Hackers Show AGW Scam - But BBC Ignores it

[Teddy Bear]

In about as blatant an attempt at bias as can be shown, the BBC ignores revealing that when the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit had its e-mails hacked into, it uncovered a scam of how figures were being doctored to support the 'global warming' theory. The BBC report only makes news of the fact of the hacking - not what was revealed by it. Thankfully other news outlets without an agenda don't withhold this more relevant information.

Perhaps it's because the BBC want to try and justify sending 35 of its staff to Copenhagen next month to cover the climate change conference scheduled to be held there, that they are keeping quiet about it. This in itself is scandalous, as the Daily Mail shows.

You couldn't make it up!

Here's the links again:

The BBC Report Hackers target leading climate research unit

The Telegraph's Report Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data'
The Daily Mail's Report Hackers 'expose global warming con': Sceptics claim that leaked emails reveal research centre massaged temperature data

And the Daily Mail Criticism of the BBC for thinking they need to send 35 of its staff for this bullshit propaganda conference.
BBC dispatches 35 staff to climate talks - creating as much carbon as an African village does in a year

[Teddy Bear]

Somebody at the Telegraph observing which media companies seem to prefer not to want to relate what the e-mail hackers revealed, and why he thinks they don't. Not surprisingly, he includes the BBC in this as well.

Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

By James Delingpole
Here’s what the Times has had to say on the subject:

E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

(Yep – definitely an improvement on their earlier, non-existent coverage; but not exactly pointing up the scandalousness of this scandal).

And the Independent:

(Yep. Nada).

And here’s how The New York Times (aka Pravda) reported it:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

(Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.)

And here’s how the Guardian has reported it:

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

(Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace).

A spokesman for Greenpeace said:

“If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

Here’s the Washington Post:

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world’s foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

(Ah, so what the story is really about is ’skeptics’ causing trouble. Note how as high as the second par the researchers are allowed by the reporter to get in their insta-rebuttal, lest we get the impression that the scandal in any way reflects badly on them).

Here is the BBC:

E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

(Ah yes, another routine data-theft story so dully reported – “the police had been informed, he added” – that you can’t even be bothered to reach the end to find out what information was stolen).

Meanwhile, the Climategate scandal (and I do apologise for calling it that, but that’s how the internet works: you need obvious, instantly memorable, event-specific search terms) continues to set the Blogosphere ablaze.

For links to all the latest updates on this, I recommend Marc Morano’s invaluable Climate Depot site.

And if you want to read those potentially incriminating emails in full, go to An Elegant Chaos org where they have all been posted in searchable form.

Like the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal, this is the gift that goes on giving. It won’t, unfortunately, derail Copenhagen (too many vested interests involved) or cause any of our many political parties to start talking sense on “Climate change”. But what it does demonstrate is the growing level of public scepticism towards Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. That’s why, for example, this story is the single most read item on today’s Telegraph website.

What it also demonstrates – as my dear chum Dan Hannan so frequently and rightly argues – is the growing power of the Blogosphere and the decreasing relevance of the Mainstream Media (MSM).

This is not altogether the MSM’s fault. Partly it is just the way of things that more and more readers prefer their news and opinion served up in snappier, less reverent, more digestible and instant for.

But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

As Upton Sinclair once said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

So don’t expect this scandal to be written up in the MSM any time soon. But why would you want to anyway? It’s all here, where the free spirits and independent thinkers are, on the Blogosphere.

UPDATE: I particularly recommend Bishop Hill’s superb summary of some of the key points of the CRU correspondence.

Also, Andrew Bolt’s summary of the correspondence likely to be most damaging to the reputation – and career, we can but pray – of Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU.

And do check out Watts Up With That, whose traffic went through the roof yesterday, enabling to demonstrate scientifically that Hockey Stick is after all a genuine phenomenon – and not merely a figment of Michael Mann’s overactive imagination.

[Teddy Bear]

Bearing in mind that the prime reason for the inception of the BBC is as an unbiased news service. I wonder how they will eventually try to justify knowing of a news story that was massive in its implication, yet instead of making it public decided instead to sit on the story - for one month.

If you had any doubt about how intelligent those running the BBC really are, the stupidity shown by this decision just about highlights their lack of it, as well as how unethical they really are. Did they really think a story of this magnitude was just going to go away?

Now the story is not just about the global warming scam, but also how the BBC is a willing partner in it.

Climate change scandal deepens as BBC expert claims he was sent leaked emails six weeks ago
By Carol Driver
Last updated at 11:36 AM on 26th November 2009

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.
In his BBC blog three days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'
That essay, written last month, argued that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures.
It also presented the arguments of sceptics who believe natural cycles control temperature and the counter-arguments of those who think it's man's actions which are warming the planet.

The leaked files - which show 4,000 documents which have allegedly been sent by scientists over the past 13 years - were apparently taken from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which is a world-renowned centre focused on studying climate change.
They were then uploaded on to a Russian server before being published on a blog called Air Vent.
The e-mails apparently show researchers discussing how to 'spin' climate data and how that information should be presented to the media.

In his blog for BBC Look North, Hudson added: '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.'
He also publishes a link to the messages which global warming sceptics claim provide 'smoking gun' evidence that some scientists talked about manipulated data to support the theory that climate change is being caused by mankind.

However, Hudson does not explain why he sat on the controversial information for so long, but added: 'I do intend to write a blog regarding the CRU being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.'
The leak comes ahead of inter-governmental talks in Copenhagen next month which campaigners have argued is a last opportunity to prevent irreversible climate change.

Former Chancellor Lord Lawson has called for an inquiry into the scandal, warning the credibility of UK science is at stake.

It comes amid pressure on the professor at the centre of the scandal to quit from his position at the CRU.
In one damning email, he appears to call the death of a climate change sceptic 'cheering news!'.

In other messages, researchers appear to be discussing manipulating data and how to dodge Freedom Of Information requests.
Another shows a climatologist from the U.S. admitting it was a travesty that the lack of global warming in recent years could not be explained.


George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said he was convinced the emails were genuine, adding: 'I'm dismayed and deeply shaken.
'There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.
'The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.'
However, Professor Jones yesteday told the Telegraph he stands by his findings.
He called any conspiracy to manipulate climate data to support the theory of man-made global warming 'complete rubbish'.
'The facts speak for themselves, there is no need for anyone to manipulate them,' he added.

When posted on the internet, the emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement: 'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

'We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents.

'Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.'

A spokesman for the University of East Anglia said: 'We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.

'Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine.

'We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry.'
Paul Hudson was unavailable for comment.

[Teddy Bear]

Another excellent piece on the subject, this one from Stephen Glover at the Daily Mail, highlights the implications and magnitude of this scam, and conjectures how BBC bias would have covered the story if it would have been found to have orignated from the global warming sceptic camp.

I might not know the truth about climate change, but I recognise trickery and slippery excuses when I see them

One of the charges often made by climate change sceptics about climate change believers is that they sometimes manipulate statistics. The believers say exactly the same thing about the sceptics.
What are we to make of such allegations? By 'we' I mean the vast majority of humanity who are not experts on climate change. These include most politicians and journalists, all non-scientists, and even scientists in unrelated fields.
My own response is to assume both sides are capable of twisting the facts. This is not based on scientific knowledge of climate change, since like almost everyone else I don't have any.
If climate change is such a big threat, it warrants having a measured argument
You could say it is a common sense point of view. In any heated argument, both sides are liable to be selective, and we shouldn't expect scientists to be immune from such tendencies.
It is nonetheless shocking to read leaked emails from the University of East Anglia which imply selectivity.

The university may not be generally regarded as one of this country's finest academic institutions, but its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is reckoned one of the most influential in the world.
In one email, dated November 1999, Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, wrote: 'I've just completed Mike's Nature [the scientific journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 to hide the decline.'
The CRU, which has played a key role in several United Nations reports, has refused to provide detailed information about the data underlying temperature records.
Other emails are no less damning. Some suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by sceptics, or to keep it out of an Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change.
In another email, Professor Jones refers to the death of a prominent sceptic by writing 'in an odd way this is cheering news'.

These and other emails do not give a impression of relentless seeking after truth, or of constant fair-mindedness.
Rather, they hint at a tendency to conceal inconvenient facts in their own research and to suppress them in others.
What has been the response of the CRU in particular and climate change believers in general? With one or two honourable exceptions, such as George Monbiot in The Guardian newspaper, it has been unapologetic, and beside the point.
The University of East Anglia even refused to admit for a while that the emails were genuine.
There are those such as Professor Julia Slingo, chief scientist at the Met Office, who complain that the emails were obtained criminally, as though this somehow frees her and others from any responsibility to justify them.

There is also the hoary old defence that they have been taken out of context.
Defenders of the CRU have even argued that the emails span a period of some ten years, and are therefore bound to include a few disobliging references. Professor Jones has tried to explain away his email about tricks and hiding decline by saying it was written in haste.
This won't do. Even in haste, a prominent academic writing to a colleague does not say something he does not mean. Professor Jones should explain why he used words which would appear to be self-incriminating. I suspect he won't because he can't.
You may say that, just because a few leading climate change evangelists misbehave, it does not follow that all climate change believers do so, or that all their arguments are false.

That, of course, is true. But if there is evidence that one of the world's most influential climate change institutions has acted - to say the least - unprofessionally, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether such techniques are not more widely used.
Almost none of us will ever understand climate change. Without specialised scientific knowledge, most of us can only make an educated guess as to whether it is caused by man.

My guess is that it is to an extent. In coming to this tentative conclusion I am influenced by the integrity and sense of fair dealing of those who volubly make the argument for man-made climate change.
So when these people show a want of openness and fair dealing, and when they fail to offer a proper defence of apparently dodgy emails, such faith as I have in them is shaken. I may not understand climate change but I can recognise slippery responses when I see them.
If a leading climate change sceptic had been unmasked using this sort of language, there would be a tremendous hullabaloo
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
But then this is not a debate that is often conducted in an open way. In some quarters climate change sceptics are derisively dismissed as 'deniers', which is to put them on the level of Holocaust deniers.

But whereas the Holocaust is a historical event, attested to by many survivors and observers, man-made climate change is only a theory, albeit a highly plausible one.

Its adherents invest it with the authority of an unchallengeable doctrine - which is why, when some of them are discovered not being wholly straightforward, they do not bother to offer a creditable defence.
And, even more disturbingly, much of the media does not feel obliged to put them on the spot, having uncritically swallowed everything they say.
Imagine that a leading climate change sceptic had been unmasked using this sort of language.

There would be a tremendous hullabaloo. BBC news bulletins, which have either ignored or underplayed the University of East Anglia's emails, would be full of fury.
The Corporation long ago stopped questioning the climate change consensus. Visit its website and you will find little, if anything, critical of the University of East Anglia.

But you can watch a video clip of Bianca Jagger, borrowed from its programme The Daily Politics, informing us that climate change is the biggest threat we face, with scenes of the Cumbrian floods in the background. She suggests they were caused by man-made climate change.
Bianca Jagger cannot possibly know whether or not they were, and nor does the BBC.

Her views about the causes of climate change are completely worthless, and yet the BBC cheerfully broadcasts them - as it would certainly not broadcast the views of an ignoramus who was a sceptic.
The University of East Anglia owes the world a more straightforward explanation than it has so far bothered to give about those emails
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If climate change really is the biggest threat facing humanity, let's have a more measured and reasoned argument in which the sceptics are not shouted down or ignored.

If our way of life is to be changed, and our countryside transformed, and the Third World possibly deprived of the opportunities of economic growth, we deserve a bit more than bogus pictures of polar bears perched on lumps of ice, and Bianca Jagger informing us that the Cumbrian floods are the result of climate change.
And the University of East Anglia - a public institution largely funded by the taxpayer - owes the world a more straightforward explanation than it has so far bothered to give about those apparently discreditable emails.
The misbehaviour of one influential group in seeking to manipulate the facts obviously does not mean that all climate change believers are wrong.

But in future people would be wise no longer to take on trust their most outlandish and hair-raising claims.