Leakegate: On stovepiping and plagiarism

This story by Heidi Blake in the Telegraph about how Anthony Watts’ findings show that surface temperature records are wrong might sound familiar. That’s because it’s blatantly plagiarised from Jonathan Leake’s story touting Watts’ report. Every element in Blake’s story was drawn from Leake’s story — it’s just been rearranged and reworded slightly. It looks like it would have taken her about 15 minutes to do the whole thing. To be fair to Blake, she has actually improved the story — her version is tighter and flows more naturally, so if the Telegraph fires her for plagiarism she could also get a job as Leake’s editor.

So Blake copies from Leake. But where does Leake get his material from?

Tim Holmes details how Leake got his bogus Amazongate story from global warming denier Richard North:

Blogger Richard North was the originator of one such story. North is a climate change denier who has worked with the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker on a number of publications, including most recently Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth. In the words of sceptical writer Richard Wilson, the book is a “surrealist masterpiece“, claiming to debunk “the dangers of passive smoking, white asbestos, eating BSE-infected beef, CO2 emissions, leaded petrol, dioxins, and high-speed car driving”. Examining the book’s commentary on climate change, one atmosphere physicist noted that its “references are very selective and misrepresentative”; another concluded: “[t]hese people have added two and two and got five”. The book misrepresents and even reverses the findings of published scientific literature, and includes a fabricated interview with a Cambridge astrophysicist that had long since been retracted. As the Guardian’s Robin McKie puts it in his review of the book, Booker and North “accuse other journalists of ‘unthinking credulity’ but commit egregious errors that would shame a junior reporter.” …

While it is wholly unsurprising that the denial lobby should be attempting to push baseless and misleading stories to the press, what is surprising is the press’s willingness to swallow them. In this case, two experts in the relevant field told a Times journalist explicitly that, in spite of a minor referencing error, the IPCC had got its facts right. That journalist simply ignored them. Instead, he deliberately put out the opposite line – one fed to him by a prominent climate change denier – as fact.

Leake’s story about Watts and co seems to have also been fed to him by Richard North. This post from North appeared at almost the same time as Leake’s story was published and contains more extensive details than Leake’s story.

So this is how the British press is promoting global warming denial. Leake stovepipes denialist material into his stories and then other journalist steal it from him for their stories.

Comments

  1. #1 MapleLeaf
    February 16, 2010

    Tim, outstanding sleuthing!

  2. #2 JamesA
    February 16, 2010

    Having lived in the UK all my life, I know how utterly rubbish our newspaper journalism is and in some ways, if the bloggosphere is anything to go off, it’s comforting that other countries don’t seem to be suffering idiocy of quite the same magnitude (Faux News and the Australian aside).

    One of the interesting quirks with the British papers is that they have this habit of doing a swing effect when they perceive that public opinion is changing in a given direction; all the papers want to be the first in when something hits, but when people start to question the hype, a kind of reverse stampede sets in where all the papers try to stick as many knives into each other as they pretend that they were the ones that ‘knew all along’. This is what gives rise to their make-them-then-break-them treatment of celebrities, sports stars, politicians and so on.

    It may be wishful thinking on my part to imagine that this will happen in this instance. More likely it will peter out and it’ll be business as usual once people realise that temperatures aren’t going down any soon. But if the reverse swing does kick in (I’m wondering if certain news sources aren’t already revving their engines for when the UEA investigation reports), Leake and the Sunday Times have set themselves up for the fall big style.

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    February 16, 2010

    Why the surprise? Did anyone think these guys were smart enough to come up with it on their own? ;-) ;-)

  4. #4 Erasmussimo
    February 16, 2010

    I realize that The Economist doesn’t quite fit into the category of “British journalism”, but it’s still based in the UK, and so I think it fitting to give credit where credit is due. I consider The Economist to be the finest global print news source on the planet. When it has run stories on subjects that I happen to know about intimately, it has usually been fairly close to the truth. That’s vastly better than other news organizations.

  5. #5 J Bowers
    February 16, 2010

    The one British newspaper which seems to have not sensationalised the issue so far, to my mind, is The Independent. They did give Nigel Lawson the opportunity to answer a scathing article on the “think-tanks” involvement in sowing the doubt, but that was after they’d published two pages on the article itself which pulled no punches.

    It’s easy to overlook the more reasonable voices when surrounded by hysterics.

    Google:
    site:independent.co.uk climate

  6. #6 Philip
    February 16, 2010

    Oh yes Richard North, in the pay of the KGB anti-climate change secret ops department. You’ve gotta pay particular attention to this one. In the pay of big oil. I’ve nearly finished an in-depth investigation on this agent of the state. Some clues to his offshore accounts show £1,234,000,000,000,000 GBP and it doesn’t stop there. Oh no. This man and his agents have been secretely funding a mission to the planet Zog. He can then fly off to outa space with the loot laughing and cackling with his blofield type accomplice to live out the rest of his life on the balmy beaches of planet Zog aloof to the travails of life as we know it Jim in warming old earth. Something has to be done. The bastard, the utter, utter bastard!

  7. #7 Bud
    February 16, 2010

    Philip, lay off the crack, kay?

  8. #8 jakerman
    February 16, 2010

    Philip you sound a little rattled mate. Is the systematic lying used by denialist starting to undercut your faith in deniers?

    Or did you just want to smear some more crap around yourself so it would feel more like your home turf?

  9. #9 Tim Lambert
    February 16, 2010

    Looks like Philip is a gift from [Richard North](http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/mirror-image.html). Warning: you might want to don a smug mask before reading his post.

  10. #10 jakerman
    February 16, 2010

    Mmm, North doesn’t need to defend his egregious mirepresenation of the facts, he just needs to put Tim’s picture on his wall.

    Majic!

  11. #11 James Haughton
    February 16, 2010

    I hope you’ve sent this info on Heidi Blake to MediaWatch.

    Several of the skeptical blogs are in a twitter about some paper by John Christy that shows Africa is subject to the Urban Heat Island effect, or something. Anyone come across either it and/or a good debunking?

  12. #12 David
    February 16, 2010

    Before you accuse another of plagiarism maybe you should check the political correctness of your assertions. Have a look at this video (1958):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

    Al Gore plagiarized this film in “An Inconvenient Truth”. James E. Hansen testified at a Senate hearing chaired by Al Gore in 1988. Hansen also plagarized this alarmism, thirty years after the fact. Plagiarism is an academic crime that disqualifies Al Gore for the 2007 Nobel Prize.

  13. #13 Bud
    February 16, 2010

    Jesus Christ, that post missed the point.

    Memo to Richard North: it wasn’t your views which people may have been unaware of, but your existence itself. You aren’t enough of a celebrity for your views to matter to anyone here, and you are only of relevence because the slurry you post over at that blog is being used as feedstock for the media misinformation machine as operated by, among others, Jonathan Leake.

    Simply put, the issue is that Leake is gets info from contrarian opinion blogs rather than experts. Which contrarian opinion blog scarcely matters, in the same way that if a scientist were to base an entire scientific paper on the opinions of a man at a bus stop (say!) we wouldn’t need to give that man a back story or meet his family to know that the principle of the thing is wrong. You are interchangeable, Richard.

  14. #14 Anonymous
    February 16, 2010

    [North](http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/mirror-image.html) doesn’t bother denfending his misrepresentations, no he thinks fact checkers a idiots for not tracking him down sooner!

  15. #15 jakerman
    February 16, 2010

    David,

    Love [your contusions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2280362), do you have a point (if so get to it) or are you just hand waving?

  16. #16 Chris Edwards
    February 16, 2010

    It is about time the MSM woke up to this scam, the carbon trading scheme is a con trick, shutting regulated factories down in the”west” and they re-open in the”east” with absolutely no regulation at all, google the shocking pollution from India (the particulates from India is what is causing the affected glaciers to melt) and China, shocking is an understatement. The best way to protect our planet is to avoid anything made in India or especially China at all costs.Give EUReferendum a chance, they research well and are rarely wrong and if they are they will say so and why, how many news outlets can claim that? There are some “green” policies that actualy do more harm to the enviroment than they help, probably most are like that.

  17. #17 Anna Haynes
    February 16, 2010

    > Leake stovepipes denialist material into his stories and then other journalist steal it from him for their stories.

    Are you sure it’s theft, i.e., you’re sure he doesn’t want his story to be “recycled”? (I don’t know, which is why I’m asking)

    In Dec 2007 AP bureau chief Robin McDowell did a similar lift-and-rewrite of Leake’s Bali “climate conference footprint fetish” story, as documented here.

  18. #18 jakerman
    February 16, 2010

    Chris Edwards,

    >*The best way to protect our planet is to avoid anything made in India or especially China at all costs.*

    We’ll unlike Lord Monckton, this Chris ain’t feigning crocodile tears for the poor.

  19. #19 James
    February 17, 2010

    If anyone is interested in this type of thing (plagirism in newspapers in the UK) I recommend you take out a subscription to the British fortnightly publication ‘Private Eye’. They have a regular ‘How Journalism Works’ feature that highlights this sort of stuff all the time.

    Seems to be standard practice in British journalism, can’t speak for other countries.

  20. #20 Richard North
    February 17, 2010

    Dateline Moscow. Whenever.

    Ve haff vays off making yoo squeal.

    Plonkers.

    signed. Blofeld.

  21. #21 Kilted Mushroom
    February 17, 2010

    If the author has no problem with the “plagerisim”? How does this affect any facts. What facts are contested. Just asking?

  22. #22 Miss_Magoo
    February 17, 2010

    Best wipe the floor with North.
    Seems to have stopped Monckton in his tracks.
    That’s the problem with these deniers.
    They find out what’s been happening and report it.
    Keep insulting them.
    They can’t take much more.

  23. #23 Neil
    February 17, 2010

    Don’t you dumb post-modernist communists get it? It’s not what your socialist ‘statistics’ say that matters, it’s what people *feel* that matters. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, HIPPIES!

  24. #24 Prof. Ziiex Zeburz
    February 17, 2010

    Tim Lambert, IF, I repeat, IF, you did 10% of the research for your musings that Dr. Richard North does for his blog, you Sir, might, I repeat, MIGHT, be taken seriously by others than the great unwashed. ( Question to T. Lambert, are you one of those British that changes the bed sheets 3 times a year ? )

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    February 17, 2010

    This post certainly brought out the crazy.

  26. #26 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    A clear indication of the calibour of North’s supporters. Not a fact nor scape of evidence between them.

    Just give them what they want to hear North.

  27. #27 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    “A clear indication of the calibour of….” — jakerman

    Right. Tee hee snigger titter ha ha ha……..

    BTW, great site. I must be sure to come back here.

    When I feel in need if a laugh.

    Thanks awfully.

  28. #28 Summermir
    February 17, 2010

    The game is over; your global warming religion is now defunct. You are haemorrhaging support, credibility, and ‘science’. Even Prof Jones has said there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years. You’re iceberg has melted and the hungry sharks of ‘vested interest’ – wind farm suppliers, carbon traders, lying politicians – are trying to gobble you up for breakfast: you feed their existence. If I were you I’d swim for the shore of the land of truth and reality. But you are too foolish to do that. We ‘deniers’, have no problem with your name calling, for we just stand on the cliffs watching you drown and waving your shark bitten stumps.

  29. #29 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    North’s types seem to think Jibber Jabber trumps science.

    North, do you see your supports’ lack of argument or rigor as a reflection on you? You haven’t prepped them very well.

    Oh and Jibber Jabber champs, click on a few links around here.

  30. #30 John Archer - Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    It’s good to know you have a thick skin, jakerman.

    It goes very nicely with that thing you probably call your brain — in your case that multi-tasking single neuron rattling around in deep space inside your skull.

    Anyway, what science would that be? I haven’t seen any on here. Please clarify.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    February 17, 2010

    The game is over; your global warming religion is now defunct. You are haemorrhaging support, credibility, and ‘science’.

    A thousand voices all reading from the same script. I wonder who wrote the script generator?

  32. #32 Nick
    February 17, 2010

    North’s dimwitted army have just discovered their outrage over how capitalists have worked for generations. This puts them on track to read up on climate science in another fifty years or so.

  33. #33 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    John Archer,

    I suggest you start with some something like this: < http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm>

  34. #34 Michael Beensucker
    February 17, 2010

    I notice North pushes this [bogus claim](http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/against-grain.html):

    >*Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz from the Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Israel, in a little-discussed paper in [Nature](http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf), amplified in a powerpoint presentation delivered by the pair, have re-evaluated methods used to show a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature rises.*

    I believe that excellent peice will be appearing in Nature right after they publish by exposition on trend of wordy meaningless papers that try to big note themselves by pretending to be publishable in credible journals. Its a sort of post modern performance art piece that I put together.

  35. #35 DavidB
    February 17, 2010

    The original post claims that “Leake’s story about Watts and co seems to have also been fed to him by Richard North.”

    The post doesn’t actually present any strong evidence for this. It is equally, if not more, likely that Leake obtained his story directly from Watts’s own blog ‘Wattsupwiththat?’ Anyone interested in climate scepticism would be familiar with Watts’s blog. Another possible source is Climate Audit. The reasoning behind the claim in the post seems to be ‘some of this info is in something written by North, therefore North is the most likely source’. This is a very weak inference unless alternative sources are excluded.

  36. #36 SteveF
    February 17, 2010

    Along amusingly related lines, Private Eye reported last year on the Torygraphs coverage of english domestic cricket. It seemed to be pretty comprehensive, with reporters at many of the matches. Far more than most newspapers, as befitting a publication well suited to the English gentleman. Unfortunately, none of these reporters actually existed. The Telegraph was taking Press Association reports and adding made up journalists names to them, to pass them off as their own.

  37. #37 Tim Lambert
    February 17, 2010

    Yes, North doesn’t seem to know the difference between “published in Nature” and “rejected by Nature”.

  38. #38 Fred from Canuckistan
    February 17, 2010

    You poor little greenie fools . . . still paying homage to Saint Al and his merry band of Eco-Grifters.

    I’m starting to feel sorry for you kids . . . don’t let the cooling planet kick yer ass on the way out.

  39. #39 P. Lewis
    February 17, 2010

    Oops! I meant to post this (about the cricket) here, not there!

    And then there’s the Religion-gate affair, too.

  40. #40 Thomasthe Great
    February 17, 2010

    I’m sorry, I don’t understand the point of this post. Do you think it damages the credibility of the story that it came from a sceptic? That would be a rather bizarre and foolish argument. Or is the fact that the original writer was a blogger the problem? Again, a pretty dumb argument. Particularly for one written on a blog. Alternatively you are just surprised that journalists nick each others’ stories, which is surprisingly naive. It’s not much of a story to most of us.

  41. #41 John Archer - Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Well, that is very kind of you, jakerman (6:57 AM).

    But let me clarify something for you because you seem to have missed the point.

    Slowly now. When I said, “I haven’t seen any [science] on here” I meant that I hadn’t seen any science on here, on this actual factual phcking page that is, not least not in the farticle itself.

    Then, out of the blue, you start on about evidence (“Not a fact nor scape of evidence between them” – 5:41 AM) and science (“North’s types seem to think Jibber Jabber trumps science” – 6:21 AM).

    As for links and references, I have plenty of my own. Would you like me to set your reading schedule for you as you appear to be kindly doing for me? I’d be very happy to oblige.

    FWIW to you jakerman, I used to accept the ‘standard-model’ of AGW, merely by default. Now, I’m no climatologist—heaven forbid. I couldn’t bear it. In itself I find climatology, as a study/science, deeply uninteresting, it being a mere hodge-podge of messy cut & paste interdisciplinary fumbling in the dark with no aesthetic appeal whatsoever. There’s just no ‘kick’ in it, unlike, say, physics, which is replete with delights, nearly as many as mathematics. That’s not to say that climatology is not a worthy subject—it is—and so are its results, as far as it has any that is. And these I do find quite interesting. Anyway, I used to have a simple faith in the institutions of science and thought that what applied to physics applied across the board. Then I discovered, with the help of sceptics who pointed me at real evidence, just how incredibly naïve I had been.

    So again, thanks anyway, but I don’t need arty-farty, greenoid-studies lessons on “science”.

    I don’t know if you have ever read CP Snow’s “Two Cultures” lecture but if you have, by now you’ll probably be able work out which side I’m on. I was a schoolboy when it came out, and it explained my innate loathing for the know-phck-nothing English and Classics masters we had and their going-nowhere subjects.

    Yes, correct. I was a natural-born, swivel-eyed hater right out of the gate. And that particular genetic bent has given me lots of pleasure ever since. Curiously enough, never in many decades of having had any interest in politics, I latterly discovered, to my utter delight of course, that I am very right-wing politically and socially, in a non-authoritarian way. In fact, there is nothing I lurve to hate more than authoritarians, of ANY kind. So, as for appeals to authority and consensus…? Ha ha. Right.

