“First Climategate then WikiLeaks, Is Global Warming a Hoax?”



About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to “First Climategate then WikiLeaks, Is Global Warming a Hoax?”

  1. suyts says:

    Its fun watching nut bags feed off of one another. Obambi even failed at his manipulative attempts. Dumb bastages didn’t understand Chicago politics!

  2. Tony Duncan says:

    this one is hysterical Steve.

    My favorite part is the Bolivian negotiator confirming the pressure of the US team to manipulate an accord in Cancun. LIKE THE ONE IN COPENHAGEN.

    1. the Bolivians are SOCIALISTS. Their position on climate change is MUCH more radical than the US. They don’t want cap and trade they want heavy taxes on carbon emissions on developed countries and subsidies for protecting forests and other natural resources in the third world.

    2. the Copenhagen accord was a washout. So he was COMPLAINING that the Obama administration is PREVENTING substantive action on climate change.

    3. He complains that the US CUT off aid to Bolivia and other countries that wanted stronger measures to cut emissions, and bribed the Maldives to accept the US position, when the Maldives have been the most strident, insisting on the biggest curbs possible on CO2 emissions.

    4. He says Bolivia wants the developed countries to consider spending what they spend on defense, so that is over $1 trillion dollars, instead of the paltry 100 billion from the developed countries which won’t do much of anything.

    He paints a picture of the US being the biggest obstacle to action on climate change.
    I can’t wait to see The endorsement of Obama for president from denier groups, since he is willing to stand up and play hardball against these alarmist countries!

    Steve, again I implore you to read the text of the stuff you put on here.

    • You assume the Obama Administration is right on global warming. You also assume the whitewash interpretation of ClimateGate is right.

      Nothing else to see in the article. It’s the same thing we’ve always been seeing.

      You may need to take some time to think Tony Duncan.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        did you read ANYTHING I wrote in my comment?
        If the person interviewed is correct, the Obama administration is sabotaging any action on climate change.

        He should be your hero right now. Standing up to the rest of the world in order to save trillions of US tax dollars from being sent to all those undeserving countries and protecting our economy from the ravages of those alarmist demands.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I don’t ASSUME whitewash interpretation of climategate.
        I have read the emails. I have repeatedly asked for anyone to show me ONE paper on global warming that climate gate shows to be fraudulent. I have expressed how utterly incompetent climate gate shows climate scientists to be at both corrupting the peer review process and forming a fraudulent conspiracy. Remember they couldn’t even keep one sloppy paper out of a second rate journal.

      • You assumed what Steven Goddard meant in posting this.

      • Ya, those undeserving countries. That’s what the post was about. But don’t let me stop your superior intellect.Please, continue. And oh, please, don’t get bored here anymore. Allow for those of less ability than you.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Well then by all means see if you can encourage Steve to enlighten me about what he meant with this post.

        OH. and how it relates to my actually reading the interview that was the basis for the post.
        I notice that once again you are not engaging with anything specific that I wrote. Seem to be detecting a pattern

    • Paul H says:

      Tony says :-

      “Steve, again I implore you to read the text of the stuff you put on here.”

      What Steve has put up here is the same as printed in the Guardian. Are you saying it is wrong. If so why not tell them?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        No Paul,

        It is not wrong at ALL. that is my point.
        read my comment and then read the actual interview.
        Bill McKribben says something similar as does Noam Chomsky on the same site. it is from Democracy Now! that hot bed of climate change deniers!

  3. If “global warming” science is so real no manipulation of any kind would be needed. Clearly all the political maneuvering shows it is not real. How poorly things went in Copenhagen, and now in Cancun, shows the incompetence of those pushing “global warming”.

    Today, after 22 years the “global warming” movement is in worse condition than its ever been. Yet some still think it’s worth defending. What will it take for global warming believers to stop being believers?

  4. Alistair Davidson says:

    Since 2004, it has probably been a fraud. This is because by 2003, NASA/GISS knew there was no experimental proof of ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling. 175% of the primary AGW signal in AR4. Also, the theoretical prediction of the effect via one or other of the ‘two stream approximations’ originated by Sagan, is wrong because the assumption of constant Mie asymmetry factor equal to the isolated sphere case is incorrect – Mie assumed a plane wave, not the case inside a sol.

