Climategate: The Russian Distraction

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is blaming Climategate on a fiendish Russian plot. Well he would, wouldn’t he?

“It’s very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services,” he told The Times.

“If you look at that mass of emails a lot of work was done, not only to download the data but it’s a carefully made selection of emails and documents that’s not random at all.

“This is 13 years of data and it’s not a job of amateurs.”

And why would van Ypersele’s chief suspects the Russian secret service want to do such things? To stop honest, decent, never-hide-evidence-or-fiddle-with-raw-data scientists getting on with their job, that’s why.

Mr van Ypersele said the expose was making it more difficult to persuade the 192 countries going to Copenhagen of the need to cut carbon emissions.

“One effect of this is to make scientists lose lots of time checking things. We are spending a lot of useless time discussing this rather than spending time preparing information for the negotiators,” he said.

Richard North has another theory: the story is utter bilge.

First, he argues, there is absolutely no significance that the leaked Climatic Research Unit (CRU)  files were deposited on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk.

From the very start, then, the crucial issue is that this is a publicly-accessible server which can be reached from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, Russian servers are particularly attractive to people who wish to lodge material on the internet anonymously, as the Russian authorities are distinctly unhelpful when it comes to revealing the addresses of computers used to upload material onto servers in their territory.

Thus, the fact that the material was placed on a Russian server gives no clue whatsoever as to the identity of the person (or persons) who uploaded the material, or of their location.

Second, North believes – as do most people who have been following this story closely – that the “hack” is much more likely to have been an inside job: a leak by someone at the University of East Anglia sick to the craw of the scheming and incompetence and dishonesty of the activist-scientists pushing AGW.

For sure, the material is very selective. But it would have needed someone to know what they were doing to pick such a careful and relevant selection of material. And so carefully to select the material over such a time-span would have taken weeks of work (not necessarily by one person). That almost rules out a hacker – a hacker could hadly get the period of extensive, uninterrupted access needed to access and pull together all the files.

Given the name of the folder (FOI2009), the speculation is that the files had been gathered by the University of East Anglia itself, in response to a Freedom of Information exercise, which had not been released.

In other words the story about the Russian Connection is a glorious red herring, designed both to impugn the motives of the people who leaked the CRU files and to distract from the significance of the files’ contents.

Of course the leak of the files was timed so as to derail Copenhagen. Nobody is disputing that. But the fact that Climategate was tactically planned and politically motivated doesn’t suddenly make it a spy-story, or a crime-story, or – as the IPCC would so dearly love to pretend, a non-story.

We shall see a lot more of this in the coming weeks: desperate attempts by various interested parties to pretend that Climategate is something that it is not. So let’s not allow ourselves to be distracted and keep our eyes on the main prize: our right as free, sentient citizens not to have $45 trillion worth of economy-destroying taxes and regulations imposed on us by big government in the name of a problem that quite likely doesn’t exist.

That’s why Climategate matters. Built into its outcome is the entire future of Western civilisation.

UPDATE:

It was almost certainly an inside job, according to some pretty comprehensive and convincing analysis by network analyst Lance Levson – whose findings you can read at Watts Up With That

Related posts:

  1. Climategate 2.0
  2. Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief
  3. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  4. Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires

London’s  Science Museum has been holding a special exhibition on ‘global warming’.

Have a guess what this gag-inducingly PC institution’s considered position is. Yes, that’s right:

The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.

To help visitors to its website reach the correct view on all this, it makes a series of bold but largely unsubstantiated assertions:

The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained.

If we don’t reduce global emissions, the world is likely to warm by 2–5 oC by 2100 compared with the end of last century. The temperature difference between today and the last ice age is only about 3–4 oC.

Sea level will rise as the oceans warm up and expand, putting low-lying areas at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. Some small islands are already making plans to evacuate their populations. Many major cities, including London, are under threat.

and, in its section on economics, it offers this bravura piece of sub-Marxist, ultra-Green theorising:

Conventional economics assumes that our prosperity depends upon economic growth. Recently, some experts have begun to question this. They argue growth, which relies on a society producing and buying ever more stuff, cannot be sustained forever. Crucial resources such as fossil fuels and metals will eventually run out.

Instead, these experts propose a sustainable economy which doesn’t measure success by growth. Although people would consume less, they could still flourish. Wealth could be more fairly shared between people. And importantly, our prosperity would not come at the expense of the environment.

You paid for all this, by the way, through your taxes.

But there is some good news. At the end of all this propagandising, the Science Museum asks you to vote for what it clearly believes is the only sensible solution:

PROVE IT! gives you the evidence to decide where you stand…

“I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.”

Despite having “seen the evidence” however it seems that the majority of contributors to the survey are still not convinced. When I checked just now the number of people voting “Count Me In” was 6396; but the number voting Count Me Out was 8551.

Expect to see a great deal more public disgust at this kind of officially-sanctioned eco-bullying over the next few weeks. Climategate was a game changer. We’ve had enough.

One Response to “Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires”

  1. bowmanthebard says:December 5, 2009 at 10:49 amThe last time I looked, the Science Museum had “pulled the plug” on the “Count Me In/Out” vote.Wrong answer.Nothing to see here — move along please.
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate: how the ‘greatest scientific scandal of our generation’ got its name

Bulldust

In his superb summary of the Climategate story so far, Christopher Booker generously credits me with having invented the name. Almost but not quite. The person who really coined it was a commenter called “Bulldust” on the Watts Up With That site. He wrote:

Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?

‘Not at all long’ was the answer. I picked up his ball and ran with it. And yes,  I totally agree with all those of you who groan that it’s too obvious or insufficiently witty (Mark Steyn’s Warmergate is better). It may even be that the latest name from the US is more apposite.

Climaquiddick, they’re calling it now. Why? Because the liberal media aren’t reporting it with the glee and enthusiasm and foaming self-righteousness they accorded Watergate. Instead, they’re giving it the grudging, embarrassed non-coverage the libtard MSM invariably does to a story they’d rather, ahem, drown.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science
  2. Watching the Climategate scandal explode makes me feel like a proud parent
  3. Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief
  4. Murdoch, Hackgate, Climategate, the Guardian and the vile hypocrisy of the Left

One Response to “Climategate: how the ‘greatest scientific scandal of our generation’ got its name”

  1. Carl C says:April 20, 2010 at 5:27 pmWhy don’t they call it Delingpolegate? How to bash scientist and misrepresent science? We’re still waiting to hear what this great scandal is? Is the world actually cooling? Are NASA and all the industrial world’s scientific insitutions all lying to us? Can Delingpolegate expose more than just his disinformation?
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate: Googlegate?

What is going on at Google?

I only ask because last night when I typed “Global Warming” into Google News the top item was Christopher Booker’s superb analysis of the Climategate scandal.

It’s still the most-read article of the Telegraph’s entire online operation – 430 comments and counting – yet mysteriously when you try the same search now it doesn’t even feature. Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me…..

UPDATE: Richard North has some interesting thoughts on this. He too suspects some sort of skullduggery

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the inaugural Al Gore prize poetry competition
  2. Climategate: What would the Gipper do?
  3. Gore fakes ‘proof’ of Man Made Global Warming shock
  4. Climategate: Al Gore spews the usual nonsense but this time no one believes him

5 Responses to “Climategate: Googlegate?”

  1. Rob R says:December 2, 2009 at 7:56 pmMy understanding is entities can pay google to have their Web sites apear closer to the top of the search. This has always been the case with search engine companies so I doubt it’s as sinister as it sounds.
  2. Silas says:December 3, 2009 at 12:26 amWould anyone really be surprised if Google was censoring the news? They already do it to folks in China.After all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin

    Sergey Brin, Russian Born to Russian Jewish parents.
    Religious beliefs: Jewish (shown in sidebar)

