Found at Anthony Watts' site, Wattsupwiththat on 24 NOV 2011, is an interesting link to an email that is part of the Climategate 2.0 FOIA 2011 releases done by Gail Combs. The one of interest is #4678 on 30 JAN 2001 which Rob Swarts who is at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands (his latest paper about a third of the page down in the 2009 articles section is here) is an email sent to Robert Watson while he was at the World Bank. As is pointed out it is a strange thing when a scientist is being told to change the summary of his work at behest of a non-science based institution (and, no, it doesn't matter that it is another scientist telling him to do so, as that isn't kosher, either). With that said it is even more unusual to agree to it (and throughout I will use downloaded source copies, not those reformatted for easier searching and putting in a bit of anti-spam to stop people from being flooded, but the necessity for the address is the organizations the people work for):
date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:15:15 +0100
from: Rob Swart <Rob.SwartATrivm.nl>
subject: Re: Synthesis Report (SYR): Summary for Policymakers
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to react to your thinking. It forces us to think more clearly about the main messages. I must admit that I am somewhat confused about the 26 page summary, since this comes very close to (although it is different from) the full-scale document the various teams are currently writing. My view would be that those teams take their own text as the starting point and try to improve/shorten it on the basis of your text. Here, I only respond to your main messages in italics and mainly focus on WG3 issues.
You know, if this were one of those dreaded oil companies doing this to a researcher, I am sure that some Leftist would be up in arms about it. But since it is someone in the cozy Anthropomorphic Global Warming community, I am sure they can get all warm and fuzzy about scientists cozying up to the World Bank. Right?
So how is this scientist reacting to this stuff, beyond suggesting people on his team 'improve' their work along the lines of the paper sent to them from the World Bank? Probably got all huffy, right? I mean, scientific integrity and all that is at stake.
I mean if scientists started taking talking points from non-scientific organizations and were re-wording their findings to better fit that of an outside organization, that would be a pretty nasty thing to have happen.
Beyond that comes the more interesting part in which the scientific becomes the political:
Most points made may be introducing the rest of the SYR, but they do not address the question. I think the chapter should do both. In my view, in addition to your 6 paragraphs, one or more paragraphs could be related to five key aspects of Article 2: (a) dangerous interference, (b) stabilization, (c) natural adaptation, (d) food security, and (e) sustainable economic development. Three of these words (b), (c), (d) are not even mentioned. Two of your paragraphs now do hardly relate to the question (the 4th and 6th) but could be linked (see below).
The first italics could be positively relating to the question rather than negatively; e.g. take the 2nd and 3rd sentence as italics: "Scientific, technical and economic knowledge provides indispensable information needed to arrive at an informed judgement as to what level of anthropogenic interference would be dangerous, taking equity and social considerations into account. However, that judgement is a political, not scientific, one." An initial attempt to address my 1st comment, integrating some of Bob's italics but linking them to Artcile 2 issues: "Article 2 relates dangerous anthropogenic interference to the level and the time-frame of stabilization of concentrations of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, which would be required to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. Although many uncertainties remain, scientific, technical and socio-economic analysis as assessment in IPCC's Third Assessment Report provides information which can be used to arrive at the above mentioned political judgement about what constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Question 2:I would not include a WG3 paragraph, like "The Kyoto Protocol has led to the creation of new market mechanisms"; apart from the question if this statement is very relevant as such, I don't think it is "evidence of the consequence of changes in the Earth's climate since the pre-industrial era."
There is a question that needs to be asked at this point: when was the climate ever stable?
It is a serious question because, geologically speaking, the times when climate regimes are relatively stable coincide with periods of large agglomerations of continental plates into one or two major continents that do not obstruct circumpolar and global oceanic water flow. Those periods of slow plate movement within a large assemblage can give rise to volcanic activity, but the predominant system is stabilized by a single large oceanic expanse that moves without much obstruction around the large continental masses and from pole to pole.
When this does not happen, or when a large continental mass drifts into a polar region, or there are dispersed continents that break up global oceanic flows by creating separated oceans, the planetary climate stability declines (becomes less stable). This latter scenario is the one we currently live in, and through recent history there have been multiple ice age events with large ice sheets covering expanses of the northern hemisphere and, to a lesser extent, the southern hemisphere. Currently we are experiencing warming after a 500 year period known as the Little Ice Age and still shifting through the post-glacial period of the last major Ice Age that ended approximately 10-11,000 years ago. Major post-glacial periods are marked by rapid changes in climate both up and down, trending higher for some thousands of years before hitting an inflection point after which they trend downwards until another Ice Age starts. This current inter-glacial period in no way appears to vary from other, prior, inter-glacial periods in this respect. Rapid climate shifts on the scale of sub-1,000 year periods are the norm for such periods, not the exception.
Thus, the question: what is a 'stable' climate for our current time?
There can be no absolute mile-marker put on that, save for those long periods of slow continental motion after multiple continents assemble into one or two major land masses. These see much warmer temps and climates, as a result, and as the speed of the continents slow they shift downwards on the mantle. As the crust subsides ocean water goes over land and warms in shallow seas, and the ice caps shrink. Then you get a long lasting climate, which continues on often for millions of years.
Now, given that information, and that those periods see at least a 20 degree C higher average global temperature, how can the impact of man be measured on the global climate? Is a percent or two change in carbon dioxide, seen in other inter-glacial periods that experience a major eruption, say, going to change the over-all course of the global climate? Even if it did would the direction of change be towards warming or cooling? Would plant growth increase or decrease? Would there be more cloud formation or less? In fact, a major question of 'what is the overall heat budget of the planet based on what it gains via sunlight, what sunlight is reflected and what is lost via IR and other radiation at night?' actually needs to be answered not in a partial way but in a systematic way examining all aspects of the planet's distance from the sun (which varies over a year and over tens of thousands of years), types of clouds and other aerosols in the atmosphere, heat transfer between air and other surfaces, heat loss from air and other masses, reflected energy that prevents loss... what is the heat budget of planet Earth?
This is a simple question that, as yet, remains unanswered in any meaningful way. Until it can be answered and all the factors that lead to that budget known, there is no way to single out any one factor (beyond sunlight) as a driving force for climate. Yet that is what those pushing AGW wish you to believe, and they push a political agenda for it that is helpfully worded by large scale, unaccountable institutions. You can't get to the political/social questions without first answering the very basic questions that rely not upon just sunlight, wind, and water, but upon a host of factors that have not been completely or even incompletely examined. This is a cart/horse order arrangement problem, because if you don't know what the drivers of the climate actually are in an unstable climactic period, then you can't accurately say which of them is controllable and which of them aren't. Yet such political questions are being pushed without knowing the fundamentals.
In an effort to push such political and economic ends (because there is a profit to be made by changing the investment in energy production sources) one can expect other players to become interested in that effort. Here Anthony Watts takes a look at how to get 'committed environmental activism' as part of the UNFCCC process and I will excerpt a bit from the email 340.txt in question and leave in some of the interesting names and entities this is being sent to:
date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:13:20 -0500
from: "Tom Jacob" <Tom.JacobATUSA.dupont.com>
subject: REFLECTIONS ON THE HAGUE...
to: climatepolicyATic.ac.uk. . .hadiATcmu.edu. . .eduschellnhuberATpik-potsdam.de. . .jonathan.pershingATiea.org. . .RKinleyATunfccc.int. . .m.hulmeATuea.ac.uk. . .jaeATpnl.gov. . .kchomitzATworldbank.org. . .dlashofATnrdc.org. . .pachuriATteri.res.in. . .munasingheATworldbank.org. . .
The two weeks were not without significant developments, though. The Hague was a melange of ceremonial formality, tedious negotiation, high-stakes back-room dealing, protests, and a seemingly endless stream of open side-events and closed outside meetings. On the surface, the affair was distinctly lacking in coherence. Beneath that surface, though, there were threads emerging that, woven together, begin to fashion a most intriguing tapestry. Following are a few of the observations that may have important implications as the process moves tentatively forward from last week's session:· Tightening The Scientific Noose· Beyond Environment· Reactionary Protests· Ever-Widening Embrace Of Mechanisms· The "Sinks" Thing· Markets Finding A Way· Keeping The U.S. Honest Comments and disagreement more than welcome...
TIGHTENING THE SCIENTIFIC NOOSE: Amid the pomp and circumstance of the opening of the negotiation, the voice most keenly attended to was that of one of the least-pretentious people on the planet, Bob Watson, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the global scientific effort supporting the work of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. While the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) has not yet been completed (scheduled for release next year), Watson previewed some of its likely themes by noting that: "The weight of scientific evidence suggests that the observed changes in the Earth's climate are, at least in part, due to human activity." He also concluded that: "If actions are not taken to reduce the projected increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the Earthe climate is projected to change at a rate unprecedented in the last 10,000 years with adverse consequences for society, undermining the very foundation of sustainable development."
