12 December 2009

AP on Leaked CRU Emails

A team of AP reporters reviews the leaked/stolen CRU emails and come up with a damning indictment of their authors. The AP finds no evidence of fraud or misconduct, and no evidence that the science of climate change is a hoax. But they what they do find is, in their words, "not pretty." Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

It is these efforts to stage manage climate science that I have argued is the most troubling aspect of the emails. These activist scientists stated that they were interested in the truth, but their actions as revealed by the emails showed a greater interest in truthiness in order to shape a public message and defeat their nefarious opponents.


  1. If the AP had any credibility left, this report might conceivably have had some influence.

  2. 1) Anybody who trusts the AP on anything is naïve beyond words.

    2) The minute I read the first two lines of Dr. Pielke’s post, I knew Seth Borenstein would have been the lead author on this claptrap.

    Click here for a little insight into our pal Seth.

    3) Anybody who believes this bunk about there being no fraud should notify the Met Office ASAP.

    Click here and expose the fraud.

  3. Does anyone else think it's bizarre that the Associated Press takes care to mention that a particular skeptic study was "partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute" but neglects to alert its readers to the apparent close relationships between the scientists in these e-mails and activist groups such as Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists?

    I mean, in this e-mail the WWF asks for suggestions re: who they can hire to write a paper on the economic cost of heat waves: http://tinyurl.com/heat-waves

    This e-mail makes it clear that some of the scientists were sending around alerts from the left-wing activist group, the Union of Concerned Scientists (which, by the way, rejects the widespread scientific consensus on genetically modified foods - search for "A Tale of Two Consensuses" at Reason.com): http://tinyurl.com/unioncc

    In this e-mail, CRU scientist Mike Hulme is arguably being pressured to "beef up" a report he has been hired to write by the Australian arm of the WWF. That organization, we read wants to use his report as part of "a big public splash": http://tinyurl.com/publicsplash

    In this e-mail, Greenpeace drafts a letter-to-the-editor that two government-employed scientists apparently then sign their names to. Rather than being transparent about the close connection that exists between the scientists and Greenpeace, the first sentence of the letter gives rather an opposite impression: "Without wishing to comment on the dispute between BP and Greenpeace...": http://tinyurl.com/greenletter

    If funding from the oil industry is newsworthy in a scientific context, why aren't left-wing, activist, environmental connections equally newsworthy? Has the Associated Press really analyzed the context of these messages in a manner that a dispassionate observer would consider fair-minded and even-handed?

  4. The warmists are taking the line that the CRU "Scientists" are so convinced of the truth of their theory that they embellished the facts a little, which just goes to show how true the theory is.

    Another interpretation is that they just wanted the massive funding, power, fame, and influence.

  5. I am still puzzled: if tampering with graphs is not fraud, then what is? Is rigging elections fraud?

    Because that is what the goal of "hide the Decline" is: To influence the opinion of global warming. As Marcel Crok wrote: "Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics"

  6. It helps to know that one of the writers, Seth Borenstein actually wrote some of the e-mails in question. Because he's matey with the implicated scientists.

    Why don't AP save a bunch of money this way? They could get Madoff to write articles about his court cases. And Obama could be their White House reporter. He's unbiased, right?

    It's actually disgraceful that Borenstein not only didn't recuse himself, but doesn't even bother to mention his links.

  7. Anthony Watts points out Seth Borenstein's role in the CRU emails here:


    I'd love to see Andy Revkin's email log.

  8. -7-NWB,

    I’m not sure this is what you meant, but…
    If you want to see each instance where “Revkin” appears in the CRU e-mails, visit this page and search for his name. I found 12 e-mails.

  9. Not Whitey Bulger 7-

    Read your WUWT link. One of the comenters states that Seth Borenstein "...is himself a contributor to and recipient of the CRU correspondence. So he is investigating and reporting on his own behavior, in apparent violation of Associated Press professional standards."

    What color whitewash is this?????

  10. It helps to know that one of the writers, Seth Borenstein actually wrote some of the e-mails in question. Because he's matey with the implicated scientists.