Climategate: Ten Years On

Judith Curry;

Last week, an email from Rob Bradley reminded me of my previous blog post The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later. That post was the last in a sequence of posts at Climate Etc. since 2010 on Climategate; for the entire group of posts, see [link] Rereading these was quite a blast from the past.
While I still mention Climategate in interviews, the general reaction I get is ‘yawn . . . old hat . . . so 2010 . . . nothingburger . . . the scientists were all exonerated . . . the science has proven to be robust.’ I hadn’t even thought of a ’10 years later’ post until Rob Bradley’s email.
Now I see that, at least in the UK, the 10 year anniversary looks to be rather a big deal. Already we are seeing some analyses published in the mainstream media…

It’s excellent. Grab a coffee.

34 Replies to “Climategate: Ten Years On”

  1. Speaking of the lunacy of climate gate….check out this obviously city denizen’s Globe and Mail solution to Wexit. Put a few million new immigrants into the newly melted arctic to recreate a Singapore of the North. This will create an economic boom that will stop Wexit.

    These people actually BELIEVE this stuff! This author probably works for the government.

    1. If he had written: extend BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan’s provincial boundaries north to the Arctic ocean, then maybe he’s making a little sense.
      The adding millions if we are to survive is an 18th century economic retard position.

  2. Doesn’t time fly? The scammers along with their media and political poodles have all but put the finishing touches on their scheme. They had ten or more years to infect a solid chunk of the very young and very malleable minds and presto, a fait d’accompli! Crimes against humanity will be codified to include deniers before too long. That should shut up those who ask uncomfortable questions.
    That was fun. Capitalizing on that success, they’ve set their sights on an even more preposterous goal -“population control”.
    Genocide, for those who really know.

  3. They want you dead. Best call out the Newfie Seal Hunters and start clubbing them all like seal pups. Eventually average people will have to take a stand. It will be a matter of will you and your family be reduced to fang and claw living like an animal. Or will you fight back. Best start now. Get everyone who says the word sustainability I local government out of office. UN Agenda 21 and 30 is already installed at the local level of your Municipal Government. At the Provincial Government and Federal Government levels. Best get educated and get involved. The Feds under Trudeau who now has the BQ and the NDP running the show want all oil and gas shutdown. Albertans need to act and fast. Jason Kenney has to get off the fence and defend Albertans or Albertans need to get him out of office and get someone who puts Albertans and their families ahead of the Corrupt gangsters in Ottawa and the ROC. If necessary Alberta needs to become their own NATION. And get the hell out while the gettings good.

  4. Those “investigations” into the Climate Research Unit and the “Science” were amazing,a crash course for those unfamiliar with Government Processes.
    They will be famous as “A blinder well played”.

    For those of us with previous experience of the Bureaus, the failure to address the issue at hand,the deliberate blindness and blatant lying,these failures confirmed that the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Meme was a Government Project,brought to us dumb citizens by our international brotherhood of Professional Trough Feeders.

    The Orchestrated coverup and lying by omission demonstrated that we are at war.
    War was declared on the citizens of Western Nations by our own bureaucrats and politicians.
    Think about that.
    They came right out and told us,to hurry up and panic,surrender all our freedoms and wealth,to enrich them,with more power,more money.

    The State is the enemy here.
    Our regulators rule,for their benefit not yours.
    And the Catastrophic Climate religion is evidence of this mindset.
    You really are too stupid to live your own life,you need their command.
    If you “feel” that war is overstating the case,allow me to recommend Moe Strong as a great place to start your research.
    Followed by the multiple statements from the pushers of this Fraud,as to the fact science is irrelevant to their intent.

    Who benefits from a “Carbon Tax”?
    Who gains from legislating the wattage of a toaster?
    Who has profiteered from this idiocy?
    What result will the “solutions so far” produce?

    The logical result of our “protectors” lying to us is becoming clear.massive distrust of authority,breakdown of law and order(Requires belief in integrity institutions) and a desire for a massive culling of the parasitic overload carried by fewer and fewer productive citizens.

    Can-Ahh-Duh will not survive this national madness.
    A State Religion founded on willful ignorance of History and Science is not going to enable a productive population.

    Can-Ahhh-Duh is currently a house divided between the self flagellating and those who are unsure how to react and retain civil society.
    You cannot cure stupid.

    Ten years is not enough time for a bureaucratic Fraud to unwind, because the default institutional response is Cover Your Ass.Cover for each other.
    Protect the Institution.

    Works Great,until the citizens destroy it all.
    French Haircuts all round, if the citizen decides..
    We had a good system going there for a while,worked great built a country,until?
    We let fools and bandits take the wheel.

  5. Once the Left cloaked themselves in green, they eventually took over the institutions. The only endearing lesson from Climategate is that for the right cause (destroying liberty, capitalism and growing the authoritarian state), the “lie” is irrelevant. The ends justify the means. The self-flagellating “believer” in CAGW along with the corporate rent seeking whores are the modern useful idiots in an old game guaranteed to return western civilization to a new / old feudalism.

  6. “Time is doing us a favour by showing that none of the alarmists’ doomsday predictions are coming to pass. ”

    And this is why Disney is teaching kids that you must let the past die. Kill it, if you have to.

  7. Oh the irony! The rationalizations and justifications used to dismiss the allegations against Trump are EXACTLY the same as rationalizations used to dismiss the allegations against the scientists caught in ClimateGate.

    1) Insisting that the obvious interpretation of words written is not “proof” because it is possible to fabricate dubious “alternative” explanations for the words that are not so bad.
    2) Claiming that anyone presenting evidence is “not credible” and attacking them personally (a.k.a. deniers/never trumpers/swamp/etc)
    3) Insisting that obvious ethical violations are perfectly ethical.
    4) Claiming that the people pointing out the ethical violations are part of massive conspiracy to smear “good people”.

    Of course, no one here has the self awareness needed to recognize their hypocrisy.

    1. Hypocrites come in various shades.

      It will be interesting to see what happens to the Trump impeachment inquiry after the Inspector General’s report is issued.

      There seems to be no debate about the fact that Hillary’s campaign paid Fusion GPS to get Russians to dig up dirt on Trump. The probability is that this dirt was then used to get warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

      Now the Democrats want to impeach Trump for something that never happened – the Ukrainians did not announce an inquiry of the Bidens and got the aid.

      Not that Biden is going to get elected, but imagine the leverage the Ukrainians would have over him if he did due to his son’s involvement with a crooked gas firm. Why would the American voters not want to know what the Bidens were up to?

      1. “Now the Democrats want to impeach Trump for something that never happened – the Ukrainians did not announce an inquiry of the Bidens and got the aid.”

        This argument is identical to the no-harm-no-foul defense used by ClimateGate apologists which claimed:
        “They may have said they wanted to suppress skeptical papers but those papers were published anyways.”

        Neither argument makes the ethical violations caused by attempt go away. i.e. there is no doubt that Trump attempted to pressure Ukraine into interfering in a US election. Asking a foreign leader for a “favour” over and over on a call is not that different from a mob boss commenting on how “it would be shame if something happened to this place”. Any person with a brain would interpret those words as a threat despite the fact that the words themselves are not actually a threat.

        1. TimG,

          The Republican contention is that the Ukrainians interfered in the LAST US presidential election and that’s what should be investigated. If John Solomon’s reporting is to believed, there’s a lot to this.

          Let me ask you this – are you maintaining that Hunter Biden got $83 grand per month from Burisma because of his in-depth knowledge of the Ukrainian gas industry? Do you believe that Daddy Biden knew nothing about his son’s involvement with a crooked company?

          Should the Biden’s be given a pass on this because he’s a candidate?

          And yes, there is a clear analogy with Climategate – Mann et al were dishonest.

          1. Political Junkie,

            Hunter Biden, like all other children of the rich and powerful (including Trump’s offspring), get jobs because of their connections to their powerful parents. If there is substance to allegation that Hunter Biden was anything other than a dupe collecting a undeserved paycheck then it would be worth investigating. OTOH, similar investigations into Trump’s offspring would also be appropriate given the various allegations with similar substance that have emerged about them.

            None of that excuses Trump’s behavior which was to abuse the powers of his office for personal political gain. If there is wrong doing to expose that is the job of the justice department working behind the scenes. It is not the job of the president to demand favours that include completely unnecessary public announcements of investigations into allegations. The fact that Trump appears to have initially blocked the release of aid to Ukraine for what was clearly a personal political benefit makes the ethical lapse even worse.

            A good litmus test on whether something is an ethical problem: ask yourself if someone you disagreed with pulled the same stunt? Would you be OK with it? If the honest answer is “no” then you should not be giving someone a pass because you agree with them.

          2. Ironically, I made the exact same arguments to climate alarmists 10 years ago.
            Did not make much of a difference…

          3. TimG
            There is a substantive difference between Trump progeny in the private sector and Hunter Biden in the public arena. The point I’m making is that if there is corruption between Bidens and the Ukrainians, the voters should know. Also, the Trump kids at least seem to have talent.

            What I’m sort of puzzled about is this. If it’s emphatically *not OK* for the US gov. to solicit assistance or cooperation from foreign governments in investigating U.S. presidential candidates (I presume particularly candidates from the other party), why was it OK for the U.S. gov. to solicit assistance or cooperation from foreign governments to investigate candidate Trump three/four years ago?

            I’m not a fan of Trump’s character but do like his policies on immigration, energy independence, NATO carrying its weight, challenging China, trade deals, great economy etc.

            I have a lot of empathy for him getting pissed off about the impeachment thing, especially after the Mueller inquiry that needlessly put him, and the US, through hell.

          4. Political Junkie,

            Except there is as much substance to the claims that the Dems solicited Russian help as there is that Trump did. i.e. there is a lot of obvious stink but no hard evidence of intent. Trump would already be impeached if it was possible to convict based on stink.

            I can also turn your argument around on you. If we assume the allegations against Biden have merit and aid was withheld to protect the personal interests of his son and that is wrong then it is also wrong that Trump does the same (Trump’s re-election prospects are his personal interest – if justice is the primary concern then a quiet investigation followed by charges when evidence is gathered would be sufficient). If it is OK when Trump does then it is OK when Biden does it. You can’t have it both ways. There is no scenario where Trump gets a pass for his behavior while in office.

            That said, it is tough to find any unbiased sources on the Biden question so I really don’t know what to make of the claim but I am skeptical that there is substance given that countries other than the US wanted the prosecutor gone too.

          5. TimG

            I assume you bought into the fact that Trump and his family would be jailed after the Mueller investigation. That’s what CNN told you.

            You will be equally surprised at the findings of the Inspector General’s report. If you think Trump’s Ukraine dealings are impeachable – just watch what the Clinton campaign, FBI and CIA were up to in the leadup to the last election.

          6. Political Junkie,

            We live in a world where every media outlet is partisan and lies and distorts to support their POV. It makes no difference if you are talking about FOX, CNN or CBC. They all are fundamentally unreliable sources of information.

            When possible I look to original sources, such as the call transcript released by Trump, to help determine what the facts are. More often I am force to conclude that I have no reliable sources of information and that I cannot form a strong opinion one way or another on a particular issue. That is where I am at with the Biden/Ukraine issue. That said there are some facts which make the Trump narrative implausible. Specifically, the fact that many countries complained about the prosecutor and wanted him gone.

          7. TimG

            “Specifically, the fact that many countries complained about the prosecutor and wanted him gone.”

            Tell me precisely how you know for certain that this is a fact.

  8. Nothing has changed, not even the climate. the lies are more frequent and more visible, only the terminally stupid place any value on the scam. Those of course who are benefiting from the scam will continue to force the issue until someone really beats the hell out of them for their lies. Sick of the shit, you bet I am.

  9. Below is an excerpt of an exchange between John Anderson, former deputy PM of Australia and Niall Ferguson, historian, former Harvard professor and senior fellow at the Hoover Institute. IMO this excerpt encapsulates what is one of the more important issues absent from the Canadian debate on climate change.

    Niall Ferguson
    “We all worry about climate change and if we don’t worry about it we are made to feel that we should. Problem. The percentage of the increase in carbon dioxide emissions since 2007 accounted for by China is more than half. The percentage accounted for by the United States is zero. The percentage accounted for by Europe is zero because emissions of CO2 in the United States and Europe have actually gone down since 2007. After China, next up is India which is something like twenty percent of the total and then the Middle East. So, the real question in the climate change debate should be not what are we going to do because we are doing it. The question is what are we going to do to constrain China. The Chinese say one thing and do another. They say we are committed to green technology. We are going to invest in solar. We are going to have electric cars and people in the West go how wonderful, marvellous. Well done China. But what they don’t notice is that at the same time China is building a new coal burning power station every week”.

    John Anderson
    “They have more coal fire capacity under construction in China today than Australia has in its entire grid.”

    Niall Ferguson
    “Exactly. So that’s the reality. All the debates about climate change from my vantage point are just virtue signalling unless we get to the question what do we do to make China and India reign in their CO2 emissions. Because whatever we do the planet is in trouble if they carry on like this and they show no sign of reducing this and the trend line is absolutely clear. It is steeply upwards from bottom left to top right of the chart. So, that is the issue and that’s the problem for China two ways. Because at some point people are going to notice that this is it. That this is the issue. Two. They have their own environmental reasons to worry. Elizabeth Economy at the Council of Foreign Relations some years ago published a devastating book on the environmental costs of China’s breakneck growth. By the way that’s a familiar story because communist parties tend to cause environmental disaster when they do high-speed industrialization. The Soviet Union did it too. If you have at the core of your economy a lawless one-party state with a substantial state owned enterprise sector there will be environmental degradation on a massive scale and human health will suffer, the environment will suffer and the planet will suffer. These are China’s problems.”

    Conversations with John Anderson: Featuring Niall Ferguson (Part III) (Excerpt Time from 25:36 to 28:20)

  10. Dear TimG,you got Trump Derangement Syndrome much?

    “None of that excuses Trump’s behavior which was to abuse the powers of his office for personal political gain. ”

    What kind of crime is that?
    What is this political gain?
    How do you propose to quantify it?
    Can we “impeach” every canadian politician for this same “crime”?

    About the only commonality of CRU Climatology and President Trump is bureaucrats demonstrating their corruption.
    And your accusations are almost as amazing as the 5 inquiries,which refused to examine the evidence.
    You invent a crime and then mock others for failing to see?
    Nice clothes your Emperor is wearing, why is its butt so ugly?

    1. John Robertson,
      “Can we “impeach” every canadian politician for this same “crime”?”

      It would be nice if we could but we can’t. It is crying shame that Canadian voters let Trudeau get away with his SNC duplicity.

      FWIW: I confronted Trudeau supporters with the exact same argument: would you accept this behavior if Harper did it? None were willing to answer.

      1. Tim you fail to answer the core question,what crime?
        Every politician that ever was/is abuses their powers of office for political gain.
        Those who do it for financial gain are sometimes caught.
        But the claim of political gain?
        Measured how?
        WTF are you on? About.
        If you have no criminal offence,you have no crime and you seem to have no argument.