It is significant that, while there is still uncertainty in the science and still sniping from the margins, the voices challenging the fundamental premises of the Framework Convention and its Kyoto Protocol (particularly in the US) have diminished in both their number and their pitch in the past several years. More and more, even those that continue to challenge the Protocol as a strategy, acknowledge concern regarding climate change as warranting attention. Similarly, even the countries that seemed most at odds with the sense of the negotiation on many points (Saudi Arabia and some OPEC allies) have not challenged the fundamental legitimacy of the concerns driving the effort.
Here is the science end of the cooption of science: a global 'panel' put together by the UN of selected scientists deciding what is and is not 'settled' science. This was way back in 2000 and yet it would be the drumbeat heard thereafter. The method of coordinating the drumbeat between the selected scientists, the UN, NGOs and industry is a meeting in the Hague.
The next point is, as Mr. Watts points out, a vital one, and I'll take it out in full:
REACTIONARY PROTESTS: It is perhaps not coincidental that as economic concerns have begun to rise, both in the increasingly serious consideration to market mechanisms and the emerging dialogue about economic impacts of climate action, we have begun to see an increase in traditional, confrontational environmental protests. Even in Kyoto, demonstrations were small and relatively non-confrontational reminders of the environmental concerns. In The Hague, we saw for the first time organized disruption of the conduct of negotiation and publicly staged confrontations. While organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process through major groups such as NRDC, EDF/ED, WWF and Greenpeace, they have operated within the structure as constructive participants in the policy-setting process, along with industry. At The Hague, this "inside" role was supplemented by hundreds of young, relatively naïve demonstrators brought in specifically to energize the environmental presence and confront the process. Even some within the ranks of the more established participants -- while disavowing the takeover of the negotiating room -- saw fit to publicly offer Minister Pronk and the UNFCCC Secretariate a veiled threat of "Seattle" if the process failed to deliver.In the context of this resurgence of "environmental fundamentalism" it is also interesting to contrast the dynamics of the final give-and-take between the US and the EU in The Hague. The US has always approached major treaty negotiations such as this from a policy process that brings each of the potentially involved agencies (ministries) together to jointly frame priorities and strategy, with the process in the field managed by the State Department (foreign service) and the White House -- not, typically, by any particular agency "minister" (Carol Browner, head of US EPA, for example, has not represented the US in these sessions). In contrast, EU policy and representation in "environmental" forums such as The Hague is vested more narrowly in the Council of Environment Ministers -- opting to give priority to providing each country an opportunity to participate through their environment minister, but in the processes constraining the range of perspectives such that all the key players are answerable to the similar constituencies. Obviously, there are limits to the implications one can draw from this, but it may be significant that it was one of those Ministers for whom the portfolio is most broadly drawn (Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott) that was central in shaping the initial deal with the US, while those implicated by public accounts in turning down the deal (Voyner, and Trittin in particular) are among those with closest ties to their more activist constituencies.
Here is DuPont looking with favor upon the role of 'activists' of the 'established' sort playing a game of dealing one game with the policy makers (those negotiating) while putting on another face (that of vocal, naïve activists) outside the meeting so as to pressure those doing negotiations. That allows them to be 'constructive participants' in the negotiating process. Isn't that lovely? Leftist, environmentalist organizations playing with governments and large corporations and using young and naïve 'activists' as useful idiots to protest? Makes you wonder how it feels, as a Leftist, to be co-opted for an agenda that you aren't being told about by organizations you support, doesn't it? All that blather about how tainted oil based research on climate is gets washed away in the beautiful world of transnational global politics in which you, as a 'protestor', get used not just for environmentalism but for agreements between the organizations you support, large industrial outfits and then pressuring governments to help out BOTH. I'm sure these protestors are just fine with it, though, as their usefulness to the Greater Cause means that they, too, can participate in the corruption of their very own ethics in agreements with companies they would otherwise despise since they are so handy to both the 'activist' organizations and the corporations, BOTH. Isn't that swell? I'm so sure that is what they signed up for as 'activists' and 'protestors'.
Mind you, the science still can't point to what a 'stable' climate looks like or what the actual parts of the heat equation are drivers and which are backseat children that make a loud noise, but don't mean very much in the way of direction. That was true in 2000 and is still lamentably true in 2011.