    You want science? Well, from what I see, and to paraphrase Colonel Jessep, you arty-farty, marxist, hair-shirt, dumbarse-utopian greenoids CAN’T HANDLE SCIENCE!

    It’s been a pleasure being rude to you. Please don’t change.

  42. #42 guthrie
    February 17, 2010

    Thomasthegreat – I can’t quite understand your post. Do you mean to say that it is alright to use lies and made up facts, misquotes and so on, all without actually checking where they came from, their accuracy or suchlike? Or maybe your problem is that you disagree with the IPCC etc on AGW and wish to slag off people who know more than you and wish to draw attention to the problem, but find that the press keep lying about it?

  43. #43 Erasmussimo
    February 17, 2010

    John Archer, why do you even bother to post here? Your anti-intellectualism should lead you to believe that there’s no point in participating in reasoned discussion. I suspect that you are just engaging in some feel-good hate speech, letting off a little steam. Why bother? Do you really think that your formless diatribe can have any effect on rational people? Calling people names can work with schoolchildren, but mature people simply shake their heads in dismay at such puerile behavior. Perhaps you would be be more effective screaming to the choir at one of the many rabid right-wing sites.

  44. #44 Erasmussimo
    February 17, 2010

    I forgot to add a response to this statement of yours:

    I don’t know if you have ever read CP Snow’s “Two Cultures” lecture but if you have, by now you’ll probably be able work out which side I’m on

    I suggest that you re-read Mr. Snow’s lecture. Mr. Snow decried the taking of sides in the matter, urging a reversal of the alienation of science & engineering from arts & humanities. And here you are proudly taking sides. Mr. Snow would not approve.

  45. #45 Neil
    February 17, 2010

    I’m calling Poe on the John Archer posts – they’ve far to many of my bingo numbers to be real.

  46. #46 RubbishScience
    February 17, 2010

    Can I correct you post:

    “North is an AGW denier”

    Typical of you lot to get even that basic fact wrong, rubbish journalism and rubbish science…

  47. #47 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    Erasmussimo,

    Ooo! How charmingly paternalistic of you. And so delightfully self-righteous too. You’re a gem.

    “I suggest that you re-read Mr. Snow’s lecture. Mr. Snow decried the taking of sides in the matter, urging a reversal of the alienation of science & engineering from arts & humanities. And here you are proudly taking sides. Mr. Snow would not approve.” — Erasmussimo

    On and off over the years I’ve re-read it quite a few times so I’m pretty well acquainted with it and I don’t feel in any need of doing it again right now. But it looks as if it is YOU who needs to do a little re-reading — and read MY post again. Try to work out what my reaction is to your “Mr. Snow would not approve.”

    I’ll give you a nudge. I couldn’t give a damn about what Snow approves of or not. Furthermore, I, me, myself, don’t approve of his prescriptions, or anyone else’s I don’t like for that matter. His analysis is reasonable enough though. Geddit now? Curate’s egg an’ all that.

  48. #48 Erasmussimo
    February 17, 2010

    OK, John, so your only purpose here is to antagonize people. Well, the world is full of trolls and if your goal is to be the Number One Baddest Nastiest Troll, that’s fine with me. Enjoy yourself.

  49. #49 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  50. #50 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  51. #51 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  52. #52 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  53. #53 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  54. #54 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  55. #55 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  56. #56 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  57. #57 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  58. #58 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  59. #59 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  60. #60 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  61. #61 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  62. #62 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  63. #63 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  64. #64 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  65. #65 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  66. #66 John Archer - All-round Hater & Hologreeniecrap Denier
    February 17, 2010

    Neil,

    Hang on for the jackpot — I just might be a ‘racist’ too!

    One never knows one’s luck with my type, eh?

    Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I’m not, say, Jewish?

    Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.

    Hey, look, I’m just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

  67. #67 John Archer - Archest of Nasty Right-wing HATERS
    February 17, 2010

    Erasmussimo,

    Thank you. OK, I’ll admit I’m trolling here and promise not to make a habit of it as it is something I generally don’t approve of myself, oddly enough.

    A little doesn’t hurt anyone though.

  68. #68 Neil
    February 17, 2010

    HOUSE!

  69. #69 RubbishScience
    February 17, 2010

    AGW Denier is the correct term, climate change is completely natural and no one is denying that climate changes, after all the medieval warm period was natural, or was it all those forges turning out swords for the crusades, perhaps that is another one for you to use to make sense of it all, in your own warped minds of course, you AGW’rs are just pathethic.

  70. #70 Chris O'Neill
    February 17, 2010

    John Archer – Hologreeniecrap Denier:

    Then I discovered, with the help of sceptics who pointed me at real evidence, just how incredibly naïve I had been.

    Lucky you. So where, pray tell, is the failure in the purported science behind problematic AGW. Is it that the earth’s surface is not actually warming, or is it that CO2 doesn’t cause warming and the warming is caused by anything but CO2 (choose you favorite cause, cosmic rays etc) or is it that the CO2 build-up is caused by something other than us or is it that CO2 does cause most of the warming but it will be good for us? Or, perhaps you’re like the regular, garden variety science denialist and say all of the above. Please tell us, inquiring minds want to know.

  71. #71 RubbishScience
    February 17, 2010

    Inquiring minds, what a joke, AGW religious believers with no morals…

  72. #72 Bruce Sharp
    February 17, 2010

    Why are so many people taking the time to… Oh! There’s the problem. Somebody knocked over our “Don’t Feed the Trolls” sign. Here, let me set that upright again:

    Don’t Feed The Trolls.

    There. That’s better.

  73. #73 Bud
    February 17, 2010

    BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak… why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he’s such easy meat why not snack out on him?

    Can’t speak for Neil, but I reckon it’d be something like this. Because so far the collective trolling of all his regular readers has yet to produce a scrap of reasonable discussion. Life’s too short to argue against a brick wall. Because Richard North’s fringe viewpoints mean very little to me. And because unlike yourself, I don’t have the time or inclination to troll over there.

    And, because it’s easy enough to expose his lies on [this site](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2281361).

  74. #74 John Archer - Arch Hater
    February 17, 2010

    “Please tell us, inquiring minds want to know.” — Chris O’Neill

    You have those here?

    “[P]urported science”! Excellent. You have it there already in a nutshell. So why are you asking me? Besides, it’s now fast slipping out the ‘purport’ stage and right down the drain.

    “Is it that the earth’s surface is not actually warming, or is it that CO2 doesn’t cause warming and the warming is caused by anything but CO2 (choose you favorite cause, cosmic rays etc) or is it that the CO2 build-up is caused by something other than us or is it that CO2 does cause most of the warming but it will be good for us?”— Chris O’Neill

    Easy one that. No.

  75. #75 Chris O'Neill
    February 17, 2010

    Self-described Rubbish:

    climate change is completely natural

    And what might that natural cause be this time?

  76. #76 John Archer - Right-wing Trolling Nutjob
    February 17, 2010

    “Because so far the collective trolling of all his regular readers has yet to produce a scrap of reasonable discussion.” — Bud.

    Reasonable discussion, Bud?

    Like the content of the farticle? If I’m a troll here, and of course I am, then you lot are merely his mirror reflection in this content-free zone.

  77. #77 Chris O'Neill
    February 17, 2010

    John Archer – Arch Hater:

    Easy one

    You neglected to let us know whether you’re like the regular, garden variety science denialist and say all of the above.

  78. #78 TruesSceptic
    February 17, 2010

    24 ZZ,

    Top stuff!

    Your research is certainly better than anyone else’s. We were so lazy and incompetent that we just assumed that Tim is Australian. Thanks to your in-depth work, we now realise he isn’t. Thanks.

  79. #79 Bud
    February 17, 2010

    In the spirit of reasonable discussion:

    John Archer – did North claim that the Beenstock and Reingewertz paper was published in Nature – yes or no?

    Has the paper verifiably been published or accepted for publication by Nature – yes or no?

    If it has been ‘accepted for publication’, why does North hint that it is being ignored when only a select few sites of the ‘skeptic’ bent seem to know of its existence.

  80. #80 TrueSceptic
    February 17, 2010

    27 John Archer,

    Just asking, but are you the John A at CA?

  81. #81 John Archer - Logic Teacher Extraordinaire
    February 17, 2010

    “You neglected to let us know whether you’re like the regular, garden variety science denialist and say all of the above.” — Chris O’Neill

    Ignoring, for the moment the “garden variety science denialist”, I didn’t neglect anything of the sort.

    I’ll leave it as an exercise for you in basic logic to work out why.

    But back to “garden variety science denialist”. Never mind the “garden variety” tag, what is a ‘science denialist’? You tell me that and I’ll tell if I am one or not.

  82. #82 TrueSceptic
    February 17, 2010

    41 John,

    Brilliant stuff, but it’s wasted here. Denial Depot would be ideal.

  83. #83 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    “27 John Archer, Just asking, but are you the John A at CA?” — TrueSceptic

    No, I am not. Moreover, I strongly suspect he would not be flattered in the two of us being mistaken as one. :)

  84. #84 TrueSceptic
    February 17, 2010

    66 John,

    Thanks. Why would he not be flattered? Because he seems so nice and reasonable in comparison?

  85. #85 John Archer - Exastar Exemplar
    February 17, 2010

    TrueSceptic,

    Thank you kindly.

    BTW I need strokes like that, heavy and often, to keep me at my preening, prancing, posing, posturing modest best. Just look at the competition here to see why.

  86. #86 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    TrueSceptic,

    “Why would he not be flattered? Because he seems so nice and reasonable in comparison?”

    In short, you got it one. Of course, I think I am nice and reasonable too, but I have …….. Well, let’s say I know for a fact that not everyone shares that opinion. I suspect you might know the type and what my opinion is of them. Much the same as yours, I’d aver. :)

  87. #87 TrueSceptic
    February 17, 2010

    68 John,

    Yes, the other “deniers” here are a pretty feeble lot, aren’t they? Just keep saying what you really think. It’s the most entertaining thing I’ve seen here for, oh, days, at least.

  88. #88 Chris O'Neill
    February 17, 2010

    John Archer – Self Described Logic Teacher Extraordinaire:

    No.

    OK, so you agree that the earth’s surface is actually warming, that CO2 causes warming and the warming is mainly caused by CO2 (not by cosmic rays etc), that the CO2 build-up is caused by us and that the warming will not be good for us. So what, pray tell, is the shortcoming in the science?

  89. #89 RubbishScience
    February 17, 2010

    Lets start off with the sun, now you tell me why with the rubbish science of teh AGW crowd that ain’t so?

  90. #90 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    Bud,

    I am not Richard North nor his defence attorney, nor am I his keeper. Go over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and ask him yourself. I speak only for me.

    And, perhaps sometimes on behalf of my race, as a regular self-appointed ‘community’ spokesman.

  91. #91 Bud
    February 17, 2010

    I am not Richard North nor his defence attorney, nor am I his keeper.

    Apparently, however, you are his publicist, since this is the second time you’ve told people to go over to his blog.

    Not happening. And your evasion of a straightforward question is noted. Feeding time is over.

  92. #92 dhogaza
    February 17, 2010

    Lets start off with the sun, now you tell me why with the rubbish science of teh AGW crowd that ain’t so?

    If you knew anything about science’s understanding of how greenhouse gasses warm the planet, you’d understand that the long-wave infrared radiation trapped by them results from the sun heating the earth.

    The entire argument *starts* with the sun.

    So what’s your point?

  93. #93 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    Chris O’Neill,

    I see you don’t heed your pals’ wise warnings about feeding the trolls. So be it.

    “OK, so you agree that the earth’s surface is actually warming, that CO2 causes warming and the warming is mainly caused by CO2 (not by cosmic rays etc), that the CO2 build-up is caused by us and that the warming will not be good for us.”

    Certainly not. Whatever gives you that idea?

    “So what, pray tell, is the shortcoming in the science?”

    You said yourself earlier that it was “purported science”. A clue to the answer to your question lies in the word “purported”. In short, what phcking science are you talking about? Mickey Mann’s hokey hockey stick, for example?
    You really want a list? And you want me to provide it? Why?

    If you are serious and genuinely enquiring why not toodle over to Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. He’s got it all laid out there very nicely. You’ll be spoilt for choice.

    Look, let’s be clear about this if it isn’t already. I’m here merely in my capacity as right-wing nutjob racist trolloid to have a little fun at your expense and not for your edification.

    And I do thank you all very kindly for indulging me in that. It has been fun.

    However even I—as nasty a ‘swivel-eyed, fascist, nazi, running-dog capitalistic nutjob’ as you’re likely to come across anywhere—feel I am overstaying my warm welcome. Also, I think some of you might be beginning to showing signs of things I don’t hate. And we cannot have that with me being the hatefest freakoid I am, can we? Tut tut. No we cannot.

    Still, my foot isn’t quite out the door yet.

    P.S. To the blogmeister: thank you for not deleting any of my posts and for not banning me. I find that very unusual. I had expected the opposite. I’ve put you down in my book for a few brownie points. Honest.

  94. #94 Concerned human being!
    February 17, 2010

    My god – this thread has turned into a lunatic asylum! Where did all the Morlocks show from?

    Tim, keep the good work up. Many thousands of people do appreciate your efforts!

  95. #95 Joseph
    February 17, 2010

    Before you accuse another of plagiarism maybe you should check the political correctness of your assertions. Have a look at this video (1958):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

    Al Gore plagiarized this film in “An Inconvenient Truth”.

    Plagiarism doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Yes, AGW was known in 1958. In fact, that’s a full century after John Tyndall and his work on greenhouse gas absorption.

  96. #96 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    “Apparently, however, you are [North's] publicist, since this is the second time you’ve told people to go over to his blog.” — Bud

    I’ve told many people to go to phck themselves, more than once too. I didn’t realise I was publicist for the sex industry though. If so I want my money for the service.

    “And your evasion of a straightforward question is noted.” — Bud

    You wanna play games, Bud. Well you show me yours first then I’ll show you mine. You make the big effort first otherwise I’m not playing. Besides, I wouldn’t give you lot the shit off my boot I got walking in here.

    Go get your own pissing education.

  97. #97 Joseph
    February 17, 2010

    If you are serious and genuinely enquiring why not toodle over to Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. He’s got it all laid out there very nicely. You’ll be spoilt for choice.

    That’s completely vague. OK, here’s what you can do. Name what you think is the best argument ever at CA, and let’s see what commenters here can do to address it.

  98. #98 RubbishScience
    February 17, 2010

    The average temperature of the oceans and the level of evaporation from the sun and the resulting cloud cover are the main drivers of climate change, CO2 basically tracks the increased warming and reduces as the planet cools, there is always a lag in terms of warming and cooling, this has been proven.

    In terms of man made CO2 of course there is a slight impact in terms of warming, but its minimal.

    I also loved the way that some charlie stuck a CO2 monitoring site next to an active volcano and then started saying that there has been a increase in CO2, it says everything about your science…, inept!

    All you lot of charlies have are a few very doctored models that are as accurate as one of Browns budget forecasts. What was that word, a travesty…, when describing the fact that the models did not match recent average temperature falls.

    Your so called science known as sophisticated models has been shown to be false, the onus is on you to prove AGW and to do good science with a propr peer review process, not the corrupted one that was created by your so called scientists. I am not convinced by your faith based adjusting of doctored data which has so conviently been lost.

  99. #99 guthrie
    February 17, 2010

    Rubbishscience – “this has been proven” – indeed, for post glaciel periods. Oddly enough this planet has not had humans on it trying to double its CO2 levels before. So your comparison is false, as well as ignoring the known greenhouse effect of CO2.
    CO2 is also measured at a number of other sites whose results agree with Mauna Loa:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/27/arctic-carbon-dioxide-levels

    John Archer is meanwhile a nasty piece of work bringing the denialists into further disrepute.

  100. #100 Joseph
    February 17, 2010

    CO2 basically tracks the increased warming and reduces as the planet cools, there is always a lag in terms of warming and cooling, this has been proven.

    No such luck. It’s not exactly possible to prove this with paleo reconstructions, because there’s dating uncertainty (in the mapping of ice depth to age.)

    Plus, if you try to determine this with instrumental temperature data, and either more recent CO2 reconstructions (which obviously would have considerably less dating error) or emissions data, then you’ll find that temperature lags CO2 by 10 or 15 years. (You should detrend the series to figure this out.)

    I also loved the way that some charlie stuck a CO2 monitoring site next to an active volcano and then started saying that there has been a increase in CO2, it says everything about your science…, inept!

    Unless the volcano is spewing exponentially more CO2 over time in a manner that is gradual, I fail to see how it could produce the trends we see. It also doesn’t explain practically identical trends in other stations, like South Pole. I get the feeling that it’s not the scientists who are inept.