Lord Lawson calls for CRU Inquiry to be held in public

The Climate Research Unit

Press Release

LONDON, 28 January 2010 – Lord Lawson, the Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has this week written to Sir Muir Russell about the terms of reference and the conduct of his Independent Inquiry into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Lord Lawson said the terms of reference needed to be broadened to cover not just what occurred within the CRU but also the impact externally, including whether the CRU sought to deny opportunities to other scientists to publish dissenting views. The Inquiry should take evidence not just from the CRU but also from those who feel they or their work have been improperly treated or have had information unreasonably denied to them.

Lord Lawson also argued that if public confidence is to be restored the
proceedings should be conducted in public wherever possible. Also any
relevant material which is discovered beyond the e-mails so far disclosed
should be published. The CRU has been an important contributor to the IPCC
process (which has recently been found wanting in other respects) which in
turn has provided the scientific basis for the international policy
debate. If the British people are to make significant sacrifices and
accept major changes in their life style they need to have confidence in
the integrity of both the underlying science and the way in which it is
processed.

——————
The following is the full text of the letter:

The Global Warming Policy Foundation
1 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5DB
Tel: 020 7930 6856
www.thegwpf.org

January 27, 2010

Sir Muir Russell
cc Professor Edward Acton

On behalf of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, I greatly welcome the
establishment of your inquiry. The integrity of the scientific basis of
the global warming debate must be unimpeachable. It should also be
recognised that the Climatic Research Unit is not just one among many
research centres but is a key contributor to the work of the IPCC.

I broadly welcome the terms of reference that have been drawn up, though
with some concern that they may be a bit too CRU-centric. I am glad to
note that you have discretion to extend them if you wish so that you can
follow the trail wherever it leads. It is also right that you are
examining not just the published e-mails but also any other relevant
e-mails. In this way you will be able to assess the claim that those so
far published have been taken out of context but also see if there is
other material which sheds light on the accusations.

It is essential, too, that your investigation is not confined to what
occurred within CRU. As well as taking evidence from those in CRU who wish
to clear their names, you should go outside CRU and take evidence from
those who feel they or their work have been improperly treated. Some of
the published e-mails, for example, suggest a determined effort by CRU
scientists to prevent the publication in peer-reviewed journals of
dissenting papers by other scientists. The damage to the public interest
can be just as much from what was suppressed as from what was incorrectly
published.

On process, I recognise that you do not want to turn this inquiry over to
the lawyers, with witnesses closely advised or even represented by
lawyers. Nevertheless I think you would be wise to take on some legal
expertise. First, it is important that the outcome is conclusive and is
not subject afterwards to legal challenges as happened, for example, in
the OFSTED investigation of the Baby P case. Secondly, it would assist you
as chair if someone else experienced in cross examination led the
questioning, leaving you free to concentrate on listening to the answers.

I also believe it is essential that you co-opt some statistical expertise.
Much of the controversy arose from the statistical techniques used to meld
together date from different sources. Were those techniques applied
consistently and were they transparent to other scientists? Much of the
forensic challenge to the so-called Hockey Stick controversy has come from
statisticians.

Finally, there is the question of openness and transparency. It has
increasingly come to be recognised that, if the findings of an inquiry are
to command public confidence, it is necessary for the inquiry to be held
for the most part in public (national security being the most obvious
cause for exception), with transcripts of each day’s evidence made
promptly available. The current Chilcot Iraq inquiry is only the latest in
a series of inquiries where this has been the case. It is also the only
way of demonstrating fairness towards those under investigation.

We shall be releasing the text of this letter within the next few days.

Yours sincerely,

The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby
Chairman

– end

h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser

About these ads

147 thoughts on “Lord Lawson calls for CRU Inquiry to be held in public

  1. Looks like this is still heading in the right direction! Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”? Does he have enough pull to shine the light in on the process?

  2. Experiment; We are going to prove global warming causes freezing conditions and global warming causes hotter conditions.

    You have three cups in front of you. One cup on the left side is filled with scolding hot water, another cup on the right side is filled with near freezing cold water, The cup in the middle is empty. You pour half of the cup of hot water into the middle empty cup. You pour half of the cup of cold water into the middle cup. Now stick a finger in the water in the middle cup. Go ahead, don’t be afraid.
    It’s warm, isn’t it?

    Now here’s the tricky part. We are going to prove global warming causes freezing conditions and global warming causes hotter conditions. Take the warm water in the middle cup, you know the one with half scolding hot and half freezing cold water in it, and pour half of it into the cold cup and half into the hot cup. This is going to cause the water in the hot cup to get hotter and the water in the cold cup to get hotter, This is what warming does. Yes, even hotter than the water in the middle cup you just tested with your finger, cause warming is evil. Trust me.

    Now, stick the index finger of your right hand in the cup of water on the far right side, Next, stick the index finger of your left hand in the cup of water on the far left side. Be careful, the scolding hot water is going to get even hotter because thats thats what warm does when it touches something because it is evil. Wait a minute,

    Nevermind.

  3. Yes, an open enquiry.

    However, where Phil Jones and the CRU could be held accountable is if they are summoned before the separate parliamentary inquiry. Not easy to lie there.

  4. This is a very sensible move by Lord Lawson especially the idea of using, presumably a QC, for questioning and expert statistician for advice.

  5. He used to be someone in Thatcher’s govt. Nowadays he is better known as Nigella’s Dad. (Nigella Lawson, TV cook, very enticing to men of a certain age.)

    I think this will be ignored. Worth a try though.

  6. With all the money behind AGW, I hope this does not turn out to be a prepaid and premeditated “whitewash”.

    Rather, just find the truth — which may lead anywhere (lots of culprits) or nowhere at all (clearing all the suspicious folks of wrongdoing).

  7. Dave D: As plain Nigel Lawson, Lord Lawson was Mrs Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has “pull”.

  8. @ David D
    “Looks like this is still heading in the right direction! Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”? Does he have enough pull to shine the light in on the process?”

    He was the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who resigned from Thatcher’s cabinet on a matter of principle. He destroyed Lord Sterns assessment of the effects of climate change by showing significant flaws in the methodology and basic errors in the economics.

    Compared to current British Politicians he is not just a heavy weight he is a megaweight and probably will be consulted privately by the incoming conservative government.

    I trust this helps.

  9. “He used to be someone in Thatcher’s govt” – well that’s one way of putting it I guess

    He is/was one of the UK’s longest serving Chancellor of the Exchequer. His wikipedia entry makes an interesting read.

  10. Anopheles

    By ‘someone’ in Thatcher’s government I assume you mean Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second highest position in government.

    But I agree that it will probably be ignored.

  11. @Anopheles (like the name!) “He used to be someone in Thatcher’s govt.”

    He was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and got this country (UK) straightened out financially only to have our current lot squander it all and more. Forget Nigella, Nigel is a well-respected heavyweight and I doubt this will be ignored.

  12. It will be telling as to the integrity of the investigation if these reasonable suggestions are not followed. The people of the world have a considerable stake in the truth of global warming and the impact of any legislation that government bodies take. The world will be watching closely.

  13. Lord Lawson certainly is a ‘good guy’ and he is playing a very clever game with his Global Warming Policy Foundation. Instead of promoting outright skepticism on the subject, and so polarizing the argument, he is taking what I can only describe as a slightly ‘right of centre’ approach. ie lets not spend billions until the science is absolutely proven – which of course it never will be.

    His approach, I think, will win over a lot of waverers and undecideds along with a lot of alarmists who have changed their view of and don’t want to loose to much face. Only my opinion of course!

  14. Anopheles, I disagree on it being ignored. I believe that ,as long as Pachauri continues to resist calls for him to resign, the climategate/ipcc stories are just going to build and build. The absolute worst thing would be for Pachauri to go now.

  15. Dave D

    Depends on what you call a “good guy”. Before going to the House of Lords he was a Tory MP, eventually rising to be Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister, second in importance only to the Prime Minister) under Thatcher. Like someone else said, he better known today as the father of Nigella (a TV cook) and Dominic (a journalist for the Times)

    Personally Im a Labour voter, so I think of him as being a bit like that other former Thatcher man in the AGW debate – Lord Monckton – ie I dont agree with his politics on most matters, but you would be a fool to underestimate his intelligence.

    If he speaks out on the economic and political aspects of the debate, the “Establishment” here in the UK will take note.

  16. Lord Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer during Margaret Thatcher’s government; here in the UK, the role of Chancellor is only second in importance to the Prime Minister – as the controller of all economic policy in the UK. Lawson always came across as a highly intelligent man and a highly honourable man – even to those on the opposite side of the political fence. He has been exemplary in being the only member of the British parliamentary establishment to speak out about the Global Warming scam. He created the Global Warming Policy Foundation as a public vehicle to confront and debate the issue with the entrenched GW establishment – who control just about every other institution in Britain: BBC Radio, BBC Television and BBC Online – all strongly PRO AGW, the Royal Society, the MET Office, ALL the universities, the RSPB, WWF, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, ALL the Wildlife Trusts, the British Museum. It is a staggeringly UN Sceptical establishment and it has not been achieved without massive effort on the part of the AGW lobby to place their men in all the right jobs. To go up against all that is a very, very brave thing to do! Lawson will be blackballed from just about every gathering of the establishment – and I have never seen him on the BBC since he ran his colours up the mast. Another prominent sceptic – the famous botanist – David Bellamy – has been banned from appearance on the BBC for at least a decade – simly because he opposed the blanket coverage of windfarms and the CO2 AGW theory. The UK feels more and more like the old East Germany – certainly as far as the imposition of the ‘Party Line’ is concerned -which is promulgated by the BBC all day, every day. Lawson deserves a medal; maybe the Nobel Prize for 2011?

  17. Lord Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer during Margaret Thatcher’s government; here in the UK, the role of Chancellor is only second in importance to the Prime Minister – as the controller of all economic policy in the UK. Lawson always came across as a highly intelligent man and a highly honourable man – even to those on the opposite side of the political fence. He has been exemplary in being the only member of the British parliamentary establishment to speak out about the Global Warming scam. He created the Global Warming Policy Foundation as a public vehicle to confront and debate the issue with the entrenched GW establishment – who control just about every other institution in Britain: BBC Radio, BBC Television and BBC Online – all strongly PRO AGW, the Royal Society, the MET Office, ALL the universities, the RSPB, WWF, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, ALL the Wildlife Trusts, the British Museum. It is a staggeringly UN-Sceptical establishment and it has not been achieved without massive effort on the part of the AGW lobby to place their men in all the right jobs. To go up against all that is a very, very brave thing to do! Lawson will be blackballed from just about every gathering of the establishment – and I have never seen him on the BBC since he ran his colours up the mast. Another prominent sceptic – the famous botanist – David Bellamy – has been banned from appearance on the BBC for at least a decade – simply because he opposed the blanket coverage of windfarms and the CO2 AGW theory. The UK feels more and more like the old East Germany – certainly as far as the imposition of the ‘Party Line’ is concerned -which is promulgated by the BBC all day, every day. Lawson deserves a medal; maybe the Nobel Prize for 2011?

  18. This would seem to be the wrong enquiry for the scientists who feel they were prevented from publishing. The CRU do not publish any journals and would not be in a position to allow or prevent a publication. A complaint and enquiry would need to be made against a specific journal . As far as I know there is no such complaint.

  19. Lawson is a Conservative, and thus not part of the governing party, but Sir Muir may well have it in mind that that situation may not prevail for very long.

  20. CRU made the main BBC news re FOI requests, although last item with strong warmist spin. Lord Lawson is ex-chancellor of the exchequer in Thatcher’s gov.,and ex-financial journalist. A good guy in my opinion.

  21. “He used to be someone in Thatcher’s govt.”

    Chancellor of the Exchequer (British equivalent to Hank Paulson’s post). I would classify Lawson as a luke warmer – thinks man is warming the planet but disagrees with doom laden predictions and the ludicrous policies being enacted.

    I liked the suggestion of having a specialist cross examiner – maybe Tom Cruise from “A few good men.”

    Oh, slight OT, but on the news tonight: Dr Wakefield has been found guilty by the British Medical Council of unprofessional conduct, and carrying out biased research as well as BEING IN THE PAY OF LAWYERS who were sponsoring him to reach the conclusion he published.

    Dr. Wakefield is the medical researcher who caused controversy several years ago by publishing a report that purported to link a childrens vaccine with autism, with the result that many parents refused the vaccine – measels has since skyrocketed. The point is – maybe, just maybe, there is hope that the guilty will be brought to justice.

  22. Dave D (and others) Lord Lawson – additional info

    There is a very illuminating interview with Lord Lawson in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (check it out on YouTube). He was around at the highest levels of government when the C02 theory of climate change first came up in the late 1980’s. He says that Thatcher was very interested in it, not because she wanted to “save the planet”, but because she thought that it was another good reason to get rid of fossil-fuel power stations (too much reliance on militant coal miners and unstable middle east states) and replace it nuclear.

    Those meetings resulted in Thatcher agreeing to a big increase in funding for places like the uni of east anglia to produce “more of the same”. It also resulted in the establishment of the IPCC.

    You might not like his politics, but he has been in on the AGW debate from day 1, and has some unique insights into it.

  23. Looking Lawson up on Wiki shows that his son Dominic is married to Monckton’s sister. I’m sure that makes for some interesting family get togethers.

  24. Lord Nigel Lawson was formerly a newspaper and magazine (The Spectator) editor before becoming an MP and rising through the ranks to become Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer – the second most powerful executive public post in Britain after the Prime Minister.

    His son, Dominic Lawson, is former newspaper editor who now writes regularly against AGW. Dominic is married to Rosa Monckton who is the sister of….Lord Christopher Monckton.

    Just so you know.

  25. Lord Lawson was a member of the House of Lords commission that produced the report “The Economics of Climate Change” in 2006. This report focused on the economics of proposed policies (an approach similar to Lomborg’s) but it also touched on the hockey stick – Ross McKitrick was invited as a witness. Lawson then wrote an excelllent book, “An Appeal to Reason”. I think he can be called one of the earlier British skeptics with an easily recognizable name. He’s now chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, an anti-CAGW think tank and lobbying group. So in this context, definitely a “good guy”.

  26. Lord Lawson wrote a book to present the sceptic view in England; after the government’s science adviser (Stern) had made ludicrous – ‘ignore global warming at your peril’ – warnings in his report to them. Stern made the usual alarmist statements in the report about melting icecaps, 20 ft rises in sea levels, cut CO2 Emissions by 70% immediately and so on.

    Lord Lawson was one of the original lone voices here.

  27. Dr. Wakefield is the medical researcher who caused controversy several years ago by publishing a report that purported to link a childrens vaccine with autism, with the result that many parents refused the vaccine – measels has since skyrocketed. The point is – maybe, just maybe, there is hope that the guilty will be brought to justice.

    On above, 12 years from publication to guilty.

  28. As additional information – Lord Lawson has publicly questioned, even ridiculed, David Cameron’s stance on global warming and his policies in that area. So while he is an “elder statesman” of the Conservative Party, I guess his influence on its present leadership is very low.

  29. He has done well.

    Today The Times has a front-page fullsize article “Scientists in stolen email scandal hid climate data” plus a full-page spread inside. Apart from Vicky Pope’s little article set alongside (she’s in denial), and a few hints of the old slant, the ground here has really shifted.

    Keep piling it on, let’s have the Surface Stations witness in the limelight, and let’s not forget Paul Reiter (expert vs IPCC nonsense on malaria) and Nils-Axel Moerner (expert vs IPCC nonsense on rising sea levels) in the wings. And many more.

    We can still put it all down to mass delusions, which have happened before in human history. Tulip-mania anyone? I’d still like to help people find ways out without losing face… err, without losing face more than we can help…

  30. Anthony it must get hot sitting where you sit, right now. Can we help?

    REPLY: Thanks for that perception and offer. I just need to focus on getting the paper done. – A

  31. OT- but this is INSANE!

    A politically divided Securities and Exchange Commission voted on Wednesday to make clear when companies must provide information to investors about the business risks associated with climate change.

    The commission, in a 3 to 2 vote, decided to require that companies disclose in their public filings the impact of climate change on their businesses — from new regulations or legislation they may face domestically or abroad to potential changes in economic trends or physical risks to a company.

    Even as this is being exposed as a sham, the government is putting additional roadblocks before companies attempting to engage in business by requiring cockamamie “climate” statements. This only increases the cost of doing business by requiring a business to pay someone to do a “study” so the results can be given to the SEC.

    This is absolutely outragious.

  32. Good piece on climategate, channel 4 news tonight, no skeptical comments but includes the hide the decline song, Jones refusing to make the data freely available and suggesting emails should be distroyed.

  33. I picture the elite scientists expressing indignation at being questioned. How dare someone question their conclusions or even process.

    Mann child cringes.

    Algore will go into hiding in some jungle.

  34. Back on topic, though, if you want to see the effect of climategate on the Hockey Team look no further than RealClimate.org.

    That site is all but dead.

    Where it used to be good for a few articles a day they have dropped to less than one a week!

    (Overheard in Michael Mann’s office as he works on RC on school money: “God Dammit.. real peer review is hard as shit!!”

  35. “If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” Barack Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January.

    This goes in the prospectus.

    Obama is an employment killer.

  36. First negative interruption of #Obama’s SOTUS: “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. [interrupted with laughs from Congress] But even if you doubt the evidence…” The second negative interruption was when #Obama said the spending freeze would not take effect until next year.

  37. So what happened to the WaPo story that was up earlier? It was here one minute and then gone the next. I still had it up on my screen when I left to go get a cup of coffee… When I got back I tried to leave a comment and then….

    **poof**

    “404 not found” error. No more WaPo story.

    REPLY: It was up about 5 minutes. I made a mistake, and that mistake was unfair to the authors I cited, in fairness to them, I removed it immediately. It is being rewritten. A corrected version will appear later. – Anthony

  38. This has just hit MSM in the UK. Channel 4 News just told the whole story. (repeated 8pm Channel 4+1)
    The stock markets should start to get very interesting.

  39. Joe Romm posted the segment from the Quotations from Chairman Oblahma last night.

    Regarding this inquiry, I just can’t waite for the question, “exactly what is the science behind global warming”????

    “Hide the decline” Why do we need to hide it???

    I also know there are those who disagree with the temperature reading. Enough disagreement to requir changes to the data.

  40. crosspatch (11:36:14) :

    I call it a paint job. They aren’t going to get Cap & Trade through the Senate, so they are pulling an end run.
    Lofty speeches notwithstanding, the SEC and EPA are examples of using political agenda to bypass checks & balances.
    Congress gives stimulus to jobs, beaurocracy leeches the life out of it.

  41. Paul N (10:32:44) :
    Dave D: As plain Nigel Lawson, Lord Lawson was Mrs Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has “pull”.

    Actually that would be’ The Right Honourable Nigel Lawton’ not ‘Mr’, doubtless will have more ‘pull’ if the Conservatives win the forthcoming election.

  42. jmotivator (11:45:39) :

    Back on topic, though, if you want to see the effect of climategate on the Hockey Team look no further than RealClimate.org.

    That site is all but dead.

    Where it used to be good for a few articles a day they have dropped to less than one a week

    CEI sued NASA GISS. Part of the lawsuit was raising the question, why is Gavin schmidt as a gubment employee blogging all day long on a special interest blog? Most employment agreements have “best efforts” clauses. Termination for shortcoming of best efforts are an out to fire people. For several weeks Gavin didn’t get the hint. If you are screwing around while on the clock, it can get you canned.

  43. Vincent (11:05:01) :

    You missed the point, Dr. Wakefield is accused with concensus science, the reason measels has since skyrocketed is that parents in the UK are not given the choice to have single vaccines as against MMR, single vaccines have NO link to autism.

  44. Lawson has an uphill battle if he thinks he will be able to
    shed light and pry the extra energy money that governments
    are siphoning from rate payers. Did you see the “State of the
    Union” speech last night? When the president mentioned
    AGW, and settled science, the republicans could be heard
    laughing; but that was not shocking, his giggly expression was.
    He looked like a kid that has been caught with his hand in the
    cookie jar (I was getting a cookie for you mommy!). Do these
    guys think it’s funny that people will be paying much higher
    rates for energy?
    Good luck Lord Lawson!

  45. If he had said “Overwhelming evidence of scientific process manipulation by shady doings” I would agree.
    And even if you doubt the evidence of tangled misdeeds, all you have to do is look out the window to see how farfetched thier claims are.
    The CRU crew manned a wrecking ball to the data, and they were far from alone.

  46. jmotivator (11:45:39) :

    Back on topic, though, if you want to see the effect of climategate on the Hockey Team look no further than RealClimate.org.

    That site is all but dead.

    Where it used to be good for a few articles a day they have dropped to less than one a week!
    ————————-

    I noticed that a few days ago – guess his blogging on work time is a bit tricky too now attention has been drawn to it, nevermind the rising sea level of bad news lapping at his desk

  47. “single vaccines have NO link to autism”

    Nor does dietary fat intake have any link to blood cholesterol but many people have repeated the results of a single flawed study to the point where it has become “conventional wisdom” to the extent that jurisdictions have “banned” trans-fats in food (NYC).

    REPLY: Please let’s leave this off- topic where it is, further comments snipped. – A

  48. Extended Interview:
    Climate Science Leader Rajendra K. Pachauri Confronts the Critics

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5965/510/DC1

    It’s very long, so just quote a little below.

    Q: The other issue that dogged IPCC is the leaked e-mails from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, U.K.

    R.K.P.: Those e-mails represent nothing more than private communications, private airing of anguish, or anger, or emotion. It was indiscreet.

    But you know the people who worked on that report are outstanding individuals. They have spent years working on the science of climate change, and I cannot say who [leaked the e-mails]. There is an investigation going on at the moment at the behest of the British government, and the University of East Anglia has set up an independent investigation. We would have to await the outcome of these exercises.

    Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC?

    R.K.P.: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?

  49. Rob (11:41:14) :

    Good piece on climategate, channel 4 news tonight, no skeptical comments but includes the hide the decline song, Jones refusing to make the data freely available and suggesting emails should be distroyed.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/climategate+the+email+trail/3519452 with video, worth a watch. :)

    For a news programme that very much beats the drum, this is a departure.
    Just a step back their coverage of Glaciergate included a wrap-up that exonerated the IPCC

  50. Dave D (10:22:06) asks: “Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”?”
    Of course he is. He’s a member of our Second Chamber. Whereas your Senators have to spend a few million to get elected, our Lords get nominated for being either (1) friends of William the Conqueror (2) friends of one of Charles II’s mistresses (3) Friends of Tony Blair or (4) Useless ex-politicians looking for a retirement home.
    Lord Lawson has decided to redeem his political past by speaking out against the political consensus at http://www.thegwpf.org/
    and good luck to him. Who needs democracy?

  51. I like to think this is Nigel Lawson trying to make amends for being Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s government, from June 1983 to October 1989, and for the small part he must have played in that government releasing the spectre of AGW upon us in the U.K.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/

    It was during his time as Chancellor that the Thatcher government actually agreed to set up the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research to bring together the disparate climate research functions going on in the Met Office at the time. The links with CRU we have come to know and ‘love’ were also formed during that time. And the rest…

    I would like to be charitable and say that the Hadley Centre was announced in November 1989, just after Lawson resigned, but I’m afraid he was #2 during the time the Thatcher government embraced AGW and he was in charge of the finance… So I’m afraid he has to take his share of responsibility for bringing this evil upon us in the first place…

  52. “Please let’s leave this off- topic where it is, further comments snipped. – A”

    My apologies, I didn’t see that till after my previous was posted. Just wanted to point out that there are lots of one-off “studies” out there that are used to champion this or that position.

