« No cause for alarm here folks... move along | Main | Six charged in Kenneth Gladney beating »

BBC Has Had Climategate Documents Since 12 October

Move along, no collusion to see here...

Climate change scandal deepens
as BBC expert claims he was sent 'cover-up' emails a month before they went public

By Carol Driver
Daily Mail [of London].co.uk

The controversy surrounding the global warming scandal today deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked emails more than a month before they were made public.

Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world's leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.

In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'

Now why would the BBC sit on a scoop like that for over a month?

Note also that this puts paid to the issue of hackers breaking in vice an insider leaking. This was a leak of a document package prepared for a FoI request.

Credibility [on the part of the BBC and the AGW crowd] is way down.

Hat Tip: Ace at Ace of Spades


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37435.

Comments (14)

DOCTOR HACKENABUSH DIAGNOSE... (Below threshold)

DOCTOR HACKENABUSH DIAGNOSES LIBERALS

It's a clear case of "Munchausen by Proxy". You see, Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) involves the exaggeration or fabrication of problems. In, Munchausen by proxy syndrome the liberal deliberately makes problems in society or convinces others that there is a problem with society, by lying and reporting fictitious episodes. He or she may exaggerate, fabricate, or even induce symptoms. In this way the liberal seeks attention and pushes his socialistic agenda. These people are very sick and must be confined to a mental institute immediately.

How can you GET any lower t... (Below threshold)
epador:

How can you GET any lower than the BBC's reputation as it was?

Sounds like someone is taki... (Below threshold)
JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [reitred]:

Sounds like someone is taking a page out of the Breitbart playbook.

And you were expecting?????... (Below threshold)
glenn:

And you were expecting??????

"Credibility [on the part o... (Below threshold)
914:

"Credibility [on the part of the BBC and the AGW crowd] is way down."

It never was up to start with.

Between this exposure of AG... (Below threshold)

Between this exposure of AGW fakery, and Breitbart almost singlehandedly destroying the criminal organization ACORN, and Obama tanking right and left, this has not been a good week for lefties.

Which is why I can't wipe this smile off my face.

I do detect some schadenfreude coming along here. It smells like fear and flop sweat.

Sorry to say, but I think t... (Below threshold)
jc:

Sorry to say, but I think the Mail Online got way off on this, and the right side blogs have been taken for a ride.

Please check your facts and print corrections if you agree this is wrong. This issue is way too important for stories like this one to get messed up. We cannot afford to let these bastards off the hook unless you really want to become Al Gore's slaves.

Here are the basics:

the zip file full of emails goes through mid-November, not October. In October, Hudson at the BBC had been CC'd on an email that he could use to verify authenticity AFTER the zip file was released. Check his own words on his blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/

"As you may know, some of the e-mails that were released last week directly involved me and one of my previous blogs, 'Whatever happened to global warming ?'

These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others."

==============

It's OK to despise the Beeb about AGW, cuz they are a major part of this cosmic screw up, but at least get the freakin' stories straight. Hudson is not Black, but both work at the Beeb. One was Mann's personal toady. The other, obviously is not so much.

See email Alleged CRU Email - 1255352444.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1049&filename=.txt

where Mann whines about the new BBC guy not playing ball like Black does.

==============

Please note that it was entirely logical for Hudson to do what he did. Steve McIntyre wrote that he did exactly the same thing in a comment at rankexploits:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/real-files-or-fake/

"Steve McIntyre (Comment#23773)

November 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pm

I'm having trouble getting into CA right now.

I made up a pdf of the emails to help browse through them and it's over 2000 pages. Every email that I've examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine.

It is really quite breathtaking."

======
To get a better understanding of the importance of the November date in the zip files, check w/ McIntyre's post on when his last FOI rejection letter was dated (the day after the last emails in the zip) and everything gets a lot more clear.

http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/#more-6

======

Also, please try to get the right side to get corrections out as soon as possible, because credibility is going to be a key factor in bringing these bastards down. And, there is no need to make Hudson or others that might actually have some integrity feel some stupid form of pressure from the side that will actually be seeking the truth in the coming months.

=========

One last very important point. Steve McIntyre is bringing the jerks down almost single-handedly. And, one of his key methods is keeping his commenters from going "a bridge too far" in his parlance. He is slow, methodical, and never over-extends. He keeps these scum posing as objective scientists in the position of having to prove what they assert, not the other way around.

The rest of us need to help Steve by doing the exact same thing as much as we can.

jc is correct ~ this is vir... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

jc is correct ~ this is virtually ALL McIntyre. A few sites have reported what he's uncovered, but no one has done the legwork he has.

With the additional revelations today about the New Zealand data manipulation, it appears the fix was in all over the world. Expect more and more to come out over time.

We should all be careful not to overstate, and especially not to gloat - the belief in AGW is so pervasive and intense that it rivals Christianity and Islam among the largest religions in the world. Now it seems there isn't a shred of truth to it - not a bit - and the "crisis" was completely fabricated, benefiting from the accident of rising temps around the time of the scam's beginning and for a time thereafter.

These people, at the very center of IPCC and the whole "scientific" movement, have been falsifying data on such a broad scale as to cast into doubt any of their previous "conclusions."

There's no need to debate t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

There's no need to debate the leaked emails, nor the computer code as to exactly what they mean and what impact they have on published science. Why, because It should be apparent to anyone who's been paying attention that the AGW proponents have been losing the battle in the public opinion arena anyway. What the leaked emails and computer code does is create even more doubt that the science underpinning AGW is accurate or even honest. Without popular support Congress is simply not going to enact cap and trade nor any other legislation to reduce our carbon footprint if it puts a burden on our economy. The same is true to some extent in other nations.

Along with India and China, the U.S. should be calling for a complete review of the IPCC's last assessment and require that the data and methods for every included study be made public. That's the only thing that will restore the credibility of the science underpinning AGW. Of course, if establishment scientists have been cooking the books, they will object, but then their studies won't be included and the revised IPCC results could show global temperatures have been in decline for the last decade.

It's up to team Al Gore to dispel the taint of corruption by releasing all the data and computer code underpinning AGW or have it forever dismissed from every political debate as junk science. This puts the ball in their court.

Mac:" It's up to team Al Go... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Mac:" It's up to team Al Gore to dispel the taint of corruption by releasing all the data ..."

-

Even if they do, can we trust that data? You think the people collecting the raw info haven't also 'gotten the message' (wink, wink) and have been tempted to fudge the numbers? (All with the very best of intentions, of course)

Even if they do, c... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Even if they do, can we trust that data? You think the people collecting the raw info haven't also 'gotten the message' (wink, wink) and have been tempted to fudge the numbers?

Thing is, it's at least an order of magnitude more difficult to fudge the raw data and get away with it then it is to produce results (graphs, studies, reconstructions) where you can keep the data and computer codes secret. Another difficulty in fudging raw data is that there are often independent sources of that data or similar data, and thus, any fudging becomes obvious.

Scientific fraud depends on being able to keep the raw data and methods of processing that data secret. Remove the ability to keep such things secret in published and peer reviewed studies and the vast majority of scientific fraud either goes away or is likely to be discovered. That's why it's important for all AGW skeptics to get on board with calling for a comprehensive and transparent review of the IPCC's last assessment. I highly doubt the current conclusions can be sustained, in fact, such a review will likely uncover pervasive scientific fraud and another UN committee full of corruption.

BBC Credibility? That has ... (Below threshold)
poptoy:

BBC Credibility? That has never existed.

Now why would the BBC sit o... (Below threshold)

Now why would the BBC sit on a scoop like that for over a month?

The BBC has for a very long time - decades - been but a lock-stepping Goebbelsesque part of the propagandist/pamphleteer Pravda "press" that but projectile projects and otherwise promulgates the fascissocialist psychopathology and shills for free for every totalitarian tyrant and/or tyranny.

Bullshit. ... (Below threshold)
liberal troll:

Bullshit.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy