Damning new investigation into Climategate inquiries

Climate Research Unit (CRU) building at UEA

Press release

London, 14 September – The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations.

The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.

In particular, the report finds that:

  • none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
  • insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
  • none managed to be objective and comprehensive
  • none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
  • terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
  • none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.

Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF report, said:

“The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims.”

“All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place,” Andrew Montford warned.

Lord Turnbull, who wrote the foreword to the GWPF report, said:

“The report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates that all three inquiries have serious flaws. The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, ie early and conclusive closure and restoration of confidence.”

“The new House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has rightly reopened the issue, would do well to study Andrew Montford’s report and take evidence from him. It needs to satisfy itself as to whether the criticisms made are valid and whether the exoneration claimed is justified.”

“Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need,” Lord Turnbull said.

Lord Turnbull also called on the Government to look at the serious criticisms of the IPCC made in the recent InterAcademy Council Report. He said: “The Government should demand that the fundamental reforms recommended by the IAC in the practice, governance and leadership of the IPCC are implemented immediately for its Fifth Assessment.”

Notes to editors:

A full copy of the report (The Climategate Inquiries) can be downloaded from 11am here:

About the author

Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (2008), a history of some of the events leading up to the release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. He writes a blog specialising in climate change issues at http://www.bishop-hill.net and has made many media appearances discussing global warming from a sceptic perspective.

Lord Turnbull

Andrew Turnbull was Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05. He is now a Crossbench member of the House of Lords and a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

GWPF Reports

Views expressed in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its Trustees, its Academic Advisory Council members or its Directors.

The GWPF

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity. Its main purpose is to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant.

The GWPF’s primary purpose is to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate that is frequently distorted by prejudice and exaggeration.

We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, we do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.

For further information and interview requests, contact:

Dr Benny Peiser  – The Global Warming Policy Foundation – 1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB – tel: 020 7930 6856 – mob: 07553 361717 – info@thegwpf.org

Advertisements

103 thoughts on “Damning new investigation into Climategate inquiries

  1. Mods,

    The fact you just bare faced copied it off another site without reference means that perhaps there are new moderators? Just getting used to the job?

    Reply: With a couple of exceptions, moderators do not put up posts. ~ ctm

  2. The good Bishop nailed it once again. His observations on the failings of the various Climategate panels are all accurate as well as pointed. Sadly, I don’ t think they will have much effect.

    As I’ve noted before, the UK likes to do their whitewashes in just this style. Convene several inquiries that each look at peripheral points and collectively let the main subject fall through the cracks.

    But at the very least Andrew Montford has memorialized their failings.

  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

    “The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a registered, educational charity and think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.”

    “Established in November 2009, and chaired by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, GWPF states that it is “deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated” to address climate change and that it aims to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant”.”

    “David Aaronovitch noted the GWPF’s launch in The Times, writing “Lord Lawson’s acceptance of the science turns out, on close scrutiny, to be considerably less than half-hearted. Thus he speaks of ‘the (present) majority scientific view’, hinting rather slyly at the near possibility of a future, entirely different scientific view. (…) ‘Sceptic’ (…) is simply a misnomer. People such as Lord Lawson are not sceptical, for if one major peer-reviewed piece of scientific research were ever to be published casting doubt on climate change theory, you just know they’d have it up in neon at Piccadilly Circus. They are only sceptical about what they don’t want to be true.”[16]

    The Daily Mail stated that “(Lord Lawson) said the integrity of the evidence on which ‘far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions’ are based has been called into question and the reputation of British science was ‘seriously tarnished’. (He) was launching The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank devoted to challenging conventional wisdom about climate change.”[17]

    The Guardian quoted Bob Ward of the LSE as saying “some of those names are straight from the Who’s Who of current climate change sceptics…It’s just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn’t been through scrutiny”. The article cast doubt on the idea that an upsurge in scepticism was underway, noting that “in (the US) Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science”[18]”

    At least now we know who the thieves were of those stolen CRU emails, the GWPF!

  4. We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts.
    Poor lads, need some charity from Big Oil!

  5. We will see what the MSM makes of this in the UK. The key thing is whether Roger Harrabin at the BBC will mention it. I wonder if he was in the HoL for the release of the report.

  6. Philip Thomas is entirely correct. It is bad form to copy an entire article without attribution. If you have permission to do so, you aught to show that in your article, Anthony.

    As for the article itself, it is not news to regular WUWT visitors. As many have posted, the various “whitewashes” were the moral equivalent of a court trying a serious fraud case, and banning the prosecution from court and then only asking the defence team to conduct the prosecution case in front of a hand-picked jury of the accused’s best friends.

    It made whitewashes look honest and above board.

    REPLY: The article was sent in it’s entirety to me via private email to my personal account, with the heading of PRESS RELEASE.

    Note it says “PRESS RELEASE” in the article I’ve posted.

    I need permission to repost press releases sent to me personally? You both need to get a life. – Anthony

  7. Yes!!! Investigate the investigation(s), and then, investigate those. No stopping until heads are rolling. The witch hunt continues! And the best part is the obvious non-bias of a person like Andrew Montford.

    Give me a break…

  8. Be attentive guys, we are living in historical times which we could tell our grandchildren: The End of Anglia, becoming greener and greener.

  9. “One thing. I don’t think you can just quickly cut and paste in entirity somebody else’s article without giving some sort of credit”

    Huh? I expect that is why it was described as a “Press Release”

  10. You would be surprised what you can do with the facts and convincing lay people of what is happening. They may not be scientists, but once told what is going on the can figure it out … Be your own activist. Polar bears are particular easy targets, people have no idea where they came from, nor how long they have been around, not how far they can swim.

    The end of the last ice age and sea rise is also a lucrative point to make.

    I end my pitches with giving out the WUWT website ^_^

  11. EFS_Junior, can you present a single piece of evidence to support your ridiculous allegation?

    A) The emails and related data were located (apparently) on open public servers, therefore the charge of theft does not stand. No more than a charge of theft against you for downloading the images and text of this HTML document you are reading.

