Lord Monckton's summary of Climategate and its issues

Both Steve McIntyre and I are mentioned in this comprehensive summary. I’ve posted some excerpts below, with a link to the full report in PDF form. It is well worth a read. – Anthony


Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley | November 30, 2009


The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better.

In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming”.

The unnamed hero of ‘Climategate’, after months of work gathering emails, computer code, and data, quietly sent a 61-megabyte compressed file from one of the university’s servers to an obscure public message-board on the internet, with a short covering note to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret, and that the data from the University would be available for a short time only.

He had caught the world’s politico-scientific establishment green-handed. Yet his first attempts to reveal the highly-profitable fraud and systematic corruption at the very heart of the UN’s climate panel and among the scientists most prominent in influencing it’s prejudiced and absurdly doom-laden reports had failed. He had made the mistake of sending the data-file to the mainstream news media, which had also profited for decades by fostering the “global warming” scare, and by generally denying anyone who disagreed with the official viewpoint any platform.

The whistleblower’s data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, that has been the prime mover in telling the world that it is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that humankind is responsible.


The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:

– A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.

  • The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
  • The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
  • The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
  • They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
  • They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
  • They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.
  • They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
  • They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
  • They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
  • They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
  • Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.


Among the most revealing of the emails released to the world by the whistleblower was one dated November 1999. In that email, Professor “Phil” Jones of the CRU wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, the authors of the infamous “hockey stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period:

Almost immediately after the news of Climategate broke, Professor Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition that he “had no idea” what he might have meant by the words “hide the decline”. He said:

“They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”

A few hours later, the science hate-crime website created by the Team cobbled together a jumbled, snivelingly self-serving, and entirely different pretext:

“The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction [the ‘hockey-stick’ graph of pre-instrumental temperatures over the past 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere], and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s [another prominent member of the Team] maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem” … and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al. in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so, while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.”

Enter Steve McIntyre, the one who had first realized that the UN’s climate panel in 2001 had used a corrupt graph that had falsely abolished the medieval warm period with the aim of pretending that today’s global temperatures are unprecedented in at least 1000 years. Later that day his website, www.climateaudit.org, revealed the truth about the conspirators’ “trick”.

In order to smooth a data series over a given time period, one must pad it with artificial data beyond the endpoint of the real series. However, when Mann, Bradley, and Hughes plotted instrumental data against their reconstructions based on the varying widths of tree-rings from ancient trees, their favourite form of proxy or pre-instrumental reconstructed temperature, no smoothing method could conceal the fact that after 1960 the tree-ring data series trended downward, while the instrumental series trended upward. This was the Team’s “divergence”:

“So Mann’s solution [‘Mike’s Nature trick’] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both the proxy and the instrumental data series], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.”

Accordingly, though the author of the original email had said that the “trick” was to add instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his conspirators at the science-hate website admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data owing to a known but unexplained post-1960 “divergence” between the proxy data and the instrumental data. In fact, it was a fabrication.

The next day, in a statement issued by the University of East Anglia’s press office, Professor Jones fumblingly tried to recover the position:

“The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”

As we shall see, Professor Jones was not telling the truth.


The “Documents” folder in the enormous data-file released by the whistleblower contains many segments of computer program code used by Jones and the Team in contriving the Climate Research Unit’s global temperature series. The data-file also contained a 15,000-line commentary by programmers concerned that the code and the data used by the Team were suspect, were fabricated, and were not fit for their purpose.

Looking at the seldom-tidy code, the sheer number of programs which subject the raw data to various degrees of filtering, processing, and tampering is disconcerting. Some of these alterations were blatant and unacceptable, notably those which removed proxy data that correlate poorly with measured regional temperature, or even replaced proxy data altogether with measured data to conceal a discrepancy between what the proxy data actually showed and what the Team wanted it to show.

The Team’s programmers even admitted, in comments within the code, that they were artificially adjusting or “correcting” the proxy data from tree-rings. In Fortran, the high-level computer language long in use at universities for programming, a programmer’s comment is usually preceded by the statement “REM” for “remark”, indicating that the text on the line following the word “REM” should be ignored by the compiler program that translates the Fortran code that humans can understand into executable machine language that the computer can understand.

One of the commonest remarks included in the program fragments disclosed by the whistleblower is as follows:

“These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”

There could scarcely be a plainer admission that the data are being regularly, routinely, materially tampered with, for the sake of making it appear that the proxy data are sufficiently reliable to appear close to the instrumental temperatures.

This is no mere debating point. The UN’s climate panel had issued specific warnings against using proxy data (MXD) from tree-rings, because warmer weather is not the only reason why tree-rings become wider in some years than in others. There are at least two other prominent reasons, both of which can – and do – distort the tree-ring data beyond the point where they are useful as indicators of (or proxies for) pre-instrumental temperatures. First, the tree-rings become wider whenever the weather becomes wetter. Secondly, and of still greater concern, the tree-rings widen when there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And there is 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was in 1750.

Yet, as McIntyre and McKitrick had established originally in 2003, and had published in a leading journal in 2005, the majority of the data on the basis of which Mann, Bradley and Hughes, and later other members of the Team, had attempted to pretend that there had been no medieval warm period were tree-ring series. Take out the suspect tree-ring series, together with just one other rogue series, and all the remaining data series establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Middle Ages were truly, materially, and globally warmer than the present.

Scientists with programming knowledge have already begun to examine the computer code that Professor Jones and his colleagues had attempted to hide for so long. Here is Marc Sheppard’s selection of three examples of the tortuous sequences of deliberate data tampering that are evident within the program code.

Read the complete report from SPPI here:


For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.

Sponsored IT training links:

We offer quality resources for 642-426 exam including 650-195 dumps and 640-721 practice exam.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 1, 2009 4:55 pm
Skeptic Tank
December 1, 2009 5:02 pm

In the very first two words he tells it like it is. CRU is not the ‘victim’ of a computer cracker. They are the perpetrator of a fraud.

December 1, 2009 5:11 pm

OT, sorry (well maybe not, since a couple of Australian “no ETS” senators raised climategate in parliament).
Australia’s senate has voted down the proposed ETS a second time.
This is a “double dissolution trigger” and can allow the incumbent government (who were in favour) to call an early election, presumbaly fought on climate change and humanity’s contribution to it and whether an ETS is an appropriate mechanism besides. Anybody want to come down and help out – the sensible politicians may need a hand.

King of Cool
December 1, 2009 5:12 pm

Australian ETS just voted down in Senate. I feel the real debate on Climate Change is beginning at last – at least in this country.

Polar bears and BBQ sauce
December 1, 2009 5:13 pm

Gotta love that guy from Brenchley…

December 1, 2009 5:13 pm

Great Job Anthony, Steve, keeping it right down the middle.
Science is about seeking the truth…
Hold to the truth, it will always win.

Steve in SC
December 1, 2009 5:14 pm

This is getting better by the minute.

December 1, 2009 5:15 pm

The dam is starting to break, boys, the dam is starting to break!

December 1, 2009 5:20 pm

Anthony, thank you
I’ve been looking for a “Climategate for Dummies”
and thank you Christopher

December 1, 2009 5:21 pm

I love reading Lord Monckton when he is on a tear!
Bravo sir!

December 1, 2009 5:22 pm

I will sleep comfortably only after the high priest (Mann) has been caught and prosecuted, but I think we are getting there.
Have downloaded the emails and stuff now, it makes good reading that, but a lot to go through there is, hoping to find someething juicy myself.

Richard Sharpe
December 1, 2009 5:28 pm

DMS said:

This is a “double dissolution trigger” and can allow the incumbent government (who were in favour) to call an early election, presumbaly fought on climate change and humanity’s contribution to it and whether an ETS is an appropriate mechanism besides. Anybody want to come down and help out – the sensible politicians may need a hand.

Do you think Krudd will be silly enough to call a double dissolution?

December 1, 2009 5:32 pm

Illustration for page 9:

Jeff B.
December 1, 2009 5:33 pm

Everyone keep the pedal down. Keep discussing it with friends and family. Blogging about it locally, calling in to radio and television news desks, discussing it with representatives and senators, etc.
As Rahm Emmanuel reminds us, never waste a good crisis.

December 1, 2009 5:40 pm

So do they know for certain now it was a whistleblower or is he just coming to that conclusion and writing it as if its a fact?

December 1, 2009 5:43 pm

Richard Sharpe (17:28:41) – no, actually probably not. It doesn’t give them a full term if they win (just 2 years in this case because of some backdating conventions) and it will probably give the Greens more senators.
I’m not sure they really want the fight now, although as a conservative/ moderate politician (Christopher Pyne) said on Australian TV last night a double dissolution election day would be March 6, 2010. It will be in the middle of (normal) hot weather and (normal) fire season and so would allow fearmongering to scare pro-AGW opinion to get votes. I wouldn’t put anything past Warmie KRudd.

Douglas DC
December 1, 2009 5:45 pm

this reminds me of an old railroad joke.A young switchman was being trained by the
Foreman in the use of the various handles in the switching tower.”Ok,son now if you saw that freight coming from the east,what would you do?” The young switchman
said”I’d pull that handle second from the left!”-and so on he was impressing the
Foreman, so the Foreman said: Now if the there were one train eastbound and one
train westbound on the same track,what would you do?” “I’d get my sister!”the kid
replied.”YOUR SISTER!”the forman bellowed.”Yep she hasn’t seen a trainwreck before.”
That is what is happening here. A trainwreck….

December 1, 2009 5:45 pm

“On the Internet, however, which in some countries – such as Britain – is now the only independent source of news…”
Wow! I’ll bet Al Gore’s really sorry he invented the Internet now.
Great job guys!

December 1, 2009 5:46 pm

The “science was settled” all right – settled into corruption, manipulation, falsification, and now, ultimately, damnation.
So it is written, so it shall be done.

Mike McMillan
December 1, 2009 5:57 pm

Now the situation has been truly Peer reviewed.

Christopher Byrne
December 1, 2009 5:59 pm

Christ, can you imagine the sickening ad campaigns we’d have to endure? “It’s not you who’ll suffer; it’s them” – zooms in on children laughing and playing, followed by scenes from The Day After Tomorrow. Blergh! Perhaps a re-make of the classic skin cancer nonsense – “CO2 is climate in trauma.”

Capn Jack Walker
December 1, 2009 5:59 pm

Grand Poombah of the Skeptic uber Top Secret Conspiracy, The Lavender Troubadour, Vike Monckton of Benchley.
As usual has a bit to say,
Watch out he’s a big bad nasty skeptic. I heard he clubs dolphins to death with baby seals, if he’s not jumping out of computer screens stealing babies and raping Nannies that’s what the MSM reckon.
Every movement has to have identities.

Nicholas Harding
December 1, 2009 5:59 pm

Thank you my lord.

December 1, 2009 6:02 pm

Excellent though the PDF is it would be an awful lot smarter to have a normal web page version to draw in lurkers. Passing surfers aren’t likely to download the PDF unless they are already interested rather like preaching to the choir.

December 1, 2009 6:04 pm

I have to call a foul on this. It would be hypocritical to criticize CRU and others for jumping to conclusions without evidence, so I wouldn’t tout anyone else doing the same. We don’t know who leaked the documents nor what their motivation was. It could be a hacker or it could be a whistleblower, but we don’t know that for a fact. I just got done in another forum criticizing someone else for demonizing the leaker without knowing who the leaker was and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Let’s stick with the facts.

December 1, 2009 6:05 pm

As word gets out and people start to question global warming alarmism I would say the anger against the Rudd government will mount. Polls on 2GB said 97% oppose the ETS. A poll in the MSM today 2/3rds favour Tony Abbott as new PM. Regardless of whether we go to an election in 3 or 12 months time the issue is there is now time to disseminate information to people and educate them, there is time for Climategate to progress, there is time for awareness to spread about the climate and a carbon tax. These things all work against the current government as they tried like was done in America to pass a policy at the last minute with copious amounts of revisions so people couldnt get a chance to find out what it was really going on. As people do find out they will be furious as is happening now.

Papa Ray
December 1, 2009 6:11 pm

You should read seven answers to climate contrarian nonsense. Then you will see how wrong you all are. And it is in one of the most valued Scientific publications there is.
Papa Ray

George S.
December 1, 2009 6:13 pm

Stossel on O’Reilly right now. O’Reilly said “this is huge” as he introduced Stossel. Stossel needs a bit more info on AGW. His presentation is not that strong. He’s treading very softly…hedging his bets. At least he refers to UEA CRU and others as alarmists. The piece is soft, though. O’Reilly at least is pinning some of the blame on the media and Algore.

December 1, 2009 6:13 pm

Ah, bravo boys, keep the exposure of this up; the MSM certainly won’t (!).
Bravo to Monckton too, his bringing charges against these crimatologists is music to my ears. Well, that and his accent. Man I love a proper English accent. 😉

David Palmer
December 1, 2009 6:19 pm

My printer failing to print Monckton article – says something wrong with file.
Very good news from here on defeat of Rudd’s CPRS, will do his ego no harm at all. As if Australia should lead on climate change legislation!

December 1, 2009 6:20 pm

Hey, will someone give me a research grant for a study of forest fires upwind of Mann’s tree-ring site? I hypothesize that the increased temps, carbon dioxide, and ash (fertilizer) from large enough fires would have impacted the width of the rings. Surely there must have been some over the last thousand years. A grant of, say $2 million would allow my co-researchers and me to meet in Tahiti to discuss the project, and pay someone in Russia to undertake the work. Thanks for your support!

December 1, 2009 6:21 pm

Monckton has barely scratched the surface. At one point the clowns attempt to compute the distance (great circle) between instrumentation sites. This is an elementary exercise in celestial navigation. They botched it.
Come on! The data which they purportedly used probably still exists with the originators of that data. It cannot all be lost.
I know that the University of East Anglia cannot reproduce their results. Their conclusions belong in the justly famous Journal of Irreproducible Results.
The one certainty is that the IPCC can no longer be trusted.

December 1, 2009 6:23 pm

the laughingstock of the world marches on to Copenhagen as if nothing had happened to decide actions on a problem which exists only in the mind, with no psychiatrists attending, while
the media are burrowing their heads in the sand in front of the greatest scoop for decades, and
environmentalists are clinging to visions of disaster like a four year old to his teddy bear.

Spenc BC
December 1, 2009 6:23 pm

Please provide links to substantiate these numbers. I hope you are right but we need the facts.

December 1, 2009 6:24 pm

that PDF is a great read, both in a general sense and as it relates to Climategate.

Spenc BC
December 1, 2009 6:30 pm

Stossel on O’Reilly
Just watched Fox. I was unimpressed with either of these twits. No facts just generalizations and a o hum attitude. I think they think this is essentially over. India and China will do nothing so it does not matter. People seem satisfied to see it die with out recompense. What about the Billions this has already eaten. What about the damage to the true cause of true environmental science and other scientists. Why wont the press, press Gore and his Ilk? The one place the MSM takes it up and they fail to take it seriously. Shame really!

James Sexton
December 1, 2009 6:31 pm

King of Cool (17:12:46) :
Australian ETS just voted down in Senate. I feel the real debate on Climate Change is beginning at last – at least in this country.=============================================
There isn’t a debate any longer. There is fraud and the acceptance of the proof that is debated. Sadly, science has taken a giant “hit” here. It had to be done. Thank God there is still math, chemistry, biology, and physics. While there is still much work to be done, the truth is here, in front of us. The truth vindicates what we all knew intuitively. Now, we have to continue. They(the team) will become more shrill. They will divert. They will obfuscate. They will mislead(lie). They will attack. Be vigilant.

Skeptic Tank
December 1, 2009 6:32 pm

jtom (18:20:12) :

A grant of, say $2 million would allow my co-researchers and me to meet in Tahiti to discuss the project, and pay someone in Russia to undertake the work. Thanks for your support!

Discuss the project?!! No, no, no. In Tahiti, you’ll be discussing your findings while you fund (expenses only) undergrads who are collecting samples (which will eventually be ‘misplaced’ or ‘lost in a fire’). But you’ll have your statistically corrected ‘data’ from your Tahiti reconstruction.

December 1, 2009 6:50 pm

Yes – Australia is safe – temporarily – and now thank the Lords – God and Monckton – that at last the public is starting to cotton on!

Bill Illis
December 1, 2009 6:51 pm

What is really good about all this is now all the science will be re-examined.
All the climate researchers out there who have exagerrated their results will be hoping nobody checks their emails and their papers.
They will quit playing fast and loose with the figures.
Other information, like that from Monckton and Lindzen, will have to be considered.
Mann is also going down. Whether others like Hansen and Schmidt also face an inquiry is an open question.
But what are they going to say at Copenhagen. Surely, a media person or two will ask about ClimateGate.

John in NZ
December 1, 2009 6:53 pm

Thank you Lord Monkton. Keep up the good work.
@ Papa Ray (18:11:41) :
“You should read seven answers to climate contrarian nonsense. Then you will see how wrong you all are. And it is in one of the most valued Scientific publications there is.
Papa Ray”
Sorry Papa Ray but I’m not convinced. I read the seven answers and they are either irrelevant, straw man arguments or just plain wrong.
Global warming theory is testable and yet the believers refuse to test it. If the theory matched the evidence from the real world, there would be no need to fabricate the data.
Note this climategate email below.
They shifted the values so the IPCC Summary for policy makers(SPM) would say what they wanted.
Kevin (Trenbath)
> Thanks. The averages of the values in Fig 3.6 over 1961-1990 turned out
> not to be exactly 0.000 owing to missing data in the reference period (a
> perennial problem Phil is well aware of). But Susan (?) wanted the SPM
> curve to average exactly 0.000 in 1961-1990 so the values were shifted
> by somewhere between 0.02 and 0.03.
> Regards
> David Parker

December 1, 2009 6:55 pm

It reads like a thriller.
So when is the movie out? And who’s going to play Phil Jones and Michael Mann and Steve McIntyre and the unnamed hero in the basement? I think that the rather drab Hadley CRU building needs to be updated to something more like a Death Star orbiting the Earth. It probably needs a good car chase somewhere in the middle. And who’s going to be the eye candy?

December 1, 2009 7:09 pm

I was also unimpressed by Stossel’s presentation, and I like him. He had a half a dozen openings to get into substantive issues, and missed them entirely.
He could have brought up that the folks involved have been caught in numerous statistical abuses that misrepresent reality, and give a false impression of warming when the raw data does not support that conclusion. He could have spent some time that they are violating very fundamental principles of openness in science, and actively blocking release of data and methods to allow others to validate their assertions. He could have mentioned that they have been caught red handed (oops green handed) obstructing the publication of scientific papers by others, and artificially inflating the importance of the papers of friends. Not to mention the data quality issues seen in the Harry_read_me files that show the computer coding is useless junk.

December 1, 2009 7:16 pm

Papa Ray (18:11:41) :

You should read seven answers to climate contrarian nonsense. Then you will see how wrong you all are. And it is in one of the most valued Scientific publications there is.

No, it is in one of the most valued Scientific publications there was.
In the 1970s, SciAm had a well-earned reputation for bring new science to the intelligent layman’s attention. Their main articles were not about the most recent research, but pulled together many little items of research to decribe new knowledge and new technologies.
For example, I remember important articles about photosynthesis as that chemical pathway was getting settled, on lasers and holography when they were making the transition from laboratory curiosity to tool. In high school I summarized a paper on electrophoresis from various reprints our biology teacher had ordered.
Other features of the magazine changed people for life. For me, Martin Gardner’s Mathematical Games was a favorite – I can still make a hexaflexagon and made several Soma Cubes from 2″x2″ oak stock 15 years ago. My name (misspelled) is in one issue for being among the first people to trace the fate of the “R” pentomino in John Conway’s game of Life. Other readers went to Jearl Walker’s The Citizen Scientist and did the experiments or made the tools he described. And of course, there were the Questar Telescope ads to drool over.
However, the creation of new magazines aimed at a market between Popular Science and Scientific American flooded the market and advertising revenue dried up. Eventually SciAm was sold to a German company and its golden age was over, never to be regained.
The magazine occasionally took a look at political issues, and that increased greatly after the sale. I bought a copy once because it had an article on the GPS system, but was extremely disappointed. Pretty pictures, virtually no content. Recently they have fully embraced AGW and science as seen by “The Team.”
I took a look at those seven points. There is nothing there that gives a balanced look at the issues involved. It would be fun to rewrite it to be as balanced as possible. I’m sure you would agree that “The most recent contrarian fad is based largely on work by Henrik Svensmark” is rejecting his work even before there are any results from CLOUD. For heaven’s sake, Svensmark has an interesting hypothesis, it’s being tested, it may pan out, it may be junk. Fad? Come on. The author doesn’t understand Scientific Method.
Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data.” Umm, if you’re reading here, you should realized that claim is the subject of substantial review. Hey – they say “surely the thousands of e-mails and other files stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and distributed by hackers on November 20 would bear proof of it. So far, however, none has emerged.” Yeah, right.
The first comment on the article says “jercarobrien1 at 10:36 AM on 11/30/09: The narrow, biased and unscientific perspective presented in your article causes me to continue to lose respect for your magazine’s scientific credibility and objectivity.
My father saved decades of SciAms, my sister maintained the tradition until she moved to California. We talked about what to do with them, and sadly agreed to let them go. But I saved Henry and Elizabeth Stommel’s article on Volcano Weather, that lives on as my 1816 web page. How long do you save your Scientific Americans?

December 1, 2009 7:22 pm

watched Stossel and O’Reilly tonight —- threw my slippers at the TV.
We need a spokesman badly

December 1, 2009 7:23 pm

I think this whole affair is going to generate a ton of PhD dissertations, attempting to get at a good estimate of global temperatures from the raw data or analysing the bias in the CRU data. Some brilliant Ph.D student will make his/her reputation in “demonstrating” where the errors are and coming up with a good estimate of global (or a subset) of surface temps in the 19th and 20th centuries.

December 1, 2009 7:23 pm

I just finished reading the PDF, and it’s one of the best I’ve seen from Lord Monckton with regard to the data. The thing that particularly struck me was his observation that the satellite data was calibrated to the temperature record, so there may need to be recalibration done once the dust has settled on all this. Also the comparisons of the Santa Rose and NIWA data real vs announced. AJStrata has done similar analysis on the CRU dataset and finds no overall warming.
On a less happy note the Munk Debate came 60/40 in favour of the motion, i.e. our team lost. I think we lost because it was more about appeals to emotion from both sides than hard science. So there’s still work to do.

December 1, 2009 7:29 pm

Lord Monckton has perhaps overstated some conclusions, which is a dangerous, CRU-like thing to do. There is much in the released materials which provides evidence of unprofessional, even potentially illegal, behaviour. Their data has been made suspect as a result; more importantly, it may lead to revisions in the manner in which this research is conducted (and published) in the future. The goal should be to push for the data, to examine and critique their methods and to review the code.
For me, this was over the top. We don’t know if it was a whistleblower: that is an assumption; I don’t find RealClimate particularly edifying, but it is no more “venomous” than many sites in the blogosphere; not every member of the Team was involved in each of the separate behaviours described; some of those behaviours are potentially exaggerated – for example, I’ve not seen any specific email that stated they were actually destroying code, and although Phil Jones said he’d rather destroy the data than hand it over to Mr. McIntyre, it’s not clear the he did so, etc.
It doesn’t actually help the argument, if you set up straw men for the other side to knock down; or exaggerate and give them the opportunity to claim some kind of tarnished victory as a result.

Kathryn U
December 1, 2009 7:32 pm

Spent two hours tonite watching http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/climate_change
The moderator kept most comments of dissenters off the live blog.
David Roberts (Grist.com staff writer) overpowered the conversation.
Elizabeth May told heart-rending anecdotes. She really knows her lines.
The majority of viewers agrees Climate Change is the over-riding issue of our time.
May tells a good story. We need to find those who tell a good story!

December 1, 2009 7:42 pm

I’ve noticed that too about the media, they just don’t take the time to educate themselves on the issues long enough to get into the meat of it, or maybe they just assume their audience won’t want the detail, either way, makes for a weak presentation, which looks like a weak argument.
That’s the quality of our media these days, non-science oriented, but good talkers…reminds me of our politicans…except just add the legal degree.

December 1, 2009 7:45 pm

Richard Sharpe (17:28:41) : “Do you think Krudd will be silly enough to call a double dissolution?”
Well, he’s silly enough to believe in Global Warming.

December 1, 2009 7:46 pm

While climategate will make it all that more difficult to enact cap and trade legislation, what’s to stop the EPA from imposing onerous regulations? It may be time to remind people of the internal memo written by a “concerned” EPA staff member.

December 1, 2009 8:01 pm

A bit less vitrol would make this report alot more credible to average people.
But I think everything is supportable — he should challenge someone to sue him for slander. If they don’t dare, it must all be true. 😉 The million dollar challenge…
AGW scam is marketing. Fighting it requres marketing. Science is necessary, but not sufficient. Actually, science is really only handy, not really necessary – as we clearly see.
Complicity of the press in the coverup should be emphasized more, imo. What else are they not reporting?

December 1, 2009 8:10 pm

I think we should be calling this the CRUD scandal, since it fits this in so many ways:
Create – records from raw data given to you in good faith
Retrieve – the data to build a model but it doesn’t show what you want it to
Update – the data to match those preconceived notions
Delete – the raw data so that you can’t be found out
CRUD = a disease; rot (in this case, applied to the scientific method)
Any way you look at it, this thing is CRUD

December 1, 2009 8:11 pm

18 more spotless days and we break 2008’s spotless days record.