  53. There is a big problem that needs to be solved: Currently there are virtually no centre or centre-left politicians or high profile people coming forward to challenge the conventional wisdom of the warmists. This might at first seem unimportant, until you realise that global warming issues have become almost wholly an argument between the right and the left.

    There are plenty of people out there who are NOT right wing but who also do not accept the hype about global warming. They need to come forward and speak but I suspect many of them are reluctant. Such reluctance is understandable in the context of the zealous judgement of those on the left who say, repeatedly, that if you are not a subscriber to the warming hype then you MUST be an extreme right winger. The Guardian, which purports to be left of centre, pummels its readers daily with one-sided, faith-based IPCC rubbish masquerading as settled science.

    Many Guardian readers consider you a betrayer if you so much as ask salient questions about global warming and the methods by which it has become established.

    Lawson might have mellowed with age, but for some he is irretrievably linked to his chancellorship under Thatcher, which promoted individual greed, introduced devisive social and economic policy, and his demise was through the ramping of property and bank excesses which led to a very similar economic meltdown to the one we are now experiencing.

    We need a few solid, traditional labour voters to come forward and join the sceptic movement. I believe there are many out there, but they need to come out of the closet and not be intimidated by their centre-left friends who see them as betrayers of the faith. Lawson, Monckton, UKIP MEPs, and various wafes and strays from old-Tory politics are in the end just ample fodder for the warmists to claim that sceptics are just a bunch of selfish, Thatcherite, right wing nutters.

  54. “jmotivator (11:45:39) :

    Back on topic, though, if you want to see the effect of climategate on the Hockey Team look no further than RealClimate.org.

    That site is all but dead.[…]”

    Packing suitcases, arranging plane tickets to Bolivia, getting visa, selling the GE stock, getting facial plastic surgery takes its toll on their time.

  55. An intelligent, honest, and reasonable letter by Lord Lawson which I enjoyed rereading a number of times. There is a soothing quality to his prose, IMO. He argues that for unimpeachable integrity of the process, the investigation must be public and the commission (foundation) should: 1) examine all emails, not just the published ones; 2) take evidence from both inside and outside CRU; 3) find out if science was suppressed in peer-reviewed journals; 4) engage the appropriate legal expertise; 5) include experts on statistical methods; and 6) function in the open and with transparency. We can’t ask for much more. And thanks for the links to his background and contributions. Impressive.

    Perhaps Lucy Skywalker in on to something.

    Lucy Skywalker (11:27:08) :

    “We can still put it all down to mass delusions, which have happened before in human history. Tulip-mania anyone?”

    Perhaps we humans may be “shaking it out” — finally — from turn-of-the-millenium fears and fevers — something akin psychologically to speculative manias, but directed more toward terrors of finality, of endings and separation. The warmists, after all, have been screaming that the world as we know it is coming to an end. One group or another has been delivering jeremiads for eons, but it takes something special for one to become a psychological-intellectual-political policy pandemic. This one has taken over every environmental organization, popular scientific publications, scientific journals, major professional scientific organizations, the entire mass media (for too long), much of academia, governments, my own (former) political party, corporations, even major energy corporations. Either this is a conspiracy the proportions of which have never happened before in history, and someone(s) is/are funding and directing it (not simply using it manipulatively), or we are living in a time of mass delusion — which will subside.

    I am very grateful for those who have been able to keep their heads and wits about them in the face of such devastating opposition. Thanks, Anthony, for your part in all this, and for keeping those of us who have found (or never lost) our wits informed on a minute-by-minute basis about the resurrection of reason and science — and unimpeachable integrity.

  56. crosspatch (11:36:14) : “OT- but this is INSANE! A politically divided Securities and Exchange Commission voted on Wednesday to make clear when companies must provide information to investors about the business risks associated with climate change. The commission, in a 3 to 2 vote, decided to require that companies disclose in their public filings the impact of climate change on their businesses….”

    Actually crosspatch that doesn’t sound too bad if you think that a couple of months ago the vote would have likely been 5 to zero. I call 3 to 2 progess.

  57. Apologies for O/T, but of interest I think.

    According to “Net-weather UK temperature tracker” the world’s oldest temperature record is starting 2010 a touch on the sluggish side.

    http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=cet;sess=

    The tracker updates hourly and at present has CET (Central England Temperature) average for January 2010 at 1.72c against a stated 1971-2000 average of 4.2c a difference of -2.48c!

    I do not know how accurate this is, can’t find out where they get their data from or whether it is raw, poached, homogenised, pasteurised etc. I will keep looking, will be interesting to see what their final January number is.

  58. Rob (12:10:01)
    Talk about missing points – it seems to have escaped your notice that there is absolutely no evidence that the combined MMR vaccine has any link with autism. There was only the specious claim by Wakefield which misled probably hundreds of thousands into failing to have their children vaccinated. But this discussion should not be taking place on WUWT, despite certain similarities with the global warming debate as mentioned in this Telegraph article

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7095727/MMR-a-sorry-episode.html

    One quote to whet your appetite “There must be a place for scepticism in science, or any other field: it is important for the prevailing orthodoxy to be challenged, because it is not always right.”

    Note for trolls – this is a selective quote but the subsequent comment in the article is in my opinion ambiguous – draw your own conclusions.

  59. Nigel Lawson still has a lot of clout in the UK and is sure to stand his ground against the alarmists of the British Establishment.

    However, what concerns me is that he is likely to be undermined by the official stance of the opposition conservative party – it used to be Conservative with a big C, but those days are long gone – who have blindly followed British government policy, in a futile attempt to be counted amongst those who ‘have saved the world’ – our prime minister’s public description of himself.

  60. John R. Walker (12:34:13) writes:

    “I like to think this is Nigel Lawson trying to make amends for being Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s government, from June 1983 to October 1989, and for the small part he must have played in that government releasing the spectre of AGW upon us in the U.K….

    It was during his time as Chancellor that the Thatcher government actually agreed to set up the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research to bring together the disparate climate research functions going on in the Met Office at the time.”

    I have heard this claim a number of times in one form or another. I hope someone who is open to “both sides” can clarify the issues. My questions are: Is this the beginning of (?) who desired the demise of Western capitalistic societies (they could no longer make a profit making products and wanted to get “the people’s savings)? Or was it reasonable at the time to explore if there was something serious to the fear the confluence of “global warming” and the by-products of industrialization?

  61. “Green Sand”

    According to Bastardi, it is worse in Berlin:

    Looks like the wall of warm has fallen in Berlin… and now this is getting out of control. The current reading there of 8.6F below normal makes it the coldest January since at least the ’80s.

    And he is calling for a colder than normal February as well.

  62. Sorry, the comment above submitted before I was finished. I was referring to John R. Walker (12:34:13) The last paragraph:

    Why did Thatcher’s government begin the interest in investigating “global warming”? My questions are: 1) Is this the beginning of THE CONSPIRACY to destroy Western capitalist societies — by whom — global corporatists?, who could no longer make profits from making products so they turned to government favors via taxes paid to them to do the government’s “bidding”, e.g., build clean energy? Or 2) Was it reasonable at the time to explore if there was something serious to fear in the confluence of “global warming” and the by-products of industrialization?

  63. “Rob (12:10:01) :
    You missed the point, Dr. Wakefield is accused with concensus science, the reason measels has since skyrocketed is that parents in the UK are not given the choice to have single vaccines as against MMR, single vaccines have NO link to autism.”

    But MMR has no link to autism either. The idea was ramped up by Dr Wakefield and the mainstream media so that it became a real scare story. The fact that Dr Wakefield now faces the possibility of being struck off the medical register reflects the fact that none of his claims could be scientifically verified. There was a total lack of proper peer review (sound familiar?).

  64. I believe Lord Lawson is due to appear on the BBCs ‘Question Time’ tonight (Thurs 10.35pm GMT)
    It might be worth a look in. BBC warmists may censor questions relating to this agenda.

  65. Sorry I went off topic at 13:34, presumably to be imminently snipped. I replied to a comment before reading further down that it was not to be followed up.

  66. Sorry if this is O/T everyone but I feel I must respond to JohnH. His remarks about Dr. Wakefield go straight to the nub of the problem. If it is a fact that he conspired with others to silence debate, cherry pick data, and make personal attacks on his opponents then perhaps this may be an appropriate forum to mention his name. Otherwise, he seems to be a clinical researcher asking the essential “what if questions” who unfortunately got spotlighted by the MSM.

    We may want the warmists to suffer a similar (worse!) fate but surely not because of their passion for what they might believe to be justice for the third world. It is how how they have abused science to get their aims that cries out for justice.

    If scientists are to be punished for having proposed something that later proves to be false, science is dead and so is the future of mankind.

  67. pyromancer76,

    or 3) Was it simply that Thatcher wanted a big part on the world stage where her specialist scientific background would offer an unassailable advantage? I mean, we see the same sort of cringe-worthy posturing today by the likes of Brown and Krudd.

  68. Here’s a (brief) BBC TV interview with David Holland.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8484385.stm

    The 6pm BBC news today (Jan 28) had an item reporting the FoI investigation of the CRU. In response from a question from the newsreader, David Shukman,, an Environment Correspondent, claimed that some of the FoI requests to the CRU were ‘malicious’! (Anybody got a video clip of it. It would make good viewing.) He also did the usual turn of saying that none of the Climategate business undermined the claims of climate scientists about global warming.

  69. Pyro,
    I would submit…
    3) An attempt to beef up any theory that would build a case against coal as a major local industry. This was a time of almost civil war between the Thatcher govt and the miners (which were part of what was a very powerful union at that time), and unions in general.
    Talk about unintended consequences…..

  70. Lucy Skywalker (11:34:10) :

    Anthony it must get hot sitting where you sit, right now. Can we help?

    REPLY: Thanks for that perception and offer. I just need to focus on getting the paper done. – A

    More power to your elbow Anthony.
    Nigel Lawson is an old school Tory, and of sufficient independence not to give a rats rectum what the media says about him.

    Nigella [cooking] … mmmmm. :-)

  71. Rob (12:10:01) :

    Vincent (11:05:01) :

    You missed the point, Dr. Wakefield is accused with concensus science, the reason measels has since skyrocketed is that parents in the UK are not given the choice to have single vaccines as against MMR, single vaccines have NO link to autism.

    Give me a grant to find one & I will!

    DaveE.

  72. Sorry Anthony.

    I hadn’t read your reply on this OT. I felt it was important because the method was similar. Grants for results that is.

    DaveE.

  73. @Mick J @Rob

    Re: The Channel 4 ‘Climategate’ piece this evening

    Thanks for the link. I tracked down the journo (Katie Razzall) behind this story and just sent this note.

    …………….

    Katie,

    First of all, thank you for your report this evening on the ‘Climategate’ story. A refreshing piece.

    Apart from one element….

    You are no doubt aware that the government’s Science and Technology Committee recently announced 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).

    http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn14_100122.cfm

    Phil Willis, the chairman of this committee was recently quoted in the Telegraph, stating:

    “There are a significant number of climate deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so that the public can see what they are saying.”

    Mr Willis was subsequently questioned on his use of the phrase ‘climate deniers’, and acknowledged that such a phrase could be perceived as has having an inherent bias. He has stated that intends not to use that phrase in the future.

    (I’ve tried to find a link to his intention, without success I’m afraid. However, it does exist somewhere in cyberspace should you wish to check.)

    Your piece opened this evening referring to ‘climate change deniers’.

    Would you also agree with Mr Willis that this phrase could be perceived as has having an inherent bias?

    If you do, would you consider future reports referring to such people as ‘sceptics’, as opposed to ‘deniers’ (which I’m sure you’re aware, has unsubtle holocaust overtones).

    Further, the majority of ‘sceptics’ are not sceptical of climate change. Indeed, having studied the science, most readily accept that the climate is changing – as it is always has, and always will.

    ‘Man-made climate change sceptics’ is a bit of a mouthful, but I trust you get my point.

    Incidentally, should you wish to find out more about the sceptical viewpoint, I would encourage you to visit http://wattsupwiththat.com/.I think you’ll find it a useful resource.

    For what it’s worth, I believe that this issue will turn out to be THE story of 2010. A journalist with a good grasp of all its many dimensions could contribute a great deal to the public’s understanding.

    Warm regards,

    Paul Hannay, Glasgow.

    PS. If you have the time, I’d appreciate if you could let me know your thoughts on ‘denier’ vs ‘sceptic’ for future broadcasts. Thank you.

  74. .

    Here is Nigella Lawson, the famous cook and daughter of Nigel Lawson.

    Apparently, most of her recipes have a couple of good tips …. ;-)

    .

  75. I wonder what the true believers think of a public inquiry? They love to claim, it is the skeptics that are secretly funded by big oil with a secret agenda. Do they have faith in the truth?

  76. Great news! Nigel Lawson is a very big hitter to have on your side with much influence in the senior Tory party. I think there’s a good chance that he will get his public enquiry and we’ll really find out what the CRU/GISS/IPCC et al have been so desperate to hide.

  77. Dave Ward (12:47:46)

    I read the article from the Norwich Evening News.

    Either the photograph of Phil Jones is more up to date than the one we usually see, or he has aged 30 years with all the worry! :)

  78. Lucy Skywalker (11:27:08) :
    “We can still put it all down to mass delusions, which have happened before in human history…”

    I wish it were that simple. This isn’t mass delusion, it is just one of many carefully spun pieces of propaganda designed to lead public opinion to the consensus that we must have a world government.

    As polls prove, many people disagree that CAGW will happen, so this particular strategum will be quietly dropped, The scientists will be used as scape-goats (already started in the MSM) and the politicians will wriggle off the hook to fight for the next strategy to scare the peoples of the world into unity.

  79. I never fail to be surprised by just how informative this site is. Take today as an example. I find out how coral islands are created and maintained. I was fascinated.
    That’s not all. The Czech republic is being sued by certain inhabitants of coral islands – helped by a one-time friend of Lubos.
    There’s more but there always is on WUWT!
    The nascent findings of the surface station survey had been mugged, by public servants, to create a pre-emptive defence of the “settled science” that no matter how poor the data is, the consensus results are unaffected, aka Robust!
    My initial feelings, re this action, were tainted by a vestige of humanitarianism.
    “Poor fools” I mused. “Just because someone handed you a spade, why did you restart digging?”
    Milliseconds later, I regained my senses!
    Once Anthony decides to play his hand, supported by peer-review and inescapable logic, he will release his dogs of war. EMS et al, I do so look forward to the “What happens next”
    Now I find out that Lord Lawson is Bro’ in Law to the the venerable Christopher. Superb. I never liked Lord Lawson because of his association to Lady Thatcher. I was wrong to do so. This man has courage, intelligence and an integrity that makes him challenge the very establishment that I had assumed he represented.
    How wrong I was.

  80. The incumbent politicians are locked into the co2 scam for a simple reason. It’s nothing to do with a left/right agenda, Cameron the current opposition Tory leader has been content to go along with it for a simple reason.

    TAX.

    Nigella [cooking]

    Nothing fancy, a couple of muffins and a cuppa char will do.

  81. The good thing about Lord Lawson is that he might be a little more moderate in his language than Lord Monckton of UKIP. And being from a mainstream political party, he lends credibility to the cause. He will probably not come over as a loony right winger.

    and Tenuc – what, in principle, is such a bad thing about unity?

  82. RayG – off topic

    What Wakefield did wrong was: A) to take blood samples from children at a birthday party without the consent of them or their parents, B) conduct clinical research without the approval of an ethics committee, C) take money from a firm of lawyers who were trying to make a profit out of damages claims against vaccine companies, and D) make unwarranted assertions about the MMR vaccine without interpreting the rather sparse data properly.

    He therefore broke the rules of his profession, put himself in a position where he was open to corruption for money, and misinterpreted data either knowingly or out of ignorance. He caused much public consternation which resulted in wrong decisions being made.

    There are some parallels with the CRU and IPCC.

  83. LeonardYoung (12:36:22) :
    “There is a big problem that needs to be solved: Currently there are virtually no centre or centre-left politicians or high profile people coming forward to challenge the conventional wisdom of the warmists….”

    Leonard, it’s not a problem, its just that this will be the next step. In the case of AGW alarmism it is naturally easier for the truth to emerge through right-wing, conservatives and anti-environmentalists ranks. Thus these Lawson, Monckton etc…and these through Fox News etc. That they are prepared to stand up against the propaganda is too their credit, and they should be applauded what-ever their history, interests and other agendas.

    What is hard for those doubters on the left is that they are used to expecting a propaganda story from the right with a real story underneath. Thus, there might be a good right wing reason for invading Iraq but it is not the one used to sell it (destroying WMDs, reducing terrorism, introducing democracy etc). In this case where the left has the upper hand we have a good left wing/green argument for better management of non-renewable resources, but this is not it.

    Michael Crichton found AGW alarmism as the latest in a growing trend in junk science of a particular kind. One previous example was the supposed ill-health effects of passive smoking, and this as the over-extension of a confident anti-smoking lobby. It might be junk science but who wants to side with the pro-tobacco lobby? Who wants smoke filled restaurants? etc. AGW alarmism is similar and yet in many ways it is unprecedented – certainly in the magnitude of its social impact, and in its apocalyptic extremism. This makes it historically interesting, but this is also why your lefties are so caught of guard, and then guarded: So you are telling me there is this gigantic CONSPIRACY OF SCIENTISTS and that only ex-Thatcherites and Fox news presenters know about it? Yeh right!

    And the price of dissent in left/environmentalist circles is still very high. For those with reputations at stake it will take some time for any of them to risk follow the likes of David Bellamy. But the price of dissent is decreasing daily. Consider that the media favoured by the left – media that have resisted climategate (BBC, Fairfax) – are now covering glaciergate and in so doing they are back-telling the whole story. Methinks its only a matter of time…and of who.

    Crichton:

    http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

    Bellamy:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-price-of-dissent/story-e6frg7b6-1111118127677

  84. Just watched the Newsnight program… Climate change was the last question to the panel and not opened to audience questions BUT

    Lawson got his point across well :)
    The panel agreed in main – Gov’t bod (sorry, didn’t get names..) looked very stupid and got taken apart :)

    Even teh sun journo agreed it was overblown and “not certain science” lolz

    A good start. Let’s see where it goes from here!

  85. BBC question time tonight, not much time, last subject but three sceptics on panel including Lord Lawson, it`s a start.

  86. Stupendous, simply unbelievable!
    The flagship BBC program, Question Time, has just finished.
    Lord Lawson, Imo, had been chompin’ at the bit to get his opinion on AGW/CC aired. In the last few minutes he got his wish. He said his bit, the other panellists got likewise. The presenter, Mr D. had his say.
    Apart from one panel person, a bloke called Bradshaw, the mood was clear. Climate Science is no more settled than a vertical HB pencil in an earthquake zone!
    The camera panned, as it does, to the audience. Some, clearly, were unhappy- guardianistas to a life-form I’d guess, but they kept quiet.
    The British public are now overwhelmingly suspicious of CAGW alarmism. Those that aren’t are swithering.
    Yup, nigel is a good bloke even though he has more hair than he’s entitled to!
    That’s just jealousy on my part though:)

  87. Scaryoldcortina
    Question Time (not Newsnight).
    Lawson did well (but pressured by Dimbleby)

    Ben Bradshaw (Labour MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, not a scientist) said the overwhelming majority of scientists supported the evidence for AGW. He then turned around the MMR example to support his view saying that Wakefield’s evidence was finally disproved by the, yes, overwhelming majority of scientists. Most others on the panel disagreed with him but he still got some claps from the audience.

  88. On the SEC requiring companies to show actions v AGW, I looked this up and it’s been going on a few years. It’s often Soros funded groups who spend all day on these things. It may have been a 3-2 vote on party lines, but the republican party has not stood up about this issue. Their own choice for repub. presidential candidate was a big AGW and cap and trade promoter, McCain. A republican pollster Frank Luntz recently hired himself to the Environmental Defense Fund to help them persuade republicans that AGW is a great thing to get behind. Even-as Obama said last night, if it really isn’t true it’s still a good idea. Soros doesn’t like losing, which is why he had Obama take a shot at the Supreme Court, trying to intimidate them into changing their vote next time around.

  89. He got chance to pitch his argument against alarmism on Question Time this evening. It was good to hear his arguments and it was telling that the majority of the panel agreed that the science was not settled, with this opening the doorway to full and frank debate again.

  90. We shall see what we shall see. Perhaps with a public inquiry we might get to see some finger pointing – that ought to be fun.

  91. As regards Lord Lawson, he has for some years expressed a cautious (may be not skeptic view) to AGW. However, his main position is that if money needs to be spent in tackling AGW it is preferential to trat the symptons rather than the cause, ie., he considers that rather than spending money on curbing CO2, it is better to spend money dealing with the problems (say flood defence, loss of crops), if and when such disatsers arise. He is very much against the Stern report.
    Tonight the BBC aired a show called Question Time. This is a weekly screened political debate. Lawson was on the panel and he was critical of the evidence which Climategate has revealed, ie., his stance was not that this is unlawful theft of e-mails/data but rather he emphasied the manipulation of data and suppresion of opposing scientific views. Several MPS (a labour minister and a liberal democrat) went on about how AGW is certain and real. Lawson responded saying that even the Government’s chief scientific adviser says that things are not so cwertain and we need a proper and open debate so that the public can make up its own mind.
    It was good to see this have some air time on a mainstream channel in the UK. if only to let the public know that there is still some debate.

  92. (Re Dr Wakefield) Veronica – but you fail to list conspiracy, so in my mind the similarities pale into insignificance.

  93. Watched BBC1 Question Time. Lord Lawson was quite hesitant and measured in his reply, supporting further debate, perhaps too mindful of the pro-AGW position of the Tory party leadership. Looking at the expressions of audience, (carefully selected for balance by the BBC.) it seemed they were as polarised as the panel. No winners or losers here but at least there will now be a debate which will be necessary to give the politicians some space to extricate themselves. (Too much to hope for a complete wipe-out of the lot of them).

    No points for guessing who will be the fall guys.

  94. The BBC political staff must be spitting tacks! The audience for Question Time is supposed to be impartially chosen across political views but it’s always very skewed (I know why as I once applied, or at least got so far as trying to fill out the form, but it was too intrusive. Also there was a huge furore after 9/11 when the US Ambassador was attacked on the show iirc). They must be very annoyed at the wall of silence being breached tonight!

    Meanwhile, what on earth is Phil Jones doing still in situ? Surely any academic under investigation for destroying or manipulating data should not be on the premises? Given that Prince Charles greeted him at CRU yesterday, pressure needs to be kept up relentlessly. Do sign the petition if you are are a UK citizen (ex-pats may sign)

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/?signed=fc77751.3ec77d

    Meanwhile OT but this is the current thread, and it’s important – anyone thinking of submitting to the PCS&T CRU enquiry, please do read the thread on CA dealing with what/how etc.

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/22/uk-parliamentary-inquiry-into-cru/#comment-217765

    It’s very important that only those with standing submit to the Committee

    See esp this post by Jim Edwards Jan 23, 2010 at 1:21 am:
    [Regarding what “interest’ means, JE explains very clearly]

    “The requirements for submissions are remarkably similar to those for filing Amicus briefs [‘friends of the court’ briefs] in US Federal Appellate courts.
    The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February
    [snip]
    Each “interested party’s” written evidence at the end of report begins with a “statement of interest.” As in US appellate practice, the statement of interest is not a statement that says “I think the subject is cool”, or “I believe there’s a conspiracy going on.”

    The statement of interest is a description that explains why the party submitting evidence has legal standing to be involved in the case. “Interested parties” will likely include:
    People who actually are involved in the controversy …..”

    [He goes on to list all likely such catregories]

  95. borderer:
    … the entrenched GW establishment – who control just about every other institution in Britain: BBC Radio, BBC Television and BBC Online – all strongly PRO AGW, the Royal Society, the MET Office, ALL the universities, the RSPB, WWF, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, ALL the Wildlife Trusts, the British Museum. It is a staggeringly UN Sceptical establishment …

    AKA Organized Clime.

  96. ” Veronica (England) (15:23:56) : and Tenuc – what, in principle, is such a bad thing about unity? ”

    Unity as a political or idealogical goal is dangerous at best (see history of all authoritarian societies). A unity as the result of many individuals each independently/voluntarily arriving at a conclusion/idea is healthy for a society (see various blogs).

    John

  97. @ PaulH from Scotland (14:21:09) :

    Regarding “deniers.” How about if we rebrand ourselves as “denniers”? (Pronounced Denny-ers.) It’s nice and idiotic, just like “deniers.” (Which is the point our use of the word will subtly insinuate.)

  98. Lucy Skywalker (11:27:08) : Times Article.
    “Apart from Vicky Pope’s little article set alongside (she’s in denial)”

    Blimey Lucy, ain’t she just! I love her line in the article saying….

    “They do not call into question the robustness of the surface temperature record produced by UEA”.

    You really could not make this stuff up!

    Methinks Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, should be looking for another job before the BBC etc kicks her and the rest of her mates into touch!

  99. Lucy Skywalker (11:27:08) :
    “We can still put it all down to mass delusions, …

    But this is an elite delusion. It’s not the madness of crowds. The guilty parties are stark staring sane.

  100. Lucy Skywalker (11:34:10) :
    Another interesting thing about the Times article reply by Vicky Pope, Head mouthpiece for the Met,

    Her current boss, is he not the same man who was head of the WWF when the “Glacier Melting by 2035″ incident took place?

  101. ‘ Dave D (10:22:06) :

    Looks like this is still heading in the right direction! Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”? Does he have enough pull to shine the light in on the process?’

    Lord Lawson( Daughter Nigella… the cook) was one of the best Chancellors the UK ever had .. he speaks regularly on the ‘Global warming’ issues and is one of the finest and few really good politicians the UK ever produced.. having said that… The Labour party hated him…so thats all good…

  102. This is what needs to be remembered:

    any media outlet would jump on the opportunity to lead their newscast or headline their paper with the news that climate data were forged, and that there has in fact been no discernible warming, or any other significant pronouncement of the sort that had the requisite factual support. Any IPCC officer that steps down, any scientist that loses his job, anything that points to scandal, mischief, and malfeasance. That’s front page news. That’s a scoop. That’s what they live for.

    They will do it at the first opportunity, and that opportunity is approaching with every day that passes. Just as the media have sold papers on building up the AGW story, they will sell double on tearing it down.

    The media has been the enemy of the skeptic camp. They will turn around and become its biggest ally just as fast, if that is what sells better. And, again, that day is soon approaching. Long live the fickle media.

  103. As has already been said, Lawson was in on the global warming “issue” from Day 1 under Thatcher. The UEA was given public money to “prove” it, and Thatcher gave her approval for the formation of the IPCC.

    All we’ll see will be a lot of hand waving, smoke and mirrors, spin and then nothing, swept under the political carpet. Gordon Brown knows his, and his paty, days are numbered and the Tories aren’t any better, they are all keen to get their noses into the AGW gravy train.

  104. .

    And here is a reply to myself from the office of David Cameron (leader of the former Conservative Party – now the leader of the Real Modern Dude and Green Party.)

    Dear Mr Ellis,

    Thank you very much for getting in touch with David Cameron about your concerns over the integrity of climate scientists at the IPCC. I apologise for the delay in replying but over the last couple of months there has been a huge increase in the number of e-mails David has received each day and it taking us a little longer than usual to reply to each one.

    I can see that you feel recent allegations have cast doubt over the case for climate change, and the integrity of the science. However, our view is that public policy on climate change has been built over many years, with input from a wide variety of expert sources, and we do need to significantly reduce our carbon emissions.

    It is always right to keep an open mind, and question scientific theories. But, those in favour of doing nothing on the basis of scientific scepticism need to show that the risks we run by not acting are small and manageable. Given all the information and evidence we now have, that is a very difficult case to make.

    I will, of course, ensure that David is made aware if your concerns, but I am afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this issue.

    Whatever your views are, we cannot afford not to go green. The UK economy is still dependent for more than 90 per cent of its energy needs on fossil fuels, which increasingly come from imports. With the era of cheap oil now well and truly over, our fossil fuel dependency is making us uncompetitive and vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.

    We can build a secure, prosperous future, but only if we start the work of transforming our national energy infrastructure now, by increasing energy efficiency and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.

    Being at the cutting edge of new technologies in the energy industry is precisely the action that is needed to prevent the power cuts the Government is predicting by 2017, and it ensures that Britain’s consumers and businesses are protected against the consequences of volatile and rising oil prices into the future.

    We need to make the transition to a low carbon economy urgently, and I hope you’ll agree that our plans for a Low Carbon Economy will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise skills and improve Britain’s competitiveness.

    Thank you, once again, for taking the time and trouble to write.

    Yours sincerely,

    Jenny Stoker

    .

  105. “(Nigella Lawson, TV cook, very enticing to men of a certain age.)”

    IMO, any hetero male of any age would find the delightfully pneumatic Nigella enticing.

    Nigel Lawson is definitely a heavyweight. Highly intelligent and principled, with a lot of behind-the-scenes clout. I hated his guts when Thatcher was in power, but all is now forgiven…

  106. Borderer

    Lawson Nobel prize winner 2011.
    Nigella should cook it and Nigel should eat it, shit it and send it back.

  107. Lawson does mention in his book the role of the Thatcher goverment regarding the promotion of AGW and the establishment of CRU. At the time they were fighting to crush the coal miners unions, in the mid-1980s, and the point was to get more arguments to move from CO2-intensive coal into natural gas and nuclear. It was about getting as much political support as they could to move away from coal.

  108. Veronica (England) (15:23:56) :
    “…and Tenuc – what, in principle, is such a bad thing about unity?

    The world united under one (unelected) government would be a disaster. It may
    possibly prevent future wars, but would weaken humanity. Mankind has only progressed to what we are today through turmoil and conflict. Without this driver of change we will stagnate and die.

    The freedom of an individual to choose his own future is paramount and I think the West has become very intolerant of this idea for the last century or so. Socialism is not the way to allow people to achieve their full potential. Without survival of the fittest the gene-pool will weaken over time and the human race will end.

  109. Re: Ralph (Jan 28 23:38),

    Snap, Ralph well nearly, this bit missing from mine “but I am afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this issue.”

    Maybe I am getting a bit too polite in my old age.

    Dear Mr …………..

    Thank you very much for getting in touch with David Cameron about your concerns over the integrity of climate scientists at the IPCC. I apologise for the delay in replying but over the past few weeks David has received a higher volume of e-mails each day than normal and it is taking us a little longer than usual to reply to each one.

    I can see that you feel recent allegations have cast doubt over the case for climate change, and the integrity of the science. However, our view is that public policy on climate change has been built over many years, with input from a wide variety of expert sources, and we do need to significantly reduce our carbon emissions.

    It is always right to keep an open mind, and question scientific theories. But, those in favour of doing nothing on the basis of scientific scepticism need to show that the risks we run by not acting are small and manageable. Given all the information and evidence we now have, that is a very difficult case to make.

    I will, of course, ensure that David is made aware if your concerns.

    Whatever your views are, we cannot afford not to go green. The UK economy is still dependent for more than 90 per cent of its energy needs on fossil fuels, which increasingly come from imports. With the era of cheap oil now well and truly over, our fossil fuel dependency is making us uncompetitive and vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.

    We can build a secure, prosperous future, but only if we start the work of transforming our national energy infrastructure now, by increasing energy efficiency and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.

    Being at the cutting edge of new technologies in the energy industry is precisely the action that is needed to prevent the power cuts the Government is predicting by 2017, and it ensures that Britain’s consumers and businesses are protected against the consequences of volatile and rising oil prices into the future.

    We need to make the transition to a low carbon economy urgently, and I hope you’ll agree that our plans for a Low Carbon Economy will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise skills and improve Britain’s competitiveness.

    Thank you, once again, for taking the time and trouble to write.

    Yours sincerely

    Jenny Stoker”

    I understand and support need for energy efficiency and conserving fossil fuels. My question was about basing a taxation system on the apparent misinformation produced by the IPCC. So therefore all the above can be reduced to:-

    Question “What are the Conservative Party going to do about the misinformation from the IPCC”

    Answer “Nothing”

    Not good enough Mr Cameron, get some work done, do some due diligence, which is the minimum responsibility of any potential legislator. Fund both sides, investigate. Things have changed Mr Cameron it is now you who is proposing to do nothing! Not the so called sceptics, they have done a lot of your work for you, now it is your turn.

  110. ‘Dave D (10:22:06) :

    Looks like this is still heading in the right direction! Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”? Does he have enough pull to shine the light in on the process?’

    Lord Lawson is a man of integrity. Whether you agree with him on all things or not, he was a senior member of UK administration for a decade or so under Margaret Thatcher and was Chancellor of the Exchequer (which means he ran the Finance Ministry which here is called the Treasury) for much of that time. So he knows his way around politics, administration and the UK Establishment. He is also globally connected.

    He was the author of a book ‘A cool look at global warming’, which I found to be a reasonable account of the issues and uncertainties facing politicians in the field of climate change. Once again, you may or may not agree with all he says, but it was written with cogency, logic and integrity.

    He has just founded a new Foundation to look at the issues of Climate Change, not in terms of science but in terms of practical economics and politics. One hopes that it is successful. Lord Monckton is also part of that new Foundation.

    We’ll see how things pan out, but he is certainly about the most experienced person in the UK to support a more realistic opinion on climate change.

  111. Quote: Tenuc (03:50:02) :

    “The world united under one (unelected) government would be a disaster. . .

    The freedom of an individual to choose his own future is paramount . . .”

    I agree, Tenuc. Democracy itself is at stake.

    Climategate has revealed the shadowy outline of an international alliance of politicians, scientists, publishers and other news media using science as a propaganda tool in an undemocratic plan to unite the entire world under one unelected government, likely headed Al Gore.

    That is why the US’s NAS, NASA and the UN’s IPCC united together to mold science into world-wide propaganda of CO2-induced global warming.

    Earth’s climate is changing, has always changed, and will continue to do so; Earth’s heat source is a variable star: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

    Scientists associated with NAS, NASA and the UN’s IPCC know the facts, but took funds and distorted data in favor of CO2-induced global warming.

    The strange alliance of George Bush and Tony Blair – to invade Iraq and then police the rest of the world – and the “discovery” of oscillating solar neutrinos are probably all indications of the same international alliance of politicians, scientists, publishers and major news sources.

    Thanks to WUWT and others for keeping the spotlight of public attention focused on the Climategate iceberg.

    Much more filth will be revealed as this melts under public scrutiny.

    With kind regards,
    OLiver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Studies

  112. Unbelievable! An unelected government under Al Gore. That is the wackiest conspiracy theory I ever heard! Please can we detach ourselves from this kind of thinking because it will cause us to be ridiculed by the warmists – and rightly.

  113. “Whatever your views are, we cannot afford not to go green. The UK economy is still dependent for more than 90 per cent of its energy needs on fossil fuels, which increasingly come from imports. With the era of cheap oil now well and truly over, our fossil fuel dependency is making us uncompetitive and vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.

    We can build a secure, prosperous future, but only if we start the work of transforming our national energy infrastructure now, by increasing energy efficiency and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.

    Being at the cutting edge of new technologies in the energy industry is precisely the action that is needed to prevent the power cuts the Government is predicting by 2017, and it ensures that Britain’s consumers and businesses are protected against the consequences of volatile and rising oil prices into the future. ”

    Jenny Stoker quoted above by Green Sand.

    I tend to agree with her. We should be moving to a lower carbon economy because the fossil fuels are in the control of dubious countries, and that is a bigger imperative for Europe than you can understand in North America because we don’t have substantial reserves of our own.

    But if CAGW is a big hype, then we can do it calmly and rationally and without panic, and without lots of money being diverted into unnecessary and expensive schemes that do no good whatsoever.

  114. John Whitman (19:12:06) :
    “…. A unity as the result of many individuals each independently/voluntarily arriving at a conclusion/idea is healthy for a society (see various blogs). “

    This is exactly the strategy being used to get the vast majority of people to accept world government, with the MSM set up to be the fabricators of public opinion. The Zeitgeist seems to be a socialist agenda to solve all the worlds problems through central control. I think this is why CAGW will be quietly dropped and the next ‘world disaster’ will be foisted upon us.

  115. Ralph and Green sand,

    Don’t be fobbed off with that pro forma letter. Demand a meeting. Go down there armed with the pertinent facts and lay it on the line. IMO, these are:
    1) Renewable energy doesn’t create jobs, it destroys them – see the Madrid report and basic micro economics – higher energy prices equals lower productivity.
    2) Building windmills will not give Britain energy independence since they need to be backed up with conventional power stations.
    3) The more the energy costs rise, the more business will relocate to China or India – see the Corus fiasco.
    4) No other country in the world has yet passed binding legislation.

    There are probably other arguments, and none of them touch on the question of climate science – that is the important point.

  116. “I tend to agree with her. We should be moving to a lower carbon economy because the fossil fuels are in the control of dubious countries, and that is a bigger imperative for Europe than you can understand in North America because we don’t have substantial reserves of our own.”

    There’s a lot of double think going on about importing fossil fuels. Why are we concerned about importing oil, when every day we happily import food (more important imo), consumer goods and raw materials? This whole argument has been hijacked by the warmists and used as a backup excuse for cutting fossil fuels.

    How much oil actually comes from these “evil” countries? Well

    1) opec is now a minority exporter.
    2) Canada exports more oil than Saudi Arabia.
    3) Most opec oil exporters are also gasoline importers, thus underlying the trully interdepdence of the fossil fuel market, just as it should be.

    The idea that there is something special about oil such that the laws of global trade do not apply is just plain nuts!

  117. Re Lack of Fossil Fuels in the UK, we still have a lot of that horrible, but very efficient COAL in Britain, but of course that lovely Mrs Thatcher & totally incompetent British Coal have made it a bit harder to get out.
    With all that Coal underground we are Imported 43.9 million tonnes in 2008.

  118. Dave D (10:22:06) :

    Looks like this is still heading in the right direction! Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”? Does he have enough pull to shine the light in on the process?

    Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer (Minister of Finance) in Margaret Thatcher’s government 20 years ago. He has as much clout politically as is necessary! He has published on “Global Warming” in UK. He is a “good guy.”

  119. @John Arthur (10:38:19) :

    @Anopheles (like the name!) “He used to be someone in Thatcher’s govt.”

    He was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and got this country (UK) straightened out financially only to have our current lot squander it all and more. Forget Nigella, Nigel is a well-respected heavyweight and I doubt this will be ignored.
    //

    That’s all very well, saying “Forget Nigella”, but when she is falling out of a silk dressing gown on TV in front of you, whilst molesting a chocolate cake, it’s not very easy to … forget her.

    Tip of the hat. MAJOR tip of the hat to all these folk working on debunking this scam.

Comments are closed.