So far we have:
1) Large, transnational banking institutions (World Bank, IMF) having input into the output of the verbiage of scientific reports.
2) Large, transnational corporations and NGOs utilizing a two-faced system to 'work' within the system on the inside while providing useful idiot protestors on the outside to pressure negotiators to come to an agreement that might satisfy the corporations and NGOs, but not, necessarily, the Nations involved or the useful idiots. That is how you keep them 'useful': you never satisfy them.
Now going back to the first post by Gail Combs looking at 5003.txt to examine the other people contacting the World Bank, this via an email sent via an Adjunct Faculty member at the Engineering and Public Policy part of CMU:
date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:28:08 -0400
from: Hadi Dowlatabadi <hadiATcmu.edu>
subject: Re: [New] Editorial for Climate Policy, Issue 2.
to: <KchomitzATworldbank.org>, Climate Policy <climatepolicyATic.ac.uk>
I agree with your perspective, but why not set a realistic target? The editorial columns at Science, Nature and New Scientist have rarely hidden their subjective perspectives. I think there are shades to this, and Michael can be a shade grayer, but the passion is also important.The dialogue approach allows him to be editor, hold strong opinions, but still be viewed as someone who is willing to listen. This is how Steve Schneider has conducted his reign at Climatic Change and I believe despite his well known personal perspectives he has been able to draw on many in the community to contribute to the dialogue that defines the differences in perspectives permeating this subject.
4/20/01 1:15 PM, KchomitzATworldbank.org at KchomitzATworldbank.org wrote:
>> Dear Michael,
> I really like the solution of presenting view and counterview articles. I
> retain some reservations about your proposed editorial. It seems to me that
> have the difficult problem of wearing two hats: one as the advocate of
> particular policies and viewpoints, and the other as an editor of a journal
> which aspires to be a neutral forum for policy discussion. I appreciate and
> sympathize with the depth and grounding of your personal views. However, as
> editor, it seems to me, you have to bend over backwards to be neutral. The
> editorial uses charged words like 'demonize' and could easily spark the war of
> words you wish to avoid. A strongly worded editorial risks associating the
> journal with a particular viewpoint, and hence reducing the journal's value
> and> reputation as a neutral forum.
> > Maybe this just reflects a parochial American viewpoint of what an editor
> does,> or perhaps the hypersensitivities of someone working at an international
> organization. I'd be interested in others' views.
> > > regards
> > > > ___________________
> Kenneth M. Chomitz
> Development Research Group
> World Bank
Yes, here you have a member of the World Bank telling an editor of a peer-reviewed scientific journal that he should be toning down his language so he can appear 'neutral' or at least open to discussion, while actually not stating his true perspective on science and scientific affairs. Indeed the editorial perspective of some publications is well known and that then goes beyond their perspective and into the various articles, themselves, thus those journals slowly lose readers, over time, as the editorial perspective seeps into the decision-making for articles and who reviews them. Here the advice is to mask the bias on the public side (that is published editorially) but not one word of retaining that beyond that portion of the journal. If an editor strongly backs an opinion the rest of the journal tends to get associated with it. With that said if there are multiple editors, this can be diluted by having multiple viewpoints on the editorial staff and to openly present bias on an article (pro/con) via editorials from different staff members.
Bias is something to be open about so that others can judge if you can set your bias aside to actually do and review scientific work or if your bias is persistent to the point where it slants the even-handed assessment of data and derived results. It also allows for open criticism of editors so that a journal may select other editors or reviewers if there is input that on certain topics an editor is suspect due to the bias being shown and discussed. Here we see the two-faced approach being taken not by organizations and protestors, but taken to an editor via a member of an organization that seeks to have the rhetoric toned down but the bias remain. That is deceitful not just towards those submitting articles (on if they can get an even-handed review process) but to the readers who deserve to know of any inherent bias in the publication, itself.
To 1 and 2 above, we can now add:
3) Large, transnational financial institution seeking to change editorial policy of an editor at a scientific journal with regards to how editorials are written.
I'm sure Leftists are all just warm and fuzzy with that thought!
Who else is on the Transnational financial list? There is always your favorite and that of the Democratic Party's, Goldman-Sachs. In 4092.txt (h/t Buffy Minton in the thread at WUWT) we can see what sort of cup rattling goes on behind the scenes with the AGW crowd:
date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:38 +0100
from: Trevor Davies <t.d.daviesATuea.ac.uk>
subject: goldman-sachsto: j.palutikofATuea,p.jonesATuea,m.hulmeATuea
We (Mike H) have done a modest amount of work on degree-days for G-S. They now want to extend this. They are involved in dealing in the developing energy futures market.G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a 'strategic alliance' with. I suggest the four of us meet with ?? (forgotten his name) for an hour on the afternoon of Friday 12 June (best guess for Phil & Jean - he needs a date from us).
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Isn't this so sweet? Scientists looking to help Goldman-Sachs develop a 'strategic alliance' with them in pushing issues in the 'developing energy futures market' is just so cuddly you can't even begin to use words to express it. Yes, these climate scientists must be wizards to be able to know about such things as energy production and developing markets... do they ever get any time to do any real science?
Speaking of energy interests, here is Mike Hulme setting up a meeting with BP and Shell in 2000 from 0296.txt (another H/T to the comments section this time to Jimbo):
date: Tue Feb 1 13:34:27 2000
from: Mike Hulme <m.hulmeATuea.ac.uk>
Have talked with Tim O about BP and he knows Paul Rutter but reckons he is junior to his two contacts Charlotte grezo (who is on our Panel!) and Simon Worthington.Tim is meeting Charlotte next week and will do some lobbying and we will also make contact with Simon Worthington.So I guess there is no necessity to follow up on Paul right now (I'll wait for Tim's feedback), but if you feel there is a strong enough UMIST angle then by all means do so (but bear in mind that we will be talking to some other parts of BP).We're getting a few letters back from people here too which I will copy onto you - two water companies, Shell and the Foreign Office (the latter is not really business though).
All for now,
Say, if you criticize the critics for working with the likes of BP and Shell, can you criticize those pushing AGW for doing the same? And does this make their science suspect, as well? Because if you think any contact for funding with an oil company is a reason to be shunned, then what will you do when those who have been pushing AGW are found to have been doing the exact, same thing as those doing work with them on other research?
How about a bit later in 2002, in 0736.txt putting a program schedule together for the ECF Autumn Conference:
cc: "Klaus Hasselmann" <klaus.hasselmannATdkrz.de>, "Mike Hulme" <m.hulmeATuea.ac.uk>
date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:47:51 +0100
from: "Elaine Jones" <E.L.JonesATuea.ac.uk>
subject: ECF Autumn Conference
to: "Martin Welp" <martin.welpATpik-potsdam.de>
Martin, Just to confirm and clarify a few of our views expressed in Monday's telecom (I listened with interest alongside Mike) on the ECF Autumn Conference Preliminary Programme. The programme looks very good so far. We don't think that Tom Delay would be the best dinner speaker, but it would be useful to perhaps invite him to speak in the Technology Transition session on e.g. Key challenges for the UK's Carbon Trust or, (the title of their glossy ) "Making Business Sense of Climate Change" ? . However, he has appeared in the same session as Mark MS on a few occasions already.
In case Mark MS cannot accept an invite (he would also be an excellent dinner speaker) you could consider Phil Watts, who is actually Mark's replacement as Chairman of the CMD of Royal Dutch/Shell Group, (and a Yorkshire Geophysicist) but rather for his other role as chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development ( a coalition of 160 International companies from >30 countries and 20 sectors and a global network of 35 national and regional business councils) , which he took on in November 2001, succeeding Charles Holliday, DUPONT Chair and CEO. Of course, he's incredibly busy but would be an excellent dinner speaker if he couldn't manage day-time - and with an attractive letter invite may be tempted (e.g. building on his "I am honoured to become chairman of the WBCSD, it plays a vital role in helping both to challenge and encourage business, governments and institutions to address the issue of sustainable development"). As an alternative, and not to be to Shell biased, Rodney Chase deputy group chief exec. of BP (former Exploration Head) is also on the WBCSD Exec. Committee. I don't know him - but I'm sure he would be good... he gave a Pew Centre presentation in 2000 - Innovative Policy Solutions to Global Climate Change www.pewclimate.org/media/rchase_speech.pdf - one might consider inviting him to "reflect on the subsequent 2 years track record of innovative solutions" ! he may be most useful for session 4, given the BP-Amoco (Arco) transatlantic make-up ! (and they are also a PEW member). He's also a non-exec. director of DIAGEO plc (Europe's largest Beverages co.).
Isn't this lovely? Look at the people they would want as a dinner speaker at their event:
I) Tom Delay – This is Tom Delay of the UK Carbon Trust, not the US Tom DeLay.
