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


Climategate: This Is Our Berlin Wall Moment!

I’ve just had a great, very sympathetic interview about Climategate on LBC radio (London’s main commercial news and talk station) with Petrie Hosken. She told me she has been simply inundated with callers, all of them utterly unconvinced that human influence has made any significant on so-called “Global Warming”. She was desperate to get a few balancing calls from people who do believe in AGW but just couldn’t find any.

Can you imagine this happening a year ago? Or even a month ago? Until Climategate, we “Sceptics” were considered freaks – almost as bad as Holocaust deniers – beyond the pale of reasonable balanced discussion. Suddenly we’re the norm. Climategate has finally given us the chance to express openly what many of us secretly felt all along:

AGW is about raising taxes; increasing state control; about a few canny hucksters who’ve leapt on the bandwagon fleecing us rotten with their taxpayer subsidised windfarms and their carbon-trading; about the sour, anti-capitalist impulses of sandal-wearing vegans and lapsed Communists who loathe the idea of freedom and a functioning market economy.

We know it’s all a crock and we’re not going to take it.

This is our Berlin Wall moment! They can’t stop us now!

Related posts:

  1. Climategate investigated by – WTF? – the ‘National Domestic Extremism’ team
  2. My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America
  3. Climategate 2.0: the not nice and clueless Phil Jones
  4. Climategate: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain


Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left’s visceral loathing of open debate

If the argument isn’t going your way, close it down.

This was ever the way of liberal-left. Criticize the European Socialist Superstate and you’re a “Little Englander”; object to wind farms spoiling your view and you’re a “NIMBY”; demand curbs on immigration and you’re “a racist”; desire better education for your kids and you’re “elitist”; question the current majority scientific view on AGW and you’re a “Denier” who deserves only to be scorned, vilified and preferably silenced.

We have seen plenty examples of that last kind of bullying in the Climategate scandal (Warmergate, as Mark Steyn has wittily christened it: damn! Wish I’d thought of that): scientists ganging up to shut scientists who disagree with them out of the peer-review process; scientists actually gloating over their opponents’ deaths.

There’s another particularly splendid example of this approach from the Times’s resident ex-(?)Commie and apparently fervent Warmist David Aaronovitch. Often these days, the genial Aaronovitch is pretty good at portraying himself as the voice of commonsense and sweet reasonableness. But just occasionally, the former student radical’s half-buried inner Stalin will out – and never more so than in this diatribe against Lord Lawson of Blaby’s new climate change think tank, The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

What Aaronovitch gets particularly worked up about is Lord Lawson’s suggestion that there is not a consensus on global warming:

Lord Lawson’s acceptance of the science turns out, on close scrutiny, to be considerably less than half-hearted. Thus he speaks of “the (present) majority scientific view”, hinting rather slyly at the near possibility of a future, entirely different scientific view. That is why he qualifies “the majority scientific view” with the bracketed “and it is far from a consensus”.

Aaronovitch finds this very wrong. We know he does a) because of the way he weights every sentence with a molasses-thick layer of baseball-bat-on-the-head sarcasm but also because b) he concludes that Lord Lawson is effectively just another evil mouthpiece for the great capitalist, AGW-Deniers’ conspiracy to go on driving 4 x 4s and destroy the world:

They somehow believe that the whole global warming schtick is an amazing confidence trick performed upon the peoples of the world by a group of scientists and socialists, and pursued by politicans keen to get their hands on green taxes (though for what nefarious purpose we do not know), and which has taken in almost all the governments of the world, from the US to China.

They suggest that they are open-minded, but their foundations and articles are designed to reassure the witless that their attachment to their Porsche Cayenne Turbos and their hatred of recycling are somehow acts of non-conformist courage. The Lawson argument is a masterpiece in disingenuousness. A Magic Flute of guile. A Mona Lisa of chutzpah. Don’t buy it.

Before we get too carried away, let’s remind ourselves what the Global Warming Policy Foundation says it stands for:

We are an all-party and non-party think-tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.

Through our website www.thegwpf.org  and in other ways, we shall be subjecting both the claims of the damage that might be caused by any future warming, and the costs and consequences of alternative policies that might be put in place, to dispassionate analysis based on hard evidence and economic rigour. We are in no sense ‘anti-environmental’. There is a wide range of important environmental issues, which call for an equally wide range of policy responses. Our concern is solely with the possible effects of any future global warming and the policy responses that may evoke. But we are also aware of the curse of world poverty, and of the crucial importance of growth and economic development in the poorer countries of the world as the only serious means of alleviating it.

