Hey Myron, show me your mail

The climate conspiracy theorists are enjoying their moment of glory with the hacked emails that were made public late last week.

And who can blame them, given that many of them were relegated to the fringe years ago?

I suspect that most mainstream media will not buy the overblown rhetoric. After all, it is ridiculous to assert that stolen emails from a few climate scientists somehow refutes decades of research by thousands of experts.

The emails will batter the reputation of a few scientists, but they contain no evidence to undermine the theory of man-made climate change.

But that hasn’t stopped the denial industry from pushing the line and at least one outlet, in San Diego, has fallen for it. The coverage came in a story on The Copenhagen Diagnosis, a summary of the latest climate science research put together by 26 researchers, citing over 270 research papers.

The original new story had no mention of the hacked emails. But I noticed this afternoon that the story has been updated to include this from none other than Myron Ebell, head climate change spindoctor for the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

But Mann’s participation in the report has provided critics of prevailing global warming theories with ammunition. Mann is among several researchers whose e-mails recently were hacked into and dispersed online, creating a controversy known as “Climategate.” The notes are seen by some as proof that leading scientists have manipulated data to support their conclusions.

People ought to just say, ‘Wait a minute. Let’s not even open (the Copenhagen Diagnosis) until we have investigated how corrupt this effort is,’” said Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank in Washington, D.C. “They have tarnished or dirtied or made suspect anything they are connected with.”

Ebell’s own credibility is such that ExxonMobil cut off its funding rather than continue to incur the embarrassment of being associated with the much-ridiculed CEI.

All this says something about why the climate debate continues to unfold as it does.

Think for a millisecond about how juicy the news might be if someone hacked the CEI computer, finding a way to track funding and listening in on the conversations that have occurred between Ebells and his collaborators at Exxon, Ford and the Bush Whitehouse.

But people on the “science side” of this issue keep confining themselves to factual information and avoiding illegal activity like stealing documents. This is a good thing.

Notwithstanding the embarrassing bits in the CRU emails, it shows the world scientific community and their supporters in a good light. But it’s hard to be in a knife fight when the other guys are the only ones who brought knives.

So, what do you say, Myron?

If this is war over credibility, and the scientists have inadvertently put theirs on the line, how about if you take a turn.

Hand over, say, six months of email communications beginning in 2003 around the time the Whitehouse asked you to sue it (yes, the Whitehouse asked you to sue the Whitehouse) to help block climate legislation. Then we’ll have a serious talk about who’s credible.


I guess Kevin we see where your head is at. It’s not about spin as “climate contrarians” are all about getting the truth out. Global warming had so many flaws in science that all it had was media manipulation and spin. It’s plain for all to see now Global warming has been exagerated at least and a complete fraud at worst.
I see how your spinning it kevin and very good, 3 or 4 sceintists. LOL actually their are some e-mails that have contributions from 10 or 12 scientists and if you go through the whole chain just about every IPCC climate scientist is in the mix. So the whole “science” or religion to put it more apropriately is tainted.

What needs to be done now is a full Climate Audit team to go in, clean up and arrest those guilty and fire the rest. Get some unbiased scientists in their to examine the data. A guy like Tim Ball, Fred Singer or Steve Mccyntire might be a good choice to clean up this corrupt fiasco, they will give us the straight goods.

Who knows we might get lucky and global warming isn’t even a problem. That would be a huge sigh of relief for everyone wouldn’t it?.

You’re hilarious. Two of those guys don’t know anything about science (though McIntyre is a reasonable competent, if hardly unbiased, statistician). And as for Fred Singer, everybody from the tobacco industry to the fossil fools at Exxon have shown that you can pay him for whatever opinion you would like. You’re right that it would be a relief to discover that climate change is nothing to worry about. But wishing it so is not going to help as we crash the earth into well-established, thoroughly documented trouble - even if you can brandish an intemperate email or two at the floodwaters when the time comes.

Richard, your a bright guy, take a look at the e-mails, Global warming is dead. Either it’s only a minor problem or a complete hoax. I realize that many have religious like ferver to the movement. If you are still convinced that global warming has scientific merit and the alarmism idd for real, just build an Ark. Much like another well know religion, you could be the next Noah! Think of the career opportunities to that! You wouldn’t be spinning new on a blog, you would be in charge and it’s a GREEN JOB!

Vanity may be his main motive, and attention. Singer is declared to be an “esteemed scientist” by rightwingers in business suits. His speeches are scheduled by PR firms. He gets to pontificate to audiences that actually listen to him and take him seriously. Big career high for Singer! He never, as far as I am aware, did useful research that excited anyone (possibly excepting the 1950s.)

He is lauded, feted, admired. In the early 2000s he was getting a lot of TV exposure for presenting “the other side”. Until 2002, CNN declared “there is no other side”. ABC interviewed him a year or two ago and to his face quoted scientists as saying his work was “fraudulent”. (As pointed out here, Singer does not embarrass.)

Fame is more important than fortune to some people. Singer has a long track record of media attention for wild statements or dramatizing the work of other people. He enjoys his current work, organizing pseudo scientists and miscellaneous dentists to sign petitions; explaining to conferences how he, Singer, has the real knowledge; speaking before groups of sewage engineers or some such, being the “grandfather” of denying; reminding people that polar bears eat cute little seal pups, ad nauseum.

organizing evil dentists is a crime, that’s for sure. Even disorganized dentists are a bad lot, torturing people with sharp instruments the way they do. I say turn the dentists loose on the seal pups and lets solve 2 problems at once.

The writing’s on the wall, Cam. Your writing.

You’ve managed in the space of a few short days to prove that you’re illiterate, illogical, ignorant and comically credulous when it suits your woolly-headed politics. You’ve made my idiot tune-out list.

Wouldn’t you be happier frolicking with the other adolescents in the article comments over at the National Post?

This is the alternative story, perfectly timed by the denial industry to drown out anything that’s coming out of Copenhagen.

They don’t even need to read and respond to any of the dire news from Copenhagen, because all they have to do is fill the airwaves with this junk until there is no room left.

It’s a bang-up PR job, like the Jessica Lynch story during the 3-week invasion of Iraq. As PR experts, Desmogblog ought to have warned us that a swift-boat operation like this was possible.


Myron Ebell, like the others, are busy maximizing the damage that this causes. For example, he is lying that the only climate warming evidence was controlled by CRU – forgetting entirely about NASA’s GISTEMP sequence.


Isn’t it funny that when they are able to smear one small set of scientists, this damages all the scientists, yet when people working in the climate denier scene are exposed, it never weakens their cause?