Questions that need answers

  • If global warming is going to drastically alter the climate how come there were zero tornadoes in February when Al Gore said that will increase?
  • Is it because he is still a proven liar?
  • How come when we have supposed to have had the hottest decade ever (well, since records began) we have also had the snowiest decade on record?
  • Is calling Phil Jones a fraudster just a little too harsh?
  • What do Phil Jones’ words “As before the stations with normal values do not get used.” mean?
  • Does that mean they don’t use data that might hide the incline?
  • I would have thought normal data is what should be used, rather than manipulated data?
  • Is that really lying?
  • Is it fraud?
  • Oh come on now, you are just being hysterical surely?
  • I thought that the stolen leaked emails were just a few heated words between scientists, how come those emails outline a deliberate deception?
  • Has anyone yet denied that they are real and nothing but a forgery by “deniers”?
  • Why were these emails “stolen” as described our lefties here and Don Brash’s emails “released in the public interest”?
  • When will “Quota” Smith finally confess he was baffled by the bullshit?
  • When will “Smile and Wave” Key can the ETS?
  • Surely he knows this is going to look stupid once the indictments start flowing?
  • When will NIWA start telling the truth?
  • Is Gareth Renowden a complete twat?
  • Is he a fraud as well?
  • Ok what about as deluded as “Quota” Smith?
  • Oh come that is too harsh for anyone surely?
  • Can we mark “believers with a tattoo so when they later claim they didn’t “really” believe they were just tricking we can kick their lying balls real hard?
  • That goes for Lynne, the guy with girls name too, ok?

Peer review? What is this mythical thing you talk about?

From the mouth of none other than Climate Change high priest Phil Jones, who really seems to have turned rat on the rest, we have now found out that many of his based on fiction “scientific” papers that were submitted to allegedly peer reviewed publication were actually never peer reviewed as they never even asked for the dodgy data that the articles were based upon.

Previously sympathetic MPs were beginning to be more hostile. One asked why it was so unusual for somebody to replicate Jones’ work from scratch. Jones said that during the peer review process, nobody had ever asked for raw data or methodology.

Day by day Phil Jones is slitting the wrists and cutting the throats of the whole Climate Change industry, and I don’t even use quote marks around industry anymore because that is what it is, it sure as hell isn’t science as it should be.

Phil Jones is also drowning any chance of of a recovery from ClimateGate, because almost every allegation about ClimateGate is being confirmed by him:

  • Destruction of Data;

?The simplest approach where the requirements generate a defensive attitude? is proactive disclosure in the first place. Where there is no good reason, why not disclose it and avoid the hassle??

Stewart again interrupted his answer. Thomas stood firm: ?I do not think hassle justifies the deliberate destruction of information.?

  • Manipulation of Data;

The ?hide the decline? statement, where the team had replaced wayward proxy temperature data with instrumented data, was immaterial

  • Refusal to comply with British law regarding disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act;

Jones initially stated that the methods were published in the scientific papers, ?there?s no rocket science in them?. He can?t have thanked his boss Acton for butting in to say that CRU was ?not a national archive? and had no obligation to preserve the raw temperature data.


In the University?s written submission, Acton complained about bothersome sceptics making the work of his scientists more difficult ? and wanted the leaker found. (And presumably strung up.)


The Information Commissioner for seven years until last summer ,Richard Thomas, was invited to put the FOIA requests in context. Several Jones emails show him vowing to ?hide behind? UK FOIA law, briefing University staff to refuse requests to sceptics, and asking colleagues to destroy email.

The University, in another PR blunder, had objected to a statement from the current IC office that the Climategate emails showed prima facie evidence of criminal activity. They hadn?t been found guilty, they complained. That?s because the IC couldn?t investigate, Thomas pointed out, and again renewed his call for the six month time limit on complaints to be closed.

  • Deliberate delaying of information seekers;

Stringer said scientists make their reputations by proving or disproving what other scientists have done. He forced Jones to admit that contrary to his initial statement, the code wasn?t available for independent scientists to test the work. So how can science progress, Stringer wondered.

Jones admitted he had ?obviously written some very awful emails?. Stringer said science ?shouldn?t have to rely on an individual request for other scientists to get the data?.

  • Deliberate hiding of source data;

?Why can?t independent people check your scientific papers?? asked Stringer.

?It isn?t traditionally done,? replied Jones. Stringer continued, quoting Jones’ email to Warwick Hughes, famous before Climategate broke, refusing to give data. Jones had said, “Why should I make the data available when your aim is to find something wrong with it?”

  • Collusion across countries by fellow travellers;
  • and now almost zero peer-review except that which was done by fellow travelers

Stringer said scientists make their reputations by proving or disproving what other scientists have done. He forced Jones to admit that contrary to his initial statement, the code wasn?t available for independent scientists to test the work. So how can science progress, Stringer wondered.

Jones admitted he had ?obviously written some very awful emails?. Stringer said science ?shouldn?t have to rely on an individual request for other scientists to get the data?.

Basically the leaking of the ClimateGate emails has revealed a vast conspiracy to commit fraud against the peoples of the Earth they were pretending needed saving.

Indictments will begin soon, I’d lay money on it.


ClimateGate University lies to U.K. Parliament

It is bad enough that they lost the lost the core data, and then made up new data to prove what they only suspected and coerced publications to ditch papers from people opposed to their world view. They have now mislead the UK Paliament.

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament.

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner?s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the university?s Climatic Research Unit, has stepped down while an inquiry takes place into allegations that he manipulated data to avoid scrutiny of his claims that manmade emissions were causing global warming. Professor Edward Acton, the university?s vice-chancellor, published a statement he sent to the committee before giving evidence to MPs at a public hearing on Monday. He said a letter from the ICO ?indicated that no breach of the law has been established [and] that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie?.

But the ICO?s letter said: ?The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.?

The letter also confirmed the ICO?s previous statement that the university had failed in its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by rejecting requests for data. The university had demanded that the ICO withdraw this statement.


This is becoming a farce

The IPCC AR4 is fast becoming swiss cheese with the large number of holes being drilled in it. Never before have the warmists come under such scrutiny.

The latest non-peer reviewed extract is actually from an article in the NY Times.

I found this reference to the New York Times in WGII 14.4.6. Just thought it should be part of the growing record:

The reference reads (Wilgoren and Roane, 1999) and is the source for the following claim:

Unreliable electric power, as in minority neighbourhoods during the New York heatwave of 1999, can amplify concerns about health and environmental justice.

The AR4 reference page can be found here:

It reads:

Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999

That article can be found here:

I?m not sure who peer reviewed it.

The adherents of teh Climate Change religion now have so many paragraphs from the vaunted report that are just plain wrong or unscientific they can no longer claim that robust peer reviewed science is the basis of the report. They can’t just dismiss them as a few errors. Barefoot or sandal wearing tossers like Lynne the guy with the girls name at the Standard are actually the deniers now. Their religion is in tatters.

Now even the ultra-pinko Guardian has found flaws and hidden data. Now the pinkos have found lies the race is on amongst the media to utterly destroy the liars.

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

This finally links the emails leaked by a loyal citizen to expose the corruption and an actual verified issue. This confirms the emails are real.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones’s collaborator, Wei-?Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had “screwed up”.

The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN’s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

And stil nick “Quota” Smith keeps his job. When this all explodes in the warmists faces there are going to be tears for sure.


The continuing death of Global Warming round up

Dr. Pachauri moonlighting as smut novelist
DomPost Editorial: Climate flaws dent the scientific cause

NIWA has lost the data ala CRU, can’t provide data under OIA How on Earth can we respect NIWA when they can’t even safeguard raw data? What sort of Year 11 science class are these fools running.

Salinger defends climate report despite slip-ups

Now Jim Salinger name-drops Sir Edmund Hillary. Is he telling us that the evidence he had about the ice melting was based opinion (famous opinion) not scientific evidence?

Give us a break Jim and pull the other one ? it?s got ?bells on it!


Climategate and Glaciergate

The IPCC and Associated hangers on were damaged quite considerably by Climategate email scandal. Pinko Farrar isn’t so concerned about that, but Glaciergate is really starting to bite.

Once you start putting the pieces together though as revealed by the emails, that a cabal of “scientists” joined together to present a pre-determined view and the IPCC aided and abetted that, with the evidence now pouring in of fabricated, Mann-made evidence, out-right false information you start to get the picture that “the science is settled” lie is now in tatters.

Worse is the outright fraud of the whole industry. I won’t call it a science as it appears to be a chicken little based industry designed to scare us out of billions of dollars and the IPCC Chairman is right at the centre of the coming storm.

Dr Pachauri has described as “voodoo science” an official report by the country’s leading glaciologist, Dr Vijay Raina, which dismissed Dr Hasnain’s claims about Himalayan Glacial Melting as baseless.

Now Dr Pauchari has moved on, just like a certain ex-leader of this country, not even acknowledging that the glaciologist was right and was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a “poor application” of IPCC procedures.

There wasn’t just one error, but three factual errors, in the paragraph contained in the 2007 IPCC report:

  1. The 2035 date is absolute nonsense, and was either made up or was 2350 transposed.
  2. The rate of receding by the Himalayan glaciers are not in fact receding faster than anywhere else in the world.
  3. The size of the Himalayan glaciers is around 1/15th of 500,000 square kms ? 33,000 square km.

Poor procedures caused this? But wait a minute, what happened to peer reviewed studies, the process by which the science is supposed to be settled? Out the fricken window is what happened particularly in the case of Glaciergate. We already know that the cabal centred around the CRU were manipulating the peer-review process from the Climategate emails, now we can see that false, misleading and outright wrong data was included in the IPCC report.

Now the cat is out of the bag and criminal charges are likely to be laid, the weasels are squealing like little piggies.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report?s chapter on Asia, said: ?It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

?It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.?

It wasn’t about the science because no science existed, it was about political pressure, and about money. It has now been revealed that Dr Pauchari, in a spectacular conflict of interest, gained approximately $14 million for his company TERI by false pretenses. So we have a bunch of lies used to perpetrate a fraud to study something which doesn’t exist and Dr Pauchari’s pocketed the money.

This furore also implicates the great pretender Al Gore. He together with Dr Pauchari received a Nobel Peace Prize based on this exact issue.

Worse still the scientist that made the palpably false statement that this fraud is based upon actually works for Dr. Pauchari’s TERI.

Even more damaging now, however, will be the revelation that the source of that offending prediction was the man whom Dr Pachauri himself has been employing for two years as the head of his glaciology unit at TERI ? and that TERI has won a share in two major research contracts based on a scare over the melting of Himalayan glaciers prominently promoted by the IPCC, using words drawn directly from Dr Hasnain.

Understandably the Indian Government is rope-able. Firstly by the attack on its own expert as a practitioner of “voodoo science” by Dr. Pauchari but also the evidence right in front of them that the perpetrator of the lie works for Dr. Pauchari. I think we may be just days away from seeing Dr. Pauchari indicted by the Indian Government. The IPCC is hopelessly compromised now and even the UN is also now hopelessly compromised as well:

United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny ? and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

Unpublished reports, faked data, outright lies, destroyed base data, the science is dead, the IPCC is dead, and the greatest fraud attempted to be perpetrated on the human race is exposed as a house of cards built upon the quicksand of lies. Even NASA is pulling pages from its website as we speak trying to mitigate the unspeakable damage the fraudster Dr. Pauchari has done to the industry.

If Nick “Quota” Smith wasn’t so focused on his court case he might like to take the time to review the mounting evidence that the Climate Change industry is a fraud, that he is a fraud and the ETS is a fraud.

John Key should face up to reality that the science around Climate Change is now so hopelessly compromised that he should withdraw the ETS until other bodies such as the House of Commons have completed their investigations of CRU and the Indian Government has look closely at Dr. Pauchari. It was an egregious risk to run off to Copenhagen with our ETS in place and no other country in the world having any such scheme. The gamble hasn’t paid off, Nick “Quota” Smith should resign.

Lies, more lies and Climategate

The IPCC has admited to a big fat lie that Warm-mongers have been repeating ad nauseum about the Himalayan Glaciers. It seems the Warm-mongers just can’t stop lying from Al Goore and the IPCC down.

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035”. The authors deny the claims.

Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and “a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology”.

A massive error propagated throughout the Warmenising fraternity. But where did the error come from? Two possibilities exist.

In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035,” the report said.

It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

“The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035”.

and then from the Briffa/Mann school of making shit up there is this paper;

He said the error might also have its origins in a 1999 news report on retreating glaciers in the New Scientist magazine.

The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”.

When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the “outer year” for shrinkage of glaciers.

They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.

Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.

A report for WWF, an old UNESCO document WTF? and a 1999 New Scientist news report that the “scientist” who wrote it has now disclosed that he interviewed his type-writer. Not only that, the “science is settle meme is being slayed almost everyday. This case shows yet again that the science is not only NOT settled but largely fabricated, made up, a hoax, lies if you will.

Speaking of lies, Poneke has read every single CRU email and come to the following conclusion:

This is the longest and most important article I?ve yet written for this blog and I make no apology for its 4600 words ? more also than in any newspaper article. As a journalist, I believe the Climategate emails have exposed one of the most significant news stories of the decade. As the mainstream news media has so far barely gone beyond giving those who wrote them and their supporters time and space to deny their undeniable contents, I present here an extensive journalistic account of what they actually say in the context of the dates and events in which they were written, with full links to all the emails.

Having now read all the Climategate emails, I can conclusively say they demonstrate a level of scientific chicanery of the most appalling kind that deserves the widest possible public exposure.

The emails reveal that the entire global warming debate and the IPCC process is controlled by a small cabal of climate specialists in England and North America. This cabal, who call themselves ?the Team,? bully and smear any critics. They control the ?peer review? process for research in the field and use their power to prevent contrary research being published.

And Phil Jones, one of the cabal had this to say about warming, or lack of since 1998.

From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached
article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn?t statistically significant.

The pity is that the Minister in Charge Nick “Quota” Smith is being enabled by John Key to wreck our economy based on science that is day by day being shown to be nothing but falsehoods. Very soon having Climate Scientist on your CV will be like putting Alchemist.

CLIMATEGATE: Visualisation of 30 years of Global Warming Fraud

from JoNova and WattsUpwithThat

You have to see this to believe it. Download the pdf and look up close and admire the detail that? Mohib Ebrahim has created to visualise ClimateGate at the same time wonder at how long science has been going off the rails and how our politicians and governments have been deceived.

This shows what was exposed by the CRU emails, the time-line chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That?the chart?exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us.

ClimateGate Timeline

ClimateGate Timeline

Click on the image to see it enlarged, but download the full PDF to see the detail.

Download The PDF (788k)

There are also printable versions in A4, A3, A2, US letter and?US tabloid for those of you (like me) who need printed versions to scribble on, and scrawl exclamation marks.

Print them off and send to your MP and to John Key.

CLIMATEGATE – Number 1 in top 15 internet scandals

Six Revisions has compiled a list of the top 15 internet scandals/controversies of all time and it is the newest that is number 1.

That’s right the leak of the ClimateGate emails is rated as the top internet controversy ever. That’s how big it is and the Mainstream media pretty much passed it by.

The biggest internet controversy in history and our media says nothing to see here, move along.

The exposure of much of the science behind the lies that support the fraud that is the Climate Change industry is released on the internet and the mainstream media is missing in action.

More reportage went into the billion dollars flushed down the Carbonhagen sewers. The conspirators as revealed behind the CRU emails are shown up as bullies and connivers and liars in their attempts to pervert science to hteir way of thinking.

The collusion in destroying the peer-reviewed process is astonishing. Read the story of how they spent a year colluding to destroy just one peer reviewed paper they didn’t like. The story puts some of the emails in context and reveals how exactly they went about it linking the emails to the facts of the time. There can be no doubt that these actions are actually a criminal conspiracy to defraud.

So much for Global Warming

I bet residents all over the US are just wishing Global Warming was real about now.

An enormous winter storm moved northward early Sunday, leaving behind heavy snow and high winds in Southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. The storm has stranded travelers, knocked out electricity and buried the East Coast in snow for three days.

While the snowfall tapered off in Manhattan early Sunday morning, the storm and its high winds continued to rage on Long Island, which was reporting blizzard-like conditions. Matt Scalora, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service office in Brookhaven, said that the 25 inches of snow recorded there marked the deepest amount since the 1940s. Sections of the Long Island Expressway had to be closed to permit plowing or because drivers were hampered by gusts of snow driven by winds reaching 35 miles an hour. The Associated Press reported that more than 150 passengers were stranded for five hours on the highway.

Deepest amount since the 1940’s, hell that is going to put a big dent in the statistics. meanwhile on the other side of the US in an area that Warm-mongers say will be most hurt by Global Warming is Alaska and in Valdez;

We’re not talking about your ordinary little dump here. That was in Copenhagen, where world leaders were meeting to discuss what to do about global warming and the Bloomberg news service was warning that Barack Obama and the rest would “face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.”

Four inches overnight? Valdez got more than four inches per hour at the height of the snowstorm that began there Monday and ran through the week. By the time the citizens of Alaska’s only oil port finally caught a break, the snow was piled 5 feet, 8 inches deep.

Yes, you read right.

Five feet, 8 inches; over the head of your average American woman, up the nose of your average American man. The National Weather Service called it record. Fire hydrants were buried so deep under snow not even Tiger Woods could have hit them.

All these records tumbling when supposedly we are facing “record warming”, how can that be? Some one must be telling fibs.