Climategate: Nearly ten years later

Climate alarmists are still promoting junk science, fossil fuel bans and wealth redistribution

Dr. Kelvin Kemm

This 17th of this month marks the tenth anniversary of “Climategate” – the release of thousands of emails to and from climate scientists who had been (and still are) collaborating and colluding to create a manmade climate crisis that exists in their minds and computer models, but not in the real world. The scandal should have ended climate catastrophism. Instead, it was studiously buried by politicians, scientists, activists and crony capitalists, who will rake in trillions of dollars from the exaggerations and fakery, while exempting themselves from the damage they are inflicting on everyday families.

Few people know the Inconvenient Facts about the supposed manmade climate and extreme weather “crisis.” For example, since 1998, average global temperatures have risen by a mere few hundredths of a degree. (For a time, they even declined slightly.) Yet all we hear is baseless rhetoric about manmade carbon dioxide causing global warming and climate changes that pose existential threats to humanity, wildlife and planet. Based on this, we are told we must stop using fossil fuels to power economic growth and better living standards. This is bad news for Africa and the world.

We keep hearing that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cause rising global temperatures. But satellite data show no such thing. In fact, computer model predictions for 2019 are almost a half degree Celsius (0.9 degrees F) above actual satellite measurements. Even worse, anytime a scientist raises questions about the alleged crisis, he or she is denounced as a “climate change denier.”

A major source of data supporting the human CO2- induced warming proposition came from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.

Then on the morning of 17 November 2009 a Pandora’s box of embarrassing CRU information exploded onto the world scene. A computer hacker penetrated the university’s computer system and took 61 Megabytes of material that showed the CRU had been manipulating scientific information to make global warming appear to be the fault of mankind and industrial CO2. Among many other scandals, the shocking leaked emails showed then-CRU-director Prof. Phil Jones boasting of using statistical “tricks” to remove evidence of observed declines in global temperatures.

In another email, he advocated deleting data rather than providing it to scientists who did not share his view and might criticize his analyses. Non-alarmist scientists had to invoke British freedom of information laws to get the information. Jones was later suspended, and former British Chancellor Lord Lawson called for a Government enquiry into the embarrassing exposé.

The affair became known as “Climategate,” and a group of American University students even posted a YouTube song, “Hide the Decline,” mocking the CRU and climate modeler Dr. Michael Mann, whose use of the phrase “hide the decline” in temperatures had been found in the hacked emails.

So what is the truth? If one considers the composition of the atmosphere and equates it to the height of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the extra plant-fertilizing CO2 added to the atmosphere since California became the 31st state of the United States in 1850 is less than the thickness of tiles under the Tower.

Can this tiny increase really explain any observed global warming since the Little Ice Age ended, and the modern industrial era began? Since California became a state, the measured global rise in atmospheric temperature has been less than 10C. But most of this increase occurred prior to 1940, and average planetary temperatures fell from around 1943 until about 1978, leading to a global cooling scare. Temperatures rose slightly until 1998, then mostly remained stable, even as carbon dioxide levels continued to rise. Rising CO2 levels and temperature variations do not correlate very well at all.

Moreover, during the well-documented Medieval Warm Period from about 950 to 1350, warmer global temperatures allowed Viking farmers to raise crops and tend cattle in Greenland. The equally well documented 500-year Little Ice Age starved and froze the Vikings out of Greenland, before reaching its coldest point, the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715. That’s when England’s River Thames regularly froze over, Norwegian farmers demanded compensation for lands buried by advancing glaciers, and priests performed exorcism rituals to keep alpine glaciers away from villages. Paintings from the era show crowds of people ice skating and driving horse-drawn carriages on the Thames.

Industry and automobile emissions obviously played no role in either the MWP or the LIA.

These dramatic events should ring warning bells for any competent, honest scientist. If the Medieval Warm Period occurred without industrial CO2 driving it, why should industrial CO2 be causing any observed warming today? Europe’s great plague wiped out nearly a quarter of its population during the Little Ice Age. The warm period brought prosperity and record crops, while cold years brought misery, famine and death.

Ten years before Climategate, Dr. Mann released a computer-generated graph purporting to show global temperatures over the previous 1500 years. His graph mysteriously made the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Maunder extreme cold years disappear – and planetary temperatures spike suddenly the last couple decades of twentieth century. The graph had the shape of a hockey stick, was published worldwide and became a centerpiece for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Many scientists were highly suspicious of the hockey stick claims. Two of them, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, completely discredited Mann’s computer program and revisionist history. Of course, that did not stop former US vice president Al Gore from using the discredited graph in his doom and gloom climate change movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

The hacked CRU emails also showed exchanges between Mann and Jones, in which they discussed how to intimidate editors who wanted to publish scientific views contrary to theirs, to suppress any contradictory studies. In one email, Jones expressed his desire to get rid of the “troublesome editor” of the Climate Research journal for daring to publish differing views. The editor got sacked.

When University of Colorado climate skeptic Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. asked the CRU for its original temperature readings, he was told the data had been (conveniently) lost. Lost!?! Do professionals lose something as valuable as original data? Many suspected they just didn’t want anyone to expose their clever manipulations and fabrications.

But if industrial carbon dioxide did not cause recent global warming, what did? A Danish research group, led by Prof. Henrik Svensmark, has found a very credible match between levels of sunspot activity (giant magnetic storms) on our Sun and global temperatures over the last fifteen hundred years. This all-natural mechanism actually fits the evidence! How terribly inconvenient for alarmists.

Cosmic rays from deep space constantly impinge on the Earth’s upper atmosphere and produce clouds, much like high-flying jets leave white contrails behind their engines. More clouds can trap heat, but they also cause global cooling because not as much sunlight strikes the Earth. More sunspots mean a stronger magnetic shield, therefore fewer cosmic rays reaching Earth, thus less cloud cover and more global warming. The Sun is currently in a near-record period of low sunspot activity.

All sorts of interest groups are suppressing this information. Maybe worse, when Climategate broke, “climate justice” campaigner for Friends of the Earth Emma Brindal said bluntly:

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” Not protecting Earth from manmade CO2 emissions or natural and manmade climate change – but redistributing wealth and resources, according to formulas that self-appointed ruling elites decide is “socially just.”

Climate campaigners also oppose “excessive” air travel for business or pleasure, 4×4 vehicles as “unnecessary luxuries,” and modern homes for Africans. Some even say Africans must continue living in mud huts and avoid the use of electricity and modern farming technologies. Minor US actor Ed Begley has said “Africans should have solar power where they need it most: on their huts.” They, Al Gore, Phil Jones and Mike Mann are exempted from these restrictions, of course.

Real social justice and human rights mean everyone has access to abundant, reliable, affordable energy, especially universally important electricity. Not from expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent wind turbines and solar panels. From fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.

We in the developing world will no longer let climate truth be suppressed. We will not allow loud, radical activists to put the brakes on African economic development, jobs, and improved health and living standards, in the name of advancing their anti-human, wealth redistribution agendas.


Dr. Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and CEO of Nuclear Africa (Pty) Ltd, a project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. He does consultancy work in strategic development.

