jump to navigation

Climategate: a scandal that won’t go away April 18, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

Climategate: a scandal that won’t go away

Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
The Telegraph, April 17, 2010

If you were faced with by far the biggest bill of your life, would you not want to be confident that there was a very good reason why you should pay it? That is why we need to know just how far we can trust the science behind the official view that the world is threatened with catastrophe by global warming – because the measures proposed by our politicians to avert this supposed disaster threaten to transform our way of life out of recognition and to land us with easily the biggest bill in history. (The Climate Change Act alone, says the Government, will cost us all £18 billion every year until 2050.)

Yet in recent months, as we know, the official science on which all this rests has taken quite a hammering. Confronted with all those scandals surrounding the “Climategate” emails and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the political and academic establishments have responded with a series of inquiries and statements designed to show that the methods used to construct the official scientific case are wholly sound. But as was illustrated last week by two very different reports, these efforts to hold the line are themselves so demonstrably flawed that they are in danger of backfiring, leaving the science more questionable than ever.

The first report centred directly on the IPCC itself. When several of the more alarmist claims in its most recent 2007 report were revealed to be wrong and without any scientific foundation, the official response, not least from the IPCC’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was to claim that everything in its report was “peer-reviewed”, having been confirmed by independent experts.

Read the rest here

About these ads

Comments»

1. rogerthesurf - April 18, 2010

Christopher,

I agree,

I have always found the hype over global warming somewhat fishy.
I remember the cooling scare of the 1970′s which has something to do with it, but what has made me the most suspicious is the religious fever that seems to go with these people.
When people start shouting slogans and threatening people who do not conform with their views I believe its time to be on guard.

I did a little research of my own. I ignored the over complicated arguments about greenhouse forcing, (although I understand them), and took a look at the proof of the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis itself.
I fully understand how difficult such a theory would be to prove so this excited my investigative juices.
Of course I found absolutely no proof at all. Instead as my blog at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com shows, I found a number of historical facts that actually disprove the hypothesis.

As your article rightly asserts, the bill for what the IPCC is requiring is horrendous. Actually as an economist, I would go further than call it “threaten[ing] to transform our way of life out of recognition”, I believe that the bill will cause widespread poverty, privation and probably starvation in the western world.

Please feel welcome to visit my blog and leave a comment.

Cheers

Roger

2. Bush bunny - April 18, 2010

Well maybe they should have taken notice of the Wegman report
too! It proved that M.Mann and Jones et al, had done their sums wrong. And their reports were peer reviewed by professional statisticians and the UN IPCC informed but ignored.

They had ignored that 800-1300s the climate was warmer than today in UK. The Medieval Period, and from the 1300s to 1850 there was the mini Ice Age… since then we have warmed up naturally. How can you judge climate change over 160 years without comparing this to palaeo-climates?

How can you ignore these two major climate cycles, and then blame
the current warming period (although we have cooled too) to AGW?
You cook the books to prove it. Many scientists asked to review the
report didn’t agree with it, in fact one almost took legal action before his name was removed. Watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle’
2007 (Available on U Tube) Then Al Gore’s mate and adviser Stephen Schneider to the UN IPCC ‘The Ice age commeth c.mid 1970s’ Also available on U Tube, changed his mind didn’t he quick smart when he and others we offered grants to prove AGW was a reality. It’s a crime against humanity. And Pachauri and UN IPCC said they weren’t responsible for the research only made a decision on the consensus? Passing the buck eh? But now governments are weighing the real cost and I believe that The $2 billion green bank, is of no more interest to UK. They reckon that it will cost around 404 billion to cut CO2 emissions, and when they aren’t causing climate change why tax it or issue now, valueless credit trading permits. So eat your wallets Mr Pachauri et al, your TERI Europe & India and clean energy CCTS ain’t going to work. Like the wind farms! Change the government and get out of the EU.

3. Bush bunny - April 18, 2010

I should have added Warm – The Medieval Warm period, sorry.
I get very passionate about this climate change debacle, and all the trillions of $’s and Euros that have gone into the bodgy research and
Carbon Trading. Luckily in someways, CCTs and clean energy investments are rapidly losing money. However, I feel sorry for the innocents in this, who may lose savings and pension funds. Like the
BBC.

4. Bush Bunny - April 19, 2010

With respect Christopher and Roger – Another point I would like to bring up. Germany (The Green country) and France are asking for a review of the AGW hypothesis (Sorry Roger won’t call it a theory actually hypothesis is rather over claimed I feel).

Suddenly, Joanne Nova’s site broke down last night? Maybe it was
technical, but Greenpeace are making threats to people I heard. “We know where you live?” etc… what a laugh!

Also in the International Express from UK for Australian readers, under Environment dated issue ..30 March – 5th April. page 5.

“…MR Darling’s big idea of the environment … a 2 billion [pounds]
Green Investment Bank …was dismissed as nowhere near enough to clean up the economy.

Engineering consultants WSP Environment & Energy said that according to the Government’s own estimates the bank would provide only a tiny percentage of the money required to move to low
carbon economy.

WSP director David Symons said: “The Government estimates it will cost between 324 billion [pounds] and 404 billion [pounds] to deliver a low carbon economy by 2050, and a 2 billion [pounds] fund would therefore provide only 0.5 per cent of this total cost…”

Goldman Sachs and J.P.Morgan are under investigation in America.
It would seem it’s about mortgages but also questions on their promotion of CCT’s. (Carbon Credits or permits Trading). These are
losing value right now as are Uranium shares (according to the anti-nuclear site?)

I feel sympathy for those corporations, investors etc., who believing
the likes of Gore, Mann, Jones, Schnieder, Pachauri and the UN IPCC
including the EU who invested in CCT’s and now find after the Copenhagen summit, that failed embarrassingly for some that without Cap ‘n trade or ETS their carbon shares are losing value badly.

I include the BBC who I believe have invested their pension scheme
in CCTs? Considering their negative response to climate skeptics
I can understand why!

I believe and endorse Sustainability. However arch AGW promoter and chief scientific adviser to Al Gore was in Australia last month,
promoting his book. He got very little media coverage. However he is quoted as saying….”Australia should be the first country to legislate
ETS….However green or clean energy doesn’t work … go nuclear!’

Is this man aware (maybe he is suffering from senile dementia not to have done his homework first before uttering these statements). There is a strong anti-nuclear power group in Australia! And I’m one of them!

5. Bush Bunny - April 19, 2010

I should have mentioned James Hansen as the arch AGW promoter and chief scientific adviser to Al Gore…

Sorry I am so passionate against the AGW debate…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: