The manipulation, swerving and apparent want to destroy data which could prove them wrong comes as no surprise to me. This is a global conspiracy on a massive scale and finally, this is the thing which has made more and more people wake up.

What is more worrying than the initial leak has been the total lack of adequate coverage of this story on the BBC. This is one of the biggest scientific stories of the year and I have seen only one short report about it on the BBC news and only a couple of stories on the web, all of which ended with the accepted 'man is to blame' line. The BBC treats man-made global warming as absolute fact and with an almost religious fervour, and anything that dares to prove them wrong doesn't get a look-in, or does but is swiftly put to bed by people on the pro-AGW side. I think the BBC thought the story would blow over in a couple of days so they could get away with minimal coverage but it seems set to rumble on for a while with people from both sides of the Atlantic getting involved and calling for there to be an enquiry.

Shocking and shameful behaviour from our state broadcaster. It's also interesting to note the way it is reported as a 'hacker' attack, but it is far more likely to be a whistleblower.

They're most likely getting their arm twisted by someone.

Quote from mookie427 :

What is more worrying than the initial leak has been the total lack of adequate coverage of this story on the BBC.

It happens all the time on the BBC! Don't be surprised. I have been shouting this on the forum for weeks but no one ever listens.... until now maybe!

Oh god, here we go. :doh:

Quote from Intrepid :

It happens all the time on the BBC! Don't be surprised. I have been shouting this on the forum for weeks but no one ever listens.... until now maybe!

Meh, irrelevent Alan. If it hadn't been for the BBC, the cocoa trade would never have been exposed for the vicious behaviour of companies like Cadbury's in third world countries, because ITV and satellite companies depend SO heavily on their advertising that ITV News and Sky et al wouldn't risk their incomes by telling the truth.

I'm not saying the BBC is right to toe the line, but your argument is twisted and faulty here.

[edit] Let's not get into that side of things, Alan. I've so much MORE ammo to fire along these lines that I'd have difficulty resisting if you decide to pursue it, and I don't think you'd look good as a quivering mess after my "how-advertising-revenue-suppresses-news" bombardment.

Quote from 5haz :

Oh god, here we go. :doh:

If you're denying it's not being reported by the msn then your even more of an idiot than you think Intrepid is.

Before people attack Intrepid for his views on aunty, take time out to try and find a balanced article on AGW from the BBC, and try and also find a thorough, balanced report on the CRU whistleblowing while you're at it. You won't find one.

Quote from mookie427 :

Before people attack Intrepid for his views on aunty, take time out to try and find a balanced article on AGW from the BBC, and try and also find a thorough, balanced report on the CRU whistleblowing while you're at it. You won't find one.

Agreed. But find it on Sky, ITV or even one of the major newspaper outlets before you lamblast the BBC exclusively for its lack of balance.

[edit] And actually, Paul Hudson (nice local lad) at the BBC HAS been pretty upfront about it, and in fact has been "targeted for elimination" IN THESE UEA EMAILS for exposing the question. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/

why does every slight controversy get a -gate added at the end these days? are you really that uncreative and unoriginal?

also this gets blown way out of proportion

Quote from Shotglass :

why does every slight controversy get a -gate added at the end these days? are you really that uncreative and unoriginal?

Because it's an established method of finding information in web searches. subject+gate=result. I know it's annoying, but it's a necessary evil at the moment.

Quote from Shotglass :

also this gets blown way out of proportion

I don't think concern over trillions of taxpayers' money being spent on an illusion or a new religion is trivial or out of proportion.

Quote from boothy :

If you're denying it's not being reported by the msn then your even more of an idiot than you think Intrepid is.

It would probrably help if you made sense, I don't remember denying anything anywhere in this thread. :rolleyes:

You might be shocked to discover that there is more to the internet than MSN, BT Yahoo, BBC.com et cetera. News will still spread through independant sites, such as forums and blogs, an example being this thread. I didn't know anything about this scandal until it cropped up here, but it did crop up, didn't it?

Why don't you start on somebody else? Or perhaps read posts a few times before you go into undermining prick mode.

Quote from mookie427 :

Before people attack Intrepid for his views on aunty, take time out to try and find a balanced article on AGW from the BBC, and try and also find a thorough, balanced report on the CRU whistleblowing while you're at it. You won't find one.

Yeah we know, what we don't need is him repeatedly telling us who is credible and who isn't, we can work that out for ourselves thanks. So what if the BBC is biased? I have the choice to believe what they say or not, so what harm does it do me? (or anyone for that matter).

Quote from SamH :

Agreed. But find it on Sky, ITV or even one of the major newspaper outlets before you lamblast the BBC exclusively for its lack of balance.

