The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
CFP
by Dr Tim Ball 30 November 2009
Liberal is an anagram of braille. Appropriate because they appear unable to see or read about the climate science scandals.—Tim Ball
The Public and Mainstream Media Still Don’t Grasp the Implications.
Tentacles of Climategate will reach far as information is divulged. People will rush to get on or off the bandwagon depending on their involvement. As a first hand observer, I must outline the history, identify the people involved and provide context.
The “Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction commonly known as The Wegman Report said, “Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99 (The infamous hockey stick paper). As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.” Wegman identified most of the people involved with the leaked information from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – “climategate”. They are still reinforcing each other and refuse to acknowledge the severity of their actions. Mainstream media helps by downplaying the significance or deliberately closing their eyes. It’s deeply disturbing to learn scientists have deliberately twisted science for social and political ends. I watched it happen, now I can set out the history and identify those involved.
Cabal; A Secret Political Clique or Faction
As recently as June 19th 2009, they gathered and reinforced each other at a Symposium to honor (?) Tom Wigley.
In a measure of bureaucratic involvement Univeristy Corporation of Atmospheric Research (UCAR) President Rick Anthes’ opening slide ridiculed McIntyre and McKitrick who broke the hockey stick. “The reply, by Wigley and Jones, is a monument of obfuscation, irrelevance and spite.” (Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick October 2, 2005). This was followed by a quote that said, “This doesn’t sound like the Tom Wigley we know and love…What’s going on here.” Well, Mr. Anthes the avuncular Wigley fooled most of the world. I know. I watched him.
I’ve written about poor climate science and political machinations. Now disclosure of the scientists involved at the CRU and beyond allows me to describe who and how they did it with the support of Maurice Strong. He established the political framework through formation of the United 
Figure 1: Phil Jones, Current Director of the CRU and Tom Wigley the power behind the scenes.
Source:
Jones’ innocent look belies his actions. In one email he wrote to Michael Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Wigley Takes Control of CRU
While doing my doctoral thesis, I went to CRU for a meeting with the founder Hubert Lamb, justifiably considered the father of modern climatology. These events would mortify him because his diligence and integrity were beyond reproach.
Lamb worked every day almost to the end, but the real power was emerging in the person of Tom Wigley (Figure 2). Lamb knew what was going on because he cryptically writes in his autobiography, “Through all the Changing Scenes of Life: A Meteorologists Tale” how a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation came to grief because of, “…an understandable difference of scientific judgment between me and the scientist, Dr. Tom Wigley, whom we have appointed to take charge of the research.”
Figure 2: Wigley and H.H.Lamb, founder of the CRU.
Source :
Wigley is the grandfather figure and in control throughout as the emails illustrate. They seek his advice as in this email, which ends, “I hope these very hasty ramblings are helpful” The originator was seeking ideas for a National Academy of Sciences plan.
Other comments are more direct and frightening. Bishop Hill summarizes, “Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too.”
In another push to have someone removed Wigley supports Michael Mann’s attack on the journal editor of Geophysical Review Letters (GRL) who published McIntyre’s 2005 paper. Again Hill’s summary, “Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]” This quote illustrates the problem for the public. Unless you understand the science and the events the comments make little sense. Apart from comments like how to avoid Freedom of Information (FOI) requests it is easy to divert attention.
A Channel 4 (UK) documentary released in 1990 titled “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” is relevant today.
PBS refused to show it arguing it was biased. I saw a pirated version with senior management of a public utility who wanted explanation and commentary.
Wigley’s appearance explains why CRU and National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) were indebted. In response to a question about the research, he coyly says he has many research students to fund. This attitude, that the end justifies the means, pervades his commentary in the exposed emails. He’s the intellectual force but more important the bagman as this photo from the Symposium implies.
Figure 3: No wonder Prince
The IPCC Connection
Wigley is prominent in the IPCC from the start. Graduate students are prominent names in the emails and the IPCC. Phil Jones is the focus as current Director of the CRU, but as Figure 1 shows he was alongside Wigley from the start. Another prominent CRU graduate is Benjamin Santer seen here with Jones and Wigley.
Figure 4: Jones, Santer and Wigley at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Source:
Santer was lead author of Chapter 8 for the 1995 IPCC Report and involved in the first major controversy. He altered contents of the Chapter so it agreed with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) without consent of other authors. The emails show how the Reports similarly achieved political not scientific objectives.
Of course, IPCC rules were carefully written to achieve this end.
Figure 5: Major players in early and later days of the IPCC.
Source:
The people in the picture are connected with East Anglia or the IPCC. In another photo (Figure 6) they are unsure of source or time but it puts Wigley and Jones together early with leading figures like Syukoru Manabe, whose computer model was the basis of the IPCC models, and Bert Bolin first chairman of the IPCC (now deceased).
Figure 6: Critical players in CRU and IPCC
Source:
All the people in the emails are listed in the various author lists of each of the IPCC Reports. For example, the 2007 list includes these names Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Karl, Keith Briffa, Jonathan Overpeck, Andrew Weaver, Martin Parry among others.
Naturally, they are responding in feeble and predictable ways. For example UCAR President Rick Anthes said, “E-mails, by their nature, are quickly and sometimes thoughtlessly written and therefore open to misinterpretation and misrepresentation,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that this illegal hacking and invasion of privacy has generated such headlines and bad will. It doesn’t alter the fundamental scientific fact that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are changing our climate.”
So it’s the hacker’s fault; a common theme from Jones and others. Ignore the fact Anthes’ statement is completely wrong and a circular argument based on the false information of CRU and IPCC. They all claim the comments are out of context. Wigley picks a devastating email to say, “This e-mail was directed to Phil Jones only, and Phil knew exactly what I was talking about,” So do I, Tom! “It does not at all refer to making some arbitrary correction to existing data in order to make such data fit some preconceived ideas about global warming.” Yes it does. Wigley knows that most people including the mainstream media will not understand and liberals won’t want to see. They’ve used this lack of understanding all along.
Government Funding Enlarges the Monster
Political exploitation will delay condemnation. Business and political opportunities created by CRU and IPCC, both heavily funded by government, will not yield easily. I spoke with five farm groups in Alberta recently and at one a company selling carbon credits gave a presentation. The person involved said he didn’t care about or even want to discuss the science. He saw a business opportunity. Farmers saw income. I told them the cost of carbon strategies would put money in their left pockets by taking a greater amount out of their right pockets. Sadly, I’ve known all along it’s based on false and falsified science. Now the world knows.
