Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Newsnight does Climategate II | Main | Climate cuttings 59 »

Part deux - Josh 128

Maybe too early to say if this will prove as ground breaking as the first series, but the first episode looks terrific.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (26)

And this time they are fighting for The Cause.

Nov 22, 2011 at 10:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterpax

Great cartoon, Josh! The concept is excellent. Gavin Schmidt is in full fire fighting mode. They are taking this seriously.

Nov 22, 2011 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

I'm already reading lots of "more of the same, nothing to see here" defenses across the blogosphere about this batch of emails. Usually with one or more personal attacks against Watts tacked on.

There's also good bit of "the BEST study, funded by the Koch brothers, proved Watts wrong." It's like someone had a bunch of canned responses ready in case of another document dump.

Nov 22, 2011 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered Commentercirby

I hope this is not going to take on the repetitive genre of police academy. Josh it's funny the first time but for god sake........NO MORE

Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

Josh asks,

"Will they survive this time?"

To quote (unfairly) a certain Prof Jones in 4997.txt, "Who knows?"

And I would reply, "Who cares? In time, Mother Nature will answer."

Nov 22, 2011 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterScottie

Harrabin is finished unless it is normal for BBC reporters to be on the board of the things that they report on in the midst of a scandal (and keep quiet about it):

If the climategate 1 emails were cherry picked and taken out of context, how is it possible that the climategate 2 emails are more damning? (Inept cherry picking?)

Do the team really want to see climategate 3, 4, and 5?

I wonder who Acton will pick for this inquiry. This will be an interesting choice. I imagine that the number of volunteers will be small. One suggestion would be Paul McKenna - as Victor Lewis-Smith can testify, Paul McKenna has a PhD from LaSalle University (which may make him a little over qualified). Gillian McKeith may be available.

You can't say we're not trying to help.

Nov 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Currently on BBC2 Newsnight.
It;'s a Repeat of Climategate
Snippets of emails appearing on the Internet
No context - so difficult to work out real meaning - but clearly there is material that people will seize on
I put it to Michael Mann that some of these emails are not talking simply about science ...
Michael Mann interviewed.

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:07 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

I hope that the Ealing Studios writers are paying attention. (I presume this franchise is still in operation in the UK).

Alec Guiness as Phil Jones, and Stanley Holloway as Tim Osborn ('I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular routine of deleting old emails!') (

...The ruthless villains who almost pulled off the crime of the millennium - thwarted by a pensioner who had a question about the advertising material that came with his electricity bill.

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT


"I wonder who Acton will pick for this inquiry."

Not sure that Acton will be forming a selection committee of one, with one candidate this time.

During the ensuing 2 years there is far more awareness, the political climate has changed, the economy is far worse than 2 years ago, its a bit like being blue flagged on the track, the second placed always gets an easier passage.

It is not a far stretch to see Acton being more concerned about receiving subpoenas than forming a selection committee.

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Micky Mann, Gavin Smirk, and Prof Jones's Mum's ickle boy - the panto season is nearly upon us. Are they all the ugly sisters?

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

The Cause Nostra rides the mean streets again.

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

It's all a plot by Bish to up the hit count,


Nice one Josh, he looks a bit like Marlon Brando; "make him an offer he can't refuse" - must have been the last comment!

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

How about a cartoon about poor Roger Harrabin Josh? I see him as a classic Bond villain, holed up in his secret lair (TV Centre) plotting for world domination (his global broadcasting initiative).

On a more serious note. I have never heard or come across a reporter that has lost so much credibility. The BBC cannot possibly put him on air now what with the Mail on Sunday and now the climate gate 2 emails.

Seems he was quite the little operator behind the sciences, but what he wash't was an impartial reporter.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterNMO

WOW! (I simply did not anticipate this...AGAIN.) WOW.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterOrson

I'm not sure what I find more worrying: the content of these further e-mails, or the expectation of Mann, Schmidt, etc that there could possibly be a context within which they would not be absolutely damning. I wrote of noble cause corruption in climate science two years before Climategate I. Climategate II indicates it was worse than I ever thought. The problem for society now is that the 'science' is so debased we have very little basis for judging what 'science' we should accept as being uncontaminated.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterAynsley Kellow

"My guess is that several readers will have fingers poised over the "comments" button to ask "why do you call it a hack with such certainty?" (I've had a few emails already asking the same thing in reference to my news article.)

I have it from a very good source that it absolutely was a hack, not a leak by a "concerned" UEA scientist, as has been claimed in some circles."

Seems Mr Black HAS got a friend.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:52 AM | Unregistered Commentercmdocker


I have it from a very good source that it absolutely was a leak, not a hack by a "concerned" non-UEA citizen scientist, as has been claimed in some circles

Nov 23, 2011 at 3:08 AM | Unregistered Commenterianl8888

@cmdocker - Richard Black has a friend in Michael Mann 2780.txt

'...since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job)...' M. Mann, formerly a controversial climatologist

Nov 23, 2011 at 3:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

HSI part 2 Bish? By the way, Zeds spluttering indignation over at the D.M. is fun to watch!

Now, where did I put that order for whitewash, better increase the amount!

Nov 23, 2011 at 4:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

Bob Ward says nothing to see here:

23 Nov: Independent UK: Michael McCarthy: Climategate erupts again ahead of key summit
More hacked emails between researchers released in apparent bid to destabilise conference
But climate experts asserted that they did nothing to undermine global warming science. "The emails... do not raise any questions of substance that have not already been addressed by the independent inquiries into the original publication of hacked messages in November 2009," said Bob Ward at the London School of Economics' Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.
"None of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or serious misconduct by climate researchers, but they did conclude that levels of transparency should be improved. These emails, like the last batch, show that climate researchers are human and prone to the same rivalries and disputes that occur in many professions."..

WaPo says nothing to see here:

Washington Post Capital Weather Gang Blog
Posted at 06:39 PM ET, 11/22/2011
Climategate 2.0: Do new emails undermine global warming science?
By Jason Samenow
The “new” emails (not new in that they are from 2009 and earlier) – while trumpeted by some climate skeptics as “spectacular” and draining life from the manmade global warming movement – mean little substantively from a scientific standpoint, just like the set that preceded them.
The climate skeptic blogosphere has been quick to cherry pick certain snippets from the emails they claim show dissension within the climate science ranks, perhaps to demonstrate scientists may express more doubt about their confidence in the science in private than they do in public…
And they’ve pointed to emails where a scientist discusses ways to avoid releasing data, suggesting he has something to hide…BLAH BLAH

Jason Samenow: Center for Climate Change Communicati George Mason University
by Kevin Rosseel
Climate Change Division (formerly Division’s Communications Director)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jason Samenow is an environmental scientist working in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Change Division in Washington, DC. A meteorologist by training, with degrees from the University of Virginia and the University of Wisconsin, Mr. Samenow has worked tirelessly in 2009 – and for almost a decade – to use communications as an effective tool to combat climate change.
Among the activities in which Mr. Samenow has been a leader in 2009 are participation and sometimes management of the federal Communications Interagency Working group of the U.S. Global Change Research Program – see His tireless efforts on behalf of promoting coherent and consistent climate messaging from federal agencies has been a remarkable contribution to making science intelligible to U.S. and international citizens at all levels, general and technical.

Nov 23, 2011 at 5:29 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

So Richard Black has it from a 'good source' that the emails were hacked. As this suggests the law was broken I expect, even demand, that he pass that information over to the police immediately. I will call them in a few days and tell them about this important new lead anyway.

Nov 23, 2011 at 5:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrank

shameless Revkin, who has already demote the thread by posting a new one above it on rhino horn blah blah:

22 Nov: Andrew C. Revkin: Another Treaty Negotiation, Another Batch of Climate Science E-Mail
9:42 p.m. | Updated
Talk about getting ahead of the news. There have already been pre-emptive posts by climate campaigners warning journalists not to be fooled into seeing news in a freshly revealed batch of what appear to be old e-mail exchanges among climate scientists. The material swiftly spread around the Web sites of climate doubt purveyors and energy stasists early today.
Joe Romm’s headline began, “Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice, Shame on the Media.”
Jocelyn Fong of Media Matters put it this way:
The question is: will mainstream media outlets allow themselves to be made part of a campaign to distract the public from the big picture on climate change? Or will they fulfill their responsibilities as journalists? Looks like we’ll find out if they’ve learned their lesson to research first, then report.
What these activists forget is that the first time around there was news. The contents of the files did raise questions. The questions were answered.
In the meantime, Anthony Watts, perhaps desperate for a new raison d’être now that the relevance of his weather station investigations into global warming have evaporated, described the e-mail trove this way: “They’re real and they’re spectacular!”…
I still stand by what I wrote in August of 2010:
Do I trust climate science? As a living body of intellectual inquiry exploring profoundly complex questions, yes…
[9:50 p.m. | Updated | Interviewed for the news story in The Times tonight, Raymond S. Bradley, a climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, said that criticisms he made in one e-mail of a particular past paper by Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist now at the University of Pennsylvania, had no bearing on his confidence in the basic body of science pointing to substantial human-driven warming:
“I did not like that paper at all, and I stand by that, and I am sure that I told Mike that” at the time, he said. But he added that a disagreement over a single paper had little to do with the overall validity of climate science. “There is no doubt we have a big problem with human-induced warming,” Dr. Bradley said. “Mike’s paper has no bearing on the fundamental physics of the problem that we are facing.” Read the rest.]
It’s also important to keep in mind how little of significance the first batch of e-mails and other material contained…
Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the scientific integrity program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a news release that the new incident was a good reminder to British law enforcement agencies to “redouble their efforts to find the criminals who are behind” the initial release of the douments. “To do otherwise sends a message that freedom of expression will only selectively be protected.”
Of course, the first step — after two years and counting — is for the Norfolk Constabulary (as I’ve written here before) to decide whether a crime was committed in the first place…

Nov 23, 2011 at 5:56 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

a real article!

22 Nov: Daily Mail: New leak of hacked global warming scientist emails: A 'smoking gun' proving a conspiracy - or just hot air?
By Rob Waugh
'We're choosing periods to show warming'
'Science is being manipulated - it might not be too clever in the long run'
'Climate change is a "better label" than global warming'
'Many thanks for your paper - and congratulations for reviving global warming'
One message appeared to show a member of staff at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message’.
‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.
'They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’...
It also occurs against a rather different scientific background, after the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature review of climate-science data by prominent climate sceptic Richard Muller, which analysed 1.6 billion temperature records, and concluded that global warming was a genuine effect.
It is still unclear what effect - or combination of effects - is causing the current warming of the atmosphere, which has risen around one temperature in the past 50 years...
A police investigation is ongoing.

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:13 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

quite damning down under:

23 Nov: Herald Sun Australia: Andrew Bolt: Climategate 2: the CSIRO link
Dr A. Barrie Pittock, a Post-Retirement Fellow of the CSIRO’s Climate Impact Group, wrote in 1999 to Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia. It seems to me he was upset that the climate scientists at the UEA weren’t alarmist enough to suit green groups...

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:26 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Call me cynical, call me a curmudgeon, but we've been here before and the whitewash was liberally applied to good effect. So long as the likes as black and harrabin control the news to the senior exec's at the beeb nothing will change. So long as cameroon and hoon the loon and that other pimply faced youf in the labour party are all pulling together nothing will change. The big oil firms are all splashing money over carbon off setting the olympic games and supporting the ecofacists. The truth will be lost in the message. They have the PR machine of the MSM well and truly under control.

After all these are some ten years old. Its just old news and will be treated by the meja as such.

The killer blow will be when someone finds a real money trail.

Nov 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

Josh - a suggestion. The snippet about the impartiality of the BBC (ho, ho) might go well with Father Christmas and a (ho, ho, ho).

All the best.

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Deacon

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>