A Place to Stand

The BBC Newsnight have actually reported this fraud & I have to admit the video which is (or was earlier) available here is well balanced.

I commented on Mark Wadsworth, from which this is taken

That is a a good piece from Newsnight. It has always been apparent that Paxman didn't believe the warming scam but knew which side his bread was buttered having produced this sarcasm -

“I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.”
Jeremy Paxman, BBC "news" presenter

Clearly he has recognised change in the wind. Nonetheless the BBC use Newsnight, which has a very small audience, to put out inconvenient facts while the popular news programmes were doing a puff piece on George Osborne's commitment to alarmism. They did the same when they put their only report on the way NATO police had been allowed to dissect Serbs, while alive, to sell the body parts to our hospitals. Until it is getting EXTENSIVE coverage on the 10 o'clock news we are still seeing censorship.

Channel 4 also had a quick mention 18 mins & 18 seconds inasking an alarmist scientist about it & for balance, agreeing with him.

Much more credibly Andrew Neil had a real debate with Professor Singer V Bob Watson. Andrew Neil recently chaired questions at a lecture by Ian Plimer at which he acted professionally & presumably understands what is going on.

In the rest of the media George Moonbat, the Guardian's standard bearer on all things eco-fascist has said

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

... But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But we should beware of warming alarmists bearing gifts & this article, headed "The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a very different order to justify sceptics' claims" looks like a damage limitation exercise in which Professor Jones is to be amputated to stop the bleeding. "They damage the credibility of three or four scientists" which is less than some single emails, having more than 3 recipients, do. He then says what, to him, would be required to prove warming a scam & it is essentially the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with Jews changed to alarmists. Obviously & presumably coincidentally (?) he is setting up the same straw man that Realclimate did when they said "There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords". Personally I find the protocols a bit overdone & would be suspicious of such an absolute confession but I am not Moonbat.

Elsewhere Lord Lawson, the one British politician who has an unblemished record on alarmism, has called for an enquiry on this. I have some doubts on this since government enquiries are usually ways to firstly defuse damaging stories until they have gone away & secondly a way to apply whitewash (see the Hutton enquiry on Iraq or the one on the Scottish Parliament scandal). It also seems to me that a very good enquiry is going on online without any need for "assistance" from elderly but respectable judges. A criminal investigation of what is palpably fraud in which all involved, including the politicians who were paymasters here, would be desirable but that is very different from a government enquiry.

By coincidence Lord Lawson has also announced the formation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is unique. We are an all-party and non-party think-tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated. On the eve of the UN climate change conference at Copenhagen, designed to secure agreement on such policies, this has become particularly timely.

Through our website www.thegwpf.org and in other ways, we shall be subjecting both the claims of the damage that might be caused by any future warming, and the costs and consequences of alternative policies that might be put in place, to dispassionate analysis based on hard evidence and economic rigour. We are in no sense 'anti-environmental'. There is a wide range of important environmental issues, which call for an equally wide range of policy responses. Our concern is solely with the possible effects of any future global warming and the policy responses that may evoke. But we are also aware of the curse of world poverty, and of the crucial importance of growth and economic development in the poorer countries of the world as the only serious means of alleviating it.

The Foundation is headed by its Director, Dr Benny Peiser, who founded (in 1997) and continues to edit the world's leading climate policy network

PS I have put a comment on the Guardian saying this & adding "Incidentally George says "Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life". A couple of years ago a Guardian journalist fronted an hoax designed to take in the sceptical community & prove their credulity. In this it abjectly failed being rumbled within minutes. Compare & contrast the many years repeated frauds by Mann & co have been accepted by alarmists. Would it be possible for Monbiot, or indeed the Guardian as a whole, with their newfound understand of fraud, to make an educated guess as to who the people that Guardian journalists is fronting fraud for are?". In the best traditions of that fakenewspaper i expect it to be censored but will let you know if it isn't or even if the guardian acknowledge its deletion.

Labels: eco-fascism, global warming, Media