The UVA Emails and Confirmation Bias: Seek and Ye Shall Find

You have to hand it to the American Tradition Institute. Unlike Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, they’ve found a way to get the University of Virginia to release at least some emails and other documents from climate researcher Michael Mann’s time working there–by using freedom of information requests for “public” documents. (News here, scathing Washington Post editorial here.)

The University of Virginia is complying, although its president says they will take advantage of every exemption allowed by the law. Still, though, it sounds as though a lot of documents are going to be released. So what will happen next?

For an answer, we can look to an important new book, Michael Shermer’s The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies, How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. In it, Shermer discusses the phenomenon of confirmation bias, invoking the biblical line “seek and ye shall find” to describe this pervasive cognitive flaw. 

The American Tradition Institute–and indeed, conservative climate skeptics across the board–have gone seeking scandal among the ranks of climate scientists. That’s what Ken Cuccinelli did. That’s what happened in “ClimateGate.” That has been the strategy for some time.

So does anyone think that that, whatever these documents say, they are not going to be treated as a scandal by those who went searching for them?

Confirmation bias tells us what will happen. Those who went seeking went in with a theory–that wrongdoing has been done. They all believe “ClimateGate,” shown by multiple investigations to be a fake scandal, was actually a real one. So that is their premise.

They will therefore read whatever emails they receive and find wrongdoing in them. They will find politics. They will find closed-mindedness and bias. And who knows what else they will find–but it will all be made to look bad.

Will any of the charges be valid? I don’t know, although I seriously doubt it. One thing we can be sure of, though, is that things will be taken out of context and used selectively. That’s what happened in “ClimateGate” and that’s what will happen again.

Conservatives, in short, are targeting Mann and expecting to find another ClimateGate scandal. And I am watching conservatives and also predicting that they will find another ClimateGate “scandal.” There’s only the slightest difference between our views: The quotation marks.

Which one of us do you think is going to be right? 


Not interested in climate change only interested in whether the reports are a true reflection of the data. Not paid by anyone, just interested in where the money goes. Fraud is fraud. If the money going into climate change was fraudulently obtained shouldn’t we all be worried ?

Quote, Phil Jones,”……….If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish. Cheers. Phil”.

McI: Now working for a coal company.
Wegman: plagiarism
Michaels: fraud
GPWF: fraud


If the money going in to the Heartland Institute is going to fund fraud, shouldn’t we all be worried?

Maybe you’re defrauding the taxpayer now. Should we investigate you just to see? Should we investigate everyone to see if they’re defrauding the taxpayer by, say, avoiding taxes?

Or is the witchhunt costing more and no fraud has been found?

At what point will you stop believing that fraud has been committed? Never, it appears. Meanwhile, taxes are wasted looking for the Easter Bunny, wanted for tax evasion…

From: Phil Jones

To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers Phil

So they’re using thermometer readings for temperatures, removing data they know is wrong and not pretending that the thermometer readings are the proxy measures.

I would have thought that you would prefer that garbage data not be used.

If what you’re looking for is the truth, that is.

No, thats not what they were doing. Data is not right or wrong. It is data.

What Jones is describing is deleting selected data that was visibly wrong but keeping data in the same series when it was not visibly wrong. This was deleting the decline. Jones then spliced instrumental readings into the series, in place of the declines in the proxies, and then smoothed the proxy and instrumental series to mask the join and thus hide all evidence of the decline.

You can argue that Jones did nothing wrong if you wish, but the illusion he created - that treerings are a reliable temperature proxy - is just that; an illusion. It is not true. Asserting that what Jones did was not wrong is a poor reflection on you, and a poor reflection on climate science. Believe it and assert it if you wish, but dont expect scientists from other disciplines, of an honourable disposition, to support you. It is indefensible.

Yes, that is called “Quality control”. If they’d kept in the data they knew was corrupted, they’d be lying since that data no longer is an accurate proxy for temperature.

Therefore when the proxy is no longer useful, it is no longer used.

If you’re interested in accurate and good science, you’d be applauding this.

Your problem is that it’s accurate and good science but not what you want to hear.

“but the illusion he created - that treerings are a reliable temperature proxy - is just that; an illusion”

It isn’t an illusion. It’s a proxy for temperature. It can be affected by things other than temperature then when those factors come into significant play, you can no longer rely on the data.

Secondly, you were complaining about the data that you proclaim is an illusion out was being taken out. Could you make up your mind: do you want the tree ring data in or out? If you want it in, then it can’t be an illusion. If you want it out, then Jones didn’t do anything wrong by using real thermometer readings.

Thirdly, removing the bristlecone pine data from the northern hemisphere when pollution from industry became large enough to ruin the data doesn’t mean that the data before industry was invented is bad.

Fourth, removing the bristlecone pine data entirely doesn’t show any visible change in the results.

Fifth, they used other proxies and they and the bristlecone pine data agree up until the 70’s and the thermometer readings agree with the proxies too. After the 70’s the bristlecone pine data no longer agrees with the thermometer readings whilst the other proxies still do so.

So can you make up your mind.

If the “crime” is using bristlecone pine data then Jones did no wrong in removing them.

If the crime is that proxies are no measure of temperature, then there’s no evidence for a MWP or a RWP, nor indeed a global LIA.

“Yes, that is called “Quality control”. If they’d kept in the data they knew was corrupted, they’d be lying since that data no longer is an accurate proxy for temperature.”

Yes, quality control, but the egregious and insidious definition of quality control, unfortunately. The divergent data clearly demonstrates that the chronology could not be trusted. Instead of dropping the entire series, as any honourable and honest scientist would do, these pseudo-scientists conspired to mask the divergence while retaining as much of the data as they could, which suited their message.

You can try to defend it all you want, it will always remain indefensible and will always serve to distinguish between science and junk. Hiding the decline is junk science.

It wasnt a scientific paper, it was for a report for laymen, who understand little about such details. There was a more thorough discussion, with reference to relevant articles (including one that discussed the divergence problem), in the WHO newsletter. Nicely referenced in the comment to the figure, but of course ignored by the noise-creaters.

I dont accept the implicit suggestion that there are times when it is okay for scientists to misrepresent data. The WMO newsletter is intended to influence politics and policy. This does not make what Jones did any better - arguably worse; there are serious implications when scientists venture outside scientific practices to act as political or ideological advocates.

But this was not just the WMO trick to hide the decline, this was Michael Mann`s “Nature trick” to hide the decline, which was repeated by Jones for the WMO.

It doesn’t make what Jones said what he did either.

If you review a science paper (or a piece in a newspaper, or a report for TV news) you have to decide whether the paper is of good enough quality to get in. And someone reviewing the work saying “This is a load of tripe and shouldn’t go in” is EXACTLY WHAT REVIEW IS ABOUT. If a reviewer can’t say that, then there’s no point to review.

Which is what the denialists want, since they only have anti-science on their side.

What do you think a review is supposed to say “I can’t say anything in case someone claims it’s bad of me to give my opinion of this paper”?

1) The WMO report that featured the graph is not intended to influence politics and policy.
2) The WMO newsletter provided the relevant background information

and the worst of your three wrongs:

What Mann did was show the real temperature data (and clearly indicated as such, in a different color) for the whole period up to 1998, while his proxies ended somewhere around 1980

Simple question about that last point, Simon: why did you not know this? Were you misinformed? Or did you do what Chris so nicely points out: misinterpreting e-mails, such that they fit into your ideological viewpoint?

The WMO most certainly does aim to influence politics and policy. It is bizarre to hear it suggested otherwise.

What Mann hid was the truth. Discussed in the literature or not, Mann`s and Jones` graphics served to conceal the fact that treering proxies are poor temperature proxies. By removing inconvenient data from graphical representations of the spaghetti graphs, they purposefully concealed the fact - plain to see, when in plain sight - that one cannot rely on tree rings to indicate past temperatures.

It doesn`t matter what you or I say. What matters is whether science embraces or rejects the practices of Mann and Jones. Where the credibility of climatology rests will be on that response. With climate sciences haemorrhaging credibility popularly over the last year and a half or more, the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn is that the Hockey Team have been merrily hammering nails in the coffin of their own subject ever since, by their continued defence of the indefensible and their ongoing denial of lawful FOI requests. Long may they continue to do as they have always done, I say. It`s about time this climate apocalypse sham died out.

to realise what this was all about!

‘What Mann hid was the truth. Discussed in the literature or not, Mann`s and Jones` graphics served to conceal the fact that treering proxies are poor temperature proxies’

No. When the tree ring proxies showed a deviation from expected growth they stopped using them as proxies. The deviation being caused by factors other than temperature. I repeat, THAT IS WHY THEY STOPPED USING TREE RING DATA and substituted recorded temperature anomalies instead.

That was the decline, a decline in tree rings, not temperature. And this is why Trenberth talked about a travesty.

This has been explained again, and again and again as the denial-o-sphere echos rebound. Get with it!

So your statement quoted above is demonstrable BS.

How odd. It`s like you`re stuck in a loop, Lionel, believing you`re hearing one thing when people are saying something completely different. The treerings did *suggest* a decline in temperature when it was obvious from the instrumental record that this was not correct. This is what is referred to as the divergence - treering temperatures diverged from the instrumental record and headed south while instrumental records headed north, clearly showing that they are not a reliable proxy for temperatures.

Mann and Jones did NOT stop using treerings as proxies. They just didn`t use the portions that showed the decline. That is the problem. Instead of discarding the whole series, knowing (because of the divergence) that treerings are not a suitable proxy for temperature, they cherry-picked only the portions of treering data where treering temperatures were in accordance with the instrumental record, then spliced in instrumental temperature records to replace the portions they deleted, and then smoothed the join to conceal the trick.

The treerings didn’t.

Only a VERY SMALL and LOCALISED set of treering data for ONE TYPE OF TREE didn’t follow the temperature trend by other proxies AFTER industrialisation IN those localised areas caused a biological change.

Secondly, you’re not reading a damn thing. Other studies took those treerings out completely. No change in result.

“knowing (because of the divergence) that treerings are not a suitable proxy for temperature”

They DID throw them out. Where (because of the divergence), those treerings from ONE TYPE OF TREE in a LOCALISED area diverged.

Then YOU complain about it.

“They just didn`t use the portions that showed the decline. That is the problem. ”

You have to show why it’s a problem. Nobody else has seen a problem, not even the National Academy of Science. Even throwing out the entire bristlecone pine data doesn’t show that there is a problem.

You see, the problem that you, like all deniers have, is that for some reason (you don’t know why) you KNOW there’s a problem with the climate science.

So you insist there’s a problem with the climate science.

Even though there isn’t and you can’t say why.

“Even throwing out the entire bristlecone pine data doesn’t show that there is a problem.”

Yeah, by switching in the Tiljander series instead. Then, in order to purportedly show that Tiljander is no problem, it is removed. Oh.. look, while removing Tiljander, Mann reinserts Bristlecone pines. Mike`s “trick” is a poorly performed sleight of hand magic trick indeed.

What Mann hid was nothing. The method used had been displayed for yonks in research papers (“Mann’s Nature Trick” should give you an idea of where to look. Hint: it’s talking about a science journal, not your local park). The data he used was displayed distinctly and the cutoff was absolutely clear.

But you want to complain that he “hid” something, but are unable to say exactly WHAT without denying your own words.

Decline in temperatures? There wasn’t one as all but a small subset of one measure shows.
Decline in the usefulness of the bristlecone pine data for the northern temperate latitudes as a temperature proxt? Nope, that was discussed in several papers publicly available.
The swap out to actual thermometer data? Nope, the thermometer data is down as a vivid red line. Hardly hidden.
The use of bad data? Nope, you complain that he took out bad data.

The problem you have is that you can’t find any rational reason for your beliefs but your self-image requires that you have a reason. Your inarticulate incoherent ramblings are the muddied thoughts of a person in deep self-deception.

On the contrary, Mann stated categorically that “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction.” -

There is a clear disparity between what Mann claims and the actual facts of the matter. What a surprise.

You see, no researcher in the field ALSO INCLUDES MANN.

Since he is, oddly enough, a researcher in the field.

YOU however, have no idea how to read english.

Mann didn’t graft the temperature on (it’s a completely different colour graph to the proxy trends). Nobody did.

They stopped using data that was not applicable and you’re complaining.

Wrong. In “Nature”, Michael Mann spliced proxy data to 1980 and instrumental data to 1995 (MBH98, then to 1998 in MBH99), with a 50 year smoothing.

Your focus here suggests that you are a Watts primed wuppet (Watts puppet), being primed with just enough to appear knowledgeable.