  3. Mike Smith says:December 3, 2009 at 12:40 pmIs it possible that some 3rd party or a bunch of 3rd parties are using the google tools where you can buy search words or SEO to prevent climategate results from showing up?
  4. bowmanthebard says:December 5, 2009 at 12:01 pmIf you try typing the word ‘climategate’ into Goole, you will find that it doesn’t autocomplete — even though it has already received well over 30 million hits.So Google is certainly “rigged”.
  5. Westwell says:January 18, 2010 at 1:55 amHere is the scoop.Financial Post
    Lawrence Solomon: Better off with Bing
    Google is censoring Climategate and Googlegate.

    http://tinyurl.com/yctbtgc

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

The BBC: Al Gore’s UK Propaganda Mouthpiece

I wasn’t planning on bringing up my hideous encounter with Old Etonian climate-fear promoter Jonathan Porritt on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions again. It feels like picking at an old scab. But, if you’ve ever nurtured suspicions about the BBC’s persistent left-liberal-AGW bias, here’s a blog you absolutely have to read.

In it blogger TonyN gives the programme a thorough Fisking and demonstrates, pretty comprehensively I think, just how far presenter Jonathan Dimbleby allowed his instinctive sympathies towards Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism to hijack what should have been a balanced debate. (Hat Tip: world’s greatest living Kiwi Josie Jackson)

He notes, for example, the decided mismatch in the way Porritt and I were introduced: Porritt as a respected elder-statesman type; me as a comedy right-wing caricature.

Jonathan Porritt: Doyen of the green party, founder of Forum for the Future, and until a few weeks ago, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, and the government’s chief environmental adviser, to which post he was appointed by Tony Blair a decade ago.

James Delingpole: comes from a rather different tradition, author and Spectator columnist, he reviles what he calls the deceit and lies of the anthropogenic global warming industry … He’s also scathing about left liberals who he is prone to see in his words as ‘stupid’.

I remember baulking at the intro even at the time. I don’t think left-liberals are necessarily stupid, just misguided, self-deluded and wrong (which aren’t the same thing at all). Problem is, if you try picking the presenter up on something he says about you right at the beginning it makes you look either pompous and self-regarding or it raises the possibility he’ll pick on you later on. Not that I should have worried about the second option: as TonyN suggests, Dimbleby did that anyway.

The question about climate change came from a Mr Gent, who asked, ‘Is the answer to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions blowing in the wind?’

On this programme the panel genuinely do not know what the questions will be, although they may be able to guess what is likely to be come up and do some home work. The chairman [Dimbleby] immediately slipped the poisoned pill to Delingpole, although he must have realised that pitting a journalist with no specialised knowledge of this subject against a specialist like Porritt could make for an uneven contest. And addressing the question first is always a disadvantage; there is nothing to react to and no thinking time.

TonyN goes on to quote in full what I was allowed to say on the subject, and what Porritt (Prince Charles’s chief climate-fear guru) was able to say on the subject. He is in little doubt as to who was given the more leeway.

When guests on Any Questions get abusive, Dimbleby usually cuts them off pretty quickly and tries to restore some semblance of propriety to the discussion. In this case he let Porritt continue, in spite of his repeatedly having suggested that a fellow guest was a liar.

As I’ve said before, I believe that Dimbleby is a decent, well-intentioned, likeable man who does his best to stay neutral. But he is also a paid-up member of the Green Alliance and is about to install a wind turbine at his Devon, much to the upset of some of his neighbours. This, I would suggest, makes him a somewhat parti-pris moderator for a debate on Global Warming.

But please, do be sure to read the blog at www.harmlesssky.org in full. Then make up your own minds and let me know what you think.

Related posts:

  1. Any Questions
  2. What is it that greens like Jonathan Porritt so LOATHE about nature?
  3. David Dimbleby interview: celebrating 30 years of ‘Question Time’
  4. Prof Brian Cox: prettier than Brigstocke but just as wrong
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate claims its first big political scalp

Australian conservatives have shown the way . . .

. . . by dumping the party leader who was in favour of massive carbon taxes and replacing him with one who stated last month that AGW is “crap.”

This makes Malcolm Turnbull, the suddenly-ex-leader of Australia’s Liberal party, the first major political victim of the Climategate furore. And his replacement Tony Abbott, the first politician to reap the benefits of the world’s growing scepticism towards ManBearPig. Of the three candidates, he was the only one committed to delaying the Australian government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The trouble began last week when Australia’s opposition Liberal party began haemorrhaging frontbenchers, all of them preferring to lose their jobs than be railroaded by their leader into voting with the Government on Kevin Rudd’s new carbon tax.

Aussie blog hero Andrew Bolt has the blow-by-blow details. Particularly stirring is his description of how the Liberals’ newly elected leader Abbott – the Mad Monk as the libtard MSM is already calling him – takes the floor and tells like it is about the ETS (Australia’s equivalent to Cap And Trade).

Already the lines are potent – real fighting words from the Liberals at last: Rudd’s great green tax “is really an energy taxation scheme.” In fact, it is “a $120 billion tax on the Australian public, and that is just for starters.” Power prices will go up, for instance.  “We just can’t wave that through the Parliament.”

To the public, Rudd’s scheme is “a great big tax to create a great big slush fund… run by a giant bureaucracy”. Already Rudd has overseen “a waste of money … worse than Whitlam”.

Too bloody right mate! (As they say in Australia where “bloody” isn’t a swear word s0 I’m allowed to use it as much as I like.)

Further useful background comes from Watts Up With That, with quotes from Abbott’s memoir Battlelines. Here is what he has to say about carbon taxes:

“Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia (on emissions trading) could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions…. Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes. Australia accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. At recent rates of growth, China’s increase in emissions in about a year could match Australia’s entire carbon dioxide output. Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.”

And here he is on climate alarmists:

“It’s hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they’re as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain.”

Sounds a very sensible fellow. We can only hope that other leaders of conservative opposition parties – not naming any names – are listening to him closely.

Update: Australians have been counting the bitter cost of their failure to implement Kyoto, according to Terry McCrann in Australia’s Herald Sun. Here he ruminates on the miseries they have suffered by not being more eco-friendly:

A reader with a droll sense of humour has come up with an inspired way to achieve the same environmental effect as Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull’s Emissions Trading Scheme, but without the cost.

Simple, a National Apology on Climate Change. Same effect on global emissions as an ETS, but with zero cost.

More humour came less intentionally from an online commentator who set out to detail “What ignoring Kyoto has cost us”.

Two things it appears. Living in smaller houses.

Damn, if only we’d adopted Kyoto we could have been living in British-style shoe-boxes. Sorry, ‘cosy’ cat-friendly accommodations. Cat-friendly? Well, you can’t swing …

Secondly, not being serious about Kyoto has condemned us to cheap electricity prices. At least 50 per cent below the rest of the world.

If we’d gone for wind farms, nuclear, solar, etc, we could have had more expensive power over the past dozen or more years.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax
  2. Climategate: it’s all unravelling now
  3. Pope Catholic; Obama energy official profits from AGW
  4. Australia shows us all the way by sacking its useless, pointless Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery

5 Responses to “Climategate claims its first big political scalp”

  1. Jeremy Crow says:December 2, 2009 at 8:46 amIt still screws me up that conservatives in Australia are called the “Liberal” party, and that I have to go to a European for good political commentary. Of course being a conservative American I happen to love everything that Australia has done for us over the years, and am happy that they are leading the way in the war against Green Communism!JC
  2. Hilton Gray says:December 2, 2009 at 11:23 amAustralian parliment just voted 41 – 33 to kill their cap and trade (ETS) bill!!
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia
  3. Jack says:December 2, 2009 at 5:35 pmJames,I just recently started following your work and have already become a big fan. I appreciate your used of pop culture, wit and irreverence for the entire farce we know as AGW. Keep up the fantastic work.
  4. Jack says:December 2, 2009 at 5:38 pmPS I live in a suburb a few miles north of Dallas, TX and we had a fantastic dusting of Global Warming Snow today, Dec. 2, 2009. Greatness!
  5. Duc de Blangis says:December 3, 2009 at 6:28 amWhile I’m heartened to see Turnbull deposed by an opponent of the absurd AGW theory, I hope that Abbott’s less libertarian attitudes are kept in check.
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate: Science Museum’s Green Propaganda Backfires

London’s  Science Museum has been holding a special exhibition on ‘global warming’. Have a guess what this gag-inducingly PC institution’s considered position is. Yes, that’s right:

The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.

To help visitors to its website reach the correct view on all this, it makes a series of bold but largely unsubstantiated assertions:

The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained.

If we don’t reduce global emissions, the world is likely to warm by 2–5 oC by 2100 compared with the end of last century. The temperature difference between today and the last ice age is only about 3–4 oC.

Sea level will rise as the oceans warm up and expand, putting low-lying areas at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. Some small islands are already making plans to evacuate their populations. Many major cities, including London, are under threat.

and, in its section on economics, it offers this bravura piece of sub-Marxist, ultra-Green theorising:

Conventional economics assumes that our prosperity depends upon economic growth. Recently, some experts have begun to question this. They argue growth, which relies on a society producing and buying ever more stuff, cannot be sustained forever. Crucial resources such as fossil fuels and metals will eventually run out.

Instead, these experts propose a sustainable economy which doesn’t measure success by growth. Although people would consume less, they could still flourish. Wealth could be more fairly shared between people. And importantly, our prosperity would not come at the expense of the environment.

You paid for all this, by the way, through your taxes.

But there is some good news. At the end of all this propagandising, the Science Museum asks you to vote for what it clearly believes is the only sensible solution:

PROVE IT! gives you the evidence to decide where you stand…

“I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.”

Despite having “seen the evidence” however it seems that the majority of contributors to the survey are still not convinced. When I checked just now the number of people voting “Count Me In” was 6396; but the number voting Count Me Out was 8551.

Expect to see a great deal more public disgust at this kind of officially-sanctioned eco-bullying over the next few weeks. Climategate was a game changer. We’ve had enough.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  2. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  3. Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science
  4. ‘Dark Energy’ reminds us: consensus has no place in real science

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate: The Conservative backlash begins

Conservative leader David Cameron has issued a statement reiterating his party’s commitment to “tackling carbon emissions” to deal with the “real danger of climate change” and describing the Copenhagen summit as of “historic importance.”

(Hat Tip: my splendid new friend Plato Says)

And the party faithful don’t like Cameron’s Copenhagen Kool-Aid Consumption one tiny bit.

Here’s what Cameron has to say on the Tory party’s Blue Blog:

In nine days time, representatives from 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen for the UN Conference on climate change. This summit is of historic importance. It is an opportunity for the world to take bold action to deal with the real danger of climate change.

So this week, ahead of the summit, members of my Shadow Cabinet have given a series of speeches setting out plans to help protect the global environment. Each one of these speeches sets out specific steps which need to be taken if we are going to reduce our carbon emissions.

And here are some of the 200 plus, almost unanimously negative comments from disgusted (and soon-to-be-former-) Tory voters so far:

Please do not support the global warming quacks in my name. They are a bunch of frauds and thieves.

When are you going to accept that Climate Change is not man made? All the unmassaged facts indicate this.
You and all the other “green brigade” go swaning off to these conferences spreading an enormous carbon footprint for what? You should not rely on my vote in the coming election unless you are honest.

How intelligent men can really believe all this drivel beats me..By the way are we or the EU responsible for capping all the VOLCANOES scattered around the world???? Get a life people.

When will the Conservative Party comment on what is now called ‘ClimateGate’ ? The science behind this whole issue is looking more and more like a massive scam!

How big is the entourage that is going with David and I bet the carbon footprint made on this one trip is more than I make in twenty years.? Why dont they just phone each other or use a network….is it because they enjoy the pomp and ego boost? What a waste of money, david you should be ashamed!

not interested in green stuff more interested in getting rid of all the rules and regs labour brought in licences fines house . sort that and you may get votes otherwise forget it

Dear Mr Blair (sorry, Cameron)
Why don’t you listen to the actual SCIENTISTS? And not the scaremongerors? Anyone who has even a vague knowledge of science will understand that, in medieval times, the world was a lot hotter than it is now: granted, colder winters, but they had much hotter summers. This is part of the earth’s cycle: read a bit more, think, and don’t believe everyone – take a balanced view. Global warming/cooling is part of the earth’s physicality. Let us not forget that man, as we know him, on a 24-hour clock appeared about 2 minutes before midnight! The earth’s warming/cooling has been going on long before we were around.

Britain’s been sold to the Belgiums and we are supposed to be worried about climate change? We want our own elected government to govern our country

I also am a scientist and agree with the views expressed above that climate change linked to man made CO2 is at best “not proven” and at worst is a fable of equal staus to the Emperor’s New Clothes. David could provide real leadership by not supporting the green inquisition and becoming the man that led us out of this nonsense. The climate change lobby is attractive because it appeals to a concept of original sin (man polluting the planet an bringing about his own downfall) and fear of dependence on oil (which will one day, but not soon, run ou)t. The long term answer to go with sensible energy strategy is of course fewer people. We should be aiming to get the UK population back to 50 million in the next 30 years and maybe less after that.
Conservatives should not fall for the man induced climate change confidence trick. Most oif its remedies are against conservative instincts (more taxes, state interference etc.

As a lowly ex meteorologist I have in my retirement looked at global temperatures:-
Easy enough to do. Doesn’t require much effort at all and I notice It’s been gettting colder for the past decade.
The terminology has changed too – from ‘Man made global warming’ to ‘global warming’ and now ‘climate change’ Whereas I thought that I was the only one (not in receipt of a large research grant) who thought that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes I now suspect that he is now putting on his underwear.

That’s the bad news, Dave. But the good news is you have the support of one Ross J Warren who argues:

Perhaps we might consider making climate change denial a criminal matter

Mm. He sounds just the kind of sensible, reasonable fellow you want onside.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain
  2. Climategate: the whitewash begins
  3. Copenhagen: an utter waste of everyone’s time, energy and money with a carbon footprint the size of Texas
  4. Climategate: how the Copenhagen Grinches stole Christmas

7 Responses to “Climategate: the Conservative backlash begins”

  1. Chris says:November 29, 2009 at 11:42 amI never thought the phrase ‘political science’ would be stood on its head as abruptly as it has here. This recipe is 99 parts politics to one part science. And, to those who love the term, we have ‘consensus’ on that.
  2. Burke Hamblin says:November 29, 2009 at 9:25 pmMr. Delingpole, thank you for your tenaciousness in covering this issue; it’s all but an informational wasteland here in the States, save for those who’re tweeting and e-mailing others about “Climategate.” Our “climate czar” Carole Browner has today rejected any implications of the scandal by repeating the rote consensus line, but I and others I know are forwarding links to your blog, Twitter account and articles to everyone we know, regardless of their political leaning. Carry on!
  3. Hugh Janus says:November 29, 2009 at 11:51 pmJames you are up against one massive machine which really does want to silence you and others who share the same view. Unfortunately this is skynew’s weathergirls take on the subject. Read and weep and consider jumping off Earth because life is going to get a whole lot worse. Link below.

    http://blogs.news.sky.com/theweathergirls/Post:35c7a6d4-9e59-4208-9703-34d64bd6d7fd

  4. Nick Mabbs says:November 30, 2009 at 4:35 pmJames,

    It looks like Dave, Gordon and all the other lefties are going to ignore the e-mails, and the computer code recently ‘liberated’ from the CRU.
    Lord Monckton seems to be lining up a legal challenge if his interviews on the interweb are anything to go by. He wants Gore downwards to go to jail and for the disbandment of the the IPCC and the UN on ‘crimes against humanity’ grounds.

