buy

Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climatega

–>

Wednesday 27 January 2010 | Blog Feed | All feeds

Advertisement Website of the Telegraph Media Group with breaking news, sport, business, latest UK and world news. Content from the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and video from Telegraph TV. Enhanced by Google Home News Sport Finance Lifestyle Comment Travel Culture Technology Fashion Jobs Dating Games Offers UK World UK Politics Celebrities Obituaries Weird Earth Science Health News Education Topics News Blogs News Video Blogs Home » News » Politics » James Delingpole James Delingpole James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I’ve Seen Your Future And It Doesn’t Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: January 22nd, 2010

214 Comments Comment on this article

The Commons Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into “the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)” – ie Climategate. (hat tip R. Campbell; Platosays).

On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.

The Independent Review will:

1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.

2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.

3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (’the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (’the EIR’) for the release of data.

4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .

But here’s the really surprising part: it’s planning to ask the right questions.

— What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
— Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
— How independent are the other two international data sets?

This is very heartening news for taxpayers, rationalists, and everyone who believes in the integrity of the scientific process. More encouraging still is Bishop Hill’s suggestion that it might be used by climate realists in the US government to launch a pincer movement against the eco fascists in the Obama administration:

Joe Barton, the man behind the US Senate’s 2006 hearings on the Hockey Stick, has been stirring things up in Washington again:

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is pressing Energy Secretary Steven Chu for information about department ties to the U.K. climate institute at the center of the controversy over the infamous hacked climate science emails.

Barton, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) wrote to Chu Friday asking about DoE funding for projects connected to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Observes the Bishop: Coming so soon after the announcement of the UK Parliamentary inquiry, one can’t help but wonder if the timing is entirely coincidental. Nevertheless, shedding sunlight on what has been going on is certainly no bad thing.

UPDATE: The following quote in today’s Telegraph from committee chairman Phil Willis suggests that the panel has a Warmist bias:

“There are a significant number of climate change deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science that has been changed or at worst manipulated.

We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so the public can see what they are saying”

Bishop Hill, meanwhile, has moderate-to-bad news about the panel members, most of whom have Warmist sympathies. Especially the Conservative ones.

Tags: Climategate, not a whitewash, Parliamentary investigation

Text size Print this article Mail this article Recent Posts WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’ January 27th, 2010 11:08 22 Comments More integrity from the robust, peer-reviewed IPCC. Not. January 26th, 2010 16:17 173 Comments After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate January 25th, 2010 14:06 234 Comments Lord Stern’s dodgy dossier exposed January 25th, 2010 11:01 156 Comments Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash January 22nd, 2010 19:35 214 Comments

COMMENTS

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report

davidwynn on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 7:42 pm Report comment

Rome’s burning fast…….smells good JD.

orkneylad on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 7:57 pm Report comment

The directors of the Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd, including David Eastwood (see below) are allegedly partnering the Teachers’ (TIAA-CREF) their U.S. equivalent, in the escrowed sponsorship of climate change cat-bond frauds.

They made a killing with Katrina …

“Sir Martin Harris Chairman Appointed by UUK Martin Harris is Director of the Office for Fair Access. He has been a director of Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited since 1 April 1991 deputy chairman from 1 July 2004 and chairman from 1 April 2006. He was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester from 1992 to 2004 and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Essex from 1987 to 1992. He served as chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (now UUK) from 1997 to 1999. He became President of Clare Hall, Cambridge on 1 October 2008 .. Professor David Eastwood Director Appointed by UUK Professor David Eastwood became Chief Executive of HEFCE on 1 September 2006. He was previously Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia (UEA). Before taking up his position at UEA, Professor Eastwood was Chief Executive of the Arts and Humanities Research Board. Previously he held a Chair in Modern History at the University of Wales Swansea, where he was also head of department, dean and pro-vice-chancellor. He was fellow and senior tutor of Pembroke College (1988-95), and is an Honorary Fellow of St Peter’s College, Oxford, from where he graduated in 1980, and of Keble College, Oxford from 2006. Professor Eastwood was made an Honorary D. Litt of the University of the West of England in 2002 and the University of East Anglia in 2006. In April 2009 Professor Eastwood became Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham.”

captainsherlock on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:01 pm Report comment

Sounds like the rats may have to run further!

Await further BS from the warmists with interest – will Cameron even blink?

PaulButler on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:02 pm Report comment

This has been a good week

Rob on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:04 pm Report comment

Why! Do you think we may experience this for the perpetrators?

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

theunbrainwashed on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:06 pm Report comment

The last thing we need is anything that remotely smells of whitewash because that will satisfy nobody: those sceptical will remain sceptical and those who believe will find they don’t have the public consensus they would need to get the action they want.

Unfortunately, seeing the paranoia about outside criticism that seems to be endemic in the climate community, I doubt they will see it that way. No doubt the big science associations and journals who got so far into bed with the rogue subject will try to stop its (and by extension their) credibility being undermined by the public exposure of what has been going on.

The truth is that if you have an organisation with the type of culture in the climategate emails, the scandalous behaviour exposed will only be the tip of the iceberg and there’s got to be a lot more to come out. So, unless they start again with a clean sheet organisation bringing in scientists from another more established subject with an ingrained culture of ruthless integrity; unless we get a culture of working from the evidence, rather than finding evidence to fit a preconceived notion, then this is going to turn into WMD II (Weather of…) with multiple inquiries which satisfy nobody.

heypresto on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:09 pm Report comment

Looks like Pachauri is getting ready to blame everyone but himself!
From the T-online:

“Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.

“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.” “

So the blame-game begins, but who’s going to start backing out and reversing course first.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece

ferret on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:10 pm Report comment

Nations stick to CO2 goals before January deadline
Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:52am IST

”By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) – The world is showing only lukewarm enthusiasm for a “Copenhagen Accord” to curb climate change, with no sign so far of deeper-than-planned 2020 curbs on greenhouse gas emissions before a January 31 deadline.

In Brussels, a draft European Union letter on Friday showed plans for the 27-nation bloc to reiterate a minimum offer of a 20 percent cut in emissions by 2020 below 1990 levels, pleasing industry, and a 30 percent cut if other nations act comparably.

Other countries are likely to do the same after last month’s Copenhagen summit ended with a low-ambition accord. No nations have since announced radically tougher plans for action.

“I think that countries are going to stick to their ranges,” said Nick Mabey, head of the E3G think-tank in London. He said it was too early for an overhaul of national goals.

“It’s almost like the beginning of a new negotiation,” said Gordon Shepherd, director of international policy at the WWF environmental group.

Many countries were still torn between showing “a burst of enthusiasm” to rebuild momentum after Copenhagen and “complete caution,” taking time to review next moves, he said.

Few countries have so far sent letters to the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat before a January 31 deadlinev for outlining goals for 2020 set by the Copenhagen Accord, which was worked out by major emitters led by China and the United States.”

For more go

http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINTRE60L4ZZ20100122

More Cheese Vicar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjp3qaRLFLc

theunbrainwashed on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:15 pm Report comment

This is starting to look interesting….It is going to become more difficult for the media in the UK to ignore this…..and it is also going to be difficult to whitewash it…..Dr. Jones is in for a rough trip on this one….

snowmaneasy on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:21 pm Report comment

lets hope this signals the end for the Warmeopathy hoax.
(…or is it Climastrology?)

BleedingArseLiberal

bleedingarseliberal on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:23 pm Report comment

Sounds good. Even the Duckhambot will have trouble persuading us that it’s a non-event.

Hamish Redux on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:24 pm Report comment

I certainly hope the man-made global warming nonsense can be made clear to the averaged brainwashed sheeple here in America before its too late. Of course we likely have years before Congress would pass the so-called “Cap N Trade” program, if ever.

Politicians around the world seem to think the way to solve the faux crisis is to give themselves more and more power. We, the people, have to stand up and say no.

geronl on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:25 pm Report comment

great news!
keep up the good work JD

davedave on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:25 pm Report comment

Yet more evidence that Brown-Balls Pachauri teams have been hired by CDP investors (USS-Teachers’) to trigger cat-bond frauds and enrich the members such as Martin Parry (Imperial College London).

“The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”. But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility. Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on. They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr Osvaldo Canziani , an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment. “I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.” He declined to blame the 25 authors and editors of the erroneous part of the report , who included a Filipino, a Mongolian, a Malaysian, an Indonesian, an Iranian, an Australian and two Vietnamese. The “co-ordinating lead authors” were Rex Victor Cruz of the Philippines, Hideo Harasawa of Japan, Murari Lal of India and Wu Shaohong of China.”

captainsherlock on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:25 pm Report comment

Check out this Anarcho-Warmist crook Parry

“David Adam, environment correspondent The Guardian, Monday 9 February 2009 Article historyScientists are to hold an emergency summit to warn the world’s politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming.

Climate experts from across the world will gather in Copenhagen next month to agree a stark message to policy makers, which they hope will break the political deadlock on efforts to curb rising temperatures. The meeting follows “disturbing” studies that suggest global warming could strike harder and faster than expected.

It comes ahead of a year of high-level political discussions on climate change, which climax with international negotiations in Copenhagen in December, where officials will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto protocol.

Katherine Richardson, a marine biologist at the University of Copenhagen, who is organising next month’s event, said: “This is not a regular scientific conference. This is a deliberate attempt to influence policy.”

The meeting will publish an update to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Richardson said the IPCC report was “wishy-washy” on issues such as sea level rise. “The IPCC talks of a 40cm sea rise this century. Well, if the consensus now is a rise of a metre or more then they need to know that.”

A number of studies published since the IPCC report was prepared show that carbon emissions are rising faster than expected and that existing greenhouse gas targets may not be enough to prevent catastrophic temperature rise. Climate experts, including Jim Hansen, of Nasa, have warned about so-called “tipping points” that could lead to runaway warming and rapid sea level rise.

Bob Watson, a former head of the IPCC and chief scientist in the environment department, Defra, said: “Certainly in Defra they’re aware of the situation. Whether all governments are aware of it is another matter. Even without the new information there was enough to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely essential. The new information only strengthens that and pushes it even harder.”

One issue to be addressed next month is whether it is still possible to limit average global temperature rise to 2C, which the EU defines as dangerous. Richardson said a key question for politicians is the balance between efforts to limit warming and steps to adapt to the likely consequences. Watson has warned that nations should prepare for an average rise of 4C. The IPCC said temperatures could soar by up to 6C by 2100 if current rates of carbon pollution continue.

Martin Parry, a British scientist who jointly chaired the IPCC working group on impacts for the 2007 report, and will attend next month’s meeting, said: “I think it’s a good idea. I would have thought most of this stuff is out there already but it deserves to be brought together and hammered home in a credible way.”

A number of “disturbing” trends seem to have accelerated since the IPCC report was published, he said, such as a decrease in the amount of carbon pollution absorbed in the oceans, and an increase in Greenland ice melt. But he denied that the new findings made the IPCC report obsolete. “They are not so radical as to undermine the report. They reinforce it.””

captainsherlock on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:30 pm Report comment

geronl, I think Republicans and Conservatives in the US should be spelling out more directly what will happen if the cap-n-taxers get their way: the end of the middle-class lifestyle in America. Then end of the suburbs.

davidwynn on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:40 pm Report comment

WoW!

One of my fave tunes from Childhood here with a Word Form Our Sponsor!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUuj3BEkoXU

theunbrainwashed on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:43 pm Report comment

Oh yes indeed ferret, the blame game begins. How long will it be until the warmist anti-science cabal supporters crawl out from under with the ‘get out’ phrase….

“AGW proponents, you don’t see many of those round here do you?”

realityreturns on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm Report comment

Maybe the MSM aren’t as ignorant/dismissive as we may think and only in raising the AGW scammers higher know they only have further to fall!?

theguvnor on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 8:56 pm Report comment

Let no-one underestimate the stranglehold which the Anarcho-Warmist saboteurs have on the UK Cabinet, the UN and the Faculties of Fraud.

Have a look at this prick; ?22 billion is a lot of dosh for a guy who couldn’t runn a whelk stall …

?22 billion pension scheme announces new investment appointment – Dr Raj Thamotheram One of the largest pension funds in the country, Universities Superanuation Scheme, with assets of ?22 billion and more than 162,000 members, announced today the appointment of Dr Raj Thamotheram to the newly-created post of Senior Adviser, Socially Responsible Investment.

Liverpool-based USS, which provides final salary occupational pensions for UK universities and other higher educational and research institutions, issued a revised ethical policy statement at the end of last year saying that it would “strengthen its stance on socially responsible investment policies” and “pursue a policy of more active engagement with companies”.

