Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of Global Warming?
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW.
The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realize just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
"In an odd way this is cheering news."
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
"This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?"
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice!"
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as "How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie" – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having "cherry-picked" data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millennium. Hadley CRU was also the organization which – in contravention of all acceptable behavior in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called "skeptical" view is now also the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true, it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.
By James Delingpole.
Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-...
Further reading:
- Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released!
- The CRU hack.
- Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?
- Hackers target leading climate research unit.
- Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists.
- The global warming scandal of the century.
- Warmist conspiracy exposed?
- Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute.
- The Blue-Dress Moment May Have Arrived.
- HadleyCRU says leaked data is real.
- Hacked: Sensitive Documents Lifted from Hadley Climate Center.
A note from Zooot: ABCNNBBCBS is simply not reporting this story, so we need to bypass them, just as it had been done with the Downing Street Memo. Copy off all these articles about the emails from the Hadley CRU proving intention to deceive the world on Anthropogenic Global Warming and email them to evertyone you know, then ask them to email to everyone they know, and so on.
Flood the blog-O-sphere with this story. Forward to all your friends, twitter it, facebook it, myspace it, send it to your local newspapers. This is the story that proves large scale government conspiracies involving the entire media really do exist, and you need to force it into the public consciousness.
- Login or register to post comments
- Report this page
No doubt as we contemplate the figure who has rocketed from obscurity to became "the President of Europe", we have all made silly little jokes about "Mr Rumpy". After the eight tortuous years it has taken to get the "Constitution for Europe" into place, with all the talk of how vital it was for the EU to have a figurehead to represent Europe on the world stage as the equivalent of the President of the United States, some may now think of the poet Horace's famous line, parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus ("the mountains are in labour, and will give birth to a ridiculous mouse").
But it would be wrong to underestimate Herman Van Rompuy, the first permanent president of the European Council. This Belgian economist is a clever and ruthless political operator. Once, to win a political battle, he changed the locks to prevent his opponents entering a crucial meeting. (For details of his character, see the Brussels Journal blog by one of his former colleagues, Paul Belien.) And the reason why he was very much the preferred candidate of the European Commission is that the one thing for which President Van Rompuy can be relied on is a determination to use all his crafty skills to further the power of our new government in Brussels.
At the heart of the "European project", there has always been one core goal in all it does – to absorb ever more of the powers of national governments into the centre. And almost the only thing we know about Mr Van Rompuy's ambitions in his new office is that he wants "more Europe".
Much of his wish list may have been drearily familiar ever since the Addenino report of 1985: more flying of the "ring of stars" flag, more singing of the "European anthem", EU number plates on cars, EU identity cards. But the one thing the EU has needed to make its powers complete, and which not even its Constitution could give, was the power to levy its own direct taxes. It is no accident that this is now at the top of Mr Van Rompouy's list – nor that the way in which he plans to raise those taxes is by levying new charges on every kind of activity that emits CO2.
Way back in1991, Brussels first proclaimed its intention to give a "moral lead" to the world in "combating climate change". The following year it published plans for an EU-wide "carbon tax". Ever since, saving the planet has risen steadily higher on the EU's agenda, as the perfect idealistic cause to justify more new laws – from the landfill directive that has reduced our rubbish collection to chaos, to the legislation that forces us to encumber our countryside with useless wind turbines, and to use nasty, inefficient, mercury-filled light bulbs.
Still the one thing lacking, despite that 1992 proposal for a carbon tax, has been some way to harness this noble cause to provide an almost limitless source of money for the EU itself. How appropriate then that the coming into force of the EU's constitution should bring to power a man who wishes to see the EU funded entirely from taxes designed to save the world from global warming.
Unfortunately for the President, this has come to pass at just the moment when the scare over global warming is beginning to run out of steam. The science behind it looks increasingly shaky as the world heads for a Copenhagen conference which, as even its organizers admit, is unlikely to produce anything resembling the much tougher successor to Kyoto that they have striven for so long.
In other words, just when little Mr Rumpy imagines that he has found the Holy Grail of Brussels – an income source that will give the EU more money than it could ever have dreamed of – the cause he is relying on to provide the unlimited bonanza is itself beginning to disintegrate. As many might think, how neat it would be if both of these great edifices founded on wishful thinking should collapse together, leaving our new Mr President gazing forlornly from the bridge of his slowly sinking ship.
By Christopher Booker.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6623665/...