Climate Cover Up Goes Ivy League

Looks like DeSmogBlog’s new book Climate Cover Up is getting an Ivy League audience next week.

Author and DeSmog co-founder Jim Hoggan, will be speaking next week at Yale and Princeton Universities about the book and the efforts by industry to deny the realities of climate change science.

He will also be doing an event in Manhattan on the Monday night at the very cool McNally Jackson bookstore. Jim will be presenting alongside well-known author and NYU professor of media studies, Mark Crispin Miller.

I’ve also heard that other very special guests may be dropping by, so if you’re in the area, here’s the details:

Date: Monday, Nov. 30

Time: 7pm to 8pm

Location: 52 Prince Street (btw. Lafayette & Mulberry)


Now I know that you are a “Climate Science” expert perhaps you can explain this?

Why the tree-ring data is expected to be a good proxy for the period 1000-1850 (i.e. before the thermometer temperature record begins), given we know it is not a good proxy for 1960-2009? How can we know the same problem did not occur in 1000-1850 thus rendering the reconstruction useless?

I’ve been searching all over the web and cannot find an answer to this issue.

Please help this poor, non-Climate Scientist.

In all of the promotion for CC-U I have seen NOT ONE claim by Jim Hoggan that he is a climate science expert. Not ONE. What I have seen is a claim of having vast experience in PR, enough to know a PR campaign when he sees one. CC-U is the exposure of a disinformation campaign that has NOTHING to do with science, and everything to do with vested interests. It’s that simple.

Fern Mackenzie


Glad to see you are still around. When last we spoke, you were citing a neuroscientist as a climate scientist. Now you are asking a public relations expert. I suggest you try which is run by climate scientists (particularly Gavin Schmidt) who conduct and publish actual climate research. If the answer is not already posted there, they have an open comments policy where you can pose it.

And RealClimate has put up a page of links to data sources:

And their post about it:

“Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available…”

So for years the Pr gang at real climate stuck to their guns and supported thwarting Freedom of information requests. Now all of a sudden they release their data and try to claim it was always available. LOL
Looks like the chairs at the deck of the titantic are being arranged. There must be immense pressure on these eco tools to now try to appear open and accountable.

We can now analyse their data, unfortunately censoring ten years of peer reviewed research is kind of tough to replace. Have they begun an effort to contact all the past scientists they wrongly censored in peer review journals? It’s time all that research was made available to everyone too so we can get the real story, don’t you think? Why are normal conventions of science just now begining to be followed? Can you name me any other field in science when the data used for papers is not freely available?

A minuscule part of the data asked for in FOI requests was not in Jones’ gift. The University of East Anglia was contractually bound not to dispose of this as it saw fit. The rest, I believe 98%, was already publicly available.

Go on posting Greenmachine. Your complete ignorance becomes more evident with everything you write.

A few days ago Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research at the University of East Anglia (where the Climatic Research Unit operates), made a public statement that contains, inter alia, the following passage:

“There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of the numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers of the data series held by CRU. The University takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.

In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.

The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those original data. All of these individual series have been used in CRU’s analyses. It is a time-consuming process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to release the data. Since some of them were provided decades ago, it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest that these data are released once we have succeeded in gaining the approval of collaborators. Some who have requested the data will have been aware of the scale of the exercise we have had to undertake. Much of these data are already available from the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data Network and the Goddard Institute for Space Science.”

Once again you display your ignorance on the massive fraud and corruption within climate science. The key phrase is most of the data. Steve Mccyntire has been requesting data for years. Hand selecting bits and pieces is like giving someone half a jigsaw puzzle. The hacked information out of the CRU clearly shows the attempts to restrict information.

You would be well advised not to mention Steve McIntyre in this context. He has not yet wiped the egg off his face from the Briffa affair. He kept hounding Briffa for his data and finally had to acknowledge that he had had these all along from Russian sources. No wonder that his hunt for data is seen as pure harassment by some.


So what is it then was the data freely available to all or not? You seem to think that much like the AGW theory the truth can be massaged with a little peer review. You can’t say that mccyntire was hounding some guy for data and then say oh but all of it was freely available for download.
In reality where there is a right and a wrong, truth and falsehood the corruption is plain for all to see. The evolution of climatology from a science to a religion is fun to read within the e-mails. Except climatology is much more self centered and dishonest than any religion. When bishop lahey waa caught with kiddy porn on his computer he resigned and turned himself in. How long will it be before, jones and briffa or mann resign? If they did it sure would lend a lot of credibility to their scientific field, don’t you think?

