Singer on Climategate Parliamentary Inquiry

Editorial by S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

http://www.sepp.org/sepplogo.gif

ClimateGate Whitewash

There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UAE).  But the ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real problem, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or simply the manufactured result of manipulation of temperature data by scientists in England and the United States.

The latest report is by the British House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, which largely absolved Philip Jones, head of UEA’s Climate Research Unit and author of most of the e-mails.  How can we tell that it’s a whitewash?  Here are some telltale signs:

  • It refers to the e-mails as “stolen”
  • It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics
  • Yet it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused – essentially endorsing the IPCC

None of the investigations have gone into any detail on how the data might have been manipulated.  But this is really the most important task for any investigation, since it deals directly with the central issue: Is there an appreciable human influence on climate change in the past decades?

Instead, much of the attention of newspapers, and of the public, has focused on secondary issues: the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the possible inundation of the Netherlands, deforestation of the Amazon, crop failures in Africa, etc.  While these issues demonstrate the sloppiness of the IPCC process, they don’t tell anything about the cause of the warming: natural or anthropogenic.

So what do the e-mails really reveal?  We know that Jones and his gang tried and largely succeeded in “hiding the decline” of temperature by using what he termed “Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick.”  Most people think it refers to CRU tree ring data after 1960, which do show a decline in temperature.  However, I believe that it refers to Michael Mann’s “trick” in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979.  So he abruptly cut off his analysis in 1979 and simply inserted the thermometer data supplied by Jones, which do claim a strong temperature increase.  Hence the hockey-stick, suggesting a sudden major warming during the past century.

Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Singer on Climategate Parliamentary Inquiry

  1. John Whitman says:

    Dr Singer goes to the essence of the CRU Climategate matter, and concisely analyses the Parliamentary hearing findings.

    We need to spread the word, by all available means. As WUWT has been doing so ably. Thanks WUWT.

    John

  2. Lon Hocker says:

    Use the ballot box.
    Time for a non-violent, but thorough revolution.

  3. jorgekafkazar says:

    The cover-up is so stupidly blatant, it’s making the Emperor look even nakeder.

  4. rbateman says:

    I believe I have already checked out the Pacific Northwest and into Nevada.
    No significant warming post 1979 in Orland, Red Bluff, Redding, Orleans, Weaverville, CA;
    Winnemucca, NV, Ashland, Grants Pass and Roseburg, OR,
    and Sitka, AK.
    Using raw COOP, US Weather Bureau and US Army Signal Corps, Volunteer and Smithsonian Observers, and even some of Phil Jones released CRU 91, 94 and 99 data sets.
    You can have my data, or you can go and research it out for yourself under your own steam:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm
    I did find evidence of a most horrific drought in the 1870′s in some of those data sets. That CA drought is referred to in a literary work, and it sent some stations temps into the stratosphere….130-140 years ago.

  5. Keith G says:

    Well, at least there is a police inquiry, ironically kicked off by those who believe they were the victims of hacking. A political inquiry can be a political statement. The police have to avoid “perverting the course of justice” and have competent prosecutorial oversight. Guess we’ll have to wait for that to unfold.

  6. mrpkw says:

    I think this is what most of us thought the outcome would be.

  7. John R. Walker says:

    I think we know all this already – the problem is that it isn’t about science any more. It’s about one-world global power politics and global corporate finance and as long as both groups are winning – and they are – then nobody with enough clout is ever going to commit the resources necessary to overturn the existing inadequate + fraudulent science and to replace the existing defective climate infrastructure.

    The only way to bring this runaway train to a halt is to stop voting for AGW politicians and to stop doing business with corporates who preach AGW and skim a percentage off the top.

  8. Telboy says:

    I expected nothing else from the woefully ignorant lobby-fodder that constitutes our House of Commons. If only it were the House of Commonsense…

  9. u.k.(us) says:

    IMHO, all was well until this paragraph:
    ==
    “Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.”
    =============
    Needs a re-write/expansion, or something.
    I’ve seen many commenters on this site who could do much better.

    Haste makes waste.

  10. Robert of Ottawa says:

    I heartily endorse verifications of the temperature record, to determine whether, in fact, there has actually been any warming.

    At the same time, I want to see the alarmist’s evidence that this claimed warming is due to humans. Evidence? Please? Anything?

    Thirdly, is this supposed warming, even if caused by humankind, actually bad for the planet? Please explain.

    This is the three wave assault on AGW that needs to be confronted by the alarmists. They are not defending their proposition with these whitewash investigations; they are not addressing the issues, they are attempting to change the discussion. Even the propagandised great un-washed see these whitewashes as just BS.

  11. Roger Sowell says:

    E.M. Smith’s (Chiefio) results from GISStemp show complete fabrication of global warming. Country by country, the results are a function of thermometer selection over time.

    There is no man-made global warming.

    see http://chiefio.wordpress.com/

  12. Liam says:

    Lon Hocker (15:30:48) :
    Use the ballot box.
    Time for a non-violent, but thorough revolution
    —————————-

    Difficult when all 3 major political parties in the UK seem signed up to AGW.

  13. joeym says:

    I love the fact that Google is currently serving ad’s for “Al Gore’s Repower America” at this site. I clicked on the add so that Al Gore would have to pay you $1.

  14. kwik says:

    Greenpeace is angry;

    “If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    And we be many, but you be few.”

    Here;

    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html

    They are basically saying its okay to break the law.

    Just like FOIA laws?

  15. RockyRoad says:

    I honestly don’t know why they wasted an entire day on it. Wouldn’t a 5-minute press conference with a whitewash statement have been enough? Much easier to retract later on. Just say “Oops… we read the wrong statement” when it becomes politically correct to recant.

  16. Alan Simpson says:

    It seems like we are in the “What are going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes” territory. It really is becoming embarrassing watching the apologists squirm and wriggle.

    What’s next? Are they going to try to re-invent the language again?

  17. Dr T G Watkins says:

    Great to hear from the ‘father’ of ‘sceptics’, or rather someone who has always spoken out for scientific integrity and the importance of empirical data.
    As we know, the AGW supporters refuse to debate in open forum the basis of their claims, whether it be the temperature record or the sensitivity of climate to CO2 forcing.All the rest is secondary, only evidence of the attempted political manipulation of the inept IPCC. (I bet if Steve Mc. was in charge of manipulation policy for the IPCC no-one would find out,he’s too clever).
    This is not about science any more, and the more I read the more convinced I am that Chris Monckton and Richard North and Chris Booker are correct in their analyses.

  18. Ian says:

    The single most important thing that will emerge from this 20 year fiasco is that beginning now, there will be no more secrets and no more cherry picking data. It is all out in the open, and in a few years , suprisingly we will see that in fact there is no such thing as AGW , or a personal ” global footprint ” ( god I hate that expression ) and mankind isn’t doomed by ourselves.
    Now, science will have to be peer reviewed by real scientists, not just those on the same ( green ) bandwagon, and the so called consensus which has been proven to be another fabiceation , will have to be given a second look….trust me , there is no real scientific consensus among real scientists. Its like saying that at a recent UFO conference, a consesnus of ufologists agree that UFOs are real and visiting earth.so therefore it is true….see what I mean….now you know why my username is, what it is..

    IanMacVindicated….

  19. JER0ME says:

    kwik (16:03:04) :

    Greenpeace is angry;

    [from the greenpeace post]

    “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

    The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

    Wow! “an army of climate outlaws” are going to stuff up our lives because we don’t believe what they preach? What ‘financial oxygen’ is this anyway? It’s hilarious, apart from being tragic. I mean all of us are going to stop sayiung what we say, just because they do some nebuouls thing to some perceived ‘evil overlord’ like the scary BIG OIL.

    These are like ranting ideologically misguided teenagers. Perhaps that is what they are.

    My solution: Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, who truly believes AGW is a disaster we need to avert, jut buy renewable energy. 100% renewable energy. That’s all it will take, and it is so much easier than trying to force others to bend to your will, especially when there is little evidence to back up your arguments. Yes, it will cost you, but that is effectively what you are trying to force on us and yourselves anyway.

    The result? Simple. When enough is invested in renewable energy, it will become cheaper than fossil fuels. When that happens, we’ll gladly follow your lead (as it was a rational one) and use the now cheaper energy. We may even thank you for what you have done.

    Your solution: You’re going to jail, matey, sorry.

  20. I would say what else is expected. In the Theaetetus, Socrates concluded true knowledge was a logical impossibility. That was not a popular conclusion then and it still is not. Public men above all do not want uncertainty even hinted at. They among others have invested far to much in promoting that which they in fact do not know to properly examine it.

  21. mandolinjon says:

    kwik (16:03:04) :

    I found something even more alarming at William Briggs site http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2159 entitled Obamacare & Climate Change: Temperature, Health Targets. Most alarming is the rider in the health bill just passed that applies to climate control. It is unbelievable what is proposed.
    Take your blood pressure meds before you read this.
    There it was, hidden on page 1,323 of the 2,700-page health care bill: a proposal to define the ideal climate for the Continental United States and Alaska
    So the Obama administration will attack the “vector” that they say will bring increased rates of illness. That vector is “changes in climate”; specifically, temperature change.
    The Environmental “Protection” Agency will be in charge of setting both the ideal temperatures and the allowed deviations. The EPA will also be allowed to suggest penalties for when those allowed deviations are exceeded.
    There are some constraints the EPA must follow. The country will be divided into climate “zones.” That is in quotes, because the zones aren’t contiguous; they appear to be climatically gerrymandered. For example, Vermont, California, New York, and Massachusetts are “Zone B”. Texas, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Alaska are “Zone C.” Strangely, Arkansas is its own zone. And so forth.
    Each zone will have its own temperature ideal. Like I said, these ideals aren’t yet specified; that will be left to the bureaucracy. But what’s fascinating is that each State in a zone must meet the same ideal. Texas and Alaska, therefore, must have the same yearly averaged temperature
    Again, I’m no lawyer, but it appears that if any State in a zone fails to meet it targets, all States in the zone are punished equally.
    It seems that the progressives have found yet another way to control us.

  22. DirkH says:

    “kwik (16:03:04) :

    Greenpeace is angry;

    “And we be many, but you be few.”

    I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

  23. snopercod says:

    Once again, many people are fooled into thinking that the left actually cares about facts or truth.

  24. fatjohn says:

    You are dealing with the British establishment. They invented the cover up and could not care less about facts. You will come to be like sisyphus if you think you can win by using science.

  25. davidmhoffer says:

    Re Greenpeace
    I read the whole rant on their web site.

    Now folks, it is one thing to advocate taxes to support a specific world view. It is quite another thing to advocate breaking the law, massive civil disobediance, and imply that violence may be justified:

    “We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.
    We need to be inclusive. We need to join forces with those within the climate movement that are taking direct action to disrupt the CO2 supply chain”

    These is no longer alarmism and advocacy. This is incitement to hatred and violence. This is the language of terrorism.

    While they do sound like cornered rats, anyone who has ever cornered a rat knows they get seriously nasty. For the first time I am actually alarmed by something the alarmists are saying.

  26. janama says:

    “Were you surprised about the Phil Jones inquiry?”
    Lord Monckton: “Not at all. Remember Parliamentary Inquiries are set up to exonerate Parliament…”

  27. pat says:

    The investigation lasted exactly one day and amounted to a bunch of crack pots patting themselves on the back.

  28. Jack Langdon says:

    The only place where skeptics can get a fair hearing is a court of law. Someone needs to figure out who to sue and get hopping. I will contribute the first $100 to the legal fund.

  29. GaryPearse says:

    Whitewash is everywhere, but if anyone thinks this going to rescue the agw mud palace from destruction, all they have to do is look at the polls of ordinary citizens in US and EU. This disgrace won’t die gracefully but die it will. Already new papers are coming out bringing back to life the Roman WP, the MWP and even the since unsurpassed 1930s temperature highs and drought. Much of the mess made of climate science will be quickly sorted out in this way rather than through adjustments to ipcc and recalculations by hadley et al.

    I’m seeing an inordinate number of student-aged canvassers out on the street begging for funds for greenpeace. Clearly climategate has impacted their ability to raise cash from a teed-off public. I believe gp, wwf and other orgs up to their rears in agw disgrace are also on their way out. A good plan for them would have been to jump on another bandwagon but wouldn’t you know, they will cling to the crumbling ruins of agw til death.

  30. Frank Lansner says:

    Whitewash gate…

  31. sunsettommy says:

    Good grief!,

    The never ending AGW propaganda baloney train continue and it get stupider and stupider.

    The “money” quote:

    “Instead, much of the attention of newspapers, and of the public, has focused on secondary issues: the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the possible inundation of the Netherlands, deforestation of the Amazon, crop failures in Africa, etc. While these issues demonstrate the sloppiness of the IPCC process, they don’t tell anything about the cause of the warming: natural or anthropogenic.”

    Since we know the AGW hypothesis is still unvalidated and thus fails to advance to the status of a THEORY.Therefore the are trying to convince the ignorant and unfortunately gullible non scientists that we are facing a doom and gloom run away warming future …. ,UNLESS you trust us and support massive government controls over your energy consumption.Thus we will be in greenie paradise!

    Feel better now?

    The report authors are assuming we are stupid and thus get away with it.They have badly miscalculated because in just the last months there has been a strong growth of new blogs online that attacks the absurdity of the AGW hypothesis and the stupid criers of doom from the media AND environmentalists.

    We are onto you and it is not pretty,the way we are tearing your entire alarmist shell game that was nurtured for many years.Now it is over and yet you fail to see it.

    You are being pathetic for trying to continue the AGW apocalypse B.S. when it is no longer going to work.

    “It refers to the e-mails as “stolen””

    They are still trying to make this bogus claim stick.But it is interesting they are not trying to (there is that word) deny the contents anymore.Since it is way to damning to fight it.Thus they are trying to undermine the whole thing with babble that it was stolen and so fourth.

    “It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics”

    The very ones who were aggrieved by the unethical and sometime unlawful actions by those who were implicated in those e-mails.The ones who did not adequately follow the standard of providing the relevant data along with their science paper for publication.

    “Yet it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused – essentially endorsing the IPCC”

    The same IPCC report that has been exposed as being full of holes,with a lot of unpublished research in it that have been exposed as being erroneous.You have seen the revelations that a lot of so called papers posted were from environmentalist groups and other non science groups.

    The same IPCC group that allow a terrible “Hockey Stick” paper (that contradicted a few decades of research in several fields) to be included with fanfare back in 2001.The one that made two well known climate trends vanish.The Medieval warm period and the Little Ice age.

    That alone should have convinced many THEN that it was all baloney.I never fell for it because I knew from the 1970′s on their existence of these two climate periods,that greatly impacted the world.

    What ever happened to that much vaunted and talked about “PEER REVIEWED” (before it can be published) standards,commonly brought up in various blogs and forums,by those who are AGW believers.The one they kept pestering us with.

    ROFLMAO!

    I think the whitewashers are stupid for trying to maintain the charade of a failed AGW hypothesis,that are STILL built on the sand foundation quality of climate models.

    The obvious lies and the mendacious manipulations to placate a public that is no longer very receptive to their absurd endless scaremongering.The public are tired of the mountain of snow and cold in recent years to care so easily anymore.

    When will the alarmist madness end?

  32. David Alan Evans says:

    kwik.

    I say just let them shut Drax, Ferrybridge & Ratcliffe!

    They’d pretty soon find out how much support they have. That would be about 8Gw dropped off the grid. I see ropes!

    DaveE.

  33. David Alan Evans says:

    Oh yes.

    For anyone who doesn’t believe it, we really are that marginal on power. We nearly had a grid shut-down 2 years ago when there were 2 stations shut down unexpectedly.

    DaveE.

  34. cbullitt says:

    The truth doesn’t matter. It’s never been about science–it’s always been about power and exerting it through a global Carbon Come Ponzi scheme.

    So, even though we know there is no scientific support for AGW, our alien overlords don’t care, and their minions in the press will write what they are told–especially those like the BBC that are literally invested in Carbon.

    Obama, Brown, Rudd; they continue to spout decade-old AGW dogma that has been thoroughly debunked. And their supposed opponents succumb to the siren song of Carbon trading and taxing lucre.

    As someone said last week, “We haven’t laid a glove on them.”

  35. Dan says:

    Green”peace”….from now on it is called greenhate

  36. Jan Pompe says:

    Of course it will have been a whitewash, the people doing the investigating were the same ones who feed them millions of taxpayer money to provide the data background for the propaganda to pass such things as the kyoto protocol and the rest.

  37. davidmhoffer says:

    mandolinjon (17:01:02) :
    kwik (16:03:04) :
    I found something even more alarming at William Briggs site http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2159 entitled Obamacare & Climate>>

    Uhm… the date of the entry is… April 1?

  38. Lon Hocker says:

    Liam (15:57:42) :
    Lon Hocker (15:30:48) :
    Use the ballot box.
    Time for a non-violent, but thorough revolution
    —————————-

    Difficult when all 3 major political parties in the UK seem signed up to AGW.

    Maybe that makes for an opportunity. Political parties need differentiation. Pick the one that seems the most willing to change. Here in the US, a year ago the Republican party was solidly on the AGW bandwagon. Not so now.

  39. INGSOC says:

    Just bear in mind that the “ban carbon” movement believes they still have the majority here in N. America, and are trying to make their stand here. All governments in NA are closely involved in evolving a tax and fee structure around carbon, and are heavily committed to seeing these ever growing penalties enacted ASAP. It is woven into the budgets of all levels of government. They will not give up this grab easily.

    Thanks for keeping the flame burning Anthony (et al)

  40. David Alan Evans says:

    Liam (15:57:42) :

    Lon Hocker (15:30:48) :
    Use the ballot box.
    Time for a non-violent, but thorough revolution
    —————————-

    Difficult when all 3 major political parties in the UK seem signed up to AGW.

    Easy answer Liam.

    Vote UKIP or the party that can’t be mentioned! ABBCC, (Anyone But Brown, Cameron or Clegg!)

    DaveE.

  41. kwik says:

    davidmhoffer (18:29:52) :

    “Uhm… the date of the entry is… April 1?”

    Hmmm. The Greenpeace part 1) is 31 march, part 2) is 1′st April…. dunno? Have I been had again?

    The Briggs scenario with temperature zones… since you mention 1′st April… It does seem a bit far fetched with temperature targets…they cannot be that crazy? …. Almost like China and Mao’s production targets…… no, cannot be true.

    And yet, Merckel and Brown promised, was it 1.5 and 2 degrees they over-bid each other with?

  42. theduke says:

    Dr. Singer is one of the true heroes of modern science. He’s been fighting the exaggeration known as anthropogenic global warming for as long as the theory has been in existence and doing it with restraint, style and perseverance.

    Thank you, Doctor.

  43. West Houston says:

    You’ll post the GreenWar death threats but you exclude me ’cause I called them “snot-nosed little creeps”
    ?

    REPLY: well, that was then, this is now.

  44. Pat Moffitt says:

    Most people seem to have missed the important statement James Lovelock recently made in his 3/29/10 Guardian interview

    “I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

    Please note the Father of Green says the ozone hole data were faked- not wrong- faked!!!! That statement should have made world wide headlines.

    So perhaps this is what the UK Jone’s investigation meant when it claimed Jones simply did what other environmental scientists do.

  45. Paul Vaughan says:

    Cites “Singer, S.F.“:

    Vaughan, P.L. (2010). Volcanic Activity, the Sun, the Moon, & the Stratosphere.
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm

    Updated April 3, 2010 — new graphs:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT,DVI,VEI,MSI.PNG
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/LunarHarmonicSpectrum.png
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_11a.png

    “[...] phase coherence [...] is 0.9.”

  46. W. Richards says:

    Lon:

    Lon Hocker (15:30:48) :

    Use the ballot box.
    Time for a non-violent, but thorough revolution.

    Let’s just hope those ballots don’t need to be “peer-reviewed” before they are cast or counted!

    ==Wayne

  47. Mr Lynn says:

    mandolinjon (17:01:02) :
    kwik (16:03:04) :

    I found something even more alarming at William Briggs site http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2159 entitled Obamacare & Climate Change: Temperature, Health Targets. Most alarming is the rider in the health bill just passed that applies to climate control. It is unbelievable what is proposed. . .

    It was an April Fool’s Day joke.

    Of course, the secret of all good humor is the kernel of truth. One could almost believe such insanity plausible these days.

    /Mr Lynn

  48. Mr Lynn says:

    Robert of Ottawa (15:50:48) :
    I heartily endorse verifications of the temperature record, to determine whether, in fact, there has actually been any warming.
    At the same time, I want to see the alarmist’s evidence that this claimed warming is due to humans. Evidence? Please? Anything?
    Thirdly, is this supposed warming, even if caused by humankind, actually bad for the planet? Please explain. . .

    Roger Sowell (15:53:57) :
    E.M. Smith’s (Chiefio) results from GISStemp show complete fabrication of global warming. Country by country, the results are a function of thermometer selection over time.
    There is no man-made global warming.
    see http://chiefio.wordpress.com/

    OK, that’s number one: No warming.

    If there’s no warming, then numbers two and three are moot.

    End of discussion.

    Up to now, even most climate realists have conceded that there has been some ‘global warming’ over the past century, particularly over the period from 1979 through 1998. Is it time for the skeptical side to reach down and pull the alarmist scenario up by the roots? If the warming was faked, then all that remains is to shout it from the housetops.

    Unfortunately, the media and the politicians are not listening—not even when Prof. Jones said there had been no statistically-significant warming since 1995!

    What will it take to break through the wall of vested interest in the AGW mythos? Perhaps a public recantation by James Hansen would do it.

    /Mr Lynn

  49. kim says:

    Just exactly what
    S. Fred is on in his head.
    Singer of Cloud Tunes.
    =============

  50. Phillip Bratby says:

    “Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.”

    We aren’t going to get a thorough scientific investigation. The outcomes of the other two UK investigations are foregone conclusions. The whitewash was purchased weeks ago.

  51. UK Sceptic says:

    This is Her Majesty’s govenment we are talking about. The most corrupt and venal institute in the UK. Did you really expect they’d actually do an honest job?

  52. davide says:

    I got this in a email from the conservative party, when i asked why they still believed in AGW.

    The Conservative Party’s view on this is very clear: It is only right that scientific theories should be constantly subject to questioning and challenge – that is how scientific discovery happens – but that should not be accepted as a case for inaction.

    Those in favour of doing nothing need to be able to show that the risks we run by not acting are small and manageable. This is a very difficult case to make, given all the evidence we now have, and considering all the additional benefits that a low carbon economy will bring.

    Conservatives do not accept the argument that acting on climate change is all about costs and penalties. Many of the actions we want to take will both save and make money, not cost it: Making every home in Britain more energy efficient will reduce our energy bills and create lots of local jobs, as well as safeguarding our environment. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels through developing new clean energy technologies will be good for our economy and our national security, as well as our environment. And the global market for green goods and services will soon be worth trillions of pounds – so we need to start investing in new green technologies and industries if we’re going to get a bigger stake in this enormous economic opportunity.

    You may wish to take a look at our policy paper, Rebuilding Security, Conservative energy policy for an uncertain world, which is available on conservatives.com. It gives a hard-headed analysis of Britain’s energy security situation and concludes that our future security lies in reduced exposure to volatile fossil fuels, greater diversity in supply and a far more efficient energy system.

    Regardless of one’s views on the science of climate change, it is therefore clear that our national energy security lies in the transition to a low carbon economy.

    you couldn’t make it up!

  53. Disputin says:

    Thank you
    “West Houston (19:56:42) :
    You’ll post the GreenWar death threats but you exclude me ’cause I called them “snot-nosed little creeps”
    ?

    REPLY: well, that was then, this is now.”

    Laughed my socks off (and I’d only just put them on).

    Just shows the ability on this side of the fence at least to modify positions in the light of new circumstances and to inject a little wit and good humour.
    Well done Anthony and your crew.

    BTW, can anyone point me to a paper that indicates “It woz Man what done it”? I have heard of some work based on stable carbon isotopes but haven’t come across it yet.

  54. socold says:

    You’ve lost, move on.

    People are not going to believe claims of “whitewash” forever. If you had a solid case you could have made an impact through the investigation by laying out that case clearly and demanding those aspects were addresses. But skeptics had so many hairbrained arguments based on the flimsiest reading of CRU emails that you ended up throwing a lot of noise into the discussion. That seemed more like entertainment. Next time try to cut out the noise and just focus on some key points and make them clearly.

  55. A C Osborn says:

    socold (05:19:52) :
    You obviously have not read the Evidence supplied by Scientists, which was completely ignored by said committee.

  56. Pat Moffitt says:

    Back to my earlier point- many people don’t believe there can be a large scale corruption of government science– yet we have Lovelock’s claim the ozone hole data were faked. It would seem easier to make the climate case by being able to show it is part of an ongoing problem of corruption.

  57. sunsettommy says:

    Hello socold,

    I see that you are still going to play the feeble advocate devil angle.It failed utterly over at JoNova blog.Yet you are going to try it HERE!,with a lot of smart people?

    The CRU e-mails are real and definitely damning,something you can not wish it away.I suggest that you drop this absurd (here is that word again) denial of their contents that have proved many claims made by climate skeptics.

    How about this startling idea:

    YOU make a case that Fred Singer is wrong and that we are wrong about the believed “whitewashing” claims.

  58. jazznick says:

    David Alan Evans (19:19:25) :

    Liam (15:57:42) :

    Lon Hocker (15:30:48) :
    Use the ballot box.
    Time for a non-violent, but thorough revolution
    —————————-

    Difficult when all 3 major political parties in the UK seem signed up to AGW.

    Easy answer Liam.

    Vote UKIP or the party that can’t be mentioned! ABBCC, (Anyone But Brown, Cameron or Clegg!)

    DaveE.
    ===============================================
    To all those above who despair at the thought of voting for one of our 3
    Eurolabour parties check out the UKIP energy/climate policy at the link below – makes sense and it really is worth a look.

    http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/418-energy-environment-ukip-policy-2009

  59. bob paglee says:

    What else would one expect from brainwashed Anglia-land?

  60. davide says:

    jazznick ( 4 04 2010
    To all those above who despair at the thought of voting for one of our 3
    Eurolabour parties check out the UKIP energy/climate policy at the link below – makes sense and it really is worth a look.

    http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/418-energy-environment-ukip-policy-2009

    it’s good to see some sense for a change! I do however wonder if the UKIP can get enough votes in the forthcoming elections though they will get one more – MINE!

  61. King of Cool says:

    Sorry Fred, “public intellectual” Clive Hamilton on our tax funded, “balanced” ABC not only disagrees with you, he believes it is the sceptics that are the guilty ones:

    “So, no conspiracy, no collusion, no manipulation of data, no corruption of the peer-review process, no scandal; just an understandable reluctance to hand over data to dishonest people with a history of misrepresenting it.’

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2862717.htm#comments

    Mind you, looks like there was a little discussion to the contrary.

  62. Dennis Cowdrick says:

    I lived in Florida for over 20 years. Every year the line where it was possible to grow Oranges moved SOUTH. A famous landmark – a local tower where one could view unending fields of Orange trees is abandoned and the trees dead.

  63. John Westman says:

    From downunder.

    A concern that I do have in regard to this whole AGW issue is that of the unsettled debt.

    People of the world have a huge debt to Dr. Singer; Lord Moncton; Professor Plimer; Anthony Watts; Ross McKiltrick (There are many more people who should be mentioned) and the very few politicians who stood up to the established dogma and questioned. They stood up to the so called “consensus opinion”, when the going was at its toughest. These people were ridiculed, called offensive terms such as “denier” and said to be in the pay of big oil. There was an attempt to impugn their reputations.

    Such people are the true heroes of today!

    They remind me of the darkest hour in Britain’s history when Winston Churchill made that famous claim of; so much being being owed, by so many, to so few.
    My great worry in this whole matter is that many of the protagonists may get off “scott free”. However, my great hope is that at least the main perpetrators will be brought before a proper court of law and prosecuted.

  64. Arno Arrak says:

    Dr. Singer is absolutely right – the main issue has slipped away due to the excessive amount of interest spent on minor and secondary issues.

    My research shows that the entire Climategate scandal is only the tip of the iceberg when compared to what is still hidden in the belly of the beast. I have demonstrated that the entire “late twentieth century warming” in the eighties and nineties, the one shown as a steady temperature increase by NASA, NOAA, and tha Met Office, simply did not happen.

    This is the same warming that James Hansen spoke of when he stood up in front of the Senate in 1988 and testified that global warming had arrived and that its cause was carbon dioxide we were putting into the air. My reason for saying this is simple: experimental evidence.

    As you may know, satellites have been measuring global temperatures for the last thirty years and they simply cannot see that warming. When the satellite temperature curve is outlined with a magic marker a series of temperature oscillations become visible, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise until the super El Nino of 1998 shows up. It turns out that these oscillations are not random but correlate with the ENSO phases in the Pacific.