Doesn’t sound that nakedly evil to me. All that Lord Lawson and this new body are trying to do is sift the evidence on Climate Change and its effects in order to help inform rational decisions as to the best course of action. What possible objection could any open-minded person have to that?

Unfortunately on this issue, like so many on the liberal-left, Aaronovitch isn’t remotely open-minded at all. This thing why he speaks with such reverence of “the majority scientific view”, and with such unutterable disgust that this might be replaced by “an entirely different scientific view.”

Er, David, I know you’re generally quite a bright boy. But were you not aware that this is how science works? Science is never settled. If it were, it would never advance. So when you criticise Lord Lawson for his apparent belief that the majority scientific view may change on Climate Change, what you are in fact having a go at is science itself. (Shades of Lysenkoism, anyone? Well you’d know about that, wouldn’t you, Comrade Aaronovitch?)

Related posts:

  1. ‘Dark Energy’ reminds us: consensus has no place in real science
  2. Climategate 2.0: Lawson squishes Huhne
  3. The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it’s time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy
  4. Climategate: the official cover-up continues

Climategate: How they all squirmed – James Delingpole

Lies of every colour

Among the many great amusements of the Climategate scandal are the myriad imaginative excuses being offered by the implicated scientists and their friends in the MSM as to why this isn’t a significant story. Here are some of the best:

Most Unexpectedly Honourable Response: The Guardian’s eco-columnist George Monbiot

Say what you like about the Great Moonbat, the heliophobic Old Stoic is the ONLY member of the Climate-Fear-Promotion camp to have delivered a proper apology.

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Most brazen “doth protest too much” defence: www.realclimate.org

Real Climate is the website established and run by a claque of scientist friends of Michael Mann – inventor of the discredited Hockey Stick curve. They are also closely associated with the crowd at the disgraced Climate Research Unit. They clearly feel no apology is necessary:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.

Well, boys, if you say so….

Least convincing “The Dog Ate My Homework”excuse: Professor Phil ‘It was a typing error’ Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit

Many of the potentially incriminating Climategate emails were the work of CRU’s director Phil Jones, including the infamous one where he discussed “trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. But it’s OK. As he tells his sympathetic audience at the Guardian it was a perfectly honest mistake:

“The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste,”

Which does make you wonder how the sentence would have read had he just had a little longer to type it correctly. “Hiding the sausage?” “Heeding the decline?” “Playing a straight bat and keeping everything above board and scientifically scrupulous as we always do here at CRU”. Yes, that’ll be it – the last one. But you can see how easily the slip was made.

Most Disingenuous Cop-Out: Andrew Revkin of the New York Times

For years Andrew Revkin has been using the NYT – aka Pravda – to push the Al-Gore-approved AGW narrative so kindly embellished for him by likeminded scientist chums at parti pris institutions like CRU. But, like any decent reporter, Revkin is above all else a principled seeker-after-truth. That’s why he had absolutely no hesitation in furnishing NYT readers with every juicy detail of the biggest science scandal of the age.

Or at least he would have done, had it not been for the following problem, expressed on his Dot Earth blog.

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.

Damn right, Andrew. Don’t you be troubling your readers with any of that “damning revelations” nonsense. If only journalists had shown similar integrity at Watergate, why, good old Richard Nixon might have stayed in power long enough to make America truly great.

Most Haughtily Dismissive “Nothing To See Here” Apologia: George Marshall

Here is George Marshall putting us right in the Guardian’s Comment Is Free section:

Leaked email climate smear was a PR disaster for UEA

There was no evidence of conspiracy among climate scientists in the leaked emails – so why was the University of East Anglia’s response so pathetic?

George who? Fortunately the great Bishop Hill has been doing some digging. According to the Guardian, “George Marshall is the founder and director of projects at the Climate Outreach and Information Network. He posts regularly to the blog climatedenial.org”. But as Bishop Hill has discovered it’s rather more sinister than that. This COIN charity has been funded to the tune of £700,000 over two years by DEFRA (US readers note: the dismal branch of the UK government responsible for murdering livestock, destroying agriculture, persecuting farmers etc) in order to:

“profoundly change the attitude of rank and file union members; generating visible collective reduction action, establishing a social norm for personal action, and creating a persuasive synergy and cross over between personal action, work-placed programmes such as ‘Greening the workplace’, and the emissions reduction targets of employers.”

So not so much a case of Comment Is Free then. More a case of Comment Is Very Expensive If You’re A Taxpayer

Most Ludicrously Biased Environment Correspondent, Even By The Ludicrously Biased Standards of Environment Correspondents: the BBC’s Roger Harrabin.