II) Sir Mark Moody-Stewart – Appointed non-executive chairman of Anglo American PLC, ex-chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, director of HSBC holdings and Accenture. Chairman of the Foundation for Global Compact, member of the Global Reporting Initiative up to 2007, member of the Board of Directors for Saudi Aramco.
III) Sir Philip Watts – Chairman of Shell 2001-2004 in addition to what is in the text.
IV) Rodney Chase – As stated in the text, a BP man in addition to other hats.
What isn't to like in this group? I mean you have organizations working on the entire carbon problem thingy, huge multinational oil companies, plus a slew of feel good NGOs... just the sort of people you want addressing the European Climate Forum. No, really, it is! I mean if you are going to have AGW/Climate Change/Climate Chaos or whatever the tagline du jour is, then you really, and for true, need the people ready to make a profit off of it as speakers at conferences.
Thus comes the next rule:
4) Always seek to get the heads of large organizations that make a profit off of 'climate change', either on the causing or the carbon trading side, at major conferences as dinner speakers so they can tell you what they see as the future of the direction of the 'movement'.
The idea that affiliation is grounds for denouncement and demonization is a Leftist cant, not one with a basis in reality. Science, if done properly, is about repeatable results not about who funds you. It doesn't matter if a government funds you, an oil company, a university, or that rich old coot down the street: if you get repeatable results and accurately describe and characterize them then it is science. When those doing the funding try to tell you what to say, then it is intellectual, ethical and moral prostitution of oneself to the highest bidder or at least the one willing to help 'the cause'. If you demonize based on fund source, then you must demonize the AGW crowd just as much as their critics as they are not adverse to chasing, begging, taking and using funds from such organizations.
This should be worrying to the 'street activists', 'protestors' and even those just willing to sing from the same hymnal as 'fellow travelers'. To date no one has demonstrated that the critics of AGW have had what they write directed by their funders. So far, to date, we now have evidence that those writing in support of AGW 'science' are not only willing to do so, but are willing to have the heads of such organizations show up at conferences or actually run such conferences as supports the goal of AGW followers.
The problem here isn't in the science of AGW: there isn't any.
Show me the data.
Not the interpretations, not the graphs, not the conclusions, but the raw, unadulterated data and let ME work through it so I can see if I can come up with the same results, plus cross-validate that any conclusions have something to do with OTHER datasets from OTHER sources so that the data can have a cross-check on it.
You can't make me a 'believer' but you can give me the data to see if I can agree with the conclusions drawn from it. That is science. No 'belief' needed.
Until the original datasets are made publicly available, and this was publicly funded research at the start of this entire mess, for public scrutiny and open scrutiny by the scientific community as a WHOLE and IN PART, there is no science being done in AGW.
When there is: obfuscation of the data, refusal to release publicly funded data(and thus held for the public by researchers), attempts to hide scientific criticism in secret but never speak of it in public, no safeguarding information exchanges that are the lifeblood of science, attempts no to be honest about the scientific process so as to intimidate editors or reviewers of papers and to not be open about what the people who are seeking to influence you are trying to do, then you do not have the performing of science to the public good but a conspiracy to defraud the public as a whole at a multi-national level. And not small fraud, either, when you consider the attempts to curb fossil fuel production and use, impoverish millions if not billions via economic stagnation through crony capitalism, and otherwise jack up energy prices with no valid science as a rationale... that may go into the trillions of dollars on a global scale. That is fraudulent science in search of a Great Cause which is then backed by other institutions that have their own agenda which are not accountable to any public of any Nation, so as to force National governments to create new agendas to support transnational corporations via schemes to divert money from productive energy jobs to ones that show no immediate value. Because if they were worthwhile to do they would be profitable and sustainable without a single penny from any government other than as a customer for a product.
I have said it before and I will say it again: science is a full body contact sport done without benefit of any padding, no handicaps and having the necessary requirement of being done out in the open to hold yourself accountable to your peers. Science is one of the nastiest endeavors of all mankind because to do it you must be open to criticism, must accept criticism (as old man Alvarez showed us with a smile and open arms) and then say that ANYONE CAN DUPLICATE YOUR RESULTS. Those who are perpetrating this fraud are not DOING THAT but are running a rigged con game and in that universe you are either the con man, a plant or a mark, and on something of this scale nearly every single plant will find out that they are the mark.