News Updates:

The news Al Gore should read.

Consensus? What Consensus?

Chill out. Get Informed.

Climategate Round-Up #9

How better to spend the dog days between Christmas and New Year than to catch up on your favorite climate conspiracy. Grab another eggnog and a mince pie, I have a mini-linkapalooza for you.

If you missed them, Climategate Round-Ups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

The Leak/Hack

Thou Shalt Not Delete. So sayeth the Department of the Environment, in lawyer speak. The notice is too late for the very absent Phil Jones, who has received a few bucks from the DoE, but also has been careless with data. Oops.

The Russki’s point a finger at CRU and accuses them of manipulating data to show more warming. Ouch, da?

More on the Russian accusations:

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. …The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. …

Global warming believers react to the Russian accusation, by attempting to discredit the accusers instead of questioning their faith.

The revelations aren’t over yet, there’s more gold in them thar emails.

Climategate Inconvenient Emails/Data

Climategate brought very inconvenient science to light, and the neo-deniers try to explain away their deceit and corruption with terms like ‘noise’. Here’s a post that takes the ‘noise’ excuse and shoves it where the Sun don’t shine. Take that, alarmists.

How bad was the CRU code and programming? Let’s ask a professional:

..

Jo Nova charts the 30 years it took to manufacture Climategate. If you look at nothing else, check out her chart, it’s a work of art.

Climate scientists, or common thugs and bullies? You decide.

Climategate in the Media

The Tyee bemoans the inept response of the ’scientific’ community to Climategate. Can’t say why they’re upset, the PR response is about as coherent as the science, so at least the global warming alchemists are consistent in their incompentence.

Will Heaven, the appropriately named Telegraph writer on Catholicism and religion (I kid you not) met Delingpole face to face. Poor Will still can’t understand why the world’s newest religion is falling apart.

The ripples of the Climategate fallout have reaches the doorstep of railway engineer Rajendra Pachaury, and the laundry list of his conflicts of interest makes Al Gore look like a rank amateur. Monckton piles on. Pachauri calls it a ‘pack of lies’, but that won’t save him when the UN starts looking for a scapegoat.

Pachauri celebrates China's surrender, or something

Pachauri celebrates China's surrender. Or something.

When polls attack. Even loaded questions from alarmist organizations fail to hide the fact that fewer people than ever believe the carbon scaremongers hoax.

Hippie Heads Exploding

One of the IPCC authors turns on his own, and blows the lid off how IPCC reports are put together.

The second problem is that the technical publication is not completed by the time the IPCC reports. Instead, it produces a Summary for Policy Makers. Writing the s ummary involves the co-ordinators, the reviewers and the IPCC functionaries as before, and also various chairmen. The summary goes out in a blaze of publicity, but there is no means of checking whether it represents what the scientists actually said, because the scientific report isn’t published for another four months or more. In the Fourth Assessment, the summary was quietly replaced several months after it was first published because some scientists who were involved complained of misrepresentation.

The New Scientist decides that enough is enough, it’s time to hit back against Climategate. But instead of trying to answer the growing list of questions raised by the CRU leak, NS just tries to discredit skeptics with tired old arguments. That rushing sound you hear is the NS haemorrhaging subscribers, read the comments.

Uh Oh, dirty rotten hippie scoundrels are discovering that the burden of proof has suddenly reversed polarities:

You can feel that most crucial of propaganda processes happening with Climategate: the reversing of the burden of proof. Unfair to all the fraud detectives (Watts, McIntyre, and the rest of them, including Monkton himself) though it undoubtedly was, those noble toilers, until the Climategate revelations erupted, had to prove everything, in defiance of the default position. Their every tiny blemish was jumped upon. Their major claims were ignored. Now the default position is slowly mutating into: It’s all made-up nonsense. And the burden of proof is shifting onto the shoulders of all those who want to go on believing in such ever more discredited alarmism.

The wikipedia global warmist-in-chief William Connolley has been working overtime to hide the effects of the ‘hide the decline’ fallout, but has his activism finally caught up with him?

Climategate Hottie

In Soviet Union, not everything is gray and cold. CRU might feel like to manipulate Russian data, but smarter skeptics prefer to admire the statistics of Russians like Anna Kournikova, da?

Thanks for reading.

Source by The Daily Bayonet