Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

Feels like you’re perched on top of a rocket James – thrilling stuff!

maybe the tide will turn – yesterday we had the interview on David Bellamy (I sent you that message) in DT – he’s been ignored for ages because of his anti CC views so maybe that was a sign!

The big question is will DT give you the opportunity to do a bigger spread??

Best news in a very dreary news period.
This MUST be released on every kind of website.
Old Gore is partner to some kind of fund that is sponsoring all new energy types, at great expense. Would be lovely to see him come a cropper!

So – will the DT make this a headline job, or suppress it?

Wow, if this is true, it will be an earthquake. If it’s true, then every MSM should report it. We’ll see who has integrity and who doesn’t.

Bu on U – don’t hold your breath. You surely noticed how much MSM coverage the breathtaking admission of Nu-Lav’s deliberate immigration scam gained.

Yes, exactly. We’ll see who has integrity and who doesn’t. (I’m not expecting much.)

Vindication for all the sceptical, true scientists smeared by the warmists, and for all of us who’ve been called deniers.

Will it stop the Copenhagen juggernaut?
I doubt it – the vested interests are far too huge. The only way out for us is for the incoming government to repudiate Copenhagen lock stock and barrel.

yaosxx makes a valid point.
The DT should be leading with this.

[...] Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Tel… OK any comments? God I hate the use of Gate and the end of a word, lazy headline [...]

Umm. These climate scientists are not so detached and dispassionate after all. Isn’t the rule for being in a hole that you stop digging? How’s Jo taking it?

Meanwhile, Ian McEwan’s new novel is set in an Arctic where the ice has almost disappeared and a letter in our local paper states that ‘everybody knows that the Arctic is now almost ice-free.’ Why doesn`t someone pay for the two of them to be taken on a plane trip over the Arctic region to see for themselves ?

Woah! This is pretty big! But no doubt you will either be dismissed as a whacko or maybe have an unfortunate accident involving a polar bear dropping on you from the sky.
I really hope this turns out to be as big as it seems.

#2389 in the series Headupthearse- “My circle of friends all agree with me”:

Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: “I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn’t gotten warmer in recent years.”

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

It does not surprise me one iota.
There has always been a piscatorial stench emanating from the Alarmist camp.
Al Gore is a charlatan, no mystery there, a failed lawyer to boot.
For academic institutions to embark on deliberate obfuscation even intrigue shows just how low and non scientific these snake-oil purveyors have stooped.
Chief amongst these is Jones and his sociology/scientology/necromancers at the Climate Research Unit.
The CRU have been at the forefront of the BS science, because they are the ultimate BS merchants.
The university of East Anglia has always had a reputation for marxist tendancies/socialist thinking and a strong Humanities faculties, the two go hand in hand.
With this background it not surprising they were eager to jump on the AGW bandwagon and bang the drum as loudly as they could. The nu-labs loved it and promptly remitted vast amounts of cash via government ‘research’ grants, to ‘probe’? – no reinforce more like, the AGW scam, for that is exactly what it is.
Alleluia! – the weasels and pseudo-scientists at CRU are exposed for what they are – imposters!

colliemum – you are kidding, right? The incoming govt, which I assume you hope to be Cast-Iron Dave et al won’t repudiate anything – they are up to their hypocritical necks in project EUSSSR.

Nice to have rational thought verified. The warmists are all crooks or loons.

Even if the majority have rumbled it James, it won’t stop politicos driving it forward. See the EU debate.

It would seem Dr Clare Goodess, Hadley CRU, was part of the plan to discredit the Climate Research journal.

Stormy Times for Climate Research
(from SGR Newsletter 28, November 2003)
Clare Goodess explains the circumstances behind the resignation of half of the editorial board of the journal Climate Research
How can the publication of one poor paper in a scientific journal have caused the resignation of half the members of its editorial board (including the newly-appointed editor-in-chief) and have these resignations had any effect? As one of the editors who resigned from Climate Research at the end of July 2003, these are some of the questions that I am left pondering.

The article in question (Soon and Baliunas, 2003) was published at the end of January 2003. It is in fact a literature review of over 240 previously published studies of climate proxy records (such as tree rings, glaciers and ocean sediments) covering the last 1000 years. It contains some startling and controversial conclusions, notably: “Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium’ and ‘Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records which have been sampled world-wide.”

With conclusions like these, it is not surprising that this paper (and a remarkably similar version published in Energy and Environment (Soon et al., 2003) attracted the attention of the White House administration. At least one press release from the authors deliberately fuelled this politisation of the paper and its conclusions. Internal documents from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), now in the public domain, show that the Bush administration attempted to get this paper cited in an agency report on the state of the environment. EPA staff members blocked this by deleting all mention of climate change from the report. This did not stop the anti-Kyoto lobby, however, and the Republican Senator James Inofhe from Oklahoma called a hearing of the Senate environment committee in late July to debate the paper.

In the meantime, Hans von Storch (another Climate Research editor) and myself had been receiving numerous unsolicited complaints and critiques of the paper from many leading members of the international palaeo and historical climatology community. At the beginning of May 2003, these had reached such a level that we raised the concerns with the editor who had processed the Soon and Baliunas paper (Chris de Freitas) and the publisher (Otto Kinne of Inter-Research). In response, de Freitas accused us of ‘a mix of a witch-hunt and the Spanish Inquisition’. The publisher eventually asked to see the documentation associated with the review of the paper – which had apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection. Otto Kinne concluded that the review process had been properly conducted.

This left many of us somewhat confused and still very concerned about what had happened. The review process had apparently been correct, but a fundamentally flawed paper had been published. These flaws are described in an extended rebuttal to both Soon and Baliunas (2003) and Soon et al. (2003) published by Mike Mann and 11 other eminent climate scientists in July (Mann et al., 2003). Hans von Storch and I were also aware of three earlier Climate Research papers about which people had raised concerns over the review process. In all these cases, de Freitas had had editorial responsibility.

My main objective in raising the concerns of myself and many others over the most recent paper was to try to protect the reputation of the journal by focusing on the scientific rather than the political issues. Though I was well aware of the deliberate political use being made of the paper by Soon and Baliunas (well-known ‘climate sceptics’) and others. Chris de Freitas has also published what can be regarded as ‘climate sceptic’ views.

Eventually, however, Inter-Research recognised that something needed to be done and appointed Hans von Storch as editor-in-chief with effect from 1 August 2003. This would have marked a change from the existing system, where each of the 10 editors works independently. Authors can submit a manuscript to which ever of these editors they like. Hans drafted an editorial to appear in the next edition of Climate Research and circulated it to all the other editors for comment. However, Otto Kinne then decided that Hans could not publish the editorial without the agreement of all of the editors. Since at least one of the editors thought there was nothing wrong with the Soon and Baliunas paper, such an agreement was clearly never going to be obtained. In view of this, and the intervention of the publisher in editorial matters, Hans understandably felt that he could not take up the Editor-in-Chief position and resigned four days before he was due to start his new position. I also resigned as soon as I heard what had happened. This turned out to be the day of Inofhe’s US senate committee hearing and the news of the two resignations was announced at the hearing . Since then, another three editors have resigned.

So Climate Research (CR) has lost half of its editors and the five remaining include Chris de Freitas. The latest twist in this story is an editorial by Otto Kinne in August’s edition of the journal (Kinne, 2003) which cites the two conclusions of Soon and Baliunas quoted earlier in this article and then states that “While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.’.

I will be watching Climate Research with interest over the coming months to see whether there are any changes in editorial practice and/or in the editorial appointments. Otto Kinne has published fairly extensively on the nature and quality of the science review process – though from a rather theoretical perspective. My experience over the last few months has been that practice does not always meet theory.

The last few months have also taught me quite a lot at first hand about the highly sensitive and political nature of the climate-change debate in the US. Though I have been quite impressed with some of the media coverage of the whole affair. I had fairly lengthy interviews with reporters from the Wall Street Journal and The Chronicle of Higher Education amongst others. The latter article in particular gives a very balanced and well-researched account of events.

Some journalists are digging even deeper – into the sources of Soon and Baliunas’s funding. Their Climate Research paper includes acknowledgements to NOAA, NASA and the US Air Force, as well as to the American Petroleum Institute. Yet NOAA flatly deny having ever funded the authors for such work, while the other two bodies admit to funding them, but for work on solar variability – not proxy climate records, the topic that has caused such a storm.
Clare Goodess is a Senior Research Associate in the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, where she has worked since 1982.

References

Kinne, O., 2003: Climate Research: an article unleashed worldwide storms. Climate Research, 24, 197-198.
Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E. and Wigley, T.M.L., 2003: On past temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth. EOS, 84, 256.
Soon, W. and Baliunas, S., 2003: Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years. Climate Research, 23, 89-110.
Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S. and Legates, D.R. 2003. Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years: A reappraisal. Energy and Environment, 14, 233-296.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

I hope not. Because as ‘everyone’ seems to accept, ‘we’ know diddly squat.
Hence packing up the whole shebang on the basis some folk might have behaved pretty unprofessionally and/or foolishly seems a tad premature.
These guys can no more be sensibly extrapolated to represent the whole AGW advocacy than Al Gore seems able to do with a climate graph.
All that has happened, it appears, is one set of extreme numpties have possibly dragged ‘a’ side down with them. Just as other sets, from other ’sides’ have done before, are doing… and will (you know who you are).
Hence I would seriously suggest that what is going on climatically is still investigated, and scenarios postulated and allowed for, bearing in mind what can be reasonably deduced. And these do include concessions that man might not be helping still.
However, if this incident can give pause to, as some have aptly coined it (unfortunate if apt phrase), certain ‘all or we’re doomed juggernauts’, especially based on any science ’settled’ as has possibly been done here, then there is cause to feel it will be a welcome ’shock’ to the ’system’. At least to get steadier heads discussing what we know, don’t and how best to address things practically and fairly to a sensible enviROI without consigning he whole planet to 30 years in a sealed box by way of a ‘life’ (gilded greeleets excepted to sprinkle ‘awareness’ globally to the proles, as they accept the awards for their ads, have concerts etc)
But having been part of some less than stellar exchanges with various climate-excited pols via The Guardian and the BBC (Newsnight, especially) of late, I am not holding my breath (which, depending on whose predictions prevail, I may yet have to).
Sadly, I remain with the feeling I am stuck betwixt two extremes committed to two ‘all-or-nothing’ dogmas, who are determined to obliterate each other in endless artillery exchanges that will only destroy each other, the rest of us in no clue yet land and… possibly the planet (ok, ok – human life as we know it, as if rampant population growth isn’t meeting deforestation at a rather awkward 1/2 way point already).
Doing nothing is clearly not an option. So changes are required. The trick would be to try and arrive at reasonable consensus around what these might be.
Hence I will still be buying shares in alt. energy companies, but only if their products look set to deliver decent returns, and without being based on dodgy figures, be they £, time, subsidies, etc. Because we’ll still need energy and most other options are finite.
I enjoy life and like living it to the full, too.
Ho-hum. Back over to the Guardian (and your mate who seems to be able to find old soldiers on Google) now to advocate roughly the same, and get an earful from a whole new crowd.
It ain’t easy being green… and a proponent of free speech.

Thanks for this, James.

And please continue to fly in the b****y face of the b****y Establishment, however you or the public feel about it.

There is a lot of (scientific!) evidence out there that contradicts quite a lot of other myths of our time as well … But very often widely ignored …

Al Gore hasn’t a clue:

“can’t even get the temperature of earth’s mantle right, claiming “several million degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”. Oh, and the “crust of the earth is hot” too.

more from Whatts Up With That here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/gore-has-no-clue-a-few-million-degrees-here-and-there-and-pretty-soon-were-talking-about-real-temperature/

Brilliant! You’ve got to give this maximum publicity possible. Maybe if some evidence of criminal activity emerges from all this (”criminal” in the sense that even the police might be forced to take notice), the whole thing will really take off.

It will be interesting to see if this gets as much attention in the media as the alarmist “worse than we thought” proclamations coming at us on a daily basis from so-called scientists in the run up to the Environmentalistas’ bun-fight in Copenhagen.

Why does it take 20 000? All that lovely carbon emission – still, good for the plants.

The climate change con is as old as the hills. You frighten, then control then tax.
The weak minded always fall for this trick.

James – excellent article and WHOA!

I’ve been reading the emails and major OUCH for the participants.

I’ve never been a big denier but always felt uncomfortable about the AGW religion – it has always been a hook for more ‘green’ taxes and opinion control.

Christmas does indeed come early!

Junkmale – If you’re confused still, well that’s your problem – most of us here aren’t!

This is potentially an absolutely huge story. It is imperative that the information is checked to make sure it is true.

If it is, then this strikes at the very heart of science, government, environmentalism, public funding and all kinds of other things. It’s that big.

The Telegraph was at the forefront to expose MPs over their expenses. Please do the same for these charlatans.

I hope they end up in jail. They should do.

James D

Do you want to bet with me $1 mil. that plans to cap/tax carbon emissions will not abate regardless of what is found out about the science? This never has been about the science.

Besides, such eminent scientists – and Nobel laureates – as Al Gore and Barack Obama are surely not responsible for the odd rogue scientist or scientific institute here or there.

We can set the date for your payment to me 5 years from today. The $1 mil. you will owe me will probably cost you only about 1000 Euros by then. That should be doable for you.

Quick….someone throw an accordion of Hot Air Balloons round George Monbiot, in case he might throw himself off a big tree rather than hugging it..!!

Dear James

On the 28 July this year I wrote to the Met office regarding the non-release of data. I have deleted my name and the recipients.

Dear Mr XXXXX

I am preparing an article on the freedom of information act and would request your comments on why the Met Office is unwilling to release temperature data and methodology.

Provided to you is a link to Mr McIntyres web site http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6623.

The article I am proposing is to be based on the unintended consequences of abusing the freedom of information act to prevent the release of information.

In summary I pose to posit the following:-

1 The reason for not releasing information is to hide information which will be embarrassing. I will use the MP’s expenses to illustrate.

2 Another reason is because the organisation is incompetent.

3 The organisation is politicised and manipulates data to create an intended result.

Should the organisation subsequently be guilty of any of the above the unintended consequence of not releasing data is that the organisation will bring British science into disrepute. Which is not in the national interest.

Best regards

xxxxxxxx

So there we are then, you can take a horse to water but can’t make it drink. These so called Climate Scientists have brought British Science into disrepute as I and no doubt others have predicted.

Wegman et al was right all along there was a cohort in existence amongst these so called scientists.

Have you noticed the Guardian is not running the story and the BBC have hidden it away.

Lets hope the Telgraph runs with this and hammers the TWA tea drinkers.

Jobs, travel, development, children, meat.

Is that too long to be a slogan? To answer a chant of “What do we want?”

DOG’S WORMS

Send the lot of ‘em down! Why should taxpayers fund these lying parasitic toe-rags?

Junkmale – If you’re confused still, well that’s your problem – most of us here aren’t!
yaosxx on Nov 20th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

I envy your conviction, at least, so thank you for a significant contribution to the discussion.

Funnily enough, I got pretty much the same insightful input over at a discussion coming at the topic from another direction; unsurprising considering the medium. Tribal belonging can be reassuring to a certain kind of mind. Does rather lead to navel gazing rather than challenging debate, mind.

But then, that was kind of my point.

You do realise that whoever did the hacking is now liable for some serious jail time, no matter how noble the cause, expect the AGW crowd not to rest until said person is truly behind bars for a very long time. Which is what they wish to do to us all that do not believe there bad science and outright lies.
My prediction for Copenhagen is that it will have the coldest and worst weather for decades when the conference meets, nature it seems has a sense of humour as it has at all past meetings.

All together now

Who are the Deniers now then

This will all be suppressed

coldplay: far be it from me to defend a leftie sicko rag like the Guardian, but they do have it, although they put their own spin on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

Yes, crownarmourer, I’ve also noticed how cold it always is at these things.

But can someone please explain to me, who only wanted Tony Benn for EU President because Peter Shore was dead, what is “left-wing” about any of this? Reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been a solution in search of a problem for decades. It was once supposed to be the answer to global cooling.

What it always entails is that high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs for the working class in general and for working-class men in particular must never be created or restored, while travel (and now even meat-eating, for which our teeth are designed) must be re-restricted to the rich, and while development in the poor world must be arrested or reversed.

And this week, not for the first time, it became bound up with the view that the problem with the world is that there are proles and darkies in it, so that they have to be stopped from breeding.

What is left-wing about any of that?

James, we really do need to get you up here to speak nearer to the Election – davidaslindsay@hotmail.com

The mainstream media will completely ignore this, and the hoaxters like Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann will claim the stuff is fake. Remember, pathological liars like Mann are basically sick people, need psychiatric help which blogs really can’t provide.

Mr Delingpole may I presume that this alleged scandal does not involve scientists at just one university? That is, do the documents and emails show alleged complicity with researchers at other major centres?

Junkmale – I’m glad you admire my conviction because I do too! At this late juncture if you still haven’t “got it” then you never will! You somehow wasnt to put the onus on me (us) convincing you – why??? With all the debate, quotes, sites etc that has gone on, if you STILL HAVEN’T GOT IT….
Believe me it’s not about navel gazing but about not wasting one’s time!

The real problem is really AGC Anthropogenic global cooling and action must be taken now, we are all about to enter the big freeze after about 5 minutes of some serious research and a graph admittedly in crayon (with a nice smiley face sun) I can show you the inverse Hockey stick graph in this graph I can show you temperatures will soon plummet to 4 Kelvin. I urge you all to support me in my endeveours to save mankind and make myself obscenely rich in the process or least keep me in beer money from which flow my better ideas or so they seem at the time come from.
So to save us all from certain doom I ask you to turn all the lights on and run your heating with the doors open.

Keep up the good work James – thank goodness you and one or two others ( ie Christopher)continue to expose this almighty scam and keep up the pressure on those paid to push the global warming Orwellian mind-control and hysteria, and downright lying.

The usual alarmist ” beyond argument” line and rubbish from those with “vested interests” – ie paid by the global warming industry – has partly been explained by this revealing article. The Met has alot to answer for, as has much of the BBC output which seems to regard MMGW as a given.

“Deniers” as some call those who question MMGW, should more aptly be put in the category of those who refuse to acknowledge that climate does indeed change, has always changed, and will continue to change … WITHOUT Man’s help.

Climate does indeed change, and has done, over the life of Earth.

To believe that Man can alter this fact, whether negatively or positively, suggests extreme naivety or incredible pomposity.

Thank goodness the majority of real scientists ( not paid to espouse the Man-made global warming myth) have the intelligence and ability to stand up to the mindless politicians, the Left and people with the myopic, brainwashed outlook of the under-educated.

(Do these people not realise that climate has always changed, despite Man, and that not so very long ago ( very recently, geologically) we were actually joined to the Continent and Ireland by land – yes,you could walk to France!…

…But,the Earth changes, as ever, and that link became flooded (now the North Sea and start of the English channel, Irish sea etc.), so we may well find landscapes and seascapes changing, DESPITE MAN!)

Many are clearly part of the paid-up MMGW bandwagon who do not even consider that the UN and their “science” might be completely wrong – this is their new “Religion”.

Concerning the global warming propaganda,and the new “religion” that brooks no argument, David Bellamy wrote in The Times 22.10.07 …

“I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests.

“But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts.

“The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming.

“Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models…”

Many scientists, geologists and historians dispute the causes of climate change – ( remember, climate has always changed, witness the growing of vines all over England pre 12th Century, in Roman times and before), yet the UN and those scientists paid by the Global Warming industry will not heed any argument, to the extent that some people are called “deniers” by those of feeble mind or Left-Wing persuasion, as demonstrated by some today.

The Sun effects climate change – Man, as Canute took pains to demonstrate, is puny against Nature.

Left-Wing doom-mongers seem to revel in the possibility of MMGW. The global warming alarmists, the UN and the IPCC, and many politicians have wallowed in the possibility of MMGW, and, like Lemmings have all been quick to blame virtually any “weather” on climate change…

…and now forge ahead with the propaganda and the “Beyond Argument” line so beloved of dictators, the Left and Communists.

“Green” taxes and the IPCC could have a far greater impact on people and the current economic “climate” than the much maligned CO2 (which is far less of a pollutant than Methane, released into the atmosphere by the World’s cows causing six times as much pollution as cars do).

Already we can see the effects on food, and electricity prices caused by a lack of nuclear generation and massive “green” costs which we are all now paying for, in the vain, misguided and deluded belief that we are causing climate to change.

Utter, alarmist bilge, peddled by those who seem to be becoming ever-more alarmist and almost vicious ( as you have probably revealed above, if the emails are true) – reflected by the Government’s awful recent ads re MMGW, where the phrase “scientists say” is so blatant and untrue ( as only those paid to find Man the cause of any change in climate ’say so’) and is clearly designed to brainwash!

[...] rundowns of all the latest developments at Hot Air, Shout First, Andrew Bolt, and from James Delingpole at the Telegraph, who sums up some of the most damning e-mails: When you read some of those files [...]

Crownarmour – well I’ll only go to pubs with patio heaters if that helps…

David Lindsay it is not about right or left in the classic sense but the extreme left national socialism/communism under the guise of environmentalism.
We will soon see 9 billion people on this planet and are fast approaching the maximum sustainable limit where nearly everyone could potentially enjoy a good living standard at 9 billion it means a rapid degradation of the environment.
Personally you want to limit the population hand out free condoms and give people the world over a chance at a good education where they have the chance to improve there lives.
You do not make up AGW and sell mass genocide as a means to save the planet by starving the poor of food and resources which is what it amounts to, you also do not attempt to tax people literally to death so you can live in a bloody great mansion eating exotic foods flown half way across the world for your delight and damn the carbon mileage.

[...] behind the global warming movement knowingly perpetrated a fraud on the global community. The Telegraph reported: If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. [...]

[...] [...]

Paulbutler – you might be glad to know that there is a certain esoteric book that says “man will always blame climate changes on this that and the other when the real reason is due to precession” ( the Earth’s wobble during it’s spin which is then affected by the angle of the sun’s rays) – this book was written towards the end of the 19th century…
You mention David Bellamy – funny how DT decided to finally do an interview on him yesterday – long overdue!

You somehow wasnt to put the onus on me (us) convincing you – why???
yaosxx on Nov 20th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

I wasn’t aware I was asking you to convince me of anything. But it seems you are keen to sway me to your views.

If I understand you correctly, I can only share what I do with those who demand total fealty to the notion that it is all man’s fault, and all man’s resources must now be diverted into ‘curing’ ‘it. A conviction I do not share, and hence would suggest is a failing of the person making the case, rather than justification for them getting hot (well, warm) under the collar about me not buying it.

Equally, I am unconvinced that nothing is happening and nothing needs to be done, especially when combined with rather childish notions about burning tires for fun or somesuch.

I am just a traveler on a journey gaining insights here and there, with which I will evolve my opinion. Which, in a free world, I can and do often share.

So I think the likes of Ed Miliband are full of it, as are many others keen to throw every penny ‘we’ have in a green hole based on a very poorly defined threat so far. I don’t buy their lines, and really don’t appreciate being told it’s my problem for their failures.

But equally, those who figure we can keep on without sensible checks and balances seem to inhabit another little world of their own I want nothing to do with either.

Leading to an odd blogsphere where there are two sides which ‘get it’ – and they happen to be the total opposite of each other – which strikes me as both ironic and a tad illogical.

But if this blog feels happier all in the same consensual boat, and such as Mr. Monbiot and his merry crew feel the same elsewhere, there indeed may be a solution suggested.

http://www.geoffwilkins.net/fragments/Adams.htm

Though, all things considered from this piece, I might sashay from the ‘A’ ark to the ‘C’. Pretty sure no ratings-funded ‘commentators’ and their cheerleaders to be found there either.

JunkkMale on Nov 20th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

You could always try looking at the evidence for yourself, of course. Try looking at the predictions for the current time that the Warmists were making in the 1970s and 1980s, for example, and compare them with what has actually happened. That will probably give you some idea of the predictive accuracy of the “science” that is behind their apocalyptic prognostications.

nomorepc on Nov 20th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
“Al Gore hasn’t a clue:”

He may well not have, but he is becoming a billionaire off the credulous paranoid cretins who have a bloody sight less!

JunkkMale if certain bits of you are going green see a doctor could be gangrene.

“This is about the controlling ideologies of the left being enabled through the back door route of ‘environmentalism.’”

More generally, the Left needs some impending global catastrophe — any kind will do — in order to justify stripping the citizenry of their rights and freedoms. If they can successfully persuade ordinary folks that the choice is strictly between dying as free men and surviving as proletariat slaves of the State, then they believe that a vast majority of individuals will choose the latter. Thus any evidence and arguments that the choice is not so stark must, in their view, be suppressed as heresy, and by whatever means necessary.

Dear Mr Delingpole

Your are being savaged by a dead worm Leo Hickman on the Guardian.

They censor my posts so I thought you should see this one:-

Dear Leo

Delingpole doesn’t censor like you? You are so easy to beat in an intellectual argument your only course of action is to censor.

Comment is free if you agree.

So all together then “Who are the Deniers now then”

Peer reviewed science what a joke.

An honourable person would apologise and resign for fiddling the figures, well no chance of that then.

Give my regards to your retard mate Mefinny2
END OF POST

Never ever thought I would be on the side of a Telelgraph journalist. Funny hey:-)

“You could always try looking at the evidence for yourself, of course. Try looking at the predictions for the current time that the Warmists were making in the 1970s and 1980s, for example, and compare them with what has actually happened. That will probably give you some idea of the predictive accuracy of the ’science’ that is behind their apocalyptic prognostications.”

There are two fundamental tests of the validity of predictive models of nature.

1) Does the model accurately predict the past? If one feeds into the model actual historical data inputs, does it reproduce that actual historical observed data it purports to model?

2) Does the model accurately track with the present? As one feeds current observed data into the model, does the model’s output track with current observations of the phenomena it purports to predict?

It seems that current models used by the AGW promoters are failing test #2. I wonder if anyone ever bothered to check them against test #1.

Catweazle

Madoff used to be a billionaire and where is he now?

Al Gore has scientific advisors, he chooses to hear what he wants to hear.

Real scientist today debate the possibility of predictibility of climate in the future. Take my word for it.

coldplay

The dead worm, Zac Goldsmith also censored skeptics’ comments in the Evening Standard a few weeks ago.

CRU responds –

Prof Phil “hide the decline” Jones says,

“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you
remember the exact context of what you wrote ten
years ago?”

He also admits they’ve been hacked and lots of files were taken, so this is story is probably legit.

Check the whole interview at http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf

HUGE!!

But will it become “news”?

[...] Telegraph – UK [...]

It’s amazing how far this is going. It broke on my blog the Air Vent by a guy who left a link on several sights. Mine was the lucky one noticed. Ground zero is pretty exciting right until the BOOM!!

Anyway, there is some more analysis in the context of the climate science there (it’s a hobby). Also a blogger Lubos found a spreadsheet with 22million USD in grants for professor Jones.

Big oil my butt.

Here’s my take:http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/

David Lindsay @5:03 pm

“What’s left wing about any of that?”

If you look at American politics going back to the early 20th century progressives, you will notice that rich liberals have always wanted some version of a utopia that would suit their particular aesthetic preferences, but would be disastrous to the middle classes and poor of the world. Rich liberals, not rich conservatives, drive the most egregious policies.

Look into the ban on DDT in Africa to protect birds and the number of malaria deaths that could have been prevented had DDT not been prohibited by greenies in the West. African birds are admittedly stunningly beautiful creatures, even to me, someone who is usually not the slightest bit interested in birds – but I’m willing to bet – since that’s what I seem to be doing on this thread – that Africans would have preferred saving human lives.

Note that the UN and WHO are now also discouraging use of DDT. They also seem to want Africans to die off. Certainly, you cannot accuse them of being right-wing conservatives.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303288779048569.html

________________________

James D @4:07 pm

I wonder who held the stock shorted against. I will make another bet: a guaranteed pension fund for unionized public employees. So taxpayers will probably pay to make up the losses in the pension funds.

I would like to short the stock of a new car manufacturer (if it ever goes public), of whom Al Gore is a backer, that is going to be making hybrid cars in Finland that will cost $89,000 (not sure whether that includes taxes or shipment). Over $500 mil. was loaned to this company by the U.S. government. (Don’t ask me to explain under what program it legally did so. I don’t have a clue. Also, you don’t have to point out that the bailed-out U.S. car manufacturers would have happily taken than $500 mil for their own hybrid development programs. Nor I have I missed the fact that this will create jobs in FINLAND, not the U.S.) So hoping the company will fail means the money will never be repaid to the American government.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html

By the way, this thing about hybrid cars. Why isn’t anyone writing about the fact that they use electricity which comes from utility companies that use coal and give off carbon emissions? When the price of electricity “skyrockets,” as is planned to happen, exactly how practical are these hybrids going to be?

That’s the same theme as I wrote to David Lindsay about: rich men’s utopias. The poor can just walk.

David Lindsay @5:03 pm

“What’s left wing about any of that?”

If you look at American politics going back to the early 20th century progressives, you will notice that rich liberals have always wanted some version of a utopia that would suit their particular aesthetic preferences, but would be disastrous to the middle classes and poor of the world. Rich liberals, not rich conservatives, drive the most egregious policies.

Look into the ban on DDT in Africa to protect birds and the number of malaria deaths that could have been prevented had DDT not been prohibited by greenies in the West. African birds are admittedly stunningly beautiful creatures, even to me, someone who is usually not the slightest bit interested in birds – but I’m willing to bet – since that’s what I seem to be doing on this thread – that Africans would have preferred saving human lives.

Note that the UN and WHO are now also discouraging use of DDT. They also seem to want Africans to die off. Certainly, you cannot accuse them of being right-wing conservatives.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303288779048569.html

________________________

James D @4:07 pm

I wonder who held the stock shorted against. I will make another bet: a guaranteed pension fund for unionized public employees. So taxpayers will probably pay to make up the losses in the pension funds.

I would like to short the stock of a new car manufacturer (if it ever goes public), of whom Al Gore is a backer, that is going to be making hybrid cars in Finland that will cost $89,000 (not sure whether that includes taxes or shipment). Over $500 mil. was loaned to this company by the U.S. government. (Don’t ask me to explain under what program it legally did so. I don’t have a clue. Also, you don’t have to point out that the bailed-out U.S. car manufacturers would have happily taken than $500 mil for their own hybrid development programs. Nor I have I missed the fact that this will create jobs in FINLAND, not the U.S.) So hoping the company will fail means the money will never be repaid to the American government.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html

By the way, this thing about hybrid cars. Why isn’t anyone writing about the fact that they use electricity which comes from utility companies that use coal and give off carbon emissions? When the price of electricity “skyrockets,” as is planned to happen, exactly how practical are these hybrids going to be?

That’s the same theme as I wrote to David Lindsay about: rich men’s utopias. The poor can just walk.

James, regarding your first posted comment: how delightful for you.

Regarding this-was-never-about-science: the ‘boffins’s’ comments about suppressing opposition and beating people up who disagree with you sounds, oh I dunno, very unEnlightenment and anti-democratic and au contraire, thuggish and authoritarian. The creeps.

[...] Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? Posted in: Politics [...]

“If you look at American politics going back to the early 20th century progressives, you will notice that rich liberals have always wanted some version of a utopia that would suit their particular aesthetic preferences”

Yes, but that’s still only American liberalism. That only counts as the Left in the country that doesn’t have a real one.

[...] [...]

[...] Delingpole covers Climategate: If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them [...]

Guys and Gals

Please don’t turn this into a left right controversy.

On the left we have clowns like Moonbot,Lab Luvvies etc

On the right we have Charles Windsor, Al Gore and any capitalist who wants to speculate on carbon credits.

This issue is too important to be turned into a left right argument.

What we have here appears to be a group of scientists colluding to reach a certain conclusion that is the serious issue.

James thanks for the acknowledgement, hopefully the Telegraph will treat this story with the seriousness it deserves.

[...] from the Telegraph’s James Delingpole: When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just [...]

[...] from the Telegraph’s James Delingpole: When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just [...]