    B) Where is there any evidence, let alone proof, that the GWPF were the people who first accessed this data and spread it worldwide? The BBC had access to this data long before the GWPF was even established.

    As I understand it, the GWPF was created in response to the outcry caused by the discovery of seriously “dodgy” and wholly UNscientific practices as exposed by the CRU email and data LEAK.

  12. Jim says: 
    September 14, 2010 at 9:44 am 
    The WUWT posting did open with acknowledgment of the source. Read the first sentence again.

    That was just the GWPFs introduction to its own release. All other versions of this release have the original source link but WUWT just packaged it as if it was their own. ClimateRealists gave source http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6291&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29

    But then I’m so pleased it was posted that I’m willing to overlook this quibble.

    REPLY: You really need to review my inline comment upstream. You’re way off base here. – Anthony

  13. Big Government finances, promotes, sponsors at taxpayers’ expense every possible corrupt and malfeasant agenda that enhances its parasitic apparat’s hegemony over private citizens’ autonomy on every level. To the extent this peculating mandarinate preempts initiative, innovation, productive risk-takers’ rewards, just so will civil polities subside to socialized cesspools guaranteed to represent the worst-case of all scenarios.

    Now on the threshold of a looming 70-year Maunder Minimum, if not an overdue end to our 12,250-year Holocene Interglacial Epoch itself, Thanatists who “love death more than life” (as jihadi Muslim terrorists are wont to say) are eager to reduce Gaia’s human population by 85% (not including themselves) by hardship and starvation to below a billion souls.

    Anyone thinking this is an exaggeration had best re-read Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Peter Singer, James Hansen, Keith Farnish and others of their ilk from 1968. Wherever their thoroughly vicious mentality originates, these Luddite sociopaths pursue a homicidal agenda that prefers you dead.

  14. This article (apologies Anthony, it is properly attributed at the start, I missed that) only reinforces what regulars at WUWT already know. that these multiple whitewashes were the moral equivalent of a criminal court case trying a case of fraud, where the prosecution was excluded from the court and the defense were invited to invent and present the prosecution case in front of a jury of the accused’s friends and closest colleagues.

    They made whitewashes look honest and above board

  15. There’s ‘establishment’ – and then there’s real establishment in Great Britain.

    Just check the credentials of Lord Turnbull, from the top of this post:

    ‘Andrew Turnbull was Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05. He is now a Crossbench member of the House of Lords …’

    He is what is commonly understood as a ‘Mandarin’. What he says has more weight in government circles than what the ‘establishment’ figures such as Lords Oxbourgh and Muir have put their names to in their whitewash attempts.

    This report is not another example of brave flag-waving by some sceptics, it is more like a lit fuse, burning its way slowly but surely towards the coming explosion.

    Bishop Hill has this very interesting remark on his blog:
    “The moment of excitement was at the end, where Graham Stringer piped up from the back of the room. I hadn’t noticed he was there before then, but his comments did bring a certain focus to events. >SNIP>
    … hearing from a member of the Science and Technology Committee that what was going on at CRU was literature and not science made the question of how much I was paid for the report seem somehow deeply irrelevant.”
    (My emphasis)

    One thing is for sure – this is not going to go away any time soon!

  16. @EFS_Junior says: September 14, 2010 at 9:35 am

    And the reason why you are coming on here with your wildly tendentious warmist comments, totally ignoring the points at issue, is……..?

    Couldn’t be that, hiding behind your anonymous troll name, there is another little Bob Ward in the making, someone who actually earns his living by promoting CAGW myths and distortions?

  17. Actually Phillip Thomas anything which can be considered the press can copy and paste from a “press release” at will without attribution (although there is an obligation to the readers to note that it is a press release when the re-publisher might be confused as the originator). A press release is a peculiar form of communication that is concerned with distribution of the information in the press release, and republishing the entire thing only enhances that distribution; inherent in the act of issuing a press release is permission to republish it. The only problem occurs when portions of a press release are used in a manner inconsistent with making the information in the press release widely available, and even then it is nearly always permissible.

  18. It’s important that such news release make it to WUWT since it gives such news releases a much greater internet coverage than those sites where they come from.

    Keep up the good work Anthony.

  19. Curious – you’ve got the date of the good Bishop’s book as 2008, whereas the press release says 2010. How did that happen?

  20. “Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (2008),”

    Interesting. Does he have a time-machine?

  21. Re copying – it is a press release, and it says at the top it is a press release and where it cam from. I think the idea is that you are supposed to copy press releases :-)

    I was really interested when I saw the title but when I saw where it was from it was obvious it was not going to carry too much weight. Unless the media pick it up that is – let’s hope.

  22. EFS_Junior says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Are you trying to dump any credibility on this website that you may have had?

    Quoting from Wikipedia on the subject of AGW just demonstrates you haven’t been paying attention.

  23. EFS_Junior says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:35 am

    ‘At least now we know who the thieves were of those stolen CRU emails, the GWPF!’

    That’s libelous. Be careful.

    Dominic

  24. “Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need,” Lord Turnbull said.

    It will be hard to restore public trust in the face of the “scientists” fiddling the historical record, writing computer programs that predict catastrophe regardless of data input, blackballing scientists who don’t agree, ignoring FOIA requests, and subverting the peer review process so that only their inside club can get published.

    Just presenting the emails for public view would show the true colors of the government funded “scientists”
    http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
    There are over 1000 emails, which makes it hard to claim they have been taken out of context.

  25. Ken Hall says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:59 am

    EFS_Junior, can you present a single piece of evidence to support your ridiculous allegation?
    ——————-
    Well, I read a bit of Junior’s post and got bored with his ridiculous drivel after the first couple of paragraphs, so skipped to the next post, but then his last sentence caught my eye and I had to read the rest of his utter, inane and spiteful rubbish to fill in the gap and try to make some sense of it.

    What a waste of time.

  26. I am beginning to think it is about time I write a letter to The BBC and to The Royal Society (Two identical letters will be posted to each) asking them why what is clear for me, a mere layperson, to see is impossible for them to comprehend, namely that the good ship IPCC is sinking, and that it is sinking fast.

