• 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?

Popularity: 19% [?]

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.

and;

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.)

and;

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.

Popularity: unranked [?]

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.

Popularity: unranked [?]

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:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-4-6.html

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:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-references.html

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:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/08/nyregion/aftermath-heat-wave-neighborhoods-cold-showers-rotting-food-then-lights-then.html?pagewanted=1

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.

Popularity: unranked [?]

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!

Popularity: unranked [?]

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.

Popularity: unranked [?]

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.

Popularity: unranked [?]

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

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.

Popularity: unranked [?]

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.

Popularity: unranked [?]

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.

Popularity: unranked [?]

Despite the rhetoric of Obama and other lying Pinkos Carbonhagen is nothing but a failure. Like modern day King Canutes they think they are going to halt the rise in temperatures just by saying it will be so. The fact that temperatures aren’t rising has escaped them all, though what’s the bet they claim the coming little Ice age on their efforts at combating “Climate Change”.

About the only good thing to come out of Carbonhagen was the superb negotiating skills of Tim Groser, who much to the envy and jealousy of Nick Smith got to sit on the international stage with a proposal that will actually put some cash in our pockets rather than Nick Smith’s daft ETS which will wreck the economy. It was beautiful just to watch Smith’s pus-face look (at about 1:28) as Groser took the stage.

Nick Smith is looking forlorn (prob because he opposed this and Groser has succeeded in doing something – agriculture emissions account for 14% of the global total, so if the alliance can halve them, that would be a 7% cut in global emissions – the biggest single practical thing ever to come out of climate change talks (and of benefit to NZ even when climate change is found to be a hoax, because it will have wider environmental benefits such as reducing pollution in rivers).

Nick Smith opposes this, because if Groser’s initiative leads to a 7% cut in global emissions there would be little need for NZ to have an ETS (given our total domestic emissions are only 0.2% of the global total).  While Smith fucks around trying to get a 0.002% reduction in global emissions through the NZ ETS, Groser’s alliance may cut them by 7%, or 3,500 times as much as Smith’s ETS!

Meanwhile the traitor Sustainability Council’s Simon Terry believes that when a tree is harvested, all the carbon in it immediately turns into a gas and goes into the atmosphere.  He has never heard of houses, tables, bookcases, paper ….  or anything made of wood. The traitor man is an idiot

“What climate tracker has yet to report is that there are essentially no gains for the environment from New Zealand’s pledge on current plans, just the temporary storage of emissions in trees that are to be chopped down in the 2020s,” he said.
“Those trees time-shift the emissions reduction burden to another generation (but) they do not reduce emissions long term.”

Matthew Hooton noted as much in his NBR column on Friday, which NBR strangely still doesn’t put online or even behind the paywall, while Farrar’s drivel is now pay-per-view.

The alliance is based on three common-sense observations, accepted by everyone but warmist extremists and UN and New Zealand climate bureaucrats.

The first is that, ultimately, only research, development and application of new technology can reduce net greenhouse emissions – unless, of course, the world accepts the environmental movement’s real agenda of a collapse in global population and living standards to pre-industrial times.

All other initiatives are mere money shuffling and nonsense, including our environmentally pointless yet economically vandalous ETS, and the communiqué set to emerge from Copenhagen this weekend – once it’s bashed out overnight without anyone understanding it, as happened at Kyoto.

Second is, if New Zealand genuinely wants to do something about climate change, it should act in areas where it is already a world leader and has something meaningful to offer.

Paying medieval indulgences to Russia and Ukraine under the Kyoto system fails this test.  So does deliberately harming our economy with the ETS, especially with New Zealand producing just 0.2% of global emissions.

The phrase “punching above our weight” has rightly been banned by Mr Groser, Murray McCully and new MFAT chief executive John Allen.  They understand that New Zealand gains nothing from pretending to be something it is not, like the annoying third former trying to get entry to the seventh-form common room.  The alliance is not about “punching above our weight” but focussing on an area, agricultural science, where New Zealand is already the global heavyweight and getting entry on our merits.

With 50% of domestic and 14% of global greenhouse gases coming from agriculture, it is the one area where New Zealand has an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to cutting emissions – and, if you believe the hype, saving the planet from imminent destruction.

Ultimately though, Carbonhagen has proven to be a massive disappointment to the most hardened Green apostles and for that we should be grateful.

The fight goes on however amongst our small band of Climate realists who reject the proven lies and falsehoods of the scientists.

Lord Monckton is demanding answers from Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – and not just over his use of dodgy data in his presentation where he told no less than 18 lies about the climate and the science.

The fraud must be exposed and the rationale behind ceding our sovereignty to a global bunch of bureaucrats must be fought with every breathe.

It is heartening that without fail every left wing blog is aghast at the failure of Carbonhagen.

