Hiding The Decline

Roger Helmer has been speaking to his Swedish friends after hearing Professor Phil Jones testimony to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 

Roger picks up on what the nutty professor had professed:

he said that he had been unable to make data available when requested, because it came (in part) from the Swedish Meteorological Institute, which (he testified) had refused to allow its data to be published. But according to my Swedish friend Goran Ahlgren of the Stockholm Institute, the Swedish data are public, and Professor Jones had been advised in correspondence that this is the case.

And here is the press release - copied and pasted from Roger Helmers post.
 
 
PRESS RELEASE


Stockholm March 5, 2010


Climate cover-up continues


Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry


It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.


Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.


This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data. All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE

Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel: +4687555335, Mob: +46707555969

Deniers Petition

There is a petition on the Downing Street Website that is worth a look.  Interestingly, it will not expire until after the General Election, so who knows who will be responding.

IPCC - More Gates Than Wickes

Dr North takes the lead again in the fight back against the IPCC, with another revelation about the 2007 IPCC report which bogusly claimed that the Himalayan Glaciers would have melted in the next 25 years. That revelation showed that this was an entirely false claim and has rippled around the world and is what we know as Glaciergate.

Dr North now says that the very same report was again wrong with claims that food yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020. The 2020 projection is in fact now exposed as based on nothing more than speculation that is sourced back to a Canadian advocacy group, and written by an obscure academic who specialises in Carbon Trading and citing references that do not support his claims.

Time and again, we must examine why such claims are plucked out of the air and then offered with a thin veneer of polish dressed up as scientific fact that we must all be afraid of. There have been moves to introduce global trading and taxing of a Carbon economy. Such an economy already exists, it is founded almost exclusively by people who believe wholeheartedly in the notion that the world is dying because of humans and our CO2 productions. Such CO2 levels they say are unsustainable and they are putting their money where their mouths are. Fair enough, up to the point that the science backs the arguments. This is the problem, time and time again, it is being revealed that the scientific facts do not back up their claims, and time and time again evidence is being shown to have been filtered and moulded to fit a certain line of thinking; then a small questionable fact is then presented to the World as evidence of an impending doom.

The Carbon Economy and its readiness to become the largest economic and political movement across the globe means that the Climate Change argument is no longer about asking people to be well intentioned and play it safe just in case. It is now linked to billions of dollars and has the political backing of some of the world’s most powerful people. It is absolutely right that assertions be questioned. This Carbon Economy cannot succeed if the people of the world are not motivated scared into making changes that mean we become consumers to their new markets, and that existing corporations through the necessity of following their consumers move too. Many in fact are financially invested in the inevitability of this future.

So, when we are being scared into thinking in a new way, we must ask two questions. Is this true and why is this claim made. Many of the claims are now being disproven or shown to be based upon unreliable and questionable data. Some, like Africagate, are rooted in the claims of those who stand to profit from Carbon Trading. The ‘why’ keeps leading back in the same direction each time these claims are exposed. They all tie back through scientific bodies to the architects of a global economy. We absolutely must question whether altruism or profit is the true motive here.

The Climategate emails showed that those few individuals who are centre to the research are routinely avoiding Scientific Method, they are refusing to share raw data, and present only adjusted data that they have manipulated. There is, in fact a conspiracy, real and documented to do all that they can to refute the approaches of those who wish to question and review their data. After hundreds of years of human scientific advancement, an approach as such is entirely suspicious. Validation of scientific claims is completely incestuous, and the must vaunted “peer-review” is all about growing climate science by sharing only within the family of believers. Anyone who showed dissent was shunned from this family, grants pulled and smear began. This has never been an open and pure journey towards true scientific discovery; it is about certain scientist purporting a type of science that fits with their political and often financial motivations.

Until we can all reproduce the claims, until it can be shown in everyday labs and tested by multitude of models. Until we can show completely how and why such things are happening, or even prove conclusively that they are indeed happening there is not a Scientific Consensus. So, I would question the motives of those who claim there is one, despite their obviously not being one.

Why then are the media so quick to take the Climate Camp side all of the time? Well again, let’s follow the money. The BBC is the biggest and most influential media source in the UK thanks to their unique tax funding though the Licence fee. Their eco-bias is today subject to a piece in the Sunday Express where they draw parallels between the BBC’s pension pot and their coverage of Climate Change. The article starts by stating that the Beeb is under investigation and is inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. At present for every £142.50 licence fee that is collected in the UK each year, about £8 (and rising) goes to the Corporations Pension Pot which has 58,744 members and it is valued at about £8billion. The BBC’s Pension Fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. So, 58,744 current and former employees of the BBC have their personal financial security linked to the emergence of a Carbon Economy… That places the Corporation very squarely in the camp that wants to see a global Carbon Market, it has linked itself to that market in a very hefty financial way. Why has the BBC placed all its eggs in such a precarious basket? Well, for that you should ask Peter Dunscombe who is the BBC Head of Pension Investment… oh, and Chairman of the very same Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.