    It is clear, quite clear, to me that a shift of 0.01% in atmospheric gases cannot compare or outmanoeuvre any change in the irradiation of the Sun., however small it may be.

  27. Benjamin P. says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:53 am
    Yes!!! Investigate the investigation(s), and then, investigate those. No stopping until heads are rolling. The witch hunt continues! And the best part is the obvious non-bias of a person like Andrew Montford.

    Give me a break…
    ————Reply:
    And you’re saying those on the initial inquiries were NOT biased?
    Investigations should continue (and will continue, I might add) until the objective of the inquiries has been met; obviously that did not happen with the original investigations as all were blatantly insufficient in that regard. We’re after the truth, sir. Only that. But certainly that until it is obtained.

  28. The UK Establishment has spoken: “Climategate – No wrong has been done.”

    Having once done battle with the UK Establishment and been threatened by some of its leading litigators, I know that what is right and good is an inconsequential consideration to it, the only thing which matters is the preservation of the status quo.

    In this instance, the status quo is the acceptance of bad science as fact, hence the string of whitewashes by those with obvious conflicts of interest.

    It is the same the whole world over: ‘white collar’ criminals rarely get their just deserves and the fraud exposed in Climategate is a ‘white collar’ crime.

  29. No matter how you cut it, most of the CRU staff should be gone as they simply cannot be trusted. Confidence in the science cannot be achieved when it is still being maintained and presented by those who have proved that they were willing to adulterate it with no qualms and even defend their actions.

    The IPCC needs to be dissolved as it has no purpose scientifically. It is a political body set up to make the case for emissions control worldwide. At the very least, its upper levels, those who adulterate the scientific conclusions of the real scientists, should be canned.

    Only by real house-cleaning can anything be accomplished here and, even so, appointments being biased as they tend to be, we need real watchdogs to check everything. There is just too much riding on worldwide policy decisions to let a small group control the science, as we can see here.

    There is good reason to make arguments in the US COngress based on economics. The warmists have faith that the science is solid, which it is definitely not, but they are also largely scientifically ignorant to boot. But, they do tend to have a sense or knowledge of basic economics, so we have to appeal to their expertise. The bottom line is that global warming, even if it was happening, would be nothing that we could not easily adapt to. So, Draconian measures proposed by extremists just are not needed and often have ulterior motives and goals. We have to be constantly on the alert for these hidden agendas, which usually benefit some particular group or friends of the politicians.

    Arguing the economics in no way means that the science supports global warming—it most certainly does not. It just means that the warmists will not listen and do not want to learn or even understand the real situation. They have drunk the Kool-Aid and know they are right. So, other strategies must be taken.

  30. EFS_Junior says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:35 am
    ———————————————–

    Your post shows that:
    1. You did not read the article
    2. You know how to use wiki
    3. Creative writing course diploma from UEA is as overvalued as 1 day metro pass

    Keep going. I like free entertainment

  31. Benjamin P. says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Yes!!! Investigate the investigation(s), and then, investigate those. No stopping until heads are rolling. The witch hunt continues! And the best part is the obvious non-bias of a person like Andrew Montford.

    Give me a break…

    ———————

    Benjamin P.,

    Two points:

    1) We actually know who the witches are with respect to CRU/Climategate: Jones et al. So the witch hunt is long since over. The question is whether or not their magic (pseudo science) conformed with the UN Magical Commission (IPCC) and with the UK’s Ministry of Magic (MET Office and the BBC). Watch out JK Rowling, this could be serious competition at the box-office.

    2) We will know when the investigation ends when the government of the UK transfers all of CRU, in whole, over to some other place like Oxford or Cambridge. They can use the old CRU buildings at UEA as a retirement home for aging/homeless ex-UEA/CRU climate magicians.

    John

  32. O H Dahlsveen says:
    September 14, 2010 at 10:39 am
    the good ship IPCC is sinking, and that it is sinking fast.

    Tell them the truth better: It sank long time ago. (Patchy, his leader, is now dedicated to writing XXX novels).

  33. Looks like there has been a lot of rationalization, wishful thinking and fudging going on. That is no crime until you are using public funds and putting all that into official reports. Reports that result in legislation, taxation and regulation and extreme changes in the way we live.

    When faced with a lack of proof the global warming crowd still have their fall back statement, “can we take the risk and do nothing”.

    It seems to me that taking action on something that does not exist can be dangerous and costly. Dangerous in that you can do a lot of damage fixing something that is not broke and costly because its wasted effort.

  34. Benjamin P.

    Investigate, and do it again. This group is wanting to dictate world wide policy affecting every aspect of life. When my shop produces plans, they are checked by the supervisor, then by me, then by my client and then by governmental oversight agencies. The issue of climate change deserves no less. Bring it all into the light of day, don’t restrict it to the few and then you can judge bias.

  35. Enneagram says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:43 am
    “Poor lads, need some charity from Big Oil!”

    Did you not finish reading the paragraph?

    In order to make clear its complete independence, we do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.

  36. Youtube seem to be playing about with this video too imo. Just as they appeared to do with the climategate search term. It has more views than all but one other video in the news&politics section but is on the second page. Is there some technical or statistical means to keep a watch on Youtube? There are important elections coming up.

  37. Go get ’em guys! I just wish there was something more concrete I could do other than send money to GWPF. (Although that is a very good thing to do!) There is nothing more disruptive to the white-washers than doggedly refusing to accept the spin. Especially when they have spent so much capital getting their minions in the government/media to declare the issue over and done with, only to have to go back to addressing the dishonesty that hurts them most. Keep them reeling on their heels!

  38. Oh yes, EFS Junior says a lot of things about Lord Lawson. (Ref: his comments on this post.)
    For your information Lord Lawson is very well placed to not to be just a skeptic, – but to be an out and out [snip] – He was after all an integral part of the government which started this CO2 craze off in the first place. (Albeit in an attempt to promote nuclear power, a slightly different reason to today’s)
    Nigel Lawson was the first chancellor to allocate extra money to climate research, -Climate research- with a particular empathizes on ‘The importance of Carbon Dioxide’s influence on Climate”

    Nigel Lawson has not been asleep for the past 30 or so years, neither have I, but you EFS are a junior

  39. O H Dahlsveen says:
    September 14, 2010 at 10:39 am

    I am beginning to think it is about time I write a letter to The BBC and to The Royal Society ….
    —————
    I admire your ire, but, well, it’s the establishment. They own everything (BBC, Royal Society, etc). You don’t get to form a government in the UK unless a certain aristocrat asks you to.

    I know none of the ‘official’ Climategate enquiries were public enquiries, but they all kind of had the establishment behind them. This enquiry is by a body very much outside the establishment (even though many of it leadership have been part of it). As such it will get, I think, very little MSM coverage.

    As far as ‘public enquiries’ go, we can be sure that since the Public Enquiries Act of 2005, they are essentially meaningless, since they are censored/approved before release by the relevant government department implicated in the enquiry. This led to what a Canadian judge described as ‘an impossible, Alice in Wonderland situation’:

    (this is from when the act was proposed)
    ——— BEGIN CITATION FROM OTHER INTERNET SOURCE ——–
    Canadian Judge, Peter Cory who was commissioned by the British and Irish governments to investigate the possibility of state collusion in six high-profile murders, has criticised the Inquiries Act 2005. He told the United states House Foreign affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations:

    “it seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible. The Commissions would be working in an impossible situation. For example, the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step. It really creates an intolerable Alice in wonderland situation. There have been references in the press to an international judicial membership in the inquiry. If the new Act were to become law, I would advise all Canadian judges to decline an appointment in light of the impossible situation they would be facing. In fact, I cannot contemplate any self-respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed Act.”
    ——— END CITATION FROM OTHER INTERNET SOURCE ——–

  40. BenjaminP,

    Montford is a lot closer to “unbiased” than any “climatologist” I have run accross so far… just sayin…

  41. Well, I’ve read the report now, and Andrew Montfort, a.k.a Bishop Hill, has not pulled any punches.
    As he writes in a cool, clear and precise language, his findings are all the more devastating.
    To be sure, his critical comments and findings are not substantially new to anybody who has been keeping up with the debates here, at CA and at other blogs – but this report will find its way into the hands of those who do not read blogs and have only a hazy or distorted knowledge of what has been going on.
    Like … British MPs, for example …
    I am sure GWPF will see to it that this report isn’t going to linger on the internet after the MSM have grudgingly acknowledged its existence.

  42. EFS_Junior,

    All Wikipedia entries regarding anything having to do with “climate” are edited HEAVILY by a guy named Connoley who I am sure you are very familliar with.

    I personally don’t believe a single thing on Wikipedia I read about “climate”. I would recommend you take any Wikipedia entries about “climate” with a HUGE grain of salt as well.

  43. Can anybody say if the East Anglia Police have completed their investigations into the alleged theft of the CRU emails?

  44. Alister Doyle from Reuters:

    “Patrick Hunt, of Stanford University in California who is trying to discover where Carthaginian general Hannibal invaded Italy in 218 BC with an army and elephants, said there was an “alarming rate” of thaw in the Alps.

    “This is the first summer since 1994 when we began our Alpine field excavations above 8,000 ft that we have not been inundated by even one day of rain, sleet and snow flurries,” he said.

    “I expect we will see more ‘ice patch archaeology discoveries’,” he said. Hannibal found snow on the Alpine pass he crossed in autumn, according to ancient writers.

    Glaciers are in retreat from the Andes to the Alps, as a likely side-effect of global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the U.N. panel of climate experts says.

    The panel’s credibility has suffered since its 2007 report exaggerated a thaw by saying Himalayan glaciers might vanish by 2035. It has stuck to its main conclusion that it is “very likely” that human activities are to blame for global warming.

    “Over the past 150 years we have had a worldwide trend of glacial retreat,” said Michael Zemp, director of the Swiss-based World Glacier Monitoring Service. While many factors were at play, he said “the main driver is global warming.”

    In Norway, “some ice fields are at their minimum for at least 3,000 years,” said Rune Strand Oedegaard, a glacier and permafrost expert from Norway’s Gjoevik University College.”

    Once again, amalgame and innuendos continue to be Reuters way to spread alarmism…

  45. Mods,

    Totally wrong about the cut’n’paste accusation. Very sorry. I just had a bee in my bonnet about the commenters having to hound you into putting the story on your site.

    Keep up the good work.

  46. artwest says:
    September 14, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Refers us to The Guardian and states:-
    “Monbiot’s minions in there early in the comments – predictably doing everything to avoid engaging with the substance, which they almost certainly haven’t read.”

    Fred Pearce has also made comments. He is critical of Montford’s bias but the meat of his comments are quite a bit tougher.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/sep/14/montford-climategate-gwpf-review

  47. Enneagram says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:43 am

    “We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts.
    Poor lads, need some charity from Big Oil!”

    Mr/Ms Ennegram. I think you have just demonstrated cherry-picking perfectly as from the GWPF website and also at the foot of the article above;
    “We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, we do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”

    Can they not make it any more plain?

  48. Myron Mesecke says:
    September 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
    Enneagram says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:43 am
    [….]
    In order to make clear its complete independence, we do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.

    Then Greenpacce is in like Flynn….?

  49. EFS_Junior says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:35 am

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation”

    Can I suggest you extend your reading matter to the report under discussion which you can find here;
    http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

    If you don’t like it then perhaps you could address your criticism to the two spelling mistakes it contains, which would be as useful as citing wikipedia articles on climate as a means to discredit it.

  50. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    September 14, 2010 at 11:35 am
    EFS_Junior,

    “All Wikipedia entries regarding anything having to do with “climate” are edited HEAVILY by a guy named Connoley who I am sure you are very familliar with.”

    I personally don’t believe a single thing on Wikipedia I read about “climate”. I would recommend you take any Wikipedia entries about “climate” with a HUGE grain of salt as well.

    The Big Lie is the very basis of “progressive” programs. Ignorance is their bedrock constituency. Ignorance, by the way, has only a partial relationship to education. Google “ice age time lines” or similar and it is difficult to obtain a chart that does not include a CO2 comparison. Wikipedia is a prime example. The propaganda machine is all pervasive.