[...] [...]

@James D how do you tell your kids the planet is doomed in the most graphic blood and guts every where way possible, for some reason they seem to like it which is why fairy tales are always nasty and brutal and rarely a happy ending, now back to another fairy story AGW.
Well the planet is ultimately doomed but I’m sure mankind will have passed into extinction by then or evolved into something unrecognisable to us now, a billion years or more is a long time.

well, interesting reading
would be interested to see these alleged documents and see the excerpts from “These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists” in context

I will also add that from my own personal experience and that of the members of the older generation that I have spoken to about this subject (including my grandfather age 87) the world dose seem to be warming up, granddad remembers getting snowed in with snow deeper than the height of a car where as now we rarely get more than an inch and some of the trees have green leaves on them well into November,
just 20 years ago all the trees would be bare and ice on the roads by now.

I’ve had a quick scan through the emails in the file, not to look at content, rather to get a feel for consistency of language and the context of multiple mails.

So far I haven’t seen any major discrepancies. Although I noticed that the EAU climate unit and their pals across the pond getting more and more paranoid about the ’sceptic’ camp in more recent mails, as our uncooperative climate fails to warm as predicted by their obviously flawed climate models.

From this quick look I think it’s likely that the contents of the hacked file are true. This is a massive story and will have a major effect on the coming Copenhagen CO2 reduction treaty.

[...] that classified emails and files prove that the junk scientists behind the global warming movement knowingly perpetrated a fraud on the global [...]

John Duckham
This is more of the same missing the point stuff. It is all: Lets argue about who is right and who is wrong and lets keep this endless argument going for decades until the oils runs out and then think about what to do.

Carbon gases produced by burning oil products are damaging to health and the environment generally. Whether or not they are causing the world to warm up is immaterial. They are all bad for the planet and especially for humans so why not start seriously to find alternative energy sources? Never mind the stupid arguments lets do the anti-polution exercises and help developing countries clean up too by giving them the technology and lets get some money spent on being the first to harness some decent clean power supplies.

http://johnduckham.tk

David Lindsay

“Yes, but that’s still only American liberalism. That only counts as the Left in the country that doesn’t have a real one.”

Spoken by someone who

1) isn’t American,
2) didn’t live through the Viet Nam era (or at least not as anything older than a child)
3) is apparently unaware of the politics of those such as Saul Alinsky coming out of Chicago and those such as Noam Chomsky in Cambridge or Berkeley.
4) hasn’t noticed the various statements of Barack Obama about redistribution or read the writings of his various policy czars AND
5) hasn’t noticed the policies this Administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are putting in place right now.

I’m trying to remember who gave the information on making the atomic bomb to the Soviets. Your Allan Nunn May had a little to do with it, but wasn’t it mainly that nice couple, the Rosenbergs? Stalwarts of the conservative right movement no doubt.

[...] Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?. Jump to Comments Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?. [...]

benjamin of course it has gotten warmer then your Grandads day we have been coming out the little Ice age for about 150 years and our axial tilt has changed slightly my own grandfather remembered it being nearly light up till about 11 pm a t night in the north of england circa 100 years ago. Now it looks like we may be heading into another cold patch. again. Even in the 1970’s I remember the heavy snowfalls.
Basically the climate follows periodic cycles and changes all the time, there are also cycles within cycles within cycles.

[...] [...]

[...] Gun’ in Researchers’ Leaked E-Mails The Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the [...]

Duckham as for fossil fuels we have enough for maybe 300 years not a big issue and if we run out then plenty of people to use as fuel, well when they die of natural causes of course such as walking into a lead projectile at high speed.

Can someone do something about these stupid bots cluttering up these blogs driving me crazy the comments with [...] if that’s a real person then the men in the white coats need to pay a visit.

[...] Fonte originale: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin... [...]

Hamish Redux

The Guardian article you cite is strangely familiar: the poor scientists who have to operate under the intense and unfair scrutiny of the skeptics. Isn’t that sort of like poor Major Hasan who had to serve in the U.S. Army despite the intense and unfair (discriminatory) reactions to his various pro-jihad statements?

____________________

Somebody authoritative is quoted by the Guardian as saying: ” At the heart of this is basic physics.”

Can some of you science whizzes (no sarcasm intended. Nomorepc I’m still as impressed as can be with your background.) help me out? I don’t actually know which science is “at the heart of it.”

I would think chemistry, astronomy (The sun and sunspots have relevance, don’t they?), astrophysics and regular physics are all vital. Maybe some geology. But could anyone pick only one, and if so, would it be “physics?”

Hey [...],

Get lost, Pillock.

msher1, oh, of course there are extreme Leftists in America. Bush was surrounded by them. He probably didn’t know; he didn’t know much. But they were there.

By contrast:

“Saul Alinsky”

Handed over to a member of Opus Dei, Squire Lance, a strong Obama supporter in common with Bart Stupak, Bob Casey, Ben Nelson, Jim Webb, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, General Jim Jone, Dick Lugar (more-or-less openly), Chuck Hagel (more-or-less openly), Christopher Buckley, the conservative Catholic constitutional scholar Douglas Kmiec, and Donnie McClurkin, the ex-gay gospel singer whose presence on the Obama team infuriated the Clinton camp. Leninists all, I’m sure you will agree.

“Noam Chomsky”

Hardly at the heart of the Administration.

“the various statements of Barack Obama about redistribution”

Little or nothing more than Christian Democracy, Gaullism or One Nation Toryism.

“the policies this Administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are putting in place right now”

The Stupak Amendment? You know, the one that may yet call on the Republicans to save the Bill containing it from the Dems’ radical feminist wing? What will the GOP do? Vote against making abortion practically impossible by making most healthcare federally funded, because the absence of federal funding is more importnat than the almost total reduction in abortion? There goes the base.

In which case, expect a lot more voting for Obama and the Democrats from people such as those who, on the same day, voted in California and Florida to re-affirm traditional marriage, Obama’s own view. Voted in Colorado to end legal discrimination against working-class white men, allegedly the hardest people for Obama to reach. Voted in Missouri and Ohio not to liberalise gambling. And voted for Obama from coast to coast while also keeping the black and Catholic churches (especially) going. Leninists all, I’m sure you will agree.

[...] [...]

I’m sorry but would someone explain to me what relevance facts have to do with anything?

The real world is different than the idealized one in everyone’s head.

Emotional investment > reality

Hyperbole > Fact

Law > Justice -and- Money > Law

Wild erroneous claim > retraction and correction

Corruption > fair play

Like I said, it is only in the imagined world that good overcomes evil. Therefore I tell you, that no matter what validity this carries, the corruptive forces in power now have enough money, mass and momentum to overcome this and any other threatening truth.

Beware the Grantham Foundation.
University of East Anglia are only bit players, totally obsessed with Vietmanese Mangroves. And we all know about Garry Glitter.

[...] warming research lab hacked Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Tel… quite possibly the best hack ever? FU Al gore __________________ [...]

Duckham

” all: Lets argue about who is right and who is wrong and lets keep this endless argument going for decades until the oils runs out and then think about what to do.”

No, the point is very different. One day we will have to migrate from fossil fuels – but the societies who will be able to find viable alternatives and then accomplish the migration and give the technology to the rest of the world are prosperous, productive and innovative societies. To destroy our economies now, for nothing, means that the money and scientists won’t be available to find the alternatives and accomplish the migrations. What we are going to end up with is a few rich who can afford to live in comfort and the rest, poor masses. We will devolve, not evolve.

_______________________

nomorepc

You know that I am amazed as heck at your accomplishments. But I want to point out to you and the other scientific people who are also so very accomplished that all the junk science and outrageous claims for AGW are distractions from the political agenda. My view is deliberate distractions are being created to keep the smartest science minds outraged at the corruption of the science and not noticing what is happening politically. It is the political agenda that this is really all about and I hope those of you who are so smart will also fight the political fight, not just the science fight. The true powers driving the AGW agenda don’t care one way or another about the science.

I worked in a lab in the 90s (in the US) where a secretary was found to have pocketed a small amount of funds from the lab (probably less than $1000). Because the funds were from US research grants the result was a major FBI investigation and the employee faced many years of prison time under felony prosecution. Should these allegations be true, if similar standard apply to the misappropriation of UK tax monies then all those involved should clearly face decades behind bars. I am particularly hopeful that US labs were implicated in these emails as I’d love to see some of those folks face serious jail time.

Reading this blog and the resulting comments has opened my eyes a bit to things on your side of the ditch. I’d really pretty much written you all off as hopelessly Red.

Next you guys will be getting your guns back.

We allege that back in 2001, British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell ordered the B.C. pension fund (bcIMC) to help signatory investors in the Carbon Disclosure Project to execute a global warming fraud.

Campbell and Obama’s cronies have conspired with CDP brokers to manipulate data from the CDP-controlled Radarsat system; they have hidden evidence that 55% of the world’s glaciers are growing and the earth is cooling.

[...] (telegraph.co.uk) If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed. Read More… [...]

All references to the Cru data hack are now disappearing faster than Eires chances of playing in the next World Cup .. Comment is un free it would appear ..or basically , they know that they are fcuked on this and that its the begining of the end .The end of all their little fantasies of enforcing vegetarianism , cycling , higher taxes and other crimes on Joe Public ….

Msher1,

The basic physics (if that is what it is) is that Carbon Dioxide will absorb infra-red radiation, preventing it from escaping the earth. Infra-red radiation is essentially ‘warm’. The idea is that an increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to a proportional increase in infra red radiation trapped, causing a corresponding warming of the planet. However, the relatrionship between increasing carbon dioxide and temperature increase is apparently sub-linear, meaning that each unit rise in carbon dioxide results in less than a corresponding rise in temperature. Maybe someone can supply a link showing this. Incidentally, although they are related, temperature and heat are not the same thing.

I don’t know if the AGW soothsayers use any other variables to reach their conclusions but see oh too gets the lions share of the blame.

At the heart of it all is basic engineering – financial.

Sorry thats a ref to The Guardian

David Lindsay you are incorrect as to Obama’s political leanings he is a closet marxist probably muslim and bisexual to boot. Which makes him an odd person but do not underestimate his left wing agenda, as for his voters they were sick of high fuel prices before the election so they voted democrat in protest that’s all.
As for Pelosi she’s just a plastic bitch.

Carbon Dioxide is an insulator gas; it delays global cooling; it doesn’t accelerate global warming.

[...] Remember that does not mean the emails being widely quoted are genuine. Update IV: BBC and UK Telegraph [...]

Well done James, best summary of all this so far.

Just thought I’d give your readers a link to Roger Harrabin’s apologia over at the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm

[...] by these obvious facts, James Delingpoole, an angry looking young man who blogs for the Telegraph, wonders if we’re seeing “the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming.’” He [...]

[...] [...]

[...] Warming Fraud by Hadley CRU Exposed Telegraph Media Group | by James Delingpole | Nov. 20, [...]

[...] Mainline press starting to pick up here; FOX, Telegraph [...]

@Duckham. John, there are many alternatives to oil already, but, just as the Corporation that is our Government wish to exploit climate change nonsense to tax and supress us, Big Energy does not want us to use technology that we already have, the best of which is GeoThermal. Gentlemen, the imminent collapse of the AGW fraud is great news, it exposes the liars who pretend to Govern us. Now James Delingpole, do you have a colleague with like integrity who will write about the eugenics agenda that is swine flu? About the inside jobs of 9/11 and 7/7? Things are coming to a head.

Duckham on Nov 20th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
“Carbon gases produced by burning oil products are damaging to health and the environment generally.”

Complete 100% 24-carat bullshit.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential component of our atmosphere without which there would be no plants on Earth.

Further, many agricultural systems produce markedly increased yields by increasing the percentage of the CO2 in their greenhouses.

If you are referring to carbon monoxide or partially combusted hydrocarbons, they became a thing of the past with the advent of the catalytic converter.

Yet again you show your utter ignorance, pitcher.

There are numerous reasons to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but that is not one of them.

[...] this from James Delingpole of the Telegraph in the UK. If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The [...]

The Plain Stupid ad needs to be condemned as well , Polar Bears falling past skyscrapers to the pavement whilst the soundtrack is nothing more than the roar of an airplanes engines , is nothing less than a sick reference to the poor buggers jumping off the Twin Towers / 9/11. How crass can these people be? For their sakes , i hope the families of the 9/11 victims dont get to see the ad in all its disgusting and gory detail.

[...] [...]

msher1

you are right, and Guardian expert is wrong, it’s not basic physics.

The expression extreme sensitivity to initial conditions is scientific lingo about chaotic/stochastic systems. Get the initial conditions wrong and you churn garbage around and out. Try to adjust some of your input data, still the wrong long-term result is spat out. This means your model does not work and never will, see AGW model predicting constant warming or BBQ summer etc.,.

Re complex climate models have to get cosmic radiations, ocean currents, sun spot cycles, with dzillions of other data, exactly right. Looks hopeless to me.

msher1, you have been doing a great fight; agree with you: it is the political and scientific boogeyman we have to overcome together.

[...] [...]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-email-hacking

A very desperate warmist speaks ! The public are easily confused he says ..sheesh..

James- What a corker of a week. BTW I was there on Wednesday.

crownarmourer on Nov 20th, 2009 at 8:10 pm

I totally agree. Who are [...] anyway? Never used to get this junk.

msher 1
Physics, Thermodynamics (mech. eng. will do for that), Physical Chemistry.
Forget sun spots and/or Stefan-Boltzmann.(That is where Monkton made his mistake in the Sunday Telegraph, when he was wiped out by Al Gore).
The whole subject boils down to the question:-
Is the component of the increase in atmospheric mean temperature resulting from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (because of the increased absorption of infra red radiation by the carbon dioxide) sufficient to have any measureable effect on the global climate. The answer is “No” but it is not possible to prove (hard Karl Popper type of proof) that statement one way or the other.

I have to say, this news made my day. Hard evidence of the scam they’ve been perpetrating all along.

http://www.hugecarbonfeet.com

PS sorry about bold

[...] Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Tel… If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The [...]

[...] Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist If this turns out to be true…. Climategate For the sake of Science, I hope the above is [...]

I am seeding all this plus the docs on all the warez sites. Please Please Someone tell me this is true and I’m
not dreaming

I see “Scary eyes” Hickman has drafted Randerson in to help him draft what Ron Ziegler used to call “an operative statement” …something to give them time for all this to sink in and decide on a proper response. Expect Moonbat The Gandalf ( or should that be Sauron? ) of MMGW to appear in The Gran by this time tomorrow with appropriate diversionary tactics …

[...] Thousands of “emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server” — a top climate research center in the United Kingdom — “were hacked recently” and dumped on a Russian web server. Global warming deniers are sifting through the illegally obtained letters of private correspondence for “proof” that the scientific consensus on climate change is actually a global conspiracy. — “If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW,” says the Telegraph’s James Delingpole. [...]

[...] Thousands of “emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server” — a top climate research center in the United Kingdom — “were hacked recently” and dumped on a Russian web server. Global warming deniers are sifting through the illegally obtained letters of private correspondence for “proof” that the scientific consensus on climate change is actually a global conspiracy. — “If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW,” says the Telegraph’s James Delingpole. [...]

[...] Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the [...]

[...] Read Story At Telegraph.co.uk Category: Uncategorized [...]

[...] telegraph.co.uk [...]

For those who think there might be credibility to AGW (Junkkmale and others). You need only to look at the theory (uhh make that weak hypothesis) behind it. It postulates that essentially 100 PPM of CO2 (this is the amount we have added since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution) is capable of causing irreversible and catastrophic climate change on a global level…100 PPM!…that’s Parts Per MILLION! On top of the fact that CO2 is not an efficient greenhouse gas how could that be enough even if it were? Would 100 PPM of methane (a real greenhouse gas) even be enough to do this?

So start there and then look at other known scientific facts like:

-Since roughly 1850, we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age so warming is expected.
-Geological studies have essentially proven that throughout Earth’s history CO2 levels have generally been much higher (in the order of 1000+ PPM) even during ice ages.
-Eric the Red today would not have named it Greenland, yet we now panic over ice melt there.

