'Cap and Trade Is Dead'

Wall Street Journal

So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. “Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in.” If any politician might be qualified to offer last rites, it would be Mr. Inhofe. The top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee has spent the past decade in the thick of Washington’s climate fight. He’s seen the back of three cap-and-trade bills, rode herd on an overweening Environmental Protection Agency, and steadfastly insisted that global researchers were “cooking” the science behind man-made global warming. This week he’s looking prescient. The more than 3,000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have found their way to the Internet have blown the lid off the “science” of manmade global warming. CRU is a nerve center for many of those researchers who have authored the United Nations’ global warming reports and fueled the political movement to regulate carbon. Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn’t toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow,” glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents “could scarcely be more damaging.” And that’s from a believer. This scandal has real implications. Mr. Inhofe notes that international and U.S. efforts to regulate carbon were already on the ropes. The growing fear of Democrats and environmentalists is that the CRU uproar will prove a tipping point, and mark a permanent end to those ambitions. Internationally, world leaders finally acknowledged that the recession has sapped them of their political power to impose devastating new carbon-restrictions. China and India are clear they won’t join the West in an economic suicide pact. Next month’s summit in Copenhagen is a bust. Instead of producing legally binding agreements, it will be dogged by queries about the legitimacy of the scientists who wrote the reports that form its basis. The next opportunity to get international agreement is in Mexico City, 2010—a U.S. election year. Democrats were already publicly acknowledging there will be no domestic climate legislation in 2009 and privately acknowledging their great unease at passing a huge energy tax on Americans headed for a midterm vote. Add to that the CRU scandal, which pivots the focus to potential fraud. Republicans are launching investigations, and the pressure is building on Democrats to hold hearings, since climate scientists were funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Mr. Inhofe’s office this week sent letters to federal agencies and outside scientists warning them not to delete their own CRU-related emails and documents, which may also be subject to Freedom of Information requests. Polls show a public already losing belief in the theory of man-made global warming, and skeptics are now on the offense. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell argues this scandal gives added cover to Blue Dogs and other Democrats who were already reluctant to buck the public’s will and vote for climate legislation. And with Republicans set to pick up seats, Mr. Ebell adds, “By 2011 there will hopefully be even fewer members who support this. We may be close to having it permanently stymied.” Continued U.S. failure to act makes an international agreement to replace Kyoto (which expires in 2012) a harder sell. There’s still the EPA, which is preparing an “endangerment finding” that would allow it to regulate carbon on the grounds it is a danger to public health. It is here the emails might have the most direct effect. The agency has said repeatedly that it based its finding on the U.N. science—which is now at issue. The scandal puts new pressure on the EPA to accede to growing demands to make public the scientific basis of its actions. Mr. Inhofe goes so far as to suggest that the agency might not now issue the finding. “The president knows how punitive this will be; he’s never wanted to do it through [the EPA] because that’s all on him.” The EPA was already out on a legal limb with its finding, and Mr. Inhofe argues that if it does go ahead, the CRU disclosure guarantees court limbo. “The way the far left used to stop us is to file lawsuits and stall and stall. We’ll do the same thing.” Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it’s that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They’d be better off acknowledging that the only “consensus” right now is that the world needs to start over on climate “science.” Write to kim@wsj.comSource

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

By James Delingpole

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would. ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme. Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation. Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots. Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve. For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news. Where they lead, the rest of the world’s politicians will eventually be forced to follow: their appalled electorates will make sure of it.Source

Climategate merchandise: WEAR THE DECLINE

By Tim Blair

“What really annoys me about this whole thing,” comments Chilly in Connecticut, “is that it’s been out there for 24 hours already, and I still can’t find anyplace to buy a Hide the Decline t-shirt.” You can now, Chilly:

image

Also available: mugs, bags, aprons and so on. This could lead to a whole line of fashionable denialist – or correctivist – wear. Meanwhile, here’s a leftist’s view of the CRU email scandal:

If this is revealed to be motivated by a wish to derail political action at Copenhagen or what may come after, those responsible have committed crimes against humanity.

An insider may face the firing squad … when solar rifles are invented. UPDATE. Waaah! Waaaaaah! Raymond T. Pierrehumbert is one upset academic:

This is a criminal act of vandalism and of harassment of a group of scientists that are only going about their business doing science. It represents a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth This illegal act of cyber-terrorism against a climate scientist (and I don’t think that’s too strong a word) is ominous and frightening. What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models? Or at the next level, since the forces of darkness have moved to illegal operations, will we all have to get bodyguards to do climate science?

He says “deliberate monkeying with data” as though it’s a bad thing. Keep on hiding the decline, Raymond. UPDATE II. Graham Readfearn provides “some perspective and context on this story” by using the word “illegal” four times. I prefer the term “civil disobedience”. UPDATE III. Previously from Andrew Revkin, whose NYT blog published Pierrehumbert’s exquisite howl:

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

A new slogan for the NYT: “All the news that is intended for the public eye.” Michael Goldfarb responds: “Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation …” Another reason Revkin would prefer that the emails remain concealed: Revkin’s friendly missives are among them. Michael Mann calls him “Andy”. UPDATE IV. Paul Connor, currently starving himself because he thinks the weather is wrong, says breaking laws is just fine, especially when climate matters are involved. So our whistle-blower is off the hook.

Source

Global Warming Fraud: Somebody Needs to Go to Jail

By Alan Caruba

The revelations that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) doctored the data supporting the global warming claims of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) means that EVERYTHING attributed to or based upon “global warming” is invalid.

It means the Kyoto Climate Protocols that nations agreed to on December 11, 1997 and which entered into force on February 16 2005, and all subsequent agreements based on “global warming” have no validity, scientifically or as the basis for public action by any nation, state, province, city or town.

It means that Al Gore’s pusillanimous “documentary” is a fraud along with just about every other statement uttered by any scientist, academician, or politician claiming that something, anything, should be done to avoid “global warming.”

There is no “global warming”, if by that discredited term, you mean a dramatic increase in the Earth’s temperature, the vast rising of ocean levels, the melting of the polar ice caps, and the thousands of other things attributed to a massive fraud orchestrated by the IPCC and a vast network of scientists and environmental groups that benefited from the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars they received in grants and other payments for their “research.”

Global warming, allegedly the result of rising levels of “greenhouse gas emissions”, primarily carbon dioxide (C02), underwrites the sale of “carbon credits” that industries, utilities, and other entities purchased for the “right” to use energy and as further revelations about the doctoring and virtual invention of false scientific data become known, it means those sales were a complete fraud.

It was never really a secret. You could have read about in “Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know” and a dozen other books I can put my hand on this very moment. The only thing missing was the proverbial “smoking gun” and the revelations about the CRU now confirms what the “deniers” and “skeptics” kept saying.

It’s worth keeping in mind that in several Northeastern States, utilities were required by law to purchase these worthless carbon credits and spend millions, not on improvements to the electric grid, not on building more capacity to serve their customers, but on what is worthless paper.

Someone needs to go to jail.

The release of thousands of emails and other data, now believed to be the work of a conscious-stricken CRU insider, will as they are examined in detail reveal what has long been known to those actively opposing the “global warming” fraud. As Christopher Horner, the author of “Red Hot Lies”, recently noted, the CRU and its lead scientists refused for years to release the data which they alleged proved that “global warming” was happening.

This data and the periodic reports of the IPCC are the basis for the existence of the IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the “cap-and-trade” legislation awaiting a vote in the U.S. Congress. Horner observed “After running out of excuses, in September CRU’s Phil Jones simply claimed that he had lost the data so, sorry, no one can check it.” Horner called it “implausible beyond comprehension.”

And yet the United States and the representatives of many other nations will gather in Copenhagen in December for yet another UN conference on climate change, the now preferred synonym for “global warming.” Basing any international treaty on climate change or global warming is an utterly deceitful act.

