CAGW Science – or what if Velikovsky had won

The LRB recently dedicated some thoughts to the Science/Pseudoscience battle at the times of Immanuel Velikovsky. It’s especially interesting considering what has happened since, with catastrophism ruling for years in matters of climate science.

The review (by Steven Shapin) is available for free and in full at the LRB website.

It really reads like a slightly modified version of contemporary CAGW, starting from its enormous, mysterious popularity, inclusive of some cult-like admiration for The Man:

[…] By the late 1960s and 1970s, Velikovsky’s books must have been in most American college dorm rooms. […] Velikovskianism had gained so much traction in America that in 1974 there was a huge set-piece debate over his views at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His scientific opponents reckoned he was ‘quite out of his tree’, while some of his acolytes – and these included an assortment of scientists with appropriate credentials – were of the opinion that Velikovsky was ‘perhaps the greatest brain that our race has produced’.

There was also something akin to the invention of the Hockey Stick accompanied by the deletion of the Medieval Warming Period:

Although Worlds in Collision was a pastiche of comparative mythology and planetary astronomy, its major purpose was a radical reconstruction of history.

Mainstream science of course was not on Velikovsky’s side. Still, the behavior of the “community” won’t surprise anybody familiar with Climategate:

Elite scientists, notably at Harvard, reckoned that they might be able to control what Macmillan published when it was represented as science. A letter-writing campaign was organised to get Macmillan to withdraw from its agreement to publish the book; credible threats were made to boycott Macmillan textbooks; hostile reviews were arranged; questions were raised about whether the book had been peer-reviewed (it had); and, when Worlds in Collision was published anyway, further (successful) pressure was exerted to make Macmillan wash its hands of the thing and shift copyright to another publisher. The editor who had handled the book was let go, and a scientist who provided a blurb and planned a New York planetarium show based on Velikovsky’s theories – admittedly not the sharpest knife in the scientific drawer – was forced out of his museum position and never had a scientific job again.

Just like with Climategate, none of that made the “elite scientists” look any good:

From an uncharitable point of view, this looked like a conspiracy, a conspiracy contrived by dark forces bent on the suppression of free thought and different perspectives – and the Velikovskians took just that view. […] ‘Perhaps in the entire history of science,’ Velikovsky said, ‘there was not a case of a similar violent reaction on the part of the scientific world towards a published work.’ Newsweek wrote about the spectacle of scientific ‘Professors as Suppressors’ and the Saturday Evening Post made sport of the establishment reaction as ‘one of the signal events of this year’s “silly season”’. […]

Einstein, in whose Princeton house Velikovsky was a frequent visitor, was one of them. Interviewed just before his death by the Harvard historian of science I.B. Cohen, Einstein said that Worlds in Collision ‘really isn’t a bad book. The only trouble with it is, it is crazy.’ Yet he thought, as Cohen put it, that ‘bringing pressure to bear on a publisher to suppress a book was an evil thing to do.’

So why would the scientists be doing evil things?

It was American scientists who went ballistic over Velikovsky, not historians, and one purpose of Michael Gordin’s probing and intelligent The Pseudoscience Wars is to ask why they responded to Velikovsky as they did. […] Scientists in the years after World War Two were upset by Velikovsky because, Gordin argues, they felt insecure, uncertain of the new authority and influence they had apparently gained by building the bomb and winning the war. […]

First, there was concern that political support might translate into political control. […] And there were the McCarthyite witch-hunts, some of which targeted distinguished scientists. How much autonomy did American scientists actually have? How vulnerable was that autonomy to the dictates of politicians and to the delusions of popular culture? No one could be sure.[…]

We know that the climate answer to that has been a full cooperation between some politicians and some scientists, mutually supporting each other.

In another analogy with the present, the pseudoscience side went for self-fulfilling diagnoses of mental illness among opponents:

The greatest ingenuity of Velikovsky’s thought lay in its merging of naturalistic catastrophism and psychoanalytic theory. […] what was the violence of scientists’ opposition to Velikovsky’s ideas but a persistence of that same tendency to deny the catastrophic truth of what had happened to the human race, how very close it had come to obliteration? The fact that the scientists were leagued against him was precisely what Velikovsky’s theories predicted. It was further evidence that he was right. What the scientists needed, indeed what the culture as a whole needed, was therapy, a cure for collective amnesia.

Shapin turns the table around, and embarks in a good explanation on why so many people are attracted to catastrophism, an explanation that applies to Velikovsky fans like to Gore supporters:

Here are the reasons for the enormous appeal of Velikovsky’s theories to Cold War America, and, specifically, to the young, the angry and the anxious. Lecturing to campus audiences, Velikovsky told the students what they already knew: the world was not an orderly or a safe place; Armageddon had happened and could happen again:

  • The belief that we are living in an orderly universe, that nothing happened to this Earth and the other planets since the beginning, that nothing will happen till the end, is a wishful thinking that fills the textbooks … And so it is only wishful thinking that we are living in a safe, never perturbed, solar system and a safe, never perturbed past.

Alfred Kazin, writing in the New Yorker, understood that this was part of Velikovsky’s appeal, and tellingly linked the great pseudoscientist with the Doomsday warnings of orthodox atomic scientists: Velikovsky’s work ‘plays right into the small talk about universal destruction that is all around us now’, he said, ‘and it emphasises the growing tendency in this country to believe that the physicists’ irresponsible scare warnings must be sound.’

The review ends with a brief discussion on how to evaluate what is scientific knowledge (with Shapin strangely unfamiliar with Sagan’s famous quote “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“), plus a history of how the term “pseudoscience” came into being, once again reminding the reader of contemporary debates, in this case about blogging:

By 1964, some of Velikovsky’s scientific critics were drawing a […] lesson from the affair: the nuclear chemist Harold Urey was concerned ‘about the lack of control in scientific publication … Today anyone can publish anything,’ and it was impossible to tell the signal of truth from the noise of imposters. We must return to the past, Urey urged, when there was a proper intellectual class system and a proper system of quality control: ‘Science has always been aristocratic.’ In a society insisting on its democratic character, that was not a wildly popular position, though doubtless it had appealed to the scientists who tried to prevent the original publication of Velikovsky’s book and who sought to block his later efforts to publish in mainstream scientific journals.

Even the very end of the review is still relevant:

if it struts around the barnyard loudly protesting that it’s a duck, that it possesses the very essence of duckness, that it’s more authentically a duck than all those other orange-billed, web-footed, swimming fowl, then you’ve got a right to be suspicious: this duck may be a quack.

And that’s where mentions of 2,500 IPCC scientists and 97% consensus spring to mind.


BBC won’t deny if Jimmy Savile was at the 28Gate seminar

Yes, they won’t. From “Solve BBC bias”, a new low in the BBC’s incompetent lawyering:

Today the BBC replied to my FOI request with the predictable “Please note that the information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’” So despite the names of the seminar delegates now being freely discussed in the public domain, the BBC won’t confirm or deny that Jimmy Savile was present, let alone comment on who was present at the seminar which resulted in the BBC changing their editorial policy towards climate.

Whose presence shall we ask about then? Dr Mengele? Frankenstein? Elvis?

Global Warming? Nevermind the Warming, still nobody knows if it’s Global…

first reported by Fabio Spina on - in Italian

How Global is Global Warming? A very interesting slide from the “WMO Technical Conference on Meteorological and Environmental Instruments and Methods of Observation organized by CIMO WMO (Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observations of the World Meteorological Organization) (Brussels, Belgium, 16-18 October 2012).

The slide is from “Introduction on WMO Priorities” by Wenjian Zhang, Director, Observing and Information Systems Department, WMO. It was in the second presentation for the day, after the introduction by the CIMO President. One might logically assume that Zhang’s was one the most important presentations of the whole conference.

The slide shows Dr Zhang’s thoughts on the “key challenges” as “identified through widespread consultations with experts of key communities“.

Remember, this is from the people that actually observe the globe:

Challenges in Climate Observations
Challenges in Climate Observations

Every “key challenge” would be interesting to explore but of course the one about “Data” is particularly telling: “The current availability and quality of climate observations and impacts data are inadequate for large parts of the globe“.

For all the discussions and conferences and proclamations we have been having since the IPCC AR4 in 2007, one has to wonder how little we have moved on the basics.

Five years ago in fact, two thirds of the landmass was still forgotten from the WG2 chapters. And with 96% of Significant Changes coming from Europe alone, the open question was if “Global” Warming could be just European.

We have twice as many changes that are INCONSISTENT with warming in Europe, than CONSISTENT with warming in the rest of the world.

Thousands are waiting in Qatar right now for COP18 to open in a few hours. This news can’t be good. Unless, as suggested by Fabio, every area of the world is equal in importance for the global climate, but some are more equal than others…

A BBC Dream come true!

Curiosity about Curiosity to last for TEN MORE DAYS!!

This just in from Carolyn Porco:

Folks: The only thing I’ve been able to pry out of the Curiosity team is that an announcement will be made on Dec 4 in SF at the AGU meeting

The CIA is even worse than the BBC

Funny June 2012 FOI story showing a distracted CIA even less internet-capable than the BBC /sarc



For editor’s choice, we have a combination of two comments on our story about a freedom of information request to the CIA about its own rules for declassifying a document. The CIA came back with a letter saying that it searched for the regulations — which were clearly named in the request (32 C.F.R. 1908) and came back empty, saying “We processed your request in accordance with the FOIA…. Our processing included a search for records as described…. We did not locate any records responsive to your request. Although our searches were thorough and diligent, and it is highly unlikely that repeating those searches would change the result….” ReaderAnymouse_cowherd discovered that perhaps the CIA needs better search tools:

FWIW… I diligently typed “32 C.F.R. 1908” into Google and found a copy in .035 seconds.

I’m now officially better than the CIA and especially Michele Meeks.

And Oblate took it one step further:

Not sure if this is what he was looking for:
That’s right, the CIA has a link on their own website to download an electric copy of the document they said they don’t have an electronic copy of. In their FOIA section. Maybe it’s on a domestic server, and the FBI should have looked for it?

Of course you can always download CFR from the GPO. It seem ridiculous to submit an FOI for a whole section of the CFR when it’s freely available, but it’s even worse for the CIA to give this response. Is there a ‘secret’ subsection of 1908 that was specifically requested? The article doesn’t indicate anything other than the entire section being requested.


Halpern joins the 28Gate dance

(comment posted at Rabett Run)

Am always surprised by these calls for a “conspiracy narrative”. AFAIK there is no “conspiracy” involved in this case as the seminars were put together in the open by known organizations.

What has happened is that a Big Bully in the form of a Big Corporation has lost its $200+k fight against a pensioner (Newbery), and a felllow internet user (me).

It would be quite strange to find out you guys prefer to be on the Big Bully’s side after all the mentions of Big Oil and the likes. But strangeness is the name of the game.

28Gate: The Guardian was for FOI before it was against it

Not a peep on The Guardian about 28Gate. How is it possible, a clear-cut human-rights-cum-FOI case involving a lone pensioner and a big bullying Corporation, the Little Guy against the Establishment, Six Lawyers against Man-and-wife…and still, only silence from the esteemend beacon of progressive albeit evidently at least a tad hypocritical thought?

Nevermind. We can warm up your hearts by reading…The Guardian. Step forward Polly Toynbee (whom I shared guesthood with a few years ago at a lunch offered by the outgoing Italian Ambassador in London). It was 13 Apr 2007, and Ms Toynbee posted this comment to her own piece “Our press, the worst in the west, demoralises us all“: (my emphasis)

on Freedom of Information: there should have been a privacy law to go with it. As it is, the press often uses it as a lazy way to fish out bits of information by firing off a hundred questions, mostly on relatively frivolous stuff. It’s not exactly fearless investigation. Meanwhile, they rarely bother with what is really difficult – penetrating the opaque world of business. Imagine if business had to be as transparent, if shareholders had the same FOI rights to ask anything. That really would shake things up. Why so many petty questions about government costs, and never a word about the ‘executive’ culture of business travel charged up to our pensions?

Way to go Polly. Imagine if the BBC had to be as transparent, if licence fee payers had the same FOI rights to ask anything. That really would shake things up.

In fact, things are being shaken up by FOI at the BBC as we speak

Fast forward last May and FOI campaigner and journalist” Heather Brooke: (my emphasis throughout)

the FOI Act doesn’t work in a timely way…The reason people have to make FOI requests is because the data isn’t there…The culture is that the people in power know best for everyone else. FOI levels the playing field…We need legislation – it is the only way to get the right to know taken seriously by government and public service, with sanctions if it’s not obeyed….the public need to know about the lobbying that went on behind the scenes. FOI gives the people who control the information the power to decide whether they’re going to release it or not. Outside people need to be able to get into the heart of power.

Heather is spot-on. It all applies perfectly to the BBC. And there is more by her:

where you have an exemption, it quickly becomes abused. National security is the ultimate exemption, and sins and incompetencies can be hidden. The reason there is a lot of distrust about the motivation of politicians to want this safe space comes from the Iraq war minutes [the cabinet meeting where the legal status of the war was discussed].That was onGe of the first FOI requests I made, and a lot of journalists made it, and we didn’t get it. Eventually the commissioner ruled it had to be released, but it was a ministerial veto that overturned it.

…By making it clear the public can’t find out how a decision is made, you risk a politician making a poor decision….

Yes Heather! By making it clear the public can’t find how a decision is made, you risk the BBC making a poor decision. Plus you know what? The revolution is being digitised! (my emphasis again)

Book Description “The Revolution will be Digitised: Dispatches from the Information War”
Publication Date: 18 Aug 2011
There is more information in the world than ever before – but who is in control?

At the centre is the Establishment: governments, corporations andpowerful individuals who have more knowledge about us, and more power, than at any other time in history. Circling them is a new generation of hackers, pro-democracy campaigners and internet activists who no longer accept that the Establishment should run the show.

In her gripping, revelatory new book, award-winning journalist and campaigner Heather Brooke takes us inside the Information War, from the hackerspaces of Boston and Berlin to the UK’s journalism hub and Iceland’s free speech revolution; from the headquarters of Google and Facebook to Collateral Murder, Cablegate and the murky world of Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

Along the way Brooke explores the most urgent questions of the digital age: where is the balance between freedom and security? In an online world, does privacy still exist? And will the internet empower individuals, or usher in a new age of censorship, surveillance and oppression?

For one day last week, I have been the pro-democracy campaigner and internet activist (a hacker, not really).

I, the revolutionary! Thank you Heather, thank you Polly, thank you Guardian!

(Shame on you, Guardian!)

TwentyEightGate – the story so far

(translated from Italian following requests)

Brief summary on TwentyEightGate, my last…ahem…second journalistic “scoop” that has now traveled around the world as a nice, clean, legal cybertripping of the FOI bully called BBC.

It is a “scoop” important enough to bring almost 21 thousand visitors on this blog in a single day (November 13).

In a nutshell: the BBC has fought for five years against a pensioner (blogger Tony Newbery at Harmless Sky) to prevent him from getting a list of names of participants in a seminar on climate change, held on January 26, 2006. I found the list (in a perfectly legal way, as it was already on the internet) and facilitated its reading.

Maurizio 1 – BBC 0. In other words, Ordinary People 1 – FOI Bullies 0.

The fact that the list is important is not just an opinion. It has been made important by the BBC itself, and specifically by its decision to spend around £140,000 pounds (€175,000 or $225,000) in FOUR DAYS for SIX yes SIX lawyers to defend a “secret” that wasn’t, while on the other side Newbery was without a lawyer, accompanied by his wife on a trip of a few hundred miles to London.

In the face of such crass bullying, once the Court ruled in favor of the BBC (as if the verdict could have gone the other way!), I literally saw red enough to warrant spending some time looking for the list on the internet. My thought was, given the number of participants (sixty) someone could as well have “outed” the list for whatever reason.

In fact, I found a page of one of the seminar organizers (the IBT) where with a mixture of pride and publicity seeking somebody had decided to put online a list of all the participants in the workshops with the BBC from 2004 to 2007.

The PDF file was no longer on that site, but in plain view on the “Wayback Machine”, a site which keeps copies of many pages on the internet.

Here the original link to my blog where I showed the list to the world.

In English this has been mentioned in many places on the internet, in Canada, USA, Australia, United Kingdom (for example, Bishop Hill has a few links). There are also articles in France and in the Netherlands. Sooner or later I’ll make a list. I also participated as a guest to talk about “28Gate” in the recent online WUWT-TV marathon, organized by Anthony Watts of WUWT (the video will be placed here as soon as available).

The name “28Gate” was given by one of the commentators on WUWT, in consonance with the legendary Watergate and the number of “outsiders” at the seminar BBC, who were just twenty-eight (or so did the BBC say … now one can see thirty of them. Who knows.)

In the print media there is a James Delingpole article on the Spectator, entitled as usual very explicitly as “Here’s a BBC scandal that should really make you disgusted” (it should be kept in mind that, of late, the BBC moves from one scandal to another – notably, the four top executives who have recently resigned or stepped aside were all at the seminar of 2006). Also the Sunday Telegraph spoke about 28Gate in the Christopher Booker column for Nov 18.

This scandal has been mentioned also in Italian by Piero Vietti of Il Foglio (online and in print) and Guido Guidi of Climatemonitor (online). Plus in another blog where the obsession with me has no limits … but when I’m the topic of discussion, there is evidently no need to waste even a link.

Some clarifications:

  • I haven’t been interested in that list, first requested five years ago. I had not even bought the e-book from Bishop Hill.
  • The idea that the BBC really changed its editorial policy January 26, 2006, seems a hoax through-and-through, however a hoax told the BBC itself.
  • It is the BBC and not me which gave importance to that list. It is not my fault if the BBC has decided to throw away £40,000 per day for four days two weeks ago and against a pensioner.
  • The “scoop” is in the fact that I found posted online (by another of the organizers) what the BBC kept claiming it was a secret. Maybe they could have paid one fewer lawyer and get another person to search for the document.

