Archive for the ‘Hackd CRU emails’ Category

Lying, Cheating and Defrauding Taxpayers is ok, Announces Panel of MP’s

April 1, 2010

From the Telegraph:

“So, the results of the first Climategate enquiry are in. And guess what? It’s a word that begins with “W” and ending with “-hitewash.”

Over at Climateaudit, the mighty Steve McIntyre is furious. Among those he holds responsible is Nigel Lawson, for having given away territory he certainly had no right to cede on the subject of that now-infamous phrase “Mike’s Nature Trick.”

Here’s how the parliamentary committee exploited Lord Lawson’s ill-judged comments.

These [ UEA]interpretations of the colloquial meaning of “trick” have been accepted by even the staunchest of critics:

Lord Lawson of Blaby: The sinister thing is not the word ‘trick’. In their [UEA’s] own evidence they say that what they mean by ‘trick’ is the best way of doing something.
Chairman: You accept that?
Lord Lawson of Blaby: I accept that.

Lord Lawson’s error under pressure before a hostile and (with the exception of dissenting Labour MP Graham Stringer) quite extraordinarily obtuse audience is understandable. But you can see why McIntyre, a man who has done more than anyone to expose the fraudulence of the AGW industry, finds it so hard to forgive.

Damn it, he has written paper after blog post after essay explaining in precise and superbly informed detail exactly why this “trick” was a bad, naughty and very wrong thing – and not, as the UEA’s appallingly disingenuous submission preferred to gloss it, a colloquial phrase meaning “the best way of doing something.”

In short, it was a very dodgy, deeply unscientific way of deleting inconvenient data. It was also, entirely typical of the lying, cheating and fraud exposed in the Climategate emails. Let us not forget, we pay for scientists like Phil Jones with our taxes. How entirely typical that a body representing the most corrupt, money-grubbing taxpayer-funded roach pit of the lot – our Houses of Parliament – should have found it so very easy to exonerate the Climategate scientists of all wrongdoing.”

Surface Temperature Records – Deliberate Tampering

February 5, 2010

Examples of Deliberate Tampering

Climategate Timeline Banner

February 5, 2010

A must read …

Climategate Timeline Banner

Climategate- Follow the Money

December 2, 2009

Wall Street Journal- Climategate, Follow the Money

Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change “consensus.”

To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon’s 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you’d hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week’s disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists’ follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what’s known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU’s temperature database: “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.

Dr Tim Ball on Hacked CRU Emails

November 23, 2009

“It confirms suspicions I’ve had in my 30 years of working in climate science. I saw the hijacking of climate science particularly by modellers, and then by a small group of people associated with the IPCC. ….It really is deeply disturbing because what you’ve got here is this small group of scientists, who by the way Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick- he identified 42 people and said, “look, these people are all publishing together, and they are also peer reviewing each other’s literature”…..about 20 years ago I started to question why they were pushing the peer review process so much and now we realise it is because it gives them control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.

On a global scale this is frighteneing because not only do these people control the global temperature data through the Hadley Climate Research Unit, they also control the IPCC – and they have manipulated that, we read in the emails how that was done. ”