Climate Science’s Vietnam?

Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate

This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.

Here are three things everyone should know about the Climategate Papers. Links are provided so that the full context of every quote can be seen by anyone interested.

Summary version:

  1. Manipulate data to get the results you want
  2. Prevent publication of papers which conflict with your position and try to minimize those that get by
  3. Destroy data which may undermine your position or limit its availability to others

In fact, if this were put into a movie, it would be dismissed as a skeptic’s wet dream. For those militantly opposed to global warming science (or its new hedge-your-bets name “climate change”) this seems too good to be true. We’ll see if it is or not.

Meanwhile, even if 100% true and accurate, keep in mind that these revelations do not necessarily implicate all scientists who champion global warming science and they do not mean that there is not, in fact, at least some climate change happening or that humans are not responsible for any of it.

The climate change skeptics would do well to exercise some of that same skepticism about all of this.

Do not immediately swallow data which supports your position and ignore that which contradicts it, especially to crucify people for swallowing data which supports their positions and ignoring that which contradicts it.

UPDATE: The New York Times suddenly developed some sort of a conscience and won’t stoop to publishing “Statements that Were Never Intended for the Public Eye”

Possible evidence that at least some scientists have been faking it when it comes to climate science? Can’t publish. Wouldn’t be prudent.

Stories, fake or otherwise, that put US troops in danger and directly hinder our military campaigns? It’s our responsibility to get it all out for discussion. The public needs to know.

If this wasn’t so serious, it would be hilarious.


  1. It is confirmation of everything we suspected. They are not scientists using Scientific Method. They are scumbags selectively choosing and manipulating data to advocate for a conclusion they have already assumed to be true. I’ve been a financial analyst for years – I would be fired on the spot and possibly prosecuted for this behavior. (But I have been employed for evil-for-profit companies, not righteous leftist advocacy organizations.)

    These documents absolutely were intended for publication. There were repeated attempts to gain access to them through the British equivalent of a “Freedom of Information” requests. The CRU responded to the requests by claiming that the documents didn’t exist and/or they were lost. Both complete lies that should put these “scientists” in front of a judge.

    A whistle-blower didn’t go along with the lies and released the requested data. Nothing was “stolen” or “hacked.” As the first commenter in the NYT blog said, if these e-mails were between Petroleum Executives plotting to suppress data, there would be zero concern of their privacy.

  2. if these e-mails were between Petroleum Executives plotting to suppress data, there would be zero concern of their privacy.

    That’s a good point. Another good analogy would be tobacco corporations manipulating/suppressing data regarding kids or addiction or second-hand smoke. The NYT would be screaming bloody murder above the fold for weeks in a row.

  3. Speaking of info that was never intended for the public eye, what about the Pentagon Papers and the Abu Ghraib photo shoot?

  4. It is ridiculously frustrating to see the two faced bias of the “Newspaper of Record” on display year in and year out, but then again, it helps sow its own downfall. There’s a reason, beyond the internet, that newspapers all over the country are going bankrupt. Morally bankrupt I should add.

    If George Bush pees without lifting the toilet seat, the world needs to know. If Al Gore makes a documentary stuffed with half truths and propaganda, that’s just not their business. It’s been clear to anyone that pays attention that any (Republican) government action is fair game. Anything that doesn’t hew to the left agenda is off limits.

  5. I’ve known from day one that “Climate Change” was a phony issue, and my Geology Professor’s lectures have proven it.

    Here’s a few interesting little omissions that the “End of the World” club don’t tell you.

    1: The CO2 Monitoring station in Hawaii is located atop Mauna Kea, one of the most active volcanoes on earth. Mauna Kea is a source of dense, endless emissions of CO2, because CO2 is a VOLCANIC GAS; volcanic outgassing is how the world got it’s CO2 in the first place!

    2: Any single volcanic eruption outgasses more CO2 than ALL OF HUMANITY since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    3: The Earth’s atmosphere was originally 70% CO2, and had NO O2 at all, but oceanic Plankton ate nearly all of it (producing O2 as a byproduct). In other words, the Earth doesn’t need any help regulating CO2.

    4: The CO2 levels do not run parallel with the Earth’s average temperature, as depicted in “An Inconveniant Truth”; they increase at an average of 800 years AFTER the Earth’s temperature rises.
    Prince Albert and his cronies KNEW THIS all along, and LIED about it by manipulating the datasheets!

    5: More CO2 is produced by burning wood than by any other means, and virtually all of the Developing World uses Wood-Burning Stoves to do all of their cooking (because they don’t have electricity).
    The result is that the Developing World produces more CO2 annually than all of the Industrialized World.
    Rising CO2 levels don’t cause rising temperatures — this claim is @$$-BACKWARDS from the truth!

    6: Nature produces HUNDREDS of times as much CO2 every year as human industry.

    7: In the 1970’s, the “Climate Change” fad was Global COOLING.

    8: The Earth’s oceans, which comprise 72% of the sources that regulate the Earth’s climate, are NOT factored-in to the models used to “prove” Global Warming.

    9: Ice breaks free from Antarctica ONLY during the Spring Thaw, and the oceans rise because of Thermal Expansion — NOT because of ice falling into it.

    10: The IPCC’s report on Climate Change that was used to “prove” global warming was cherry-picked to deliberately form a false conclusion, and several of the scientists whose names are on the report are pressuring the UN to have thier names removed from the report because of this.

    You can find out about the whole scam by watching “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which is (as I type this) viewable in full on Youtube;

  6. “Here’s a few interesting little omissions that the “End of the World” club don’t tell you.”
    pretty much all of the assertions above are covered regularly by the ‘End of the World” club as you put it, here is just a couple:

    Assume you are an ordinary researcher trying to do work in an politically charged field. You are being hounded day in and out by people who don’t understand that work. Wouldn’t you also be careful not to give ammunition to your enemies? … you just want to get some actual work completed. How productive would you be to have to constantly give answers to such persons, when you are a researcher, and not a public relations guy.

  7. Blacktail……….sometime in the lat two years or so, I read an editorial/column in Car & Driver that made a case (very similar to yours) against all the GW hype. I’ve been very skeptical about GW since; and some of my detractors have “alleged” I’ve also been “rude and derisive” towards their proponency of it! LOL!

  8. Sam: I will agree that anti-warming types are just as likely to go off half-cocked as pro-warming types. But every time I mention global warming, you pop up and dismiss everything the skeptics say and back up everything the pro-warming guys say. That might not be your intent, for it to sound “the skeptics are 100% wrong every time and the pro-warming guys are 100% right every time,” but that is sure what it reads like.

    You provide links to some sites that you usually provide links to. You do understand why skeptics would be even more skeptical of research proving the skeptics wrong when the story is about a research faking lying hiding faking lying hiding research, right?

    The worry all along has been that at least some of the loudest pro-warming types have been doing EXACTLY THIS. And now it looks like at least a few of them have been caught.

    And are you really defending faking lying hiding research as being “careful not to give ammunition to your enemies“? Seriously?

    Oh, the poor scientist. Always picked last in gym class and now hounded day in and out because not everyone believes him. No wonder he fakes research, organizes a campaign to discredit rivals, and destroys evidence that could undermine his work. It’s perfectly understandable.

    Give me a break. Because he’s a “researcher, and not a public relations guy” he lied faked and suppressed? Are you sure you’ve got that right? Aren’t the “public relations guys” the ones who lie, fake, and suppress for a living?

  9. I work with software models regularly – economic not scientific but the principles are the same. The problems with their models are obvious. The data is a mess; it comes from unreliable sources and cannot accurately predict the past. Reading the latest from PJmedia – they couldn’t repeat their own results due to data problems.

    The problem with most people’s perception of Global Warming is that they have accepted what the media has fed them.

    I love it when people worry about melting Arctic ice. It’s ice on top of water! Any of our squid readers can tell you that anything floating displaces its weight in water. Only ice on land can change sea levels (Greenland and Antarctica) and those ice sheets are growing.

  10. “Give me a break. Because he’s a “researcher, and not a public relations guy” he lied faked and suppressed? Are you sure you’ve got that right? Aren’t the “public relations guys” the ones who lie, fake, and suppress for a living?”

    I see it as unlikely, given the emails, that lying, faking, etc. occurred. These guys are under attack very often from non-scientists.

    Are you sure you understand the emails? Think about this for a minute. These are discussions between experts on expert matters using jargon/argot/slang. They know their material, you and I do not. So…are you really sure? Have you really put your own bias aside sufficiently?

    Yes. Speaking of whom, it would be fair and equally interesting to see Marc Morano’s emails from the past twelve years.

    I skimmed through the emails. Apart from trying to counter-frustrate the most Septical of the Skeptics, the most serious thing found IMO, is the issue with boycotting publishing papers at a particular magazine. Which IMO had severely lowered their standards of peer review.

    And even if these guys were lying, hiding, faking etc. There is nothing in them pointing to a massive conspiracy to fake it all by all climatologists since the mid 50s. No Al Gore, no George Soros as their masterminds for Global Government etc.

    At worst, it’s really no different than the shenanigans between Newton and Leibnitz and ‘friends’. Gravity and Calculus has survived the Renaissance and Enlightenment just fine.

    Climatology is unaffected. IF it has been…IF actual established peer-reviewed papers must withdrawn because of these purloined emails, then that is a bigger matter. And your test! Show as much or go back to school.

  11. “Any of our squid readers can tell you that anything floating displaces its weight in water.”

    This is the only true(ish) thing you have said. Everything else is more complicated and/or contextual than you imagine…or flat out dishonest (though you may not realize it).

  12. HEH! whaddayaknow! Newton Gate
    “If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.”

  13. b4 I gotobed,

    I will discuss one illustrative purloined email of note.
    “…The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what t he peer-review literature is!

    This last line seems rather nefarious right? Or is that your bias talking? How can you tell that it wasn’t a jest missing it’s [jk][/jk] tags?

    You look at what they actually did.

    What did they actually do? The emails don’t say. But then some emails which were purloined are missing from what was made available. So we then turn to any actual record of they generally do do in such cases:
    “In the end, the scientists in the discussion determined not to hold a press conference to announce a finding of fraud, but instead to hunker down and work on publishing datasets that would contradict the alleged fraudulent paper, and establish their case with data instead of invective and press conferences.”

  14. I think we got us a Warming believer!

    Sam – Take a ride over to

    They have lot of articles you can comment on – then get annihilated by others.

    My favorite is still the “Read Me” file of the programmer who basically couldn’t make sense out of the data or repeat the results they supposedly got once.

  15. It seems I’ve set-off a powder keg!

    (which, if used in that fashion, is technically a “landmine”… but I digress)

  16. Sam, I do agree that most of us don’t know these guys well enough to distinguish jest from serious talk (maybe they should be required to use emoticons =), and the jargon is over my head, at least. But the plain language they did use does look awfully damning.

    It’s not the science, research, or modeling that gets skeptics all riled up. It’s the assertion of absolute truth, and the ensuing calls for massive government programs, taxes, cap and trade and other wealth redistribution that immediately set off alarm bells and get us looking for the holes. I have no doubt that there are a lot, no, probably a vast majority of climate scientists out there that are honest, diligent, and really believe the evidence points to human caused climate change. But when they start becoming political activists, almost always for the authoritarian left, then my red flag goes right the hell up. And this whole flap sure makes me take a double take.

    Leave the politics for the politicians. If the skeptics are funded by petroleum or other conflicts of interests, get the word out there. The more sunlight on things the better. Scheming and playing the system, even if in the pursuit of a perceived truth, just makes that whole side look bad.


    The FACTS PROVE we ARE in a period of Global Warming NOW! Before I list some of these facts, I say, to HELL with the “Average Temperatures” argument as it very obvious they are NOT an accurate method of determining if we are in a period of Global Warming or not.

    1. Marine life which normally does NOT come as far north ARE NOW farther north than normal.

    2. Crops which normally do NOT grow as far north as they ARE NOW!.

    3. Northern growing seasons in both the US and in Canada ARE NOW LONGER

    4. Animals and insects which do not normally come as far north, ARE NOW farther north than they used to be.

    5. Wild Plants and flower which do not normally grow as far north, ARE NOW growing north of where they used to.

    6. Polar Bears which normally do not go as far South ARE comng South so as the ice they are normally on is melting.

    7. Ice packs which are normally frozen further North are breaking off and floating South.

    8. The growing season in Greenland IS NOW longer.

    9. Large sections of Greenland which were normally under Ice, are NO longer covered with ice. (Because it MELTED).

    10. ALL around the world, Glaciers which have NOT melted in recorded history, HAVE, and ARE melting.

    11. I recently saw a TV program on a world famous Ski resort in Chile which was built very high up in the Andes. When it was constructed, it was located by a thick glacier and there was a lot of snow every year. And as there was a lot of great snow every year, it became a great ski place to go.

    This resort, which then employed many people and which generated a lot of income for the entire area IS NOW CLOSED. So why is it closed?

    Because the snow and the thick glacier are GONE!

  18. Growing seasons are not getting longer where I live. The last 2 years we have had frost very late in June, and this year we had heavy snow and 0 degrees F. on about the 10th of October. We had virtually no fall colors because the cold killed the leaves before they had a chance to turn color. Montana is not known for much of a growing season, but this has been ridiculous.
    The global warming community is well known for refusing Freedom of Information Act requests from skeptics. This tells me what they are practicing is not science as we used to know it. Anthony Watts has carefully documented the disaster that is our climate measurement system in this country:

  19. Try AGAIN

    They (the snow and the glaicer) are No more, THEY AIN’T THERE!

