Controversy and scandal

This page is for discussion of controversy and scandals concerning global warming.

233 Thoughts on “Controversy and scandal

  1. Richard C (NZ) on November 8, 2010 at 9:39 am said:

    Not the Last You Will See of “Climate” Oversight

    By Chris Horner on 11.4.10 @ 1:53PM

    Last night the Competitive Enterprise Institute, through its outside counsel Gibson Dunn, filed its brief arguing against NASA’s rather scattershot and contradictory effort to dismiss our lawsuit requesting certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(press release available here).

    Our suit, CEI vs. NASA (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), followed on the heels of ClimateGate, and a December 2009 Notice of Intent to Sue if NASA did not turn over certain records withheld since CEI sought them in August 2007 and January 2008 requests. That Notice was eleven months ago and, despite NASA offering some documents and admitting — temporarily — that certain others relating to the advocacy site used by NASA scientists, were “agency records”, NASA then ceased its brief steps to comply with the transparency statute FOIA.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on November 8, 2010 at 9:45 am said:

    Global Warming FOIA Suit Against NASA Heats Up Again

    November 04, 2010 – LegalTimes

    In court documents filed last night, the Competitive Enterprise Institute argues that NASA has gone out of its way to avoid turning over records that show the agency reverse-engineered temperature data to better make the case that the planet is becoming warmer. Tulumello_andrew

    CEI, which is being represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Andrew Tulumello, argues in a pleading filed in Washington federal court that NASA’s request for summary judgment in the Freedom of Information Act suit against the agency should be denied because e-mails and other evidence turned over by NASA suggest that there are additional records that are being withheld.

    “Rather than deal forthrightly with a FOIA request on these issues, NASA has engaged in obstruction and delay,” Tulumello writes in the court filing, which was filed late last night in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on November 9, 2010 at 2:01 pm said:

    Author: TWinkler

    That is because you cannot answer them

    TWinkler AKA Brendon

    A serial troll from as far back as March 1 2010
    Using at least 2 different IP addresses has been moderated several times.

    The rest of this post is [snipped as will any other posts from this person] ED

  4. Branding of Dissenters Has Begun – Clearing The Path To A Climate Science Pogrom

    Right smack on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, German Parliamentarians, in a frontal assault, are now openly calling out and branding scientists for the crime of scientific dissent. These Parliamentarians are demanding that the government take a position against them.

    Fred Singer features prominently

  5. val majkus on November 13, 2010 at 10:42 am said:

    Warwick Hughes has put a comment on his blog on 11 November referring to Phil Jones and the Chinese weather station corruption saying Doug Keenan has emailed me re his new article bringing forward his concerns about Jones et all 1990
    The link to the article is
    a couple of paras
    In 1990, Phil Jones and co-authors published a research paper that (amongst other things) analyzed temperature data from eastern China during 1954–1983. The basis for the paper seemed unlikely: China was in upheaval during that time, and obtaining reliable data would be implausible. (This issue was first raised on the blog Climate Audit, of Steve McIntyre.)

    The temperature data had been obtained from weather stations. The issue here concerns the histories of those stations: if stations are moved (e.g. from the outskirts of a city to the city center), then the temperature data cannot be studied directly, but has to first be adjusted to take account of the moves. The stations’ histories are sometimes referred to as “metadata”.

    There are links to
    • Jones–Keenan exchange
    • Remarks on Keenan [Energy & Env., 2007]
    • Wang’s defense in the university’s fraud investigation
    Wang was a co author of the Jones’ paper
    Very interesting particularly the defense about which Keenan says
    Zeng’s letter further claims that Zeng remembers the histories of 41 of the 49 stations. Zeng apparently makes that claim even though the letter acknowledges that Zeng is remembering over an “almost 19-years time span”. I find the claim extremely implausible. I.e. the claim further diminishes the credibility of Zeng’s letter.

    Wang’s submission says that the documents for the 49 station histories, which would have been highly valuable and archived at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, are “no longer available”. Thus Wang’s submission is based solely on Zeng’s claimed memory.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2010 at 1:57 pm said:

    Happy anniversary, Climategate (a day overdue).

  7. Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2010 at 1:59 pm said:

    Oops – a week too early (the perils of a crowded calendar)..

  8. Richard North has lost his PCC complaint against the Guardian on their Amazongate story.

    This is a bit of a sorry state of affairs, since Roger Pielke Jnr also concurred with North’s view.

  9. After claiming that he never deleted any emails, Phil Jones now admits deleting emails

    From Tom Nelson:

  10. val majkus on November 27, 2010 at 10:20 am said:

    Dr Tim Ball has some fighting words today
    Climate Deception Is A Crime Against Humanity?

    Because of the deliberate deception and vigorous propaganda that CO2 was causing warming actions were demanded and pursued. Completely unnecessary and devastating policies were implemented. We’re wasting billions on climate change programs and alternate energy programs. Nations who pursued green energy and jobs policies are in serious financial problems. Nations like Britain and regions like Ontario Canada or California that abandoned or failed to update traditional energy sources, including nuclear, will have inadequate power supplies for many years to come. The cost of everything, especially food, has soared and will continue to rise. Industries have closed and more are threatened as draconian restrictions on carbon production are introduced.

    Failure of people to pursue the crimes committed by those involved with Climategate has emboldened them and their supporters to launch a claim to being the aggrieved parties. They can only do this because the leaders have whitewashed their actions. Continuations of the fiascos that are the UNFCC, the IPCC and the WMO filled with people who only work to perpetuate themselves mean it is increasingly urgent for the people to identify them as accessories after the fact. To co-opt an idea from the environmental movement, we must act locally by demanding accountability of national weather and climate agencies. Many of them are tacitly acknowledging culpability by investigating their data sources and management.

  11. Donna Laframboise has an interesting take on Tim Ball’s post

    I’ve never met Tim Ball, a retired climatology professor and vocal climate change skeptic. I think he comes across well in this video, and I’ve heard others say he’s a good and decent man. I must confess, though, that I stopped reading his regular posts at Canada Free Press some time ago because I consider his rhetoric over-the-top.

  12. val majkus on November 27, 2010 at 1:59 pm said:

    Well that’s her opinion I guess; I personally like Dr Ball

  13. THREAD on December 7, 2010 at 2:40 pm said:

    Andy says:
    December 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    Claes Johnson banned from teaching Mathematics course at Swedish University:

    Extremist pro-green Swedish university shackles academic freedom and bans all teaching that doesn’t conform to dogma of human-caused global warming

    The math professor reports that this latest gagging is most extreme because it includes required material for his students and may be fatally damaging to their studies.

    The highly-experienced and respected professor has been banned by his bosses from teaching any “part of course material in the course Numerical Methods II.” The material is also found in his ebook, ‘BodyandSoul.’

    Dr. Johnson laments, “the course, has been “stopped” by the President of the Royal Technological Institute KTH, because the book contains a mathematical analysis of some models related to climate simulation.”

    It appears the blanket ban was precipitated after a small clique of pro-green student activists protested to the university that Johnson was daring to address both sides of the global warming debate. The story is also reported by DN.SE, a popular Scandinavian publication who added, “the school took away pages of the book.”

    Claes Johnson’s Blog:

  14. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2010 at 8:04 pm said:

    Forum Trolling – How to Handle Trolls

    I have been receiving a lot of email lately asking some very important questions on how to deal with Internet Trolls, and what to do when their trolling becomes more threatening.

    It’s really tough not to allow your personal emotions get in the way. It can be even more difficult not to react to someone who is constantly harassing you, or your forum members.

    But, I cannot stress enough, and will say it until I am blue in the face: DON”T FEED THE TROLL.

    What does that mean? It’s simple really, do not respond in anyway shape or form to a troll. Their whole purpose is exactly that, to get a reaction, any reaction from the people/community they are trolling.

    As an admin, or monitor on a forum board, your job is to prevent the trolling, not fuel it. Here are some basic steps to block trolling:
    Only one comment under this blog post – and no, not a troll.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on December 14, 2010 at 2:39 pm said:

    Climate Distortions Were Achieved. National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses

    By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, December 13, 2010

    Maurice Strong set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide a powerful vehicle for almost complete control of climate science. Each national weather office perpetuates the deception that human CO2 is causing climate change. He controlled the science through the IPCC and the political and propaganda portion under the umbrella of the Rio Conference (1992) and the ongoing Conference of the Parties (COP).

    By peopling the IPCC with representatives of national weather offices, he attained control of the politics within each nation and collective global control. They’re the Trojan Horses from which funding and research emanate to deceive the politicians and public into achieving his goal of destroying the industrialized nations.


  16. Richard C (NZ) on December 17, 2010 at 12:18 pm said:

    Old news but it came up again at Cancun.

    From YALE environment360
    13 Dec 2010: Report
    ‘Perverse’ Carbon Payments Send Flood of Money to China

    To offset their own carbon emissions, European companies have been overpaying China to incinerate a powerful greenhouse gas known as hfc 23. And in a bizarre twist, those payments have spurred the manufacture of a harmful refrigerant that is being smuggled into the U.S. and used illegally.

    by mark schapiro

    European legislators in Brussels have discovered that the strategy they devised to combat climate change is helping subsidize the economy of their, and America’s, major global competitor — China. European companies have been overpaying Chinese companies more than 70 times the cost to eliminate a potent greenhouse gas — triflouromethane, or hfc 23, a byproduct of manufacturing a refrigerant that has been banned in developed countries and is being phased out in developing ones.

    In order to offset their own greenhouse gases, companies and utilities in Europe that are subject to the emission limits of the Kyoto Protocol have been paying vastly inflated prices to Chinese companies to destroy hfc 23, and in the process have been providing the Chinese government with hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to compete against Europe’s own “green” industries. European concern about this practice was a major source of contention during last week’s climate negotiations in Cancun, as the UN attempted to defend the integrity of the multi-billion dollar global carbon offset market.

    And in an odd twist, the incentives offered through the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) also appear to be stimulating production of an ozone-depleting refrigerant gas that has been landing in the U.S. black market. Investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    Two European Parliament members have alleged a ‘gross misuse of European consumers’ money.’

    and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have led to the conviction of several smugglers who have illegally imported the ozone-depleting refrigerant, hcfc 22, into the U.S. for sale to trucking companies, supermarkets, automotive supply shops, and other large-scale users of refrigerant gases. The illegal refrigerant is significantly cheaper than non-ozone-depleting refrigerants permitted in the U.S., a price discrepancy triggered partially by the large overpayments to Chinese firms that have led to an ample supply of hcfc 22 on the international black market.

    That black market completes a global circuit unique to the era of climate change: From China’s industrial zones, the credits for the greenhouse gases — bought and sold as commodities on the global carbon markets — flow to European companies that need them to continue polluting at home, while the underlying ozone-depleting gas responsible for creating those credits flows to American companies seeking discounted refrigerants.

    “It’s perverse,” says Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch member of the European Parliament. “You have companies which make a lot of money by making more of this gas, and then getting paid to destroy it.”


  17. Richard C (NZ) on December 19, 2010 at 11:10 am said:

    Warm Bias: How The Met Office Mislead The British Public

    Saturday, 18 December 2010 14:16 Dr. Benny Peiser

    Met Office 2008 Forecast: Trend of Mild Winters Continues

    Met Office, 25 September 2008: The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year.

    Reality Check: Winter of 2008/09 Coldest Winter For A Decade

    Met Office, March 2009: Mean temperatures over the UK were 1.1 °C below the 1971-2000 average during December, 0.5 °C below average during January and 0.2 °C above average during February. The UK mean temperature for the winter was 3.2 °C, which is 0.5 °C below average, making it the coldest winter since 1996/97 (also 3.2 °C).

    Met Office 2009 Forecast: Trend To Milder Winters To Continue, Snow And Frost Becoming Less Of A Feature

    Met Office, 25 February 2009: Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said: “Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future.

    “The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850.”

    Reality Check: Winter Of 2009/10 Coldest Winter For Over 30 Years

    Met Office, 1 March 2010: Provisional figures from the Met Office show that the UK winter has been the coldest since 1978/79. The mean UK temperature was 1.5 °C, the lowest since 1978/79 when it was 1.2 °C.

    Met Office July 2010: Climate Change Gradually But Steadily Reducing Probability Of Severe Winters In The UK

    Ross Clark, Daily Express, 3 December 2010: ONE of the first tasks for the team conducting the Department for Transport’s “urgent review” into the inability of our transport system to cope with snow and ice will be to interview the cocky public figure who assured breakfast TV viewers last month that “I am pretty confident we will be OK” at keeping Britain moving this winter. They were uttered by Transport secretary Philip Hammond himself, who just a fortnight later is already being forced to eat humble pie… If you want a laugh I recommend reading the Resilience Of England’s Transport Systems In Winter, an interim report by the DfT published last July. It is shockingly complacent. Rather than look for solutions to snow-induced gridlock the authors seem intent on avoiding the issue. The Met Office assured them “the effect of climate change is to gradually but steadily reduce the probability of severe winters in the UK”.

    Met Office 2010 Forecast: Winter To Be Mild Predicts Met Office

    Daily Express, 28 October 2010: IT’S a prediction that means this may be time to dig out the snow chains and thermal underwear. The Met Office, using data generated by a £33million supercomputer, claims Britain can stop worrying about a big freeze this year because we could be in for a milder winter than in past years… The new figures, which show a 60 per cent to 80 per cent chance of warmer-than-average temperatures this winter, were ridiculed last night by independent forecasters. The latest data comes in the form of a December to February temperature map on the Met Office’s website.

    Reality Check: December 2010 “Almost Certain” To Be Coldest Since Records Began

    The Independent, 18 December 2010: December 2010 is “almost certain” to be the coldest since records began in 1910, according to the Met Office.

    Met Office Predicted A Warm Winter. Cheers Guys

    John Walsh, The Independent, 19 January 2010: Some climatologists hint that the Office’s problem is political; its computer model of future weather behaviour habitually feeds in government-backed assumptions about climate change that aren’t borne out by the facts. To the Met Office, the weather’s always warmer than it really is, because it’s expecting it to be, because it expects climate change to wreak its stealthy havoc. If it really has had its thumb on the scales for the last decade, I’m afraid it deserves to be shown the door.

    A Frozen Britain Turns The Heat Up On The Met Office

    Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 9 January 2010: Which begs other, rather important questions. Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?

    A Period Of Humility And Silence Would Be Best For Met Office

    Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, 10 January 2010: A period of humility and even silence would be particularly welcome from the Met Office, our leading institutional advocate of the perils of man-made global warming, which had promised a “barbecue summer” in 2009 and one of the “warmest winters on record”. In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.”

  18. Richard C (NZ) on December 19, 2010 at 11:15 am said:

    Met Office 2009 : Skiing Doomed In Scotland

    Written by Steven Goddard, Real Science | 18 December 2010

    10 February 2009 –

    Alex Hill, the chief government adviser with the Met Office, told The Scotsman there was no future for skiing in Scotland because climate change would see winters become too warm for regular snowfall.

    Mr Hill said: “Put it this way: I won’t be investing in the skiing industry.

    “The amount of snow has been decreasing for the last 40 years, and there’s no reason why it’s going to stop now.”

    18 Dec 2010 –

    Angie Brown is a correspondent for BBC Scotland and has been skiing in Scotland since her childhood. “The snow last weekend in Glenshee was the best I’ve ever seen. It was comparable with resorts in France and Austria where I’ve been” she told us. “The problem was that they couldn’t cope with the numbers of people that turned up. There were only 2 men at the equipment hire counter, and not enough sets of equipment so I ended up skiing with no poles.”

  19. Richard C (NZ) on December 19, 2010 at 11:18 am said:

    The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

    Source: Canadian Free Press

    by Tim Ball and John McLean

    It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’. But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

    Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

    There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.

    Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change—in other words the key parts of WG I?

    The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?



  20. Richard C (NZ) on December 19, 2010 at 11:35 am said:

    Carbon Trading Schemes in Trouble and Ignored

    By Jack Dini Friday, December 17, 2010

    Why are carbon trading issues that have gone awry ignored by the media? Two examples: 1-scam artists from around the world, capitalizing on lax regulations at the Danish emissions trading registry have made off with an estimated $7-billion over the last two years, and 2- the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced that it will be ending carbon trading this year. Both of these have been underreported (ignored?) by most media.


    Denmark isn’t the only place where carbon folks have been in bed with organized crime. A probe in Germany, where the total damage is estimated at 80 million Euros followed investigations in Britain, France, Spain, Norway and the Netherlands over carbon fraud over the past year.

  21. Ah happy days! I ised to live in Aberdeen and remember skiing at Glenshee. The place was always full when there was snow because of its easy access to the cities and the limited tows.

    My friends over there was waxing lyrical abou tthe amazing skiing last year, but suggested that this wouldn’t happen again for 25 years.

    How wrong can you be?!

  22. Richard C (NZ) on December 19, 2010 at 12:10 pm said:

    WikiLeaks cables: UN offered Robert Mugabe a lucrative retirement overseas

    #, Saturday 18 December 2010 21.50 GMT

    The head of the United Nations offered Robert Mugabe a lucrative retirement package in an overseas haven if he stood down as Zimbabwe’s president, according to claims quoted in leaked diplomatic cables.

    The extraordinary offer was allegedly made by Kofi Annan, who was then the UN secretary general, at the millennium summit of world leaders in New York, according to a memo drawn up by American officials which was obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on December 25, 2010 at 3:36 pm said:

    Maverick Outwits Climate Science in Global Warming Predictions Game

    by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists

    December 23rd 2010

    As Britain’s top independent forecaster (a skeptic) again outwits his global warming adversaries in weather prediction, we examine what really separates the men from the boys in this hot topic.

    Award Winning maverick forecaster, Piers Corbyn’s unparalled success in outperforming his rivals (global warming believers) is winning him deserved column inches in the British press.

    The man who, in 2010 predicted a trio of major rare events (Pakistan floods, Moscow heatwave, Britain’s brutal winter) gives us a rare glimpse into why he’s so successful, to the great embarrassment of his main rivals, the Met Office.


  24. Richard C (NZ) on December 30, 2010 at 8:11 pm said:

    Taxing lessons of a flawed ETS

    # Jack H. Barnes
    # From: The Australian
    # December 30, 2010

    CONNIE Hedegaard, the EU Climate Commissioner, appeared on these pages on Monday promoting the outcomes of the Cancun climate summit and offering to work with Australian Climate Change Minister Greg Combet.

    Combet, for his part, is committed to putting a price on carbon.

    What Hedegaard didn’t mention in her piece, but to which Combet and Australia should pay close attention, is that the Danish tax authority has been robbed blind by a carbon trading scandal that has rocked the market for carbon offsets. While the story saw some coverage a year ago, significantly higher losses have since been reported and this has largely been ignored.

    The Danish auditor general is on the case now as the scope of the crime has become obvious, and grown exponentially since it was first reported. Originally discussed as a quasi-small-time dollar scam, the reality a year later is a lot larger: Europol is estimating a value on the case of 38 billion kroner and the values seem to keep going up.

    Hedegaard, then Denmark’s Climate and Energy Minister, helped set up and manage a system where there were no background checks on the listings of permitted traders. This removal of identification was done even though the EU requires at least a passport. This helped a group of fake, rogue traders set up a program that looted the Danish economy of up to 2 per cent of its GDP in lost VAT taxes.

    Here’s How:………….continues
    Cancun deal puts climate action back on track

    * Connie Hedegaard
    * From: The Australian
    * December 27, 2010

    THERE is good reason to reflect for a moment about global warming and the recent climate conference in Cancun.

    This year was actually one of the hottest on record. And the weather-related catastrophes, from fires in Moscow to floods in Pakistan and Venezuela, are a warning of things to come unless we deal with the challenge of climate change. That’s why the package of decisions that came out of the conference in Cancun may well be this year’s most important Christmas present.

    What’s in the package? Quite a bit. The key points of the agreement concluded in Cancun are based on the results we achieved in Copenhagen last year.


    Now we have a deal.…………continues

  25. Richard C (NZ) on January 10, 2011 at 7:30 am said:

    Climate science needs light

    January 8, 2011 – Toronto Sun

    a new book by British environmental journalist Fred Pearce, one of the world’s leading commentators on climate change, suggests cause for serious concern.

    The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming, is a compilation of Pearce’s reporting on the Climategate scandal, mainly for the Guardian newspaper.

    Neither Pearce, nor the Guardian, is a climate denier.


    “Jones insisted that what he did, for good or ill, was what his fellow climate scientists did. They didn’t publish all their data and methods because, ‘it hasn’t been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should be, but it’s not.’ Following that came the most startling observation, when Jones was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication had requested to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. ‘They’ve never asked,’ he said.”

    Thus, Pearce observes: “The rigour of peer review came crashing down before our eyes.”

  26. Richard C (NZ) on February 9, 2011 at 8:39 am said:

    RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’

    By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: February 8th, 2011


    Steig suggested that rather than argue it out on the blogs O’Donnell, Id at el should publish a paper under peer review. So that’s what they tried. And guess which person it was who was selected to review O’Donnell et al’s paper. And guess which person it was – under the pseudonym Reviewer A – who tried to thwart the paper’s progression to publication with 88 pages of comments and obfuscation ten times longer than the original paper.

    Yep. You got it. The mystery peer reviewer was none other than Eric Steig. Even in the monstrously corrupt world of “climate science” this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he’d written himself.

