Exclusive footage of Climategate reactions.
Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.” If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases. Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide. Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position.What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic Ã la Al Gore.Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor. Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.The revelation of ClimateÂgate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate. Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.Source by Neil Frank
How better to spend the dog days between Christmas and New Year than to catch up on your favorite climate conspiracy. Grab another eggnog and a mince pie, I have a mini-linkapalooza for you. If you missed them, Climategate Round-Ups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Thou Shalt Not Delete. So sayeth the Department of the Environment, in lawyer speak. The notice is too late for the very absent Phil Jones, who has received a few bucks from the DoE, but also has been careless with data. Oops. The Russki’s point a finger at CRU and accuses them of manipulating data to show more warming. Ouch, da? More on the Russian accusations:
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. …
Global warming believers react to the Russian accusation, by attempting to discredit the accusers instead of questioning their faith. The revelations aren’t over yet, there’s more gold in them thar emails.
Climategate Inconvenient Emails/Data
Climategate brought very inconvenient science to light, and the neo-deniers try to explain away their deceit and corruption with terms like ‘noise’. Here’s a post that takes the ‘noise’ excuse and shoves it where the Sun don’t shine. Take that, alarmists. How bad was the CRU code and programming? Let’s ask a professional: .. Jo Nova charts the 30 years it took to manufacture Climategate. If you look at nothing else, check out her chart, it’s a work of art. Climate scientists, or common thugs and bullies? You decide.
Climategate in the Media
The Tyee bemoans the inept response of the ’scientific’ community to Climategate. Can’t say why they’re upset, the PR response is about as coherent as the science, so at least the global warming alchemists are consistent in their incompentence. Will Heaven, the appropriately named Telegraph writer on Catholicism and religion (I kid you not) met Delingpole face to face. Poor Will still can’t understand why the world’s newest religion is falling apart. The ripples of the Climategate fallout have reaches the doorstep of railway engineer Rajendra Pachaury, and the laundry list of his conflicts of interest makes Al Gore look like a rank amateur. Monckton piles on. Pachauri calls it a ‘pack of lies’, but that won’t save him when the UN starts looking for a scapegoat.
When polls attack. Even loaded questions from alarmist organizations fail to hide the fact that fewer people than ever believe the carbon scaremongers hoax.
Hippie Heads Exploding
One of the IPCC authors turns on his own, and blows the lid off how IPCC reports are put together.
The second problem is that the technical publication is not completed by the time the IPCC reports. Instead, it produces a Summary for Policy Makers. Writing the s ummary involves the co-ordinators, the reviewers and the IPCC functionaries as before, and also various chairmen. The summary goes out in a blaze of publicity, but there is no means of checking whether it represents what the scientists actually said, because the scientific report isn’t published for another four months or more. In the Fourth Assessment, the summary was quietly replaced several months after it was first published because some scientists who were involved complained of misrepresentation.
The New Scientist decides that enough is enough, it’s time to hit back against Climategate. But instead of trying to answer the growing list of questions raised by the CRU leak, NS just tries to discredit skeptics with tired old arguments. That rushing sound you hear is the NS haemorrhaging subscribers, read the comments. Uh Oh, dirty rotten hippie scoundrels are discovering that the burden of proof has suddenly reversed polarities:
You can feel that most crucial of propaganda processes happening with Climategate: the reversing of the burden of proof. Unfair to all the fraud detectives (Watts, McIntyre, and the rest of them, including Monkton himself) though it undoubtedly was, those noble toilers, until the Climategate revelations erupted, had to prove everything, in defiance of the default position. Their every tiny blemish was jumped upon. Their major claims were ignored. Now the default position is slowly mutating into: It’s all made-up nonsense. And the burden of proof is shifting onto the shoulders of all those who want to go on believing in such ever more discredited alarmism.
In Soviet Union, not everything is gray and cold. CRU might feel like to manipulate Russian data, but smarter skeptics prefer to admire the statistics of Russians like Anna Kournikova, da? Thanks for reading.Source by The Daily Bayonet
‘Global warming skeptics all stood shoulder to shoulder with NASA’s James Hansen in hoping Copenhagen would fail’
Watch Marc Morano on Canada’s BNN here.
The crash and burn of the UN summit has become the most wonderful Christmas gift for the entire world.
Washington Times Editorial
Last week’s Copenhagen summit surrendered all pretense to significance when it turned into a showcase for dictators’ attempts to greenwash their bloody regimes. Granting the spotlight to the tyrannical trio of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez so they could express their profound concern for Mother Earth is like asking former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his prostitute Ashley Dupre to propound upon the state of marriage. Mr. Mugabe used the opportunity to blame global warming for the deaths of millions of his subjects. No doubt his country turned from food exporter to famine because of coal electric plants in Idaho. Of course, driving thousands of farmers from their land, rejecting modern farming methods, confiscating his people’s wealth and turning his nation into a police state have little to do with Zimbabwean poverty. “When we spew hazardous emissions for selfish, consumptionist ends, in the process threatening land masses and atmospheric space of smaller and weaker nations, are we not guilty of gross human rights violations?” Mr. Mugabe asked. In case you didn’t recognize him, that’s the good dictator, the campaigner for human rights and pollution control. In Mr. Ahmadinejad’s case, he unsurprisingly pushed an agenda of spreading nuclear technology to all nations. In a slight oversight, the misunderstood Iranian president failed to mention his desperate hurry to create a nuclear arsenal. No matter, the good Mr. Ahmadinejad is about saving the environment with a profound commitment to disarmament. “Would it not be better that part of the military funds of some countries be dedicated to improving the welfare of people and reducing pollution?” pleaded the green Iranian dictator. That’s rather an ironic color choice, as Mr. Ahmadinejad recently stole elections from an opposition party using green as its signature campaign color. Not to be left out is Mr. Chavez as representative of a nation feverishly arming for war with its neighbors, nationalizing whole industries and silencing the opposition press. He believes, “The cause of all this disastrous situation is the destructive capitalist system. … Capitalism is the road to hell.” No doubt the tanks Mr. Chavez is buying from Russia will come with efficient hybrid engines and will be used only to demand that neighboring countries tighten fuel-efficiency standards. Those TV stations he shut down must have refused to use clean and responsible solar energy. Such deep concern for Western capitalism, consumerism and militarism didn’t keep the dictators from joining other less developed nations with their hand out for a $100 billion bribe to be financed by that awful capitalism. But these green dictators have more in common than a desire for handouts. Iran and Venezuela, in particular, finance their oppressive governments with the export of oil. Now what was it that causes carbon emissions again? Fossil fuels, was it? To call the eco-friendly posturing of Third World dictators a farce is to understate the scandal. That the audience greeted such self-serving insanity with applause and that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama sanctified the gathering with their presence exposes a dark side to the green agenda. Global-warming theology is not just a fraud; it attacks freedom and encourages dictatorship. Source
At the same time as the scam in Fraudenhagen ended in an anti-climax for the idiots believing in manmade climate change, the eastern United States is preparing for a major winter storm moving up the Atlantic coast. Also, in Sweden as well as most of Europe we’re seemingly facing one of the coldest X-mases for many years. In my recollection only the year I was in the military can measure up for the cold we’ve seen the latest week. Granted I’ve been living in other countries for many years, but I’m usually home over the holidays. Several football matches have been canceled and people in south of Europe is freezing to death. Warmer climate eh?
I wish for a couple of degrees warmer, that would benefit humankind and as back in the middle ages we could grow grapes in Sweden again. However, the signs recently seem to indicate we’re heading for colder times. I’m only waiting for the New World Order alarmists to start warning for a new Ice-age.
Anyway, the second worst ‘pollutant’ we have in the world, far worse than all the factories, planes and ships put together, have shown its face again. Of course this foe was, and is, ignored by the scheming tricksters in Fraudenhagen, but people of the island Tongatapu, Tonga, has first class tickets. The volcanic activity in that area has recently put up a magnificent spectacle that should scare the living daylights of any climatologist. However, such eruptions throwing out hundred times more carbondioxid than any country are not as fun to blame as mankind. Humans can be controlled, be told how many kids to have and what cars to drive, it’s slightly harder to tell a volcano to: “stop polluting so we can own you”.
The insanity our elected masters and bought for scientists tries to sell us have been found out many times over. It’s not only climategate or thirty thousand plus scientists suing Al Gore; it’s not only Russian investigators saying how it is or NASA being found out lying, it’s so much more. And what about common sense? Since there’s not a single evidence for the manmade global warming hoax and since we actually know – scientifically proven – that the sun runs our climate almost alone, how can anyone out there actually listen to the alarmists’ claims?
Source By The Oracle
Fortunately for humanity and the civilization that sustains it, Barack Obama stayed true to his record of incompetence and failure, messing up the talks at Copenhagen. The talks have ended with nothing more than yet another agreement to meet again in a few years’ time. His last ditch instructions to Hillary Clinton, which led to her offering $100,000,000,000 of taxpayer dollars each year to nations hard hit by climate change could not band-aid the gaping gash that is the rift between developing and developed nations. The root of the conflict is very simple: curbing emissions produced in the territory of poverty-stricken nations would require them to regress to a poorer state of being. The politicians ruling over these nations recognize that such attempts would probably inspire revolts that would topple them and earn them an appointment with a noose and a lampost. In the meantime, the politicians ruling developed nations also recognize that if they allow people living in the developing nations to produce CO2, that global economic production will simply be moved to those territories. And the newly unemployed will come after the politicians who screwed them over with pitchforks. By the time Obama landed in Denmark with his entrourage of bodyguards, the conference was doomed. The failure lay in the groundwork; having failed to prioritize effectively between his desire to take over the medical industry, the financial industry, the automotive industry and the manufacturing industries, and having spent money like a drunken sailor with a fist-full of Continentals, the Obama administration was in no position to offer a credible deal of any sort. Most politicians outside the U.S. recognize that the days of U.S. hegemony are almost over. The vast welfare state and creeping state takeover of industry have emptied the U.S. treasury, and the U.S. government is having an increasingly difficult time borrowing the money it needs to meet its current obligations. Had Obama eschewed the “spend-your-way-into-prosperity” approach of George Bush, the U.S. government might have been in a position to make credible offers both to curb CO2 production. Instead, he showed up at the conference with a track record of leading a government that had no backbone, a reputation for rhetoric over substance, and a fiscal state that is laughably shaky. Moreover, he also has been consistently lying through his teeth throughout his time in office. For these reasons, no promise or offer he could make would carry serious weight. If the AGW alarmists are correct, the situation involving the production of CO2is an externality; Those who produce CO2 through economic activity gain the benefit of the wealth produced while the costs of warming are suffered by everyone. Thus, those who decide not to produce CO2 suffer, while those who engage in production gain the benefit of of the wealth they create. The proper way to handle an externality is to internalize it: to establish a regime where the people who cause ‘harm’ suffer a loss commensurate with the harm the do. This is not simple with the atmosphere. The plan favored by most alarmists, which essentially amount to requiring nearly every source of CO2 to require government permission to operate, permission that in essence controls how much CO2 is produced, are functionally equivalent to the centrally planned economies of the now defunct Soviet block. In essence they recreate the crippling economic coordination problems that Ludwig von Mises identified in Socialism. Obama seems to be oblivious to the economic collapse he is dicing with in his attempts to build a more fair world. For this reason, I am grateful for his incompetence. The socialism that he and many of the delegates in Copenhagen were advancing has a demonstrated track record of creating incredible misery particularly for the masses that are not politically connected. As a result, we are fortunate that Obama’s incompetence has postponed the AGW alarmist juggernaut. By the time the next meeting is held, the temperature trend will likely give lie to the dire alarmist predictions that gave the alarmists much of their political momentum.By Tarran
As would be expected, the moonbat media all over the globe is hailing Obama’s “deal” as a triumph and “historic”, but in reality, it is paper thin and the absolute least that could possibly have been hoped for after twelve days of detailed negotiation. Furthermore, you have to ask how Obama managed to get the US, China and India, who, only a few hours ago, were so far apart you could drive a coach and horses between them, to agree to the deal unless it was completely watered down and vague, as the Sydney Morning Herald reports:
The agreement foresees US contributions of 3.6 billion US dollars in climate funds for the 2010-2012 period while Japan would contribute 11 billion US dollars and the European Union 10.6 billion. It also includes a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) — well short of the demands of island nations. But a decision on targets for reducing carbon emissions by 2020 was put off until next month, a European diplomat said. And unlike earlier drafts, the new accord did not specify any year for emissions to peak. (source)
And of course, it isn’t legally binding either. From a domestic point of view, this failure of Copenhagen to achieve anything significant demonstrates how misguided Kevin Rudd’s desire to pass the ETS beforehand really was. We all know that the only reason was self-promotion – to be able to turn up to Copenhagen with a “trophy” as part of his job interview for UN Secretary General. Thankfully, Tony Abbott put paid to that little dream. Any delay in this process is good news. The longer it takes for a binding deal to be reached, the more chance there is that the fraudulent science will be exposed for what it is. Once people start to question the untouchable status of the IPCC, relied upon so heavily by Kevin Rudd and so many governments around the world, I predict a house of cards. Indeed, the science is falling over everywhere you look. Just today in The Australian, there are reports that alarmism over the fate of the Barrier Reef was exaggerated, under the headline “Scientists crying wolf over coral”:
A SENIOR marine researcher has accused Australian scientists of “crying wolf” over the threat of climate change to the Great Barrier Reef, exposing deep division about its vulnerability. Peter Ridd’s rejection of the consensus position that the reef is doomed unless greenhouse emissions are checked comes as new research on the Keppel group, hugging Queensland’s central coast, reveals its resilience after coral bleaching. Professor Ridd, a physicist with Townsville’s James Cook University who has spent 25 years investigating the impact of coastal runoff and other problems for the reef, challenged the widely accepted notion that coral bleaching would wipe it out if climate change continued to increase sea surface temperatures. Instead of dying, the reef could expand south towards Brisbane as waters below it became warmer and more tolerable for corals, he said. His suggestion is backed up by an Australian Institute of Marine Science research team headed by veteran reef scientist Ray Berkelmans, which has documented astonishing levels of recovery on the Keppel outcrops devastated by bleaching in 2006. (source)
We will see that this is just the tip of a very large (global warming resistant) iceberg. Finally, with thanks to the SPPI Blog, just in case anyone doubted the political agenda behind Copenhagen, it’s here on show, for all to see: UPDATE: Just one further thought, extremist environmental groups may well see this result at COP 15 as a licence to take climate change action into their own hands (even more than they do at present), with civil disobedience and a bypassing of the democratic process. As evidence of this, here is a quote from Greenpeace UK:
It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one in Copenhagen.
I sincerely hope that the rule of law prevails and that such actions are firmly resisted. Failure to do this would lead to anarchy. You have been warned.Source
NOPENHAGEN — Has Copenhagen collapsed?
By William La Jeunesse, Fox News
That seems to be the growing sentiment inside the city’s Bella Conference Center, where officials, environmentalists and even delegates to the international climate conference began streaming out Friday evening. What began with excitement and anticipation two weeks ago ended Friday night with disappointment and anger for thousands.
“This is a sad day for my country,” said Mama Konate, chief delegate from the West African nation of Mali. “We have worked very hard to reach this agreement. And now it seems over. Without a deadline, I don’t know if we will ever finish.”
The conference, the largest of its kind, attracted scientists, activists and human rights supporters from every corner of the globe, who believe that without a climate accord limiting greenhouse gases, glaciers will melt, oceans will rise and the weather will go so warm it could wipe out 50 percent of the Earth’s species. Until Friday, they saw Copenhagen as their last chance to stop it.
“You can scapegoat the process. That wasn’t it. It was the unwillingness of people to move around big issues: China on verification, the U.S. on deeper emission cuts,” said the head of an NGO that does relief work in Africa.
“Judging by the proceedings and the obvious gulf that remains, this is dead anything short of a miracle.”
That was not the sentiment early in the day when 25 U.S. congressmen showed up at the summit, flying in on a Boeing 757 with Speaker Nancy Pelosi at considerable taxpayer expense. The delegation joined President Barack Obama and nearly 120 world leaders for the conference’s final day.
“This president is very, very unusual,” said Congressman Charlie Rangel. “His power of persuasion and his eloquence somehow brings together how the whole world feels. I think we are very close. I am optimistic.”
But as the hours passed, hope turned to doubt.
What went wrong? To get more than 100 nations big and small, rich and poor, developed and not, all on the same page — over issues that go to the heart of their economies, their standards of living and that reach into the pocketbooks of the public — may have been a bridge too far.
The summit got underway with grand expectations. Many environmental groups said this was the last best chance to get a climate accord, while Obama still had considerable first-year clout in office and a Democratic majority in Congress. The upcoming 2010 congressional elections could swing the Senate to Republicans who are opposed to aggressive environmental legislation, they worried. And without the U.S., any climate treaty is meaningless.
Yet a deep lack of trust underscored the talks from the beginning. As rivals in business, neither the U.S. nor China wanted to agree to anything that would give the other a competitive edge.
“I am very skeptical anything here in Copenhagen is good for the average U.S. citizen,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Tex. “The process is falling apart.”
Barton said he was especially appalled by the requests for aid from Third World dictators like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who said the U.S. owes the world for having raped the planet.
“I owe Hugo Chavez nothing. Nothing-zip-nada,” said Barton. “The U.S. in the last 50 years has given trillions of dollars to the Third World. But to say they are going to be ravaged by climate change and deserve ‘Greenmail’ strains credibility.”
The U.S. said China’s planned cuts in “carbon intensity” (CO2 as a unit of GDP) were insufficient
Other developing nations pointed the same finger at the U.S. Obama proposed a 4 percent cut in U.S. emissions from their 1990 levels by 2020. That compares to much larger promised cuts in the EU of 20 to 30 percent. Climatologists say a cut of at least 25 to 40 percent is required if the world is to avert a climate disaster.
One of the problems, according to another NGO representative, is that the draft agreement is complicated and interconnected. When heads of state tinker with the text, they may be editing out a clause that was negotiated for months, in a compromise on an unrelated point. And typically only those who are intimate with the text understand what was compromised to get that language in the first place.
What set Copenhagen up for disaster? When heads of state arrive, an agreement is usually 99 percent complete. Not this time. Because of procedural delays, caused in large part by China, the document was far from finalized, leaving ministers and heads of state over their head on some issues.
“I’m leaving,” said Yousef Diakite, a representative from the Pan-African Parliament. “I’m unhappy, disappointed, not glad. Everyone was waiting for Copenhagen. This was our chance. And today it is over.”
Excerpted from The Daily Express
THE Meteorological Office was last night facing accusations it cherry-picked climate change figures in a bid to increase evidence of global warming.
UK climatologists “probably tampered with Russian-climate data” to produce a report submitted to world leaders at this week’s Copenhagen summit, it is claimed.
The Met Office’s study, which says the first decade of this century has been the warmest on record for 160 years, is being used to trumpet claims that man is causing global warming.
But experts at the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis say the British dossier used statistics from weather stations that fit its theory of global warming, while ignoring those that do not.
They accuse the Met Office’s Hadley Centre of relying on just 25 per cent of Russia’s weather stations and over-estimating warming in the country by more than half a degree Celsius.
Last night, leading global warming sceptic Dr Fred Singer, of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, said: “I have long suspected that this selective fiddle took place but have not assembled all the evidence.
“We know, and have published, that between 1975 and 2000 the number of weather stations was reduced from nearly 7,000 to only 3,000 with many of them in the former Soviet Union.
“The effect of this would be to produce an artificial temperature trend which we don’t see in the satellite data. So the warming of the past 30 years is likely to be an illusion.”
Professor Patrick Michaels, an environmentalist from the Cato Institute in Washington, said: “There is a significant lack of data coming from Russia in the last decade and a half.
“There will be many questions in the future about any reports that use what data there is. We want to know more about the Hadley Centre’s report but they won’t show us the raw data.”
The IEA’s report claims the Hadley Centre used incomplete findings from Russian meteorological stations “far more often than those providing complete observations” in order to build up a picture of overall warming.
It said the Hadley data overestimated warming in Russia by up to 0.64C between the 1870s and 1990s.
“Analysing the temperature trends received from Met stations, it is hard to get rid of the impression that they do not show any noticeable trend to warming in second half of the 20th and beginning of 21st centuries,” the IEA said.
It also said that since Russia was the world’s biggest country, any global theories drawn from its incomplete weather statistics would be invalid.
Russia’s semi-official RIA Novosti news agency said the Hadley Centre “probably tampered with Russian- climate data” by using statistics from only a quarter of available weather stations.
The Met Office data follows the row over hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia, seized upon by global warming sceptics as evidence that academics were massaging the figures.
On Monday the Daily Express revealed a dossier by the respected European Foundation think-tank detailing 100 reasons why global warming is a natural cyclical event.
And in a recent poll of readers 98 per cent said they believed they were being conned over global warming.