Tag: Climategate

Lord Monckton reports from Dopenhagen

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen

In the Grand Ceremonial Hall of the University of Copenhagen, a splendid Nordic classical space overlooking the Church of our Lady in the heart of the old city, rows of repellent, blue plastic chairs surrounded the podium from which no less a personage than Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was to speak. I had arrived in good time to take my seat among the dignitaries in the front row. Rapidly, the room filled with enthusiastic Greenies and enviro-zombs waiting to hear the latest from ye Holy Bookes of Ipecac, yea verily. The official party shambled in and perched on the blue plastic chairs next to me. Pachauri was just a couple of seats away, so I gave him a letter from me and Senator Fielding of Australia, pointing out that the headline graph in the IPCC’s 2007 report, purporting to show that the rate of warming over the past 150 years had itself accelerated, was fraudulent. Would he use the bogus graph in his lecture? I had seen him do so when he received an honorary doctorate from the University of New South Wales. I watched and waited. Sure enough, he used the bogus graph. I decided to wait until he had finished, and ask a question then. Pachauri then produced the now wearisome list of lies, fibs, fabrications and exaggerations that comprise the entire case for alarm about “global warming”. He delivered it in a tired, unenthusiastic voice, knowing that a growing majority of the world’s peoples – particularly in those countries where comment is free – no longer believe a word the IPCC says. They are right not to believe. Science is not a belief system. But here is what Pachauri invited the audience in Copenhagen to believe. 1. Pachauri asked us to believe that the IPCC’s documents were “peer-reviewed”. Then he revealed the truth by saying that it was the authors of the IPCC’s climate assessments who decided whether the reviewers’ comments were acceptable. That – whatever else it is – is not peer review. 2. Pachauri said that greenhouse gases had increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004. This figure was simply nonsense. I have seen this technique used time and again by climate liars. They insert an outrageous statement early in their presentations, see whether anyone reacts and, if no one reacts, they know they will get away with the rest of the lies. I did my best not to react. I wanted to hear, and write down, the rest of the lies. 3. Next came the bogus graph, which is featured three times, large and in full color, in the IPCC’s 2007 climate assessment report. The graph is bogus not only because it relies on the made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia but also because it is overlain by four separate trend-lines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however – neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it – is that from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975-1998.4. Pachauri said that there had been an “acceleration” in sea-level rise from 1993. He did not say, however, that in 1993 the method of measuring sea-level rise had switched from tide-gages to satellite altimetry against a reference geoid. The apparent increase in the rate of sea-level rise is purely an artefact of this change in the method of measurement. 5. Pachauri said that Arctic temperatures would rise twice as fast as global temperatures over the next 100 years. However, he failed to point out that the Arctic was actually 1-2 Celsius degrees warmer than the present in the 1930s and early 1940s. It has become substantially cooler than it was then. 6. Pachauri said the frequency of heavy rainfall had increased. The evidence for this proposition is largely anecdotal. Since there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for 15 years, there is no reason to suppose that any increased rainfall in recent years is attributable to “global warming”. 7. Pachauri said that the proportion of tropical cyclones that are high-intensity storms has increased in the past three decades. However, he was very careful not to point out that the total number of intense tropical cyclones has actually fallen sharply throughout the period. 8. Pachauri said that the activity of intense Atlantic hurricanes had increased since 1970. This is simply not true, but it appears to be true if – as one very bad scientific paper in 2006 did – one takes the data back only as far as that year. Take the data over the whole century, as one should, and no trend whatsoever is evident. Here, Pachauri is again using the same statistical dodge he used with the UN’s bogus “warming-is-getting-worse” graph: he is choosing a short run of data and picking his start-date with care so as falsely to show a trend that, over a longer period, is not significant. 9. Pachauri said small islands like the Maldives were vulnerable to sea-level rise. Not if they’re made of coral, which is more than capable of outgrowing any sea-level rise. Besides, as Professor Morner has established, sea level in the Maldives is no higher now than it was 1250 years ago, and has not risen for half a century. 10. Pachauri said that if the ice-sheets of Greenland or West Antarctica were to melt there would be “meters of sea-level rise”. Yes, but his own climate panel has said that that could not happen for thousands of years, and only then if global mean surface temperatures stayed at least 2 C (3.5 F) warmer than today’s. 11. Pachauri said that if temperatures rose 2 C (3.5 F) 20-30% of all species would become extinct. This, too, is simply nonsense. For most of the past 600 million years, global temperatures have been 7 C (13.5 F) warmer than today, and yet here we all are. One has only to look at the number of species living in the tropics and the number living at the Poles to work out that warmer weather will if anything increase the number and diversity of species on the planet. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for Pachauri’s assertion about mass extinctions. It is simply made up. 12. Pachauri said that “global warming” would mean “lower quantities of water”. Not so. It would mean larger quantities of water vapor in the atmosphere, hence more rain. This is long-settled science – but, then, Pachauri is a railroad engineer. 13. Pachauri said that by 2100 100 million people would be displaced by rising sea levels. Now, where did we hear that figure before? Ah, yes, from the ludicrous Al Gore and his sidekick Bob Corell. There is no truth in it at all. Pachauri said he was presenting the results of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. It is quite plain: the maximum possible rate of sea-level rise is put at just 2 ft, with a best estimate of 1 ft 5 in. Sea level is actually rising at around 1 ft/century. That is all. 14. Pachauri said that he had seen for himself the damage done in Bangladesh by sea-level rise. Just one problem with that. There has been no sea-level rise in Bangladesh. At all. In fact, according to Professor Moerner, who visited it recently and was the only scientist on the trip to calibrate his GPS altimeter properly by taking readings at two elevations at least 10 meters apart, sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen a little, which is why satellite images show 70,000 sq. km more land area there than 30 years ago. Pachauri may well have seen some coastal erosion: but that was caused by the imprudent removal of nine-tenths of the mangroves in the Sunderban archipelago to make way for shrimp-farms. 15. Pachauri said we could not afford to delay reducing carbon emissions even by a year, or disaster would result. So here’s the math. There are 388 ppmv of CO2 in the air today, rising at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade. So an extra year with no action at all would warm the world by just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 C, or less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree. And only that much on the assumption that the UN’s sixfold exaggeration of CO2’s true warming potential is accurate, which it is not. Either way, we can afford to wait a couple of decades to see whether anything like the rate of warming predicted by the UN’s climate panel actually occurs. 16. Pachauri said that the cost of mitigating carbon emissions would be less than 3% of gross domestic product by 2030. The only economist who thinks that is Lord Stern, whose laughable report on the economics of climate change, produced for the British Government, used a near-zero discount rate so as artificially to depress the true cost of trying to mitigate “global warming”. To reduce “global warming” to nothing, one must close down the entire global economy. Any lesser reduction is a simple fraction of the entire economy. So cutting back, say, 50% of carbon emissions by 2030, which is what various extremist groups here are advocating, would cost around 50% of GDP, not 3%. 17. Pachauri said that solar and wind power provided more jobs per $1 million invested than coal. Maybe they do, but that is a measure of their relative inefficiency. The correct policy would be to raise the standard of living of the poorest by letting them burn as much fossil fuels as they need to lift them from poverty. Anything else is organized cruelty. 18. Pachauri said we could all demonstrate our commitment to Saving The Planet by eating less meat. The Catholic Church has long extolled the virtues of mortification of the flesh: we generally ate fish on Fridays in the UK, until the European Common Fisheries Policy meant there were no more fish. But the notion that going vegan will make any measurable impact on global temperatures is simply fatuous. It is time for Railroad Engineer Pachauri to get back to his signal-box. About the climate, as they say in New York’s Jewish quarter, he knows from nothing.Source

ClimateGate Just Got Much, Much Bigger

By Christopher C. Horner

Over at ICECAP.us Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo has posted an item on a “Russian Bombshell” highly relevant to the ClimateGate scandal. The Russian media first posted the story and now some Brits are loving it. gore_fraud The long and the short of it is best summarized by the Telegraph’s James Dellingpole: “What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.” That is, we have yet further evidence that the data is being cooked to make the long-running claim of an increase in global temperatures, and now to diminish the apparent cooling of said temps. As the gang at EU referendum tout, “it is in Soviet Union that the CRU, NOAA, NASA show the greatest warming.” Around the world temperature stations have been widely decommissioned in rural and higher elevations, and we see an over-emphasis on increasingly urbanized (and therefore warmer) stations in the curious selection process as to what temperatures should count, and how much. The latter point references the fact that the data is then adjusted, and we are also seeing an increase in adjusting urbanized (that is, artificially warm) temperature records not down, but upward. Excerpted in pertinent part, Joe Writes: On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. …The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. … IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. The reason this cherry-picking is relevant — as is the apparent similar gamesmanship being played with other countries examined in recent days including China and New Zealand — because our NOAA compiles the global dataset and the rest work from it. So when CRU claimed that it “lost” its raw data, what they’re saying is the claim to have lost which stations they chose from NOAA’s compilation, making it impossible for those who wish to check it to discern how they got the answer they did. If it is what it appears to be, and my dozen years working with these people and the past few weeks peeking further inside thanks to ClimateGate tell me that it is, then this is root-cause corruption. Meanwhile, they are scrambling madly to stitch up an agreement in Copenhagen politically committing the U.S. to the long-desired wealth-transfer. The question is which moves faster, the collapse of the increasingly likely scientific fraud, or the global governance set.Source

Environmentalists Fire Projectile at Journalist Who Raises Climategate

By Justin, ILCD Editor

More positive proof the extremist left wing environazis are completely out of control, hate any kind of debate, and try to silence any and all opposition to their flawed and false ideologies. The more we see greenies act like this, the more ridiculous they look, and are comparable to a bunch of 5 year olds who didn’t get what they wanted.

KEEP FIGHTING, PHELIM! The whole world is now laughing at the childish environmentalists, and you are the true hero of the day, once again.

Greenpeace ships targeted, proper banners displayed!

Well, we’ve all seen the massive turn in public opinion against environmental groups over the last few years, and now people are using Greenpeace-style tactics to get their message across.

The wonderful folks at CFACT and Marc Morano’s Climate Depot intercepted the infamous Greenpeace vessel, Rainbow Warrior. They then proceeded to unfurl a banner reading “Propaganda Warrior”.


They also surprised the crew of another Greenpeace vessel, the Arctic Sunrise, and proudly displayed the “Ship of Lies” banner. This relays the message of Greenpeace’s tactics of spreading climate change propaganda, myths, and exaggerations. Here’s the vid:

We tip our hat to CFACT!

100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL

By Martyn Brown

CAMPAIGNERS yesterday attempted to pour scorn on “tenuous” global warming theories by issuing a dossier detailing 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made. The list includes the controversial claim that there is “no scientific proof” that rising levels of greenhouse gases are caused by human activity. **SEE THE 100 REASONS HERE**
The report, by the respected European Foundation, also argues that a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main greenhouse gas – is not a problem because it helps to boost crop yields. And it claims that the warming we are now experiencing is “mostly natural”, pointing to historic shifts in the climate such as when Vikings farmed on Greenland in medieval times. Political analyst Jim McConalogue, who wrote the report, said: “This demonstrates how tenuous, improper and indeed false the scientific and political claims are for man-made global warming, from claims that climate change can be controlled by human activity to the proposition that CO2 emissions represent a severe threat to our way of life, when in fact there is little evidence to support any of these claims.” He warned that the Copenhagen climate summit was likely to lead to “nonsensical targets” to reduce emissions, which would result in a “burdensome regulatory agenda”. After Copenhagen, voters around the world “will see what travesty has been done in their name, as foolish politicians and indifferent industry associations have engulfed their countries in emissions legislation”. The report was issued as Gordon Brown prepared to fly out to the 192-nation Copenhagen summit today – two days early – vowing to work “tirelessly” to get a lasting deal. The talks were yesterday plunged into chaos by a half-day walkout by developing nations angry at an alleged “stitch-up” by richer countries who are responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions.Oxfam executive director Jeremy Hobbs said: “Africa has pulled the emergency cord to avoid a train crash at the end of the week. “This not about blocking the talks – it is about whether rich countries are ready to guarantee action on climate change and the survival of people in Africa and across the world.” Meanwhile, former US vice-president Al Gore – who won a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change – told the conference that new data suggested there was a 75 per cent chance the entire Arctic polar ice cap may disappear every summer within seven years. At the weekend the Environment Agency said climate change could empty rivers in southern England of trout and salmon while rising sea levels would destroy the salt marshes and mudflats needed by migrating birds. But at the European Foundation, Mr McConalogue rattled through his explanation of why global warming theories are wrong and insisted that solar activity was primarily responsible for climate change. He said: “Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. We are still not able to control the sun.” The Met Office said the only way to explain the changing climate was through a combination of natural and man-made factors. A spokesman said: “The climate has always and will always change. This natural variability is caused by various cycles, including solar activity, volcanic eruptions and ocean circulations. “Even with these elements factored in to the complex climate projection models run by the Met Office, temperature increases – and perhaps more importantly, the rate of temperature increase – can only be mirrored by the amount of greenhouse gases that are warming the atmosphere. “It is not a coincidence that this rapid warming has occurred since the industrial revolution in the mid-19th century.”

Climategate: the lawyers move in – those scientists are toast!

By James Delingpole

God bless America and – can I really be saying this? – God bless the legal profession! Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, most of the world’s other governments (save the plucky Canucks), the United Nations and the Mainstream Media (MSM) to sweep Climategate under the carpet, the lawyers are putting this shoddy scandal where it belongs: in the dock. (Hat tip: Platosays) The US Department of Energy (DOE) – under pressure, most likely, from Senator Inhofe – has issued a “Litigation Hold Notice” to its various sub-departments asking them to retain any documents pertaining to the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia. Below – reports Watts Up With That – is a copy of the notice sent to the DOE’s Savannah office in South Carolina:

“December 14, 2009 DOE Litigation Hold Notice DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

What does it mean? Big, BIG trouble for the Climategate scientists is what it means. You don’t mess with US lawyers and the reason that what might seem an essentially British affair comes under their jurisdiction is because the DOE has provided funding for these scientists. Here’s one example from the Climategate files:

From: Ben Santer < santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
To: lbutler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Re: averaging
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:08:14 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Cc: Tom Wigley < wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >, kevin trenberth < trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
Dear Lisa,

That’s great news! I’ve confirmed with DOE that I can use up to $10,000
of my DOE Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom’s Symposium. I
will check with Anjuli Bamzai at DOE to determine whether there are any
strings attached to this money. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to use
the DOE money for the Symposium dinner, and to defray some of the travel
expenses of international participants who can’t come up with their own

travel money. I’ll try to resolve this question in the next few days. Mmm. I expect you can buy quite a nice no-strings dinner for $10,000. And here’s another one of the Climategate emails from Dr Phil Jones.

From: Phil Jones < p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
To: “Neville Nicholls” < N.Nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
Subject: RE: Misc
Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005 Neville,
Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone
almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
years.
I’ll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil

Gosh. I wonder why it can be that he doesn’t want congress to know about his DOE grant. Surely transparency and integrity were ever the CRU’s watchwords? But if I were the DOE’s lawyers, I think one of the letters I’d most like to examine would be this one by the CRU’s former head Tom Wigley. To understand its significance you need first to be aware of one of the most contentious points about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) – the reliability of weather station records and the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). For chapter and verse, your man is Anthony Watts – creator of the now legendary Watts Up With That and also of this wonderfully informative site Surface Stations. Put very simply, there is great concern among sceptics that the data records used to support the IPCC’s claims about “unprecedented”and catastrophic late 20th century global warming are untrustworthy. Not only do these records rely on a dwindling number of weather surface stations whose readings have been skewed either by relocation or by the warming effects of the cities which have grown around them over the years. But also, the raw data may have been tampered with by activist scientists with a specific political agenda – as for example we saw in this story about some very dubious temperature records in Darwin, Australia. In 2007 Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog had identified serious inconsistencies in one such data record – the GIStemp record at NASA, run under the auspices of Al Gore’s favourite scientist James Hansen. He wondered whether similar rules might apply at another surface record, HadCrut, run by Phil Jones of the CRU. But when McIntyre put in a Freedom of Information request for data on the weather stations used by HadCrut, this was – predictably and quite deliberately, as we now know from the Climategate files – rebuffed. Meanwhile another researcher, British mathematician Dr Doug Keenan had also smelled a rat. His suspicions had fallen on 84 Chinese weather stations whose data was being used by CRU to inform their HadCrut record. In 1990 – as Christopher Booker reports in The Real Global Warming Disaster – two papers had appeared on these stations, one in Nature by a team led by Jones, the other by a US scientist Professor Wei-chyung Wang, who also contributed to Jones’s paper. The Jones paper stated that HadCrut had chosen stations ‘with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times’. This was confirmed in almost identical terms by the Wang paper. Both papers referred to a report produced jointly by the US Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, making a similar claim. As Booker describes it:

When Keenan examined this report he found that it contained information on only 35 of the 84 stations. But the locations of at least half of these had been moved during the period 1954-1983, in one case five times, by as much as 41 kilometres. This not only cast serious doubts on the reliability of their data but belied the claims made by Jones and Wang in their papers.

Bear in mind that Wang is one of the key players in the AGW debate – especially in the field of climate modeling and data analysis, as he describes in this biog. He is professor in Atmospheric Sciences Research at the University at Albany, in New York. He has received $7 million in grants from US federal agencies. And here he was being caught out in a case of alleged scientific fraud. This is certainly what Keenan believed and submitted a report on the affair to Wang’s university. How did the university respond? It carried out an internal review, without interviewing – or even referring to – Keenan, and without giving any reasons, announced that the charges were baseless. For the full dirt on this cover up read this report at Watts Up With That.

Climategate Round-Up #8

Alarmists act like rodents, Tony Blair says that science don’t matter and the Daily Mail won’t stop asking awkward questions. Life is good for skeptics and awful for weather hysterics, and there’s a hottie. Do Monday’s get any better than this?

The Leak/Hack

Deny, deny, deny. How damaging was the leak? Very, very damaging. And not just for the motley CRU:

ClimateGate doesn’t just bring down the scientists who wrote the emails, it brings down all the institutions and organizations that were supposed to have exacting standards and ought to have exposed the crimes years ago. The men whose work was so bogus, were lauded by the IPCC, published in Nature and Science, and defended by the National Academy of Science. This evidence of collusion, falsification, hiding data, and consistent deceit blows away the infrastructures of the practice of science. It doesn’t hurt the scientific method, but it destroys the premise that the IPCC expert review means anything, that peer review is capable of even picking up outright fraud, and that the National Academy of Science is functional.

Climategate Inconvenient Emails/Data

One atmospheric scientist suggests that the motley CRU “substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view“. The UK Met Office doubles down on stupid, but wait, what’s that… coercion? Facts, damned inconvenient when you’re trying to hobble the world’s economic engine. Steve McIntyre, statistician and kryptonite to corrupt scientists everywhere, eviscerates the IPCC ‘trick’. I believe those are Michael Mann’s credibility entrails on the floor. It has much to do with this image, read it all:

end of the green line?end of the green line?

The climategate leak/hack broke the dam, and now there is more evidence of data being maniupulated coming from around the world. The 60 second video that destroys the hockey-stick myth once and for all: .. UPDATE: CRU has removed data from it’s website. What PR advice are these folks getting? They have even less clue about how to manage the fallout from their misbehavior than they do about the scientific method.

Climategate in the Media

CNN hosted a debate between John Christy and Gavin Schmidt wherein Schmidt plays the victim and spins the email content wildly: .. Canada’s Globe and Mail notices Climategate, sort of. Reluctant acknowledgement of the scandal, complete with extra-spin cycle from Australia’s National Times:

…accusations of fraud will persist because the so-called ”debate” on climate change has veered into the realms of fantasy. The fog on the public relations battlefield has obscured the real question: how to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a fast but sensible way.

The UK’s Daily Mail does a special investigation into Climategate and gets to be the must-read link of the Round-Up:

However, Warmergate strikes at something more fundamental – the science that justifies the basic assumption that the present warming really is unprecedented, at least in the past few thousand years. Take the now-notorious email that the CRU’s currently suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, sent to his IPCC colleagues on November 16, 1999, when he wrote he had ‘just completed Mike’s Nature trick’ and had so managed to ‘hide the decline’. The CRU’s supporters have protested bitterly about the attention paid to this message. In the course of an extraordinary BBC interview in which he called an American critic an ‘****hole’ live on air, Jones’s colleague Professor Andrew Watson insisted that the fuss was completely unjustified, because all Jones had been talking about was ‘tweaking a diagram’. Davies told me that the email had been ‘taken out of context’ adding: ‘One definition of the word “trick” is “the best way of doing something”. What Phil did was standard practice and the facts are out there in the peer-reviewed literature.’ However, the full context of that ‘trick’ email, as shown by a new and until now unreported analysis by the Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre, is extremely troubling.

The Economist, once a respected paper, beclowned itself over Climategate and is taken to the woodshed for it. Seth Borenstein of The Associated Press is far too close to those he was supposed to report on, and is exposed in great detail as a shill for the warmers. Another in-the-tank ‘journalist’ Andy Revkin of the NYT repairs his reputation with the warmistas. Awkward. Climategate questions in the UK Houses of Parliament. So much for the ‘nothing to see here, move on now’ spin. A hard editorial from the Washington Times, the tip of the Climategate iceberg. Got questions about Climategate in Copenhagen? Better bring a flak jacket.

Hexploding Hippie Heads

Absent any real defense for the dishonesty and lies revealed in the Climategate emails, most hippies try to draw attention to the ‘illegal hack’ that blew the lid off their cozy hoax. But, as Horner suggests, it’s the substance, stupid. You know the difference between an alarmist and a hamster? There isn’t one. armor pantsed Head of the UN IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri has his head buried in the sand with his fingers in his ears and denies that the CRU emails and code represent a problem with climate science. A memo to members of the global warming cult. Heh. Pielke Jr. rogers the HuffPo for telling porkies. Another IPCC scientist defects from the hysteric crowd and calls the behavior ‘fraud‘. Ouch. Tony Blair, not content with having wrecked a perfectly good country, wants to see action at Hopenchangen “even if the science is not correct”. Which says it all, really.

Climategate Hottie

Sticking with the hack movie linkery, 1995’s The Net told a tale of online chicanery. It also featured Sandra Bullock, which was nice. Welcome then, Mrs. Jesse James to the Round-Up:

*click*click

Thanks for reading.Source

Copenhagen Climate Conspirators should all Walk Home

For Immediate Release 13th December 2009 A Statement by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia.
 “They should all Walk Home.”
The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that the Climate Conspirators attending the Copenhagen Carnival should all walk home.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes, added:

“Right now, over 15,000 green hypocrites, mostly funded by the world’s suffering tax payers, have winged their way in comfortable carbon-fuelled air travel to Copenhagen’s best VIP accommodation. There they will be seeking ways to forcibly reduce our carbon footprint while inflating theirs.

“Top rated airlines are booming as prominent people top up their frequent flyer carbon credits. Concierges are smiling as limousines glide in, full of exalted envoys with their entourage of minders and courtiers. Lights are blazing, air conditioners humming, kitchens cooking, champagne bubbling and caviar disappearing.

“The Global Warming Industry will also be there, creating scares, drowning polar bears, melting ice, generating publicity, demanding handouts, seeking exemptions, defending paper credits, and pushing for subsidies and special deals.

“And of course we will have battalions of largely gullible and fawning media, many also from government media monoliths touring on the tab of the tax payers.

“We are told that Australian tax payers have sent 114 official delegates there, all concerned to reduce our consumption of carbon fuels.

“If they are fair dinkum, they should all lead by example, use Green Energy, and walk home.”

Climate-gate aftermath: It’s now time to prioritize real problems

Last month the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) was caught red-handed fabricating data on research of climate change. Phil Jones, the head of the CRU which consists of some of the preeminent climatologists in the world, has resigned in shame. Michael Mann, a Penn State climatologist who is also at the heart of this collusion is under investigation. This data is used by many all over the world to justify that man is causing global warming.And now NASA is being sued for fabricating data on anthropogenic global warming after changing their opinion on 1934 being the hottest year on record to 1998 without providing any shred of evidence.The effects of this travesty are reaching to all corners of the globe. India is refusing to go forward spending their time and treasure to combat this hoax. Australia has stood against the eco-radical agenda by shooting down a climate change bill similar to the cap-and-trade monstrosity currently being debated in Congress. Saudi Arabia has called for a formal investigation with the United Nations. The GOP here in the United States is also pushing for a formal inquiry.Oh boy, when it rains, it pours!There absolutely and unequivocally is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming exists and/or is caused fully, or in part, by humans. It is shocking that these discredited climatologists base their data on the temperatures from the last 100 years. The Earth is billions of years old and has witnessed many variations in temperature. Using the last 100 years to explain temperature changes for the history of the planet is utterly ridiculous. That is like saying that because it rained today that means it must have rained everyday this year.Don’t take my word for it; take a gander at some of the peer-reviewed articles arguing that global warming is cyclical. Or perhaps read the book, “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 years,” by Virginia’s own world renowned climate physicist S. Fred Singer.Do eco-radicals come from such privileged lives that they really think there aren’t serious problems in the world like starvation, poverty, war and disease? How do they justify creating problems out of thin air? I guess if there is a profit to be made then that makes it right in their eyes. The scientists at the CRU were receiving millions in research grants. As long as there was proof of anthropogenic global warming then they would continue to receive funding.The fact is that eco-radicals amount to modern day alchemists who wasted their lives trying to turn lead into gold. In the end, no matter how much you want something impossible to be true it just doesn’t add up.With this Climategate scandal, global warming is no longer a legitimate scientific fact, it’s a punch line. Additionally, the attacks that global warming alarmists level at detractors are shameful.The always courageous Sarah Palin punched eco-radicals in the mouth this week with a hard-hitting op-ed on the politics of climate change. Palin, who enrages the left every time she opens her mouth, signs a book, or walks down the street, increased their anger by having the boldness to publish it in the liberal bible that is the Washington Post.She was quickly lambasted by Al Gore and other eco-radicals, many of whom argued that she isn’t a scientist, has no basis for her opinions, and is a “flat-earther.”Of course, Al Gore, whose higher education resume on the environment includes taking one college course in 1967, somehow seems to qualify him as an “expert” on anthropogenic global warming.Never mind that Palin, who addresses this in her op-ed, created a subcabinet as the Governor of Alaska to address climate change and witnessed its cyclical effects first hand from the only arctic state in the country.The great Senator Inhofe (R-OK) perhaps summed up the hypocrisy of anthropogenic global warming the best when he said, “Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked.’’ Now that time is over with the shame of the fabrication of scientific data.As he mockingly proclaimed, “We won, you lost, get a life.”Now let’s please start focusing our efforts on solving real problems.Source