Advertisements

168 thoughts on “Climategate: Nearly ten years later

    • The Green Reich
      October 31, 2019
      by Drieu Godefridi (Author)

      Ban everything we can, eco-tax the rest: this could be the motto of the environmentalists in politics. If human CO2 is the problem, then Man must be restrained, controlled, suppressed in every one of his CO2-emitting activities: that is to say, in the totality of his actions. Researching environmentalism from the root of its anti-humanist ethic to the staggering heights of its actual demands — banning cars, aircraft, meat, nuclear energy, rural life, the market economy, modern agriculture, in short, post-Industrial-Revolution modernity — Drieu Godefridi shows that environmentalism defines a more radical ideology in its liberticidal, anti-economic and ultimately humanicidal claims than any totalitarian ideology yet seen. “Dividing humanity by a factor of ten” is the environmentalist ideal. “It is the people who enslave themselves, who cut their own throats.” Etienne de La Boétie, “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” (1549). PhD (Sorbonne), Drieu Godefridi has authored many books, on gender, the IPCC and environmentalism.
      https://www.amazon.com/dp/2930650249

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUeao2sCbvo

      Peter Hitchens: Britain’s Been Changed Forever & Is “In the Foothills of a Catastrophe”
      Sep 2, 2019

      In this clip from his longer “So What You’re Saying Is…” interview (https://youtu.be/2KcUZFkj-mE), Peter Hitchens delivers an important and rarely heard monologue on the systematic infiltration of anti-British Marxists into the highest levels of British society. This has completely transformed Britain, British life & culture. Since Blair came to power in 1997, these former Marxists have occupied positions of power in all critical areas of British life. They have revolutionised Britain — it is no longer the country it once was: “This is the really ridiculous thing about the modern West, we live in post revolutionary societies and in most cases we don’t even realise the revolution’s taken place. It’s been a Kierkegardian revolution in which all the buildings remain standing but everything which led to their being built and contributed to their design, and the whole society that supported them, has been wiped away. And people walk around in it relatively prosperous thinking revolution must mean a red flag flying above the post office and the barraks and the railway station with commisars in the streets; it doesn’t. Modern left wing revolution means this, the policing of thought, the deadening of the academy, the lack of serious debate or understanding, the suppression of disagreement, and everybody accepts it and you’re surrounded by it and there is no cure for it, it’s all gone. Education is dead, the media is dead, it’s almost unwatchable, most of what’s put out now in particular on BBC television, it’s almost impossible for an intelligent person to sit down and watch it. But luckily for them the number of intelligent, educated people is very small so they get away with it.” “[…] My advice to young people is to leave the country, and people laugh at me when I say it but I’ve never been more serious about anything in my life. And they ask where should I go, and I say I don’t care where you go. The point about this country is, in the foothills of such a catastrophe it’s not a good idea to wait around and find out what it’s like.” Called “Eurocommunism”, this policy renounced Soviet economic models but kept the key aims of transforming our society. Tens of thousands of Marxists left the newly-expanded universities to enter teaching, journalism, the BBC, the law and, of course, politics. Starting from the 1990s, they began to pop up in positions of importance. Peter Hitchens says that crucially his generation were deep inside what became New Labour Communist/Marxists in Blair’s Cabinet include: John, Lord Reid, Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, Defence Secretary, Chancellor Alistair Darling Stephen Byers, (outed by the Guardian in 1999 as a former supporter of the Trotskyists). Peter Mandelson Even Tony Blair himself revealed in a BBC interview that he had been a Trotskyist at Oxford in the 1970s One of Blair’s closest aides , Peter Hyman, has confessed that New Labour was devised ‘to take and hold the levers of power… winning power and locking out the Tories to ensure that the 21st Century was a Labour century with Labour values’. FULL INTERVIEW: https://youtu.be/2KcUZFkj-mE

      • I left the country 20 years ago. Every time I return I notice this revolution has grown.

        The problem is that my new adopted country Australia is going the same way, as are almost all western countries. Anything to the right of socialist policy is regarded as ‘far right’ and anything to the right of centre is ‘alt-right’. The media are causing that one.

        I’m not even a staunch conservative, just a mild one, and I’m viewed as fascist (ignoring the source of fascism being socialism). I just don’t talk about it these days.

        • Zig Zag Wanderer:

          You write, “ignoring the source of fascism being socialism”.
          No! It is not!
          Socialism is left of political centre and fascism is the political far right.

          It is best to ignore falsehoods from anonymous sources such as your post.
          But your purpose is clear: as the great fascist, Joseph Goebbles, said,
          “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

          Richard

          • You have fallen into the Goebbels trap yourself, my friend. There are gradations on both sides. His main point is that the left has repeated the lie that anything left of center is moderate and anything right of center is extreme. Zig Zag has it correct. And you have been brainwashed into thinking exactly as he said, since you made the same bifurcation.

            Socialism and Fascism come full circle and join in the same place. They are both statism, putting the interests of the state over the individual. That is what subjugates the individual to tyrannical regimes. You can’t possibly believe Stalin and Hitler were any different. Although many US Democrats in the 1930s and 1940s were Gaga about Uncle Joe, until they found out in the 1950s that Russians were liquidated by the millions. Just like another Socialist, in another country, did to his comrades. Our Buddy Mao tried to one up Joe, with even more bodies, all in the name of what’s best for them. The citizens of their own countries were whacked in the interests of the community, aka Socialism.

            It’s delusional to think otherwise.

          • This is the definition from Merriam-Webster.
            Definition of fascism
            1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
            2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
            early instances of army fascism and brutality
            — J. W. Aldridge

            I don’t see anything there defining fascism as a far right only condition Richard, What makes you think it has anything to do with left or right politics?

          • Graemethecat:

            Do you really think anybody is stupid enough to be fooled by your comment?

            Communists (i.e. the extreme left) attempt to pretend they are socialists, too.

            Richard

          • “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

            I fully agree, Richard.

            Look at what fascism seeks to achieve and how it seeks to achieve it, and is so similar to communism that you have to squint really, really hard, and practice self-deception, before you can see a great deal of difference.

            Conservative politics pushes for freedom and smaller government. Fascism not so much.

            And thank you Graeme for pointing out that the actual source of the most prominent and well-known fascist party of all time was a socialist party.

            I know this is a political minefield, but I’ve never seen any refutation that holds up at all. The best I’ve seen is that the Austrian in question was against the communist party, but that just means they were competing with his party.

          • People can’t see left or right with blinkers on without turning their heads. As an analogy, my wife always tells me I am the head of the family. Makes me feel all superior. A man. Big. Then she reminds me she is the neck that supports the head of the family. And with that statement I am, firmly, put in my place.

          • Your argument is idiotic; it’s like being given the “”choice ” of having a bullet shot through your right temple or left temple.
            By the way, Hitler’s Nazi Party was originally the German Workers SOCIALIST Party and Nazis and fascists (of all nationalities) abhor capitalism.

            Also, Mussolini began his political activism as a socialist (Avanti! meaning “Forward!” in English, was an Italian daily newspaper, that was the official voice of the Italian Socialist Party, first published in 1896. It took its name from its German counterpart Vorwärts, the party-newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany) .

            Mussolini was a director of Avanti in the early 1900s, but he realized that the socialist ideology alone was insufficient to move the Italian people to action. He then combined socialism with nationalism which, of course, is fascism.

            Fascism and communism / socialism are first cousins; they demand that all individual liberties be subordinate to the state. The danger here – as history has amply demonstrated – is that the ruling elites reserve for themselves and ONLY for themselves rights and privileges they deny the citizenry.

            Lastly, it was a former PM of Denmark, Lars Løkke Rasmussen , who said in response to the communist Bernie Sanders (yep, make no mistake about it folks, Bernie is and has ALWAYS been a hard core communist);

            “….I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy…….The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.”