[edit] And actually, Paul Hudson (nice local lad) at the BBC HAS been pretty upfront about it, and in fact has been "targeted for elimination" IN THESE UEA EMAILS for exposing the question. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new ... -emails-month-public.html

That is found linked on the Daily Mail's homepage. The Daily Mail of all places has published a story found within the BBC's own website before even they (the BBC) do ! BTW the BBC has a headline of Climate Policies Improve Health under it's Science and Nature section.

Quote from 5haz :

So what if the BBC is biased? .

The whole point of the BBC - a STATE run organisation - is that it CAN NOT be biased! That concept should be at the very core of the organisation! There is absolutely no valid sane argument supporting the concept that the BBC being bias is a good thing.

That's like saying the NHS should only treat healthy people!

Okay.. so.. apart from the BBC's own weatherman, who posts his blog on the BBC's site, the BBC is pretending this thing doesn't exist. Oh, and BBC's Newsnight the other night with Paxman (who still failed to ask good questions although admittedly it was pretty soon after the story broke), the story's not the front-page news in the MSM that one might think it deserves to be, considering the implications.

Yes, the Mail has a bit on it and the Telegraph has a blog that covers it, but it's not broadly where it should be considering the significance of the story. The BBC isn't entirely guilty of suppressing the story, unlike my otherwise favourite newspaper the Independent, that hasn't breathed a single word about it yet.

Coverage of the story in MSM is secondary to the actual issue of the integrity of the science supposedly being conducted in our name, with our money.

Quote from Intrepid :

The whole point of the BBC - a STATE run organisation - is that it CAN NOT be biased! That concept should be at the very core of the organisation! There is absolutely no valid sane argument supporting the concept that the BBC being bias is a good thing.

Quite right its not a good thing, if some of my post had actually got through your skull you ight have even realised that I didn't say it was.

What I mean is, yeah its biased, its a shame, but bitching isn't going to change that. Use your powers of judgement and investigative skills to filter out the biased from the unbiased, and ignore anything that you consider biased, if other people chose to blindly follow what the BBC says, then more fool them, then you can have the opportunity to feel smug. Just whatever you do don't try and tell other people how they should think, especially when you're complaining about people being forced to think certain ways.

The BBC is only a broadcasting company, it is not out to get you (although it may be out to influence you in a certain way, and distort the truth). You have the right to ignore it.

I swear most people on this forum take a glance at a post, register whatever they want to hear and then just fire away with irrelevant bullshit, while jumping to conclusions. Read the ****ing post.

Quote from 5haz :

You have the right to ignore it.

No we don't. Try ignoring paying your TV Licence. See how far that gets ya!

Quote from Intrepid :

No we don't. Try ignoring paying your TV Licence. See how far that gets ya!

Sorry, but on my planet I'm not forced at gunpoint to watch BBC news and look on the BBC website, I don't know what its like in your alternate reality, pretty dystopian by the sounds of things. :rolleyes:

Just because you pay your TV license dosen't mean you're paying attention to what BBC news has to say.

Quote from 5haz :

Sorry, but on my planet I'm not forced at gunpoint to watch BBC news and look on the BBC website, I don't know what its like in your alternate reality, pretty dystopian by the sounds of things. :rolleyes:

Just because you pay your TV license dosen't mean you're paying attention to what BBC news has to say.

eerrr... what? So your saying is like saying just because you pay your taxes you shouldn't worry what your local MP has claimed on expenses? Just because you are forced by law to pay for the BBC you shouldn't care what it does? The fact it;s a state run broadcaster paid for by tax payers means you SHOULD care what it publishes otherwise you have what they have in N Korea!!!!!!!

Oh puhleez. This thread isn't about BBC funding, it's about climate change science. We did the BBC funding crap to death repeatedly in other threads and you're not going to derail this thread too. Had enough now.

Quote from SamH :

Oh puhleez. This thread isn't about BBC funding, it's about climate change science. We did the BBC funding crap to death repeatedly in other threads and you're not going to derail this thread too. Had enough now.

lol I am not arguing for or against the BBC's funding just stating that everyone should care about what the BBC does or do not publish due to the nature of it's funding. And SamH your the one who brought it up!

Quote from Intrepid :

eerrr... what? So your saying is like saying just because you pay your taxes you shouldn't worry what your local MP has claimed on expenses? Just because you are forced by law to pay for the BBC you shouldn't care what it does? The fact it;s a state run broadcaster paid for by tax payers means you SHOULD care what it publishes otherwise you have what they have in N Korea!!!!!!!

Crucial difference: My local MP has some authority over my life, the BBC does not. If the government taxes me then decides to ban everything, I am powerless to stop them, if the BBC taxes me then decided to lie to me, I can always reach for the TV remote and hit the off button.

My local MP annoys me, while the BBC, when its not putting out its 'henious propaganda campaign', actually puts on some quite good shows every so often, which in my opinion makes the money worthwhile.

Quote from SamH :

Oh puhleez. This thread isn't about BBC funding, it's about climate change science. We did the BBC funding crap to death repeatedly in other threads and you're not going to derail this thread too. Had enough now.

It was inevitable, I don't know why you don't do something about him.

(You're going to say 'well why don't you report his posts then', but seeing as he manages to be such an arse without actually breaking any forum rules, theres little point seeing as nothing will happen anyway).

Quote from Shotglass :

also this gets blown way out of proportion

I'm not sure why you'd say that unless you haven't been looking into what's been going on. FOI obstruction is a very serious matter... what's more serious is when you start seeing that the very people who's job it is to uphold requests for data covered under FOI are actually siding with or being led by scientists to deny access! I don't know. You tell me what this is. I think these guys are playing us all for a bunch of chumps, the FOI people included.

I suggest if you're actually interested, and not just automatically willing to act as an apologist because you think these guys are beyond reproach or something, to start going through the emails, (compendium here of the most relevant material). Don't allow these guys to 'contextualise' things for you by them simply saying that this is all being taken out of context. The context is there. Read the emails. Or have a look at the code.

In the end this is about science. I don't know who said it but someone said 'when you mix politics and science you end up with all politics and no science'. That is what is happening here. It's not the going to make AGW theory go away all by itself, but these people have got some explaining to do. They are in a very tight spot right now (even if they're not admitting it) and I don't envy their position one bit.

Quote from 5haz :

Sorry, but on my planet I'm not forced at gunpoint to watch BBC news and look on the BBC website

Just because you pay your TV license dosen't mean you're paying attention to what BBC news has to say.

You on Mars? What has watching BBC news and looking at the BBC website got to do with paying your TV licence? You can do those things without paying for a TV licence, but you can't watch TV (BBC or not) without a licence.

Quote from 5haz :

Crucial difference: My local MP has some authority over my life, the BBC does not. If the government taxes me then decides to ban everything, I am powerless to stop them, if the BBC taxes me then decided to lie to me, I can always reach for the TV remote and hit the off button.

TV Licensing is a trading name of the BBC. The BBC have lied to us. You could switch off, but what if you wanted to watch a different (news) channel? Oh yes, you still have to pay the tax to the BBC! :doh:

Quote from 5haz :

the BBC ... actually puts on some quite good shows every so often, which in my opinion makes the money worthwhile.

So it should with the amount of money it has to play with!

Quote from SamH :

I don't think concern over trillions of taxpayers' money being spent on an illusion or a new religion is trivial or out of proportion.

1) just because one institute produces bad data doesnt suddenly debunk the entire science behind it
especially if we still have venus right there telling you everything you need to know about co2 rich atmospheres and why you wouldnt want to create one
2) speaking of trillions isnt enitrely blown out of proportion then? have you got any numbers to back the claim of it being about trillions up?

also for crying out loud a few guys fiddled with data presumably to help their phd thesis... clearly a true scandal because that never happened before on a daly basis ever

Quote from Electrik Kar :

I'm not sure why you'd say that unless you haven't been looking into what's been going on. FOI obstruction is a very serious matter... what's more serious is when you start seeing that the very people who's job it is to uphold requests for data covered under FOI are actually siding with or being led by scientists to deny access! I don't know. You tell me what this is. I think these guys are playing us all for a bunch of chumps, the FOI people included.

all well and true but you guys make this sound like some international conspiracy thats after the trillions (yeah right... anyone overly concerned about science grant money clearly has never worked in science) of money when in fact its about one perfectly normal sized (ie small) research group

Quote from Shotglass :

1)all well and true but you guys make this sound like some international conspiracy thats after the trillions (yeah right... anyone overly concerned about science grant money clearly has never worked in science) of money when in fact its about one perfectly normal sized (ie small) research group

Of course, money may certainly be a factor, but I don't really believe or know that significant amounts of money are actually flowing directly into these particular researchers pockets. I know the UK Met office just got a shiny new super computer to play with. I'm not really very interested in the personal/money side of things. But there is an ethical dimension attached to the climate debate which is about money and which simply demands that the science be shown to be correct. Spending billions on carbon sequestration for instance may be a feel good response right now, but if later proven to be a worthless adaption then that's not going to feel very good at all. That was billions of dollars that could have been spent on something else, wasted. The world has other immediate problems which requires money to solve. Surely, if we're going to be spending all that money- then that's good enough reason to lay out the science once and for all for proper scrutiny of all methods, data and results? That's how real science works btw- not the way Phil Jones thinks it should work. It's a fair enough request. Billions are going to be spent on AGW (and already has been, for good or for ill), yet the 'Team' - the ones highest up in the climate science chain of command, seem hardly concerned that their science may indeed be lacking somewhere.

So, if not an outright con-job, then surely a dangerous enough display of arrogance and institutionalised group-think that would allow the kinds of maneuvering designed to squash sensible sceptical dissent that is being revealed in the emails. I know I wouldn't trust my money to these guys.