So call me a dumb southern Yank but I always thought that everything was debatable in science but any dissenters of late have been all but banished from the scientific community here in the US. And the official word, especially with O in town is “the sky is falling” so we must act now in any way that we can regardless of the consequences. I am so glad to see prominent members of the British community, like Lord Christopher Monckton stand up to this. If only our elites and media would do this. But, then again, we wouldn’t want to get in the way of Copenhagen now would we?

[...] [...]

I sage the [...] is just a bot with some simple algorithms designed to take random text from the blog and reassemble it to try and give the appearance of commentary. Probably designed to annoy bloggers here and to discourage them from coming here, it seems James has enemies, enemies with a grudge.

Or if I was really cynical then it could be some code that a friend of James designed to keep his blog count up. Nah he wouldn’t do that would he?

Finally! We need more findings like these. Hack away! Here in the U.S. (and around the world), the media, education institutions at all levels and politicians are responsible for this unbelievable mountain of lies and use these lies as a vehicle toward redistribution of wealth and “social justice”.

There is no smoking gun here and the only thing that this ill-gotten discovery proves is that a segment of the Global Warming crowd is an “imperfect messenger.” I might add, that the Global Warming Denier crowd has done the same types of things as evidenced by the Bush Administration attempts to edit data that supported Global Warming out of scientific reports and papers.

The reality is that Global Warming has continued over the past decade or so although at a slower pace. If the hot El Nino year of 1998 is taken out of the data (or if you start measuring from before 1998) the earth has warmed over the past 11 to 12 years. Furthermore, very recent data clearly shows a warming trend. Oct. 2009 was the 10th warmest Oct. on record for Alaska. Oct.-Nov. 2009 has been a record hot spell for much of Australia. The total size of the ice mass in the Arctic during Oct. 2009 was the lowest ever recorded for that month. And, as the month of Nov. 2009 began there was also the lowest amount of Arctic ice ever recorded for that month. I might add that recent data shows the rate of the ice melt in Greenland to be accelerating.

I Sage @ 9:19 and Crownarmourer @ 9:48 pm

I have checked out some of those [...]. The ones I looked at have been in posts where the USER ID is a link to some other web site. Everytime I have checked out those links, there has been a mention of the particular DT thread where the USER ID appears. I can’t swear that is true all of such links, but it’s true of the couple of dozen from various threads I have checked out.

I haven’t figured out why some of such posts quote a little of the DT bloggers articles, and others just do the [...]. But based on the links I have looked at, it does seem to me that the DT has some sort of program that is searching the internet for mentions of its bloggers’ articles. I assume that the links that show up here as User ID’s are also in a DT data base, or perhaps just putting them on the thread is how they are keeping track.

[...] And how did they d eal with folks who didn’t agree with them? And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority. [...]

Since it’s always good to consider more than one angle of a story, how about a gander at the initial response from the other side, including Realclimate?
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/

I get the impression that there’s much zeal out there to take statements out of context, misinterpret remarks, and suggest that certain comments are representative of general sentiment in the climatology community.

[...] Telegraph-blogs Çizim kaynak [...]

[...] Global Warming Was A Fraud All Along And there’s proof, turns out. [...]

[...] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin... [...]

[...] [...]

[...] We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. [4] [...]

[...] a link to the U.K. article on another forum. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Tel… __________________ Ray S.V. Nikko 1983 Fraser 41 La Conner, WA [...]

James,

Thank you for writing about this. I have long suspected that dire man-made climate change on a global scale was suspicious.

Now I know that this is a fraud perpetrated by UK government employees.

Mr Phil Jones please RESIGN NOW before you are dismissed.

I sincerely hope the authorities investigate and punish these crooks. What an incredible swindle – fabricated data and control of peer review process to ensure their anthropogenic CO2 alarmist eco-fascist agenda appeared as mainstream “accepted” science (at least superficialy because there have always been expert atmospheric physics skeptics such as Richard Lindzen at MIT).

Of course, the large taxpayer funding pouring into climate related research obviously provides the motive for fabricating lies and a myth.

@alexj and others who think the rationalizations at RealClimate and ClimateProgress have any validity…

Basically they claim that these emails are the normal backroom chatter that goes on in scientific work.

I’ve lived and worked in the earth science community since 1965 and I know what the back room chatter sounds like, especially when important work is being done. That’s not what’s in these emails.

I’ve been reading through them, and I’m getting very depressed and angry. This is not the talk of peoople excited about scientific discovery. These are hacks trying to come up with ways to make the data fit a foregone conclusion.

It’s a disgrace. There needs to be a major investigation.

It was always clear to me that global warming caused by human agency was a fraud. Here in Canada we have a province called Alberta. It is a treasure house of dinosaur bones. Dinosaurs were large reptiles, they needed a tropical climate. Alberta is anything but tropical today. It is possible to stand near a dinosaur dig, face west and see glaciers left over from the last ice age. So we know that the climate there has varied from tropical to totally frozen and it has done so without any human agency. There are many other places in the world which offer similar evidence. The only thing that would surprise me is a statement to the effect that the earth`s climate is stable. It never has been.

nomorepc

Hope my comment didn’t offend you. In addition to your degree – and don’t be modest, your undoubedtly Nobel Prize caliber circle of associates, I remember what you said about place of birth and having lived in U.S. before moving to Britain. I have hoped to have a chance to ask you something not relating to AGW. Would you be willing to contact me: mgsher@yahoo.com. No offense taken if you aren’t.

________________

crownarmourer

Thanks for last communication. Will have more questions perhaps not for a day or so. Hope you are fully recovered.

[...] quotes are from the Telegraph – I’ve visited the blog it is from but can’t seem to find the emails. Links in [...]

– the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal –

I remember as a child the Telegraph advertising itself as the voice of the silent majority. Come on Telegraph, let’s hear you. Get this on the front page!

The *real* scandal isn’t that this “Hockey Stick Team” as they are known as like to dress up charts and use computers to cherry pick data while not doing to by hand. The real scandal is that in doing so they misrepresent not modern temperatures but those of the past. How? By using trees as thermometers instead of using thermometers as thermometers. They IGNORE the fact that there ARE in fact wonderfully good thermometer records that go back almost 400 years, not the 100 year they CLAIM they only go back to.

Here is the longest record of all:

http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg

[...] In the past I have been very hesitant to believe that the anthropogenic global warming movement was a ‘conspiracy’ of any kind. It is generally silly to automatically paint any organized group that one disagrees with as a conspiracy to hide the truth. However, ‘conspiracy’ may be closer to the reality than I suspected. [...]

[...] Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin... [...]

turinst @8:45 pm

“The basic physics (if that is what it is) is that Carbon Dioxide will absorb infra-red radiation, preventing it from escaping the earth…….”

Thanks. But you illustrate my question. Is that physics, astrophysics, or chemistry or some mixture of those? And I forgot to add “modeling” assuming that’s considered a separate science. And surely sun activity plays some part, so there’s astronomy. And there’s water vapor, which I thought was chemistry. And aren’t people who study the atmosphere of the earth in the past “geologists” or “paleontologists?”
So I guess I am asking what is a “climatologist” or “climate scientist?” Has (s)he a unique scientific background in something called “climatology?” Or is (s)he from one of these other disciplines and just extrapolating from some other environment or event or experiment to what (s)he thinks or models will happen to climate?

I really don’t know the answer to this. I have looked it up a few times, and it seems to me that there isn’t a specific body of knowledge that is definitive about prediction of future climate, just a whole bunch of people extrapolating from whatever data they want to take from other disciplines to reach a predetermined outcome.

And I would point out to those saying the AGW “climate scientists” know anything that my local weather forecast last week said no rain this week, only clouds. And it has rained twice so far this week. Those are predictions by meteorologists, who have a defined knowledge set to take their predictions from.

Turinst, this post isn’t meant as a jab at you. I appreciate the explanation. I’m not sure that I agree with you that it’s only financial engineering at the heart of AGW. I think it is driven by those who want political control and aided and abetted by those who will gain financially. But maybe that’s a distinction without meaning.

________________________

I Sage and crownarmourer

If I am right about the DT computers picking up all the references to their bloggers’ articles on other internet sites and the User ID’s here being a record of those references, this article is getting a lot of attention. If so that’s interesting, because you would think the newspapers themselves would have covered the story and that’s what would be circulating around the web.

[...] Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Tel… Seems like a bad day for global warming on the board.. __________________ SSG, USA 2000-2008 [...]

[...] net. Tony Hake at Examiner.com is updating his compilation. And James Delingpole has excerpts at Telegraph.co.uk. Pretty damning stuff… looks like this could be big. [Get the ZIP file here or here (or [...]

msher1,

will be delighted, has to be tomorrow due to Delingpole and Ed West re Dawkins.

This is really a bad day for science. I’ve always thought that AGW was a political scam, that global mathematical models wouldn’t work – there’s insufficient data on the Southern Hemisphere to begin with – but a scientific scam??

The worst thing about all this is that it will discredit science itself. People will think that science is pointless and stupid.

Magnificent work, James. magnificent.

maintain the pressure.

Be remorseless. Show NO mercy, as they haven’t towards you. (Or me)

AGW is pure fiction. You Know it, I know it. The Gaurdianista’s know it.

Expose.
Reveal.
Explain.

Then bask in the glory that is coming your way.

AGW? The biggest scientific hoax of all time, bar none.

skipa on Nov 20th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“The reality is that Global Warming has continued over the past decade or so although at a slower pace. If the hot El Nino year of 1998 is taken out of the data (or if you start measuring from before 1998) the earth has warmed over the past 11 to 12 years. Furthermore, very recent data clearly shows a warming trend.”

Really?

So you know more than Hadley Centre, do you?

“And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill.”

A standstill most definitely isn’t a warming trend.

As for:

“And, as the month of Nov. 2009 began there was also the lowest amount of Arctic ice ever recorded for that month.”

I don’t know where you get your data, but reliable sources(not Pen Hadow!) indicate that the ice has been recovering for three years now.

So you’re wrong there, too.

What purpose is served lying about man-made global warming? How can one benefit from any ultimate finding that they have been wrong, and indeed a huster, unless the disengenious are enemies of free enterprise and democracy.

How many people were killed or imprisoned stating a contrary view of the “Holy Scriptures” inspired geocentrism before Copernicus?

Early geocentricism was supported by purely philosphical/religious reasons. Today only egocentrism spurs the myth of anthropogenic global warming.

How we laugh today at the ancients: flat-earthers, imaginative presumption of an invisible horse inside powering a locomotive, a tribal leader convincing followers that his having sex with local virgins can ward off dire meteorological events, curative bleeding a suffer of melancholy, existence of witches, royalty as divine, flouridated water is bad, UFOs visiting earth from distant worlds, AIDS as a white man’s genocidal scheme, embryonic stem cells having restorative powers, late-term abortion as wholesome, annual mammagrams and frequent self-examination of the breasts are unnecessary, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, AMONG these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness, and on and on.

[...] [...]

Are you sure those quotes are not out of context, Delingpole?

[...] Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. [...]

So when global warming is exposed as a myth where are governments going to turn to in order to justify their outrageous tax demands.

I forgot to include the link for my post of Nov 20th, 2009 at 11:56 pm.

Unlike the poster to whom I was addressing my argument, I like to ensure my sources are available.

[...] [...]

The BBC has closed down Richard Black’s “blog”.

Comments verboten.

Some blog, to get shut down by the authorities because someone said the wrong thing.

The software engine which operates the 350 ppm cap-and-trade for automated debt recovery of subprime loans, is called MindBox.

MindBox rules for the AGW Chicago Climate Exchange scam were written by Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management with a grant from former director of the Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama.

“March 23, 2007: The Subprime Loan Machine. By Lynnley Browning. The New York Times. “The rise and fall of the subprime market has been told as a story of a flood of Wall Street money and the desire of Americans desperate to be part of a housing boom. But it was the little-noticed tool of automated underwriting software that made that boom possible. … Automated underwriting is now used to generate as much as 40 percent of all subprime loans, according to Pat McCoy, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who has written on real estate lending. The software itself, of course, cannot be blamed for lowered lending standards or lax controls. … ‘Used properly, automated underwriting is a wonderful thing,’ Professor McCoy said. The problem, she said, comes when lenders customize it to approve the wrong borrowers. … Subprime lenders like automated underwriting because it is cheap and fast. A 2001 Fannie Mae survey found that automated underwriting reduced the average cost to lenders of closing a loan by $916. The software quickly weeds out the very riskiest of applicants and automatically approves the rest. … By mid-2004, Countrywide Financial, a major subprime lender, had used MindBox’s automated underwriting system to double the number of loans it made, to 150,000 monthly. ‘Without the technology, there is no way we would have been able to do the amount of business that we did and continue to do,’ Scott Berry, executive vice president for artificial intelligence at Countrywide Financial, told a trade publication, Bank Systems & Technology, in the summer of 2004. … Proponents say the software makes things fairer and more objective for risky borrowers.”

The Devil’s Kitchen has come across Phil Jones’ grant allocations amongst the papers.

It seems he has received some £13.7 million (=$22m).

Hmm. I wonder why CRU would be so keen to promote AGW and dismiss any contrary position?

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/cru-emails-6-follow-money.html

So the point of this article is that people secretly want to make money from both sides of the environmental debate. Wow, you made one huge fucking discovery. Maybe spend more time getting your kids a better education or save some money or conserve some electricity. Bitching about the Leftwing conspiracy is worth less time than bitching about the Rightwing one. Bottom line is that humans are polluting the planet and using up it’s resources through over population, ignorance and greed. Do something about those three issues and quit wasting time on this crap.

[...] You can read a few quotes from the e-mails at the Telegraph. [...]

[...] Well. Oops. [...]

Someone alleged there may be some actual facts lurking amongst all these ‘alleged’ items.

Global Warmists Caught with Their Flies Open. Heh.

[...] [...]

Nomorepc

Look forward to hearing from you. American courts in the past have thrown out some things thought up by the trial lawyers as “junk science.” Right now I can’t remember what. So this isn’t the first “scientific” scam. I think it is the first one not driven by trial lawyers.

_________________________

Dieter @11:58 pm

I’m having a little trouble with your post.

“What purpose is served lying about man-made global warming? How can one benefit from any ultimate finding that they have been wrong, and indeed a huster, unless the disengenious are enemies of free enterprise and democracy.”

I think precisely that the disingenuous are enemies of free enterprise and democracy.

“Today only egocentrism spurs the myth of anthropogenic global warming.”

What does that mean?

“annual mammagrams and frequent self-examination of the breasts are unnecessary”

Er, the U.S. government two days ago said exactly that. There has been a bit of an uproar, to say the least.

I can’t tell whether your post is satire (or as James D would say, irony) or not.

Obamarxist slum herders and the parasitical elite …

“In 2000 and 2001, while Barack Obama served as a board member for a Chicago-based charitable foundation, he helped to fund a pioneering carbon trading exchange that is likely to fill a critical role in the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme that President Obama is now trying to push rapidly through Congress. During those two years, the Joyce Foundation gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.” One of those gases is carbon dioxide, the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas and the focus of the most far-reaching — and contentious — efforts to combat “climate change.” On Monday, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency declared carbon dioxide a public health threat. The President of the Joyce Foundation in 2000, when the foundation made its first grant to the Climate Exchange, was Paula DiPerna, who is now executive vice president of the Chicago Climate Exchange in charge of corporate recruitment and public policy, as well as president of CCX International.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/25/obama-years-ago-helped-fund-carbon-program-pushing-congress/

[...] Then… the eco-tards get busted by a hack attack exposing some not so keen stuff. “Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? &#82… [...]

[...] Story here: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? [...]

[...] [...]

“As you say this was never about climate. This is about the controlling ideologies of the left being enabled through the back door route of “environmentalism.””

Conspiracy theory much !! Where public institutions are concerned if its a choice between conspiracy theory and incompetence I go with incompetence every time.

Having witnessed Brown’s ineptitude for so long you people surely don’t believe this government and the liberal institutions they espouse could seriously pull this off? grow up!

