As I mentioned the Times and The Telegraph on the weekend covered Climategate in some way, both with full pages devoted to the topic. Of the two, The Times was certainly more hard-hitting.
Presumably the high priests of global warming had a word with the Times, because they have since had two front pages 'saying what they are told' on global warming. The latest is quite funny:
Sea levels will rise by twice as much as previously predicted as a result ofIt does sound bit like SPECTRE to me. Do you think Al Gore is the Dr No, or is it someone else? Unfortunate the Times couldn't resist asking for a second opinion, something of which its minders would surely have disapproved.
global warming, an
important international study has concluded.
SCAR, a partnership of 35 of the world’s leading climate research
institutions, made the prediction in the report Antarctic Climate Change
“It’s 50cm, 60cm, 100cm — 60m if you ask James Hansen from Nasa,” said BennyIndeed. It may be a while before we start seeing stories about the global warming hoax on the front page of the Times. We live in hope.
Peiser, director of the Global
Warming Policy Foundation . “The predictions come in thick and fast, but
we take them all with a pinch of salt. We look out of the window and it’s
very cold, it doesn’t seem to be warming. We’re very concerned that 100-year
policies are being made on the basis of these predictions”
The comments on that article (250 of them) are quite funny. Take a read if you have time:
Dodgy data piled on top of more dodgy data. I know they are all trying
to get their bit of publicity ahead of Copenhagen but this is becoming
Think of a number, any number, now write it on a piece of paper, place
it in an envelope .............. now apply for a grant to investigate
global warming and wait for the cheque to arrive ...... don't apply for
a grant to investigate global cooling, you won't get one.
Climate Change is Mann made.
"Sea levels will rise by twice as much as previously predicted..."Doesn't
that statement in itself prove a total lack of science involved to
date? 'Oops, we now think it's double the amount we wrongly thought in
the first place'. The gloom-and-doom scenarios keep hitting us hard and
fast, with random projections thrown in with seeming nonchalance. No
doubt this gem will be repeated, mantra-like, at the upcoming
I make a prediction with 100% certainty: these
flimsy, convenient, unverified, apocalyptic, fear-inducing, tax-raising
statements will never stop.
Meanwhile, other than having a moan on The Times, I'm going to carry on living my life like a human being, not like a bloody puppet riding on the meandering and misdirected Green bandwagon.
Oh, and by the way, if the Earth's climate has always changed in the past why do we humans think we can prevent it from changing in the future?
Sounds like religion to me. The less evidence you have the scarier the predicted consequences of not following the required behaviour have to be.
The evidence took a big hit from the leaked computer code so they are choosing a new scenario with larger predicted risks. In another couple of years they will have us burning for eternity if we don't pay their taxes.
But at last we seem to have a daily willing to stick it's neck out. The Daily Express (daily circulation 700k) leads today with a headline that reports a talk made by an Australian academic in London yesterday. Good on them. I was sick of the Times anyway.
Re the Telegraph, you should read James Dilngpole here.
And if you enjoy a good story, try this from Lond Monckton:
The unnamed hero of ‘Climategate’, after months of work gathering emails, computer code, and data, quietly sent a 61-megabyte compressed file from one of the university’s servers to an obscure public message-board on the internet, with a short covering note to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret, and that the data from the University would be available for a short time only.
He had caught the world’s politico-scientific establishment green-handed. Yet his first attempts to reveal the highly-profitable fraud and systematic corruption at the very heart of the UN’s climate panel and among the scientists most prominent in influencing it’s prejudiced and absurdly doom-laden reports had failed. He had made the mistake of sending the data-file to the mainstream news media, which had also profited for decades by fostering the “global warming” scare, and by generally denying anyone who disagreed with the official viewpoint any platform.