Could News Corp. Double Agent Neil Wallis Be Behind Climategate Hacking?

As if this week’s Rupert Murdoch Phone-Hacking Scandal wasn’t enough, it now appears that the University of East Anglia CRU email hacking scandal (a.k.a. Climategate) might actually be the work of the same News Corp henchman who helped to feed insider information from a Scotland Yard police investigation directly to Murdoch’s News Corp.

Neil Wallis, one of the key figures in the hacking of the phones, voicemails and electronic communications of anywhere from 4,000 to over 12,000 people, was essentially a double agent working by day as Executive Director of News of the World, and simultaneously as a public relations consultant during the police investigation into the scandal. Wallis conveniently reported back to News Corp on Scotland Yard’s investigation. 

While Murdoch’s henchmen were getting the skinny on the police investigation, the police were convincing other news organizations not to cover the story.

After the November 2009 hacking of the computer server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, the victimized climate science unit sought public relations guidance to help fight back against allegations of scientific misconduct.  

Guess who they hired - Neil Wallis and his PR firm Outside Organisation.

And what of Wallis’ work in restoring the reputation of climate scientists? Well, the myth that the emails disprove climate change is still circulating. Fox News and other Murdoch-owned news channels were among the earliest and most vocal mouthpieces working to establish the myth, and continue to promote it to this day.

Neil Wallis’ role in the original CRU hacking is still unproven, but if his involvement in the NOTW phone hacking scandal is any indication, there is reason to question his interest in Climategate. 

News Corp’s allies at Fox and Friends are telling us that the scandal is overblown that we should move on, but let’s hope Fox News doesn’t have the last say in this. Joe Romm is calling for an independent investigation into the scandal - one that does not involve the possibly compromised Scotland Yard. Perhaps the first step should be to see whether any climate scientists’ phones were hacked?

Head over to ClimateProgress to read Joe Romm’s coverage and to Daily Kos for Keith Olbermann’s thoughts, and check back for more on this ‘metastasizing’ story.

Here is Romm on Keith Olbermann’s show discussing the Neil Wallis scandal:


It is widely believed that the climategate emails were released by a CRU intern or undergrad in a moment of conscience.
That person felt strongly that the world should know what was being said behind the ‘closed doors’ of the so-called ‘science’ of CAGW.
An historic moment for sure. H

“It is widely believed”

Oh dear. Unsubstantiated claim that is not widely “believed” as you believe and falsely claim. Now try harder and say something compelling and backed up with facts, or are you simply trolling here to defend hackers and criminals?

Ok, a fact….
You guys can try to demonize this thing from here to eternity but the plain fact is that the release of the emails, setting off the episode known as ‘Climategate’, was a turning (tipping?) point in the whole CAGW scam. Once lost, the trust of the people is not easily regained. And it is the people, this ‘mob’ we call humanity, that you will need to push through all of the whacked out, financially crippling policies that you think that we need.
And fwiw, some small truth about me. I am a 58 year old, college educated IT specialist that has no need of funds from Koch (whoever he is?) or any other person. I’m only interested in the truth in this matter and for the longest time I haven’t seen any truth coming from the CAGW side. Only alarmist claptrap spewed with near religious fervor.

OK Mr. College-educated IT specialist,

Could you write a program that reads in publicly-available raw temperature data and computes global-average temperature anomalies? No need to do anything fancy – a first-cut approximation procedure will do just fine.

Could you outline the procedure that you’d use?

How do you think that your results would compare with NASA’s (or the CRU’s)?

To get you started, here’s a link to the repository containing all the information that you need to tackle such a project:

All you will need are the monthly-mean raw data file (i.e. the data without any “adjustments” or “homogenization”), the associated metadata file (i.e. the file with the temperature station latitudes/longitudes), and the documentation file. These files are: v2.mean.Z, v2.inv.Z, and v2.temperature.readme, respectively.

If the information contained in the above files is insufficient for you to accomplish this, then please explain what additional information you would need.

Typical “I’m smarter that you so you’re argument is invalid” reply.
No, I couldn’t write that program. But I know a rat when I smell one and this whole thing stinks.
You guys are on the downward curve (at the very steep part) and you’re all hanging on for your lives. Please don’t be the last of your group to step back and take a really critical look at the ‘whole’ picture here. I’m talking about everything, from Al Gore to Michael Mann to the head of the IPCC and the ‘glaciers being gone by 2035’. The whole thing is corrupted so far beyond anything ever seen that it would never have lasted anyway. People aren’t stupid, they know when they are being had, ok?

You are the one who pulled the “I’m smarter than you” bit with the “I’m a college-educated IT specialist” line.

I’m just calling you on it.

The bottom line is, the CRU’s global temperature calculations can be verified independently without any access to the CRU’s data or code. A very straightforward gridding/averaging procedure, when applied to unmodified, non-homogenized *raw* temperature data, will produce results very similar to the CRU/NASA/NOAA global temperature results, and will show that no data manipulation of any kind is required to verify those results.

All the *raw* temperature data needed to do this are freely available on-line, as are all the necessary software development and data analysis tools.

If climate-scientists were “cheating” in any way to exaggerate or fake their global-temperature results, they would have been unmasked long ago by independent investigators.

The only skills required to perform an independent check on the CRU/NASA/NOAA global temperature results are some programming/analytical skills (which you implied that you possessed with your “IT specialist” boast). Someone with a couple of semesters of JAVA/C++/whatever under his/her belt could do it.

But now that you’ve admitted that you aren’t able to program the procedure up yourself, can you even describe what the procedure *is*? The basic temperature anomaly gridding/averaging procedure can be summarized in a few sentences; can you give us even *that* much?

You’re continuing your technical smoke screen in an effort to avoid the ‘elephant in the room’ so to speak.
We all know that the CAGW-Climate Change is a runaway (gravy?)train that is already coming off the tracks. It’s not sufficient to nit-pick temp records or post multiple links to them in your posts here. Try, for once, speaking to the much larger problem of off-the-reservation alarmism and the way the warmists are trying to force over the top policy changes in a world where economies are hurting so bad that people don’t know which way to turn. Australia has saddled their public with an inane carbon tax that will have absolutely no chance of reducing carbon in a world where the ‘big boys’ (russia, china, US and india) are just scoffing at the idea.
There is indeed a ‘big picture’ but unfortunately people like you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Get a clue for christ’s sake and stop quoting the party climate line. H.

Just to follow up a bit more here – let’s see Mr IT Specialist describe in his own words just what acts of fraud he thinks have been committed.

What results have been faked/exaggerated? What data-sets have been manipulated?

But he won’t be able to do that, because he doesn’t have the basic technical skills needed even to describe what he thinks might be wrong with the climate-scientists’ work – all he can point to is one stupid mistake buried in page 2000 of a 3000 page IPCC document, a mistake that never was propagated to the report’s conclusions/summary-for-policymakers.

The bottom line is, you will almost certainly find more errors in the first paragraph of a denier publication than you will in the entire 3000 page IPCC report.

And, yes, all of the climate/temperature data and software tools needed to perform independent verifications of Mann’s work, as well as the global-temperature work performed by NASA/NOAA/CRU, are free for the downloading.

caerbannog888 for the win

Thanks for linking to that raw data. It’s come up a few times in chats where I’ve wanted to do exactly what you just did - throw raw data at a skeptic and ask them to check for themselves. Great way to separate the open-minded skeptics from the fervent disbelievers and deniers :)

Divvy, don’t you see that you guys are totally missing the point of my posts here? It’s not about linking to raw data somewhere to score some little ‘win’. You’ve lost the support of the public on this one and no matter how much raw data you show you won’t get it back!
Folks stopped listening a long time ago as the ever increasing alarmism went so far over the top as to be totally unbelievable anymore. 50 million climate refugees by 2010? Right, it’s been in ALL the news (/sarc)
Nothing less than totally open and honest discussion will ever bring back the public trust. There is far too little of that now. H

Here’s something else that you can bludgeon (figuratively, of course) deniers with:

Some time ago, I wrote a program that implements the simplest possible version of the standard temperature-anomaly gridding/averaging procedure. It applies *none* of the NASA/GISS corrections/adjustments/homogenization to the temperature data. The program simply computes baseline temperatures for each station and then grids/averages the temperature anomalies relative to the individual station baselines.

I ran the *raw* (not adjusted) GHCN monthly-mean data through my program, and got these results (plotted against the NASA “Meteorological Stations” temperature index):

As you can see, all the data manipulation/doctoring/whatever that deniers have been accusing NASA of hardly changes the results at all. I was able to replicate NASA’s results very closely with nothing more than publicly-available raw temperature data and a very straightforward gridding/averaging program that I wrote in my spare time.

Most of the actual programming grunt work involved dealing with varying data lengths, data gaps and such (some stations have been recording data longer than others, random station downtime can introduce gaps, etc). If it weren’t for the varying station histories, the algorithm would have been dead-simple to code up.

When I hit deniers with my results, more often than not the crickets end up taking over the discussion thread!

But what is your graph meant to prove? Does it show that temperatures were stable for thousands of years until fossil fuels began to increase CO2? Does it show that temperature has monotonically increased in step with CO2?

You mistakenly believe that “deniers” deny that temperature is increasing. The issue is whether man has a significant role as the models claim, and if that is so, whether the cost of inaction greatly exceeds the cost of mitigation.


Deniers say all kinds of stupid things. Here are some examples:

1) “The warming has been faked”

2) “The warming is caused by the Sun” (contradicting 1)

3) “The warming is caused by the PDO” (contradicting 1 and 2)

4) “The CRU global temperature results are fraudulent and are useless.”

5) “The CRU results show cooling since 1998” (contradicting 4)

6) “The Greenhouse effect isn’t real”

7) “Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas” (contradicting 6)

8) “The science isn’t settled” (contradicting 2,3, and 6)

9) “Human contributions to CO2 emissions are insignificant” (contradicting 8)

I could go on and on, since there is almost an infinite supply of stupid, contradictory claims that deniers make.

That being said, I use my results to show how incompetent and dishonest deniers are with respect to their specific claims about the surface temperature record. That’s it. The claims that you brought in with your attempted goalpost move are not the claims that I use my temperature results to refute. I use my temperature results only to refute the very specific, dishonest, and incompetent claims that deniers have made about the surface temperature data and the work that NASA/NOAA/CRU have done with the data.

“You mistakenly believe that “deniers” deny that temperature is increasing.”

Oh come on! Don’t back away from it now. Lets hear it from your idols :

Bob Carter:

“Earth’s temperature is currently cooling slightly.”


“Since late 2001 there has been virtually no “global warming” at all.”

Fred Singer:

“But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming. ”

Pat Michaels:

“Why Hasn’t The Earth Warmed In Nearly 15 Years?”

Tim Ball:

“Yes, it warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.”

Care to rephrase?

Obviously the temperature has not increased in the past decade. Surely you don’t deny that. It’s still up from where is was 150 years ago. It is, however, quite pointless for you to argue that temperature was stable until fossil fuel use in the 1940s, and then has been going up continuously since. It clearly has not.

So what is it? You contradict yourself. First you say it IS warming & you don’t deny it:

“You mistakenly believe that “deniers” deny that temperature is increasing. ”

Now you ask me not to deny that the temperature has NOT increased. What is it?

“Obviously the temperature has not increased in the past decade. Surely you don’t deny that.”

The temperatures have not increased over the past decade? We obviously draw our information from two vastly different sources. Me from the actual institutions that measure these things & you from denier blogs.

Because 2010 & 2005 were the hottest years on record since records began in 1880.

“until fossil fuel use in the 1940s,”

Err , what were the cars, trucks, tanks, planes & ships using during WW1? Before that it was a hundred years of coal use. Why did you decide to choose 1940 as the starting point?

“You guys are on the downward curve (at the very steep part) and you’re all hanging on for your lives.”

Hank, I have been hearing those exact same words you are parroting from the denialosphere for over 6 years now. Why wasn’t it over 6 years ago when I heard deniers tell me the game is up, it’s over? Can you give us a precise date give or take a few months or even a year when we will supposedly not bug you anymore about AGW?

Hank, do you even know what is going on outside of the USA? Opinion polls in the USA don’t translate to the globe. There are countries, many governed by conservatives that have a carbon tax or ETS.

Hank, unlike some other commenters on this site from the denier side, I don’t believe you are in any way paid by, work for or have any sort of affiliation with the fossil fuel industry. It appears you are just one of those poor fools easily duped by industry propaganda & rusted on political allegiance. Just one cigarette manufacturer managed to sway public opinion & hold up legislation for over 40 years. Doctors said it was good for you & showed their preferred brand. Thousands of scientists said there was no problem with it. That was just one company & 40 years. They were not even in the worlds richest companies list. Now, there are literally hundreds of fossil fuel companies opposing the science & legislation & many of them are the worlds biggest corporations. You don’t think it’s even conceivable that they would attempt a propaganda campaign like Phillip Morris?

Like smoking, the problem of CO2 wont just go away with carpet bombing propaganda & forcing people to shut up.

“the plain fact is that the release of the emails, setting off the episode known as ‘Climategate’, was a turning (tipping?) point in the whole CAGW scam.”

It sure was. Those fees for making fake, quote mined and cherry picked claims about the emails must have been rolling in for the denialati. That was the real scam.

Or describing what a trick is in a scientific and academic context. But you’ll never see that one splashed across the deniasphere. Far too inconvenient and challenging.

email #1200162026
“I would note that the distribution of rejection rates is like the distribution of precipitation in that it is bounded by zero. A quick-and-dirty way to explore this possibility using a “trick” used with precipitation data is to apply a square root transformation to the rejection rates, average these, then reverse transform the average. The square root transformation should yield data that is more nearly Gaussian than the untransformed data.”

how much do you get per bogus Koch talking point posted? I hope its worth the prostitution of your soul.

Thought they were Christian Scientists or Seventh Day Adventists or something? Parents or grandparents emigrated from Holland. Christians of some sort, at least by heritage.

“Good point!
He’s obviously being paid by the jewish Koch brothers to say this.”

Not this shit again. Obviously “anonymous” or anonymous2” are up to their usual tricks of trying to impersonate me for about the 20th time.

Mine are the “Phil M” posts. The anti semite posts are “PhilM” .

Are you guys that pathetic that you need to go to these lengths to shut down debate & smear people?

I mean, it’s right up the alley of deniers & the Murdoch press who this post is about. Smear smear smear & any dirty trick in the book to get their way. Even if they have to pay for it or misrepresent it.

Mod’s, if you are watching, can you please compare all my previous email addresses to this schmuck & ban the mofo?

Not this shit again. Obviously “anonymous” or anonymous2” are up to their usual tricks of trying to impersonate me for about the 20th time.

Mine are the “PhilM” posts. The anti semite posts are “Phil M” .

Are you guys that pathetic that you need to go to these lengths to shut down debate & smear people?

I mean, it’s right up the alley of jew deniers & the jew-loving Murdoch press who this post is about. Smear smear smear & any dirty trick in the book to get their way. Even if they have to pay for with their jew money it or misrepresent it.

Mod’s, if you are watching, can you please compare all my previous email addresses to this schmuck & ban the mofo?

Man you are one seriously disturbed mofo, seriously to keep going with this impersonation crap.

You are such an ineffective communicator that you actually need to copy my words & change them around to sound anti semite. I mean, it’s slightly flattering that I get under your denier skins so well, but it’s also annoying that you think you can somehow shutdown my comments by trying being anti semitic.

“it’s right up the alley of jew deniers & the jew-loving Murdoch ”

Again with the anti semite crap?

I was the anonymous individual that pointed out that the Koches(sp) are not Jewish. Is there some way to track down the IP address of the posters? I doubt if anyone seriously debating needs to shield their identity, unless they have an employment situation that would suffer if their opinions here got back to their colleagues or supervisors/employers. -James W. Pollock, East Palo Alto, Calif. USA

Sea-level rises are slowing, tidal gauge records show

ONE of Australia’s foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are “decelerating”.

Let me know when it halts altogether. -James Pollock

Let me know when it halts altogether. -James Pollock

Well…. Since sea levels have bee rising fairly steadily since the end of the last ice age, and only slowed recently, I suspect they will continue to rise slowly for quite a while yet.
Then they will stop again and reverse as the earth cools again.

Hopefully I will be long dead by then.

Neil Wallis – MD or ‘Freelance Media Consultant’ ? Spot the Difference

You suspect? Based on previous climate cycles I gather…. All well and good but I am interested in the next 40 years and the billions of tons of CO2 and methane are being disgorged at an extraordinary rate into this fairly closed system as we write. -James Pollock

To return to the original post (which some have more or less successfully diverted from) …

It has been reported that the Murdoch Team hacked some 12000 private voice mailboxes of a wide variety of public figures, as wittnessed by still mostly unread transcripts in Scotland Yards possession. Some of them possibly were those of British climate scientists, climate research being a very major background matter for British politics (as well as European and eventually global politics).

One of those hacked voicemails may have included access code to an old and already retired UEA mail server. Some not-yet-paranoid scientist may have sent the code to a colleague for the purpose of verifying details of earlier discussions recorded therein.

The hacker, a private investigator paid for by the Murdoch Team, realized he finally hit some major paydirt. Surely he did not leave it unreported to his employers. The rest is history.

That is certainly just idle speculation - but simple theories often work best.

anonymous xyl

The man who exposed the news of the world ( who is now suspiciously dead) said there was “more to come” from his claims against the Murdoch press.

Sean Hoare was in his 40’s when he died suspiciously & his death was investigated …… the police who he exposed as corrupt. Cmon!

An independent investigation needs to take place into Sean Hoares death, the police who he exposed & more & more investigations into the Murdoch Press as a whole.

Another independent investigation needs to take place into the death of George Webley, a 2nd Murdoch whistleblower. Yes that’s right 2 Murdoch whistleblowers dead within the space of a few weeks. That’s not suspicious? Or the fact that cause of death for both has been “unknown” ?

It would not surprise me that when more of the murdoch empire is exposed, it will be revealed that it is more of a mafia operation than a news organization. In light of the other underhanded tactics employed by the murdoch press, the CRU hacking incidence fits well with their MO. Cash for smear.

“I am doubtful that climategate was caused by these guys.”

Well, your wrong about most other things, so this would be just another run on the board for you.

“perhaps just a global thank you…. for exposing the truth of the scam.”

A scam that turned out to be a non event for the deniers. The investigations just showed that :

1) Deniers didn’t actually know what they were talking about…no surprise there I suppose.
2) Subsequent investigations showed there was no suspicious activities.

Too bad for WUWT,CA & Willis Eschenbach.

“Subsequent whitewashes!!!!”

There were independent reviews. Where was the whitewash? Oh…haha, you mean a whitewash that was declared by WUWT & CA? A couple of blogs? There were no scientific institutes on the planet that said it was a whitewash? Sore losers.

“Subsequent whitewashes!!!! showed clearly that the investigating bodies were currupt and paid to deliver a clean verdict.”

“Sadly, everyone knows that so they really only showed themselves as lying accomplises.”

Read these sentences to yourself again. Does it sound pretty biased? Who is “everyone”? Where is your evidence that the investigations were whitewashed? Have you read the official reports produced by the investigations?

I hope I am wrong, but it looks like there is no point in even attempting to point you in the right direction towards the evidence. You will likely just reply with some put down on “warmists” and go on believing what you want to believe.

“Happily, the cult will believe almost anything so they still claim victory and look even more the fools for it.”

Read this sentence again. Could it be even a bit conceivable that this statement describes your own behavior somewhat?

Be honest with yourself, man. Stay cool.

How about rapid, abrupt climate change that will lead to the loss of 20% of the earth’s animal species in the next 50 years? “Of course there’s climate change.” Yeah, but not this catastrophically. You rear guard greed head toadies of big petro will vanish in a few years with your filthy lucre as the world continues to burn. I despise your cynicism. You know you’re a liar. –James W. Pollock, E. Palo Alto, Calif.

I’m 62 if that matters. If the lash stings so be it. You got it coming, mate.

Didn’t hurt a bit actually…. Mate..

I don’t take any of this personally.

Its all just silly fun to me…
The climate will do what the climate will do no matter what is said in some silly little opinion blog.

Have a good one…

But let’s get to the truth. Yest the climate will do its thing for sure. Perhaps humans have to appreciate effect compared to factors beyond our control. I’m not hysterical but I am concerned. I don’t buy into any theories yet, but the various hypotheses should be analyzed and tested to the best of our ability. Technology is advancing to the point where mankind may be able to shape the climate, as vast and complex as its parameters are.

Um… I don’t see any problem with anything you just said actually.

I (and most everyone I know of) am all for doing research to find out what is really driving climate.

I am just not in favor of alarmism and panic and changing the whole world for the worse to accomplish…. what?

the best extimates say that our current strategies might! be able to reduce global temps by at most 1 degree for a mere 75 trillion dollars and a wholesale reduction in human standard of living.

Seems just plane dumb to me.

A physicist using the word “proven” in the context of science? You jest, surely? How many of his papers have been “proven”? I see he also has the “I know a guy who can’t get funding unless…” anecdote. Well, Dr Bas van Geel of Uni of Amsterdam certainly has no problem with funding. Nor does Roy Spencer, nor Lindzen, Christy, Douglass….

“Professor Begemann’s claim that on universities it is not possible to present a different opinion about climate change in any case isn’t true for the University of Amsterdam. In my professional environment so far there nobody has ever tried to correct me (a skeptic with an opinion based on strong arguments) In the past 10 years, neither did I ever have a problem with finding funding for research on the role of the sun on climate changes in the past. It is (also) because of this research I started having an alternative opinion on what’s going on with the present-day climate: I still believe that natural variability is much more important than changes caused by mankind.”
– Dr. Bas van Geel, UvA

“Yet Another Scientist speaks out against the CAGW Hoax.

Australian physicist Professor Brian J O’Brien ”

I’m not sure if this is new, as Brian J Obrien has been saying this since 2000 when he started writing things for the right wing Australian lobby group “The Institute of Public Affairs” or IPA. Same one that Carter & Plimer writes for.

Deniers & liars for hire.

Dr. Romm has criticized Scotland Yard and also speculated on TV that that Murdoch’s spies stole the CRU emails. Now I am going to speculate.

I recently wrote on my blog that an FBI white paper is basically calling Nobel-winning climate scientist Paul Crutzen an unwitting dupe of the KGB based on a poorly-sourced book about a KGB defector. The KGB defector told the journalist who wrote the book that nuclear winter was a KGB hoax, and the FBI uncritically repeats this claim as fact in order to caution scientists so they won’t be tricked by foreign agents.

The FBI white paper is so bad that it even mischaracterizes what this KGB defector said, in one instance. This error reminded me of how Cuccinelli mischaracterized the official Russian source (RIA Novosti) he “cited” in his suit against the EPA.

I know that Ken Cuccinelli’s younger brother Kris does national security work that sometimes goes to the FBI. I am TOTALLY speculating, but I began to wonder if the Cuccinelli clan might have had something to do with this ridiculous white paper which appeared just when Dr. Crutzen was leading a Vatican conference on melting glaciers.

I began to wonder about that possibility because the FBI didn’t answer me, just like Cuccinelli’s office doesn’t ever answer me. (I write to W. Russell, his deputy.) I also noticed that the FBI and Cuccinelli both mischaracterize their Russian sources and uncritically accept what they say as the truth.

I would like to know how this poorly-researched white paper happened to be written and if the Cuccinelli clan had a hand in it.

This FBI white paper does not seem up to the FBI’s normal standards on science. It seems like political propaganda against climate science out of the mouth of a KGB defector.

The FBI seem like they were the unwitting dupes, not Dr. Crutzen.

I am not a scientist or an important person, so I would like some scientists to read my post and the links and ask the FBI to defend their “research” by giving the specific cites for the unsourced claims about KGB disinformation supposedly in published scientists’ articles.

See my post for specifics.

Also, I would like to know if the Cuccinelli clan had any input into this white paper.