Dr Thamotheram, aged 40, was previously a corporate social responsibility consultant with clients ranging from telecom and mining multinationals to the UK Cabinet Office and the Office of the Secretary General of the UN.

He was a founder director of Saferworld, which launched the code of conduct on arms exports, now UK government policy, and head of advocacy at ActionAid, the third world development charity. Dr Thamotheram was manager of the Ethical Trading Initiative, bringing together leading companies such as Tesco and Littlewoods with non-governmental organisations and trade unions to ensure fair labour conditions in international supply chains.

Dr Thamotheram, who will be based at USS’s London investment office where there are 16 in-house fund managers, said: “As the third biggest pension fund in the country, there will be a number of things that USS can do alone, but even more that we can do alongside other socially responsible investors.

captainsherlock on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 9:04 pm Report comment

They seem to have pre-judged that the emails were hacked rather than leaked, though.

Top work JD, keep sticking it to these duckwits!

Scorpion de Rooftrouser on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 9:08 pm Report comment

The Teachers’ (TIAA-CREF) is a ?200 billion pension scheme.

Combined with the USS money, the Brown-Balls Pachauri Mafia has ?220 billion to manipulate tertiary education, radicalise students (hot crotch Unabomber from University College) and hijack international supply chains with non-governmental organisations and trade unions.

They did that on 9/11.

Maurice ‘Mau Mau’ Strong’s wet dream!!

Ergo, that’s Anarcho

captainsherlock on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 9:14 pm Report comment

Welcome to Infoshop News
Friday, January 22 2010 @ 03:21 PM CST

Greenpeace awards medals of shame to Global Leaders for climate failure

“Greenpeace calls upon all countries to continue negotiations on a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement within the UNFCCC in order to adopt such a deal at the next climate summit in Mexico at the end of this year,” said Tara Buakamsri, Greenpeace Southeast Asia Campaign Manager. “Work has to be begin now in order to achieve this. Otherwise Mexico risks repeating the last-night brinkmanship which led to the failure of Copenhagen.

Greenpeace expects:

1) governments to agree on a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol in a second commitment period and to adopt a second protocol covering emission reductions by industrialised countries and mitigation actions by developing countries by COP 16, scheduled to start in Mexico on 29 November 2010;

2) industrialised countries, as a group, to commit to reduce emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, at least three quarters of this needs to be met by domestic action;

3) industrialised countries to generate adequate and predictable funding, of the order of at least USD 140 billion annually, to support clean energy and other mitigation activities, forest protection and adaptation in developing countries;

4) developing countries to engage in mitigation action in order to achieve a 15-30% deviation from business-as-usual emissions growth by 2020. Of these emissions reductions, developing countries would unilaterally implement those negative and zero-cost (“no regret”) measures that can be achieved without external assistance, with industrialised countries supporting the rest;

5) all countries to establish a funding mechanism for ending gross deforestation and associated emissions in all developing countries by 2020, and achieving zero deforestation by 2015 in priority areas such as the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and the Paradise forests of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. These emission reductions must be in addition to the cuts in emissions as described in paragraph 2 above.

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100122001633266

You know what they say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGfJ0_KMiro

theunbrainwashed on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 9:28 pm Report comment

This is important news.

Well done to Mr Delingpole and The Telegraph, his exposure of the Climategate debacle will hopefully see a real audit of the entire AGW scandal and hopefully a return to measured science. The other MSM should be ashamed.

fakescience on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm Report comment

Time to tell Greenpeace and their henchmen in the WWF to take the proverbial running jump, preferably into the fires of Hell as they are a hot bed of warmists.

realityreturns on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 9:34 pm Report comment

“…and any other information held at CRU…”

This enables a full fledged fishing expedition. Managerial, Financial, Security, Collaboration, Compliance, Parking, you name it; if they want they can look in the fridge for the expiry date on the meatloaf.

And since this: “Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings…”, covers 100% of their purpose as an organization, anything goes.

Let us wait and see.

andrew30 on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 9:48 pm Report comment

“…and any other information held at CRU…”

Let us wait and see.

andrew30 on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 pm Report comment

“…and any other information held at CRU…”

Let us wait and see.

andrew30 on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 pm Report comment

Why are you still chuntering on about this nonsense when oil is about to run out and Muslims are peace-loving and nice people?

Gordon Brown is getting on with the job at hand, saving the world from disaster and looking after the rights of hard-working families. Everything else is just froth.

(I’m sure there’s another one, but can’t remember it)

Normal service will be resumed shortly – I just thought we needed a bit of nonsense.

barryobarma on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 pm Report comment

Dave is so 2009, isn’t he? Taxing naughty motorists and airline passengers with “green” taxes, just as the whole scam is crashing and burning.

Isn’t there anyone capable of telling him the Balirism, like Obamanation, is a lost cause?

barryobarma on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:08 pm Report comment

Well this is all jolly good – but we’re still putting the examination of a topic that concerns the scientific method, accuracy of data, handling/manipulation of data, publication and peer reviewing process etc in the hands of a group of MPs. It’s a topic thathas generated major controversy due to the large amounts of political and financial capital invested in it.

One wonders what scientific training or qualification any of them has that will allow them to understand what they’re being told? It was a bunch of misled politicians that let us get this far down the rathole, why would anyone think this bunch wil be any less gullible or resistant to “influence”?

JohnRS on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:11 pm Report comment

Sorry if this has been posted before – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TOFe85cmAE

Brilliant comment at the start about a scarecrow, I think he was talking about the first person visible on the video (nice jumper).

will8ace on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 pm Report comment

Would somebody like to give captainsherlock his medication, please?
There are enough real conspiracies flying around already without this fantastagoria to distract us.
I think we are going to need to keep the pressure on; I suspect the MSM will do their best to sideline this and if you see any major announcements on the BBC I’ll be very surprised.
(I could be proved a liar on that one in the next half hour! If anyone runs it it will be Newsnight.)

Newminster on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:22 pm Report comment

Hell, barryobarma, I thought you’d gone out for a duck or worse been bitten by a venemous fabiansecretion.

Glad your next post returned to reality….lol

realityreturns on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:22 pm Report comment

Methinks the decision has been taken that the AGW con has been taken about as far as it can; this enquiry appears to be a vehicle that will enable the socialist elite to drop the whole thing while still smelling like roses – or so they think.

Good news, but it scarcely matters in the long run: the powers-that-be will simply change the name of the campaign. I understand Ocean Acidification is the current preferred choice.

Bring on the elections.

ozboy on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:22 pm Report comment

Great stuff James – seems like Pachauri is getting very squirmy indeed. Full marks to The Times for keeping up with the story of Glaciergate.

yaosxx on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:39 pm Report comment

Anarcho-Warmist controls through Kellogg School of Mangement.

We coined the A-W term from Anarcho-Syndicalism [achieving syndicalist goals by violence, sabotage, murder, strikes and AGW fraud] whereby all means of production and distribution are brought under the direct control of their workers by the use of direct action, and organized through federations of labor unions; direct political and economic democracy in the workplace and community organized through labor unions and federations, including the abolition of capitalism, social classes, parliamentary government, bureaucracy and political parties.

captainsherlock on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:53 pm Report comment

PaulButler: “will Cameron even blink?”

I was thinking more about what to expect as a sequel from the Copenhagen contortionist, Boris Johnson.

sean on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 pm Report comment

Mr Delingpole, what do you suppose is the chance that the members of the committee will have the technical nous to judge the evidence placed before them?

Pragmatist on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:58 pm Report comment

“the powers-that-be will simply change the name of the campaign. I understand Ocean Acidification is the current preferred choice.”

I don’t know about in Europe, but in the USA there’s a limit to how many such name-changes will be tolerated.

Pretty soon on illegal immigrants and dead people will be voting for Democrats.

davidwynn on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:02 pm Report comment

This week has been faaaaaantastic.

beloved on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:09 pm Report comment

davidwynn

I agree they may try ocean acidification. The puzzle they have to solve first though is to find the carbonic acid. The list below is from verifiable data, which can be checked and subject to falsification in the scientific method:

The ocean contains every known naturally occurring element plus various gases, chemical compounds, and minerals. Below is a sampling of the most abundant chemicals.

Constituent Concentration (parts per million)
Chloride 18,980
Sodium 10,560
Sulphate 2,560
Magnesium 1,272
Calcium 400
Potassium 380
Bicarbonate 142
Bromide 65
Strontium 13
Boron 4.6
Fluoride 1.4

realityreturns on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 pm Report comment

Chloride! I knew it! Chloride is strangling Mother Earth!

How much of that Chloride is Man Made???

Anthropogenic Ocean Chloride! AOC!

davidwynn on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:19 pm Report comment

@sean

“I was thinking more about what to expect as a sequel from the Copenhagen contortionist, Boris Johnson.”

- the usual laugh a minute I would expect. Boris has a similar mental age to Wee Willie Heaven.

realityreturns on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:19 pm Report comment

beloved, you are right. It’s been quite a week.

davidwynn on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:20 pm Report comment

JohnRS:”in the hands of a group of MPs. It’s a topic thathas generated major controversy due to the large amounts of political and financial capital invested in it.

One wonders what scientific training or qualification any of them has that will allow them to understand what they’re being told? ”

For goodness sakes John, most of them are a bunch of lawyers, and they don’t even understand the LAW!

Still, it’s the start of another phase . . . . .

Hopefully they’ll call some truly expert non-racketeering, non-criminal, non-fraudulent, but genuinely scientific, witnesses.

rastech on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 pm Report comment

ozboy:”I understand Ocean Acidification is the current preferred choice.”

There’s a Mr Great White anxiously waiting to interview ’scientists’ convinced of this delusion, and keen to discover what mileage there may be in it, at his Office just east of the Great Barrier Reef.

No need to take lunch, arrangements will be made at the time.

rastech on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:40 pm Report comment

Who honestly thinks that there has been nothing dodgy going on – even those that know nothing about science must have this sussed by now.

I expect a whitewash – like Chilcot Inquiry will be – anything else will be disaster for the establishment.

MadWorld on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:42 pm Report comment

davidwynn – Brilliant – I wish you were joking but the doom and gloom prophets could come up with anything.

The gullibility of people was once tested by a university lecturer (I don’t remember his name). He put it to his students that there was a substance X which had:

- taken many lives
- caused asphyxiation
- caused acid rain
- ruined crops
- caused disease
- concealed crimes

….and so on.

His question was “what should we do about it?”

80% of the students voted to ban it.

Banning water, he said, would not be a good idea.

On a more serious note

Professor Jonathan Tennyson, Head of the Atomic, Molecular, Optical & Positron Physics group at University College London (UCL) UK – NOT A DECLARED CLIMATE SCEPTIC to my knowledge – stated in a report:

“It is clear that the absorption of radiation by water vapour determines many characteristics of our atmosphere. While we would not try to provoke any worldwide movement that was aimed at suppressing water emissions, it would seem that the climatic role of water does not receive the general attention it deserves.”

realityreturns on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:49 pm Report comment

It’ll be a much bigger disaster for the establishment if they do whitewash it MadWorld.

I doubt very much that they grasp that though.

rastech on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:51 pm Report comment

And speaking of which, when affiliated organisations like Humane Society International start running disgraceful and misleading propaganda like this (currently running on TV down here), you know any pretence of rationality has long disappeared out the window:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mith-Clr-ak

Is this what the Indonesian Duckman really looks like?

WARNING TO THE INSULIN-DEPENDENT: sugar overload in above link could provoke diabetic shock resulting in coma or death.

ozboy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:04 am Report comment

“But here’s the really surprising part: it’s planning to ask the right questions.”

Sorry, I’m not really convinced.
Ask the right question, get the right answer.
We are dealing with government here.
Two words, Government and Enquiry.
Caution is required.

mayday on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:11 am Report comment

Hi realityreturns.
I figure if I do the auto-troll bit, they can go and haunt another blog. James must be bereft – they are all over at Lord T’s place!

barryobarma on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:20 am Report comment

“I don’t know about in Europe, but in the USA there’s a limit to how many such name-changes will be tolerated.

Pretty soon on illegal immigrants and dead people will be voting for Democrats.”
ACORN already did that in 2008 as i understand.

LADYMONEYPENNY on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:46 am Report comment

ozboy, Maybe a little OT.
I may be wrong but aren’t orangutans considered to be among the few “Self aware” primates.
The difference between being “self aware” and not being “self aware” is that one is aware that, at some point in the future, life will end.
The one common offering of all religions is “life after death”. I wonder if orangutans have any concept of religion.

mayday on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:54 am Report comment

Newminster: “Would somebody like to give captainsherlock his medication, please? There are enough real conspiracies flying around already without this fantastagoria to distract us”

Tragic when victims such as you cannot recognize the genocidal agenda of something like this:

“CDP provides a coordinating secretariat for institutional investors with a combined $41 trillion of assets under management. On their behalf it seeks information on the business risks and opportunities presented by climate change and greenhouse gas emissions data from the world’s largest companies: 2,400 in 2007. Over 7 years CDP has become the gold standard for carbon disclosure methodology and process. The CDP website is the largest repository of corporate greenhouse gas emissions data in the world .. CDP was launched [by Brown-Balls Pachauri] on 4th December 2000 at No. 10 Downing Street. The first cycle of the project (CDP 1) involved sending a letter and questionnaire to the FT500 largest companies in the world on 31st May 2002. This letter was signed by 35 institutional investors who collaborated to provide an efficient mechanism for disclosure of this information. The Carbon Disclosure Project is a special project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers, with US IRS 501(c)3 charitable status, with the sole purpose of providing a co-ordinating secretariat for the participating funders and investors. The Carbon Disclosure Project is funded by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, Bridge House Trust, Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation, The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Oak Foundation, The Marmot Charitable Trust and WWF-UK.”

You’re lucky to live in a society where you are paid to stay ignorant while others volunteer to keep you safe.

captainsherlock on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:56 am Report comment

Occasionaly captainsherlock looks up and adds an interesting, informed, and intelligent comment to the debates of the blog,
It is a pity that so much of his contribution is written on a continuous Mobius Loop and invites the rapid fly past on the scroller.

jimimac on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 1:18 am Report comment

The important thing to remember is that parliamentary committees are made up of back benchers. These are mainly people who have little hope of further advancement and tend, if anything to be anti establishment. Grandstanding is what they do best.

A whitewash is most unlikely. Far more likely, if anything, is an unjustified witch hunt. Parliamentary enquiries are about as unlike “official” enquiries, (chaired by “safe pairs of hands” like ex judges or civil servants), as it is possible to get.

About the only whitewashing is the gentle treatment of the government – since most of the committees have inbuilt ruling party majorities.

Those who doubt this analysis would do well to read the reports of other investigations by such committees.

skeptik on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 1:23 am Report comment

jinimac – There is always a problem on a blog such as this in dealing with the different spans of attention which range from victimized gnats to warrior scholars.

Backing up to December 4 2000, we see former Open University lecturer George Brown and his Fabian crony Ed Balls, joint venture with Pachauri.

On December 4, 200 Brown-Balls Pachauri launched the CDP, now a $56 trillion credit pool, with an algorithmic agenda designed to depopulate the earth to a cap of 500 million using a cap in CO2 of 350 ppm.

Brown (Edinbugh and Open University) and Balls (Oxford and Harvard) were hired through the USS kickbacks funds and Pachaury was hired by the Teachers’ pension fund to execute the genocidal agenda of the CDP.

“[Pachaury] has also taught at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, USA, as a McCluskey Fellow between September and December 2000.”

How is your attention span?

I can make it short and shallow or long and deep but not at the same time. http://abeldanger.blogspot.com/

captainsherlock on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 1:41 am Report comment

mayday:”Ask the right question, get the right answer.
We are dealing with government here.
Two words, Government and Enquiry.
Caution is required.”

As long as they don’t get bogged down in the e-mails to the detriment of investigating the code (as well as the material in presentations as well).

The e-mails can be spindoctored, the code can’t, and the code is utterly damning.

Perhaps James can get that understood by them via interviews, and maybe get some presentation material explaining the scandals included in the coding sent to the members?

I’m sure Lord Monckton etc., would be willing and able to get that basic information sorted out to help them get a grasp of it?

rastech on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 1:51 am Report comment

In fact that’s the sort of stuff that should be put into a pre-Inquiry background essential reading pack put at their disposal, prior to the Inquiry actually getting up and running, as I see it.

First question on the first day, should be to the Inquiry:

“You HAVE all read the background information pack already, HAVEN’T YOU?”

If not, adjourn, and come back when you have . . . .

Etc.

rastech on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 1:54 am Report comment

The background information pack should also describe cat-bond algorithms developed by Brown-Balls Pachauri and the Kellogg School of Management to depopulate the earth by capping CO2 fertiliser gas at 350ppm.

captainsherlock on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:02 am Report comment

I’m not saying include any of the damning stuff, just explaining what they should be looking for, giving examples of what should be expected of good coding and data/database integrity, etc., which will then allow them to start asking the right questions. Which will then allow the damning stuff can be properly presented at the right time in the deposition of evidence, with them actually having a chance of understanding it.

rastech on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:03 am Report comment

@mayday – I wouldn’t have posted that except they insisted on buying into AGW. Self-aware or otherwise I don’t know, it doesn’t really enter into it. My point was that organisations which would be better served staying well away from this issue, are so heavily populated by fellow travellers, they just can’t help themselves.

@rastech 1:51 is right, it is the code, far more than the e-mails, that catches them in flagrante.

ozboy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:04 am Report comment

We even know who developed the “Murder by Algorithm” strategy for CDP investors and Brown-Balls Pachauri.

“The Numerical Algorithms Group (NAG) is a non-profit software company, whose head office is in Oxford, UK. The group was founded by Brian Ford and others in 1970 as the Nottingham Algorithms Group. NAG specializes in the provision of software for the solution of mathematical, statistical and data mining problems, besides offering visualization software and other services in scientific software development. NAG products are used in a wide range of industries worldwide in order to solve problems in disciplines such as financial analysis,www.asiareplica.com, science and engineering and in the fields of education and academic research .. NAG has an unusual organisational structure. It was founded by academics from four universities Nottingham, Manchester, Oxford and Birmingham in 1970. That project continued for a number of years and ultimately, was transformed into a UK company in 1976. The libraries had been around for a number of years before that. The intellectual property, which had been contributed from a number of academics and employees of US government laboratories, was contributed to a non-profit company in the UK and a wholly owned subsidiary in the US formed in 1978. Another thing that is distinctive about NAG is that the company has 300 association members. These are people who contributed code to the company or the products over the years. About 75 or 80 of them are employees; however, the rest of them are [USS-Teachers’] academics or commercial organisations, all over the world”

captainsherlock on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:08 am Report comment

Well it could explain algorithms in coding for sure Cpn.

But ‘evidence’ of anything should then be presented in the Inquiry itself.

rastech on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:09 am Report comment

Just caught on British Brainwashing Corporation, World Service, Science in Action, stating that ozone and mercury are now a major environmental problem, seriously affecting the atmosphere. Extensive evidence (?) from 1995-2008 has been obtained by NOAA according to Owen Cooper.

The BBC’s Richard Black talked about high levels of mercury found in the Arctic and high levels of ozone flowing into North America, all air pollution caused by industrial activity.

The Greens are adept at maintaining a moving target and if they can’t make the case with CO2 and MMCC then they will come up with pollution and nasty air quality. They must keep the populous scared and ergo, exploitable.

Is it back to square one when all this started in the 70’s?.Is this the first salvo in MM Global Cooling? Will we ever nail the watermelons down?

xrayco2 on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:38 am Report comment

Correction
Should of course have said, ‘renewed’ salvo in MM Global Cooling?

xrayco2 on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:51 am Report comment

So now they have a backup in case Ocean Acidification isn’t bought by the public. This is just wonderful

independent00982 on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:13 am Report comment

Without looking at the Science you know it’s a massive fraud, you don’t solve Problems with pollution by importing another 50 million migrants.
http://www.tinyurl.com/50millionsecretplot

With a sensible population, our farmers could grow food and biofuels, Veg oil can be used in deisel vehicles.
In fact the original deisel engin ran on peanut oil.

Even if Carbon were a problem, which it isn’t, we already have carbon capture technology, it’s called a tree.
Plant 100 Billion over the next 20 yrs.
What are trees made of, Carbon, where do they get it from, they absorb it from the atmosphere.
Hell we could even use this captured Carbon ( trees ) as a self regenerating building material.

Or even fuel.

Wood fired Power stations
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/03/19100101

britishpatriot on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:43 am Report comment

“The IPCC claim that glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence,” the Minister told the Hindustan Times. “The IPCC has to do a lot of answering on how it reached the 2035 figure, which created such a scare.”

The Nobel-winning IPCC is already under attack over hacked email exchanges which skeptics say reflected attempts to skew the evidence for global warming. However, the IPCC’s Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, told AFP that the panel would review the 2035 figure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXq81-cGJr4

theunbrainwashed on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 5:32 am Report comment

Sheeeeeeeee- It!

India, China almost certain to sign Copenhagen Accord
January 23rd, 2010 – 10:45 am ICT by IANS Tell a Friend

”By Joydeep Gupta
New Delhi, Jan 23 (IANS) India and China are almost certain to sign the Copenhagen Accord, especially since Brazil and South Africa have already done so, say senior officials. Environment ministers of the four countries will meet here Sunday to chalk out their post-Copenhagen climate strategy.

“We cannot avoid signing the accord now since we were one of the five countries that negotiated it,” a senior member of the Indian government team at Copenhagen told IANS, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The accord was negotiated between India, China, Brazil, South Africa and the US in the final moments of the tumultuous Copenhagen climate summit last month and then shown to 187 other countries, sparking an uproar.

“As long as the accord does not have legal force and is only a statement of global political will to address climate change, there’s no harm in signing it,” the official added.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said this month the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) countries would have a joint position on global climate negotiations.

In Sunday’s meeting, the four countries are likely to announce the setting up of a fund to help other developing countries cope with the effects of climate change, which is already lowering farm output, making droughts, floods and storms more frequent and more severe and raising the sea level.

Many other developing countries, especially those from Africa and some from Latin America, are angry because the BASIC group negotiated the Copenhagen Accord with the US without going through the UN process in which all 192 countries are involved…..”

More at : India, China almost certain to sign Copenhagen Accord http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/enviornment/india-china-almost-certain-to-sign-copenhagen-accord_100308377.html#ixzz0dPXZU0MY

http://vimeo.com/6118974

theunbrainwashed on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 am Report comment

Rastech: “Well it could explain algorithms in coding for sure Cpn. But ‘evidence’ of anything should then be presented in the Inquiry itself.”

Good point – the key is that in the 1978/79 period, a certain patent and intellectual property laywer by the name of Hillary Clinton became a partner for Rose Law in Little Rock, Ark (Google Arkancide).

In that same year Ms. Clinton proceeded to execute some algorithmic (?) cattle futures trades in Chicago apparently synchronized with the launch of an algorithmic (?) Unabomb campaign out of the Kellogg School of Management in Chicago.

This would be the period when Richard Sandor, future chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange, could reward Ms. Clinton and, a few years later, Barack Obama for the algorithmic reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions when people stop breathing because they are dead!

“Legislation to let polluters buy and sell carbon-dioxide emissions like pork bellies is the outgrowth of Richard L. Sandor, founder of the Chicago-based network of people trading pollution permits from Beijing to Brussels known as Climate Exchange. It doesn’t hurt that the six-year-old market got $1.1 million of seed money from the city’s Joyce Foundation, whose board included a little-known state senator named Barack Obama.”

“NAG has an unusual organisational structure. It was founded by academics from four universities Nottingham, Manchester, Oxford and Birmingham in 1970. That project continued for a number of years and ultimately, was transformed into a UK company in 1976. The libraries had been around for a number of years before that. The intellectual property, which had been contributed from a number of academics and employees of US government laboratories, was contributed to a non-profit company in the UK and a wholly owned subsidiary in the US formed in 1978 [Unabomb launch].

captainsherlock on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 5:47 am Report comment

Ah but will they? The committee is to disappear soon, there is an election coming.

I have my doubts.

snoekie on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 5:52 am Report comment

captainsherlock: I don’t understand what you’re saying about the Numerical Algorithms Group. I have used NAG routines (as they are called) many times, and they are highly respected (even if a bit clumsy to program). For example, you have a differential equation to solve and you run the routine and get a numerical solution. They have been developed over something like 30 years by a number of respected numerical analysts.

Of course they can be misused, but blaming the NAG people for the Climategate fiasco is like blaming a man who makes spades if Phil Jones suddenly takes it into his head to hit someone with a spade.

As for the original post, I suspect the independent review will be another whitewash (I don’t expect to see Jones in court, any more than I expect to see Blair sewing mailbags in Dartmoor), but it’s good that lots of negative publicity is being given to the warmists. What we need now is for Cameron to stop behaving like a cardboard cutout and face the facts (Brown is a dead man walking, and hasn’t faced a fact for many years, so we can forget him).

Clothilde S on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 5:58 am Report comment

Denmark calls for following up Copenhagen Accord

”Denmark on Friday called on countries to move the Copenhagen Accord forward and prepare for COP 16, according to reports reaching here from Copenhagen.”

“Now it is time to follow-up.”

http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2010-01/23/content_19293635.htm

Here comes the Flood…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxTriqANoK8

theunbrainwashed on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 6:43 am Report comment

So what are the chances that this Parliamentary committee is actually going to do some good?

Who is on it? What are their other interests?
It would be good to know who of those MPs is, for example supported by, or supporting, such lovely entities like WWF or Greenpeace?

It would be good if investigative journalists were to start investigating, and it would be good if editors would splash there findings across the front pages – especially what they find about those parliamentarians on this committee.

After all, the carbon tax bill passed Parliament with a nice majority, iirc …

colliemum on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 7:02 am Report comment

“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs. Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation”

9 minutes ago Thaindian.com (5 occurrences)
more by Rajendra Pachaur

Walking the street with her naked feet,
So full of rhythm but I can’t find the beat.
Snapping her heels, clicking her toes,
Everybody knows just where she goes.
Fear, Fear, she’s the mother of Violence,
Making me tense to watch the way she breed.
Fear, she’s the mother of Violence,
You know self-defense is all you need.
It’s getting hard to breathe,
It’s getting so hard to believe,
To believe in anything at all.

Mouth all dry, eyes bloodshot,
Data stored on a microdot.
Kicking the cloud with my moccasin shoes,
TV dinner, TV news.

Fear, Fear, she’s the mother of Violence,
Don’t make any sense to watch the way she breed.
Fear, she’s the mother of Violence,
Making me tense to watch the way she feed.
The only way you know she’s there
Is the subtle flavor in the air.
Getting hard to breathe,
Getting hard to believe in anything at all
But Fear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM1y-aZ4UpI&feature=related

theunbrainwashed on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 7:16 am Report comment

Reliatyreturns: “Boris has a similar mental age to Wee Willie Heaven.”

It’s an interesting notion, the idea of a mental age. But what are the criteria for its assessment?

We say one dog year is equivalent to seven man years. I’ve told my wife, who is chronologically 17 years younger, that she is ‘really’ older than me since women mature earlier than men. And I’ve even ‘proved’ it courtesy of some tests published in the Daily Mail a couple of years ago, by which you can calculate your true age scientifically, rather than relying on the fashionable calendar based concept of age, whose sole criterion is one’s date of birth.

I haven’t got the formula for the true age assessment to hand, but the crucial test entailed standing on one leg with eyes closed and arms outstretched. Not easy at all, at least not for my wife. And by this measure alone she was in her mid 80s and I was 21. But of course one test is mere ‘weather’, and the truth as it turns out is that she’s really only eight years ahead.

As for Boris and Will, I’m guessing in calendar term Will is fourteen and a half or so, with Boris in his mid forties. But how to assess their mental ages? Ther’s certainly nothing to split them on AGW. But on that index of infantilism alone, and taking into account the realtive chronological disparity, you’re bound ot conclude that Will has teh edge in terms of mental maturity.

sean on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 7:25 am Report comment

colliemum – all good practical points.

You are right about the carbon tax bill too. To its shame, the Socialist Cameroonian Conservative party did little to oppose it and protect the people. Three Real Tories did vote against it…just three…my party has gone stark raving bonkers.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 7:26 am Report comment

There have been some comments about the appropriateness of the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology for examining climategate. I therefore thought that it might be useful to investigate the credentials of the members of the committee.

Overall, there are fourteen members: 8 Labour; 3 Conservative; 2 Lib Dems; 1 Independent, (ex Conservative).

The individual members of the committee are:

Evan Harris: Degree in physiology from Wadham College, Oxford. A qualified medical doctor.

Doug Naysmith: BSc in Zoology and PhD in Immunology from Edinburgh University

Des Turner: BSc and MSc from Imperial College, London and PhD in biochemistry from UCL. Former school teacher.

Bob Spink: BSc from Manchester University and PhD in industrial engineering from Cranfield University

Graham Stringer: BSc in Chemistry from Sheffield University. Worked as a chemist in the plastics industry.

Ian Stewart: MPhil in management of change from Manchester Metropolitan University. Former chemical plant operator and trade unionist.

Nadine Dorries: Former nurse

Timothy Boswell: Degree in classics, (probably Greats), and a diploma in agricultural economics from New College Oxford.

Gordon Marsden: History degree from New College, Oxford

Roberta Blackman-Woods: PhD in sociology from University of Ulster

Robert Wilson: Student politician at Reading University

Ian Cawsey: No apparent university education but worked in computing for Imperial Foods.

Phil Willis: School history master eventually becoming a head teacher before entering politics.

skeptik on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 7:43 am Report comment

sean

I like it. True, Will Heaven is probably a little more mentally mature than Boris. On my highly subjective classification of mental age, Will rates an E (13 3/4) while Boris, generously, rates a poor F (12).

Boris usually stands on one leg with his eyes closed and arms outstretched but that’s a mental condition. It’s when he opens his mouth that the bovine excrement flows and his mental age shows.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 7:47 am Report comment

@skeptic

Those qualifications sound pretty good to me. I’m just as happy for a Classics graduate to be in the mix – the broader the background, the better.

No doubt we’ll hear the inevitable bleating, “Oh, but these aren’t specialist Climatologists! What have they published in the peer-reviewed literature?” Such drivel recalls (as a poster here once put it brilliantly), the Emperor With No Clothes. dismissing the boy who called him out with, “What would you know? You’re not a qualified tailor!”

And so it goes…

ozboy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 am Report comment

Oh! How we laughed!

http://www.last.fm/music/Genesis/Selling+England+By+The+Pound/The+Battle+Of+Epping+Forest+%282008+Digital+Remaster%29

toodle pip!

theunbrainwashed on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:40 am Report comment

ozboy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 am

“Those qualifications sound pretty good to me. . . the broader the background, the better.”

I agree, but, ideally, I would have liked at least one forensic lawyer, one applied mathematician / mathematical modeller / IT expert, one physisict and one clinical psychologist in the mix. I would prefer that there were no “climate scientists” though!

skeptik on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:41 am Report comment

The bottom line is are these politicians unbiased? The danger is that ‘AGW groupthink’, the IPCC disease, will lead to a whitewash and justify fraud to ’save the planet’ from plant food.

Few have science degrees: just an observation because neither have Lords Lawson or Monckton and they are much more knowledgeable than most on the issue and the science.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:46 am Report comment

Duckham now here is something to really worry about running out…
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/01/us-sale-of-helium-criticised.html

crownarmourer on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:49 am Report comment

Duckham we are facing a helium balloon shortage and a lack of squeaky voices.

crownarmourer on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:50 am Report comment

ps….

http://www.last.fm/music/Genesis/The+Lamb+Lies+Down+on+Broadway+%28disc+1%29/The+Chamber+of+32+Doors

theunbrainwashed on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 9:05 am Report comment

Thanks, will8ace on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TOFe85cmAE

This really is well worth watching – brief and to the point.

Godfrey Bloom (MEP) UKIP – Brilliant video – no one should miss it. Thank God for UKIP. If only the wishy washy Cameroonians would take that sort of stand.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 9:32 am Report comment

crownarmourer

We are also wallowing in a happy absence of Ducky. I like the helium running out idea – perhaps Ducky will heed this and we’ll hear new quacks about Peak Helium.

Anything for a change in Duck droppings.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 9:38 am Report comment

Ducky is sleeping the sleep of the righteous in Duckingham Palace. He will join us shortly

dirlada on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 9:49 am Report comment

The community unconvinced by the AGW argument have been requesting information via the FOIA. If that, or any kind of investigation does not bear fruit in terms of disclosure of data and methods, here is an alternative. Scientists (for example Douglass, Christy et al) who have suffered under the peer review tactics of the hockey team could sue privately. Presumably if one’s work is not published in the peer-review press, this damages one’s career (less impressive CV means not gaining promotion or getting that professorship, or head of department etc.). If that can be shown to have resulted from nefarious tactics as revealed by the climategate emails, then a case could be heard in court for damages.

keithmartin on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:01 am Report comment

Realityreturns and dirlada has any tried giving a duck helium or a duckham I feel a research paper coming on.

crownarmourer on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:01 am Report comment

crownarmourer

A research paper on ‘Ducky’ would be a real treat.

‘A Biological Biography of Indonesian Duck Droppings,’ perhaps

keithmartin

You make good points but I would have thought sueing would be expensive. Great scientists sidelined and derided by Ant-science AGW Religious Zealots and fraudsters is a disgrace to this age and a blot on the state of science today.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:33 am Report comment

Come on Ducky, come out to play with us

dirlada on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 am Report comment

Crown armourer

I used to like ducks

dirlada on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:37 am Report comment

When Greenpeace scum can get away with criminal damage to power stations in court based on the AGW mindset of the judiciary, who knows what could happen in the legal system if the dissenting scientists did sue.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:37 am Report comment

@captainsherlock, 08:01pm
I couldnt quite follow your post.
I used to know Martin Harris before he was famous, so I’m curious: Is he a good guy or a bad guy?

bart on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:42 am Report comment

realityreturns,

No worries. Forgeting to tell people what the video was about = Muppet!

Bloom is a character, never to be missed.

will8ace on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:46 am Report comment

Just read this over at WUWT excellent explanation…!!!! read it….

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/22/statistics-expert-briggs-actually-weather-is-climate/#more-15528

Statistics expert Briggs: Actually, Weather Is Climate

22/01/2010

Guest post by William M. Briggs professional statistician

It is statistically appropriate to point to this year’s frigidity as evidence that the theory of man-made global warming is suspect.

snowmaneasy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:55 am Report comment

This obsession with Duckham….I think we should just all agree with him…actually, come to think of it maybe we have reached peak oil….??

Maybe Duckham is a disgruntled Pertamina..(Perusahaan Tambang Minyak Negara) employee and dreams of the day he can quit (ie: Peak Oil)….

snowmaneasy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:01 am Report comment

realityreturns on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 9:34 pm

WWF should be called WTF.

Methinks also Duckless Wonder is of a piece with the following—is there anyone posting here who is NOT a conspiracy theory aficianado, even if only because they like the plot line as having good script potential?–other Resident Evil zombies:

1. Iggyjack
2. John Standing
3. Jonathan
4. Jebeedee
5. Johan de Mulemolester
6. Fabioextrusions
7. Politburopolitics

I think they are all the same guy. I say that because of the obvious stuff you can spot in the names but for the last two, and the fact that they all seem to live in the same time zones.

Johan I know hails from Kelowna, BC, Canada, which is where the Ikonogan Valley is, as the DT used Shane Richmond’s talents to backtrack him from his e-mail headers and IP address, and they did an article on the real guy about 3-4 years ago.

But that’s not the interesting part. Am I the only guy who thinks this might be a paid consultant working for —Dum de Dum Dum!!!!—Adolf’s and Eva’s secret lovechild, the Braunmeister from Scotland?

Walt OBrien on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:26 am Report comment

As I scan the various news services re climate change, all I see is one disaster after another….new expression to describe this situation…

Apocalypse Fatigue

snowmaneasy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:27 am Report comment

On google climategate has shot back up to 11,700,000…it was around 3 to 4 million for some time now…??? Odd

snowmaneasy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:31 am Report comment

Good article on the future (or shall we say no future)of Wind Power in Canada…

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/story.html?id=2475411

snowmaneasy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:41 am Report comment

@snowmaneasy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:01 am
Was that “peak oil” or “beak oil”?

aurelian on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:51 am Report comment

Have a look at this…

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/27444/

snowmaneasy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:53 am Report comment

A interesting little piece from Kate Mackenzie in the FT – http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cec9e730-06f4-11df-b058-00144feabdc0.html.

Trying to keep the City ‘on side’? I like the way she has used the word “myth”, very classy.

will8ace on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:00 pm Report comment

Newminster

I wonder if the Enquiry will note the names of the BBC correspondents referred to in the e-mails? I wonder if it will ask the BBC’s Mr. Hudson what exactly did he receive in October? It would be good to finally clear up his small involvement in this affairs: I have the impression he is one of the more open minded BBC employees.

We mist wait and see. Somehow, I doubt that the BBC will give the enquiry much balanced coverage.

martinlejudge on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:05 pm Report comment

ozboy on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:22 pm
“I understand Ocean Acidification is the current preferred choice.”
Did I start something here? I threw that term in to the discussion on Leans silly blog,has it taken hold? Will the warmistas hunt me down?

”

@ D.M. thank you for that excellent link, we need to see the scam of wind exposed.
I think the next big thing in scares is “Ocean Acidification” but I ,for one ,am not buying into this either.
Mack
on January 16, 2010
at 03:16 PM ”

”

Mack
on January 16, 2010
at 03:16 PM

“I think the next big thing in scares is “Ocean Acidification” but I ,for one ,am not buying into this either.”

We are told that the sea is warming.

As a liquid warms up, the solubility of all gases in it decreases.

So it’s difficult to see how the acidification thing is going to work.

Can’t have it both ways.
Catweazle
on January 16, 2010
at 05:40 PM ”
”

@ Catweazle
Like I said I am not buying into this or for that matter any more scares. But there are a lot of reports out right now claiming that prawns will not be able to make shells and other guff on those lines.And all based on forecasts from the now discredited models
Mack
on January 16, 2010
at 06:48 PM “

mack on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:43 pm Report comment

Wow! ……may not be a whitewash

Really?
I would suggest we need better worded terms of reference.
We should not read into the first question what we want to find:
QUOTE
— What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
END QUOTE
This seems to be what we want but is it?

“Disclosures” as written, would have to mean the act of disclosure.
Does it in fact mean they are concerned with security of data and correspondence and that the concern is to prevent any similar disclosures at other institutions? How secure are the other data sets?

If it had meant to investigate “the effect of the material revealed by the disclosures” it ought to have said so unambiguously and it ought to be questioning the integrity and accuracy of the other data sets as works of science.

QUOTE
How independent are the other two international data sets?
END QUOTE
This could, in the end, mean “How vulnerable are these data sets?”

We ought to expect that a learned body of officials could write clear and unambiguous terms of reference.
Perhaps there is a subtext that amplifies these points and which explains it exactly?

Otherwise, one might suppose that the wording was very clever and intended to make us think there would be no whitewash when they do not intend to ask the very important questions we want answered.

JMANON on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:52 pm Report comment

Not surprisingly, the Beeb have not mentioned this new Select Committee Enquiry in any news that I have seen yesterday\today.

If the Enquiry was about anything else then I suspect it would be headline news!

We can only hope that the members that Skeptic lists above will make it more common knowledge. Each will have their own assistants, researchers, PAs etc, and I hope they will read, and most importantly understand, the sumbissions and arguments from all sides.

More people with more high level connections need to know.

The truth will out…

ferret on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:57 pm Report comment

By the way, the “Independent review&#8221,www.forwowgold.org; may claim to investigate these very things but the Inquiry you speak of is something else.
The bulk of this article appears to be based on what the UAE will investigate, not what the Commons Science and Technology Committee will be asking.
So far I have only seen these three questions and no amplification.

JMANON on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 12:58 pm Report comment

By the way, it is now being claimed that the CRU is not the ground zero for climate fraud but the NOAA:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

JMANON on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 1:03 pm Report comment

The question about the other data sets is already answered by Chiefio:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
QUOTE
GIven the recent melt down of HadCRUt in Climategate, and the mutual mantra of GIStemp is like HadCRUt is like NCDC so we all must be right, when all are variations on GHCN, I suspect NCDC via GHCN is at the heart of Climategate. So, when you hear NOAA or NCDC or GHCN, they are just organizational levels of the same thing. NOAA is the parent of NCDC and NCDC is the producer of GHCN.
END QUOTE

JMANON on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 1:07 pm Report comment

Just a refreshing item from Oregon State University that perhaps might have a message for those who are corrupting science.
“Researchers have discovered that some of the most fundamental assumptions about how water moves through soil in a seasonally dry climate such as the Pacific Northwest are incorrect – and that a century of research based on those assumptions will have to be reconsidered.”

These guys are not afraid to face reality

mack on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 1:56 pm Report comment

realityreturns, your story of the professor who got students to vote to ban water reminds me of a video I saw once on youtube.

A couple of young men (maybe students of the professor you talked about) went around at an Earth Day event with a camera and a petition to ban diHydrogenOxide or OxyDiHydrogen or something like that, I forget what they called it, and when they revealed to people they had just signed a petition to ban water most of them took it pretty good naturedly.

But there’s nothing good-natured about the Holy Quest to Ban the Industrialized World. Nothing good-natured about that at all.

davidwynn on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 1:57 pm Report comment

On Bishop Hill see how members of the committee voted on laws related to climate change:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/22/whos-on-the-select-committee.html

qdec on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm Report comment

davidwynn, thanks

Its not difficult to create a scare or single out an irrational focus of disapproval for something or someone. It’s far more difficult to bring back rational thinking to a warped mindset.

I like your last paragraph…too true (I would have said ‘blue’ but now I’m thinking more ‘purple’).

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:15 pm Report comment

Not only is the fabiansecretions back showing its total lack of integrity but its cloned another mad troll.

Go away you deluded pair of Brown’s lavatory rolls.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:19 pm Report comment

qdec

Interesting link, thanks. I am a little baffled as I thought all but three MP’s voted for the Climate Change Bill in Parliament. The three against were reported as being Peter Lilley and two other Conservatives. Was this wrong then?

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:25 pm Report comment

@fabiandelusions “I’m not ashamed to say it reduced me to tears.” Didums Den!

I’m not ashamed to say you reduce me to hysterical laughter….nearly spilt my tea!

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:29 pm Report comment

@fabiansolutions
“Fighters and Believers” sounds like something from a Fundamentalist video……I ain’t gonna touch that link even with yours!

orkneylad on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm Report comment

The list of members of the Commons Science and Technology Committee provided by @skeptik (Jan 23rd, 2010 at 7:43 am) is very helpful.

It does not assuage my doubts about the collective competence of the committee. A key skill they require is to be able to unpick statistical analyses and presentation in a spohisticated manner. Few science graduates, particularly those who do not progress to research, have that ability.

Even if the committee were perfect my doubts would persist. There is to be a general election within five months. That span would be too little even if the committee members were to spend most of their time on the task. Moreover, they are going to be preoccupied with electioneering. The committee will dissolve at the election and when reformed it is likely to have few members in continuous service.

Thus the Committee would do best to set itself a modest agenda. It should seek merely to ask whether there is a prima facie case that all is not well in climate research. If so, the committee should recommend the nature and structure of a formal enquiry to be commissioned by Parliament after the election.

Pragmatist on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:59 pm Report comment

From Nature Magazine:

+++++++[Steven] Chu plans to tackle climate change by reviving the scientific and technological urgency of the Manhattan Project — enlisting some of the nation’s best minds to find a way to power the world without ruining it. His plans start at home, where he is trying to push the ponderous DOE to support riskier research that could yield huge dividends.

With a budget of US$27 billion, the department runs 17 national laboratories, oversees America’s nuclear stockpile and manages the environmental clean-up after the early nuclear age. It is the largest source of funds for physical-science research in the United States, and this year Chu had a much bigger pot to dole out. Just one month into his tenure, Congress gave the agency $37 billion in economic stimulus money — funds that Chu is steering towards renewable energy, nuclear power, carbon-sequestration pilot plants and projects to modernize the electric grid, all of which should help to solve the climate problem.

“They say that necessity is the mother of invention and this is the mother of all necessities,” he says. “So we’re going to get the mother of all inventions. And it’s not going to be just one, it has to be many.” +++++++++

This man controls billions. And he bases it on the hockey stick science that has been completely discredited.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091223/full/462978a.html

jamesa on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:10 pm Report comment

Friends

As a strong supporter of James Delingpole, I recommend you also read the brilliant article by his colleague, Gerald Warner on Cameron’s obsession with supporting AGW scam. The clincher to vote for UKIP, I think:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/geraldwarner/

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:11 pm Report comment

@realityreturns
Yeah I read it…..no credible alternative to UKIP?
Will the Liberals possibly do a U-turn on AGW?

No shame in switching tack when the wind changes boys.

otherwise…..
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/mr-t.jpg

orkneylad on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:17 pm Report comment

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:11 pm

I’ll also be voting UKIP and I think there will be surprise at just how many of us do. It’s about time the political classes and the media had a kick up the arse. The people hold the power. Not them.

grandsmalls on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:28 pm Report comment

Pragmatist on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:59 pm

I agree with your conclusion

No time before the election, far better ‘Cast Iron’ Dave should commit in his manifesto to a parliamentary commission, otherwise he will not win over the electorate who will go to UKIP and BNP

In any case as has already been noted very few MP’s voted against the climate bill. We need a new set of brooms to sweep away the sleaze and self serving current occupant’s in Westminster

manonthemoor on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:30 pm Report comment

Bishop Hill offers the email addresses of the committee. I sent them a message:

The British and American public will be closely watching your investigation into the corruption of the UN. This is from the UN and is a quick look at the problem.

CLIMATE POLICY – FROM RIO TO KYOTO
A Political Issue for 2000 – and Beyond

(In particular refer to page 19/20: ‘Politics Enters into Drafting the IPCC Report.’ Here examples are given of ’substantial changes … made between the time when the report was approved in Madrid and the time it was printed. (The convening lead author, Ben Santer, readily admitted to making these changes.)

jamesa on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:36 pm Report comment

Re: fabiansolutions on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 2:08 pm

Once again a posting that is completely off topic and merely advertising for the Labour Party.

One of the reasons that the Daily Telegraph pays people like James Delingpole is because he attracts a lot of readers and contributors. This, in turn, attracts advertisers who pay the DT money in order to be able to advertise where their advertisments are seen.

Since fabiansolutions is advertising, he should be paying the Daily Telegraph for the privilege of doing so. Attempting to use a comment facility for the purpose of advertising is the equivalent of theft.

Of course, this should not surprise us. All socialists are, at bottom, thieves. They think that it is their right to spend other people’s money on their own pet ideas. Its known as “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. Obviously the selfish sanctimonious hypocritical Pauls are all in favour. They even accuse the Peters of being “selfish”. However, in all rational societies robbery is a crime.

It was a French socialist, Proudhon, who said that: “all property is theft”. In my view most taxation is theft!

It surprises me that the DT allows itself to be ripped off in this way!

skeptik on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:48 pm Report comment

fabiancrap, I’ve reported your posting of 2:08, as irrelevant spam. It’s also a guaranteed vote-loser for the sewer party, I’m afraid. And stop playing with your alter ego, progressivepoohs, you’ll go blind.

I suspect that you would have to have a heart of stone not to burst out laughing at “Fighters and Believers”. But I can’t be bothered.

Clothilde S on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 3:48 pm Report comment

Slightly OT, but this link was in the WUWT blog:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

It’s summary of a paper by Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, Merian-Schule Freiburg, 8/2006.

It says that the IPCC used <1% of the available CO2 data when preparing their reports. The conclusions are interesting:

“Accurate chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared
to the literature of IPCC climate change actually published.”

“1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a
variing CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a
maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.
2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2-
concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the
average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338
ppm.
3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known
several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in
the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420
pmm in 1942.
4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical
methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored
reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period.
5. Callendar and Keeling were the most important founders of the modern greenhouse
theory (IPCC) beside Arrhenius. Literature research confirmed that they ignored a big
part of available technical papars and selected only a few values to get a validation of
their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of CO2 in air. Furthermore these authors
discussed and reproduced the few selected historic results by chemical methods in a
faulty way and propagated an unfounded view of the quality of these methods, without
having dealt with its chemical basis.
6. To reconstruct the modern CO2 concentration of air icecores from Antarctica had been
used. The presented reconstructions are obviously not accurate enough to show the
several variations of carbon dioxide in northern hemisphere.”

Worth a read…(my boldening)

ferret on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 4:00 pm Report comment

Slightly OT, but this link was in the WUWT blog:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

It’s summary of a paper by Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, Merian-Schule Freiburg, 8/2006.

It says that the IPCC used <1% of the available CO2 data when preparing their reports. The conclusions are interesting:

“Accurate chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared
to the literature of IPCC climate change actually published.”

Worth a read…(my boldening)

ferret on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 4:00 pm Report comment

Sorry, I’m sure I didn’t post that twice!

ferret on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 4:02 pm Report comment

More nonsense from Louise Gray, but it does highlight the sort of idiots (a battery!) we are dealing with – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7053637/Pen-Hadow-admits-battery-was-the-problem-on-Arctic-climate-change-expedition.html

He can’t manage to take a spare battery with him, but he is able to drill in just the right places to ‘confirm’ that global warming is happening. It would be laughable if it was not so serious.

will8ace on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 4:13 pm Report comment

On the subjects of UKIP and climate change, Lord Monckton’s very own blog on the UKIP website – http://talking-clock.blogspot.com/2010/01/climategate-no-let-up-from-lord.html

This is going to be the greatest election ever, I can’t wait

will8ace on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 4:21 pm Report comment

realityreturns

here’s the site. http://www.dhmo.org/

It was created by a media literacy Librarian at Mankato University, Mankato, Minnesota, USA.

His name is Don Descy.

jamesa on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 4:44 pm Report comment

Excellent stuff, James.

We are most grateful for the fact that you are leading the charge with Lord Monckton. Slowly, slowly I think you are winning the argument.

I was not impressed that when Phil Willis announced his Select Committee Enquiry he referred to Climate Change deniers.

Sounded a bit like Fatuous Delusions.

Keep up the good work, James.

delboy36 on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 4:47 pm Report comment

Lord Monckton adresses a Greenpeace-campaigner on global warming:

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

totally owned & all your motley crew.

orkneylad on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 4:54 pm Report comment

A bit of info on Phil Willis re. the desirability of geoengineering and regulation to combat ‘climate change’:-

Page 9 – http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1001/pdf/climate.pdf

will8ace on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 4:59 pm Report comment

orkneylad @ 4.54pm

Thanks for the link. That was the most brilliant and gentlemanly putdown I have ever seen!

delboy36 on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 5:31 pm Report comment

jamesa – Many thanks – I’ll keep a look out for it if I can remember the name….

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 5:38 pm Report comment

Nick Griffin MEP on the Bilderberg Global Warming Scam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9WFVQIpJZM

Lord Monckton’s website on the scam, according to Monckton too, this is not about saving the third world but about reducing their populations, already, food prices have doubled, for us that is an incionvenience, for most in the third world it is a death sentance..

http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org

britishpatriot on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 5:39 pm Report comment

Brown-Balls CDP [Carbon Disclosure Project] loan syndicates appear to be enforcing the AGW protection racket by paying propagandists, saboteurs and assassins through algorithms developed by NAG (below).

Captain Sherlock’s penny has now dropped.

The Warmist bankers put a charismatic male in the White House dictator position – he will need
‘distance’ from decisions to have an enemy (Ron Brown, Beverly Eckert) whacked – and then use a First Lady with a background in intellectual property law as custodian of the algorithmic newrulesets which triggers the kill signal at the crime scene.

Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama are both Alinskyite IP lawyers married to charismatic thieves.

captainsherlock on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 5:43 pm Report comment

On a lighter note, do Fabiandelusions and his clone belong to this oragnisation?

http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm#vhemt

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 6:18 pm Report comment

One of the more significant and interesting aspects of Glaciergate is that it illustrates how blatantly the IPCC and Warmists are willing to ignore the sniff and reasonableness tests. The sheer implausible magnitude of the assertion should have set off clanging alarm bells right off the bat, but it was swallowed whole.

The Gore-Bull exaggerations are of the same order of magnitude, of course, but even the “runaway” assertions crucial to the whole warming hypothesis are completely out of left field when the geo-paleo-record is considered. The huge excursions of CO2 levels in the deep past to 20X current ones without turning the planet into a bubbling or baked shell render the assumptions of calamity from the comparatively tiny changes contemplated in their “scenarios” risible.

But they generate every fanciful mechanism they can come up with, and use grotesque super-simplifications of wildly non-linear system equations, to justify and “illustrate” their warnings. And then leverage those with the “precautionary” principle, which essentially says, “If we can imagine or fantasize it, we should be given unlimited funding to prevent it.”

I think not.

Brian on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 6:26 pm Report comment

New Chris Booker article just released on the DT site with regard to Dr Rajendra Pachauri and his ‘Glaciergate’

manonthemoor on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 6:34 pm Report comment

britishpatriot – thanks for the links. Nick Griffin talks good sense as did Godfrey Bloom for UKIP.

Did Roger Helmer MEP (Tory AGW dissenter) speak, does anyone know?

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 6:35 pm Report comment

@brian
“The huge excursions of CO2 levels in the deep past…”

Global Temp & Atmospheric C02 over gelogical time:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/geologicaltime.jpg

orkneylad on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 6:41 pm Report comment

@ferret thanks for that fascinating link re CO2 levels. Any of you experts have any thoughts on this?

James Delingpole on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 6:43 pm Report comment

@ferret, JD, aye. I’m amazed – I always accepted the Vostok and Mauna Loa CO2 data and believed the smooth increase over the last century was uniform across the globe.

Clearly it ain’t the case, so why haven’t we heard about this before?

ozboy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 7:26 pm Report comment

Re ferret’s CO2 link.

Taken together with skeptik’s link on Zbigniew Jaworowski’s views (http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm), could be another devastating blow to the AGW hypothesis.

Needs careful examination.

burgess on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 7:44 pm Report comment

realityreturns,

All the EU debates are available on the BBC’s Democracy live site – http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/

It may take a bit of searching, but I think it was 20/01/09.

will8ace on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 7:52 pm Report comment

ozboy: “why haven’t we heard about this before?”

Because it’s an inconvenient truth?

sean on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:07 pm Report comment

@burgess

Holy moley, another one! So CO2 in Antarctic ice core bubbles is a function of depth pressure and not age.

Geez this is coming apart fast (:-O

ozboy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:08 pm Report comment

The quote of the century?

Mr Pachauri – http://tinyurl.com/ybqxzgm

will8ace on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:09 pm Report comment

captainsherlock: please see my comments above about NAG. You’re making no sense to me.

Clothilde S. on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:09 pm Report comment

Fast, but I see Prof. Jaworowski’s evidence is dated March 2004. Sean is right – it’s an inconvenient truth

ozboy on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:12 pm Report comment

captainsherlock,

What do you make of this? http://www.copenhagencarbon.com/

This will get you started – http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/mike-rigby/12/75a/a17

will8ace on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:16 pm Report comment

RE: ferret on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Beck’s work has been criticised:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

upik on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:27 pm Report comment

Beck is also mentioned on Godfrey Boom’s list of skeptics – http://www.godfreybloommep.co.uk/climate-change.htm

Beck’s paper was being quoted back in 2007 as well – http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/press_releases_files/2007/0223_inconvenient_gore.shtml

will8ace on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 8:54 pm Report comment

Wish I could join in the general joviality re this enquiry… with warmists on the panel how the f+++ are we to expect anything but whitewash?

Strikes me they are only looking to catch the people who obtained the e-mails, so that they can discredit them.

I’m not wishing to pour cold water on things, just blo++y sick of these scoundrels and their lies. Don’t see how they can afford to lose face now, its too big a pile of shite.

I am all for lynch mob now.

owdal80 on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 pm Report comment

Apparently the earth has been warming for the last 300 yrs, so not down to manmade pollution, what the fraudsters were doing was trying to suggest that this natural warming cycle had been accelerated by our actions, by failing to take account of the hundreds of Siberian weather stations that were no longer included in Global Averaging after the Berlin wall came down, this led to an apparent warming in the data that they knew about.
Another ommision was the middle ages warming period.
Not to mention the fact that temperature leads CO2 levels in the Graphs.
The earth has been far warmer in the past, why no runaway greenhouse effect then.

britishpatriot on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 9:30 pm Report comment

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO SIGN THE PETITION: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/

If you want to get involved in making a public submission please come and help at: http://www.climatemice.com/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Inquiry.ClimategateInquiry

heypresto on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:00 pm Report comment

will8ace

Good link on the list of AGW dissenting scientists. At a quick glance, Richard Lindzen, Ian Pilmer and Don Easterbrook are all Professors but not lised as such.

This is important as the dastardly Greens always try to tell everyone that the best qualified scientists are AGW proponents. That annoys me so much as most dissenting scientists are very well qualified, a large number are eminent in their field such as the above.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 10:49 pm Report comment

Now what really could be described as “healthy” would be to have the Chair of any inquiry keep an open mind throughout the whole of the proceedings.

But surely this the role of the Chair of any Parliamentary Select Committee?

If not, how can the outcome of the proceedings be defined as the results of an inquiry? Are they not just going to be the result of an opportunity to reaffirm already held beliefs?

I do sincerly hope that the Chair of the forthcomming Inquiry refutes the words attributed to him in this mornings press. You never know, maybe they were reported “out of context”?

If not I fear that we are about to witness an elaborate attempt at another Climate Change Educational, only this time it will be a Parliamentary Select Committee Production, to ensure that “the public can see what they are saying”. The inference being that it is not “healthy” for the public to think and form views of their own? That seems to ring a bell somewhere….

Well, there I go again being an old cynic again! I really am a disgrace, I must go away and look up the new modern political correct meaning of impartiality and integrity, they appear to have passed me by.

greensand on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:10 pm Report comment

will8ace

I liked this bit of your quote of the year best:

“Pachauri described the IPCC’s processes as “robust and solid”.

That’s not what a long list of IPCC participating scientists say including Professors John Christy and Richard Lindzen, Dr Madhav Khandekar, Dr Philip Lloyd, Dr Tom Segalstad, Dr Kiminori Itoh and Dr Aynsley Kellow.

Dr Vincent Gray states:

“The whole process is a swindle, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming. The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.”

I think I would be more inclined to accept the views of climate scientists, physicists, geologists and physical chemists over a pathetic railway engineer with a conflict of interests.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:11 pm Report comment

greensand

Sir, I have not seen your posts before but that is a good one. Let’s stick to the old meanings of impartiality and integrity – I am fearful politicians will not though.

realityreturns on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:16 pm Report comment

realityreturns

Sir, I sincerely hope that your choice of “blog” name proves to be truly prophetic.

I think that this is going to get really messy and by its nature it can never come to an absolute conclusion. There will be a lot of people on both sides of the divide that will have to do a great deal of soul searching. It should therefore be incumbent on any commentator to keep this in mind.

However I am well and truly p—d off at being called a “flat-earther” by the PM and by inference Dave & Cleggie

They need to remember “If you think small things don’t make a difference, try spending a night in a room with a mosquito” – Dalai Lama

Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz………BUZZ

greensand on Jan 24th, 2010 at 12:33 am Report comment

will8ace “captainsherlock, What do you make of this? http://www.copenhagencarbon.com/ ”

We have now exposed the USS-Teachers’ “Murder by Algorithm” racket including the 350 Cap and Kill rule, authored by ex-Joyce Foundation director Barack Obama, and adopted by USS members such as University College, UAE and Mike Rigby’s crony clients at Copenhagen Carbon Management including the BBC Pension Trust.

As we hunt them into criminal courts, they will stage diversionary terror attacks such as the University College crotch bomb or something in London Central.

Main thing is the Brown-Balls* Pachauri team at 10 Downing Street is panicking and while they can run they cannot hide from Abel Danger counter-intelligence.
http://abeldanger.blogspot.com/

*Gordon Brown and Yvette Cooper’s husband Ed Balls

“The UK terror threat level is being raised from “substantial” to “severe”, Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said. The new alert level means a terrorist attack is considered “highly likely”. It had stood at substantial since July. Mr Johnson refused to say it was linked to the failed Detroit airliner bombing, and said the government would not reveal specific intelligence details. The home secretary stressed there was no intelligence to suggest a terrorist attack was imminent. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8476238.stm ”

“Mike Rigby, an experienced climate change business consultant, established Copenhagen Carbon Management (CCM) to deliver climate change solutions to businesses across the globe.” “What can we do for you? Copenhagen Carbon Management is staffed by experts that can help you calculate your carbon footprint using established and respected methodologies. We can work with you to design and implement carbon reduction strategies to minimise your carbon emissions and then source the very best carbon credits available to offset your unavoidable residual emissions. Carbon Offsetting is popular with consumers with almost 70% of UK consumers being engaged with the climate change agenda”

captainsherlock on Jan 24th, 2010 at 1:48 am Report comment

[Links removed to pass moderation]

will8ace “captainsherlock, What do you make of this?”

As we hunt them into criminal courts, they will stage diversionary terror attacks such as the University College crotch bomb or something in London Central.

Main thing is the Brown-Balls* Pachauri team at 10 Downing Street is panicking and while they can run they cannot hide from Abel Danger counter-intelligence.
http://abeldanger.blogspot.com/

*Gordon Brown and Yvette Cooper’s husband Ed Balls

captainsherlock on Jan 24th, 2010 at 1:50 am Report comment

The degree to which ‘whitewash’ has become the instant assesment of people in this Country regarding anything to do with our racketeering criminal Politicians and such things as Inquiries, should be fair and clear warning to them of just how thin the ice is they are now walking on.

owdal80, it’s the dregs of joviality is all that’s preventing the lynch mobs right now.

You should hear what people are saying about the news the Police are getting these UAV spys in the sky.

The mood is getting pretty damned ugly, and ‘pushing of luck’ needs to stop pretty darned smartish.

rastech on Jan 24th, 2010 at 2:01 am Report comment

Well, also how close we are to an election. It was that which enabled me to finally calm someone down earlier tonight that’s bouncing mad at what’s going on.

It still took me almost an hour to calm them down though.

We’re lucky the election is so close imho.

This one had better not be rigged . . . .

rastech on Jan 24th, 2010 at 2:16 am Report comment

Links removed to pass moderation.
will8ace 8:16 pm
“captainsherlock, What do you make of this?”

As we hunt them into criminal courts, they will stage diversionary terror attacks such as the University College crotch bomb or something in London Central.

Main thing is the Brown-Balls* Pachauri team at 10 Downing Street is panicking and while they can run they cannot hide from Abel Danger counter-intelligence.

*Gordon Brown and Yvette Cooper’s husband Ed Balls

captainsherlock on Jan 24th, 2010 at 2:19 am Report comment

Brown-Balls Pachauri pension funds have been using the CDP credit pool at 10 Downing Street to invest in algorithmic (computer operated) cat bonds; the kind that could have been triggered by these guys …

“Kochi: Two Sri Lankan nationals were detained at the Nedumbassery international airport when they tried to leave the country with alleged forged passports today. The passengers were on their way to United Kingdom via Doha. They were to board a Qatar Airways flight scheduled to leave at 4.35 AM, when the emigration personnel found their passports were forged, emigration officials said. They were identified as Dransun Dinesh (24) of Mullatheevu and Chandramohan Sellathurai (32) of Mannar in Sri Lanka. Emigration SP Alex M Varkey said both Sri Lankans had reportedly reached India about six months back. They told the emigration personnel that they were on their way to UK to find some employment. They had reached here by train from Tiruchirappalli. Dransun had passport of one Sunil of Goa. His uncle Rajan, who is working in Canada [Maurice Strong has corrupted Canadian Passport office and Montreal Office of ICAO to faciliate moevement of Unabombers] had arranged the ticket and travel documents for him, while Chandramohan managed to acquire a passport of one Renjithkumar of Coimbatore, Varkey said.”

“It looks like Menzies Aviation handles Ground Handling at the Amsterdam Airport as well as the Mumbai and London airports [and Chicago’s O’Hare] It seems like Al Qaeda has infiltrated this ground handling company”

“Pakistani-origin American national David Coleman Headley, charged with criminal conspiracy in the Mumbai terror attacks, had misrepresented facts while applying for an Indian visa, the FBI has charged. “In applying for his visa to travel to India, Headley misrepresented his birth name, father’s true name and the purpose for his travel,” the FBI said in its 12-count charge sheet filed against him in a Chicago court. For applying for a visa to travel to India, he took the help of his school-time friend Tahawwur Hussain Rana, who ran an immigration service in Chicago, named the First World Immigration Services. Rana, a 48-year-old Canadian of Pakistani-origin, too has been arrested by the FBI on terror charges. Headley, 49, obtained Rana’s approval to open a First World office in Mumbai as cover for this activity. The FBI charge sheet alleges that Rana instructed one of his employees to prepare documents to support Headley’s cover story and advised him on how to obtain a visa for travel to India.”

captainsherlock on Jan 24th, 2010 at 2:40 am Report comment

@James D someone may have already posted this but it’s a parody of the microsoft help clip thingy about climate change, and you you can now buy it on a coffee mug and would be fun to send to all the major AGW players as a gift especially the UEA bunch enjoy.
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-happens-when-you-run-climate.html

crownarmourer on Jan 24th, 2010 at 6:05 am Report comment

James Delingpole on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 6:43 pm

re CO2 levels

I have now read Beck’s paper several times – but decided to sleep on it, (not that I got much sleep), before commenting.

IF Beck’s paper stands up, (and that “IF” is a very important qualification), and it is found that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have shown very little increase over recent years and so have very little / nothing to do with the burning of “fossil fuels”, then the whole of the AGW edifice comes crashing down – and a mean the whole, not just part of it.

This is far more important than the e-mail leaks, “shrinking” glaciers, “melting” polar ice caps, adjusting temperature data – or even the raw temperature data itself.

I think that it is essential that the data behind Beck’s analysis is made available on-line so that statisticians, (and it is a matter of statistics), can analyse it.

What we would need to do is investigate each set of CO2 data and determine how each set fits in with the others. If the fits are good, then the data stands up, (and we can work out why the ice core data and Mauna Loa data disagree / are wrong), and AGW falls. If they aren’t, then we are back where we were.

I described a much simpler version of this type of analysis which I did on the four main temperature reconstructions in my postiong of Jan 3rd, 2010 at 11:30 am on your blog: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021135/climategate-michael-manns-very-unhappy-new-year/

This showed, (surprise, surprise), that the famous “Hockey Stick” reconstruction was out on a limb.

skeptik on Jan 24th, 2010 at 9:16 am Report comment

Have a look at this….here is the Editorial Board of NATURE at it again…this is from the current issue

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html

snowmaneasy on Jan 24th, 2010 at 9:19 am Report comment

Here are some passages from the Nature Editorial quoted above….

“Climate of suspicion
With climate-change sceptics waiting to pounce on any scientific uncertainties, researchers need a sophisticated strategy for communication.”

Here is their op[inion on CClimategate…

“The emails leaked last year from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, UK, painted a picture of scientists grappling with this question, sometimes awkwardly. Some of the researchers’ online discussion reflected a pervasive climate of suspicion — their sense that any findings they released to the public could and would be distorted by sceptics.”

And here is what they think about the Himalayan issue….

“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has taken this approach in its ongoing series of assessment reports, and it has done an admirable job of highlighting the important conclusions while acknowledging the caveats. It has made some errors, such as its use of questionable data about the retreat of Himalayan glaciers (see page 276), but these mistakes are exceedingly rare in reports that can total more than 1,000 pages, a testament to the IPCC’s rigorous peer-review process.”

They really see nothing wrong in any of this…they are still holding on while the ship sinks….

snowmaneasy on Jan 24th, 2010 at 9:40 am Report comment

Neat rhetorical trick in the Nature editorial: it talks about ‘the climate-research community’.
You might think that this means ‘the set of people who research climate’. Nope, the article makes clear that it actually means ‘the set of people who research climate and also agree with the theories of the author of the article’. If you don’t agree with him he won’t acknowledge that you even belong to ‘the climate-research community’.

bart on Jan 24th, 2010 at 10:32 am Report comment

Well spotted, bart, AGW is a religion. Heretics are shunned. The entire charade is an affrontery to science or as David Bellamy puts it anti-science.

realityreturns on Jan 24th, 2010 at 10:40 am Report comment

I just noticed that in the above Nature quote they say the following…

“The e-mails leaked last year from the Climatic Research…”

…they have stopped saying they were stolen….maybe they know something we don’t…I guess even to these guys it is now obvious that the e-mails were released by a whistleblower

snowmaneasy on Jan 24th, 2010 at 10:43 am Report comment

I’ve read 3 articles the Times today about glaciergate ans associated scams. Well done Delingpole and all the rest of you, you are having an impact at last!

dirlada on Jan 24th, 2010 at 10:56 am Report comment

I have this horrible feeling that this is a long-grass kicking exercise. Make sure the enquiry has such a wide frame of reference that it takes forever to report, giving those who are implicated (the scientists) and the gullible (most of our politicians it seems) time to find a scapegoat to blame (research students are always handy in this regard) or to distance themselves from the whole topic.

Alternatively they want to make sure the whitewash job is comprehensive and are simply drawing all the components in to give them the most comprehensive all-over whitening possible.

cloudman on Jan 24th, 2010 at 11:20 am Report comment

upik, interesting that the linked criticism of Beck, demands a far more rigorous standard of measurement station specification, than the Enviro Fascist Greenshirts are prepared to subject themselves to with their weather stations:
“For the oversight of historical measurements, it is important to know where and how was sampled and measured, including wind direction and surroundings. ”
It does not disagree that the measurement capability at the time for atmospheric CO2 with certain methods used was pretty good.
It accepts a correlation as well (though it could be considered a coincidence on its own, it does seem to track the other findings of CO2 levels following climate rather than driving it) :
“That is the thesis of Ernst Beck [1], who compiled thousands (90.000!) of historical data from all over the world, averaged them and found a correlation between the average historical CO2 levels and temperature in the century before the Mauna Loa (and other station) data came into play.”
Is ‘reverse cherry picking’ and mud slinging going on, with an attempt to imply that methods used for measuring CO2 content in exhaled air, were the methods used to measure atmospheric CO2? A n attempted false ‘guilt by association’ straw man argument? What if this exhaled air technique was only used to measure the CO2 level in submarines, for instance? There must be records available of the methods used for acquiring most of these 90,000 data sets, as scientific diligence was pretty good in general.
I could question the siting of modern CO2 measuring sites ‘conveniently’ located very close to where lots of vehicles pass in a steady stream, vehicles fitted with catalytic converters to them? That would certainly make them susceptible to false highs, wouldn’t they?
Given how many measuring stations are indeed put up in car parks and at the sides of roads, that could be the case, couldn’t it?
Frankly I am highly wary of anything that demands far higher standards for an opposing argument, than is conceded for ones own argument.

rastech on Jan 24th, 2010 at 11:57 am Report comment

realityreturns,

Do you remember this? http://tinyurl.com/yexj5fu

I will never be able to forget it. The magnitude of that decision has not truly been felt yet. If an ‘environmental correspondent’ believes that AGW is a real and present danger, even though there is no evidence to support the theory, he can say what he likes and get away with it. If he is challenged, he can claim discrimination on grounds of belief. It’s truly frightening.

will8ace on Jan 24th, 2010 at 12:06 pm Report comment

As John Motson once said, “It just keeps getting better and better” – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

The TIMES they are a-changin’, if you like a bit of Bob Dylan – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKm65xLpwIM

The IPCC is on the run, it now needs to be properly held to account for its central role in the greatest scientific scandal in the history of mankind. Others will have questions to answer as well, especially the former and current editors of ‘respected’ scientific journals, such as Nature. Their role, whether it was conscious or unconscious, in this scandal should not be underestimated in any way.

will8ace on Jan 24th, 2010 at 12:31 pm Report comment

Yes as dirlada mentioned, it’s quite amusing to read Clodhopper Clover trying to backtrack over Glaciergate at the Times – very similar to Lean over here. It’s a bit like watching someone hanging onto a column for dear life (AGW) while a tsunami rushes beneath their feat!

yaosxx on Jan 24th, 2010 at 12:38 pm Report comment

Daily Mail’s take on Glaciergate:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

yaosxx on Jan 24th, 2010 at 12:48 pm Report comment

“The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

So how many more claims have been included elsewhere just to put political pressure on World leaders??
The cat is definitely out of the bag and with knobs on!!

yaosxx on Jan 24th, 2010 at 12:52 pm Report comment

Oh yes, will8ace, I rememeber it well. This is the sort of hogwash that makes our judiciary a laughing stock.

However, it has an odd message too: If AGW is recognised as a religion, it hardly helps the scientific case. Religion does not need scientific evidence to support it, just faith. No wonder the Pope struck out at the dogmas of the environmentalist movement being more dogmatic than any religion (Daily Mail 2008, if I remember corectly).

Be afraid, be very afraid. There are some AGW fanatics around who see anyone who disagrees with them (i.e.us) as genocidal maniacs.

Personally, I see the warmists as the real threat to our way of life. they are latter day luddites bent on destroying our civilisation. Coincidentally, the third world uplift from poverty will be damaged by denying them relatively cheap hydrocarbon fuels….a lose / lose situation, I think.

realityreturns on Jan 24th, 2010 at 12:53 pm Report comment

…and STILL nothing of any substance on the BBC…..unbelieveable. LMAO

‘Let all the poison that lurks in the mud hatch out.’

orkneylad on Jan 24th, 2010 at 12:56 pm Report comment

Hi All there are two interesting comments on the Chris Booker blog today

1 —- By Mick J
on January 24, 2010
at 10:10 AM

This concerns manipulation by IPCC with regard to diseases spread by insects eg mosquito’s

2 —by Sam
on January 24, 2010
at 10:10 AM

This concerns hurricane and cyclone activity.

Finally with the regard to the Co2 Beck analysis and the alternative challenge to it would seem that the claimed increase in levels c 1942 is in dispute, and requires a wide professional analysis. Clearly if the Beck results are validated then this will have a profound negative effect on the AGW campaign, either way the scientific community will be much wiser

manonthemoor on Jan 24th, 2010 at 12:56 pm Report comment

realityreturns,

Agreed. Fascism is easy to recognise, but it is very difficult to get rid of. It’s a bit like cleaning a dirty oven without having any Mr Muscle. However, we should keep trying.

will8ace on Jan 24th, 2010 at 1:13 pm Report comment

BASIC countries accede to Copenhagen Accord
”Officials from Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC countries) met here on Sunday and indicated their support to the Copenhagen Accord on climate change.

The officials from the four countries met in New Delhi to devise a common strategy ahead of the January 31 deadline for the accord, a non-binding agreement that emerged from the climate change summit in the Danish capital in December.

The meeting of the bloc of emerging powers is likely to announce a fund they will set up to help other developing countries cope with the effects of climate change.

Only four countries — Australia, Canada, Papua New Guinea and the Maldives — have signed the Copenhagen Accord so far, though South Korea have also indicated their willingness to do so.

Though Australia and Canada have signed, they have not indicated the greenhouse gas emission reductions they are committing under the accord — something developed countries are supposed to do.

Keywords: BASIC, India, China, South Africa, Brazil, Copenhagen Accord, climate change”

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article94233.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZbp34ahDzs

theunbrainwashed on Jan 24th, 2010 at 1:18 pm Report comment

BASIC countries want climate negotiations by March

Posted : Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:09:44 GMT

New Delhi – The Copenhagen accord should be seen as part of the two-track negotiating process towards reaching a climate accord in Mexico City in December, ministers from Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) said Sunday. The BASIC ministers, in a joint statement, also called for the convening of a meeting of the two main negotiating groups at Copenhagen – the developed and developing countries – by March.

“These negotiating groups should be called in March and at least six meetings should be held in the year 2010 so that we have a successful conclusion at Mexico City,” India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said at the conclusion of a meeting of the BASIC ministers in New Delhi….

More here

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/305486,basic-countries-want-climate-negotiations-by-march.html
No 1!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY

theunbrainwashed on Jan 24th, 2010 at 1:39 pm Report comment

If we’re going to mention posts on Booker’s column I rather like this one which seems to prove the proof’s in the pudding!:

“Yesterday I had an ice-cream sitting outside a German “Eiscafé” while smoking a fag. I was talking to a colleague so much, that it was only after half an hour that I managed to get stuck into it (it was designed to look like sphagetti bolognese). However, I pointed out that, even half an hour after it was put on our table, it hadn’t even started to melt. So what does this show? What it shows is that global warming is a load of bo*loc*s, that’s what. If my little bowl of ice-cream “Sphagetti Bolognese” doesn’t melt in half-an-hour how the hell do they reckon all the glaciers in the Himalayas will melt in 20 years? Global warming: it’s not rocket science, you know.”

yaosxx on Jan 24th, 2010 at 1:49 pm Report comment

How the bogus 2035 melt date for Himalayan glaciers has been repeated in the peer-reviewed literature.

http://notin2035.com/

burgess on Jan 24th, 2010 at 1:56 pm Report comment

The SPPI’s latest monthly C02 report:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_december.html

orkneylad on Jan 24th, 2010 at 2:14 pm Report comment

The Select Committee must read this: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

mrtipster on Jan 24th, 2010 at 2:18 pm Report comment

will8ace

The battles continue; the eco-fascists will be defeated but it remains an uphill struggle. The big lie I think we have to correct is the consensus among scientists – there is no consensus even amongst warmists, especially the validity of the computer models.

In considering any claim to scientific consensus, it seems appropriate to note the following statement by Dr Benjamin Santer, author of the 2007 IPCC report chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming – NOT AN AGW SCEPTIC: to my knowledge.

“It’s unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC report) chapter “on the detection of greenhouse warming.” I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say that the attribution issue [man-made climate change] was a done deal.”

NZ – Dr. Jim Renwick, of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) and a UN IPCC contributing scientist, although NOT a sceptic of AGW, admitted that:

“climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable” – bringing the credibility of these computer model predictions into doubt (June 2007).

realityreturns on Jan 24th, 2010 at 2:24 pm Report comment

Yoasxx
Thanks for the Daily mail link. Have you noticed that in both the Times and the Mail it’s not just the articles themselves which are a giant leap for mankind (well, some of mankind) it’s the comments – the posters seem predominantly against AGW and all its’ works. Brilliant, just brilliant

dirlada on Jan 24th, 2010 at 2:34 pm Report comment

Hi reality returns – we didn’t have any Ducky moments yesterday did we?

dirlada on Jan 24th, 2010 at 2:40 pm Report comment

UN climate change panel faces new controversy</b

* Share
* E-mail
* Comments Comment

STAFF WRITER 18:40 HRS IST H S Rao

London, Jan 24 (PTI) The United Nations panel of climate scientist, headed by India's Rajendra Pachauri faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

According to The Sunday Times, the panel based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny – and ignored warnings from scientific advisers. The report’s author later withdrew the claim because the evidence was too weak.

The link was central to demands at last month’s Copenhagen climate summit by African nations for compensation of USD 100 billion from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

According to the newspaper, the panel knew in 2008 that the link could not be proved but did not alert world leaders.

http://www.ptinews.com/news/483546_UN-climate-change-panel-faces-new-controversy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE4HGlmtOcg

theunbrainwashed on Jan 24th, 2010 at 3:34 pm Report comment

EU wants deeper carbon emissions cuts across the board

24 January 2010 – Issue : 870

EU environment ministers taking part at an informal meeting in Seville said on 16 January that they stood by their offer to move to a 30% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 despite the failure of December’s UN climate summit to secure a legally-binding agreement.

The ministers said keeping the proposal on the table would inject momentum into the deflated international climate talks after the failure of December’s Copenhagen summit. “We definitely think we should maintain the 30% offer. We think it is very, very important. It has always been a conditional offer but it is a very important signal that it is maintained,” British Energy and Climate Change Minister Ed (the horse) Miliband was quoted as saying by the press.

The EU had agreed ahead of the climate talks in Denmark to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% over the next decade from 1990 levels and to deepen those cuts to 30% if other nations followed suit. But the offer failed to inspire other nations to raise their targets for emissions cuts as had been hoped.

The United States and Canada have both proposed reducing their carbon emissions by just 3% over 1990 levels while Australia plans a 13% cut.

The climate summit ended with a deal that set the aim of limiting warming to two degrees Celsius but did not set legally-binding targets to reduce the emissions of gases. The roughly 50 nations which signed on to the accord have until the end of the month to declare their official carbon reduction commitments to the United Nations.

“The final evaluation is that it probably cannot be done,” Spanish Secretary of State for Climate Change Teresa Ribera told journalists after the Seville meeting. The decision had been widely expected.
Some countries, including France, Britain and the Netherlands, are now saying they want the EU to commit to a 30% reduction. Others, such as Poland and Italy, say they want to omit any reference to that target.

“It is not a question of going to 30% blindly. Nobody would accept that. We will go to 30% depending on the commitments that are published (by other developed nations),” said French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo.

Environmental groups criticized the proposal. Jason Anderson, Head of EU Climate and Energy Policy, WWF European Policy Office, said: “Europe’s current 20% target is extremely weak – we would actually have to slow down the pace of reductions seen in the past three years if we want to limit ourselves to this level. Between the excellent efforts of the renewable energy industries, and more dubious import of offset credits from other countries, Europe will be able to meet its target without polluting facilities making any changes at all. And yet the EU still has a policy of up to 95% emissions reductions by 2050 – there is no way we will achieve this goal if we delay making needed improvements by ten more years,” he said.

“By failing to take on a target of 30% or more we are foregoing massive energy savings that will improve Europe’s economy and lead to the creation of new jobs in industries that have a long future,” Anderson added.
“The EU has always made its mark on the world stage by leading from the front. Shifting expectations to what other countries need to do before the EU moves further is not only lacking in influence, it means foregoing real benefits at home. There is no reason to hold Europe’s economic future hostage to decisions made in Washington or Beijing,” he said.

Europe should put a 30% target into the Copenhagen Accord by 31 January, and look for ways to increase that ambition to 40% or more, which is what is consistent with the science of staying below 2 degrees warming, a limit to which the EU is committed, Anderson said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdRH3NdkAFc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUi5bLIJN6o

theunbrainwashed on Jan 24th, 2010 at 3:47 pm Report comment

dirlada – Actually I find the persistence of the Times contribution quite surprising really. The thing is I don’t normally check the printed copies of these papers so one doesn’t know if these are just online articles but maybe – steady here – it’s time to revise our statement that this is being ignored by MSM and instead state the Press that are regularly reporing this as against THOSE THAT ARE NOT!
So browny points for:
The Times
The Daily Mail
The Daily Express
The Sunday Telegraph
The Sunday Times
Feel free to add to the list.

yaosxx on Jan 24th, 2010 at 3:48 pm Report comment

UEA CRU’s achilles heel is the state of their data. They’ll survive being exposed as manipulative bullies; they won’t survive being shown to have based all their predictions on unreliable data.

The key person is Ian “Harry” Harris. He is the honest geek with responsibility for sorting out the base data. His notes reveal the chaos in the underlying data and the extent to which the theory of man-made global warming is built on sand.

The following gives a flavour:

“… getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too … I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.”

Anthony on Jan 24th, 2010 at 4:30 pm Report comment

yaosxx

There’s always Moonbat in the Guardian. Prejudice and bias at every comment must help all but true believers in AGW understand that only the shaken faith can be so full of desperate excuses.

realityreturns on Jan 24th, 2010 at 7:21 pm Report comment

GAT is so unlikely to rise by 2 deg C that a zero reduction will achieve it. Of course CO2 has minimal effect on temperature anyway as we have all seen so the whole AGW circus is ludicrous.

realityreturns on Jan 24th, 2010 at 7:29 pm Report comment

Oh dear,
impartial, honest or whatever, the bad news is that these guys at UAE will not be liable for proesuction under the FOIA.
The story is at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/25/loophole-in-uk-foia-laws-will-allow-cru-to-avoid-prosecution/#more-15650

6 months does seem a ludicrously short statute of limitations, does it not?

If we are looking for prosecutions, it would have to be for something else.

On the other side of the pond it may be different.

JMANON on Jan 25th, 2010 at 6:15 pm Report comment

PS Isn’t it civilised in here without David Welch. Does he not like the company here?

JMANON on Jan 25th, 2010 at 6:20 pm Report comment

ADD A COMMENT

You are required to be logged in or registered to post a comment

Search the blogs Search for: –> OUR NEWS BLOGS Celebrities Defence Education Pictures Politics Religion UK World Advertisement Archives Select Month January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 News Tagsafghanistan
al-Qaeda
Alistair Darling
Barack Obama
BBC
BNP
Boris Johnson
china
climate change
Climategate
Conservatives
Copenhagen
David Cameron
david miliband
eu
europe
european union
George Osborne
global warming
gordon brown
Harriet Harman
Hillary Clinton
India
Iran
Islam
Israel
labour
Lisbon Treaty
Lockerbie
Margaret Thatcher
michael jackson
Morning must-reads
MPs’ expenses
NHS
Obama
Peter Mandelson
Pope Benedict XVI
President Barack Obama
referendum
Sarah Palin
Taliban
The Guardian
tony blair
Tories
twitter News bloggers Adrian MichaelsAlex SingletonAlex SpilliusAndrew M BrownBen LeapmanBenedict BroganBryony GordonCeri RadfordChristopher HopeCon CoughlinDamian ThompsonDamien McElroyDaniel HannanDavid HughesDean NelsonEd WestGeoffrey LeanGeorge PitcherGerald WarnerIndia LenonJames DelingpoleJames KirkupJanet DaleyJonathan Wynne-JonesJulian KossoffMalcolm MooreMartin SalterMatthew MooreMelissa WhitworthMichael DeaconNile Gardiner
Norman Tebbit
Peter FosterPeter WedderburnPhilip JohnstonRachel MarsdenRichard PrestonRichard SpencerSarah MarcusStephanie GutmannThe Cartoon BlogTim CollardToby HarndenWill Heaven Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement

News UK News World News Obituaries Travel Health Jobs Football England World Cup 2010 Live Scores Culture Motoring Dating Finance Personal Finance Markets Economics Fashion Property Games Comment Letters My Telegraph Blogs Technology Food and Drink Offers Contact Us Privacy Policy Advertising A to Z Announcements Promotions Reader Prints RSS feeds Widgets Mobile Epaper Expat Subscribe Syndication

Terms and Conditions

Today’s News

Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climatega

Leave a Reply