Popularity: unranked [?]

National hastily amended Labours silly ETS so that John Key could wave a piece of paper at Carbonhagen. Of course he was promptly ignored in favour of a bigger liar when it came to climate change, Kevin Rudd.

Now we hear that Carbonhagen is in disarray. The poor countries have worked out that they will stay poor and China has worked out the whole thing is a farce. In fact Carbonhagen has been nothing but a whole heap of hot air.

Lord Monckton covered the Liar in Chief’s speech in detail and it is posted at Watts Up With That. A better fisking of a speech you will not see. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC basically lied from beginning to end. Perhaps the only truthful part of his speech was when he named himself.

Both Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair have noted that the people who want a Copenhagen deal look like this. Do these people really look like the kind who’d know best how to run your economy?

Popularity: unranked [?]

The tragedy of Copenhagen is that people expect that all those politicians and governments are supposedly going to put in place a system to save the planet. These are the same governments and politicians that can’t run health systems, or public housing, or welfare systems and we are expected to believe they can solve global warming.

Come on people, wake up, You are being conned.

Popularity: unranked [?]

It looks like the beginning of the end of the argument that the science is settled. When pinko major news channels start running debates with graphics says “Global Warming, Trick or Truth?” then you know the argument is lost and lost by the warmists.

Climategate is at last going mainstream.

CNN is owned by one of the richest pinkos and he sure as hell has editorial control over CNN. The Warmists are becoming the new deniers, they always deny the emails are true, they always deny the emails don’t say the things they do. Who are the deniers now?

Al Gore can’t even get basic facts about the emails right. It is interesting that the same pinkos who fed off of Nicky Hager’s stolen emails are now all aghast about the emails leaked by patriot.

Popularity: unranked [?]

From Wattsupwiththat

If you need a good explanation about the Urban Heat Island (UHI) and why homogenisation of data like what NIWA does is a farce then don’t bother asking NIWA for an explanation ask a sixth grader. he even used more weather stations than NIWA.

Popularity: unranked [?]

From The Foresight Institute

One thing that Climategate does is give us an opportunity to step back from the details of the AGW argument and say, maybe these are heat-of-the-moment stuff, and in the long run will look as silly as the Durants’ allergy to Eisenhower. And perhaps, if we can put climate arguments in perspective, it will allow us to put the much smaller nano arguments (pun intended) into perspective too.

So let’s look at some ice.

I’m looking at the temperature record as read from this central Greenland ice core. It gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years.  As far as I know, the data are not adjusted according to any fancy computer climate model or anything else like that.

So what does it tell us about, say, the past 500 years? Well, whaddaya know — a hockey stick.  In fact, the “blade” continues up in the 20th century at least another half a degree.  But how long is the handle? How unprecedented is the current warming trend?

Yes, Virginia, there was a Medieval Warm Period, in central Greenland at any rate.  But we knew that — that’s when the Vikings were naming it Greenland, after all.  And the following Little Ice Age is what killed them off, and caused widespread crop failures (and the consequent burning of witches) across Europe.  But was the MWP itself unusual?

Well, no — over the period of recorded history, the average temperature was about equal to the height of the MWP .  Rises not only as high, but as rapid, as the current hockey stick blade have been the rule, not the exception.

In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline.  From this perspective, it’s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean.  If it lasts.

From the perspective of the Holocene as a whole, our current hockeystick is beginning to look pretty dinky. By far the possibility I would worry about, if I were the worrying sort, would be the return to an ice age — since interglacials, over the past half million years or so, have tended to last only 10,000 years or so.  And Ice ages are not conducive to agriculture.

… and ice ages have a better claim on being the natural state of Earth’s climate than interglacials.  This next graph, for the longest period, we have to go to an Antarctic core (Vostok):

In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history.  But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still.  It doesn’t even stand stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.

Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.

Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.

Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels?  Of course not.  We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech.  (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.

For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.

As David Farrar would say Indeed!

Popularity: unranked [?]

Al Gore decided to not go to Copenhagen and instead inflicted the Gore Effect on the Continental US. Meanwhile he has givevn an interview where he shows he is either utterly stupid or contemptuous liar. I’m picking the latter.

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

Really! Oh dear Al, clearly you ether haven’t read them or are deliberately lying as a smokescreen:

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

Oh he just did it again, the smokescreen is getting thicker than his lies.

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

And again, can the man not tell the truth?

Wattsupwiththat shows just how wrong Al Gore is.

These emails show that the scientist were corrupt, the raw data shows that even that is corrupted and Al Gore’s obfuscations show just how utterly corrupt he is too.

Popularity: unranked [?]

From Watts Up with That? (BTW, this guy should forever be honoured in every country in the world)

People keep saying “Yes, the Climategate scientists behaved badly. But that doesn’t mean the data is bad. That doesn’t mean the earth is not warming.”

Let me start with the second objection first. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There is general agreement that the earth has warmed since then. See e.g. Akasufo . Climategate doesn’t affect that.

The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable.

There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.

And then he embarks on a study of how GHCN has manipulated the raw data. The same raw data that is used by CRU and manipulated again.

Here is what he has found. Instead of this data, which shows cooling, being used for the raw data to plot temperature in Darwin, they used this crooked one. They have cooked the raw data before disseminating it, they call it homogeneity and here is what they did to the raw data to homogenise it at Darwin.

What I call that is fraud, lies, scandal and corruption. If the raw data from GHCN is bent and from the graphs it sure is bent, like instead of a reverse hockey stick it is bent into a Mann type hockey stick, then every model, every calculation, every agreement, every report is corrupted in the same way. Go and read the whole post, then come back hear and I dare you to say the science is settled.

The science isn’t settled, it is destroyed. In a few years having Climate Scientist on your resume will doom you to a life of unemployment. The information just keeps on building. Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay were nothing compared to this. They should be pardoned really because their fraud was small change compared to this fraud about to be perpetrated on the world.

What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling. In addition, the average raw data for Northern Australia is quite different from the adjusted, so there must be a number of … mmm … let me say “interesting” adjustments in Northern Australia other than just Darwin.

And with the Latin saying “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station “adjustments” are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can’t trust anyone using homogenized numbers.

Halt this nonsense now. Stand up and shout at your MPs, shout over the Warmenisers. They have deceived you and you should be angry. I know I am.

Popularity: unranked [?]

The NZ Herald finally covers Climategate but not to explain how scientists have lied, manipulated and fiddled in order to produce dodgy statisitics. No they publish an article on how they are going to continue to do it.

NIWA’s David Wratt says that NIWA is going to publish the data for 18 weather stations that show New Zealand has been warming since 1931. It’’s laughable really in the face of such a serious issue. NIWA has more than 18 stations in the Auckland region alone, let alone the rest of the country.

The repeater didn’t think to ask the obvious questions.

1. Why only those 18?
2. What happened to the previous 7?
3. How many weather stations does NIWA actually have?
4. Why isn’t that data available?
5. What are you hiding Mr Wratt?

Helpfully NIWA’s own site tells us that they have data from;

from about 6500 climate stations which have been operating for various periods since the earliest observations were made in the year 1850. The database continues to receive data from over 600 stations that are currently operating.

So, why when they have data from over 600 active weatherstations and over 6500 weatherstations in total do they show us the data of just 18. That is just 3% and a number too small to measure but less than 1% of total weatherstations. That is hardly representative of New Zealand’s climate.

Of course resident Warmeniser cheer leaders have held up the new 18 station graph as proof of warming. Helpfully they have told us which stations have been used. Now word of warning here, you may need to hold your sides to stop the pain from the laughter you are about to feel.

Raoul Island, Tauranga Airport, Ruakura (Hamilton), Gisborne Airport, Chateau Tongariro, Palmerston North DSIR/AgResearch, Westport Airport, Molesworth, Queenstown, Invercargill Airport and Campbell Island.

If anyone has an photos of these sites then please send them in.

Raoul Island – Bwahahahahahahaha, From Wikipedia, the largest and northernmost of the main Kermadec Islands, (located at 29°15′S 177°55′W / 29.25°S 177.917°W / -29.25; -177.917, 900 km SSW of ‘Ata Island of Tonga and 1100 km NNE of New Zealand’s North Island), has been the source of vigorous volcanic activity during the past several thousand years that was dominated by dacitic explosive eruptions. I wonder if those gasses escaping from the volcano might have contributed anything to the so called warming, but seriously they have included an island 1100 kilometres from the tip of the North Island.

Campbell Island – is situated 700 km south of New Zealand’s mainland and is a large sub-Antarctic island.

So of the new data from 11 new stations plus the secret 7 previously two are from islands that are amongst the remostest places on earth. Excuse me if I just don’t piss myself laughing. But wait there is more mirth from these tossposts. These special extra 11 stations were hand picked by Jim Salinger, yes the same one from the emails, because they show warming.

I repeat Dr, Mr, whatever title you like to use Wratt, where is ALL the data from ALL the stations….excuse me if you feel offended, its just that we don’t trust you or your organisation anymore.

Popularity: unranked [?]

The Climategate deniers think that this is just going to go away but I thinks this thing may get to see the light of day after all!!

It’s becoming more and more apparent from these interviews that are popping up that:

1) These interviewers have no idea what the skeptical argument actually is…..

2) They are hopeless researchers!!

The raw data needs to be released. We need to see what has been going on.

Popularity: unranked [?]