Climategate: The IPCC Is over Says UEA Climate Scientist

Could this be the beginning of the end for the IPCC-endorsed AGW scam? UEA climate science professor Mike Hulme has expressed these reservations before. But Climategate is the game-changer that will make people listen. Here’s what he has to say in response to the leaked files:

[Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. […] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.

For his full statement go to Watts Up With That.

3 Responses to “Climategate: the IPCC is over says UEA climate scientist”

  1. Struth says:November 28, 2009 at 10:38 amThe Yoghurt Weavers are becoming very hysterical down here in Orstralia now, James.
    An internet driven plebian revolt against the ETS and AGW swindle has made our opposition come to its senses at the 11th hour. The Left/Green useful idiots from the ABC and Fairfax are into propaganda hyperdrive.
  2. Maddie says:November 28, 2009 at 2:35 pmThank you so much for your continued work on this. I’ve spent the past few days catching up and I’m blown away over the silence on this issue. The biggest scam of our generation EXPOSED and barely a word is uttered about AGW being driven by made-up science and if it is mentioned, it’s to reassure the left that Climategate not a big deal.

    It appears getting the truth disseminated is going to be up to good eggs like you. Please, please, please don’t let the MSM be successful in whitewashing this!

    Kimberly-Alabama

  3. Colonel Neville. says:November 29, 2009 at 11:10 amDear hep cats:

    Hey, so the GTS local large tax is bad. Check. While the massive ETS global tied tax is so very good. Got it. That’s Labour Party nuance.

    Ah, how will it go? It certainly IS a load of it. Gee, I imagine that the bankrupt monopoly of the outstandingly dull Oz media will continue to become more boring, useless and irrelevant regards empirical insight into anything based in any self funded and productive known reality. No really.

    I watched Insiders on the ABC this morning and without alcohol.

    Julia Gillard is the Acting Prime Minister and she spoke of the known facts as “the knowEN facts!” Excellent. I can see why she has been so essential to the Labour education revolution, comrades. Who would have thought a university Marxist, trade union lawyer and Labour politician of the left, would be so er, socialist and control freaky.

    Like the megalomaniac wanna be Boy King of the U.N, Kevin zippy Rudd, the Gillard Monster defines all people who use their democratic right to dissent and question as “extremist, sceptics and deniers”, without a sense of originality or a shred of any decent awareness of what “denier” means for Jewish people and people like er, me. Gee, and I thought scepticism was the default essential pillar of the scientific method.

    Nope, apparently it’s based on how many people agree on something. I never knew science could be settled by frauds with big grants, media hacks and politicians. Phew! That’s settled then. To the tumbrels and the firing squads with the enemies of the Glorious Peoples Green Revolution!

    But then her mentor said this, and I kid you not:

    ‘…instead of imparting knowledge, education had to be “part of a socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than an instrument of the capitalist system”. Was it Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot or Che the child killer Guevara?
    Nope. Ex-Victorian Labour Premier Joan Kirner In a speech to the Fabian Society in the mid-1980s.
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26215156-7583,00.html

    Now THAT’S funny.

    And who said this rather recently? “What is at stake is to launch a reform process of the general UN system in view of fostering a new global agenda and building a New World Order.” The U.N did, and who is in charge of that brief? The person who said this:

    “I sounded it out first with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown [who are supporters and held a meeting for this insane smiley faced fascist plan at 10 Downing Street. No really.] and “they said, ‘You’d be terrific at that…” New Zealand PM Helen Clark and actual long term member of a group called, now wait for it, “Socialist International”.
    http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2009/07/global_governan.htm

    And that’s even funnier.

    Dig the U.N’s Earth Charter. It’s a barrel of laughs. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html

    To watch the ironically named Insiders, [a show that apart from the courageous and lone Andrew Bolt] mentioned Tiger Woods but NOT Climategate/GAIACON once, is er, something that tells you everything about the Bolshevik Knitting Circle that is the ABC and most of the Australian media. No really.

    Now gee, Malcolm Turnbull is an uber-rich $150,000,000 merchant banker. The banks will golly, make big money out of this massive ETS and the rest of the carbon thin air trade et al. Just as Al Gore has made around $100,000,000 since 2001 and is set to become a billionaire via cap n’ trade etc. Turnbull too, is a witless, phony disgrace.

    I’ll wager that like most profoundly unread, incurious logical fallacy spouting politicians and others who babble about “Climate Change” Inc and the faux “science” of it, he could not explain a damn thing about it cos gee, he knows nothing but cliché’s.

    Why? They don’t need to know ANYTHING about it if NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS. They just need to speak fluent regulation and the resultant cash-flow.

    Turnbull called the Liberal Party “progressive!” Like cancer maybe… It’s supposed to be a Conservative Party, and thus a party of the proven principles of free speech, limited government, low tax etc, and NOT a Utopian socialist one. Not for a long, long time and not even under John Howard, who neither lowered taxes nor reduced government. And like the left and other totalitarian fascists always do, but he’s a pretty much conservative!, he still disarmed the people. What a guy.

    And now nearly every politician it seems, drivels that “the people of Australia” want MORE TAX! Riiight. I know I do. Er, no. These mediocrities can spin any internationalist big lie bunkum they want within their chummy unaccountable, unreachable, unreadable and unwatchable world. No really. Go figure.

Climategate: The Whitewash Begins

Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen.

Here’s the (so far unconfirmed) story:

1) Lord Rees (Royal Society) to be asked by UEA to investigate CRU leak.

2) Foreign Office and government leaning heavily on UEA to keep a lid on everything lest it destabilises Copenhagen.

3) CRU asked to prepare data for a pre-emptive release in past couple of days but trouble reconciling issues between data bases has stopped this.

The appointment of Lord Rees, if confirmed, is especially worrying. It’s the rough equivalent of appointing King Herod’s grand vizier to investigate a mysterious outbreak of mass baby killing in Judaea.

First, Lord Rees – formerly Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal – is very much of the catastrophist mindset which helped launch the whole AGW scare in the first place. Five years ago, he declared:

“I think the odds are no better than 50/50 that our present civilisation will survive to the end of the present century.”

Second, he has previously suggested that there might be certain areas where frank and open scientific enquiry is not a good idea.

“He asks whether scientists should withhold findings which could potentially be used for destructive purposes, or if there should be a moratorium, voluntary or otherwise, on certain types of scientific research, most notably genetics and biotechnology.”

Third, he is president of an institution – The Royal Society – which has persistently used its distinguished name (founded 1660); and supposed unimpeachable scientific authority to push AGW theory.
Here is the Royal Society’s most recent statement on the subject, brought out in the aftermath of the Climategate scandal.

The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

As three of the UK’s leading scientific organisations involving most of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change up to Copenhagen and beyond.

I’m sure that Lord Rees will strive to be as scrupulously unbiased as he is possibly capable. But with a history like this behind him, I can’t say I am terribly reassured.

UPDATE: More on Lord Rees’s resolutely neutral position on AGW – as posted on the Bishop Hill blog.

Interview with Lord Rees:

“What one single thing convinces you most that climate change is taking place?

The main reason for concern is that the carbon dioxide level is rising by 0.5 per cent a year and is now at a level that it has not been at for the last half a million years. I think if we knew nothing else than that, there would still be great reason for concern.

What is the most important thing you are personally doing on climate change?

I am becoming more and more conscious of the need to avoid waste. I use a small economical car, for instance.

If you were the Prime Minister, what one thing would you do about climate change?

I think Tony Blair has already played an important role leading the G8 nations on the climate change issue. I think he was right to do this and the issue is now high on the international agenda. The recently published Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change will have an impact internationally as well as help the G8 nations move further on this subject.

Do you agree with the Bishop of London that “making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin”?

Bishops are experts in defining sins and I am not, but one change that may happen and I hope will happen over the next few years is that it will become socially unacceptable to be conspicuously wasteful.

There’s so much noise about climate change, are people in danger of becoming complacent?

It’s a difficult issue for the public because the downside is very long-term and is international, unlike pollution for instance, which people are concerned about because it affects their localities. The effects of carbon dioxide emissions are worldwide rather than local and the most severe effects will be far in the future. “

Yep. He’s going to come down hard on those CRU scientists all right. Just the man for the job!

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the whitewash continues
  2. Climategate: the Conservative backlash begins
  3. The Royal Society: too little, too late
  4. Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash

 

Climategate: sack ‘no longer credible’ Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist

Not everyone shares the BBC’s rosy view of discredited Climategate scientist Michael Mann

. . . (inventor of the roundly discredited Hockey Stick graph and unlikely Youtube comedy musical star) (hat tip: Bishop Hill) (Still less will they do so after the gobsmacking revelations by Steve McIntyre that in his latest paper, he’s actually got his data UPSIDE DOWN!)

One of his IPCC co-authors Eduardo Zorita has demanded that Mann should be banned from contributing to future reports because his scientific assessments are “not credible any more.” Zorita also calls for the barring of CRU’s director Phil Jones and another IPCC lead author, Stefan Rahmstorf.

Zorita, who works in the paleoclimate department of the Institute of Coastal Research, has issued a statement on his website in which he complains that the “scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.”

“These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.”

Zorita was one of the contributing authors to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. He’s unlikely to be asked to contribute to the Fifth. Indeed, as he ruefully acknowledges, this brave admission could well be the death of his career:

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.

Yep. I think the poor fellow’s right. Never mind the damning revelations. The vested interests behind AGW are going to make darned sure that that AGW bandwagon keeps roll roll rollin’ along.

And never mind which honest, decent saps get squashed under its wheels.

Related posts:

  1. Michael Mann as innocent as OJ – possibly more so – finds internal Penn State investigation
  2. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  3. Pope Catholic; night follows day; IPCC found telling pack of lies about sea level rises
  4. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is rubbish – says yet another expert

 

Climategate: The IPCC Is Over Says UEA Climate Scientist

Could this be the beginning of the end for the IPCC-endorsed AGW scam? UEA climate science professor Mike Hulme has expressed these reservations before. But Climategate is the game-changer that will make people listen. Here’s what he has to say in response to the leaked files:

[Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. […] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.

For his full statement go to Watts Up With That.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the Russian distraction
  2. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  3. Climategate: CRU scientists deserve Nobel Prizes – and very probably Knighthoods too – claims reasonable and unbiased New Scientist magazine
  4. Climategate: sack ‘no longer credible’ Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist

3 Responses to “Climategate: the IPCC is over says UEA climate scientist”

  1. Struth says:November 28, 2009 at 10:38 amThe Yoghurt Weavers are becoming very hysterical down here in Orstralia now, James.
    An internet driven plebian revolt against the ETS and AGW swindle has made our opposition come to its senses at the 11th hour. The Left/Green useful idiots from the ABC and Fairfax are into propaganda hyperdrive.
  2. Maddie says:November 28, 2009 at 2:35 pmThank you so much for your continued work on this. I’ve spent the past few days catching up and I’m blown away over the silence on this issue. The biggest scam of our generation EXPOSED and barely a word is uttered about AGW being driven by made-up science and if it is mentioned, it’s to reassure the left that Climategate not a big deal.

    It appears getting the truth disseminated is going to be up to good eggs like you. Please, please, please don’t let the MSM be successful in whitewashing this!

    Kimberly-Alabama

  3. Colonel Neville. says:November 29, 2009 at 11:10 amDear hep cats:

    Hey, so the GTS local large tax is bad. Check. While the massive ETS global tied tax is so very good. Got it. That’s Labour Party nuance.

    Ah, how will it go? It certainly IS a load of it. Gee, I imagine that the bankrupt monopoly of the outstandingly dull Oz media will continue to become more boring, useless and irrelevant regards empirical insight into anything based in any self funded and productive known reality. No really.

    I watched Insiders on the ABC this morning and without alcohol.

    Julia Gillard is the Acting Prime Minister and she spoke of the known facts as “the knowEN facts!” Excellent. I can see why she has been so essential to the Labour education revolution, comrades. Who would have thought a university Marxist, trade union lawyer and Labour politician of the left, would be so er, socialist and control freaky.

    Like the megalomaniac wanna be Boy King of the U.N, Kevin zippy Rudd, the Gillard Monster defines all people who use their democratic right to dissent and question as “extremist, sceptics and deniers”, without a sense of originality or a shred of any decent awareness of what “denier” means for Jewish people and people like er, me. Gee, and I thought scepticism was the default essential pillar of the scientific method.

    Nope, apparently it’s based on how many people agree on something. I never knew science could be settled by frauds with big grants, media hacks and politicians. Phew! That’s settled then. To the tumbrels and the firing squads with the enemies of the Glorious Peoples Green Revolution!

    But then her mentor said this, and I kid you not:

    ‘…instead of imparting knowledge, education had to be “part of a socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than an instrument of the capitalist system”. Was it Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot or Che the child killer Guevara?
    Nope. Ex-Victorian Labour Premier Joan Kirner In a speech to the Fabian Society in the mid-1980s.
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26215156-7583,00.html

    Now THAT’S funny.

    And who said this rather recently? “What is at stake is to launch a reform process of the general UN system in view of fostering a new global agenda and building a New World Order.” The U.N did, and who is in charge of that brief? The person who said this:

    “I sounded it out first with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown [who are supporters and held a meeting for this insane smiley faced fascist plan at 10 Downing Street. No really.] and “they said, ‘You’d be terrific at that…” New Zealand PM Helen Clark and actual long term member of a group called, now wait for it, “Socialist International”.
    http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2009/07/global_governan.htm

    And that’s even funnier.

    Dig the U.N’s Earth Charter. It’s a barrel of laughs. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html

    To watch the ironically named Insiders, [a show that apart from the courageous and lone Andrew Bolt] mentioned Tiger Woods but NOT Climategate/GAIACON once, is er, something that tells you everything about the Bolshevik Knitting Circle that is the ABC and most of the Australian media. No really.

    Now gee, Malcolm Turnbull is an uber-rich $150,000,000 merchant banker. The banks will golly, make big money out of this massive ETS and the rest of the carbon thin air trade et al. Just as Al Gore has made around $100,000,000 since 2001 and is set to become a billionaire via cap n’ trade etc. Turnbull too, is a witless, phony disgrace.

    I’ll wager that like most profoundly unread, incurious logical fallacy spouting politicians and others who babble about “Climate Change” Inc and the faux “science” of it, he could not explain a damn thing about it cos gee, he knows nothing but cliché’s.

    Why? They don’t need to know ANYTHING about it if NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS. They just need to speak fluent regulation and the resultant cash-flow.

    Turnbull called the Liberal Party “progressive!” Like cancer maybe… It’s supposed to be a Conservative Party, and thus a party of the proven principles of free speech, limited government, low tax etc, and NOT a Utopian socialist one. Not for a long, long time and not even under John Howard, who neither lowered taxes nor reduced government. And like the left and other totalitarian fascists always do, but he’s a pretty much conservative!, he still disarmed the people. What a guy.

    And now nearly every politician it seems, drivels that “the people of Australia” want MORE TAX! Riiight. I know I do. Er, no. These mediocrities can spin any internationalist big lie bunkum they want within their chummy unaccountable, unreachable, unreadable and unwatchable world. No really. Go figure.

The Tory Test That All Conservative Candidates Should Pass

The other day I met the perfect prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate. She was young, she was very bright, she was seriously good-looking and she had a thorough intellectual grasp of Tory values.

“God, you should seriously stand for election. You’d be a shoe-in with Dave Cameron’s new all-female shortlists,” I told her.

“I already tried and they rejected me,” she replied. “I think what swung it was when a question about the environment came up. I told them I didn’t believe all that nonsense about Man-Made Global Warming.”

How depressed does that story make you feel?

Here are some of the things I think any prospective Tory candidate should believe in:

1. A commitment to lower taxes, both corporate and personal.

2. An immediate repeal of the Climate Change Act of 2008

3. Cancellation of all alternative energy projects – most especially of wind farms, because of the damage they will do to the British landscape – and an accelerated nuclear programme.

4. Tougher stance on immigration.

5. Tougher stance on Islamist extremism, particularly on Foreign Office collaboration with extremist groups.

6. A real bonfire of the Quangos – as in, actually destroying them, rather than simply replacing favoured Nu Lav apparatchiks with favoured Nu Tory ones.

7. A radical rethink of the NHS (as opposed to Dave’s current we’ll-spend-the-same-as-if-not-more-than-Labour-but-we’ll-be-a-bit-more-efficient non policy)

8. Withdrawal from the European Union (except as part of a trading bloc)

9. Repeal of all PC or nannying social legislation such as the Human Rights Act and the Independent Safeguarding Authorities “all adults are paedophiles”

10. Repeal of the ban on foxhunting.

You probably suggest a few more of your own. How many of the above would Cameron’s current Conservative lot pass?

Related posts:

  1. Just 6 per cent of top Conservative candidates give a stuff about ‘reducing Britain’s carbon footprint’
  2. Reason no 12867 why not to vote Tory: the NHS
  3. Evil, snarling, red-faced Tory toffs want to bring back fox-hunting!
  4. Why would anyone want to vote Tory? (Pt 1)

 

Climategate: What Would the Gipper Do?

Climategate is a Conservative issue.

Conservatives believe in a small state. The Climategate scientists are part of a global conspiracy to expand it.

Conservatives are pragmatists who believe “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But Al Gore’s AGW agenda is about spending vasts sums of public money on a problem than doesn’t exist.

Conservatives are empiricists, with no time for idealistic fantasies about how much better the world could be if only you tortured human nature enough. That’s why they instinctively distrust the shady machinations of all those scientists, agitators and politicians who insist Global Warming is a serious threat while failing to present sufficiently convincing evidence.

So I’ve a lot of time for the latest proposal from the US that all future Republican Party candidates should first pass a Ronald Reagan test.

The Gipper understood it, perhaps more clearly than any Conservative before or since: “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem”, he said.

So I don’t think we need be in any doubt where the Gipper would have stood on AGW. Nor what he would have thought of Benedict Arnolds like the eight Cap and Traitor Republicans who helped the House of Representatives pass the biggest tax increase in US history – aka Cap and Trade – last Summer. Nor yet of the even more nauseating South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham who, though allegedly a Republican, has been collaborating with John Kerry to push this utterly disastrous, economy-destroying measure through the Senate.

Luckily we can be pretty confident that of what is going to happen to these RINOs next time they come up for election. The same thing that is about to happen to the leader of Australia’s conservative party the Liberals, Malcolm Turnbull.

But what of Cameron’s Conservatives? I’ll discuss that in another blog. The thought is too depressing and besides I think if too many US readers read my thoughts on this subject they might well be tempted to abandon what little faith they had left in the future of this benighted isle. Or possibly – and I know that this is what I’d do if I had control of America’s red button – nuke us out of pity and despair.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the whitewash continues
  2. Climategate: the Conservative backlash begins
  3. This government simply hasn’t a clue about ‘Climate Change’
  4. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!

 

Climategate: The Scandal Spreads, the Plot Thickens, the Shame Deepens…

Making stuff up?

Wow! The scandal just gets juicier and juicier. Now it seems that the Kiwis may have been at it too – tinkering with raw data to make “Global Warming” look scarier than it really is. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That; Ian Wishart)

The alleged villains this time are the climate scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) – New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit. And to judge by this news alert by the Climate Science Coalition of NZ, both institutions share a similarly laissez-faire attitude to scientific accuracy.

Compare and contrast these two graphs and you’ll see.

This is the graph from NiWA’s website, showing mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853. Note the dotted straight line showing the upward trend. Worrying, isn’t it? Almost enough to make you fall in love your flickery, yellowy new eco-light bulbs, recycle your kids and commit yourself to a binding agreement at Copenhagen.

Now have a look at this analysis of the raw data taken from exactly the same temperature stations.

Can you see the difference? I can – and I know as little about science as Al Gore. But lets allow the experts at Climate Science Coalition of NZ to explain:

Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA’s web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger’s colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

Proof of man-made warming

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.

NIWA has since issued a press release, denying it has manipulated any data. And claiming:

Warming over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal.

However, at his excellent site the Briefing Room Ian Wishart – author of Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming – points out the striking similarities with the CRU scandal.

Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.

Climategate: Five Aussie MPs Lead the Way by Resigning in Disgust over Carbon Tax

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy

-–just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.

Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.

For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.

Where they lead, the rest of the world’s politicians will eventually be forced to follow: their appalled electorates will make sure of it.

5 Responses to “Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax”

  1. Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust … | Australia Today says:November 27, 2009 at 11:13 am[…] Read more from the original source: Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust … […]
  2. Nick Mabbs says:November 27, 2009 at 4:48 pmWill you be joining Nigel Lawson, Prof Ian Pilmer, Prof Richard Lindzen (and me) etc
    on the GWPF ? You seem to be in-tune with their call for a ‘re-count’ on the true facts of AGW
    rather than on the massaged data and guesswork we have had so far.
    The entire electorate of the UK must ask their politicians what their
    revised viewpoint is on Global Warming post Climategate/KiwiClimategate
    They may not have an answer ready, because no one will have told them what to say yet,
    but if enough of their electorate e-mail them they may just get the point that we have been lied
    to far too often on this subject and it’s time one or more of the spineless spongers stood up
    and earned our money; and maybe some respect too !The Science is currently very unsettling. The fact that Al Gore nearly became US President
    is even more unsettling.

    Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [anthropogenic global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.”

  3. Chris Vere says:November 27, 2009 at 7:01 pmReminds me of the ‘fart tax’ that was propsed in New Zealand a couple of years ago. A plan by the then Labour government to excessively tax meat and dairy producers for the byproduct of their produce; methane. In a very Australian-like demonstration an MP drove a tractor up the steps of parliament. The laughable tax was blown out of the window. I must say though, the Aussies could have protested with a little more gusto.
  4. Aqua Fyre says:November 28, 2009 at 6:48 amTo think, that the Australian Labor Party would so willingly abandon its principles of “a fair go for working families” in order to support an international clique of Fraudulent scientists and IPCC hucksters is beyond the pale.They are gleeful over the current Liberal Party (conservatives) tearing itself apart over the ETS scheme; but what they don’t realize, is that it will be the Labor party that will be shaken to its very foundations in the next election if it stays its course on Carbon Trade.

    Rudd & his Ecofascist elite, are seemingly oblivious to the very deep and palpable hatred that is growing in the hearts & minds of Australians from every walk of life. Outside of the cozy cocoon called Canberra (the home of Australian Federal government) there is a growing sea~change afoot and if the current Labor Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd thinks that the Australian people will take this Carbon Trade ETS lying down, then he has another thing coming to him. They now know that every family will be forced to pay over $1500 to the United Nations. They now know, that electricity, water, gas, & petrol prices will jump anywhere between 10% to 20% per year, alongside this new Carbon Tax grab.

    Already, a poll set up on Yahoo shows that if there were an election today, the Labor Party along with their Carbon Tax scheme, would be swept out of office.

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/polls/popup/-/poll_id/50265

    As of today, the Liberals would hold a combined 54% of the vote (with other liberals & nationals) : while the Labor party would barely hold onto 36% (including Greens).

    In anyone’s language, that would be a landslide.

    Little wonder Prime Minister Rudd has backed down on bringing on an election over this issue.

    He is terrified of the fallout.

  5. Con Michael says:January 16, 2010 at 1:26 amThe rigors of scientific discipline demand,inter alia,that a hypothesis or theory imply the kind of evidence that would prove it wrong.If something happens that should not have,and vice versa,the theory is discarded.In recent decades,global cooling occurred during and after a period of increasing CO2 emissions.Ergo the AGW theory has been discredited.End of story;game over;the AGW alarmists lose.Interestingly enough,the present widespread freezing temperatures have been deemed to be evidence of global warming.The MSM have not responded to this nonsense.There are encouraging signs that the public has had enough of the lies,cheating,filibuster and obfuscation.

