Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming | James Delingpole

May 19, 2010

Well of course I would write a headline like that having just spent the last three days in Chicago at the Heartland Institute’s 4th International Conference on Climate Change. This is the event the cackling, cloak-wearing, befanged AGW-denying community attends every year to glorify in their own evil. And naturally, in the wake of Climategate, a mood of uproarious triumphalism has prevailed as distinguished skeptical scientists, economists, and policymakers from around the world – Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Fred Singer.. you name them, they’re here – have gathered to dance on the smouldering ashes of the mythical beast ManBearPig.

Except we shouldn’t use that word “sceptic” any more. Richard Lindzen – Godfather of Climate Realism – told us so in one of the keynote addresses.

“Scepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition,” he said. “Current global warming alarmism hardly represents a plausible proposition.” Not least, he pointed out, because the various activist scientists, greenies and government institutions pushing AGW theory have failed to “improve their case over 20 years.” So paper thin are the AGW movement’s arguments that pretty much the only defences left to them are desperate techniques like the appeal to authority (“the Royal Society believes in AGW and the Royal Society is, like, really old and distinguished, so AGW must be true”) and cheap slurs.

Consider, as examples of the latter technique, how this conference has been reported in the liberal media. Both the BBC and the Huffington Post have decided to write off the expertise of the dozens of PhDs and professors speaking at this event to concentrate on the issue that really matters: it was funded by Big Oil. (Except it isn’t. Unfortunately Big Oil stopped funding the skeptical side of the argument a long time ago. The Heartland Institute is a conservative leaning think tank funded by a number of business donors, and the main funder of the conference is a local libertarian millionaire who just happens to want a bit of openness and honesty in the debate on AGW. But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a libtard story).

The other main objection I heard – from the BBC’s Roger Harrabin – is how utterly ridiculous it was that a total know-nothing like James Delingpole was speaking on a “Science” panel with meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, climate expert Fred Singer, and economist Ross McKitrick (co-destroyer – with Steve McIntyre – of Michael Mann’s hockey stick). Indeed, when I introduced myself to him, he snapped back “I’m not sure whether I should shake your hand. I want to punch you.” He sounded jolly cross indeed – and ranted that I was utterly irresponsible and had disseminated lots of lies – though he later apologized to me saying he was jet-lagged and had confused me with Christopher Booker. Hmm.

Anyway, I agree with him. As I said when I gave my speech, it was entirely inappropriate that a humble hack like me should be on a panel with such great men – like a lowly swineherd suddenly finding himself translated to Mount Olympus. Then again, I said, it wasn’t such a bad idea that I was there to inject a note of reality to the proceedings. The truth is, I said, that the scientific debate is over. The scientists on our side of the argument have won (which is why no Warmist will dare debate Richard Lindzen, and while Al Gore won’t debate anyone at all: they know they’d lose). Problem is, I went on, this debate was never really about science anyway. AGW is and always have been a political process. It’s the political war that we’re fighting now and it’s going to be much much harder to win.

Especially when you look at the results of our recent General Election which I still find so monumentally depressing I’m not altogether sure I can bring myself to fly home.

Related posts:

  1. I’d rather have Monckton in a foxhole with me than Monbiot
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. Why we can all stop worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a bit
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

 

I Need YOUR Pledge NOW for the Most Important Campaign in the History of the Planet!

I refer, of course to LIGHTS ON – the vital protest being co-ordinated by my colleague Damian Thompson in response to the hideous annual exercise of eco-fascist triumphalism sometimes known as Earth Hour.

All Damian is asking us to do is that we screw up our courage, bump up our electricity bills and make damn sure we keep every single one of the lights in our home blazing between 8.30 and 9.30pm on Saturday March 27.

It will be a tough challenge, not least because the forces arrayed against us are so mightily powerful. Besides leading celebrity Alexandra Burke, leading blonde celebrity named after a fish Zoe Salmon, leading person called Paloma who is not called Picasso – Paloma Faith, and leading capital-lettered pop ensemble BLAKE, Earth Hour has managed to recruit the startlingly popular, well-known, and much-loved Lib Dem MP for Bath Don Foster. Yes. THE Don Foster.

A tough challenge, yes. But not an unsurmountable one. So remember everyone, even if it means interrupting your game of murder in the dark, or even rampant sex with a beautiful stranger who is too embarrassed to do it with the lights on, on March 27th you must put the interests of Western Civilisation before those of petty self-interest. Keep those lights ON. Because you know what will happen if you don’t, don’t you? ManBearPig will take over the world.