‘Yeah, by switching in the Tiljander series instead. Then, in order to purportedly show that Tiljander is no problem, it is removed. Oh.. look, while removing Tiljander, Mann reinserts Bristlecone pines. Mike`s “trick” is a poorly performed sleight of hand magic trick indeed.’

Sources please, so that we can all see how you Plimered this.

This time, use complete sentences with prepositions, nouns, verbs and all that jazz.

Links and apostrophes disabled. There are better ways to avoid SQL injection.

So why you’re asking about a denier blog when the answer is in the journal called “Nature” is anyone’s guess.

I guess you’re not a primary sources guy?

Maybe because you’d prefer to have an opinion handed to you by someone willing to tell you whatever you want to hear.

.“Independent” critique of Hockey Stick revealed as fatally flawed right-wing anti-science set up


No one can possibly undo all of the damage to climate science and individual scientists done by the diarrhea of disinformation spewing out of the anti-science crowd. In large part that’s because of the reckless laziness of many in the status quo media, such as CBS, who prefer easy sensationalism to thoughtful journalism.

Few scientists have been more victimized than Michael Mann, Director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center. Than again, few scientists have been more vindicated than Michael Mann (see “Penn State inquiry finds no evidence for allegations against Michael Mann” and below).

That’s why I feel compelled to keep doing my small part in helping to set the record straight as often as possible — and to publicize the tremendous work of others doing the same, such as the blogger Deep Climate, who has uncovered previously unknown details of just how some of the most fraudulent charges against Mann and the Hockey Stick graph were trumped up by the anti-science crowd in the first place.

Remember the question scientists are trying to answer: Is the planet now as hot (or hotter) than it has been in a millenium? Try two millennia (see this 2008 PNAS study, which is the source of the figure above, and this “seminal” 2009 Science study).

In the interests of not spending my time rewriting the terrific work done by others, let me urge you all to read Deep Climate, while I excerpt a very good summary by DeSmogBlog:

The purportedly independent report that Dr. Edward Wegman prepared in 2006 for the Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce was actually a partisan set-up, according to information revealed today.

Wegman, who had presented himself as an impartial “referee” between two “teams” debating the quality of the so-called Hockey Stick graph was, in fact, coached throughout his review by Republican staffer Peter Spencer. Wegman and his colleagues also worked closely with one of the teams (and especially with retired mining stock promoter Stephen McIntyre) to try to replicate criticism of the Hockey Stick graph, while at the same time foregoing contact with the actual authors of the seminal climate reconstruction.

The Hockey Stick refers to a graph (by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes [MBH]) [used in] the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It also became a target for Steve McIntyre and the Guelph University economist Ross McKitrick, who since 2002, at least, has been a paid spokesperson for ExxonMobil-backed think tanks such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Fraser Institute.

According to a detailed analysis by the blogger Deep Climate, McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism of the Hockey Stick graph was aggressively promoted and disseminated by an echo chamber of think tanks and blogs, all of which had financial or ideological associations with fossil fuel industry funders.

Then, in 2005 … Republican Rep. and Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Joe Barton began calling for an investigation into the graph. But Barton rejected an offer from National Academy of Sciences President Ralph Ciccerone to conduct a formal and independent review in the highly professional manner typical of the nation’s foremost scientific body. Barton chose, instead, to engage a statistician (Wegman) from one of the most conservative institutions in the country (George Mason University) and to task him with setting up a team to dissect Mann’s Hockey Stick.

The result was predictable. Collaborating with McIntyre, Wegman’s team recreated and then endorsed the critical view of Michael Mann’s work. According to earlier revelations from Deep Climate, Wegman also cribbed … work from Raymond Bradley, lifting whole sections of his 1999 textbook, but periodically changing material or inserting information calculated to cast doubt on the reliability of tree-ring data (the source of the MBH climate reconstruction). In the most outrageous example, suspiciously unattributed, Wegman’s report actually suggested that tree rings might be affected positively by automobile pollution. (“… oxides of nitrogen are formed in internal combustion engines that can be deposited as nitrates also contributing to fertilization of plant materials.”)

All this could be dismissed as typical politicking except for two things. First, because this was presented as an independent and impartial review, it is reasonable to ask whether Barton, Wegman, et al, are guilty of misleading Congress, a felony offense.