Greenmachine, if you left your little cosy world of conspiracy theories, insinuations and slander for once in a while you might get hold of some facts, even though you seem to be allergic to these.

Here you have an account of the matter:

“The problem with getting all of your “information” from fringe denier sites is that they suppress all other (= scientific) news.

You would know, for example, that Keith Briffa is one of the world’s most-renowned dendrochronologists and went through proper channels to obtain the Russian Yamal data in question. When asked for that data, he pointed McIntyre to the Russian researchers. The tree ring data were not his to give away. Instead of following up on this, McIntyre preferred to spend the next several years insinuating that Briffa was hiding the data because his results were a fraud. (Beginning to see why scientists have no respect for McIntyre?) Turns out, McIntyre had all of Briffa’s data since 2004 – but no apologies, of course.

In his crude “audit” attempt, McIntyre apparently plotted raw tree ring data against time and, again, began insinuating that fraud had occurred. (I say “insinuate” because that is all that the likes of McIntyre has to do to send his groupies into paroxysms of accusation, slander, and denial – while he, himself, tries to keep his hands clean of the mess.) Unfortunately for McIntyre, dendrochronology is not that simple. The Russians, as with other researchers, spend years collating the data and making it ready for analysis. A process known as Regional Curve Standardization is applied to adjust for such things as the age of the tree (rings are narrower for older trees), species sampled (some grow faster than others), and pith offset (for cores that miss the center rings), among other factors. It’s dry stuff – but essential if any conclusions are to be taken from the tree ring data.

Hundreds of trees were cored at Yamal but Briffa used only a relative few in his reconstruction (which included much data from many other sources). This, again led to insinuations of cherry-picking from McIntyre. In truth, Briffa could only use the data supplied by the Russian team, which was a small subset of their still-unpublished work. Presumably, once they published they might be freer with their hard-won tree ring data.

So, one might ask, What would happen if ALL of the Russian Yamal data were included?

Ah, I’m glad you asked! As it so happens, not long after the Yamal kerfuffle started the Russians did finally publish their findings. You might have known this if you left the denialosphere once in a while and read what scientists said about science. But, no matter, below is the gist of their paper.

The first graph below is the result of the Yamal tree ring data, through 50-, 100-, and 200-year filters. Note that for the first 7000 years of this 7150-year reconstruction the overall trend was for slowly cooling temperature (their regression line, bottom curve). Then, after about 1850, the temperature rises to a level not seen in at least 7000 years…” etc.


In short, another hockey stick graph very similar, I understand, to what Briffa had already provided. That is what McIntyre couldn’t stomach. Hence the insinuations about cherry picking.

Professor jones before climategate was quoted something to the effect of saying, “why should I share my data with you? We have 20 years investd in this data, you will just use it to discredit me.” In the hacked e-mails many of them discuss ways to avoid dislosing data.

We know that data was not freely available to anyone and Freedom of information requests we’re thwarted. Lets get real for a moment, ok.

The AGW Virus

The AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming or Human Induced Climate Change virus was first isolated in a lab at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

Virus Signature:
The AGW virus can be recognized by the following signature
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

The external effect of the virus is visible as a tendency of graphed data to dip in the middle and then rise sharply at the end for no apparent reason.

The AGW virus and been found to infect both IDL programs and research papers. Attempts to stop the spread of the virus using peer review and analysis have been unable to contain the spread of the infection. In severe cases the virus has been seen to affect the central nervous system in humans although no direct link to the rabies virus has been demonstrated.

Patient Zero:
It currently appears that patient zero was an IDL program known as “FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris-tree/”. It is not known at this time what other artifacts may have been contaminated by the virus.

Preventing the spread of AGW:
Although appearing asymptomatic papers can become infected on site. Papers that have sited an infected paper should be treated as infected. Prudence in this regard is highly recommended.

If you detect the virus has infected one of your papers you should place the paper in a suitable quarantined environment. The peat bogs of northern England and Scotland will provide sufficient protection to the environment if the hole is at least 1.47 meters deep.

If you have any software that is infected with the AGW virus the proper procedure for disposal is to maintain an alternating 100 Gauss field in the immediate vicinity of the infection for not less then 2 hours, 4 hours is recommended.

Help prevent the spread of the AGW virus, please model responsibly.

For further information on this topic please refer to climategate information currently on the web.

Dennis/VJ, if you can direct me to a site that is not just a heavily censored propanganda outlet for Climate Alarmism, I will happily look.

In the meantime Gavin can keep making his feeble excuses for the fraud at CRU.

So, when scientists actually set up a web site you can go to and ask the scientists directly, you consider it “a heavily censored propaganda outlet.” As in previous posts you have made here, it is clear that you are not interested in discussing the science. Rather, you want to discuss your beliefs of what you want the science to be.

Have you ever asked real climate question about the global warming theory? Every problem in physics and the laws of nature is carefully evaded and the awnser you get back looks more like pleadings in a court case. Arhenius’s theory about green house gasses is valid, in my mind, but the problem of global warming has far exceeded it’s relevance. Real climate is nothing but a PR machine, not science. We can clearly see what is going on now with the corrupt peer review process and the fabrication of data within climatology. To ignore these facts and to carry on as is is delusional.

Oops, double-posted; So here are Conrad Black and Kelly McParland writing more bilge in the NP:

My Pet Hates and why.

1. The term “climate change” itself. Thirty years ago, the term “climate change” would have meant natural climate change, which is what climate scientists mostly studied before that time. Today, it has come to mean human-caused climate change. The public, and especially the media, now think that “climate change” implies WE are responsible for it. Mother Nature, not Al Gore, invented real climate change.

2. “Climate change denier”. A first cousin to the first annoyance. Again, thirty years ago, “climate change denier” would have meant someone who denied that the Medieval Warm Period ever happened. Or that the Little Ice Age ever happened. What a kook fringe thing to believe that would have been! And now, those of us who still believe in natural climate change are called “climate change deniers”?? ARGHH.

3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research. I could go on about this for pages. Yes, it is important to have scientific research peer-reviewed and published. But as the Climategate e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we skeptics of human-caused climate change have “peers” out there who have taken it upon themselves to block our research from being published whenever possible. We know there are editors of scientific journals who assist in this by sending our papers to these gatekeepers for the purpose of killing the paper. We try not to complain too much when it happens because it is difficult to prove motivation. I believe the day is approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of biased peer review.

4. Appeal to authority. This is the last refuge of IPCC scientists. Even when we skeptics get research published, it is claimed that our research is contradicted by other research the IPCC has encouraged, helped to get funded, and cherry-picked to support its case. This is dangerous for the progress of science. If the majority opinion of scientists was always assumed to be correct, then most major scientific advances would not have occurred. The appeal to authority is also a standard propaganda technique.

5. Unwillingness to debate. I have lectured to many groups where the organizers could not find anyone from the IPCC side who would present the IPCC’s side of the story. I would be happy to debate any of the IPCC experts on the central issues of human-caused versus natural climate change, and feedbacks in the climate system. They know where to find me. (For the most common tactic used by the IPCC in a debate, see annoyance #4.)

6. A lack of common sense. Common sense can be misleading, of course. But when there is considerable uncertainty, sometimes it is helpful to go ahead and use a little anyway. Example: It is well known that the net effect of clouds is to cool the Earth in response to radiant heating by the sun. But when it comes to global warming, all climate models do just the opposite…change clouds in ways that amplify radiative warming. While this is theoretically possible, it is critical to future projections of global warming that the reasons why models do this be thoroughly understood. Don’t believe it just because group think within the climate modeling community has decided it should be so.

7. Use of climate models as truth. Because there are not sufficient high-quality, globally-distributed, and long term observations of climate fluctuations to study and better understand the climate system with, computerized climate models are now regarded as truth. The modelers’ belief that climate models represent truth is evident from the language they use: climate models are not “tested” with real data, but instead “validated”. The implication is clear: if the data do not agree with the models, it must be the data’s fault.

8. Claims that climate models have been tested. A hallmark of a good theory is that it should predict something which, upon further investigation, turns out to be correct. To my knowledge, climate models have not yet forecasted anything of significance. And even if they did, models are ultimately being relied upon to forecast global warming (aka ‘climate change’). As far as I can tell, there is no good way to test them in this regard. And please don’t tell me they can now replicate the seasons quite well. Even the public could predict the seasons before there were climate models. Predicting future warming (or cooling) is slightly more difficult, but not by much: a flip a coin will be correct 50% of the time.

9. The claim that the IPCC is unbiased. The IPCC was formed for the explicit purpose of building the case for global warming being our fault, not for investigating the possibility that it is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system. Their accomplices in government have bought off the scientific community for the purpose of achieving specific policy goals.

10. The claim that reducing CO2 emissions is the right thing to do anyway. Oh, really? What if life on Earth (which requires CO2 for its existence) is actually benefiting from more CO2? Nature is always changing anyway…why must we always assume that every single change that humans cause is necessarily a bad thing? Even though virtually all Earth scientists believe this, too, it is not science, but religion. I’m all for religion…but not when it masquerades as science.

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. (Climate Scientist)

It seems like a copy and paste but Roy’s name is at the bottom so a plagiarism charge seems a bit harsh and who knows - maybe he is R.S.

You are a beacon of light shining in a sea of darkness that is the information th general publice receives.
How can we carry one where ideology trumps fact? Is their no common truth we can all agree on or does it just come down to opinion? Our world is screwed if we argue about plain evidence and facts that are about as subtle as a basball between the eyes.

I have some hope that climategate will make people wake up to the extreme alarmism that has been spread throughout our society. Global warming may or may not be a problem, but huge tax increases and the creation of another layer of government in copenhagen is clearly not the awnser to global warming.

Spencer wrote: “But as the Climategate e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we skeptics of human-caused climate change have “peers” out there who have taken it upon themselves to block our research from being published whenever possible.”

As far as I know this part of the correspondence was triggered off by one particular case, a case that one would have thought the sceptics would rather forget. But apparently not so.

In 2003 Willy Soon and Sally Balunias, academics who have, beside their academic positions, ‘advising’ jobs at conservative think tanks, published an article in a journal called ‘Climate Research’ then edited by a New Zealand academic called De Freitas. The article was, in the main, not based on their own research but, allegedly, an overview of the work of others. Its general thrust was that global warming had to do with ‘solar output’. In that context they also claimed that the warming during the so-called medieval warming period was greater or rivalled that of the last few decades.

The article was such a disaster that thirteen of the authors whose work they had referred to protested about their interpretations of it. Hans Von Storch, a climate scientist who had been on the editorial board for four years and was in the process of being appointed to the position of editor in chief, resigned in protest. A few other members of the editorial board also quitted.

Von Storch later said in an interview published in the Chronicle of Higher Education that sceptics had their eye on this journal because it was supposed to be less rigorous in its peer review standards.

That in the context of this case other scientists would be discussing how to improve the peer review process, and how to block such stuff to be included in the IPCC assessment, seems a very natural thing to me, but apparently not to Mr.Spencer.

I cannot help wondering whether this is a matter of sour grapes. His satellite data, that were supposedly at odds with surface temperatures, have been exposed as a fallacy and corrected.

One more fact about Sally Balunias. In 1995 she threw doubt in a congressional hearing on the hypothesis that CFC gases were damaging the ozone-layer. Happily similar views have not prevented the agreement of Montreal - one example of successful global management of a climate risk. Her stance came to look a bit ridiculous when, shortly after, the originators of this hypothesis got the Nobel Prize for chemistry.


Without referring to any scientific discipile or any scientists, how in your opinion does “sound science” work? How do new findings and studies pass scrutiny to separate proven facts from failures? How does the scientific community reach common agreement on a scientific issue that affects people’s lives in such a way that they can make a scientific recommendation to government? Again – let’s not address any discipile or any scientists by name – keep it general. I really would like to know how you beleive “sound science” SHOULD work.

Science is not an art it is logical and well structured.
A scientific result is a result which is reproducable.
Climate ‘science’ as recently dislosed by the CRU email leak shows collusion between the top ‘scientist’ to keep their data and methods out of the public domain. Therefore their results (i.e. the graphs we see in the IPCC reports) are impossible to reproduce.

From reading these emails it seems to me that for at least 1o yrs they have feared the raw data being released to the public domain. One has to wonder why. My first guess is that their results cannot be reproduced. Actively denying others the chance to reproduce their results makes me distrust their ‘science’. That to me is a logical conclusion. Blind faith i reserve for my religion not my science.

Hopefully they will see the error of their ways and continue the path they have recently started of putting more of the raw data into the public domain - and their methods.