          • Thanks HotScot for showing in their own words that the Nazis* were anti-capitalist socialists, not “extreme right-wingers”

            *National Socialist German Workers Party

            After 100 million dead in multiple attempts at “socialism”, isn’t it time to admit that this time it will be no different?

          • Richard, do you really not know that HltIer was a socialist? Really?

            His People’s Car (VW) was a socialist car for the people.
            His Prora holiday complex was a socialist resort for the workers.
            His Willhelm Gustav cruise liner was a socialist ship for the workers.
            His autobahns were nationaIist roads for the people.
            And his party was the NationaI SociaIist Party.

            Besides, ‘fasc.ism’ merely refers to an autocratic and non-democratic political regime, not to left or right. The greatest fasc.ist of the 20th century was StaIin – no doubt about it.

            Ralph

          • National socialism vs International socialism (communism) are two sides of the same totalitarian coin.

          • Hot scot

            What a remarkable document. The solution to the Jewish problem is intriguing as in goebbels words I would take it to mean the expelling of Jews from holding public office, no voice in the media, expelled from academia. I wonder At what point did it take on the subsequent much more overt desire to eliminate them?

            Tonyb

          • Mr. Courtney, I must recommend that you study the rise of fascism where it has occurred. Socialism – or the drive for socialism – was the fore runner in every case. Not all socialist governments will result in fascism; other outcomes are dictatorships and communist governments (although the latter look more like dictatorships or autocracies).

            Note the similarities in socialism and fascism. Both must control thought, usually starting by controlling the press. Socialists in the US prohibit certain types of speech, often in the name of political correctness, other times by banning speakers and movies in forums they control.

            Other useful tools include changing history. Again, in the US, the KKK is currently associated with the GOP. However, they were founded, funded, provided legal and logistical support by the Democrat Party after the Civil War – for the next 100 years. It is quite an accomplishment that they now paint the GOP as supporting the KKK when that organization was the Democrat Party tool. Even now, their fundamental beliefs largely overlap, including hatred of Jews, and using Blacks purely for political gain while giving them little of value for their votes.

            The Democrat Party preaches diversity of the country as a good ting, but are very careful in making sure the only invasion of their own neighborhoods is by day workers (gardeners, nannies, chauffeurs, etc.) Much like they did when Blacks were their slaves.

          • To all those supporting fascism here:

            Fascism, communism and socialism are different philosophies.

            Communism and fascism are totalitarian and socialism is not.
            Totalitarianism is evil so I understand why those advocating it pretend to be socialist.

            Richard

          • Guys, please separate science from politics ! It is super stupid that which is happening: The veracity of climate change is INDEPENDENT from whether redistribution of wealth is good or bad. If you want progress in any issue, stop confusing the issues.

          • “ralfellis November 2, 2019 at 8:51 am

            His People’s Car (VW) was a socialist car for the people.”

            Germans who paid for their cars never received them.

          • Richard…

            H|tIer was a socialist, as we have amply demonstrated. So by your logic, he could not have been a fa.scist.

            You sure have an idiosyncratic understanding of history….!

            Ralph

          • Fasicsm is part of the far left. It is explained here in this excellent video “The American Form of Government.”

          • Dear Zig Zag Wanderer, about time you studied the political history of that period.
            The Fascists were indeed an Italian Socialist Nationalist political movement, (and a political movement of the far left) Mussolini knew Lenin , (who publicly endorsed the Fascist government), his parents were socialists and he was a socialist and said so, the difference was that he realized that most people would die for their country, but not some nebulous concept such as internationalism.
            His observations of the economic failures of the Internationalist Socialists in the Soviet Union made him realize that you did not have to own the means of production to achieve socialist aims, you just had to be able to control it through the threat of state terror.
            This was a much more economically successful strategy.
            The National Socialist German Workers Party, led by Adolph Hitler was also a Marxist left Socialist party, but due to the threat of the Internationalist Socialist Soviet union (they were competitors for power), they did not push the fact with the public too much,
            though Hitler did explicitly say in a speech that they were anti semitic because as socialists they could not be anything else.
            All of their policy’s were explicitly socialist.
            This is why Stalin (through Moscow Center) ordered the German socialists under Soviet control to vote for Hitler in the election that bought him to power.
            Stalin said we will have to fight them eventually (the NSDAP) but our greatest threat is from the democratic capitalists, they (the NSDAP) will socialise the country (Germany)
            and make our task much easier when we take over.
            The truth of this can be seen in the postwar East Germany, which was the most repressive state in the Warsaw Pact next to the Soviet Union.
            This is absolutely in line with the writings of Marx and Engels and the policy’s of the Fabian Socialists, people these days are somewhat misled, they judge Socialism by the standards of the Soviet Union, in its later years, however none of the Socialist left countries in europe in the 1930’s or 1940’s were absolutely true to all socialist thought, there were differences between all of them.
            And in its own way the Soviet Union was just as divergent as all the others.

            Though i might add that the Soviet Holocaust was only prevented by Stalins death, the Mitrohkin Archive reveals that the arrest and death lists for the remaining Jewish population of the Soviet Union had been drawn up and suitable space allocated in the Soviet death camps for an extermination by cold, starvation and overwork, with the intelligentsia and cultural leader ship to be shot.

            So to conclude both the German NSDAP and the Italian Fascists were left wing socialist governments they were nationalist and not internationalist and were therefore in conflict with the Soviet union just as the later Tito was and for the same reasons.
            There were right wing governments in europe at the time, General Francos Spain is a good example, Germany assisted him in his war with the Internationalist Socialist Republicans, not because they shared a common ideology, but purely for geopolitical reasons of self interest.
            NSDAP Germany did not want an Internationalist Socialist country controlled by their rival Stalin on their flank.
            Hitler did say that he also would have to eventually fight Spain to install a friendly Nationalist Socialist Government once victory in the rest of europe was won.
            This is the reality of history.
            As far as i can establish, the propaganda painting Germany and Italy as right wing governments seems to have been initiated by Stalin in 1935 once the NSDAP had been successfully installed in Germany.
            I continues to this day.
            Dont forget it was the Soviet Union who trained Germanys officer corps in forbidden military technologies whilst the treaty of Versailles was in place.
            That is submarine warfare, the airforce, paratroops, and tank warfare.
            Goebbles did write to Stalin reminding him that as Socialists they had much in common and that it would be better if they had good relations.
            Remember ll people who describe themselves as Socialists today have much in common with Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.
            And right wing governments have nothing in common with the Fascists.

            Pete

          • HotScot;

            You say to me and provide a link.
            “Richard S Courtney

            Read this, then you can return to apologise to everyone.

            Penned by Goebbles himself.”

            For all who know anything of history, the writings of Joseph Goebels are NOT evidence of truth.
            I do not “apologise”: I spit on the memory of Goebbels.

            And I say you and the other the anonymous trolls who are supporting your post are disgraceful especially as we are now approaching Remembrance Sunday.

            Richard

          • This is just silly. There left -right “spectrum” does NOT measure the similarity of political philosophy. It is useless for this.

            Fascism and Socialism both are based on the notion the individual is to be subordinated to the sovereignty of a contrived collective entity.

          • J. Kasserman,

            The egregious reality of the fascist nonsense being promoted here having been exposed, you say the meaning of the words needs to be changed.

            Both Humpty Dumpty and Joseph Goebbels would be proud of you.

            Richard

          • Socialism is left of political centre and fascism is the political far right.

            Sorry, but you are the one repeating a lie (Goebbles would be so proud). Fascism grew out of the left back in the early 20th century. Fascism is national socialism. Perhaps you are familiar with the most (in)famous national socialist/fascist group in history – the Nazis

          • Fascism, communism and socialism are different philosophies.

            No, they are not. They are different shades of the same thing

            Fascism grew out of the left/socialist movements of the early 20th century. Learn some history man.
            Fascism = National socialism
            communism = International socialism

            Communism and fascism are totalitarian and socialism is not.

            And yet socialism is where fascism and communism sprung from. That’s an historical fact that your denial/lies won’t change.

            Totalitarianism is evil so I understand why those advocating it pretend to be socialist.

            Totalitarianism is evil so I understand why those advocating socialism would pretend that it has nothing to do with them. History, however, tells a different story.

            I do not “apologise”: I spit on the memory of Goebbels.

            The way you keep repeating a lie, It looks more like you celebrate Goebbels.

            Both Humpty Dumpty and Joseph Goebbels would be proud of you.

            Richard, you are projecting. It’s been amply demonstrated by multiple posters that you are wrong. You’ve yet to rebut a single point any of them made. That you keep insisting on pushing the same lie in response is what would make Joseph Goebbels proud. You make a fine Totalitarian socialist that would be right at home in Goebbels company.

          • And thank you Graeme for pointing out that the actual source of the most prominent and well-known fascist party of all time was a socialist party.

            It’s not just the well-known fascist party of all time, if you look at all the leaders of the fascist movements of the early 20th century, every single one came from leftwing/socialist parties/organizations. Richard, in his willful ignorance of history, would have you believe that that is not only coincidental but that those people were all right-wingers pretending to be left-wing/socialists for all those years prior to and after forming their fascist organizations.

        • Totally agree. I left, not for the matters you raise, I left because I could. I had a choice. That was in 1995. Never looked back. Trouble is, creeping “socialism” has infested and infected my adopted countries, firstly New Zealand and latterly Australia. Typically, both are about 20 – 30 behind what happens in the UK, but they are catching up fast.

          What is more a worry in NZ and Australia is the sheer anti-white male, hate of white men, permeates education and society, unless you are a sports person.

          • and even the sport dudes are worried and being ecer sooo carefully pc now as well
            nauseating really
            but thats ok cos ocker shielas like me will happily speak up, I really dont care what snowflakes are “offended”
            call it as I see it and if you disagree than argue…and they wont cos they really have no bloody idea of whats what especially on warmist shite, and for the most on politicals as well

          • Graemethecat:

            Your daft comment was “incorrect” in the same way that countries claiming to be a “Peoples Democratic Republic” are usually not democratic.

            But you knew that, you naughty little anonymous troll, you.

            Richard

          • So all the far left socialist parties that evolved into fascism where just “pretending” because Richard Cortney says so? LOL. learn some history man.

        • This is the success of ‘The Frankfurt School’ and the school’s 12 point plan which has succeeded beyond the dreams of the school’s founders. Indeed it has become self-perpetuating due to the takeover of academia and the media.

    • No but Fox News Neil Cavoto just had Tom Steyer on his morning show. Allegedly because Steyer doesn’t agree with Pocahontas”s Medicare For All. You can tell the sale to Disney has affected Cavoto’s freakin’ brain.
      I wouldn’t watch— I didn’t have any barf bags handy.

      • Carbon Bigfoot, Disney did *not* buy FOX News. Disney bought the entertainment part of Fox (IE 21st Century Fox), the News part was spun off and remains in the hands of Rupert Murdock and family (in short Fox was split in two, with only one of the two being bought by Disney). So what ever beef you have with Cavoto, Disney is not involved.

    • Why not tell us what the change in the average humidity is for that 3/10 C degree temp increase, so that we can see how much extra energy there is in the air?

      Because air at 100 degrees Celsius in Death Valley contains a helluva lot less energy than 100 degrees Celsius in pre-monsoon New Delhi.

      Temperature by itself is meaningless.

      And, of course, if the Kelvin scale, which measures Celsius degrees starting at absolute zero, is used, that 0.3 degree change amounts to an increase of 0.011 percent. Whew!

      • Because air at 100 degrees Celsius in Death Valley contains a helluva lot less energy than 100 degrees Celsius in pre-monsoon New Delhi.

        Temperature by itself is meaningless.

        And 75 degrees F misty air in a Louisiana bayou after an afternoon thunderstorm at 100% humidity holds twice the energy as air in Death Valley at 100 degrees F and almost zero humidity.

        This is why averaging of an intensive variable like Temperature is a nonsense – but it allows climate ‘scientists’ to fool the public.
        Then they try to show global average temperatures from the past to a precision of hundredths of a degree when there were less than 50 observation sites in the Southern Hemisphere most of which were in Australia and New Zealand and no observations in the world were made with more than a degree accuracy.

        • Add to that how little energy it takes to raise -35C to -20C, in comparison to heating above 0C, and you’ll understand what a little extra humidity can do to Arctic winter temperatures, and consequently skew the the global temperature.
          Water is in control!

  1. “Thunberg said she believes young people like herself are becoming more prominent in the climate-change movement because, with almost their whole lives ahead of them, they recognize how great the danger is to their generation”

    That the young are uncritical abosrbers of new information given by adults and that adults critically evaluate new information is an evolutionary survival mechanism. This is why children make better customers for climate snake oil.

    • It’ is called life lessons you start out trusting and naive. Then you meet the cheating partner, the con men, the shysters and you sort of learn to look hard at people promoting things.

    • Yup. And the devastation in education caused by today’s wolf-pack skooling system. Teachers are the dumbest who can still graduate from college, and students do not learn the citizenship they did under the older one-room-schoolhouse system. We see all kinds of lunatic leftie stuff.
      See www. constitution.org/col/one_room_schoolhouse.htm for more information.
      Restoration can happen in private schools first, which will be very superior academically to most schools today. That will attract more pupils, and the public schools will have to improve to compete.

      Is your church or faith group considering a private school?

      • There is just one little (big) problem, finding the right private school. Private schools today are not necessary conservative, teaching critical thinking and “good old” values.
        The compendiums and books they use, are mostly filled with the same climate propaganda stuff, which honest teachers may have difficulties de-explain: “See teacher, it is written here in black and white, that CO₂ is a pollution and if causing dangerous global warming.”

      • Yes Carl Friis-Hansen, it will take some research on a parents part to find a good private school. Alternately, if their family circumstances allow, there’s the option of home schooling (though even there, some states try to dictate what texts must be used/what nonsense must be taught). Though I’d been careful with the homeschooling option as not everyone is suited to be a homeschooler. I’ve known homeschooling parents whose kids were taught well and as a result could academically beat the metaphorical pants off state schooled kids with ease, and I’ve known homeschooling parents whose kids were not taught well and were as dumb as a box of rocks (with apologies to boxes of rocks) as a result.

  2. We have Climategate 2 now with the Andy Pitman admission. This is something that will be hard to explain away. In many ways it is a disgrace to the entire human race that the lies still persist 10 years on.
    Will the next round of scandal become Extinctiongate?

    • well that abbatoir in qld will be under utilised
      maybe exrebs could go protest there
      or offer themselves up to save the planet

  3. Everything that Dr Kemm says has been well known for over two decades and yet this has had no impact whatsoever on the momentum of the CAGW evangelistic cause. The reason was summed up perfectly by Patrick Moore (a co-founder of Greenpeace):

    This “perfect storm” has come about from a powerful convergence of interests: individuals seeking fame (and fortune), scientists seeking grants, media seeking headlines, universities seeking grants, government agencies bolstering research, a plethora of new research institutes seeking support, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations, intergovernmental agencies vying for influence, and businesses looking to make windfall profits.

    Self interest is a much stronger driving force than altruism.

    • I think you could add into that list a decline in religion, producing great numbers of mostly young people looking for a purpose or justification of their existence.

      It’s tough to accept that our thoughts and feelings exist for just a flicker of time, and we amount to absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of anything at all. At least with most religions, we are just passing through a phase, and will continue on in an afterlife.

      We can’t accept being meaningless, therefore we can readily jump on the bandwagon to save the world.

      These are the most dangerous people, with the same attributes of a religious zealot. The will do great harm if it furthers their goals, and cannot tolerate having their beliefs challenged.

  4. Which reminds me…….I think that at some point there was a second release of emails. However, not a peep from anyone about those. Anthony?

      • Doesn’t address that encrypted file. Do you remember the encrypted zip file? A file containing massive amounts of ??? was released in one BIG encrypted zip file … ringing any bells yet?

        • If I recall correctly the original file consists of multiple passworded files that each require a different password.

          It has been a while since I read about it. Opening the main file did not give access to the whole content. That is how I remember the description.

          The original source wanted to eliminate all trace of their involvement and wished to hand the whole thing to a few trustable people, did so, and deleted /destroyed all evidence of their involvement.

          As you can imagine those affected by the revelations are far more interested i n prosecuting the whistleblower than they are telling the public what is going on with the climate. The whistleblower’s fear is well-founded. Trillion$ are at stake.

          Telling the truth has become at least as dangerous as it was during the Late Middle Ages.

        • The 3rd released contained 220,000 mails.
          A few of us have the password and have looked at all the mails.

          Nothing.
          Zip
          Nada

          • re: The 3rd released contained 220,000 mails.
            A few of us have the password and have looked at all the mails.

            Nothing.
            Zip
            Nada

            The veracity ‘factor’ of this claim: undeterminable.

          • Jim

            If mosh says that, then that should be good enough. I may have disagreed with him over many years and he does have this fixation with medieval monks, but I would deem him honest and trustworthy

            Tonyb

          • You realise Stephen that we appear to have only your word that the emails are entirely innocuous.
            And why is it that you , amongst a select few, have the key to their contents. Were you that close to the correspondents? If so, and were I a federal prosecutor, would not that intimacy cast doubts in my mind about your evidence on the (not dishonourable) grounds of loyalty to friends and colleagues ?

          • re: “Folks, Anthony Watts, Jeff Condon, Steven McIntire and others also have the password. FOIA requested that the password not be released.”

            THANK YOU. At last a SANE and complete answer/response. “Something to Believe In.” (C) 2012 OFA

  5. Dr. Kemm
    Excellent analysis. Suggestion, touch base with the Wall Street Journal to have them use it on the Op Ed pages. It will reach a large national audience.

  6. I remember when I saw this breaking news. I called the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel news desk to tell them about it. The person I talked to seemed genuinely interested. I then noticed that it took a week or more for news of the email leak to appear in a small article on the inside pages and nothing more about it.

    Almost forgot – – Thank you Dr. Kemm for reminding me of this anniversary.

  7. Bless you efforts and your determination to bring forth the truth. Bravo for the scientists who are standing up against these NEOCON-Climate fascists who are unworthy of any position to decimate any science when it come to the Climate and weather….The Sky is falling narrative is failing in a classic crach and burn and all of the people who took part in the fraud should be fired, shunned, wiped and all of their jobs stripped from them for climate terrorism premeditated action stopped. forever.

  8. Would anyone be able to add a graph showing CO2 and temperature back to 1880 please? I think it would have a strong visual impact.

    • We don’t have decent CO2 data before about 1960. Plus plotting CO2 against temperature doesn’t tell you much. CO2 is logarithmic so its effects taper off. Going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm has the same effect as going from 560 to 1120 for example. Or 150 to 300 has the same effect as 300 to 600. The fact that CO2 is logarithmic should have been the end of the debate all by itself. Once you break past 400 or so, it just doesn’t matter much anymore.

      • I think that the archived UK meteorological office weather data for each year from the mid 19th century mentions carbonic acid but I cannot remember in what context. I look it up in the files I’ve downloaded over the next couple of days and let you know.

    • CO2 concentrations back in 1880 were estimates at ~280ppm/v. NOAA created a global land and sea average temperature back as far as 1850. How they did that is a mystery (No, it’s not! I know they made it up).

      So, the claim is since 1880-ish, global temps have risen 0.8c all the while CO2 concentrations rose ~50% to ~410ppm/v.

      • Actually, there IS a very strong correlation between CO2 concentration in the air and temperature, as shown by Antarctic ice-core data. Inconveniently for the Warmunists, changes in air temperature, as shown by O16/O18 ratios always PRECEDE changes in CO2 by about 800 years. The Warmunists have causation back to front.

        Check out Potholer54’s increasingly desperate and fatuous attempts to explain away this Inconvenient Truth on YouTube.

    • Little Oil: Find real climate by tony heller, he shows graphs of all sorts, exposing the adjustments that have been made to support the AGW cause. WUWT also does this, but not as frequently. I follow both sites daily, great information from both. This site covers a broad range of science articles, heller focuses on the charts. If there is a chart, he’ll show it before and after.

  9. Phil Jones boasting of using statistical “tricks” to remove evidence of observed declines in global temperatures.

    A good article but this statement needs fixing. What Jones bragged about was using someone else’s “trick to hide the decline”. The someone else was Michael Mann. But what Mann was hiding was that his prescious tree ring data declined after about 1950 while temps still went up. It was the tree ring data that declined. Had Jones and Mann graphed the full tree ring record against the full temperature record, it would have become patently obvious to even the casual observer that tree rings were not representative of the temperature record at all, and the hockey stick graphs by various alarmists were all bogus.

    • Thank you. That’s what I remember from the time. There is no correlation between tree rings and Rempstone since about 1950 when they diverged. In order to make the hockey stick work Mann cleverly grafted thermometer data onto tree ring data, got rid of the Medieval Warm Period (and he became a hero of the Medieval Warm Period Deniers). Once published in Nature this torturing of data and truth became known as “Mike’s Nature Trick” and was subsequently used by Prof Jones in his own work.

  10. And the BBC paraded Mann in their ridiculous TV programme Climate Change The Facts. “A Disgrace to the Profession”

  11. Kelvin Kemm:

    Your fine article (above) provides a good summary of the ‘Climategate’ issues for those who don’t know them. Thank you.

    The emails from me that were leaked (hacked ?) as part of ‘Climategate’ all pertain to my refutations of the so-called “science” of the’global warming scare’; see e.g. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we02.htm

    Your article rightly mentions motivations for the ‘global warming scare’ including calls for “social justice” (i.e. excuses for wealth redistribution) and I strongly agree with you when you say in your article,
    “Real social justice and human rights mean everyone has access to abundant, reliable, affordable energy, especially universally important electricity. Not from expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent wind turbines and solar panels. From fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.”

    Unfortunately, several contributors to the discussion beneath your article have used that as an excuse to oppose socialism.

    The ‘global warming scare’ is supported by people of ALL political ideologies because the scare can be used to promote all their various objectives. Socialists who oppose the ‘global warming scare’, including me, are hindered in our opposition by right-wing extremists using the scare as an excuse for opposition to socialism.

    Richard

    • Richard,

      I would be terribly interested if anyone could point to a reasonable number of (or indeed, any) proposed solutions to the CAGW ‘problem’ that do not involve more taxation, more government, more regulation, more control and less personal freedom.

      The fact that I’ve not seen anything of the sort so far has led me, and many others in my experience, to view the CAGW scaremongering as a tool to implement socialist agenda.

      Just sayin….

      • It isn’t the case that the proposed solutions have an unfortunate by-products (“more taxation, more government, more regulation, more control and less personal freedom”), that’s the entire point.

        While I am sure there are some proponents of “solutions” that are generally interested in climate issues, the most vocal and strident I’m particularly interested in climate except as a vehicle to justify more government, more regulation and more control. Whether it actually does something to affect the climate is irrelevant to these people. If I recall correctly, one of the key people associated with AOC actually admitted this. (They are no longer directly associated with her because this slipped out so they moved elsewhere.)

      • Zig Zag Wanderer:

        Your nasty comments would have some merit if you had the guts to put your name to them instead of throwing them from behind the cowards screen of anonymity.

        The global warming hypothesis had existed for a century as a scientific curiosity until the anti-socialist Margaret Thatcher used it to create the global warming scare for reasons of her personal political advancement.

        Furthermore, your disputation of these matters would impress me if you had provided some evidence that your opposition to the global warming scare was as long standing, as consistent, and had similar personal cost as my own. As some anonymous propagandist said, jusr sayin….

        Richard

        • Richard, his comments stand on their own. Stop playing the man and play the ball. Whether a person is anonymous or ,like you and I, puts their name to their posts is irrelevant. Either what they say has merit or it does not.

        • The global warming hypothesis had existed for a century as a scientific curiosity until the anti-socialist Margaret Thatcher used it to create the global warming scare for reasons of her personal political advancement.

          And she later denounced what it became when the left-wing/socialists took it over.
          In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, under the heading “Hot Air and Global Warming” she recognized how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.

    • Your dialectic is screwed up. It’s not right vs. left, but statism vs. individual freedom. Communism, socialism, fascism, crony capitalism are all on one side of the spectrum; individualism and liberty are on the other.

      • That’s about it.

        Whenever someone accuses me of being a nazi or a fascist or whatever, I point out that I am actually a conservative with libertarian leanings.

        Nazis and fascists (and communists and socialists) believe in big government. Conservatives and libertarians believe in small government.

        Which is why conservatives NEVER have to accept being slimed as being nazis.

        Not that they care, but its nice to be right. And correct.

    • Richard S Courtney

      Only a socialist could contort evidence free beliefs into an attack on the Right.

      The fact is, mankind evolved from free trade, freedom of expression, low taxation and small governments.

      Socialism is a concocted idealism which has succeeded nowhere on the planet without being underpinned by Capitalism.

      Where it has been attempted, it has led to nothing but misery with a dictatorial elite reaping any benefits to make themselves fabulously wealthy by stealing from the poor.

      China and Russia have finally conceded that irrefutable fact.

      • “Socialism is a concocted idealism which has succeeded nowhere on the planet without being underpinned by Capitalism.”
        I dunno. Most of the Scandinavian countries do pretty well…..

        • Ah, the old canard about Scandinavia being Socialist. If you’ve ever been there, you will know that these countries are entirely free-market economies.

          • The government of Norway owns a 67% interest in Equinor. If that isn’t “socialism” please tell us what your definition of it is.

          • “Ah, the old canard about Scandinavia being Socialist. If you’ve ever been there, you will know that these countries are entirely free-market economies.”
            And it seems you confuse socialism with communism. Nothing wrong with a competitive market and social policies working together.

        • Simon

          Read and understand the entire relevant text, instead of distorting it like a good little socialist.

          Whilst Scandinavian countries may elect socialist governments, they operate within a Capitalist framework. It underpins and allows their society to function profitably.

          You might also refer to JohnTyler’s comment above.

          • HotScot
            Just saying the Scandinavian version is my kind of socialism. They pay higher tax to make sure those who need care get it.

          • “Simon November 2, 2019 at 5:20 pm

            They pay higher tax to make sure those who need care get it.”

            What happens when the money runs out (Norway and oil)?

          • Patrick MJD

            Norway is the wealthiest Sovereign nation in the world thanks to Oil. It is the second biggest investor in the stock market (I may be wrong about the market it invests in) and can afford socialism, but once more proves that any successful socialist country is underpinned by Capitalism.

            And I think a more accurate description for it would be a ‘Welfare Country’ as there is no mass industrialisation of industry and services.

      • HotScot;

        Only a propagandist could misrepresent a refutation of the falsehood that socialism is fascism by pretending that the refutation is “an attack on the right”.

        Your untrue propaganda is not only untrue, it is also absurd.

        Richard

        • Richard S Courtney

          Wrong end of the stick chum. Propaganda is a tool of the left. It’s called telling lies, as amply demonstrated by Stalin and numerous other left wing adherents.

          Go and read Matt Ridley’s book ‘The Rational Optimist’ which describes in detail the strides forward mankind took when it first discovered the benefits of free trade.

          Just simple facts socialists hand wave away because it contradicts their narrative.

          BTW, have you re-distributed all your wealth to those in need, or are you just bitter enough to want to take what everyone else has?

          • Hotscot;

            Propganda is a tool of politicians and the far-right fascists used the ‘Big Lie’ as their main propaganda tool.

            Your suggestion that propaganda is only a “a tool of the left” reveals your evil intent.

            Richard

          • Propganda is a tool of politicians and the far-right fascists used the ‘Big Lie’ as their main propaganda tool.

            Speaking of Big Lies, here you are again pushing one of the biggest, that fascists were “far-right”. Fascism grew out of the left. Look at all the leaders of 20th century fascism, every one of them to the man came from far-left/socialist parties and organizations. every single one of them. History refutes your propaganda lies.

    • re” “The ‘global warming scare’ is supported by people of ALL political ideologies ”

      This seems to be a “Brit” thing; watching your ‘politics’, y’all seem to be quite “messed up” over there (to put it ‘adriotly’.)

      • _Jim;

        The global warming scare IS supported by people of ALL political ideologies.
        That is simply a fact which you can check by considering all the countries who voted for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the politics of their governments.

        The idea that the scare is politically ‘left- wing’ is an American thing.

        Richard

        • re: “The global warming scare IS supported by people of ALL political ideologies.
          That is simply a fact which you can check by considering all the countries who voted for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the politics of their governments.

          The idea that the scare is politically ‘left- wing’ is an American thing.”

          MORE a product of the bubble you find yourself, than anything else I would say, although I will also note the British pols moreso seem to avail themselves of positions politically for the purposes of expediency, and gain. British pols position on issues seem to have no basis, no underlying ideology whatsoever … maybe this stems back further to the schism with the Roman Church? (SURELY there is a ‘root’ there somewhere.)

          ‘The left’ in this country are predominantly the highly indoctrinated (Pavlovian response training), as well as just downright politically and economically stupid (WOULD THEY even understand Reagan’s 1960’s speech titled “A Time for Choosing” REGARDLESS of the endorsement Reagan was making? A LINK to that speech can be found below.) and are conditioned to embrace the Global Warming agenda …

          • _Jim:

            I provided clear and indisputable evidence that you were wrong and “The global warming scare IS supported by people of ALL political ideologies.”

            Your response has been to change the subject and post a video.

            Quod Erat Demonstrandum

            Richard

    • “Unfortunately, several contributors to the discussion beneath your article have used that as an excuse to oppose socialism.”

      Now I understand, Richard. Your viewpoint, I mean. You are defending socialism. You think socialism has some good points to it. That explains why you are so adamant about separating socialism and facism. You think conflating the two is a smear on socialism.

      I think you are what would be described as a classic Liberal, and that position does have some good points like favoring freedom of speech, and that is what you are really defendig..

      When I think of socialism, I see the radical version, that wants to suppress free speech and all other personal freedoms, but I don’t think that is your position at all, and would not describe you as a radical socialist.

      This is not meant as criticism of you. I think classic Liberals have valid points to make, but radical socialists, more properly described as authoritarians, will be the death of us all.

      It appears to me that you are defending Classic Liberalism, not radical socialism. I think some people get confused about this, including me. But now I think I understand. Correct me if I’m wrong. Perhaps I’m completely off-base.

      • Tom Abbott;

        You are “off-base” but not completely.

        There are people here who equate socialism with anything they don’t like. Indeed, they admit they cannot distinguish between fascism on the extreme right, socialism on the left of centre, and communism on the extreme left. The two extremes I mentioned are both totalitarian but – as you say – socialism is not.

        I am merely defending socialism from the untrue attacks on it that have been made here.

        Richard

        • Again with the lies Richard. fascism is not “on the extreme right”, fascism grew out of the extreme left/socialism of the early 20th century. The extreme right would be the opposite of fascism, communism, and other dictatorial -isms. IE Anarchy.

          I am merely defending socialism from the untrue attacks on it that have been made here.

          No you are lying. I suspect you are mainly lying to yourself about the history of socialism. You think socialism is good and can’t reconcile that with the facts of all the bad that has grown from socialism (fascism and communism mainly).

  12. Richard,

    It rather depends whose definition of “socialism” you use. The one I use comes from my copy (dated 1928) of the Pocket Oxford Dictionary, which my mother used to use at school. It is the “principle that individual liberty should be completely subordinated to the interests of the community with the deductions that can be drawn from it, e.g. the State ownership of land and capital.” I don’t think that is very far away from either fascism or deep green environmentalism. If you are using a different definition, please tell us what it is.

    • Neil Lock :

      I am using the definition of socialism created by the Tolpuddle Martyrs who predated Marx.

      It says simply that society should provide every person (whatever his or her role or status) with their individual needs and should expect that they each contribute to society according to their individual abilities.

      Richard

      • “From each according to his means to each according to his needs “.

        – Karl Marx

        This has always benefited the lazy and stupid at the expense of the hard-working and intelligent.

        • Graemethecat;

          I am neither lazy nor stupid. Also, your jealousy at hard-work and intelligence is silly because you can correct your lack of hard-work if you try.

          Richard

          • It’s not Graemethecat that has jealousy against hard-work and intelligence, it’s the far-left socialists who covet the fruit of their labors in order to pay for their socialist utopias (which have historically devolve into the types of socialism you have deluded yourself into thinking have nothing to do with socialism: Fascism and communism),

  13. I feel it’s nearly impossible to make anyone I know see the truth. People are not open to other ideas and revere the alarmists as scientists.

    I think the only way to make people question the supposed evidence for AGW is to make them realize what they’ll have to forgo to go carbon neutral.

    • “I feel it’s nearly impossible to make anyone I know see the truth. People are not open to other ideas and revere the alarmists as scientists.”

      Perhaps try a different angle of attack. Try saying that it doesn’t matter what “we” (Westerners) do to “fight climate change,” CO2 emissions will rise relentlessly regardless, past any and all (supposed) tipping points, because 80% of the future increase in them will come from developing countries that have bet the farm on coal and other fossil fuels. (See reports by the IEA, BP, etc.) “Our” efforts will only defer Doomsday by a couple of years—e.g., from 2100 to 2102. So money spent on mitigation by renewables here will be unavailable for adaptation to what’s coming—plus our power supply will be unreliable (and short-lived) too.

  14. Addressed to ALL on this Left v. Right issue/terminology – I make reference to a speech by Ronald Reagan titled A Time for Choosing (aka “The Speech”)

    https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm

    You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

    Video of “The Speech” –

  15. There have been a number of email and data releases since 2010 (podesta, Hillary, Panama papers for example) and to my knowledge, there has been ZERO investigations to examine the context and accuracy of what we’re in these data sets.

    For the climategate email release(s), last I heard there were 9 or so independent investigations that all cleared and/or exonerated the ‘scientists’.

    Why was it so important to clear just the climategate emails?

    IMO it’s because it’s the biggest left-bang for the buck (societal transform, control, enriching the rich, etc).

    • Regarding the Podesta, Hillary, DNC e-mails, I think that was “taken care of” with the offing of one Seth Rich. This serves as a very stern warning to others going forward.

      Change my mind.

      As to any investigations – CERTAINLY not by the national ‘lap dog’ media; they are hand-in-glove with the democrats in the societal ‘subversion’ now underway, besides, they want that next invite to cocktail parties and the like in Pedowood -er- Hollywood and DC …

      Side note: Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.

    • “For the climategate email release(s), last I heard there were 9 or so independent investigations that all cleared and/or exonerated the ‘scientists’.”

      Yeah, everytime someone tells me that climategate was “refuted” I ask if they actually read any of the emails.

      No, of course not…

      Then I tell them that if I am ever charged with any professional misconduct (I’m a statistician), I hope to be “”investigated” by the same “investigators” so that I can be “exonerated” in the same manner.

      • “I tell them that if I am ever charged with any professional misconduct (I’m a statistician), I hope to be “”investigated” by the same “investigators” so that I can be “exonerated” in the same manner.”

        Regarding Mann’s exoneration, a commenter here noted: “A previous Penn State investigation had cleared Mr Sandusky as well.”

  16. You’ve only got to listen to the bullshit spouted on Oz TV – “60cm sea level rises, maybe up to over a metre”?

    “Oh, yes, we applaud this new ”

    Even after all their crap has been either debunked or had reams of counter-evidence shown for it, they still run on with the verbal diarrhoea of “anthropogenic climate change”.
    And mass-morons still believe them… belief akin to deeply held religious fervour.

  17. There are so many solid scientific arguments contradicting the overblown rhetoric of the warmists, it is a shame to see the case muddied up by facts that purport to be relevant but in fact are not.

    Kemm includes a delightful visual image (the Eiffel Tower analogy) the reader appreciate how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere. I haven’t checked the math, but assuming it is accurate, so what?

    Unfortunately I’ve seen this meme used all too often, in an apparent attempt to argue that the global warming threat is overblown because the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small.

    Would you drink a glass of water if I told you that the concentration of arsenic or polonium was well below the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? If you did, it would be the last drink for you ever.

    I think we all accept that small concentrations of some chemicals can have considerable consequences, so I continued to be puzzled that some people come up with their own clever analogy explaining how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere and stop the argument at that point is if it is obvious they have provided a persuasive argument.

    The problem with the use of this argument is that it is all too often for someone to read an article, and upon finding something that is glaringly wrong, decide to reject the entire article. While that’s technically illogical, it is quite understandable. It is a shame that many well-meaning skeptics may find their entire case dismissed they happen to incorporate this misleading meme.

    • Consider the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere compared to the effect of arsenic on the Human body. Not even close…..

    • The units of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are ppm by volume (dry). The mass of CO2 in 1 L is about 8E-04 g. The concentration of any substance of 8E-04 g in 1 L of water is about 0.8 ppm by mass. Millions of people in Bangladesh routinely drink water containing arsenic at levels an order of magnitude or more higher. A single drink of water with that amount of arsenic obviously would not normally be one’s last.

      Polonium might be a different story, but I won’t make the effort to check.

  18. Actually, it is completely believable that the original temperature data files were lost if you look at the HARRY_READ_ME file that was released as part of the Climategate cache. This was the log of a professional programmer brought in to try and make sense of the programs and data the CRU was using to generate their global temperature values. The level of programming was utter incompetence (no error handling in subroutines, no limit checking for array variables) and there was no naming convention for datafiles, often using exactly the same name for entirely different sets of data and nothing to try and actually identify what physical monitoring stations were associated with the sets of temperature data.

    • err WRONG.

      Harry was working on a dataset that was not intended for climate studies because it did not have the required adjustments.

          • And you’d think, reading comprehension would have been a necessary skill for an English Major. Apparently not.

          • Well, we live in a world where advanced statistics isn’t required for climate science…you don’t need to be able to actually write to be a journalist…or know anything useful to be a media pundit.

            So its not just his fault, its a few decades of grade inflation and “gold star” generation after generation.

      • You obviously haven’t read the file. He was hired to totally revise the code that produced the CRUTEM surface stations historical database, and the output of his work was CRUTEM3. Anyone knows that. Here are some extracts:

        8. Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which
        did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy – naming
        two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location
        to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!

        20. Loading just the first program opens up another huge can o’ worms. The
        program description reads:

        pro cal_cld_gts_tdm,dtr_prefix,outprefix,year1,year2,info=info
        ; calculates cld anomalies using relationship with dtr anomalies
        ; reads coefficients from predefined files (*1000)
        ; reads DTR data from binary output files from quick_interp_tdm2.pro (binfac=1000)
        ; creates cld anomaly grids at dtr grid resolution
        ; output can then be used as dummy input to splining program that also
        ; includes real cloud anomaly data

        So, to me this identifies it as the program we cannot use any more because
        the coefficients were lost. As it says in the gridding read_me:

        Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New
        lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape
        archives at UEA) and never recreated it.

        So.. we don’t have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But
        what are all those monthly files? DON’T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look,
        there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And
        that’s useless.. take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann
        directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference
        is that one directory is apparently ‘monthly’ and the other ‘annual’ – yet
        both contain monthly files.

        The whole file, broken into manageable chunks, is here: (I suggest you read it)

        http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html

  19. ” Among many other scandals, the shocking leaked emails showed then-CRU-director Prof. Phil Jones boasting of using statistical “tricks” to remove evidence of observed declines in global temperatures.”

    Its is so STUPID that 10 years after skeptics STILL havent learned what the “trick” is.

    ITS NOT ABOUT A DECLINE IN TEMPERATURES.

    • So the “trick” to “hide the decline” (in temperatures) had nothing to do with a decline in temperatures? pull the other one. Or, instead of drive-by nonsense, you actually explain what you *think* the trick was and why it was used (keeping in mind we can all look at the email where “mike’s nature trick” was used to add “the real temps” to the ends of the series to “hide the decline”).

  20. It’s a welcome reminder of the anniversary.

    What I remember most strongly is that I initially paid little attention, despite having started reading internet blogs on the topic a couple of years earlier.

    The reason? Of course climate scientists admitted in private how little they understood, and how badly the climate models failed. This was completely expected and understood by even half-competent scientists and engineers working in other disciplines. The hubris of climate scientists was never in doubt for people not lead by a ring through the nose. Nor did I doubt the eagerness with which they would try and disguise their lack of competence by using every ethical and questionable ruse in the book, and probably some that were less ethical and more questionable. As a result, I didn’t even bother to look at the emails for about another two years.

    When I did start reading them I was struck by mainly one thing:
    These people were so wedded to their unvalidated beliefs that they were willing to abandon every last scientific scruple in pursuit of their goals, and woe betide anyone unwilling to sing from their approved song sheet. They demonstrated how willing they were, and still are, to destroy any person standing in their way. People like Michael Mann led the charge, and were awarded money and accolades by their peers for doing so.

    They simply abandoned the most basic principles of science. Probably setting back their field of research by many decades, until the Climate Augean stables experience a cleansing political-flood. They chose to live by the political sword, and know the eventual outcome.

  21. “We lost(accidently erased) the original data,our bad,we will have them “reconstructed” in approximately 3 years”.
    “Nothing to see here,trust us,move along.”
    2010.
    2019? anybody seen those reconstructions of world historical weather due out 2013 ?

    Now many people say nothing changed after the exposure of the CRU Emails,I disagree.
    Our own bureaucracies were exposed as openly preying on the citizen.
    Openly at war,with every ideal they claimed to be protecting/promoting.
    And our political animals,with the exception of President Trump and a handful of other statesmen,exposed as cowardly self promoting thieves.

    Canada,currently to be pronounced Can-Ahh-Duh, will probably not survive the corruption of our home grown kleptocracy.
    The last federal vote,2019, shows the standards voters accept.
    Our eastern Comrades openly embrace stupidity,the new religion and demand all must wear the new cloth.
    From the West they just look like fat naked fools,demanding they be permitted to steal more.

    The idiocy of our “Climate Emergency” is impossible to parody.
    For the few people paying attention,climate gate was fatal to the cause,however when government is the source of corrupt behaviour and deceit,it takes years to fade away.
    Because none may be held accountable.when all are complicit.

    The lesson of the last 6 decades,in Canada at least, is government does nothing,absolutely nothing better than individuals.
    Except maybe waste and destroy.

    We are constantly mocked by our entitle parasites,with “free Healthcare,best in the world”.
    For only 50% of your income,if you survive the wait.
    And “Good Government” …Starring our current “leadership”.

  22. One day this will be looked at as the moment when the world should have known but chose to put on a blind eye instead. And it’s good we have this moment recorded as when the whole thing crashes down on us, we will be able to ask hard questions. All those leaders that had us spend trillions on a fluke should be forced to answer hard questions. I propose for all politicians that have been in executive functions and were in a position to know better to have them stripped of their retirement nest eggs. Payback for the damage they helped bring upon us. That won’t happen but we are still allowed to dream.

  23. _Jim:

    I provided clear and indisputable evidence that you were wrong and “The global warming scare IS supported by people of ALL political ideologies.”

    Your response has been to change the subject and post a video.

    Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Richard

    • Richard, when that ideology is “power at all costs” there seems to be a strange unity of our fearless leaders.
      I maintain it is neither left nor right,it is power.
      Either power to the individual or power to the faceless State.
      Of course who dares trust the individuals if they use their own personal integrity as the standard?
      Funny how so many still trust the faceless minions of the bureaus,using standard operating procedures as their guide, to rule better than self governing persons.
      It begs the imagination, how so many can vote for more..theft,destruction and waste.

  24. I always thought “hide the decline” was about the use of Mann’s “nature trick” in a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction. As I recall, tree ring data was one of several proxy components used in the reconstruction. Tree ring data was processed and correlated with temperature as part of the reconstruction. But the tree ring data started showing a decline in temperature in the reconstruction, during a period of time when reliable instrument measurements had shown an increase in temperatures. If tree ring data were a valid proxy for temperature, there should have been no divergence from the known instrument measurements. The decline was int the reconstruction, not the actual temperature record. Mike’s nature trick was merely to splice the instrument data onto the end of the tree ring proxy data, to preserve the upward blade of the hockey stick, and preserve the utility of using dead trees as a temperature proxy. Did I miss anything?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *