Glorious send-up | James Delingpole

January 31, 2010

Bellamy’s People (BBC2, Thursday) began life in 2006 as a spoof Radio Four phone-in show called Down the Line presented by ‘award-winning’ Gary Bellamy (Rhys Thomas) with the Fast Show’s Charlie Higson and Paul Whitehouse playing the various callers.

Now it has moved to TV and its satirical target — not before time — are all those programmes where celebrities drive round the country meeting people and saying, ‘Isn’t Britain brilliant?’ So, in his classic Triumph Stag with a Union flag painted on the bonnet, Bellamy gets to meet his giggling northern fan club, cheeky-chappy plasterer, a Pakistani community leader (‘What does a community leader do, exactly?’ Bellamy asks, without getting a very satisfactory answer), and a cheerful elderly gentleman who thinks it’s terribly important to keep up with modern trends, by using the internet and so forth, and not to dwell on how much better the past was because in many cases it wasn’t.

Though it does have its broad-comedy moments — like the two elderly Mitford-style sisters who have divided their stately home exactly down the middle, one side dedicated to Stalin and the other to Hitler — it’s mostly much more subtle observational stuff.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. In the name of JUSTICE we MUST send Mark Thatcher to Equatorial Guinea
  2. Remember when ecologists used to give a damn about birds and trees and stuff?
  3. Who is Lieutenant Dick Coward of Coward at the Bridge?
  4. What BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans thinks about global warming

 

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

Why Pachauri MUST stay as chairman of the IPCC

Troll impersonator in chief.

Dr Rajendra K Pachauri

TROLL IMPERSONATOR

(can also do, by special request, SARUMAN THE EVIL WIZARD; ROY WOOD; the COVER OF JETHRO TULL’S AQUALUNG ALBUM; or OSAMA BIN LADEN’S SCARIER OLDER BROTHER)

Weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, Children’s Parties.

Contact: RK Pachauri, No. 1 Carbon Heights, Millionaires’ Row, Delhi, India

Now I know that one or two of you might disagree, but the above business card – which I designed myself, though if he wants a professional job doing I can highly recommend my brother  – is most definitely not something I want to see being handed round by the Yummy Mummies in Dulwich or Notting Hill or the posher parts of Delhi. Not now. Not ever.

I don’t want Pachauri to give up his day job. He is performing a far, far, FAR greater service to the world where he is, chairing the IPCC, than he ever could scaring little kiddies at parties or going back to his old job as a railway engineer.

Here is one reason why he should stay. And here’s another. Yes that’s right. When Warmists as committed as environment editors Geoffrey Lean and Charles Clover are calling for Pachauri’s resignation with lines like this –

If we are to have the best possible predictions about climate change, urgent decisions need to be taken. The agreeable but gaffe-prone Pachauri should accept it would be wise to walk now, so some heavy-hitters can step in and prevent a disastrous slide in the IPCC’s credibility. The sooner, the better.

– then you just KNOW it must be the right thing for Pachauri to stay in post.

Nor I am being wholly flippant, here. As we all well know, Pachauri’s credibility is toast -not only in Britain and the US, but even among his previously enormous fan club in India. According to Richard North – the crusading hero who, with Christopher Booker has done more than anyone to expose Pachauri’s multifarious business interests – Pachauri is so out of favour with the Indian government following his “voodoo science” calumny that he is now most unlikely to be given the prestige position as head of India’s national solar mission.

But this, of course, is now the Warmists are clamouring for Pachauri to go. They are calculating that if they throw him off the back to feed the ravening wolves, the Slippery Sledge of the Great Global Warming Scam will be able to pull away into the distance and elude its howling pursuers. (That’s makes me one of the wolves, I suppose. But I’m OK with that. Wolves are cool). Clearly, we mustn’t let them get away with this.

These have been a truly wonderful couple of months for the cause of climate honesty and realism. Over at Climate Depot my friend Marc Morano is boasting:

“We are witnessing the Berlin Wall moment in the global warming regime. The statist cabal that has ruled the climate debate since the UN IPCC’s inception in 1988 is now tumbling down before our eyes. The so-called ‘gold-standard’ of scientific review turns out to be counterfeit.”

“Global warming is now undergoing the fastest ever collapse of any modern political movement.”

Morano is right. It really is quite astonishing how quickly and suddenly the AGW edifice – the “Billion dollar hoax” as Andrew Bolt calls it – is collapsing. We’re seeing previously committed Warmist scientists starting to bail. We’ve seen it confirmed that the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia really did break Freedom of Information laws. We see in the latest Pew ratings that the US public is less convinced than ever before that addressing global warming is a priority. Even China is keeping an “open-mind” on the causes of climate change.

But let’s not underestimate the scale of the struggle we climate rationalists have ahead of us. AGW is the biggest and most far-reaching scientific scandal in history, whose tentacles spread into almost every aspect of our lives, from how we dispose of our trash and how we light up our homes, to how we travel and how we are taxed and regulated. Big business stands to make a fortune out of the scam; for governments it’s a way of extending their control and increasing power; for eco-fascists it’s a way of destroying industrial civilisation.

This conspiracy is much, MUCH bigger than one unfortunate bearded troll-impersonator.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: Monckton and North spit-roast Pachauri
  2. Pachauri: it’s all a terrible conspiracy
  3. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is rubbish – says yet another expert
  4. Syed Hasnain, RK Pachauri and the mystery of the non-disappearing glaciers

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

Climategate: time for the tumbrils | James Delingpole

January 31, 2010

A mighty outpouring of rage today from Philip Stott, foaming with righteous indignation, on the life and imminent death of the AGW scam.

Part of him is naturally enthralled:

… as an independent academic, it has been fascinating to witness the classical collapse of a Grand Narrative, in which social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. It is like watching the Berlin Wall being torn down, concrete slab by concrete slab, brick by brick, with cracks appearing and widening daily on every face – political, economic, and scientific.

He recognises that this an era of massive geopolitical power shifts:

The humiliating exclusion of Britain and the EU at the end of the Copenhagen débâcle was partially to be expected, but it was brutal in its final execution. The swing of power to the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) had likewise been signified for some time, but, again, it came with precipitate ease, leaving even the American President, Barack Obama, with no doubts as to where the political agenda on climate change was now heading, namely to the developing world, but especially to the East, and to the Pacific Rim. The dirigiste tropes of  ‘Old Europe’, with its love of meaningless targets and carbon capping, will no longer carry weight, while Obama himself has been straitjacketed  by the voters of Massachusetts, by the rust-belt Democrats, by a truculent Congress, by an increasingly-sceptical and disillusioned American public, but, above all, by the financial crisis. Nothing will now be effected that for a single moment curbs economic development, from China to Connecticut, from Africa to Alaska.

But his overwhelming mood is one of white-hot fury at the way so many of his fellow scientists have colluded in this nauseating conspiracy:

And what can one say about ‘the science’? ‘The ‘science’ is already paying dearly for its abuse of freedom of information, for unacceptable cronyism, for unwonted arrogance, and for the disgraceful misuse of data at every level, from temperature measurements to glaciers to the Amazon rain forest. What is worse, the usurping of the scientific method, and of justified scientific scepticism, by political policies and political propaganda could well damage science sensu lato – never mind just climate science – in the public eye for decades. The appalling pre-Copenhagen attacks by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and his climate-change henchman, Ed Miliband, on those who dared to be critical of the science of climate change were some of the most unforgivable I can recall.

I first met Professor Stott a couple of years ago. He’s emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London, and I tracked him down because in those days he was pretty much the ONLY senior scientific academic anywhere in Britain brave enough publicly to dispute the AGW ‘consensus.”

We had lunch. “There are many more scientists who think the way I do,” he told me. “But they don’t want to stick their heads above the parapet. They don’t want to lose their jobs.” We talked a bit about the loneliness of our position, how impossible it was to place dissenting articles anywhere in the media, how people who thought like us were treated like pariahs.

Now suddenly it has all changed utterly. And you know what? I’m in no mood for being magnanimous in victory. I want the lying, cheating, fraudulent scientists prosecuted and fined or imprisoned. I want warmist politicians like Brown and disgusting Milibands booted out and I want Conservative fellow-travellers who are still pushing this green con trick – that’ll be you, David Cameron, you Greg Clark, you Tim Yeo, you John Gummer, to name but four – to be punished at the polls for their culpable idiocy.

For years I’ve been made to feel a pariah for my views on AGW. Chris Booker has had the same experience, as has Richard North, Benny Peiser, Lord Lawson, Philip Stott and those few others of us who recognised early on that the AGW thing stank. Now it’s payback time and I take small satisfaction from seeing so many rats deserting their sinking ship. I don’t want them on my side. I want to see them in hell, reliving scenes from Hieronymus Bosch.

Yeah, maybe it isn’t the Christian way. But screw ‘em. It’s not as though they haven’t all been screwing us for long enough.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain
  2. Climategate: the whitewash begins
  3. Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left’s visceral loathing of open debate
  4. Climategate goes uber-viral, Gore flees leaving evil henchmen to defend crumbling citadel

 

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

Monbiot: an apology | James Delingpole

January 31, 2010

George Monbiot is cwoss. Weally, WEALLY cwoss. And I don’t blame him one bit. God it must be an awful thing when you’ve squandered half your career acting as cheerleader for a cause which, on closer examination, turns out to have been a complete load of cobblers. Hugh Trevor-Roper’s humiliation after the Hitler Diaries is surely as nothing to what poor George – Britain’s second-most-famous Old Stoic after Perry Worsthorne  – must be experiencing now.

I’m afraid I don’t read his Guardian columns as often as I used to. Pre-Climategate, they were a great place to go trolling for Moonbattisms which I could then post up on this site and expose to mockery. But these days there just isn’t time. There are so many bigger stories to report on the collapse of the AGW scam that really Monbiot’s views on the subject are about as relevant as a cavalry trooper’s would have been after the invention of tank warfare.

So I quite understand why a man in as desperate a position as George’s has to grab what few crumbs of consolation he can. That’ll be why he’s got so terribly excited about a blog I wrote the other day – and then spiked – about an orchestrated campaign by a green pressure group to get sympathetic individuals in over 200 constituencies to send letters to their local Tory candidate testing him on his environmental correctness.

I called this “eco-bullying” and “stalking”, as I believe it is. Of course free individuals are perfectly entitled to write to their prospective parliamentary candidate on whatever subject they wish. I have no objection to that. What I do very much object to is concerted campaigns by pressure groups. Since my moles at Tory HQ tell me lots of very similar letters to the one I quoted were received by Tory candidates all over Britain, using similar phrasing, I don’t think this was an accident.

Here’s what the letter to one prospective Tory candidate said:

Dear…..

I was concerned to note the results of a survey of 140 Conservative candidates for parliament that suggested that climate change came right at the bottom of their priorities for government action.

I hope you can reassure me that you recognise the importance and success of climate change action by the UK government at home and internationally.

Can you clarify that:

You accept that climate change is caused by human activity
Do you support the target to achieve 15% renewable energy by 2020?
Do you support the EU imposing tougher regulation to combat climate change

Kind Regards

Perfectly innocuous on its own, yes. But really quite worrying in the context of a green campaign to bully Conservatives into adopting an essentially unConservative position: supporting a policy, backed by no solid scientific evidence, which will involve raising taxes, destroying industry and increasing regulation. That is why I wrote up the story.

And why did I pull it? (And it really was my decision, no one else’s. In fact I got a huge bollocking from my bosses for having done so because it is not Telegraph policy to pull blogs). Because I made a stupid mistake, that’s why. When I posted up the letter quoted above, I neglected to remove the sender’s name and address. This was careless but not, I promise, vindictive. And I deeply regret any distress or hassle which may have been caused to the person I named. When I read some of the comments below my blog and realised what I’d unwittingly unleashed, I removed the person’s name from the blog; then later, all the comments pertaining to the person; then later, I pulled the blog altogether – embarrassed, ashamed and rather wishing it would all go away. Thanks to Monbiot it hasn’t. But what I would really like to say to the person I named is: I’m sincerely, totally and unreservedly sorry. (And if it’s any consolation, you should see some of the hatemail I’ve been getting from Monbiot’s Guardianista chums).

Then again, I can’t pretend I’m not glad that Monbiot brought it up. a) because it has given me a chance to make the apology I know I should have made earlier; b) because the story about the green campaign to co-opt Tory policy is far too good to have deserved spiking and c) because it enables me to point out what a truly despicable piece of work Monbiot is.

The way he chose to report this story was something like this: evil global warming denier James Delingpole deliberately singled out a totally innocent person who had made an innocent green enquiry to his Tory candidate and deliberately printed his address so as to expose this innocent person to danger and ridicule.

