RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’ | James Delingpole

Cartoon by Josh

Cartoon by Josh

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep

them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

If you can’t spot what’s wrong with this email, don’t worry you’re in great company. Among the numerous luminaries who can’t are environmental activist and filmmaker Rupert Murray, celebrity mathematician Simon Singh, celebrity Nobel Prizewinner Sir Paul Nurse and celebrity Guardian doctor Ben Goldacre to name but four. To each one of them I have tried on occasion to explain why the corruption of “peer-review” is the issue that matters above all else in the Climategate emails. But none of them, sadly, was bright enough to get it.

Sigh.

Let me have one more stab. Here’s how I explain “Peer review” in my forthcoming book Watermelons:

Peer review is the benchmark by which most new scientific research tends to be judged. If that research is to be taken seriously by the scientific community then it must be accepted for publication by one of a fairly small number of academic or quasi-academic journals, such as Nature, Science and Scientific American.

Peer review is not a perfect system. In the golden era of  Twentieth century science it wasn’t even thought necessary: neither Watson & Crick nor Einstein were peer reviewed. But in today’s abstruse, fragmented world where the various branches of science have grown increasingly recondite and specialised, peer-review has become widely accepted as the least worst method by which quality science can be sifted from junk science.

And nowhere more so than within the climate science community. In the run-up to Climategate, one of the main weapons used by those within “the consensus” against dissenting scientists was that their various papers picking holes in AGW theory had not been “peer-reviewed” and were therefore invalid. As Phil Jones himself puts it in one of his emails:

“The peer review system is the safeguard science has adopted to stop bad science being published.”

I think that’s pretty clear, don’t you? Now let us revisit that Jones/Mann exchange in the light of this knowledge.  What we see happening is the deterioration of “peer review” into something more akin to “pal review.” The “peer review” process – at least in the debased field of “climate science” – has been corrupted. No longer can it be relied on as a guide to what is true or untrue, correct or incorrect, plausible or implausible. That’s because the scientists who control the “peer review” process – as revealed by the Climategate emails – are a self-serving claque, with rather less concern for the pursuit of objective truth than for their own vested interests.

With me so far? Good. Now we can move on to an incredibly complicated story which is causing much excitement at Watts Up With That?, Climate Audit and Bishop Hill at the moment. Some are saying its as damning of the “Consensus” as Climategate. It involves two people you’ve probably never heard of – Eric Steig and Ryan O’Donnell.

Eric Steig is a member of Michael Mann’s “Hockey Team” – the group of Warmist scientists who established a website called Real Climate, initially to rebut claims by McIntyre and McKitrick that Mann’s Hockey Stick wasn’t quite up to scratch, later to stick up for the Warmist cause generally.

In 2009 Steig et al published a paper considered so important that it made the cover of Nature. (H/T Barry Woods). The paper purported to counter one of the main arguments used by sceptics to dispute “global warming”, viz “if global warming really is as catastrophic and universal as some claim, then how come Antarctica remains as stubbornly cold as it was 30 years ago?” Steig’s paper showed that contrary to earlier claims, Antarctica was in fact warming too.

Or was it? Among the sceptics who suspected the reliability of Steig’s paper were Jeff Id (of the late-lamented Air Vent site) and Ryan O’Donnell. They pointed out that the statistical methods used to show this alleged warming were based on highly dubious extrapolations of data taken from small number of stations on the Arctic peninsula and coastline. (Something similar happened recently, you’ll remember, with NASA’s dramatic “warming” that took place in the Arctic – all of it, funnily enough, in places where there were no thermometers to check the reliability of NASA’s claims).

Steig suggested that rather than argue it out on the blogs O’Donnell, Id at el should publish a paper under peer review. So that’s what they tried. And guess which person it was who was selected to review O’Donnell et al’s paper. And guess which person it was – under the pseudonym Reviewer A – who tried to thwart the paper’s progression to publication with 88 pages of comments and obfuscation ten times longer than the original paper.

Yep. You got it. The mystery peer reviewer was none other than Eric Steig. Even in the monstrously corrupt world of “climate science” this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he’d written himself.

Now let us allow Iapogus (the commenter at Bishop Hill from whom I filched this summary: I’m an interpreter of interpretations, me) to continue the story:

Ryan guessed that Reviewer A was Stieg early on, but still remained patient and good natured. At one point in the review process, Steig suggested that Ryan and Jeff should use an alternative statistical technique, which they then did. But then later, Steig then criticised the paper, citing the example of the same statistical technique as an issue (the one he had suggested). So Steig has laid himself open to charges of unprofessional conduct, duplicity. And that was when Ryan decided to bring all this out in the open. Meanwhile Gavin and the other members of the Team at the Real Climate (RC) blog have gone into overdrive in moderating any commenter who ask any reasonable questions about all of this. Basically this was the evidence that peer review at least in climate science is broken.

Now you could argue that I shouldn’t be reporting on stories like this. It’s one of those “How many polar bears can dance on the head of the pin?” discussions of nuances of meaning which may be of tremendous interest to the “climate science” community – both sceptics and warmists alike – but which has little traction in the outside world.

Up to a point, I’d agree with this. The AGW debate – as I repeatedly argue in this blog – is essentially a political one not a scientific one.

Unfortunately, there are still lots of people out there – the Simon Singhs, the Sir Paul Nurses, the Ben Goldacres, the Robin Inces, and their Guardianista Twitter Posses, for example – who think otherwise.

And it’s important that these people are made to realise that not only are there no sensible political or economic arguments to support their cause, but passing few scientific ones either. If the science supporting AGW theory is really as rock solid as Warmists claim, why on earth would they need to resort to the kind of corruption and dirty tricks we first saw in Climategate and are now witnessing again in RealClimategate?

Give up, guys. The game’s over.

PS One more thing. Undoubtedly one of the best things ever to happen to the (somewhat dubious and generally second-rater-friendly) field of Climate Science has been the Watts Up With That? website. Not least among its achievements is to show the way forward after the death of “peer review”. The future is “peer to peer” review, at which WUWT excels. It has become a forum for experts from all scientific disciplines to assess various aspects of climate science rigorously and without the grotesque bias we’ve unfortunately seen so often among the “consensus” scientists at the IPCC. And now WUWT has rightly been put up for the Best Science Blog in the 2011 Bloggies Awards. It deserves your support. Vote early, vote often!

Let me have… (to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  2. Simon Singh: is there anything he doesn’t know?
  3. Climategate: what Gore’s useful idiot Ed Begley Jr doesn’t get about the ‘peer review’ process
  4. The curious double standards of Simon Singh

8 thoughts on “RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’”

  1. Nige Cook says:11th February 2011 at 8:18 amFearless Frank, the details make it look even worse! James isn’t covering up. You’re pulling the quotation out of context, then condemning the fact you take it out of context. The correct context James use it in was as evidence for what it states: the power politics and bigotry behind peer-review, which is as much the basis of science as cheese is chalk.The quotation of the email was not concerned with the future ultimate fate of one paper, whether published or not. It was showing censorship efforts (albeit increasingly failed) by the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.Increased cloud cover due to the buoyancy of warm humid air caused by evaporation cancels out temperature effects from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Miskolczi’s “anti-greenhouse” effect (homeostasis mechanism), its solid evidence, and peer-review censorship of facts by a conspiracy of funded climate research scientists who risk losing everything if they admit the facts.“Plausible patterns for temperature and precipitation changes accompanying a general global warming, such as might occur due to a large increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, are presented. The patterns are determined by comparing the five warmest years in the period 1925−74 with the five coldest in this period. Temperature increases are indicated for most regions, with maximum warming over northern Asia. A few isolated regions show cooling. Precipitation changes are fairly evenly distributed between increases and decreases; the most important features being an increase over India, and decreases in central and south-central USA and over much of Europe and Russia. The latter decreases, should they occur, could have considerable agricultural impact.”

    – T. M. L. Wigley, Phil Jones, and P. M. Kelly, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, “Scenario for a warm, high-CO2 world”, Nature, vol. 283 (1980), pp. 17-21.

    This is the abstract of the first scientific paper I read on global warming as a teenager in the 80s, co-authored by good old Dr Phil Jones. It’s a very nice paper, with great statistics and world-map illustrations of the effects of CO2 on the global climate.

    Unfortunately, it’s not what I call science. It doesn’t focus on the mechanism for CO2 effects on temperature. It takes that for granted. After that, all is downhill. Papers started appearing using tree ring growth rates as a proxy for global temperatures. Er, what about the effects of changes in the average amount of cloud cover on tree ring growth rates? The science is thus more and more perverted until there is none left, and you end up with the perverted curves being spliced together to give curves that are politically correct.

    You can see where it’s going, can’t you? NASA gets a billion dollars a year for climate research and has already censored Miskolczi for threatening that income by trying to publish the facts. Now, Al Gore’s film propaganda lies have converted a majority of the “intellectually elite” politicians and public into fellow travellers of the “greenhouse effect” myth (shutting your eyes to 70% ocean cover and clouds that don’t form as a self-regulation mechanism in a greenhouse!). If James tells the facts, he gets increasing hostility merely for contradicting a “settled consensus”. Science ends once a hardened orthodoxy is in place. It already is.

  2. Martin says:11th February 2011 at 10:21 pmNige Cooke, you should be ashamed of yourself!You are clearly old enough to know better. Pull your head ou of the sand before it is too late. The supposed “conspiracy of funded climate research scientists ” at UAE were exonerated… I suppose you would also claim that Julian Simons was correct to claim that humanity now has the “ingenuity to feed an unlimited population for the next 7 billion years”.If so, you have failed to grasp a few basic concepts: (i) The Second Law of Thermodynamics;
    The concept of Entropy; (ii) The finititude of the Earth’s resources; and (iii) Exponential growth (clue: even 1% annual growth results in 2 x population in 70 years).For god’s sake, wake up and smell the coffee!
  3. Martin Lack says:12th February 2011 at 11:52 amWhy has my previous unoffensive reply not appeared? Was it because I included the link to my website (i.e. blog)?… C’mon James, you at least believe in “free speech”, don’t you? Surely, I don’t have to tell you that censorship is a sign of insecurity and/or paranoia?
  4. James Delingpole says:12th February 2011 at 12:08 pm@Martinlack. Ignorant jerks like yourself are generally welcome on this site, Martin. Welcome because of the informed responses they tend to generate from better-educated, more intelligent contributors like Nige Cooke. The reason your first comment wasn’t posted as quickly as you wanted was simply because I get lots of emails a day and don’t always have time to go through them all pressing the Approve Comment button.
    But I do have a policy of deleting abusive emails sent anonymously because I believe this is an act of cowardice. If you wish to have your fatuous, rude comments included again please give us a forwarding address/website where we may contact you.
    Thanks.
  5. Nige Cook says:12th February 2011 at 10:04 pm“Scientists have every right to complain if they are not allowed to comment on a paper. That paper was flawed and the editor of Climate Research refuse to allow peers to comment on the flaws. hence the complaint. Taking that email of out context means you and Delingpole seem to be promoting censorship within science.” – Fearless FrankThey’re not scientists. They’re doing the censorship of science. They censor all the facts out using peer-review as petty power politics. They allow no criticism of pseudo-science. What peer-review means is a conspiracy of “might is right” pseudoscience, which has been disproved time and time again. Eugenics is a good example which shouldn’t have been backed by “scientists” like Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel who wrote a best-seller on the benefits of Nazis “science” in 1935: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man,_The_UnknownCarrel didn’t know about evolution requiring diversity. Natural climate change deniers like yourself have no idea that we’re still coming out of an ice age. Just like the Carrel, you have no idea about evolution replacing creationism. You think humans are unnatural, when in fact humans are just as much a product of evolution as plants or insects. What humans do is a part of nature. In any case, CO2 drives only cloud cover, not temperature because H2O that is evaporated rises to form clouds: injecting more CO2 has a negative feedback from H2O cloud cover that cancels out the infrared absorption by CO2.But it’s a waste of time repeating the facts because you’re unwilling to be reasonable and listen. You demand you’re right unless I publish in your “peer”-reviewed journal when you’re not a “peer” but a biased quack. What you have to remember, though, is that the more crackpot Al Gore’s followers like yourself become, the more obvious it becomes to the wider public that science is being perverted for political ends, such as Nobel Prizes. I’m 100% certain that medical Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel would have received the “Nobel Peace Prize” like Al Gore if the Nazis had won WWII and doctored the Nobel Committee. It’s a shame it’s already been self-doctored in peacetime! However, “angel” Nobel was a warmonger who supplied explosives to BOTH sides in the Crimean War bloodbath…

    Al Gore thinks he will be dead before “AGW” is dead, but he might be wrong, and you too.

    “If so, you have failed to grasp a few basic concepts: (i) The Second Law of Thermodynamics; The concept of Entropy; (ii) The finititude of the Earth’s resources; and (iii) Exponential growth (clue: even 1% annual growth results in 2 x population in 70 years).” – Martin

    Martin, you don’t appreciate that the H2O in the earth’s atmosphere (where clouds form, unlike a greenhouse) cancels out the greenhouse effect from CO2.

    First, consider the basis for the anti-greenhouse effect of evaporated water due to an initial temperature rise from CO2. On average, today:

    3% of incoming radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases excluding water vapor,
    15% is absorbed by water vapor,
    5% is absorbed by clouds and
    47% is absorbed by the earth’s surface;

    while:

    21% of incoming radiation is reflected back by clouds,
    6% is reflected back by the air, and
    3% is reflected back by the earth’s surface.

    Water in the atmosphere thus absorbs a total of 20% of incoming solar radiation, and reflects back a total of 21%. So the amount of reflection by cloud cover exceeds the amount of absorption due to water vapor absorbing infra-red solar radiation. Overall, 70% of incoming solar radiation is currently absorbed, and 30% is reflected back into space.

    Now calculate what happens to these numbers when a temperature rise due to CO2 increases occurs. You find that doubling today’s water content in the atmosphere – assuming that the vapor mass to cloud droplet mass ratio is a constant – reduces the total absorption from 70% to 64% of incoming radiation, while it increases reflection from 30% to 36% reflection. Hence, evaporated water has an anti-greenhouse effect: a “negative feedback”.

    However, the situation is even worse than this for the IPCC fraudsters, since the atmospheric greenhouse water vapor (humidity) has allegedly not even been rising in step with the total evaporated water:

    “During the 61-year period [since 1948] … the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent.” – Dr. M. Zagoni.

    “You must here distinguish – especially in teaching – the science from the forms or procedures that are sometimes used in developing science. … great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. In the same way, it is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudo-science. In this way, we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers. … We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on … They are merely an imitative form of science … The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. …. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

    – Richard P. Feynman, “What is Science?”, presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in New York City, published in The Physics Teacher Vol. 7, issue 6, 1968, pp. 313-320.

  6. Nige Cook says:13th February 2011 at 11:30 amFearless Frank, the “denialists” are those like Al Gore who deny we’re coming out of an ice age and deny that CO2 injections are cancelled out by increased cloud cover once the oceans warm.Soon and Baliunas are actually in the Al Gore camp. They have no idea how the sun works, they simply have no mechanism for solar output to vary randomly. The sun is an extremely stable nuclear fusion reactor producing energy in the core at 15 million Kelvin. The idea that magnetic effects like sunspots and solar storms at the surface (where the temperature is only around 6000 K) varying the gross energy output is total nonsense: energy is flowing out from the stable nuclear processes in the core has to be emitted from the surface. If you have sunspots, that just means that the rest of the surface is that bit hotter and emits the energy instead. Solar storms have no significant effect. Charged and massive radiation from the sun is mostly trapped in the Van Allen belts in space far above the atmosphere.Trying to correlate solar activity to global warming like Soon and Baliunas is the perfect example of pseudoscience. There is no mechanism, but they don’t care. It’s just like professor Ernest Sternglass in 1969 publishing “The Death of All Children”, correlating the flattening of the rate of fall of infant mortality rate after 1950 to an effect of radiation from nuclear tests, when in fact fall in infant mortality was simply due to antibiotics, and once antibiotics were introduced the fall rate naturally stabilized.Why discuss Soon and Baliunas when they don’t have a mechanism? You’re not discussing real science, just conjecture. I don’t see how Soon and Baliunas were behaving like scientists, they were behaving like politicians. If they want to emphasise scientific credentials, it must be for scientific work. Otherwise, it’s like Nurse or Carrel using their Nobel prize in science as an “authority” credential when promoting pseudoscience.

    It is not possible for the sun’s output to vary significantly because the random flaring and sunspot processes we can see on the surface of the sun from magnetic field energy due to convection of charged particles, has no effect on the rate of fusion that is producing the energy in the centre of the sun at a temperature 2,500 times higher than the surface. The sun must radiate the energy it generates in a very precise, very stable equilibrium, or it would be unstable, the temperature would spiral out of control. If “cool” sunspots form, the energy normally radiated from those areas must be radiated from other areas instead.

    The bottom line is that politically inspired lying “controversy” must be censored out of scientific journals, which must be kept to facts supported by mechanisms. Statistical correlations unsupported by mechanisms are pseudoscience, and the current technique towards publishing and discussing them or criticising them, just prolongs the focus of attention on pseudoscience. This is why “peer”-review is such a tragedy. Journals must in future have separate sections, one for “technician science” (incremental “stamp collecting” advances within a given mainstream theory or paradigm) and a separate section for “alternative theories” (giving space to minority ideas, but not permitting any political groupthink to allow just one “controversial” alternative theory to dominate).

    People like Nurse are essentially good technician scientists (despite the Nobel prize), working in a paradigm that was founded long ago and using techniques largely invented by others. They may invent new tools and methods within the paradigm, but they are not the revolutionary founding fathers like Newton or Darwin. They’re defensive about the paradigm or theory they build upon, seeing revolutionaries are ignorant before they read their work, and relying on “peer”-reviewers to censor out critics of the foundations of their subject. This is exactly how Copernicus and Galileo were censored out. It’s obvious that many of the facts in a groupthink science will survive a future scientific revolution (unless all the data is being fiddled, which seems the case when using tree growth as a proxy for temperature alone!), so it’s mainly the interpretation of the facts that changes.

    Soon and Baliunas did not confront the key scientific fact, the fact that the feedback of H2O on rising CO2 cancels out temperature changes due to the cloud cover mechanism, instead of accelerating temperature rises as the fatally flawed IPCC models claim. So there is no reason to discuss Soon and Baliunas since it is pseudoscience.

    If journals start discussing pseudoscience, it will detract from the hard mechanistic science. This is precisely why Bohr and Heisenberg’s anti-relativistic 1st quantization dogma of 1927 ended physical advances in quantum mechanics, whose physical interpretation remains obscure for political not scientific reasons (1st quantization was disproved in 1929 by Dirac who introduced the simple mechanism for indeterminancy, namely physically real quantum fields creation and annihilation operators, i.e. 2nd quantization which is completely incompatible with 1st quantization despite the efforts of textbook authors to obfuscate this).