    Without that correction, the IPCC must reduce predicted high-feedback CO2-AGW by at least a factor of three. Also, you can have ‘cloud albedo effect’ heating, another form of AGW [smaller droplet size turns off direct backscattering at upper cloud surfaces]. As that’s self-limiting, it’s quite possible that most AGW, as expressed by ocean heat content which levelled of in 2003, was from Asian industrialisation, not CO2.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      So that is 6 years of all the major scientific institutions supporting an obvious consciously perpetrated fraud.
      This is what I have been saying here for the last couple of months.
      At some point soon, the whole edifice has to come tumbling down because such obvious fraud cannot be maintained when thousands of scientists in all manner of disciplines has to be a party to it.

      • Alistair Davidson says:

        No, I suspect a small group set out in 2004 to deceive wider climate science. After experiment showed no evidence of ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling, NASA published this: http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/singh/winners4.html

        ‘The basic premise was simple and a wonderful example of Professor Twomey’s incisive thought: if pollution contributes additional nuclei upon which water can condense, then the condensed mass of water will consist of a larger concentration of smaller drops. The reflectance of the cloud will increase because the total surface area of the condensed water in cloud is greater when spread over more droplets.

        My emboldening: this fundamentally false but plausible explanation replaced Twomey’s correct Mie scattering physics which he had warned couldn’t be extrapolated to thick clouds. The problem is that the models use Sagan’s theory or a variant and it’s fundamentally wrong because it ignores a second process.

        Other NASA documents claim up to 90% albedo from ‘reflection’. It has confused many. The aim seems to have been to keep it in AR4 and Copenhagen. Without it, the high feedback CO2-AGW hypothesis is baseless and if you correct the physics, up pops another AGW which could mean the CO2 effect is naturally controlled to zero this is a game changer..

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Sounds reasonable.
        sounds like any competent physicist would understand it.
        Publish this and become famous as the Anthropocentric global warming killer!

  5. Andy Weiss says:

    People on both sides of the issue are not the least bit shy about embellishing their position and denying any truth to the arguments from the other side. This should have been a careful study and honest debate of a scientific hypothesis rather than fanatics engaged in a pissing contest.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      couldn’t agree with you more, the issue has become so politicized that accepting ANYTHING that might undermine your position is unacceptable. Both sides distort and make up stuff. this is why I don;t just accept what people say without checking what the objections to it are. That is what the peer review process is for. It is not perfect and certainly subject to political and other distortions, but, at least as far as physics, chemistry and biology, it always fixes those things when there is sufficient information and a theory that explains the evidence better.

  6. Andy Weiss says:

    Tony, I used to believe that legitimate scientists were beyond reproach. Now I have become very cynical. On a personal level, I have been badly burned twice in recent years by written statements from highly credentialed men of science. It’s hard to believe that scientists with advanced degrees from Johns Hopkins, Harvard and Yale would knowingly publish something that it is misleading and harmful, but it happens.

    As far as the peer review process, I’m afraid that it has degererated into “go along with me or else” with respect to the AGW issue.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      if that is the case then we are talking about deliberate wide ranging fraud that includes the entire scientific establishment. the whole point of peer review is to make sure that “go along with me” gets short shrift. For it to have continued for so many years indicates it is the largest most comprehensive scientific fraud ever perpetrated, and it will unravel very very soon, because it impacts so many different areas of science. the disciplines are too interconnected for this not to have a negative impact on all fields. As such any honest scientist will have to start exposing it.

      • Mike Davis says:

        You are naive! Or at the least your claims make you appear to be ignorant of reality.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I don’t make many claims here. Plenty of other people bearing that burden.
        What claim am I making that you are referring to? In the above post I just state that the degree of obvious fraud pointed out by so many people on this blog cannot be perpetrated for very long, because there HAVE to be honest scientists who are not part of the conspiracy.

        And am I missing some rule on this blog that you never actually address the content of what someone posts?
        is it rude? like standing too close to people, or looking them in the eyes for too long?

