Climategate, Paul Dennis and the questions not being asked

Over at the Guardian yesterday it was reported that Norfolk Police, aka The Swedey, had interviewed the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Head of Stable Isotope and Noble Gas Geochemistry Laboratories, Paul Dennis, in connection with the alleged leak of emails and data that spawned Climategate.  Cue much excitement.  The Guardian story, with its traditional lazy and misleading references to sceptics and denialists (Heartland Institute) being funded by Big Oil (now tell us how much they are spending promoting the global warming narrative) is a ripping yarn.  That’s about all.

Disgracefully, the hacks writing the piece, have conveniently/deliberately not made clear that Paul Dennis’ comment on the Bishop Hill blog, (home of The Hockey Stick Illusion) to which they refer but do not link, was a firm denial of any involvement whatsoever.  But that would have undermined the Guardian’s attempt at cor’ blimey tabloid journalism by tearing the heart out of the case they have tried to build against Dennis.  And that would never do.  James Delingpole at the Telegraph also followed the story making a post asking ‘Climategate leaker finally revealed?’  and adding that if it is Paul Dennis who was responsible for the leak (which as I say above he has denied categorically) then the man is hero and deserves the gratitude of us all. Without Climategate, Delingpole continues, the AGW scam would not have unravelled nearly so quickly as it has.

But from what I’ve read so far, the real questions that needs to be answered are not being asked.  The first one is, who at UEA has got it in for Paul Dennis and why?  This feels like a smear operation coming from inside the faculty.  I think the ‘why’ is dealt with as part of the second question, which concerns this important section of the Guardian story:

University sources say the head of department, Professor Jacquie Burgess, received a letter from Dennis at the height of the email uproar, calling for more open release of data. He appears to have disapproved of the way Jones resisted FoI requests.

Dennis’s own research, which dates fluctuating temperatures in ice cores stretching back thousands of years, does not support the more catastrophic current predictions of runaway global warming.

The second question is this… why is it that Phil Jones’ research is treated as gospel truth and flashed around the world by an eager media to perpetuate the global warming narrative; when Paul Dennis’ research (at what is considered a centre of excellence in this field) doesn’t see the light of day in the media, or for that matter a section in an IPCC report?

Perhaps the answer to it has something to do with the fact one of these two supposedly leading scientists is bringing in huge sums in research grants and keeping UEA firmly on the worldwide climate change alarm radar; while the other is finding that his own studious research contradicts or undermines the hype of his celebrity colleague and therefore commits the mortal sin of questioning the ‘consensus’.  At the heart of this, as at the heart of every climate change story, is money.  A vocal element of the scientific community has sold out to further vested interests and positioned itself as the sole voice of science.  It is a corruption, plain and simple.

Any journalist worth their salt would have been digging into these questions in moments to tell their readership the real story being played out behind UEA’s faculty doors.  But it seems David Leigh, Charles Arthur and Rob Evans have an agenda to work to and doing any kind of proper journalistic investigation, rather than waiting for spin to be fed to them, is beyond their limited capability or remit.  The public as ever remains in blissful ignorance of the bigger picture, content that because it’s not been reported by a journalist there is no story to be uncovered.  Rejoice in our free and open society.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

4 Responses to “Climategate, Paul Dennis and the questions not being asked”


  1. 1 Olle 05/02/2010 at 3:17 pm

    I really really hope its him!

    He dont have to worry abaout his future.Peaple will treat him as a fenuin hero!!

    Sweden

  2. 2 AJC 05/02/2010 at 8:44 pm

    “who at UEA has got it in for Paul Dennis and why?”

    I think you need to add “and the MET Office” to that question.

    Remember the letter in the Times which Paul Dennis was wise enough not to sign.

    It is always a good strategy to follow the money.

  3. 3 AM 06/02/2010 at 2:19 pm

    Very good point AJC, I did not factor in the Met Office. Like you say, follow the money. It usually results in the truth coming out.

  4. 4 Julie Ann 24/02/2010 at 10:14 am

    Paul Dennis is a professional of the highest caliber, he would never compromise his career, his reputation or his integrity to do this ‘leaking’.

    Knowing him, he would be direct and honest and found a way to right any wrongs being done legitimately.

    Is he a hero? No, he is a man doing what he is passionate about and following his dreams in science and research.

    More should be like Paul Dennis, the world would be a better place.


Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive