Climategate is not like Watergate – Time for the Leaker to Try Again?

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Climategate is a name that will stick, just like the Greenhouse Effect, but both are very poor analogies. The Earth’s atmosphere does not work like a greenhouse except in peripheral ways. Similarly, Climategate is only like Watergate because previously unknown information was released. Beyond that, the events diverge profoundly because of the cover-ups.

I have already made the point that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claim is the original fake news, deep state, story. It hit the media with James Hansen’s contrived appearance before Congress in 1988. That means at 30 years it is statistically equivalent to a climate normal, but there is nothing normal about it. Just like all the fake news stories these days, there was a claim of Russian Collusion. This involved the release of information that exposed the corruption of science used to delude the world about AGW. This story is not credible in light of the events, so, the question remains, who released the information? Ironically, the reason is quite clear, but the objective failed as the world continues to pursue the AGW deception and wastes trillions of dollars and precludes development in most countries. It is important for the person who did it to identify themselves because the original leak failed.

Thus, it is informative and revealing to revisit the events surrounding the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located on the campus of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in November of 2009. It became known as Climategate, after the Watergate scandal. It was only like that scandal in terms of the exposure of malfeasance, corruption, and misuse of power. It is completely unlike Watergate in a very important way. It wasn’t the revelation of the break-in that caused the downfall of all those even peripherally involved, but the coverup. The proponents and supporters of the AGW claim achieved a very effective cover-up, the corruption continues, and nobody so far was held accountable.

Approximately 1000 emails were reported ‘stolen’ by the head of the CRU, Phil Jones. The date of the release is very important because it predated a scheduled meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 15) in Copenhagen in December at which the potentially world-changing Kyoto Protocol was scheduled for approval and implementation.

The role of the COP is to determine the policy and funding for climate research going forward. They are required to operate on the basis of the ‘science’ provided to them by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is another of Maurice Strong’s devious self-contained, self-controlling, and self-perpetuating techniques. The COP establishes funding and policy for the IPCC who in turn give them the justification they need for their decision.

The timing of the leak was clearly designed to undermine this self-serving circle by exposing the malfeasance of the few scientists at the CRU who controlled the IPCC. They didn’t control the entire thing, just the key chapters in the Report of Working Group I, “The Physical Science Basis.” These chapters were the modern instrumental data, the historical (paleoclimate) data; and the computer models. They also ensured that one of them was an advisor to the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). This way, they presented exaggerated and alarmist views that assured the proper reaction from the COP and the media. The Wegman Report partly identified this problem in Recommendation 1.

It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.

They also knew the COP and media wouldn’t know they were being misled, as David Wojick explained.

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.

What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.

It is clear from the emails that everything was done at the CRU without a thought of being exposed. This sense of invulnerability is a major vulnerability in the symptoms of Groupthink.

“Members pressure any in the group who expresses arguments against the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.”

When you read the leaked emails (here is a search engine), there are people asking questions and raising concerns, such as Edward Cook. The reactions were defensive, an unhealthy pattern repeated when later legitimate requests through Freedom of Information (FOI) became troublesome.

You also see how they are quickly admonished. However, one conflict stands out as pervasive and ongoing, and that is the dispute between Keith Briffa and the others. They frequently disagreed over the data, and methods, used in reconstructing global temperature over the last thousand years. It is clear Briffa had difficulty, as did Cox and others, with the methods and science used by Mann. Eventually, we know after interventions and ameliorations by various people including Tom Wigley and Phil Jones, that Mann’s version wins out because it appeared as the ‘hockey stick’ in the 2001 IPCC Report.

A few hours after the emails were revealed missing Jones called in the Norwich police. It appears that Jones’ actions were orchestrated from the start. It is reported that he told the police after a few hours they were stolen. This apparently anticipated what might happen later in a court. As I understand, at the time UK law allowed that if they were leaked, they could be used in a trial, but if they were hacked, they could not. Jones could have said they were not CRU emails, but he didn’t. In order to identify them as hacked, he had to identify them as genuine. If you think Jones would not know what to do, read the emails again. They were constantly talking about whom to contact in the media or other agencies when confronted with a political problem such as getting rid of an editor who published an article they didn’t like.

As early as December 8, 2009, Clive Crook of The Atlantic summarized the response to Climategate.

The response of the climate-science establishment to Climategate has been disappointing if predictable. The guild mentality has come to the fore. Campaigns are under way to defend the integrity of science from a scurrilous smear campaign. The message is simple: you are either with us or you are a barbarian.

The first line of response to the leaked or hacked emails, you recall, was to say that they showed science going on as usual–even science at its best, some argued. “Trick” did not mean trick; “hiding the decline” did not mean hiding the decline. These were innocent phrases torn out of context. As for the expostulations of harry_read_me, and discussing ways to punish or silence dissidents, and musing over the deletion of data that might be demanded under FOI requests, er, this is all just part of the healthy cut and thrust of normal scientific enquiry. We all have to let off steam now and then. No conspiracy. Nothing improper.

If this is true, as the UEA and CRU claim, then why hire a high-profile PR firm known for dealing with contentious issues? The cover-up began almost right away and although fraught with problems and failures, was very effective. As with those who challenged the science, it was easy to marginalize the few who understood what was going on.

It appears the PR people were brought in very early, although that information didn’t appear until mid-2011. Anthony Watts recognized the significance of these actions.

Today brings news of the arrest of the managing director of a firm hired by the University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climatic Research Unit) to carry out “covert” operations – h/t reader Chu here).

Certainly, the group Neil Wallis worked for “Outside Organization,” were on board by July of 2010. An article in “Music Week” at the time said,

Don’t tell the conspiracy theorists. But one PR company was at the centre of the Michael Jackson funeral, Climategate and Naomi Campbell’s appearance at Charles Taylor’s trial in The Hague.

The campaign, from the admission they were CRU emails to the early actions of the UEA, all take the offensive. Deflect the blame, divert attention away from the perpetrators, play the victim card. As early as April 2010 the Sunday Express reports as follows.

The University of East Anglia claimed it had been deluged with requests from sceptics under the Freedom of Information Act shortly before hacked emails were published which appeared to show scientists manipulating climate change data.

But the university has angered privacy campaigners after passing on the details of those asking for information to Norfolk Police, which is investigating the alleged email theft with the National Domestic Extremism Unit.

Detectives are interviewing all those who legally used the FOI Act to request information from the Climatic Research Unit, questioning them about their scientific and political beliefs.

In a conclusion reminiscent of the latest directive from the EPA under Scott Pruitt, the Express reports,

A Parliamentary Select Committee report found the university had a “reprehensible” culture of withholding information and called for greater transparency in climate research.

Even strong advocates for the work of the IPCC and the CRU were clear. George Monbiot of The Guardian, long a “go to guy” of the CRU crowd, wrote,

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Other committees set up, likely at the direction of the PR people, all followed a pattern. Don’t interview anybody who raised questions or who might know something. They were carefully orchestrated whitewashes, as you would expect from a PR campaign. Again, we have Clive Crook’s perceptive summary.

“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.”

Despite all these outrageous and often inept cover-ups, they were enormously successful. Unlike Watergate, when the cover-up became the undoing, Climategate gained strength, and the corrupt, deceptive science continues as strong as it ever was.

At the 2010 COP (16) meeting in Durban, they didn’t miss a beat. There was simply a delay in achieving the objective of demonizing CO2 and using that to control governments, energy, economies and therefore people on a global scale. It was on track just as Maurice Strong planned at the start. The Kyoto Protocol was replaced by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) with most of the same provisions and goals. They rescheduled ratification for COP 21 in Paris.

The PR cover-up was extremely effective even if people saw through it quickly. It demonstrated why the CO2 deception was so easy. Even though the scientists and their corrupt work were exposed, the same deceptive science continued. Even though this information was the basis for the politically motivated, socialist, agenda of punishing and restricting capitalist development and transferring their wealth it continued. From a political perspective, it has not lost any momentum.

We still don’t know who leaked the information. It certainly presaged the countless leaks currently occurring within the US government that create so much fake news. It was an early example of the claim that Russian internet addresses were used. Even now, the claim that the leak was carried out by an outside person prevails. In my opinion, this is illogical and unacceptable. Indeed, the story may have been created by the PR agency to divert attention.

A story appeared in the Daily Mail shortly after the first release that began as follows,

The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.

Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world’s leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.

Hudson believes he received the emails because he wrote an article suggesting the pause in temperature rise was challenging the IPCC and CRU claims. Hudson was known to the people at CRU, and it appears that his conduit through the BBC gave access to global distribution of the material. Hudson did nothing with the information, and as the Copenhagen meeting was approaching, the leaker uploaded the material to a blog called Air Vent on a Russian server. He confirmed that,

‘The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.

Hudson said he would write a blog explaining this very serious affair but never did so. It is my opinion he was warned off. Here is what Michael Mann wrote in a leaked email about Hudson’s article questioning the temperature pause.

“…extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. It’s particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”

Now consider what happened once the police became involved. The Norfolk police remained in overall control, but a group called the National Domestic Extremism Unit were brought in. Why, because somebody knew that the exposure of the climate scam was the undoing of a global scam. This move contradicts the message to the public that there was nothing important or threatening going on. Another damming event was that the final investigation report was released by the Norfolk police after the statute of limitations on any prosecution expired. Most important, the only thing they said with the release was that as far as they could tell it was not an inside job. Why would they go out of their way to emphasize that?

We are told that an outside agent penetrated the UEA and then the CRU security systems and from some 120,000 emails selected 1000 that exposed the venality of the scientists at the CRU. How long did this take? Why didn’t it trigger alarms? How would an outsider suspect what was going? I followed the work of the CRU and the IPCC from their start. I knew there was something wrong including the way they treated Professor Lamb founder of the CRU. I knew their science was very questionable but never imagined the corruption was as bad as the emails exposed.

The first 1000 released included very few that spoke of the scientific deceptions. The predominant theme spoke of actions and behaviors that anybody would recognize as unacceptable. For example, Phil Jones wrote to Michael 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!

British sceptic David Holland sought release of all emails sent and received by Briffa. As I mentioned earlier, Briffa was the center of the conflicts within CRU. Jones warned them about this and advised the following.

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Watergate involved political actions for a political agenda. Wrong as these actions were, the biggest sin and the reason it became exposed was that the cover-up failed. Climategate was a perversion of science for a political agenda. It was exposed, but unlike Watergate, the cover-up was deliberate and coordinated. It was very successful because most of the public have no idea about the science, are unaware of the release of the emails, or understand their significance. The deception with its enormous cost and damage to the credibility of science continues. It is time for the leaker to come forward and provide a framework for dissection of the cover-up, so it can fail like in Watergate. Only then can the analogy of Climategate be accurate.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

‘It is time for the leaker to come forward and provide a framework for dissection of the cover-up, so it can fail like in Watergate. Only then can the analogy of Climategate be accurate.’

-lease Harry, step up. We all read your file.

Has the password to unlock the last batch of encrypted data been revealed?


I am not well-informed about all this, but I recall hearing:
1. several people received the password,
2. anyone releasing the password might face serious criminal charges, and
3. since so few received the password, computer forensics might quickly reveal the identity of a releaser.


I am not well informed about all this, but I recall reading:
1. several recipients of ClimateGate2 received the 2nd batch password,
2. anyone releasing the password might face serious criminal charges,
3. since only a few have the password, computer forensics would quickly identify a releaser.


Sounds like Climate ISIS enforcement rules were partly exposed.


The number of times I’ve mentioned Climategate in discussions about the failed ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ conjecture, only to be told “yes, but, there were four independent enquiries which all exonerated the scientists”.

This idea that they are all innocent is as ingrained as the ‘97% Consensus’ balderdash.

Those blighters have played a blinder. They should be rounded up and tarred & feathered.

M Courtney

I always answer “On what grounds were they exonerated?” And then quote a few of the more damning emails.

With a link to over a 1,000 other emails the argument that they are out of context just doesn’t wash.

Challenge them as to why they not curious.

M Courtney

Most important, the only thing they said with the release was that as far as they could tell it was not an inside job. Why would they go out of their way to emphasize that?

Obviously because it was an inside job.

The official story is that the Harry_Read_Me file was created by an insider and then hacked by sinister reds-under-the-bed.

However, no-one asks who created the file to be hacked. Or why?

The official story implies that the Russians had at least one sleeper agent in an obscure university department in Norfolk. It had to be an insider to create the file.
That’s ridiculous.

More likely a UEA scientist who was getting hassle over Yamal decided to up the ante and ensure that they would all get hanged together unless they hung together.


IMO HadCRU officials assembled the emails in case their fight against FOIA release failed. Then someone on the inside got access to the material and leaked it. Possibly a secret climate realist. He or she might have looped the data dump through a Russian server to hide his or her tracks.


I always figured that emails subject to FOIA had been gathered, it was realized that their release would be disastrous and they were not going to be released, so someone with a conscience on the inside released the gathered files.


I the Russians were that good….we would all be Russians now
It’s always the Russians



I’m russian away, late for a meeting.

See you later.



comment image

Mark Whitney

Chuckle. > ; }

Tom Halla

The biggest difference with Watergate was a lack of organized political interest in continuing the investigation. As far as I know, all three of the major parties in the UK are CAGW adherents as a matter of policy, so it served no one’s politics to do a proper investigation.
Conversely, Nixon was despised by the Democrats, and had only grudging support by many Republicans (Senator Dole nicknamed the re-election committee “Creep”). So it got traction because Nixon’s party was unwilling to block the investigation.



there are only two major political parties in the UK these days, and other than for a brief conservative coalition with the liberal party under Cameron a few years ago, its been that way as long as I can recall.

Both the conservative and the labour party are politically aligned. Both are petrified to criticise climate change lest they loose the few tenuous votes required to win/lose the next election.

Indeed, on any given subject they are, and have been, for many years, in political paralyses. Other than the conservative party drifting ever leftwards to maintain a semblance of authority.

Politics in the UK is at an all time low. Brexit is being hijacked by the left, and many right wing politicians, for their own agenda. And Theresa May is about as much use as a chocolate tea cosy.

Our only hope is that Trump maintains his course and drags the UK into full blown Brexit. I’m damn sure I would prefer to work with our proven allies than our historic enemies.

We are being dragged down the route of economic European socialism, something we fought with you guys to repel, and the snowflake generation are, once again, sleepwalking into it.

I don’t believe for a moment the Germans would create another war, but their plan for European domination has never faltered, this time politically and socially, until the Brexit wheel fell off.

Now it’s a three wheeled cart, with a decidedly dodgy Italy bringing up the rear.

Surely criminal charges will be laid against all these named scientists?

Percy Jackson

Why? Even if they are guilty of unethical practices it is far from clear that they have done
anything illegal. Plenty of unethical things are legal.

I don’t know how it is in the UK. Across the pond, though:

18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

So the actions of the Climategate perpetrators would be criminal over here. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for the cases like Schmidt, et. al. that they were not “accidental” as claimed.

John Endicott

Didn’t one of the “exonerating” reports determine that while some law was broken, the statues of limitations had passed so nothing could/would be done?

Roy Spencer

Nice summary, Tim.


As a layman, I can confirm that until my recent (last 4 years or so I guess) personal interest in climate change, I was completely unaware of Climategate.

I’m not a great reader of MSM so didn’t see the various comments posted in the Mail, or even by George Monbiot, who I have followed for some years because my daughter is a zoologist.

I was however, an avid follower of BBC’s question time, the nations broadcasted opportunity to interrogate politicians and the media (but well orchestrated, so just another entertainment show as I later realised) and I can’t recall anything about it on that either.

One of the worlds worst scientific scandals in living memory, simply air brushed from the collective memory, because it related to climate change.

It is utterly and wholly outrageous that a British university represents disreputable science on an industrial, global scale and is not censured by it’s peers, our government, nor our courts which are heralded as the best in the world.

Perhaps the motto of UEA should be heeded “Do Different”.

They most certainly do.



On the top banner on WUWT home page is a category “Climategate”. Then scroll down to the bottom of the many links to start as the newest posts are on top of the list. Here’s the opening of Climategate:

Seems like there were a lot more at the time but lots of comments and discussion.



Thanks mate, but over the last four years I have read most of the Climategate category on here.

Part of my ongoing climate, political, environmental and economic enlightenment.


Roger Knights

I followed the Climategate saga right from the beginning. (I made the first WUWT comment on it—not that I had anything much to say.) Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of the affair was that MSM coverage was nearly nonexistent for the first ten days (and brief when mentioned). After that it was still rare and mostly defensive, giving a lot of space to the conspirators’ excuses and spin.

BTW, “the leaker” later called himself “FOIA.”


Hi HotScot ! Quote:
“One of the worlds worst scientific scandals in living memory, simply air brushed from the collective memory, because it related to climate change.”
…has been “simply airbrushed from the collective memory…… AND HISTORY !



I said scientific, not socio-political.

Nor do you need to shout to make your point.


see email notifications is working again.
that’s good

as you were


The Russians always get the blame because everything is their fault.

I always thought this was an inside job, that someone – some mousy little soul who goes unnoticed – was behind the leak.

The stupid things Mann said on ‘Real Climate’ were examples of flaming idiocracy on his part. Trying to debunk the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River with “growlers” (chunk ice) was Mann’s way of saying that it couldn’t possibly be true, because rivers never get growlers. Rivers only get pancake ice. I knew that was hogwash because I don’t spend my time hunkered down at a desk, and his assessment of river ice was based on pure ignorance. I know better. The Kankakee River gets “growlers” every year when the ice dams break up, and pancake ice on a river requires specific temperature and current conditions to form.

Mann’s ignorance on this subject was blatantly obvious, even to a non-scientist like me. It put me off completely. I thought Mann was a moron when he said that. I was right. But I couldn’t figure what his attitude was based on.

I have since found that the “attitude” (his and that of others like him) was formed on the clutching, grasping desire for grant money, greed, some misperception of power, and unwarranted egocentricity which is fed by his fan followers. Such things are temporary and fleeting, and can disappear like fog on a sunny morning. Money is ALWAYS the biggest driver in this kind of thing. After money comes a sense of power.

My guess would be that the “leaker” was some unremarkable person who knew what was going on, had enough sense to keep his mouth shut, knew how to remain anonymous, and knew that the corruption had to be exposed, just like ‘Deep Throat’ in the Watergate scandal. And because Deep Throat finally stepped forward after many decades, we now know who he was.

Some day, i’m sure that whoever this leaker was will step forward and by that time, we’ll be knee deep in snow in July in the Upper Midwest.

As it is, i do not care who leaked the e-mails and info. I only care that this corruption and egomania and unwarranted control freak trash was exposed to the light of day. If stopping this egregious process of controlling and ruining the lives of innocent people, for no reason, other than being on an unwarranted and heinous power trip, is what comes of this, fine by me. They have to be stopped and this is the one way to do it.

Thanks for the article.

Leo Smith

My guess would be that the “leaker” was some unremarkable person who knew what was going on, had enough sense to keep his mouth shut, knew how to remain anonymous, and knew that the corruption had to be exposed, just like ‘Deep Throat’ in the Watergate scandal.

Yes. It was probably someone with a root password to the universities servers. A lowly techy who stumbled across the emails and spent a weekend assembling them all. And had the technical nous to hide his tracks.

Robert B

&loves a pseudonym?



would a lowly techy know what was important in the climate debate, and therefore know which emails to release and which not to? I understand there are more emails he/she didn’t release.

I also understand much of this information was stored on unsecured FTP servers, so not to difficult a job even for a non techy to access.


I would say it was someone who was involved in the actual info collecting, but was so low-key as to be unnoticeable.
There are people who work diligently at a firm, know when something is wrong, start collecting info on it, and later expose it to the light of day. And they remain anonymous because they prefer that. They may not be at the top, but they have access to important things.
At this point, as I said, I don’t care who the leaker was. It is more important that the scam was brought to light.


What happened to my ‘edit’ button? 🙁



who needs and edit button, your last post was brilliant.

Unfortunately though, our only satisfaction will (eventually) come from the term “Told you so”.

I looked up a phrase, ‘hold fast’ to finish this post with and stumbled on a transcript of a lecture given by Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale, USN, (Ret.) to the U.S. Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School in Quantico, Virginia on April 18,1995.

It revolved around a Greek Philosepher named Epictetus, a Stoic:

“………according to Paul Tillich, a renowned Protestant theologian. Epictetus had heard of Christians, but he never knew any, nor were the Christians and the Stoics in competition in his lifetime. It was not until the latter part of the second century A.D. that a coherent Christian creed was beginning to emerge. Before that, nobody could state a cause for Christianity that would be intelligible to the pagan intellectual. The Stoics practiced a monotheistic religion from which Christianity borrowed much-the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man were well-established Stoic concepts before Christ was born; the Holy Ghost was a Stoic idea before Christ was born.”

Who maintained:

“That alone is in our power, which is our own work; and in this class are our opinions, impulses, desires, and aversions. What, on the contrary, is not in our power, are our bodies, possessions, glory, and power. Any delusion on this point leads to the greatest errors, misfortunes, and troubles, and to the slavery of the soul.

We have no power over external things, and the good that ought to be the object of our earnest pursuit, is to be found only within ourselves.”

This is the philosophy of the climate change sceptic. Deal with what you can control, accept what you can’t.

Vice Admiral Stockdales speech is here.

It’s well worth reading. Nor am I a believer in God.

Pat Frank

The reason that the cover-up succeeded can only be that all the investigating parties were complicit in it.

That means both the Labour and Tory Parties in the UK. Were it just one party, MPs of the other would have gone vigorously onto the attack.

It means UV and Penn State in the US, and the APS and the NAS. Were there an organization composed of honest (or competent) scientists, it would have expressed public outrage and repudiation.

But none of that happened.

Politics and money combined to produce a culture of the utterly and contemptibly corrupt.

Leo Smith

Politics and money combined to produce a culture of the utterly and contemptibly corrupt.
Apologies for quoting what follows in full, its from Wiki, and it is the notion of why all organizations become oligarchies.

If you buy into the notion, te reason for suppression of the climategate issue becomes clear. It threatens the ability of the oligarchy to control and defend the received wisdom which is their rationale for having the power that they do.

Above all, the establishment fears alternative versions of reality – its ‘faux news’. Watergate threatened Nixon, but not the establishment. It could bring about a new political party, but not a new political class.

Climategate threatened to expose the while unholy linkage between state propaganda, science grants, and university science and bring the whole sorry mess into disrepute, but it was useful to all parties to be able to use faux science to prop up whatever policies suited their purpose.

So it was suppressed.

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties. It claims that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an “iron law” within any democratic organization as part of the “tactical and technical necessities” of organization.

Michels’ theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.

Using anecdotes from political parties and trade unions struggling to operate democratically to build his argument in 1911, Michels addressed the application of this law to representative democracy, and stated: “Who says organization, says oligarchy.” He went on to state that “Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy.”

According to Michels all organizations eventually come to be run by a “leadership class”, who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons or political strategists for the organization. Far from being “servants of the masses”, Michels argues this “leadership class,” rather than the organization’s membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization’s power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization’s decision-making processes. Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made ‘democratically’ by members.

Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.[1] Later Michels migrated to Italy and joined Benito Mussolini’s Fascist Party, as he believed this was the next legitimate step of modern societies. The thesis became popular once more in post-war America with the publication of Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union (1956) and during the red scare brought about by McCarthyism.


BBC’s Richard Black’s career took a turn:

Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU): The Team
Richard Black
Richard Black studied Natural Sciences at Cambridge University before joining BBC World Service in 1985 as a studio manager. He subsequently worked there as producer and presenter on a wide range of programming including current affairs, science, health and sport, and as Science Correspondent. He also ran an independent radio production company specialising in health and medicine. As BBC Environment Correspondent, his reporting assignments included many UN summits including five UNFCCC meetings and Rio+20. He reported from the field on issues such as carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, amphibian conservation, whaling, forestry, aquaculture and earthquake prediction. From 2012 Richard was Director of Communications for the Global Ocean Commission prior to setting up ECIU…ETC

ECIU: Advisory Board includes:
Professor Joanna Haigh
Co-Director, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London…

Robin Lustig
Robin Lustig is a journalist and broadcaster. From 1989 to 2012 he presented The World Tonight on BBC Radio 4 and Newshour on BBC World Service. He has travelled widely and has presented live news programmes from every continent except Antarctica. In 2009, he reported from the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen (and remains deeply scarred by the experience).
Before joining the BBC, he worked for Reuters as a correspondent in Spain, France and Italy, and for The Observer, where he was news editor, Middle East correspondent and assistant editor.
He now makes documentaries for the BBC and writes for the Financial Times magazine, The Observer, and The Guardian. He also sat on the editorial board of the British Journalism Review, which he chaired from 1992 until 2002…

Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti
Former Commander, UK Maritime Forces
Neil Morisetti is Vice Dean (Public Policy) at the Faculty of Engineering Sciences at University College London and is Honorary Professor and Strategy Adviser at UCL Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy Department…
Recently he has acted as the UK Government Climate and Energy Security Envoy, and then the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change.
A graduate of the University of East Anglia, he has a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Sciences and is an Honorary Professor at UCL…

Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool
Ron Oxburgh (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool) entered the House of Lords in 1999. His main interests are energy and environment but also include higher education, health and defence. He has served as Chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, on which he is currently a member…
He has also been Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence and Chairman of Shell Transport and Trading and (currently) several small sustainable energy companies, and was President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association…

Sir Crispin Tickell
Former Ambassador to the United Nations…

Lord Turner of Ecchinswell
Adair Turner has combined careers in business, public policy and academia. He became Chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority as the financial crisis broke in September 2008, and played a leading role in the redesign of the global banking and shadow banking regulation as Chairman of the international Financial Stability Board’s major policy committee. He is now Chairman of the Governing Board of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), and at the Centre for Financial Studies in Frankfurt. INET is a global economic research foundation committed to the development of real world solutions to the economic and social challenges of the 21st Century…

given the figures below, the Advisory Board positions are probably “honorary”.

ECIU: Who We Are
We support journalists, parliamentarians and other communicators with accurate and accessible briefings on key issues, and work with individuals and organisations that have interesting stories to tell, helping them connect to the national conversation…
All of our funding comes from philanthropic foundations. We gratefully acknowledge current support from the European Climate Foundation, the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, the Oak Foundation, and the Climate Change Collaboration. During 2016, we received £183,667 from ECF, £121,375 from Grantham, £75,150 from Oak, £20,000 from the Climate Change Collaboration and £50,000 from the Tellus Mater Foundation.

Jacob Frank

The CAGW religion is so far down the line I doubt anything will stop it. Best we can do is pressure them to move to some remote location to practice their religion in peace.

jDr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

The real outcome from the climategate is withdrawal of conclusion made on Himalayan Glaciers withdrawal by 2035 and Al Gores withdrawal of claim that Greenland will be ice free in five years. Both these actions were taken after IPCC and Al Gore receiving Nobel Prize. When we brought to the notice of Ministry of Environment and Forestry/India based on the continuous observations by Indian Geological Survey, the Then Chairman of IPCC made press statement that this is woo-doo science but within few days withdrew the conclusion and appologed.

In my 2008 book “Climate change: Myths & Realities”, presented the WMO global average temperature anomaly and satellite data — showing lower than the ground data. The satellite data was withdrawn from the internet.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Roy Spencer

Richard Black once did a hit piece on me based upon my religious beliefs. He got so much flak from it he contacted me to do a followup story. As I recall, I said screw you.


Still think it’s just a conspiracy theory?


‘It is time for the leaker to come forward and provide a framework for dissection of the cover-up, so it can fail like in Watergate. Only then can the analogy of Climategate be accurate.’


I am Spartacus, I did it.

I am not Rushian. Hell I can’t even spell Rushian and the server was a silver platter with heads and tea for all.

But “Climategate” sounds good to me.

John Robertson

I am not so sure that climategate was a failure.
Those “inquiries” were works of art.
The failure of our legacy media and policy makers was very informative.
Their lying is not due to ignorance.

My new flag will have a guillotine on it.
Government at all levels stand revealed as our enemy, willing to facilitate any lie to continue their stealing.
So the release of the CRU emails served to inform me.

The success of the Brexit referendum, President Trumps election and even the blow out over Tommy Robinson all play into this meme,our leaders have betrayed us,turning their backs on the laws that govern us all.

After Climategate,no scientist or policy wonk can say;”We did not know”,except through willful ignorance.

Perhaps I am still slightly incoherent on this topic,Evidence based Policy is the mark of Westminster bureaucracy ..Policy based Evidence Manufacturing is an evil,directly attacking the foundation of our civil society.


In my opinion it was an inside job. The way emails and docs are stored and the sources of the information would need access at admin level to a number of network locations. Even back then it would have been difficult for an outsider to access enough areas to pull the data.

I think the releaser, who did everyone a favour, (except Jones, Mann et al of course :D) can be found among the staff of the IT dept at EAU.


Reply to Jacob Franks

Re: UN COP meetings.

COP21, Paris, 2015

Scroll through COP21 Events for the variety of activities that took place.

Webpage also has links.


Besides being a Trillion Dollar industry and knowing there is little justice in this world, I do not see a rightful end to the CAGW Lie.

Just found out about the character limit. I was giving details on my 1st sentence and the comment box wouldn’t accept more characters. Oh well, I erased what I had for details and inserted this para.

Martin Howard Keith Brumby

Brilliant piece, Tim.

Essential reading (or re-reading) is Andrew Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. Ansolutely jaw-dropping. Tim’s absolutely right. The perpetrators got away with it and are still getting away with it.

When will Mann vs Steyn get to Court?
As Steyn says “the process is the punishment”.


Post such a this is the reason that a part of my daily routine will always be to check out this website for information regarding the science of climate change. I try to read as much as I can from as many sources as possible but some of the articles from other sources I have difficulty making it all of the way to the end because of the lies and BS which comprise many of them.
I know that it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to keep this site operating and I thank all of those involved.

richard verney

Now consider what happened once the police became involved. The Norfolk police remained in overall control, but a group called the National Domestic Extremism Unit were brought in. Why, because somebody knew that the exposure of the climate scam was the undoing of a global scam.

The involvement of this task force seems extremely strange since according to Wikipedia their role is as follows:

The National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit is a police unit within the Metropolitan Police Service Specialist Operations Group. The unit was created in 2004 under the Association of Chief Police Officers in Wales and England. The purpose of the unit is to directly combat domestic extremism in society. If individuals are believed to be committing crimes or acts of terrorism motivated by extremism then they are to be found and arrested by this task force. They are meant to provide and report intelligence about domestic extremists and public disorder issues. The unit has the purpose of reducing the crime rate across the United Kingdom by any legal means necessary, including physical takedowns and continuous surveillance. (my emphasis)



I still like the moniker ClimateGate, but then I would say that wouldn’t I? 😀


As President Trump tweeted, Spygate makes Watergate look harmless. Russiagate boomeranged into Spygate, the coverup is is like the magic flying carpet threads unravelling (if anyone saw 1001 Nights).

It is essential to read Bertrand Russels “Impact of Science on Society” and “The Scientific Outlook”, to get an idea of the shocking menatality at work here, prescribed in detail by Russell :

“members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific technique, and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements.”

Russell, however, added one very strong caveat. “On those rare occasions,” he warned, “when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it.”

There is much more there, but read it as an operations document, under our very noses, not at all secret. This is the dilema of insider leakers. Everything we hear of secret science, data, consensus, settled, deniers, is all pure Russell. Even :
“It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”
But :
“…the only thing that I strongly feel worth while would be to murder as many people as possible so as to diminish the amount of consciousness in the world. . .” Letter to Gilbert Murray, March 21, 1903.

Climategate is not just about population reduction by taking away fossil fuels, but a concerted dumbing down, an attack on scientific conscious activity.


Often mentioned here, Groupthink, fake science, political agendas etc. miss the point. Bertrand Russell prescribed exactly the Imperial agenda most live in today. Russia and China do not accept these axioms, neither does Pres. Trump – hence the rabid attacks. There are quake precursors against this, and conscious scientific activity must prevail. Listen to Bach and Beethoven to extirpate Russell – Einstein said all his ideas came from his violin.

Dr. Ball, our resident expert on the history
of climate change scaremongering,
has hit another home run with this article.

“Modern climate science” is mainly politics
and very little real science.

It is one assumption
on top of another,
with government bureaucrats
playing computer games
and making wrong forecasts
of the future average temperature.

The result has been
30 years of job security
for them … so far.

Martin Howard Keith Brumby

There is, of course, another “Gate” that should note be forgotten. 28-Gate.

Can’t see how to include a link but just search this site (top right) for 28-Gate. Published 2012/11.
breaking-the-secret-list-of-the bbc-28-is-now-public

Often forgotten but another wonderful example of the publicly funded media (BBC) in bed with the crooks, virtue signallers and incompetents who populate the ranks of the Climate Séance-ists.
Read it and laugh. Or cry, maybe.
Again they have 100% got away with it and will continue to do so until the peasants tire of shivering in the dark and assemble with pitchforks and fire brands.


I came across an excellent article on climategate somewhere around 1.5 to 3 years ago (give or take) from a credible (and pro-AGW) source such as Nature or TheEconmist, or Science… The article basically said (I’m paraphrasing from memory) that most of the issues skeptics noted in those emails weren’t investigated as claimed.

I can’t find the article, wish I knew what I did with it. If anybody has a link to it, please post it.

thinking the thoughts that I have about climate change or the older version of ‘ global warming ‘ — reading all of the information that I can see– leaves me with the same question I had in the beginning
WHAT IS THE NORMAL TEMPERATURE THIS EARTH IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE?— DOES ANYONE REALLY KNOW?– are we slowly going back to it?–or have we already passed it?– nowhere in anything that I’ve see does that question come up– WHY NOT?–does anyone really know? is ( ice age, thawing — the normal thing for this planet? ) wouldn’t that alone tell us a story? — or am I the only one asking?