Climategate
In 2009, the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was compromised, and hackers made off with 160mb of data, 3,000 documents, and more than 1,000 emails. And though you at present will find claims by the ever-reliable MSM that this merely was an ‘email controversy’, and that those horribly inconvenient emails were ‘taken out of context’, that - as per usual, and of course fully expected - is nothing short of an egregious lie.
But the real story is actually the cover-up.
I know that challenging the ‘climate consensus’ can appear somewhat controversial. That why I’ve challenged it… repeatedly. And we’re not quite done with the topic. Because as outlined by Tony Blair in 1991, it’s their angle of exploitation. Their Grand Plan, so to speak.
Because in terms of climate prediction, the truth is that no-one knows. No-one can know, because the complexity of calculation is beyond comprehension. You cannot tame chaos, especially one comprising 10^45 particles interacting continuously in a colossal Navier-Stokes, set in a reflexive environment. But even if we could, we’d quickly run up against precision issues due to data type, or even granularity of timestep. It’s why we cannot forward predict the path of a tornado with high levels of accuracy. But even more to the point - it’s why we cannot predict where the next hurricane will strike, outside some broad range of statistical likelihood. The entire idea of claiming any of this as a fact is ludicrous.
And Bill Nye - the mechanical engineer guy - truly exposed how little he knows in a smug, arrogant, and condescending fashion on Tucker a few years back. The absolute truth is that he does not know how large a percentile of alleged heating is caused by human emissions (and never mind China building coal plants at breakneck speed). Him stating with alleged certainty that we are 100% to blame fundamentally runs counters to elementary principles of science. But - sure - weather isn’t climate, as he would otherwise claim. But as those primarily differ in terms of scale and temporal duration, there’s no legitimate rule leading to higher levels of precision, when you consider larger areas, over an increased timeline. The claim that is does is absurd.
But then, Bill truly shred what little credibility he had a few years later, regardless.
But even if he was in fact correct, there’s still plenty of controversy relating to the calculation of temperatures themselves. Whether it’s heating or not, ie the ‘carbon consensus’ - and I will systemically go through every part of this in a future article - was established as a political consensus at the 1979 First Climate Conference; an invite-only ICSU conference, where the (foundation funded) organisers conveniently ‘forgot’ to invite anyone disagreeing at a time where the ‘science’ absolutely, positively was not ‘settled’ in any way, shape or form.
But the carbon consensus narrative was progressively built on the back of said 1979 ‘consensus’ over decades, with Al Gore contributing his own ludicrous claims, and Tony Blair’s Third Way ultimately not only agreeing with ‘legally binding targets for pollution reduction, policed at international levels’, but in fact calling for ‘effective strengthened action in the fight against… environmental problems‘.
Using the environment as a lever of future control was already subtly hinted at in Blair’s 1991 article in Marxism Today, suggesting pivoting society away from a model of private-public competition, and towards a model of both working ‘for the common good’ - though with ‘some restriction of freedom’ to be expected by both company and consumer (private and public), thus ultimately arriving at the following objective -
‘It therefore requires the notion of a clearly identified community, embodying the public interest or public good, standing up on behalf of individuals, …‘
In other words, the entire of society was progressively realigned around the concept of ‘the common good’ - and what dictates what that is?
‘The government should be prepared to intervene actively in order to promote environmentally beneficial products and methods of working‘
And where has this led in contemporary context you might wonder? Well, let me show you through a direct quote, courtesy of a 2024 document released by the OHCHR on ‘The Right to a Healthy Environment’1 -
'... the right also guarantees environments that are ecologically healthy, regardless of direct impacts on people.'
Let’s start off with Wikipedia2, because true to form, that hyper-manipulated website is out in full force, playing defense for the alleged ‘email controversy’. I won’t waste much time on this wiki entry, as the cover-up is just beyond the absurd. See if you can locate how much space is reserved to represent the arguments of the skeptics, because - as per usual - this article is actually impressively dishonest through careful omission of key detail, through and through.