    Some people have tried to see the influence of volcanic eruptions from Pinatubo or El Chichon in these temperature oscillations but they are not present. In both cases volcanic cooling was confined to the stratosphere and did not influence tropospheric temperatures. There are five oscillatory peaks within the twenty year period and they all can be assigned to El Ninos. And the valleys between them belong to La Ninas.

    But how is it possible that the said three guardians of world temperature do not show them? I had to investigate and discovered that they have transmogrified an oscillating temperature curve into a rising temperature curve. If you take, say, HadCRUT3 from the Met Office and put it side by side with a satellite curve you notice right away that they start by cherry picking the El Nino peaks and then raising up the low La Nina temperatures in between to change a horizontal temperature curve into a rising temperature curve.

    But this works only for the first four El Ninos. The fifth one is too low so it gets raised up bodily. The super El Nino is next which they gratefully take to be their own even though its cause is not carboniferous. Its aftermath is the twenty-first century high, a run of six warm years near the El Nino maximum. But even this does not satisfy them and the entire right side of the curve gets lifted up.

    NOAA is worse. While HadCRUT3 still retains the greatly reduced La Nina valleys they stay with the peaks, jettison all low values in between and raise the twenty-first century high as well. NASA (Land-Ocean from Hansen 2006) starts out just like HadCRUT3 but they do not have the nerve to lift up peaks so these are all in place and so is the twenty-first century high. Only their super El Nino is off (too low) and their data point for 2005 is too high.

    I put the beginning of this data manipulatin into the late seventies. It amounts to a sustained, long-term scientific fraud. Checking NOAA’s global temperature curve, there had not been any warming for a good twenty years and people were speculating about a coming ice age, when the warming suddenly appeared. And because it was sudden, Hansen’s attribution of it to carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is also invalid because carbon dioxide partial pressure did not change at the same time as required by laws of physics. This makes both of his 1988 claims false.

    I wrote all this up and included appropriate graphs in “What Warming?” available on Amazon. com. You will also learn more about the the El Nino, arctic warming, and other climate stuff from it.

  65. Sean McHugh says:

    To sunsettommy:

    Great comments, seriously, but you need to put a space after commas and full stops (periods). Otherwise, even text editors will see the two adjacent words as being one.

  66. Arno Arrak says:

    Dr. Singer is absolutely right – the main issue has slipped away due to the excessive amount of interest spent on minor and secondary issues. My research shows that the entire Climategate scandal is only the tip of the iceberg when compared to what is still hidden in the belly of the beast. I have demonstrated that the entire “late twentieth century warming” in the eighties and nineties, the one shown as a steady temperature increase by NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office, simply did not happen. This is the same warming that James Hansen spoke of when he stood up in front of the Senate in 1988 and testified that global warming had arrived and that its cause was carbon dioxide we were putting into the air. My reason for saying this is simple: experimental evidence. As you may know, satellites have been measuring global temperatures for the last thirty years and they simply cannot see that warming. When the satellite temperature curve is outlined with a magic marker a series of temperature oscillations become visible, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise until the super El Nino of 1998 shows up. It turns out that these oscillations are not random but correlate with the ENSO phases in the Pacific. Some people have tried to see the influence of volcanic eruptions from Pinatubo or El Chichon in these temperature oscillations but they are not present. In both cases volcanic cooling was confined to the stratosphere and did not influence tropospheric temperatures. There are five oscillatory peaks within the twenty year period and they all can be assigned to El Ninos. And the valleys between them belong to La Ninas. But how is it possible that the said three guardians of world temperature do not show them? I had to investigate and discovered that they have transmogrified an oscillating temperature curve into a rising temperature curve. If you take, say, HadCRUT3 from the Met Office and put it side by side with a satellite curve you notice right away that they start by cherry picking the El Nino peaks and then raising up the low La Nina temperatures in between to change a horizontal temperature curve into a rising temperature curve. But this works only for the first four El Ninos. The fifth one is too low so it gets raised up bodily. The super El Nino is next which they gratefully take to be their own even though its cause is not carboniferous. Its aftermath is the twenty-first century high, a run of six warm years near the El Nino maximum. But even this does not satisfy them and the entire right side of the curve gets lifted up. NOAA is worse. While HadCRUT3 still retains the greatly reduced La Nina valleys they stay with the peaks, jettison all low values in between and raise the twenty-first century high as well. NASA (Land-Ocean from Hansen 2006) starts out just like HadCRUT3 but they do not have the nerve to lift up peaks so these are all in place and so is the twenty-first century high. Only their super El Nino is off (too low) and their data point for 2005 is too high. I put the beginning of this data manipulation into the late seventies. It amounts to a sustained, long-term scientific fraud. Checking NOAA’s global temperature curve, there had not been any warming for a good twenty years and people were speculating about a coming ice age when the warming suddenly appeared. And because it was sudden Hansen’s attribution of it to carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is also invalid because carbon dioxide partial pressure did not change at the same time as required by laws of physics. This makes both of his 1988 claims false. I wrote all this up and included appropriate graphs in “What Warming?” available on Amazon. com. You will also learn more about the the El Nino, arctic warming, and other climate stuff from it.

  67. Sean McHugh says:

    socold wrote:

    You’ve lost, move on.

    “You’ve” = “I am a warmist” and “You’ve lost, move on” = “Skeptics, stop doing what you are doing to us. ”

    They would love us to stop and that is a damned good reason not to. The AGW machine is still rolling on, superficially unscathed, but that is not really so. The e-mails were the elephant in the room and Copenhagen and there will be a herd of elephants in Mexico.

    socold then wrote:

    But skeptics had so many hairbrained arguments based on the flimsiest reading of CRU emails that you ended up throwing a lot of noise into the discussion.

    Flimsy? Using a ‘”trick” to “hide the decline”, means exactly what it says. It means using a device to disguise an inconvenience. It means concealment. It means arrogance and further manipulation in a graph that was already as corrupt as the anatomical enhancement e-mails that one receives. It was additional deceit in a graph, that aside from flattening the MWP, would produce an up-sweeping ‘Hockey Stick’ regardless of the inputted data.

    Then there are other ‘flimsy’ evidence like ‘fudge factors’ appearing appearing in the code and, in one instance, labeled exactly as that in the comments field. Then there was the request to destroy records and now there is the lost data. Then there was their efforts to control the peer review and make it pal review – in the process destroying the reputations and careers of those who upset their cozy world.

    We haven’t lost; it’s just going to take more time for all of this to filter through to an increasingly sceptical public. The media is still doing its best to keep it hushed, but it’s not working well enough. Have you noticed how the alarmists aren’t so quick to talk about the supposed ‘consensus’ now? Climategate has destroyed that perceived shield. We now have even Phil Jones saying that he doesn’t believe that the science is settled and admitting that that there hasn’t been any significant warming for over a decade. Do you think he would have conceded that before Climategate?

    These guys are under scrutiny and will find it increasingly difficult to continue with their shenanigans. Also, they have lost much of their power of intimidation and will no longer be able to silence the opposing science.

    socold also wrote:

    Next time try to cut out the noise and just focus on some key points and make them clearly.

    Next time, if you want sceptics to really embrace your helpful advice, don’t forget to append, “Warmist regards”.

    [Note: WUWT uses HTML. I replaced your box parentheses with < and > brackets. Please use arrow brackets here. ~dbs, mod.]

  68. Al Gored says:

    Dr Singer wrote: “Most people think it refers to CRU tree ring data after 1960, which do show a decline in temperature.”

    In the context of that email, I did. But!!!

    “However, I believe that it refers to Michael Mann’s “trick” in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979. So he abruptly cut off his analysis in 1979 and simply inserted the thermometer data supplied by Jones, which do claim a strong temperature increase. Hence the hockey-stick, suggesting a sudden major warming during the past century.”

    It just keeps getting worse! Switch data sources and the hockey stick’s blade rises!!! Seriously outrageous. How did they hide that little detail… or did I just miss it all these years?

    Thanks for that insight.

  69. Bob says:

    As mentioned previously the only way forward is the law. This argument “that the science is settled” and so “many scientists say that global warming is a fact” are media junkets that would not stand up as evidence in a court of law. There are a lot of us who have suffered financially because of the cold of this past winter, whether it is loss via plants, higher fuel costs, higher electricity costs as a result of unviable alternative energy, higher taxes to pay for infrastructural damage as a result of the deep freeze and to add insult to injury we are paying carbon taxes on fuel for a globe that is warming out of control. Europe and large parts of the US are heading toward a poor growing season that are likely to see severe food price inflation. We have alarmists trying to send us back to the stone age while they pontify from city to city in first class for our greater good. Greenpiss and World Wide F’ks go around subverting the scientrific method to their end. This crap stops in court. We all have and are paying for the global warming hoax that lines the pockets of Al Gore and people like him.

    It is now time for some sharp lawyers to step forward and bring classs action lawsuits againts these corrupt organizations and individuals. We want our money back and most of all regain control of science, take it back from the various charlatans who have abused science for so long their personal gain.

  70. Yertizz says:

    ‘…….. it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused……’

    Since the science was outside the Committee’s remit, how can they possibly draw this conclusion?

  71. Norman says:

    Thx for the web site – refreshing to say the least.

    There are no surprises in this “finding”. T many red faces and additonal taxes at stake. Developed Nation Governements were banking on C&T to save their sorry asses and their pet projects. They seem to think that the tax payer has even deeper pockets and screw the what the scientists have to say – after all who needs them – the science is proven beyond a shadow of doubt and I refer to this recently published UK Government “our minds are made up” propaganda piece?

    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf

    “Sell the Sizzle not the Sausage – We believe that climate action is no longer a scientist’s job”.

    “We believe that climate action is no longer a scientist’s job; it’s now a salesman’s job. You must get out there and sell the solutions we already have. We need to build a new picture in people’s heads: a self-fulfilling, low carbon prophesy. For the full evidence for these rules, and the climate change communications strategy itself, please visit: http://www.defra.gov.uk. For the new UK sustainable development strategy please visit: http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk.”

    So, any surprises here???????

  72. ginckgo says:

    Where are the emails that actually show how they coordinated their alleged evil deeds, such as getting people fired and supressing publications? Where are the victorious emails where they pat eachother on the backs after achieving these dirty deeds? This whol ‘gate’ is such a bunch of wishful thinking.

  73. Jeff Alberts says:

    If you’d read them you’d know. Obviously you just want your little victory, even though you’re wrong.

  74. ginckgo says:

    cute.

    So – not a single example then.

  75. Smokey says:

    ginckgo (04:25:44),

    Yes, do your own research about “getting people fired and supressing publications.” You will sound less foolish, and certainly less ignorant.

    We’re not here to spoon feed those afflicted with terminal cognitive dissonance. The exact events you described are well documented in the East Anglia/CRU emails, and they have never been denied by their authors.

    Anyone sentient has read the emails by Mann, Jones, and the other petty tyrants threatening professional journals and individuals, and scheming to further corrupt their lucrative climate peer review/grant gaming of the system.

    Get up to speed on the real world, and read the emails yourself. Where have you been since last November? In your mom’s basement, reading realclimate?

  76. Norman says:

    ginckgo (04:25:44),

    Not that difficult: here is a link to a book that will give you what your heart desires – might have to spend a few $$’s to get it though!!!!

    C:\Users\HP\Desktop\World Climate Widget.htm

    Reply: As much as I’ve seen examples poor network security from CRU, I doubt very much that link to your desktop will work for the rest us. ~ ctm

  77. ginckgo says:

    Smokey: I’m here commenting, so obviously I’ve steeped outside of my ‘ivory tower’ of AGW sites occasionally.

    Let’s see: I’m supposed to redo research others supposedly have already done, into something I gather has no substance? I’ve got better things to do, so just point me to one sentence that proves worngoing.

    In all these months, however, all I’ve seen are biased interpretations of statements that do not conclusively confirm any wrong-doing. If indeed a single sentence had been found such as “yay, our meddling got so-and-so fired” or “we successfully got so-and-so’s papers rejected from all journals” this would have trumped all the reading between the lines necessary for “tricks” and “hide the decline” statements.

    Reply:

    Mike,
    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.

    Cheers
    Phil

    1212063122.txt

    Also, it is important for us if you can transfer
    the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
    and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day)
    will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
    big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please,
    inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must
    represent you and your administration for these money.

    826209667.txt

    How do you interpret those? ~ ctm

  78. ginckgo says:

    Just did a quick search on the Climatehack site: clicked on an email that supposedly contained the word “lie” (http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=1035&s=tag49). Guess what? not a single instance of “lie”, unless “replied” counts. Hah, bunch of FUDers.

  79. ginckgo says:

    1212063122.txt: I assume those emails they deleted are not among the hacked stash? So what reason do you interpret (from extensive reading of all their other emails) they had to get rid of them?

    Reply: It was a direct illegal evasion of an FOI that Phil is not being prosecuted for ONLY because the statute of limitations ran out. You asked for examples of “wrong-doing”. ~ ctm

    826209667.txt: how is this at all relevant to the science?

    Reply: Tax evasion is an example of “wrong-doing”. Again statute of limitations comes into play, although I’m not sure in Russia. ~ ctm

  80. ginckgo says:

    1212063122.txt: Well they must be pretty bad at their “wrong doing” if they left the email saying to delete other emails undeleted :) Fair enough, this one sounds dodgy, but we don’t know how dodgy without the contents of those emails.

    Reply: The content is irrelevant This was a direct attempt to evade an FOI. The UK Information Commissioner agrees and would like to investigate but is prevented by Statute of Limitations. If you really don’t already know this you haven’t read any of the serious writings concerning these.You may want to read my roommate’s book. It could seriously change your perspective. ~ ctm

    826209667.txt: just sounds like clever money management. Anyone with good knowledge of how tax systems work could do that and maximise the money the have available to work with. Sounds like a stretch to effectively allege criminal activity.

    Reply: Yeah, I’m sure the tax authorities approve of funneling commercial funds through private accounts in small amounts. ~ ctm

  81. Richard S Courtney says:

    Friends:

    I consider it a privilege that I count Fred as being one of my friends. I have known him for many years. He is a gentleman and a great scientist with several astonishing achievements.

    I have always agreed with him until now, but I disagree with him on this issue. He rightly says:

    “None of the investigations have gone into any detail on how the data might have been manipulated. But this is really the most important task for any investigation, since it deals directly with the central issue: Is there an appreciable human influence on climate change in the past decades?”

    But he does not address why the investigations have so dismally failed in this manner.

    I explain my understanding of the problem at
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/comments_uk_p.pdf

    And I say there:

    “These comments conclude that there was no ‘whitewash’ but that both the completed investigations used the same flawed method to assess the affair, and this method inevitably provides findings that seem to exonerate the Team. The used method was to adopt a legal definition of ‘evidence’, and this has resulted in the enquiries saying those under suspicion are exonerated because the suspected persons said they had done nothing wrong.

    Hence, the two completed enquiries have resulted in greater suspicion of the involved scientists by providing an impression of a whitewash.

    Importantly, neither of the completed enquiries provides a proper assessment of the fact that the released emails indicate that the ‘Team’
    (i)
    Usurped the peer review process by conspiring to review (and approve) the papers of each other,
    (ii)
    Usurped the peer review process by concerted effort to use the peer review process to prevent publication of papers which did not support their agenda,
    (iii)
    Attacked journals that published papers which did not support their agenda,
    (iv)
    Attempted to remove a journal Editor who would not reject all papers that did not support their view (soon after he did leave the job),
    (v)
    Wrote to the University that employed another journal’s Editor in an attempt to discredit her because she refused to reject for publication a paper which did not support their view,
    (vi)
    Attempted to redefine peer review as a method to excuse refusal to mention a paper in the most recent IPCC Report (it was not mentioned in the Report but several not-reviewed papers were),
    (vii)
    Misrepresented scientific findings (e.g. of paleoclimate data obtained from tree-ring studies) when publishing results of scientific studies.

    These points seem to be clearly and unambiguously spelled-out in their own words by the ‘Team’ in the released emails.

    So, any enquiry must provide a specific explanation of each of these points if it is to be generally accepted. The PSU and UK Parliamentary Select Committee Enquiries failed to provide specific explanations of each of these points any one of which would be damning of the Team if it were true.

    Suspicions will remain concerning members of the Team and their actions until a different form of enquiry is completed. Hence, whatever the ‘truth’ of the Climategate affair, such a different form of enquiry is needed if that ‘truth’ is to be divined and is to be generally accepted. That different form of enquiry needs to assess the information in the emails and the computer code by using a scientific definition – not a legal definition – of ‘evidence’.

    It is to be hoped that the investigations of Climategate that are now being conducted will be such a different form of enquiry. Failure to conduct such a different form of enquiry would result in continued suspicion of the affected climate scientists and could damage the reputation of science as a whole.”

    Anyway, that essay explains what I think about the matter.

    Richard

  82. C A Berg says:

    How can the whitewash committee refer to the emails as stolen? IN the first instance, the U K freedom of information law says that those emails do belon to the public. Whoever did the public service of hacking into the computers and extracting the emails was a member of the public. He/She took only what was his/hers. Second, our bloviating Ex Vice Prex, to whom the AGW axis genuflects, has urged “civil disobedience” in re climate change. Even if those who still claim the AGW is real, like the Easter Bunny, should e able to recognize that if civil disobedience is to be followed by one of two opposed groups, it is also alright for the other group.

    C A Berg

Comments are closed.