December 1, 2009 8:14 pm

This issue is breathtaking. Especially when you consider that the same sorts of strategies have been going on, the marking up of temperatures, in 3 countries thus far exposed.
You really have to demand to know what is going on – especially in my country where we have just passed emmissions trading legislation which is going to burden all of us on the basis of this ‘science.’

December 1, 2009 8:24 pm

The polar bear is the poster child for the AGW movement,here is the postal child for the damage the AGW movement is doing.
look at pics on the side of this article.
I am so disgusted that nobody is speaking out for these gentle giants,it was different when logging companies were threatening them,bunch of hypocrites.
I couldn’t find an appropriate blog to post this,sorry.

Roger Knights
December 1, 2009 8:28 pm

Ian (19:29:40) :
“Lord Monckton has perhaps overstated some conclusions, which is a dangerous, CRU-like thing to do.

I agree. It’s better to anticipate the damaging effect a counterpunch can have and tone down ones assertions to forestall them. Otherwise, his article is very good.
Incidentally, I notice that several in the media seem to be now calling us “climate contrarians,” which is an improvement. (And one I suggested a few months ago, so I feel like maybe I’m making a difference.)

December 1, 2009 9:19 pm

Slightly (but only slightly) OT:
National Review’s Iain Murray thinks the MSM’s handling of Climategate should be termed Climatequiddick:
“What you have to know is that these documents demonstrate that one particular — and important — branch of climate science is riddled with deceit, unprofessional behavior, and quite possibly criminal conspiracy to avoid Freedom of Information laws.”

December 1, 2009 9:23 pm

“Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.” Barack Obama
Exactly Mr Obama. Time for some more “ensuring” in 2010. Don’t forget to thank Viscount Monckton for his help in this, along with Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, numerous other contributors and, last but not least, the fantastically courageous unknown soldier.
Can we now concentrate on cleaning up the planet using real science ??

December 1, 2009 9:25 pm

Austin – you say 18 more days to break the 2008 “spotless days” number. I know there’s difference between the European & US counting of sunspots (you’d think they’d just get together and agree …), but I thought 2008 had a count of 266; according to Spaceweather, we’re at currently at 251.

John Wright
December 1, 2009 9:33 pm

Sunfighter (17:40:54) :
“So do they know for certain now it was a whistleblower or is he just coming to that conclusion and writing it as if its a fact?
Well if it wasn’t a whistleblower, on what bases did he or she sift out the right mails to accumulatively reveal such damning malpractice? My hunch is that he or she has been selectively accumulating this for years. Sure it’s circumstantial evidence, but in absence of anything to the contrary…
Anyway, I agree with Monckton here, this person was a hero.

December 1, 2009 9:35 pm

The strata-sphere blog does an analysis of the 20th century with graphs included in the CRU data dump. He shows the published CRU graphs, with the 1940s warming period removed, and then displays the unmanipulated CRU graphs which include the1940s data.
The title interestingly enough is, “How to Hide Global Cooling: Delete the 1940’s Blip”.

December 1, 2009 9:39 pm

We roar with rage at this outrageous swindle

Papa Ray
December 1, 2009 9:44 pm

I guess I should have used a sarcasm tag…but I thought “spit” was sufficient.
Oh there is a rebuttal to that article on the net. No time to find it again. Got to get some shut eye.
Papa Ray

December 1, 2009 9:45 pm

“The BBC had had a copy of the data for at least a month before the story broke. But was it the BBC that broke the story? No, it was an obscure bulletin-board in the United States.”
“The BBC sat on the story, presumably in the vain and desperate hope that no one else would find out about it. Then, when the story eventually broke elsewhere, one of the BBC’s dozens of environmental commentators, a laughable, clownish anti-scientist called Roger Harrabin, immediately posted up a blog entry to say that his “friends” at the Climate Research Unit had assured him that the emails and data released by the whistleblower were nothing more than a storm in a teacup.”
Shame on you BBC!

December 1, 2009 9:48 pm

It does have a better ring than “denier”, which is such a deliberately loaded term.
I’m just now actually reading the article – maybe he thought he needed something to grab attention; unfortunately, it can too often divert from the substance of the debate.

Keith G
December 1, 2009 9:48 pm

I rather liked Monckton’s paragraph on the words of Abu Ali Ibn al-Hassan Ibn al-Hussain Ibn al-Haytham:
“… the ‘seeker after truth’ [….] had an obligation not to believe any consensus, however well established: instead, it was his duty to check for himself, using his own hard-won knowledge and skill. For the road to truth, said al-Haytham, was long and hard, but, he wrote ‘that is the road we must follow.'”
How true.

December 1, 2009 9:52 pm

Excellent work Christopher Monckton.
How about a pair of hand cuffs for Al Gore? What will it take to bring him to account for yelling fire in crowded theaters?

December 1, 2009 9:53 pm

“1. “Professor “Phil” Jones, the man chiefly responsible for the Climate Research Unit’s surface-temperature dataset, at first answered all queries about his computer codes and data by saying that he refused to release any information because those requesting it were only asking for it so that they could find out whether it was correct. Well, yes: that is how science works. It is not enough for a scientist merely to declare a result, and then to refuse to say how he obtained it.
2. Professor Jones’ sour, sullen, silly, scientifically-senseless refusal to make all of his data and codes immediately available when other scientists requested it had long aroused suspicion, particularly because his results had a direct bearing on the question of how fast the world is warming, a currently-fashionable political topic, and not least because we, the taxpayers, are writing the checks that fund him and his research.”

December 1, 2009 10:01 pm

Can someone check the pdf? I get.”This file is damaged” when trying to download

Leon Brozyna
December 1, 2009 10:04 pm

I took some time to read through the full PDF file. An interesting read as Lord Monckton step by step builds the case, from how the proxy data was manipulated to how the instrument data is manipulated to how the historical instrument record is manipulated. He then goes on to show how, as a result of sharing of data between CRU & GISS, the land record is suspect and even worse, since the satellite record was calibrated based on suspect data, it too is suspect.
At least he offers a rational suggestion for cleaning up the mess:
“First, there is now a need for a standardized, international network of properly-sited, modern, automated land temperature monitoring stations, reporting by satellite so that the data are immediately available to all. The aim should be to equal the reliability and public accessibility of the ARGO bathythermographs that have been deployed for the past six years in the oceans.
Until this standardized network has been installed worldwide, calibrated, and declared operational, all terrestrial and satellite temperature records should be regarded with profound suspicion, and no public policy – particularly any policy that menaces the freedom, democracy, and prosperity of the West – should be founded upon them.”

An interesting proposal — a new operational network (I suppose that it would be sited in remote locations across the planet, far from “polluting” (heat generating) urban areas), which, once operational, would serve as a measure against all the other suspect recording systems.

December 1, 2009 10:29 pm

With 132,000,000 hits for “Climategate” now on google, the internet sure is ROARING!

December 1, 2009 10:34 pm

There is an unfortunate technical error, under the ‘Broken Code’ section, which Monckton should correct to avoid giving the impression that he has not looked at the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file which is the subject of the first part of the section. The comment marker in the FORTRAN code in that file is a ‘C’ in column 6. ‘REM’ is the comment marker for early versions of BASIC.

December 1, 2009 11:03 pm

IN USA (tuesay) tonight still sijence from the major network news shows, however ABC News (i believe) on lead-in indicated “emails to be discussed” Turned out it was about White House Gate Crasher’s emails from White House Social Director
On Fox, not a word on Hannity or Gretta, and O’Reilly had John stossel reporting – neither O’reilly or Stossel had any idea of significance of scandal, viewed it as relatively minor
THIS WHITE WASH will simply make the ultimate volcano disruption even larger – when the general public figures out they’ve been scammed.

December 1, 2009 11:21 pm

Is Monckton right about the satellites being calibrated against the surface temperature record? Can anyone point to a document that explains simply how the satellite sensors work and how they are calibrated?

December 1, 2009 11:38 pm

Ii>Pete (22:01:34) :
Can someone check the pdf? I get.”This file is damaged” when trying to download
Open the file in your browser, Pete, and when it’s finished loading, save it. If you tried “right-click-save-as” on the icon, you’ll just the html.

anna v
December 1, 2009 11:44 pm

The complete report is too vindictive in the end. It stops short of recommending lynching.
It is not in the interest of the scientific community to turn scientific matters into crusades either way. The team et al were unfortunate in their machinations and the loss of regard from their peers should be enough punishment.

December 1, 2009 11:57 pm

UK paper 2nd Dec 2009 “Daily Express” headlines…THE BIG CLIMATE CHANGE “FRAUD”

December 2, 2009 12:54 am

Yet to read it… is Bulldust referenced? >.>

John Diffenthal
December 2, 2009 12:59 am

Monckton could have done with a sub editor. The text isn’t as clean as it should be for a document he clearly hopes will reach a wider audience. That, and his tendency for hyperbole take the edge off what could have been an excellent paper.
But the good news is that he recognises junk science when he sees it.

Stephen Shorland
December 2, 2009 1:34 am

Monckton frightens me to death! Maybe it’s because i’m English that I know his sort.I’m not swayed by the accent! Let Ronald McDonald lead the charge against these liars.Anyone but Monckton!

December 2, 2009 1:53 am

Actually, the harsh rhetoric is helpful. It was probably the talk of criminal charges against Jones that got him to step down from his position as director of the CRU – I suspect he and the UEA would have toughed it out otherwise
The emphasis on potential criminal conduct being investigated will help focus minds

December 2, 2009 1:55 am

(Anthony: please forward this letter directly to Lord Christopher Monckton)
Dear Lord Christopher Monckton,
I have read your paper about ClimateGate with great pleasure, a clear, correct and objective piece of work. Still I have one possible “thermodynamics argument” that you can add. It’s based on the statement:
“The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997”.
The thermal time constant for the heat balance of our planet is around 5 years according to Stephen E. Schwartz
This means that the temperature here cannot possibly fluctuate wildly up and down from one year to another. Our earth remembers, for example, the warm years going back to 1998 – the temperature is, just like energy, a cumulative phenomenon. Please read Richard Feynman.
Temperature is not a good diagnostic of total energy over the short-term as there are many inter-linked processes that use the energy in our chaotic climate system in different ways. Some energy is being radiated into space quickly, some becomes trapped over long time periods and some is permanently retained as a result of chemical processes.
Journalists and politicians buy too easily into the argument that the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997, they forget that it takes time to heat and cool a body – therefore this is merely nothing but an acknowledgement that it takes time to change the temperature of our planet. We know that high density, large volume and high specific heat all tend to increase the thermal time constant, well our planet is quite big – no wonder it takes time to change the temperature here!
Is it likely that the global temperature in 2010 will drop, let’s say, to the value it was in 1850?
No, the heat balance is a differential equation! We have to start with the value in 2009 and take into account the density, volume and specific heat of our planet in order to calculate how heat added or removed changes the 2009 temperature to the 2010 temperature. Then it follows, directly from the fundamental laws of physics, that the temperature in 2010 cannot deviate that much from the temperature in 2009. This means, of course, that since 1998 was so hot, it is entirely impossible that the years before and after 1998 should be significantly colder.
“The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997”.
Indeed. No problem*. This follows from the first law of thermodynamics. What’s more interesting is that the time derivative of temperature is unquestionable negative. That’s the real problem for the AGW theory.
Yours Sincerely,
* After ClimateGate we cannot conclude that the medieval warm period was colder.

Alan the Brit
December 2, 2009 1:58 am

I sincerely hope that when all this nonsense is finally put to the sword, with the utmost savagery & brutality, naturally, & those complicit no good lacklustre hacks, politicos, & scientists who stood by & did nothing (providing they weren’t intimidated into compliance), dealt with accordingly, that said “hacker” or as I suspect “leaker”, be made the Chief Scientist for the British Government, as he/she clearly displays an admiration & respect for science first, politics & spin, last. Having said that as we ceased to be a sovereign nation as of yesterday morning, they should be made the Chief Scientist for the “not for the” Peoples Non-Democratic Republic of the European Union instead, of which the UK is now but a humble island province!

December 2, 2009 2:06 am

I haven’t tracked down wattsupwiththat original report re fiddling of the GISS temperatures but on page 30 of the report it compares temperatures as reported in 1999 compared to those reported in 2008. The part that concerns me is that it states that these are Global Temperature Anomolies whereas I thought that they were USA only in the wattsupwiththat original.

December 2, 2009 2:07 am

Stephen Shorland (01:34:21) :
Ad hominem! I kinda agree – I think it is the eyes. I find the ole chap highly entertaining, however, and would love to have him around for a spot of tea… OK a beer or six.