In full disclosure, I do use Wiki on occasion. But only when information is completely obvious and easily sourced elsewhere - and most certainly never for anything critical.
But a few things do stick out -
‘The story was first broken by climate change denialists, who argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy and that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics’
Setting aside the absurdly loaded language - leaving absolutely no hope for an unbiased perspective - the simple fact is that they did. They absolutely did. The mere fact that they have the nerve to even counter with this outs them as the untrustworthy, shameless liars that they truly are.‘emails had been taken out of context‘
Setting aside that excuse being the go-to lie of Facebook ‘fact checks’ carried out by hyper-partisan ‘independent fact checkers’ which just by pure coincidence are funded by Facebook themselves - perhaps I would be willing to entertain this argument, if they honoured this principle themselves. But this wikipedia entry is just so grossly intellectually dishonest, explicitly leaving out many, many, many key issues and arguments for sakes of express political convenience. The entire wiki article is just so shockingly dishonest that it’s hard to fathom anyone with a conscience whatsoever would find it acceptable.‘the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)‘
The Rockefeller-funded AAAS launched the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory - centric to what’s taking place at present - and the Union of Concerned Scientists fought hard against nuclear in the 70s, only to later lie about it, to the extent of claiming they are ‘pro-nuclear’, which is another shameless lie. There is absolutely no integrity on display here. But the UCS is further the organisation which in 1992 paraded about the 1,700 scientists including Nobel prize winners claiming that ‘No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.‘3. Well, here we are, 3 decades later and they’re still parading about the same lies.
‘Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct‘
Yet, those committees didn’t actually include anyone with a wrongthink opinion, and further, some link straight up with the likes of GLOBE (who incidentally originally were hosted by the Fabian Society), who were instrumental in this drive in the first place. More on this later.‘emails showed harassment of researchers, with multiple Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit‘
Which is yet another breathtaking lie by omission, failing to consider an astonishing amount of extremely controversial detail. More this later, too.
And I could carry on. But I fail to see the point. Deconstructing these alone should be enough - unless you’ve taken a religious position on the issue.
But let’s start with probably the most egregious omission of them all, and one which is absolutely impossible to defend from a perspective of transparency, accountability and all the other ‘Good Governance’ lies founded on alleged ethics. The continuous, deliberate obstruction, followed by eventual destruction of data.
Wait, you didn’t realise that even science has its own version of ‘Good Governance’? Oh, but they do. Ethics-directed ‘Good Science Governance’ indeed4 is5 a6 thing7.
As for the omission, that comes from the very institution at the centre of the ‘email controversy’ itself - the East Anglia. Because -
‘The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record‘
Gee, how convenient -
‘The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form‘
Gee, how convenient -
‘Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.‘
The simply reply here of course is ‘Because your quack science is set to impact every single person on the planet’. Them withholding data should instantly disqualify it.
‘In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn't have to fulfil the requests because "Information accessible to applicant via other means‘
Their ability to predict is far surpassed by their ability to cook up lies.
‘Now it's citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down‘
Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. It’s non-stop lies, nothing short thereof.
‘Since the 1980s, we have merged the data‘
… no, what’s actually incredible is that those crooks were not fired on the spot. Clearly, they weren’t because those higher up… were entirely aligned.
The Telegraph incidentally carried the same story8, but with further detail -
‘The Information Commissioner's office ruled that UEA was in breach of the Freedom of Information Act – an offence which is punishable by an unlimited fine.‘
See, not only did they stonewall requests, cooking up lie after lie as to why they couldn’t deliver on said FOI requests, but -
‘In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007’
And that report? Oh nothing major - just the IPCC lying to a such grand extent, that even the Guardian carried the story9.
‘He also told a co-worker he had convinced university authorities not to answer freedom of information requests from people with connections to a website operated by climate change sceptics.‘
The stonewalling was in fact not only illegal, but in fact explicitly targeted. I struggle to comprehend how this is defensible under any circumstances, and why it didn’t lead to his immediate termination, but this is probably a hint -
‘Mr Holland was quoted as saying: "There is an apparent catch-22 here. The prosecution has to be identified within six months but you have to exhaust the university's complaints procedure before the commission will look at your complaint. That process can take longer than six months."‘
In other words - the regulator intentionally ran out the clock - and this also with complete impunity. Everything about this case just screams systemic corruption.
As for the ‘impartial’ reviews10… well, they weren’t particularly impartial, as in transpires.
‘The University of East Anglia, meanwhile, set up two panels, under Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell. All three inquiries have now presented their findings and, while making minor criticisms of the scientists involved, all have largely exonerated them of serious wrongdoing‘
… wait for it -
‘Since the Oxburgh panel reported, emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act have shown that senior members of the scientific establishment in the U.K. tried to ensure that the panel would have no skeptics on board‘
Golly, right?
‘One of the most serious findings is the way the inquiries’ terms of reference, which were either vague or non-existent, steered the panels away from many of the most important questions‘
Golly, right?
‘… looking only for evidence of deliberate wrongdoing and then only in a carefully selected set of CRU publications. This meant that serious allegations relating to the work of CRU staff on the IPCC reports went uninvestigated‘
Golly, right?
‘What is worse, although the public was told that this short list of papers was selected on the advice of the Royal Society, in fact they were chosen by the University of East Anglia itself and were approved by Phil Jones, CRU’s director and the man at the centre of many of the most serious allegations’
This should have led to every single person involved with this whitewash immediately being summarily dismissed, without severance. It’s just so grossly corrupt that it’s hard to even comprehend.
‘Lord Oxburgh admitted in evidence to the science and technology committee last week that his panel had failed to investigate a well-documented and well-publicized allegation of fraud relating to one of the papers that appeared on his list‘
There was absolutely nothing legit about this ‘investigation’.
‘In recent days it has emerged that Russell was informed early in his investigation that emails subject to FOI requests were no longer available at the university, since the scientist involved had taken them home for “safekeeping,”‘
Thus, they intentionally destroyed the most incriminating emails. This is criminal, through and through.
The Telegraph also reported on the composition of these whitewashing teams11.
'Lobbyists [Globe International] who cleared 'Climategate' academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC
Globe we’ve crossed paths with in the past, two examples over here -
‘The peer's investigation cleared the scientists of malpractice. But critics claimed the report was a whitewash and Lord Oxburgh also failed to declare his involvement with Globe before he began his investigation.‘
… the scale of corruption honestly just beggars belief.
‘The spokesman said: 'These contributions were awarded under the previous Government. The current Government has not given them any funding‘
… and that, of course, would be the very same Tony Blair who -
‘Set up with the backing of Tony Blair, then the Prime Minister, and run by a group of British MPs and peers the organisation, Globe International, started life as an All Party Group based in the House of Commons.‘
… and back to the scale of corruption mentioned above.
‘Globe's staff also includes Dr Sam Fankhauser, Globe's chief economist, is an "independent adviser" to the Government on climate change. He is a member of the Government's Committee on Climate Change which advises on policy‘
… and never you mind that a hyper-partisan lobby group employee acts a government advisor on precisely the purpose of said hyper-partisan lobby group. It breathtaking corruption, that’s what it is.
But there were rather a lot of other issues with the data. Martin Frost at the time went through this extensive catalogue of intentional errors12 - but13 there14 really15 are16 plenty17 of18 other19 sources20.
To put this down - as wikipedia and the mainstream media does - as an ‘email controversy’ is nothing short of a preposterous lie. But either way, ignored it all went21.
Another report came courtesy of John Costella22, who systemically went through and annotated the emails over 107 pages. Let’s start off easy -
‘Adam Markham from the WWF:… They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from Australian scientists. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible‘
And while this may appear ‘light’, please do explain how or why this is acceptable under any circumstances, because Costella is absolutely spot on -
‘political activists from an environmental lobby group are telling East Anglia climate scientists to rewrite sections of their paper‘
The following four pages details how the ‘science’ relating to tree rings is all over the shop, Mann questioning his own models, the IPCC desperately searching for a path to their predetermined conclusion, before the infamous email goes on to outline the admitted manipulation of the WMO diagram - a more detailed explanation of which you can find over here23.
And I really couldn’t care less about your arguments to the counter. This isn’t a ‘climate controversy’, this was manipulation, corruption, fraud, lies, deceit, and criminal non-compliance.
There is absolutely nothing scientific about ‘the best available scientific consensus’ here.
But isn’t it at least heartwarming to know that this outright corruption only took place in the UK? Oh24 wait25, no - courtesy of the Congressional Record -
‘For nearly 3 years, NASA has been stonewalling requests under the Freedom of Information Act for information surrounding their own temperature manipulations‘
… but at least the data was legit, no?
‘… reported just yesterday on NASA being forced to change their climate records that the world has been using for years‘
… but that only relates to recent data, no?
‘‘NASA and Goddard were forced to correct the record in 2007 to show that 1934, decades before the old SUV, was in fact the warmest. In fact, the new numbers show that four of the country’s 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.‘
… but, hey, the EPA at least is clear as the driven snow.
‘Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency was caught suppressing dissenting views, just like the Climategate warmers in Britain and NASA‘
… but it wasn’t as though there was a warning, at least.
‘Five years ago, I had occasion to give a speech on this floor, where I outlined, from information that had come through the backdoor to me from scientists, how bad the science was and how it had been, in fact, cooked. Then, of course, along came climategate‘
Great. So systemic corruption also took place in the United States.
And it wasn’t just the house. The senate minority produced a report, mentioned by this 321 pager, which further includes mention of 1,000 scientists whose opinions can clearly be discarded as they didn’t conform to the narrative26 in the way liberals like to do science. By selling out to the highest bidder.
But at least all of this made the climate sciences clean up their act, right. Because since that event, there’s been no futher controversy, suggesting that they truly learned from said ‘email controversy’, right?
Well - no. 2015 brought several cases of fiddling with temperatures. First an area in South America, stretching from Brazil to Paraguay27.
And soon after in Canada as well28.
To see ‘Climategate’ described as an ‘email controversy’ in some ways is… refreshingly honest. Not because it was an email controversy, but rather because it’s an astonishingly dishonest conclusion, serving absolutely no credible scientific purpose whatsoever.
But what is does do, is show the world explicitly how corrupt the climate science industry truly is, on an explicit mission to arrive at a preconceived conclusion. And that the major part of the mainstream media is absolutely no better, parroting this incomprehensible corruption without calling anything into question.
And I leave you with ClimateDepot’s 61 page report, predictably going wholly ignored at the UN Climate Conference in South Africa, 201129.
The UNFCCC is up next.
The fraud has been on display for quite a while, and the only reason wider members of the scientific community haven't exposed it sooner is because they all want a cut of that gravy train grift from the government.
We've got documented cases of arsonists.
We've got historical records showing there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
We've got the obviously political implementation of population controls in response to what has been consistently proven bunk nonsense.
None of the climate shills ever comes back from a debate when presented with evidence, they will just point blank lie and deny that it exists.
Every single person involved in this climate grift is a scammer. Period.
Trying to find something wrong with the data is precisely how peer review works. The data must be assumed fraudulent until they release the data proving otherwise. No evidence = did not happen.
"Because in terms of climate prediction, the truth is that no-one knows."
I know.
Where I live, there are four seasons: spring, summer, autumn, winter.
Has been since the birth of Christ, and 10,000 years before.
There is no sign that the climate is changing.