The latest story exciting the denialosphere is this one by Carol Driver in the Daily Mail. Driver claims:
Climate change scandal deepens as BBC expert claims he was sent 'cover-up' emails a month before they went public
The controversy surrounding the global warming scandal today deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked emails more than a month before they were made public.
No, he didn't.
In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'
He couldn't have been sent the stolen emails a month ago since many of them were written after October 12. All he was doing was confirming the authenticity of one of them (which included quotes of previous emails in the exchange, hence his calling it "chain of emails").
Hudson has tried to clear things up with a new post:
As you may know, some of the e-mails that were released last week directly involved me and one of my previous blogs, 'Whatever happened to global warming ?'
These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others.
I wonder how many of the folks accusing the BBC of a cover up will correct their posts?
- Log in to post comments
It appears that Hudson is as inept at expressing himself in English as he is in understanding climate science. Evidently "12th October" refers to the date of the emails, not the date they were referred to him.
I had already left a comment at the article to point out their error. Paul Hudson is not the one who screwed up here. His own blog is clear enough on the subject. See: ['Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-in…) at his blog.
It is clear that someone forwarded an email to him; most likely the very people writing the emails in the first place. He was sent an email about the discussion of his own article and how to give a suitable response. The email he was sent was evidently in the forum of a chain of emails in the good old fashioned style using ">, >>, >>>" for each successive reply.
Paul links to the particular email in question. It is [1255523796.txt](http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796…). His blog is to confirm that this email which was forwarded to him is genuine. I don't doubt it, and I expect it is another example of how the scientists ARE actually appropriately open with other professionals, including journalists like Paul Hudson.
There's criticism of Hudson's article in the emails, but also an acknowledgement that it is not nearly as bad as coventional denialist fare. Specifically: _"It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics' views."_ Hudson is not the bad guy here; and Carol Driver probably got mixed up in good faith. Let's be friendly.
I wonder how many of the folks accusing the BBC of a cover up will correct their posts?
Well that one's easy: none of them.
I have actually found your arguments convincing and removed the sentence about BBC that I no longer consider true.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html
This is the first news I've had of the BBC kerfuffle. I guess it wasn't really that big a deal.
Interestingly, I posted a lengthy comment on one thread detailing why it was ludicrous to cite *James Inhofe* as an authority on environmental matters - however, that didn't make it through moderation due to potentially defamatory statements.
Of course, everything I cited was true, I just didn't put any references. I could rewrite it with links to back it up, but frankly I can't be bothered - it just struck me as interesting that recounting the genuine statements and positions of Inhofe over the last 20 years is defamatory, while accusing specific scientists of massive fraud without any evidence is not.
Well, I'm glad we sorted that out. With politics heating up, it looks like the ETS will be out in the cold.
Could you have ever imagined a Catholic leading the Coalition.
A leaked document has come into my possession that demonstrates The Daily Mail is rather keen on Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Sir Oswald Moseley. This document is entitled âHurrah for the Blackshirtsâ.
This beats the Daily Mails claim many years ago that it had evidence of the remains of Noahs Ark in Turkey.
It turned out to be a strange rock formation.
So he was cced the emails by the authors, is what it looks like. Not the hacker?
For none-UK readers who missed lord_sidcup's (#8) joke, "Hurrah for the Blackshits" (that started as a typo, but I'm keeping it) was a [famous front page headline the Mail came up with back in the 30s](http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_h1.php#hurrah).
Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail are a little embarrassed about their Nazi-eulogising history, but this doesn't stop them making many similar arguments today. Just minus the overt support for fascism.
el gordo:
Until the next election when the Catholic's party will be trashed.
Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail are a little embarrassed about their Nazi-eulogising history, but this doesn't stop them making many similar arguments today. Just minus the overt support for fascism.
Yeah... funny isn't it, how the Fabians and their heirs in the Labour party have similarly forgotten how keen they were on Mussolini and eugenics?
Very tired, this popping at the Mail. Very very tired.
Are you doubting the Daily Mail?
Only an asylum-seeking-muslim-immigrant-liberal-paedo-predator-terrorist would attempt to undermine the Right Thinking Voice of the Great British Public like that. You sick pervert.
I don't know if this is the right place to ask but can anyone tell me if, as a non American, I can take out an FOI request to Senator Inhofe about Marc Marano's activites while he was employed by Inhofe using US taxpayer money?
I see the deniers are in full bloom here. You sheeple are disgusting.
I don't think you can, Jeremy C. FOIA only applies to the federal government. Inhofe is in congress, which is expressly exempted from FOIA (ironic, no?).
Thanks marco,
But because he was a Inhofe staffer, would Marano have been exempted. For example if he turned up at a Heartland conference during office hours would that be allowable?
i.e. the executive branch only, I don't think you can FOI the federal courts, either (which if true is a good thing IMO).
CLIMATE WARMING... Much ado about nothing! In 100 years, oil will be practically non-existent! In the meantime, the world population will exceed more than 16 Billion people, (as opposed to 6 Billion in 2009). Where are we going to get enough water, to take care of the needs of people, animal, and/or agriculture? 70% of the world's fresh water is in reserve in the Arctic, as ice or snow. The temperature there, rarely exceeds freezing! It better heat up faster, before the oil runs out! Water distribution from the "have to much" to the "have too little" areas on earth, will mitigate that problem.
@Jeremy C: dhogaza already further clarified the situation. Morano showing up during office hours at a Heartland conference would only be a problem if he was not allowed to do so by his employer (i.e., Inhofe). And I doubt Inhofe complained about that, he could very easily sell it as a mandatory visit to learn about policies to be taken into account.
There are many examples of BBC coverups.
For example, the BBC have admitted in writting to a pro AGW bias. Bit strange because its against their charter, so they are acting illegally.
Their argument is that a committee of scientists have told them that its proved.
Now an FOI request has gone in asking for the names of the scientists, and they have refused to answer.
1. They've made it up.
2. The scientists and the CRU are one and the same.
Nick
Not really sure what point FrankFisher (#13) is trying to make. The political class of the 1920s-30s, all sides of it, were often quiter on the Fascists than they should have been, because they perceived socialism as a greater menace. But the Daily Mail is part of the press, not the political class, and the labour-supporting press were never supporters of the fascists.
The British aristocracy and Royal Family were rather keen on Hitler there for a while, too.
Non-sequitur.
So apparently Bud must be a supporter of the Labour party/Fabians because he opposes the Daily Mail? You can't oppose both?
What kind of a defence is that? All that shows is that the Daily Mail are very easy to criticize. I wonder why that could be?
In other news:
POPE TIRED OF HEARING COMPLAINTS OF CHILD ABUSE IN CATHOLIC CHURCH
I refuse to follow the links of [patently deranged trolls](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/no_bbc_was_not_sent_the_stolen…), just in case, but it's worth noting that this one has the projected human population wrong, the amount of Arctic fresh water 'reserves' wrong, and is somehow deluded into thinking that melting the polar ice into the salty oceans will somehow solve the problems of humanity.
Couldn't find anything better said thatn George monbiot's article on the whole mess:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot…
Apologies to Marco.
At #26 I'd intended to link [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/no_bbc_was_not_sent_the_stolen…), and not to Marco's post imediately below it.
Apologies, but in a moment of weakness I took FrankFisher seriously. Having subsequently visited his website and seen his top post marked with the tags "agw", "bbc", "big con" and "fascism", I now understand my error.
Before long I'm just going to assume no-one I speak to online is over the age of 11, if I have to deal with more of that juvenile bollocks..
Speaking of 'juvenile bollocks' and the BBC, Benny Peiser http://www.desmogblog.com/benny_peiser was interviewed on the BBC 'World at One ' radio programme yesterday - apparently as some sort of climate expert. He was apparently speaking as a member (and apparently the only member of staff) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/voices-of-climate-cha… of Nigel Lawsons new band of loonies, the 'Global Warming Policy Foundation'.
The bloke they had up against him was pretty good, but since he had no idea who Peiser was, couldn't actually give him the verbal beating he deserved.
It seems that the BBC is getting careless with its guests again - zero research, and a lack of understanding of the issues. I think an email to Auntie is called for...
Clearly. If he were a serious denier, he'd tag it "communism" not "fascism" ... :)
The Guardian is running a story that is very similar to The Mail's in that they suggest the emails came directly from the hackers:
"After sending Hudson the sample, nothing more emerged from the hackers for a month."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/27/climate-email-hackers…
It is apparent that now there are veracious attempts to make mountains out of mole hills is simply an to attempt to skew the facts. The emails are there, peer reviews were blocked, money was to be made, and once again the elite in Washington lied to the American people. Without a valid debate on either side (which on the pro global warming side debate was not allowed) in a public forum, there is no way to validate one side or the other. All we know is that threatening to delete data if an attempt was made to get said data through the freedom of information act is a criminal act, one can surmise that the majority if not all "evidence" of man made global warming was a hoax on a planetary scale, and those involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and the Copenhagen treaty nullified if signed due to fraudulent acts committed by these so called climatologists. In reality, the time line is irrelevant when the facts are clear, fraud was committed and those who have tried to lie to the peoples of this planet for monetary gain should be held accountable.
Blounttruth.
In all of that foaming spray, you managed one correct sentence:
The only thing is, it's not the world's climatologists who commited fraud and who have tried to lie to the peoples of this planet for monetary gain, but rather the Denialists, Contrarians, Inactivists and ideological Inertiati.
And truly, they all should be held accountable to the future generations and to the non-human species on the planet.
For example, the BBC have admitted in writting to a pro AGW bias. Bit strange because its against their charter, so they are acting illegally.
What, it's against the law for the BBC to be biased toward honest science and against infantile obscurantist denialism?