Climategate – The Global Warming Conspiracy – News Spreads

Posted on Tue 11/24/2009 by


By Andrew Bolt

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

This story continues to provide more and further damning evidence that the Global Warming/Climate Change Science was skewed to highlight only the parts of the argument that supported the agenda they were all running with. Again, this is a long post, and even though centred around the Australian viewpoint, it is still relevant in the wider Worldwide community.

Even alarmist Tim Flannery, confronted on Lateline with the emails of the global warming conspiracy, concedes holes in the “science is settled” argument and admits to what he didn’t before:

We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.

And on these now-admitted uncertainties we must scrap all coal-fired generators, impose massive new taxes, shut entire industries, hand billions to the UN and change the way we live?

Incidentally, note that journalists absolutely refused to hear exactly this from me on Insiders. Even Lateline host Tony Jones will now hear from Flannery what he wouldn’t just days earlier from sceptic Tony Abbott,

In the Senate:

Senator PARRY

I also want to raise some questions about new information that seems to have come to light in recent times which probably bears testimony as to why we should not be rushing this. I am looking at reports in the media, and I stress they are allegations and the veracity of the alleged emails has not been confirmed. … Documents have been leaked going back some years. Some of these documents, if they are found to be true, just raise further questions which, if I were the Prime Minister of this country … would mean that I would want to hold off a bit. I would want to cool off a bit before I charged off to Copenhagen or put monumental legislation to this parliament.…Reports say: … some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong shows no evidence will be admitted to her closed mind:

Senator JOYCE (2.50 pm)—

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. Is the minister aware of reports in today’s Australian, the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal and other leading world newspapers documenting Kevin Trenberth, the IPCC lead author in 2001-07, when he said: … we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.Is the minister also aware of the director of the British Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, and emails that talk of ‘tricks’ to hide the decline in global warming?Or Phil Jones’ statement that he ‘cheered’ at the death of John L Daly in Launceston, a scientists and climate sceptic, in 2004? Is the minister also aware of the culture within the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit that has strong links, as demonstrated, with the IPCC of intimidation towards the free expression of views on climate change, referring to sceptical colleagues—(Time expired)

Senator WONG—

Through you, Mr President, what is clear to every senator, and to any Australian who is interested in what the Senate is doing, is that Senator Joyce, Senator Bernardi, Senator Minchin and many others on that side are not interested in the facts….Everything he does and everything he says needs to be listened to with that in mind—that he comes to this debate with a completely closed mind…(waffle follows, and no answer.)

But the facts will out, even if the New York Times declares it will not publish them. On ABC Lateline:

Some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been embarrassed by the publication of hundreds of private emails and research documents, which were stolen by computer hackers from a British university. Climate change sceptics have hailed the material as proof that research data has been skewed and suppressed.

(Please check on that link Andy Pitman‘s preposterous excuses for Phil Jones wanting to destroy emails apparently requested under FOI, excuses not even Jones canvassed in writing about it. Note that Tim Flannery is then wheeled on as well to the defence, with Tony Jones first asking him to explain the badness of ….the sceptics.)

Climatologist Tim Ball points out that the 2006 Wegman report into Michael Mann’s discredited “hocky stick” had already warned there was a small group of 43 climate scientists operating in too-close concert:

In fact, that Wegman report, commissioned by the United States House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, named as members of this clique the very people are the centre of these emails. Professor Wegman:

One of the interesting questions associated with the ‚”hockey stick controversy’ are the relationships among the authors and consequently how confident one can be in the peer review process. In particular, if there is a tight relationship among the authors and there are not a large number of individuals engaged in a particular topic area, then one may suspect that the peer review process does not fully vet papers before they are published…

“However, it is immediately clear that the Mann, Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique, each interacting with all of the others. A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else in the clique.

Lord Monckton says those implicated by the leaked emails are “crooks”:

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up…

(P)rocurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

Over at Lucia’s, the party mix version:

Tim Blair has the shirt.


Even The Age squeezes in a short report, amid at least a page of warmist propaganda that includes what even Tim Flannery now accepts is a falsehood – that “third, it is clear that the world is warming”. Unfortunately the report fails to mention some of the more astonishing revelations, including the destruction and withholding of data, and admissions that the world isn’t warming as predicted:

Professor Jones’ 1999 email is at the centre of a scandal that has lit up the internet with claims by climate sceptics that it is evidence of a ‘’global warming conspiracy’’.

The Australian goes in longer, and a fraction harder:

About 1000 emails and 3000 documents have been posted on websites and seized on by climate change sceptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.

Only sceptics would say this?

Nick Minchin, Opposition leader in the Senate:

These emails reveal at least prima facie evidence that supporters of the theory of anthropogenic global warming are going to considerable lengths to doctor evidence and to suppress information and intimidate those who don’t support that theory.

Professor Ian Plimer:

Here we have the Australian government underpinning the biggest economic decision this country has ever made and it’s all based on fraud.

Terry McCrann:

ANYONE in the parliament who votes for the Emissions Trading Scheme is betraying not just common sense but the country… Do the basic math. We contribute 1.5 per cent of global CO2 emissions. Cutting our emissions by 5 per cent – the most likely scenario, given that everyone else at Copenhagen is going to laugh at these hicks from downunderville and promise to do exactly squat – will reduce our contribution to 1.425 per cent. Hooray, the Barrier Reef is saved! Victoria – according to the prime minister – will never experience another super-hot day again!…

Indeed it’s gone beyond the surreal. With the prime minister’s rising hysteria colliding with the leaked emails showing some of his fellow climate hysterics – the ‘official’ ones behind the whole US climate change dynamic – have massaged their analysis to ‘prove’ global warming and to – try to – bury the global cooling reality.

Sorry, this was done in their ‘peer-reviewed analysis.’ All other credible scientists should be alarmed. Nor over supposed global warming. But the way this taints all of them and the scientific method…

This is one of those moments in time. You are either on the right side of history or you are not.

Piers Akerman:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who has called climate change the greatest moral issue facing the world, would be wise to withdraw the ETS Bill before the Senate or risk looking an even greater idiot if the emails can’t be refuted. He will be shown to have recklessly endangered the national economy by relying on falsified data to run his fear and smear campaign against credible critics and make his extravagant claims of global disaster.


Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…

If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

is a journalist and columnist writing for in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from