  7. Andy Weiss says:

    In order survive as viable sceintists, they have to follow the party line. If a scientist is labled a “skeptic”, they will be shunned by their peers, denied grants and will not be invited to participate in important functions. That’s corrupt and a total abandonment of what science should be, but unfortunately that is the world we live in.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      And it is a totally unsustainable situation. Our society is too deeply entrenched in the technology that science develops and it is not possible to have a totally corrupt science that impacts so many disciplines.

      Funny, Andy my initial post agreed with you completely

  8. Andy Weiss says:

    One great technology that science (or Al Gore) developed is the Internet. It has given a voice to people like us that we didn’t have just a few years ago. The Internet is making it much more difficult for “big brother” to lead us around by our noses.

    If it wasn’t for the Internet, I believe all these global warming “remedies” would have already been forced down our throats.

    Too bad it wasn’t around for Waco, NAFTA, the AIDs epidemic, etc. when the only voice heard was that of the mass media spreading misinformation and telling us what to think.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      As I recall there was very large and widespread opposition to Waco, NAFTA, and AIDS back when they first happened.

      But I agree that if it were not for the internet and the extremely polarized groups of people that only get their information from sources that re-inforce their beliefs has made it much harder for anything to get done.

  9. Layne Blanchard says:

    In the beginning, one of the hardest questions for me to answer was how it could be that so many diverse scientists from so many disciplines spread around the world could possibly join together in a conspiracy about climate.

    The fact is, it can’t happen. There is no vast, coordinated conspiracy. There is collusion, but among smaller groups: An insufficient explanation.

    Yet there is a clearly shared motivation and set of opinions among believers. There is an unyielding dogma. Dissenters are scorned and discredited, most often not with enlightening information or dialog intended to advance discovery and knowledge, but with personal attacks on character, motivations, and credentials.

    Believers often share not only unquestioning faith in the dogma, but social and political perspectives for society. Very often, the results of their research, unlike true science, did not find a boundary in conclusions about the data being studied, but moved beyond to suggest political, economic and sociological remedies.

    And these remedies were decidedly Marxist, Malthusian, anti-Capitalist, and specifically anti-American in nature. Fraud was widespread. Decimals (accidentally) moved to the right, inconvenient records were “assisted”, Hyperbole replaced caution.

    Finally, it was clear. This is religion. And the more striking revelation (for me) was that Collectivist ideologies (and perhaps many political perspectives) are religious in fact.

    This is how it can be -that seemingly diverse individuals could act so uniformly.

    This is how it can be- that the greatest fraud in the history of mankind spread around the world.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      that is an interesting hypothesis. However it does ignore the peer review process. I find the same argument used almost EXACTLY by creationists against evolution. The problem is that there are people who contend that the proof that ACC is false is so obvious that any college physics student could see it. If that is the case then that means literally thousands of scientists with the technical knowledge are colluding about something that they ALL know is absolutely wrong. that is not possible with a scientific culture, as imperfect as I know it to be.
      Also the idea that ALL scientists are willing to go along with this marxist malthusian political agenda is extremely hard to imagine. I have heard too many scientists who are in no way leftist contend quite forcefully that they have studied the evidence and there is no other reasonable conclusion. Geologists, economists, biologists, who have varying views on the extent of ACC and ESPECIALLY on the most effective policies to deal with it.
      Either the peer reviewed papers and scientists are obviously wrong and therefore all involved in a massive conspiracy for the ideological beliefs you assume they all have, or there is at WORST no clear consistent theory providing evidence that ACC is not happening.
      this whole idea of grant money being the motivation to produce the desired results is not applicable in a science that is based on physics and chemistry and fluid dynamics and biology. Because if they GET the grant money they then have to do the actual research. Unless they are consciously supporting fraud they will present, they will have to give very detailed explanations of methodology and results that are very carefully examined (at least in most cases). It is NOT possible to corrupt every field of science involved in studying climate change without causing a massive counter reaction from honest legitimate scientists. Either it will happen in the peer reviewed literature or ALL honest scientists will renounce the process and reinvent it.
      I am waiting for either of those events to happen, and when it does I will tip my hat to people like Steve Goddard for being a force that helped make that happen

      • 2CentsWorth says:

        Tony Duncan says: “Lane, that is an interesting hypothesis. However it does ignore the peer review process.”

        … No it doesn’t, Tony. Not of those select few engaged in reviewing any particular paper are of the same mind. And not if the process for selecting those who’ll BE the “reviewers” is being manipulated as well. That too was revealed in the ClimateGate documents, remember.

        Tony Duncan says: “Also the idea that ALL scientists are willing to go along with this marxist malthusian political agenda is extremely hard to imagine.”

        … Once again Tony, you see to’ve erected a Strawman for yourself to argue against here. I don’t believe that anyone is saying that “ALL scientists” have gone along with the aforementioned attitudes about CAGW. The fact that there are literally over 1000+ scientists who have not, proves this Strawman of yours is false as well.

      • 2CentsWorth says:

        Sorry about the typos above. That should’ve read:… “Not if those select few”,… and… “Once again Tony, you seem to’ve erected a Strawman”.

        Whoops! 🙂

      • 2CentsWorth says:

        And again:… Tony Duncan says: “this whole idea of grant money being the motivation to produce the desired results is not applicable in a science that is based on physics and chemistry and fluid dynamics and biology. ”

        Tony, I’d like you to think about the quotes below… (I hope my attempts to “bold” them works.)

        – – – – – –
        “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

        – – – – – –
        … and,… Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

        – – – – – –
        … and,… “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

        – – – – – –

  10. Andy Weiss says:

    I don’t believe that there is any vast organized conspiracy, but scientists obviously sense in this politically charged atmosphere that opposition or even skepticism can be deadly to your career. I remember seeing professors at a certain university slobbering and groveling for Government grants. It was not a pretty sight. The last thing they want to do is to make waves.

  11. Pingback: “First Climategate then WikiLeaks, Is Global Warming a Hoax … | Climate Change History Explore and Learn

  12. 2CentsWorth says:

    Tony Duncan says: “I have repeatedly asked for anyone to show me ONE paper on global warming that climate gate shows to be fraudulent.”

    … Well, Tony, examples of that would mostly likely include such papers as the now infamous MBH98, where “Mike’s Nature Trick” first hid the decline in their tree-ring proxies that would’ve revealed how inaccurate they were. It would also likely include the paper that Prof. Jones was working on at the time that particular ClimateGate email went out, which would seem to’ve been his report to the WMO; http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf.

    You’ll find more analysis on all of that here; http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

    • Paul H says:

      Or there is the letter matter of Yamal :-

      “And then there’s the Yamal matter — also a popular subject of the CRU e-mails.

      In an October 5th e-mail to climatologist Tom Wigley, Jones took issue with a piece I had written that day exposing the lies in CRU-based U.N. climate reports, which included a section on Keith Briffa’s mistreatment of Polar Ural data in order to exaggerate 20th-century warming. That e-mail prompted the reply from Wigley — now familiar to AT readers — in which he admitted it was “distressing to read that American Stinker item” — before offering to help Briffa, who “does seem to have got himself into a mess,” write an “explanation” for his deceitful cherry-picking of Yamal peninsula data.

      Indeed, Keith’s Yamal Trick also “fudged” proxy reconstructions, not by overwriting them with instrumental data à la Mike, but rather by underhandedly stacking the actual data set with trees handpicked to assure his predetermined outcome. Yet both methods intentionally corrupted reconstruction results for the same devious purpose — to skew late-20th-century temperatures higher in order to artificially create the dreaded hockey-stick effect.

      Now, you might be wondering why all this fuss is being made over late-20th-century temperatures when even we realists accept that they did rise until 1998. Hopefully, you now understand why the divergence between proxy and measured temperatures betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. And any reconstruction demonstrating such a flaw-revealing divergence should be dismissed outright, not presented as policy fodder. “

      • Mike Davis says:

        It had nothing to do with any warming that was apparent but the lack of variability in the historic records that falsified all the tree ring reconstructions that supported the “Hockey Stick”.
        Yes if the ring method does not reflect temperature measurements during any period then they should be discarded. the other issue is matching trees to global or temperature records anywhere besides local as each local region has its own rhythm that the reconstructions need to replicate.

  13. Snapple says:

    I notice that Attorney General Cuccinelli’s dad is a gas lobbyist with “European” clients. Who are the European clients? I am wondering if they might be Russian gas companies or their fronts. The father reportedly gave Cuccinelli 96,000 for his campaign.

    I also notice that in his suit against the EPA, Cuccinelli cites an article that was an RIA Novosti English version of an article published in the Russian business daily Kommersant. This article claimed British scientists fudged their science. The “expert” cited is Andrei Illarionov who used to work for Putin as well as Gazprom. Now he is at the Cato Institute, but he gets top-billing in Kommersant after the EPA finding against C02.

    Kommersant is owned by the Gazprom mogul Alisher Usmanov who is close to Putin.
    Why is Cuccinelli quoting Usmanov’s paper? Usmanov’s career suggests he was and is connected to the Russian intelligence.

    The Russian article claimed that the Hadley Center was fudging land temperatures in Russia, but Cuccinelli claimed the article said that the CRU was fudging land temperatures. I think Cuccinelli had to mischaracterize what the Gazprom-connected paper said because the Hadley Center is in charge of sea-surface temperatures.

    Cuccinelli quotes an RIA Novosti translation of Russian paper owned by a Gazprom hood, but he mischaracterizes even what the Russian paper said.

    The RIA Novosti paper Cuccinelli directly cites is the official press agency of the Russian government. Is that a reliable source of information? They didn’t quote Russian scientists–only a Gazprom-connected economist.

    This is why I want to know who are the “European” clients of Cuccinelli’s dad.
    Perhaps they pay the Cuccinelli family to attack climate science.

    You people claim to be conservatives, but the Russian media is in the denialist camp because they are owned by the oil/gas moguls in Russia. Gazprom is majority-owned by the Russian government.

    • 2CentsWorth says:

      Snapple, you should consider the below & then rethink your argument…
      – – – – – –
      Logical Fallacies – Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

      “A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person’s circumstances (such as the person’s religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.).

      A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person’s interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person’s interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person’s circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.



      • Tony Duncan says:

        2cents worth,

        No snapple is making an association that may or may not have relevance to the issue.
        He is including specific items that make that association one that is reasonable to consider in deciding on the motivations of that person. It is in no way an ad hominem, unless his facts are wrong. because he is asking a question not making a statement.
        His assertion that they don’t respond when he asks is not necessarily meaningful, because who knows what their reaction would be if they were completely innocent of the implied allegation.
        If this is a fallacious attack, then the hundreds of assertions that climate scientists are engaging in fraud to get grant money are significantly worse violations.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Snapple and TonyD:
        If there was nothing to hide then why is UV and Mann attempting to hide something?

      • 2CentsWorth says:

        Tony, perhaps you missed the operative part of the quote? Here, let me repeat it for you…
        – – – – – –
        “A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person’s interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person’s interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person’s circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.”
        – – – – – –
        Snapple’s arguments are nothing more than innuendo without any proof. He clearly illustrates that when he says:…“Who are the European clients? I am wondering if they might be Russian gas companies or their fronts?”

        Does Snapple offer ANY proof of who those clients “might” be? Does he offer ANY reasonable evidence to suspect that they “might” be Russian gas companies? Does he offer ANY reasonable evidence that AG Cuccinelli’s claims or stated motives are false? No, he doesn’t. Not in any way, shape, or form. As such, his innuendo constitutes an “Ad-Hominem Circumstantial”, without any supporting evidence whatsoever.. Therefore this description fits them to a “T”.

  14. Snapple says:

    I have written many times to Cuccinelli’s subodinate W. Russel and asked who the “European” clients are, but they won’t respond.

    I voted for Cuccinelli, but now I think his family and his campaign may be getting money from Russian oil/gas interests.

    You may remember how Congressman Weldon’s daughter got 500,000 in consulting fees from the Russian Itera while her dad became an advocate for Itera.

    I think it is possible that Cuccinelli’s family is involved in some similar arrangement.
    When I ask, they won’t respond.

    • 2CentsWorth says:

      Snapple, once again, I think you should consider the below & then rethink your argument…
      – – – – – –
      Logical Fallacies – Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

      “A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person’s circumstances (such as the person’s religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.).

      A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person’s interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person’s interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person’s circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.



  15. Snapple says:

    The KGB used to place articles in newspapers all over the world claiming that Pentagon scientists made AIDS to kill black people. In 1992, the KGB chief Primakov admitted this was a lie right in Izvestia when the party line changed. The regime needed American help with AIDS. The Soviet Academy publically distanced themselves from this disinformation campaign in 1987.

    Russian scientists know very well that there is global warming. Russian scientists research and write about global warming issues, but they are not often quoted in the large media which are owned/controlled by fossil fuel companies and/or the government. Gazprom wants to sell gas. They don’t want their European customers to develop alternative energy sources.

    In his EPA suit, Cucinelli is citing an English-language article from Russia’s official press agency RIA Novosti that was originally published in Kommersant, Alisher Usmanov’s newspaper. This same article is cited by the Heartland, WUWT, and other blogs. The “expert” cited in Kommersant–Andrei Illarionov–used to work for Putin and the head of Gazprom, the late Victor Chernomyrdin. He is an economist, not a climate scientist.

    The Russian-based Uzbek, Alisher Usmanov, has an educational and career background that suggests connections to the KGB and its successor organizations. A lot of KGB people went to work for Gazprom. He is one of the richest men in the world, thanks to his ties with Putin. He owns Gazprom Invest Holdings. His newspaper is a Kremlin mouthpiece aimed at the business community.

    Cuccinelli’s father is a career gas lobbyist with “European clients.”
    I don’t know who they are, but Europe buys a lot of its natural gas from Russia.

    The Russians make lucrative arrangements with businessmen who are willing to become their lobbyists. This is very subversive.

    Cuccinelli makes his case against global warming by citing an article that first appeared in Kommersant, a gangster’s newspaper, and by citing Ed Wegman, a professor who is under investigation for research misconduct. Wegman seems to have based his “research” on materials given to him by Congressman Barton’s office.

    I am very suspicious that the elder Cuccinelli’s “European” clients may have something to do with the son’s political agenda. They may be formally paying for “professional services” while really paying for the services of our Attorney General.

    Corruption is how the Russian agents of influence subvert our free enterprise system and undermine the agencies that keep us safe. They mount campaigns of kompromat to humiliate and discredit their opponents. I think Climategate is a lot like Russian kompromat operations.

    Hopefully, the Kremlin’s collaborators will be exposed sooner or later because these agents are persecuting our scientists and undermining our government agencies. Congressman Curt Weldon was investigated by the FBI. He was a shill for a Gazprom spin-off called Itera, and his daughter got 500,000 in “consulting fees.” Berlusconi and V. Klaus are promoting the Kremlin’s agenda.

    I believe the great scientists and the US and European scientific agencies, not Alisher Usmanov’s Kommersant.

    • 2CentsWorth says:

      Snapple, you’ve completely changed my mind!!!…

      I mean, after all, the Russians used to be our sworn enemies…

      In what was called the “COLD” war!

      And they have this place there called “SIBERIA”…

      Which is really, really, COLD in the winter!

      So if they can only hide all evidence of Global Warming from us for long enough,… while they secretly pump out as much CO2 as they possibly can via Gazprom… they could possibly turn this really, really, COLD place of theirs called “SIBERIA” into a really, really, HOT place for vacationers! They’d make a ton of money!

      And Cucinelli’s name is obviously Italian. And Italy is on the Mediterrean Riveira, which is one of the world’s current HOT vacation spots!!… But since Cucinelli’s here, it’s possible that his family fled Italy during WWII, and he might feel resentful over that!!… So obviously he has motivation for secretly helping the Russians with their plans to turn Siberia into the world’s next HOT vacation spot after the ending of the COLD war! It’s obviously part of his plans to get back at Italy for fighting on the wrong side during WWII & forcing his family to flee their home!

      Heck, after WWII it was even called the COLD war, and now it’s ending just before their man-made HOT climate-change gets under way!

      … Is this all just coincidence?!… I THINK NOT!!!

      Snapple, you’re brilliant “logic” has me convinced! Thanks for making this all clear for the rest of us!


  16. Snapple says:

    Cucinelli is citing Ed Wegman in his attack on Michael Mann. Wegman is being investigated for Research Misconduct by George Mason University. Cuccinelli is also citing the kremlin-friendly Kommersant, which is owned by the Gazprom gangster Alisher Usmanov. The newspaper doesn’t quote Russian scientists. It quotes the economist Andrei Illarionov who worked as an adviser for Putin and also for Gazprom’s Chernomyrdin.

    Cuccinelli’s father spent his career as a gas lobbyist. His website notes that he has “European clients.” One of his companies gave Cuccinelli 96,000 for his campaign. That is a lot of money.

    I want to know if these “European” clients are connected with Russian gas/oil companies. It’s the Russians who sell gas in Europe, and Gazprom is buying politicians.
    We should have transparency about how foreign money is going to our politicians.

    The Florida criminal Bobby Thompson also gave Cuccinelli 55,000 dollars. Why?

    • What does that have to do with Mann’s bad science?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        It seems to me his is trying to say that Cuccinelli is pursuing this case based on sources that have questionable Bona fides.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Comedy Hour!!!!! 🙂

      • 2CentsWorth says:

        The accusations against Dr. Wegman are nothing more than that… hollow “accusations”. Anyone can “accuse” anyone else of anything they want, and – at least in the academic world – if the accusation “sounds” serious then an investigation is begun to see if there’s any truth to them. Just because an investigation is initiated to try to clear up the matter does not imply guilt of any kind. Nor should it be misconstrued to do so… unless, of course, you’re engaged in a PR smear campaign such as the one against Dr. Wegman, that is.

        Furthermore, even the accusations that were made don’t contradict Dr. Wegman’s conclusions that Mann & Bradley’s MBH98 “Hockey-Schtick-Graph” paper was severely flawed. They only claim that he MAY not have provided sufficient “academic-level” attributions to an outside source for some text which was nothing more than background “boiler-plate” info. Text which, in Dr. Wegman’s congressional report, was not intended for an “academic-level” publication and so didn’t require “academic-level” attribution, merely “legal-level” attribution, which Dr. Wegman provided.

        Oh, and that attribution would be to an author (Dr. Bradley) who – contrary to his accusations – was in fact cited over 1/2 a dozen times in the relevant sections of Dr. Wegman’s report to Congress, plus at least once more in his report’s final bibliography as well.


        Finally, although he’s been asked by GWU not to comment publicly about the details until the ongoing investigation has been completed, Dr. Wegman has issued a statement declaring that the accusations against him are baseless & without merit.

        Interestingly enough, if Dr. Bradley’s prior “academic-level” papers are to be the standard by which his accusations against Dr. Wegman are judged, (as could be done according to some of the rules of academia), then either Dr. Bradley’s accusations will be set aside as having no foundation, or else Dr. Bradley himself may be in deep trouble as some of his own prior work has been discovered to be lacking in the same “academic-level” attribution that he accuses Dr. Wegman if omiting. And Dr. Bradley’s lack of said attribution is in his actual “academic” papers, instead of in a congressional report as Dr. Wegman is “accused” of having done.

        In short… the accusations comes off as a hollow attempt at character-assassination against a highly-respected scientist who’s conclusions couldn’t be refuted, & they aren’t likely to go anywhere but in the trash, where they belong.

        Hmmm… wait a sec here… “a hollow attempt at character-assassintion” against a highly-respected person who’s “conclusions couldn’t be refuted” otherwise??!!… Hey, I think we just found ourselves a parallel between “Snapple” and “Dr. Bradley”!!


      • 2CentsWorth says:

        Sorry, here’s the URL behind my “Link!”, which didn’t come thru quite right…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s