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
PhilW (01:29:14) :
Maybe it’s time to give Nick Griffin our support, he’s off to Copenhagen…..
I was using the link to highlight the fact that we had a voice in Copenhokum. I know Nick Griffin is dodgy, but that’s what this is all about isn’t it? Lies, corruption and gross immorality amongst ALL parties. On a morality scale, all parties go way off the scale……
The biggest problem I see here is the loss of respect, the politicians, bankers and clergy all respect gone. Who’s next? Gross misconduct from our military leaders, maybe?
Here is an excellent indicator of the way Joe Citizen views this whole AGW con, at least here in Great Britain:
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/11/27/the-copenhagen-summit-is-of-historic-importance/
Read the comments, rather than Cameron’s essay.
And that in spite of the brainwashing by the BBC and most major British papers.
There’s hope yet …
Dallas News reported it (inside of back page) late last week, but with the usual “nothing incriminating” spin. As far as I know, only Wall St Journal, Fox and now the Telegraph have picked up on the manipulation of data shown in the released code.
Most are probably in a “wait and see” mode, giving CRU time to do damage control.
Get off this blog and take a few minutes to type a message to your local “letters to the editor” page. While the emails are telling, the real damage will come from the released code.
Then you can come back here and finish reading 😉
While we’re on the subject of “the code,” now that it’s in the open, it may only be a matter of time before the hundreds or thousands of software engineers figure out how to reverse engineer much of the process. If they can, then we will have proof that their results were artifically inflated; it is unlikely that their temp curves would be reproduced by any other means. Anything less than this and MSM will continue to accept their warmist version. It’s all or nothing. Right here. Right now. In THE CODE.
‘Never in the field of climate science, was so much influence exercised on so many by so few.’
Stoic (02:02:33) :
PhilW (01:29:14) :
“Maybe it’s time to give Nick Griffin our support, he’s off to Copenhagen…..”
For the information of those non-UK visitors to this blog, Griffin leads a racist party of the far right. As a sceptic I would strongly suggest shunning him and his views.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4670574.stm
He has a controversial past, which includes a 1998 conviction for incitement to racial hatred for material denying the Holocaust.
Griffin is a real “denier”.
A good follow-on topic will be just exactly why this cabal was so hell-bent (so to speak) on their Holy Hocky Stick? What did they hope to gain? Fame and grants? Or was there a deeper reason, a self-loathing of our prosperity, which at the present is largely based on burning hydrcarbons? Yet, the fraud went hand-in-glove with people who worked to stop nuclear power. Was this a broad commonly-shared near-religious belief that the west should be suppressed to the point we were riding horses and living like serfs?
Even high tech decisionmakers share in the madness, for how many other PhDs insist we will all be better off when electricity costs 10x today’s rates and when private autos would be outlawed?
There is a common madness at work here, a virus that destroys clear thinking. Any suggestions? Gaia worship? Self-loathing? I am at a total loss to understand why these people seem to want to take society where their policies all lead.
Watching ” This Week ” on ABC at this moment . Paul Krugman is spouting the same old “it’s just scientists talking among each other ” bs . Obviously he and his colleagues at the NYT are determined to whitewash this for as long as possible . I cut to the end of his post , so haven’t read all of the comments , but it seems from what I’ve read over the weekend that this story is growing , at least in the UK . Hopefully more US coverage will emerge this week .
Lookat the code
Instead of describing a pie chart, how about a football field (american)
According to figures provided by the U.S. EPA of all the CO2 put in the atmosphere, man is responsible for only 4 %. Let’s put that into perspective, if the entire atmosphere is represented by a football field, and atmospheric CO2 is 385 parts per million, lets do some math.
100 yards is 300 feet or 3600 inches.
385 parts per million is .000385
3600 x .000385 = 1.386 inches. Carbon dioxide is 1.386″ of the field
Less than the width of a hash mark. Man is responsible for only 4%.
1.386 x .04 = .06 of an inch. 1/16 of an inch on the football field of climate is man’s contribution. (1/16 inch is the smallest mark on most tape measurers)
IF CO2 affected temperatures, to impact 1 degree C, would take 25 years of no fossil fuel consumption, no electricity, no transportation, no jobs, no food, no humans.
JoeFromBrazil said
“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 ?”
I agree with you. Copenhagen is the next step in moving from democratic nations to being subservient to an over arching totalitarian government. Already the World Trade Organization sanctions are used as an excuse for allowing international corporations to dictate national laws in the EU and the USA.
you ask
“What happen with US ? Will this great country submit yourself to blue-blood-monarchy ?”
The following is occuring in the USA.
The first step is:
“Tenth Amendment Resolutions” These are resolutions stating the state will assert its tenth Amendment rights. “When a state passes this resolution proclaiming its sovereignty, that state may then claim exemption to most federal mandates under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”http://www.sweetliberty.org/tenthamend.htm
The second option is: The US constitution
“The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”….
A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others….
“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).” http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
The third step is real grass roots opposition. Unfortunately both the Democrats and the Republicans are bought and paid for by those actually running the US government from behind the scenes. This means we HAVE to vote third party instead of “the lessor of two evils” It is now critical to overthrow the power machine in at least one state.
If the people can grab power in one state than NAFTA, WTO the UN and several damaging treaties can be tossed out. I am hoping Texas is the state with the b@ur momisugly!!$ to do it. Unfortunately with California going belly up financially, the airheads in CA are moving to Texas. I saw the same happen in New Hampshire. All sorts of politically correct legislation went through in Mass. The taxes of course went sky high so people moved to NH. They then campaigned for the same idiot laws they moved to get away from! You would think adults would at least grasp the basic concept of cause and effect. More public welfare laws = higher taxes! If you do not want to pay higher taxes do not put in the laws – simple.
Of course making sure the voting is honest (get rid of Diebold voting machines) is a very necessary step too. Volunteering to work at the voting booths is something else we all can do. Someone at another blog pointed out some dicey things being done with absentee ballots.
Still barely a peep out of the MSM here is Sydney (other than Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and Jim Ball). People I’ve spoken to recently haven’t heard a thing about it. I was told tonight that “The Antarctic is melting.. isn’t it?” Ummm.. no. Everyone, wish Australia luck this week as our Senate votes on a carbon trading scheme. A member of the Lower House of Parliament said a few weeks ago words to the effect of “We don’t need carbon.” Last time I checked I needed it. This is the standard of politician in this country (with a few exceptions) and I’m embarrassed and saddened.
Posted without further comment . . .
Lee (00:07:51) :
“Maybe, just maybe the MSM will look further and deeper into the murky depths of this scandal. And a scandal it is………”
Don’t hold your breath. They are way too invested in the narrative, both figuratively and financially (GE/NBC). Others would have to expose their gullibility which doesn’t come easy to the media. Besides, how can you get a bailout for the newspapers if you embarrass the liberal left.
About the BBC
Detecting any change in the editorial stand-point of the BBC on an issue as controversial as AGW is like watching your toe-nails grow. If you stand and stare at them you’ll just give yourself a stiff neck, but if you forget about them for a few days and then take another look – amazing they’ve grown.
Well, I believe I may be detecting some subtle signs that the Beeb may be changing .
I’m not sure what it means but I’ve noticed that when discussing the AGW issue BBC commentators are using the phrase, “ Scientists believe…” . Not “the Science tells us…”, or even “most scientists believe…(It must be policy because they’re all doing it)”. Next they’ll be balancing the argument by continuing with “However, other scientists believe…”
Of course the article always continues with the one sided pre-Copenhagen, alarmist propaganda that we are all used to. Never mind there’s hope…
and I was just on the verge of removing the BBC website from my favourites list in protest.
“When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.”
George Monbiot, Guardian 11/25/2009
repost according to import
The most disturbing trend I have noticed is that there is very little reference made in the media to Gobal warming nowadays. The subjext is now refered to as Climate Change. We all know it changes and from now on the carbon counters cannot be wrong.
Why the e-mails matter…
While trying to look up what Mann told the US Congress with regard to the accuracy of his proxies (I thought he claimed a small number of tenths of a degree, but I never did find it), I came across this in his written response to a question from the congressional committee.
(Note: all bolds mine)
Written response to U. S. Congress, Michael Mann, Summer of 2006:
and…
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais
Ignoring for now the sanctimonious and supercilious sentiment of those two passages, let’s see what the good doctor was saying and hearing behind the scenes.
e-mail from Michael Mann to Phil Jones, Mar 11, 2003
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt
e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann dated July 8, 2004
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt
Telling Congress one thing…
“This means we HAVE to vote third party instead of “the lessor of two evils” It is now critical to overthrow the power machine in at least one state.”
True, but it is not always necessary to vote for an independant. For example, Peter Schiff is putting himself forward as a candidate for the Republican ticket for Senate. If he wins the nomination he will be an “outsider” carrying the Republican banner.
Davin Archibald on the peer review process:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/peer-review-locks-gate
At least Bernie Madoff had the good grace to admit he was caught. Phil Jones and his CRU cadre are stonewalling right along.
They have contaminated a huge proportion of climate research that has been funded in the past two decades. Every paper and study which cites them needs to be completely revisited.
Next in the sights should be James Hansen and the folks at NOAA. What is being done to step up the pressure on them to show the provenance for their “data”?
The BBC and The Observer are both making Nick Griffin out to be the public face of disaster skepticism. This desperate attempt by the EU and leftwing media to tar skepticism should be addressed with prominent articles denouncing him as an old school leftwing extremist because his policies are not in favour of the freedoms and equal opportunities which free marketeers believe in. In fact, he advocates the same kinds of one way policies and hegemony which the elites are advocating when they say that the developing world should live on a global welfare system called a “climate fund”. It’s fascist imperialism.
How the British are paying to be charged more by their electricity supplier, and the Government gets to crow about how “green” they are forcing us to be by introducing “Big Brother” intrusive technology into our homes.
All homes to get ‘smart’ power meters that measure exact energy use
Every British home is to be issued with a ‘smart’ meter which calculates how much gas or electricity is used each time an appliance is switched on. Families will also know how much they are spending minute-by-minute. Details will be announced by the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband this week.
Old-style meters will be ripped out and replaced with the gadgets, which can be programmed to turn appliances on and off to take advantage of off-peak rates. Older-style electric meters will be phased out to make way for new ‘smart’ meters. Fridges and freezers could be turned off at peak times to save power – but will automatically be switched back on if the temperature inside rises too high.
The utility companies will pay for the £7billion installation programme, though much of the cost is expected to be recouped later from customers.
Mobile phone technology will be used to transmit information on each family’s energy consumption to a central hub. The system, to be introduced over the next ten years, will allow power companies to read meters remotely and mean the end of estimated bills.
Energy suppliers will save billions by doing away with meter readers and call center staff.
Ministers claim families will save money by seeing their costs on a daily basis – and will be encouraged to cut back to reduce bills. The announcement comes days before world leaders arrive in Copenhagen for a climate change summit. The Government hopes to enhance Britain’s ‘green’ credentials by showing it is determined to cut energy consumption.
[snip -race issues have no place in this discussion]
I just posted the Telegraph link as my facebook update. I’ll probably lose friends for doing it, because so many people are addicted to the “OMG!!! The sky is falling!!”, whether it be Peak Oil, AGW, or 2012.
Again, Anthony, THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART for your work. You’ve proved again and again why you won the Best Science Blog of the year last round – this IS the best science blog on the “Intertubes”.
Guys, HIT THE TIP JAR! I did so, yesterday!
The met office is claiming that this year will be in the top five warmest since records began and of course, the BBC pushes this on their website with no mention of the climate scandal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm
I would love to rubbish their claim, but I doubt if the Met Office is daft enough to make a rash claim “in the current climate” (sorry)
Is the claim true or not?
“The met office is claiming that this year will be in the top five warmest since records began.”
Thus, there must be 4 warmer years, quite consistent with the idea that there has been no warming for 10 years.