December 2, 2009 2:13 am

Ian (19:29:40) says :

Lord Monckton has perhaps overstated some conclusions, which is a dangerous, CRU-like thing to do. […] this was over the top. We don’t know if it was a whistleblower: that is an assumption […].

Whether or not the leaker were a deliberate whistleblower or not, that person functioned as a whistleblower, and thus deserves our thanks.
If a burglar broke into my home to rob me but instead fortuitously noticed and extinguished a fire which might otherwise have incinerated me and my family, I’d thank him as heartily as if he were a legitimate fireman.

D. Patterson
December 2, 2009 2:13 am

A news story filed by Joelle Tessler of Associated Press (AP) described how major MSM (MainStream Media) executives attending an FTC (Federal Trade Commission) conference on journalism recommended the government intervene on behalf of distressed media compnies who are succumbing to decreasing print readership and advertising revenues. Since the public refuses to recognize the need to pay for content, the MSM executives are now seeking governement assistance in developing means to compel payments by users of the Internet. Absent from the news story was reporting on the reader dissatisfaction with the MSM news reporting of such events as government healthcare, compulsory wealth redistribution, and the presently unfolding Climategate, scandal.

December 2, 2009 2:14 am

Ian (19:29:40) :
“Lord Monckton has perhaps overstated some conclusions, which is a dangerous, CRU-like thing to do.”
Anyone who has followed Monckton for some time knows that he always comes out swinging. Is he over egging the case? Sure he is. But this is the only way the wider public will take notice. Sure, it is a turn off for some more intellectual types, but ask yourself seriously, what would be the impact on the general public if instead he broadcasted in a very low key, equivocating and understated way? Suppose he had said:
“After due consideration of the CRU emails, there appears to be some nuances of applied statistical techniques with a presumption towards a warming trend. The main evidence is from a 20 year smoothing binomial function with an adjustment bias that is probably artificially correlated with the thermometer record. These techniques as such reduce the divergence in the proxy tree ring data, blah, blah, blah. . .”
Compare that with the much more attention grabbing,
“The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.”
And the attention of the public must be grabbed. That is the only way to attack the political machine. That is the only thing politicians fear. I’m sorry, but that’s just the way the world works.

December 2, 2009 2:59 am

I wonder how such august bodies as the Nobel Peace Prize committee and the Oscars committee feel now. I don’t suppose they will ever admit that they were completely taken in by what many suspected then and what most know now, to be a scam. A scam of truly global proportion.

Peter Plail
December 2, 2009 3:16 am

I am still convinced that the whistleblower, if he/she exists, did not do the collecting themselves, but discovered an archive folder which contained all the incriminating evidence, having been already removed from the mainstream of e-mail traffic ready to obstruct any subsequent FOI investigation.
I would further speculate that the reason the folder still existed was that it wasn’t yet filled with all the goodies (or is it baddies), the ultimate aim being to archive it off-line (eg on CD) before secure destruction of the incriminating on-line data.

Gene Nemetz
December 2, 2009 3:24 am

Dear Lord Monckton,
If it’s not too much of a bother would you take a Sherman’s March through the media—and the US Senate if it comes to that— with ClimateGate?
“War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
~~William Tecumseh Sherman

Gene Nemetz
December 2, 2009 3:39 am

OKE E DOKE (19:22:01) :
watched Stossel and O’Reilly tonight —- threw my slippers at the TV.
We need a spokesman badly

It was pretty pathetic, wasn’t it. Could they have watered it down any more!
they didn’t even bring up ‘Mike’s Nature trick’.

December 2, 2009 3:42 am

Lord Monkhton is on the money, I have watched his lecture at St Pauls and heard him several times on the Alex Jones Show he delivers hard facts with accuracy and honesty.
The man is fighting for freedom,truth and humanity in general so I take my hat off to him.
Top Man and Great work Sir !

December 2, 2009 3:59 am

Even Mike Hulme of East Anglia University made a statement at BBC about the problem of politicizised science and the lost trust in some fields of climate science:

Michael Oxenham
December 2, 2009 4:04 am

Surely more appropriate definitions of CRU are:-
Criminal Redaction Unit or Corrupt Redaction Unit

Rhys Jaggar
December 2, 2009 4:08 am

Would Sir Christopher also like to provide an equally cool analysis of UK journalists who shamelessly engage in this sort of rubbish?
In particular, the arch socialist Johann Hari of the Independent, whose rantings about global warming mark him down as a confirmed co-conspirator.
It might be helpful if Sir Christopher’s article examined the tenets of what journalism is supposed to be, contrasts that with the rants of Mr Hari and questions what the man is doing calling himself a journalist.
This must be the next level of the campaign. Outing the journalists. And returning journalism to an honourable profession based on examining facts not engaging in political babble verging on Goebbels-style fascism….

Jim Haywood, Ph.D.
December 2, 2009 4:45 am

Lord Monkhton did not comment on the recent decline in the number of sites used in the GHCN (the “raw” temperature data for both GISS and CRU.) This data set also is called the “NCDC” set. “NCDC” is US National Climatic Data Center, of which Tom Karl is the director.
More information is at: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/

Colin Porter
December 2, 2009 5:06 am

I hope Sir Christopher will send a copy of this report to David Cameron, or better still, all the parliamentary conservative party.

Michael D Smith
December 2, 2009 5:10 am

I’m curious… Why haven’t you posted a link to Monckton’s interview on Alex Jones? (I did post it a few days ago… maybe it’s too “over the top”?) Classic Monckton, and well worth a listen.

December 2, 2009 5:29 am

D. Patterson (02:13:39) :
(…) conference on journalism recommended the government intervene on behalf of distressed media compnies who are succumbing to decreasing print readership and advertising revenues. (…)

Do you have a link? Wouldn’t mind a look once I finish cleaning the coffee off the screen.
Now there is a rescue package we can all get behind – bale out the MSM.
Public money to get them through the “Climate Crunch”. Yea – where do I sign up?
[chirp.. chirp.. chirp..]
Now back to some real news and real peer review.

December 2, 2009 5:39 am

Vincent (02:14:56) :
That is the only way to attack the political machine. That is the only thing politicians fear. I’m sorry, but that’s just the way the world works.
Perhaps that’s why the first two lines of “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” keep going through my head. 😉

December 2, 2009 5:42 am

Investor’s Business Daily reports on Climategate.

December 2, 2009 5:46 am

idlex (18:55:35) :
I think that the rather drab Hadley CRU building needs to be updated to something more like a Death Star orbiting the Earth. It probably needs a good car chase somewhere in the middle. And who’s going to be the eye candy?

Please…. not Naomi Oreskes

Stephen Shorland
December 2, 2009 6:12 am

On reflection maybe his appeal in America is a good thing. BUT of course the conspiracy will attack the man,too.He just won’t wash here in Britain.He is of a certain type that is easily lampooned. You could hear in his voice on Radio4 this morning that Roger Harribin was worried sick about the US Senate investigation.America is the battleground.I do hope that Monckton isn’t allowed to lead the charge,though.

Mark H
December 2, 2009 6:18 am

Has anyone actually asked them what the ideal global temperature is?
Since the earth has been both colder and warmer prior to the industrial revolution, than it is currently, which historical temperature is ideal?
There is no doubt that global cooling is exponentially more damaging to man and nature, than is global warming. A two-day hard frost in May or June in the United States, would massively destroy food crops cause an international crisis. A few extra days of drought or higher temperatures would not.
Sometime we get caught up in the science and fail to look at the logical big picture.
Skeptics should ask these AGW scientists if we completely understand the impacts of warm ocean currents and the energy emissions and impacts of the sun on the climate. Since they are the two largest factors influencing our climate and weather patterns, the inability to not understand them completely prohibits any confidence in the measurement of man’s impact.
The thought process is ludicrous. There is absolutely no way to isolate and access any variable’s impact on a result, without first understanding the other variables impacting the same result. It’s even more ludicrous when you consider that the other variables (ocean & sun impacts), which you admit you don’t fully understand, have exponentially more impact on the result than does the variable (man) that you are speaking so confidently about.

Mr. Patton
December 2, 2009 6:26 am

Did you notice that when this story broke that all the liberal freaks said that there was nothing to the story even though all of the data had not been revealed or analyzed? Liberals lie. They can never tell the truth. This story is huge. Keep pounding the truth. We will defeat these bums with the facts and the truth. They are frauds, liars, phonies, and bums.

Mark H
December 2, 2009 6:41 am

Let’s make an illustrative example of my point:
The AGW accertion that the “debate is over” would be like saying with confidence that you had determined that after replacing a set of truck tires, you have looked at the truck’s fuel receipts for a 2 month period and determined with absolute confidence that the new truck tires resulted in an increase in fuel efficiency of 20%.
However, that determination was made without any knowledge of how many miles during that 2-moth period were run carrying a load of cargo, how many miles were run in stop-and-go traffic vs. highway driving, how many miles were driven up and down hills vs. flat terrain, or how fast or slow those miles were driven.
As you can see, without being able to take into account the other variables which have a far greater impact on fuel efficiency, any statement regarding the impact of the tires on fuel savings is ludicrous.

December 2, 2009 6:45 am

Idlex “It reads like a thriller.”
‘Climategate’ the movie. But who is there, these days, of the calibre of Spencer Tracey or Jimmie Stewart, to play Steve McI or Anthony W? Or someone like Peter Lorre to play M.M.?

Steve M. from TN
December 2, 2009 6:49 am

Papa Ray (18:11:41) :

You should read seven answers to climate contrarian nonsense. Then you will see how wrong you all are. And it is in one of the most valued Scientific publications there is.

I hate to respond to an obvious troll, but I’ll add a little to the other commentators on this thread. The author is a science writer with a BS degree in biology. Most of the links supporting his claims refer to articles within “Scientific American” or the RC website. I’m not convinced.
(changed my name a little…too many Steves on here now)

December 2, 2009 6:50 am

I heard someone say a while back that global warming was a hoax that was too big to fail…it now looks like the foundation is cracking up and will hopefully fall soon.

December 2, 2009 7:22 am

Someone should start a legal defense fund for the hacker who stole the emails. He should be protected from prosecution by whistleblower laws, however, since the manner in which he obtained the data and distributed it was illegal he will most certainly face criminal prosecution. If he had brought this up through the proper channels however it most certainly would never have seen the light of day. I applaud his or her bravery and conscience for doing the right thing even though it will likely have negative consequences for him. I’m hoping this becomes enough of a scandal that they will be forced to drop all charges against him due to political pressure.
REPLY: If it was a hacker, which is looking increasingly doubtful. A whistleblower will get full protection under the law.

David A. Reyes
December 2, 2009 7:53 am

The MSM is still using scare tactics and the Polar Bear to pull at heartstrings of the unsuspecting and the ill-informed.
“…the window of opportunity is narrowing rapidly.”
Time for Cap & Tax!
The sheeple must be fleeced!

December 2, 2009 7:53 am

Mark H (06:18:05) :
Has anyone actually asked them what the ideal global temperature is?
That’s been well known for quite some time now.
It’s the temperature it was in those idyllic days when the politicians were kids.

December 2, 2009 7:58 am

Just one word: “Tiananmen Square”

Bob Layon
December 2, 2009 8:06 am

I also had trouble printing Monckton’s article from the web. So I downloaded it to ‘donwnloads’ and printed from there.
Good feisty stuff.

December 2, 2009 8:23 am

IMO, every living Soul in this world who has contributed anything of any kind to the support of this climate-change fraud is the human equivalent of a hive-insect: no independent thought allowed. God have mercy on those who are so blind that they will not see!

Mike M
December 2, 2009 8:29 am

As other have mentioned, science, at least such subject to the whim of government funding, has taken a hit. True, but worse in particular is that, sadly, ecology may be the area that has taken the greatest hit of all. For example, the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society bought into this green crap hook line and sinker. Whether their ‘leaders’ did this innocently or they intentionally inserted themselves into positions of leadership inside the organizations for the express intention of hijacking them for a political agenda has yet to be resolved but the membership of those organizations trusted them to decide the issue and take a position on their behalf; the wrong position. They bought into the mantra of CO2 as being ‘pollution’ and also into the idea that getting warmer was a horrible thing for animals. I even wrote to the Audubon Society to consider that the HUGE majority species of birds live in the tropics especially in rain forests that virtually regulate their own climates. So one question to them was do they want a warmer wetter climate with more tropical rain forest supporting more bird species or a cooler drier one with fewer bird species? Another was how they could reconcile the idea of limiting CO2 upon which all life depends?
If I was a member of either of those organizations and now coming to grips with the reality that my dues were used to support a hoax, I’d certainly hesitate to renew my membership next year. That’s a shame because both organizations ~used to have~ some credibility concerning ecology but now they will find that falsely crying wolf has its consequences and one of those may be for the worse concerning the real challanges that still exist to protect and preserve our environment – an environment where the word ‘clean’ has nothing to do with CO2.

