Bishop Hill The Tyndall invoices
Nov 21, 2011 BBC Climate: CRU As we know, the Harrabin/Smith-organised Real World seminars were sponsored by, among others, the Tyndall Centre at UEA.
I have always felt the funding arrangements were perhaps less important than the identities of the people who attended and the fact that the BBC Trust misrepresented them (perhaps unwittingly). However, the funding arrangements seem to have caught the public attention and this prompted me to look more closely at the invoices sent to the Tyndall Centre.
Guess who the invoices were addressed to? It is a familiar name for anyone who has read the Climategate emails.
Here are two of the three (Click for full size)
;)
;)
Professor Hulme, was of course, one of the scientists who was involved in what appeared to be a plot to undermine the peer review process.
Reader Comments (102)
Could commenters ensure that they are polite to visitors like Jo.
@BH... but then won't she accuse you of thought control?...
@ Jo Abess
Since my critical faculties have apparently been compromised by exposure to cold war instigated thought controlling agents (wow), could you please assist me to see clearly again?
The problem I have is that I cannot see any CO2 signal in the following graph:
Wood for trees, 1880-2010
Could you please identify it for me and then I can rest easy in the knowledge that the $80 billion spent on researching AGW has been money well spent. Thanks.
"Does the Brit-in-the-street view Hulme in the same way that the American-in-the-street views Gore? If not, why not?"
The Brit-in-the-street has never heard of Hulme. He's an obscure academic. The Brit-in-the-street has probably barely heard of Huhne. Interesting how both of these individuals are guilty of hoarding unnecessary consonants. If Hulme really is a marxist, you'd have thought he would have redistributed that 'l' to someone more needy.
Climate change denial has a long history, some of it connected to thought control experiments, conducted by the same people that brought you the Cold War and "safe" cigarettes.
..but but I thought we was controlled by them lizards from space..you know the queen and the royal famally .....
"The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for, but I'm not really sure if the result is that much better."
That is you isn't it Jo?
As for Mike Hulme, I have long thought he is actually a sceptic trying to walk the line between scepticism and lack of funding. I'm sure there are many like him in the climate science community, where, as you can see from the Climategate e-mails, open dissent is likely to bring a pack of activist hyenas down on you with the intent of ruining your scientific career.
@Joe Abbess
As a skeptic I question your post above, which amounts to nothing but a denial "we didn't do it Guv' - it was just a coincidence", in the face of stark circumstantial evidence.
@jo abbess
'Climate change denial has a long history, some of it connected to thought control experiments, conducted by the same people that brought you the Cold War and "safe" cigarettes'
Interesting stuff. Please provide references and links to original historical sources. And an explanation of what you mean by 'connected' in this context.
As anyone noticed any coverage of this story by the BBC itself? What about the Guardian (which I have not seen in the past few days)?
If the story has not been covered by those two respected organisations then presumably there is nothing to make a fuss about. I'm sure Jo Abbess would agree!
Does the Brit-in-the-street view Hulme in the same way that the American-in-the-street views Gore? If not, why not?
Nov 22, 2011 at 2:51 AM | Theo Goodwin
The Brit-in-the-street watches Strictly come dancing every week 7 times a week, coranation street many times a week, eastenders many times a week; They have neither the intellect nor the wish to listen to, hear or know of anything else. A-Global warming is still real to the average Brit but they are not liking it's impact on their pockets.
@Latimer, aren't you just an astroturfing knuckle dragging " 'untin, shootin' an fishin' " Minnesotan who receives a check in the post from the Big Oil denail machine? I doubt you question will be regarded as valid.
Must dash, I am off in my 4x4 to shoot some polar bears.
Nov 22, 2011 at 3:21 AM | jo abbess
'An Inconvenient Truth'
Submitted by Jo Abbess on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 10:31
First rule of firing a round at your opposition....... make sure that the weapon of choice is not pointing at your own foot.
Jo Abbess said:
"Climate change denial has a long history, some of it connected to thought control experiments, conducted by the same people that brought you the Cold War and "safe" cigarettes"
Did Jo just say that?
1. Nobody denies climate change. Straw man, easier to bash than the real thing.
2. It doesn't have a long history, treating 20 years as a 'long time' is part of AGW's problem.
3. I'm sure there are AGWers who are connected to all manner of unsavoury things, so what? Play the ball, not the player.
I'm afraid you are one the the fascistic dinosaurs who are on the way out.
@jiminy cricket
'@Latimer, aren't you just an astroturfing knuckle dragging " 'untin, shootin' an fishin' " Minnesotan who receives a check in the post from the Big Oil denail machine?'
Never hunted, never fished, did a bit of clay pigeon shooting 30 years ago. Live in Surrey, UK and the only cheque I receive in the post is from my part time job with Transport for London. Have visited Minnesota twice for work - 1990 and 1992. A great place, but best to go in the summer months :-(
Other useful info - I do not have a car (since 1997) and rely on my trusty bicycle and public transport to get around. My academic subject was Chemistry and my research topic was computer modelling the reaction kinetics of atmospheric gases.
Otherwise you are spot on in every respect.
Bish I think your on to a winner here, the interesting bit will be if certain institutions will stand by there man/woman like good old Penn State ($1m and counting).
Thank you, Jo, for reminding me of this wonderful piece:
Link
The Vogons would appreciate the poetry, too...
(Not too impolite, I hope, Bish.)
"Climate change denial has a long history, some of it connected to thought control experiments, conducted by the same people that brought you the Cold War and "safe" cigarettes."
My you do have the wrong end of the stick Jo. The only people I know of who are in denial about climate change are alarmists. Sceptics (aka holocaust deniers, cold warriors, safe cigaretters, etc. Nice contribution to the debate BTW) are perfectly aware that the climate is always changing, and don't have to fabricate science to prove anything, it's all there in the records, MWP, LIA, etc. Nor do they deny that humans are having an effect on the climate, although I'm not sure what reducing our carbon footprint will do as it's CO2 that's supposed to be the sinner. What we do question is the alarming nonsense put out by greenies to make us change to our lifestyles to ones approved by the Greenies. I want to ask you a question, if we did swallow the stories the enviers are frightening our children with and followed to the letter what you want us to do, could you tell us what the world would look like? You know, start with the basics, how food is produced, how we build houses, how we heat/cool the houses. What transports systems do you envisage? How will water supplies be maintained? How would we dispose of sewerage? Would their be restrictions on movement of people? Etc. Just paint us the big picture I'm bugged by wanting to know what the Greenies see as the end game.
Sorry BH off topic, but while we had the attention of an activist I thought I'd get my point over.
As for Harrabin, who after all is the topic of the post, he took £15k from the UEA, who in turn took it from us, so we're paying to keep our own views from being aired on the BBC. Funny old world.
@Jo Abbess
Without further evidence, I must take you at your word.
However, I do maintain that my comment was strictly factual: Roger Harrabin did alter his article, and this did happen after pressure from yourself. How else would you describe an email exchange in which you admit you got upset?
We have only Roger Harrabin's view that he totally disregarded your communication with him when deciding to alter his article. But then he hasn't always been entirely open about the factors influencing his reporting, has he?
Why the BBC cannot be trusted on 'Climate Change': the full story - James Dellingpole, Nov 2010.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100063937/why-the-bbc-cannot-be-trusted-on-climate-change-the-full-story/
@ Jo Abbess
Just had a look at your blog. Do you honestly think that the mild temperatures we have had in October and November are due to CO2 induced climate change?
Have you not heard of the Arctic Oscillation? Because while we in the British Isles were enjoying the mild conditions, Greenland was suffering record cold temperatures in October (e.g. -50C at the Summit Station), and recent weeks have not been much warmer.
How does one keep the issue of Global Warming in the news?
You bring all the stakeholders together and formulate and fund a media strategy!
It would appear that £15,000 buys a lot of air time at the BBC. When you consider production costs that represents a fantastic return on the initial outlay.
I do think that Mike Hulme's media career is about to hit the skids.
@ Jo Abess
The corruption by junkets scientists and their fellow travellers has been going on for years.
Pre Kyoto an extract from the Climategate emails one of the receipients Mike Hulme.
I paraphrase:
'You guys are doing great things for the cause....... Don't worry if they havePhDs just get those names....it doesn't matter if it's just 600 we'll tell the journalists it's 1500 to 2000 scientists, no one will check'
One thing you can be sure of is that the green gravy trainers would not recognise the truth if it punched them in the face.
You don't need to raise your soap box Jo sea levels ain't going to rise to catastrophic levels. We aren't all going to fry its just a lie made up by the Fiddlestick Team and their mates.
Professor Carter once described trying to tie down Harrabin and Black as trying
to stick jelly to a wall using drawing pins.
The sooner the BBC loses its monopoly and junkett lifestyle the sooner our lives will be better and less expensive.
If one posted a comment on Jo Abbess' blog telling her how to think, would it be published?
Merely an observation that Jo Abess's single post here has generated more commentary than all her own posts on her own blog for several weeks.
@justice4rinka
'If one posted a comment on Jo Abbess' blog telling her how to think, would it be published?'
Try it. See if you get the same result as one of my close asssociates.
Justice4Rinka
You could ask her to respond to the responses as a starting point.
Off topic but look: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/great-white-hunter/#comment-58060
FOIA?
Mathau: Make up your mind for yourself:
From Delingpole:
So she wrote to the BBC's science editor Roger Harrabin a series of finger wagging emails, one of which went:
"It would be better if you did not quote sceptics. Their voice is everywhere on every channel." [Really? She should try watching BBC sometime]. "They are deliberately instructing the emergence of the truth. I would ask: please reserve the main BBC Online channel for the emerging truth."
When Harrabin replied, not altogether unreasonably, that there were no factual inaccuracies in his story, Abbess made a threat:
"I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution, unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics."
Harrabin got the message."
I'm not Harrabin, but if I was, and an active environmentalist like he is I would regard the contents of that email as very threatening and sinister.
I do hope Dellers got the email exactly correct because I do really like the accusation that the sceptics , "" are deliberately instructing the emergence of the truth. "
Freudian slip anyone?
Niklas
Have you downloaded that file?
Given that her blog has attracted hardly a single comment, I rather suspect she would allow comments even from the most obviously 'thought-controlled' denier if only to allow her to boast about her growing traffic. Which sounds like a good reason not to comment, I'd say. Though it's equally the case that any responses from her would be wholly incoherent.
Niklas
Also at Climate Audit:-
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/16/anderson-cooper-on-penn-state-secrecy/#comment-310961
Won't be long before we find out if it is anything of import.
Jo Abbess is Zed....
At first I though it fanciful, now I'm not so sure. Response patterns:
1. Engage until proved clearly and embarrassingly wrong, then disappear.
2. Try to paint the Bish as some kind of Svengali of the sceptics, or ignorant, or malevolent. When he is a beacon of polite debate ( I have apologised for my behaviour on one occasion and truly hope I am not impolite, on this blog or anywhere else in my life.)
3. Little reliance on looking at the science, or citations. Seems unable to delve much into anything from Radiative Physics to issues with ice cores.
Killer question - does Jo hail from Truro?
This is what Jo Abbess thinks of free speech. -
http://www.joabbess.com/2011/11/21/everyones-entitled-to-their-opinion/
and
http://www.joabbess.com/2011/11/21/another-meeting-i-will-not-be-attending/
At the time of writing there are no comments from readers. Neither can I see any information on moderation guidelines. I can only assume from he comments she's made above that non-believers wouldn't be welcome.
Who cares about Jo... that email zip looks like dogs b*ll*cks... let us hope...
Jo Abbess writes:
"Climate change denial has a long history, some of it connected to thought control experiments, conducted by the same people that brought you the Cold War and "safe" cigarettes.
It's for your own psychological good to disbelieve some scare stories, and to accept without question cynical tall tales."
Words almost fail me. These are the most condescending, patronising and outrageous statements I have read by anyone in a long time, even those associated with "global warming" hysteria.
We are educated people and we can think for ourselves. Some of us are actually scientists, we even have science degrees and peer review other peoples science papers. We actually understand that a lot of what is published about climate science is bullshit because we are able to form our own opinions by reading the publications.
But accordng to Jo Abbess we are actually the witless victims of thought control experiments and disbelieve some scare stories for our own psychological good?
Over to Don Pablo - I think you have some incredible material in Jo Abbess. Like Fawlty Towers, possibly enough for an entire conference.
One gets a pretty good idea what is going on with Mike Hulme when you read what he writes. For Hulme, climate change is no longer a physical process but an intellectual idea to shape society for his pet political ends. In summary, his position is one of self-declared propagandizing, "the idea of climate change can be deployed...in creative ways...it can inspire new artistic creations in visual, written and dramatised media...We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise these stories in support of our projects."
So there you have it from the horse's mouth. Here are some lengthier quotes about promoting his 'ideas':
"Climate change is telling the story of an idea and how that idea is changing the way in which our societies think, feel, interpret and act. And therefore climate change is extending itself well beyond simply the description of change in physical properties in our world…"
"...we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come."
"There is something about this idea that makes it very powerful for lots of different interest groups to latch on to, whether for political reasons, for commercial interests, social interests in the case of NGOs, and a whole lot of new social movements looking for counter culture trends."
"Climate change has moved from being a predominantly physical phenomenon to being a social one…It is circulating anxiously in the worlds of domestic politics and international diplomacy, and with mobilising force in business, law, academia, development, welfare, religion, ethics, art and celebrity."
"The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape…Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs."
"…climate change has become an idea that now travels well beyond its origins in the natural sciences…climate change takes on new meanings and serves new purposes…climate change has become “the mother of all issues”, the key narrative within which all environmental politics – from global to local – is now framed…Rather than asking “how do we solve climate change?” we need to turn the question around and ask: “how does the idea of climate change alter the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations…?” "
"We need to reveal the creative psychological, spiritual and ethical work that climate change can do and is doing for us…we open up a way of resituating culture and the human spirit…As a resource of the imagination, the idea of climate change can be deployed around our geographical, social and virtual worlds in creative ways…it can inspire new artistic creations in visual, written and dramatised media….We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise these stories in support of our projects."
jockdownsouth writes re Jo Abbess I can only assume from he comments she's made above that non-believers wouldn't be welcome.
May I defend Ms Abbess, she has a very welcome and open policy with respect to comments on her site. i.e. Like our current host she publishes all comments even when verging on the offensive. She does however moderate the site and comments can take several days to appear sometimes probably due to time constraints.
Needless to say she does appear to fall into the category of "a true believer" so I almost always disagree with her views but she does encourage open debate even with those with whom she disagrees. As the Bishop has said as a visitor she should be treated with respect, insults do not constitute debate...
Stephen
“The Brit-in-the-street watches Strictly come dancing every week...”
Combine that with take-away pizzas and you’ve got the modern-day equivalent of bread and circuses.
Where’s Maximus Decimus Meridius when you need him..?
Any update on the latest release of emails - possibly Climategate II ?
I think I owe Jo Abbess an apology. After writing what I did above, I went and had a hot bath. During the bath I had a Eureka! moment, its all so obvious (there was no flooding bath water, fortunately).
Its quite clear Jo Abbess is correct, someone or some ogranisation must be using thought control experiments - but who? I presume Jo has signed the Official Secrets Act and cannot say more, I quite understand. But it set me thinking. Who is behind the thought control? My first thought was Voldemort, but it can't be because he's dead. I thought about the clue's Jo gave, and the obvious one is the smoking, plus the Cold War. My short list as to who's behind all this is:
1. SMERSH - obvious candidate really, considering all the smoking and the Cold War allusions
2. The Hood - also obvious really - right period, and also smokes. And he has strings
3. Von Stalhein - Perhaps a little old, but definitely a smoker and has evil connections from WW2.
So tell me Jo, which is it, was I even close? Please tell us, or at least give us a reference to support your claims
@thinking scientist
Epic Fail!
Even with all the clues already in the thread, you have failed to spot the identity of the Arch Manipulator :-(
It is, of course, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, author of the 3rd worst poetry in the Universe. He has clearly overtaken Abbess/Zed/Hengist's personality. And has even begun to show off by letting us see titbits of his real work. Hence the verse by 'Jo Abbess' quoted above by James P at 09:25 .
Refs: THHGTTG (Adams 1979) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon
Mike Hulme is very clear about his stance: "My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of God’s planet into research and action."
And he still claims not to be an activist?
The fact Jo Abbess does not publish comments submitted to her blog makes it obvious who is interested in thought control.
She pressued Harrabin, he buckled. Fact.
Jo? Jo?
Latimer
"the 3rd worst poetry in the Universe"
Now the fourth, surely? :-)
This is Hulme of "post normal scvience" who, in the Guardian told off Prof Singer for doing the old fashioned sort of science involving measuring things and doing experiments from which "quite obviously results supporting catastrophic) global warming wil not emerge". His sort of "science" consisting of asking the politicians what results they want and agreeing with them. Amazing that anybody, even one as ignorant as an "environmental professor", could be so stupid as to boast this in a national newspaper, but the Grauniad were equally stupid in publishing it..
Corruption permeates the AGW community at every level.
A second batch of climategate e-mails has now been released.
JoAbess, Romm, Kloor, Revkin, etc. etc. etc. have been either unknowingly or willingly taken for fools.
I wonder how they feel?
I feel very sorry for our Jo. When someone has been indoctrinated by the Tavistock Clinic techniques used by Common Purpose, it is de rigeur to claim the same about anyone who makes statements contradicting the programming.
Nov 21, 2011 at 10:01 PM | matthu ...
Is a frog's arse watertight?
It is of course very easy for Jo Abess to validate her claim re. influencing Harrabin to alter a BBC piece. All she has to do is release her emails and his replies.
Tavistock Clinic....How close to Truro is that!