[I’ve added the script up to 31 minutes. There’s a reason I’m trying to record every sob, sigh and quiver of the lower lip. It’s to do with not discarding data, in case anyone wants to find something wrong with it.]

[This is a full transcript of the first 14 minutes of “the Trick.” I’ll try and continue it soon. I leave you to spot the howlers, and work out which ones might be defamatory of Steve McIntyre [and Steve Mosher. See upcoming episode]. Note that the author seems not to understand the meaning of common English words like “data base” and “between.” Note also that just before the introduction of Steve’s name, The policeman suggests that this cybercrime might be worse than murder.]

Phil: (to granddaughter, on beach) Here I come. Ready. Run

Mrs Jones: I can’t believe you’re still doing that…

(Stage. Big background sign: “Climate Change Conference London 2009”)

Voice: I’d like to welcome you to this international conference for climate change 2009. It is my great pleasure to welcome our keynote speaker, who has been a pioneer in climate science for the last thirty years, expert in his field. World renowned. And who will address us on his work on the global instrumental temperature record, often referred to as the hockey stick graph, which has been so important in helping us to understand the causes of the change during the last one thousand years. (hushed voice) We’re honoured to welcome – Professor – Philip – Jones.

(In the wings)

Mrs Jones: Well, go on then.

(Phil goes on. Applause)

Phil: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Titles.

[This film is based on true events]

Young PR Man (rushing out of house, to older man playing with slightly coloured child in the kitchen sink) I’ll call you to let you know when I’m back. You’re a star dad, thanks.

(in train)

Old PR Man: Right. Let’s see what level of a shit storm we’ve got here.

Voices over: The University of East Anglia’s Climate data email controversy .. climategate.. climategate.. the climategate scandal .. scientists using words like “trick” ..climategate, they’re calling it a new scandal over global warming, and it’s burning up the internet. Have the books been cooked on climate change?

US Politician (Imhofe?): At worst it’s junk science, and it is part of a massive international scientific fraud

(in train.Young PR man bites his fingernails)

(in garden)

Burbling Important Man in blue pullover: (burble) communications consultancy – crisis management. Neil Wallace, ex-editor of a Sunday tabloid and his colleague Sam Bowen. Sam’s background is more corporate public relations

Mrs J: Can we trust them?

BIM: I think we have to. We’re running out of time. They’re accusing him of fraud Ruth. (Burble)

(in train)

Old PR man: Have you ever seen a Select Committee hearing?

Young PR man: No

OPRM: It’s no walk in the park. Eight people right there in front of you trying to put you on a (?) steal

YPRM: Why?

OPRM. It’s the House of Commons, the Government, and all that vindication (?) and this professor Philip Jones and the rest of them? Got half a chance. Slice of the whip and a rap across their knuckles and they’re screwed.

YPRM: So we’ve got one shot at it. To clear their names.

OPRM: And three weeks to do it

YPRM: (deep furrowing of brow)

Voice: Skullduggery; scientific espionage and black propaganda. Have scientists really been manipulating the data?

OPRM: They claim to be victims of a crime, right?

YPRM: They are

OPRM: From the off, everyone’s all over their asses ?? the criminals. Even the tree huggers, the environment correspondents. We need institutions independently to declare their innocence.

YPRM: I suppose they don’t know, do they?

OPRM: What?

YPRM/ If they are innocent or if Jones did rig the data to exaggerate the increase in temperature

OPRM: Exactly. Everyone’s terrified they’re guilty as charged. Maybe they’re right.

Edward Acton: (shaking hands) Edward Acton, Vice Chancellor

OPRM: Neil Wallace

YPRM: Sam Bowen. Pleased to meet you

EA: Here’s my Pro Vice Chancellor, Trevor Davies, former director of the Climatic Research Unit, also known as CRU

OPRM: Three months ago, when you were hacked..

EA: No.

Trevor Davies: [Burbling important man] The hacking itself was some months before

EA: We only became aware of it when the hacker uploaded the file to what’s it called?

TD: RealClimate dot Org. The university learned about it the following day.

OPRM: And you Phil, is that when you found out?

(Silence. Phil’s chin quivers; mutters)

Mrs J: Yes, that’s when we found out too.

OPRM: And what was your response, once you knew there’d been a hack?

TD: We informed the police and told them there’d been an IT system breach.

EA: A data theft. I think that was the phrase that was used.

Phil (long, tightlipped silence) Goodnight.

Mrs J: Thank you. You’re very welcome.

EA: Press Office documents, and I’ve had this made for you. It’s the broadcast coverage.

OPRM: Good. We’ll take a look at that tonight.

EA: (burbling) er, euh late?

OPRM: The House of Commons hearing is in three weeks, right?

EA: Yes

OPRM: The clock’s ticking Edward, so we’ll be working tonight

EA: I see. Good. Good

YPRM: Jesus they weren’t joking. He broke.

OPRM: Yup. Do you think he – he did it? You’d expect him to be a bit more pissed off, wouldn’t you? If he was innocent.

YPRM: (whispering) Are you sure I’m the right person for this? I do Corporate. Branding.

OPRM: Which means you’re not digital. (?) Look, whatever. We’re here now, aren’t we? Getting paid to get this lot out of a hole. Guilty or not.

[three months earlier]

(Police conference)

Plod: OK thanks for coming everyone. Thank you. Let’s start with the headlines. Two days ago the safer neighbourhoods team logged a data test for a backup server at the university’s climatic research unit known as CRU. Safer neighbourhoods flagged the call to Special Branch, and last night Gold Command on my recommendation initiated Operation Cabin as a major investigation. The contents of the file appears to be around a thousand emails and other documents written over a ten year period by staff at CRU, mostly by its current director, professor Philip Jones, world renowned climate scientist. Gareth here is from Kinetic, a defence contractor specialising in cyber security. His team will lead on the digital investigation reporting directly to me as senior investigating officer.The other two lines of enquiry: physical breach of CRU or an internal leak will be overseen by Gold Group. (writes GOLD on the blackboard) This is a category A investigation. So we can hopefully expect some additional support from National Counter terrorism Scotland Yard.

(Slightly coloured girl puts up her hand)

SCG: Viz. the Cat A status, sorry boss, but who’s been murdered?

Plod: No-one dear Shepiah (?)

SCG: So the only crime we’re..

Plod: The breach of the Computer Misuse Act, section one, and depending what we turn up, maybe section two. Regardless this is still a Cat A investigation, and I would appreciate it if it were treated as such. Right, if there aren’t any more questions, you know the drill. Any pissed-off (?) employees, office politics, financial vulnerability, who had access, what was the IT set up, any hint of a motivation, I want to hear about it. Thank you. Yes Shepiah, a word. Look, I appreciate this might just be a staff member with an axe to grind, or some hacker winning a pissing contest, but if it isn’t? Look at the timing. Join the dots. Three weeks before COP 15 the UN climate conference. (SCG gulps) Think about it. If this is someone trying to influence the global response to climate change; well then I’d say maybe Cat A isn’t high enough. (SCG nods and gulps again.)

