The greatest scientific scandal ever?

Physicists as deniers?

peer review racepeer review race
Could it be that the scientific community are not all charlatans? That they are realising that a scandal of immense proportions has been enacted under their noses? That we may have been experiencing a natural warming period? That they are able to criticise climate scientists who have thought that the end justified the means and, to this end, manipulated data and crowded out non-believers?

Watts Up With That reproduces an amazing submission to the Parliamentary Science and Technology committee investigation into the CRU e-mails. This is from the Institute of Physics, which is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public.

The latest news from the Guardian

Better late than never.

.. Blow me the Guardian is researching ClimateGate. It mentions problems with peer-review, the suppression and manipulation of scientific data and articles and discusses problems relating to the infamous 'hockey-stick' graph. Yet, on the 1st of February, Fred Pearce in the Guardian was writing that the:

The 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies.Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation.

Presumably he had a day to read some of the literature and has promptly changed his mind. On 2nd Feb the same Fred Pearce wrote:

A close reading of the hacked emails exposes the real process of science, its jealousies and tribalism.Read more: doubts about "hockey stick" graph revealed.

Well done Fred.

PS The Hockey stick scam was first revealed in 2003 by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit.

E.ON hedges its bets.

A moment of reality?


The scandal that is ClimateGate,the US weather data manipulation,the head of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri's conflicts of interest, Himalayan glaciers which are not melting, seas that are not rising very much and hurricanes that are not increasing; details on some of these facts are slowly beginning to appear in the mainstream media. We even have E.ON, usually a prime advocate of 'green' energy as a cash cow, mentioning that it would be perhaps wise not to permanently close all our coal fired stations, just in case and being allowed to write this in the Guardian! He is telling us to defy the EU no less.

Ageing coal-fired power stations should be exempted from environmental regulations and kept open to stop the lights from going out, the chief executive of E.ON UK has urged the government.
Paul Golby told the Guardian that some of the coal and oil-fired plants due to close this decade because of European pollution regulations should remain operational and ready to come online during periods of peak demand such as those experienced in recent weeks.

Dr Pachauri

- master of the universe?

Haven't they done well?Haven't they done well?

Sensible minds such as Richard North and Christopher Booker are just beginning to be noticed in the MSM. They have been 'banging on' about global warming for years but their exposé of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC and his breathtaking conflicts of interest has been published in the Telegraph. The Australian has also taken up the subject.

Paying not drowning

Lifting people out of poverty?

Drowning? Drowning?
As any comedian will tell you it's 'all about timing', the quality of the material matters less than the delivery. Well isn't that just like Copenhagen? With immaculate timing snow fell on Copenhagen and the warmists' big party. So while the weather is miserable and the low quality of the scientific data is disregarded, more money than is wise was wasted on this freak show and to hell with the aftermath.

You may think the money side of it is not important, wrong. Who is going to pay for this 'initiative'? Prince Charles says we only have seven years to save the planet. Where does he get that number, where's the proof? But then, as climate scientists make it up as they go along I suppose the heir to the throne might as well do the same. But the money side of it is serious.

Syndicate content