Been across to the ‘other side’ tonight, some are vexed, some in ‘denial’, + Jones has owned up.
The majority view is-
How dare yoooooooou!
Well if they are so miffed it is because we are correct that the whole shebang is about money power and control.
And big governments will no longer fund academia’s empire building.
J. Romm has turned up his nose (at you in particular) and his bloggers are mewling in sympathy.
Monbiot – will he deign to speak to his adoring but gormless followers?
The beeb says “shurely shome mishtake” – CRU – this cannot be!!
Good timing for this news because……….hope the micro-climate in Copenhagen is Siberian, inside the conference – it may be – metaphorically speaking, nearing ‘absolute zero’ for CRU delegates.

Here’s my scientific prediction: Scientists will continue to fabricate data to foster a sense of panic and hysteria for the media to feed upon so that scientists will be rewarded with more “research” grants, courtesy of the taxpayers that they are screwing.

SARS, Bird Flu, the Ozone Layer, West Nile Virus, Mad Cow disease, acid rain, the people bomb, etc etc. They are never short on some new “catastrophe” that can only be averted by pouring massive amounts of cash on “scientists”.

[...] Telegraph UK [...]

[...] read this article: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? by James [...]

[...] the Telegraph: When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just [...]

fibogel @ 9:21 pm

Just saw your post. Thanks for the list of the sciences involved.

I am not a science person, and don’t argue the science – except where it’s clear to even me that the models are junk, because I understand models (as very, very complicated versions of spreadsheet projections I do all the time with lots more assumptions and variables and a million more ways for error to creep in). But why are you dismissing sun activity? Aren’t there a lot of credible scientists who feel that is the main determinate of variations in the temperature of earth’s atmosphere? I don’t have the knowledge to have any opinion myself.

[...] any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW," one of these skeptics blogged on Friday. "The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) [...]

Catweazle on Nov 20th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Stand in front of an exhaust and breathe it for an hour or two and see how healthy you feel. Carbon monoxide is the result of burning carbon. You are probably too young to remember the smogs in London and throughout the Black Country. The stuff that was produced significantly reduced human lifespans. Just like IG Farben in fact and considering your love of gassing people I am not surprised you think burnt carbon is harmless. Carbon monoxide is what is produced as I understand it; and that kills you.

msher1: It really is only a matter of when the richest countries have to do the research and development. I supopose you may be right in as much as given enough time most of these countries will be in the East. They are already the most productive. Then they can sell the technology to us and won’t that be fun. In other words while we still have the money and the research and development facilities why not do it now?

crownarmourer: I know people say 300 years but others say much much less and the peak oil moment is disputed by everyone depending on their agenda; just like the climate change debate really. Hence why be complacent when we can afford to do the research now and develop technology that will lead the world and be amongst the most valuable assets anyone can have in the future? Fantastic opportunity and a much better use of money than wars and warships and armies that cost but produce nothing. Let the rest of the world scrap while we build the technologies of the future in a comfortable little neutral backwater called Britain where all is love and peace and immigration is restricted and education the best in the world and health care second to none. What a lovely dream. But will it come true? Not a chance because people like you will be saying we can keep down numbers in 300 years time by shooting people. Nice attitude.
John Duckham

http://johnduckham.tk

[...] Telegraph comments. Examiner has a comprehensive list of contents from the emails Herald Sun has another round up. [...]

Picked up on TomBeckettShow.Com…

In this explosive article from the Telegraph UK, author James Delingpole reveals the most pointed sections of e mails discovered by hackers, between researchers at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (front and center in proclaiming Anthropogenic Global Warming, i.e. manmade). In the e mails, the “scientists” admit that the evidence does not align with their theories, that they ought to conceal that fact, and that they ought to continue to silence dissenters.

Two thoughts: 1) We knew it, and 2) So what?

The first makes sense, but what about the second? Consider these points…

◆ Global Warming Activists have long seen this coming and have steadily been modifying their language to cover themselves. “Climate Change,” is now the term of choice, meaning that the world doesn’t have to just be getting warmer to be in trouble. Anything from Tsunamis to Early Winters can now be blamed on mankind’s Carbon Emissions and, according to them, disaster looms if we don’t stop it.

◆ The EPA has already classified Carbon Dioxide (the stuff you exhale when you breath and which trees utilize in creating Oxygen) a pollutant. Yeah, and the Smelt is still endangered too. Good luck getting them to reverse that little piece of insanity.

◆ There are already bloated new industries of Eco-Solutions, Marketing, and “Science,” targeted at combating manmade Global Warming/Climate Change. Don’t think the crazies in charge RIGHT NOW, are going to let the jobless rate go up any further on “their watch,” just because of some really inconvenient truths. Not a chance. Cap and Trade… the Gore endorsed (because he owns shares in such a trade organization) scheme of allotting businesses a certain number of Carbon Credits, which they can use or, if they’re really really efficient, save and sell to other, more”polluting” companies… Is primed for international legislation, creating even more government bureaucracies, private entities like Gore’s, and all the jobs that go with them.

So, how do we put the brakes on all this until the real science is in? I have no idea.

I’d say, “Call and write your Congressmen, etc.” But they don’t listen… just look at healthcare.

Maybe the only solution is to throw them ALL out in the next election and replace them with people like Sarah Palin (and Tom Beckett?), who know the value of America as it was founded, and who are aware that a real, personal God, much bigger than Al Gore, has the whole world (and its weather) in His hands.

-CB

[...] how to cook climate numbers to advance the global warming political agenda. There’s also a pretty nasty comment about the death of one of the first notable climate change [...]

[...] who took part in these emails were huge names in the bogus industry they created: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, [...]

[...] who took part in these emails were huge names in the bogus industry they created: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, [...]

[...] in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW,” says the Telegraph’s James Delingpole. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey claims the emails discuss “repetitive, false data of higher [...]

[...] [...]

Neil on Nov 21st, 2009 at 1:02 am
“Having witnessed Brown’s ineptitude for so long you people surely don’t believe this government and the liberal institutions they espouse could seriously pull this off? grow up!”

Well, that’s the whole point, Neil, they haven’t pulled it off, have they?

Hence the current fiasco, you see.

In order to calm the gleefulness of the climate skeptics that they have found the smoking gun to prove man made climate change is a fabrication I suggest they check out these two links:-
Global Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
and,
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
If the skeptics are right, and there is no such thing as man made climate change that’s wonderful. If they are wrong, a lot of the scientific data does show man made climate change is a reality, the skeptics are playing a very dangerous game. They create doubt and uncertainty in people’s minds about the need to plan for climate change and move to cleaner energy sources.
And skeptics please, a few references in your articles, it is very hard sometimes to tell if what you write is fact of fiction.

[...] James Delingpole comments blogs.telegraph.co.uk… [...]

[...] Thousands of “emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server” — a top climate research center in the United Kingdom — “were hacked recently” and dumped on a Russian web server. Global warming deniers are sifting through the illegally obtained letters of private correspondence for “proof” that the scientific consensus on climate change is actually a global conspiracy. — “If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW,” says the Telegraph’s James Delingpole. [...]

[...] right now: Blog Brother JK over at Three Sources links to James Delingpole at the Telegraph (UK) who has the scoop on Climategate: If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I [...]

This news is fantastic. The emails read as ‘real’. I have posted the article on my facebook Copenhagen facebook page. Please come join us!!
http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=518602591&share_id=178358774286&fragment=share_footer178358774286&comments=#/group.php?gid=167981036862

Duckham on Nov 21st, 2009 at 2:01 am
“Stand in front of an exhaust and breathe it for an hour or two and see how healthy you feel. Carbon monoxide is the result of burning carbon.”

Obviously you have not bothered to read my post. It clearly covers the matter of carbon monoxide and car exhausts thus:

“If you are referring to carbon monoxide or partially combusted hydrocarbons, they became a thing of the past with the advent of the catalytic converter.”

If you were aware of the science, you would appreciate that the purpose of the catalytic converter – which has been fitted to practically all new motor vehicles that use internal combustion engines sold in the past twenty years – is to convert the carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide and the partial combustion products of hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water, and also to convert the oxides of nitrogen to nitrogen and oxygen.

Many heavy trucks and public service vehicles, especially Volvo and Scania, are also fitted with equipment that completely removes all particulate carbon. This equipment is certain to be obligatory on all diesel engines in the near future.

As for smogs, I witnessed the last real smog to take place in Manchester, about 1965 as I recollect, very impressive it was too. But smogs were not produced by carbon or its combustion products, they were caused by sulphur dioxide released by the burning of varieties of high-sulphur coal that have now been made illegal by the various Clean Air Acts.

Oh, and by the way, I G Farben didn’t produce carbon monoxide, that was mostly used via the exhaust in mobile vans. I G Farben produced Zyklon-B, the active constituent of which was hydrogen cyanide. It is still manufactured in the Czech Republic for use as an insecticide and general fumigant under the tradename Uragan D2 incidentally, should you require any, you seem to be quite obsessed with it.

So that’s three counts upon which you are in error, pitcher.

Nul points pitcher. Not good. Not good at all.

Booyah

[...] up, there’s this nugget, courtesy The Telegraph: … a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate [...]

[...] Naturally, the usual suspects are suggesting that this information demonstrates that The Consensus is a fraud and that scientists are faking data, basing their accusations on little more than the fact that the information demonstrated that scientists are engaged in fraud and are faking data. [...]

[...] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin... [...]

[...] Author James Delingpole writes in a London Telegraph column the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have “manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.” [...]

[...] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin... Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? [...]

Clare Goodess may be the driver of the AGW/SCORCHIO scam at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit.

She is the Unit’s Research and Administration Manager; her focus is on filtering extreme events through bogus climate models to communicate propaganda to policy makers.

Classic example – see below – is where she justifies the SCORCHIO grants using the 14,802 and 2,045 excess deaths in France and England and Wales during the 2003 heat wave; in reality the elderly were allowed to die in Paris to make an AGW post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

“Details of Grant .. EP/E017649/1 .. SCORCHIO: Sustainable Cities: Options for Responsing to Climate cHange Impacts and Outcomes .. Principal Investigator: Professor P Jones .. Researcher Co-investigator: Dr C Goodess .. Organisation: University of East Anglia Our urban and city areas are becoming increasingly unhealthy, dangerous and uncomfortable to work and live in. These areas are remarkably vulnerable to global warming; unhealthiness and discomfort from buildings overheating in the summer and increased pollution as well as flooding, subsidence and other effects. The 2003 heat wave was considered responsible for 14,802 and 2,045 excess deaths in France and England and Wales respectively. Projected rates of urban growth mean that vulnerability will increase at the same time as the impacts of climate change become greater. Actions by planners, designers and infrastructure owners are required in the short term if cities are to avoid becoming ever more vulnerable in the long term. These are already urgent problems. Neither the effects of the urban landscape nor the heat released by human activities within cities are considered in standard climate change research, but these have been shown to be potentially very significant. Also the science and practice of adaptation of the built environment to climate change is still in its infancy. For climate change adaptation strategies to be developed for cities and regions in the UK, there is therefore an urgent need for decision support tools to appraise and design adaptation options. The new forecasts from the UK Climate Impacts Programme UKCIP (called the UKCIPnext scenarios) will provide new, better predictions. SCORCHIO (Sustainable Cities: Options for Responding to Climate cHange Impacts and Outcomes) aims to develop tools that use these new forecasts to help planners, designers, engineers and users to adapt urban areas, with a particular emphasis on heat and human comfort”

[...] The Telegraph: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? [...]

“Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Lets take this one cherry-picked “gotcha” phrase first: The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.
The end.

If you’re interested in actual fraud re: climate change/AGW, google S. Fred Singer, Christopher Monckton, the “ICE” campaign, the Leizpig Declaration, the Heidelberg Appeal, the Oregon Petition, James Inhofe’s “reports”, and this link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
That’s a good start.

There is a wealth of fraudulent behavior documented far-and-wide from the climate change denying crowd that stretches back for decades. If you can specifically demonstrate the equivalent frauds from the IPCC, I look forward to your response.

Mr. Delingpole offers up cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails as the only response to the weight of scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change.

The Hadley work on the UK Climate Impacts Programme UKCIP (called the UKCIPnext scenarios) is funded by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum.

This is £80 billion fund with a massive conflict of interest in AGW; it is a signatory investor in the Carbon Disclosure Project which can only make money if it can impose Obama’s 350 ppm cap on CO2 on all human activity.

“Local Authority Pension Fund Forum brings together a diverse range of local authority pension funds with combined assets of over £80 billion. Formed in 1990, it provides a unique opportunity for discussion of investment issues and shareholder action by Britain’s local authority pension funds. Local Authority Pension Fund investment policies have important implications for their beneficiaries, local communities, council tax payers and the wider economy. The powerful influence gained by such funds acting together as shareholders on issues of common concern has considerable potential in relation to [credit-default swaps and extortion of] companies where they invest”

The £80 billion Local Authority Pension Fund Forum invests in companies targeted for destruction by James Lovelock, Hadley SCORCHIOS and Wobbly anarchists with Pensions & Investment Research Consultants (PIRC).

“How will companies respond to pressure of emissions caps? In PIRC Alerts on the 6th of December PIRC wrote that the time to react to prevent dangerous climate change is now reckoned to be ten years or less, according to a new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). This suggests that more action is required than set out in the Stern Review and at a faster pace. The research shows that unless emissions of carbon dioxide peak within ten years and fall by 70 to 80 per cent by 2050, there will be the unacceptable risk of a consequent temperature rise of over 2°C, which would result in dangerous and irreversible impacts. Potential climatic changes are so severe, that James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia theory, considers that within a century, global warming will have become so intense that much of the world will be uninhabitable. In the mean-time, Europe continues with its own carbon-trading system, with the EU having just announced caps for member states emissions from 2008 to 2012″

[...] here, here, here, here Oh hell, it’s [...]

Duckham I was being facetious you plonker of course I do not advocate killing people.
As for developing replacement technologies to replace hydrocarbons yes all for it when it makes sense, as for reserves I was referring to coal and tar sands etc.

[...] Warming iz conspiracy Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Tel… Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released Watts Up [...]

[...] [...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Peasant_Revolt_of_1381

Time for guillotines

http://www.tombeckettshow.com

Look, it’s obvious we have to find and develop alternative sources of energy. It is only common sense that oil reserves will not last indefinitely and that the by-products of oil and coal burning can’t be good for the planet and our atmosphere. The fight rather is about solutions. The warmers have concocted a scheme called “cap and trade” that would probably plunge the most productive economies of the world into major depressions resulting in massive unemployment.

This is what the (insert your favorite epithet) oppose: the destruction of the economies of the world.

[...] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin... Leave a Comment [...]

[...] From James Delingpole’s blog: [...]

[...] sources, not sure who first posted or where this info was first posted, but here’s the Telegraph’s take: The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has [...]

[...] the hackers released all of the stuff they got (assuming there is more). Links to relevant news: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Tel… http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc…21climate.html Global warming research exposed after hack [...]

Peak Oil will get us long, long before our misguided attempts to counteract so-called AGW. Just look at all those tankers floating offshore around the globe right now, waiting for the exponential oil price trend to kick in. Not long now.

[...] the revelations if true are quite damning. For more – Telegraph, Andrew Bolt, Climate [...]

James Dellingpole – I have never come across your blog before, but found it while searching for the content of these CRU emails to find the actual correspondence for myself. Have you read it? (I suspect not, as your ‘article’ contains the exact same excepts as everbody elses – nice piece of investigative journalism there) In which case, you might have become aware of the really very simpel fact that the Hadley Centre and CRU are two totally separate institutions in two different cities (Exeter/Norwich) with two different funding sources (research councils/MOD) and totally different staff. Coming from the author of a book hilariously entitled ‘How to be Right’, this seems like a rather gross and embarrassing error to make.

More importantly, (and I’m going to use the RealClimate teams words here, as they are more eloquent than I on this subject)
“More interesting is what is _not_ contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.”

I will come clean here and tell you that I am a climate scientist. While there is of course no way I would go as far as giving you my email archive for free (because it contains personal information I don’t necessarily with to share, and because I don’t have the permission of my colleagues to share their thoughts with you) I would absolutely be willing to allow someone access to them (I’m envisaging some kind of supervised access, with a third party to verify what was found) to scour for the kind of statements which the people who leaked the CRU data were probably looking for (and, essentially, failed to find, given the poverty of what they laughably have presented as ‘evidence of conspiracy’). But, in all the time (10 years) that I’ve been a climate scientists, I can honestly say that not once has any conversation I have ever had ever remotely resembled the phrase ‘conspiratorial’.

At the moment, someones career would be very well served by publishing an irrefutable peer-reviewed paper which demonstrates the existence of a negative feedback so strong that it will ameliorate all of the (obvious from GCSE level science) deleterious consequences of emitting CO2 and heating up the atmosphere. We have looked for these feedbacks, at length, but, unfortunately for us all, we still haven’t found one. When you have found one, can you please get back to us (and/or one of those disreputable journals like Nature or Science) ? Otherwise, please be assured that your fact-lite airwave noise does nothing to help us actually understand the fabulous complexity and vulnerability of our beautiful planet, which you seem so very keen on pushing to its unknown and potentially very unpleasant (for all of us) limits . I hope you are pleased with your days work.

msher1

You wanted some info about physics, CO2 and warming.

The earth is warmed by radiation from the sun, the earth then radiates this heat in a pattern governed by the laws of physics, mostly in the infrared region. Within this region are three narrow “bands” of infrared energy that CO2 is able to absorb (but it is important to point out that these three bands are not exclusive to CO2, other molecules can absorb them). These bands carry 8% of the total radiant energy from the earth’s surface. The other 92% is in wavelengths that are not affected by CO2.

When a photon (energy) is absorbed by CO2, three things can happen:
It increases the molecule’s vibrational energy.
It is transferred as kinetic energy in collisions with other molecules.
It is re-emitted at the same or another energy level.

Most of the energy, which is of the type that CO2 can absorb, is already being absorbed.
This leaves a minimal amount for further absorption, certainly not enough to produce the heating predictions of the pro-AGW group.
This can be proven by direct observations via satellites of the amount of energy escaping from our atmosphere. Satellites looking down at the earth with an IR spectrometer have confirmed that there is minimal infrared energy from the earth’s surface escaping the earth’s atmosphere in the 3 narrow CO2 absorption bands. In other words the CO2 molecules of the atmosphere currently are absorbing almost all of the heat energy available for absorption.

It can be shown that if the CO2 concentration is doubled (currently 388 ppmv) the temperature will increase by about 0.5C. (At current CO2 emission levels it would take 155 years to add an extra 388 ppmv of CO2.)
On a more reasonable time frame. If the CO2 concentration increases by 20 ppmv, which would take about 8 years, then a warming of about 0.03C can be expected.

The problem is not the physics, it’s the politics, egos and vested interests, especially financial.

[...] If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspirac… [...]

Lollipopshoes: You quote RealClimate: “There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’”

Classic straw man argument. No-one is suggesting a global conspiracy. What we see from reading the emails (and yes, I’ve read a lot of them so far) is a group of people so convinced of their general rectitude that they’re willing to bully those who don’t agree with them, and tweak data significantly in order to achieve the results they want. And as you can see from Phil Jones’ budget spreadsheet, this has been a very lucrative way to act; he has received no less than £13.7 million in state funding.

Nice work if you can get it. Why let facts or counter arguments or even the scientific method get in the way?

[...] Global Warming Fraud exposed! Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Tel… I love it! Anyone who believed in it…sorry to hear you had a small brain and could not [...]

“Climategate” brings up 117 hits on Google News so far. I hope the idiot with the [square brackets] isn’t going to post links to all of them.

Lollipopshoes: “I will come clean here and tell you that I am a climate scientist”.

Really?

“At the moment, someones career would be very well served by publishing an irrefutable peer-reviewed paper which demonstrates the existence of a negative feedback so strong that it will ameliorate all of the (obvious from GCSE level science) deleterious consequences of emitting CO2 and heating up the atmosphere.”

GCSE science does indeed show CO2 to be a greenhouse gas. However GCSE science also demonstrates that its effect is nothing like as strong as the scare scenarios postulated by Jones, Mann et al in their computer models.

Contrary to your rather curious assertion about negative feedback, it’s actually incumbent on the climate alarmists to demonstrate the catastrophic Positive Feedback that they claim is already underway.

When I studied science, in happier, less funding-obsessed days, we had this thing called the scientific method. You came up with a theory and tested to see if it matched real world observations. When Mann’s Hockey Stick graph was so comprehensively discredited, that should have been the end of it.

Unfortunately, by then, global warming had become a religion; and, to many of those who work in the climate change field, an employer.

Hamish. It’s automatic, when other websites link to this article.

Then the idiot is the person who wrote the software that does it.

For those who think there might be credibility to AGW (Junkkmale and others).
splantyboy on Nov 20th, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Do I think it worth pondering whether the activities of man might well have a negative influence on the way our climate responds? Yes.

Do I think it is significant? Don’t know, but still think it worth trying to find out.

But not at the expense of addressing a horde of complex, interacting and (as far as I am aware) still poorly understood influences such as population, deforestation, sun activity, etc.

Which is why, over at the BBC, Guardian, etc, I weigh equally into sloppy claims by ministers who seem to understand trade caps and taxes better than science, and ‘journalists’ with English degrees passing on press releases from such as… the spotlighted outfits here.

And, especially, their cool aid groupies, who on a BBC blog recently the moderators allowed to stand a threat that all, like me, who do not bow at the altar of total AGW fealty, should be jailed forthwith, under ‘laws’ ‘postponing’ democratic process and freedom of speech.

These guys wanted to own their bubble, and talk only amongst themselves, and at the slightest articulation of a contrary view, jerked knees as only they could. To keep the conversation ‘pure’.

I am struggling to see the difference here. For better or… just the same.

Both extremes are welcome to their views, but their ways of sharing and/or defending them are less attractive to me.

I know what I know. I accept what I don’t, and then try and find out. Dogma and abuse make poor companions on a journey of ongoing education.

If true, these revelations have dealt a huge blow to the ’cause’ of unfettered AGW worship. And maybe that is a good thing. Especially pre-Copenhagen, where a bunch of lightweight pols seem to be seeking a soundbite rather than a solution to anything, and may well sneak in some green taxes to plug a few other holes they have created while they are at it whilst too many in the MSM are blinded by this vague ‘it’ that is ‘climate change’. Especially the BBC, whose credibility as an objective source of science-based ‘reporting’ was shot long ago, and epitomised by some clearly rattled pro-total AGW sources only quoting Aunty’s responses plus these quaint ‘what they mean by fiddle the data is actually a term meaning..’ excuses I’m seeing. ‘Hole’ and ‘digging’ springs to mind.

This is all key, and may be awelcome watershed. But the possible/probable knickers-round-ankles moment of an (albeit significant) UK enitity can surely not be the only game in the global village, and wipe out everything else ever done.

But for sure it should serve as a wake up call to any and all who (and it has been, insultingly, tried on a lot, especially by gaggle of our ‘top’ pols, such as Milibands D & E) try and supress legitimate questioning with ‘the science is settled’.

It isn’t. At least for me. Not in the Guardian. Certainly not via the BBC. But also not by fiat of a mob on a Telegraph blog either.

I owe my kids, and their futures, better than to let such rule prevail without comment. Wherever it arises. As is my right, though some would see that as an ‘inconvenient current reality’ to their world view.

There’s a chance to turn a watershed moment into something positive with key discussions on our futures. What I see here has managed merely to divide even more tribally in the cause of petty blogosphere oneupmanship. Sober highlighting of key data that may not have been rigourous as claimed that may be served as a cold dish to the likes of PM Brown and (will he/won’t he come if it won’t make him look good?) President Obama. Or… pitchforks and torches. Now, let’s see, which might sway these testosterone-fueled ‘leaders’, and which might make them kick back, along with their waaay too-onside supporters looking for any angle to detract from some facts?

What. A, Waste.

The Daily Mail have got the story on their site this morning, so I expect it is in the paper version.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leaked-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html

James, I think your evidence is pretty thin on this one. One example of some rogue scientists is not going to bring down the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming. In the same way ExxonMobil in recent years pumped millions into R&D to show that climate change wasn’t happening. They twisted the evidence as well – to find the conclusions they wanted.
Inevitably, there will be such scientists out there imposing their own subjectivity. Surprise, surprise. But what about the other 99.99% of scientific findings that you so conveniently don’t discuss – is this all faked too so that a new green energy industry will emerge??

The scientific reality – whether you are a climate sceptic or not – will come out.

You use the emotive language that you so clearly dont like the supporters of anthropogenic climate change using.

I think you fall into the same trap as the scientists who you have under the spotlight; you’ve taken a subjective position. This means I can’t trust your reporting to give me objective scientific fact. Whichever side you sit on.

If you’re going to convince me, and anyone else with a semblance of scientific understanding you’re going to have to strip out the emotion and replace it with more scientific evidence.

In 1992/3, a couple of years after the fall of the Berlin wall, the Economist ran an article which stated, …Communism is now totally discredited, watch out how the people that supported communism in West is going to turn to Green issues… Never has a newspaper or reporter made a more accurate forecast of the future than that article.
I was always amazed at how the AGW lobby managed to demonise carbon dioxide, the product of full, clean, and efficient combustion. And how quickly they fell into the habit of trying to control every aspect of our lives, from the number of children, the walking distance to their dream green bus, to the colour of our condoms!
Unlike religious orders of the past which retreated to their mountaintops and monasteries, parting ways with the evil ‘world’, this scheming conniving lot wants us all to obey their orders and decrees!

[...] info om ClimateGate finns att hitta hos bl.a. The Telegraphs James Delingpole. Och Steve McIntyre försöker förklara ”Mikes trick”. Real Climate verkar ta det hela [...]

Calling all Hackers: Grantham Foundation.

Oh yes, really useful, that: a link to a website in Swedish.

Further to my post at 1720 yesterday and again this supports the findings by James re the paranoid lying and threats of those who adhere to the new “religion” of MMGW ( sorry – Climate change – this covers everything possible):

Many scientists absolutely disagree with the global warming alarmists. The Daily Telegraph – March 07- reported:

“Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

“They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

“Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

“One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.

“I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”

“Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

“Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism( of “Global warming” caused by man) have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.”Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

“Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do”.

“Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”"

The Government ( and the Tories to a large extent) is supporting the new “religion” which is clearly welcomed by many unquestioning and ill-informed people misled by scientists paid to find Man as the problem.

In the spirit of ‘balance’, in my online rummages this morning I can’t say it is too impressive to the cause of objective news sharing that a major BBC response thread has shut down and a key enviro ‘reporter/editor/whatever’ has seen their their blog suspended:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/copenhagen_countdown_17_days.html

As always, if you think I’ve missed something important in this weekly round-up, please post a comment.

Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.

Smidge of irony to that preceding para, IMHO.

Then one comes to this, again not perhaps helping too much at the ‘mo:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/are-you-selfish-or-are-we-bad-journalists/

I was going to offer a thought to the latter half along the lines of ‘Do [polar] bears fall from the sky in daft ‘climate’ ‘awareness’ scare-up wastes of money that could be used productively on things that are not sexy to PR-reprinting Mass Comm grads masquerading as science reporters’… but, currently, cannot:

Error 404 – Not Found
Oh no! You’re looking for something which just isn’t here! Fear not however, errors are to be expected,

Again, a degree – or 6? (sorry, a little AGW alarmist-teasing humour there) – of irony to that.

Credibility and/or trust are tenuous at best, and hard to regain if lost.

Let’s not forget a commenter on a previous article by Delingpole, who posted a quote from a Tyndall Centre paper:

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/social-simulation-public-perceptions-weather-events-and-their-effect-upon-development-belief

The Social Simulation of The Public Perceptions of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change

Abstract
Clearly there are many potentially serious limitations to the approach we have developed here, including the legitimacy of the postulates and the difficulty of acquiring suitable data for future calibration. However, in the broader context of promoting interdisciplinary efforts (necessary for increasingly geo-physical societal complexities), we hope, none the less, to have offered a demonstration of developing methodological possibilities.

“In this paper, we explore under what conditions belief in global warming or climate change, as identified and defined by experience, science and the media, can be maintained in the public’s perception.
As the science itself is contested, needless to say, so are the potential policy changes. So how then do people make sense or construct a reality of something that they can never experience in its totality (climate) and a reality that has not yet manifest (i.e. climate change)?
To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.
Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.
Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.
We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.”

Ref your upper post – what a yawn… The metaphorical Berlin wall is down but you still prefer to walk round pretending it’s there!

Ref your upper post – Junkmale!

I missed this yesterday, for the most uninteresting of reasons, but it’s great to hear the cat’s out of the bag.

As an aside, I would like to associate myself with the comment re the use of “gate” for any scandal. Some day I hope there is a scandal involving a gate and it will finally fall into disuse.

“If you’re going to convince me, and anyone else with a semblance of scientific understanding you’re going to have to strip out the emotion and replace it with more scientific evidence”
Alexscott – no-one is going to try to convince you of anything – it’ll all be laid in front of you so you can make up your “own” mind – funny that eh…

While some still seem find comfort in deliberate mis-spellings and playing people over any substantive input to show how ‘well ‘ard’ they are (a technique one encounters, sadly, too often, with those from other extremes who seem to view questions as ‘denial’ and froth downhill after that), I have been rummaging further.

This is worth a gander:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment

Oddly, the only references I can locate to this issue are in ‘broadcast only’ mode. The usually vibrant blogs that encourage exchanges are currently either missing or hard to locate.

Pity, as I was looking forward to engaging there with the dopplegangers of some here.

In the slim hope of generating some light we can use over heat directed solely at trying to make little flamethrowers to show off to your mates.

[...] 21, 2009 by djollis Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?. written by James Delingpole @ [...]

[...] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin... [...]

I’ve got nothing more to say other than Science is supposed to be a quest for the truth and to get there being wrong in a number of instances is fundamental to getting to the truth. The scientific truth cannot, therefore, be reached and presented to everyone else if scientists live in fear of being wrong and if studies that go against the consensus (which is often mistakenly taken to be the infallible truth) are actively surpressed. It would be no surprise that these emails are real. So called climate skeptics are discredited with cigarette science all the time and if that doesn’t work then they are discredited personally.

I remember seeing Al Gore questioned on the subject and how many individuals around the world, including scientists, don’t believe in man made climate change. His idiotic reply was that there are also people that don’t believe in the first Apollo moon landings. This is actually quite clever on his part cos he not only attempts to discredit the skeptics but also portray them to be dellusional. This comes from the guy who champions man made climate change with his film an inconvenient truth-the same guy who sat behind and advised Bill Clinton to reject the Kyoto Agreement-the same guy that assisted Enron in silencing and discrediting academics who argued that climate change was connected with the sun’s activity-Enron by the way stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit from carbon capping and trading schemes.

If you believe these so called climate skeptics to be wrong then engage in debate with them. Present evidence that proves there’s wrong rather than trying to shut them up. Science will never lead us to a better place if we have a load of facist scientists silencing those that dare speak against their views.

I’d personally like to see where UAE’s climate change team receive their funding from. That would shed alot of light on these emails with regards to their validity. This isn’t to concoct conspiracy theories but it wouldn’t take a scientist to figure out why UAE’s climate change experts were fiddling with figures if they were being funded by multi nationals with huge carbon tax, carbon capping and carbon trading initiatives (carbon by the way is one of 4 essential building blocks for life-not a pollutant). These obviously woldn’t be worth a dime if there was no such thing as man made global warming.

I’m getting very tired of those that are supposed to serve our society telling lies for their own agenda’s at the expense of everyone else.

Dear Mr Delinpole

On CIF you can ASK Hope and Dope

I am not trying to best you but Dope has this one yesterday:-
How can you make sure that a Christmas tree really is fair trade?
Leo Hickman: Is there such a thing as a fair trade Christmas tree, and should I be worried about ‘unethical’ trees?

How could this newspaper have fallen so low?

lollipopshoes on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:04 am

“deleterious consequences of emitting CO2 and heating up the atmosphere. We have looked for these feedbacks, at length, but,”

Once more, how many more times? repeat after me,
Correlation is not causation,
Correlation is not causation!
We “looked for feedbacks” but we had to have a tea break, look harder! – Try this;
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf
You lot hypothesised man-made emissions of CO2 is driving global warming.
It is incumbent upon you and your ilk to prove it. All you say is we “think and it is peer reviewed” that does not form a Theory that is still conjecture.

What we say is these correlations; man-made CO2 increase=AGW -are not proven.
Once again your pomposity is mind numbing, this does not help your case, many people on this site achieved ‘o’ level science when the exams meant something and ‘A’ level and degrees in Pure science, climatology is not pure science, go figure.

Ho ho ho ho – what a load of nonsense once more. Its as if peoples frustrations and being human (getting peeved with people) should not be taken into account when practicng science. One would of thought that the DT woukd have understood science as its always bleating on about education but alas its not the case.

Science works by disproving something that is assumed to be true and if it does not it eventually become a law or true for that matter but it is never ultimately true only relatively so. Hadley are not the only cimate center in the world, there is MIT and GISS for example and have they been hacked I wonder and their personal stuff flashed across the web by a computer guy who also has zero scientific understanding but thinks he is a genius based on some flawed assumptions of knowing better than peer reviewed science.

Reading the DT now just amasses to a loas of prejudiced lying I now summise for in the peer review of science since 1673 (principia mathematica publication)there is deeper truth than politics and ordinary citizens can ever grasp and the DT is culpable of trying to dumb it all down as ever.

Never once has the DT even really bothered to get it right on the subject matter for the world is presently warming (even when it temporarily cools due to el ninos and las ninas – all that cold water welling up from the deep)but that is obviosuly beyond its understanding.

Someone tried to hack NASA and now faces extradition charges. Says it all really. Go to GISS and ask them DT, NO – is that because they know what you can never know -truth rather than political expediency perhaps. Yes of course it is.

Take a look around the BBC site. You will find no reference to the content of the alleged emails only a story about a hacking incident buried in the Science and Environment area with no headline in any of the main news pages. Very safe approach and also one the fits a publicly funded organisation totally wedded to AGW that is absurdly shrill in arguing that it is impartial.

The final nail is being banged in as we speak. Try this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6617282/How-environmental-degradation-harms-humanity.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6622034

Remember this name from the pre-global warming days? Gro Harlem Brundtland – the Brundtland Report?

Well looks like the UN is sticking with its ambitions for global government. However it is smart enough to realise the attempt to use AGW as a vehicle to achieve this is failing, and so is subtly shifting to another area, land use and degradation. A smart move since control of land is much more effective than hot (or cold air).

I predict over the next few years the UN and others will gently start to admit they made a mistake and were looking at the wrong issue. The IPCC etc will quietly be abandoned as they shift to building up a similar powerbase behind land use. What’s funny is that the CRU and their scientists at UEA and elsewhere will be abandoned. The UN will not want to be tainted by fraudulent science, and so will talk about rogue scientists misleading them etc etc. Those who gamely supported the UN will be hung out to dry with their careers and reputations ruined. Cue a mad scramble as those who became self proclaimed climate experts try to jump ship. Why do you think Lord Stern is talking about vegetarianism? Because he has seen the shift and as an economist with no climatological experience he is gently shifting. As he’s not a climatologist he can say he was hoodwinked, leaving CRU scientists to be cast as fraudsters etc. Global politics is no different to UK politics, its all about spin, positioning and using and then dumping those you need to. CRU are the patsy’s in this one! Bye bye. And if you disagree make a diary note to return to this post in 5 years time! And finally overpopulation and the impact on land use is, im my opinion, the big issue we face. But I haven’t had any time to produce any fraudulent statistics or graphs to prove it!

As the old saying goes, if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big one!.

If this is true then one has to hold the people who have perpetrated this myth responsible for the demise of many western industries and jobs caused by this scam.
In view of the terrible economic damage aleady done to the people of the UK then surely the charge would have to be high treason and if found guilty then the penalties imposed on the traitors must be severe in order to fit the crime.

I guess firstly we need the evidence brought completely into the open where it can be examined and a criminal investigation launched if it is found to have a base.

You know the world is mad when people are prepared to believe purported emails, blogged out-of-context by a hacker instead of a university research department.

[...] Read on… [...]

The media in the US will do everything possible to suppress this story; particularly with the Copenhagen Conference coming soon. Climate Change/Global Warming is the “in thing” for all the media and hollywood personalities in the states. They will lie, steal, & cheat to keep the global warming myth alive. It matters not that it’s all a lie and “mad science”. The game is all about power & money. Once the taxes and big dollar programs are well established, who can make them go away. If the weather is better for a time, the climate “mad scientist” will claim credit. If the weather is bad for a time, the whole climate change clan cult will be in an uproar that we must do more. How many millions have already been sucked in by this giant chicken little scam. I hope this story will help people world wide to wake up to the truth; before we all get locked in to paying huge funds in to a gargantuan UN Climate Change black hole from which the money will never return.

[...] Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Tel… [...]

[...] even if the material were to bore me absolutely rigid. But enough of this beating about the bush: James Delingpole is a tit. Separate Master Delingpole from his Oxonian corduroys and strangulated vowels, and he [...]

[...] This wasn’t far behind Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? [...]

[...] More here… http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja…ming/#comments [...]

Junkkmale *Equally, I am unconvinced that nothing is happening and nothing needs to be done, especially when combined with rather childish notions about burning tires for fun or somesuch.*

Have you ever considered that there may be nothing we can do about the earth’s climate, whether it be in a state of cooling or warming? To mess with a natural cycle on that scale is surely asking for trouble.

redzebra: as far as I can tell, nobody at the university research department has disputed the authenticity of the e-mails. There’s a load of waffle about “I can’t remember” or “It’s taken out of context”, but nobody is asserting any forgery.

[...] [...]

I hereby declare that, the failure of both sides in the debate to link the wobble of the earth’s axis to climate change, is a “wobble-gate” of colossal dimensions.
Ancient societies that built pyramids or temples aligned with the stars were startled to discover the “gods” were angry and moving away towards the horizon at a rate of 1 degree per 72 years. Dubbed the Precession of the Equinoxes, this phenomena is known to be caused by the wobble of the earth’s axis over a 26,000 year cycle. Divided into 12 Ages, this explains the hype around December 21, 2012 – first “official” day of the Age of Aquarius, and has little or nothing to do with the reversal of the magnetic poles, ascending the galactic plane, etc, etc. However, it does explain past ice ages and tropical epochs. Repent, ye flat earth apologists and anti-wobblites, the end is near!

[...] Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the [...]

Dipsplepskik *As the old saying goes, if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big one!.*

Good point. Joseph Goebells, Nazi Party member, said if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

I’m not claiming that our academic institutions or even government are facist in their nature or agenda’s but when you have huge bodies of research being funded by multinational corporations one can’t help but them in that light. I will leave this definition of facism so you can all decide for yourselves!

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Mussolini

Biblical references to the Precession include,
Genesis 1:14, “the stars are signs of the seasons, the days and the years; Revelation 16:8, “the sun will scorch the earth…”
I can only add that water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas by volume and carbon dioxide is just .038 percent of our atmosphere. Al Gore put effect ahead of cause, since it is the sun that heats the earth and causes the release of carbon dioxide and other gases. It is absolutely rude of human beings to believe their tiny industrial output equals that of the great oceans of this planet, mis-named Earth, an awesome bathtub of salty brine just perfect for the sustenance of fish, shrimp, whales and other living creatures. “Lord, how great thou art!”

I forgot to mention, I am delighted (not drunk) that these e-mails confirm what I suspected all along, these con men have been making up facts all along. A theory without facts is not science, it’s religion!

Lest you mis-understand yet again…

You have to give the people something to believe in, as of all sacrifices; commensurate in value.

Your religion is paltry; devoid of justification to he of whom you DEMAND toil (what do you produce… let alone change of oil?).

You have not the understanding of humanity to govern, let alone provide, knowledge, even.

We grow weary. (<– you do not know who we is)

There are many interesting and informative comments about climate change but almost none ask the question – why is there a conspiracy at all? What do the perpetrators hope to gain from it?

One suggestion is that its roots are in a Marxist conspiracy to dominate the world; this gains more credence since the revealing emails emanate from the highly Marxist inclined University of East Anglia.

Maybe this is so but my rule of thumb applied to intransigent and amorphous mysteries is ‘follow the money’. On this basis there a mega billions involved globally both now and in the future.

A whole industry has evolved based on the false premise of ‘manmade global warming’ from environment destroying windfarms, compulsory taxation in the form of renewing lightbulbs, electric cars, ‘green taxes’ and scores more investment/fortune making opportunities. None more illustratative than the ‘carbon exchange’ or university grants.

The best news to come from this email debacle is more people are becoming aware of the ‘green con’ and perhaps this might translate into prospective MP’s being warned the nonsense of this lobby is unacceptable. That they should stick to truthfulness about the level of taxation without using ersatz excuses for raising revenue.

[...] Golden Idol of the religious Left exposed for the lie it always was; read all about it here, here, and [...]

[...] Und heute lese ich: Nicht nur Fussballergebnisse sondern auch die Klimadaten sind manipuliert. [...]

[...] [...]

Ever tried to communicate with the Met Office about the temperature of the planet in 2009?
Ever asked them whether the satellite data is showing any change in the decline noted in 2007 and 2008?
I have.
You get a polite message saying that your query has been referred to a specialist in the area.
Then, absolutely nothing.
There is a conspiracy of silence in the Met Office, probably because their boss is a leading warmist.
Who wants to lose a comfortable, well-paid job in this economic climate (also going uncomfortably cold)?

You know the bizarre thing about the Manmade Global Warming scam?
The complete duffer George W.Bush saw it for what it was, early on in his presidency, and recanted right at the end, when clear evidence was piling up that the planet was actually cooling.

Now we have the politicians to deal with.
Which of these trashy, cynical, self-interested, corrupt bozos will be the first to break step, admit he was wrong and tear into Manmade Global Warming for the utter sham and scientific disgrace that it is?
None.

Interesting stuff and you too can read the emails and documents by downloading from one of the sites mention on the Examiner website.
There are a lot to go through.

I suggest 0880476729.txt as an interesting taster – this is allegedly an email response by Tom Wigley at University Corporation for Atmospheric Research to Tim Mitchel at the University of East Anglia as the main recipient, but addressed to “Dear Eleven” meaning the eleven scientists who were allegedly sponsoring an attempt to influence Kyoto in 1997 (with a letter endorsed by as many scientists as they could get to sign).

The alleged Tom Wrigley doesn’t spare his words:
He disagrees with the content and believes they have severely distorted the IPCC view on an economic case for reducing emissions.

“Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible.”

He has lost more uncomplimentary things to say but what it suggests is a concerted attempt by scientists not to honestly and impartially inform legislators so that they can make balanced judgements, but to promote a partisan view point and a deliberate attempt to influence legislation. I feel this is unacceptable behaviour by scientists but it is something we see a lot more of these days with anything to do with environment issues.

Of course, though the Hadley centre has confirmed the hack (though they have changed all passwords and some imply it wasn’t a hack but a leak) they cannot possibly yet confirm or deny the authenticity of the material.
It would be very easy to take a vast bulk of genuine data and then create a few fake documents in the same style.

To do that wouldn’t take very much at all.

One one of the blogs some one simply says “Remember the Hitler Diaries.”
The point (whteher intended or not) is that the Hitler diaries did considerable damage to those who were sucked into believing them genuine.
If this is a hoax or there are some fraudulent documents in there, is it intended to embarrass the warmists or the deniers?
Either could be damaged dependent on how they play it.
On the other hand, now these documents are out there and some are already attested to be genuine, the overall public image will be to accept them all as genuine even if false.

What that means is that the probable damage will be most to the CRU and to the warmist camp.

[...] Author James Delingpole writes in a London Telegraph column the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have “manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.” [...]

[...] Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That) [...]

Even the Telegraph is playing this down your artical is buried Yet the Daily mail has it front page.We have all know that it is a con and just a money spinner for governments and big power companys.While the man in the street has to put his glass in one bin and tins in another the politicans fly half way round the world at the drop of a hat to tell some third world country how they can save the world by cutting back on CO2.

http://www.okgetreal.com

For goodness sake, if you are going to attempt a character assassination of professional scientists, at least get the name of their institution right. There is no such place as ‘Hadley CRU’. The Hadley Centre is several hundred miles away in Exeter – a completely separate institution. The Climatic Research Unit is part of the UEA’s School of Environmental Science. Please do your research.
On that note, perhaps you’d like to do some research on the topic of the divergence problem in tree ring records, which Keith Briffa has discussed in various papers. The is nothing manipulative (or conspiratorial) about adding instrumental values to a proxy dataset to bring them up to date. Before declaring the death of a scientific discipline, perhaps it would be wise to properly familiarise yourself with some its concepts and tools.

The level of this debate is truly alarming.

[...] link: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs [...]

[...] how is the MSM reporting this? James Delingpole over at the Torygraph warned yesterday: If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The [...]

Thanks for the link, Misternatural (1.15pm).
I checked it out and read the second article.
I thought this interesting:

“”It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”"

This is wanton, deliberate ignorance on the part of Marotzke.
Sir William Herschel, at the start of the 18th century, established that when the sun is active (lots of sunspots), the earth warms up and harvests are good, and vice-versa.
The primary engine for global temperature changes is solar activity.
During periods of intense solar activity, solar wind increases.
Increased solar wind deflects the cosmic rays that bombard the planet.
Cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds.
Less cloud cover means the planet slowly warms up.
And vice-versa.
The warming that took place in the 1980s and 1990s took place against a background of intense solar activity.
The sun is now going through one of its regular quiet phases.
Guess what?
The temperature of the planet is undoubtedly cooling.

SHAME ON THE GUARDIAN!

The Guardian has been my first choice for online news for many months – I especially enjoyed their liberal comments policies. But now I find that their two articles on Climategate completely devoid of real coverage and not allowing comments.

I am furious with Old Media right now. The whole way this is being covered by most papers disgusts me. Its as if they haven’t bothered to download and read the emails – which at the very least shows outright conspiracy to avoid releasing information under the freedom of information act (someone HAS to go to jail for this alone).

The Telegraph has just gained a reader and I’m sure if it continues to be the only paper publishing information everyone is talking about online they might end up the only printed media to survive the upcomming Newspocalpse.

For mjmj:

“The level of this debate is truly alarming”

I think what you actually mean is
“This debate is truly alarming”.

The Manmade Global Warming scam is truly shocking, and those wedded to it will experience terrible cognitive dissonance when their firmly held beliefs are shown to be founded on colossal and deeply cynical scientific fraud and deception.

[...] Telegraph | Nov 20, 2009 [...]

Two important questions for Mr. Delingpole, if he can find the time.

1.) You believe that AGW is a complete myth, a conspiracy that is refuted by all genuine scientific evidence. If this were the case, the majority of Climate Scientists time would be spent dissembling, redacting, falsifying and generally obscuring this evidence. Yet the e-mail record shows quite the opposity – a single e-mail talking about a ‘trick’ used to rationalise different data sets, and a handful of e-mails discussing how to deal tactically with Climate Deniers. Why does the evidence not fit with your hypothesis?

2.) Building on 1, what evidence would be required to disprove your general hypothesis – that AGW does not exist and the masses of evidence in favour of it are the products of a conspiracy? For example, if the earth continues to warm over the next five years, will you change your opinion?

Many thanks.

[...] of gold. The files, especially the emails, are very damning to the AGW movement, and could be the final nail in the coffin of human induced global warming, er, climate change, whateverthehell they are calling it this week. [...]

[...] of gold. The files, especially the emails, are very damning to the AGW movement, and could be the final nail in the coffin of human induced global warming, er, climate change, whateverthehell they are calling it this week. [...]

[...] Delingpole of The Telegraph has a good overview of the ethical roaches uncovered by this (let’s be blunt) theft. Let me quote from one of the [...]

EXCLUSIVE RIGHT HERE!!!

Person who believes in something INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT (for very good reason) may have tried to put best case forward!!!!!

CLIMATE CHANGE therefore must have been a CONSPIRACY. It is NOT POSSIBLE that they might have just been a bit foolish and wanted the world to WAKE UP AND stop making up silly CONSPIRACY theories about people who have no VESTED INTEREST in making up science.

THE WORLD IS IN SHOCK!!! SCIENTISTS might actually be PEOPLE!!!

just a few suggested headlines for your article

PS wake up, the science is right, there is no conspiracy.

Duckham… idiot.
Sorry, I am usually more polite and considerate of (mentally) disabled people, but there are limits.
If you stay in Indonesia, where of course you will be choked by the smoke from slash and burn clearnaces to make new biofuel crops, of course you will get it wrong.

CO2 is not harmful nor is it a poison.
In actual fact it is very beneficial to plant growth.
Higher CO2 and higher temperatures mean more and better plant growth and more food.
But, if you are so gullable as to believe whatever nonsense is fed you, then perhaps you’d be interested to know that there is this bridge in London that is to be demolished and I’d like to sell it to you.

On the other hand di hydrous oxide is a deadly killer and does inconcievable amounts of damage ever year to land, crops, property and people. A recent dihydrous oxide event in asia killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Now that’s something you should worry about.

On a happier note, this revelation about warmists apparently fiddling the data and hiding temperature declines comes just in time to avoid the real long term objective of the marxists etc who have taken over the environmental groups – a global government along EU lines of non democracy.
Once that is achieved we’ll see that global warming scares have outlived their usefulness and people like Al Gore will discover they are as much dupes and tools as everyone else.

JMANON,

Lots of things which are beneficial in small quantities are lethal in higher doses. And Co2 is beneficial to plants but is a waste product in humans, we produce it when we breathe.

If you are going to call someone an idiot please have the basic level of knowledge a ten year old would. Or, better yet, don’t be rude to people.

jonniemar…,

you mention global warming (AGW), do not pay attention to scientific debate or evidence. Consider only the facts via satellite temp recording:

1.it has been global cooling period for the last few years. Cool data, no conspiracy here, no scientific knowledge needed here.

2. climate scientists: ask yourself a few questions like: who are they? where do they get their funding?

A lot of scientific research is politically biased. Scientists like to think they are unbiased, but they all know what’s more and what’s less likely to get funded – no research grant means no contract and no income.

The result is that science is no longer run by scientists but by politicians – i.e. by bureaucratic administrators who dish out money according to their own agendas.

From a scientific point of view: climatologists’ AGW model(s) are junk science. It predicts constant global warming year after year with no cooling allowed.

Go figure

Have you ever considered that there may be nothing we can do about the earth’s climate, whether it be in a state of cooling or warming? To mess with a natural cycle on that scale is surely asking for trouble.

ppman on Nov 21st, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Never say never. And doing nothing is usually not always the only option.

I consider a lot, as you may find reading back, where I have observed the various efforts of the MSM in this regard, and found most wanting. The BBC and the Guardian seem to have gone into some kind of brain-freeze lock-down. But then, as pointed out, the Telegraph also seems content to leave this on the fringes of their coverage… for now. Ratings rule, as we know.

As to ‘doing’, that can take many forms. Including, where possible, ‘doing’ less. I tend to agree that trying to mess with nature proactively is a fool’s errand as some geoengineering fantasies have tried to score funding for. I was scathing of the IMechE notion of creating artificial trees, without first getting their minds around the odd notion of not cutting down real ones first.

But, often, certain things do synergise. As most consumables are one day going to get consumed, it seems smart to look at alternatives. leading neatly on to not sticking your head in the sand on population or immigration whilst bleating climate change and building over greenfield sites to create ‘affordable housing’. Or stirring things up on air travel and then adding new runways. Very mixed messages.

I think any and all striving to better efficiencies are to be encouraged, as logically that must bring costs down. Etc…

Where I am not so on board is with quaint notions like cranking the patio heater on the Hummer up to 11 just to ’show’… er … what…. that you are wasteful? That seems a tad perverse.

The tragic events in Cumbria have thrown the issues for me into sharp focus. Officials claiming climate change are, to this observer, doing their case no good at all. There are many factors involved here. But then, again, I have only their word to take (and it’s telling that previous outings have caused my eyebrow to default crank at anything from the government, national broadcaster or various quangos in this regard of late), but I must accord some significance to the rainfall records being, in their words, ‘unprecedented’. So, yes, I am interested in why.

As to what needs doing, trading a flight next year with a Kalahari bushman so he can get an LCD TV, with various governments and their shyster mates in the CIty getting a cut, ain’t going to… er… fly (either). At least for this voter. So a lot is hinging in what ‘deal’ these bozos cut in Copenhagen.

My view is that funds do need to be diverted, but kept national to cope with what I do suspect might be the consequences of a negatively changing global climate, as long term ‘management’ of nature is, as you suggest, beyond the hand of man. I think the expression is ‘p*ssing in the wind’.

But I also won’t be best pleased if my dough goes to subsiding scrappage of a 5L new BMW when it could go to funding to help replace say, old boilers, or better insulation for the old or poor.

I am hence erring on dealing with stuff, which still requires accepting it might be taking place. Denying me that option seems as perverse as enthusiastic climate pessimists thinking that everyone not ‘with them’ in their camp must therefore be ‘deniers’.

While hamsters spinning in their wheels are entertaining, and jumping in with ‘em for a while can be fun, there has to be a point at which one moves on. I have a bit of doing in mind now that is going to be fun, save me money, cost no one else anything and… oh… be a little better for environment. Sorry if that offends.

A very fine piece of investigative journalism, Mr Delingpole. First class. Now try a probe into “Lord” Ashcrook’s tax affairs. See if they let you print that.

[...] myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts [...]

Tim Collard

You little *astardly labour activist get lost for good.

We have already got rid of another DT blogger famous for dishing out labour BS.

Next it’s you.

[...] не отрицается. Файл уже разошелся по сети. В переписке много интересного – о недопущении "скептиков" к климатическим [...]

[...] [...]

The press have been compliant and uncritical to a negligent extent. Governments and business have seen the opportunity to increase power and control and make money respectively. Science should be immune from such negligence, avarice and corruption. James Delingpole is to be congratulated for his bravery. The DT less so as they have hidden this away rather obscurely. The BBC is a disgrace to journalism and so too, sadly, is the Guardian.

I worry that you may need to prepare for a backlash, James, and not just from quarters you might expect.

lollipopshoes on Nov 21st @8:04 am

You describe yourself as a “climate scientist.” I ask you the question that no one answered so far: exactly what is a “climate scientist?”

All of the people working in the field come from other disciplines: chemistry, physics, geology, paleontology, meteorology, mathematics, statistics, modeling. (I would add astronomy and astrophysics, but since you AGW “scientists” don’t want to talk about the sun and sun activity, I will leave them out.) None of those disciplines include a model for predicting future climate. That’s because until recently none of those disciplines was involved in predicting future climate. So they have no proven knowledge or methodology as how to do so. So all you have are scientists from lots of other fields taking guesses based on things they have extrapolated from the body of knowledge in their fields, which have never been about predicting future climate. The guesses are dressed up as science because they are put into complicated models. Since it’s a model it can be called “science.” Yet the models don’t even agree with each other.

Science has always been about doing experiments that others can replicate. Well, no one is replicating each others’ models here. (Maybe that’s because no one will disclose the data or assumptions they use.) This is a departure from all previous science.

Science has always been about having hypotheses and then being able to empirically demonstrate they are right. Well your group have hypotheses and so far you are all empirically wrong. The climate has not acted as predicted. And yes, I understand the difference between long term trends and short term variations. But your group has not demonstrated accuracy in either. (Do you remember the 70’s when the headlines were about the coming Ice Age and how disastrous that would be?)

In other science they would be changing their hypotheses by now. Your “scientists” instead simply changed the name of the phenomenon from “global warming” to “climate” change. That right there is an admission that none of you have a clue.

Many U.S. residents, including myself, have become very knowledgeable about the prediction of hurricanes. This is a much more limited phenomenon than climate, that has been studied for many decades and happens within a two or three week period. I say two or three week period because even with this phenomenon they can’t predict anything for next season or for even later in the current season. They can only make guesses about a particular tropical storm that has actually been formed. Even then there is no certainty to predictions about that tropical storm – either its strength, duration or trajectory. And this is a storm they can fly into, follow by satellite and have massive data from previous storms to compare to. The people working with hurricanes however are useful to society because once a big hurricane forms and starts moving they can give a stretch of land where people need to be on the alert because they might be in the path. Yet note, with the actual hurricane to study and all the historical data to compare to, they still have no certainty and the models differ by a few hundred miles as to where landfall will be. And before the original tropical storm coalesced, they have no ability to predict that it will coalesce.

The hurricane prediction people are the first to explain the limitations on their prediction abilities. Yet “climate scientists” who aren’t even sure of all the factors that create “climate” and have no body of knowledge that is known to have ever predicted climate claim they can predict climate 100 years out, when their own models widely differ.

NASA sends space crafts to the International Space Station based on precise models that are accurate to what – a centimeter, an inch? They don’t send space crafts based on data that are the average of data taken from models that vary as much as 300%.

Yet “climate scientists” want us to destroy our economies and way of life based on their certainty.

Climate scientists also lie about the meaning of their predicted results. Were you to turn out to be right, there would be more fertile farm land. Parts of the whole taiga (Northern forests) could be farmed. More of Greenland could be farmed. More parts of Argentina could be farmed. There would be more food, not less. Why are you people telling lies that people will starve?

Please explain how the people in your field can be called “scientists” at all when you are not engaging in “science” but what at this stage can only be called “guesswork” and “advocacy.” Please tell me how there can be something called “climate change science” when there is not yet any proven body of knowledge about what causes “climate change” and no method of prediction that has turned out to be right, even in the short term. Please tell me what discipline you have taken your data and prediction knowledge from. Tell me why you are lying about the consequences of a rise in global temperature.

And don’t obfuscate by getting into issues of pollution, finite natural resources and land and water use. Those are real and will need addressing. Please explain how destroying Western economies and technology and our ability to innovate will help the future world address the real issues of pollution, finite natural resources and land and water use.

In other words, am I calling you a murderous charlatan? You bet. Unless you can give some answers to my questions. No one has so far.

sounds like a lot of fluff by the climate deniers as usual.

over a decade of stolen emails and alls they could find is a few bits of fluff and out of context quotes.

its turning into a religion like libertarianism or capitalism..

..infact, the religion of free market fundamentalist thinking is what is behind this nutty climate denial business:

science has said, we need intervention in the global economy for optimun results. which pisses in the face of these libertarian idiots.

“@mjmj If you’re so well informed, how can you possibly be not aware that it was the story about Keith Briffa and the cherrypicked Yamal proxy data which first cast doubt on the reliability of CRU?”

To Mr Dellingpole:

I am fully aware of the Yamal controversy, but I’m not sure how it is relevant to this discussion. Keith Briffa and others have written a piece in response to McIntyre’s allegations of ‘cherrypicking’, it is available on the CRU website.

(Do you remember the 70’s when the headlines were about the coming Ice Age and how disastrous that would be?)

the headlines in certain areas of the popular press, need not coincide with the actual science. it often doesn’t

consider this toilet news paper that these comments are written on – it generally takes a position contrary to the prevailing scientific opinion and in the 70’s there was no actual scientific consensus on cooling – infact, an opposite tendency even then.

the problem the general public has. is news papers like the Telegraph stand between the general public and actual science.

perhaps part of the problem is that our often publically funded scientific researchers, are only able to publish authoritatively in journals that require subscriptions to read.

this creates and opacity that cynical news papers like the telegraph can exploit to create fictions.

[...] Joyner has a good round-up of blog responses to “Climategate.” James Delingpole at The Telegraph: If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them [...]

‘Deniers’ is seldom a good start.

With notions of ‘them’ vs ‘another them’ even less promising.

And postscripting not much more than a fact free ad hom fest with abuse not the best way to end it all.

If you are trying to make a useful point. But then, that was not really the aim, was it?

And this from one pretty much savaged on this thread so far for decrying here the type of productivity-free ‘if you are not with us you’re a denier’ post I more usually experience over at Aunty or The Gruan.

Go figger.

The Manmade Global Warming scam is truly shocking, and those wedded to it will experience terrible cognitive dissonance when their firmly held beliefs are shown to be founded on colossal and deeply cynical scientific fraud and deception.

what is shocking is that the british people are so scientifically illiterate, that a few moronic documentaries like channel 4’s global warming swindle, and few books in the popular press can achieve influence despite being a pile of garbage.

if the british public was more scientifically literate, they would be able to easily filter out garbage ideas.

to climate deniers: you are all wrong, you have all been had by the climate denial bandwagon of hysteria, paranoia and conspiracy theory.

what’s it like being so easily mislead?

______

the science is simple. CARBON DIOXIDE is an extremely efficient absorber of wavelengths that the earth at its surface peaks in.

its basic chemistry, can be observed in the lab. and global warming generates a warming profile signature that is predicted and detected:

warming surface versus cooling upper atmosphere.

resolutesteve: perhaps you missed James’s post about 2 months ago?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/

@jonniemarbles

Pardon, but I don’t think Mr Delingpole has put forth a hypothesis. AGW is the hypothesis that is being debated and which carries the burden of proof.

The AGW hypothesis is not simply that warming is occurring but that run-away, catastrophic warming is being caused by atmospheric CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels. This hypothesis fails in its every element.

The warming is NOT run-away –

We have been in a warming trend for 300 years and there is no evidence that it is accelerating. In fact the very best data on recent true global temperatures is the satellite measurements that have been recorded since 1979 (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt) and corroborated with high-altitude balloon and mountain top measurements. These data show about 0.1 degree C/decade.

The warming is not catastrophic –

You ask if another five years of warming will change Mr. Delingpole’s mind? At the current rate it can warm for centuries and never approach anything catastrophic. Why should he change his mind? And it’s not like we’ve never seen these warming trends before. Whenever they’ve happened they’ve been a good thing for human development– the Bronze Age, the expansion of the Roman Empire, the High Middle Ages. Nothing catastrophic.

The warming is NOT caused by human-produced CO2 -

Even the warmists admit that the amount of additional heat trapped by the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere is not enough to cause the warming they’re predicting. They have to have feedbacks, but they just aren’t there. If fact CO2 lags temperature trends. What is driving global temperature? Scarfetta and West in their peer-reviewed paper (J. Geophys. Res. 112, 2007) show with robust statistical analysis that 69% of the warming in the last century can be attributed to the Sun. The rest is related to ocean currents and volcanic activity. The CO2 greenhouse effect is in the noise.

I’ve lived and worked in the earth science community for 40 years. There is NO majority of scientists or mountain of evidence supporting AGW. The idea that there is has been concocted by the process exposed in these CRU emails. It’s not just the single “hide the decline” email, although that is damning enough. There is a clear effort to use the review process to suppress competing science. And worse than the data-fudging emails are the ones showing their efforts to use the distorted data to influence public officials.

Clothilde: i am aware of conspiracy theory industry.

lets get real – what books are most popular on this subject?

they are climate denial books at the moment which are most popular. most recently superfreakenomics in some bizarre mathematical alchemy attacks the subject too!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=global+warming&x=0&y=0

climate denial bandwagon books on top as usual. the appetite for conspiracy theory is always strong.

what the rest of us have to do. is simply ignore climate denial and continue to ridicule it perhaps.

resolutesteve problem for you is to ignore ‘climate denial’ that CO2 drives global temperature AND the geochronological proof that it doesn’t.

http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS8-GlobalLie1/ImageFiles/GlobalTempAndAtmospheric.gif

Surprised that the Scientific establishment manipulates data to promote some agenda? Take at look at the evidence supporting evolution…..same old, same old.

>>show with robust statistical analysis that 69% of the warming in the last century can be attributed to the Sun.<<

garbage because Solar Total Irradience varies no more than 0.05% not enough to cause any significant difference.

which is why climate denial types come up with exciting, unproven arguments about Special Effects: charged particle variation to affect cloud seeding – which is a nonesense too because mankinds particulate polution is going to be a far greater affect on cloud seeding since its so vast.

lets get some numbers in context to frame matters better

mankind out produces volcanic output of CO2 by about 150 times.

solar radiation at the earth is dimmed by between 5-30% due to industrial particulates. mankind absolutely dominates the two most important influences on temperature at the surface – CO2 that highly absorbs infrared radiation and particulates which deflect it from ever reaching the surface.

resolu