An editorial line thus follows that the Scientific Consensus is that the Science of Climate change is settled. But repeatedly we find out, not through disclosure but through investigation and leaks that the Science is really anything but settled. Peter Dunscombes Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change campaigned vigorously for a strong and binding global agreement on Climate Change at Copenhagen, which was the very same editorial line carried out by the BBC. The BBC despite its copy and paste responses to public letters of concern cannot be believed when so incredibly beholden to the need for Climate Change Governance. They can reply all they like, they aren’t impartial or balanced. They have one hand in your pocket, and the other in Al Gores.

A very quick check of their current members is revealing, and not entirely secular.  I would argue, nobody listed could hold an impartial position in a Climate Change debate.

Flip back to the Express story, and it is clear that not everyone at the BBC is happy about this situation. They quote veteran newsreader Peter Sissons as being unhappy with the Corporations coverage:

“The corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’ when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t. It is, in effect, BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC’s environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard.

“I was not proud to be working for an organisation with a corporate mind so closed on such an important issue.”

So, will the BBC now change its editorial line? No, it will not. Why, because even if it was conclusively proven that CO2 was not linked to man-made climate change their pensions and financial security is on the line. The Climate Change argument allowed them to push their viewers towards a lifestyle they largely believe is better, but it is rooted in a fictional belief. Contrast the money invested globally in efforts to prove the CO2 link to Climate Change and that invested to disprove it, and the BBC has years worth of stories to follow Scientist’s efforts to look in a single direction, and to push for a change in lifestyle that they approve of.

The Public however are not being taken in any longer, and despite the BBC’s blackout towards the sceptics, these arguments are making their way into the public debate. The man in the pub HAS taken note of it, those of us who visit our rapidly disappearing Public Houses know this, we are hearing it more and more. This is almost entirely thanks to the Internet and bloggers which were the only outlets who dared voice their opinion openly and as there were very few in the MSM who were brave enough to give such an opinion, but this has then led to a wider audience and has attracted the Express group and some of the Blogs of MSM press, if not the paper copies. Nonetheless, the arguments are there and more and more people are questioning this false and manufactured scientific consensus. There is a reluctance to allow sceptical argument to seep into the mainstream; but it is getting there. At the end of the day, why make such an effort to suppress people’s opinions? It can only be that the modern media is now more geared to shaping opinions than it is to reflecting them.

Public perception must be turning because even a poll commissioned by the BBC confirms this.

The Populus poll of 1,001 people mirrors a Populus poll commissioned by The Times in November and has turned up some interesting results, and an interesting shift in perceptions in just two months. Most notably the number of people who would sit in the sceptic camp now outweighs those who sit in the believer’s camp with only 26% of people now believing that Climate Change is happening and that it is manmade, down from 41% in November 2009.

It would be as ridiculous of me to claim that this will now lead to a complete reversal in public opinion, as comparatively ridiculous are the claims that the Science of Climate Change is settled. But there is another point I want to Labour (excuse the pun).

When the IPCC Scientist said that the Himalayan Glaciers would melt, that Polar Bears are drowning and that Africa is going to starve the answers they presented to these supposed issues are and were always that same. More Government, more taxes, more regulation. Not just more regional, National and supra-national government and regulation; but global regulation, and a global tax. These people always insist the cure to all our ailments is more socialism, more interference and they get it by ramping out more and more guilt to keep us in our place. It has worked time and time again, not just with Climate Change, but with a number of arguments.

If I was in a car show room and the salesman pitched a new car as the answer to all my woes, or if a double glazing salesman pitched new windows as the elixir to all my pains, you would like me suspect that I was being sold what was in stock to be sold by the person doing the selling, undoubtedly with commission to themselves. Those in government wanting more government are doing just the same, and because they succeed so often at it, a number of Global Companies are setting themselves up to operate in such an environment. Let’s just keep everybody’s motives in mind when discussing such matters, because like always this is what paints a truer picture. With Africagate, why were the very nations that were said to be in such danger by the IPCC being cajoled at Copenhagen into an expensive global regulating treaty, when the chief problem in building their agriculture is in fact another form of regulation; that of the criminally illiberal EU Common Agricultural Policy?

The answer is to keep all of the arguments going and keep all sides of the argument in the public domain so that people can make their own minds up, rather than being prescribed their opinion... Then, through true democratic discourse, allow those fairly accrued opinions influence their ballot decisions. If the debate cannot be impartial, and clearly it cannot be then it needs to be balanced with all sides and views heard. The Science, if there is any, needs to be tested by sceptics for that is how true scientific progress and consequently humanitarian progress can be achieved.

Climategate, Glaciergate, Africagate... hardly proving to be a balanced debate so far, is it.

ClimateGate2009

Dr North says:

We're putting together a single blog using available videos to form a running videlog on Climategate and related issues. It is work in progress, but you can see it here. Let us know what you think.

Great idea, and duly added to the blogroll.  I would have left a comment over on the wordpress site, but I can never sign in as me as someone else has the Daniel1979 username.

Hypocrites

Prince Charles and Gordon Brown charter seperate flights to Copenhagen.

So to "off set" this 6.4 tons of CO2, which is an additional 5.2 tons than would have been produced if they had taken a scheduled flight they both now need to write a cheque to one of Al Gore's GIM investment Carbon Credit companies.

More Scare Tactics From Gore

Al Gore speaking to Copenhagen delegates:

"These figures are fresh.  Some models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire northern polar ice cap, during the summer months could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

Hmmm... Sounds like we should all stop driving to work and write a cheque to one of Al Gore's GIM backed Carbon Trading Firms.  But wait a minute, what's this?

Dr Maslowski replied:

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this"

I am confused now, why would Al Gore say something that is not true?  Isn't the science already settled?
From The Times

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore

So, Mr Gore takes a "ballpark figure" from a conversation and then many years later presents it as data saying that "this data is fresh" and goes further so as to quote a 75% likelihood of an ice-free Arctic.  The summit has become, as predicted, a platform for Climate Change doomsday propaganda with science being presented in the most twisted and perfunctory manner.  That word again for the kids, p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a, go look it up on Wikipedia. 

Five to Seven years is always the preferred timeframe for doom from Climatemongers, close enough to evoke fear, far enough away for people to have forgotten about what was said by the time it comes around. 

Well Well Well, Look What Google UK Is Offering In Autosearch Now

What took them so long?

Peer Reviewed Literature, Climategate, Copenhagen, Socialism And Tony Blair

With a big tip of the hat to Mr All Seeing Eye, I would like to direct the attention of fellow flat-earthers to the Popular Technology Blog, and via this link they have published links to 500 peer reviewed science papers supporting the sceptic arguments against "Man-Made" climate change. Further confirmation, not that more was needed that claims of the science being settled is a load of nonsense; propaganda for the limited thinker.

As Ed Begley Jr himself advised, with some ferocity, look for and trust the peer reviewed literature... So it would seem that the science is not settled and that more and more sceptics who have kept quiet for fear of losing grants and being shunned by the scientific community are starting to speak out and push their work to the fore. All of the money has always been for those looking to prove Global Warming and Climate Change, but it seems more than a few scientists along the way felt the evidence did not stack up.

Meanwhile in Copenhagen a merry dance is underway, with the African nations apparently not in a cooperative mood. No surprises there really; at the announcement, rather than the lack of cooperation... I think the deals are already pretty much done and have been for some time, all that is left is a moment for a little theatre. The EU is to pledge £6.5bn in money to poorer nations, I have no idea how much the US is chipping in; there is no way they the poorer nations are walking out the door before a deal is done... but after a few days of "tough negotiations" Brown, Miliband et al can come back and claim that they persevered, endeavoured and fought against all the odds and finally came back with a deal that saved the world, well with a little help but more about that nearer the end. Like I say, it is all theatre.

I got to thinking earlier today about how Government debt has doubled in the few years Brown has been PM and it got me angry to think that £1.5bn of our money has been pledged to poorer counties in the "fight against climate change"... not because I have any desire to see poor nations struggle, but because it mirrors almost exactly the kind of backwards policy that is executed and which is killing the UK. Basically poorer nations in Africa are denied the opportunity to sell us many, many products under EU regulations, most notably the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Instead of making good money by trade, they are handed welfare instead.  This is a protectionist measure that we are told keeps our food prices down, which does not really make sense because market forces demand that with greater supply that prices fall. Anyway, we deny Africa the chance to trade and the opportunity work their way out of poverty and prosperity. Then when there is some political grandstanding to be done, we dangle a few billion under the noses of the African Governments, and say dance to our tune and we will hand you a cheque.

It is very similar to how the benefits and unemployment system in the UK makes it very difficult for people to gain benefit from working should their skills or circumstances rule out anything much better than a minimum wage position. It's being paid to rely on the British State.  What possible motivation is there if you are ill educated and trapped on a sink estate to go to work, for an extra £5 or £10 a week.  Africa needs to be able to sell to Europe the fruits of it's Labour and be allowed to earn a decent and fair sum for doing so, then we would not need to cut cheques and patronise... plus the other million reasons why trade and work is better than charity and welfare.

It's Brown and the EU I am angry with, we have kept the poor in poverty with the CAP, and like the well known saying goes, aid work has become about taking money from the poor people in rich countries and handing it over to the rich people in poor countries. The world community has socialised the Third World, and through Socialism they are doomed to be poor and downtrodden forever.

But back home and on that £1.5bn, I may have missed it but I do not recall that number being debated in Parliament, and I do not recall a public debate regarding the amount and manner of our charity to poorer nations. Can there really be no law protecting the Tax Payer against such massive pledges from the Prime Minister whilst abroad?  Also, seeing as how the Environment is now a sole competence for the EU, why the hell is Brown pledging more than the other big EU nations; does he not realise yet that the 30% of voters that he polls are going to will vote for his Party or no one come polling day and that the other 70% of us will not be bought, seduced or coerced by any manner devisable and splashing cash we can ill-afford at the moment is going to cost him more voters that it could win him? Where is Mandelson through all of this? Isn’t he supposed to be babysitting the PM when he decides to make decisions?

Anyway, mark my words; the deal will be done on time in Copenhagen, though the cost may just keep going up. I have a theory that Tony Blair’s consolation prize for not getting to be EU President will be to step in at the last minute and claim to be the man who brokers the deal with whoever the rogue nation who threatens to derail the show is, probably India…Cue Noble Prize and more speaking engagements.   He is already over there as the guest of an NGO.  Whilst they are all enjoying their jolly the rest of us will keep the debate going and be thinking about ways to cut our debts so that we can get by during this recession, and furthermore because we know that we have even more Government Debt that we will need to pay off soon. And with the Bankers jetting off to low tax havens now, that leaves the rest of us to clean up and pay for the mess.

Climategate Poll

Just to confirm the numbers now that the poll has closed.

Question: The Climategate Email Revelation Has...

Answers, with responses:

Made no difference to my opinions, man-made CO2 is affecting our climate and we must cap it - 1

Made some difference, but I still believe climate change is linked to CO2 - 1

Has made me question if the science is really there, and if I have been lied to - 7 (9%)

Confirmed my recent suspicions that it was all a big scam, the science does not add up - 25 (32%)

Made no difference, I have always known it was a load of old tosh - 42 (55%)

Copenhagen T-Shirts?

This is Maggie Thauersköld, Sweden’s most prominent climate-sceptic blogger

Stolen from Roger Helmer

New Climategate Petition

HERE is the link to this petiton, please feel free to spread the word on this.

Hattip: Daily Referendum.

Climategate: Caught Green-Handed - Monckton Report

This is not so much Recommended Reading as it is Required Reading.  The Science & Public Policy Institute has released THIS REPORT which analyses the Climategate emails and demonstrates how the Science of climate change is not settled; and how the email revelations have in fact hidden then truth about what is going on with our environment and our climate.

The report delves into the science, but is written as best as possible for those of us without PhD's.  There are some interesting recommendations at the end, all of which seem reasonable to me.  If we are to subject the world to carbon taxes in the middle of the worst economic downturn for several generations, it should be based on global, open and verifiable science with the raw data available to everybody on earth to be able to analyse and scrutinise.

Fellow bloggers, facebooker's and twitterers, please can you pass these links along so as to ensure it reaches as broad an audience as possible.  The science is not concluded, the stakes are high and time is of the essence to force the debate before Copenhagen.  Politics and politicians have put us in this position, it is now time for people to voice their opinions and concerns, because if we do not we know that the politicians will do what as they have sought to all along.

Some of the conclusion (but not all) from the report is reproduced below [I copy & pasted the raw data from the report, I felt no need for "tricks" or any "fudge factor"]

In public policy terms, the revelation that the international scientific and political establishment has been inventing, bending, distorting, manipulating, hiding, blocking, and destroying scientific data for the sake of advancing a narrow, extremist, and bitterly anti-Western political viewpoint cannot be safely ignored.



Climate science is too important to be left to politicized scientists, just as climate politics is too important to be left to unscientific politicians.


The first step is to close the Climate Research Unit (and perhaps the University of East Anglia with it), to dismiss all of its personnel, and not to allow any of them to be funded by taxpayers ever again. Scientific fraud and corruption on the scale that has now been revealed must be firmly rooted out and prevented from recurring.


Those responsible for the deliberate blocking, altering, concealing, or destroying of scientific data must be put on trial – to use James Hansen’s term – for “high crimes against humanity”. For it is on the word of crooks and racketeers such as these that, in the name of addressing the non-problem that they had invented and fostered and festered, the Third World has been flung into food riots and mass starvation by the doubling of world food prices that followed the biofuel scam that the “global-warming” profiteers invented as just one of a bewildering array of boondoggles to enrich themselves at the expense of the little guy, who, as always, suffers when the political elite merely exploit him when it is their duty to serve him.


Let the climate criminals stand trial, and let them be fined for offenses under the Freedom of Information laws, and let them be imprisoned for their fraudulent tampering with scientific data, and for their suppression of results uncongenial to their politicized viewpoint, and for the sheer venom with which they have publicly as well as privately denigrated all those scientists with whom they disagreed, and for the insouciance with which they interfered with editors of scientific journals and with the process of the UN’s climate panel itself.

Al Gore Confronted In Chicago

Google Ethics?

They talk about it all the time on the TV, Google's motto official or otherwise is "Don't be evil".

So, by extension, despite hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sites referring to and writing about Climategate, why is it not a valid "query selection" that they will automatically offer in their search box? Does Google consider the ready availability of information questioning the CO2 link to Climate Change as "evil"? This is not new to today; this has been the case all week as I have tried a number of times using google to see what is coming out new on this story around the world. I thought earlier in the week that it was suspicious, but put it down to being a new topic and my readiness to see a conspiracy; I am no longer alone in this query.

I am not sure what it is about this story that has Google worked up, but are they trying to help hide an important scientific argument, or is it that they feel they now control the direction of free speech on the internet? Either way, it’s not very impartial and not at all fitting with their self written lofty ethics. Shame on you.

Google UK:

Google Germany:

Google Ireland:

Google France:

It's not just Europe, see Google Canada:

God bless America for protecting free speech:

Dr North - Googlegate?
James Delingpole - Googlegate?
Christopher Booker - Climategate: Is this the worst scientific scandal of our generation?

Climategate - US Congress To Investigate

Unlike the British news outlets, the US news is now reporting on the Climategate emails, it's not just Fox (video above) CBS is also giving this some prominence on their TV news and website.  Now the US Congress has decided that it is serious enough to warrant an investigation. Gerald Warner has more HERE. 

It is a reflection on the UK political scene that these emails have been hacked from a British University, involve British scientists and yet the media is largely apathetic to the news and is not giving it much attention.  Furthermore, that a foreign legislature has felt the need to look into the actions before the UK Government, and probably in that absence of any kind of UK Government investigation.  There may be much more to be revealed in this story, as it seems that New Zealand's research data may have been "massaged" to present the results desired rather than to represent the true conclusions of science.

I am troubled by that claims of a scientific nature are coming under a cloud of ambiguity.  Science is science, it is the function of uncovering the facts of how things work and explaining and reproducing those effects.  If the CO2 cheer-leaders all act like Ed Begley Jr in the above clip, they will lose the argument. 

There is, I think a general acceptance that we should not pump chemicals into the air, and dump pollutants into the sea.  There is a tangible and explainable science to recycling our materials.  The CO2 argument is different, CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, a combination of two of Earths basic and necessary elements, Carbon and Oxygen; Cloroflouorocarbons have no history of abundance in our environment.  CO2 has been around on earth for millions of years, but Climatologists are making claims on two decades of primary research. 

We owe it to ourselves to be crystal clear about science, especially when we are set to make laws and take actions that affect all of us on a daily basis.  In fact, "we" are not making those decisions, the decisions are being made again by "experts" and unelected leaders.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is probably the best term that should be applied.  As far as I can tell, nobody in the world has been able to show a negative effect of CO2 using sound science.  Computer models that have been presented have been exposed as having implanted data applied to fill in gaps that if removed lead to different conclusions; Graphs that supposedly plot data are shown to not represent the real data at all, and I keep reading that Weather Station data is presented in a selective way.  Why also are so called "Climatologists" so reluctant to release raw data behind their research?  If other Scientist cannot reproduce your results, it is not Science, it is a claim.