11;33

(The White Tower at CRU. SCG puts on rubber gloves and stares at a photo of tree rings on the wall. Ed Acton stares at goldfish.)

Voice of Kinetic Cybersecurity Guy Gareth: The stolen emails are mostly conversations between colleagues, climate scientists here and in the US.

Plod: Have these conversations been taken wholesale?

KCGG: No. Because whoever compiled this file, they knew what they were looking for. These emails have been selected, probably using a word search for certain phrases. the first place a link is posted along with this comment here, “A miracle has happened,” is ClimateAudit dot Org. It’s a climate sceptic blog run by this man, Steve McIntyre. (photo on screen of someone else)

Plod: He’s receiving the link, He’s not sending it?

KCGG: Yeah, but he’s got history with Jones. McIntyre is a Canadian ex-mining consultant turned (shaking head and sneering) self-appointed climate science fact checker. If you look at his blog posts and the comment streams of his website and the emails, it reveals that there is an established relationship with Jones. And it seems that as far back as 2002 he’s been asking Jones for his data.

Plod: Which Jones gave him?

KCGG: Yeah. Initially. But then McIntyre started using it to criticise Jones, to undermine his career. (shakes his head) Jones backed off. But McIntyre, he got frustrated. Earlier this year he persuaded his entire data base to send Freedom of Information requests to CRU asking for their raw data.

Plod: Which they did

KCG: Yeah. Jones was flooded, and I mean flooded with requests. Sixty in a week. Look. It’s a bloody tsunami.

Plod: Annoying, but not illegal

KCG Yes. But that’s where it gets interesting. Our initial analysis of the hard drive server UCs (?) suggests that the unit was hacked several times between that same time period.

Plod:Are you saying there was more than one breach?

KCG: Not only that. McIntyre’s requests were formally refused by the university, and four days later, a file of stolen material goes live.

(at home)

Phil: (screaming and banging the coffee table) I HAVE NOT FALSIFIED ANY DATA!

Mrs Jones: (reading headline) Collusion? They can’t argue with the facts

Phil: (choking) That’s what they do all the time

Mrs J: Do you really think it is them?

Phil: WELL OF COURSE IT’S THEM!

(Mrs J’s chin quivers)

Phil: ?? I haven’t done anything wrong Ruth.

Plod: Are you suggesting that McIntyre was responsible?

KCGG: No. That was a relatively sophisticated attack. He wouldn’t have the capability.

Plod: But there was a co-ordination?

KCGG: It’s more likely someone with a vested interest in tracking his disputes with CRU. Yeah, you should also speak to this guy. This is Steve Mosher. He’s an established lukewarmer. He doesn’t believe that climate change is as serious as everyone’s making out. When the emails came out, he was in charge of finding the extracts before they were taken down.

Voice (not Phil’s): “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline” cheers, Phil

***

Plod: And these are the extracts that are penetrating (?) now?

KCGG: Yeah. That’s a very effective selection. Mosher knew exactly what he was doing.

(Phil in his toolshed looking like for a tool)

15′

(TD and someone walking in the night. I can’t tell who’s saying what and why someone develops a Welsh accent. No matter)

– Have your ?? got some comment on why he used the word trick? Already on the website along with some acknowledgement of the hack.

– (Welsh accent)L ook. I think we should do more. Defend the science. We’ll be inviting..

– I’m telling you there’s an established history.

t’s a bunch of ?? Trevor, just let em burn the story in a ???

TD: There was a piece in the Guardian..

– Offence would only raise more questions and give the story oxygen. We don’t want the science questioned either

?: Look if we can get through he weekend without the Today programme calling us, I really think we’ll be fine. Eh?

(Mrs J washing up)

Radio: …25 to eight. Those on the sceptic side have seized on these emails. One of these sceptics former Chancellor Lord Lawson, whose book “An Appeal to Reason” – (bad cut here) “..on the face of it, it looks as if the raw data were being manipulated in order to prove what they wanted to prove, that they were refusing other scientists outside access to the raw data, (Phil seen nodding) and that they were talking about destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed through the Freedom of Information Act. Now these are very very serious things. It may be that there is an innocent explanation for all this, but what is absolutely clear, because this is the basis on which science and policy decisions have been made by the government and by governments around the world. It has also tarnished very badly the international reputation of British science and there needs..

(Phil in his toolshed)

TD: It’s just we really need some clarity, and especially on why some of the temperature data can’t be released to the public.

Phil: Hell.(TD pats him on the shoulder and exits.)

Mrs J: “Dear Phil Jones, you should kill yourself. You lying prick, arsehole, and if you don’t, I’ll be more than happy to do it for you. And your family.”

TD: (burble) Terrible. We’ll inform the police. Look Ruth, if he does come out in a bit, would you mind…? He’s the only one who knows the truth about the emails the temperatures..

Mrs J: I know. Believe me I know? Even his voice has changed. Like it’s stuck in his throat.

(Phil walks in (not on) the water of the North Sea. In his best shoes, carrying a briefcase.)

girl on screen: Are you and granddad coming to my school play granny?

Mrs J: Of course sweetheart. It might just be granny this time

girl: OK (kiss) ‘Bye

Mrs J: (kiss) ‘Bye

girl: ‘Bye granny, see you soon

TD: These are the most damaging extracts: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith? Keith will do likewise.” “..Which is in the periods that show warming..” “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick, to hide the decline.”

?: Press enquires haven’t stopped all morning. It’s unprecedented, like nothing anyone’s seen before, but from the US now…

EA: What do they want, specifically?

?: Phil. The extracts are mostly from his emails, and he’s the director of CRU. They want to know why all of CRU’s data isn’t available as well, but in terms of people, Phil, no-one else..

TD: I’m afraid that’s not going to be possible

? Surely he can stand by his comments on the website?

EA Why isn’t he available? It would be the clearest way to set things straight.

TD: I agree. Uh, I went round there this morning, after the Lawson interview. Uh, the man’s struggling

(In car by the seaside)

Mrs J: Twenty years ago, do you remember when we had that ?? work in California, and then came here to talk about it, about the kids moving school, what it would all mean, and you got the excited about going and about staying. About what rap meant. Do you remember? If I can remember, I know you do. (Phil nods slightly “gawping like a carp on ketamine” according to Ed Cummin inthe Independent) “It’s going to be important,” that’s what you said. Politicians were just starting to talk about global warming, and you said that when they finally came to act on it, they’d need data they could trust. They’d need evidence. And you, CRU, would be able to give it to them. Well that time may be now. And you were RIGHT! They DO need your evidence. Which is why we can’t let these bastards destroy all you’ve done. It’s too important. You’re too important.

“I found what I can do Ruth,” that’s what you said. ???? (Phil in profile does an impressive number of expressive lip movements) GOD AND I SO WANTED TO GO TO CALIFORNIA!

Phil: Mmh

Mrs J: Mh ha ha

Phil: Mmh

Mrs J: Mh ha ha (touches his head) You’re going to have to speak up Phil.

(Welsh accent) Well if you’r pressed ??? Phil’s comment from the website. And lets see you do a Press Association release. Just print ??

EA: What about an independent enquiry? Into the allegations, and into the actions of our staff. If there has been malpractice, we must show we’re keen as mustard to investigate. We need support too. Public support.

(people on phone, getting out of taxi, going into the department of Energy and Climate Change. One of them is Sir David King, and there’s someone called Chris. As always, a new scene is announced by a disembodied voice talking over the end of the previous scene, so you have no idea who is who. The result is that all the important dialogue is incomprehensible, the only person who makes any sense is the loyally whimpering Mrs J, and the innocent viewer is completely unaware that he’s watching an account of a coverup organised by top academics and civil servants.)

Thanks ??? the data. Hugely appreciate it. We’re wondering if the department could give us ??

Voice: I’ll see what I can do. We really need ?? on this one Chris.

Voice: Sorry, look, I’ve got to go. Voice turns into..

Bloke rushing up (spoiler: this is Chris): Sir David, have you seen the CRU ???

Sir David: I haven’t ?? think about. I mean, I wouldn’t accept such loose practice on my ??

Chris: Well, siege mentality. I mean ?? in their sights for as long as I can remember, I mean..

Sir D: That’s precisely when you have to be careful when you think you’re in a battle. I mean, not to put the data in the public domain..

Chris: But to be fair, Sir David, it isn’t theirs to give

Sir D: What do you mean?

Chris: Well CRU bases its models on data from meteorological services. And sometimes that data comes with non-disclosure agreements.

(they enter the department of Energy and Climate Change)

Sir D: (to security clerk) Sir David King, School of Enterprise and the Environment, Oxford University

Chris: I’ve been the phone all morning to the Met Office, putting pressure on them to give clearance to release all the data

Sir DK: And?

Chris: Not yet.

Sir DK: Any news about the hack?

Chris: Nothing I’ve heard

Sir DK: Take your pick. It could be the Russians, the Saudis, the oil companies, anybody who’s got money in the game. (wagging his finger) It’s clever. Going after the data behind the modelling.

Chris: I don’t understand why everyone expects science models to be perfect. I mean, no-one ever goes after economic models, do they?

Sir DK: That’s because nobody’s trying to undermine the economics.

Chris: Do you really think it will affect the COP in Copenhagen?

Sir DK: Well, might scare the horses a bit, but no. This COP is dead in the water anyway.

Chris: You really think so?

Sir DK: Come on Chris. I mean the USA are not going to sign up to their commitment to carbon reductions unless it’s voluntary, and the same ?? and neither will the Chinese or the Russians. Look, do what you can about getting the Met to release that data. It could dowse the flames.

Chris (sighs)

Welsh newsreader: The head of a British climate research institute has stepped aside after leaked emails were said to suggest that the case for global warming had been exaggerated. Phil Jones of he university of East Anglia will relinquish his duties while an independent review is carried out. Our environment correspondent…

(Trevor listens. Acton walks in the dark. Saruman crouches in the White Tower, a chart of isotherms on his knees, sobbing)

KCGG: There’s a lot more emails. No, no, I’m saying there’s a lot more, almost two hundred thousand in total.

Plod: Shit!

KCGG: Now look, the really odd thing. They left the cache on the server, which is almost like, well, it’s like I guess they wanted us to know.

Plod: you say?

KCGG: Well, it means that CRU wasn’t the only climate unit that was attacked.

Plod: There were more hacks?

KCGG: Attempts. CRU was the only successful breach.

Plod: What were the other attempts. Where are they?

KCGG: OK. Persons unknown, posing as network technicians, tried to gain access to the climate science offices of the University of Victoria, British Columbia. And there were atempts to access servers at the Canadian Center for Climatology and Analysis, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, and an attempted unauthorised entry to the computer systes at the State Department Climate Bureau.

(Plod stares in disbelief. The idea of someone trying to obtain unauthorised access to a computer is something new to him)

Plod: And when when when was all this?

KCGG: This is all in the last twelve months.

(Plod shakes his head)

Mrs J: You do know that he’s the victim? His emails that were stolen ?? the papers? Why aren’t you going after…

SCG: I realise this must be upsetting

Mrs J: No-one’s getting the truth. Just what they read, what they hear.. (to Phil) Where are you going?

SCG: Just down to the station

Phil: We’ve just..

Mrs Phil: Why?

SCG: We need to ?? and ?? immediately

Mrs J: Well use our bloody printer

Phil:

SCG: Won’t be thirty minutes, I promise

(In station)

SCG: ?? graph? The one you mentioned in the interview. Why is it so important exactly?

Phil: Well, it’s a reconstruction of global temperature. Mm mm mm a window into the past. I suppose back ?? look. (drawing) these are decades, that is the handle, that is the handle of the stick, and here in the nineteenth century, when ,,,ation takes off, up until now erm, that’s the blade, when temperatures increase dramatically.

SCG: Is this your work?

Phil: Well, I contributed. You know, CRU is the first unit to be dedicated to the subject of climate change. We’ve had more time than anyone else to um er to um gather the temperature data. (smiles nervously.) It’s not just from across the world, but from across time

SCG: Wow

Phil: From before we had thermometer readings, historical records, ships’ logs, and then even further back, proxy data such as tree rings and ice cores

SCG: Sawthetreeringsdadaclassroom. They’rebeautiful (took four tries sorting that gabble out)

Phil: (Warm smile. Maybe if McIntyre had been an attractive police officer of colour he’d have had more success getting stuff out of him) Well, more than that. The proxy historical data goes into the graph. It helps make the past readable.

SCG: I’ll take you home now.

Phil: Thank you

Mrs Trev: Who’s doing this Trevor?

TD: Who knows? Plenty of vested interests ?? Copenhagen ?? I know why they’re doing it to us though. The hockey stick graph.

Mrs Trev: The one that shows the rise in global temperatures?

TD: CRU’s work has been into that graph. I mean, that’s meant to be the final word in the debate. ??? behind it ?? It’s simple. It cuts through the noise. That’s what the sceptics are like. Ever since the ?? was published has been to keep the debate going, they have to cast doubt on the hockey stick.

Mrs Trev: Crafty buggers.

EA: Hi! That was a long one. Must have done over twenty interviews now. It’s like speaking into a storm. No-one can hear us.

TD: Or wants to. We’re being drowned out by a sigh of relief.

EA: Relief?

TD: Well imagine if you were both told tomorrow you don’t have to worry about climate change (chuckles at the absurdity of the thought) Millions of dollars have gone into the denial campaign. And most of it to achieve exactly this, to make the science seem uncertain. It’s been going on for years, ever since we started talking about actually doing something about global warming.

Mrs Trev: Which is when exactly?

TD: Oh, the late eighties

[Later bit]

Young PR Man: But what happens Phil, for our children, and their children? No numbers, just the consequences.
(long silence. YPRM stares at Phil horrorstruck)
Phil: (still in crash dummy mode) By 2100, dust bowl conditions across North America, and Africa. Asia too. Sooner than that, a massive reduction in agricultural production, access to drinking water, migration in huge numbers, bush fires on a massive scale, in Australia, on the West coast. And well, melting at the poles, West Antarctic ice sheets, well, because of that, the global sea level rise of, well, metres.
Old PR Man: (in accent uncannily like Dudley Moore’s query to Peter Cook in their “End of the World “ sketch: “How will it be, brother Eli, this end of which you ‘ave spoke?”)
What does all that mean for us? People. Make me see it Phil.
Phil: Well, endless worse case scenarios. 70% of the inhabitable world will no longer be able to sustain human life. Millions of species will become extinct. Coastal and delta cities will be underwater, and (sighs) if the methane in the permafrost and on the seabed is released, well..
OPRM: Yes?
Phil: The climate will collapse, and the world will be gone.

60 Comments

  1. This is sort of like the victory lap in Time magazine for those who stole the 2020 election bragged how they did it but called it “safeguarding the election”…

    Liked by 2 people

  2. “[W]hoever compiled this file, they knew what they were looking for. These emails have been selected, probably using a word search for certain phrases.”

    That sounds a bit like the recent survey pushed by the Guardian, claiming 99.9% of scientists now agree, blah, blah, blah.

    By the way, as a category A criminal investigation, I wonder why they still haven’t identified the hacker/whistleblower?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. By the way, slightly O/T, but when is a hack not a hack? When it’s a leak, apparently:

    “COP26: Document leak reveals nations lobbying to change key climate report”

    “A huge leak of documents seen by BBC News shows how countries are trying to change a crucial scientific report on how to tackle climate change.

    The leak reveals Saudi Arabia, Japan and Australia are among countries asking the UN to play down the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels.

    It also shows some wealthy nations are questioning paying more to poorer states to move to greener technologies.

    This “lobbying” raises questions for the COP26 climate summit in November.

    The leak reveals countries pushing back on UN recommendations for action and comes just days before they will be asked at the summit to make significant commitments to slow down climate change and keep global warming to 1.5 degrees.

    The leaked documents consist of more than 32,000 submissions made by governments, companies and other interested parties to the team of scientists compiling a UN report designed to bring together the best scientific evidence on how to tackle climate change.”

    And, while I’m asking, what’s the difference between lobbying, and the absolute tsunami of propaganda we’re now being subjected to by the BBC?

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Standard debunking rules
    #1 They come up with a narrative,
    when we start debunking it we may be entering their entirely fake-world rabbit hole.
    And on a wild goose chase.

    #2 If they are making claims, they have to provide the EVIDENCE
    a big claim needs big evidence
    The authority of the messenger is irrelevant

    #3 Beware a scattergun tactic
    If they fire off 100 claims
    100 may still be wrong

    Like

  5. Stew,

    It’s not just the rank double-standards on show here that annoys me. When you read the full article it is quite clear that the author sees the IPCC report as being written by scientists, with attempts by governments to change the scientists’ narrative, e.g.:

    “Australia asks IPCC scientists to delete a reference to analysis of the role played by fossil fuel lobbyists in watering down action on climate in Australia and the US.”

    Quite clearly, the statement that ‘Australia’ objected to was not a scientific statement written by a scientist. When will these stupid, stupid people from the BBC learn that the IPCC is first and foremost a body put together to recommend policy. The BBC article even acknowledges the awarding of the highly political Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, and yet still these people are too thick to appreciate the implications of such an award being given. I give up. Really, I give up.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Thanks Geoff. Might save me the pain of watching it.

    Some of the howlers

    1. The hockey stick isn’t the temperature record, it’s the bogus tree ring reconstructions.

    2. The wording was “A miracle just happened”. No big deal but why change it?

    3. The ‘tsunami’ of requests wasn’t for raw data but for the (nonexistent) confidentiality agreements with other countries that Jones had claimed prevented him from releasing data.

    4. Mosher was not ‘in charge’ of anything at all. The stuff was posted by FOIA at Jeff Id’s blog and another one and anyone could get it and read it.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Paul,

    I wouldn’t class the following example as a howler, but it is a flagrant misdirection (or, as mathematicians might say, a trick).

    During the pivotal scene in which Phil Jones explains to his PR man the innocence behind ‘hiding the decline’, the following dialogue takes place. Phil has just finished saying that the graph was edited to remove unreliable proxy data that post-dated 1960 (i.e. the divergence) and that this had no significance, when the PR man asks:

    “But if it is unreliable then how do we know it is any good before?”

    Hesitantly, i.e. in the manner of a meek but brilliant mind, Phil responds with:

    “Its match to the previous instruments reading was strong, and universal all through the 19th and 20th centuries until 1960.”

    So the message is clear. In Owen Sheer’s alternative universe, Phil could see no downside to the removal of the divergence. Meanwhile, in the real world, Phil and Keith Briffa had this to say in a written deposition to the Russell/ Boulton investigation:

    “Of course, the recent divergence in these data will be less clear if post-1960s values are excluded, and that presents a potential disadvantage of this exclusion if this divergence is important for assessing confidence in the earlier constructed values.”

    Owen, when you did the research for your play, are you sure that you spoke to the correct Phil Jones?

    Like

  8. Steve Mc not very happy about the mocked up Climate Audit shown on screen: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1450916794697404423.html

    Not sure how readable the pretend comments would have been to a casual eye, but they seem to portray CA commenters in a less than favourable light, i.e. as nutcases, referencing LGMs among other things.

    (Thanks to Stew for alerting me to Threadreader, which means I can read stuff like this without having to enter the murky water of Twitter itself.)

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Jit,

    And they wonder why idiots then send them hate mail. Since the producers of this programme were prepared to stoop so low they surely must then expect to encounter some fellow bottom feeders. Whatever happened to maintaining the moral high ground chaps?

    Like

  10. thanks to Stew & JIT for links to Steve Mc’s response & history to this (plus Willis on the other thread).

    what I forgot about how shabby CRU & FOI request to them where deflected/rejected, was this bit from a to reply to Steve –

    “regulation 12(5)(f) applies because the information requested was received by the university on terms that prevent further transmission to non-academics”

    still reading the history but seem to remember some “academics” pushed for the data ?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. McIntyre’s long tweet threads show the great lengths the BBC went to produce mock ups of the Climate Audit blog page, faking names and comments and photos. Why? Why not just post an image of a page? On the one hand, they have to twist the story without defaming McIntyre, on the other hand they want to avoid the Streisand effect. But why make such a big deal out of it?

    BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera has a series coming up on BBC radio about Climategate called “the Hack that Changed the World” – a rather over-the-top title you might think. You can hear the first episode here
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00114h2
    In it he says that the author of the Trick, Owen Sheers, approached him to “pick his brains.”

    Gordon Corera: ..But as he began researching how climategate was covered in the media at the time, he found something odd
    Owen Sheers: Pretty much all the stories were about the climate science and the data, you know, was it valid? Had the books been cooked? And I couldn’t find any security stories which were asking the question, well, who’s done this and why might they want to do this? Maybe someone could have thought: well, might someone have an agenda here? … But I hadn’t really got very far, so I thought: I know a man who might have a few leads. I’d be interested to know if we could get closer, through looking at the possible suspects, to really map out the landscape of the forces who were aligned against action against climate change at that time.

    Why would a poet and Extinction Rebellion activist, handed a commission to write (supposedly) a human drama about the sufferings of an innocent scientist at the hands of evil climate denialists, suddenly get interested in the security aspect, to the point of contacting the BBC’s security expert? Since when has XR been concerned about protecting the state from its enemies?

    I still haven’t finished the whole thing, but it’s interesting that all the sleuthing in “the Trick” so far is being done by “Gareth” the cybersecurity expert working for a defence contractor. Another odd thing is that the film makes no effort to pretend that it’s about “the science.” It’s politics all the way down. This is in blatant contradiction with all the BBC’s publicity about it being a human drama.

    My first thought was that this might be the first move in a project to get climate scepticism banned from social media, as criticism of the politics of Covid has been banned. A more sinister thought has been surfacing – that it’s aimed at McIntyre in particular. He is one of a tiny number of people on twitter doing serious forensic research on such subjects as chemical weapons in Syria, the DNC hack, and the Russiagate farce. The exposure of British “”retired” spy Christopher Steele as a liar and a con man must be particularly upsetting to the kind of people frequented by the BBC’s security correspondent. Impossible to confront the truthdiggers frontally on these burning subjects, so why not resurrect a twelve year old story that has been officially resolved and forgotten?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Geoff: There’s another explanation. (Though none of these are totally exclusionary of the other.) Sheers isn’t a scientist and has no understanding of the “climate science and the data”. Nor is Corera. Lindzen has written again and again about those who are desperately scared of stuff like equations and data analysis, not least politicians themselves. But these folk have trillions to spend. So what else can they come up with?

    Like

  13. Relevant to my last comment.

    How could Sheers detect the truth or otherwise of what Steve says here?

    I and many others on Climate Audit knew enough to know that this wasn’t idle boasting.

    How could a Writers Rebel luminary even make the judgment?

    This doesn’t excuse the deceptions involved.

    And there may be darker reasons why others hired the guy.

    But, from what I can see from reviews, it’s been a flop. A thoroughly deserved one.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. I’ve just been listening to a BBC arts podcast, Front Row, from earlier this month, which includes an interview with Owen Sheers.

    Relevant to Geoff’s point about a possible crackdown on climate scepticism:

    “… even now when I would tell people that I was working on this story, they’d say: oh yeah, is that when those climate scientists were caught out?… Which shows you that, you know, in terms of the nature of that hack and how it was exploited afterwards, it was successful. Which was a thing that I’ve always found most shocking – as someone with two young children, it feels like an ever more personal crime against humanity, and an ever more serious one.”

    So Climategate is, in Owen’s view, a “crime against humanity”.

    On authenticity:

    “… I was very fortunate in that I was given pretty much unfettered access to most of the characters at the heart of the drama, certainly in terms of the University of East Anglia and the people who came in to work with them, around it. So yeah, I spent a significant amount of time with Phil and I’ve stayed in touch with everyone through the drafts of the script. Not just to check on the technical aspects, but also because when you’re writing something like this, which is based on real life, and on a real life that is still very traumatic for those involved, still very raw, you want to keep within calling distance of those original conversations, but at the same time it is a drama. You know, this has to travel somewhere else, it’s trying to do something different to a documentary. So I do keep in touch with Phil in that respect as well, just to say: look, you know, I have your character saying this and doing this. You may not have done that, but is that action, are those words within the orbit of your thinking of what you might have done, had you been able to?”

    So he’s been in close contact with those characters on one side of the issue, with no mention of an attempt to reach out to the other. In the BBC’s media pack for The Trick, he does refer to what he calls “‘both-sidesism’ at all costs” as a bad thing, which might explain his “one-sideism”:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/the-trick

    On Extinction Rebellion and marches:

    “… we wanted to end with footage of one of the Fridays for the Future marches, but there was a sensitivity about having a march in the drama, and a concern, I think, that the BBC would be too closely aligned with Extinction Rebellion or groups like that. Which I must admit, I did find quite strange, because what’s interesting for me is that ten years ago those marches weren’t happening. And now they are.”

    Owen’s own close ties with Extinction Rebellion are not mentioned in the podcast. And I recall there were plenty of climate marches both well before the run-up to Copenhagen (e.g. Stop Climate Chaos in 2006) and since then – maybe not as youth-focussed as now but certainly in the news. So those big marches were happening – it’s not some new phenomenon signalling an overwhelming public change of heart on the subject.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Richard, Geoff,

    And here’s another way of thinking about it:

    Sheers is a member of a group that is not just about achieving an end state (net zero) but doing so in a manner that promotes urgency above all other considerations. So it is all about time. To increase that sense of urgency it is important to create an impression of time lost, hence this strange and unsubstantiated narrative of a lost decade. And why did we lose this decade? Because someone wanted us to. For that reason, The Trick was focused upon the motives and methods of the time bandits rather than the ‘fictitious’ misdemeanours of the victim scientists.

    And of course these ‘bastards’ are still at it, as the BBC was happy to report yesterday:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58982445

    I say ‘happy’ because despite this unauthorized leak of documents being, by definition, a cybercrime, there is no hint from the BBC of cyberterrorism or the need for a Cat A investigation. As far as the BBC is concerned, a miracle just happened.

    As an aside, I think it is worth reflecting upon Geoff’s reference to the Streisand Effect. There is no name for the opposite (where efforts to raise the profile of an issue have the opposite effect) because that ought to be impossible. However, judging by some of the reviews that The Trick has received, Sheers does appear to have achieved that impossible feat. Take the following review, for example:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/16461297/the-trick-bbc-climategate-drama-viewers-complain-confused/

    So should we now be referring to the Sheers Effect?

    PS. In the above review you will note the journalist’s use of the term ‘haters’ for anyone who confessed to not being able to follow the science in the programme. That nicely captures the state of the debate, I think.

    Liked by 7 people

  16. Even more confusion. Surely “haters”, used in the Sun review just refers to those people who hated the BBC play because it was to them confusing or boring. It is just like Phil’s unfortunate use of the word “trick”.

    Like

  17. RICHARD

    I and many others on Climate Audit knew enough to know that [Steve’s CV] wasn’t idle boasting. How could a Writers Rebel luminary even make the judgement?

    Well he could go on Wikipaedia, where he would learn that McIntyre studied philosophy politics and economics at Oxford, and was offered a graduate scholarship to study mathematical economics at MIT. That should persuade him, unless Wiki has been hacked by dark forces, of course.

    In case you think my comment above smacks of conspiratorial thinking, I’d just say that my thinking owes a lot to Andy West’s comments, where he continually points out that conspiracy-like things can happen, without anyone actually plotting. John gives a good example of how an idea can become current without any organised effort to promote it in his comment above when he says:

    Sheers is a member of a group that is not just about achieving an end state (net zero) but doing so in a manner that promotes urgency above all other considerations. So it is all about time. To increase that sense of urgency it is important to create an impression of time lost, hence this strange and unsubstantiated narrative of a lost decade. And why did we lose this decade? Because someone wanted us to.

    They attribute their sense of urgency to “what the science says.” We know that the sense of urgency came first, and necessitates the blocking of motorways the recital of poems at climate festivals etc., and the science comes trailing behind, more or less obediently. There’s a sense of urgency about getting published in the literature, too.

    According to the quotes in Alex’s comment, Sheers’s knowledge of “what the science says” comes from having spent “a significant amount of time with Phil… not just to check on the technical aspects.” That “not just..” presumably justifies calling the global temperature data “the hockey stick graph.”

    Liked by 2 people

  18. ALAN

    “Surely “haters”, used in the Sun review just refers to those people who hated the BBC play because it was to them confusing or boring.”

    Surely. I’m confused, and I’ve spent 4 hours poring over the first 30 minutes. You can see how much of the dialogue I couldn’t pick up, even after listening several times, from the gaps I leave. I did manage to pick up the phrase “ships’ logs” muttered by Phil as he explains the historical temperature record. What would the average viewer, who isn’t a regular reader of ClimateAudit, make of that? What would he register? “Sh*t slog” is more like it.

    Like

  19. Geoff, Alex, John, Alan, Uncle Tom Cobbley … 😉

    All fine points. I’ve not been listening to Sheers to the tune of a minute’s podcast. I just watched 20 mins of The Slick. (In the Big Oil polluting sense. But I agree with John that almost-universal reverse-Streisand is quite an achievement.)

    The desire to outlaw climate scepticism is of course there. But these guys are so mediocre. I haven’t yet found the end of the full script. More cyberterrorism from Mr Ridgway needed? Or failing that, Mystic Meg?

    Liked by 2 people

  20. “Reverse Streisand”?

    I like it.

    “Lovely reverse Streisand there, followed by a double Lewandowsky. Now for the dismount…”

    Liked by 2 people

  21. I’m surprised that I can’t find any comments by any prominent climate alarmists on this movie. Perhaps it’s because it’s supposed to be only available in the UK, but you’d think George Monbiot might have something to say. He originally called for Jones to step down, then changed his mind.

    Like

  22. Mike
    Monbiot changed his mind in the most humiliating fashion. After having called for Jones’s resignation on viewing the emails, without waiting for any explanation, he then turned his fire on the university for mismanaging the PR, and finally stated that he’d await the findings of the enquiries,and, if they exonerated Jones, he wouldn’t return to the subject. For an investigative journalist to accept the official findings without question is absurd of course.

    Come to think of it, I don’t think the UK really has “prominent climate alarmists,” like eg Bill McKibben. I’m not on UK media all the time, but I have the impression the BBC will call upon a scientist from the Met Office, or a politician, or their own environmental journalists. UK residents may confirm or contradict that.

    Liked by 3 people

  23. @John Ridgway – thanks for the Sun link !!! – do you read all the papers? (old Foggie)

    liked how they describe what happened –
    1 – thousands of emails and documents leaked following a hack.
    2 – Director of Climate Research at the University of East Anglia, who was targeted in the hack.
    3 – the documents were stolen by climate change deniers

    then a comment below – “Very moving,” a third said of the pilot, while a fourth hit back at the haters: “See people complaining they can’t follow the story – REALLY? I am perfectly capable.”

    “a third said of the pilot” – what !!! – Alan get your hair cut, your in a miniseries !!!

    Like

  24. just thinking again about the run up to COP – we (or most) know the real storyline behind “climategate”.

    so are the MSM thick or still following a script ?

    Like

  25. back to the Sun link – scrolling down I find this – “Climate sceptics tricked the public in an event that became known as Climategate”

    ever thought “the truth will out” is an outdated statement ?

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Dfhunter
    You can think you’re following the plot, if you accept the BBC’s summary of it as being a human drama of a man’s suffering under persecution and his salvation thanks to his wife’s support. But there’s only so many minutes you can fill with images of a man stunned into lip-quivering silence while his wife makes soothing noises in the background. And much of the rest of the film is men in suits explaining the complex relationships between politics, academia and the press to each other while running for trains, hopping into taxis, or ambling thoughtfully through corridors. If it wasn’t for the odd hints of shadowy forces bent on hurrying the world towards destruction it would be a big yawn. I thought the best scene was the one of Trevor Davies sticking pins into a Steve McIntyre doll.

    Like

  27. Owen’s theory of shadowy forces bringing about a “lost decade” of climate inaction due to Climategate doesn’t quite add up. Did Climategate contribute to the Copenhagen failure? Maybe plausible at the time because it made the headlines, but once it vanished from the news cycle, did Climategate then go on to scupper every single COP since?

    The idea of nefarious secret legions of climate deniers funded by Big Oil somehow causing world leaders to drag their heels for a decade seems on a par with Russia engineering the Trump presidency. I think that in the same way that Putin and his hackers provided a way of drawing attention away from an uncomfortable truth (i.e., that US voters chose Donald Trump), the shadowy forces of denial provide a way of deflecting from the inconvenient reality of politicians signalling their virtue like mad but averse to be the ones holding the can when ruinous climate policies (and the bills for them) eventually come home to roost.

    It’s more like a kind of useful fiction, in other words, one of those things that if it didn’t exist, they’d have to invent.

    Liked by 5 people

  28. “It’s more like a kind of useful fiction, in other words, one of those things that if it didn’t exist, they’d have to invent.”

    Yes. In principle, all the COPS *must* fail, because they are cultural rituals rather than genuine practical negotiations to solve a real problem (Josh has a great cartoon showing the stages of the ritual that always play out). Catastrophic climate culture will never evolve very far in a direction that might actually address its primary narrative, because that could kill the culture. Hence the extreme reluctance to promote nuclear, for instance. And the primary narrative of certain global catastrophe is a fairy-tale that cannot possibly be solved anyhow (also contradicting mainstream science, let alone anything sceptical). Plus, failure itself is actually part of the ritual, because this stimulates still more efforts from the faithful to overcome the supposed forces (deniers, recalcitrants, greedy corps, plebs, traitorous politicians, whatever) aligned against success, stimulates more effort and money investment in the culture (but *not* in a real solution). Any fictions that assist this grand performance will naturally rise to the surface via emotive selection. Those fictions can include occasional faux success, like the bit of signed paper in Paris. But if the fairy story of the ultimate problem is still to culturally dominate, such faux successes must be allowed to fall apart for culturally approved reasons, such as indeed dark forces or say ‘populist resistance’ (in the current sense of ‘populist’ equating to extreme and bad, rather than ‘popular’) or whatever.

    Liked by 4 people

  29. Geoff,

    I like your transcript now that it has the raw [emotion] data added. Might I add, however, that there is another important source of data that you have overlooked.

    As with all effective melodramas, the incidental music plays a key role, hopefully without the viewer even being aware of its presence. If done expertly, it can provide a subtext that covertly influences the audience’s mood and thinking. If done crudely, it can greatly add to the comic effect. So a transcript that includes reference to what the music is doing in step with the dialogue would be helpful. For example, you could point out how the music breaks out into angelic chorus as Jones approaches rapture. This way, the truly penny dreadful nature of the programme will be more readily apparent to your readers.

    Just an idea.

    Liked by 3 people

  30. I’m fully on board with Andy’s analysis. It has the immense advantage of explaining things, and making me less angry, and therefore possibly more capable of thinking clearly about what to do about it. (I think the only person here who has rejected Andy’s approach is Ben Pile, who hasn’t blogged here for a while, and whose Twitter comments get angrier and angrier, to little avail.

    One may argue that this is only a fiction, (and one rejected by the public) it’s only the BBC etc. I won’t be adding to this transcription for a while, but I will finish it one day since I find it fascinating. Transcribing is like being a psychoanalyst, since it forces you to listen very carefully to what people say and how they say it. I still haven’t seen it through (my computer seems to have difficulty managing the 3 Gigabytes of film that Alex Cull kindly provided me with via Google Drive) but I skipped to the end and saw that the little girl in the kitchen sink whose one-second appearance at the beginning establishes the young PR man hero as a caring person with an (unseen) partner of colour grows up to become a Greta-following teenager with a banner. Also that Graham Stringer is portrayed. I’d like to know more about that, if my computer allows.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Geoff,

    I too must look upon this as an uncompleted project since I have yet to finish off watching it. My return to that task has been delayed, unfortunately, since I am still in negotiation with my wife regarding what I can and cannot legitimately use as a barf bucket.

    Liked by 3 people

  32. JOHN
    Ha! Great minds! I’ve already noted a descending cadence of an army of ‘cellos in a minor key in a section soon to be uploaded. If I append a full critical apparatus I might be able to get round accusations of breach of copyright.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Geoff said:

    “I think the only person here who has rejected Andy’s approach is Ben Pile, who hasn’t blogged here for a while”

    Oh no he’s not.

    While Andy’s approach well describes the warmist cult as it is now, someone spent a lot of time and money feeding false information to a section of society to obtain the ‘critical mass’ which appears to make the cult self-sustaining. I don’t think the Chinese could be responsible, the timeline isn’t right.

    The only hope I can see is that any propaganda/advertising campaign, like this, will cease to be relevant once the source changes its focus.

    Like

  34. Bill, cultures can self-sustain at any scale. And in general, money follows culture (they suck it in), rather than the reverse (it’s extremely hard to try and create a culture from scratch however much money you pump in, because, currently, we aren’t clever enough to know how to craft them properly. Cultures themselves have at minimum hundreds of thousands of years of tricks up their sleeves). False information that contains the right kind of emotive triggers (aka cultural narratives), is perfectly capable of spreading autonomously, because every single authority source or influencer or communicator they infect will then willingly, even passionately, donate the time and money of their org or area to the cause. In this manner, vast resource is sucked from a great multiplicity of sources.

    Like

  35. Geoff:

    I think the only person here who has rejected Andy’s approach is Ben Pile, who hasn’t blogged here for a while, and whose Twitter comments get angrier and angrier, to little avail.

    I think I have rejected Andy’s approach and have done so, with Ben, johanna and others, since at least Mar 8, 2014. But, perhaps a lot more important, Ben’s up to this right now:

    That seems to include blogging. I’m in favour of all such attempts to expose the COP futility (like Jit’s brilliant post here over the weekend). Anger isn’t easily avoidable but it can be productive.

    Like

  36. I don’t wish to trivialize the nature of the debate, but it seems to me to boil down to the following: Has an emergent culture provided the environment within which conspiracy can be expected, or was it the conspiracy that enabled the emergence of the culture? It’s a bit of a chicken and egg question because there is obvious feedback involved, but when I reflect upon the social dynamics that can result in the formation of a dodgy scientific consensus, I am inclined towards Andy’s way of thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Thank you John, but both branches of that question agree there is a ‘culture in charge’ after some initial period, as bb also indicates above. But I don’t think Richard agrees with this (or at least, didn’t).

    Like

  38. “It’s a bit of a chicken and egg question”

    I wouldn’t dispute that. But one day, as it was crossing the road, the chicken noticed a economist walking up the opposite pavement, followed, as it happens, by a emerging markets derivatives trader.

    (I was told this story, which may be apocryphal, by a trader I was working for and coding with at Bankers Trust in 1986.)

    Anyway, there was a £50 note on the pavement. The economist walked right past. The trader picked up the note. When questioned about his behaviour the economist said “In a perfect market the £50 note wasn’t there.”

    Some theories, and the discussion thereof, won’t help us to take the one opportunity that arises to blast climate alarmism into oblivion.

    Like

  39. Richard: “Some theories, and the discussion thereof, won’t help us to take the one opportunity that arises to blast climate alarmism into oblivion.’

    If one does not know the power behind climate alarmism, what it actually *is*, this surely makes it less likely that opportunities to damage it can be created, with less chance of inflicting serious damage during each. “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles”, as Sun Tzu says.

    Like

  40. Richard,

    I agree. Conspiracy exists and we should not be coy about calling it out whenever we see it. However, there is an idea doing the rounds that we sceptics are hidebound by our propensity for, what Willard would call, conspiracy ideation. I think it is useful, therefore, to point out that there are plenty of processes at play that can explain what is happening without recourse to conspiracy theory. Consensus gained within a social backdrop is often just a matter of symmetry breaking. There was a day when many clock faces were a mirror image of what they are today and the handles went around the other way. There were social reasons why this ambivalence needed to be eradicated, and the modern convention chosen for ‘clockwise’ is really quite arbitrary. Scientific consensus is not formed so arbitrarily but we ignore the social element at our peril.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. John Ridgeway said:

    “There was a day when many clock faces were a mirror image of what they are today and the handles went around the other way. There were social reasons why this ambivalence needed to be eradicated, and the modern convention chosen for ‘clockwise’ is really quite arbitrary.”

    This doesn’t sound at all likely.

    There had been sundials on towers for a long time before clocks became common. The shadow from the gnomon of a sundial follows a clockwise path across the scale, at least in the northern hemisphere. So when public clocks replaced sundials on church towers it was logical to have the hands, or hand since most early clocks told only the hours, move in the same way that people were used to the shadow on a sundial moving.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Bill,

    I stand corrected. The word ‘many’ was inappropriate, but such clocks did exist (e.g. the clock on the Jewish Town Hall in Prague). Such aberrations didn’t gain traction for the very reasons you give. However, this is still an example of symmetry breaking because the logic for clockwise motion only holds true in the northern hemisphere. If clock faces had first been developed in the southern hemisphere then we would all be using clocks with hands that move ‘backwards’. It just would not do for the world to entertain both conventions simultaneously so we all fall in line with the hemisphere that got there first.

    Like

  43. John,

    I’m sure that if people had been really inconvenienced by contra-rotating clock hands, someone would have invented the digital clock.

    Like

  44. So the BBC faked image of climate audit replaces the intelligent and highly technical discussion that actually took place around the famous “A miracle just happened” comment, with semi-literate conspiracy theorising (see Jit’s link to the recent CA post).

    Compare the real comment just before FOIA

    “In horticultural terminology, we usually call the rapid growth around cambium damage ‘callus tissue’”

    with the BBC’s fabrication

    “We went through an ice age of course the earth climate changes that are just afact and they are taxing us because of something that was gonna happen anyway.”

    They also made some other odd changes. Why change the date from Nov 17 to Dec 22? And why change ‘just happened’ to ‘has happened’?

    In the comments, Steve Mc promises another post on how the BBC tries to spin ‘Hide the decline’.

    Liked by 3 people

  45. Second thoughts on conspiracy ideas
    … What I mean is that assigning a general overall conspiracy is wrong
    whilst there are pockets of conspiracy eg #1 Jones
    eg #2 events when Journalists excluding some voices and hype others,
    generally what is going on with media/science is GROUPTHINK, not conspiracy

    However financial aspects do remind me of the Telexfree pyramid scam we helped to bust.
    I do believe that some of the stuff going on around large green hedgefunds and Telsa etc.
    seem like people who know their CO2 business solutions are crap, but they are really about rigging the market for profit.
    Green Policy does facilitate market rigging
    You might have an industry that is getting ever cleaner with time, and whose competition is uneconomic
    and then suddenly politicians move in and BAN that industry and let that competition suddenly have free reign.
    In that pyramid scheme there was us
    #1 outsiders who could see that it was a scam
    #2 general public caught up in groupthink and investing their own money
    #3 Lots and lots of insiders and promoters who knew it was a scam ..but who conspired to hype the business
    Even if they never contacted any other promoters, their action of playing along was conspiracy.

    Like

  46. Re: “Conspiracist ideation”. It’s the other way round – the shoe is on the other foot. Look at the paranoid reaction to Steve McIntyre’s requests, and the talk of an organised “tsunami” of FOIA requests, and the assumption that the purpose of the requests was purely harassment and nuisance value, and the assumption that Big Oil interests were behind the requests.

    Like

  47. I think I detected scientist conspiracy type talk this morning, where they kind of tell the truth, but at every opportunity amplify the narrative to the left, and talk that down to the right
    eg in the way that talking about an icesheet would focus on the 5% decaying, and hardly mention the 95% growing. Therefore leaving the audience with a false impression.

    I switched on Radio4 this morning, expecting another COP26 Global Warming special
    .. instead I got Steve Jones speaking calmly about coral
    He wasn’t going “Global Warming, Global Warming it’s all dying”
    eventually they got to Bleaching and said it was a natural process that happens and then recovers
    but then added that there is a special kind of bleaching caused by ocean warming
    and that might come so fast, coral can’t recover.
    – Jones claimed coral is the rainforest of the sea and that there is very little of it
    He used a cherrypick “there is very little of this kind of coral”

    – Melvyn asked about plastic and the scientist first honestly admitted there was no evidence plastic affected coral biology
    but then said ah the two issues are connected cos of the warming CO2 that is produced in plastic manufacturing.. hmm that’s a red herring cos #1 plastic manufacturing doesn’t use much energy
    and could use green-power if you wanted.
    #2 Dead plastic can be recycled in incinerators displacing fossil fuels that would’ve been burnt.

    Despite the tone Gareth Williams with the last word did use a scripted line
    “We need global cooperation to reduce GHG”
    .. “We are running out of time and we have to ask now !”

    That was the live version ending at minute 41
    the catch up version has a “bonus 10 minutes” longer

    Like

  48. In bonus time Williams used a hyperbolic line
    ‘With global warming bacteria are stronger, it’s like having food outside the fridge’
    No it’s not, A fridge is 15C cooler than the outside ..not just 1C like prior to global warming

    Jones who previously said coral was rare , then said that coral is so often under your feet
    eg in the pub in Oxford or at Mallam Tarn

    Like

  49. As ever when I check for tweets about the prog
    There was zero discussion
    Yet still today people tweeting alarmist R4 prog from 2018 about the Great Barrier Reef
    “So much of the life she remembers has gone, wiped out by the great coral bleaching events caused by rising sea temperatures.
    Some who love the reef are in despair, others who once chose to ignore the signs are finally energised”

    AFAIK the GBR does not have large dead sections.

    Like

  50. This passage from Steve highlights an extraordinary synchronicity:

    On April 8, 2003, I sent my initial request to Michael Mann for the FTP location of Mann et al 1998 data in order to look at the underlying data.

    April 8, 2003 was also the date that looting began in Baghdad. On April 9-10, 2003, the Baghdad Museum, a totally unique repository of cuneiform tablets from early world civilization, was looted as a result of appalling negligence of cultural heritage by the US occupation, which devoted resources to protecting Toyota Land Cruisers, but not unique world history. I had a considerable prior interest in Bronze Age history and watched the spectacle with both dismay and anger. I later wrote some (now lost) comments entitled “Day of infamy at the Baghdad Museum”.

    The connection between the looting of Baghdad and my decision to request MBH98 data wasn’t just coincidence. The looting of Baghdad was a radicalizing moment for me: whatever the rights or wrongs of the invasion itself, it was evident that there were no plans on what to do now. It was a mess. Making matters worse, I had begun with substantial skepticism of the WMD rationale and presumed that Iraqi emigres were telling too eager US intel agencies exactly what they wanted to hear. Was it possible that something similar was going on with climate? In the sense that everyone in climate, like everyone in the days leading up to the Iraq invasion, was too eager to go to war.

    All his work, from April 2003 onwards, was about the decline, openly admitted by Briffa in 2001, and how it had been hidden.

    Some villain!

    Like

  51. Today Times reader comments give DAVID AARONOVITCH a kicking for his article
    Storm of lies is still raging after Climategate
    There’s plenty we can learn from the hacking scandal of 2009 about the ways in which conspiracy theories are spread”

    Vast majority against him.
    Top one with 274 Likes

    To me, the most compelling reason for the scepticism that surrounds anthropogenic climate change is the decades of hysterical claims about what will happen if we don’t act immediately.
    Not a single one of even the mildest claims has eventuated and yet still they screech “only 10 years left to avoid catastrophe”.
    No rational person denies that the climate is changing, it has done so for ever and will continue to do so for ever.
    The real issue is the pollution we pour into our oceans and onto the land.
    This should stop and the trillions directed into reducing CO2 emissions should instead be used to find ways of dealing with toxic waste and adapting to CC.
    Instead of terrifying our young people, we should give them hope with positive messages instead of doomsday scenarios that simply won’t happen.

    Liked by 2 people

  52. another Aaronovitch engages in his own conspiracy theory : big oil behind the hack.
    The contents of the hacked email show dishonest and bad intent.
    It’s clear to anyone who has actually read the emails – nothing has been debunked.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.