have called them liars, criminals, climate bandits, deceivers etc. It might sound over the top but think about this:
Wire fraud, adjusting past temps, hiding declines, making sure a paper does not get through, attempting to sack editors etc., etc. They are out of control because they never suffer consequences. If they were corporate accountants they would not only be fired but in a cell.

I don’t think it’s Muir Russell who’s the best pressure point. He knew just what he was doing in providing the whitewash, and he’s moved on anyway.
Someone who hasn’t moved on is Acton. No scientist he, but if CRU go down he will go down with them unless he’s cast himself off from them beforehand.
It’s Acton who’s vulnerable, and it’s Acton who might try to salvage something for himself by ceasing to defend CRU before he is forced out in ignominy.

Global weirding continues……It caught on in a flash…

The big problem here is that the CRU distributes its data and findings to other academics; who then use such data and findings in their research. The onus on them therefore to have a 100% ‘clean’ record is extreme. If they are found to be at fault (which I think they have been) then a whole wave of dependent research is also at fault. Also a whole wave of grants, donations, gifts, case awards etc have also have been given in error.
The financial implications of this are absolutely enormous, and in the current economic situation any research that is anything other than whiter than white will get cut faster than a egg in a blender.

Stephanie Clague

Why did they do it? Funding of course, they needed to protect their funding source and they wished to maintain their lucrative relationship with government that made it clear from the start what findings they needed confirming, that CO2 causes catastrophic anthropogenic warming. Massive funding and many lucrative sinecures just as long as CRU played the game, was able to fabricate a scientific justification for wholly political aims. At the beginning it seemed cut and dried and case closed and CO2 guilty M’Lud. All that was required was to find proof and confirmation and the organisation that did stood to gain immensely in fiscal and reputation terms.
Now comes the part where the quest for confirmation came into conflict with the paymasters desire for concrete results with which to beat over the heads of the masses to get them to accept the political narrative. It was rush rush, busy busy and faults were hidden or ‘corrected’ or ignored and uncertainties hidden. The temptation to give their paymasters what they wanted was huge, a lot was riding on their corporate ability to just that, deliver the goods. There became an overwhelming urgency to confirm the guilt of CO2 and if they had to cut corners and lie and cheat and deceive and manipulate that became their slippery moral slope and as sure as bears defecate in the woods they slid down that slope like an Olympic skier.
The mechanics are simple to understand and the motives of those involved are even easier to understand if not forgive, in fact it was a sure fire 100% copper bottomed guaranteed certainty that the CRU would end up as little more than a degenerate Lysenkoist joke. All the conditions for it were present, more perfect conditions could not be dreamed of in fact. The only surprise is that people didnt see it coming, that many who did simply connived in an even worse cover up and series of whitewashes. Human nature and money and pressure to please the paymasters and the gamble that they were right anyway so what did a few lies matter?
A perfect epitaph for the CAGW fraud.


People engaged in groupthink do not lie in the same way as the term is commonly understood so counter assertions do not really help and generally only fuel convictions to more unstable levels and more aggressive assertions.The hyperfuss based on human control over global temperatures will fade when a more stable and exciting narrative for climate and its effects will emerge rather than disproof through assertions and counter assertions so it is hope and not fear that will see our race through this rocky period.

Allan MacRae

The Climategate 1.0 and more recently the Climategate 2.0 emails make abundantly clear that the global warming movement (acolytes call it “the Cause”) is controlled by a cabal closely related to the IPCC that routinely practiced scientific misrepresentation, academic intimidation, and criminal avoidance of FOI requests.
I guess we can now add “lying” to the above list of transgressions for “the Cause”– not a surprise, given past behaviour.
Thanks again to Steve McIntyre on his hard work and dedication, and to all those at WattsUp.
P.S. Here is an interesting article by retired Professor James Rust that helps put this issue into historic context:
Aryan Physics Revisited: A Comparison of 1930s German Physics and Global Warming Science Today
by James H. Rust, Professor of Nuclear Engineering (ret.)
For more than a quarter century controversy has embroiled the scientific community over whether carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas formed from burning fossil fuels, is causing increased global temperatures with catastrophic consequences. This is also called anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Many supporters of AGW are adamant in their views and refuse to acknowledge the existence of scientists or the science that refutes their views. Some advocates could be described as self-assured, arrogant, and using unflattering terms to describe those who disagree with them.
The possible threat of AGW spawned research funds from the United States government to study climate science. An excellent paper by Joanne Nova titled “Climate Money”
<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf&gt; traces the way money was spent from 1989 to 2008 in the amount of $79 billion. Research supporting AGW was able to generate more money; so the financing system fed upon itself. If initial research proved AGW did not exist, future funding would have ceased. Yet to be reported, the United States economic stimulus funds for 2009 will allocate billions of dollars spent in anticipation of AGW.
Advocates of AGW have had much media attention so many have become household names. Five names are Dr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology; Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies; Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore, former United States Senator and Vice President; Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman; and journalist Ellen Goodman.
Doctor Holdren co-authored a book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment in 1977 with Paul and Anne Ehrlich <http://zombietime.com:80/john_holdren&gt;. This book describes means of population control of forced abortions, sterilizations, babies seized from single or teen mothers, etc. During Dr. Holdren’s confirmation hearing before the United States Senate in 2009, it was pointed out he had predicted in 1986 one billions deaths due to AGW by 2020. The question today about Dr. Holdren’s prediction is whether one hundred million will die annually for the next decade or will one billion die during 2019.
Dr. Hansen is a strong advocate for AGW testifying to this effect before the United States Senate in 1988. Recently, Dr. Hansen called for CEOs of fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for “high crimes against humanity and nature.” He testified in the defense of six British conservationists who vandalized a new coal power plant under construction <http://theweeklystandard.com/content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/591lnahj&gt;.
The attitudes of Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore are well summarized by an article by John Dendahl “Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore is a Threat to Peace” <http://www.therockymountainfoundation.org/algorethreattopeace.html&gt;. Nobel Prize Winner Gore made the statement years ago “the science is settled” on AGW. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen wrote an article in the April 12, 2006 Wall Street Journal titled “Climate of Fear”
<http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220&gt;. In this article Prof. Lindzen wrote Senator Gore in 1992 tried to bully dissenting scientists to agree with his climate alarmism. Later Vice President Gore tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists.
Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman wrote in the June 29, 2009 New York Times his feeling about the June 26, 2009 debate on the Waxman-Markey Bill – “And as I watched the deniers make their argument, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason-treason against the planet.”
Journalist and AGW expert Ellen Goodman wrote “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
To illustrate uncivil behavior by AGW advocates is not confined to the United States; a June 16, 2009 meeting between Australian Senator James Fielding, Australian government AGW proponents, and four independent climate scientists is reported by Dr. David Evans <www.joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-mmeting-on-global-warming>.
Senator Fielding and four independent climate scientists met with the Minister for Climate Change Peggy Wong, Chief Climate Scientist Penny Sackett and Professor Will Steffen to discuss current science on AGW. The government scientists were aloof, self-assured, and created an aura of intimidation. They made no eye contact or shook hands at the end of the meeting.
In another vein, President of the British Science Association, Lord Robert May of Oxford, addressed his association and said faith groups could lead in the policing of human behavior <http://www.guardian.co.uk/2009.sep/07/global-warming-religion&gt; In a plea to enforce climate change, Lord May said, “How better it is if the punisher is an all-powerful, all-seeing diety.”
After WWI, a movement was started to promote accomplishments of German physicists which soon took on racial aspects because these accomplishments were restricted to Aryan or German physicists <www.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeutschePhysik>. Thousands joined this movement and notable members where Nobel Prize Winners Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard. Naturally, Aryan Physics excluded the works of Jewish scientists; most famous being Albert Einstein.
Many physicists, including Stark and Lenard, joined and became active members of the National Socialist Party. This provided a perfect match with National Socialists views on race. They saw that the works of Jewish scientists were stricken from textbooks, papers could not be published in scientific journals, research funds denied, and finally by the mid 1930s, employment with universities or research institutions terminated. Jewish science was ignored. Supporters of Aryan Physics could be described as self-assured, arrogant, and using unflattering names to describe Jewish scientists. This author strongly states this essay does not imply any connection of advocates for Aryan Physics to the atrocities committed by advocates of National Socialism.
Finally Aryan Physics fell apart because it was recognized the Secrets of the Universe could not be unlocked without use of Einstein’s Theories. For the record, Nobel Prize Winner Stark was jailed for four years after WWII.
A link between National Socialism and Conservatism movements was reported by German historian Uekoetter’s The Green and the Brown: a History of Conservatism in Nazi Germany published by Cambridge Press in 2006. A detailed review of this book was written by William Walter Kay <http://www.ecofascism.com:80/review18.html&gt;. Conservatism movements started in Germany in the late nineteenth century and found easy mixing with National Socialism with their members having memberships in their local groups and the National Socialist Party. Millions of trees were planted in the name of Adolf Hitler.
The behavior of many AGW advocates is remarkably similar to that of supporters of Aryan Physics in 1930s Germany. They ignore entreaties of scientists who disagree with them. They attempt to stifle publications of research papers, obstruct funds for research that challenges AGW, and refuse public debate on the science of AGW.
It is ironic that scientists who question AGW are placed in a similar position as Jewish scientists in 1930s Germany. Their fate is most certainly not as grim. Labelling those who question AGW as deniers implying they deny the Holocaust is immoral.
The mixing of science with forces (such as politics, religion, or advocacy groups) contrary to scientific principles of postulating theories and then using observations to prove or disprove theories have been around since the birth of human thought. Noteworthy is Galileo Galilei being found vehemently suspect of heresy and forced to recant his belief the sun was the center of the solar system instead of the earth in 1634. This setback may have slowed development of astronomy; but did not seriously alter world’s history.
Germany’s experience with Aryan Physics may have cost them, and indirectly Japan, greater harm from WWII. Without Jewish physicists, the Germans were years away from developing an atomic bomb. The scientist who fled Europe in the 1930s insured the United States would successfully develop an atomic bomb in time to force a conclusion to WWII.
Subscribing to AGW may produce a large global impact if nations decide to alter means of energy production because of a perceived belief in catastrophic events due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. The proposal to reduce the world’s production of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels in 2050 to fifty percent of the level of 1990 will have negligible impact on global warming or any other climate change. Great economic damage will be done to the earth’s inhabitants with energy shortages and vastly higher energy costs. Undeveloped nations will be doomed to maintaining the same lifestyles as years in the past. All will suffer except those who trade in energy credits and produce alternative energy sources.
Much has been written about the science of climate change and the influence of carbon dioxide. A recent 2009 book Climate Change Reconsidered–The Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change <www.nipccreport.org> contains numerous references as current as 2009. The futility of trying to restructure the United States energy production from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources by 2050 is well described by Donn Dears 2009 book Carbon Folly <www.carbonfolly.com>.
A vast amount of material is available to support the thesis of a similarity between militant advocates of Aryan Physics and AGW. Internet reference were given for this essay and those willing to check these references and use available links can have months of reading.

We’ve read about the hockey CRU
And Phil Jones neck of brass
Now McKintyre’s grabbed the stick
And shoved it up their
Ask no questions, tell no lies
Will the next job for the CRU
Be dishing up the fries?
Sir Ted has got a tricky job
To cover up the mess
“Tell the CRU to shut their gob
We never will confess!”
“Hide the Yamal data
And cover that decline!
Tell the press the Alma Mater
Will carry on just fine.”
But you should know Sir Edward
With all your old boy clout
That when it comes to science
The truth will always out.

Allan MacRae

Professor Edward Acton Statement on CRU, March 1st 2010 | University of East Anglia (UEA)


I have just searched for the phrase in quotes:

“East Anglia Climatic Research Unit shown to be liars”

and WUWT is a Google results 5 and even then it’s just your home page that shows. Maybe it’s just my search location and others get differing results.


Well done for pursuing the foia request. Makes me wonder what may lie in the emails encrypted by “foia” and those which Mann is trying to keep hidden from public view.


temp says:
May 7, 2012 at 12:24 am
‘Riding Muir Russell hard is probably the best course of action since he might take offense to having been lied to…. or more his reputation being dragged through the mud because he fall for such lies. Muir Russell may show some backbone’
A comment which brings to mind the phrase “The triumph of hope over experience”.

Robert of Ottawa

So if I understand this correctly, it appears that CRU did a tree ring analysis which didn’t give the desired result so denied ever doing the study. Is that it?


“East Anglia Climatic Research Unit shown to be liars”
Now that’s a billboard headline! Pass it on to Heartland.


Jimbo says:
May 7, 2012 at 3:28 am
I have just searched for the phrase in quotes:
“East Anglia Climatic Research Unit shown to be liars”
and WUWT is a Google results 5 and even then it’s just your home page that shows. Maybe it’s just my search location and others get differing results.”
Here in UK Google now gives 143,000 results.


I’ve come to the conclusion the field of ‘climatology’ is filled with liars OR loons-
If someone called you a climatologist it should be pistols at dawn with such a blatant slur on your honour.

Jimmy Haigh

So climate scientists have been shown to be lying fraudsters? Who’d have thunk it?


I thought Nick Stokes from CSI had an enquiring and skeptical mind, yet he appears here refusing to investigate. Goes to show all you see on TV is not correct 🙂

tallbloke says:
May 7, 2012 at 3:22 am
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Way to go, Tall Black, You’re a fine bard too! Mostly in ABCB, I see. What a rallying ditty this!
May I suggest a small change, right at the beginning, for easier flow when the beer is flowing?
We’ve read about the hockey CRU
And Phil Jones neck of brass
Now McKintyre’s grabbed the stick
And shoved it up their
We’ve read about the CRU
And Phil Jones’ neck of brass,
Now McKintyre’s grabbed their hockey stick
And shoved it up their a……

Bravo Anthony … It’s now blatantly obvious what the deal is … Stealing people’s money.


By the way, has the US funding of the CRU been restored yet? It was withdrawn after Climategate and when the UEA, after the whitewash, asked to have it restored the US refused while their enquiries were ongoing. I believe it is this and other climate-related funding that helps fuel the CRU’s activities towards alarmism.

The UEA have also been trying avoid a FOI from MP, Graham Stringer, about the amount they spent on PR work after Climategate.


Not all of those scientists who “lied” about what East Anglia’s
CRU and or Briffa were using and hiding in the Russian Yarmal-Ural dendro
An number of the “scientists” and a jounalist or two on this side of the
Atlantic were corresponding, conferencing and even co-authoring with
Briffa et al. One of them even got a flashy International award for being
such a consistantly good liar.
Please don’t let folks think the term “liar” in this instance should be limited to
just those on the eastern side of the Atlantic.


Thanks Anthony W and especially thanks Steve M for steadfast and careful pursuit of the truth; and for such clear explication of what deceptions have been committed, and why they matter.