  51. Neil Hampshire says:
    September 14, 2010 at 11:52 am
    Fred Pearce has also made comments. He is critical of Montford’s bias but the meat of his comments are quite a bit tougher.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/sep/14/montford-climategate-gwpf-review

    He is critical of Montford’s bias calling it hypocrytical as Montford was complaining of bias of the committees. At the foot of Pearce’s article, we find this;

    “• Fred Pearce is an environment writer and author of The Last Generation: How nature will take her revenge for climate change.”

    Hypocritical? Who? Moi?

  52. The Guardian Gets Nastier

    Never mind the email-gate whitewash inquiry (which will languish forever in the dungeons of infamy), there’s a much more interesting article here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/14/republicans-senate-election-climate-sceptics

    “,,,Republican ‘climate zombies’ could claim the US Senate

    “A survey of comments made by Republican candidates for the US Senate show vast majority are climate sceptics

    “You might want to find yourself an indelible marker pen and draw a large black circle around 3 November – it could be the morning the world wakes up to discover that the US Senate is now controlled by climate sceptics…”

    The article goes on to reveal what the new insult “climate zombies” means…

    “…Over at the Daily Kos, a contributor called “RLMiller” has now begun a project called “Climate Zombies” (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/5/899029/-Stupid-Goes-Viral:-The-Climate-Zombies-of-the-New-GOP) in which he is asking readers to help him monitor the comments of “every Republican candidate for House, Senate, and Governor who claims that global warming is a hoax, doubts the science of climate change, and wants a new Dark Ages for America”…”

    Also this: “…the “zombie” term refers to the repeatedly discredited arguments that climate change deniers continue to chant no matter how frequently or thoroughly their arguments continue to be refuted by science. An example is your implication above that if climate change deniers have their delicate feelings hurt by something, the earth cannot be warming…”

    So now we have a new insult to add to all the others for calling out the global warming fraud, the poor little brainwashed things having got tired of the old ones. And there’s a new website to mark out those Republican Senators who don’t agree with everything the global warming liars want to scream themselves silly about.

  53. Ladies and Gents,
    There is a bit of a change going on in UK politics at the moment. Whilst paying lip service to many fads to get elected, it seems ‘just call me Dave’ is not quite so ‘green’ as he wanted to appear. Neither is his bedfellow ‘pragmatic Nick’. The government is looking to save gadzillions at the moment and has already hinted that maybe ‘adapting’ to climate change rather than ‘fighting’ it would be more prudent. I see this as the first shot across the bows on the good ship “we can’t afford this twaddle anymore” and as people have noticed, the real establishment is moving to throw thier previous Green helpers under the next bendy bus. They need to do this so they can cut the budgets without the “what about the poor planet” wails from Monbiot and his ilk. So expect to see the consensus science seriously questioned…this is just the start.

  54. OT

    I’m looking for a time lapse video of sunspot activity for the past 12 year period for a presentation I’m working on. I would like to do a side by side comparing it with the past 3 year solar activity.

    Sort of like the time lapses in this video but with the complete past 12 years in a continuous unbroken clip.

  55. “Refers us to The Guardian and states:-”
    How quaint! Are there really people who still read the Guardian? And George Monbiot?

  56. Somehow I just do not see anything coming of this. The fix is in, and that is apparent. We can only hope that the truth and reality sink this titanic as the faux scientists at the heart of climategate will never let go of their propaganda.

  57. Well everyone has noted that a couple of clueless trolls have made an appearance today. I would like to welcome them both on board especially junior. Children always have a special way of saying the wrong thing in the funniest way and I just love the entertainment that brings.

    Carry on Junior, you plonker, I need a really big laugh today.

  58. A report full of weasel words , red herrings and whines that McIntyre wasn’t called ( real scientists were) means too little too late.

    Sorry Bishop: too little too late.

  59. When the best the true believers can do is to snipe at the sourcing of the article- which only needs the sniper to ignore the opening sentance of the post- it is pretty clear they are going to do their very best (well practiced this past year) of ignoring the actual article and seeking to discredit it for trivial reasons.
    extra points, by the way, for the great Sherlock impersonator who has decided that not only were the CRU e-mails stolen, but that the author of the press release stole them.

  60. Benjamin P. says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:53 am

    “blah, whine, blah.”
    ==========================================================
    Read the report, sis, and then come back and talk about it.

  61. John McManus says:
    September 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    “A report full of weasel words , red herrings and whines that McIntyre wasn’t called ( real scientists were) means too little too late.”
    =========================================================

    Weasel words? I thought it rather clear. Skeptics were locked out of the panels. The panels were stocked to give a foregone conclusion. People with direct evidence regarding against the scientists were not questioned or their evidence was summarily ignored. The papers with dubious conclusions were not reviewed, the incestuous relationship between UEA, CRU, and the IPCC wasn’t even broached. The laws that were broke weren’t mentioned and the professional misconduct overlooked. What weasel words?

  62. Andrew Miller, new leader of the HoC committee for science and technology, trying to sideline this report:

    The vast majority of scientists round the world accept that climate change is a critically important issue, and it is almost always non-scientists who want to argue about that.

    Another layer of misleading information to be patiently added to Montford’s list of disinformation or poor research so far: IPCC; CRU emails etc; all the enquiries including HoC; MSM.

    It would be good to make sure Andrew Miller is informed that the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who sponsored the report, is stacked with highly competent, even top climate scientists; and that science by consensus is not science and never was; and that it’s the non-scientists like Al Gore who support AGW, who’ve tried to insist that minority views can safely be ignored.

  63. @ Benjamin P. says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:53 am
    “Yes!!! Investigate the investigation(s), and then, investigate those. No stopping until heads are rolling. The witch hunt continues! And the best part is the obvious non-bias of a person like Andrew Montford.

    Give me a break…”

    What goes around, comes around mate. Will any psychologists here confirm that this is classic projection?