    The people who depend on water coming from the Andes in Chile are in deep dodo due to melted glaciers and to a lack of snow. The water needed for drinking and crops is disappearing and all kinds of people are suffering due to this.

    And some idiots who have some agenda are going to tell me there is NO Global Warming?

    Well, they can Kiss my old wrinkled Airborne Ass as they are either too lazy to get the facts and/or too damn stupid to be able to understand them!



    While we humans may not be responsible fro more than a little of it, ONLY TOTAL IDIOTS would not be for doing what we can to reduce it’s imp[act on OUR earth. You know the ONE you SHOULD want all those who come after us to enjoy. Besides, any INFORMED person KNOWS “Going Green” ends up not only helping our environment,”Going Green” also:

    A. Gives you and your loved ones a HEALTHIER environment to live in.

    B. INCREASES the value of your property


    D. Provides jobs

    E. In the short, to a little longer run, it SAVES YOU MONEY!


    “An OLD Pro Iraq War Agnostic Atheist Activist, a Vet and an Iconoclastic, Philosophizing Beach Volley Ball Playing Grumpy Old Son Of A Beach!”

  20. If we wanted to stop global warming, we need to plant trees etc.

    Stopping using fossil fuels is not going to solve it, only slow it down – if even that!

    The protestors don’t know f’all they just protest. Otherwise they would spend the time planting trees.

  21. Hi Mike,

    Thanks for your response. ONLY what happens in a local area is not reperesenative to what happens over a wide area. The FACTS are the growing seasons in the U.S. have been increasing for years. (And in other coutries as well.)

    FYI Vstress,

    1. There are MORE trees in the United States NOW than there were a hundred years ago.

    2. IF we totally stopped using ANY fossil fuels it WOULD slow G.W. down. How much, I have no clue

    Last, I give a shit less about this report or that report. I use THE FACTS about what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING And I know I can go to the locations as SEE THE PROOF!


  22. Neil C. Reinhardt,

    Global Warming is not a fact, because (as I have mentioned on an earlier pose, above) it is based totally upon cherry-picked data and models;

    1- Models are pointless in science, because they are easily manipulated to conform to self-fulfilled prophecies.

    2- Cherry-picked data is Sophistry (lying by omission).

    Just because of these facts, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that humanity has any effect on the global climate. Therefore, Global Warming is neither fact, science, nor a credible theory.

    For good measure, here’s a few more facts omitted by Global Warming believers;

    1- The primary factor in the regulation of the Earth’s atmospheric temperature is the Sun, which is not part of any model supporting Global Warming.
    2- The Sun’s climate-affecting IR emissions are in sync with the Earth’s overall temperature, but not it’s OC2 levels.
    3- Substantial changes to the Earth’s climate have came and gone before the Industrial Revolution. In the Medieval Warming Period, Greenland was the breadbasket of the Nordic peoples, and the remains of vast forests and vineyards are still there today under the ice.
    4- As demonstrated by the Medieval Warming Period, there is no evidence to suggest that Global Warming is either man-made, nor a disaster.
    5- One of the most-cited pieces of “evidence” by the Hot Air crowd was the claim that the Polar Bear population was “declining” — until empirical evidence was applied, and it was revealed that the Polar Bear population has actually TRIPLED since the 1970s.

  23. To put this much more gently than I really want to, KISS MY WRINKLED OLD AIRBORNE & DEEP SEA DIVING ASS! And Screw your stupid MODELS!

    EVERYTHING I SAID IS A DAMN FACT! CALL ME A LIAR TO MY FACE and YOU will be pushing up Daises!

    If you do not mind getting LAUGHED AT GO to Peru, (Where I lived for five years) Chile and Bolivia where the snow and the glaciers WERE and TELL THEM YOUR IGNORANT BULL SHIT!

    See if they believe it any more than any TRULY INFORMED person does. IF they are not too busy kicking your retarded ass, they will at least be laughing at your TOTAL STUPIDITY!

  24. First to all, sorry for my temper, I do have sever anger management problems. So I apologize for it.

    JUST the single FACT, all by it’self, that Glaciers ALL around the world which have NOT melted in record history are NOW melting PROVES to ALL INTELLIGENT and LOGICAL people Global Warming IS A FACT!

    Those who DENY PROVABLE FACTS are perfect examples of what Tolstoy said

    “Most men… Can seldom accept even the simplest and most oblivious truth if it obligates them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught others and which they have woven thread by thread into the fabric of their lives.”

    DENYING FACTS is, as Talleyrand told Napoleon, “- not only wrong, it is worse than wrong, it is STUPID!”

  25. There’s a glacier growing at the back of my freezer. I think I need to thaw that sucker out one of these days.

    Climate change is occurring. It’s kind of pointless to debate that. Glacier National Park has a lot less glaciers than it used to. There’s photographic evidence of this. Permafrost is melting in places where it never has been known to before. Sea ice coverage, at least until recently, has been smaller than the historical norm. Yada yada yada.

    Climate has also changed in the past, as mentioned. The little ice age, which ended in the 1800’s, was colder than historical norms. The Medieval Warm Period, as mentioned, was warmer than historical averages. Perhaps those Glaciers in Glacier National Park declined and advanced in those periods respectively. We don’t have the photos for that. And for both those climate events, there isn’t any known mechanism that caused them, much less a human cause.

    Anyway, even if humans are the cause of it this time, which may very well be the case, how does retarding the world economy help stop it? Are the billions in poverty just going to accept the nobility of their misery and stay poor? Are we all going to buy power at two to four times the market rate to be economically sound? Besides going nuclear as quickly as possible, which I support, there is very little we can do about it, in a real politic world.

    Research and development will be the cure I hope. I’d like to see an X prize for achieving fusion that generates sustained energy production. I’d really like to see the break through in Solar that gets efficiency up the the point where it is competitive or cheaper than fossil sourced electricity. I’d love to see the battery of the future that can store huge amounts of electricity over long periods for small cost. But until we get there, no amount of government intervention or redistribution will change the hole we’re in. If those technologies were possible right now, we’d have them already. There’s too much money in it not to.

    So besides doing what we can economically do to be environmentally neutral, I would say it’s prudent to accept that the climate will change whether we like it or not, and plan accordingly. This used to be a country that accepted and triumphed over challenges.

    And that was the most long winded verbal diarrhea I’ve typed in a long time. Thank god only maybe 3 people will ever read it =)

  26. Hi Nadnerbus

    Thank you! Glad to know at least one other person who posts has the common sense to reconize the facts. What a refeshing change.

    And while I am sure we humans ARE responsible for a part (how much I have no clue) of THIS cycle of GW, I am not sure any steps we take will stop it before it runs it’s normal course. That said, we should all do wiat we can for all the reasons I’ve already listed.

    Please, Take Care!


  27. PICTURE PROOF of Global Warming!

    In pictures: The world’s melting glaciers | Environment | guardian …Glaciers around the world are retreating at unprecedented rates as temperatures rise due to climate change. Some ice caps, glaciers and even an ice shelf ……/apr/…/glaciers-melting-climate-change

    Pictures of a Warming World Global Warming Pictures: Glacier National Park, Montana, and Melting Ice…/photo9.html

    Glaciers Disappear in Before & After Photo Mar 24, 2006 … Now there are 26. A good-bye tribute, in pictures. … Melting glaciers, a result of global warming, could cause sea levels to rise as much …

    Antarctic Glaciers Melting Rapidly Apr 21, 2005 … As glaciers melt, they sometimes move toward the sea more quickly, exacerbating the melting. Where a glacier meets the sea, an ice shelf can…/050421_glacial_retreat.html

    Photos Capture Melting Splendor of Alaska’s Glaciers : NPR Oct 23, 2006 … Seven decades ago, pioneer aerial photographer Bradford Washburn flew over Alaska’s glaciers, documenting their splendor.

    Peru’s Sacred Glacier Is Melting – Photo Essays – Warmer temperatures eat away at an ancient …,29307,1938688,00.html

    Melting Alaska

    Greenland Melting glacier uncovers island slide show

  28. Hey Blacktale,,

    Why don’t you tell my HS classmate who lives in Alaska threre is nol Global Warming so seh can laugh at you? I just got this from her.

    I see it here where I live. The caribou feed on Lichons [likens] a plant which takes years to grow and is disappearing rapidly just while I live here. Some35 years or so… We have not had 72 below since the first 2 years I moved here. Only 44 below.

  29. To Finish what Phyllis sent me and which did not post as this website turned my WebTV off again.

    The Black Rapids Glacier was almost to the road first time I saw it. Now it takes binoculars to find it in the mountains.

    While it is much warmer in Alaska, our heating oil is very much higher as well as gas. It was 59 cents when I moved here and now it is $3.89. Heating oil was 29 cents and it is now $3.92 per gallon.

    Do all you people who do not believe in Global Warming, tell me where all the snow, ice, glaciers and super cold weather at my classmates home go? Maybe in the empty space between your ears?

Comments are closed