The IPCC conference is based on the original Kyoto Protocol and, since there is no global warming, and since the science supporting it has been revealed to be false and misleading, no action should be taken other to disband the IPCC entirely.

All U.S. laws and regulations based on the so-called “global warming” should be reexamined and exorcised from the Congressional Register and from all state bodies of law. Most certainly, “cap-and-trade” should be withdrawn from further consideration.

Beyond that, school books about the environment must now be reviewed to determine how much of their content is invalid as well.

The undoing of this fraud must begin and begin NOW!

Climategate Round-Up #2

The CRU hack/leak story is moving fast, and it’s tough to keep up, but fear not, for another bonus round-up is here to help.

Did the BBC hide the story for a month? Did Phil Jones know he’d be compared to a famous but unpleasant Presidential emission? You’ll be surprised what you can learn. Oh, and I turned up the snark-o-matic, enjoy.

The Leak/Hack

BBC weatherman Paul Hudson confirms the leaked emails are genuine. He knows this because they were emailed to him in October. The obvious questions are, who emailed it to him, and why did Hudson not think evidence of corruption and collusion worthy of reporting?

Was it a hack, or a leak? Maybe it was neither.

Lord Lawson, Thatcherite ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, demands a public enquiry into the exposed malpractice and deception of the motley CRU.

Sen. Inhofe makes me look like a genius and demands an investigation. Thanks, Jim.

Pile on! The CEI sues NASA/GISS for ignoring FOIA requests. For any lefties reading, this is a face palm moment. Go ahead, we’ll wait.

not the WWF again

not the WWF again

If it was a leak, whodunnit?
Malkin notes that enquiries are being demanded on both sides of the Atlantic. Popcorn, bring me it.

It’s the fraud, stupid.

The Inconvenient Emails/Data

Revenge of the nerds: a programmer trawls through the leaked CRU code and giggles mightily at what he finds. Settled science, what science? James Taranto on the revelations of corruption.

Revenge of the nerds part deux: a statistician digs into the code, and is unimpressed.

Viscount Monkton reviewed the data and emails and determines that the motley CRU are criminals. Ouch, don’t sugar coat it or anything.

The CRU leak undermines scientist’s credibility and the IPCC’s ability to push junk science at a very bad time for the alarmists as they pack their bags for Hopenchangen in Copenhagen.
hopenchangen
The motley CRU made ASSes of themselves.
Freakonomicist Dubner see the ugly side of science.
Warmist believers cannot believe what they are finding out about the people they trusted were selling them, and boy, are they upset.

Do Jones et al’s repeated statements about denying FOI requests mean that the data set wasn’t lost, but deleted?

The CRU Hack/Leak in the Media

The Australian covers the bunfight between alarmists and skeptics, giving fair weight to the inconvenient truths exposed in the CRU leak.
Planet Gore compares the CRU leak to Clintonesque spooge on a blue dress. Apologies for the imagery, but they said it.

The Washington Post weighs in and picks on Jones and Mann.
The Chicago Observer wants an apology from the warmistas. Perhaps when hell freezes over. And it might, apparently climate models aren’t all that great.

The Daily Telegraph asks readers what they think of the leak, with predictable results.
The fix is in. You don’t say?

The Washington Times: Hiding evidence of global cooling, Junk science exposed among climate-change believers

The WSJ piles on. And then reports on the lawmakers waking up to the scandal.

Hippie Heads Exploding

The New York Times released information that compromised US national security, but won’t publish the CRU documents. Agenda, much?

The Guardian’s George Monbiot apologizes for being a credulon* but then tries to gloss over the seriousness of the CRU leak by writing a (bad) satirical piece. I warned you, remember that.

can you tell he's a leftie?

he’s a leftie, does it show?

The University of East Anglia, site of the CRU, issues a reaction to the hack/leak that will look pretty silly if it turns out not to be a hack. Shamefully, they have no condemnation of the scientific malpractice, bullying and deception committed by their team, just words about how hackers are bad.

It’s a good thing hippies are allergic to soap, because somebody needs to go to jail. And he doesn’t mean the hacker.

Unpredictable Andy Revkin hosts a debate about whether the leak is more serious than what it uncovered. Right now, alarmists cling to the hope that the release of the data was a hack, because if it was a leak, their primary defense will disappear faster than President Obama when a tough decision is needed.

Phil Jones, CRU leader, wonders if his age is a problem understanding the cooling trend. Cluebat for Phil, it’s not your age that’s deficient, it’s your ethics.
Believers explain their point of view about the inconvenient truth: shut up!

*Credulon = A Credulous Moron ( or AGW believer)

Because it’s just not a round-up without a hottie. Continuing the hacker theme from yesterday, Sneakers starred Robert Redford. Redford co-starred in Spy Games with Brad Pitt, whose current Mrs. was yesterday’s hottie. So here’s his ex, Jennifer Aniston. You’re welcome.
jenani3
Thanks for reading.

Source

Statistics con the final nail in Rudd’s climate change coffin

‘Until last week, Bernard Madoff was considered biggest fraud in world history’ — now it’s ClimateGate

By Piers Akerman
UNTIL last Friday, Wall Street’s scammer Bernard Madoff was considered the biggest fraud in world history, having taken his greedy clients for an estimated $US64.8 billion. Madoff’s fraud has been put in the shade however by the extraordinary web of scandal which has been revealed by leaked emails from the Hadley Centre (University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit) over the last few days, which certainly appear to demonstrate that a group of the most prominent scientists advising the United Nations on global warming have systematically manipulated data to support their argument that global warming is both genuine and caused by humans. Apart from a weak claim the leaked material was “out of context”, there was no denial of the authenticity of the 3000-plus documents and 61 megabites of hacked data and emails put on the net on the weekend. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who has called climate change the greatest moral issue facing the world, would be wise to withdraw the ETS Bill before the Senate or risk looking an even greater idiot if the emails can’t be refuted. He will be shown to have recklessly endangered the national economy by relying on falsified data to run his fear and smear campaign against credible critics and make his extravagant claims of global disaster. Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull also should draw breath and consider the basis of his support for the ETS as the rest of the world looks into Climategate and considers how the UN was able to bankroll what appears a rogue group of climate scientists hell-bent on justifying their claims with dodgy data. Recently, Britain’s new high commissioner to Australia, the politico Baroness Valerie Amos, introduced herself to Canberra with an address at the National Press Club at which she lectured Australians over their growing reluctance to embrace the accepted wisdom on global warming. “I have been surprised that the science itself is being questioned,” she said. “These are things where there have been debates over a long period of time in other countries and where we have reached conclusions and moved on. “In the UK, there is a degree of political consensus about what in broad terms needs to be done. There is a lot of debate about how we do it. You would certainly not see on a daily basis . . . the kind of negative reporting that you have here,” she thundered. As the baroness now wipes egg from her face, she might think it is a pity there was not more negative reporting earlier in the UK, and she and her Labor government would not look as stupid as they do now. Baroness Amos might tell Australia what her prime minister, Gordon Brown, plans to do about this scandal. A full investigation is clearly needed, but after that what? As those involved have not denied the evidence presented in the leaked emails, and presuming they would have, if they could have, shown they did not falsify and manipulate data to satisfy what is now a political agenda, their scientific reputations must remain under a cloud. Rudd Labor’s propaganda machine is in overdrive presenting doomsday scenarios which now appear to be totally baseless. It would be an absolute folly for the Copenhagen meeting to continue before there are answers to all the questions raised by Climategate, and an even greater foolishness for the Opposition to back the Government’s ETS, based as it is on manipulated data. Rudd recently claimed that those who don’t agree with the global warming theory were “deniers”, but it now seems they were just people who weren’t ready to be easily fooled.

Source ht: Climate Depot

ClimateGate Round-Up by The Daily Bayonet

Here’s a bonus round-up of all things Hadley CRU hack/leak. The Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round Up will still appear here on Thursday, fear not. The site at the center of the storm is Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre’s web lair. If you have trouble getting it to load (because lots of people just discovered that the science isn’t settled), try the mirror site. Already there are calls for a public enquiry in the UK, and you can bet that Michael Mann’s involvement will interest Senator Inhofe. It’s about time someone took Mann to task, that Miami Vice remake was terrible.

The Leak/Hack

Gore Lied has a good chronology of how it all started, Genesis of a Hack/Leak The Air Vent, where the files first appeared, finds Collusion, Corruption, Manipulation and Obstruction, and that’s just for starters. The Examiner follows the idea that the CRU data and email release was not a hack, but a leak. Toldya. Dr. Tim Ball (more of him below) sees the leak as the death blow to climate science. Heh. One climate scientist thinks the leak is appalling. Not because what was said between the CRU wiseguys is wrong, but because the emails were cherry-picked. Maybe Briffa leaked them? Powerline takes a look at the less than purist scientific method of the motley CRU. In climate science, the results are fitted to the agenda. What the leak/hack has done is simple but devastating, it has destroyed the IPCC’s credibility. As polls around the world show the public suffering from green fatigue, you can guarantee that some politicians will use the scandal to delay and eventually back away from what will soon be a toxic mess.

The Inconvenient Emails/Data

It didn’t take long for the enterprising blogger at An Elegant Chaos to compile the data into a searchable form. Go there and see what you can find, there’s still lots to go through. Andrew Bolt, an inconvenient Aussie, details some of the more egregious emails and finds so-called leading scientific minds colluding to ruin the careers of those that disagree:

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 !

That pesky hockey stick, and its author, Michael Mann, are at the center of the CRU hack/leak. manns-stick
Bishop Hill has a great summary of some of the emails, revealing a thread of censorship and bunker mentality protectionism among the world’s leading climate ’scientists’. Watergate led to shredding parties, but for the motley CRU pressing ‘DEL’ to conceal the ugly truth behind their corrupt science was easier. Why the leak matters, from a Brit devil. Alan Caruba has a lot to say about what the leaked data tells us about the scientists and the science behind the great global warming hoax. The scientists charlatans revealed by the Hadley CRU leak prefer to focus on the legality of the data’s release, but in the end, it might be themselves on the wrong side of the law. Misleading governments, denying fair FOIA requests and deleting data are all serious no-no’s and the actions have consequences. Even believers are having a hard time swallowing the science now the deception is revealed. While early analysis and headlines have been based on the emails leaked, it may be that more damaging evidence lies in the code that was leaked. Slimate scaremongers have a long record of discounting skeptical research from any scientist that received so much as a free mug with a tank of gas. How inconvenient then that we can see exactly how much money the motley CRU received from Big Green.

The Hadley CRU Hack/Leak in the Media

Of all the cable news folks, guess who was the only channel running with the story? Hint: It’s not owned by GE. Andrew revkin, the NYT’s paid global warming shill was inconveniently outed in the leak as being an insider, getting exclusive access from Mann, Jones etc. Although they called him ‘unpredictable Andy’, he did his best to cover for his friends. More Andrew Bolt on the CRU emails in the media. Dr. Tim Ball, all around smart dude and skeptic, has a few things to say about the ‘battery of machine guns’ revelations from the Hadley hack:
.. The UK’s Daily Mail was one of the first mainstream papers to pick up the story, and you can be certain that some lefties swooned when they read ‘the global warming con’ headline. The Telegraph’s tame skeptic James Delingpole reviews the first few days of coverage (or non-coverage) in the media. The WSJ covers the leak, but not much of the content. Science, what science? The LA Times, at the bleeding edge of the legacy media’s headlong rush to irrelevance, moves the goalposts to avoid dealing with the CRU fallout. Australian papers run with the story. Or do they? The Mail notes how the scientists at the CRU continually blocked skeptics FOIA requests and has a nice little profile of Phil Jones:

Jonesclick to enlarge

American Thinker has excellent analysis of the ‘fraud’ committed in the name of selling junkscience. The Telegraph headlines with ‘Climate scientists accused of ‘manipulating global warming data’. Ouch.

Hippies React

Scaremonger George Marshall has a conniption in The Guardian about the leaks and how the East Anglia University blew the PR spin of the CRU leak/hack. Also, whilst calling skeptics conspiracy nuts, he goes on to say:

I suspect it goes further than that. The storyline is too clever, the timing on the brink of Copenhagen and the US climate bill too convenient. I wait with interest to find out how these emails were obtained.

You couldn’t make it up.

it's been a rough weekend for hippiesit’s been a rough weekend for hippies

DeSmogBlog focuses on the ‘hack’ and ignores the inconvenient truths revealed about climate ’scientist’s’ thuggery, collusion and data manipulation. I give it a week before we find out that it was more leak than hack, which means that the desmoggers will have to come up with a whole new spin cycle. Heh. Dyed-in-the-wool hippie FriedGreen goes all street and wants to hit back, hard. So much for peace and love, brother. Joltin Joe reacted badly, then decided to remind his followers that Gaia is still doomed. Poor Joe still thinks that ’science’ is credible and that the world will forget about the Hadley CRU. They won’t, and that turns his universe upside down and makes him the denier. RealClimate laughs in the face of disaster, bragging that there is no proof of a conspiracy:

There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords

then they too go on to wonder about… a conspiracy:

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental.

CRU Hack/Leak Hottie

I can’t abandon round up tradition, so here is a hottie. Astute readers will know that she once played a hacker in, err, Hackers. Skeptics, give a warm Monday welcome to Mrs. Pitt, Angelie Jolie.

*click*click

If you see any stories not featured here, feel free to add them in the comments. Thanks for reading.Source

WarmerGate: Lord Lawson calls for inquiry into global warming data 'manipulation'


Lord Lawson, the former UK chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

By Matthew Moore
Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years. This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated. He claimed that the credibility of the university’s world-renowned Climatic Research Unit – and British science – were under threat. “They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth,” he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme. “If there’s an explanation for what’s going on they can make that explanation.” Around 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents were stolen from UEA computers by hackers last week and uploaded on to a Russian server before circulating on websites run by climate change sceptics. Some of the correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers. One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre’s director, in 1999, reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Prof Jones has insisted that he used the word “trick” to mean a “clever thing to do”, rather than to indicate deception. He has denied manipulating data. Another scientist whose name appears in the documents accused the hackers of attempting to undermine the drive for a global consensus at next month’s Copenhagen summit. Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research accused climate change sceptics of cherry-picking the documents and taking them out of context. Meanwhile, hopes that a legally binding treaty on cutting emissions will be agreed at Copenhagen have been boosted by the news that more than 60 world leaders plan to attend. Last week Lord Lawson, who served as chancellor for six years under Margaret Thatcher, told The Daily Telegraph that he planned to establish a think tank to challenge the consensus that drastic action is needed to combat global warming.

Related Article: Climate scientists accused of ‘manipulating data’

Source

Global Warming Meltdown: Climategate!

By Alan Caruba

For those of us “skeptics” and “deniers” who have been jumping up and down, pointing at the Sun, and saying, “See, it’s the Sun that determines how warm or cool the Earth is. See it? Up there in the sky?” The truth about some of the scientists behind the global warming hoax has finally arrived.

The hoax has its roots in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an instrument of the United Nations Environmental Program, for whom global warming was the open sesame to achieving a one-world-government by scaring nations into signing a treaty that would control their use of energy, the means of producing it, and require vast billions to be sent to less developed nations in exchange for “emitting” greenhouse gases.

Energy is called “the master resource” because, if you have lots of it, you can call your own shots. If you don’t, you are condemned to live in the dark and keeping people in the dark about the global warming hoax was essential.

For years the IPCC has been controlled by a handful of the worst liars in the world, utterly devoted to taking actual climate data and twisting it to confirm the assertion that the Earth was not only warming dramatically, but that humanity was in peril of rising oceans, melting glaciers and polar ice caps, more hurricanes, the die-off of countless animal species, and every other calamity that could possibly be attributed to “global warming”, including acne.

So, around November 20, when some enterprising individual hacked into the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), making off with thousands of emails and documents that demonstrate the level of collusion and deception being practiced by its scientists.

It’s a climate hoax expose that some are calling the revelations a “little blue dress” while others are comparing it to the Pentagon Papers. It has also been dubbed “climategate.”

As James Delingpole wrote in the Telegraph, one of England’s leading newspapers, “Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more” was revealed in the 61 megabites of confidential files released on the Internet for anyone to read.

The conspirators had a visceral hatred for scientists who challenged their phony statistics and climate data, but they also agonized over the difficulties of hiding a long established climate cycle such as the Medieval Warm Period. At one point it was left out of a graph that famously became known as “the hockey stick” because it depicted a ludicrous sudden rise in warming, ignoring the previous natural cycle.

At the heart of the revelations were the intense efforts to ensure that no legitimate scientist, particularly those dissenting from the various IPCC reports, would be allowed to participate in the peer review process. Peer review is an essential element in science as it permits other scientists to examine and test the data being put forth to substantiate a new interpretation or discovery.

The IPCC reports were the basis by which popular media such as National Geographic, Time and Newsweek magazines could spread the lies about a dramatic “global warming”, passing them off to an unsuspecting and scientifically illiterate general public. At the same time, the lies were integrated them into school curriculums and maintained by Hollywood celebrities, politicians and others, duped or deliberately ignorant.

To this day, otherwise legitimate news media outlets continue to trumpet and repeat absolute nonsense about “global warming” like brain-dead parrots.

Now that Hadley CRU and its conspirators have been exposed, there truly is no need to hold a December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen; one in which nations would be required to put limits on “greenhouse gas emissions” even though such gases, primarily carbon dioxide, have nothing to do with altering the Earth’s climate.

And that is why you are going to hear more about “climate change” and far less about “global warming.” Hidden in such discussions, intended to justify legislation and regulation, is that the Earth’s climate has always and will always change.

It is, for example, shameful and deceitful for the EPA to claim carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that should be regulated. The same applies to “cap-and-trade” legislation with the same purpose.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on studies of global warming and poured into agencies such as NASA that have lent credence to the global warming hoax.

“The U.S. taxpayer has much exposure here in the joint projects and collaborations which operated in reliance upon what the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was doing,” says Christopher C. Horner, a longtime global warming skeptic. “There are U.S. taxpayer-funded offices and individuals involved in the machinations addressed in the emails, and in the emails themselves.”

Horner, the author of “Red Hot Lies”, said that the initial revelations “give the appearance of a conspiracy to defraud, by parties working in taxpayer funded agencies collaborating on ways to misrepresent material on which an awful lot of taxpayer money rides.”

The climate, defined as long term trends, and the weather has nothing whatever to do with human activity and suggesting it does reveals the depth of contempt that people like Al Gore and his ilk have for humanity and those fleeced by purchasing “carbon credits” or paying more for electricity when their utility does.

The East Anglia CRU charlatans have been exposed. Most certainly, the United Nations IPCC should be disbanded in disgrace. It belongs in a museum of hoaxes right beside the Piltdown Man and the Loch Ness Monster.

Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.

Climategate: Mainstream media catching on

By Jeff Id, The Air Vent
While Real Climate attempts to bullcrap this under the rug. Fox News has picked up the story as their headline post. They don’t know the issues like we do but still did a decent job. No mention of tAV – darn. It’s better not to be at ground zero though and several others linked here.

Climate Skeptics See ‘Smoking Gun’ in Researchers’ Leaked E-Mails

The Examiner has had it for a while, as has the Guardian and the Telegraph. Rush Limbaugh carried it and the Drudge Report ran a piece. Are there any other MSM links around? FOX, Telegraph, Wall St Journal, BBC, Nature, Register, NPR, Guardian, New Scientist, National Review Source