When Harrabin (rather reluctantly one imagines) broke the Climategate story to BBC listeners a few days ago, guess where he turned for authoritative independent analysis of its significance. Yes, that’s right: to those completely unbiased scientists at Real Climate (above). They confirmed Harrabin’s suspicions that this wasn’t – as that “small minority” of pesky sceptics had been saying – a searing indictment of the  AGW-promotion lobby’s dubious practices, but just a routine criminal break-in.

Now that he’s had a bit more time to digest the story, though, Harrabin has realised that the story is much, MUCH more important than that. Yes: it has much to tell us, he concludes, about the issue of data protection.

But this affair will surely change things: From now, scientific teams and peer-review groups will be much more cautious about how they word e-mails.

Researchers at CRU complain that no one will want to do collaborative work if their private e-mail conversations may later be revealed. But many commercial corporate organisations at risk of hacking have developed ways of communicating that don’t leave them open to sabotage.

Thanks Roger. It’s thanks to responsible, studiedly neutral reporting like that that we’ve all come so fervently to trust the BBC.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief
  2. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  3. Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science
  4. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

3 Responses to “Climategate: how they all squirmed”

  1. d says:November 26, 2009 at 10:09 pmWhat an ignorant fool you really are sir.Cleary all you have to say is what suits your agenda. Skeptic? HAH try going to a true skeptic site such as http://www.skeptic.com/ where the word actually has some meaning outside of a petit clique that you claim to represent. Where science is actually discussed rationally. No-one’s squirming in this entire debate

    Need I remind you that we have one planet with which to risk this issue. We do nothing and get it wrong about climate change and we’ve lost nothing but get if we’re proven right and have done nothing guess what, like the planetary atmosphere of venus we’re dead.

    We’re as dead as your ability to be objective, and that pointless lazy journalists such as yourself try to incite some false agenda to suit your own twisted view on the matter is quite frankly dispicable.

  2. Marc says:November 26, 2009 at 10:11 pmHaving read the other offerings, particularly fron Realclimate who are in the ‘Lalalala, can’t hear anything!!’ zone, the only one who has a shred of decency does appear to be Monbiot. And God knows he’s a boring bastard at the best of times. Let us hope this is the first breach in the wall of PC climatology.
  3. Global Warming Hoax Enabler: The Lancet « Gathering of Eagles: NY says:November 27, 2009 at 3:54 am[…] Climategate:  How They All Squirmed […]

Climategate: Why It Matters

Climategate: still an astonishing lack of coverage in the MSM, the only major UK exception being the Mail which, after years of agnosticism now seems to have decided to come down firmly in the climate sceptics’ camp – here, here and in this article today by the mighty Booker. (Nigel Lawson is able to slip in a mention, too, in today’s Times).

But is that because – as some of the commenters below my post are so eager to tell me – it’s a complete non-story which deserves to get me the sack for being such a rubbish journalist (with innumerable websites dedicated to telling the world just how crap I am, apparently)?

Or does it have legs? (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

This interview with retired climatalogist Dr Tim Ball offers quite a useful perspective.

There’s no point in anyone from the AGW camp watching it: they’ve made up their minds and no quantity of contrary evidence, however devastating, is going to shake their considered position of “Nyah nyah nyah. Got my fingers in my ears. Not listening. The world IS warming and it’s man’s fault. Must tax carbon now….”

But the type of people I would dearly love to watch it are those like my friends Dan Hannan, Danny Finkelstein, Ed West and Michael Gove. This particular rogues’ gallery has long been a source of frustration and disappointment to me. They are intelligent and wise, eloquent and funny. They are on the side of wisdom and commonsense. They correctly anatomise so many of the ills of the modern world, from the perils of rampant Islamism to the evils of the EU. I like and admire them all hugely. Yet on perhaps the biggest and most important issue of our age – because it’s going to cost so much money and do so much harm to our landscape – they all have a curious blind spot.

What seems to have lulled these four – and many other clever people like them, I fear – into their dangerous complacency is the belief that given the majority of world scientific opinion is backing AGW theory, it would be irresponsible for us non-scientists to disagree.

What the Climategate scandal does is prove just how murky and unreliable this supposed scientific “consensus” really is.

Dr Ball is particularly trenchant on the phrase “peer-reviewed.” You’ll have heard it being brandished an awful lot over the last decade or so, invariably by scientists in the climate-fear-promotion lobby trying to show how all scientists who disagree with them are just ignorant cranks who need not be taken seriously. It’s a virus that has spread to non-scientists. Read George Monbiot; skim through the comments by AGW-believers below any blog on the subject of climate change. “Peer-reviewed”: it’s the magic phrase which – in their eyes – guarantees the reliability and credibility of their favoured scientists, and which completely pulls the rug from under that of the dissenters.

But what if that vaunted “peered-review” stamp of authenticity is about as valuable as a fake Rolex? It would mean, would it not, that the supposedly authoritative community of disinterested scientists who inform the IPCC’s reports are in fact  to be trusted about as much as a frog would a scorpion it was ferrying on its back across a river…

This is the key point made by Dr Ball.

“It confirms suspicions that I’ve had working in my thirty years of climate science. I saw the hijacking of climate science particularly by computer modelers and then by a small group associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change….”

“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature. So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’..And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.”

“On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”

Dr Ball describes the scandal as not just a “smoking gun” but “a battery of machine guns.” How much more evidence, I wonder, do the likes of Messrs Hannan, Gove, Finkelstein and West need, I wonder, before they feel as strongly about this issue as I do?

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: what Gore’s useful idiot Ed Begley Jr doesn’t get about the ‘peer review’ process
  2. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  3. After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate
  4. Climategate: the official cover-up continues


Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11 | James Delingpole

November 22, 2009

But you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise from all the hysterical propaganda put out by the ecofascists of the AGW lobby.

Here’s the latest example from those silly trustafarian children at Plane Stupid:

And here, for those who missed it, is a spat I’ve had with the Guardian over an elderly US war veteran who apparently considers it seemly and apt to compare the piles of emaciated bodies he saw being swept into heaps when he helped liberate a Nazi concentration camp at the end of World War II with “Climate Change.”

Sorry but I don’t see the connection at all. 9/11 was a brutal terrorist incident which claimed the lives of 2,976 innocent people. The Holocaust was an evil Nazi genocide which led to the mechanised slaughter of six million mostly Jewish men, women and children. Climate change is an ongoing natural process which last few million-odd years been directly responsible for the deaths of precisely no one.

Related posts:

  1. Did ‘climate change’ cause the Japanese earthquake?
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  4. ‘Climate Change’: the new Eugenics

5 Responses to “Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11”

  1. Emmess says:November 22, 2009 at 9:23 amI see a connection
    The co-leader until recently of the New Zealand Green Party is a Trooferhttp://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/11/jeanette_continues_to_push_911_lunacy.html#comments
  2. Hurf Durf says:November 23, 2009 at 5:01 amYou had every right to challenge that letter, considering no concentration camps were liberated in 1944 and Newsweak never bothered to go into any detail about the incident. The Gradiaun’s response and their quartwit commenters shows that you were right to do so.
  3. AJ McConville says:November 23, 2009 at 10:07 amThe point is whether you think climate change is happening the way most scientists say. He thinks it is, you think it isn’t.
  4. mgaio says:November 24, 2009 at 7:04 am“Climate change is … directly responsible for the deaths of precisely no one”?Not even one?

    I have seen your blog and it is lame.

  5. mgaio says:November 24, 2009 at 7:15 amYou even boast your own “spat” at the Guardian–when the article clearly shows how wrong you were in your uninformed accusations.Lame, lame, lame!

Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

The MSM reveals its bias–again!

Here’s what the Times has had to say on the subject:

E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

(Yep – definitely an improvement on their earlier, non-existent coverage; but not exactly pointing up the scandalousness of this scandal).

And the Independent:

(Yep. Nada).

And here’s how The New York Times (aka Pravda) reported it:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

(Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.)

And here’s how the Guardian has reported it:

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

(Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace).

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

Here’s the Washington Post:

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world’s foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

(Ah, so what the story is really about is ’skeptics’ causing trouble. Note how as high as the second par the researchers are allowed by the reporter to get in their insta-rebuttal, lest we get the impression that the scandal in any way reflects badly on them).

Here is the BBC:

E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

(Ah yes, another routine data-theft story so dully reported – “the police had been informed, he added” – that you can’t even be bothered to reach the end to find out what information was stolen).

Meanwhile, the Climategate scandal (and I do apologise for calling it that, but that’s how the internet works: you need obvious, instantly memorable, event-specific search terms) continues to set the Blogosphere ablaze.

For links to all the latest updates on this, I recommend Marc Morano’s invaluable Climate Depot site.

And if you want to read those potentially incriminating emails in full, go to An Elegant Chaos org where they have all been posted in searchable form.

Like the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal, this is the gift that goes on giving. It won’t, unfortunately, derail Copenhagen (too many vested interests involved) or cause any of our many political parties to start talking sense on “Climate change”. But what it does demonstrate is the growing level of public scepticism towards Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. That’s why, for example, this story is the single most read item on today’s Telegraph website.

What it also demonstrates – as my dear chum Dan Hannan so frequently and rightly argues – is the growing power of the Blogosphere and the decreasing relevance of the Mainstream Media (MSM).

This is not altogether the MSM’s fault. Partly it is just the way of things that more and more readers prefer their news and opinion served up in snappier, less reverent, more digestible and instant for.

But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

As Upton Sinclair once said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

So don’t expect this scandal to be written up in the MSM any time soon. But why would you want to anyway? It’s all here, where the free spirits and independent thinkers are, on the Blogosphere.

UPDATE: I particularly recommend Bishop Hill’s superb summary of some of the key points of the CRU correspondence.

Also, Andrew Bolt’s summary of the correspondence likely to be most damaging to the reputation – and career, we can but pray – of Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU.

And do check out Watts Up With That, whose traffic went through the roof yesterday, enabling to demonstrate scientifically that Hockey Stick is after all a genuine phenomenon – and not merely a figment of Michael Mann’s overactive imagination.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: how the ‘greatest scientific scandal of our generation’ got its name
  2. Climategate: the official cover-up continues
  3. Climategate 2.0
  4. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all

4 Responses to “Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science”

  1. betheweb says:November 22, 2009 at 2:47 pmThank you for this story, one of the most significant of the last 40 years.
  2. john ward says:November 23, 2009 at 10:12 amEvery old-media institution has an agenda. Nobody likes the truth (especially the Left) and so all my pieces about Brown being mad and blind, Darling having told him to f**k off last week, and the ‘jogging’ PM being a couch potato….get spiked.
    I’ve now been slandered five times by Ballsup,Cocksure (twice), Wheelsoff and Mangledumb in the media. And as soon as they slag one off as a Nazi, that same old media carry on reporting it as the truth.
    The internet is the one place left where one can challenge the ‘received truth’, because there are very few gargoyle proprietors in it. Unfortunately, 90+% of all bloggers are conspiracy theorising idlers. We need a ‘lift and separate’ online sector where serious and funny commentators can blow the lid of stuff….with tons of evidence to support the case. You should be leading that sector along with Chris Booker (and of course, me).
    I read the email theft piece with an open mind,to be frank. Warmers are falsifying like mad: but so too are GM agrobusiness, the car industry, the oil guys, the pharmcos and anyone with a vested interest in ignoring visual evidence. Because like it or not, four problems are real enough.
    These are: a stonking great hole in the ozone layer; melting ice-caps; a chronic lack of fresh water; and a species seemingly good at reproduction, killing and farting. (It’s a man thang)
    Like you, I am sceptical about the alarmist stuff, and I’m unclear on how long all this climate change will take. Some scientific thinkers go over the top because they know that without that, the G20 troughers will sit arranging angels on a pinhead forever. But when it comes to the Fab Four above, we have to do something…even if all the Climate change stuff is utter bollocks, fewer people, cleaner cars and desalination investment can’t be BAD things – can they?


  3. Conscript says:November 23, 2009 at 5:48 pmIt’s not just relegated to the MSM.

    I’m the lead writer for a green news/blog website, and my editor lobotomized my climategate story. I’ll have you know that I am an environmental journalist by chance, not passion. I drive a gas-guzzling sports car and enjoy cross country flights. My editor, and our readership, is mostly oblivious to this. Though I have no interest in jeapordizing my livleyhood, You can easily find the shell of a story that remains by searching “climategate” on google’s news aggregator.

    My editor removed any piece of edifying content to be found in the story under the pretense of avoiding liabilty for republishing stolen property — including enormous amounts of my original writing. While it would have been hard to follow the story without the context of the emails, it is a very clear example of how the “conspiracy” works. If you can’t tell by now, my editor is sold on AGW.

    Realize this: AGW isn’t a “conspiracy” bourne on the back of Templar treasure and managed by hooded men in gothic dining halls. AGW is perpetuated by the cumulative fears, insecurities, and desires of millions of men and women, making it harder to see in earnest — and harder to stop.

  4. durox says:November 24, 2009 at 3:55 amthanks for the time put in this summary… GW is so big, its out of control :[

Climategate: The Final Nail in the Coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

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

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

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

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“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 !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

Related posts:

  1. RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’
  2. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
  3. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  4. Climategate: what Gore’s useful idiot Ed Begley Jr doesn’t get about the ‘peer review’ process

7 thoughts on “Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?”

  1. Pingback: The Zeroth Fundamental Force « Broken Britain
  2. Tiggerito says:21st November 2009 at 1:45 pmI’ve been through global cooling/warming and am a skeptic on the current theories and probably the next 10 that come by. They are theories and its a scientific process so they should change/evolve to hopefully something closer to the truth in the future.What I do believe in is that we have done and are still doing things are not good for the environment. Chimney smog, river pollution, mas deforestation, profits over life…I will keep my shares in alternative energy in the hope that it helps us move in a positive direction in protecting where we live, even if the next scare is global brightening.
  3. Strangely says:21st November 2009 at 2:50 pmcui bono?As you said above,

    …wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see…

    We will see what?

    Mysterious hacks into computers?
    Embarrassing emails?
    Personal thoughts and ideas published as accepted, peer-reviewed, authoritative information?

    And the alternative is:
    Weird kiddy climate change ads on telly.
    News about rapidly disappearing glaciers etc.
    Disappearing species.
    Habitat loss.

    Now you can choose to think that all scientists are evil grant-scammers or you can choose the evidence of your own eyes and life. Now that the water is reaching my bottom lip, I have an idea that climate change is real.
    Is it human generated? Probably yes although it all fits in with natural cycles.
    Will the Ice Age return? Of course it will. But not for a long time.

    The problem is that many scientists can be just as cunt-ish as anyone else. But the probability (which is what scientists deal in, not facts), is that much of what we see is human generated, not just by driving cars, but by our very numbers on the planet that all have to eat and live.

    Read up on Richard Feynmann. A good guy, who took nothing at face value, but, and there’s the rub, he knew what he was talking about. Most CC sceptics don’t, they really don’t. They are good at quoting stuff out of context and making mischief, but that’s all. And nearly all of them are part of a vested interest group much larger than the one you choose to denigrate.

    My personal belief is that if what you say “But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover”…
    … is true, then it’s curtains mate, for most of us, and all the fine words and argument will be nothing, just echoes in a wet or dry wind. I have done my own research into this, starting way back when HH Lamb was still alive. I think Feymann would agree and it’s a sad loss that he’s not here now to see all this.

  4. Michael Roc Thomas says:21st November 2009 at 4:56 pmWhat are these vested interests in the global warming myth? One would think the fossil fuel lobby amongst others with huge power would have put them to the sword by now. So what is it that keeps driving this ahem discussion?
  5. Christopher says:21st November 2009 at 6:35 pmThe final quote in the Guardian’s article “Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists” seemed familiar when I read it:>>>A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”This was because it was based on a comment posted at the Realclimate.org site a few hours earlier, signed simply “ben”:>>>”If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last ten years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. The fact is the scientific consensus on climate change has been reached through the publication of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, field research and the lifetime’s work of some of humanity’s best minds. It’s obvious these emails didn’t even go through a spell-check let alone the rigorous peer-review process. Contrary to what the skeptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, NASA and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth.”

    I wonder what to make of this…

  6. Pingback: Global warming seems to have stopped! And not only that, the whole man made climate panic turns out to be the biggest hoax in scientific history! « Links on Economy, Politics and Political Incorrectness
  7. Pingback: Crime inc ~ The Alliance for Climate Protection | Politics & Capitalism

Comments are closed.

Boris Johnson for Prime Minister | James Delingpole

November 18th, 2009

Over at Cameron Kool-Aid Central – aka Conservative Home – the Kool-Aid drinkers are deeply flustered by Boris Johnson’s truly outrageous suggestion in today’s Telegraph that Gordon Brown’s 50p tax rate is a seriously bad idea.

The reason that they’re upset, of course, is because neither Dave nor George Osborne has said he has any immediate intention of undoing this economically illiterate idiocy if and when they gain office.

The milksop commentator who signs himself “whuh” is typical of the general tone:


Boris is just stirring up trouble.

He knows perfectly well that Cameron and Osborne agree completely on the economics, but are keeping 50p for political reasons.

Therefore he shouldn’t argue the economics, which everyone on this site will agree on. He should argue about the politics, if at all. Best of all is to stop trying to get in the way of us winning power in the general election.

Cameron supported Boris completely once he was chosen as nominee for mayor. It is rather caddish of Boris not to give the same support back.

Naturally I disagree with “whuh” (God, what an annoying name!), as I seem to do with most of the commenters at Cameron Kool-Aid Central. Sometimes, I think I despise this rag bag of “compassionate” or delusional conservative types even more than I despise left-liberals.

At least with someone like, say, Polly Toynbee you know she’s totally over: nothing she says or does for at least the next five years is going to have any effect on anyone, for everything she believes in has been utterly discredited. The Cameroon Kool-Aid drinkers, on the other hand, are capable of doing genuine damage to Britain’s economic and socio-political recovery. They urge caution, moderation, dissembling and political gamesmanship when what our broken country needs is clear thinking, honesty, and radical and immediate action.

Tim Montgomerie, as the Kool Aid drinkers all do, explains it in terms of strategy:

George Osborne and David Cameron are not prepared to make these arguments although I suspect they don’t fundamentally dissent. This side of the election they are not going to let Labour paint them as the friends of the very rich and – on a related front – bankers. Those of us who believe in simpler, lower taxes will have to be patient. Lower and simpler corporate taxation is likely to be a major feature of George Osborne’s first few budgets. Central to his vision of a hi-growth Britain is the creation of an environment that will make the UK an attractive headquarters for international business (see James Forsyth and Irwin Stelzer).

I love that bit about George Oborne’s “first few budgets.” Implicit in that statement – and Montgomerie does, after all, have a direct line to Cameron’s inner circle – is that for at least the first three years of an incoming Tory administration no attempt will be made to reduce the 50p upper band tax rate.

Now it’s not going to affect me, not on my income. But the thing about rich people is that the reason they got rich is by caring a lot about money. Suppose your income is a million a year and that whereas before you were being charged at 40 per cent, you now know that for the next three years at least – EVEN IF THE TORIES GET IN – you’ll be charged on it at 50 per cent. That difference amounts to roughly £300,000. More than enough, I’d suggest, to drive a chap to reconsider his tax regime.

Boris is right about this; Osborne and Cameron are wrong. It’s as a simple as that. The fact that they’re playing politics with this issue suggests to me not canniness but irresponsibility. Public respect for politicians has not been this low since the Rotten Boroughs of the 18th century; we are most of us quite heartily sick of the way our MPs are forever promising one thing then doing another, playing with gesture politics while refusing to the address the issues that really matter.

Yet here is the Conservative leadership blithely dissembling to us and treating us like idiots; and here is a decent sized rump of the Tory membership arguing that, yes, this is exactly the right thing to do because lying – and not just lying but conniving in policies such as the 50p tax rate which will actively harm our economy – are the only way the Tories are ever going to get back into power.

I disagree, and so it would seem does Boris. The sooner someone of similar ideological integrity takes over the Tory party, the sooner the damage of twelve years under New Labour can be undone.



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

One Response to “Boris Johnson for Prime Minister”

  1. Michael Roc Thomas says:November 18, 2009 at 5:47 pmHere here.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Architectural magazine’s editor questions Global Warming: hysteria – James Delingpole

November 18, 2009

My heroine of the week is Amanda Baillieu, editor of architects’ trade journal Building Design. She noticed that when Environment Secretary Hillary Benn gave a talk at the Royal Institute of British Architects the other day on the looming peril of ManBearPig, hardly anyone bothered to turn up.

In an extremely brave editorial entitled “Is Global Warming Hot Air?” she speculated that the reason may have been because even architects are getting tired of listening to hysterical drivel about impending eco-doom and the so-called “consensus” on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

In fact, you’d be forgiven for not knowing there is a debate because it’s certainly discouraged by the RIBA, whose successive presidents have said that fighting climate change is the biggest challenge facing the profession.

While there’s no argument that natural resources such as water need to be conserved and low-energy buildings make sense, the scientific evidence has now shifted enough to warrant a more questioning position on climate change.

The editorial was brave because it’s still extremely rare for any editor in the mainstream media to question the prevailing orthodoxy on ManBearPig. Braver still because it is a known fact that 99.82 per cent of all architects (not my mates the Lahiffs, I don’t think, but pretty much all the others) are achingly worthy, politically correct, Big-State-endorsing toadies. (They have to be because Government projects are where all the money is).

The response has been much more mixed than you might imagine. Here are some of the more positive responses:

There are lots of people out there, including droves of architects, who take on the accepted view and know absolutely nothing about global warming, so why should they silence debate on the basis that the person who disagrees also doesn’t know. This is just a new religion where heretics are to be silenced.

Regrettably and incorrectly sustainability/energy conservation as the sole cause of global warming has become the new “sacred cow” which is only very rarely questioned given the risk of general derision.

The environmental movement is a beating stick used by governments. All you believers will be in for quite the shock when you cannot afford to turn on the heating or even have a drink of water, because you cannot afford it.

Excitingly, it has also led to a cat-fight, of sorts, with a female columnist from rival publication Architects’ Journal. Hattie Harman – the AJ’s Sustainability Editor, no less – takes Baillieu apart for her incorrect thinking.

Hattie intones (at least, I’m assuming she intones: her picture – redolent of a Greater London Council Wimmin’s Issues Adviser, C. 1983 – suggests she’s the intoning type):

I am not a climate scientist, but it doesn’t require detailed scientific knowledge to see that we are living beyond our means. I applaud the RIBA’s position on climate change and wish that more of the profession would heed its wake-up call. I would even say that the RIBA has been slow to champion the green agenda. Under Sunand Prasad, it endorsed the Global Commons Institute’s Contraction and Convergence framework, published its climate change toolkits and launched the speaker series, of which secretary of state for environment Hilary Benn was part.

The best bit, though, is the more-in-sorrow-than-anger Spartist ticking off Hattie administers at the end:

Journalistic endeavour would be better spent showcasing pioneering projects and disseminating best practice. It’s alarming to see a widely-read journal do otherwise.

Baillieu’s response? Why, only a challenge to a naked mud-wrestling match, You Tube footage of which it is my pleasure to show you via the following link: www.dirtyarchitecturalgirlsgetdowntoitruffnready.com.

Nah, not really. What Baillieu actually says is:

I’m delighted that the AJ is using its pages to publicise an article in a rival magazine – a first I think. Despite the line trotted out by among others the Green Building Council that there is no debate, there clearly is one otherwise why would the AJ be running with it?

Ooh! Claws out! Over to you, Hattie!

Related posts:

  1. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  2. Obscure editor resigns from minor journal: why you should care
  3. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

2 Responses to “Architectural magazine’s editor questions Global Warming: hysteria”

  1. Aubrey Meyer says:November 18, 2009 at 4:42 pmDoes poor attendance at Benn’s RIBA speech really disprove global warming/climate change? If – after twenty years – the whole matter was so easily resolved, we’d all be spared this endless to-and-fro.

    Anyway Hattie said what she said and Amanda is welcome to say what she said about that, but the state-of-play regarding the Contraction and Convergence [C&C] programme that Hattie mentioned had been adopted by RIBA is as follows: –

    The UK Government has adopted C&C, but at rates that are ‘too slow’ to give 50:50 odds for avoiding more an overall two degrees Celsius temperature rise globally, so their position should be examined in the light of the following points: –

    1. We are told that the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change will not achieve a Climate-Deal in December, only a political understanding of the need to keep us within an overall maximum 2 degree Celsius temperature rise.

    2. Last week’s IMECHE Climate Change Report stated, “The [UK] Government’s targets and budgets have been set using a top-down approach based on the principle of contraction and convergence” adding that “IMECHE supports the C&C Principle.”

    3. The Archbishop of Canterbury invited the TUC this week to support, “the Contraction and Convergence proposals [as] the best-known and most structurally simple of these, [saying] it would be a major step to hear some endorsement of them from a body such as this.”

    4. The Climate Change Committee’s [CCC’s] report stated that it and the Climate Act it are based on GCI’s C&C proposal and are in the words of Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee [CCC], “strong support for what Global Commons Institute [GCI] has been saying.” [Evidence given by to the [EAC] in February this year] and that

    5. For organising and sharing the full-term emissions-contraction-event needed to bring us to UNFCCC-compliance, “Converging to equal per capita entitlements globally is the only option that is doable and fair” and agreeing that, [crucially]

    6. “if, for reasons of urgency the rate of global contraction has to be accelerated, then for reasons of equity the rate of international convergence has to be accelerated relative to that.” [Response given by Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee [CCC] to the [ECCC] in March this year].

    7. Noting this further support and following these logical arguments and that the UKMO Hadley Centre has now confirmed in writing to GCI that [as shown in the images at the link below] that: –

    [a] the CCC’s odds are worse than 50:50 for keeping within the stated maximum of a 2 degrees overall temperature rise with their Contraction and Convergence [C&C] Scenario and that

    [b] the odds are better than 50:50 for keeping within a maximum 2 degrees with GCI’s accelerated Contraction and Convergence [C&C] Scenario.

    [c] see: – http://www.tangentfilms.com/CACC.pdf

    8. . . . the real question is, does the Government now agree with positions taken by the UKMO, Lord Adair Turner and the analysis that to keep within the 2 degrees overall temperature rise, the rate of contraction needs to be accelerated to something like an 80% cut in emissions globally for reasons of urgency and that therefore the rate of convergence needs to be accelerated relative to that to something like 2020 or 2030 for reasons of equity.

    Getting an answer from them on *that* – now that would be interesting.

    The extent of C&C support included here did follow much questioning and much to-and-fro: –

    LONDON E17 4SH

  2. MARC says:November 19, 2009 at 5:57 pmHattie HARMAN?? Surely not??? A relative perhaps??? But no… Too easy surely???