  64. Er did anyone else notice this…
    About the author

    Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (2008), a history of some of the events leading up to the release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. He writes a blog specialising in climate change issues at http://www.bishop-hill.net and has made many media appearances discussing global warming from a sceptic perspective.

    And that both he and the GWPF made submissions to the Parliamentary enquiry… http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf

    Is there anyone else who thinks that this report might not be impartial?

  65. @ Turboblocke says:
    September 14, 2010 at 2:30 pm
    ‘Er did anyone else notice this…
    About the author ….. Is there anyone else who thinks that this report might not be impartial?’

    Keep ’em coming son, I haven’t laughed so much in ages. If only the trolls knew how plain silly and obvious they appear to rational people … this stuff might work at the Guardian but it won’t here.

  66. John McManus says: September 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    A report full of weasel words , red herrings and whines that McIntyre wasn’t called ( real scientists were) means too little too late.

    Weasel, herring, and wine…. smack lips, gloop gloop… yes the Bishop’s report was the tastiest I’ve chewed over for a long time…

    Weasel words from UEA eg that the science was going to be investigated. Red herrings from all the enquiries investigating anything but what the commotion has been about. And yes, McIntyre was not called a whiner.

    Very observant McManus.

  67. RichieP says: September 14, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    @ Benjamin P. says: … [etc]

    Will any psychologists here confirm that this is classic projection?

    Yep. Also the ruffian’s ruse of distraction. Only here it’s threadbare.

  68. Andrew, thank you, from the bottom of my heart. That is one superb report, lucid and clean. Excellent storyline too.

    Makes me wonder if Joanne Rowling also saw such unbelievable convolutions of coverups involving most everybody, and decided the only way she’d get her truthful observations noticed was to write them as fiction. Because people do care about truth even when they feel they can’t admit it.

  69. As a high school science teacher, you have no idea how difficult it is for me to persuade my students that AGW is not real. They have been well and truly brainwashed, as have their parents, from whom I occasionally get a heated e-mail accusing me of bringing politics into the classroom. I fear that long before good science trickles down to the masses I’ll have long since retired and perhaps even have wandered off this mortal coil. I can only hope that someday a former student remembers that I told him so. :)

    REPLY: Keep fighting the good fight, the reward is knowing you are doing what your passion is, teach. – Anthony

  70. mikef2 says:
    September 14, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    “Ladies and Gents,
    There is a bit of a change going on in UK politics at the moment. Whilst paying lip service to many fads to get elected, it seems ‘just call me Dave’ is not quite so ‘green’ as he wanted to appear. Neither is his bedfellow ‘pragmatic Nick’. The government is looking to save gadzillions at the moment and has already hinted that maybe ‘adapting’ to climate change rather than ‘fighting’ it would be more prudent.”

    That’s the way I read it. The conclusion is dawning that it’s nonsense on stilts which no one believes and is going to cost a fortune we haven’t got. Feelers are being nut out. Time for a U turn, time for an admission of being wrong which isn’t an admission of being wrong, and for some of the colleagues who have done out on a limb on this to accept a change of course, or career.

    A change of direction on CAGW but not a full stop or reverse. Coping with inevitable climate change is the way they seem to be going, I would have thought that energy security would make more sense. In any case a lot of the apparatus assembled to combat climate change will need to go.

  71. Turboblocke says:
    September 14, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Is there anyone else who thinks that this report might not be impartial?
    =========================================================
    The report seems very partial…….towards the truth. Turbo, it is exactly as I recall it. Is there somewhere in the 54 pages that you can show where it isn’t truthful?

  72. Jenn Oates says:
    September 14, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    “As a high school science teacher, ………..”
    ========================================================

    They may not come up and tell you, but be sure many will remember. While I usually state this in reference to teacher pay debates and tenure, I think this applies here as well. A mediocre teacher isn’t worth that much. A good teacher can’t possibly be paid enough. Yours is a calling only a select few can aspire to.

  73. Re mikef2

    There is a bit of a change going on in UK politics at the moment. Whilst paying lip service to many fads to get elected, it seems ‘just call me Dave’ is not quite so ‘green’ as he wanted to appear.

    During the election campaign, internal conservative polling showed climate change as a non-issue amongst party supporters, think it was about 10/12 vs 4/12 from national polling. This was from a presentation pre-election announcement, possibly based on polling data pre-Climategate.

    Post election the government’s seen the books, realised the mess it’s in economically but still has to appease the voters. UK is currently having much political discussion about £6bn in public spending cuts to ease our deficit, but ignoring the £18bn a year we’re supposedly committed to spending via our legally binding Climate Change Act. Which is only legally binding if the government decides not to use regulatory reform legislation the last government implemented. But that’s the nuclear option, especially ahead of Cancun.

    If there were some useful idiots to throw under the bus and blame for misleading Parliament though, the government would have an easy out, especially when it was the last government that created the legislation. Slight hitch with that is much of the current one also voted for it.

  74. Andrew Montford’s earlier work – The Hockey Stick Illusion – was an excellent SUMMARY of all the arguments over the years. Helping people who found it hard to see the wood for the trees.

    His report published today is a SYNTHESIS of all the criticisms of the UK “enquiries” – whitewashes – on the ClimateGate affair. That is its value. It is clearly written – and aimed directly at UK politicians and civil servants.

    The foreword is by a 24-carat Mandarin – Lord Turnbull, former Cabinet Secretary and previously head of the UK Treasury. That gives a good deal of credibility, and makes it more likely to be read closely by MPs and civil servants. In particular, the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology – some of whose members already feel they were seriously misled by the UEA when evidence on ClimateGate was first given just before the recent election. I would expect Montford will soon be called to give evidence to the Select Committee, which will be in public and will help re-open the whole can of worms.

    And this will help focus the UK Treasury, which is urgently seeking massive cuts in public spending – including spending on research.

    As mentioned above, Lord Turnbull has given an interview to The Register effectively saying that CRU is dead in the water :

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/14/lord_turnbull_interview/

    The Guardian’s senior environmental correspondent Fred Pearce says the report is obviously from a sceptic – but he spells out the main Montford criticisms, and does not dispute anything Montford says. People are already spitting blood about Pearce’s report :

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/sep/14/montford-climategate-gwpf-review

    The Financial Times has reported :

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2914e324-c019-11df-b77d-00144feab49a.html

    The Telegraph’s Louise Gray gives a half-fair report :

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8002466/Doubt-remains-over-climategate.html

    The BBC’s Roger Harrabin deliberately tries to confuse it all by focussing on criticism of Pachouri – omitting virtually all the Montford criticisms but of course giving the UEA’s rebuttal. This is BBC “journalism” at its biased worst :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11303686

    ……………..

    Where might all this lead ? Firstly, the Montford synthesis report, very easy to read, is already getting a lot of press coverage. There are bound to be further sessions of the House of Commons Select Committee on ClimateGate. I would not be surprised if there is a separate debate in the House of Lords – with Lord Lawson (former Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Lord Turnbull asking Their Lordships to take stock. All this helps force the Government and the civil service to pay attention to Montford. Hopefully this will be reinforced by us hoi polloi asking our MPs to take the matter up with Ministers – pressing Ministers to deal explicitly with the Montford report.

    So, I do not see any chance soon for ClimateGate to be swept under the carpet. The earlier “enquiries” were such a travesty, their failings are so crystal-clear, Montford’s detailed criticisms cannot be ignored.

  75. We need to come to the defense of Anthony here. Having done PR work while in the electric power industry, I’m familar with press releases.

    What Anthony did is ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE with the title “Press Release” at the top.

    As soon as I saw that, I realized the text was from a “press release”. If Anthony errored, perhaps an “End Text” or “End of Press Release” at the bottom, with a line of comment would make it unmistakeably clear.

    REPLY: Normally press releases close with “-30-” which appears after the body and before the media contact information, indicating to media that the release has ended. Sometime the close has been the “###” symbol. These are holdovers from teletype days. They did neither, and I reproduced it exactly as was sent, including the headline. – Anthony

  76. Atomic Hairdryer says:
    September 14, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    “….If there were some useful idiots to throw under the bus and blame ……”
    ========================================================

    You’ve plenty there to pick from. But if that fails, there’s always plenty here in the U.S. to pick from. That’s always in vogue.

  77. Max Hugoson says:
    September 14, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    “We need to come to the defense of Anthony here. Having done PR work while in the electric power industry, I’m familar with press releases.

    What Anthony did is ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE with the title “Press Release” at the top.”
    ======================================================

    We all know Anthony was entirely legitimate. I’ve seen this occur here from time to time. It seems to be some form of jealousy or some other character flaw. Which is perplexing and disturbing to me. I agree with the Reagan principle, (adapted to skepticism) to a point. After that point is exceeded, (and they got close)a different point will be made, and then for me, the dust from the soles will be wiped and a back turned.

    Most of us here are intelligent enough to know were credit is due and the origination of thoughts expressed. That’s much of what we do. (We being skeptics.) Personally, I don’t care who gets to wear the button du jour, nor does any legitimate skeptic I know. If someone can use a salient point I’ve made, (good luck) then by all means use it if it helps further skepticism in current climate science.

  78. Jim G says:
    September 14, 2010 at 12:40 pm (Edit)

    PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    September 14, 2010 at 11:35 am
    EFS_Junior,

    “All Wikipedia entries regarding anything having to do with “climate” are edited HEAVILY by a guy named Connoley who I am sure you are very familliar with.”

    I personally don’t believe a single thing on Wikipedia I read about “climate”. I would recommend you take any Wikipedia entries about “climate” with a HUGE grain of salt as well.

    I think a small Siberian salt mine would be more appropriate, don’t you? ;-)

  79. Mountford is to be commended for the clarity and simplicity of his report of a complex issue, as is Lord Turnbull for the same clarity and unequivocality. Both gentleman call a spae just that! I believe the issues have only become complex because the three enquiries sought to bury Climategate, and in the most arrogant fashion, which has always typified the British Establishment. Truth has a wonderful way of emerging, no matter how deeply buried. Mountford’s £3000.00 fee is wondefully parsimonious compared with the £40000 paid to the former VC of Edinborough university for merely chairing his enquiry.
    I suspect the next stage in this UK saga will be another Parliamentary Enquiry, this time looking for scapegoats who will be ritually punished and scorned by the scientific and political elites ,who will universally claim they were sceptical of the extremists and alarmists all along.
    As a footnote, Roger Harrabin’s reporting on this for the BBC is more akin to cant than to objective reportage.

  80. Kate, your comments about The Guardian Gets Nastier are so true. I quickly scan that paperr’s CiF Green every morning and note that the same few incredibly nasty sycophants pant for the metaphorical blood of any person who dares to make a contrary comment. I once attempted, over a few months, to engage with them but their nastiness was so counterproductive and personal and eventually gave up after my son warned me that arguing with zealots is bad for one’s mental health!.

  81. Olen says:
    September 14, 2010 at 10:59 am

    ….It seems to me that taking action on something that does not exist can be dangerous and costly. Dangerous in that you can do a lot of damage fixing something that is not broke and costly because its wasted effort.
    _____________________________________________-
    It is even worse than that. If we “De-develop” the First World countries and redistribute the “wealth” (eat the seed corn) as Holdern, Obama’s director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy wants, we leave people at the mercy of the climate with no technology to help us adapt. This is especially true if as some think we are headed towards cooling for thirty or more years.

    It is a nasty way of killing off a lot of people.

    Note Holdren’s book was published in 1973 a year after Maurice Strong invited Greenpeace and other activist groups to the first Earth Summit, gave them a talk on potential environmental disasters and CAGW and then told them to “Go home and raise hell” Coincidence??? I think not.

    In the 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote:

    “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”

    [The UN First Earth Summit was the launch of the “massive campaign”]

    “The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

    Agenda 21 is that economic plan.

    The connection between the two is Shell oil company among others (Maurice Strong did a deal with Shell that enabled Shell to take over the only remaining all-Canadian oil company. )

    CRU was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies ,Shell and BP. – Wikipedia
    “Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4] “

    The two agencies who founded the IPCC are the WMO and UNEP. So who founded the UNEP and who ran it? “During December 1972, the UN General Assembly unanimously elected Maurice Strong to head UNEP.”

    This Climategate e-mail on Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1) (code phrase for Agenda 21) shows another connection.

    Here is more on the (B1) scenario IPCC Emissions Scenarios

    Here is who Ged Davis in the e-mail is (Shell Oil executive and senario writer with IPCC connection)

    CRU Funding
    British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
    Central Electricity Generating Board
    Eastern Electricity
    KFA Germany (Nuclear)
    Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
    National Power
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
    Shell (Oil, LNG)
    Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
    UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
    Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Maurice Strong
    Strong started in the oil business in the 1950s working for the Rockefellers in Saudia Arabia. He was president of a major holding company — the Power Corporation of Canada. in 1975, he was invited by Canada to run the semi-national Petro-Canada. He did another deal with Saudi arms deal, Adnan Khashoggi acquiring AZL, a conglomerate owning feed lots, land, gas and oil interests, and engineering firms. Strong was Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), until 1981. He is a Senior Adviser to the World Bank and Trustee of the Rockefeller foundation.
    http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html
    http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html

    I always laugh when some one accuses “Deniers” (Skeptics) of being funded by “big Oil” given all these connections.

  82. INGSOC says:
    September 14, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Go get ‘em guys! I just wish there was something more concrete I could do other than send money to GWPF….
    ___________________________________________________
    There is make phone call to politicians. I have left more than one stuttering BUT but but but.

    Just make sure you have your ducks in a row. I hit them on the World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag scam too.
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html

  83. Jenn Oates says:
    September 14, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    As a high school science teacher, you have no idea how difficult it is for me to persuade my students that AGW is not real. They have been well and truly brainwashed, as have their parents, from whom I occasionally get a heated e-mail accusing me of bringing politics into the classroom. I fear that long before good science trickles down to the masses I’ll have long since retired and perhaps even have wandered off this mortal coil. I can only hope that someday a former student remembers that I told him so. :)
    _________________________________________________

    Take heart, Mother Nature is in your corner and as we saw last winter, especially during Copenhagen, She has a sense of humor.

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/president_snow_copenhagen.jpg?w=510&h=340

    Several scientists are predicting a change to cooler weather patterns, that is why “Global Warming” is now being spun as “Climate Change” When we continue to get cold nasty winters and high heating bills reality will set in. I have noticed a lot of people have already started waking up in the last year.

  84. Alexander K says:
    September 15, 2010 at 5:16 am

    Mountford is to be commended for the clarity and simplicity of his report of a complex issue, as is Lord Turnbull for the same clarity and unequivocality. Both gentleman call a spae just that! I believe the issues have only become complex because the three enquiries sought to bury Climategate, and in the most arrogant fashion, which has always typified the British Establishment. Truth has a wonderful way of emerging, no matter how deeply buried. Mountford’s £3000.00 fee is wondefully parsimonious compared with the £40000 paid to the former VC of Edinborough university for merely chairing his enquiry…..
    _________________________________________________
    Mountford is certainly to be commended for his excellent report done at a very reasonable fee. Hubby is a tech writer and has been paid $70 or more an hour. I imagine this report took more than two weeks to put together and rwrite.

    The former VC of Edinborough university was not only paid £40000 for a couple days work, he was rewarded with Non-Executive Director of Shell Transport and Trading Company PLC with the intention that he becomes Chairman in early 2007 for his work on CAGW. This allows “bonuses” to be paid as an additional reward.

    CRU was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies ,Shell and BP. – Wikipedia
    “Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4] “

    Sort of incestuous isn’t it.

  85. Gail Combs says:
    September 15, 2010 at 10:59 am

    Blah, blah, blah, …

    CRU Funding
    British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
    Central Electricity Generating Board
    Eastern Electricity
    KFA Germany (Nuclear)
    Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
    National Power
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
    Shell (Oil, LNG)
    Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
    UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
    Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Blah, blah, blah, …
    _____________________________________________________________

    Your list;

    British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
    Central Electricity Generating Board
    Eastern Electricity
    KFA Germany (Nuclear)
    Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
    National Power
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
    Shell (Oil, LNG)
    Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
    UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)

    The actual list;

    This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

    British Council
    British Petroleum
    Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre
    Central Electricity Generating Board
    Centre for Environment
    Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
    Commercial Union
    Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU)
    Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC)
    Department of Energy
    Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA)
    Department of Health
    Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
    Eastern Electricity
    Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
    Environment Agency
    Forestry Commission
    Greenpeace International
    International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED)
    Irish Electricity Supply Board
    KFA Germany
    Leverhulme Trust
    Ministry of Agriculture
    Fisheries and Food (MAFF)
    National Power
    National Rivers Authority
    Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)
    Norwich Union
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
    Overseas Development Administration (ODA)
    Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates
    Royal Society, Scientific Consultants
    Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC)
    Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research
    Shell
    Stockholm Environment Agency
    Sultanate of Oman
    Tate and Lyle
    UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd.
    United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP)
    United States Department of Energy
    United States Environmental Protection Agency
    Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)

    What you left out;

    British Council
    Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre
    Centre for Environment
    Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
    Commercial Union
    Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU)
    Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC)
    Department of Energy
    Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA)
    Department of Health
    Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
    Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
    Environment Agency
    Forestry Commission
    Greenpeace International
    International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED)
    Leverhulme Trust
    Ministry of Agriculture
    Fisheries and Food (MAFF)
    National Rivers Authority
    Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)
    Norwich Union
    Overseas Development Administration (ODA)
    Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates
    Royal Society, Scientific Consultants
    Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC)
    Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research
    Stockholm Environment Agency
    Tate and Lyle
    UK Met. Office
    United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP)
    United States Department of Energy
    United States Environmental Protection Agency
    Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)

    Why those dirty hippies at CRU left out all funding sources, dates of funding, and amounts of funding, is beyond me.

    Cherry picking is fun, I suppose, getting to call someone else out on it, why, that’s even funner.

  86. heh heh..tip for everyone….don’t let EFS Junior be your defence lawyer in court…
    Foot Shoot In…please rearrange to suit…

Comments are closed.