Excerpts from the Telegraph:
A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” (Note: Delingpole reports via email he got it from WUWT, commenter Bulldust coined the phrase at 3:52PM PST Nov 19th – Anthony) to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian‘s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
…
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
Read the complete essay at the Telegraph
sorry- typo – should have read membership of the EU
No, its not the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Its the worst economical, social, politics and scientific scandal of the all existence of our civilization. Copenhagen is a conference of lies and center of the world corruption. Is the place where the business will be done. Sure that the “green jobs” are working. Secretarys, coordinators, activists to put polar-bears dresses, etc, etc. All this efforts not to save the planet or the green or the whales but to save the north-european-kings. What happen with US ? Will this great country submit yourself to blue-blood-monarchy ?
There are various comments as to why the Copenhagen beanfest continues and officialdom ignores climategate. It is because the scale of vested interest is so great. If I mention names, it is not to personally denigrate them it is to demonstrate with their own information the linkages that exist. I leave others to judge the appropriateness of their official positions to their private positions.
One of the most influential documents in the global warming “debate” is the Stern Review. Lord Stern is a former World Bank Chief Economist and became head of the UK Government Economic Service. The Stern Review was commissioned by Gordon Brown with major input from the Tyndall Centre and Phil Jones’ Climate Research Centre.
It came out conveniently at the time of the US mid-term elections and was designed to embarrass Bush. In May last year, Lord Stern published a set of proposals for a global deal on climate change at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2008/globaldeal.aspx
The document, was called Key Elements of a Global Deal.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/granthamInstitute/publications/KeyElementsOfAGlobalDeal_30Apr08.pdf
“Developed countries will need to take on immediate and binding national emissions targets, demonstrate that they can achieve low carbon growth, and transfer resources and technologies to developing countries, before developing countries take on binding national targets of their own by 2020.”
Stern mentions some of the contributors to his plan: It has several contributors, with participants from HSBC, IdeaCarbon, Judge Business School at Cambridge University, Lehman Brothers and McKinsey and Company and has been inspired by a number of discussions with international policymakers, financiers and academics. For an interesting article on Lehman Brothers and Global Warming, check here:
Did global warming send Lehman Brothers broke?
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1438/did-global-warming-send-lehman-brothers-broke
Lord Stern mentions a group called IdeaCarbon, this is what they do: “Empowering global carbon markets IDEAcarbon is an independent and professional provider of ratings, research and strategic advice on carbon finance”
Check out the IdeaCarbon links at the top of their page, fascinating linkages with UNFCC, World Bank etc.
Of note amongst their advisors is:
Lord Nicholas Stern, Advisor to IDEAglobal Group, parent company of IDEAcarbon
http://www.ideacarbon.com/advisors/index.htm
“Author of the seminal Review on the Economics of Climate Change and former Chief Economist at the World Bank, currently the IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government at the London School of Economics, heading a new India Observatory within the LSE’s Asia Research Centre and also a Visiting Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford. He was Adviser to the UK Government on the Economics of Climate Change and Development, reporting to the Prime Minister from 2003-2007.”
He was instrumental in founding IdeaCarbon:
http://www.efinancialnews.com/privateequity/index/content/2450949198
Stern to launch carbon rating agency, 16 Jun 2008.
Nicholas Stern, the British economist and author of a 2006 review that put the cost of inaction on global warming at 20% of global GDP by 2050, is set to launch a rating service for carbon credits in an attempt to boost investment in the nascent market. IDEAglobal, the Singapore-based research company of which Lord Stern is vice-chairman, will publish detailed ratings covering about 30 emissions-reduction projects on June 25, according to a spokesman. The company will extend its offering to all geographies and sectors, enabling investors to compare schemes, the spokesman said.
Also listed is: Dr Sam Fankhauser
“Sam served on the 1995, 2001 and 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also gained hands-on experience in the design of emission reduction projects as a climate change economist for the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank. Sam joined IDEAcarbon from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, where his most recent position was Deputy Chief Economist. Sam is a Senior Advisor to IDEAcarbon Strategic and a Fellow of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.”
Dr Fankhauser is also a member of the UK Climate Change Committee and of its Mitigation sub-committee, advising the UK government on emissions control and low carbon energy.
Fankhauser is also the Chief Economist at an outfit called Globe International:
http://www.globeinternational.org/content.php?id=1:0:0:0:0
“GLOBE facilitates high level negotiated policy positions from leading legislators from across the G8+5 parliaments and from regional dialogues, which are informed by business leaders and key international experts.
Internationally, GLOBE is focused on progressive leadership from G8 leaders and the leaders of the major emerging economies as well as formal negotiations within the United Nations. GLOBE has a particular interest in the role that International Financial Institutions can play.
GLOBE shadows the formal G8 negotiations and allows legislators to work together outside the formal international negotiations. Without the burden of formal governmental negotiating positions, legislators have the freedom to push the boundaries of what can be politically achieved. ”
The President of Globe International is UK MP and Tony Blair colleague, Stephen Byers. http://www.globeinternational.org/news.php
“Mr Byers will be closely supported in this role by the Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce MP, Chairman of the UK Select Committee for International Development, and Lord Michael Jay, former head of the UK Foreign Office and the UK’s G8 Sherpa in 2005 & 2006”
http://www.globeinternational.org/content.php?id=2:8:0:840:0
US Senator Barack Obama’s Keynote statement to the GLOBE Tokyo Legislations Forum, 28 June 2008
http://www.globeinternational.org/content.php?id=2:8:0:1142:0
GLOBE & Club of Rome Challenge the G20 29/01/09
Following a two day dialogue between GLOBE and the Club of Rome addressed by Mr. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC and Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, UK Secretary of State for Climate and Energy and GLOBE’s President challenged the G20 Chairman, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown MP, to ensure the London G20 Summit addresses the inter connected challenges of the economic crisis, climate change, energy security and ecosystems decline.
http://www.globeinternational.org/content.php?id=2:8:0:1173:0
The International Commission on Climate & Energy Security was launched in the US Congress in Washington DC on Monday 30th March 2009. This Commission comprises of senior legislators from each of the major economies, selected due to their closeness to their Prime Minister or President. The Commission met for two days under the Chairmanship of US Congressman Ed Markey and Lord Michael Jay of the UK House of Lords. The Commission was launched with the support of the Danish Prime Minister, the UK Prime Minister, the Brazilian President and the Italian G8 Presidency. The aim of the Commission is to produce a major report to the GLOBE Copenhagen Forum in October, presenting its conclusions to the Danish Prime Minister and the major economies at a critical time, just ahead of the formal UNFCCC COP. In Washington the Commission met in private to identify the specific policy areas that the legislators wanted to focus on. These include a very specific body of work being developed by the legislators in the following areas:
Dr Fankhauser has worked on climate change issues at the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank and served on the 1995, 2001 and 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Bet you never heard of the Global Environment Facility either?
http://www.gefweb.org/interior_right.aspx?id=50
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is a global partnership among 178 countries, international institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector to address global environmental issues while supporting national sustainable development initiatives.
The GEF is also the designated financial mechanism for a number of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) or conventions; as such the GEF assists countries in meeting their obligations under the conventions that they have signed and ratified.
How’s that to be going on with? That’s without going into the Grantham Institutes, the LSE and Global Governance, the rest of the UK Climate Change Committee, the UK Research Councils and their governance, Defra, Decc, the UK Foreign Office and its links with NGO’s, UK politicians with direct involvement in low carbon companies that will benefit from current UK legislation, etc etc…
Have a look at E3G and read some of their submissions.
http://www.e3g.org/index.php
http://www.e3g.org/index.php/about/Who-we-are/
Look at the profiles of John Ashton, Britain’s climate change czar, check the profiles of Nick Mabey, Tom Burke, Mathew Findlay, Jennifer Morgan.
Science? What Science?
My guess is that apart from anything else, the BBC have spent a huge sum of money on warmist programmes in the schedule leading up to Copenhagen and this throws it all off. How ridiculous do they look now?
I would love to see a new Panorama, hosted by Dr Ian Stewart (warmist presenter in chief), explaining how sorry he is for driving around with Mann’s hockey stick painted onto the side of a van!
Booker is sometimes a bit to one side of an argument but in this instance he is being accurate and his pursuit of the truth is entirley honourable and diligent. It is not a bit flamboyant, unlike the self heating lot such as Lovelock, Moon Batr, Zac Goldsmith, Mad Millipede, Jones, Ben, Lucas, Stdern, and uncle Tom Cobleigh and all.
‘… many Americans don’t do irony!’
At least not since the invention of permanent-press clothing.
@ur momisugly Lucy:
I’m a simple-minded lay-bear, but I think another trick might be that they don’t show the data until 2009. Why cut it off in 2000 if actual temperature measurements are spliced onto the end of the graph?
Ursus
Wonderful, wonderful Copenhokum.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Will someone PLEASE produce a SIMPLE GRAPHIC.
(preferably by a respected scientist in the field)
A pie chart, bar graph, ANYTHING that gets the message easily across
showing % Natural Greenhouse Gase VS MANMADE Gases
ie 85% water vapour, etc,etc
IT NEED TO BE A PICTURE THE THAT THE PUBLIC, can understand..
The AGW people are STILL WINNING the main stream media debate.
because us sceptics are CRAP are presentation/media…
Put this graphic on the front page of EVERY website about climate gate.
For the cleverer among you put together, pictorially,
The relative % warming effect, broken down into the gases, h20, co2, methane, etc VS man made CO2 contribution.
PLEASE
BEING crap at the media/handling the general public, is how real scientists ALLOWED the AGW side, get away with it for so long
The political elites don’t give a damn about all your noise making about truth and freedom. They’re pushing climate deals as hard as they can to make them even more powerful and influential than ever before.
Raising your voice on the internet does not constitute a threat to them.
lookatthecode (05:21:55),
click
Robinson (04:30:58) :
Unfortunately Iain Stewart (Prof of geosciences communication (is that propaganda) at Plymouth University) has a new programme “Hot Planet” coming up on BBC1. Read about it in Radio Times 5-11 December. The article in RT is full of the usual alarmist mistruths (lies we can now call them) about heat waves, drowning Bangladeshis etc. But rest assured, it’s “based on the findings of thousands of scientists worldwide”, so it must be true then. No scientist funded by governments would lie would they?
He says “So strong is the evidence, that the claims of the climate sceptics are now ‘largely untenable'”. Oh yeah.
Curmugeon Geographer raises an interesting question.
What will be the response of the climate journals?
I’d guess they’ll divide into two camps; those who have published and re-published papers by the AGW camp who will be at a bit of a loss and may decide to adopt a neutral tone, and those where the AGW campe have attempted to interfere with their editorial policy and their peer review process, where there have been attempts to boycott them for publishing skeptic views and who might be tempted to exact some sort of retribution.
Of course, they may all take the long view that taking sides with the outcome uncertain is not a good policy and hence we may read even less from them that is specifically critical except some general concern that the science should be “open and transparent”, platidues and cliches maybe?
Pachauri is at it again.
Western life styles unsustainable.
Let’s jail this loon and put him on water and bread!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
I’ve updated the John Christy debate as a playlist and added climategate and cru as tags
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C9CCEF84D69592EB
Voncent Gray: There was proof of fraud all along:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/
Nov 28, 2009
Galileo silenced again
The American Geophysical Union is sending science back four hundred years
By Willie Soon and David R. Legates
http://www.icecap.us
“I would love to see a new Panorama, hosted by Dr Ian Stewart (warmist presenter in chief), ”
You might have a long wait. I’m hoping Martin Durkin has been following all this.
“No, its not the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Its the worst economical, social, politics and scientific scandal of the all existence of our civilization.”
Unfortunately, the MSM don’t get the enormity of it at all. They are so far behind the curve on this, they can’t even see the curve, much less ride it. When you consider the coverage given to the British MP’s expense scandals – pages and pages of outraged analysis that ran almost daily for weeks. A real storm in a teacup that was. And yesterday, the Daily Mail ran an article entitled “Who else is guilty in the greatest scandal of our time?”
Hoping to see that a mainstream newspaper is tackling the climategate scandal, I was quickly disappointed. The opening paragraph began “Already it is obvious that the 4 man panel that constitutes the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq . . .”
However, I believe that the speed in which the world responds to a scandal is inversely related to its enormity and complexity. The exposure of the British MP’s expense scandal was rapid and intense because it was such a simple and focussed issue – and it rapidly burnt out. The “Greatest scandal of our time” of Iraq has taken far longer to play out because of greater complexity, involving conspiracy and falsification of data and legal questions of legitimacy.
Climategate is far more complex than the Iraq war, involving collusion and conspiracy on a vast scale, manipulation of data, persecution of individuals, suppression of dissent, difficult to comprehend and arcane issues related to data and its statistical analysis, all of which interrelate in a myriad of different ways.
I would expect that this episode will take many years to unfold, with long periods of relative quiet interspersed by new revelations, as skeptical scientists gradually get to grips with the raw data and methods and open minded journalists fit together more and more pieces of the jigsaw. Eventually, when the real “Greatest scandal of all time” is finally recognised, it will have come up on the world so slowly and with so little announcement, that we will scarsely recognise it as a scandal. Its true magnitude will only be comprehended by generations in the future, learning about it not over years as it unfolds, but in a single moment of distilled shock and disbelief as they open their history books and turn to these chapters for the first time in their lives.
“I give up, you deserve to lose.
Final time.
Don’t post here…”
Post on the Wall Street Journal, The Times, The NEW York Times,The Telegraph, The NEW York Times.
The BBC website.
Talk in language you art school son or daughter will UNDERSTAND.
LOOK at the BBC website they are true believers of climate change religion…
AGW will march on.
Please get a grip on the MEDIA
I hope you have more success in contacting your MPs than I have had. I emailed my MP (Peter Ainsworth)10 days ago – not a dickie bird. Maybe the results of the focus group are not in yet so the Conservative Party cannot formulate a policy.
Shut down the UN arrest the criminals, including Al Gore.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckton-shut-down-the-un-arrest-the-warmist-criminals.html
Global warming
for political reasons, the expression was replaced with Climate change.
As things started cooling and doing so abnormally, climate change was the new expression
The actual expression should be
Climate Data Change
The data is being changed more often than the weather changes.
Spen: Unfortunately Peter Ainsworth is fully signed up to the whole caboosh. He is probably wondering what on earth to say in reply, as like you say they have not yet had the answers revealed to them. Search for his speeches on Low Carbon, Sustainability, WWF etc. You will likely find them by searching on the official conservative party website.
what are you lot on. don’t post here, post somewhere important
“I give up, you deserve to lose.
FOR F***S SAKE
YOU HAVE A GOOGLE AD HELPING TO SAVE THE PLANET FROM GLOBAL WARMING ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WEBSITE.
Ads by Google
Help Stop Global Warming
Join thousand of people who want to send a message to global leaders
http://www.edspledge.com
look at the rubbish you are sayin in the comments here, all very witty and clever, AGW will roll, on and on, you little techy smugness, turns off the public…
Final FINAL time.
Don’t post here…”
Post on the Wall Street Journal, The Times, The NEW York Times,The Telegraph, The NEW York Times.
The BBC website.
Talk in language you art school son or daughter will UNDERSTAND.
LOOK at the BBC website they are true believers of climate change religion…
AGW will march on.
Please get a grip on the ME
Will everyone please stop referring to the BNP as a right wing party. Their economic policies are all about nationalisation and protectionism – they are pure 1970s old labour, with added racism. The strong majority of their voting base is old labour types who are disgusted with the metropolitan types who run new labour.
This is why the BBC, the broadcast arm of NewLabour, keeps calling them right wing, to try to stop the loss of supposedly core Labour voters.