Climategate: What Gore’s Useful Idiot Ed Begley Jr Doesn’t Get about the ‘Peer Review’ Process

Here is an amusing video of an actor named Ed Begley Jr getting weally, weally, WEALLY cross about the Climategate scandal. (hat tip Breitbart TV)

Well no wonder he’s cross. His world is falling apart. Ed Begley Jr – now probably better known as a climate activist than for his role TV medical soap St Elsewhere – bought in so heavily to Big Al Gore’s Man-Made-Global-Warming meme, he actually became a vegan and is engaged in a competition with some other actor you won’t have heard of to see who can get the lowest Carbon Footprint.

He was also captured in one of the more revealing scenes in Not Evil Just Wrong using his Team-America-style ACTING skills to make moving tears come from his eyes and sobbing sounds from his throat while addressing an audience about the horrors of ManBearPig. Afterwards, he admits these were, in fact, recreated using the amazing technique of acting.

Anyway, the reason I show you that first footage from Fox News – apart from the fact that it’s funny – is to show you an example of how obsessed Warmists are with the notion of “Peer review.” Note how Ed repeats it, mantra-like, to ward off any possible suggestion that the scientists supporting his bomb-the-global-economy-back-to-the-stone-age cause might be wrong. How can they be? They’re peer-reviewed-peer-reviewed-peer-reviewed.

Here’s what poor Ed doesn’t get. It’s perhaps the single most important fact to emerge from the Climategate scandal. Peer-review is dead. Meaningless. Utterly void of credibility. More irredeemably defunct than a Norwegian Blue.

Why? Let’s just remind ourselves what some of those hacked CRU emails said:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

What the CRU’s hacked emails convincingly demonstrate is that climate scientists in the AGW camp have corrupted the peer-review process. In true Gramscian style they marched on the institutions – capturing the magazines (Science, Scientific American, Nature, etc), the seats of learning (Climate Research Institute; Hadley Centre), the NGO’s (Greenpeace, WWF, etc), the political bases (especially the EU), the newspapers (pretty much the whole of the MSM I’m ashamed, as a print journalist, to say) – and made sure that the only point of view deemed academically and intellectually acceptable was their one.

Neutral observers in this war sometimes ask how it can be that the vast majority of the world’s scientists seem to be in favour of AGW theory. “Peer-review” is why. Only a handful of scientists – 53 to be precise, not the much-touted 2,500 – were actually responsible for the doom-laden global-warming sections of the IPCC’s reports. They were all part of this cosy, self-selecting, peer-review cabal – and many of them, of course, are implicated in the Climategate emails.

Now peer-review is dead, so should be the IPCC, and Al Gore’s future as a carbon-trading billionaire. Will it happen? I shouldn’t hold your breath.

Related posts:

  1. RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’
  2. In praise of peer-review on Amazon
  3. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  4. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!

 

Warts and All

With hindsight it was probably a mistake to sit down with my daughter to watch Enid (BBC4, Monday). Before it started, Girl was a massive fan, especially of the Naughtiest Girl series and The Magic Faraway Tree. By the end, she pronounced herself so disgusted with the evil hag that she swore never to read another word.

I’m not sure how glad I should be. On the one hand, I suppose it’s good that Girl will no longer have her expensive boarding-school fixation stoked by the Naughtiest Girl’s frolicsome japes. On the other, though Blyton can indeed be pretty repetitive and dull, she’s one of those writers that children seem to be able to read happily to themselves again and again. And I do like the vision of England that her books promote: country as yet undefiled by wind farms; jam sandwiches; children buggering off to do their own thing without troubling adults.

Anyway, Enid — a warts, warts and more warts portrait of the author with Helena Bonham Carter in the title role — was so unremittingly grim I wish I hadn’t bothered. ‘Can she really have been as ghastly as that?’ I asked my wife. ‘Well, her daughter always claimed she was,’ the wife replied. I checked. It seems that indeed she was: vain, haughty, selfish, vindictive, horribly unloving towards both her depressive, alcoholic husband (Hugh Pollock — her editor and a first world war DSO) and her two daughters Gillian and Imogen.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. So what if Cameron left his daughter behind in the pub?
  2. I’ve never met a girl who hero-worships Martin Amis as I do — except maybe his wife
  3. Cameron’s coalition of liars, trimmers and charlatans are destroying Britain’s landscape
  4. Honours quotas: why all mustn’t have prizes