    Now let us allow Iapogus (the commenter at Bishop Hill from whom I filched this summary: I’m an interpreter of interpretations, me) to continue the story:

    Ryan guessed that Reviewer A was Stieg early on, but still remained patient and good natured. At one point in the review process, Steig suggested that Ryan and Jeff should use an alternative statistical technique, which they then did. But then later, Steig then criticised the paper, citing the example of the same statistical technique as an issue (the one he had suggested). So Steig has laid himself open to charges of unprofessional conduct, duplicity. And that was when Ryan decided to bring all this out in the open. Meanwhile Gavin and the other members of the Team at the Real Climate (RC) blog have gone into overdrive in moderating any commenter who ask any reasonable questions about all of this. Basically this was the evidence that peer review at least in climate science is broken.

  27. Bishop Hill has quite a good summary of this story.
    It has been featuring quite prominently in the climate blogosphere over tha last few days.
    Dellers article is quite a good summary

  28. Richard C (NZ) on February 9, 2011 at 10:57 am said:

    Clicking through to the comments below the CA post (not many) fills in the picture too.

    Bad things on so many levels.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on February 22, 2011 at 7:48 am said:

    SEC Charges Seven in Global Warming Pump-and-Dump Scheme

    Washington, D.C., Feb. 18, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a group of seven individuals who perpetrated a fraudulent pump-and-dump scheme in the stock of a sham company that purported to provide products and services to fight global warming.
    Additional Materials

    * Litigation Release No. 21862
    * SEC Complaint

    The SEC alleges that the group included stock promoters, traders, and a lawyer who wrote a fraudulent opinion letter. The scheme resulted in more than $7 million in illicit profits from sales of stock in CO2 Tech Ltd. at artificially inflated prices. Despite touting impressive business relationships and anti-global warming technology innovations, CO2 Tech did not have any significant assets or operations. The company was purportedly based in London, and its stock prices were quoted in the Pink Sheets.

  30. European Union faces legal action over fraudulent carbon emissions trading

    The European Union faces legal and political challenges over its handling of the carbon markets which remain in chaos after a cyber attack forced partial closure of the Emissions Trading Scheme.

    EU officials are due in a Belgian court on Monday to answer a request to name companies in possession of stolen allowances after a legal challenge by an Italian company affected by the fraud.

    And on Wednesday the EU’s climate change committee will try to reassure national governments and carbon exchanges that they have the right level of security in place to reassure nervous market users

  31. Richard C (NZ) on February 28, 2011 at 2:32 pm said:

    Unscientific hype about the flooding risks from climate change will cost us all dear

    By Christopher Booker 7:15PM GMT 26 Feb 2011 – UK Telegraph

    As the great global warming scare continues to crumble, attention focuses on all those groups that have a huge interest in keeping it alive. Governments look on it as an excuse to raise billions of pounds in taxes. Wind farm developers make fortunes from the hidden subsidies we pay through our electricity bills. A vast academic industry receives more billions for concocting the bogus science that underpins the scare. Carbon traders hope to make billions from corrupt schemes based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2. But no financial interest stands to make more from exaggerating the risks of climate change than the re-insurance industry, which charges retail insurers for “catastrophe cover”, paid for by all of us through our premiums.


  32. Richard C (NZ) on March 4, 2011 at 11:23 am said:

    British Green Movement Backed Murderous Libyan Regime

    johnosullivan’s journal

    New evidence raises growing concerns that environmentalism is the sinister tool of fascist politics. Revelations from a crumbling Libyan dictatorship show an enforced green agenda propped up by a discredited UK establishment.

    Latest news highlighted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (March 3, 2011) strengthens claims by global warming skeptics that not only are extreme political radicals controlling the green movement but that there exists an increasing popular rising against this sinister trend.

    What will come as a shock to most citizens not fully engaged in the long running climate debate is that there has been a new twist in the controversy revealing a dark and dangerous undertone to the once innocent and non-political green movement. No longer are the rank and file of the environmentalist movement comprised of animal-loving, kind natured innocents that we remember from our childhood. No, quite the contrary as the misguided support of zealots such as Britain’s Lord Stern and Prince Charles have backed Libyan ogre, Colonel Gaddafi.


  33. Richard C (NZ) on May 14, 2011 at 12:15 pm said:

    NASA-Funded Group Doctors Sea Level Data

    Thursday, May 12, 2011

    Theory trumps reality

    Catastrophic sea level rise is one of the most valued hole cards played by alarmists in the global warming debate. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore showed computer generated images of what Manhattan would look like if sea level rose 20 feet. Building on this theme, elevation charts of coastal cities have become a staple in global warming presentations by Al Gore wannabes. But what happens when sea level in the real world does not rise nearly as much as alarmists predict? If you are a NASA-funded gatekeeper of sea level data, you merely doctor the data.

    Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.


  34. Richard C (NZ) on May 22, 2011 at 8:42 pm said:

    Climate cleansing: Google to censor skeptics?

    Posted on May 20, 2011 by Steve Milloy

    Will Google start censoring climate skeptics? Can anyone say Googlegate?

    The Yale Forum on Climate Change reports that,

    … Google leads people to accurate information about climate change. Fifty-two percent of the 980 sites [returned by a Google search on climate change-related terms] contained clear statements in line with the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science evidence. For example, if you had searched for “climate change myths” in early May, you would have found this Environmental Defense Fund site, which says, “The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it.”

    And Google may be willing to fix this problem for the alarmists. The Yale Forum goes on to state:

    Meanwhile, can search engines do a better job of pointing the public toward credible sites?

    A Google spokeswoman, who insisted on anonymity because she is not a Google executive, said the company is always looking for ways to improve results. “Last year, we made 500 changes to the algorithm to improve search quality,” she said.

    Say it ain’t so, Google… don’t be evil!


  35. Andy on July 6, 2011 at 7:43 am said:

    The IPCC’s alteration of Forster & Gregory’s model-independent climate sensitivity results

    This looks like a fairly significant error in IPCC’s core reasoning

  36. Richard C (NZ) on August 2, 2011 at 9:01 pm said:

    Trenberth: “Unbelievable” Breakdown in Defensive Zone Coverage

    Steve McIntyre, posted on Jul 31, 2011 at 2:47 PM

    Kevin Trenberth recently expressed his consternation at the breakdown in Team defensive zone coverage that enabled publication of Spencer and Braswell:

    “I cannot believe it got published,” said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

    Trenberth and Phil Jones were Cover 2 in the rock-solid IPCC AR4 defense. Readers will recall Jones’ promise of a goal-line stand against McKitrick and Michaels 2004:

    Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !


  37. Pretty interesting thread on CA on this one

    Shades of Climategate 2, The Sequel

  38. Not sure where to put this,but I note that Wikipedia has classified CO2 as pollution, including that from breathing

    Major primary pollutants produced by human activity include:
    Carbon dioxide (CO2) – a colourless, odorless, non-toxic greenhouse gas associated with ocean acidification, emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration

  39. Distinguished physicist Prof Will Happer explodes some CO2 myths here:
    A bit more credible than Wikipedia activists.

  40. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2011 at 3:04 pm said:

    Roger Pielke Snr takes John Cook at Skeptical Science to task:-

    My Response To The Skeptical Science Post “One-Sided ‘Skepticism”


    “The failure of Skeptical Science to present diverse viewpoints on these issues (and on the others in the posts on Skeptical Science) indicates that their weblog is not balanced in the presentation of the existing research findings in climate science. John Christy and Roy Spencer are very well-respected climate scientists by most everyone in this science community.

    Skeptical Science would do more of a service to the science community if they accurately presented their (and my viewpoints), even when they disagree, rather than disparage those who disagree with them. As Skeptical Science is currently presenting their information on climate on their weblog, everyone just needs to recognize that the weblog is not presenting all peer reviewed perspectives.”


  41. Richard C (NZ) on September 25, 2011 at 10:16 am said:

    Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming

    Neo-colonial land grabs carried out on behalf of World Bank-backed British company

    Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against “global warming,” a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.
    Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming.

    The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the “carbon credits” on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.


  42. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2011 at 7:53 am said:

    An IPCC Exposé

    Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé

    In this book, Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise exposes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a fraud. LaFramboise (see author profile here) spent two years investigating the IPCC. She says it acts like a spoiled teenager, hence the title of the book.

    The IPCC has long been touted as the preeminent authority on climate science. But LaFramboise shows that the participants were picked by governments, not for their scientific expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” Many of the scientists are in fact, very young graduate students. Many of the bureaucrats in the IPCC are from radical environmental groups. Real experts are often ignored. She says the IPCC is a purely political organization, not a scientific one, and she backs up her charges with copious references.

    The IPCC has always claimed that its reports are based exclusively on published peer-reviewed research. But LaFramboise found, after a meticulous review of the cited references, that about 28% of sources were from magazine articles, press releases, and unpublished papers. In fact, the major conclusions of one chapter in the latest IPCC report were based on two papers that had not been published. When an IPCC expert reviewer asked the IPCC and the papers’ authors for supporting data, they all refused to produce the data. Yet, the IPCC claims it is completely transparent.

    LaFramboise points out that the IPCC does not check sources. And, “Peer review does not prove that a piece of research is true.” “A couple reviewers, of course, are a poor substitute for mass scrutiny. Sometimes reviewers are chosen poorly; other times they’re lazy.”

    Have questioned the MftE CC accordingly (Cc’d to PMSAC)

  43. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2011 at 4:43 pm said:

    BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.

    CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

    By Christopher Horner, for WUWT

  44. Richard C (NZ) on December 2, 2011 at 7:53 am said:

    Climate change science being stifled by NSW Labor bureaucrats

    * by: Malcolm Holland
    * From: The Daily Telegraph
    * December 02, 2011 12:00AM

    SENIOR bureaucrats in the state government’s environment department have routinely stopped publishing scientific papers which challenge the federal government’s claims of sea level rises threatening Australia’s coastline, a former senior public servant said yesterday.

    Doug Lord helped prepare six scientific papers which examined 120 years of tidal data from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour.

    The tide data revealed sea levels were rising at a rate of about 1mm a year or less – and the rise was not accelerating but was constant.

    “The tidal data we found would mean sea levels would rise by about 100mm by the end of the century,” Mr Lord said yesterday.

    “However the (federal) government benchmark which drives their climate change policy is that sea levels are expected to rise by 900mm by the end of the century and the rate of rise is accelerating.”

    Mr Lord, who has 35 years experience in coastal engineering, said senior bureaucrats within the then Department of Environment Climate Change and Water had rejected or stopped publication of five papers between late 2009 and September this year.

    “This was very thorough research, peer reviewed and getting the highest ranking from various people, and one of the papers got a nine out of 10 for the quality of the work,” he said.

    “You have to ask yourself why they were rejected, considering they had been peer reviewed, and the Fort Denison tide data is among the longest continuous data of its type available in the world.


  45. Mike Jowsey on December 2, 2011 at 12:42 pm said:

    54 comments so far, only one lame AGW supporter – all the rest vehemently believe AGW is a con.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on December 2, 2011 at 7:35 pm said:

    A Journalist Fights Back and Wins

    Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 12/01/2011

    In Germany, there is news today (here) about a prominent climate scientist who earlier this year was convicted of defaming a journalist, Irene Meichsner.

    The case (described in detail in English here) has to do with Meichsner’s reporting of errors in the IPCC 2007 report in early 2010 in the Frankfurter Rundschau. The scientist, Stefan Rahmstorf (known in the US as a blogger at Real Climate and whom I’ve occasionally sparred with) is a German government advisor who strongly attacked Meichsner for her coverage of the IPCC. His attacks prompted the Frankfurter Rundschau to subsequently correct Meichsner’s reporting, apparently based solely on Rahmstorf’s say so, such was his authority.

    Meichsnner, believing that she had done no wrong, sued. The Cologne court then decided in her favor, concluding that Rahmstorf’s attacks were unsupported by evidence and even libelous.

    Interestingly, in the US, Rahmstorf’s efforts to take down the journalist were uncritically celebrated by no less than the New York Times, which helps to illustrate both a bandwagon effect in coverage of climate by journalists who see themselves on the “same side” as the scientists and also the extensive deference than scientists are granted by the media. Given the court outcome, I wonder if the NYT will be correcting its earlier coverage?

    A German magazine on science journalism provides a detailed discussion of the case and its significance (translated from German) and summarizes this episode as follows:


  47. Richard C (NZ) on December 6, 2011 at 9:36 am said:

    Blocked Sea-Level Research Probed

    Sunday, 04 December 2011 23:09 Imre Saluszinsky

    NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker has asked department officials to explain why they put the lid on internal research that questioned catastrophic predictions of sea-level rises as a result of climate change.

    A former senior researcher in the department, Doug Lord, said yesterday two papers he co-authored with colleagues and was due to present at conferences were suppressed because they suggested sea-levels on the east coast are rising at only one 10th of the rate estimated by the federal government, based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Mr Lord said long-term data gleaned from gauges in Sydney Harbour suggested sea levels were rising at the rate of about 1mm per year. This would lead to a rise of about 90mm by 2100, not the 900mm rise predicted by the IPCC.

    “We can’t identify an acceleration of the rate, which doesn’t mean that it’s not there,” Mr Lord told The Australian. “But if it’s going to reach those levels, it’s got to accelerate at some time in the future.”

    Mr Lord, who does not question the science of climate change, said the papers were pulled by the department at the last minute, after they had been accepted and peer-reviewed.

    “It’s very odd that they left that until the last minute and withdrew both papers at the latest possible opportunity,” he said.

    A spokeswoman for Ms Parker said the minister had “asked for a thorough explanation” and wanted more information.

    In a statement, the Office of Environment and Heritage said it “fully supports the analysis of tide gauge records to estimate historical sea-level rise trends and the publication of these analyses for discussion and debate”.

    But the agency insisted “historical trends of sea-level rise recorded by tide gauges do not necessarily provide a good indication of future sea levels because trends are expected to change with continued global warming”.

    The agency said the papers were withdrawn over “concerns raised by an independent statistician about the statistical analysis of tide gauge records”.

    The Australian, 5 December 2011

  48. Richard C (NZ) on December 18, 2011 at 2:09 pm said:

    “The detective-inspector and his colleagues were polite, well mannered and did not over-react when I declined to give them my wordpress password. I politely explained that they had a warrant to search my house, not my head.” – Roger Tattersall aka ‘Tallbloke’

  49. That’s the first time Tallbloke’s real name has come to my attention. I think he wanted to remain anonymous. Was it the Guardian that broke silence?

  50. Richard C (NZ) on December 19, 2011 at 8:00 am said:

    No, Tallbloke has never been anonymous to my knowledge. I know I’ve posted comments here at CCG in the past referring to his full name that he has replied to as ‘Rog Tallbloke’:-

  51. Richard C (NZ) on December 23, 2011 at 5:40 pm said:

    Tallbloke’s plight covered by the BBC (non-environment reporter) – complete with photo of Roger:-

    Concerns over Climategate inquiry

    By Nikki Fox BBC News East

    Tallbloke’s commentary at his blog:-

    Winter Solstice: Past the darkest night to sunnier days ahead

  52. Richard C (NZ) on January 26, 2012 at 8:51 am said:

    Reply to article: Piers Corbyn

    The UK Met Office and BBC promoted statement is extremely delusional and dishonest and a cover-up of reality. Full article: Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming

    Their ‘expectation’ that the world will warm by 2C this century ‘due to increased greenhouse gas emissions’ is proven drivel based on their own failed self-serving fraudulent models.

    They deliberately choose to know almost nothing about solar influences on earth’s weather and climate and create ‘information’ designed to deceive.

    It is the largely predictable vast changes in solar charged particle flux and sun-earth magnetic connectivity which control weather and climate.


  53. Richard C (NZ) on February 17, 2012 at 7:34 pm said:

    “Fake, fake, fake, fake.” – Seinfeld-ism

    Pulling back the curtain on someone’s wizardry right when they’re producing the smoke and lights is like pulling back the curtain when they’re in the shower. Lies, like nakedness, show it all to the world: “Well, here I am….”

    From “The Mango”
    Episode 1, Season 5
    Seinfeld Volume 4, Disc 1
    Timecode for the scene: 2:55

    Bill at Hot Topic:-

    bill February 15, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    On the Development of our “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project:

    [From: ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy’]

    Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science[emphasis added].We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.

    And more.

    In the golden words of red Dwarf – talk your way out of this one, Smeghead!

    Bill’s emphasis note.

    Bill again (2 days later):-

    bill February 17, 2012 at 11:40 am

    It appears likely that it’s the ‘strategy’ doc at issue, and as John M has pointed out, it only contains info we already know from the other docs and other sources.

    It does contain that one zippy quote about discouraging teaching science which was – unsurprisingly – widely circulated, but, since we’re not Deniers whose entire existence is focused on distributing culled snippets of dubious provenance, we’ll have to forego the pleasure of using it for the time being.

    “…..for the time being” ?

    Jim Lakely, Heartland Institute:-

    “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake

    Lies, like nakedness, show it all to the world: “Well, here I am….”

  54. Mike Jowsey on February 18, 2012 at 6:19 am said:

    FakeGate – worthy of some conversation, methinks.

    The Bish:

    So, let me kick off the conversation by saying that the venom and vitriol coming from the warmistas is to be expected. They typically revel in ad-homs and seldom consider inconvenient facts. I think Bolt nails (bolts?) it by saying “If the sceptics’ conspiracy was real, why fake the evidence?”. This is the inconvenient fact of the whole matter.

    When the warmistas claim that we are duplicitous because the Climategate ‘hacking’ was applauded by us, yet this ‘hacking’ is condemned by us, the main difference is that the authenticity of the CRU emails was confirmed as much as possible before being posted on sites like WattsUp. In stark contrast, DeSmog posted the stolen and forged Heartland docs within one hour of receipt, without any attempt to verify their authenticity. And it turns out the main Policy document was a forgery.

  55. Richard C (NZ) on February 18, 2012 at 9:42 am said:
  56. Actress Lucy Lawless refuses to leave Shell oil-drilling ship bound for Arctic:

  57. Richard C (NZ) on February 24, 2012 at 11:50 pm said:

    “To see the melting of the sea ice not as a warning to humanity but as an invitation to drill for more of the stuff that caused the problem in the first place is the definition of madness. What Shell is doing is climate change-profiteering.”

    – Lucy Lawless, lawbreaker.

    “problem” ?

  58. Andy on March 3, 2012 at 9:49 am said:

    WWF in embezzlement scandal

    Approximately $1.3 million in cash seems to have gone missing from a project called “Strengthening Capacity of Environmental Civil Society Organisations”. Overall, it was worth about $4.5 million, part-funded by Norway. Further funding has been suspended for this and for the $2.5-million REDD+ readiness project, aimed at “enhancing Tanzania’s capacity to deliver data on forest carbon stocks”, has also been put on hold.

    As the news of the scandal emerged, WWF’s Tanzania country director, Stephen Mariki, resigned and, so far, the eight people linked to the fraud have had their employment terminated.

  59. Richard C (NZ) on March 3, 2012 at 2:33 pm said:

    “Civil Society Organisations” ?

    G.W.F. Hegel completely changed the meaning of civil society, giving rise to a modern liberal understanding of it as a form of market society as opposed to institutions of modern nation state

    I suspect though that WWF approved organisations would be those that advance “common” interests.[1] (first sentence at link).

    And that the “common” interests are WWF interests.

    And WWF interests are ?

    Looks like there was another common interest involved at the WWF office too.

  60. Richard C (NZ) on March 4, 2012 at 9:15 am said:

    Naomi Klein: ‘If You Take Climate Change Seriously, You Have to Throw Out the Free-Market Playbook’ | Common Dreams 07:18:13 PM March 01, 2012


    H/t HT as it happens

  61. Stamper on June 7, 2012 at 4:27 pm said:
  62. Mike Jowsey on January 5, 2013 at 5:30 pm said:

    From the “Another consensus debunked” file comes this:
    New study says overweight people live longer

    “We published an article in 2005 that showed, among other things, that [being] overweight was associated with lower mortality – and we got an awful lot of negative feedback from that,” Katherine Flegal, a senior research scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the study’s lead author, told Time.

    The previous article was dismissed as “rubbish” by many academics, but Flegal maintained her position, choosing to conduct further research and bring attention to the findings.

    “It is not an unusual finding. But authors tend to shy away from it. They tend to underplay it or try to explain it away,” she told The Independent.

    Just goes to show, if everyone believes it, it ain’t necessarily true. Happy New Year everyone!

  63. Richard C (NZ) on February 3, 2013 at 11:35 am said:

    The controversy

    by Anastassia Makarieva, Victor Gorshkov, Douglas Sheil, Antonio Nobre, Larry Li

    Thanks to help from blog readers, those who visited the ACPD site and many others who we have communicated with, our paper has received considerable feedback. Some were supportive and many were critical. Some have accepted that the physical mechanism is valid, though some (such as JC) question its magnitude and some are certain it is incorrect (but cannot find the error). Setting aside these specific issues, most of the more general critical comments can be classified as variations on, and combinations of, three basic statements:

    1. Current weather and climate models (a) are already based on physical laws and (b) satisfactorily reproduce observed patterns and behaviour. By inference, it is unlikely that they miss any major processes.

    2. You should produce a working model more effective than current models.

    3. Current models are comprehensive: your effect is already there.

    Let’s consider these claims one by one.

    Models and physical laws


    Thus, while there are physical laws in existing models, their outputs (including apparent circulation power) reflect an empirical process of calibration and fitting. In this sense models are not based on physical laws. This is the reason why no theoretical estimate of the power of the global atmospheric circulation system has been available until now.

    The models reproduce the observations satisfactorily

    As we have discussed in our paper (p. 1046) current models fail when it comes to describing many water-related phenomena. But perhaps a more important point to make here is that even where behaviours are satisfactorily reproduced it would not mean that the physical basis of the model are correct. Indeed, any phenomenon that repeats itself can be formally described or “predicted” completely without understanding its physical nature


    For example, a climate model empirically fitted for a forest-covered continent cannot inform us about the climatic consequences of deforestation if we do not correctly understand the underlying physical mechanisms.

    You should produce a better model than the existing ones


    To expect a few theorists, however keen, can achieve that is neither reasonable nor realistic. We have invested our efforts to show, using suitable physical estimates, that the effect we describe is sufficient to justify a wider and deeper scrutiny. (At the same time we are also developing a number of texts to show how current models in fact contain erroneous physical relationships (see, e.g., here)).

    Your effect is already present in existing models

    Many commentators believe that the physics we are talking about is already included in models. There is no omission. This argument assumes that if the processes of condensation and precipitation are reproduced in models, then the models account for all the related phenomena, including pressure gradients and dynamics. This is, however, not so. Indeed this is not merely an oversight but an impossibility. The explanation is interesting and deserves recognition – so we shall use this opportunity to explain.


    In current models in the absence of a theoretical stipulation on the circulation power, a reverse logic is followed. The horizontal pressure gradients are determined from the continuity equation, with the condensation rate calculated from the Clausius-Clapeyron law using temperature derived from the first law of thermodynamics with empirically fitted turbulence. However, as we have seen, to correctly reproduce condensation-induced dynamics, condensation rate requires an accuracy much greater than γ << 1. Meanwhile the imprecision of the first law of thermodynamics as applied to describe the non-equilibrium atmospheric dynamics is precisely of the same order of γ. The kinetic energy of the gas is not accounted for in equilibrium thermodynamics.


    Summary and outlook

    The Editor’s comment on our paper ends with a call to further evaluate our proposals. We second this call. The reason we wrote this paper was to ensure it entered the main-stream and gained recognition. For us the key implication of our theory is the major importance of vegetation cover in sustaining regional climates. If condensation drives atmospheric circulation as we claim, then forests determine much of the Earth’s hydrological cycle (see here for details). Forest cover is crucial for the terrestrial biosphere and the well-being of many millions of people. If you acknowledge, as the editors of ACP have, any chance – however large or small – that our proposals are correct, then we hope you concede that there is some urgency that these ideas gain clear objective assessment from those best placed to assess them.

  64. Richard C (NZ) on February 3, 2013 at 11:53 am said:

    Controversial research outlines physics behind how forests may bring rain

    It took over two-and-a-half-years for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics to finally accept a paper outlining a new meteorological hypothesis in which condensation, not temperature, drives winds. If proven correct, the hypothesis could have massive ramifications on global policy—not to mention meteorology—as essentially the hypothesis means that the world’s forest play a major role in driving precipitation from the coast into a continent’s interior. The theory, known as the biotic pump, was first developed in 2006 by two Russian scientists, Victor Gorshkov and Anastassia Makarieva of the St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics, but the two have faced major pushback and delays in their attempt to put the theory before the greater scientific community.

    “It is, at first glance, incredible that such a process could be so influential, be based on basic physics, and yet have gone unnoticed for so long by so many,” says co-author Douglas Sheil who worked with Gorshkov and Makarieva on the new paper. “I shared this view initially, but over time it has withstood a large number of queries and challenges.”


    Gorshkov and Makarieva argue that forests drive winds through “persistent condensation,” bringing in rain from the oceans. Put simply: no forests, no rain

  65. Richard C (NZ) on April 2, 2013 at 5:12 pm said:

    New global warming scandal hits climate science

    By Ian Wishart

    The scientists behind a widely reported new climate change study suggesting we are currently in the warmest climate of the past four thousand years have had their work shredded in peer review, and been accused of skating close to scientific “misconduct”.

    The paper, led by Oregon State University’s Shaun Marcott, claimed to have validated the discredited “hockey stick” graph and proven that modern temperatures were the highest in four millennia.

    Their research was published in the prestigious journal Science and sparked worldwide media headlines. The New York Times trumpeted “Global temperatures highest in 4000 years”, while Associated Press went even further: “Heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years”.

    Now, the story is rapidly unraveling……….

    Found at the top of Google News ‘Climate Science’ – bet it gets shunted quick.

  66. Richard C (NZ) on April 3, 2013 at 3:17 pm said:

    “Of course, Anthony Watts can do all he likes to shut down debate on his blog. However, there is simply no consistent, rational, mathematically valid, or scientific explanation of the GHE. So we say it’s back to you Roy and Anthony.”

  67. Richard C (NZ) on April 3, 2013 at 3:38 pm said:

    Andrew McKillop: Solar Cycle Warnings

    For reasons including “pure politically correct”, NASA has fought a losing battle – against reality – on the subject of Global Warming, which it feels obliged to believe in as a “scientifically correct” theory. Linked to this, quite directly, NASA has also battled against reality on the subject of sunspot frequency, size, location on the Sun’s surface and other variables linked to sunspot cycles in this present Cycle 24 of approximately 11-year-long cycles. These have been accurately recorded since Cycle 1 set by convention between astronomers as starting in Feb 1755.

    NASA wanted to believe Cycle 24 would be about the same, perhaps bigger in sunspot numbers and intensity, than Cycle 23. This has not happened. Cycle 24 started weak and got much weaker: February 1906 and Fenruary 2013 had one thing in common, they both had extreme low numbers of observable sunspots on “our” local Star.


  68. Richard C (NZ) on June 16, 2013 at 1:58 pm said:

    Embracing Greenpeace. Ignoring Climate Science

    by Matthew Lau

    […] The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) recommends that teachers force students to participate in Greenpeace campaigns, excusing Greenpeace’s criminal activities as “creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems”. Grade 10 students are encouraged to take part in boycotts organized by Greenpeace as part of their civics class. One school forces its students to volunteer for “justice based community and international organizations”, including Greenpeace. Many schools direct students to the Greenpeace website via online newsletters, while other schools invite Greenpeace representatives into their classrooms to save students the trouble of having to go online to find environmental propaganda. Or better yet, some schools will hire Greenpeace employees as teachers or have a Greenpeace Association at their school in order to allow students full-time access to Greenpeace’s propaganda.


  69. Andy on June 16, 2013 at 5:59 pm said:

    Interesting that this Canadian article links back to an NZ NBR article on GM “Golden Rice” which Greenpeace have been campaigning against

    This is classic Greenpeace anti-science scaremongering.

  70. Richard C (NZ) on July 11, 2013 at 4:17 pm said:

    ‘Two Alarmist Professors Suspects in Climate Fraud’

    by John O’Sullivan

    Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director of ANU Climate Change Institute College of Asia and the Pacific and The Australian National University and Professor Lesley Hughes Head of the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University are named and shamed for alleged fraudulent public presentations last month.

    In a damning open letter (July 9, 2013) by Australian scientists, Dr Judy Ryan and Dr Marjorie Curtis, professors Steffen and Hughes are being called out for their biased and unscientific presentations given at the Canberra Community Forum on June 17th 2013. The professors are accused of not only making “misleading” and “false” statements but it is being suggested their bogus climate claims may rise to the level of actual fraud.

    Drs Ryan and Curtis have now made their letter open to the wider scientific community and the public so they may judge for themselves how egregious are the cherry picked claims of professors Steffen and Hughes.

    Below we publish the full Ryan/Curtis letter so our readers can get the full picture of this sorry tale:

    [Ryan/Curtis letter]

    “In closing, Dr Curtis and I believe that as ethical scientists it is our duty to bring these issues to your attention and that of other concerned scientists and citizens. If you think that anything we have said here is untrue please click ‘reply all’ and let us know and we will apologize. We have also sent this email by mail to both of you, so that even if you are unable to access your email for a few days you will still get this important letter and have the opportunity to respond. Please do this before the 1st August 2013.” – Dr Judy Ryan and Dr Marjorie Curtis

  71. Richard C (NZ) on October 2, 2013 at 9:30 am said:

    ‘IPCC: Fixing the Facts’

    by Steve McIntyre

    Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.


  72. Richard C (NZ) on November 11, 2013 at 7:20 pm said:

    [Sydney Morning Herald] “Professor Will Steffen, a researcher at the ANU and member of the Climate Council, said scientists understand how a hotter, moister climate is already affecting storms such as Haiyan”

    Read more:

    [Actual study] “Remarkably, the two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong (AD 1660–1680, 1850–1880) coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China during the Little Ice Age.”

    # # #

    Tony Abbott made a good call to disband the Climate Commission so he no longer has to listen to climate charlatan Will Steffen.

  73. It seems fundamental to me that a globe where the poles are supposedly warming faster than the tropics will enjoy less extreme weather because of the reduced differentials in barometric pressure globally. That a professor at ANU could make such a flawed statement is incomprehensible. Except when you take it as a politically inspired statement rather than a science-based one.

  74. Richard C (NZ) on November 13, 2013 at 12:25 pm said:

    Fact checking seems to be a lost art – even by a judge in this case:

    ‘A judge shouldn’t be so careless with the facts of climate change’

    Written by Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun blogs, November 12 2013.

    It is disturbing that a judge should have so little regard for evidence – and that the Sydney Morning Herald does not bother to fact-check his claims:

    “Tony Abbott’s stance on climate change has been criticised by an eminent judge speaking from a Pacific island that is being devastated by the effects of rising tides.

    District court judge Michael Finnane spoke during a self-financed fact-finding visit to Kiribati, where seawater has broken into fresh water reserves, flooded houses and in the future is likely to force an exodus of islanders…

    Judge Finnane said: “If [Mr Abbott] came here and saw the things over here that I have seen, I think he would have a different view. If he looked at them and didn’t walk around with shut eyes he would see there is something very significant happening here…

    “My gut feeling is that there’s a huge problem with fresh water here. They are taking measures to hold back the waves but ultimately this island, and there are 33 other islands, are going to become less and less habitable…”

    He also said it was “absurd” that people in Sydney drove large four-wheel-drive vehicles or SUVs and didn’t realise the damage they were doing to the environment.”


    “I don’t like to say this of a judge of whom there is a lot to like and admire, but when it comes to global warming, is Finnane himself the one walking around with his eyes wide shut?”

  75. Richard C (NZ) on November 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm said:

    Should be – “even by a judge [and a newspaper] in this case”

  76. Richard C (NZ) on November 13, 2013 at 1:37 pm said:

    Steve Goddard’s graph of typhoons with more than 10,000 fatalities:

    “94% of deadliest cyclones occurred with CO2 below 350. Worst was 1970 global cooling”

  77. Richard C (NZ) on November 13, 2013 at 2:23 pm said:

    ‘Russel Norman slammed for linking typhoon with climate change’

    Source: ONE News

    Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has been criticised for linking the destructive Philippines typhoon with climate change.

    Political leaders began today’s Parliamentary session by offering messages of support to Filipinos affected by the destructive Typhoon Haiyan.

    However, Dr Norman used his time to quote the head of the Philippines delegation to UN Climate talks, who had spoken hours earlier.


    He [Norman] said that 11 hours earlier the Philippines Government gave a speech about climate change and their desire for all governments to take action on it.


    New Zealand Parliament – Draft transcript – Tuesday, 12 November

    Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this terrible event that has befallen the people of the Philippines. I think that the best way that I can acknowledge those who have died and the suffering of those who are currently trying to find their way through the rubble in the Philippines is read out a statement by the Filipino people themselves. This is a statement by Yeb Sano, head of the Philippines delegation to the UN climate talks. He read this statement at the opening of the climate talks in Warsaw in the last few hours. His home has been devastated; many of his family are missing. These are his words: “It was barely 11 months ago in Doha when my delegation [appealed] to the world to open our eyes to the stark reality that we face [as] then we confronted a catastrophic storm that resulted in the costliest disaster in Philippine history.

    [Continuation line: Less than a year after]

    Less than a year [after], we [could not] imagine that a disaster much bigger would come. With a … cruel twist of fate, my country is being tested by this hellstorm called Super Typhoon Haiyan.” It has been described by experts as the strongest typhoon that has ever made landfall in the course of recorded human history. He said: “It was so strong that if there was a Category 6, it would have fallen squarely in that box. … we remain uncertain as to the full extent of the … devastation, as information trickles in in an agonisingly slow manner because [electricity] lines and communication lines have been cut off. … The initial assessment show that Haiyan left a wake of massive devastation that is unprecedented, unthinkable and horrific.” This is affecting two-thirds of the Philippines, with about half a million people now rendered homeless and with scenes reminiscent of the aftermath of a tsunami, with a vast wasteland of mud, and debris, and dead bodies. He said: “Despite the massive efforts that my country had exerted in preparing for the onslaught of this monster of a storm, it was just too powerful and even as a nation familiar with storms, Haiyan was nothing we have ever experienced before, or perhaps nothing that any country has ever experienced before. The picture in the aftermath is ever slowly coming into focus. The devastation is colossal.”

    [Continuation line: I will continue with a quote from Yeb Sano]

    I will continue with a quote from Yeb Sano, head of the Philippines delegation at the UN climate talks. “To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of their armchair. I dare you to go to the island of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean, and the islands of the Indian Ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps, to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned, to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes, to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death…Not to forget the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico…And if that is not enough, you may want to pay a visit to the Philippines right now. The science has given us a picture that has become much more in focus. The IPCC report on climate change and extreme events underscored the risks associated with changes in the patterns as well as frequency of extreme weather events. Science tells us that simply, climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms, that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.”


    ‘Russel Norman defends typhoon climate change speech’

    Source: ONE News

    Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has defended his speech in Parliament yesterday that linked Typhoon Haiyan with climate change following criticism from opposition MPs


    The Green co-leader is this morning standing by his statement, saying it was the perfect time to address the issue.

    “We should be listening to the people and government of the Philippines.

    “They want us to take action on things like climate change, and countries like New Zealand who have a plan to increase our greenhouse emissions, there’s a complete contradiction of what the people of the Philippines are asking us and what the current Government is doing.”

    # # #

    Apparently, “the people and government of the Philippines” (actually just Yeb Sano) are now the attribution experts (i.e. ignore all other typhoon/hurricane specialists, even the IPCC), we should listen to them (make that Yeb Sano) at the behest of Russel Norman.

    I don’t think so.

  78. Richard C (NZ) on November 13, 2013 at 6:29 pm said:

    ‘Supertyphoon Haiyan Brings Lots Of Sound And Fury, Little Scientific Information’

    By Paul Knappenberger & Patrick Michaels


    On the conference’s opening day [COP 19, Warsaw], an envoy form the Philippines, Yeb Sano, gave an emotional address to the delegates in which he vowed to stop eating until something was accomplished.

    “I will now commence a voluntary fasting for the climate. This means I will voluntarily refrain from eating food during this (conference) until a meaningful outcome is in sight.”


    “We can fix this. We can stop this madness. Right now, right here.”

    Sano got a tear-filled standing ovation.

    While the outpouring of sympathy was certainly deserved, an outpouring of action on climate change is certainly not […]

    Scientists say single weather events cannot conclusively be linked to global warming. Also, the link between man-made warming and hurricane activity is unclear, though rising sea levels are expected to make low-lying nations more vulnerable to storm surges.

    In other words, limitations, even strict ones, on anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases—the very thing that Sano seeks—will have no detectable (at least based on our current scientific understanding) impact on the characteristics of future tropical cyclones, such as Haiyan, or Sandy, or Katrina, or any other infamous storm. And as for sea level rise, projections are far more lurid than observations.

    The hard numbers (from Ryan Maue’s excellent compilation) show that global tropical cyclone activity for the last 40+ years—during the time of decent observations and the time with the greatest potential human impact from greenhouse gas emissions—while showing decadal ups and downs, show little overall change. In fact, global cyclone activity has been below average for the past 5 years [see graph].


    Also: ‘Philippines lead negotiator at the COP 19 in Warsaw puts the blame for super typhoon on global warming’

    COP 19, the annual UN global warming mega jamboree has opened in Warsaw. The lead negotiator for the Philippines, Yeb Sano, was one of the first speakers:

    1145 – There is now a three minutes silence for the tragedy in the Philippines. Delegates are on their feet. Some are joining Sano in shedding tears for the loss of lives that occurred during the typhoon.
    1141 – Yeb Sano announces he will not eat during the conference, until a meaningful agreement has been achieved.

    # # #

    I can imagine Russel Norman, if present at COP 19, shedding (crocodile?) tears along with the rest and vowing with Yeb Sano not to eat for the duration of the conference (well until the first banquet anyway) – in complete ignorance of ACE graphs, SREX/AR5 conclusions, or any other scientific trend analysis or literature.

    The unsubstantiated conflation of hurricanes/typhoons (one-off weather events) with climate change and the COP 19 performance is scurrilous and detestable IMO.

  79. Richard C (NZ) on November 13, 2013 at 6:44 pm said:

    ‘Some historical perspectives on Typhoon Haiyan-Yolanda’

    by Anthony Watts

    “……here are some useful bits of information that help put this storm into the perspective of “worst ever” claims, and opportunistic claims about it being a product of global warming…..”

    “……when you look at the science for tropical cyclones in the region, such claims don’t even begin to hold up”

    “It seems abundantly clear then that any claim trying to tie Typhoon Haiyan to a pattern of increased frequency of storms supposedly driven by “global warming” is patently false.”

  80. Richard C (NZ) on December 22, 2013 at 7:02 am said:

    ‘After Suzanne Goldenberg [Guardian] makes a large, fraudulent claim about climate change spending, it gets very quietly “fixed” with the addition of weasel words “may” and “up to”‘

    [Links to before and after Guardian article]

    Andy Revkin [my emphasis]

    Robert Brulle pushes back on Guardian $1 billion/yr spin on his study of “climate change counter movement” funding:

    “You may have seen the Guardian article on my paper: I have written to the newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this:

    “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.”

    It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities, and so saying that they spent $1 Billion on climate change issues is just not true. I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulle

    [Link to Guardian article]


    ‘Organizations Bankrolling Climate Change Denial Revealed in New Study’

    By James A. Foley

    A new report in the journal Climatic Change details the sources of funding for climate change deniers. The study is the first peer-reviewed analysis of the funding organizations behind the climate change counter-movement.

  81. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2014 at 8:05 pm said:

    ‘Settled Science Catches Up with Steyn’

    Written by Mark Steyn, SteynOnline on 29 August 2014.

    “No disrespect to Professor Ka-Kit Tung, but I felt vaguely that I’d read about this climate cycle – natural variability, 30-year cooling periods, 30-year warming periods – somewhere before …oh, years ago, it was. But for the life of me I couldn’t recall which eminent climate scientist had advanced the proposition. And then I remembered. It was IPCC lead author, Nobel Laureate and Fellow of the Royal Society Professor Mark Steyn just over five years ago:……..”

  82. Richard C (NZ) on September 11, 2014 at 11:03 am said:

    The 97% ‘consensus’ and its critics
    Andrew Montford

    PR Week – Special report: climate change and communications

    “According to NASA, 97 per cent of scientists agree the climate is very likely to be warming due to human activity”

  83. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2014 at 9:43 am said:

    Not quite climate but……

    ‘Fed Up With Govt Misconduct, Federal Judge Takes Nuclear Option’

    Federal Prosecutor Alleges Boss Pressured Him To Engage in ‘Unethical Conduct’; Judge Calls Abuses ‘Egregious,’ ‘Pervasive,” and “Reprehensible”

    By Sidney Powell | 10/15/14 9:45pm

    In perhaps the most stunning documentation yet of abuses by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, two former Assistant United States Attorneys spoke to defense attorneys and revealed appalling deceit and corruption of justice. This latest litigation time bomb has exploded from multi-million dollar litigation originally brought by the Department of Justice against Sierra Pacific based on allegations that the lumber company and related defendants were responsible for a wildfire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California.

    In what was dubbed the “Moonlight Fire” case, the tables are now turned. The defendants have discovered new evidence and filed a stunning motion. The new evidence and disclosures are being taken seriously by the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California—as they should be. In a shocking action, Judge Morrison C. England Jr. ordered the recusal of every federal judge in the Eastern District of California.


    The Sacramento Bee reported on the Defendant’s filing. Indeed, the Defendants’ motion informs us that a former Assistant United States Attorney came forward and disclosed that he believes that he was removed from the original prosecution by “his boss, David Shelledy, chief of the civil division in the United States Attorney’s office,” because he “rebuffed” pressure to “engage in unethical conduct as a lawyer.” Of course, like other former prosecutors who were unethical, Mr. Shelledy is to receive Attorney General Holder’s highest award for excellence—this week.


  84. Richard C (NZ) on February 24, 2015 at 9:54 am said:

    Andrew Weaver: Libel Chill or Libel “Polar Vortex”

    by Steve McIntyre

    Andrew Weaver has been taking a victory lap following the recent decision in his favor by rookie judge Emily Burke. In previous commentary about Mann v Steyn, I’ve made some snide remarks about the competence of D.C. trial court judge Combs-Greene, either implying or stating that Canadian courts have higher standards. I take it all back. As a Canadian, it’s embarrassing to discuss Judge Burke’s disorganized and muddled decision with readers from other countries. Unsurprisingly, beneath the muddled prose, there are (what appear to me) some bright-line legal errors over and above quixotic and often grossly incorrect findings of fact.

    In fairness to Judge Burke, she was astonishingly inexperienced to have been assigned a relatively complicated libel case. She had been appointed as a judge on May 13, 2004 [Sic ?] (h/t Hilary Ostrov) and the Weaver v National Post trial began in the first week of June 2014, only a few weeks after Burke’s appointment. Her resume shows that her professional experience over the previous 20 years had been as a labour arbitrator, with no apparent evidence of previous experience in libel law. It was very unfortunate that she was assigned this case.

    If Burke’s decision accurately reflects Canadian libel law, then for opinion writing in Canada (including Climate Audit), it is more of a polar vortex than mere libel “chill”. To borrow a phrase, it would be a travesty if National Post did not appeal this decision.

    In today’s post, I’ll set out an overview of the main issues.


    It’s hard to list all the errors of fact. I plan to do follow-up posts, setting out chronologies of fact for the main threads listed above.

    Why is it that these Judge’s (including Geoffrey Venning here) seem incapable of determining facts?

  85. Richard C (NZ) on February 25, 2015 at 9:08 pm said:

    ‘Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon – Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead’

    by Kip Hansen, February 23, 2015

    I cannot bring myself to quote from this unconscionable piece of journalistic malfeasance:
    Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher [hotlink]


    Instead, I simply let my title and the following excerpts from the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist lackeys: Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the NY Times, apparently didn’t actually read them – or they might have noticed that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves, might have uncovered the definition of “deliverables”….I can’t believe Gillis and Schwartz allowed themselves to be duped again.

    Comments are illuminating e.g.

    Phil February 24, 2015 at 12:48 am

    It seems that it may be The Smithsonian that has acted unethically.

    [long and comprehensive reasoning]

    ATheoK February 24, 2015 at 10:33 am

    What they claim is damning evidence is nothing of the kind, instead it is standard contract language and practice.

    Willie Soon title for the above ‘proposal’ is “principal investigator”. A title that expressly means a Smithsonian team is responsible, otherwise Dr. Soon would not have the title.

    The contract does not explicitly describe who is responsible for performing the work. Only that Dr. Soon as Principal oversees the technical aspects. To ensure correct technical language, Smithsonian’s Contract Officer who is the legal signature, will likely ask/order Dr. Soon to write or oversee writing the research results.

    Dr. Soon declared his funding via Smithsonian! The Smithsonian may pull funds from fifty donors to actually pay Dr. Soon and the other employees; as such, the Smithsonian is responsible for identifying whose funds they were using.

    Dr. Soon’s value as an effective employee is that he successfully locates potential sponsors and brings funds to the Smithsonian.

    It is quite odd that the alarmists are soiling their panties in such an effort to smear Dr. Soon. Twisting contractual wording and communications to mean other than the Smithsonian intended. Meanwhile alarmists get caught committing flagrantly illegal acts, e.g. Gleick, and they honor him. Lucky for them the Holder Department of Justice is blind to alarmist wrongful actions.

  86. Richard C (NZ) on February 25, 2015 at 9:16 pm said:

    ‘Are Climate Modelers Scientists?’

    by Pat Frank February 24, 2015

    For going on two years now, I’ve been trying to publish a manuscript that critically assesses the reliability of climate model projections. The manuscript has been submitted twice and rejected twice from two leading climate journals, for a total of four rejections. All on the advice of nine of ten reviewers. More on that below.

    The analysis propagates climate model error through global air temperature projections, using a formalized version of the “passive warming model” (PWM) GCM emulator reported in my 2008 Skeptic article. Propagation of error through a GCM temperature projection reveals its predictive reliability.


    I will give examples of all of the following concerning climate modelers:

    They neither respect nor understand the distinction between accuracy and precision.
    They understand nothing of the meaning or method of propagated error.
    They think physical error bars mean the model itself is oscillating between the uncertainty extremes. (I kid you not.)
    They don’t understand the meaning of physical error.
    They don’t understand the importance of a unique result.

    Bottom line? Climate modelers are not scientists. Climate modeling is not a branch of physical science. Climate modelers are unequipped to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.

    The incredibleness that follows is verbatim reviewer transcript; quoted in italics. Every idea below is presented as the reviewer meant it. No quotes are contextually deprived, and none has been truncated into something different than the reviewer meant.

    And keep in mind that these are arguments that certain editors of certain high-ranking climate journals found persuasive.


    In their rejection of accuracy and fixation on precision, climate modelers have sealed their field away from the ruthless indifference of physical evidence, thereby short-circuiting the critical judgment of science.

    Climate modeling has left science. It has become a liberal art expressed in mathematics. Call it equationized loopiness.

    The inescapable conclusion is that climate modelers are not scientists. They don’t think like scientists, they are not doing science. They have no idea how to evaluate the physical validity of their own models.

    They should be nowhere near important discussions or decisions concerning science-based social or civil policies.

  87. Richard C (NZ) on February 26, 2015 at 9:52 am said:

    I am Under “Investigation”

    February 25, 2015 ~ rogerpielkejr

    […background story…]

    What am I accused of that prompts being investigated? Here is my crime:

    “Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts. His 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” ”

    The letter goes on to note that John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, “has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke.” (For background on this see here and here.) My 2013 testimony to the Senate is here and House is here in pdf (Q&A following hearing here and here). The testimony was the basis for my recent book on Disasters & Climate Change.

    Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none. He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).

    Adam Sarvana, communications director for Natural Resources Committee’s Democratic delegation, reinforced the politically-motivated nature of the investigation in an interview:

    “The way we chose the list of recipients is who has published widely, who has testified in Congress before, who seems to have the most impact on policy in the scientific community”

    Let’s see – widely published, engaged with Congress, policy impact — these are supposed to be virtues of the modern academic researcher, right? (Here in PDF is my view on the importance of testifying before Congress when asked. I still think it is important.)

    I am pleased that some colleagues with whom I have had professional disagreements with in the past have condemned the investigation via Twitter, among them Eric Steig (of Real Climate), Bob Ward (LSE) and Simon Donner (UBC). This shows some real class. In contrast, Michael E. Mann, who I defended when a Virginia politician came after him, used the “investigation” as a chance to lob childish insults my way via Twitter. Some things you can always count on in the climate arena!

    So far, I have been contacted by only 2 reporters at relatively small media outlets. I’d say that the lack of interest in a politician coming after academics is surprising, but to be honest, pretty much nothing surprises me in the climate debate anymore. Even so, there is simply no excuse for any reporter to repeat incorrect claims made about me, given how easy I am to find and just ask.

    The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me — I’ll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can’t imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: “when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there’s no reason to go on a witch hunt.”

    When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.

  88. Richard C (NZ) on March 3, 2015 at 7:05 pm said:

    From Laframboise article:

    Pachauri, the recently resigned chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has PR flaks and a legal team. What is his version of events? Here’s a quote from a Reuters news story:

    “His [Pachauri’s] lawyers have said his computer and mobile phone were hacked and that vested interests were maligning him because of his outspoken stand on global warming.”


    ‘Indian climate chief told to stay away from thinktank after harassment claim’

  89. Richard C (NZ) on May 6, 2015 at 2:30 pm said:

    ‘Media beats up Willie Soon, but turns a blind eye to EPA-funded researchers shilling for EPA’s biggest rule’

    Posted on May 5, 2015 by

    ‘EPA authors, media, miss $31 million dollar potential conflict of interest’

    Lord Monckton has filed a research misconduct complaint with Harvard University.

  90. Richard C (NZ) on September 30, 2015 at 9:35 am said:

    ‘A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics’

    By Judith Curry, Published September 28, 2015,

    “The demand by Senator Whitehouse and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science.

    ‘Perp-walking the climate skeptics’

    By Dave Neese, The Trentonian, Posted: 09/27/15,

    “Maybe this reflects the low status to which smug, lockstep liberalism has sunk in the muck of its own ideological catechism.”

    ‘Vermont climate scientist wants RICO prosecutions of climate change opponents’

    By Bruce Parker / September 24, 2015 /

    Alan Betts, a leading climate scientist from Pittsford, is among the letter’s signatories. Betts told Vermont Watchdog he believes opposition to man-made climate change involves organizational deceit worth investigating. “Bring them to court and make them face up,” Betts said. “

    Walter Olson, senior fellow at the CATO Center for Constitutional Studies, and an expert on RICO, said Betts and the other researchers are undermining their own profession. “They are playing with dynamite as far as freedom of science goes,” Olson told Vermont Watchdog. “If science is to be free, if intellectual life is to be free, people have to be given leeway to say things that other people are going to believe are wrong or not objective.”

  91. Richard C (NZ) on September 30, 2015 at 9:43 am said:

    Listen: Warmist Thom Hartmann asks Skeptic: ‘Why should you not be in jail?’ ‘You are killing people.’ Blames skepticism for ‘dead children’ ‘I am calling you a criminal’

    Nationally syndicated radio host Hartmann debated with CFACT Climate Skeptic Paul Driessen on September 21, 2015. The heading on Hartmann’s website is ‘Climate Change Deniers Should Be In Prison’

    Hartmann to Driessen: ‘You are paid to lie to people.’

    ‘I am talking about racketeering, organized crime. I am calling you a criminal.’

    Driessen talks of why he is skeptical and Hartmann responds: ‘That’s what you should be in jail for’ – ‘You are killing people.’ – ‘You have five million climate refugees.’

    ‘Dead children — you’re responsibility.’ – ‘It’s all the consequence of climate change.’

  92. Richard C (NZ) on September 30, 2015 at 9:57 am said:

    ‘Climate alarmists want us prosecuted under RICO’

    Written by Paul Driessen, 29 September 2015.

    “This RICO travesty shows how desperate alarmists have become. They are losing the climate science fight. Their models are increasingly contradicted by reality. Their ad hominem attacks will ultimately fail.”

  93. Richard C (NZ) on September 30, 2015 at 3:35 pm said:

    ‘The ‘RICO 20 letter’ to Obama asking for prosecution of climate skeptics disappears from Shukla’s IGES website amid financial concerns’

    Anthony Watts / September 29, 2015

    “Uh, oh…It’s about to become more about the people behind the letter, than the letter itself.”

  94. Richard C (NZ) on October 1, 2015 at 8:58 am said:

    ‘MYSTERY: Scientists Remove Letter Asking Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics’

    Michael Bastasch, 09/29/2015

    ‘Backfire on the #RICO20 and Jagadish Shukla is imminent; wagon circling, climbdown, dissolution begins’

    Anthony Watts / September 30, 2015

  95. Richard C (NZ) on October 1, 2015 at 9:20 am said:

    #RICO20 $4 million NSF grant while Shukla’s organization is being “dissolved” ?

    Anthony Watts / September 30, 2015

    …and so far, that four million dollar plus NSF grant has produced only one paper. From the NSF grant page:

    Badger, A. M., and P. A. Dirmeyer. “Climate response to Amazon forest replacement by heterogeneous crop cover.,” Hydrol. Earth Sys. Sci., v.12, 2015, p. 879.

    ‘Shukla’s Gold’

    by Steve McIntyre, Sep 28, 2015

  96. Richard C (NZ) on October 2, 2015 at 9:27 am said:

    ‘Uh, oh. Jagdish Shukla and the #RICO20 has captured the attention of Congress, and FOIA documents are coming out’

    Anthony Watts / October 1, 2015

  97. Richard C (NZ) on October 3, 2015 at 6:56 am said:

    ‘Jagdish Shukla’s #RICO20 blunder may have opened the ‘largest science scandal in US history’’

    Anthony Watts / October 2, 2015

  98. Richard C (NZ) on November 20, 2015 at 12:53 pm said:

    Whistleblowers Claim NOAA Rushed Contentious ‘Pause’ Buster Study Despite Reservations

    Links to Washington Post article below.

    Congressman now threatens to subpoena commerce secretary over global warming report

  99. Richard C (NZ) on December 10, 2015 at 10:33 am said:

    BREAKING: Greenpeace co-founder reports Greenpeace to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes

    By Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. December 8, 2015

    ‘Quote of the Week: Dr. Will Happer’s blowback to Greenpeace during ambush at Senate hearing today’

    “You son of a bitch, I haven’t taken a dime.”

    And the article Greenpeace wanted from their “undercover investigation”:

    ‘Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science’

    Suzanne Goldenburg

  100. Richard C (NZ) on January 13, 2016 at 9:42 am said:

    ‘Lewandowsky’s Psychological Science publishing hoax reaches the media’

    Anthony Watts / 3 hours ago January 12, 2016

    From Paul Matthew’s Climate Scepticism blog:

    Yesterday this story appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald [hotlink – see below]. As far as I am aware this is the first time it has appeared in the mainstream media. Kudos to their reporter Paul Sheehan, and also to the Quillette magazine forwriting about it in December, and Lee Jussim for giving a talk about it at an academic meeting on social psychology.

    ‘Distorted universities need a reality check’

    January 10, 2016 by Paul Sheehan Sydney Morning Herald columnist

    Cultural sensitivity is turning into a victory for ideology over objectivity


    My favourite example, which encapsulates all of the above, was provided by Dr Lee Jussim, a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University in the US. He dissected a paper published by a respected journal, Psychological Science, in 2013, and found that it was rubbish, and probably published because the journal’s editors shared the ideological bias of the article’s conclusion.

    The paper was entitled “NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax”. The abstract of the study states: “Endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science … This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.”

    Note the term “conspiracist ideation”. The English language is being brutalised in the social sciences to create a false sense of rigour.

    When Jussim checked the data, he found that of the 1145 participants in the study, only 10 thought the moon landing was a hoax. Of those who thought climate science was a hoax, almost all of them, 97.8 per cent, did NOT think the moon landing was a hoax.

    The social psychologists who conducted the study had disguised the data and smothered it under a layer of obfuscation. No peer reviewer or journal editor took the time to check the raw data. Instead, the paper was published because it buttressed a pervasive ideological bias in the field.

  101. Richard C (NZ) on April 18, 2016 at 10:03 pm said:

    ‘Emails reveal NY AG Schneiderman. other AG’s colluding with Al Gore and greens to investigate climate skeptics’

    By colluding they have may have committed a federal crime:

    ‘Dear attorneys general, conspiring against free speech is a crime’

    Glenn Harlan Reynolds, April 11, 2016

    Liberal law enforcers shouldn’t break the law to shut up climate change dissenters.

    Federal law makes it a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).”

    I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute. Because what they’re doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don’t agree with. They should look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, I am sure they each have it somewhere in their offices.


    This could all backfire badly on Schneiderman, Walker, Harris, and Gore.

  102. Richard C (NZ) on April 19, 2016 at 10:16 am said:

    New York AG Tried To Cover Up Activist Involvement In Exxon Probe

    Left-wing activists spent years planning climate investigations
    New York AG launches climate investigation, takes fire

    “Smoke & Fumes,” Part Deux: Exxon Knew “The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”

    “So, way back in 1963, the entire oil industry knew exactly what we know today: The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”

  103. Richard C (NZ) on April 19, 2016 at 11:34 am said:

    ‘A Climategate-like bombshell: State Attorney Generals colluded with Green groups to punish political opponents’

    by Chris Horner, April 18, 2016


    In the end, it seems the only parties that may be breaking the law are those colluding AGs in their scheme to silence political opposition, while seeking funds for their preferred policy agenda. It is they who need to come clean.

    CLICK HERE TO READ THE EMAILS [hotlink – see below]

    Chris Horner is an attorney in Washington, D.C. who obtained the email records for the Energy & Environment Legal Institute. He is also a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    AG collusion emails:

  104. Richard C (NZ) on April 19, 2016 at 12:19 pm said:

    ‘Al Gore and State Attorney Generals start another climate witch hunt (Update: schism develops)’


    UPDATE: all is not well in Goreville

    Democratic Attorneys General Refuse to Join Rockefeller-Backed Climate Investigation

    3:03pm EDT March 29, 2016

    by Steve Everley , Dallas, Tex.

    A press conference today featuring Al Gore and more than a dozen state attorneys general was expected to reveal new state-level investigations of U.S. energy companies regarding climate change. But the vast majority of AGs standing on stage refused to join such an effort, signaling a lack of interest in wasting their own states’ resources.

    Last year, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that he had launched an investigation into fossil fuel companies regarding what the New York Times called “possible climate change lies.” The investigation was based entirely on a series of controversial articles written by researchers at the Columbia School of Journalism and InsideClimate News, which selectively pulled statements from company documents to suggest Exxon Mobil’s public policy advocacy was inconsistent with its own research.

    Unsurprisingly, environmental activists embraced the articles, and even began an online campaign – complete with the hash tag #ExxonKnew on Twitter – to pressure state and federal officials to launch investigations into so-called “climate denial.” To date, they have succeeded in convincing Schneiderman as well as the attorneys general for California and Massachusetts.

    But Democratic attorneys general from New Mexico, Washington, D.C., Rhode Island, Maine, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, and Vermont – all of whom stood on the stage next to Al Gore today – refused to announce that they would be launching their own investigations. In fact, reporters covering the event struggled to find much of anything new in what the officials were promising. The Huffington Post even conceded that the AGs “were vague on what exactly they have planned.”

    Editorial boards across the country have criticized the #ExxonKnew campaign as an attempt to “stamp out all disagreement,” while also worrying about the legal precedent of pursuing “criminal penalties over those involved in a scientific debate.” An editorial from Bloomberg News called Schneiderman’s investigation a “dangerous arrogation of power.”

    Legal experts have also questioned the merits of New York’s investigation. John Coffee, a law professor at Columbia University, told the New York Times that a “leading obstacle [to a conviction] would be the First Amendment, as climate change is a matter of robust public debate.”

    Paying for Media, Policy Outcomes

    Although Schneiderman’s office contends the investigation is based on allegations of “fraud,” one of the groups who funded the research underpinning Schneiderman’s investigation – the Rockefeller Family Fund – admitted last week that their funding of non-profit news entities, including Columbia and InsideClimate News, was geared toward achieving “better climate policy.”

    WSJ Confirms Collusion Behind #ExxonKnew

    The new campaign’s goals include “to establish in public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm,”

  105. Richard C (NZ) on April 20, 2016 at 4:06 pm said:

    The Exxon Climate Papers

    by Andy May (or West?)


    I’ve reviewed the 22 internal documents from 1977 to 1989 made available by ExxonMobil here. I’ve also reviewed what I could find on 104 publications (most are peer-reviewed) with ExxonMobil personnel as authors or co-authors. For some of the peer-reviewed articles I only had an abstract and for some I could find the reference but no abstract or text without paying a fee. Below this short essay is an annotated bibliography of all 22 internal documents and 89 of the published papers. The documents are interesting reading, they fill in the history of modern climate science very well. Much of the current debate on climate change was being debated in the same way, and often with the same uncertainties, in 1977.

    Between 1977 and the fifth IPCC report in 2013 ExxonMobil Corporate Research in New Jersey investigated the effect of increasing CO2 on climate. If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Further, if they found any definitive evidence of an impending man-made climate catastrophe, I didn’t see it. The climate researchers at ExxonMobil participated in the second, third, fourth and fifth IPCC assessment reports making major contributions in mapping the carbon cycle and in climate modeling. They calculated the potential impact of man-made CO2 in several publications. They investigated methods of sequestering CO2 and adapting to climate change. They also investigated several potential biofuels.

    The internal documents are generally summaries of published work by outside researchers. Some of the documents are notes from climate conferences or meetings with the DOE (Department of Energy). For many of the internal documents one has to read carefully to separate what is being said by the writer and what he is reporting from outside research. Exxon (and later ExxonMobil) did some original research, particularly making ocean and atmospheric measurements of CO2 from their tankers. But, most of what they produced was by funding research at Columbia University or the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. All of their internal research and the work at Columbia was published as far as I can tell, so it is difficult to accuse them of hiding anything from the public or shareholders.

    At the heart of Schneiderman’s accusation, according to the NY Times, is a list of statements made by ExxonMobil executives that he believes contradict the internal memos summarized below. The statements are reported here. In fact, the internal memos and documents listed below, do not contradict the ExxonMobil executives in any way. The internal documents and publications all clearly describe the considerable uncertainties in climate science and align with the executives’ statements. Go to the link to see all of them, two of the most notable are quoted below:


  106. Richard C (NZ) on April 21, 2016 at 3:28 pm said:

    CEI Strikes Back At Unlawful Subpoena
    Objection filed in response to blatant attack on First Amendment rights

    Letter to Attorney General Walker from CEI’s Lawyers:

    Objections of Competitive Enterprise Institute to Subpoena Issued by United States Virgin Islands Office of Attorney General

  107. Richard C (NZ) on May 20, 2016 at 6:04 pm said:

    State Officials Investigated Over Their Inquiry Into Exxon Mobil’s Climate Change Research

    By JOHN SCHWARTZMAY 19, 2016

    Since last November, a growing number of state attorneys general have been pointing their fingers at Exxon Mobil, investigating whether the energy company’s research about climate change conflicted directly with its public statements on the issue.

    But now the accusers are being accused, with a battle being waged over principles of free speech, government overreach and collaboration with activist organizations.

    Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, sent a letter on Wednesday to the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, demanding all communications since 2012 between his office and climate change activist organizations.

    The attorneys general, Mr. Smith said, are doing the bidding of environmental activists who set out to make pariahs of Exxon Mobil and its industry in pursuit of policies to limit climate change.

    Those activists and the attorneys general, Mr. Smith said in the letter, have secretly collaborated in the years since a two-day workshop in 2012 “to act under the color of law to persuade attorneys general to use their prosecutorial powers to stifle scientific discourse, intimidate private entities and individuals, and deprive them of their First Amendment rights and freedoms.”


  108. Richard C (NZ) on May 20, 2016 at 6:41 pm said:


    CEI sponsored a full-page advertisement in The New York Times highlighting abusive efforts by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and a coalition of other “AGs United for Clean Power” to silence the speech of more than 100 businesses, nonprofits, and private individuals who question the AGs’ positions on climate change. Published as an open letter, the ad features signatures from 43 organizations, legal experts, and individuals who value Americans’ First Amendment rights and believe they should be protected.

    See ad, text, links etc >>>>>>

  109. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2016 at 7:42 am said:

    Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’

    By Kenneth Richard on 13. September 2016

    Massive Cover-Up Exposed: Lying Alarmists Rebranded 70s Global Cooling Scare as a Myth

    by James Delingpole 14 Sep 2016

Comment navigation


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *