by Christopher Monckton
Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’
The man who challenged Al Gore to a debate is furious about the content of the leaked CRU emails — and says why you should be, too.
This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.
The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.
Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset — the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.
Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.
I am angry, and so should you be.
What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really.
No, they’re not. They’re criminals. With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute. But I won’t be holding my breath: In the police state that Britain has now sadly become, with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.
At our expense, and at the expense of the truth.
By Christopher Booker
The devastating book which debunks climate change
Just imagine if we learned we were about to be landed with the biggest bill in the history of the world – simply on the say-so of a group of scientists. Would we not want to be absolutely sure that those scientists were 100 per cent dependable in what they were saying?
Should we not then be extremely worried – and even very angry – if it emerged that those scientists had been conspiring among themselves to fiddle the evidence for what they were telling us?
This is the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves thanks to news reported in Saturday’s Daily Mail which has raised huge question marks over the reliability of the science behind the theory of global warming.
Hundreds of emails leaked from the internal computer system of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia show how a small group of highly influential senior British and U.S. scientists have for years been secretly discussing ways in which their evidence could be manipulated to make the threat posed by global warming sound much worse than it is.
To place the significance of these revelations into context, let us recall how exactly a year ago, Parliament passed, virtually unopposed, what was far and away the most expensive new law ever put before it. On the Government’s own figures, the Climate Change Act is going to cost Britain £18 billion a year – that’s £720 for every household in the country – every year from now until 2050.
We shall be paying this through soaring ‘green taxes’ on everything from air travel to the £3,300 tax being proposed on each new car; through rocketing fuel bills to subsidise thousands more wind turbines and to pay for removing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations.
In fact, the true cost of the act, if complied with to the letter, would certainly be far higher, because what it lays down is that, over the next 40 years, we must cut our emissions of carbon dioxide by over 80 per cent.
Pretty well every aspect of our lives in today’s industrialised society involves emitting carbon dioxide – and short of some technological revolution as yet undreamed of, the only way we could meet that target would be to close almost every part of our economy. Yet, astonishingly, scarcely a single MP even questioned the need for such a law; only three voted against it.
I recently published a book on what I have no hesitation in calling the most alarming story I have ever reported in all my years as a journalist.
This is the story of how the belief that the world has to fight the threat of global warming has crept to the top of the political agenda, to the point where, not just in Britain but across the world, governments are solemnly discussing by far the most costly series of measures any bunch of politicians has proposed.
This is what they will all be discussing at next month’s great UN conference, when 20,000 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists from all over the world gather in Copenhagen to discuss a new treaty to decide just what measures we shall all have to accept to keep the supposed threat of global warming at bay.
We all know the basic thesis: that thanks to mankind burning fossil fuels, the world’s temperatures are hurtling upwards, and that unless the most drastic action is taken, we can look forward to an unprecedented global catastrophe – droughts, hurricanes, killer heatwaves, melting icecaps, sea levels rising to the point where many of the world’s major cities are submerged.
All this is what has been predicted by the expensive computer models relied on by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC), which the politicians tell us we must trust as the ultimate source of authority on the future of the world’s climate.
On every side we are told that ‘the science is settled’, that ‘2,500 of the world’s top climate scientists’ agree that these terrifying predictions will all come true unless we take the most drastic action. So carried away have they all been by this belief that scarcely a single politician dares question it.
Yet the oddest thing which has become increasingly evident in the past year or two is the fact that almost none of these things is happening, certainly not in the way those computer models have been predicting. Although carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, temperatures have not been rising in the way the computer models all agree they should have done.
In the past decade, the overall trend of temperatures has been not upwards, but down.
The hard evidence tells us that there have actually been fewer major droughts, hurricanes and heatwaves in recent years than there were in earlier decades.
There is no less ice at the Earth’s poles today than there was 30 years ago. Sea levels may have been rising very slowly, but no faster than they have been for 200 years.
In other words, as a growing army of genuine experts across the world has been trying to tell us, there is not a single item on the list of apocalyptic predictions we have been fed for so long by the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore which is not being called into question by what is actually happening to the world’s climate.
The scientists who have been challenging almost every aspect of the official theory on global warming have ranged from world-ranking physicists such as Professor Richard Lindzen, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Professors Will Happer and Freeman Dyson of Princeton University, to 700 scientists of many disciplines.
These include Nobel Prize-winners and former contributors to the IPCC, who signed a ‘minority report’ of the U.S. Senate’s environment committee.
It is beginning to look as though the panic over global warming, which has our politicians so in its grip, may have been no more than a colossal scare story – to line up alongside all those other scares which have raced in and out of the headlines in recent decades, such as the ‘Millennium Bug’, which at midnight on December 31, 1999, was going to crash the world’s computers.
So the real question which arises from this most terrifying of all scare scenarios is: why did the world’s politicians get swept along by it?
One of the more suspicious features of the man-made global warming theory is precisely this extraordinary pressure, which has been built up to insist the evidence for it is so overwhelming that it is a moral crime to question it.
For several years, anyone daring to doubt the theory – not least some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – has been vilified as a ‘denier’, to be compared with those who try to deny the historical reality of Hitler’s Holocaust.
Al Gore was one of the first to condemn as ‘flat earthers’ anyone who was sceptical of his reckless scaremongering, likening such people to the cranks who believe the Moon landings were all somehow ‘faked on a movie lot in Arizona’ (delightfully, among the scientists who have come out as ‘climate sceptics’ are two of the U.S. astronauts who did land on the Moon, Dr Buzz Aldrin and Dr Jack Schmitt).
In the scientific world, notably in the U.S. and Europe, it has long been a major scandal that those daring to doubt the official orthodoxy on global warming face ostracism from their academic colleagues, have had research funding withdrawn and have not been allowed to publish their papers in the leading scientific journals.
But equally suspicious has been the way the advocates of the warming orthodoxy have been repeatedly shown to have fiddled the scientific evidence being used to promote it.
The most notorious example of this was the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph, which for years was brandished to show that, after flat-lining for 1,000 years, global temperatures had suddenly soared upwards in the late 20th century to levels never known before in recorded history.
The hockey stick was used by the IPCC and Gore as the supreme icon of their cause. Then, two statisticians revealed that the graph had been created by a computer model programmed to produce hockey stick shapes whatever data were fed into it.
And now come these leaked emails showing that the very scientists who were responsible for championing the hockey stick – all at the heart of the IPCC establishment – have been regularly discussing how the evidence could be manipulated to promote their cause.
The greatest myth of all in this story is the claim that the succession of alarmist reports produced by the IPCC represents a ‘consensus’ of the views of ‘2,500 of the world’s top climate scientists’.
In every way, this is wildly misleading. The vast majority of those who contribute to those IPCC reports are not climate scientists. Many are not scientists at all, but economists or sociologists – even just environmental activists with no scientific qualifications whatever.
The IPCC was never intended to be an impartial body, weighing the evidence for and against man-made global warming and coming up with objective conclusions.
It was set up by a small group of scientists already so firmly committed to the belief in ‘human-induced climate change’ that they were not prepared to examine any evidence which contradicted it.
A detailed study of the contributors to the most recent IPCC report has shown that the number of scientists responsible for the key chapter on the extent and causes of global warming – on which everything else in the report depended – was not 2,500, but barely 50.
Almost all this handful of scientists were firmly committed to the official view on global warming before they were appointed – and they include those whose leaked emails have now created a shock wave running around the world.
Tellingly, what they also all have in common is that their findings are based on computer models programmed to assume the chief cause of global warming is the rise in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
It is precisely this assumption which more than anything else has been called into question by the fact that global temperatures have not been continuing to rise as the computer models insisted they should.
Even some of the most committed scientific supporters of the global warming theory now admit the warming process has come to a halt – although they insist that in a decade or two it will re- emerge again stronger than ever.
The fact remains that the models on which the whole global warming panic was based have been proved dismally wrong, suggesting that the theory on which they were programmed may itself have been fundamentally flawed.
Yet on this basis, the world’s politicians, led by our own in Britain, are nevertheless proposing the most damaging measures ever put forward in history – cuts in carbon emission which, if implemented, would plunge our world back into the Dark Ages – to meet a crisis which it now seems was never going to happen anyway.
Before it is too late, we must insist our politicians re- examine the increasingly shaky scientific case on which all those proposals are based.
For nearly 20 years, from Al Gore to President Obama, they have been intoning to us that ‘the science is settled’. But as ever more scientists from outside the IPCC’s self- selected ‘magic circle’ now maintain, it has never been more obvious that this simply isn’t true.
No one has put this better than Professor Lindzen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, when he wrote: ‘Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st-century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections contemplated a roll-back of the industrial age.’
With the entire future of our civilisation at stake, it is no longer good enough for our politicians just to shout ‘deniers’ and ‘flat earthers’ at all those genuinely expert scientists now begging them to look properly at the evidence. They must be prepared to listen – and, for the sake of our planet, to think again.
By Louise Gray
Climate change ‘sceptic’ Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing global warming
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes and is not responsible for climate change, a scientist has claimed.
Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist from Adelaide University, argues that a recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles and other “extra terrestrial” forces.
He said carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, widely blamed for global warming, is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes erupting.
“We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes,” he said. “It is a normal element cycled around in the earth and my science, which is looking back in time, is saying we have had a planet that has been a green, warm wet planet 80 per cent of the time. We have had huge climate change in the past and to think the very slight variations we measure today are the result of our life – we really have to put ice blocks in our drinks.”
Most mainstream scientists agree that the recent warming period was caused by an increase in carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution.
However Prof Plimer said the world has experienced three periods of cooling since 1850 and furthermore carbon dioxide was increasing during many of those cooler periods.
“If we had only had warming, then there would be a connect between co2 and temperature, there is not,” he added.
Prof Plimer has come under attack as a “denialist poster boy” whose theories are in danger of stopping the world from tackling the grave dangers of climate change.
But he said the scientists “frightening people witless by following the party line” are motivated by politics and research funding.
“They are taking advantage of the current situation. That is understandable. In previous times people got wonderful research grants in a war against cancer and they achieved a lot of money for that. Now we have a war on climate change and we have a huge number of people out there who have their career staked on it and are beneficiaries of this process.”
Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, said it is widely accepted that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has doubled in the last 200 years and as a result the globe is warming.
She said there are “natural variations” in temperature caused by the weather as well as natural phenomenon like El Nino and human effects like pollution, but overall the climate has been getting hotter and has reached its warmest period in recent years.
“The basic physics is that if carbon dioxide increases then the temperature goes up,” she said.
A number of “climate change sceptics” will be giving talks in the run up to a key UN Summit in Copenhagen in December when the world is expected to agree an international deal to stop global warming.