Second, the same echo chamber that promoted Steve McIntyre’s criticism of the Hockey Stick is now fully engaged accusing scientists of manipulating data to increase global concern about climate change. The manipulation of both data and public opinion are certainly evident in this story. Science has most certainly been politicized. But (thanks to Deep Climate’s careful research) the record shows that the manipulation and politicization has been bought and paid for by the energy industry and executed by a sprawling network of think tanks and blogs – and by leading Republicans and their staffers.

This is, at the very least, fodder for a Congressional investigation as to whether the Energy and Commerce Committee was, indeed, intentionally and perhaps disastrously misled.

Not really a big surprise, I suppose (see Rep. Barton: Climate change is ‘natural,’ humans should just ‘get shade’ “” invites ‘expert’ TVMOB (!) to testify and ‘Smokey Joe’ Barton: Global Warming ‘Is A Net Benefit To Mankind’).

Yes, a Congressional investigation would be valuable to help set the record straight (see also this DeSmogBlog post).

Of course, the Hockey Stick graph was itself vindicated years ago in a thorough examination by a panel of the prestigious (and uber-mainstream) National Academy of Sciences (see NAS Report and here). Indeed, the news story in the journal Nature (subs. req’d) on the NAS panel was headlined:

Academy affirms hockey-stick graph


See all these here at DesmogBlog about McIntyre’s accomplice in perfidy:

or simply enter Wegman in the search box at top of this page.

You should also visit DeepClimate who has uncovered the trail of deceit and reported here:

There is deeper do-do reported there than at oceanic floor Wadati-Benioff zones.

Careful with your spin SH, you may send yourself into orbit yet.

Here’s one for you.

Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.



I guess your DVD player doesn’t work either, since compression uses FFT and FFT:

Where the weird name came from? FFT stands for “Fast Fourier Transform”. It is a mathematical trick which enables to easily see what frequencies are present in an audio sample. For instance, if there is more pitches present in a sound sample, one can identify them using FFT

How else do you show temperatures from multiple sources on one graph without, you know, plotting them on the same graph?

This is junior maths, and you fail it. Who would have thought a denialist wouldn’t understand graphs. Not me.

So now, rather than having grafted (which you had insisted Mann had done), he’s spliced. I guess the next step toward reality would be “plotted”. Problem there for you is that if you go that step, you have no complaint.

So your statement ACTUALLY reads:

“Mann plotted proxy data to 1980 and instrumental data to 1995.”

And you wonder why nobody understands your complaint…

You’re just desperate to find something you can give as a reason so your blind faith can be excused.

You really want to be a bozo then eh!

Taking bits out of context to misdirect the argument is why Plimer was exposed as a fraud and so you are too. This explains the issue that it is nothing to do with multi-proxy temperature records now know as hockey sticks:

Watch this and learn something:

Unwinding “Hide the Decline”

Once again, nothing hidden, no under hand tricks and no decline in temperatures hidden.

No more lies from you SH else go in the bozo bin.

Lionel, your indignant bluster and flailing arms add nothing to the discussion. Your linked video is entertaining but thoroughly debunked misdirection.

And projection too.

You just posted complete and undiluted bluster there.

If it’s thoroughly debunked, you’ll be able to say what the fault is, surely.

…met a pie man going to the fair but Simple Simon could not understand pie charts and so swore at the pieman.

‘Lionel, your indignant bluster and flailing arms add nothing to the discussion. Your linked video is entertaining but thoroughly debunked misdirection.’

You wish!

Misdirection my arse! You should be old enough not to believe in fairy tales. Where do you get that idea from? Sources?

That is sources not a search engine string which din’na count jima.

Whatever, the irony - it burns. Is that the best you can do?

And is ‘Mikes Nature Trick’ supposed to reveal something useful? The nature trick has been explained so it is into the bozo bin for you. You had been warned.

Go back to WUWT and complain to somebody over there didums, you have been caught lying and now using more obfuscation to cover your red face. Shame.

More incoherency is when you’re wibbling on about “The Hockey Team” and the CRU emails.

You don’t even know that they’re different groups on different continents, even!

Just how uninformed ARE you?

“What matters is whether science embraces or rejects the practices of Mann and Jones”

It does. Again, the denier never reads anything that isn’t comforting to their faith. Go look at the postings from Solitha.

Here they are:

“We regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate and that it took over a month for the ICO properly to put the record straight. We recommend that the ICO develop procedures to ensure that its public comments are checked and that mechanisms exist to swiftly correct any mis-statements or misinterpretations of such statements.”

Statistics: “Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results. The published work also contains many cautions about the limitations of the data and their interpretation.”

Most importantly: ‘ “Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible,” the report indicates. “The results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.”’

1. The WMO report is not intended as a policy document, THAT is what we were discussing.

2. Mann hid nothing, he did not truncate any proxies. The fact that you did not even could get that into your brain after I explained that to you is quite telling. Information filtering to the extreme.

3. There is nothing lawful over harassing scientists with FoI requests, when some of that data is under confidentiality agreements. One may complain about the way Jones handled it, but the fact remains that the FoI requests were vexatious (50+ requests!). Where is your outrage about that? Oh wait, information filering again.

And thanks for once again proving that it is not about the facts for you, it is about what you consider an attack on your ideological beliefs. Vexatious FoI requests=good, getting pissed about those requests=bad.

“The divergent data clearly demonstrates that the chronology could not be trusted”

So they removed the data that couldn’t be trusted.

But apparently if they do so, they’re using a “egregious and insidious definition” of quality control.

“these pseudo-scientists conspired to mask the divergence”

By showing the data? How is that “masking” anything?

“Instead of dropping the entire series”

Which was done by another team and the results were the same.

I’ve told you this before, but you don’t read too good when your faith depends on not understanding.

“which suited their message.”

Yes, since the message is “This is the best reliable data we have to determine the past climate”, leaving in all the data that was accurate and throwing away data that was inaccurate does suit that message.

I guess your problem is that you wanted it to say “The MWP was much warmer and there’s nothing called AGW”.

Pity that doesn’t have anything to do with the truth.

Not interested in either side of the debate. I can do nothing about a private company such as heartland, they spend and be dammed. However, if my tax dollars are being fraudulently obtained I want retribution. I want my tax dollars to go to something that is real and can be quantified. IF we were being defrauded by jesus christ himself, I would want retribution.

I expect someone on the CAGW side of the debate would not want their taxes to fund nuclear research if the scientists biased the data to get grants from the government.

I say again fraud is a criminal activity, whoever commits it

CAGW is a term made up by deniers and has never been used by climate scientists.
Do you really believer that thousands of climate scientists all over the world are just trying to get grant money? Absurd.

That is not how science works. By the way, most basic research in every field of science is government funded. Academic and govt. researchers usually do the basic science. Then private sector company scientists take that and develop products and technology from it.
Your tax dollars at work in the service of capitalism.

I say again….slowwwwwlyyyyyy . The Heartland Institute is a private institute. Its up to their shareholders/directors to investigate them. They dont get my tax dollars or your tax pounds (althought the CRU do). Therfore not interested.

I dont care whether its called CAGW AGW global warming thorium research, nuclear research abortion research DNA research or anything.

If its a biased report, to further their own agenda, paid for by my tax I want them screwed royaly.

A biased report is a fraud in private industry if used to obtain money by deceit.

Here’s how it works. I’ll use small words so you can follow, OK?

1) Oil gets several billion a day from your pocket
2) Oil spends money on HI to lie to you and your senators
3) Oil continues to make several billion

Now, you’re not just paying for oil and the profit, but the oil, the profit AND the Heartland Institute!

Now where does that come in the stockholder reports…

Oh, look! More fraud!

But continuing to claim fraud when there’s been no fraud as you and HI (and lots of other denialist bloggers) have done is costing you tax dollars and, since it’s known not to be fraud, is itself fraudulent.

But you’ll avoid any complaints about denialist fraud because what you’re really pissed off about is not the fraud but the science which is telling you something you don’t want to hear.

The Heartland Institute is a 501(c)(3)non-profit, and as such donations to this organisation are tax-exempt. Thus, people who want misinformation to spread can give tax exempt donations for an organisation that then spreads the misinformation.

This is costing YOU.

Strange, normally DeSmogBlog is much quieter than that …

Could it be that someone spread the word on climate ostrichs sites, in order to try and raise a bit of hype again over the debunked “Climategate” (see ) ?

(rhetorical question, of course, I know this is the case).

Phil Jones, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

Yet those papers appeared. And the papers were found to be complete bollocs scientifically, therefore their inclusion decreased the scientific understanding.


a) no removal of the papers
b) the papers were wrong

now, when you complain about the grey literature in WG2, remember you demanded that papers be included even if they were crap.