Related posts:

  1. Isn’t Black History Month a bit racist?
  2. The most important book of 2010?
  3. On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours
  4. ‘Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists

 

Climategate: The Corruption of Wikipedia

December 26, 2009

If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from  the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists

Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.

Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

Connolley has supposedly been defrocked as a Wikipedia administrator. Or so Wikipedia claimed in its feeble, there’s-really-not-much-we-can-do response to anxious questions from one of Watts Up With That’s readers.

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming.

If this is true, it doesn’t seem to have made much difference to his creative input on the Wikipedia’s entries. Here he is – unless its just someone with an identical name – busily sticking his oar in to entries on the Medieval Warm Period (again) and the deeply compromised, soon-to-be-leaving (let’s hope) IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri. And here he is again just three days ago, removing a mention of Climategate from Michael Mann’s entry. And here is an example of one of his Wikipedia chums – name of Stephan Schulz – helping to cover up for him by ensuring that no mention of that embarrassing Lawrence Solomon article appears on Connolley’s Wikipedia entry. And here he is deleting criticism of himself.

Connolley, it should also be noted, was one of the founder members of Real Climate – the friends-of-Michael-Mann propaganda outfit (aka “The Hockey Team”) which, in the guise of disinterested science, pumps out climate-fear-promoting hysteria on AGW and tries to discredit anyone who disagrees with the ManBearPig “consensus”.

Here he is, for example, being bigged up in a 2006 email from Michael Mann:

>> I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
>> but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good
>> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer
>> review” process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
>> know if any comments…
>>

and here are some of his associates:

From: Phil Jones
To: William M Connolley ,Caspar Ammann
Subject: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:38:40 +0000
Cc: Tom Crowley ,”Michael E. Mann” , “raymond s. bradley” , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig ,gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rasmus.benestad@physics.org,garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, David Archer , “Raymond P.” ,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, “Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)” , “Jenkins, Geoff” , “Warrilow, David (GA)” , Tom Wigley ,mafb5@sussex.ac.uk, “Folland, Chris”

Get that? The guy who has been writing Wikipedia’s entry on Climategate (plus 5,000 others relating to “Climate Change”) is the bosom buddy of the Climategate scientists.

Nope, this isn’t a problem that is going to go away. Wikipedia may well be beyond redemption – as this useful resource site for Wiki-inaccuracies would seem to suggest. Like so many hippyish notions, Jimmy Wales’s idea of a free encyclopedia for everyone was a noble intention which has been cruelly and horribly abused by some very ugly people.

Do you want to know just how ugly? I’ve been saving the worst till last. Here it is: William Connelley’s Wikipedia photograph.

Connelly

UPDATE: (thanks, wondrous Thomas 33 for your delving). Et Tu, Jimmy Wales? It seems that the dread Connolley once earned the approbation of the Wiki-King himself, as he boasts here on an old blog:

 

2005-12-19

 

Connolley has done such amazing work…

Back to wikipedia… Nature has an article on wikipedia vs Britannica. It was an interesting exercise, and as the most notable climatologist on wiki :-) they interviewed me, which lead to the sidebar article “Challenges of being a Wikipedian” (see the Nature article; click on the “challenges” link near the bottom). It contains the rather nice quote from Jimbo Wales “Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense” (does Lumo still read this?).

He can also be found gloating evilly over his powers:

2006-01-16

Wikinews

A few snippets from wikipedia… I’m now an admin, and hence have ultimate power to CRUSH ALL MY ENEMIES HA HA HA HA!!! <evil laugh trails off into the distance>. Sadly no: the rules prohibit me from abusing my powers and there are always other people watching anyway. And not that I have too many enemies, Of Course. Some of the comments are interesting though: try the RFA, scroll down for the Opposes. 

And I’ve just made my 10,000th edit. That slacker Lubos only has 2.3k, & Charles matthews has a feeble 54k.

Related posts:

  1. Wikipedia Bias – Jimmy Wales does the right thing
  2. Climategate 2.0
  3. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
  4. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann

5 Responses to “Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia”

  1. Cassandra Troy says:December 26, 2009 at 10:44 amHi James. Thanks for all the great posts!

    “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age.”

    Haven’t you heard? It’s “SwiftHack” now (as in “swiftboating”): http://www.bluecommonwealth.com/diary/1704/your-climategate-swifthack-holiday-primer – LOL

  2. Gregory Kohs says:December 28, 2009 at 2:35 amIn this season of fundraising for the Wikimedia Foundation, it would be nice if people actually looked into WHY the Foundation that runs Wikipedia gets only 2 stars (out of four) for “organizational efficiency”. Donors should just throw 60 cents down the drain for every dollar they give this idiotic organization.

    http://www.tinyurl.com/WMF-myths

  3. PhilBest says:December 28, 2009 at 3:49 amJames, I’m trying to get your attention with THIS: (I posted it 5 days ago on another thread, the one about being a proud parent. And James is that; that’s all the more reason to have all the angles of this scandal covered by him)

    One thing James Delingpole actually does not seem to have caught up on yet, is the Google hits manipulation scandal. He says 31 million hits. But it was nearly that high 3 weeks ago, only to mysteriously drop to below 20 million, while Yahoo has gone up to over 50 million. “Bing” apparently went to 50 million 2 weeks ago, only to even more mysteriously drop back to below 10 million.

    I won’t post links in case this blog doesn’t like them. Check out the online articles “Googlegate” by Harold Ambler and “Google Carrying Out More Purges Than Stalin” by Kathy Shaidle.

  4. Bob Innes says:January 5, 2010 at 12:10 amJames: A change is as good as a rest so if that novel got you down, have a gander at a different but similar situation in which interested parties have kidnapped a wiki subject –

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_(finance)

    If you scroll down to a section called euphemistically, Views of Short Selling, you will see the whitewash job someone has done on the subject. Narry a mention of any immoral or criminal aspect. For that, one has to go to the talk page and also start looking at the history page about early summer 2009. Naturally the industry wants nobody to understand how this practice creates virtual duplicates and /or counterfeits.

    If you want to delve further into the whole mess, there are several sites to visit. The most active would be
    http://www.deepcapture.com/
    Jim Wales gets his share of ink.
    Another i like is
    http://www.rgm.com/
    Lots of sites object to the illegal naked shorting. I seem to be alone in being opposed to legal shorting, per my site.

    If you’re suitably horrified (maybe you own some shares) you can go to a petition (one of several) aimed at outlawing this situation.
    http://www.petitiononline.com/shortNOT/petition.html

    Please feel free to contact me if you’d like to follow up. I’m not sure what to do about Wikipedia. There seems to be copy cat sites springing up, even one called Conservapedia! so maybe the whole thing will collapse into a useless bog. Trying to keep up with these jokers seems to be hopeless. The folks making the money got time to burn.

    Keep up the good work.

    Bob

  5. Bob Innes says:January 5, 2010 at 12:23 amAddress correction. Please forgive & delete.
    Bob

Climategate: Al Gore spews the usual nonsense but this time no one believes him

Something truly remarkable happened at Copenhagen yesterday.

Al Gore told yet another of his massive whoppers about ManBearPig. But this time no one believed him.

Here’s how the Times reported it:

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

Interesting to see that story reported in the Times, of all places. Apart from The Independent, no British newspaper – not even George Monbiot’s home the Guardian – has been drinking the AGW Kool-Aid quite so fervently as the Times. From its vast hordes of Eco correspondents to its Op Ed editors and writers, the Times prides itself on being greener than Dr Rajendra Pachauri’s favourite green underpants after a month’s detox diet of spinach, wheat grass juice, parsley and pure essence of ultra-viridian greenness.

So yes, for the Times to report on the Holy Father of the global AGW movement making a total dork of himself is indeed a landmark event.

This is not, of course, the first occasion on which Arctic sea ice coverage has proved stubbornly unhelpful to the Climate Fear Promotion lobby. In 2007 all the Warmists’ dreams seemed to be coming true when satellite images showed arctic ice coverage receding at record levels. (That’s since satellite records began way, waaaay back in 1978).

Robin McKie of the Observer crowed:

The Arctic’s sea covering has shrunk so much that the Northwest Passage, the fabled sea route that connects Europe and Asia, has opened up for the first time since records began.

Which was quite true providing – as Ian Wishart reminds us in Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming – you ignore the people who had successfully sailed through the Passage in 1903, the 1940s and 2000.

Still it was enough to inspire intrepid kayaker and human polar bear Lewis Gordon Pugh to launch a dramatic September 2008 expedition to raise awareness of AGW by kayaking all the way to the North Pole. Tragically about 600 miles short of his destination he got stuck by the ice.

After the inconvenient arctic sea ice recovery of 2008, Warmists attempted to finesse their argument by saying that although most of the ice seemed to have come back it was the WRONG KIND OF ICE. They called it “rotten ice” – something that deceives satellites into thinking its proper and thick when it is in fact rubbish and thin. This latest exercise in excuse-making has now been demolished on the Watts Up With That site, which points that not one of the major scientific institutions that monitor sea ice levels have supported this theory.

Related posts:

  1. Al Gore’s five loaves and two fishes
  2. Climategate: the inaugural Al Gore prize poetry competition
  3. ‘Climate scepticism is the new racism’ says Gore
  4. Mother Gaia issues tearful plea to Al and Tipper Gore: ‘I can’t afford the cost of your divorce!’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

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

 

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:

Next
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.

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: –
    http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC10nov09.pdf

    GCI
    LONDON E17 4SH

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

Official: UK Law Now Says ManBearPig-Worship Is a Religion to Rank Alongside Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

Oh dear, it’s official (nearly): a belief in man-made climate change grants you the same anti-discrimination protection in the British work-place you’d get if, say, you were a Muslim and your employer forced you to eat pork, or you were a Christian and your boss insisted you sacrifice a big black cock at the stroke of midnight on the Winter Solstice in the middle of a ruddy great pentacle, or you were a Rastafarian, and your boss wouldn’t allow you to pop outside for your statutory religious reefer-break.

At least that’s the maddening situation that one Tim Nicholson, 42, of Oxford is striving to engineer with the help of our crazed, activist-lawyer-riddled legal system.

Nicholson has been given the go-ahead, on appeal, to sue his former employer Grainger plc for unfair dismissal under  the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 which cover “any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief”.

Nicholson, formerly Grainger plc’s head of sustainability, said he had tried to set up a “carbon management system” for the company. Yet for some mysterious reason we can only guess at, Nicholson says staff refused to give him the necessary information which would have enabled him to calculate the company’s carbon footprint. Grainger claims it got rid of Nicholson for “operational” and “structural” reasons. Nicholson, however, believes it was a form of discrimination against his sincere, deep, heartfelt and passionate views on AGW.

His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: “Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.”

I do hope he wins, for it will only serve to bolster the suit I’m currently planning to launch against my own employer UK plc. Under this new belief system I have invented – Delingpolism (currently with only one known adherent – but the rest of you are more than welcome to join) – anyone who proselytises on behalf of AGW, carbon capture, Cap & Trade or wind farms without being able to demonstrate with at least 95 per cent certainty that their cause has any scientific foundation whatsoever, must be exiled immediately to the Arctic Circle, there to dwell among the still surprisingly large population of ravening polar bears until such time as they are gobbled up, digested and excreted into the Arctic oceans ready to pass through the food chain and end up in the beauteous gullets of the mighty blue whale (or similar).

So far, my religion’s precepts have been completely ignored by my employer. I feel sorely discriminated against. Got to be worth a couple of million in damages, at least, wouldn’t you agree?

Related posts:

  1. Burqa ban: What Barack Obama could learn from Nicolas Sarkozy about Islam
  2. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  3. ‘ManBearPig is real!’ declare top climate scientists. ‘And to prove it here’s a photo-shopped image we found on the internet of a polar bear on a melting ice floe.’
  4. Treating Islam with special reverence is cultural suicide and just plain wrong

 

Copenhagen: A Step Closer to One-World Government?

You have to be careful when talking about “One World Government.” Sooner than you can say “Bilderberg”, you’ll find yourself bracketed with all the crazies, and conspiracy theorists and 9/11 Truthers. But I don’t think you need to be mad to be concerned about the issues raised by Lord Monckton in this speech.

Monckton believes that climate change hysteria is being exploited by the green liberal left – watermelons, as they’re nicknamed: green on the outside; red on the inside – to usher in a form of one world government. He claims to have seen evidence of this in a draft treaty due to be signed off by world leaders at this December’s Copenhagen climate change conference.

It will, he believes, in rich nations having as much as 2 per cent of their GDP diverted to third world countries – supposedly to compensate them for the evils wrought by two centuries or so of Western industrialisation; and tough new climate change rules to be imposed on Western economies by UN bureaucrats over which sovereign nations (and their electorates) will have no control.

I don’t know how accurate he is on the specific details, but Monckton is certainly right in principle. The climate fear industry is, I believe, the single greatest threat to national sovereignty (as we’ve already seen under the EU, with its directives on carbon emissions, landfill etc) and individual liberty of our era. It is financed by business interests so powerful that they have even suborned Big Oil (to look at most oil multinationals’ adverts these days, you’d think their main trade was wind-farming); its propaganda is spread by a supine mainstream media and subscribed to wholesale by glib politicians, few of whom have bothered to familiarise themselves with the growing body of evidence against AGW but who think sounding caring and touchy-feelie about “climate change” plays well with the voters.

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, the Climate Fear Industry isn’t a theory.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war
  2. Climategate: how the Copenhagen Grinches stole Christmas
  3. Welcome to the New World Order
  4. Climategate: Is the British government conspiring not to prosecute?

 

Why We Can All Stop Worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a Bit

Three months to go until the UN climate summit in Copenhagen. Three months in which we will be repeatedly assured by climate fear promoters such as Al Gore, George Monbiot, Ed Miliband and the risible Ban Ki-moon that this really is absolutely, definitely, totally and irrevocably the very last chance the world’s leaders will have to save the planet from ManBearPig.

(Just like they said at Rio and Poznan and all the other “let’s see who can rack up the biggest carbon footprint” global shindigs that eco-campaigners insist on staging, the better to stoke up their self-flagellatory eco-guilt).

But, for the global warming deniers among us at least, the panic’s off. Nothing scary or dangerous is going to happen as a result of the Copenhagen summit. It will be a talking shop, abundant with airy platitudes and earnest pieties, but signifying less than ****er all as far as economy-damaging Kyoto-style legislation goes. There will be a political statement of intent. But no binding “agreement”.

Here are few reasons why:

1. A bit like one of those mutant pandas I mentioned yesterday, the science has turned viciously against the warmists. Not that it wasn’t against them before.  But they have their work seriously cut out if they’re ever going to recover from the  speech given at the UN world climate conference in Geneva last week by Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz institute.

National Post columnist Lorne Gunter explains:

“Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.”

Yet in Geneva, Latif was forced to admit that all those An-Inconvenient-Truth-style fantasy projections showing global temperatures rising inexorably with C02 levels were wrong. The world is getting cooler, not warming. It will continue to cool, Latif reckons, till 2020 or possibly 2030. By how much he doesn’t know: “The jury is still out.”

Which begs the rather obvious question: if the IPCC’s doomsday computer models didn’t predict this cooling phase, how can we be sufficiently confident in their other assertions to start basing major economic and social policy decisions on them?

2. The Chinese. Spin it how they will, President Hu Jintao’s two-minute speech to the UN yesterday was a massive blow to the Warmists. In classic “Tell the foolish gwailo what they want to hear, then carry on doing exactly what we want” Chinese diplomatic style, Hu Jintao promised “determined action”, while refusing to commit his country to any binding targets.

The Chinese are not stupid. Their priority number one (and two, and three) is economic growth, not assuaging green lobbyists.

3. People just don’t care about “climate change” that much. Environmental purity is a rich person’s luxury and with the recession most people have other priorities. In the latest Bloomberg poll in the US, for example, just 2 per cent of respondents considered “climate change” the most important issue facing the country.

4. Almost everyone knows deep down that the green lobby’s CO2 targets are pie in the sky. Says Stephen Hayward of the American Competitive Institute in WSJ Online

“Carbon dioxide is the result of complete fuel combustion. Apart from still-unproven technologies, there’s no way to remove it from the process. The only way to reduce emissions is to burn less fuel, which means less energy output.

“So, to meet the target the climate campaigners have set, the U.S., Europe and Japan will have to replace virtually their entire fossil-fuel energy infrastructure. For the U.S., the 80% target means reducing fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas emissions to a level the nation last experienced in 1910. On a per-capita basis, we’d have to go back to the level of about 1875.”

5. If anyone’s going to push these crazy measures through it’s President Obama. But, as Terence Corcoran sensibly points out, after the rough ride he’s had with his healthcare proposals, Obama is unlikely to want to outrage the US taxpayer still further.

“Mr. Obama, already fighting charges his medicare reform will boost taxes on the average American family by $3,000, isn’t likely to simultaneously mount an aggressive push for carbon control legislation that will add another $4,000 a year in taxes.”

6. Right, consider this my serious climate change piece for the week. Now, I can go back to trading childish insults. Phew!

Related posts:

  1. ‘Global warming’: time to get angry
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  4. Whoops! CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, discovers top US meteorologist