Bob Layson
December 2, 2009 8:30 am

Ooops. For ‘donwnloads’ read downloads.
And I misspelt my own name as well. Oh dear.

December 2, 2009 10:00 am

Carolyn @17:45:55
“Wow! I’ll bet Al Gore’s really sorry he invented the Internet now.”
HILARIOUS! I almost fell out of my chair I was lughing so hard.
Great stuff!

December 2, 2009 10:14 am

the questions i’ve never heard asked are:
if satellites can determine the earth’s temperatures, can we determine the temperatures of other celestial beings within our planetary system? can we look at the temperature variations of said planets – and compare them to our planet?
if solar energy is the main culprit in our ecosystem, shouldn’t the same effects be seen on other planets/ moons?
if a correlation can be drawn, doesn’t AWG become debunked?
we need to think simply. the truth is usually the simplest explanation.

Joe Irvine
December 2, 2009 10:21 am

Apparently, the only man-made part of global warming is the fake data.

December 2, 2009 10:26 am

> Peter Plail (03:16:23) :
>I am still convinced that the whistleblower, if he/she exists, did not do the collecting themselves,
>but discovered an archive folder which contained all the incriminating evidence….
While this is certainly plausible, I (having been involved in a few FOI responses} think it more likely that this is a compilation of information actually prepared as a FOI response; then, when the decision was made to not respond, the preparer was given instruction to delete the compiled data.
Rather than risk being found (possibly) complicit in an illegal cover-up, the preparer secured a copy of the data prior to deleting it from the university computer system. It is what I would have done in similar circumstances.
My (and his) problem at this point would be, what to do with the secret copy. One might make waves about the possible legal/ethical problems, but one can not reveal the existance of the unauthorized copy. As a last resort, one might choose to release the data to a major public news organization for self-protection. Alas, the actual release (to the BBC) did not bring things out in the open but (speculation) resulted in an internal security audit at the university. The ethical actor then released (or made available to others who would release) the information on the internet.
p.s. The Beeb editor confirmed recieving a package of e-mails on 12 Oct 2009. The last email in the email folder is dated 12 Nov 2009. So, either the editor mis-spoke the month, or the information source updated (preserved for anticipated investigation?) the collected data for anther four weeks.
The file was released o/a 20 Nov 2009, just one week after the collector stopped collecting. If this was a hacker who aquired a data dump of emails/documents/programs/databases he would have needed a very large team to winnow these kernels of wheat from the chaff in the time available.

December 2, 2009 10:36 am

A very good summary of what the issues are and powerfully delivered in Lord Monckton’s inimitable style.
Some comments that he is not the man to continue to lead the fight against the falsified AGW hypothesis, but who would ever have thought that a toffee nosed, has-been politician like Winston Churchill would have done such a good job defeating the Germans in WW2?
I think Lord Monckton has the attributes to be the man of his time. He has more than a passing look of Marty Feldman, which is bound to be a good think.
Perhaps this should be his slgan:-
“We shall fight on the science,
we shall fight on the politics,
we shall fight in the media,
we shall fight in the courts.
We shall never surrender until freedom for all is won.”

Sam Meyerson
December 2, 2009 10:38 am

Monkton is ranting once more I see. This really does seem to be a tempest in a teapot. I’m a physicist and I regularly use the word “trick” to connote a clever approach to a given problem. As for “hiding the decline” this is also easily understood, because the NH tree ring data diverge from the thermometric data.
Perhaps Monkton or one of his minions could provide a single, clear, “best case” argument from the CRU emails that some scientific fraud was committed.

December 2, 2009 11:19 am

Lord Monckton is clearly a man of many parts. He seems to have some knowledge of climate science, and also has a keen political sense. He can see that the climate change battle has, for now, been lost in Europe and therefore sees the USA as the major battleground. Hence his recent campaigning over there.
Regrettably this is as much a political battle as it is a question of science. The battle will not be won without some hard hitting politicos to take on the warmists. I would suggest Lord Monckton would be a good man to have on your side in this battle.
I also read somewhere that his expertise is in detecting fraud. I must say that if I had been guilty of any kind of malfeasance I would not want Lord Monckton on my case.
Your Lordship, if you are reading this blog I think you should ask the Norfolk plod to focus their enquiries on Prof Briffa. He comes across as a decent chap who has found himself mixed up with ‘the wrong set’. Wouldn’t be at all surprised if he has quite a lot to get off his chest.

December 2, 2009 11:25 am

Papa Ray (18:11:41) :
Your link is a pathetic reprise of the usual warmed over pablum from SciAm. In particular, I would draw your attention to this statement:

“True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus.”

Balance is never achieved in nature by accident. Let me repeat this fundamental point: Balance is never achieved in nature by accident. It is always a result of opposing forces. Plant growth, ocean absorption, et al. balance the natural CO2 released because they expand when the release increases, and decline when it decreases.. We call such action feedback, or more specifically, negative feedback.
The plants, oceans, etc… do not know “natural” from “anthropogenic” CO2. They just respond to the overall level. They react just as powerfully to the “human additions”. Thus, these do not contribute a “net surplus”.
The SciAm statement bespeaks a childlike understanding of dynamic processes and systems. It is really depressing to me to see such stupid statements promoted as if they represented some kind of subtle reasoning which had somehow eluded the troglodytes on the opposing side.

F. Ross
December 2, 2009 11:47 am

Anthony, Steve, Lord Monckton – I can only say two things:
Hear, hear!

December 2, 2009 11:52 am

I guess its all just an “Inconvenient Truth”!

December 2, 2009 12:21 pm

keep up this excellent exposee you have saved our children and g/c years of excess work and waste!!!!!!!!

December 2, 2009 12:25 pm

I would be more impressed with the paper if there were an ounce of truth to any of it. Instead you hvae a guy with no education on climate, only journalism, making bold faced assertions with absolutely no facts. And using out of context excerpts from e-mails which simply point out that the author clearly does not understand climate.
I fully expect a lawsuit out of this for such libel. The irony being that the group that put this out is a political lobbyist group hired by the big companies under the guise as a science based group. But of course no one in the group has any science background.

December 2, 2009 12:34 pm

The Spectator is advertising that tomorrow’s edition will feature:-

Global warming: the truth.
The world’s leading scientists and thinkers in a debate you won’t hear at Copenhagen.

Already online, The Speccy has a pertinent article by, Fraser Nelson and several blog entries by Melanie Phillips.

December 2, 2009 1:34 pm

To think I almost believed that global warming caused prostitution!
Seriously, these pseudo scientists will probably all come down now with a bad case of hemorrhoids.

December 2, 2009 1:46 pm

Just a quicky.
Where might one obtain the original data from the various stations around the world… Surely the individual stations would still have their own records..?
I’d like to compile it as raw data and publish it as raw data.
Like the naughty scientists should have done.

Mark H
December 2, 2009 2:00 pm

Bob (12:25:17) :
What facts are there in this debate that are not subject to debate? I am a geologist and an environmental scientist. It doesn’t take a scientist with credentials to understand that the general premise that we have not been able to isolate man’s impact on climate as one of many variables. As such, there is no way to quantify that impact, without first being able to quantify the other variables inputs into that system.
Presumed “facts” that really aren’t facts:
1) We have an accurate working knowledge of global temperatures for a long period of time
2) We understand and can quantify the effects of man’s infrastructure development on global temperatures (i.e. the heat island effect in cities)
3) We understand the ocean currents, their historical movements and how those movements and temperatures impact global temperatures
4) We understand all of the suns effects on the earth which may impact temperatures, its radiant heat, electromagnetic impacts, and its solar cycles over a long period of time.
5) We know and can quantify what concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere results in what amount of heat retention (i.e. if CO2 levels rise to x, the amount of heat trapped increases to y)
6) We know what temperature is the ideal temperature for sustainability of life on the planet.
The reality is that we cannot accurately define any of these “facts” or variables to a confidence level which would provide the level of certainly in AGW you believe Bob.
You are relying on faith in the consensus, which is a dangerous thing. Consensus has no place in science, only open testing and the reproduction of similar results. Consensus is the currency of politicians and advocates.
We should be focusing in more immediate concerns which will impact the lives of everyone in the very near future. Most importantly, the availability of fresh water.

December 2, 2009 2:04 pm

Explanation (really just references to journals, and not sure if necessary metadata is available) of New Zealand temp record adjustments referenced by Lord Monckton from organisation responsible:
It would be nice to actually see these papers they reference and see a full justification of their methodology.

December 2, 2009 2:24 pm

Happy days!! I nearly dropped my shopping this morning when I saw a Daily Express front page headline announcing THE BIG CLIMATE CHANGE ‘FRAUD’ with an interview, a friendly interview with Ian Plimer who is over in England. Hurrah! There was a friendly editorial comment as well, saying that people who question the accepted line should have their say.

chris price
December 2, 2009 2:54 pm

Dear Papa Ray,
just a few responces.
1) a less than one percent greenhouse gas has no effect
in the climate system. This is a known system control
fundamental, in electronic and processing systems, why
would it not be the same with the atmosphere?
Why do you not mention the negative feedback effect- cloud cover?
Stop talking about particle lifetimes, a h20 molecule trajectory
is irrelevant another one replaces it. Surely you know this?
I cannot understand in this context why a ‘common sense’
everyday witness of the effect on temperature of long periods
of thick cloud cover does not disspell this nutty co2 notion?
2) There has never been a demonstrated pilot plant nor lab-top
apparatus doing the c02 removal process in any feasible way.
The reason is simple chemical reaction energy calculations.
The energy used to capture co2 is far greater than the energy
in the carbon bonds being broken in the process of burning as
we know it. How some really advanced nano-technology may
be invented to somehow capture the bond energy whilst
capturing the carbon molecule. Here’s hoping for a major
revolution in chemistry. I think it will eventually happen, BUT
the researchers today who are getting major funding are not
on to it, there is major fraud going on now.

December 2, 2009 3:53 pm

Beth Cooper (06:45:01) :
Do we have a new Donald Pleasance to play Gavin?

December 2, 2009 3:55 pm

What did I do?
Spam filter grabbed my last post 🙁

December 2, 2009 4:28 pm

Mark H (14:00:09) :

Bob (12:25:17) :

Calm down Mark! it’s obvious that Bobs comment was satire 😉

December 2, 2009 4:38 pm

Everything I post goes to the spam filter!
Reply: And why do you think that is? ~ ctm

December 2, 2009 8:23 pm

so the story will be continued to 3C : climate change corruption?
world are waiting, how this works will affect the next climate treaty. It might be no solution, or loss-loss situation

December 2, 2009 9:26 pm

Papa Ray (21:44:15) :
> I guess I should have used a sarcasm tag…but I thought “spit” was sufficient.
Oh. You mean I didn’t have to read the whole thing? Oh well…. 🙂
Lubos Motl had a response to the SciAm Polemic, see

December 2, 2009 10:10 pm

nature gives itself a chance politicians just worry about share markets

December 3, 2009 12:16 am

déjà vu, all over again
This site is not stranger to Andrew Orlowski. Here’s his clear and rational take on Climategate, if you haven’t seen it yet.

The secretive approach of CRU director Jones and his colleagues, particularly in the paleoclimatology field, is not a secret.
Distinguished scientists have testified to this throughout from the early 1990s onwards. A report specifically commissioned four years ago by Congress, the Wegman Report, identified many of the failings discussed in the past week. Failings are understandable, climatology is in its infancy, and the man-made greenhouse gas theory is a recent development. However no action was taken.
A little like Goldman Sachs, the group that includes the CRU Crew was deemed to be too important to fail – or even have the semblance of fallibility.

December 3, 2009 12:46 am

“Incidentally, I notice that several in the media seem to be now calling us “climate contrarians,” which is an improvement. (And one I suggested a few months ago, so I feel like maybe I’m making a difference.)”
I prefer the term climate realist. As in it really has cooled for the last decade.

D. Patterson
December 3, 2009 1:07 am

3×2 (05:29:46)
Do you have a link? Wouldn’t mind a look once I finish cleaning the coffee off the screen.

I first found the news story on Yahoo! Technology News. Using the newssearch feature on Yahoo! News just produced 78 hits using the name, Joelle Tessler, as the search term. Examples of the various headlines used for this story are:
Media execs make case for online fees at FTC panel
Murdoch: Media must get readers to pay for online
FTC explores future of journalism in Internet age
The coverage of Climategate by the blogs has stung sharply enough in addition to other issues for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to demand the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the person/s who disclosed the Climategate e-mail and document files…, if and when Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) insists upon an investigation of the scientists involved in the Climategate scandal.
Absent from Sen. Boxer’s threatening statements is any recognition of the extent to which the disclosure of the e-mail and documents may have been lawful in part or whole under the violations of the Freedom of Information Acts (FOI) and whistleblower laws. Also absent from the statements is the possibility of jury nullification as a justified response to unlawful obstruction of justice by the scientists.
Meanwhile, Sen Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) are insisting upon once again changing pending legislation to put what they describe as “citizen journalists” at a disadvantage by granting only professional journalists special protections in a new journalism shield law. Previously proposed legislation was worded to protect the “act” of journalism, but Sens. Feinstein and Durbin seek to deny such special protections to the citizens exercising First Amendment free speech rights on the Internet and in blogs such as those presently circumventing the MSM suppression of news about the Climategate scandal.

December 3, 2009 4:32 am

@Carolyn (17:45:55) :
>“On the Internet, however, which in some countries – such as Britain – is now >the only independent source of news…”
>Wow! I’ll bet Al Gore’s really sorry he invented the Internet now.
O heavens that is a beauty!

December 3, 2009 5:01 am

DaveE (16:38:37) :

Everything I post goes to the spam filter!
Reply: And why do you think that is? ~ ctm

Actually, I have no idea.
As I recall, the [snip] was 2 ‘F’s & an ‘S’
Perhaps you can e-mail me & we can find out what’s going on.

December 3, 2009 5:35 am

Sadly I think most of your are overly enthusiastic and optimistic about climate gate. You miss the fundamental fact that the politicos pushing the “climate change” agenda don’t care about the truth or any ones opinions.
“Global warming” and “environmentalism” are a religion, a hate based cult of self loathing and hatred of humanity. How else can they rationally argue for “getting rid” of the “surplus” half of humanity by 2050? They are obsessed with the desire for power over humanity, eliminating freedom and killing the “virus” called mankind. Sadly the Sierra Club and World Wildlife Federation along with many other environmental groups were knowing and eager participants in this story.
In the US Obama, Boxer and the other Greens will strive to ride roughshod over all opposition and ignore anyone speaking the truth. Those arming to fight for humanity will probably lose their patience. My personal dismal expectation is that though this was a good event, it will accelerate the rush to bloodshed.

December 3, 2009 6:32 am

This is unbelievable!! The best news since Princes Ann was disqualified for being a Transvestite. Next we need to get the liar Al Gore. Hang’m High and give back that Oscar you lying SOB. Yahoooooooooo!!!!

December 3, 2009 7:44 am

Bart (11:25:13)
You objected to this statement in the Scientific American article ‘Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense’
“True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus.”
by claiming that natural CO2 absorption processes expand to balance all CO2 emissions, natural or artificial, and that therefore the article’s claim that ‘human additions (are) a net surplus’
If this was in fact the case, would not the overall CO2 level be observed to remain constant?

December 3, 2009 7:46 am

(oops, previous version of this post had a broken sentence in para 3, sorry)
Bart (11:25:13)
You objected to this statement in the Scientific American article ‘Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense’
“True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus.”
by claiming that natural CO2 absorption processes expand to balance all CO2 emissions, natural or artificial, and that therefore the article’s claim that ‘human additions (are) a net surplus’ cannot be true.
If this was in fact the case, would not the overall CO2 level be observed to remain constant?

Gail Combs
December 3, 2009 8:38 am

idlex (18:55:35) :
It reads like a thriller.
So when is the movie out?…. And who’s going to be the eye candy?
REPLY: Dr Judith Curry of course as she plays peacemaker.

Red Green
December 3, 2009 8:52 am

Sadly, I have to agree with you. Club of Rome’s First Global Revolution sheds some light on the motive for all this. It’s a must read for anyone trying to gain a broader perspective.
All the best!

Mike M
December 3, 2009 9:10 am

thinkingmaker (07:46:50) – You are apparently having some difficulty in understanding the word ‘dynamic’ in a dynamic system. The word ‘static’ is the converse and seems to be what you are…err.. stuck on. Firstly, our planet is ALIVE. Life is a dynamic force that reacts in a myriad of ways to a myriad of parameters and, most importantly in correcting your misunderstanding, effects those reactions in a myriad of TIME SCALES. For example, ocean temperature affects CO2 solubility but has the something like 1000 times the mass of the atmosphere. So the air’s CO2 could go up and down three times within a century and the ocean will hardly ‘notice’ it at all. On the other end of the time scale, plant life reacts rather quickly to CO2 to grow faster and fatter thus increasing it’s ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This plant life growth acceleration is already happening and is well documented. The rate of CO2 increase today is BELOW what the IPCC predicted and I’d put my money on their error being related to not accounting for plant life’s rapid response to having more CO2 in their diet. Take a look at the Carboniferous period on earth and it is very likely that CO2 plummeted precisely because of an explosion of plant life, (thus explaining why God then created animals to eat the plant remains to help get the CO2 back into the air where it belongs…).
Certainly you understand that the warmer it is within your refrigerator – the faster bacteria are going to multiply in your food? Well, this is like that except it’s as though, 1) there is a torsion spring applying a torque to the thermostat to turn it up, 2)there is a heavy viscous damping on the angular velocity of the thermostat shaft and 3) the bacteria have their little hands on your refrigerator’s thermostat opposing the spring trying to turn it DOWN, (a negative feedback), as the rate of their infecting your food increases.
James Hansen, who collects a cushy salary at NASA and couldn’t care less about your food, says we should tear down every coal fired power plant and turn off your refrigerator in order to save the planet and his job. Bon appetit.

Gail Combs
December 3, 2009 9:11 am

Tony (19:46:05) :
While climategate will make it all that more difficult to enact cap and trade legislation, what’s to stop the EPA from imposing onerous regulations? It may be time to remind people of the internal memo written by a “concerned” EPA staff member.
Tony we US citizens do have weapons.
There is the Supreme Court of Course but they have already ruled.
Then comes State nullification of a law or regulation. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. This is what happen to the Real ID Act and there is a movement to do the same to any Health Care Act.
“The primary function of the independent juror, is not as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government!” http://fija.org/
It is the jury who decides on whether there is “probable cause” to cause a person to answer to the court AFTER they have heard testimony given under “oath or affirmation”.
The JURY alone not only decides upon guilt or innocence; THEY have the right to judge the law that the accused is alledged to have broken. That is where the term “jury nullification” comes from. The potential jury member of today is UNLAWFULLY instructed by the judge that they are triers of the facts and nothing more. Any potential juror who did not assent to those instructions and who understood the ancient right of declaring a law unconstitutional would not be allowed to sit on a jury. A judge is NOTHING more than a referee and is there to be certain that the laws are applied, and in some cases, interpreted and used in that manner as he sees they were meant to be. HOWEVER, the jury is still the final judge— they can ignore a judge if they feel he is wrong. The jury also has the right to investigate. Again, any potential juror who understands this would not be allowed to sit on the jury. This is how We the People have forfeited our rights thanks to our poor education system that delibarately hides our rights and obligations. We simply do not understand that the SCOTUS is not the final judge— WE ARE!
The most promising is the Tenth Amendment movement. This from Al Gore’s home state of Tennessee.
“The following is a letter from Tennessee to the other 49 State Legislatures
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
* Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
* Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
* Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
* Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for those purposes that this letter addresses your honorable body.
…The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.”

ross dickson
December 3, 2009 9:15 am

i am trying to come to grips with why so many people are deluded to believing that CO2 drives global warming, sorry “climate change”. I then got to thinking, how the propoganda machine has caused so much delusion and devastation throughout history. Mao Tse-Tung through his culrural revolution and great leap forward made a whole country of millions turn in on themselves. Lenin, again caused millions to turn on themselves. Hitler with his master race doctrine is self evident. Then even back in history and the Spanish conquistadors,with their religious propganda, destroyed whole civilisations.
So, PLEASE PLEASE! lord Monckton, Professor Ball, Professor Lintzen and all the good and educated men. Please, please don’t rest until we have got some sanity back to the world.

Roger Knights
December 3, 2009 9:25 am

Ken Hall (00:46:32) :
“Incidentally, I notice that several in the media seem to be now calling us “climate contrarians,” which is an improvement. (And one I suggested a few months ago, so I feel like maybe I’m making a difference.)”
“I prefer the term climate realist. As in it really has cooled for the last decade.”

Oh sure, wouldn’t it be nice if the media were to dub us with a complimentary term! But that’s a no-no. They need a neutral but descriptive term–and one that’s short as well.
Denier has unfortunate connotations. Skeptic is too weak. Realist is too complimentary. Critic would be OK, except that the formulation “climate critic” is silly on its face. “Dissenter” would be good (I like “dioxide dissenter”), except that it’s also a bit too soft (not capturing our embattled status) and that it’s too late now, since “contrarian” seems to have got some traction.

December 3, 2009 9:31 am

Lord Monckton addresses the actual science or lack thereof, and tells it like it is. I’m a major fan. But as some suggest, there’s more to manmade global warming than meets the eye. In fact, it’s huge: http://theseedsof9-11.com

December 3, 2009 9:44 am

thinkingmaker (07:46:50) :
I was waiting to see if anyone would pick up on that, but since nobody seemed to be taking an interest, I didn’t bother modifying it. What I meant to get across was that the additions do not merely accumulate like pouring water into a sealed bucket. The “bucket” has a hole in it, and the additions seep out just like the water which was already there.
Let’s say you have such a bucket with a continual feed of clear water into it, such that the water draining through the hole and the incoming water establish an equilibrium level of water. Now, we start pouring in a small amount of blue tinted water from another source. What happens? Does the bucket overflow? Only if it was already near to overflowing. But we know the analogous Earth “bucket” is not near to overflowing from CO2 because we know CO2 levels have been much higher in the geological record.
No, the blue water starts mixing with the clear water, and the overall level rises proportionately to the total incoming flow. You might also give a thought to how blue the water looks initially from above and in the steady state after it is well mixed.

Mike M
December 3, 2009 9:55 am

How about we call them the “Climate Counterfeiters” ?

Mike M
December 3, 2009 10:05 am

Yes Ross (09:15:56) and there is a great parallel concerning Mao Tse-Tung – his sparrow eradication program. Communism fails every time it’s tried and, when coupled with crop failures, requires something to divert people’s attention from the ineptitudes of ca ommie government toward a manufactured ‘boogie man’. In that case it was Mao blaming sparrows for eating the wheat to explain the poor yields. He actually put a bounty on dead sparrows! So instead of allowing farmers to keep what they earned from their fields to thereby reward them for spending more time working to try to improve yields, they were paid to spend their time chase sparrows thus causing even more starvation.

ross dickson
December 3, 2009 11:13 am

Thankyou Mike M. Didn’t know that but, have heard the saying “chasing sparrows”. so this is where it comes from.

December 3, 2009 11:58 am

Christopher Monkton was on a phone in show on BBC Radio 5 Live last night. The Richard Bacon Show. It was pretty fiery stuff about whether or not man made climate change is a big con. I think you can still listen to it if you missed it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007lb08 – there’s a list of the shows to which you can listen again. It’ll disappear in 6 days or so – because the facility only lasts a week

December 3, 2009 2:07 pm

Roger Knights,
“Denier has unfortunate connotations. Skeptic is too weak. Realist is too complimentary. Critic would be OK, except that the formulation “climate critic” is silly on its face. “Dissenter” would be good (I like “dioxide dissenter”), except that it’s also a bit too soft (not capturing our embattled status) and that it’s too late now, since “contrarian” seems to have got some traction.”
A new term has appeared in Nature and some other places – denialist. This seems to still carry the full aprobation of “denier” without those unfortunate connotations. Whereas one can be called a “denier” in a context of say, “he denied having a sexual relationship with that woman” a denialist would be a pronoun that described somebody holding a disbelief of a phenomenon or event that any reasonable person of sound mind would hold to be a self evident truth or verifiable fact.
I find the term more offensive than the original “denier”. But as to who the real denialists are, history will have the final word.

December 3, 2009 2:43 pm

The climatologists at CRU are bureaucrats, and don’t fit the image many of us still retain, against the evidence, of what a scientist is like. They manipulated data and persecuted rivals to obtain enhanced funding and prestige – no-nos if you are a scientist, but basically what bureaucrats do for a living.
See “The war on the weather”:

Mike M
December 3, 2009 2:58 pm

When you factor in 3rd world starvation from mandated bio-fuel production, disease from lack of refrigeration, un-clean water and other foul things associated with an energy impoverished infrastructure, there’s no question WHO is perpetrating crimes against humanity here and WHO are the ones denying it … and it ain’t us. Whenever anyone calls me a ‘denier’ I always try to mention what Al Gore’s buddy and communist Maurice Strong said – “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”, then hold up a mirror in their face. Whose ‘world’ are you speaking of Maurice? Where would the 3rd world BE today without a high output industrialized civilization around to give them a chance at avoiding disease, having clean water and growing enough food so that they don’t have to have 12 children because 11 die before they’re 10 years old. These commie socialists are a pox on the world whose only agenda is to grab power to satiate their own egos and leave the masses in abject misery. Save the planet my A$$ Maurice, your game is OVER.

December 3, 2009 3:34 pm

Excellent read. Shows the extent of what some will do for fame and money. How preconceived notions are justified and made the “truth”.

December 3, 2009 8:35 pm

Does seem like AGW is dead on its feet now.
Its not the beginning of the end only the end of the beginning, the battle will go on because politicians and the MSM are so heavily vested in AGW but, battles or not, the end is at least in sight. Then the consprators will turn on each other, mutual blame, accusations, in-fighting etc. Pure entertainment!

December 4, 2009 6:11 am

Please forward to ” The Bill Good Show” the ” Prime Minister of Canada’s office”
” The Roy Green Show” ; ” W 5″ ” CTV Network” and file under Climategate on Google.

Mick Leahy
December 4, 2009 1:00 pm

Would like, in the interest of truth, to point out to Ross Dickson, that his view of the Spanish Conquistadores, is itself derived from propaganda. They didn’t destroy civilisations, they rescued the subservient peoples of South and Central America from murderous Incas and Aztecs who were systematically sacrificing them in thousands for their gods. This modern liberal-secular lie is a perfect example of how you only have to lie loud and often enough to be believed, just like ‘global warming’.

John Diffenthal
December 4, 2009 2:56 pm

Mick, I can’t believe that there are many on here that don’t believe that the earth is warmer today than it was a century ago. The issues we should be talking about are:
– is warming due to carbon dioxide?
– is the warming anthropogenic?
– can CRU ever gain any scientific credibility?
– can the IPCC manage to persuade the world to introduce cap and trade within 12 months?
Now, most of us have already made up our minds on these issues but we are just bigoted deniers even if some of us are liberal.

John Diffenthal
December 4, 2009 2:57 pm

… and how do I know this? George Monbiot said so!

December 4, 2009 2:59 pm

One can assume that to ensure President Obama’s presence at Copenhagen it was arranged that he recieve a Noble Prize. Since Oslo is only a 30 minute flight from the climate summit (which was arranged to coincide) he could not not attend. Since his presence was needed to give the climate gathering some badly needed legitimacy, the CO2 kooks were ecstatic – too bad about climategate eh?

Mick Leahy
December 4, 2009 4:29 pm

John, I agree that the Earth is warmer today than a century ago, but it is considerably colder than 5 centuries ago. I fear the meddling we are seeing may trigger us into another ice-age, something that was quite common in the past.

alan neil ditchfield
December 5, 2009 10:25 am

Lebensraum is space needed for survival.
Since there is not enough lebensraum to go around only the fittest survive, said the Nazi ideologues. Their doctrine brings to mind the joke about the space mission, sponsored by the United Nations to promote world peace. Three astronauts were assigned to the mission: a Russian, an American and a dark representative of the Third World. There was the proverbial failure and the imperative of ejecting one astronaut to save lebensraum for the other two. This unleashed a clamorous movement to save the obvious victim, and the vote of the majority prevailed. The survivors would be the winners of an intellectual contest. Since the representative of the Third World was known for his wide knowledge, the hard choice would be settled between the other two; a plague on both their houses. So the contest began with questions put to the Russian, the American and the Third World representative.
First Question: Who dropped the first atomic bomb?
The Americans, sneered the Russian astronaut.
Second Question: What cities were destroyed by atomic bombs?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, replied the American.
Third Question: Names & addresses of the victims?
The question put to the representative of the Third World was not answered. Ejection followed.
The Green activists of Europe damn progress as an illusion that led to plunder of the planet to serve wasteful consumption of too many. They want to shrink world population and economy, which they rate as excessive for the non-renewable resources of a finite planet. They have already had their way in Europe, with countries with declining populations and stagnant economies, and want the rest of the world to join them in a suicide pact.
Suicide is the right word, and not a metaphor. In its support there is an organization, VHMENT Voluntary Human Extinction Movement that preaches this openly. See http://www.vhment.org with its slogan: “May we live long and die out”. It means that they only want human reproduction to cease, and that in good time the planet would be saved by the natural death of all living humans. The dodge avoids charges of incitement to violence. In their view, mankind must extinguish itself in a magnanimous gesture to a tormented planet so as to return it to the natural beauty it had before it was defiled by human hand. Save the planet for whom? Save it for an audience of grateful crabs and cockroaches?
Others are in a hurry. It is the case of Theodor Kaczynski, better known as the UNABOMBER. A graduate of Harvard and Michigan universities, he started an academic career at the University of California – Berkeley. In 1971 he exchanged his career for the life of a hermit in a remote cabin in the Rocky Mountains, Montana. He was prompted to his deeds as a terrorist after seeing human encroachment on his surroundings. He never tried to enlist followers, a trait that for 17 years made it hard to track the perpetrator of mysterious bombings. Between 1978 and 1995 this lonely terrorist sent 16 homemade bombs to technological research institutes and the offices of airlines. The bombs killed 3 and wounded 23. In April 1995 he sent a letter to the New York Times promising to abstain from terrorism in exchange for publication of his manifesto, The Industrial Society and its Future in the New York Times or Washington Post.
This was done. Publication led to Kaczynski’s identification by people who had a recollection of his ideas in old letters; he was tracked, arrested, faced trial and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Manifesto, with 35 thousand words, does not have the incoherent language of a raving madman; it is well crafted and has the structure of the usual academic thesis with numbered sections and cross-references. It opens with the statement: the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Kaczynski justified the bombings as a way to draw attention to the erosion of the world by modern technologies demanding big organizations that grow at the expense of gradual stultification of man. The Green activists disassociate themselves from morbid personalities for political and public relations reasons, but if they want the inspiration of lucid text for writing a Suicide’s Note of the Western World they should read the Manifesto at: http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
With Europe in their pocket and a wavering America under Obama, the nightmare of Green activists is the economic expansion of China and India. Brazil matters little; its growth is at half the Asian rate and its population is less than one tenth of the combined populations of the Asian giants. Russia is on the way out, with a declining population and mired in the legacy of 70 years of Communism. The Greens fear that billions in Asia will rise to a better standard of living, be it at a level much lower than those of the West. They know it would be politically incorrect to label the Asian hunger for a better diet as the sin of gluttony but their mean spirit is present in worries over the launching of the Nano popular car, the least expensive on earth (US$2500) by Tata Group of India. They envisioned it as a harbinger of Doomsday, with Asian fleets of hundreds of millions of cars, demanding non-renewable resources and emitting CO2. The Lebensraum Doctrine once again shows its ugly head.
The giants India and China have weight and stature to reject the fate of the dark astronaut of the joke. Their economic rise will continue and they may some day dwarf the Western world, even if the sun stands still and the heavens fall. In my next article I will question the assumptions and tenets of the doctrine of Lebensraum.
The Lebensraum doctrine of Green activists rests on three tenets they accept with an act of faith:
• We are running out of space. World population is already excessive on a limited planet and cannot grow without dire effects.
• We are running out of means. The planet’s non-renewable resources are being depleted by consumption at a rate that renders economic expansion unsustainable.
• We shall fry. Carbon dioxide emitted by human economic activity causes global warming that shall make the planet uninhabitable.
When such tenets are quantified, the contrast between true and false stands out sharply.
Is overpopulation a grave problem? The sum of urban areas of the United States is equivalent to 2% of the area of the country, and to 6% in densely inhabited countries such as England and Holland. And there is plenty of green in urban areas. If comparison is limited to land covered by buildings and pavements the occupied land in the whole world amounts to 0,04% of the terrestrial area of the planet. With 99.96% unoccupied the idea of an overcrowded planet is an exaggeration. Population forecasts are uncertain but the most accepted ones foresee stability of world population to be reached in the 21st century. According to some, world population may begin to decline at the end of this century. With so much elbowroom it is untenable that world population is excessive or shall ever become so.
Strictly speaking, no natural resource is non-renewable in a universe ruled by the Law of Conservation of Mass. In popular form it holds that “Nothing is created, nothing is lost, all is transformed.” Human usage is not subtracted from the mass of the planet, and in theory all material used may be recycled. The possibility of doing so depends on availability and low cost of energy. When fusion energy becomes operative it will be available in practically unlimited quantities. The source is deuterium, a hydrogen isotope found in water, in a proportion of 0.03%. One cubic kilometer of seawater contains more energy than can be obtained from combustion of all known petroleum reserves of the world. Since oceans hold 3 billion cubic kilometers of water, energy will last longer than the human species.
There is no growing shortfall of resources signaled by rising prices. Since the middle of the 19th century The Economist publishes consistent indices of values of commodities and they have all declined, over the period, due to technological advances. The decline has been benign. The cost of feeding a human being was 8 times greater in 1850 than it is today. In 1950, less than half of a world population of 2 billion had an adequate diet, above 2000 calories per day. Today, 80% have the diet, and world population is three times greater.
There is a problem with the alleged global warming. It stopped in 1998, after having risen in the 23 previous years, and unleashing a scare over its effects. Since 1998 it has been followed by 11 years of declining temperatures, in a portent of a cold 21st century. This shows that there are natural forces shaping climate, more powerful than manmade carbon dioxide and anything mankind can do for or against world climate. The natural forces include cyclical oscillation of ocean temperatures, sunspot activity and the effect of magnetic activity of the sun on cosmic rays. All such cycles are foreseeable, but there is no general theory of climate with predictive capacity. What knowledge exists comes from one hundred fields, such as meteorology, oceanography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, etc. with partial contributions to the understanding of climate.
Devoid of support of solid theory and empirical data, the mathematical models that underpin alarmist forecasts amount to speculative thought that reflects the assumptions fed into the models. Such computer simulations offer no rational basis for public policy that inhibits economic activity “to save the planet”. And carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is the nutrient needed for photosynthesis that supports the food chain of all living beings of the planet.
Stories of doom circulate daily. Anything that happens on earth has been blamed on global warming: a Himalayan earthquake, a volcanic eruption, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, tribal wars in Africa, heat wave in Paris, recent severe winters in North America, the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico, known for five centuries, the collapse of a bridge in Minnesota. Evo Morales blames Americans for the summer floods in Bolivia.
Global warming is not a physical phenomenon; it is a political and journalistic phenomenon that finds parallel in the totalitarian doctrines that inebriated masses deceived by demagogues. As Chris Patten put it: “Green politics at its worst amounts to a sort of Zen fascism; less extreme, it denounces growth and seeks to stop the world so that we can all get off”. In the view of Professor Aaron Wildavsky global warming is the mother of all environmental scares. “Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist’s dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population’s eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.” Their dream is the hippies’ lifestyle of idleness, penury, long hair, unshaven face, blue jeans, sandals and vegetarian diet, imposed on the world by decree of Big Brother, and justified by the Lebensraum fallacy. The murky source of the fallacy is the theme of the next article.
The Lebensraum trademark carries the curse of “Made in Germany”. Once again, Europe is the bastion of an anti-liberal and anti democratic ideology, as if the 20th century “scientific” tyrannies were not enough. Green activists are now engaged in the demolition of achievements of two centuries of an Industrial Revolution that redeemed four fifths of mankind from dire want. It is fitting to stress again that in 1850 the cost of food to sustain one human life was eight times greater than it is today.
Hostility against the victory of science and technology over famine and disease can only be understood as misanthropy, a hatred that conceives mankind as a pest that destroys Earth and blasphemes goddess Nature. This belief, so widespread in Europe, is held by Green Parties, the last refuge of orphans and widows of Communism. They now seek the limitation and rationing of the production and use of fuel, a control that would give Green activists power over every aspect of every citizen’s life, everywhere. Green activists unleashed the current panic over global warming as their main instrument to further their grab for power. They blame global warming on manmade carbon dioxide generated by economic activity, and write into law the damning of a harmless gas as a pollutant, when it is the nutrient that nourishes all that lives on earth.
But Nature refuses to endorse their designs. World temperatures have fallen since 1998, after having risen in the previous 23 years, a measured fact that rendered global warming an awkward name. It is now called climate change, a label that fits any contingency, and has its justification as a publicity trick. When a product falls into disrepute, a switch of brand name is common commercial practice to reverse sagging sales. There was no need to change the villains. They are still the big bad oil companies and the coal miners.
Nobody stated the case of Green activists against science and technology with greater lucidity than Theodor Kaczynski in his UNABOMBER Manifesto. His witch’s brew had been fermenting since the 19th century Ernst Haeckel and the 20th century Richard Walther Darré, German thinkers who respectively coined the words Ecology and Organic Farming. They are not the only sources of Lebensraum doctrine, but they are emblematic of a maze of twisted thought that inspired Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
Haeckel was a biologist who studied populations and the interaction of living beings with the environment, a subject he called Ecology. He observed that populations expand until they reach the limits of Lebensraum in a struggle for existence in which the fitter species displace the weaker species. Such thought unfolded into Eugenics and the Pan-German geopolitics of the 20th century that held that the Drang nach Osten — the march toward the East, is the manifest destiny of the German people. Under inexorable scientific laws, the Nordic race was bound to conquer and annihilate the inferior races that occupied limited Lebensraum.
This was the central idea that shaped Nazi doctrine and action. Application of the doctrine fell, among other followers of Hitler, to Darré, first as the propagandist and organizer of the Nazi Party in rural Germany and later as minister of agriculture for ten of the twelve years of the Third Reich. Darré was a mentor of Heinrich Himmler, future leader of the SS, who got to know Darré at a Back-to-the-Land Movement rally in 1928. That year, Darré published the first of three books: The Peasantry as Life Force of the Nordic Race, followed by Blood and Soil and A New Nobility from Blood and Soil. In these books, Darré held that the peasant was the backbone of the Germanic nation and needed protection to ensure the survival of his farming. This included support of small peasant holdings, land conservation and organic farming, an application of the “bio-dynamic” theories of Rudolf Steiner. Darré was fired. His insistence on Organic Farming and his rejection of modern farming methods stunted the food supply of wartime Germany. At the Nuremburg trials, Darré was sentenced for his role in planning Nordic colonization of Polish lands.
To be fair, Germans are not the only ones to further Lebensraum doctrine in its present form. In recent times help came from the Anglo-Saxon side. In a long line of fellow travelers, two stand tall: Alexander King and Paul Erlich.
King, a renowned scientist, was captain of the Anglo-American scientific team at the time of World War II, co-operation that also gave the world DDT, and the hope of eradicating insect-transmitted diseases, until it was cut short by environmentalists. Two decades later he was co-founder of the Club of Rome that sponsored the Limits to Growth study (1972). With 12 million copies sold, it is arguably the most influential publication to spread belief in the tenet that a limited planet cannot support unlimited economic growth. In his memoirs King let slip a senile remark: “my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.”
King was aided and abetted by entomologist Paul Erlich, who leapt into fame as author of the 1968 bestseller Population Bomb. The book predicted that: “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death”. The battle to feed was lost and nothing could be done to avoid mass famine. The radical action he advocated included blockading food supplies to countries that refused to implement state control to make population fit the Lebensraum of the world. John Holdren can arguably be added to the list as co-author, with Erlich of Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. Compulsory abortion, use of water supply to sterilize populations.
The lesser breeds without the Law must be kept in their place by famine and disease. That is the grim bottom line of the Lebensraum creed of Green activists and their Nazi forerunners.

Mick Leahy
December 5, 2009 1:05 pm

Alan Neil, that is a brilliant synopsis. It has the ring of truth about it. I would think that Man must be left to carry on in freedom as he has for most of his existence, never forgetting that he has been granted Dominion over Creation which also involves responsibility(in the case of DDT, it was a great innovation, but with side-effects, so it needed to be refined). I believe if we go too far we will be balanced as usual by War, Famine, Pestilence and Flood, in other words, Nature can look after itself, we shouldn’t worry about that. Nature, though, is meant to be Man’s servant and I don’t think we have abused it overly yet-it certainly wasn’t created for the benefit of cockroaches;if Man became extinct, as these lunatics would wish, would Nature even exist without consciousness to comprehend it? Finally, I wouldn’t knock the peasant farmer-he is the most efficient producer, and we are going to need maximum efficiency of food production in the decades ahead. I have no problem with GM foods, it’s just a better form of selective breeding, but I don’t like the idea of centralizing it with large multinational corporations, particularly with this (satanic) idea of patenting food-types. My 2 cents.

Roger Hammil
December 7, 2009 1:53 pm

I am disappointed in you all
If you people really believe that a single person and his manipulated data is enough to challenge a fact (global warming) which hundreds of the world’ best scientists have been proving for decades, then I hope you don’t vote in this country. Has everyone forgotten about what the Vostok ice cores and Mauna Loa CO2 profiles have shown us? Don’t get me wrong, I realize that any hypothesis on human contributions to globabl warming are merely quantitative, and no specific raw data exists, but these variations are based off of natural Milankovich cycles people, and they have been happening for well over a billion years! Global warming is happening, and only the ignorant would dispute this fact.
Do the research before you pollute the media with unsupported political bias.

Mick Leahy
December 7, 2009 3:00 pm

Mr Hammil, you may not like the politics of most of the contributors here, but I would think most of us certainly vote, and most of us seem to have far better manners than you too. Of course, maybe you’re just too intelligent for us mere mortals, but spare us that spurious Milankovich cycle nonsense. Thankfully, the Chinese and Indians will ensure your attempted global fascism won’t even get started. Personally, I would prefer to fry or drown than be regulated back to the stone age by ‘green’ lunatics and if that’s political bias, that’s just fine by me.

December 8, 2009 5:51 am

Another excellent article by the Viscount. No wonder the warmist contingent quails in fear at the prospect of debating him again in a neutral, moderated forum.
Monckton routinely destroys his debate opponents because he is more knowledgeable than they are, and because the warmist contingent always uses deceit in their arguments. Lord Monckton is so well versed in their mendacity that he easily exposed their lies. That is why he is subjected to constant ad hominem attacks; the alarmist crowd can not refute him on a scientific basis.

P Solar
December 11, 2009 2:42 pm

Re.Sunfighter : “So do they know for certain now it was a whistleblower or is he just coming to that conclusion and writing it as if its a fact?”
No that is typical of Monkton, unfortunately.
While it’s good to see a prominent voice of decent he seems just as (even more) willing to bend to truth to fit his politics as those who have hi-jacked climate science.
I have to admit that this is the first time I’ve read that the leak was sent MSM before being leaked to the internet.
It’s good that he’s warning about the dangers of what is being put forward at Copenhagen but often unsubstanciated remarks probably means many people will dismiss what he says.

December 11, 2009 8:42 pm

Who do people believe, a Lord who is creating hot air himself or many people with years of experience and education?

Mike M
December 11, 2009 9:51 pm

Kwv, I tend to believe those people who are not being paid to lie over those who are. I also believe actual scientific proof and to date there is still no actual proof that human CO2 has any measurable affect on global temperature.

antony powell
December 12, 2009 1:16 pm

All this deliberate manipulation of scientific data on a comparable scale to his happened before. I refer to the manipulation of genetics in Communist Russia by Lysenko, under the protection of Stalin in the 1950’s

December 26, 2009 12:00 pm

Folks, the science that global warming is caused by hydro-carbons generated by humans is overwhelming and unequivocal. Reduce the hydro-carbons, and the temperature will start to go down. There are thousands of studies that support this fact. Maybe if we run out of oil, the problem will self-correct. Don’t be distracted by one article. Sure, there some studies that don’t stand up to scientific rigor, and they are being exposed for their weaknesses. Copenhagen is not a left wing conspiracy. Do you think all of the countries in the world have been snowed over by the environmentalists? Read this: http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482
[REPLY – Yes, actually I do think they have been snowed under. And not for the first time; this is just the deepest so far. And it’s not just one paper. And the current slow rate of warming per century is no threat at all — Positive feedback theory must also turn out to be true, and so far there’s a lot of observational evidence against it. (For that matter, temperature trend has been negative since 1998 while CO2 has increased.) We must keep an open mind and see where the science takes us. ~ Evan]

Mike M
December 26, 2009 6:59 pm

Hydro-carbons? I thought we were talking about CO2 not HC?

December 27, 2009 7:32 pm

You all sound like a bunch of conspiracy quacks.
“a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment:”
Get outta here!!
“The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:”
His crime was he illegally broke into the university and distributed confidential information. Hellooooo!!! That is a crime.

Mike M
December 28, 2009 4:12 am

Ang –
“Confidential”? So you are saying the meat and potatoes of all research that we PAY for should be kept a secret? If they want to chit chat off the clock they can use gmail. In the private sector, almost all corporations tell their employees that everything they write, every email, everything they post on Internet via the company server – is OPEN for inspection.
Give us ONE reason why government employees should not be treated the same especially given that they are supposed to be serving US – not the other way around?
And you do not think that signing away our right to use energy anyway we want to, cutting our fossil fuel use in half, (that is GUARANTEED to do what for the climate, exactly?), will not impact our economy? That is won’t shackle our destiny to the whim of the UN that is run by a bunch of leftist clowns? Get outta here! Let’s see YOU cut YOUR energy consumption in half first? Better still, you and that stinking lying elitist hypocrite AL GORE.

December 29, 2009 7:06 pm

Check out the facts on ClimateGate at:
I find it amazing that the naysayers of global warming take one example of bad science, and use it to make their cause.
Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don’t change scientific consensus on global warming.
December 10, 2009
Corrected: Dec. 22, 2009
[Reply: Posting of the link is sufficient. ~dbs, mod.]

Mike M
December 29, 2009 9:03 pm

factcheck.org is run by Annenberg which has been taken over by radical leftists, (why else would they hand over $500k to a known terrorist like Bill Ayers?). They will say whatever they think they can get away with.
“leading scientists” – WHO? Ones paid with our tax dollars who know they’re employment is secure as long as they can keep everyone believing that there’s actually a ‘problem’ with the climate? It’s a huge HOAX and it’s over. There remains ZERO proof that human CO2 has any measurable affect on climate.. zero! The money flowing to these criminals must stop now – especially to the ones at the UN who are simply perpetuating the marxist/Gaia ideas of Al gore’s buddy Maurice Strong to de-industrialize the free world making the USA his prime target.
Maurice Strong said: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?”
That is the most LUNATIC thing I’ve ever heard and it’s from the very person who began the UN ‘s original Environmental Program as it’s director. He actually thinks that humans are some sort of ‘disease’ on this planet and it is up to HIM to decide who has a ‘right’ to be here. “Man Made Global Warming” fell into his lap as the perfect hoax to foist his agenda upon us. Thus began the AGW snow job with a whole gaggle of useful idiots all funded with MY and YOUR tax money via government programs kowtowing to the whim of the UN.
The UN’s “Oil for Food” scandal was not just a sign of a little corruption at the UN, it was just the tip of the iceberg.

January 4, 2010 12:43 am

John Holdren [Obama science advisor] and James Hansen [nasa goddard institute] are both former global cooling fanatics-saying we must take drastic action to prevent another ice age. Now they are the IPCC authorities……saying the opposite…….well,here in Iowa,it is damn cold,so maybe they were right the first time!

January 15, 2010 1:17 pm

Here’s a view from China. Basically don’t blame Beijing, they only want what we’ve got. http://wp.me/pDjed-aF

January 23, 2010 6:43 am

Don’t be bamboozled by the ClimateGate report. Check out the facts at http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
I find it sad that educated people fall victim to all of these conspirancy and data manipulation theories.
The facts are overwhelming folks….the climate is warming due to increase in hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, and humans are largely responsible.
Factcheck.org Summary:
“In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.”

January 23, 2010 8:07 am

Robert E. Connors (19:06:43),
Who are you trying to kid? Factcheck is not credible.
Aside from a couple of skeptical sources, who play no part in their conclusions, they swallow the globaloney from these biased sources, among others: NPR, ABC News, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Peter Frumhoff, East Anglia University, The Times of London, Keith Briffa, the UN/IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, the Associated Press, Keith Seitter, Time magazine, the Michael Mann controlled Journal of Climate, etc.
The Factcheck article repeatedly refers to the disseminated emails as “hacked” and “stolen,” with zero corroborating evidence. How impartial is that? Factcheck can spoon feed its biases to the general public, but readers here are up to speed on the issue and know better.
You’re new here. Stick around, follow the discussion – and if cognitive dissonance hasn’t taken over your belief system, the scales will soon fall from your eyes. You can start by thinking about the fact that Phil Jones, at the center of the leaked email controversy, is currently out of a job. That happened as a direct result of the emails. And he’s not unemployed because he was too honest.

January 24, 2010 8:47 am

Factcheck is impartial. Do you own research. It equally criticizes both sides of the political spectrum. It is not a left wing conspiracy, but believe what you want.

January 2, 2011 5:23 pm

Wow!You completed a few nice points there. I did a search on the issue and found mainly persons will consent with your blog. This kind of web page may perhaps be one of the best I have seen in quite a long time. Your current post provides really great content material. I’ve recently been searching all over the place for information for this sorts of stuff. I looked everywhere, I looked on Google, and I didn’t find your posting right until now. Honestly, you undoubtedly provide fantastic written content, it is enlightening. I will be coming back here in the not to distant future. I highly recommend you keep the site up-to-date, it’s good. [trimmed].
[Yes, the site is kept up to date. Several times a day in fact. Thank you for your comments, but our policies require we remove extraneous links. Robt]

Verified by MonsterInsights