Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
It is time to revisit the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. The first 1000 emails were released in November 2009 just prior to the Climate Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 scheduled for Copenhagen. They effectively stopped political plans for a replacement of the Kyoto Protocol, a massive redistribution of wealth designed as part of Agenda 21. You can read what the UN says about this plan developed under the auspices of Maurice Strong as head of the United Nations Environment Progam (UNEP) or read Glenn Becks interpretation of the implications.
Here is a sampling:
We need to remind people of the revelations to undermine the completely unnecessary and unjustified plans scheduled for the upcoming Paris Climate Conference (COP21). The person who released the emails is now apparently safe from prosecution because in covering up what went on the CRU revealed valuable information. The first revelation occurred when Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, told the police the files were stolen (hacked). His action required that he admit the files were legitimate. The second involved the police inquiry done by the Norfolk Constabulary that followed. They took so long that the statute of limitations expired. How convenient! Presumably, the statute expiration applies to the whistleblower.
Richard Black of the BBC, a longtime confidant of the CRU and the UKMO, wrote,
Norfolk Constabulary says there is no realistic prospect of finding the culprit within the statutory time limit of three years since the 2009 offence.
The theft and release of e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit provoked a huge furore over the integrity of climate science.
Police say the theft was “sophisticated and orchestrated”, and that no-one at the university is implicated.
“The complex nature of this investigation means that we do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law,” said Detective Chief Superintendent Julian Gregory, the officer in charge of the investigation.
These claims are balderdash. How convenient to take longer than the statute of limitations to reach this conclusion. Whoever released the files had access to the UEA computer system and knew which files and emails were significant, as the web page “smalldeadanimals” explained. Besides, in short order and after detailed analysis Canadian network engineer Lance Levsen showed convincingly the source was someone within the university. He concluded:
For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities…to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents.
We don’t know who the Norfolk Constabulary interviewed. It is most likely they would not know what questions to ask. We know Keith Briffa was troubled by what went on. Emails show his conflicts within the group and especially with Mann over the ‘hockey stick’.
On October 5, 2009, Wigley wrote to Jones:
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith (Briffa) does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant…I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely—but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of [sic]. I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Jones forwarded this email to Briffa.
On 17th June 2002 Briffa wrote to Dr. Edward Cook about a letter involving Esper and Michael Mann:
I have just read this letter—and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data against any other “target” series, such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage he has produced over the last few years, and … (better say no more)”
“We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon (reconstruction), particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff…. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.
Apparently, Mann even scared his fellow CRU conspirators as one noted on October 26, 2003,
“Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past….”
In a Washington Post article, Mann said the content of the emails “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.” This claim is a standard deflection that exploits the fact most people don’t know the science or how much climate changes naturally. As a result, they can report a natural change as unnatural and by implication caused by humans. The real issue is the cause of climate change. The emails revealed how the CRU gang used deception to prove it was human produced CO2. But the mainstream media brushed it off, ignored it, or deliberately played along with the CRU denials.
A good example of the latter was the action of the Associated Press (AP) identified by a Washington Times editorial titled,
“Biased Reporting on Climategate – Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows.”
“There’s a big difference between saying that there is insufficient evidence to determine if falsification occurred – and that there should be an investigation – and saying, as AP did, “Science not faked.”
The Times is wrong because it’s incorrect to say there is insufficient evidence, but it is still a measure of poor journalism.
The mainstream media chose to ignore the devastating importance of the emails. They compounded this failure by claiming there was nothing of significance. It gives the lie to their claim that they are society’s watchdog.
Most haven’t read the emails or summarily dismiss them because of political bias. Journalist Clive Crook illustrated an open mind, albeit on second look.
“In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back. The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”
Later Crook wrote about the investigations into the emails,
I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.
The mainstream media willfully ignored the massive deception just as they did the political exploitation of climate science. In fact, most led or joined attacks on scientists who dared to point out the problems. They’re still doing it directly or by their silence. There’s no excuse for missing one of the biggest stories in history. It proves the adage that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
The Evidence is Unavoidable
Understanding science is not required to understand what the emails expose. Any objective reading counters the claim they are “normal banter between colleagues.” Just a few examples illustrate the environment among the inside group.
On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones,
“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??”
They are talking about releasing an annual global temperature before the year is over. Hardly scientific or responsible bureaucratic behavior, but they think deceiving the public is “fun.” It is a practice still going on.
On March 11, 2003, Mann acknowledged they silenced skeptics by criticizing them for not having peer-reviewed publications. Mann wrote,
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
On 24 April 2003 Wigley was upset about Hans von Storch’s editorial role and proposes to mislead the publishers,
“One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.”
On 21 Jan 2005 Jones wrote to Wigley about requests under the Freedom of Information Act,
“Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.”
Why would he need to hide?
On 8 July 2004 Jones to Mann,
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
The malfeasance is especially bad because the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to review all the literature.
On 2 February 2005 from Jones to Mann
“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
On 29 April 2007 Briffa to Mann; in a comment that reinforces the idea that Briffa is troubled by what was going on.
“I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.”
The journal “Nature”, apparently complicit in the corruption of the peer-review process, revealed its bias when it editorialized.
“If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.”
This position contradicts their editorial guidelines that say in part,
An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions. (Their emphasis).
These quotes are not normal discourse between academics or the goal of scientific research and publication by any stretch of the imagination. Any of the quotes is sufficient to trigger further investigative journalism. It certainly is enough to show their work that underpinned the major findings of the IPCC is totally inadequate for the policy recommendations made at the time and now being pushed forward in Paris.
The emails delayed Copenhagen because COP acts on the information the IPCC provides in the Summary For Policymakers. However, it didn’t stop the juggernaut of the political agenda. Some of the main reasons were effective public relations, lack of public understanding, but primarily the abject failure of the mainstream media. Even if they understood what was going on, they didn’t want to know and certainly were not going to report the truth. Even the brief examples in this article should force people to re-examine the false science created by the CRU and the IPCC.
Note: this article was updated about 30 minutes after publication to fix a missing block quotation formatting.