    Unfortunately he also advocated a new worldwide political party (the Freedom Party).
    Readers may remember the name being associated with the ‘National Front’ before it became
    the BNP – it is particularly disturbing therefore that Nick Griffin is going to bring up Climategate at
    Copenhagen.

    Someone stop him before the whole Climategate business gets kicked into the long grass
    as being the rantings of a loony; rather than the world changing subject it is !

    Right now we need James Bond not Daffy Duck.

  5. Steve says:November 30, 2009 at 4:41 pmI am not a scientist, and I know very little about the science required to understand the debate. Therefore I read articles on what could be the most significant issue of our age so as to be informed by others who know what their talking about.

    One thing for certain is that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that AGW is real. That does not make it so, only that they believe it to be.

    The problem I have with the argument against AGW is that I’m expected to believe that some vast conspiracy exists amongst scientists. In all honesty it sounds as ridiculous as “9/11 was an inside job”. And far more worrying.

    I have read quite a few of your articles on the subject and the only thing I can determine is that you truly despise those who would believe in AGW. the insults you have levelled at those you disagree with are of the Daily Mail variety, or Fox News opinion pieces. I assume that in the majority of your articles you are doing no more than preaching to the quire, filling them with vitriolic terminology to level at those they disagree with. So it is sad to say that another “opinion” on the debate is rendered useless to me.

    And that is the main problem, I am no firm believer in man made climate change although from my own experience it is plausible that our climate is indeed changing. That I cannot find decent sceptical argument without insult is worrying.

  6. Fiona says:December 1, 2009 at 10:27 pmThere is hope. In Australia, we have booted out a “warmist” from the leadership of the Opposition and put a realist in charge. You need to pressure your party from the grassroots like we did. Email them, phone them, tell them you’ll never vote for them again.
  7. PaulM says:December 1, 2009 at 10:48 pmDecember 1st 2009 will go down in the history of the Australian Parliment as the day the conservative side of politics rediscovered its’ spine. On this day a Leadership Spill was called of the Opposition.

    Running were, Malcolm Turnbull, the current Leader of the Opposition, Joe Hockey, the “Unity” candidate (a believer in AGW and the favoured pick of the media & the ALP) and Tony Abbot, Prime Minister Howards head kicker and whilst a believer in Climate Change, a skeptic to the level & importance of mankinds contribution.

    The distress, the outrage, the hand wring, hair pulling & banshee screams that have followed the elevation of the “Mad Monk” Tony Abbot to the Leadership of the Lib/Nat coalition was most edifying to behold.

    Today 2-Dec-2009 will be a great day in Australia as we see the opposition vote down for the second time, Prime Minister Rudds Emissions Trading Scheme (or Extra Tax System/Employment Termination Scheme) in the Australian Senate. All this was achieved by the great work of Andrew Bolt (columnist for the Herald Sun in Melbourne), Piers Ackerman (columnist for The Sydney Daily Telegraph), Alan Jones (Radio commentator for 2UE Sydney), the great folks from WhatsUpWithThat and the thousands of everyday Australians who informed their elected representatives of their concerns & their WILL.

    Democracy does occasionaly work, but it takes the actions of the electorate to make it happen.

    Stand up & say NO. NO to the International Carbon Futures Cabal headed by Al Gore and the likes of HSBC, ABN AMRO & Goldman Sachs. NO to COP15. NO to the unelected & unrepresentative swill of the UN.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

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.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

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

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations