I am well aware that Peter Oborne’s C4 anti-Jew documentary was not a BBC programme. However, years of biased reporting on the Israeli/Palesinian situation well and truly prepared the ground for Peter Oborne to score his illegitimate goal. (Update - the Examiner article linked to below stated that this was the UEA Hadley Climate Research Centre. Hadley is not in the title. The leaked documents are from the UEA's Climate Research Unit (CRU). Hadley is a separate Met Office organisation. Thanks to a very agitated Pete Pisspoor in the comments for pointing that out. Sir Hugh Orde is the most politicised senior Police Chief that I know of. His period as Chief Constable of the PSNI was distinguished, if that is the correct word, by his playing of the political game to accommodate the requirements of the "Peace Process". For example, he hailed the admission of a convicted IRA bomber onto the controlling Policing Board as progress. Sir Hugh was doing the rounds of the BBC this morning, warning that his fellow Chief Constables might well resign if Conservative plans to bring about more accountable local policing come into being.
Gathering Storm
>> SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2009
Meanwhile, if anyone was acting as referee, they must have steadfastly withstood the pressure from the mighty Jewish lobby and looked the other way.
The inferior quality of the programme was no secret, and many of the supportive comments that popped up in response seem to be of a similar standard. But the obvious flaws in both provide little reassurance that the groundswell of anti Israel feeling can be disregarded as an aberration of the ignorant; like tattoos.
The insinuations littering the programme were designed to implant the idea that everything ever said in support of Israel was sponsored by wealthy Jews with an ulterior motive, while if any denunciation of Israel remained unsaid, that was only because wealthy Jews with an ulterior motive have suppressed it.
Peter Oborne says anti-Semitism is no longer a racist abomination against Jews, but a weapon used by them to quash protests from victims of the sinister Jewish lobby. The suggestion that Jews cynically use accusations of anti-Semitism as a silencing tool is itself a silencing tool of the first order.
What really is sinister is the media’s suspicion and dislike of Jews and the BBC’s affection for Muslims. Is nobody aware of the gathering storms of 30s Germany? How long before they drop their guard and blurt out that Hitler was right.
See Robin Shepherd’s article in the Wall Street Journal, read his blog. Check outCiFWatch.CRU Update
"BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin wants us to feel sorry for his warmy friends"
Or as the The Devil's Kitchen puts it "Ah, diddums…"My contacts at the CRU tell me the e-mails are being taken out of context and insist they are part of the normal hurly-burly of conversations between scientists working on some of the most complicated questions of our times.
One small issue with that: most peoples’ inboxes don’t concern the multi-billion dollar restructuring of international economies to counter predicted climate change. Harrabin’s contacts at the CRU are quite literally seeking to change our world, yet they whine about us looking through mere email.
They ask how many of us would feel completely comfortable if our own inboxes were emptied out for the world to see.
From Richard Black's blog:Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.
As I pointed out in the previous post, in one of the leaked emails Michael Mann states that Richard Black "does a great job" and indicates his intent to contact the BBC correspondent to find out how an article titled "What happened to global warming?" by Paul Hudson was allowed to appear on the BBC website. Opposing views must be not be heard!
Bishop Hill has more goodies from the emails, or search them youself here.
Thanks to all in the comments for the tips.
Update 12.30. BBC to send 35 staff to cover Copenhagen. Nice quote from Conservative MP Philip Davies:'On the subject of climate change, the BBC seems to lose all its critical faculties and it will probably be just a fawning exercise over these environmentalists anyway.
I suspect so too. They wouldn't want to upset their friends on the CRU mailing list.
'It would be nice if one of these 35 people asked some pertinent and critical questions about climate change. But I suspect they will all be subscribers to the extreme environmental agenda.'Hadley CRU Hacked>> FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2009
Further update - CRU has provided a lot of the "climate simulations data" for Hadley's LINK project. It has also " developed datasets in conjunction with Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office". Search HadCRU and HadCRUT on Google.)
And now, back to our original programming...
This could get very interesting:The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
CRU has confirmed that it has been hacked and it has cancelled all existing passwords. If you see or hear any mention of this on the BBC please point it out in the comments so we can monitor how this story is spun, both by CRU and the BBC.
Update 13.45. Andrew Bolt has been picking through the emails and documents and, if they are all genuine, the information in them is simply astonishing.
There's a document by CRU's Professor Phil Jones which shows that he was so concerned by Freedom Of Information requests for raw data that he was contemplating ways to remove key information and reconstruct the data to make it fit the preferred conclusions.
There's an email from American climate scientist Tom Wigley advising Professor Jones how to manipulate some data to emphasise warming trends.
There's an email from Jones telling his colleagues to delete incriminatory emails.
There's another from Jones in which he tells a colleague that he's used the same "trick" as Michael Mann (Mr Hockey Stick) "to hide the decline", and in yet another he calls the reported death of a climate sceptic "cheering news".
There's an email from Mann himself promising senior CRU staff that they can use the RealClimate website to post articles and he will ensure the censorship of any comments from sceptics challenging what they've written.
There's an email from senior IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth in which he asks, "Where the heck is global warming?…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."
There's an email in which CRU staff promise to blackball scientists from the IPCC report whose work doesn't conform to their alarmist predictions: "keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
If the BBC's environment correspondents are too upset to touch the story, perhaps the BBC's Open Secrets blogger Martin Rosenbaum will do something about it. Deleting data and emails demanded by FOI requests is, after all, illegal.
Update 17.00. The BBC has reported it here. Hat tip to 1327 in the comments who points out, as does Mr Eugenides, that the potentially explosive contents of the emails and documents are not mentioned.
Update 17.30. The Guardian's report does mention the email contents. There's also a quote from a very angry sounding Michael Mann: "I'm hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."
Update 17.40. Our old friend Jo Abbess responds: "I've read a number of them, and there's nothing untoward in anything. It's all a hoax to make you think that the Science is unravelling or that the Scientists are misbehaving (aka "lying")." She adds: "I await put-downs from the Climate Science community after the weekend." I'm not sure they'll wait that long to start the "put-downs", Jo.
Update 18.30. (With a reminder of the health warning until it's all proved to be kosher) One of the leaked emails from Michael Mann addressing the recent "What happened to global warming? article by the BBC's Paul Hudson which caused such outrage among the econuts (emphasis added) :From: Michael Mann
Looks like Richard Black is considered a reliable sort by this bunch. I wonder if they're in contact with him now, coordinating their response. (Hat tip to a guest in the comments.)
To: Stephen H Schneider
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:44 -0400
Cc: Myles Allen
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
mike
Update 19.00. The email from the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth (mentioned above @13.45 update - follow link to Andrew Bolt to view) in which he says, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant" comes from the same email exchange relating to Paul Hudson's article. Trenberth seems to be backing Hudson.
Update 19.30. Reminder: "Climate 'hockey stick' is revived" by Richard Black.
Update 20.00. Richard Black has a round-up of Copenhagen-related news on his blog, time stamped 18.16 UK time today. No mention of the CRU documents. (Last update this evening from me.)CATHY COME HOME..
TORIES TO CAUSE CHIEF CONSTABLES TO QUIT?
Saturday, 21 November 2009
So, after the anointment of Baroness Ashton as the EU's High Representative on Foreign Affairs and Security last evening, the BBC has swung into the "Hail Cathy" mode this morning. We had independent commentator Neil Kinnock on to say what a swell gal she was and how no one could be more suited to carrying out such a function as the unelected Baroness. The BBC also provided us with a sanitised version of her CV with the pro-Communist CND dimension left unstated - never mind that Dalek in her sitting room.
On a purely political point of view, I hope some of them carry out this threat since we would be well rid of several Chief Constables. But on the topic specifically of BBC bias, why was there no one invited to defend and explain the Conservative view? Why was Orde's own heavily politicised history not examined? This item could be seen as the BBC allowing an attack on Conservative policy through the back door and one wonders if the uberCop-come-politician Orde is not simply paying back his Labour masters?
Posts