We now know that:

  • The BBC may as well have lied when it said the list was a secret (we’re talking about a list of names, not what they actually said at the meeting)
  • The BBC may as well have lied when it said he was a high-level meeting
  • The BBC may as well have lied when it said that the meeting had changed everything about its climate reporting
  • Neither the BBC nor any of its overpaid lawyers are able to use the internet (as I said I found the list on Monday evening in half an hour).

There could be more serious things to talk about (the presence of a representative from the U.S. Embassy in the seminar would be a violation of the founding principles of the BBC) – but I do not have time for that, at least for the moment.

I also want to say the following:

  • I do not care if the BBC gets its editorial policies from magicians and fairies. I care that the BBC should be explicit, clear, clear and transparent on its editorial policies, and say so when they are inspired by magicians and fairies. It’s a matter of Trust, in every sense of the word.
  • I do not know how many have noticed, but there was no one at that meeting from the Met Office….
  • The BBC has all the rights in the world to use lawyers in court. But to me what matters is that the BBC, after having taken £145/year from me and millions like me, then should not spend that going around bullying FOI requestors – I am still waiting to find one-person-one who will justify the need to hire six lawyers against a pensioner. Not one lawyer (as would have been reasonable), two (if one can afford them), not three (already too many) – but six!

Read this about TwentyEightGate (28Gate)

Read this about TwentyEightGate (28Gate):

  • All my blog posts about 28Gate

Child Abuse or FOI bullying – it’s one and the same problem at the BBC

On the back of today’s Christopher Booker column in the Sunday Telegrapha comment left by “michel” at Bishop Hill deserves as much attention as possible: because it’s not by chance that the BBC is mired into scandals.

What people are saying is that there is institutional dysfunctionality at the BBC. You will recall the remarks from the Lawrence inquiry, that there was ‘institutional racism’ at the Met. The implication was not that it was racist at a policy level. But the implication was that it was more than a few individual aberrations. They’re definitely not saying that the BBC ‘consciously allowed this to happen’ as a policy level.

They are saying that there’s a culture in which standards of behaviour are not enforced and may not exist at all. The claim is that Saville and his collaborators were widely known about by individuals at a personal level but that they turned a blind eye, and that the institution at a policy level avoided confronting the issue. They are saying that people behaved like this because they believed that this was just the norm at the BBC.

They did not believe child abuse was the norm. They believed that turning a blind eye was the norm.

People here are then going on to say something else. They are saying that there are key elements to the culture of turning a blind eye which can be seen in other unrelated episodes. They take the issue of the seminar and the 28 and the FOI request, and see some of the key elements to the toleration of Saville in this episode too. The elements are secretiveness, lack of any real management, indulgence of groups who are within the fold, closing ranks against any critics. The lack of any standards and any culture of enforcement of those standards. They are saying a group, as long at it has certain key buttons pressed, is going to be able to avoid scrutiny and behave by most standards very bady in a variety of ways, some worse than others, because of the mixture of the turn a blind eye culture, and what they see as kneejerk reactions of approval to groups within the BBC who are ideololgically correct.

So, for instance, Saville touched the charity and the viewing figures buttons. The journalistic bias that the seminar introduced, they are saying, was a total breach of integrity and impartiality, but the turn a blind eye culture allowed it (and defended it in the FOI case) because the hot button of environmentalism and endorsement of CAGW meant that it was generally approved of as a direction. This allowed the implications of the policy for journalistic integrity to avoid notice or intervention.

They are not, obviously, saying that the episodes were morally comparable, or that the FOI episode was as bad as the Saville one. Obviously it was not, it lasted a shorter period of time, and it was a breach of journalistic integrity, not the infliction of damage on children.

When we think about institutions we need to look at them in the round, and if we are going to accuse a culture, we need to point to more than one manifestation of it. One product safety failure is an aberration which we deal with by a recall. A series, even if some lead to less human tragedy than others, is evidence of a pattern and a cultural issue.

What people are saying is basically that the BBC has a problem. It seems unable to enforce standards of behaviour on its staff and contributors. It may not even have any to enforce. They are tying this to guaranteed tax payer funding. Their argument is, this and lack of public accountability either through market mechanisms or through Ofcom has produced a culture in which abuses of various sorts have flourished. They are not saying that all the abuses that have flourished are comparable in gravity or extent. They are saying that they flourished in the same fertile soil.

Personally I cannot see the BBC News department survive without severing most if not all ties to the Corporation.

Its a serious argument. It tends logically to a change of structure. For instance, making subscription voluntary. Regulation by Ofcom. Or sharing the license fee income if its kept with other broadcasters. Its not an argument [snip] that some of the abuses were worse, a lot worse, than others.

TwentyEightGate – il mio scoop giornalistico che ha fatto il giro del mondo

Breve excursus sul TwentyEightGate, il mio ultimo..ahem..secondo voglio dire “scoop” che ha fatto il giro del mondo essendo un bello (e legale!) sgambetto al bulletto chiamato BBC.

È uno “scoop” importante abbastanza da aver portato quasi 21mila visitatori su questo blog in un giorno solo (13 Novembre).

In poche parole: la BBC ha combattuto per cinque anni contro un pensionato (il blogger Tony Newbery ad Harmless Sky) per impedirgli di ottenere una lista di nomi di partecipanti a un seminario sul cambiamento climatico, tenuto il 26 gennaio 2006. Io ho trovato quella lista (in maniera perfettamente legale, già su internet) e ne ho facilitato la lettura.

Maurizio 1 – BBC 0. In altre parole, Gente Comune 1 – Bulletti 0.

Che quella lista fosse importante non lo dico io, lo dicono le 140mila sterline (175mila euro) spese in QUATTRO GIORNI dalla BBC stessa per avere SEI, dico SEI avvocati in tribunale a difenderne il segreto, mentre Newbery era presente senza avvocato, e con la moglie, avendosi dovuto sobbarcare un viaggio da fuori Londra.

Di fronte a tale bullismo di bassa caratura, una volta che il Tribunale ha dato ragione alla BBC (e te pareva!), come si dice “non c’ho visto più” e mi sono messo di buona lena a cercare la lista su internet. Ho pensato che visto il numero di partecipanti (una sessantina) a qualcuno potesse essere “sfuggita”.

Infatti ho trovato una pagina di uno degli organizzatori (lo IBT) dove per farsi belli come si suol dire hanno un bel giorno deciso di mettere online la lista di tutti i partecipanti ai seminari con la BBC dal 2004 al 2007.

Il file PDF non era più su quel sito, ma bene in vista sulla “Wayback Machine”, un sito dove vengono conservate copie di tante pagine su internet.

Qui il link originale al mio blog in inglese dove mostro la lista al mondo.

In inglese ne hanno parlato in molti su internet, in Canada, USA, Australia, Regno Unito (per esempio Bishop Hill ha un po’ di link). Ci sono anche articoli in Francia e in Olanda. Prima o poi ne farò una lista. Ho anche partecipato come ospite per parlare proprio di “28Gate” alla recente maratona TV online di 24 ore sul clima, organizzata da Anthony Watts su WUWT (il video sarà messo qui appena disponibile).

Il nome “28Gate” è stato dato da uno dei commentatori su WUWT, in assonanza con il mitico Watergate e il numero di “esterni” presenti al seminario BBC, che erano appunto ventotto (o almeno così diceva la BBC…ora se ne vedono trenta. Boh.)

Sulla carta stampata è uscito un articolo di James Delingpole sullo Spectator, dal titolo al solito molto esplicito “Ecco lo scandalo alla BBC che dovrebbe davvero farvi sentire disgusto” (ricordiamo infatti che la BBC in questo periodo va da uno scandalo all’altro – fra l’altro i quattro alti dirigenti appena dimessisi erano tutti al seminario del 2006).

In Italiano ne hanno parlato Piero Vietti de Il Foglio (online e su carta) e Guido Guidi di climatemonitor (online). Più un altro blog dove l’ossessione nei miei confronti non ha limiti…ma quando io sono l’argomento di discussione, non c’è evidentemente da sprecare neanche un link.

Qualche precisazione:

  • io di quella lista, la cui prima richiesta è di cinque anni fa, non mi interessavo. Non avevo neanche comprato l’e-book da Bishop Hill.
  • Che la BBC abbia davvero cambiato linea editoriale il 26 gennaio 2006, mi sembra una bufala fatta e finita, una bufala raccontata però dalla BBC stessa.
  • È la BBC e non io ad aver dato importanza a quella lista. Non è colpa mia se la BBC ha deciso di buttare via 40mila sterline al giorno per quattro giorni due settimane fa e per giunta contro un pensionato.
  • Lo “scoop” è nel fatto di aver trovato pubblicato online (da un altro degli organizzatori) quello che alla BBC hanno spergiurato essere un segreto. Magari potevano pagare un avvocato in meno e far cercare il documento a una persona in più.

Adesso sappiamo che:

  1. la BBC ha probabilmente mentito quando ha detto che era un segreto (stiamo parlando di una lista di nomi, non di cosa abbiano detto al meeting);
  2. la BBC ha probabilmente mentito quando ha detto che era un meeting di alto livello;
  3. la BBC ha probabilmente mentito quando ha detto che quel meeting aveva cambiato tutto;
  4. nessuno alla BBC né alcuno dei suoi strapagati avvocati sono capaci di usare internet (come detto ho trovato la lista lunedì sera in una mezz’oretta).

Ci sono cose ancora più gravi (la presenza di qualcuno dall’Ambasciata USA al seminario sarebbe una violazione dei principi fondativi della BBC) – ma non mi interessano almeno per il momento.

Tengo anche a dire il seguente:

  • A me non importa se la BBC si ispira editorialmente a maghi e fatine. A me importa che la BBC sia esplicita, chiara, limpida e trasparente, e dica a tutti quando si fa ispirare da maghi e fatine. È una questione di Trust, in tutti i sensi della parola.
  • Non so se qualcuno ha notato, ma non c’era in quel meeting nessuno del Met Office…come se in Italia la RAI facesse un meeting sul clima senza invitare il CMCC. Se vi va bene così…
  • Padronissima la BBC di usare avvocati in tribunale. A me però importa che la BBC, dopo avermi preso 145 sterline all’anno, non le dedichi poi al bullismo, perché di questo si tratta – continuo ad aspettare di trovare una-persona-una che giustifichi la necessità di ingaggiare sei avvocati contro un pensionato. Non uno (ragionevole), due (se se li possono permettere), non tre (già troppi) – addirittura sei!

TwentyEightGate on WUWT TV

My second participation to live TV has just ended (WUWT TV here). I have said pretty much everything I wanted to say. Good.

Now I need to find a way to sleep >=8-O

There’s a bit more to “student” Eleni Andreadis

Participation of “student” Eleni Andreadis has raised a few questions among the many for 28Gate. Her LinkedIn page is a bit short on CV:


  • Member of the Board SANI SA January 2008 – Present (4 years 11 months)
  • Founder/Director Planet Agents January 2008 – Present (4 years 11 months)


  • Harvard University Masters in Public Policy, Environmental Policy, Government Strategy, Media 2004 – 2006
  • University of Bath BSc in Management, Business 1996 – 2000

However the Wayback Machine (what else?) can help fill the gaps. At some point, Eleni had her TV presence managed by Take 3 Management. The site included a CV (broken link)(wayback machine link for Sep 5, 2008 snapshot):

Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government
Masters in Environmental Policy and Media.
University of Bath, School of Management, with year study at University of Virginia.
First Class Honours BSc (Hons) in Business Administration 2000.
2007 – ongoing GREEN TV, London Presenter and Green Talk Host. Work at the UNEP/Greenpeace sponsored channel & iTunes Top Science/Tech podcast, includes green event coverage as well as interview with prominent environmental figures.
2007 –
SMARTPLANET, London, UK Presenter of online environmental video podcasts for CNET’s new green lifestyle website (launching October 2007). CNET Networks is an American company with millions of viewers each month in the US, Europe and Asia.
2007 – ongoing NEW CONSUMER TV,
Presenter of online and TV green and ethical lifestyle weekly video pod casts from across the UK. Pieces include organic farm visits, fair-trade coffee tasting, eco-tourism destination and green technology reviews.
2007 THE REAL NEWS, Canada Presenter/producer of pilot programme Global Warning, a longer-form news segment on the independent news world network focusing on environmental issues, launching late Autumn 2007 and London environment correspondent.
2006 – 07 CURRENT TV, New York Freelance Presenter/Producer – wide range of stories in US
2006 Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Video Documentary Director and interviewer for the Communications Dept. Directed 5 documentary shorts over 5 months profiling the non-profit work of alumni. Interviewed in India, Vietnam, Serbia & US for Harvard’s website & DVD.
2006 THE TODAY PROGRAMME Freelance US Producer for the programme – BBC Radio 4.
2005 – 2006 CAMBRIDGE MEDIA & ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM(supported by BBC News) US US/UK Researcher & Writer. Led & conducted over 30 interview in the area of climate change media coverage.
2005 THE TODAY PROGRAMME,BBC Radio 4 Journalist intern in London. Researched & booked guests, conducted interviews & broadcasted packages- included coverage of the London bombings, essays with historian Eric Hobsbawm & Joseph Rotblat on Nuclear proliferation.
July – Oct
PARTICIPANT PRODUCTIONS/CENTURY FILMS, UK Environmental Consultant for feature-length climate change documentary for international cinematic release.
2003 – 04 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, UK Researcher & briefings Writer, Policy and Campaign Dept. Directed research with the Policy & Campaign Dept to quantify the regional impacts of climate change in twelve UK regions. Authored public briefings for each region for the 200 local groups & volunteers.
2001 – 03 ACCENTURE Senior Analyst, Government Strategy (UK, Ireland & Canada.
2000 – 2001 Assistant Science officer
& Honduras – trained volunteers
PADI Scuba Diving Master at Coral Cay Conservation in in Scuba diving & underwater species recognition.


It seems Ms Andreadis was more qualified to attend than at first hypothesised. The trouble of having BBC News sponsor a Masters student to work at CMEP to lobby the BBC, it’ll be for another day to understand.

No prize to guess the name of the “feature-length climate change documentary for international cinematic release” worked on in 2007. Who knows what happened at the end of that year though, that made Eleni change her life’s focus.

Green TV doesn’t show anything when her family name is used.

BBC: The most curious piece of evidence of institutional AGW bias

From “Yes, John: Steve Jones Is Wrong And The BBC Totally Unbalanced On Climate Change“, 1 year 3 days ago on this site – see what happens when everybody including the Head of Comedy is pushed to insert climate change / global warming in their BBC output:

[…] I can now present […] the most curious piece of evidence yet of BBC’s institutional bias in favor of AGW proponents and away from skepticism.

And yes, this evidence makes a mockery of Steve Jones’ allegations too. Introducing Spiked Online and Patrick West’s experience with various language courses in Italian, and in particular the words dedicated to the BBC (my emphasis):

I’m currently on the second volume of the BBC’s Active Talk Italian Course. The two books and CD companions contain some bizarre diversions, Talk Italian 2 (2007) especially so. This volume is rich fare for those convinced that the BBC is governed by a liberal-left cabal, aging hippies and proselytising environmentalists.

Much of Talk Italian 2 is concerned with asking for directions in the rustic campagna of Tuscany and Umbria, where one would expect BBC bigwigs and well-to-do liberal-left champions of the corporation to take their vacations. A chapter is devoted to renting and buying luxury property (In zona panoramica e comoda… quattro camere, due bagni, cantine di 50mq, garage e giardino… Prezzo: €840,000). This no doubt appeals to Italy-loving Islingtonians who think holidaying in Spain is for the ghastly hoi polloi and that the south of France is a repository for the vulgar bourgeoisie.

The section in Talk Italian 2 on telling the time casually envisages a scenario of ‘Jorge’ and ‘Alessandro’ co-ordinating a meeting at a climate-change conference: Il cambiamento climatico: rischio per la biodiversità marina. The reader is invited to insert the Italian for ‘we start’ in the following ominous sentence ‘_____ alle dieci e un quarto con il discorso del Ministro sul cambiamento climatico’ (answer:Cominciamo) (1). Whatever happened to time-keeping dialogues simply based on railway enquiries?

On visiting the doctor, a further chapter asks you how to recognise notices for ‘alternative solutions’: medicina olistica, agopuntura, omeopatia, meditazione. Would you like to mettere in armonia le dimensioni fisiche, emotive, spirituali e sociali della persona? When ‘Simona’ complains of having l’influenza and asks for some painkillers, you, her hypothetical friend, are inveigled to suggest a superior alternative: Io ho un prodotto omeopatico molto efficace (2). Simona ought to reply Che stronzata! (3)

Some translation to help:

(1) “We start at quarter past ten with a speech by the Secretary of State for Climate Change”

(2) “I’ve got a very effective homeopathic medicine”

(3) “What a load of bull!”


Cretins United For Climate Change

I have seen replies from several warmists today claiming that 28Gate, the revelation that the list of the Jan 26 2006 participants to a BBC/CMEP seminar has been on the ‘net all along. is a non-story. Well, let’s agree with them, shall we.

The BBC has spent untold amounts of money to prevent the non-story from happening. Evidently, those warmists believe that there is no story in discovering the BBC wasting a lot of money on lawyers for no reason at all.

The BBC has fielded six lawyers against a lawyer-less pensioner to defend its right not to do anything about a non-story. Evidently, those warmists believe that there is no story when a Big Corporation tries the squash the Little Guy.

The BBC Trust has disseminated untruths: either the Jan 26 2006 meeting was not as important as claimed by the Trust (so, the Trust’s story was not true) or the participants were not as scientifically expert as claimed by the Trust (so, the Trust’s story was not true). Is this a non-story? If it is, those warmists are saying it is so common for the BBC Trust to mislead the public, there is no news about it.

There we have it then: if 28Gate is a non-story, the BBC Trust is revealed as usually untrue, the BBC as a public-money-wasting machine, and the democratic rights of the individual as betrayed without anybody worrying about them. What a nice description of the world the average CAGWer inhabits.

ps not a single pingback from warmist blogs in the day this site got 20,000 visitors. Plenty of shock to recover from, hence the lack of arguments.

Why the List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Jan 2006 Seminar is important

updated Nov 13 23:29: those four were not actually “low level”

updated Nov 18 10:20: added direct link to Bruce’s comment

Yesterday night this site has seen the second large journalistic scoop of my life (so far): “Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006” (here’s the first one: “World Exclusive: CIA 1974 Document Reveals Emptiness of AGW Scares, Closes Debate On Global Cooling Consensus (And More…)“).

Here’s a summary of why such a list if very important, thanks to Bruce Hoult in a Bishop Hill comment I wish I knew how to link to:

  • This is incredible. In Jan 2006 the BBC held a meeting of “the best scientific experts” to decide BBC policy on climate change reporting (t)
  • The BBC has been in court blocking FOI attempts to get the list of the 28 attendees, but it’s just been discovered on the wayback machine (t)
  • It turns out that only 3 were current scientists (all alarmists). The rest were activists or journalists (t)
  • The BBC sent four low level representatives: Peter Rippon, Steve Mitchell, Helen Boaden, George Enwistle. All have since risen to power. (t)
  • Amazingly, those are also the exact four who have thus far resigned this week over the false paedophilia accusations against Lord McAlpine. (t)

For more background read Andrew Montford’s “Conspiracy of Green” and Andrew Orlowski’s recent article “FOlA judges: Secret 28 who made the BBC Green will not be named“.

Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006

This list has been obtained legally.

This is for Tony, Andrew, Benny, Barry and for all of us Harmless Davids.

January 26th 2006,

BBC Television Centre, London
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director,
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures

BBC Television Centre, London (cont)
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events

At the BBC it is mostly a matter of (lost) trust

(comment originally left at the LSE “Polis” blog)

[Charlie Beckett] speaks of a “systematic problem of leadership and accountability at the BBC“. I don’t understand how such a problem wouldn’t translate in mistrust by the public?

I have personally experienced the BBC’s willingness to distort its news reporting. Just [on Friday], we’ve learnt of a pensioner having to argue for a very simple FOI request against _six_ lawyers fielded by the BBC exactly to avoid “accountability”.

I have learned to trust very little of the statements expressed by BBC journos. They’re invariably wrong, late and/or half-blind to the news. Plus on an insane competition with Sky News regarding which outlet can broadcast the more scare.

To this foreigner this story reminds of the demise of the Empire, to which everybody kept swearing allegiance even as it could no longer possibly exist. But don’t lose hope, the Corporation will circle the wagons and continue to fail pretending nobody’s noticing.

A More Appropriate Job For Shashank Tripathi

Thanks to Hurricane Sandy and a lot of malfunctioning neurons, Shashank Tripathi has ended up in the dubious category of stupidest/most evil Twitter user ever for idiocies like these:

  • BREAKING: Confirmed flooding on NYSE. The trading floor is flooded under more than 3 feet of water.
  • BREAKING MT @jhlipton: Con Ed shut down lower Manhattan system due to high tides
  • BREAKING: Con Edison has begun shutting down ALL power in Manhattan

This is a real pity for two reasons. First of all it makes me wish quartering were back. Secondly, Mr Tripathi could have simply chosen a more appropriate career, for example writing the following for eager audiences at Grist,, SkepticalScience and/or The Guardian:

  • BREAKING: Confirmed threat of future flooding on NYSE. The trading floor might be flooded under more than 3 feet of water by the end of the century
  • BREAKING MT @jhlipton: Con Ed could shut down lower Manhattan system due to high tides in 2080
  • BREAKING: Con Edison will possibly begin shutting down ALL power in Manhattan in the 2100′s

See? Bill McKibben couldn’t have said it better…

The Unknown Skeptic – My Essay at WUWT

Anthony Watts of WUWT has been kind enough to host “The Unknown Skeptic – Journalism, awaiting to be freed“, a rather long essay of mine of the work done by James Painter and others in order to identify what makes climate change skeptical voices audible and readable more or less often in six countries.

The original and twice-as-long essay, divided in seven parts, was published on this site at the beginning of February 2012 (starting point here).

Finally and BTW, let me top this shameless self-promotion and elevate this comment left at WUWT:

John Whitman says:

Maurizio Morabito (aka omnologos ),

Your piece is a feast of ideas that I think will fertilize others to write an avalanche of additional posts on the virtues of hard core scientific skepticism toward the IPCC ‘consensus’ / ‘settled’ alarming climate science.

I really liked your, “Rather differently than Isaac Newton, Dr Painter might have found himself not on the shoulder of giants, but under the boots of minions.”

I really like your sense of style.

Thank you.


Omnologos – Twitter Updates for 2012-10-11

  • Food price hike? @BBCr4today simply cannot resist "upcoming disaster" news porn. #
  • Victims didn't have to wait for abusing priests to die. Is the @BBC worse than the Catholic Church? #JimmySavile #
  • Comune #ReggioCalabria sciolto per prevenire infiltrazioni mafiose future. Regione #Lombardia già infiltrata, dunque niente scioglimento 8-( #
  • When American friends try to make fun of bunga-bunga Italian politics, I have now an answer: BIG BIRD. Thank you @BarackObama @MittRomney #
  • D'Alema in barca. @matteorenzi in jet. Il PD in becille. #

Omnologos – Twitter Updates for 2012-10-10

  • Dimmi @EnricoLetta condividi l'idea di Monti di perseguitare come evasore fiscale chi non paga allo Stato l'IVA che non ha mai ricevuto? #
  • Non fosse per un piccolo particolare, il Min. Cancellieri potrebbe oggi proporre il modello-carcere come cura dimagrante. #Cuffaro #
  • Wikipedia's obsession with journalistic references means all contemporary articles are half-truths and misguided exaggerations. #
  • La decisione del Min. Cancellieri riguardo #ReggioCalabria è politica e non tecnica, ed è anche insensata. #

Omnologos – Twitter Updates for 2012-10-09

  • Anybody who's ever tried the BBC complaints procedure knows a culture of impunity is still strong @bbcr4today #
  • Will Paxo host a mirror in the studio tonight, give a grilling to somebody who chose silence over celebrity rape? @bbcr4today @BBCNewsnight #
  • You've left your Director General freely imply fellow journos made mistake over #Saville cover-up not the Organization. @bbcr4today #fail #
  • BBC journos free from pressure by BBC Organization? Only if they can't think of a career. Another reporting #fail @bbcr4today #
  • Don't know how well the USA will be steered for the next 4 years. But things are looking good if you're a Big yellow Bird! Rejoice! #usa2012 #
  • La demolizione di @GiancarloGalan sul @Corriereit da parte di Gian Antonio Stella riguardo lo scandalo #Girolamini appare proprio definitiva #
  • MT @PDLPrimarie: @ilfoglio_it @matteorenzi @ripartiredazero @PietroSalvatori 3 x tutti (p. es) @alesindaco @guglielmopicchi @GiorgiaMeloni #
  • Police to _random_ test UK motorists? We will soon have a good sample of drinking habits among Afro-Caribbean males… #

Omnologos – Twitter Updates for 2012-10-08

  • Assurdo dare il voto in cambio di promesse e poi lamentarsi quando sono disattese. La #democrazia non è un Supermercato del Futuro. #

Omnologos – Twitter Updates for 2012-10-06

  • Summer heatwave in the making? #mars #
  • Will you ask the Nobel Peace Prize committee about drone attacks? @bbcr4today #
  • 3-month contract available in NYC for #Datamart #Murex developer. Contact me if interested. NO AGENCIES please. #
  • . @antoniopolito1 Ho sentito che gli iscritti del PD politicamente fattivi si sono recentemente incontrati sui sedili posteriori di un taxi. in reply to antoniopolito1 #
  • Questo è il momento dell'impegno politico. E chi non ne abbia voglia non si lamenti poi dei risultati. Analogamente per il passato. #Italia #
  • Animusic HD – Resonant Chamber (1080p): via @youtube #
  • Napolitano: "Italia travagliata". Travaglio: "Italia napolitanata". Gli Italiani: "Italia montata". #
  • Would be funny if the POTUS disastrous debate appearance could be traced to four years of having been left mostly unchallenged. #USA2012 #
  • Come mai Monti, una volta scoperta l'evasione fiscale di Stato, non ha commesso seppuku? @chicago_blog #Italia #
  • Romano #Prodi inviato ONU nel Mali. Ma non sanno che al-Qaeda mal sopporta la mortadella? #

Omnologos – Twitter Updates for 2012-10-05

  • Unsure about @MarsCuriosity "ancient riverbed" claims. Even impact craters have trouble surviving for billions of years. #mars #
  • Passengers often not smarter than managers on @Se_Railway with bodies squashing by the doors while rest of train has standing places aplenty #
  • RT @mobyoctopad: If you are stuck in traffic in a car, you ARE the traffic #
  • Feel free to tweet next how, according to the Pope, Luther was very wrong @pim_martens @BarryJWoods in reply to BarryJWoods #
  • RT @Scruton_Quotes: "It is the steadfast person who earns the abuse of the mob, and the weak-willed conformist who escapes their censure" #
  • It always comes down to anti-capitalism and keeping the Chinese poor doesn't it :( @kalahar1 @BarryJWoods @cwhope #agw in reply to kalahar1 #
  • If I grew wings would you follow my lead and basejump from Mt Everest? @BarryJWoods @cwhope Remember the Spartans: "IF!" in reply to BarryJWoods #
  • Next they'll ask for pictures of scantily-clad girls in scientific papers, to cheer up some readers @Keith_Laws @edyong209 in reply to Keith_Laws #
  • The @IHT just celebrated its 125th anniversary by forecasting end of capitalism, chaos and failure of China and India. Time for a shrink? #
  • Hmmmm…will they allow the use of teleprompters in next debates? :) @LeoHickman @keithkloor #usa2012 in reply to LeoHickman #
  • Senior software tester (banking, telecomms) available for work in Europe (not me). Reply if of interest. #jobsearch #

Omnologos – Twitter Updates for 2012-10-04

  • US conservatives and liberals are so much alike. Only diff, conservatives believe a Disaster already happened; liberals, are waiting for it. #

Omnologos – Twitter Updates for 2012-10-03

  • Ironically, the @iht "Global CLEAN Energy Report" infomercial is printed on heavier sheets than the rest of the newspaper #
  • Violent parents and spouses might be the only cases when torture on live TV should be considered a fair punishment and deterrent #
  • Police-sponsored effective rape of young #eco activists by the likes of Mark Kennedy shows greens considered easy to fall for dishonesty. #
  • Don't cave in @Maria_MillerMP to the Murdoch-hating @Avaaz bullies. UK newsmedia problem much bigger than RM's business. #
  • Fiorito in carcere. La magistratura si unisce allo spettacolo. Come sempre. #Italia #
  • Mobbing in corso su Twitter contro @gasparripdl . Ma se gli fosse importata la popolarità proverrebbe da PCI o DC, no? Oppure PSI. #
  • Ma perché @donnadimezzo @SpioneValerio ce l'avete con Greggio, Sposini e "i froci"? in reply to donnadimezzo #
  • Meschini pauperisti parlano di stipendi e politici. Intanto, come dice Maugeri ad @alinomilan, il 'malloppo' resta in mano alle Regioni. #
  • If you want to be part of the solution, hope it's not caustic soda. #

Omnologos – Twitter Updates for 2012-10-02

  • Lunga parentesi di Monti sembra disegnata per fare in modo che @pbersani e il #PD soliti conigli, non si assumano responsabilità alcuna. #
  • Fini per Monti-bis cioè imbalsamatura elettorato. Prossimo #FLI che incontro meglio che indossi occhiali perché devo sputargli in un occhio. #
  • Anybody talking of "ocean acidification" is like a scammer who repays 1/10th of a debt and then claims to be a creditor. #agw #acidification #
  • Main lifestyle difference England/Continent is that in the latter a classy comfort isn't something to frown upon #
  • Daily Telegraph "100 cods" story shows @davidshukmanbbc + BBC Science crew not alone in attempt to kill off reputation of #science reporting #
  • If I were naughty I would suspect even more product placement at the BBC here… #
  • Impossibile "proteggere" un figlio di Sindaco di Roma dai giornalisti @AlemannoTW -non ci riuscì neanche Clinton. Urge strategia nuova. (!!) in reply to AlemannoTW #

Where no topic is left unturned