It’s Officially the Tenth Anniversary of Climategate – and they’ve learned nothing

By Charles Rotter and Anthony Watts

From Charles:

It was ten years ago today that I personally first viewed the instructions to download the Climategate files from the anonymous Russian server.  That set in motion a series of events still affecting the outcome of worldwide energy and environmental policy today.  The whitewashers at the BBC, The Guardian, and elsewhere have started putting up their officially sanctioned narrative version, amounting to little more than nothing to see hear move along.

I wrote up my contemporaneous version of events here.

Anyone who wants to rebut claims of exoneration can use this Ross McKitrick paper for reference.

A couple of days ago we reposted Judith Curry’s excellent 10 year anniversary write up.

There’s little I can say that Dr. Curry does not touch upon, except for the fact that it is gratifying to see ideas we help disseminate echoing back to us via both traditional and social media.

At the time of the event, Patrick Courrielche did one of the best jobs covering it in the media.

His original three part series can be found here (part 1), here (part 2), and here (part 3)

Patrick also published an interview with Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Steve Mosher, and myself earlier this year on his Redpilled America Podcast.  It is excellent and worth a listen.

Signed, Charles Rotter


From Anthony:

Coincidentally, 10 years ago today is not only the day that “Mr. FOI” released the files, it was (and is) WUWT’s birthday. On November 17th, 2006, I wrote my first post.

In November 2009, while Charles was holding the fort at WUWT and examining the emails left by “Mr FOI”, I was in Brussels at a climate skeptic conference being put on by Hans Labohm.

I remember the first message I got from him: “You need to look at this!“. Then reading the emails, wide-eyed, and realizing I was about to go through security at the EU, I wondered about the timing….and told Charles that under no circumstances would we write anything about it or release it until I was back on U.S. soil. Then, after clearing customs at Dulles two days later, I sat down in the airport, and wrote the story, breaking the news on the 19th. I was literally the last person on the plane back to Sacramento, and in those days, WiFi on planes didn’t exist. So I was faced with over six hours of unknowing. Thoughts of “what have I done?” raced through my mind. See the “Red Pilled America” audio interview above for my personal recollections.

Luckily, James Delingpole picked up the story for his column, and it’s entry into the British newspaper The Telegraph started the chain reaction that made the story grow, becoming the “worst scientific scandal of our generation“.

Today, I look back, especially at the latest BBC “whitewash” of the issue, and I shake my head. These people, journos and climate scientists alike – have learned absolutely nothing. This piece, by Tony Thomas in Quadrant, tells the story.

Today, anyone questioning this colossal enterprise is told to “respect the science”. Based on the Climategate emails released in 2009, 2013 and 2015, I’d rather respect the Mafia, who at least don’t claim to be saving the planet. For example, today we’re told that warming of 2degC above pre-industrial level is some sort of a tipping point of doom. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, emailed on September 6, 2007, that the supposed 2-degree limit was “plucked out of thin air”, a throwaway line in an early 1990s paper from the catastrophists at the Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute.

Mr. Thomas reminded me of this particularly nasty email excerpt about Steve McIntyre (who used his superior statistical skills to refute Mann’s work), Mann wrote, in August 2007,

I have been talking [with] folks in the States about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose [him].

But while proponents of “the cause” (most notably the execrable Michael E. Mann in a recent op-ed for Newsweek) pat themselves on the back comforting each other with “there’s nothing to see here”, there are reasons to rejoice about Climategate ten years later.

Climategate brought chaos to Copenhagen aka COP15 – critically wounding the prospects of cap-and-trade legislation in the process. It helped the world dodge the climate mania bullet for 5 years, until the Paris accord in 2015.

Donald Trump became aware of the Climategate story, years before he became President, and I have to think (since he has mentioned it) that it affected his opinion.

Added:

“[Climate change is] a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know…. they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the [Climategate] scientists…. Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind.”

– President-elect Donald Trump, “Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview: Full Transcript,”

And as we know, as President, he fulfilled his campaign promises and pulled the USA out of the Paris Climate Accord, and gutted the draconian EPA.

For that, I am proud to have had a part, along with the Heartland Institute, whose advice and support gave Trump even more ammunition to pull off the withdrawal from the Paris accord.

While 10 years have made climate science and its supporters even more shrill and less believable than ever, it is a testament to everyone who has been involved in WUWT that we are still running and still the “go to” website on climate. Many others, like Grant Foster’s laughably named “Open Mind” have fallen into near invisibility. Think that’s low? Ken Rice, aka “And then there’s physics” is so far off the radar, he’s not even a blip. Some have simply been delegated to the dustbin of history, such as Joe Romm’s “Climate Progress” labeled the “indispensible blog” for climate alarmism, now defunct. I count these losers lack of influence as a victory too.

But, the best is yet to come. After taking a year in the backseat to recharge and rebuild (thank you Charles) big things are about to happen. While Hotwhopperish wannabees still screech over scraps of influence, WUWT is just getting warmed up.

Soon, I’ll make the announcement, and you’ll see why WUWT is not only “still the one” but still growing. The next ten years will bring even more. Stay tuned, it’s going to be fun, but more importantly, it’s going to be influential.

With sincerest thanks to all who have lent their expertise, support, and readership on this wild ride, I remain, dedicated as ever. I’ll let Josh have the last word. – Anthony Watts

Advertisements

208 thoughts on “It’s Officially the Tenth Anniversary of Climategate – and they’ve learned nothing

  1. CTM

    “The whitewashers at the BBC, The Guardian, and elsewhere have started putting up their officially sanctioned narrative version, amounting to little more than nothing to see hear here, move along.”

    Dang Auto-correct ! Spell Check is better….IMHO

    Great post….. (can I get out of the “Dog House” now…? Pleeeeeeeeeze ! ) : )

  2. Anthony

    “While 10 years have made climate science and its supporters even more shrill and less believable than ever, it is a testament to everyone whose who / that has been involved in WUWT that we are still running and still the “go to” website on climate.”

    WUWT will always be “the “go to” website on climate truth.” IMHO

    Thanks for that Anthony
    Yours Truly
    Marcus from the Dog House : )

    • Actually, I live in the hope that WUWT will be pleased to close down in a lot less than 10 years’ time, having finally demolished the entire Climate Change fraud. The thought that WUWT will always be needed is rather frightening. Of course, the whole of WUWT should remain available online to historians etc, long after it closes.

      • WUWT will always be needed to:

        1) Provide skepticism for the next Luddite claim.
        2) Inform and invite us to discuss & debate scientific topics other than weather.

      • “The next Ice-age is coming: we’re doomed. It’s global warming: we’re all going to die. Climate is changing: extinction is inevitable. Catastrophic climate change is upon us: it’s Armageddon and climate séance is losing to WUWT”.
        There’s no reason to imagine that the citizens of the State of Fear will not invent yet another instrument of terror. And, having demonstrated that they learn nothing from their history, will be doomed to repeat their errors: “the Ice-age is coming we’re all going to die”.
        Long live WUWT.

      • Dismantling the Alarmist/Scaremongering culture that has been politically established, is just the first step to returning to good old fashioned Honest scientific discovery.
        Happy Birthday WUWT. I look forward to better times. I’m sure you will be at the forefront of that journey.
        Best to all,
        Eamon.

  3. RE: Josh’s cartoon: Half-truths (omitting inconvenient data) is also a Big part of their toolkit of disinformation tricks in their now coordinated, well-financed Climate Propaganda campaign.

      • They learned that the mass media will never point out their junk science.

        They learned that they can continue wild guessing the future climate, be consistently wrong, and no one in the mass media will ever analyze their wrong predictions.

        They learned that if they caught “adjusting” data, they can investigate themselves, and declare themselves innocent.

        Which is what they did with the ClimateGate emails.

        We “leaned” that leftists have always been smarmy people — the ends justify the means, they say.

        So truth is not a leftist value, and never was.

        So why would anyone with sense expect leftists to be honest about climate science, when being dishonest, and scaremongering, gets them attention, climate scientist permanent job security, and sells big government socialism as the only way to save the planet for the children?

        No scary wild guess climate prediction is challenged in the mass media.

        Their long predicted climate “crisis” is always coming (but never shows up!) after they are dead and gone, so they can never be blamed for a wrong prediction while they are still alive !

        Climate scaremongering is a great con game for leftists.

        It will make no difference to anyone’s life if the average temperature is up +1 degrees C. in the next 100 years, or even +2 degrees C.

          • I get your point, but if you look carefully you can see ‘the blip’ around 1943ish.

            My take on climate science and scientists is that their biggest failure was to ignore that blip. Even Tom Wigley while elucidating the procedure that hid the blip could not resist asking ‘why the blip?’

            Why indeed? Any scientist worth his or her salary should have been all over that data, trying to learn something.

            JF
            (oil spill from WWII, that’s why.)

          • Not True.

            I can tolerate a 95.0 degree F. summer day here in Michigan — they are rare, but do happen.

            But if global warming increases that 95.0 to 95.2 or 95.4 F. in ten years, that would make me go berserk,

            95.2 or 95.4 F. would be intolerable, and we’d have to move to Alaska to get away from that @$#%&% global warming.

        • Yep, until ClimateGate, scientists had no idea what they could get away with. The consensus was that openly-admitted acts of deception constituted career seppuku. That you could hide, delete and lie with abandon and keep your membership in the scientific profession in good standing would have been considered as heretical an idea as, say, heliocentrism or continental drift once were.

          And they say climate science never adds to human knowledge.

          OK, they don’t—but I do

          • Brad, they actually learned they could get away with scientific crimes, when Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick opened the can of proxy worms and Michael Mann got away with hiding his MBH98 method.

            Mann cried ‘bully!,’ and the climate scientists, the journals, and the scientific establishment all rose to his defense.

            And even before that, Ben Santer got away with falsifying the IPCC 2AR, even though Frederick Seitz exposed him. The outcome of that interlude was Santer walked and Seitz was smeared.

            It’s been a steady stream of dishonesty, betrayal, and immunity from consequences, right from the start.

        • Reply to Julian Flood,
          The 1940-50 decade is among the most troublesome of the Australian temperature data, even today. Long before Climategate broke, people like Warwick Hghes an I were questioning officials here and especially Phil Jones at CRU, seeking reasons to justify their huge adjustments. No satisfactory answer was reveived about anything we asked. It was all duck and weave, then repeat with extra obfuscation.
          A correct record in the 1940 s could have a significance on warming estimates, reducing 0.8 deg C estimates for the century, to about 0.5 deg C.
          The next most troublesome is around 1970-6 or so, the Great Pacific Climate Shift. Our BOM reports that they can see up to 0.15 degrees C of warming that could be from metrification of the records or from the Shift, so they just leave it there as more warming.
          This is not good science. Geoff S

      • They have managed to inject the religion into our schools, brainwashing a generation. This will make it difficult to get truth heard or more to the point, understood. The young also have no understanding of the scientific method. They do not have inquiring or open minds. In short, they are mushrooms. We oldies at least, know what that means.

        • Mark,

          Thank you for touching on the real crime here, a crime that eclipses even the climate-industrial complex’s embezzlement of trillions of dollars for its do-nothing war on a non-problem:

          The young also have no understanding of the scientific method.

          When we finally get serious about the systematic diseducation of children in the Oreskecene, when the impacts of consensualist pseudoscience are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these basterds—some sort of science Nuremberg.

        • Young people eventually grow up and have to start paying their own heating bills, gas, rent and so forth. Oddly enough, their enthusiasm for “Green” taxes then diminishes dramatically.

      • looks like nothing other than their machine is far superior to ours

        It’s certainly better funded, by a couple billion to one ratio. Note this, Moshpit, griffy, loydo, et al.

    • “Half-truths (omitting inconvenient data) is also a Big part of their toolkit”

      I hope that pointing out the missing half of their claims will become a popular pastime.

  4. I am still hoping that the whole scam, fraud, will come crashing down, sooner that later. I at least I hope to live long enough to see it. I comment quite often on sites like The Hill, who have more than their share of Alarmists. I know that when the hoax, scam, fraud is exposed, that these people will never, ever admit to believing it. “Who, me?” But I continue to endure the insults, if only for personal satisfaction.

    Congratulations, Anthony and Charles, on a job well done….

  5. Anthony and Charles, the story spinners over at the “Covering Climate Now” organization, if you can call it that, are no doubt doing a big stomp down on this topic and YOU right this minute…it will be difficult for WUWT to fight against these media influencers….

    • Never heard of them.
      I have heard of WUWT.
      The best way to teach how to identify a counterfeit bill is to present the details of the genuine.
      Of course, Man’s understanding of all that falls under “Science”, climate or otherwise, is very limited.
      WUWT has been true to being honest when presenting the “science” and other things. Mistaken at times?
      Sure. Willing to admit and correct? Definitely.

      (If Mickey was as honest we wouldn’t be talking a Hockey Stick. We’d be talking about a pool cue.)

      • Gunga,
        Never heard of Guardian, National Geographic, WaPo….? and a couple of hundred other media members of this climate news collective….”now hiring” on their website….

        • I’ve heard of (and read) “Guardian, National Geographic, WaPo….?”

          I haven’t heard of the “Covering Climate Now” organization. Or are you just using it to refer to the mainstream media?

          Oh, it is a thing, see https://www.coveringclimatenow.org/about/ . Why didn’t you say so? It can be easier to counter a single big organization than a dozen smaller ones.

          • Thanks, Rick.
            I followed the link and clicked on “Our Partners”.
            It listed about 350 groups and individuals, most of which I’d never heard of but I have heard of some. The Weather Channel, DeSmog, Bloomberg etc.
            (I was mildly amused that one of the “Magazines, Journals, and Digital News sites:” is called, “The Believer”.)
            I also noticed that some of the groups/sites I had heard of in the past (ie RealClimate) aren’t listed.

            But whatever their numbers are (adjusted or not), WUWT (plus other similar voices and blogs) is still here and is still the “go to” site (along with the others) for “RealClimate” information.

        • You’ll get the gist of them all here with a typical Guardian link on their web page-
          https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/28/everybody-has-something-to-lose-the-exciting-depressing-life-of-a-climate-writer

          “We will not stay quiet on the escalating climate crisis and we recognise it as the defining issue of our lifetimes. The Guardian will give global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution the urgent attention they demand. Our independence means we can interrogate inaction by those in power. It means Guardian reporting will always be driven by scientific facts, never by commercial or political interests.
          We believe that the problems we face on the climate crisis are systemic and that fundamental societal change is needed.”

          That’s after telling you this-

          “The primary challenge for a journalist is to make it feel personal. Without that, the science becomes abstract, global issues seem too huge to grasp, and it becomes difficult to relate to far off places and other species. Without that, the “environment” slips too easily into an elite pigeonhole for academics, policymakers and middle-class white people, when it should be recognised as the main driver of inequality, conflict and injustice. This is not just another subject; it is a prism through which to see the world.”

          Doublespeak and it’s all about the struggle and the usual suspects.

    • DMacKenzie, this is nothing new to Anth*ny, Charles, or any of the long-time readers — they’ve always known about & been fighting against the massive propaganda machine from day one. Some sorry-arse upstart, “Covering-Up Data about Climate Now” or whatever, is of little concern.

  6. Ah yes, our beloved Dr. Mann:

    Michael E Mann, Loser and Liar …and Scofflaw and Deadbeat? Steyn Online

    My favorite theory, which nobody has yet refuted, is that because he avoided testimony under oath, we can infer (adverse inference) that Mann and his hockey stick are fraudulent.

    Mann sued Mark Steyn and that’s dragging out in the courts the same way it did for Dr. Ball. Steyn counter sued Mann and that will have to be dealt with after Mann’s suit is resolved. Mann can’t avoid the consequences of his actions forever. I hope it keeps him up at night.

  7. I remember it well. I had become a regular visitor to this site after Christopher Booker praised the work of Anthony. It was a fairly quiet evening when suddenly it became clear that some news was about to break.

    I remember a period of intense drama then Anthony making his announcement while still travelling. The revealed emails began to trickle through. It was a wonderful time. it was just like catching a bunch of crooks red-handed, but better than that, they wrote the scripts themselves.

    Were he still alive today, I am sure that Booker would have something important to say about ClimateGate, the ongoing climate change scandal and the valuable contibution provided by WUWT. Congratulations to Anthony and Charles and best wishes for the future plans.

    • I can’t quite remember when I started reading WUWT but I rather think it was because of reading Christopher Booker (RIP). Well done Anthony et al for everything you have done.
      Josh’s cartoon reminds me…what became of Heidi DeKlein?

      • Yes, I was very sorry to hear of Christopher Booker’s death.
        Looking back, I think it was the Sunday Telegraph that first got me concerned by climate change not long before Climategate.
        It started with three consecutive articles in the Telegraph. The first and third were by Christopher Monckton, and the second was a response from Gore.
        The first thing I noted was that Gore’s argument was mostly name-calling. I was also impressed that in the third article Monckton admitted a mistake – something that most climate scientists never, never do.

        I also started to read Christopher Booker’s weekly column, which increasingly concerned the climate change scam – and also the EU. I still have huge respect for Booker’s writings, both on the corrupt EU and the anti-scientific climate change cult.

        I would like to state my great respect for Christopher Booker and Christopher Monckton – both of whom share my first name!
        And a huge, huge thank you to Charles and Anthony. Keep up the good work. Eventually the truth will prevail.
        Chris

        • It was that same series of articles back in 2006 that changed me from being a believer in CAGW to confirmed scepticism. Funnily enough it was a BBC World Service program, Hardtalk, that had temporarily swayed me into ‘believers’ camp.

          I’m ashamed to say that ever since then every BBC program on the subject of Climate Change has been dishonest and biased. Oh yes they are very clever at making their bias look factual and innocent. Watching this last effort could leave the unknowing viewer believing there was nothing wrong with either set of Hockey Sticks.

    • It was the late, and much missed, Christopher Booker who I first read recommending WUWT, then came Climategate.

      Nothing has ever been the same since Anthony, Charles along with a few select others, such as James Delingpole, alerted the world to the fraud.

      Their writing and their relentless exposure of scientific manipulation has been an exemplary example of true investigative journalism.

      “Men, it has been well said, think in herds, it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.” (Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds. Charles Mackay, 1841)

      Thank you Anthony and WUWT for helping so many recover their senses.

  8. …Mann wrote, in August 2007, “I have been talking [with] folks in the States about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose [him]”…

    Tough to find a bigger piece of work than Michael Mann.

    • I see no reason to doubt that Mann did seek an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre.

      I also see no evidence against McIntyre.

      Thus I see evidence that McIntyre was exonerated and Mann knows it.
      But still he lies.

      • Wouldn’t surprise me if that claim was the same as Mann’s claim that he was going to appeal the ruling in his suit against Dr. Ball.

        Mann has a pattern of making grandiose statements whenever something doesn’t go his way. He then quietly slinks off hoping that he got the last word.

      • A comment following the Lord Monckton article:
        cc_surf December 1, 2009 at 9:35 pm
        http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11466
        The strata-sphere blog does an analysis of the 20th century with graphs included in the CRU data dump. He shows the published CRU graphs, with the 1940s warming period removed, and then displays the unmanipulated CRU graphs which include the1940s data.

        The title interestingly enough is, “How to Hide Global Cooling: Delete the 1940’s Blip”.

    • Wake up, everybody.

      This is all just a cynical smokescreen to distract the world from the 8th anniversary of Climategate 2.0.

      I can’t believe ‘skeptics’ are falling for it. And I’m incredibly credulous, so when I can’t believe something, believe me, it’s unbelievable.

      • This is all just a cynical smokescreen to distract the world from the 8th anniversary of Climategate 2.0.

        ????
        Yes, there was a Climategate 2.0 (and a 3.0) but I don’t see how you can call all this about Climategate 1.0 a “smokescreen”.
        The “fire” started with 1.0. The others are just more fuel for the fire.

        PS Correct me if I’m wrong, but all 3 came from one file. It was just divided into 3 releases as “Mr. FOIA” was able to sort them one his/her own.

        • Gunga Din,

          What you forget is that between the releases, Mr FOIA had plenty of time to go cherry-picking, carefully selecting the 1,000 or 2,000 emails that looked bad when taken out of context.

          • I think that what you are forgetting is that every time someone added context, they looked just as bad or often worse.

  9. The coordinated media blitz on climate change at the end September has me asking the question why. It would seem more logical to do that in 2020 election season. There had to be something more than Greta’s arrival in the USA. Nature said that there were hundreds of media outlets involved. Is there an underlying climate trend that’s not being published because it undermines warming?

    • The “election season” has already begun, and quite a while ago. You must remember that some of the Democrat clowns in the circus tent are only lukewarmers – and therefore must be eliminated. The other side is that this is a “social policy issue” not a “campaign issue” – at least in the eyes of many. Fear is a powerful influence on how people vote, and creatures like Steyer and Bloomberg have plenty of cash to stoke it.

    • The coordinated media blitz on climate change at the end September has me asking the question why

      Answer: COP 25 is coming up in Dec. The media always tries to build up the hype (about how “bad” climate change is and how we need to act *now*) in the months leading up to one of these confabs

  10. Congratulations, Anthony, yet another WUWT birthday…………and still going strong.

    Thank you for allowing me to contribute over the years.

    And thank you, CTM, for your efforts to keep WUWT steaming ahead.

    Sincerely,
    Bob

    PS: I’m looking forward to the surprise announcement, Anthony.

  11. Anthony, CtM,

    on the “No, Hurricanes Are Not Bigger, Stronger and More Dangerous” Roger Pielke Jr, post, new comments after the 7:30 am time stamp (last comment on thread: william matlack
    November 17, 2019 at 7:30 am ) are NOT appearing. I’ve made two over 2 hours ago. And not there. Plenty of time for the update post cycle. Not in moderation either.

    Are comments shut off there? Is WordPress shadow banning comments on that thread???

    Joel

    • I’ve been having some trouble with scheduled posts not going live and having their post times screwed up because of it. That may have been what is causing your issue. I’m hoping I’ve fixed the problem.

      • two of my posts between the 7:30am and 11am posts on the Pielke Hurricane thread are MIA.
        Looks like WordPress shadow banning to me, as a few others posted. Suspicious.
        No doubt a lot people in Silicon Valley and academia would like to see WUWT and other such sites shuttered. Free speech and widely read blogs are quite inconvenient to the climate propaganda campaign being waged by the Left today.

        (Found them in the trash bin) SUNMOD

        • Thanks SUNMOD.

          Based on the time gap of posts &:3-am-11am PST, I suspect my comments were not the only ones going to the Trashbin.

          regards,
          J

  12. Time keeps moving on and earth’s climate changes as well. Predicting the future of such changes with an eye to events of history keeps us guessing. It seems we are startled by some abrupt alteration of our expectations as with the current Arctic blast of colder than usual temperatures. Such experiences we image are some fore runner of future events. We are not intellectually nor emotionally geared for all the alterations we encounter. We like to be on cruise control. The starts and stops of heavy and changing traffic frustrates us and get us emotionally riled up. And yet, as history, even re-written history has shown us, change is always there and forecasting is a belief system dependent upon our faith in some future life after we pass away. “Think of what we are leaving our grandchildren” We will not be here to see any fruit of our labor nor justification for our worry. It is probably best to take in the spectacular events we have each day and appreciate them for what they are: events to be experienced with our senses and emotion.

    • Karl, I assume you are trying to point that 0.25 temp per decade is quite a temperature increase. Well, that’s what happens when an alarmist like you cherry picks. . .

      Take a look at when 4 decades, from 1979 until now.
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/trend

      Suddenly, the UAH increase is about 0.13 degree per decade (less than HALF of what you were trying to show); RSS appear to be a bit over 0.20 degree per decade.

      But that also is a bit short, and since both UAH and RSS don’t go back further than that, how about the HADCRUT series from 1939 (8 decades; AND RSS is left on the plot to show it is similar to HADCRUT from 1979 on).
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1939/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1939/trend/plot/rss/from:1939/plot/rss/from:1939/trend

      HADCRUT now is about 0.1 degrees per decade ; nothing extreme to worry about.

        • GAST will always ‘Rise’, ‘Fall’ or ‘Stay the Same’.
          Staying the same is most unexpected. Why should anything be stable? The weather one day to the next is different. So why should its integral be constant?

          Thus the question is, what importance should we ascribe to a 50:50 guess?

          Enough to kill thousands through increased poverty from higher fuel prices?
          No!

        • For the millionth or so time…

          I don’t know anyone who is informed that disagrees with a slight warming trend over the last 130 years or so. The argument is about:

          (1) what is causing it: scientific evidence shows it is almost entirely natural and doesn’t correlate well with CO2 without major adjustments (I’m not aware of a single paper anywhere that can empirically show CO2 has any affect on this recent warming)

          (2) whether or not a gentle and small warming rate is dangerous/catastophic: there is massive real world evidence showing it is actually hugely beneficial.

          • “scientific evidence shows it is almost entirely natural”

            There is no precise definition of “natural” in science.

            ” it is actually hugely beneficial.”

            Science does not have a definition of “beneficial” so that statement is outside the realm of science.

          • Last time I checked Hawaii is a tropical climatic zone island in the middle of the world’s largest ocean and located under the influence of the atmospheric Hadley cell.
            Quite how record cold temperature in continental places located under the influence of the Ferrel cell, and now falling under the influence of the Polar cell as it advances south in winter, is not clear to me.

            The word climate has the same root concept as the word clino (as in inclination) and refers to the inclination of the sun. There are 3 main climatic zones on planet Earth, the tropical, temperate and polar zones, each of which is associated with the latitudinal reach of the three main atmospheric cells, Hadley, Ferrel and Polar. All of which are controlled by the daily rotational spin rate of our rapidly rotating planet.

            Climate has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric thermal radiant opacity. Climate is a dynamic mass movement and mechanical process. If you want to change the temperature of your climatic position then either move your location by continental drift or slow down the daily spin rate (good luck with those), or failing that alter the albedo of your continental landmasses, that certainly works.

            Comparative Planetology: Establishing the Role of Meteorology in the Science of Climate.

        • NO, KARL, it does NOT !

          All it does show is it has warmed since about 1970. From about 1940 to1970, it showed COOLING.

          No doubt the earth has warmed from after the ‘little ice age.

          But tell me, Karl, what was the cause of the Medieval Warm period? OR the Roman warm period? OR the MINOAN warm period?

          YOU ARE AN ALARMiST ! LOOK BACK AT HISTORY, not just the pack few decades or so.

          I don’t care WHAT you post after my comment, as it is late here, and I may not respond. What, is it your turn to be the ‘warmist troll?

          Good night.

          • “All it does show is it has warmed since about 1970. From about 1940 to1970, it showed COOLING.”

            I think that is a very important distinction that should be made more often. When alarmists claim it is “warming” they mean a steady warming from 1850. But that’s not how the climate works. The climate warms for a few decades, and then it cools for a few decades and then it warms again. Up and down, up and down, as President Trump describes it.

            Our recent climate history, at least in the United States is that we warmed up from the 1910’s to the 1940’s, then cooled from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, reaching the same magnitude of cooling as was reached in the 1910’s, and then we warmed from the 1980’s to the present day. The warmest day of the 21st century was no warmer than 1998, or 1934. The year 1998 was a statistical tie with the year 2016 (the hottest year evah!), and 1934 was 0.4C warmer than 2016, at least, in the United States.

            So when alarmists say it’s “warming” just remember, it’s relatvie. It depends on what period of time one is talking about.

            The US surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999) is the real temperature profile of the globe. All unmodified surface temperature charts from around the world resemble the temperature profile of the US surface temperature chart, i.e, the 1930’s were as warm as today, which means CO2 did not have much, if any, influence on the temperatures in Earth’s atmosphere::

            https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

          • Correct M Courtney. El Nino’s do not generate heat. So they are not the cause of the increase in the long term increase in GAST.

          • There could be no particular cause at all, Karl.

            Climate warming could just be due to some semi-chaotic transfer of thermal energy into the atmosphere.

            Linear thinking is a trap.

          • Nice, you first point out that it has warmed over the last decade or so.
            Then when an alternate explanation is given, you shift to talking about the last 150 years.

            Since you want to talk about the long term, the warming over the last 150 years has been about 0.7C which works out to less than 0.05C per decade.

          • No Pat Frank, you are wrong to say: “There could be no particular cause at all”
            ..
            There is a cause. A pot of water sitting on a table will not spontaneously boil.

          • Pat Frank, if it is a “semi-chaotic transfer of thermal energy into the atmosphere,” please show us the source of the thermal energy that is being transferred into the atmosphere. Chaotic or not, you thermal energy isn’t magically created out of nothing.

          • Energy transfer from one of the ocean oscillations, Karl.

            The various oceans vent heat into the atmosphere with different time constants, some of them perhaps hundreds of years, some perhaps even thousands.

            Look up Dansgaard-Oeschger events.

            Spontaneous atmospheric warming of several degrees over very short times. With no known cause.

            Dick Lindzen pointed out the fact of acausal warming over 20 years ago. No one listened.

        • Nice dodge there Karl, did you make it yourself or did it come with the kit.
          As everyone knows, El Ninos warm the atmosphere.
          Since the warming of the atmosphere that has your heart all a flutter occurred during a period in which the number of El Ninos was both abnormally high as well as abnormally strong, that is sufficient to explain the warming of the atmosphere.

          • They may, or at least leave the planet in a warmer environment. Several big El Ninos left a bit of a step function in the global temperature data. It may be that the excess water vapor they released is keeping the poles warmer, so it may take quite a while to get that water out of the atmosphere.

            Worth better study.

          • There you go again Karl, arguing against something nobody said.

            Thank you for admitting that even you know you can’t support the ludicrous claims you’ve been making.

        • Karl:
          Karl says:
          “There is a cause. A pot of water sitting on a table will not spontaneously boil.”
          BOIL? Really?!? That is your choice of reference?
          Care to enlighten me as to what a “pot of water sitting on a table” has to do with the enthalpy driving Earth’s climate over time?
          Hint: It ain’t boiling…
          With our puny measurements of “who knows what” thermometer data (scant) over about 150 years of time how can anyone determine the dynamics of our enormous atmosphere, let alone the real heat content of this planet’s oceans?

        • CO2 does not generate heat energy either, Karl. your point? (other than at the top of your head that is).

    • “And in those 10 years, the GAST has risen 0.25 degrees C.”

      And is just as meaningless as it ever was.

        • BINGO!

          The errors and uncertainties in the so-called “data” (which has been “adjusted” so many times that it bears little resemblance to ACTUAL “data,” which would be the original instrument readings) are bigger than the supposed amount of temperature change.

  13. I was home with a cold the day climate gate broke. I was obsessed with reading all I could about it.
    Bravo to WUWT the Canadians 😂 Judith, Rud and all the rest. You can do no better than read Mr. Montford’s
    Book on the subject. “Hiding the Decline”. While you are at it
    “The Hockey Stick Illusion” is brilliant as well.

    Thanks to all of you.

    bob

  14. “They have learned nothing”.
    It does seem that way.
    The propaganda has reached fever pitch but is anyone listening?
    Fake News.

    We have become aware of the duplicity of our “servants” and asked them to explain, their response has been personal attacks,shrieking and statements to the effect of “How dare you,we are perfect”?

    The meme is fading,most of the original profiteers have moved on to new ways to reap the wealth of the gullible,all that drives the CAGW meme is the greed of bankrupt governments.
    The current “frontmen” are markedly second stringers,either true believers or just going through the motions.
    Money will talk on the carbon tax idiocy,as long as President trump refuses to sell the USA out to this UN scheme,the market will beat the gullible into poverty.Virtue signalling is noncompetitive.

    I foresee massive reductions in the number of bureaucrats that taxpayers are willing to support,as a direct result of this naked corruption.
    And science will suffer,with no sympathy from these same taxpayers.

    Yes they seem to have learnt nothing,unless the current stridency is their awakening to possible consequences.For I detect quite a few notes of fear.Desperation even.

    For according to “Climate Barbie” of Canada,the way to persuade doubters is to shout the message repeatedly, with ever increasing volume.

  15. If any of us skeptics are aware of people wanting to become informed, this site of course, but the radio interview should be a starting point. I’m in awe of people like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, who have determinedly faced off against what I believe will become known as the most egregious hoax, which claimed to use science in order to further their (climate alarmists) political agenda. Stunning.

  16. Climategate brought chaos to Copenhagen aka COP15 – critically wounding the prospects of cap-and-trade legislation in the process. It helped the world dodge the climate mania bullet for 5 years, until the Paris accord in 2015.

    Paris was charade. Had we not had climate to pull the run on COP15 it would have been WAY, WAY worse.

    And as we know, as President, he fulfilled his campaign promises and pulled the USA out of the Paris Climate Accord, and gutted the draconian EPA.

    Where is this ” pulled the USA out of the Paris ” ? There was a rumble about this a week or so ago that Pompeo had made some statement but I have yet to even see link to what was said or done. It also claimed the he had given 12mo notice and that does not correspond to the four year notice for pulling out of Paris.

    Facts please.

    • EICDA will never pass the Senate.

      Involvement in the Paris Climate Accord was an Obama pledge President Trump reversed June 1, 2017.

      • Thanks John, I presume the date you state is when Trump said he would not be making any more payments into the Green Slush Fund. That was a decisive step and IMO, a good one. However, USA is still down on paper as being party to the Paris Agreement which requires 4 year period of notice. Despite yet another claim the Trump has “pulled the US out”, I don’t see the slightest evidence he has done anything on paper.

        • The billion dollars gifted the the Accord by Obama were from the Presidential fund. The second 500m was sent just prior to the end of his term in office.

          His pledge is not a treaty nor a Congressional Act.

          The USA is no longer nor ever was a party to Obama’s pledge. President Trump reversed Obama’s foolishness. This is why the 2b of Obama’s pledge will never be paid without Congress and President Trump’s signature.

          Let Obama send the 2 billion. I’d prefer to see him pay back the 1 billion he wasted on nonsense!!!

    • Greg, maybe start watching Fox News….Trump gave final notice last month when , by the “Paris rules, it was required….It will become finalized 3 days after his reelection.

    • Greg
      Paris was a voluntary agreement, with no penalties for failing to meet goals, which most nations will do.

      The scaremongering about +1.5 or +2.0 degrees C. warming is nonsense — it has already warmed +2 degrees C. since the 1690s, during the coldest portion of the Maunder (solar) Minimum — no harm was done to anyone.

      A lot of people on this planet would love to have their local temperature one or two degrees warmer — it’s global cooling that people hate — anecdotal evidence from the late 1600s make that VERY clear.

      China and India were barely involved in the Paris agreement, so the agreement would have had almost no effect on Asian CO2 emissions growth.

      President Obama promised $3 billion for the Green Slush Fund, and gave $1 billion — Trump said no to the next two billion — he was smart.

      I bet other nations contribute next to nothing.

      There is a two year waiting period before a nation can send an official Paris agreement withdrawal request.

      That request was recently sent by the Trump Administration.

      Then there is a one year waiting period before a nation can “officially” withdraw.

      There is obviously way too much bureaucracy.

      The Paris Agreement is mainly leftist virtue signalling, that will do nothing to stop the growth of CO2 emissions.

      Even implementing the economy destroying Green New Deal in the US would not stop the rise of global CO2 emissions!

      As a favor for you, I posted a chart clearly showing the effects of climate
      agreements on the atmospheric CO2 level:
      https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-effects-of-various-climate.html

      • There is a two year waiting period before a nation can send an official Paris agreement withdrawal request.

        That request was recently sent by the Trump Administration.

        Thanks Richard, that seems to be the claim I’m trying validate. Where did you find that information?

        • You lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, especially when they prefer koolaid.
          Please keep up

          Article 28 of the agreement stipulates that a member can begin a formal withdrawal process no earlier than three years after the treaty enters into force. The Trump administration took this step when it notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations on November 4, 2019, that it intends to leave.

          Trump’s notice of withdrawal will become effective one year later, on Wednesday, November 4, 2020—one day after the next presidential election.

          • “Article 28 of the agreement stipulates that a member can begin a formal withdrawal process no earlier than three years after the treaty enters into force.”

            There was no treaty, just an Obama agreement. No need to formally withdraw.

          • Thanks you AK, that date was what I needed to find an authoritative source.

            https://fi.usembassy.gov/on-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement-november-4-2019/

            Good for him, he’d been so quiet on this since his initial declaration of his intention, I thought it was some bargaining ploy to get a “better deal”.

            with US India and China not engaged to reduce emissions, the only turkeys still pumping this crap is the EU. At some stage they will have to stop shooting their own economies in the head and quit all this BS too.

  17. Thank you Anthony for your work. Not many people have the opportunity to change the world. You are one of those fortunate few.

    • I donate every year to WUWT as it is critical that we have a voice in opposition to the taxpayer-funded activists, troughers (to borrow Delingpole’s term) and carpetbaggers who are doing so much harm to Western societies. I can’t donate a lot, primarily because I also donate to a dozen or so other organisations, but if a few thousand of us all donate a small amount a lot can be achieved.

  18. I came to WUWT via Climate Debate Daily. Does anyone remember that? The idea was to provide links to articles from both sides of the debate so that ideas could be thrashed out and progress made. It was eventually closed down, along with a rather bitter note that it was clear that nobody took any notice of the other side, the whole exercise was pointless, and, anyway, it was clear that the sceptical position was untenable. A while ago I started my own blog, which goes a bit beyond climate change, but one article might be interesting to WUWT readers: https://uferox.blogspot.com/2019/09/how-to-shut-down-world.html. It draws on a lot of WUWT material but focuses more on how the debate got shut down. It might be useful to some people as a summing up.

    Some self-promotion here but it is innocuous, second opinion please? Andrew Harding

  19. Brilliant Anthony.

    Thank’s for all your hard work and dedication. You have educated, informed, and converted me from an ignorant ‘believer’ into a well informed layman climate realist. I can not only hold my own in any discussion about climate events (or lack thereof) I can usually win the debate against genuine scientists, not that they ever admit this, but what alarmist does?

    My facebook page is now regularly updated with scientific articles and I contribute to others like ‘Scotland Against Spin’, a page dedicated to the blight of wind turbines contaminating our beautiful country.

    I have said it before but never tire of repeating that, my first port of call for climate information was skepticalscience. I was met with hostility and ridicule for merely asking questions. I found WUWT not really knowing it was a sceptical blog, and expected the same treatment.

    Nothing could be further from the truth, I was welcomed by patient posters who never tired of answering my stupid questions. Serious scientists who took the time to explain things in layman’s terms in order, not to persuade me, but to encourage me to think for myself.

    Thank you all.

  20. Climategate was indirectly responsible for bringing me here. I learned about it on a different blog almost as soon as it happened, and WUWT became my go-to for analysis. I was already a sceptic due to my geology background, but the release pretty much cemented that scepticism. I’ve been a regular reader here since, and I learn stuff every time. Not coincidentally, the damage control on Climategate is what caused me to switch from Google to Duckduckgo as my primary search engine. I haven’t trusted them or their motives since.

    So, happy birthday to the blog, and keep up the great work. I’m looking forward to see what you have up your sleeve. 🙂

  21. “Today, I look back, especially at the latest BBC “whitewash” of the issue, and I shake my head. These people, journos and climate scientists alike – have learned absolutely nothing. ”

    The author is implying that the scientists and journalists want to learn. or are after the truth.
    They are not, facts are to be used only if they fit the Marxist narrative.

  22. To say that the BBC have learnt nothing from the Climategate scandal is probably untrue. If you watch BBC News from within UK the first image you have is of the presenter against a background of about 50 or more “journalists ” with PCs scanning world news and with the best braoadband access in England to the Internet .
    Given that a shift is 8 hours and BBC News is 24 /7 then there must be a least 150 – 200 journalists each day exposed to all the recent and historical data on the pressing stories of the day , of which climate change is one of the most prominent.
    They cannot be unaware of the exposes on your site , Anthony, nor those of P Homewood on “Notalot…” against the untruths of McGrath and other at the BBC , or the papers contradicting or moderating the extremes of AGW at Notrickszone” .
    Yet they ignore all that . They must be aware of it , assuming all those journalists are not just indulging in porn sites or emaiiling each other , so why do they ignore the evidence ?
    Perhaps someone could explain what motivates them ?

  23. Back then, the two biggest science blogs were WUWT and Pharyngula, run by PZ Myers. Pharyngula is still around, but greatly diminished in influence. They had a post and thread on Steve McIntyre back then, that really illustrated their sneering attitude towards any type of climate skepticism:

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/08/hello-stan-palmer/

    They’ve sort of faded off, and are now demonizing people like Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, and even Richard Dawkins for not towing the line on their views.

  24. Thanks for having us as your audience, Anthony Watts. A lot of things have passed in front of me, with the most memorable part being, NOT debunking the alarmists, but making it clear that they support the bad, intentionally erroneous reports by people like Mann for the sole purpose of gouging money out of the government, and also for exposing the real danger to us all: the politics involved in this that the foolish follow.

    Please keep it up.

  25. 10 years have made climate science and its supporters even more shrill and less believable than ever

    However, the news media allowed at least some skepticism a decade ago. As recently as 2004, Roger Harrabin ran an item on the BBC quoting the WMO as saying temperatures had not risen since 2004. He was stomped on from huge heights for that, fled to the Iberian peninsula (or similar) to get away from it, and neither the BBC nor the WMO have allowed any such a view since. The original BBC story was changed to hide the facts; but I still have a copy somewhere.

    Now the main media of the countries I know best — NZ, Australia and the UK — have decided as a policy not to publish any items that in any way question the official line. They will no longer even allow comments or letters to the editor giving contrary views.

    The recent bog-standard Australian bushfires (four dead, 400 homes lost) are being flogged as a “catastrophe” and “the worst ever” by the ABC, BBC and NZ media despite them being nowhere near as bad as the 2009 ones (in which 173 people died and 3500 homes were destroyed), and even those were not the worst. Fire is normal in the Australian landscape; its eucalpt trees (which burn ferociously) require fire to propagate. What is not normal is the huge number of homes people have built amidst the eucalpyt forests; and attempts to prevent fires, which make the inevitable ones far worse. But the media won’t allow this and shouts down anyone who tries to point it out.

    And of course the One True Cause is the only reason being given for these latest fires, yet that Cause was barely mentioned in the far worse ones a decade ago. That is how extreme the Cause has become to its promoters and believers. It is now the reason for everything that happens.

    News items are increasingly hysterical and shrill. Almost one in three news items now seems to claim we’re about to fry, burn or be drowned, and new aspects have come into this. Every vegan and his lentil-patch has climbed aboard, and now the media also bombard us with items about how the farming triumphs that feed the world are destroying the planet and we all need to become vegan, which would of course result in mass-starvation, which is what I think they want.

    There is a massive anti-human stance taking over all this. The other day, for the first time, I even saw articles claiming how much “carbon” we breathe out. This kind of thing is reducing humans to the level of the farm animals they despise on the basis of the “carbon” they create.

    • Roger Harrabin ran an item on the BBC quoting the WMO as saying temperatures had not risen since 2004

      My apologies for not proofreading. “not risen since 1998.” Maybe you can change it.

  26. My hearty thanks, too, to Anthony and Charles the Moderator. I look forward to things to come.

    I red pilled myself about Global Warming exactly 2 years before CimateGate, as GW was a briefly a hot election issue here in NZ. Researching these things on the internet led me to your site, which I have followed since. (Though the red pilling process was brought about more by an absence of proof of the Warmists’ tenets anywhere on the net.)

    Because I was aware of the main issues (both scientific and political), and knew the personalities involved, I found ClimateGate rather interesting, and relatively easy to follow (albeit very long). Also most entertaining. However, the opposite is the case for the proverbial man in the street. I cannot overly stress the importance of writings by the likes of James Delingpole, who are able to reduce a long, complex and multi-faceted thing (the ClimateGate e-mails) to its essentials for the general reader.

    • “I cannot overly stress the importance of writings by the likes of James Delingpole, who are able to reduce a long, complex and multi-faceted thing (the ClimateGate e-mails) to its essentials for the general reader.”

      A pity the Telegraph de-platformed him.

    • I cannot overly stress the importance of writings by the likes of James Delingpole, who are able to reduce a long, complex and multi-faceted thing (the ClimateGate e-mails) to its essentials for the general reader.

      Yes, I, too, came to WUWT via James Delingpole’s Telegraph blog. That was some time before he headlined the Climategate emails. I had recently retired and therefore had the time to read, read, read. Being on the Telegraph the same as JD – and for 60 years no less, I then found the wonderful Christopher Booker, whose two books “Scared to Death” and “The Real Global Warming Disaster” I could never praise highly enough. He was an investigative journalist par excellence – and it is a great loss that he is no longer with us.

      Thank you Anthony, Charles and your whole team plus all the excellent commenters who, over the years, have kept me well-informed and been the source of so many links to invaluable sources of further information, facts and evidence.

      A belated Happy Birthday from me and may you continue to do so brilliantly in the future (for as long as it takes) as you have done in the past. I am another one who waits, with bated breath, to see what your ‘announcement’ is going to reveal.

  27. Thanks WUWT. Indisputably the best site for keeping informed on climate related matters for time poor people like me. Great posts and very informative comments.

  28. Those climate alarmists. They are like the Bourbons, are they not?

    Congratulations Anthony and Charles. Happy birthday WUWT. I have had a lot of fun here over the years contributing a few guest blogs and lots of comments; but mainly I have learned a lot, and had some great fun reading the erudite commentary and burning sarcasm of those who post often. Sometimes I have laughed so loudly that my wife worried something was wrong.

    I’m looking forward to this upcoming news.

    • Phillip Bratby November 17, 2019 at 1:07 pm
      The best analysis of the Climategate emails can be downloaded here:

      On reddit ?? I’ll just have to take a look see.

    • Phillip Bratby November 17, 2019 at 1:07 pm

      Wow 65,000 words with the key characters in color coded text and comments by the author sentence by sentence. It will take some time to read the whole thing.

  29. I wonder how many children or participants in the Extinction Rebellion activities have even heard of this Climategate Event. Far too inconvenient for teachers to mention in the classrooms.
    Thanks WUWT and Antony in particular. You have kept me sane over the years (I think?)

    Very much looking forward to the next push

  30. A very happy birthday WUWT, and many many more, until you totally prevail and aren’t needed any more. Which will be in the face of advancing glaciers. Then won’t we rue the lack of effective greenhouse gases!

  31. Any discussion of climategate should probably include a reminder of the allegations raised at the time about the conduct of internet search engine companies.

  32. My memory may be off, but I believe us readers, or at least myself, read the first information about/from the FOIA release on November 19th or 20th.
    I think much of the early discussion centered around Gavin’s warnings that people could be sued/prosecuted for reading the emails.
    Here on WUWT, Bishop Hill’s, TallBloke’s, Climate Audit and Lucia’s the Blackboard.

    It was during the following two weeks that the sheer volume of despicable behavior by alleged scientists was laid bare. Something that no amount of sham investigations can ever erase.

    Even though access to that original tranche of emails is difficult to find. It took me a number of searches a few months back to winnow out the desmog and sks and other sites’ falsehoods.

  33. Anthony and Charles, we cannot thank you enough for keeping the light of honest science burning at WUWT. That sound you can hear is applause from your British followers thundering across the pond. Thanks also to all the contributors, amateur and professional, who have added to the weight of knowledge and opinion here.

    My elder brother Dave introduced me to WUWT many years ago and I have never looked back.

    As a former journalist who has worked alongside BBC editors and reporters, I can tell you that part of the problem is that the organisation is institutionally socialist. A journalistic mindset that is bred in the bone. The reason that global warming will not be covered in a balanced way at the BBC is that several years they took the decision – formally – NOT to cover the issue in a balanced way. Breathtaking I know, particularly for a state broadcaster with such huge influence and editorial reach. But the UK’s feeble politicians let them get away with it.

    These days it’s hard to find honest science reported in an evenhanded way. But that’s what we get at WUWT. Thanks guys. And please keep up the good work.

  34. I found WUWT via Solar Cycle 24. I remember one night reading a comment: “A miracle has happened.” I read it, hoped it was true, and continued. A miracle had happened.

    But it’s going to take more than one miracle. The forces of Leftist darkness are aligned and spreading their poison via compliant media all around the globe.

  35. Pretty often I find myself thanking God (or whoever is in charge) that FOIA did this for us. I wonder where they are right now, hope they are well, and hope that we will someday find out their name.

    With gratitude, FOIA.
    JM

  36. As explained before over at Judith’s, I came late to the party in 2011 as a result of uncovering major NRC climate consequence dishonesty to Congress while doing three years of research for my first (2012) ebook, Gaia’s Limits. My first posting here and there.

    So missed realtime Climategate completely.

    But as a more or less active participant since 2011, I look forward to AW’s pending announcement and whatever further contributions can be made to WUWT pro bono.

  37. And Thank You, Mr. Watts, for this site and your dedication to the truth.
    I look forward to your announcement.

  38. Thanks for the exoneration link, been wondering. Reminds me of things in departments past.

    “They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick” was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.”

    “This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.”

    It is clear that they were writing and graphing for the (us) peasants. Some of us had old school statistics training.

  39. Many thanks to Anthony and Charles and all who contribute to the broad base that is WUWT. This site represents one of the few opportunities for people to find unbiased data. I look forward to its continued success and growth of influence.
    The world is getting colder in both senses of the word. We are so close to totalitarianism becoming an accepted instrument used to enforce energy control. It is frightening.
    During the Melbourne Green New Deal demonstrations, back in March this year over the F1 week, I was shocked and spooked, hearing the children and seeing them crowd round the parliament buildings with their parents and teachers shouting through loud hailers. The distorted acoustics making their chant of “Reach Higher, Reach Higher” truly sinister. It sounded and looked like a scene from the 1930s Germany. The raising of the arms, as the chant went out did nothing but cement that image.
    It was a light bulb moment for me, the hairs on the back of my neck raised at what was going on. We have to stop these destroyers of civilisation. I am so grateful WUWT is here to provide real science and real balance in these ever more challenging left wing times.
    No one imagined Orwell’s fiction would become real. It has taken just fifty years after he wrote 1984 for “The long march through the institutions” the policy advanced by Marxists out of the Frankfurt School to become tangible.
    The BBC has become the ministry of (un)truth…..

  40. As the decades roll on, this climate nonsense traps politicians like insects in a spiders web. You can see their struggle; should I try to garner extra votes with climate waffle, or should I out myself as a non believer?

    Boris Johnson is one that is currently caught, struggling in the web, other politicians from the centre right that should display more courage, including our own Scott Morrison are too. Only Donald Trump had the cojones to call this nonsense out and ride out the politics.

    Congratulations, Anthony and the team, your site is a steadfast voice of reason in this truly epic battle of wills.

  41. Glad to see this piece 🙂 It was just last week I was thinking it must be around the ten year anniversary of ClimateGate. Ahh the good ole days when it was still called Global Warming…

    • In my not-so-humble opinion, …gates are way overused and have fallen into to category shared by “very unique.”

      Climategate is one of the exceptions, thank you for adding it to the lexicon.

  42. When I first heard about climategate, the public release of climate scientists emails, I thought to myself that I wouldn’t be interested in reading other peoples personal email.
    My 10th anniversary of discovering climate science and WUWT isn’t until another 3 months from now.
    As a software engineer and computer scientist, I have a really big project I’ve been working on dedicated to WUWT, but it’s a lot of work and has required a lot of study, so will have to wait till the 11th anniversary where we all can turn things up to eleven.

    • “Gary Mount November 17, 2019 at 4:58 pm
      When I first heard about climategate, the public release of climate scientists emails, I thought to myself that I wouldn’t be interested in reading other peoples personal email.
      My 10th anniversary of discovering climate science and WUWT isn’t until another 3 months from now.”

      Then you really really need to read the “Harry Read Me” file that was included with the emails. Where the programmer adds comments while trying to understand and update climate programs.

      Many of the emails, indeed the entire email chains are more akin to reading used tissues and toilet paper; not personal emails. I have never before or since seen such unprofessional messages/language in written form.
      But then, I worked in government where every logon reminded us that are messages were not private
      and could be publicized.
      Some of the climategate emails correlate well to some of today’s internet’s rankest trolls.

      • But then, I worked in government where every logon reminded us that are messages were not private

        I’ve worked in Government for a bit over 30 years now.
        Back when “email” when introduced where I work, it was looked upon as sort a cross between a letter and a phone call. In other words, private even if the letter was sent to my work or I made the call from work.
        (Well, if I was making long distance calls or calling 900 numbers that would eventually be noticed and tracked down.)
        We were knowledgeable in our fields but, unless we knew something about this new stuff called “networks” and “email”, we didn’t know a record was being kept and saved. “Wire tapping” required a court order for phone calls BEFORE the recordings took place. We didn’t know emails over an organisation’s systems were legally different.
        So the Climategater’s were subject to a legal FOIA request.
        They tried to “hide the decline” in climate science.
        But someone with a conscience (that is, “for knowledge”) had access to some of what they tried to hide and shed the light of day on what he/she could.
        (Mann is still hiding his UVa stuff.)
        Many honest and ethical (and real) scientist started to reevaluate what had passed peer review regarding, as it was called then, CAGW.

        So here we are. Gore’s Ozone Hole wasn’t big enough so political science has seized on CAGW (and given it many name changes as natural reality changed) with the aim to justify loss of freedoms and the centralizing of authority.

        (Thank you “Mr. FOIA” and WUWT and the others that haven’t taken “a knee to Baal”, so to speak.)

  43. It’s interesting to consider the evolution of the climate terminology used as each scare failed to materialize. It’s gone from global warming, to climate change, to global heating, to climate emergency, to extinction crisis. The latter one should last for a while, because it provides a potpourri of possibilities that are impossible to argue against (you can’t prove a negative).
    Hollywood makes a fortune from feeding our fascination with mega-disasters, as do some alarmists. I suspect this exaggerated fear is a survival mechanism that was coded into us in our cave-dwelling days. As we huddled in our caves at night our minds would turn to the horrors that lay in wait if we were foolish enough to venture out into the dark. “Quick, everyone, run and huddle in your caves. There’s a TIPPING POINT on the loose!” And it’s why the terminology used is always so menacing. For example, we are told that the missing heat is hiding in the deep oceans – not oceans but DEEP oceans. How menacing. Isn’t that where Godzilla lives! I’m frightened!

    • BC
      Jordan Peterson has an interesting take on the issue of fear. His view is that our fear response is a process that is so fundamental to our survival as living beings that it predates conscious thought by orders of magnitude of evolutionary time. (He also believes that pain is the only reality we can trust). Consequently we respond to fear far faster and with less rational thought than any other emotion. That is why the study by the Victorian journalist Charles Mackay “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” is also so relevant as a guiding explanation to this utter complete and total nonsense.

      • Yes, we have our fear systems. We also have systems for rational thought and creative thought.

        It is easy to appeal to fear for the Communists and the Pointy-Headed Intellectuals because they believe we are simply animals, having evolved from monkeys; they do not believe we are made in the image of God, with intellect and creativity, and the capacity for authentic love.

        Yet in all things we are tasked to ride above our animal nature and rely upon reason, creativity, and love to survive, and thrive.

        You might keep yourself alive by depending on fear. Collectively, we will not keep all of us alive by fear but by reason, creativity, and love.

  44. I am in awe of people like Anthony and Charles who not only doggedly keep up the fight but keep improving their strategy to combat the opposition even when groupthink in that opposition seems to be gaining ground. Unfortunately I fear that the alarmist, truly nonsensical consensus is now very close to reaching critical mass largely due to Greta. Not only has climatemania now become embedded in parents and grandparents but kids too. It has effectively acquired a muscle memory and herd mentality amongst most all and sundry. The multi-layered confection that has been built around this nonsense is now embedded in the subconscious of Europe and America. To deprogramme someone who has become indoctrinated they must first want to be deprogrammed. It used to be maybe a million who were brainwashed. Its now hundreds of millions. I have tried to get climate conversations going with ostensibly neutral adults. Within a minute they invariably trot out the tried and tested platitudes – Artic, polar bears, flooding etc.

  45. Happy Birthday and mega thanks.

    I have been a daily visitor since the Surface Station Survey days and can attest that there is nothing like WUWT. Anthony et.al. have created the pre-eminent voice for real science on the Web, and not just climate science. Numerous disciplines have been represented and discussed as well as the philosophy of science itself.

    “Influence” is a difficult thing to measure –Alexa certainly doesn’t — but I can only imagine how lost this world would be without WUWT. We teeter on the precipice as it is; WUWT is a handhold we grasp to save our rationality, our society, and even our lives.

    WUWT is more than monastery where tracts of wisdom are copied and preserved while the Dark Ages rage outside. It is a vital participant in the very real contemporary struggle for knowledge and reason in a faltering world.

    Kudos, Rev. Keep up the fight. I don’t know what we would do without you.

  46. Congratulations Anthony. There will be a place in history for you and WUWT. I dropped by the tip jar. Cheers!

  47. I posted the link to the WUWT post with Judith Curry’s essay on my FB timeline, and followed it up with notes about my views on Climategate vs Copenhagen’s CoP15. I’m rather pleased that a lot of it is redundant to the original post here. I guess I’m not losing my mind yet.

    Ric Werme
    Yesterday at 12:52 PM ·

    [Introduction to Judith Curry’s essay.]

    By far the most important event in the climate science/media/alarm/skeptic community since the release of the original Keeling curve was the unauthorized release/theft/hack of many Emails and other files from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK.

    They provided confirmation that CRU and others were resisting data sharing with people (especially known skeptics) interested in reproducing work described in papers and also actively suppressed the publication of papers with claims that went counter to their research. (Yes, some papers from both sides are questionable. A lot of people have lost much of their faith in the peer review process.)

    The fallout from Climategate is extensive and ranges from a hardening of some people’s stands, to a huge restructuring of the “pecking order” of climate blogs and their readers, to Saudi Arabia possibly increasing their opposition to some of the reports and protocols at the Copenhagen CoP15 UN event.

    This post is long and complicated, there are even pieces I have trouble recalling well. It’s really written for people who were involved when Climategate broke, but there’s a lot that should interest anyone or open avenues to explore.

    [Further comments on CoP15]

    Ric Werme CoP15 was supposed to finish with leaders from several countries signing a historic agreement to aggressively cut back on CO2 emissions. However, all they came up with was a rather lame, mostly forgotten promise to do better.

    Barak Obama was one of the leaders there, he had to return home a day early to beat a blizzard that was about to paralyze the eastern seaboard, so he wasn’t around for the bitter end. I’d love to know what Obama was thinking as Air Force One landed at Andrews AFB while it still could.

    [This image of Air Force One may not work for you. https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s261x260/76751491_10157735916346550_8408541003350278144_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_oc=AQny7wxhWyJbh7NhXLnGkHevsXmh1Ibmzda2A3iEIzkFmKWjaOLfxEYmoACr5CcXqkc&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=b4850d2d3f6b1d6a6700b5bec309b660&oe=5E4A30C1 ]

    One thing I noticed skimming https://enb.iisd.org/vol12/enb12459e.html was this quote:

    Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emphasized that for temperature increase to be limited to between 2.0-2.4°C, global emissions must peak no later than 2015.

    Another prediction for future entertainment. Pachauri is no longer with the IPCC, forced out in part by sexual misconduct charges that were later to be upheld in Indian court.

  48. Reply to Julian Flood,
    The 1940-50 decade is among the most troublesome of the Australian temperature data, even today. Long before Climategate broke, people like Warwick Hughes an I were questioning officials here and especially Phil Jones at CRU, seeking reasons to justify their huge adjustments. No satisfactory answer was reveived about anything we asked. It was all duck and weave, then repeat with extra obfuscation.
    A correct record in the 1940 s could have a significance on warming estimates, reducing 0.8 deg C estimates for the century, to about 0.5 deg C.
    The next most troublesome is around 1970-6 or so, the Great Pacific Climate Shift. Our BOM reports that they can see up to 0.15 degrees C of warming that could be from metrification of the records or from the Shift, so they just leave it there as more warming.
    This is not good science. Geoff S

  49. I think they have actually learned something. They learned to target the children and youth because unindoctrinated thinking adults aren’t buying what they’re selling.

  50. Thanks again, Anthony. You changed the way I think, not only about climate change but about a lot of other things as well – such as politicians and the whole ‘woke’ PC thing. Keep up the good work. I look forward to being able to consulter WUWT in the future. From what you say it sounds as if it will be exciting!

  51. Climate Gate was what first opened my eyes to the possibility that this was all BS. I said something about the news on my personal blog and my liberal friends got angry with me for even listening to it for a minute and went into long spiels about how wrong it was and how it was anti scientific and how I shouldn’t even listen. I should mention here not a single one of them was a science major in any way themselves, but it struck me that they were desperate I not even question, and that sort of behavior always bothers me. I very quietly began to inquire further. And here I am now.

  52. A bit Off-Topic: It’s just occurred to me (more forcefully than in the past, anyway) that what’s been keeping the Climate Action Bandwagon in business so long has been the claim that renewables are no more costly than the alternatives and/or that their costs are falling.

    But, that isn’t the case, when the indirect and hidden costs are accounted for. Electricity costs will rise within the next three to five years as newly alarmed jurisdictions shift toward renewables. This will create voter and demonstrator pushback. (As in Brazil, although as a result of different green austerity measures.)

    Another Bandwagon-booster has been the belief that all the world in on-board with this crusade. It’s true that there are renewables being installed all over the world, especially in India. But the bulk of the developing world’s energy investment isn’t going into renewables. This should become evident as the Keeling curve of CO2 in the atmosphere continues its steady or accelerating rise.

    A third alarmist-booster is the belief that “we” can reduce the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere, or at least decelerate its accumulation, by moving to renewables. But the rest of the world—the developing world—isn’t moving, and isn’t going to move, to renewables, because they’re too expensive and/or impractical.

    The mass of the public that has been currently swayed into endorsing “climate action” will become disillusioned with it once it becomes clear that it is just a costly exercise in futility and inconvenience. Time is on our side. Economics bats last. It will be much easier to disprove alarmist claims about the economics and global appeal of renewables than about the intricacies of climatology—and, that done, climate-related alarmist claims will come to be viewed with suspicion as well.

  53. like many others it was Booker and Delingpole that got me here
    in 2009
    here everyday;-( and thousands of links sent on
    bless you Both Anthony and Charles,( and all the contributors and other commenters,) for the dedication work and sanity support
    much appreciated and bless you all

  54. Wow – sad to look back and see how solidly the media play along. Play along with what?
    I have been here a long time pointing out that Marxism is behind the manmade global warming push. I know I was a reader and commenter before ClimateGate, and was stunned when ClimateGate broke. I may have started reading here in 2007.

    The idea that Marxists were behind this climate stuff was not being bandied about. Being a Democrat for decades, I was puzzled about how my party had changed over time, and how “progressives” or “liberals” had realy jumped the shark on so many topics. As I puzzled over these things, the explanation came into focus: the enemy of Marxists is our Prevailing Society, and they have been steadily at work undermining anything and everything that is the glue and structure of society. Commerce, gender, civility, limited government, Christianity, “education,” etc.

    Back then, no Liberal was making that point. The well-intentioned oblivious among us were happy pointing out how terrible conservatives are. That is part of the game – form a black and white view of the world and demonize the opponent, and make people afraid to be painted with that brush – and they will never deeply examine what the “white” side, the supposed “good guys” are saying. So, they can claim we need massive government control over everything to save ourselves from imminent disaster at the hands of conservatives and capitalists. What a con job.

    I cam to WUWT by an interesting route. I had a child, and it was time for the first vaccination rounds. I did not believe in the idea that vaccines cause autism. But, when you are getting ready to take your kid to get the shots, and there is this idea that you might be causing autism in your darling child that means so much to you, and has so much promise, it is very scary. very scary.

    So, I started pulling up research studies. I pretty quickly was convinced that there was no “there” there, and went ahead and vaccinated my child. We have had no autism.

    Having investigated and solved the issue, to my own satisfaction, I thought, “what if I dug up some info on this global warming question, and examined that the same way? Could I answer that to my satisfaction?”

    I put in a few search terms and began reading studies. About the third study I stumbled across pretty much convinced me that we were not on a runaway tipping point of natural disaster calamity due to fossil fuels. I cannot recall that study, but one thing it showed was temps coming out of Little Ice Age. Oh, we are on a big trend going back a few hundred years.

    Learning that global temp was calculated based on temp stations across the globe, I stumbled upon the surfacestations project. I was stunned, and read a bunch more.

    I became convinced that there certainly was lots of room for skepticism. From surfacestations, I became a WUWT reader.

    Seeing coordinated idealogical forces behind the manmade global warming scam helped me see the coordinated anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-freedom, anti-citizen power presence of the Marxists elsewhere in society.

    Stunning. I grew up as a liberal, and part of that was throwing out the “red-baiting” claim any time someone said there was a Communist behind every tree. Sadly, it looks like this is true. McKibbens, Oreski, et al., are frank Communists first, and environmental activism is merely their avenue to work toward the Bloody Red Revolution when the workers of the world will throw off the shackles of Capitalism and we will all become both the owners and operators of the means of production, and there will be no more hunger, racism, sexual harassment, or unpleasant weather anywhere.

    And, I figured out that there is a weird joint venture between the Reds and the Pointy-Headed Intellectuals, like Mann, Holdren, et al. They aspire to be the philosopher kings of Plato’s Republic. Many do not realize they are merely providing ammunition to the Reds to throw at our prevailing society, with our evil SUVs and plastic straws, but some do believe the Marxist philosophy.

    You cannot just beat these people on the “science;” it is a power trip and they are not afraid of breaking any rules, since Bloody Revolution is part of their political philosophy.

    Anthony Watts and others, please keep up the good work. I hate to be so dramatic, but if you accept the ideas that: 1. there is a marriage of convenience convergence of wanna-be philosopher kings and Reds, and 2. Reds have been on a stealth campaign for 100 years to overturn our Judeo-Christian Capitalist Nukelar Family society, then a lot is at stake.

    • A careful suppression of all dissenting voices is a hallmark of all dictatorships, be it Mussolini, the Third Reich, North Korea, or the USSR. We are heading there, I hope it is not too late.

    • “As I puzzled over these things, the explanation came into focus: the enemy of Marxists is our Prevailing Society, and they have been steadily at work undermining anything and everything that is the glue and structure of society. Commerce, gender, civility, limited government, Christianity, “education,” etc.”

      That’s exactly right, and they have seized on the human-caused climate change issue as their means of gaining control of society.

  55. I came upon WUWT from Steve Milloy’s JunkScience.com
    That was so waaaaay back that I don’t even remember when. But I do remember the Climategate coverage here.
    I don’t know how many more “thanks” we can say but it will never be enough so thank you again to Anthony, Charles, et al for keeping this site going strong for so many years.

  56. Wanted to see that BBC 0 years climate gate docu: “BBC iPlayer only works in the UK. Sorry, it’s due to rights issues.” Also can’t download it.
    How similar to “open” climate science with its thousands of articles pay walled.

    Jokers, paid by public money.

  57. I’ve just been watching the BBC program and was interested to notice that the only email they worked on was the ‘hide the decline’ one for which the Hockey Team have long since perfected an answer. There was one other mentioned briefly but nothing about those which discuss fixing IPCC working groups, getting journalists sacked and other shady tactics which were, for me, the most enlightening and which did not fit with the picture of the CRU scientists as abused innocents. That was dishonest even by BBC standards.

  58. An article titled: “Baloney Detection Kit,” based on advice from Carl Sagan just passed by.

    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan-s-rules-for-bullshit-busting-and-critical-thinking

    I’m sure Sagan would be in the “Emergency” camp up to his eyeballs, were he still alive. But his guidelines for detecting frauds, fakes, cons and deceivers are very helpful.

    Apply his step-by-step tests to the Climate Mafia fakers, and alarm bells sound at every single step.

  59. I’ve been reading WUWT for 9 of the 10 years. Although I rarely post comments, it’s always enlightening to read not just the posts, but the comment sections, as well. Congrats on 10 years and I’m excited for the next 10 to come.

  60. Thanks, Anthony and Charles, and all the others who make WUWT work.

    What would we do without you? I hate to even contemplate such an unhappy scenario.

  61. Are the original emails still available somewhere? I was thinking of complaining to the BBC but I would need to quote the originals. The Bishop Hill links on this site don’t seem to work anymore.

  62. I said it before – I say it again. This should become the basis for criminal investigations against some of the worst perpetrators.

  63. Several bloggers here say that Climategate opened their eyes for conversion. What was wrong with you guys?
    Why were your eyes closed before Climategate?
    Are you confessing to careers with early times when poor science was good enough?
    There are many of us, sadly mostly elderly now, who saw through the sham from the start. I have just been re-reading some of the early Climate Audit material, where dozens of people were calling out the poor scientists, starting with Steve the host. Remember Bender, Ryan O, Jeff Id, Roman, Mr Pete, Steven Mosher? Geoff S

    • At least one name in your list willfully closed his eyes again a few years after climategate and has reduced himself to the status of a pathetic drive-by-troll. How sad.

  64. 10 years seems like yesterday. I was “logged in” to WUWT when it was first announced that something big was happening. It was BIG! Been a daily reader for over ten years and nothing keeps my attention very long! I hope we both live long enough to go for ten more!

  65. Funny. I read part of a Gizmodo article that states “Ten Years After Climategate, the Scientists Have Won—”.

    They seem to have a strange idea of “Winning”.

  66. amounting to little more than nothing to see hear move along –> amounting to little more than nothing to see here, move along.

  67. I have one regret about the climate-gate email release. Before that I was getting a good education in statistics by Stephen McIntyre and others ripping apart Mann and others in the tree ring circus.

    After climate-gate exposed the fraud and especially grant seeking academics claiming Mikael Mann’s “Nature Trick” was just something clever, I quit wasting my time on investigations of any climate paper from academics who received government grants. The authorities giving the grants and the science journal were exposed as corrupt by not withdrawing all papers where the data, analysis, and software were not released as required by the contracts. Mann is the worst as now proven (Latin root: tested) by his contempt of court ruling for not releasing his data/methods in the Bell suit.

Comments are closed.