I have been put in contact with a journalist from the warmer side of the UK press. He was interested in knowing about anything which might help discover the identity of the Climategate whistleblower, or as he referred to them ‘ the hacker’, and why ‘foia’ might have chosen ‘the Talkshop’ to place a link to the server where he had uploaded the FOIA2011.zip file rather than another ‘higher profile’ UK climate blog.
This is the substantive part of my response (the name of the owner of the ‘higher profile’ UK blog is removed).
I personally choose to lead a low energy use lifestyle, and was
initially inclined to accept the human emitted co2 explanation for the
global warming which took place in the C20th. Having studied the
consensus science supporting the hypothesis, I have come to the
conclusion that due diligence in eliminating other possible causes has
not been correctly undertaken.
Moreover, much of the science of co2 induced global warming, although
having a theoretical basis I have no problem accepting, is speculative
and indeterminate. Uncertainty has been downplayed where it should have
been emphasised. This has led to an unbalanced research funding
situation, where atmospheric science has soaked up grants and deprived
other important areas which go underfunded or worse, shut down.
This has led to a situation where we get an unbalanced view of climate
change, which does not recognise or discuss potentially viable
alternative hypotheses of as yet undetermined merit. Truth by
arbitrary exclusion is not scientific truth. It is monotheism.
At the political level, dogmatic adherence to market philosophies have
led to a situation when 287 billion euro of public money has been poured
down the sink propping up a failing carbon market, for zero result in
terms of reducing emissions. An estimate has been made that this amount
of money could have reduced European co2 emissions by more than 30% if
it had been used to modernise Europe’s fleet of power generating
stations directly. That’s an international scandal. Whose pockets is
that 287 billion euro in now??? If it’s the investment arms of the
banking institutions, they don’t seem to be in a hurry to top everyone’s
diminished pensions back up with it…
Science communicators have a duty to the public to diligently,
independently and honestly assess the outputs of science, rather than
simply republish press releases put out by institutional faculties
which have a vested interest in overselling the results of the research
undertaken by their academic employees. Public trust in the
institutions of science as providers of the body of knowledge drawn on
by the people we elect to decide how to spend our taxes is at stake.
Investigative journalists also have a duty to follow the trail of
interdependent public and private bodies and NGO’s which make use of
public money, especially when large sums of it are never seen again and
no accounting is forthcoming.
In my opinion that is the bigger story waiting out there, rather than
the discovery of the identity of the person who chose to pull the dirty
laundry out of the closet.
I’m concentrating on gathering evidence to support an alternative
explanation for the change in planetary surface temperatures, having
made some interesting discoveries of my own in the field of solar
I do put up ‘topical’ posts to keep the blog rolling along between reports on
the progress made by myself and others researching this area, but I’m
primarily science focused rather than ‘science/policy interface’ driven
in my choice of subject matter.
What difference that might have made to ‘foia’ I’m not sure. I can
speculate on a few possibilities if you are interested in considering
1) Foia just hopped from one site to another via the ‘blog roll’ links
(my site is linked on wattsupwiththat.com) and I was just picked at
2) Foia had picked up on the fact that I made an enquiry to the CRU
under the FOIA in 2009 from comments I made on climate audit and wanted
to ‘give me the scoop’ along with the other sites in recognition of my
own efforts to ‘free the data’. (Others have been more active in this
regard than I have, but maybe ‘foia’ hasn’t noticed).
3) Foia wanted to draw attention not only to the emails but also
to the fact that there is some ‘citizen science’ going on which offers
an alternative explanation for climate change rather than
nay-saying against the hypothesis offered by ‘consensus’ climatology.
The investigative journalist in question thanked me for my response, and for my wider views, which I’m grateful he took the time to read, although he chose not to respond to them