Open Letter to the BBC: A modest BBC docudrama suggestion

9 June, 2021

Open Letter to the BBC:
A modest BBC docudrama suggestion
 
re:  University of East Anglia ‘Climategate’ scandal to be turned into film
 
Dear BBC,
 
Rather than disband the creative team who undertook the daunting project of whitewashing the revelation that leading climate scientists had been manipulating & withholding data, hiding evidence, flouting FoIA laws to illegally evade legitimate requests for data needed to replicate scientific studies, and blackballing skeptics, to promote the CAGW scare, may I suggest that you make “The Trick” the first in a series. For the next one, you can tackle the second-worst scientific scandal in modern history: Piltdown Man (click to enlarge):


 

 
Put a mustache on Jason Watkins, and he’s a dead ringer and natural to play the “brilliant amateur archaeologist” Charles Dawson, who spliced bone fragments from dissimilar skeletons to create the illusion of the “missing link”  (click to enlarge):
 



 
It shouldn’t be much of a stretch for Mr. Watkins, after playing the brilliant UEA CRU climate scientist, Phil Jones, who spliced fragments from dissimilar graphs to create the illusion of the “hockey stick” temperature graph  (click to enlarge).
 


 


If you undertake this project, please mention me with a footnote in the credits.
 
Warmest regards,
 
Dave Burton
www.sealevel.info
Cary, NC  USA

4.9 33 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
192 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JeffC
June 10, 2021 2:28 am

Judging by the BBC announcement of this docudrama it would appear that this will be another coat of whitewash to add to the ones applied some 12 years ago. It won’t alter the facts though.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  JeffC
June 10, 2021 3:08 am

Au contraire!!! The facts have to be altered to make it “real”! May I suggest that towards the end Bruce Willis & Sylvester Stallone crash through a window armed to the teeth to gun down the evil dissenters (fully funded by Big Oil of course) pretending to seek the truth behind the climate Change disaster/crisis/catastrophe/calamity, & have CGI of Alan Rickman (deceased) as an evil oil executive doling out pots of $s to compliant journos, etc? There could be some fantastic special effects produced by a new super-computer called Deep Thought perhaps? Oh the possibilities are endless!!! sarc 😉

PS I hear there’s a possibility that a large part of Cornwall will flip over under the weight of all those luxury taxpayer funded super-jets, cases of champagne, wine, whisky, brandy, fine foods, all free of charge naturally!!! sarc2 😉

Last edited 12 days ago by Alan the Brit
Bill Powers
Reply to  JeffC
June 10, 2021 7:20 am

Jeff these falsified Docdramas are produced for classroom consumption. What once was compulsory viewing for grade school has been turned into children’s picture and board books.

Keep foremost in mind the simplest truth. For the individual “Perception is reality” and we now have 2 and 1/2 generations of Americans who perceive 2 basic things 1) the end of days is nigh because climate change 2) Climate change is due to burning fossil fuel.

Well, keep in mind a third truth. 3) You can’t fix stupid and the Public Schools System are stupid factories.

MarkW
Reply to  Bill Powers
June 10, 2021 8:55 am

Back in the 90’s, George Will was referring to these as DoctoredDramas.

I like to call them a reverse “Dragnet”.
Back in the 60’s there was a show called “Dragnet”, it always started with a voice over saying that the cases were real, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

In these cases, it was that data that was changed, the names were kept the same in order to promote the careers of the guilty.

Last edited 12 days ago by MarkW
Bill Powers
Reply to  MarkW
June 11, 2021 1:57 pm

Jack Webb would interrupt witnesses with “Just the facts, Ma’am!”

In these cases he would admonish “Where are the facts, Ma’am?”

Richard Page
Reply to  JeffC
June 10, 2021 8:37 am

Now I like Jason Watkins, I’ve seen him in a few things and he’s usually very good. This, however, is just the BBC lying and manipulating the truth yet again as they believe they are above the law – a criminal investigation into the toxic culture of the firm after Savile, Bashir, the panoply of climate lies, Brexit deceit and others is long overdue. The BBC should be defunded immediately.

Jon R. Salmi
Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2021 10:27 am

You are right Richard, the BBC does think its above the law. But worse yet they seem to think they are above the laws of physics,, as well.

peter green
June 10, 2021 2:31 am

In years to come i very much hope we can line up all the crooked so called climate scientists and all the leftie and media people who co conspired to create this hoax and prosecute/ cancel/ hang/ destroy them all. I further have no support for big business and political parties who knew all along that it was a all a fake and just decided it was a convenient thing to make more money and consolidate more power…. they are morally bankrupt

griff
Reply to  peter green
June 10, 2021 6:13 am

but it isn’t a fake.

clearly human produced CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, clearly the physics of the ‘greenhouse effect’ mean that is warming the planet and changing the climate and observational science records the clear impacts on the planet and on human society.

(I seem to recall a recent article here on Watts clearly showing the greenhouse effect is a reality)

Editor
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 7:01 am

Clearly you have no idea how little increased warm forcing there is from a trace gas, which never generate any warming by itself in the first place, it is the slowing down of radiative cooling process that is happening.

CO2 doesn’t create any heat at all.

mcswelll
Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 11, 2021 2:36 pm

Who said CO2 created heat? No one, that’s a red herring.

What has been said is that CO2 reduces the radiative cooling. And if the amount of radiation of all wavelengths going in is constant (which is more or less true, although some here would say it’s significantly varying), then by reducing the radiative cooling, all else being equal the temperature down here will go up. How much, whether all else is equal, etc. are real questions. But if the energy going in is constant, and the energy going out is decreased, then the temperature will go up.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 7:15 am

We don’t need your usual comic relief today grief, the subject matter is entertainment enough.

Philo
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 7:20 am

Look more clearly again, Griff. CO2 isn’t the ONLY “control knob” on the climate.

Clearly the sun has effects. We are currently in the second half of a double low solar cycle. Very few meteorologists are predicting lots of warm, or extremely hot days this summer.
And you forget the heat machine on the equator that produces cloud effects that keep the heat balance effect all the way from the equator to the snow line to offset the heat absorbed around the equator.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Philo
June 10, 2021 2:02 pm

Philo. Have you never heard the expression don’t wrestle with a pig?

There’s another about never argue with a idiot. He drag you down to his level and win by experience.

philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 7:21 am

Oh no, not the “simple physics” postulate from yesteryear yet again.

If only one thing has been learned in the last 10 years of “climate science”, it’s that the physics of the climate above 280ppm CO2 is anything but simple.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 7:32 am

and because you saw that article here you believe it? Why not believe the rest?

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 7:42 am

Griff: I’ve asked you several times to provide a means of falsifying the hypothesis that CO2 controls temperature rather than vice versa. I’d appreciate a response.

Reply to  Graemethecat
June 10, 2021 11:14 am

Graemethecat, it isn’t an either-or proposition. Atmospheric CO2 concentration affects (but not controls) temperature, and temperature affects (but not controls) atmospheric CO2 concentration. That makes it a feedback loop, albeit a weak one:

https://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#co2watertemp

Graemethecat
Reply to  Dave Burton
June 11, 2021 7:51 am

This looks like a lot of unfalsifiable handwaving to me. Sorry.

Bill Powers
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 7:54 am

you are cavalier with your deceptive use of clearly. you follow a simplistically true clearly with a not clear at all statement and mostly trumped up hypothesis. while many won’t argue that the greenhouse effect isn’t real (we have actual greenhouses to prove it). There is no scientific proof, only falsified records, of any impact on the planet and no evidence of adverse effects on human society until the bureaucratic science changed its position from you cannot conflate climate with weather to climate change causes weather in the form of hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

First of all any greenhouse effect is driven by more than strictly CO2 such as much higher concentrations of atmospheric water vapor and second not all CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuel which is exactly the human behavior that the alarmist wish to control. Let me state that clearly for you Griff. The Central Authoritarians want to control human consumption of fossil fuel. It is the driving force behind this drivel.

Back to your fallacious “Clearly” most contributors to Watts will argue greenhouse warming is minimal rather than catastrophic and many have posited the beneficial effects of both increase atmospheric CO2 and that Greenhouse warming, due to many factors, is a plus to human survival. And some link scientific evidence to CO2 increasing in the atmosphere is the result of warming as opposed to the cause of warming.

This is a far more complicate process than the climate alarmists make it out to be, with a lot of moving parts. There is nothing “clear” about it and there is absolutely no science (sans Political Science) backing an alarmist claim that man is facing an end of days scenario in 12, 50 or 100 years due to the continued burning of fossil fuels.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 8:57 am

That something is changing, is not proof that the change is bad. Much less that it’s going to kill us all.

The belief that any change is evil, is a religious position, not a scientific one.

Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 11:08 am

Good grief, griff! You’ve been around here long enough to know that “it” is not that strawman. Except among a few scientifically illiterate PSI nutters, the climate debate has never been about whether “the greenhouse effect is a reality.”

The “it” which is “all a fake” is the so-called “climate crisis” or “climate emergency.”

Indeed, it is true that observational science records the clear impacts on the planet and on human society” — and those impacts are very beneficial. The problem is that the corrupt climate industry is based entirely on denial of that reality.

NASA measures the beneficial effects of CO2 emissions and manmade climate change on the planet, from satellites:


https://sealevel.info/greening_earth_spatial_patterns_Myneni.html

The great Svante Arrhenius identified the major effects of CO2 emissions, more than a century ago. He was, at the time, one of the world’s most prominent scientists, having won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry five years earlier. He predicted that CO2 emissions would be highly beneficial for both mankind and the Earth’s climate. He wrote:

“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

comment image

History has proven him right.

A few years later, Scientific American reported on German agricultural experiments, measuring the effects of elevated CO2 on a wide variety of crops. They confirmed Arrhenius: elevated CO2 is tremendously beneficial for all of the crops that they tested. In fact, it is so beneficial that they called CO2 “the precious air fertilizer.”

https://sealevel.info/ScientificAmerican_1920-11-27_CO2_fertilization.html#:~:text=precious%20air%20fertilizercomment image

Arrhenius and SciAm were correct. In Arrhenius’ time, and through all of human history until recently, famine was one of the great scourges of mankind: the “Third Horseman of the Apocalypse.” But widespread famines are becoming a distant memory, and rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is one of the reasons.
comment image

Crop yields are outpacing population growth for several reasons, but one of the important reasons is rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
comment image

John in Oz
Reply to  Dave Burton
June 10, 2021 5:04 pm

Yes, yes, yes. But apart from all that, what have the Romans done for us?

(Thank you, Monty Python team, for Life of Brian and so many quotable quotes).

Lrp
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 12:22 pm

No, the recent article on GHE did not mean what you said. You clearly are an inveterate liar

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Lrp
June 10, 2021 2:16 pm

… and an inveterate troll. Come on, no one can be that stupid.

It’s probably some jerk from SkS, like John “Rommel” Cook, popping by to wind up the regulars here and they fall for it every time.

They even start making stupid comments on his behalf when he does not post something for a while.

They seem to need him like some people need stay with an abusive partner. I suppose if both parties are getting something out of, it’s not our place to intefer !

Last edited 11 days ago by Greg Goodman
Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
June 11, 2021 5:06 am

Griff wrote: “clearly human produced CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere,”

That is correct.

Griff wrote: “clearly the physics of the ‘greenhouse effect’ mean that is warming the planet”

Yes, but we don’t know what that warming amounts to, and we don’t know that warming will not be offset by some negative feedback, such as increase cloudiness which results in more radiation being reflected away from the Earth, which results in cooling, not warming.

Griff wrote: “and changing the climate and observational science records the clear impacts on the planet and on human society.”

There is no evidence whatsover that CO2 is changing the climate, certainly not enough to be detectable, and there is certainly no evidence for any “clear” impacts on the planet or human society. Those are just figments of your imagination. Those things don’t necessarily follow from more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Don Healy
Reply to  griff
June 11, 2021 10:32 am

Yes real, but much more benign than publicized, and with some very positive aspects that are ignored.

HotScot
Reply to  griff
June 13, 2021 1:51 pm

Were atmospheric CO2 to double from now (4210ppm) to some time in an indeterminate future (820ppm) mankind’s contribution will be around 12.3ppm.

How about doing some Arithmetic griff, and informing us all how much warming that 12.3ppm would represent.

Drake
Reply to  peter green
June 10, 2021 7:07 am

I would just like to see all their homes, cars and cash, including any pensions, removed from their possession, and any funds passed down to any progeny taken back in any way necessary so that their children and grandchildren will not have benefited from their actions.

The same for all the oligarchs in control of the tech companies and “news” sources including editors and “reporters” who have carried the water for these frauds.

Perhaps, after taking ALL their wealth, we could get the CCP to take them all to the Uyghur re-education camps. By then the Uyghur population should be so reduced as to be freely available for the use.

And maybe we could use the Nazi 900 calories a day and hard labor to reduce them when they get there. You know, they do call their “enemies” “DENIERS”. Let them see what the Holocaust was about firsthand. Once “reduced”, their ONLY job would be to travel from place to place (on foot) removing the windmills and solar panels as they reached the end of their “useful” life and to clean up the hazardous wastes from plants and mines used to make their panels, bird choppers and EVs. Any politician who voted for any mandate or rebate would be required to provide for their food, housing, and equipment required for the demolition and cleanup, no fossil fuel power allowed.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  peter green
June 10, 2021 7:32 am

As a consulting forester here in Massachusetts- I’m now seeing some very large forest industry people deciding to cash in on all the free money by destroying some of their forests- while saying they’re doing it save the climate. I know for a fact, nobody in forestry (at least here in the American northeast) believes in the climate bullshit and I don’t mind that these forest industry people want to get the free money- it’s their land and it’s free money (from us of course)- but I hate it when they lie and say it’s to save the climate.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 11, 2021 5:30 am

The Climategate Charlatans and their lies and distortions about Human-caused Climate Change have cost Society dearly to date, and will continue to do so until our politicians realize they are heading down the wrong road over CO2, a harmless gas that has not been shown to be the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures.

One of these days we will know just how many Trillions of Wasted Dollars these Climategate lies have cost us all.

Last edited 11 days ago by Tom Abbott
Lasse
June 10, 2021 2:42 am

BBC put Michael Mann as a front figure in a show to make us believe it is science 😉
The man who has made the two measure trick known!
Seriously We are having a problem!
I look at sea levels and see no problem!
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?plot=50yr&id=150-001

Reply to  Lasse
June 10, 2021 11:28 am

The Dutch (understandably) have done a particularly excellent job of measuring sea-level. That Delfzijl site has a continuous measurement record since 1865!

It did record a bit of acceleration in the sea-level trend… but it was mostly around the turn of the 20th century, when atmospheric CO2 levels were below 300 ppmv:

http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Delfzijl&c_date=1900/1-2024/12&boxcar=1&boxwidth=5comment image

Since 1900, the sea-level trend at Delfzijl has accelerated at a negligible but almost statistically significant 0.0116 ±0.0128 mm/yr².

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Dave Burton
June 10, 2021 2:22 pm

Thanks Dave. I had not realised that was such a long record. Very useful.

Jevrejeva found the same thing from her global tide gauge analysis: accel at end of 19th and NO accel since.

Bill Toland
June 10, 2021 2:42 am

I regard this latest project of the BBC as another sign of the increasing desperation of climate alarmists. They know that they have lost the scientific argument. So they are trying to compensate by winning the propaganda war. If science and reality were on their side, they wouldn’t need to produce drivel like this.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 10, 2021 4:26 am

Bill, that’s areally interesting point. Kind of like the Story of the Dog in the Nighttime, (the sherlock Holmes thing whereby the fact that the dog didn’t bark was an important clue). I have been trying to identify what it is about these types of propaganda that are so triggering in terms of showing the whole scam up. The fact that people, who should be professionally inquisitive, aren’t inquisitive, is one of the key issues. “The strange case of the scientists who weren’t skeptical in the nighttime or daytime.” Or ” the strange case of the drug company that didn’t want to look at the evidence from positive clinical trials of their own proven harmless but unporfitable drug”…for instance. Hmm, not that strange, that last one. More work needed.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Jay Willis
June 10, 2021 5:32 am

“The Strange Case of the Wuhan Lab that Didn’t Leak (sort of)”

griff
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 10, 2021 6:15 am

but they WON the science argument.

Climate change is accepted in the UK and govt and local govt policy and the majority of public opinion shows that.

We don’t have this idea it is all somehow a ‘leftist plot’ either

Editor
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 6:57 am

Who disputes that climate changes?

It is an old statement that has a lie behind it since you first insinuate that climate realists deny it in the first place which NEVER happened.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 7:02 am

Griff, you know very well that I was referring to catastrophic man made global warming which has precisely zero scientiific support.

Last edited 12 days ago by Bill Toland
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 7:44 am

accepting the argument makes it a winner? That’s absurd.

another ian
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 10, 2021 5:58 pm

Like the “Red Flag Law” and the horseless carriage?

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 8:11 am

Griff, it they “won” a “scientific argument” let’s have a look at the evidence. I can claim I won the Monte Carlo Grand Prix but that isn’t much evidence of same.

Phlogiston was accepted.
Then it wasn’t.
Piltdown Man was accepted.
Then it wasn’t.
Lamarkism was accepted.
Then it wasn’t.
Now it is, with conditions. What happened? Facts.

Anthropogenically-induced changes in the weather caused by people burning fossil fuels is a just-so story supported by modelers who believe in just-so computer calculations. What happened? Bias+facts+private benefits+a gullible public easily terrified by science fiction stories. That’s the stuff of Hollywood’s B-Class.

Is there anything less reliable as a proof than the observation that the majority of the public believes it? One is six people in the UK have never worked, and they believe this can continue forever. If these two observations represent their level of understanding of climate and economics, they richly deserve what’s coming. Effects have causes. They are welcome to them. “Taste ye what your hands have wrought.”

There is no reason to follow them down the rabbit hole.

DMacKenzie,
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
June 10, 2021 9:08 am

In 1804, Thomas Young developed the concept of “energy”. In 1842, Meyer attempted to publish a paper connecting heat, electricity, fire, digestion, and work done, as part of the “energy” conversion concept. Science Journals of the day rejected his papers as nonsense. It was a failure of the science establishment bigger the Galileo fiasco but less known. Within the next 50 years, Meyers concepts were incorporated into all the greatest advancements of physics and engineering, by people who realized….

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 9:02 am

Griff, I’ve said it many times but it bears repeating – you are divorced from reality and you need help. The UK govt may have accepted a certain amount of the climate change nonsense but it will never be enough to satisfy the left wing extremist activists that are riding this bandwagon towards oblivion. If they have accepted the UK govt position, why are the likes of Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace and Animal Rebellion still protesting? Why are WWF and other activist lobby groups still hard at work trying to get more and more govt legislation to confirm their extreme left wing position in law? Because the govt’s position will never satisfy these extremists, that’s why. Get your flamin’ head sorted mate, come back to reality and see what these nutjobs are trying to do to the UK, willya?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 9:04 am

That climate change is accepted in the UK is part of the political process.
There never was any science behind it.

The mere fact that all the major players are leftists and all the solutions being offered involved vast increases in government power just doesn’t matter to you.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 9:05 am

We don’t have this idea it is all somehow a ‘leftist plot’ either”

Who’s “we”?, have you appointed yourself spokesperson for the UK now? or maybe you were using the “royal we”.

Your knowledge of political history can be added to the list of things you know nothing about.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 10:11 am

At least in my country, griff-boy, the public has been wearied by the alarmist propaganda and believes that even though “climate change” exists, the American public does NOT believe it is an important enough “problem” needing draconian fixes that will trash our economy and create an intrusive central-government regulatory and political regime the likes of which will make the COVID-19 scam pale in comparison.

You stand for tyranny. I do not, and do not truck with your nonsense.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 12:53 pm

The science argument is muzzled by marxists

Greg
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 2:39 pm

but they WON the science argument.

Climate change is accepted in the UK and govt and local govt policy and the majority of public opinion shows that.

That is called winning a political argument, not a scientific argument. They have indoctrinated two generations with this anti-scientific bunk via schools and college teachers and biased media. That does not constitute a scientific proof.

The fact that you are unaware it is a left wing plot does not constitute a scientific proof either, it simply shows how gullible and uncritical you all are.

Male mammals can still be determined by the presence of XY chromazomes too, despite what proponents of non-theoretical, uncritical, Critical Theory may tell you.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
June 11, 2021 5:42 am

“but they WON the science argument.

Climate change is accepted in the UK and govt and local govt policy and the majority of public opinion shows that.”

No, the alarmists have won the public relations argument, not the scientific argument, and that’s because they control the megaphone of Society, the Leftwing Media, and put out a consistent negative story about CO2.

What does the general public know about the scientific argument? Not much (with exceptions). So their opinion is not based on science, it’s based on what they are told by the Powers that Be, and their mouthpiece the Leftwing Media.

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
June 11, 2021 7:57 am

Climate change is accepted in the UK and govt and local govt policy and the majority of public opinion shows that.

You genuinely take that to be evidence that CAGW driven by CO2 is real? Blimey, that’s imbecilic even by your standards.

Incidentally, my experience, FWIW, is that most ordinary Britons don’t give a flying fart about climate change. They are far more worried by rising fuel and electricity prices.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 10, 2021 8:50 am

Hollywood’s been altering history to make films for decades – now the BBC has learned to do the same for propaganda purposes. It’s damned obvious from the article that they will do exactly the same as before – completely ignore the content of the emails, completely ignore the evidence showing it was almost certainly an ‘inside job’, redefine the act as cyberterrorism and redefine the climate conspirators as innocent victims of an evil plot to discredit ‘the science’. They should write it as a comedy with a laughter track because it’s a complete farce.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
June 11, 2021 6:00 am

“Hollywood’s been altering history to make films for decades

Yes, the Left uses Hollywood to rewrite history/reality and they also use other forms of media to brainwash people, one of which Joe Biden brought up the other day. He said he had noticed, and wanted us to notice, that there were lots of commercials on tv today featuring mixed race couples in them, and Joe said this was a reflection of America and this was the reason there were so many mixed race couples features in commercials: “Because it sells soap!”, Joe said.

The truth is that today’s commercials are just the latest platform for the Left to push their agenda. I don’t know how many mixed race couples there are in America, but I doubt it amounts to 25 percent of couples, but you see at least 25 percent of couples on tv commercials as being mixed race.

Also, the percentage of races in the U.S. is about 65 percent White; 13 percent Black; 17 percent Hispanic; and about 5 percent for all the rest.

But you won’t see 65 percent white people represented in today’s commercials. It’s more like 10 percent. The Left seems to be trying to de-emphasize white people, and turn white people into a minority, if only in their minds.

So, no Joe, the commercials don’t reflect reality, they reflect the way the Left wishes reality to be.

I don’t personally have a problem with promoting minorities in tv commercials, but I do have a problem with distortions of reality in any area of life, and so feel it necessary to point them out, especially when the President of the United States appears to be confused about the subject.

” – now the BBC has learned to do the same for propaganda purposes. It’s damned obvious from the article that they will do exactly the same as before – completely ignore the content of the emails, completely ignore the evidence showing it was almost certainly an ‘inside job’, redefine the act as cyberterrorism and redefine the climate conspirators as innocent victims of an evil plot to discredit ‘the science’.”

That’s exactly what it sounds like they are going to do, and none of us are surprised, are we.

June 10, 2021 2:48 am

Someone needs to write up the story of the three inquiries that were conducted, each one clearly designed to cover the truth of the matter. I think I saw the story in a book by Rupert Darwall but can’t be sure.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Rafe Champion
June 10, 2021 2:52 am

I think Andrew Montford (formerly Bishophill, now GWPF) covered it all pretty well in his excellent short essays and then in his book.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 10, 2021 1:44 pm

Steve McIntyre also covered them extensively. All of it can be found at Climate Audit.

Alex
June 10, 2021 2:49 am

We are living in a post modern world.
Nobody cares about facts and arguments
“The cause” defines everything.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Alex
June 10, 2021 3:15 am

As former Labour politician Peter Mandelson said when the Intellectual Socialists (sort of) were in power 1997-2010, “We live in a post democratic world!”.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  Alex
June 10, 2021 5:45 am

One of my new favorite quotes: “It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.” -Thomas Sowell

MarkW
Reply to  Alex
June 10, 2021 9:05 am

To put it in it’s historical perspective, “The Party”.

Neo
Reply to  Alex
June 10, 2021 12:44 pm

“And I haven’t been to Europe,”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Neo
June 11, 2021 8:12 am

And Kamala said she didn’t know what the reporter was getting at with his question.

Kamala, the reporter was pointing out that you lied about going to the U.S. southern border, and that left you with a loss of words, so you threw in that “didn’t go to Europe” quote to distract from your lie.

Jo Ho
June 10, 2021 3:01 am

‘Why-oh-Why’ do the Oil companies not start fighting back by combining their huge resources and filing a counter claim against individuals/universities (Jones & Mann for instance) for falsification of official data? Do they believe that fighting by Queensbury rules will get them any recognition (or a pat on the back) and the ‘alarmists’ will fight by the same rules? No chance.

bonbon
Reply to  Jo Ho
June 10, 2021 3:17 am

Likely because of BlackRock shareholders. Even when a minority, they set the agenda.

JeffC
Reply to  Jo Ho
June 10, 2021 3:17 am

When you have oil companies like BP with their CEO Bernard Looney (an appropriate name that) batting for the opposition then what do you expect? I am at an age now where I think I will have shuffled off this mortal coil before the shit hits the fan.

Scissor
Reply to  JeffC
June 10, 2021 4:56 am

I like your comment. An optimistic view starts the day off right.

griff
Reply to  Jo Ho
June 10, 2021 6:16 am

But the fossil fuel companies have been funding anti climate change think tanks etc etc in droves with billions of dollars for decades (e.g Heartland and possibly the opaquely funded GWPF).

Much good it has done them!

Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 7:54 am

Proof ?
There isn’t, to say so is pure propaganda

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 10, 2021 9:08 am

The Party doesn’t need proof. The accusation is sufficient.

Rod Evans
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 8:02 am

Do you have evidence that Heartland is an oil industry funded body Griff?.
If so please present it, if not stand by for potential legal action.

John Phillips
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 8:20 am

Billions? Probably not, Millions, certainly. To take the biggest offender, Exxonmobile, their extensive links to organisations and individuals funding denial and casting doubt on the science are detailed here. When they failed to follow through on promises to desist from funding denial activities, two US Senators wrote them an open letter …

Obviously, other factors complicate our foreign policy. However, we are persuaded that the climate change denial strategy carried out by and for ExxonMobil has helped foster the perception that the United States is insensitive to a matter of great urgency for all of mankind, and has thus damaged the stature of our nation internationally. It is our hope that under your leadership, ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the “deniers.””

https://web.archive.org/web/20061114005028/http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9acba744-802a-23ad-47be-2683985c724e

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 9:09 am

Not exxon secrets again?
Has anyone managed to find anything on that site that is actually true?

Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 9:14 am

That link is highly amusing, but probably not for the reasons you think it is. I clicked on a couple of the obvious ones and found a list of smears, opinion and gossip masquerading rather poorly as ‘facts’. If you intend to prove some sort of funding of pro-fossil fuel groups, then you will need to show actual evidence, not opinion.
Btw – I believe the ‘evidence’ used in the link for the Heartland Institute was completely fabricated by Peter Gleick, something he later admitted to, not something from Heartland themselves.

John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2021 10:39 am

No quotes, links or examples, naturally. Most of the information comes from Exxon’s own WorldWide Giving reports and is in the public domain.

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2006/8257.pdf

Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 11:23 am

Sorry to disappoint but the letter attempting to show ‘misleading’ statements by Exxon from the ahem, somewhat biased, Royal Society is in error. The scientific claims have not been replicated and the statements indicating that there are differing scientific views are quite correct, not ‘misleading’ at all. Again this is an opinion piece from an organisation shown to be biased towards activism at the cost of their scientific integrity. As such, their claim of 39 organisations that disagree with their opinions on man-made climate change is simply an opinion, nothing more.
Now, you said you had some solid evidence?

Last edited 12 days ago by Richard Page
John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
June 11, 2021 12:30 am

I’ve provided an abundance of evidence to support the assertions I actually made, you are arguing something quite different.The Royal Society, like 100% of National Science Academies, has put out a position statements asserting the reality and danger of AGW. The fact that Exxon, borrowing tactics developed by the tobacco industry, funded organisations falsely claiming there is no consensus, or the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason – is a matter of public record. Heck, it is in their accounts. Ironically, one of their own internal reports was amongst the first to predict possibly catastrophic AGW. At a rough estimate this denial industry has put back action by about a decade.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming/

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16593606
 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

Graemethecat
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 8:04 am

The Royal Society, like 100% of National Science Academies, has put out a position statements asserting the reality and danger of AGW.

The old Argument from Authority fallacy. Don’t bother with this again, it won’t wash here.

BTW, the motto of the Royal Society is Nullius in Verba.

Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 2:34 pm

Now John – you can stop right there. I believe you are in some distress, you are getting hysterical and probably need a lie down. It’s quite, quite understandable and perfectly normal for you to have an irrational feeling of helplessness and persecution after such a prolonged outburst of hysteria. Get some rest.

Btw – they never called them ‘lunatics’ – I believe you became hysterical at that point when you veered off into a complete fantasy of your own making.

Editor
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 9:24 am

Where does it say in the Senators whining name calling filled letter that such funding was illegal?

Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 9:34 am

Using “denial” disqualifies you just in the beginning

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 9:08 am

It really is amazing how tightly griff clings to his disproven lies.
A single grant to Heartland, that didn’t even amount to 1% of it’s budget for that year, and for a project that had nothing to do with climate.
In the minds of the myrmidons, has morphed into oil companies fund Heartland.

Then again, it’s a smaller lie than the other ones griff is always telling.

Editor
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 9:19 am

It wasn’t billions at all, why make such lies?

You will have to back up your assertions with evidence, but you will not as you are a drive by artist.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 10:13 am

Drivel. Pure drivel. Don’t you understand anything you read in this website?

Lrp
Reply to  griff
June 10, 2021 1:04 pm

How does that compare with the money wasted on “climate science” and resulting policies? And another thing here, oil companies spend their own money, climate science spends public money, our tax dollars without our consent

bonbon
June 10, 2021 3:15 am

I thought Piltdown man played cricket, not hockey.
And that is strange said Alice, he was found on a golf course, the very one Arthur Conan Doyle teed-off on. Yes, the very Sherlock Holmes himself! And as he was a medical doctor (Watson is autobiographical) he knew about bones. Add in the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin author of the Phenomenon of Man, credited with Peking Man, a Darwinist, and the plot thickens. Since then were found similarly faked bones in the attic of the third man.
Noting that BBC journalists mostly graduate at Kings College War Studies, the question is whether theatrics are a new semester course ?
A School for Spooks: The London University Department Churning Out NATO Spies (mintpressnews.com)

June 10, 2021 3:37 am

I have always labelled the deceitful Michael Mann as Piltdown Mann. Says it all really. Falsification of evidence is at the heart of the IPCC’s climate “science” Either by statistics, or pretending their models create real data. Same difference. They are liars. Deliberate and studied liars for their grants. The observations prove this, but tey don’t even understand how deterministic science works, to test theories by independent repetition. Not prove them by adjusting the data until it produces the right answer.

Scissor
Reply to  Brian R Catt
June 10, 2021 4:59 am

Can’t think of a good actor to cast as Mann.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Scissor
June 10, 2021 5:47 am

Found him! Brian Posehn
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0692634/

Richard Page
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 10, 2021 9:18 am

No, Brian Posehn is quite tall, whereas I thought Mann was shorter and dumpy.

Reply to  Scissor
June 10, 2021 5:57 am

Can’t think of a good actor to cast as Mann.

I found one:
comment image

Dirk Roofthooft

Last edited 12 days ago by Krishna Gans
Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 11, 2021 8:37 am

Not really. He should have puppydog eyes and an a eternal complexion of being persecuted.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Scissor
June 10, 2021 7:06 am

Why would you need a “good” actor? Besides, the narcissistic little twerp will probably insist that he play himself.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
June 11, 2021 8:21 am

Robert De Niro should play Michael Mann.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Brian R Catt
June 10, 2021 7:54 am

Who plaid Gollum in Lord of the Rings? “My precious” he says as he fondles his hockey stick.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
June 10, 2021 10:18 am

Oh god Andy, the image that conjures up is not fit to describe.
As for an actor to play Michael Mann, well any unbelievable numpty will do, after all it is not as if the character is expected to convey credibility….

Richard Page
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 10, 2021 11:26 am

Personally, I think Danny deVito would be good for the part.

Mr.
Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2021 1:02 pm

Nah, needs to be someone who can be crooked, psychotic and aggressive.
Joe Pesci could pull it off.

Steve Case
June 10, 2021 3:50 am

Hi Dave, maybe they could make a short out of R Steve Nerem’s manipulations of the satellite sea level record. How ‘bout an accompanying cartoon about the IPCC’s Global Warming Potential numbers.

Sara
June 10, 2021 4:07 am

Hang them? Naaaahhh! ; That’s too easy.

Much better to find a valid, testable way to embarrass them in public, e.g., sitting outside a cafe, in a snowstorm, with hot coco in a cup and when one of them appears, ask loudly “Aren’t you one of those Climate Doomster guys?”

And then point at them and laugh hysterically, and ask them “Where’s the HEAT????”

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Sara
June 10, 2021 5:07 am

Ah, but the language is carefully chosen to mean whatever the prevailing weather may be at any one time, eg Some areas will have warmer weather, some areas will have cooler weather, other areas will have more rain, while others have less rain, some areas will have less snow, other areas will have more snow! You see it’s dead easy to predict Climate Change, simply predict anything & everything & you’re bound to be right at some point, proving your skills at prediction perfectly!!! 😉

Redge
June 10, 2021 4:19 am

This is exactly the reason I refuse to watch the BBC

ITV & Channel 4 are rapidly heading off my Christmas card list too

John Phillips
June 10, 2021 4:50 am

Myth: The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.
 
Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.
 
EPA
 
Some ill-advised private mails surely were sent, however no data necessary to replicate studies was withheld, no data was manipulated, and if the worst example of ‘malfeasance’ you can find is the cover art on an obscure 1999 WMO statement (fully referenced over the page btw), well that does not really rise to the level of a scandal, now does it?

Challenge: find anyone discussing the WMO cover illustration anywhere during the ten years between its publication and the CRU leak. Good luck with that.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 5:21 am

John, you forgot the “sarc” at the end of your comment. Still, I give you points for an extremely humorous comment. It had me laughing.

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 10, 2021 9:12 am

Up above, John is claiming that documents at the exxonsecrets.org have proven that denialists are funded by oil companies.

John isn’t big on reallity.

John Phillips
Reply to  MarkW
June 10, 2021 10:03 am

No I am not. It shows some sceptics were funded by one oil company, to the tune of several $million. Simple historical fact.

Lrp
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 1:13 pm

I wish that was how much the whole of climate science costs us

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 10:17 am

Which sceptics were those John?
Can us sceptics have a bite of the trillions of dollars being spent on green boondoggles?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
June 11, 2021 10:15 am

I’ve been waiting for my Big Oil cheque for ages, but it doesn’t appear to have arrived at my door.
The postman must have nicked it – I’m sure I saw him in a Lambo the other day.

RobR
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 5:29 am

John P.

You need to read the actual emails and not someone else’s interpretation.

The proxy reconstruction diverged from the instrument record. Ergo, the proxy reconstruction was proved to be unreliable.

Nonetheless, our intrepid heroes salvaged the day (and heaps of grant money) by splicing the instrument record to the proxy record at the divergence. Do you really need someone to tell you how fracking dishonest this is?

John Phillips
Reply to  RobR
June 10, 2021 5:56 am

Nonetheless, our intrepid heroes salvaged the day (and heaps of grant money) by splicing the instrument record to the proxy record at the divergence. Do you really need someone to tell you how fracking dishonest this is?
 
But we know the temperatures rose from 1960 onwards, while some proxies declined. Showing otherwise would have been dishonest. Just look at the caption on the next page
 
“Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov).”

So the fact that instrumental data are included is hidden in plain sight with all the details anyone needed to find out more. I’m not seeing a huge amount of dishonesty here to be fair. Remember this was a cover art figure on a WMO pamphlet, not usually a great way of attracting ‘heaps’ of research grants. In between the WMO report being published and the CRU email leak two IPCC reports were published. Are you seriously arguing that anyone was materially misled by this, that they were getting their paleo-climate from a pamphlet cover? Get real.

meab
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 10:00 am

But you just established, with zero uncertainty, that if the thermometric record shows warming, but some proxies show cooling, then the proxies are error-prone. It can’t, therefore, be shown by proxies that similar, short-term, periods of warming didn’t happen in the past. Proxies are, after all, sometimes inconsistent with the instrumental data and damp out higher rate changes. To claim unprecedented warming, , in spite of the fact that proxies DO show warmer periods in the early Holocene than the present, by appending the proxy data with the instrumental record is DISHONEST and, indeed, is just a “trick”.

The real question is why are you falsely supporting this (admitted) intentional deception?

John Phillips
Reply to  meab
June 10, 2021 10:51 am

I am not sure how uncertainties in tree ring proxies are relevant to the early Holocene. In fact the most recent analysis (Kaufman et al) finds the warmest period in the whole Holocene was marginally cooler than modern warmth.

As to the Divergence Problem, it has been extensively discussed not least by the IPCC. Tree rings correlate closely with instrumental observations, back to 1880, and with other proxies prior to that. The correlation has indeed broken down in high Northern latitudes since around 1960, for reasons still being examined. This does not mean dendrochronological records are useless, just they should be used with cautions and caveats.
 
“Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats.”

Source. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/36/13252.full.pdf

Greg
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 2:54 pm

The point is that Briffa’s data showed that there was NOT a clear relationship between tree rings and temperature. Thus they were not a suitable “proxy” for ANY period !!

That is why both Mann in his 1998 paper and Jones in rigging his cover image committed scientific fraud to exclude the “inconvenient truth”.

Remember this was a cover art figure on a WMO pamphlet, not usually a great way of attracting ‘heaps’ of research grants.

The one image probably did more to form public opinion than 20 years of research. And it was a FRAUD.

The Canadian govt had the cover image sent to EVERY HOME in Canada.

Most people, even scientists, took it at face value because we still has a naive trust in “objective” scientists at that time.

John Phillips
Reply to  Greg
June 11, 2021 8:14 am

The Canadian govt had the cover image sent to EVERY HOME in Canada.”

The Canadian Government sent the 1999 WMO report to every home in Canada? Really?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 10:21 am

1300 years? Is that all?
I hope you’re not one of those young earth creationist loonies.

RobR
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 10:27 am

John P.,

Nobody debates the fact that the planet has warmed slightly since the dawn of the industrial age.

The reconstruction in question was featured in the widely distributed An Inconvenient truth in 2006, and the IPPPC’s report. During this same period independent researcher and mathematical prodigy Steve Macintyre Uncovered two undeniable facts:

First: Scientists responsible for foisting the Hockey Stick reconstruction on the world collected samples, peaked at the samples, and then selected only the samples that produced the desired result…..I’m guessing you can comprehend the malfeasance involved in said practice.

Second: Macintyre demonstrated that the algorithm used to tabulate the proxies into a reconstruction produced a hockey stick when fed random data.

Third: This one’s all mine. If many locations on Earth frequently experience 30F daily temperature swings, what’s the big deal with an .8C increase in the last 200 years?

It seems that history is once again repeating itself, as a small cadre of Scientists (with enormous conflicts of interest) have bamboozled a large segment of the population into believing the Wuhan Virus originated in nature.

I like to call these folks, reality deniers.

The Bat Woman lied and millions died!

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  RobR
June 11, 2021 10:35 am

I have to admit that 0.8 degree rise has got me sweating one out every day. It’s unbearable!

Do I need a /sarc ?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 10:19 am

You’ve admitted the proxies don’t match the temp record. Hence the proxies are complete pants and should all be chucked out. Glad we agree John (Mikey Mann will be furious that you’re posting such heresy on the interwebs)

John Phillips
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 11, 2021 1:50 pm

You’ve admitted the proxies don’t match the temp record. “

Why do you feel the need to fabricate?

Most proxies validate perfectly well. The fact that a small proportion diverge in recent decades is a matter of scientific interest but no reason to discard a huge body of evidence. Au contraire, exceptions are what make science so fascinating.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 13, 2021 9:05 am

“matter of scientific interest”
Ho ho!
Do you do standup John?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 10:32 am

Prove the mild rise since 1960 isn’t just natural variation. Oh, hang on, you can’t.

MarkW
Reply to  RobR
June 10, 2021 9:13 am

That would require thinking for himself.
The Party does not approve of independent thought.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 6:37 am

You are a fool of epic proportions. Read this .PDF file and correct yourself, before it’s too late (or maybe it is already too late for you).

Climategate—analysis by John P. Costella, Ph.D.

Last edited 12 days ago by Mickey Reno
John Phillips
Reply to  Mickey Reno
June 10, 2021 7:12 am

TL;DR. However he lies about ‘Hide the Decline’, and probably much besides.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 8:14 am

in what way? please explain

John Phillips
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 10, 2021 9:31 am

Well, after the utterly overblown hyperbole …. “one of the most serious scientific frauds in the history of Western science”, Costella asserts
 
“Jones reveals that Mann did not address this problem by making an honest note of it in the paper that he and his co-authors published in Nature, but rather by fraudulently substituting the real temperature data into the graphs, for the past 20 or 40 years as required.”
 
This is so confused it is hard to know where to start. Jones spliced instrumental and reconstructed data to make his WMO curve, and this was clearly stated in the caption. By contrast in Mike’s Nature paper (MBH98) at no point is instrumental data ‘added’ to proxy data, they are plotted separately and distinctly, clearly labelled. ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ refers to this technique by to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.

This has been discussed ad nauseum in the blogosphere.
 

Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 9:55 am

John Phillips – the fact that they needed to splice the instrument record onto the proxy series of records is that the proxy series used declined sharply whereas the temperatures increased. The fact that the proxy series disagreed so fundamentally with the temperature record at that point should have indicated that whatever the proxy series was showing, it certainly wasn’t temperature. This one fact alone undermines the use of the proxy series – the fact that they felt they had to get rid of the proxy series decline and replace it with an instrumental temperature record going in the right direction indicates that the authors knew exactly how spectacularly badly it would undermine their case. It doesn’t look very good that they sought to cover up the proxy series decline does it?

Last edited 12 days ago by Richard Page
John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2021 10:55 am

Nowhere in the climate science reviewed literature or the IPCC reports were instrumental temperatures spliced into reconstructed. Nor was the divergence ‘covered up’, it is discussed in the very same literature.

Doesn’t look good that you seek to make stuff up does it?

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 11:22 am

John Philips:

Mike’s Nature Trick’ refers to this technique by to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.”

“Nowhere in the climate science reviewed literature or the IPCC reports were instrumental temperatures spliced into reconstructed.”

Contradict yourself much?

But the central point you seem to miss is that if the proxies don’t match observations after 1960 there is NO reason to suppose they EVER did.

Mr.
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
June 10, 2021 1:26 pm

Thank you RHS.
This is the point I have made ever since “The Team’s” perfidy was revealed –
if the proxies were found to be at such significant variance with reality in the latter stages of the Temps reconstruction that they had to be tossed out, what’s to say ALL the earlier ones should not also be dumped?

(which of course would confirm that warming conjecture was tosh)

John Phillips
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
June 10, 2021 2:43 pm

Huh? Plotting two data series as two distinct lines on one graph is not ‘splicing’ those series.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 10:39 am

Nah, it is splicing. If it wasn’t spliced they wouldn’t have needed to cut off the inconveniently declining proxies.
John, do you do stand up?

Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 11:37 am

Michael Mann did exactly what I described – he spliced the modern temperature record onto the proxy series because, at that point, the proxy series declined sharply. The IPCC then adopted the hockey stick graph by Michael Mann in AR3 (2001) – even the Grauniad acknowledged they did so, ‘despite misgivings as to it’s accuracy’.
Now, kindly retract the spurious allegation of lies please, as I have merely recounted the truth of the matter.

John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2021 12:17 pm

“Michael Mann did exactly what I described – he spliced the modern temperature record onto the proxy series because, at that point, the proxy series declined sharply.”
 
That is simply not the case. In MBH98, reconstructed proxy temperatures and instrumental were  plotted separately, there was no ‘splicing’. You just have to read the paper to verify this.
 
“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them (e.g. highlighted in red as here). Most studies seek to “validate” a reconstruction by showing that it independently reproduces instrumental estimates (e.g. early temperature data available during the 18th and 19th century) that were not used to ‘calibrate’ the proxy data. When this is done, it is indeed possible to quantitatively compare the instrumental record of the past few decades with earlier estimates from the proxy reconstruction, within the context of the estimated uncertainties in the reconstructed values (again see the comparisons here, with the instrumental record clearly distinguished in red, the proxy reconstructions indicated by e.g. blue or green, and the uncertainties indicated by shading).” -mike
 
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/#comments

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 9:16 am

“Most studies seek to “validate” a reconstruction by showing that it independently reproduces instrumental estimates (e.g. early temperature data available during the 18th and 19th century) that were not used to ‘calibrate’ the proxy data.”

Except the instrument record referenced has itself been bastardized to cool the 1930’s and make it appear that we are experiencing unprecedented warming today.

The regional surface temperature charts from all around the world put the lie to the official global temperature record.

The official global temperature record is Science Fiction generated in a computer.

John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
June 11, 2021 1:52 pm

John Phillips – the fact that they needed to splice the instrument record onto the proxy series of records is that the proxy series used declined sharply whereas the temperatures increased. “

Where exactly was this done?

Greg
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 3:03 pm

Jones went even further than Mann in using the same colour for the temperature data and the ( conveniently truncated ) Briffa proxy data.

Both cropped off the >1960 part of Briffa’s data for no other reason than to remove a massive swing in the opposite direction which clearly showed the “proxies” were NOT proxies of temperature at all.

That is clear scientific fraud. End of.

John Phillips
Reply to  Greg
June 11, 2021 12:40 am

…. cropped off the >1960 part of Briffa’s data for no other reason than to remove a massive swing in the opposite direction which clearly showed the “proxies” were NOT proxies of temperature at all.That is clear scientific fraud. End of.
 
On a piece of cover art. If only the authors had added a caption making it clear that the graph was a composite of proxy and instrumental data. Oh, wait a minute, that is exactly what they did do.

““Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records.”
 
Interesting that the head post conveniently omitted the caption, eh? 😉

Jones went even further than Mann in using the same colour for the temperature data and the ( conveniently truncated ) Briffa proxy data.
 
Some myths never die, do they? 

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 10:43 am

“composite of proxy and instrumental data”
But, but, but I thought you said they HADN’T spliced the data?
John you really, really need to pack it in. You’re not very good at this.

John Phillips
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 11, 2021 1:23 pm

On the cover of 1999 WMO Report cited above, prepared by Phil Jones, instrumental and proxy data were spliced, grafted, merged, whatever word you like. This was made clear in the caption – artfully not mentioned in the head post. No policymaker was ever influenced by this pamphlet cover.

In the academic literature, and in the IPCC reports, instrumental and proxy time series have never been spliced, grafted, merged, whatever word you like.

Sorry this is so hard to grasp, I really didn’t think it was that difficult.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 10:24 am

” This has been discussed ad nauseum in the blogosphere”
It certainly has, and every time it’s discussed more and more people realise Mann is a fraud (ask him about his Nobel Prize)

John Phillips
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 11, 2021 1:31 pm

Dr. Mann made an error in the wording of a legal submission. While he was awarded a certificate in recognition of his contributions to the IPCC report which led to that body receiving the Nobel, he was not entitled to call himself a Nobel winner.

Once he was made aware of this, he corrected the document immediately.

When the Nobel was awarded the then head of the IPCC said this

All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee”

I don’t recall any great pushback or accusations of fraud at the time, but there you go.

Now – perhaps you could provide a valid example of ‘ more and more people’ finding actual fraud in his scientific work?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 13, 2021 9:03 am

So, as you admit, he lied about having a Nobel Prize.
Mikey Mann is a litigious, insecure, and nasty little man who has only got the hump because people have realised his Hokey Cokey Stick was a pack of lies.
Me? I find him highly amusing. I shouldn’t laugh at the naturally inept, but I can’t help myself.

Editor
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 9:27 am

But of course you can’t explain them, why is that?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 9:07 am

The bottom line on Alarmist Climate Science deception is, the Climategate Charlatans took regional temperature records, which show that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, and used a computer to create a global surface temperature chart that erased the significance of the warmth of the Early Twentieth Century. This way they could claim the Earth is experiencing unpecedented warming and is now at the warmest temperature in human history.

All the regional surface temperature charts show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. What this means is that CO2 does not control temperatures since it is no warmer today than in the recent past while there is much more CO2 in the atmosphere now than then.

So what we have is numerous surface temperature charts, the readings of which were recorded by human beings over decades of time, and they all show we have nothing to fear from CO2 because they all show that the world is not experiencing unprecedented warming today.

This is opposed by one computer-generated, global surface temperature chart that shows the world is at the hottest time in human history.

It boils down to who are you going to believe, Computer-Generated Science Fiction, or the actual temperature record written down by human beings?

Here’s the visual difference between a regional surface temperature chart and a bogus global surface temperature chart (Hockey Stick).

The regional chart all show no unprecedented warming. The Hockey Stick chart does show unprecedented warming. One of the two temperture profiles is wrong.

And keep in mind that all the regional surface temperature charts resemble the one below, but no other unmodified chart on Earth resembles the Hockey Stick chart. It’s all by itself. That ought to tell you something.

Regional chart (China):

comment image

And a bogus, bastardized instrument-era Hockey Stick chart:

comment image

Quite a little difference isn’t there. How did the alarmists get from one temperature profile to the other? They cynically manipulated the temperature record inside their computers, that’s how they did it.

Considering the Hockey Stick chart as legitimate is living a lie. A very costly lie.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 11, 2021 10:46 am

And even when the bastards bastardize the data they struggle to get a 1 Deg rise over more than a century. It’s not exactly thermal armageddon, is it?
Maybe John panics when the TV weather man says it’s going to be 1 degree warmer tomorrow.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 12, 2021 5:07 am

“And even when the bastards bastardize the data they struggle to get a 1 Deg rise over more than a century. It’s not exactly thermal armageddon, is it?”

Excellent point!

John Phillips
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 11, 2021 1:39 pm

Alan,

Your data source is Berkeley Earth. They have aggregated the very same data to produce a global mean, about which they say

Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”

Either they are incorrect, or you are. I’d be grateful for a pointer to help me decide. 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Phillips
June 12, 2021 5:22 am

All the Hockey Sticks use the same bastardized “historic” data to create their charts. That’s why they all look the same.

The way to tell if you are looking at a bogus Hockey Stick chart is to look at the 1930’s on the chart, and if the 1930’s don’t show to be as warm as today, then you are looking at a bogus Hockey Stick chart.

You have to go with the regional surface temperature charts, if you want the truth. They are honest repesentations of the weather at the time. The people doing the recording had no political bias in their readings, or a climate change narrative to sell.

All the regional temperature charts show the same profile, i.e., that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today which says there is no unprecedented warming today due to CO2.

The ONLY thing that shows warming in this whole Climate Change narrative is the bastarized, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart, and its temperature profile is at odds with all the regional surface temperature charts.

If all the regional surface temperature charts from all around the world show the same temperature profile, then *that* is the temperature profile of the Earth, not the bogus, computer-generated, instrument-era Hockey Stick profile.

It should be obvious what has happened here. Climate scientists and others with a political bias and for personal gain have bastardized the global temperature record to sell the Human-caused Climate Change narrative. The Hockey Stick chart profile and the CO2 chart profile match too well! Like it was planned that way! And it was.

Here’s the regional chart for Australia. No unprecedented warming showing here:

comment image

Compare that to the bogus Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” temperature profile:

comment image

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 13, 2021 2:30 pm

John,
Give us the proof that this temp rise isn’t natural (no models, mind!)
We’ll wait….

Mark BLR
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 7:04 am

… however no data necessary to replicate studies was withheld …

The Muir-Russell report (published July 2010) included, in the “Executive Summary” (page 12) :

18. On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record (CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU‟s responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive.

At the end of 2010 the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (HoC-STC) held a “follow-up” session to review how the various UK-based reviews (Oxburgh, Muir-Russell) of the whole “Climategate” debacle turned out.

This was eventually printed as report “HC 444” in January 2011.

Points 60 and 61 of that report (on pages 21 and 22) :

60. It is equally important for scientists to be able to replicate the work that they themselves have already carried out. However, when asked whether the scientists at CRU were able to make accurate reconstructions from the publication back to the raw data that they themselves had used, Lord Oxburgh answered “Not in every case. Not with the old material.” When we pressed Professor Davies, he explained that:

On the question about replication, it is perfectly true, during the time that the Oxburgh Panel were at the Climatic Research Unit, that it was not possible to replicate all of the work that had been undertaken. Some of this work was undertaken 20-plus years ago and the data were not immediately accessible. I have spoken to colleagues in CRU and they assure me, and I am confident, that given time, a number of weeks or days, understandably, given the fact that this work goes back 20 or 30 years, then they can replicate their work.

61. Lord Oxburgh said that CRU was not able to make accurate reconstructions in every case, particularly of old material. Professor Davies from UEA confirmed this but said CRU scientists would be able to do this given a number of weeks. This is precisely the sort of work we would have expected the Scientific Assessment Panel to conduct—had it been less concerned about rushing to publish its report—during its inquiry into methodologies and the integrity of research at CRU.

Back in 2008/9 the UEA managed to “withhold” the data needed to “replicate” some of their own work.

John Phillips
Reply to  Mark BLR
June 10, 2021 7:55 am

“Back in 2008/9 the UEA managed to “withhold” the data needed to “replicate” some of their own work.”

Nice scare quotes. It was not “withheld” so much as unavailable, or hard to retrieve because it was derived from an array of sources, not all of which the CRU were able to share. See the CRU statement on data availability.

And remember the context, Steve McIntyre allowed his website to be used to orchestrate a bombardment of UEA with FOI requests for raw station data, posting an email template each asking for the data from 5 sites. The small department received 60 such requests between Friday 24 and Tuesday 28 July. Assuming a 7 hour working day and weekends off that is one about every 20 minutes. By law each must be replied to and dealt with within a set period.

This perhaps explains, if not excuses, the unhelpfulness and along with the offensive distortions appearing on Climate Audit and elsewhere about Jones and his work, goes some way to explaining the bunker mentality that apparently developed.

And when the data was made available, what then? What did the ‘sceptics’ do with it? Was there a striking analysis done that showed the CRU time series were being manipulated? Not a bit of it, the all-data curve was identical to the one constructed using the withheld data. In fact the Russell Enquiry was able to write code that exactly reproduced the CRU curve from public data in just 2 days. Where is the scandal

And you are being slightly selective, there; here is what MR said before and after…

16. On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.

17. On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome. Such action would have required collusion with multiple scientists in various independent organisations which we consider highly improbable.

19. The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.

Mark BLR
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 9:14 am

“… and undertake their own temperature trend analysis

There is some debate about the difference in various scientific disciplines between the precise meanings of the terms “repeatability”, “replicability” and “reproducibility”, especially when computer code is involved, but I’m unaware of any that use the definition :
“Repeatable” = “Able to come up with a completely new trend analysis using a completely different subset of input timeseries”

John Phillips
Reply to  Mark BLR
June 10, 2021 9:39 am

It may have been a new trend analysis, but it matched the original exactly, and the inputs were substantively the same.

Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 11:40 am

It was not an independently replicated study, it was basically a re-run of the original. How is that replicable by even a loose definition of the scientific term?

John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
June 11, 2021 12:41 am

Pretty thin straw you’re clutching there.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  John Phillips
June 10, 2021 9:30 pm

I don’t know what you are, but it isn’t right.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Phillips
June 11, 2021 10:50 am

“60 such requests between Friday 24 and Tuesday 28 July.”
Is that all? If they really believed they were dealing with a global crisis, surely they’d have all the important data to hand and could bang it off to all of those 60 requests in one pre-prepared email. Seems rather inept to me.

Mark BLR
Reply to  John Phillips
June 12, 2021 4:08 am

And you are being slightly selective …

Right back at you.

What about the point in the Muir-Russell report just before your selection ?

15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.

Then there’s this recommendation from “Chapter 11 : Governance” (on pages 103-104, underlining as in the original) :

35. Provision of a formal metadata repository. Whilst we recognize and accept that CRU relies on other bodies both nationally and internationally to provide and to archive basic weather station data, we believe that a formal approach to the storage and archiving of metadata is required. Such a repository would, for example, have made it far easier to respond quickly to requests for the list of station identifiers associated with particular CRUTEM datasets. Where a University is hosting a unit of such international significance, we believe that it should ensure funding is available for such a repository either through the research grant process or from central resources.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

If you go back to Warwick Hughes original request in July 2004, several years before the “60 such requests between Friday 24 and Tuesday 28 July” episode you mention, he asked

Where can I download the latest station by station data which is a foundation of Dr Jones et al published papers ?

Over time this evolved into two separate issues :
1) Where can I get “raw station data” ?, and
2) Which stations are used in which “reconstruction” ?

Regarding the first question Dr. Jones had a valid point that at the time he could not legally provide “raw station data” to third-parties because of the agreements signed between the UEA / CRU and various meteorological agencies around the world.

You can continue to focus on that issue — and that “we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt” and “we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments” — as much as you wish.

“We”, on the other hand, will continue to look at the more generic “How ‘The Science’ should be done in practice” issues, as summarised on page 14 of the Muir-Russell report (with highlighting added by me) :

1.3.6 Other Findings on Governance

28. Given the significance of the work of CRU, UEA management failed to recognise in their risk management the potential for damage to the University‟s reputation fuelled by the controversy over data access.

1.4 Recommendations

29. Our main recommendations for UEA are as follows:

– Risk management processes should be directed to ensuring top management engagement in areas which have the potential to impact the reputation of the university.

– Compliance with FoIA/EIR is the responsibility of UEA faculty leadership and ultimately the Vice-Chancellor. Where there is an organisation and documented system in place to handle information requests, this needs to be owned, supported and reinforced by University leadership.

– CRU should make available sufficient information, concurrent with any publications, to enable others to replicate their results.

Last edited 10 days ago by Mark BLR
Rick
June 10, 2021 4:54 am

If they covered all the scientific “tricks” being foisted on us, is that this would be a 20 year series.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rick
June 10, 2021 8:15 am

Netflix should start working on it- it might be a big hit.

June 10, 2021 4:57 am

Gee, you learn something every day – I always thought that “Piltdown” was Michael Mann’s middle name.
(do I really need to say sarc/off?)

Posted circa 2008 or earlier:

We’ll see if this review panel is truly objective. Governments will select the panel chairman and give him his terms of reference – and that is where the game is rigged. 
 
So far, there have been a number of panels established to whitewash the ClimateGate scandal revelations. The really awful whitewashes that I can quickly recall are:
1. The UK panel chaired by Sir Muir Russell – a panel loaded from the start with global warming activists.
2. The Penn State panel that reviewed Michael “Piltdown” Mann of “hockey stick” fame – a panel that chose to ignore all the evidence.
 
After more reading this morning:
The current opinion is that this inquiry will be just another whitewash. Pachauri may be sacrificed, and a new leader brought in to allegedly “clean things up”, but in reality the old global warming scamscam will remain the same…

ThinkingScientist
June 10, 2021 5:16 am

Perhaps we could suggest the BBC should make a docu-drama of the 28gate scandal? You know, the one where they took the decision to de-platform climate sceptic views on the BBC from 2007 in direct contradiction of the BBC charter and then pretend right up to the court hearing that no such meeting took place.

The decision was supposedly because of the advice of the “climate scientists” at the secret meeting. Except there weren’t really any there, just the usual activists from NGOs like Greenpeace etc. Oh and the Head of BBC entertainment, Head of Comedy etc (I kid you not). Quite a few of those I believe got a special mention in the subsequent investigation of Jimmy Saville. If you don’t know who that is you’ll have to Google it because I don’t think the filters will let through the word describing his activities. Clue = it begins with p and its to do with children.

Good old BBC eh? No sh!t sticks to
them.

Last edited 12 days ago by ThinkingScientist
Mikehig
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 10, 2021 1:11 pm

Absolutely!
Participants also included George Entwhistle who went on to become head of the corporation and helen Boaden who was head of newsnight (flagship news programme).
I have no doubt that a similar “consensus/group-think” applies to all BBC coverage. They should be defunded immediately. After all, such a gifted crew are bound to be snapped up by one of the major media outfits….aren’t they??

Mumbles McGuirck
June 10, 2021 5:29 am

“Cyber terrorists”
That’s rich. It was very probably some IT person within the CRU who independently decided to honor the FOI request that Phil Jones had not complied with.

Richard Page
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 10, 2021 10:01 am

By all accounts, it probably was. However, that wouldn’t have fitted the CRU narrative, so it became an outside hack, despite evidence to the contrary.

Tony Taylor
June 10, 2021 5:48 am

Jesus. It’s not just a whitewash, it’s a full blown hagiography. Isn’t the BBC, fat-to-corpulent on the taxes of Joe Public, supposed to be impartial?

Richard Page
Reply to  Tony Taylor
June 10, 2021 10:05 am

Supposed to be, along with an obligation to inform, educate and entertain, plus having to hold itself to the highest ideals of broadcast media. It’s amazing just how many times the BBC can get away with serious breaches of it’s own charter.

fretslider
June 10, 2021 5:50 am

This will go straight down the memory hole.

The BBC is wholly narrative driven. It is a propaganda service and public indoctrinator.

June 10, 2021 7:24 am

The abrupt rise in the “as published” graph is not tree ring data but thermometer data which is better than tree ring data. In at least one of these curves, this thermometer data is HadCRUT2. HadCRUT2 (and HadCRUT3) does not cover much of the Arctic which has been warming more than the rest of the world and understates global warming according to the reanalysis datasets JMA-55, ERA-interim and ERA5. Notably, I recently saw that Ryan Maue considers ERA5 as the most accurate major global temperature dataset. My main beef with the graphs above, especially the blue curve, is that they understate the MWP and at least two of the three curves understate the LIA.

Richard Page
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
June 10, 2021 10:08 am

The temperature data was certainly ‘better’ than the proxy series data as it went up rather than straight down. My main beef with it was the fact that the proxy series never registered temperature.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
June 10, 2021 9:22 pm

The splice shows that the “before” tree ring data is utterly useless.
How can it be a proxy for temps if it disagrees with the temps after 1960?

It was accurate to then and not accurate after?

Endless crap

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
June 11, 2021 9:25 am

“It was accurate to then and not accurate after?”

It wasn’t even accurate to the 1960’s if you go by the regional surface temperature charts which show a completely different temperature profile than the official global temperature profile.

ResourceGuy
June 10, 2021 7:57 am
ResourceGuy
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 10, 2021 8:09 am

But only in the UK…hopefully

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 10, 2021 5:12 pm

Can you Brits import some cicadas quick? They can ground Air Force One and you can keep Dementia Joe.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/cicadas-grounded-white-house-press-plane-hours-departure-europe-n1270091

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 11, 2021 9:29 am

Biden said it was the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the most senior generals in the U.S. military, who told him Global Warming is the greatest threat the U.S. faces.

Now, I don’t believe that for a moment, but it makes a good talking point for Biden.

Global warming is certainly not the greatest threat to the U.S. It’s not even a threat. Any general who thinks it is has no business being in uniform, as there is something seriously wrong with their cognitive abilities.

ResourceGuy
June 10, 2021 8:19 am

The Piltdown Tax is set to roll out from behind the trade walls of the EU.

WSJ
PARIS—Europe is preparing legislation that would jolt the rules of international trade by taxing imported goods based on the greenhouse gases emitted to make them, a plan that has sent shudders through the world’s supply chains and unsettled big trading partners such as the U.S., Russia and China.
The European Union plan, due to be announced next month, is generating debate ahead of a summit of the leaders of the Group of Seven rich countries in southwestern England starting Friday, where the international response to climate change is set to be a central topic.
The EU proposal would open up a new front in the fight against climate change by setting the world’s first limits on carbon in traded goods. The 27-nation bloc says it wants to stop polluting industries from shifting production outside Europe to avoid the bloc’s emissions limits and then exporting back into the EU. The proposal would also use the EU’s economic heft to send a powerful signal for other countries to start regulating carbon emissions.

MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 10, 2021 9:18 am

Once this plan goes through, everyone who works for government will become extremely wealthy, while the average joe in the street will be lucky to afford his daily bread.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
June 10, 2021 10:16 am

Once this plan goes through in the EU, imports will slow to a trickle. Meanwhile it’s interesting to note that the EU has banned individual countries’ lawmakers from questioning EU regulations and law. Germany faces extensive fines from the EU after a German court paused an EU law’s introduction until it had ascertained if the law was legal in Germany.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2021 2:39 pm

it’s interesting to note that the EU has banned individual countries’ lawmakers from questioning EU regulations

It starts.

It’s a good job the UK got out when it did. It can now start rebuilding its economy and wealth, while the EU squanders every gain for the last century or more, and collapses under the weight of socialist debt.

Richard Page
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 10, 2021 3:56 pm

Socialist debt? The EU lost over €9 billion between 2002 and 2017 and over €4 billion was lost just in 2018 alone. Fraud, misspending and financial mismanagement with inadequate checks and oversight.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
June 12, 2021 5:46 am

The U.S. has that beat! It was reported yesterday that $400 Billion! of the U.S. pandemic stimulus package went to fraudsters from around the world!

$400 billion !!!

Let that sink in.

The entire defense budget for the United States is $715 billion.

Last edited 10 days ago by Tom Abbott
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  MarkW
June 10, 2021 2:35 pm

while the average joe in the street will be lucky to afford his daily bread

What’s the problem? He can just eat cake, can’t he?

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 11, 2021 9:58 am

At least they will be warmed by natural gas from Nordstream 2 while fighting imported goods with their new con game.

graham dunton
June 10, 2021 12:31 pm

That would be a breakthrough, I hope they, build into the script, the lying media, at all levels, as a major component, of keeping population completely ignorant, of the facts.systematic brain washing, but I do believe,many events taking place now, as people are gradually waking up, will roll, the attempt to turn us all, into good little como’s

Greg Goodman
June 10, 2021 1:56 pm

Great flicker gif there Dave. I’ve saved that for future reference.

TEWS_Pilot
June 10, 2021 2:52 pm

comment image

Neville
June 10, 2021 3:16 pm

Here’s Dr Rosling’s BBC video of 200 countries over 200 years if you have 5 minutes.
It starts at 1810 and ends in 2010 and just shows how fossil fuels have made the ENTIRE WORLD a lot HEALTHIER and WEALTHIER in just 200 years .
Please WAKE UP to their BS and fra-d.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Neville
June 10, 2021 7:55 pm

Tremendous video, thank you. How on earth did that get past the Baghdad Bob Corporation censors?

ROB
June 11, 2021 1:49 am

It was Michael Manne, FFS.

%d bloggers like this: