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 WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH
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.
REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE
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.
THE NATURE ‘TRICK’ TO ‘HIDE THE DECLINE’ IN TEMPERATURES
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.
BREAKING THE BROKEN CODE: DISSECTING THE DODGY DATA
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.
… and how do I know this? George Monbiot said so!
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?
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.
CLIMATEGATE
(1) THE LEBENSRAUM JOKE
____________________________________________________________________________________
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.
CLIMATEGATE
(2) THE LEBENSRAUM FALLACY
________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
.
CLIMATEGATE
(3) SOURCES OF LEBENSRAUM THOUGHT
______________________________________________________________________________________
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who do people believe, a Lord who is creating hot air himself or many people with years of experience and education?
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.
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
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]
Hydro-carbons? I thought we were talking about CO2 not HC?
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.
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.
Check out the facts on ClimateGate at:
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
I find it amazing that the naysayers of global warming take one example of bad science, and use it to make their cause.
Climategate”
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
Summary…
[Reply: Posting of the link is sufficient. ~dbs, mod.]
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.
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!
Here’s a view from China. Basically don’t blame Beijing, they only want what we’ve got. http://wp.me/pDjed-aF
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.”
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.
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.
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]