If that’s how Guardian readers want to see me, that’s fine. I’m never going to convert them. And frankly as Islamists love death and Americans love Coca Cola so I thrive on the hatred of Guardian readers.

But can Monbiot really be so warped and twisted as to have believed the version of events he printed? Can he really believe that even the nastiest journalist would deliberately single out some member of the public who’d written a letter whose politics he disagreed with and then exploit the power of the media to make that person’s life miserable? Does he not think that with Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, the Prince of Wales, Lord Stern, James Hansen, Keith Briffa, Yvo de Boer, Mark Lynas, Carol Browner, Van Jones, Bob Ward, Sir John Houghton, Zac Goldsmith, Pen Hadow, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, William Connelley and, yes, G. Monbiot I haven’t got more fitting targets for my disgust and venom?

Monbiot, you apology for a columnist, you are as over as the dinosaurs. As finished as the Medieval Warm Period. Your cause is lost. Give up now and become a teepee maker instead. They’re very popular in your part of Wales, I gather.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
  2. ‘I’m SO sorry! How will you ever be able to take me seriously again?’ sobs remorse-stricken Monbiot
  3. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  4. I have faith in George Monbiot’s sincerity, whoever’s paying him

 

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

The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones | James Delingpole

January 31, 2010

Dr Phil Jones – the (suspended) head of the Prince of Wales’s favourite AGW-promotion institution the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia – had a narrow squeak the other day. Though the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) found his department in breach of Freedom of Information laws (Jones and his team had deliberately withheld or conspired to destroy data), Jones was able to escape  prosecution on a technicality.

Next time, he may not be so lucky. Our friend John O’Sullivan at Climategate.com has been looking closely at the Climategate emails and reckons there is still a very strong case for a criminal prosecution, which could see Dr Jones facing ten years on fraud charges.

O’Sullivan argues:

What is not being intelligently reported is that Jones is still liable as lead conspirator in the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and may face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act (2006). If convicted of the offense of fraud by either false representation, failing to disclose information or fraud by abuse of his position, he stands liable to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

As to exactly what the Crown Prosecution Service’s case might be, I recommend you read O’Sullivan’s shrewd and thorough analysis.

Related posts:

  1. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters
  2. Climategate 2.0: the not nice and clueless Phil Jones
  3. Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash
  4. Climategate: Is the British government conspiring not to prosecute?

 

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

WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’

More brilliance from the future kingcharles_1481587c

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia is under government investigation for fraud, data manipulation and withholding or destroying scientific data in defiance of freedom of information requests. Many of the disgraced scientists working at the CRU were closely involved in putting together the now ferociously suspect Fourth Assessment Report for the notoriously unreliable Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) headed by the lethally compromised Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

Is this really the best time, you might wonder, for the future King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to praise the CRU for the “quality” of its work and to dismiss the Climategate scandal as a “little blip”? (Hat tip: Roddy Campbell)

Well the Prince of Wales clearly thinks so or he wouldn’t have paid a visit to Norwich yesterday to deliver a jolly little fillip to the beleaguered scientists. In his sublime wisdom, Prince Charles clearly believes they have done no wrong at all.

On a visit to the disgraced CRU yesterday – shown here in full technicolour horror – the Prince told scientists including the organisation’s suspended director Dr Phil Jones:

“Well done all of you. Many, many congratulations on your work. I wish you great success in the future. Don’t get downhearted by these little blips here and there!”

“Little blips”? Does this mean that Prince Charles takes a relaxed view on law-breaking? Certainly if we are to believe the Information Commissioner, offences were committed at the CRU under the Freedom of Information Act. Unfortunately, as Bishop Hill discovered, there are unlikely to be any prosecutions because of a cunning escape-clause inserted by wily civil servants into the Freedom of Information Act.

Related posts:

  1. What did our grandchildren do to deserve the Prince of Wales?
  2. Why the Prince of Wales’s letters shouldn’t be kept secret
  3. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.
  4. Wales is in danger: why isn’t the Prince of Wales saving it?

 

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

More integrity from the robust, peer-reviewed IPCC. Not. | James Delingpole

January 28, 2010

Yesterday I got the blogospherical equivalent of a Legion d’Honneur – a generous, name-checking post and a mention on the blogroll of one of my favourite sites, Watts Up With That.

The readers of WUWT – not unlike those of Telegraph blogs – are ferociously well-informed and very brainy, especially to do with matters scientific. I’m guessing there are probably more PhDs among its readership than contributed to all four of the IPCC’s assessment reports put together. And this is what makes them such formidable opponents of sites like RealClimate – the Warmist propaganda outlet set up a few years ago by friends of Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann. They don’t miss a trick.

So you can imagine how downcast I was when I woke this morning to discover an email from WUWT’s proprietor Anthony Watts, advising me that an error had been spotted in my piece on Amazongate:

Icarus (14:19:23)
It appears that the 40% figure references this passage in the WWF/IUCN report:

“Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.”

This passage references a peer-reviewed article in Nature:

46 D. C. Nepstad, A. Veríssimo, A. Alencar, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P. Schlesinger, C. Potter, P. Mountinho, E. Mendoza, M. Cochrane, V. Brooks, Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire, Nature, 1999, Vo l 398, 8 April, pp505

Unfortunately I don’t have access to the full article but to call this reference “a complete load of porkies” seems a bit unjustified, unless it can be shown that Rowell and Moore completely misrepresent the Nature article (which of course *is* written by Amazonian specialists).

Before I rushed to correct, I thought I’d do a bit of checking with the great and supremely thorough Dr Richard North whose original post on Amazongate I had quite shamelessly plagiarised. And guess what? The IPCC 4th Assessment report emerges EVEN LESS CREDITABLY from the tale than we had originally suggested.

Here’s what that referenced Nature article said:

Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.

Yes. Hands up. We did miss the 40 per cent reference. But what we weren’t doing, by any means, was exaggerating the skullduggery and scientific dishonesty involved – as Maurizio Morabito has noticed.

North, as ever, has the full details.

It turns out that the Nature article HAD been misrepresented. There’s a clue in the title “Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire”. It wasn’t about the effects of climate change at all. Yet from this irrelevant article, the IPCC had decided to cherry-pick a paragraph which seemed to chime nicely with its urge to co-opt the mighty Amazon rainforest to its cause.  After all, it’s not as though anyone was likely to notice, was it?

Related posts:

  1. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  2. Lord Turnbull: the IPCC is useless
  3. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is rubbish – says yet another expert
  4. RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’

 

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

After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate | James Delingpole

Blog

After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate

January 26th, 2010

AGW theory is toast. So’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri. So’s the Stern Review. So’s the credibility of the IPCC. But if you think I’m cheered by this you’re very much mistaken. I’m trying to write a Climategate book but the way things are going by the time I’m finished there won’t be anything left to say: the battle will already have been won and the only people left who still believe in Man Made Global Warming will be the eco-loon equivalents of those wartime Japanese soldiers left abandoned and forgotten on remote Pacific atolls.

Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.

This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:


At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:


This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The link given is no longer active, but the report is on the IUCN website here. Furthermore, the IUCN along with WWF is another advocacy group and the report is not peer-reviewed. According to IPCC rules, it should not have been used as a primary source.

It gets even better. The two expert authors of the WWF report so casually cited by the IPCC as part of its, ahem, “robust” “peer-reviewed” process weren’t even Amazon specialists. One, Dr PF Moore, is a policy analyst:

My background and experience around the world has required and developed high-level policy and analytical skills. I have a strong understanding of government administration, legislative review, analysis and inquiries generated through involvement in or management of the Australian Regional Forest Agreement process, Parliamentary and Government inquiries, Coronial inquiries and public submissions on water pricing, access and use rights and native vegetation legislation in Australia and fire and natural resources laws, regulations and policies in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, South Africa and Malaysia.

And the lead author Andy Rowell is a freelance journalist (for the Guardian, natch) and green activist:

Andy Rowell is a freelance writer and Investigative journalist with over 12 years’ experience on environmental, food, health and globalization issues. Rowell has undertaken cutting-edge investigations for, amongst others, Action on Smoking and Health, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IFAW, the Pan American Health Organization, Project Underground, the World Health Organization, World in Action and WWF.

But the IPCC’s shamelessness did not end there. Dr North has searched the WWF’s reports high and low but can find no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change. (Logging and farm expansion are a much more plausible threat).

Watts Up With That provides a further, worryingly long list of the non-peer-reviewed papers from the World Wildlife Fund cited as evidence in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report. Time, it asks, for the IPCC to be stripped of its Nobel Peace Prize?

We can but dream.

UPDATE: If you want cheering up, I highly recommend this fascinating article about 12 More Glaciers Which Haven’t Heard The News About Global Warming.

Share

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

One Response to “After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate”

  1. daddy dave says:January 26, 2010 at 8:38 am

    A climategate book is needed. I wouldn’t worry about it not being edgy and controversial enough. You’ll be dealing with living people, practicing scientists who are still getting funded, bureaucrats who still hold their jobs, politicians who are still in power, propaganda that’s still in fourth grade classrooms, and so on.
    It will be plenty controversial.
    And even if you’re spelling out the bleeding obvious, there will be many who will find it an eye-opener. They may have heard something about this “climategate” business, but many people are not following it closely and are unsure what to believe.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

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

Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations

For those who haven’t seen it, here’s a link to US weatherman John Coleman’s magisterial demolition of the Great AGW Scam.

I particularly recommend part 4 because that’s the one with all the meat. It shows how temperature readings have been manipulated at the two key climate data centres in the United States – the NASA Goddard Science and Space Institute at Columbia University in New York and the NOAA National Climate Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina. (Hat tip: Platosays)

This is a scandal to rank with Climategate.

What it shows is that, just like in Britain at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) temperature data records have been grotesquely distorted by activist scientists in order to exaggerate the appearance of late 20th century global warming. They achieved this – with an insouciant disregard for scientific integrity which quite beggars belief – through the simple expedient of ignoring most of those weather station sited in higher, colder places and using mainly ones in warmer spots. Then, they averaged out the temperature readings given by the warmer stations to give a global average. Et voila: exactly the scary “climate change” they needed to persuade bodies like the IPCC that AGW was a clear and present danger requiring urgent pan-governmental action.

The man who spotted all this is a computer programmer called EM Smith – aka the Chiefio. You can read the full report at his excellent blog. In the 70s, the Chiefio discovered, GISS and NOAA took their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the world. By 1990, though, this figure had mysteriously dropped to 1500. Even more mysteriously this 75 per cent reduction in the number of stations used had a clear bias against those at higher latitudes and elevations.

Here’s an excellent example of this: Bolivia.

Notice that nice rosy red over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It has a patch of high cold Andes Mountains where most of the population live.

One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.

None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.

Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks and high cold desert, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know?

Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo has also been on the case. You can find a link to his superb analysis of the scandal at Watts Up With That. (Sorry: I would give you a more direct link to his pdf file but I can’t work out how to do it)

In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” .

You know what this means, don’t you? It means the ragbag of eco-loons, politicians and technocrats pushing AGW can no longer plausibly deploy their main excuse about Climategate – that it was all a little local difficulty of no great importance because the HadCrut temperature data sets were independently confirmed by those at GISS and NOAA. What this story demonstrates, as many of us suspected all along, is that not just the British temperature records but those in the US too have been hijacked by political activists. I need hardly say that this breaking scandal has been almost completely ignored by the MSM.

Not unpredictably, the director of one of the two institutions implicated in this – Dr James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies – has issued a (very carefully worded – which makes you wonder what he’s not telling us) denial of any skullduggery.

“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis.”

The idea that a man of Dr Hansen’s radical persuasion should be running an organisation as important as GISS is looking increasingly absurd. To get an idea how absurd, think Tony Benn in charge of Britain’s defence policy, or – let’s get really weird – imagine if Ed Balls were in charge of Education or Gordon Brown were running the country. More on Hansen’s activist sympathies in another blog.

One Response to “Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations”

  1. Steve Carson says:January 19, 2010 at 8:32 pmI would have to take issue with “magisterial demolition” of AGW.He claims to debunk the IPCC in his first section and instead points out a flaw in Al Gore’s movie without referencing anything the IPCC has ever written.

    In fact, his particular point that CO2 has lagged temperature rises in the past is not only well known but also agreed with by the IPCC and in their reports.

    In what way has he debunked the IPCC?

    Magisterial?

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/15/co2-lags-temperature-in-the-ice-core-record-doesnt-that-prove-the-ipcc-wrong/

  2. ramspace And you, you icon of probity, reference . . . what? Nothing. He has not debunked the IPCC report per se;–he has debunked its recommendations for policy makers. Moron. Take issue with what you like. You’re still a goddam fool.

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

‘AGW? I refute it THUS!’: Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009 | James Delingpole

January 15th, 2010

If there’s anyone left you know who STILL believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, you might want to show them this chart.

The Central England Temperature dataset is the oldest in the world – with 351 years of temperature records drawn from “multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures – not perfect, but decent.” Climate Cycles Change provides the analysis.

The first characteristic of the graph to note is the green trend line. That line indicates an overall warming of 0.26°C per century rate since 1659. So, for some 350 years central England, and the world, have been warming. No big surprise there since Earth has been continuously warming since the end of the Little Ice Age; and, at the end of that 350 year trend line of warming is the first decade of the 21st century.

The second characteristic of the graph is that temperatures just seem to have this habit of going up and down, for extended periods. What’s really amazing is that they did this consistently before the large increase of human CO2 emissions, pre-1946. Okay, maybe that’s not so amazing since this is called temperature variability and represents the natural, dynamic nature of our climate….That variability, as displayed by the CET data in the graph, has experienced temperature changes as much as 2.5°C from one year to the next. A change of 2.5°C in a single year! Keep that figure in mind as we further analyze the dataset. Please note, the graph also reveals very similar temperature variability post-1946, after the huge atmospheric input of human CO2 emissions.

The Climate Cycles Change post was inspired by an analysis of CET done earlier this month by Czech physicist Lubos Motl, which is well worth reading. Because Climate Fear Promoters make such a big deal of warming trends in the last 30 years, Motl applied the same technique to the full dataset. Was the recent warming trend, as we’re so often told, dramatic and unprecedented?

Not at all. Here’s what Motl found:

In the late 17th and early 18th century, there was clearly a much longer period when the 30-year trends were higher than the recent ones. There is nothing exceptional about the recent era. Because I don’t want to waste time with the creation of confusing descriptions of the x-axis, let me list the ten 30-year intervals with the fastest warming trends:

1691 – 1720, 5.039 °C/century
1978 – 2007, 5.038 °C/century
1977 – 2006, 4.95 °C/century
1690 – 1719, 4.754 °C/century
1979 – 2008, 4.705 °C/century
1688 – 1717, 4.7 °C/century
1692 – 1721, 4.642 °C/century
1694 – 1723, 4.524 °C/century
1689 – 1718, 4.446 °C/century
1687 – 1716, 4.333 °C/century

You see, the early 18th century actually wins: even when you calculate the trends over the “sufficient” 30 years, the trend was faster than it is in the most recent 30 years.

Climate Cycles Change confirms this with some charts of its own. They all show that, far from being dramatic, dangerous and unprecedented, Central England Temperature changes in the late 20th and 21st Century have in fact been quite tediously uneventful.

What about all the 40 and 50-year temperature change periods, which have been influenced by all those human-made CO2 emissions since 1946? Glad you asked. The ten largest 40-year period temperature changes did include year 2002 in 8th place. But alas, the largest 50-year temperature changes did not include any years from the ‘oughts’ decade. (See below the years with the largest 40-year and 50-year changes.)

2010-01-12_135246

Climate Cycles Change’s conclusion:

Summary: Unprecedented warming did not occur in central England during the first decade of the 21st century, nor during the last decade of the 20th century. As the CET dataset is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures, and since global temperature trends follow a similar pattern to Northern Hemisphere temps, then the same conclusion about recent warming can potentially be inferred globally. Based on the CET dataset, the global warming scare has been totally blown out of proportion by those who can benefit from the fear.

Amen to that.

Share

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

2 Responses to “‘AGW? I refute it THUS!’: Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009”

  1. Tweets that mention ‘AGW? I refute it THUS!’: Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009 | James Delingpole — Topsy.com says:January 15, 2010 at 7:00 pm[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Matt Deficit and John Polling, Dave Foy. Dave Foy said: Anyone who still believes in AGW might want to look at this chart: http://j.mp/6Pyc4D […]
  2. Brian H says:January 21, 2010 at 8:13 pmIf it weren’t for lies, fudges, and fiddles, the warmists would have nothing to talk about at all.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

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