  7. Nige Cook says:14th February 2011 at 9:42 am“The point is, the paper is flawed, and any peer review on that paper was censored.”Papers on “superstring theory” are also flawed (there is an “anthropic landscape” of 10^500 different theories, each relating to a different metastable vacuum state stabilized compactification of the assumed extra 6/7 spatial dimensions of uncheckable Planck size).Peer-review on “superstring theory” is causing a crisis in particle physics, by focussing attention on imaginary solutions, not hard real world data explanation. The best way to deal with pseudoscience is to ignore it, not enter into a lengthy “controversy” that gets no where.You can’t scientifically “disprove” something that doesn’t exist, because the proponents will always say that it is “hidden in the background noise”. You can’t “disprove” UFOs, ghosts, little green men, 6/7 dimensional superstring, supersymmetric particles with masses too high to ever detect in the world’s biggest particle accelerators, or many other speculations.

    Therefore, trying to discredit pseudoscience by arguing with proponents of uncheckable guesswork is going to sink genuine science into an unending controversy which can never, even in principle, be resolved one way or another by any conceivable scientific experiment. You have to ignore uncheckable speculations unless or until someone can cme up with some kind of checkable evidence that permits scientific experiments or observations to determine whether the speculation agrees with nature, or not.

  8. Jack Cowper says:18th February 2011 at 12:46 pmGreat article James.Roy Spencer had simular trouble with his paper – “On the diagnosis in the presence of unknown radiative forcing”. A direct quote here:http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/‘After years of re-submissions and re-writes — always to accommodate a single hostile reviewer — our latest paper on feedbacks has finally been published by Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR).’

    So who was the hostile reviewer in this case? Maybe it was someone else in the team!

Comments are closed.

On the Anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons Show Their True Colours

Crazed socialist relicts

Green on the outside, red on the inside....

Green on the outside, red on the inside….

Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. This is the theme of my forthcoming book on the controlling,  poisonously misanthropic and aggressively socialistic instincts of the modern environmental movement. So how very generous that two of that movement’s leading lights should have chosen the anniversary of Climategate to prove my point entirely.

The first comes courtesy of German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer who has openly admitted what some of us have been saying for some time: that “Climate Change” has nothing to do with man’s modest and thoroughly unthreatening contribution to global mean temperatures, nor even with the plight of baby polar bears so sweet you could almost hug them if you didn’t know they’d take your arm off in a trice. All it is, really, is a Marxist exercise in minority grievance-mongering and wealth redistribution on a global scale.

Or, as Edenhoffer so helpfully puts it it Neue Zurcher Zeitung: (H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation):

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriatedthe atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

And if that sounds sinister, wait till you hear what our old friend Nicholas “Lord” Stern has gone and done. Nicky, you’ll remember, was the funny little World Banker responsible for possibly the most hysterically overblown policy document in the entire history of the great Global Climate Change Scam: the infamous Stern Review which recommended, inter alia, that we all go veggie in order to spare the planet from hideous boiling man-made meltdown.

Now, “Lord” Stern (of Brentford, no less) has gone one better. He has got it into his dear little head that he has the power, influence and importance to dictate terms to the US economy. If America doesn’t toe the line on CO2 emissions reductions, he has threatened, then it could jolly well find itself the victim of an international trade boycott.

I would give you the link to the Times article in which Ben Webster’s interview appears, but sadly it’s hidden behind a paywall. Still, Watts Up With That has the gist:

Lord Stern said that Europe and the Far East (sic) were forging ahead of the US in controlling emissions and switching to low carbon sources of energy. They would not tolerate having their industries undermined by American competitors that had not paid for their emissions. “If you are charging properly for carbon and other people are not, you will take that into account,” he said. “Many of the more forward-looking people in the US are thinking about this. If they see a danger on the trade front to US exports that could influence public discussion.”

Asked what type of US products could face restrictions, Lord Stern said: “Aircraft, clearly, some cars, machine tools — it’s not simply what’s in the capital good, it’s what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating.”

What a mellifluous turn of phrase the man has: “what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating.” Doesn’t it just make you SO happy to think that this veritable Gerald Manley Hopkins among economists has the ear of several G20 leaders?

But I don’t believe a word of his threat, do you? Not, at least, in so far as the Far East is concerned. Can anyone seriously imagine China or Japan or any of the Asian tiger economies severing trade links with the US in order to make a political point about a non-existent environmental problem based on “science” which they all know is a crock. For China, for the BRICs economies generally in fact, AGW is just a handy pretext for milking the Western nations of what money they can. It’s certainly not an issue over which they’d choose to lose money on a point of principle.

Where the European Union is concerned, on the other hand, Lord Stern’s toys-out-of-pram scenario looks frighteningly plausible. Frightening, that is, for those of us unfortunate enough to live in the EU and to be one of the US’s bigger trading partners; not frightening at all for the US, though, for whom if we carry on going in the direction we’re heading at the moment the EU will soon be a sclerotic, socialistic irrelevance.

Here’s my prediction: with the exception of crazed socialist relicts like California (which really ought to be allowed to secede and take its proper place on the North American continent as a kind of comedy pariah state), the US is going to grow increasingly bored with the Great Global Warming Scam. Cap and trade will go the way of the failed Chicago carbon exchange – and with it all prospects of a binding global agreement on carbon emissions.

But that’s only the beginning of the fun. Thanks to the glorious mid-terms, the House is about to fill up with red meat conservatives who know “Climate Change” is a crock and will be hoping to secure some kind of Climate Nuremberg. Then, when Obama goes in 2012, the whole AGW issue will as far as America is concerned be dead in the water.

Not in Europe, unfortunately. Increasingly, the EUSSR will look as irrelevant as the old USSR, burdened with entirely unnecessary eco-taxes and regulations, destroyed by the watermelons of the green movement. Sad, isn’t it?

Related posts:

  1. I need YOUR pledge NOW for the most important campaign in the history of the planet!
  2. How the Climategate weasels wriggled free
  3. At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’
  4. So now we can’t ever enjoy Peep Show again. Thanks, David ‘No but seriously, folks’ Mitchell

2 thoughts on “On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours”

  1. barbarausa says:20th November 2010 at 2:05 pmSo, were there car doors slamming in the streets of Brentford last night?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5ba1OKY7Xc

  2. Velocity says:25th November 2010 at 8:26 pmYou’re right to point at (both) the shrill green empties and the EUSSR as re-distributors of (other) peoples wealth.

    Have you seen what’s going on in Ireland?

    The Irish politicians, who’ve put Irish taxpayers on the hook for banking and property losses (over-leveridge, schoolboy banking error 101), are now accepting yet even more debt by the EUSSR and IMF-mafia.

    €24,000 for every man, woman and child in Ireland. They could have declared bankruptcy, stopped the rot right now. But instead, in an act of treason that’ll stink for decades to come, they’ve shifted the steaming pile of crap from Gov’t and bankers to their own very (innocent) people to pay off.

    A few years ago US Sen Ron Paul was seen as a cook, an outlier, a bit of a nutter in the Rep Party. Today he’s the only Rep that speaks with any credibility while the rest of his Party now look like the old crones of the establishment.

    Strange how perceptions shift, how the ‘nutters’ turn out to be the rising stars as time passes. This is how social change happens.

    Here’s another guy who’s every word carries more weight and truth as time passes, while this pitiful Lib-Con Gov’t appears to be an ever greater outlier from outter friggin space (happy-o-meter anyone?!!)

    Link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyq7WRr_GPg

Comments are closed.

Climategate: the Fox connection | James Delingpole

October 18, 2010

Wrong Fox - but no harm done, eh?

Wrong Fox – but no harm done, eh?

A strange story in Bishop Hill about Fiona Fox. You may remember she’s the director of the Science Media Centre who claimed earlier this year that the way BBC could improve its science coverage was to give less space to sceptics.

She said: “To have a sceptic or contrarian in every interview is really misleading the public.”

Then, amusingly, she dropped two of the BBC’s more shameless eco-activists in the dudu by commenting:

“With Climate Science there’s been a real change with people like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin fighting internally to say ‘We don’t have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate scientist.’”

How Rich and Rog must have thanked her for this revelation!

And now she’s in trouble of a different kind. It seems she took part in a practical joke which went horribly wrong, summarised here by the Bishop:

She is also apparently a close friend of Jim Devine, a former Labour MP who is now facing fraud charges over his expense claims. She appears to have got herself involved in a bizarre and rather nasty practical joke involving Devine and his office manager, and which has now led to a substantial damages award against the politician.

Unless it involves Al Gore, masseuses and the phrase “love poodle” I’m not generally that interested in reporting sordid, sorry tales about people’s rackety personal lives – not least because it can’t be long before word leaks out about me last weekend with the hamsters, the dwarves with cocaine bowls balanced on their heads, Jimmy Page and the cast of High School Musical III. (And it’s interesting to note that when Steve McIntyre chose to write it up at ClimateAudit, some of his commenters got frightfully sniffy. “And what, pray does this have to do with statistics or climate science?” some of his more matronly readers wanted to know as they reached for the smelling salts).

Me, I’m much more interested in the Science Media Centre connection and the puzzling question of how Fiona Fox became to become so influential figure in the Climate Change Pseudoscience Alarmism Spin Machine. OK so she’s a former revolutionary Marxist – but so too are her sister Claire, as well as the Spiked Online gang Brendan O’Neill, Mick Hume, Frank Furedi and the rest. And all the latter are ferocious defenders of Enlightenment values, as well as being so sceptical about Global Warming b***ocks generally they make me sound like Geoffrey Lean. Well, almost.

One theory, mooted by one of the Bishop’s sharp-eyed readers, is that she was got at by an organisation called LobbyWatch and bullied in changing tack. But did she really have to go so far the other way as to appoint to her Science Advisory Panel such nakedly partisan figures as (former Government Alarmist-in-Chief) Sir David King, and to her board, such outrageously parti-pris types as Philip Campbell (editor in chief of Nature) and, Lord preserve us, Bob Ward?

“Only connect.” As well as being the epigraph of Howard’s End, this is also the theme of an infinitely superior book coming out soon on the great climate change conspiracy called Watermelons.

Fox, Campbell, King, Ward, Hansen, Gore, Monbiot, Porritt, Connolley….Not without reason do these names crop up again and again in this blog. They may not be sitting round the same table plotting. But they’re all part of the cabal, a surprisingly small cabal, given the vastness of its influence and the almost unimaginable immensity of the bill they are trying to impose on mankind in the name of their religion, Climatism.

Related posts:

  1. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  2. Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection
  3. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  4. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters

One thought on “Climategate: the Fox connection”

  1. TDK says:18th October 2010 at 10:20 amThere’s a nice quote here you might enjoyFiona Fox’s elder sister is Claire Fox (Moral Maze BBC radio 4). The difference between them is Claire is a AGW skeptic. Here’s Fiona on her sister’s “anti-science views”I get furious with her sometimes. I believe in an evidence-based approach to science, but Claire is more driven by her political passions. I heard her on [Radio 4’s] The Moral Maze saying the “bloody scientists” are exaggerating the risk of bird flu, and that made me very cross. I phoned her from Center Parcs, and within two minutes we’d both slammed the phone down. Then, because we don’t want to stay on bad terms, we e-mailed. I sent her the research, and she came back with her political point. She takes the same stance on climate change: she knows the evidence is there; her point is that the human race is far more resilient than people think.

    You will recall that Bird Flu has didn’t kill the numbers predicted in 2003.

    What does that say about their relative judgements.

Comments are closed.