Wolf Howling: Hadley

Showing posts with label Hadley. Show all posts

Friday, December 18, 2009

Climategate Update 24: Watermelons, A Message From God?, Carbon Trading Scam, Follow The Money,

IF there is any doubt that greens are true watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside, listen to Hugo Chavez condemn capitalism to great applause at the IPCC meeting in Copenhagen.

While outside, it was a reverse watermelon, with the red being worn on the outside.

Meanwhile, if you want proof of the existence of God, just look to Copenhagen. As the IPCC conference goes into its final day while Gore et al try to convince us that global warming is real and a hot catastrophe is just around the corner, a blizzard is going on outside:

World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.

“Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.” . . .

Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasn’t had a white Christmas for 14 years . . . and only had seven last century. Temperatures today fell as low as . . . 25 Fahrenheit.

Ace of Spades ponders whether God may be trying to give all of us - and in particular the Goracle - a message? Could it be that bit about "Thou shall have no other God . . ."

At any rate, this led Ace to do a riff on the arguments for and against the existence of God from the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy:

The pratical upshot of all this is that is that wherever Albert Arnold Gore, Junior, chief evangelist for the Cult of the Virgin Gaia, goes, spreading his Gospel of a rapidly-warming earth, the weather suddenly takes an intense turn to the frigid and starts dumping snow on every SUV and private jet in his carbon-throbbing vehicular entourage.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly ironic could happen, and continue happening, and happen and happen and happen and then happen again some more, purely by chance, and without some Divine Hand manipulating the cosmic weather machine, that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. . .

Heh. Do read the whole post.

The only thing standing in the way of a binding deal to soak the West and regulate carbon world-wide, all in the name of ~~world socialism~~ anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is, in what has to be the world's greatest irony in all of recorded history, communist China. The fact that the Chinese realize world socialism isin't such a great idea - since they practiced it in their own country until the death of Mao - ought to tell us all something. Amazing, isin't it, that the last stalwart defender of capitalism - and perhaps the savior of it if they remain firm - will be a communist country.

Interestingly enough, it was recently leaked that the UN IPCC's call for carbon reduction targets are insufficient to ward off their own most likely scenarios for catastrophe. If that is the case, then the primary motivaters at the Copenhagen conference must be something other than saving Gaia at all costs.

There are certainly many vested interests driving Copenhagen - and their motivations all boild down to power and money. As to the latter, the rent-seekers stand to profit immensely from carbon regulation and the global carbon trading scheme. That scheme is threatened if a new deal is not put in place tomorrow. At least one outlet is saying that the grand bargain today will be a deal to keep Kyoto in place amongst the signatories and add a non-binding agreement for non-signatories, such as the U.S. As EU Referendum points out, such a deal will keep the carbon trading scheme alive:

[T]he deal is that the Kyoto Protocol is saved – which is what all the fuss was really about. That safeguards the carbon market and opens the way for it to expand to the $2-trillion level by the year 2020. Against that, even €100 billion is chump-change - you can buy countries with that sort of money.

Their deal in place, the kleptocrats and the Corporatocracy can go away happy and plan how to spend all their ill-gotten gains, leaving the leaders to grandstand, make their deals, shake hands and strut through their photo-sessions before jetting off in olumes of "carbon" to be greeted as saviours by their underwhelmed peoples.

As for saving the planet, well no-one really believes that greenie shit anyway ... except the greenies, and they don't matter. There is plenty of pepper spray left and no shortage of temporary detention space. Now that the money men have got what they came for, all the rest is theatre.

If one wanted to truly regulate carbon, then there would be a simple carbon tax, perhaps varied by industry and based on the ease with which the particular industry could regulate carbon output. Instead, there is the carbon trading scheme that is, one a massive distortion of free markets, and two, an invitation to fraud, corruption, and gamesmanship.

According to a recent PJM article, the Europeant carbon trading scheme (ETS) that went into effect five years ago has driven up energy prices in Europe by as much as 20% for the rank and file. It has proven a cesspool of fraud, with organized crime exploiting the interplay between carbon credits and the EU VAT tax system. And indeed, "Europol says that in some EU countries, up to 90 percent of the entire market volume is fraudulent." But probably the worst aspect of the ETS is how it has distorted the marketplace. This from PJM:

. . . For example, European steelmakers have threatened to leave the EU for India, eliminating the jobs of up to 90,000 European workers in the process, unless the EU grants the steelmakers free carbon credits worth hundreds of millions of euros. As a result, ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steel company, has gained windfall profits in the form of carbon credits worth nearly €1 billion, for which it paid nothing. By 2012, ArcelorMittal will have accumulated surplus permits for 80 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to the pollution generated annually by all of Denmark.

ArcelorMittal is now free to sell its surplus carbon credits on the market or to hoard them for future use. If it hangs on to them, the company will be able to avoid cutting greenhouse gas emissions possibly for decades, effectively undermining the ETS. According to Sandbag, a British NGO that campaigns to improve carbon trading, the EU’s ETS has been turned into “a system for generating free subsidies.”

Even Rajendra K Pachauri, who has been the chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, has been suspected of having a role in gaming the EU system to profit from the trade in carbon credits. The Mumbai-based Tata Group, an Indian multinational conglomerate which has business ties to Pachauri (who accepted the Nobel Peace Price on behalf of the IPCC (which it shared with Al Gore in 2007) for its work on global warming), may stand to make several hundred million euros in EU carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain. . . .

The WSJ expounds on the plant closing discussed in the above paragraph. That closing saw 1700 British workers loose their job and saw the plant moved to India - meaning that there was no reduction in carbon released into the atmosphere. Tata made a windfall. It would be hard to find any better example with which to indict the entire carbon trading morass. As the WSJ concludes:

To summarize: Cap and trade is a scheme that would impose heavy carbon taxes and allowances on U.S. industries, which would then have an incentive to move overseas themselves, or to sell those allowances to overseas companies that could use them to become more competitive against U.S. companies. Like the 1,700 Brits at Redcar, American workers would be the big losers.

If that is not market distortion on steroids, nothing is. And the people paying for it, in higher energy bills and lost jobs, are the rank and file.

The rent seekers won't be the only one's walking away from Copenhagen with their gravy train intact. The third world kleptocrats have a friend in the Obama administration, which, through Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, announced that the U.S. will take part in sending $100 billion a year to either the World Bank or the UN to distribute as they see fit to further the third world's fight against AGW. My ability to state all of the above without a single vulgarity has reduced to zero my reserve of self discipline. I will go Galt before I see a penny of my taxes to this socialist insanity.

Charlie Martin, writing at PJM, notes that, as more data is made public - even beyond the bombshell Russian reveleations of the other day - the more we are finding inexplicable anecdotes wherein AGW scientists have made large upward adjustments to raw temperatures that could not possibly be justified. These include:

- Radical and inexplicable adjustments to the temperature record for Central Park

- Darwin Zero (see here and here)

- The Keenan study comparing raw temperature data for Alaska to the "corrected, homogenized and cooked IPCC data the IPCC is using for Alaska

- Nashville, where Anthony Watts finds a slight 130 year cooling trend from the raw data that the IPCC has somehow turned into a warming trend.

- Antarctica, where the GHCN has removed inconvienient data points. Digging into it further, it became apparent that the GHCN based its homogonized and cooked warming ternd on a single station in Antarctica - Rothra Station - the one in a heat island that shows anamolous warming.

And as Joseph D'Aleo points out at PJM, it would appear that the adjusted data used by the CRA - that we now learn was cherry picked in Russia and, as we see in the examples above, tortured above - is virtually the exact same figures used by Hadley, NASA, amd GHCN. Further, he points out all the difficulties apparent in trying to determine "global" temperatures, not the least of which are major declines in the number of monitoring stations, incomplete data sets, and the use of the remaining stations to extrapolate temperatures of locations at great distance away - indeed, 1000 kilometers and more.

Bishop Hill looks at the revelations from Russia yesterday - that the IPCC and Hadley have cooked the Russian books to show AGW in that country where the data indicates none exists - from the standpoint of "gatekeeping. As he notes:

. . .at least some sceptics simply gave up trying to get their views published because they knew they could not get their findings past the gatekeepers. This demonstrates that the IPCC reports can never be anything other than biased. The scientific literature does not represent the collected knowledge mankind has about the climate. It represents the collected views of part of the climatological community.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Climatega Update 23: Hadley-Russian Surface Temp Fraud, Solar Activity & AGW, Driving Motivations At Copenhagen, Green Energy, & The Goracle's Prayer

In yet another major revelation, Russia's IEA is asserting that the UK's Hadley Center for Climate Research cherry picked - on a grand scale - Russian climatological data to show anthropogenic global warming (AGW) where none existed. This from a Russian news translation:

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

(emphasis added)

It further appears that Michael Mann was aware of this fraud and intervened to see that it went unreported. This from Watts Up With That, quoting one of the CRU e-mails from Mr. Mann:

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

And as Watts Up With That further comments on the Russian revelations:

Again the accusation is completely believable, yet is completely unverifiable because CRU has refused to release the data. This data and code release is the subject of illegal blocking of FOIA’s is one of the keys in the Climategate emials. We need to know the list of stations used and we must have copies of the raw data.

This is a very powerful accusation, which if true could change much about the climate science debate. Many papers are based on this dataset which has the highest trend of the major ground datasets.

As ever more revelations come out relating to Climategate, the goings on in Copenhagen seem ever more surreal. Stripped of trustworthy scientific underpinnings for AGW, both the machinations of the third world attendees to engineer a massive transfer of wealth, and the machinations of Gore and other rent seekers - not the least of them being multi-millionaire IPCC Chairman Rajendra Kumar Pachauri - to ride the carbon gravy train to massive wealth, are all laid bare. More on this from No Oil For Pacifists and EU Referendum, here, here and here.

I have blogged before that many believe that the sun is the 800 lbs gorilla when it comes to determining the earth's climate. We know from multiple sources that all of the IPCC computer models have proven fatally flawed. All predicted future warming concomitant with a rise in carbon. None predicted our current decade long period of global cooling that has occurred even as carbon levels have risen. In a recent article, a South African physicist, Dr. Kevin Kemm, expounded upon a Danish model programmed to vary the climate estimate based on solar activity - or lack thereof. This from Dr. Kemm:

a Danish research group led by Henrik Svensmark has found an exact match with the level of sun spot activity on our sun. What is more, the match is spot on over the period of the last 1 500 years.

This scientific mechanism actually fits the evidence!

What happens is that cosmic rays impinge on the Earth from outer space, and these rays produce clouds much like high-flying jets leaving contrails behind their engines.

More cloud means global cooling because not as much sunlight reaches the ground to warm it. Less cloud leads to global warming. The sun creates a magnetic bubble around the Earth, which acts as a shield to incoming cosmic rays, preventing some of them from reaching the Earth.

Many sun spots mean a stronger shield, thus less cloud cover and so global warming. Currently our sun is passing through a record period of no sun spot activity.

Politicians are suppressing this information. In Newsweek of November 16, in an interview promoting the use of renewable energy, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said: "But none of this (renewable energy use) is possible if the forces of climate change scepticism are allowed to undermine the prospect of global (carbon dioxide emissions) agreement." So Rudd wants a political agreement no matter what the scientific truth may be.

Emma Brindal, the climate justice campaigner for the green organisation Friends of the Earth, put the NGO in the same camp when she said: "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."

If you google "henrik svensmark sun" you will come up with a number of hits, such as this Discover interview with Mr. Svensmark discussing his theories and how he has been blacklisted by the AGW cabal. Isn't that a surprise. Here is an excerpt:

If the scientists at CLOUD are able to prove that cosmic rays can change Earth’s cloud cover, would that force climate scientists to reevaluate their ideas about global warming?

Definitely, because in the standard view of climate change, you think of clouds as a result of the climate that you have. Our idea reverses that, turns things completely upside down, saying that the climate is a result of how the clouds are.

How do you see your work fitting into the grand debates about the causes of global warming and the considerations of what ought to be done about it?

I think—no, I believe—that the sun has had an influence in the past and is changing climate at the present, and it most certainly will do so in the future. We live in a unique time in history, because this period has the highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years, and maybe even in 8,000 years. And we know that changes in solar activity have made significant changes in climate. For instance, we had the little ice age about 300 years ago. You had very few sunspots [markings on the face of the sun that indicate heightened solar activity] between 1650 and 1715, and for example, in Sweden in 1696, it caused the harvest to go wrong. People were starving—100,000 people died—and it was very desperate times, all coinciding with this very low solar activity. The last time we had high solar activity was during the medieval warming, which was when all of the cathedrals were built in Europe. And if you go 1,000 years back, you also had high solar activity, and that was when Rome was at its height. So I think there’s good evidence that these are significant changes that are happening naturally. If we are talking about the next century, there might be a human effect on climate change on top of that, but the natural effect from solar effect will be important. This should be recognized in the models and calculations that are being used to make predictions.

Why is there such resistance to doing that? Is the science that conflicted or confusing? Or is politics intervening?

I think it’s the latter, and I think it’s both. And I think there’s a fear that it will turn out, or that it would be suggested, that the man-made contribution is smaller than what you would expect if you look at CO2 alone.

Interestingly, while Mr. Svensmark's theories and work have been blacklisted by the AGW cabal, there is the below e-mail, appended as part of a larger e-mail dated 2 Oct. 2009 that was among the CRU tranche of e-mails made public two weeks ago:

Rodney Chilton maberrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Benny:

Recently, there has been considerable discussion concerning the slight cooling of the earth's overall climate since about 2005. The result of the cooling has brought some scientists into the forefront to be openly critical of the still prominent view that climate changes over the century or so have predominately been man caused. The proponents of human initiated climate changes are of the opinion that the recent cooling is but a temporary interruption in what soon again will be a rapid climate warming.

I think one of the keys to alleviate some of this discussion is to attempt to determine the triggers for two other climate shifts in earlier times. The first of these, the "Little Ice Age" is generally regarded by most scientists as resulting from a reduced output of energy from the sun. Coinciding as it did with an interval of very little to almost no sunspot activity, a time known as the "Maunder Minimum", many solar scientists suggest that as little as 0.25% decrease in solar output initiated this cold climate period. Similarily, during the mid 20th Century during the years from the end of the 1940's to about the mid 1970's, the sun was in one of its quiet modes (very few sunspots).

The cause for what was a slightly cooler interval could logically be linked to decreased energy from the sun. However, the quite recent thirty year period is more commonly linked to increased dust in the earth's atmosphere. Consistent with this view is the idea that perhaps the Little Ice Age too, was forced not by a decrease in the sun's output, but by an increase in dust, not that produced by man, but by extraterrestrial dust from a comet encounter. More details of this particular scenario can be seen at the following website:

http://www.bcclimate.com

All of this raises the questions, what drove both the Little Ice Age and the thirty year interval in the middle of the last century? It is possible that they were driven by the two different causes outlined. It is vital I think that the reason(s) for the two climate shifts be determined. This would go along way to settle the recent debate as to the importance of solar minima in initiating climate changes over more than just a few years. Further to this, the picture of the future will be clarified. If for example, decreases in solar output is proven to be of less importance during the past, then surely the present climate downturn will be likely only a temporary respite from the inexorable upward trend in temperatures worldwide. If on the other hand the solar cycles accompanied by low sun activity over decades and even longer can be proven as significant, then I believe we must re-examine the increased carbon dioxide scenario.

Rodney Chilton

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Climategate and Surrealism

Surreal
- adjective
. . . having the disorienting, hallucinatory quality of a dream; unreal; fantastic
Dictionary.com

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's annual conference is occurring next week in Copenhagen. Could anything be more surreal than Obama, blithely going to Copenhagen to announce that he will commit the U.S. to a massive, economy busting reduction in carbon dioxide in order to combat global warming just days after release of a massive tranche of e-mails, data and programs, all of which paint a picture of junk, manipulated and politicized “climate science.”

_____________________________________________________

The e-mails from East Anglia University's CRU, released publicly by someone last week ,have been a bomb thrown into the middle of the man-made global warming community (AGW) – albeit a silent bomb (thus raising the deeply philosophical question, if a tree containing climatologically significant tree ring data falls in a forest and the NYT pretends not to hear it, does it make a noise?)

The CRU tranche are proof of what many have posited for years. That is that the “science” behind the global warming juggernaut (or, as Mark Steyn called it, a tree ring circus) has been manipulated to the point of falsification.

Even absent the CRU tranche, it is beyond argument that the ever shriller cries of the AGW'istas have become ever more disconnected from reality. AGW posits that as carbon dioxide levels rise, global temperatures will rise. The problems with this theory are manifold. For example, all evidence indicates that the Medieval Warm Period, a period of minimal human contribution to global carbon dioxide, was hotter than today. We have had many periods of warming and cooling since then. Indeed, by the end of the "Little Cooling" that occurred from about 1940 to 1975, the dominant scientific scare was the return of an ice age.

And then there is the giant pink elephant in the room. For the last fifteen years, even while carbon dioxide levels have steadily risen, the earth has not seen a corresponding increase in temperature. To the contrary, there has actually been global cooling. Even before the release of the CRU data, we knew that not a single computer program relied by the AGW crowd to predict future catastrophe predicted this turn of events. In short, all of the AGW programs are fundamentally – and fatally – flawed. What the CRU tranche has done has been to turn well founded suspicion into verifiable reality. Indeed, to quote from a now public e-mail of the UN's lead IPCC scientist, Kevin Trenberth:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

I for one concur.

So how do the world's small clique of “top climate scientists” manage to keep alive the AGW canard that it is a consensus among scientists that man is causing global warming? Here is what is spelled out in the CRU tranche of e-mails:

- refuse to provide their raw data and computer code so that their findings can't be verified and tested (particularly galling, since that is what defines “science.” How the AGW crowd could get away with this for years is a strong indication that much of climate science” is utterly corrupt. It is good to hear calls throughout the scientific community for complete transparency in future climate research, such as this from Dr. Judith Curry - though if you read the comments, you will see a plethora of AGW ideologues disagreeing with her, claiming withholding such information is justified because otherwise the studies would be subject to countless attacks by "deniers.")

- manipulate data to minimize evidence of cooling and maximize, if not create out of whole cloth, warming trends;

- delete data and e-mails subject to Freedom of Information Act requests;

- blatantly corrupt the peer review process through cronyism (do read Mark Steyn's hilarious exposition on peer review and climate science)

- seek to prevent the publication of any “peer reviewed” articles calling AGW into question;

- conspire to remove journal editors who allowed publication of papers that questioned the "consensus” of AGW

- make scurrilous and ad hominem attacks on scientists who contest AGW; and,

- in all of this, they are supported by a vast conglomerate of European and American left wing politicians, left wing media, and rent seekers, all of whom have deeply vested interests in seeing AGW accepted as truth and acted upon in the policy sphere.

As James Lewis writes at PJM:

. . . The most important take home lesson is that global frauding was the clear and conscious work of a political machine aiming to steal your money, your liberties, and your country. It was a massive, worldwide attempt at a coup d’etat, and the victims were going to include all the free and prosperous peoples of the world. Hitler had his Reichstag fire. Today’s transnational left had its global warming fraud. The political goal was exactly the same: maximum power through maximum fear.

All of the above is evidence of a system and people corrupt at their core. But that said, the true smoking gun lies in the actual manipulation of the supposed objective data these individuals have published. It is on these numbers and extrapolations that these "scientists" have asked us, for years, to take on faith. But now, at least a part of their programs and raw data are now in the public domain. As A.J Strata explains:

As I suspected when this story broke, the minor problem for the AGW alarmists was dealing with the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. The big headache was the warm period prior to 1960, which we can see in the CRU data was equal to or higher than today. This warm period in the first half of the last century is a real problem for the theory of CO2 driven, man-made warming.

What we see time and time again is one of two ‘tricks’ used by the alarmists to exaggerate or manufacture runaway warming. One is the application of ‘corrections’ which shove down the pre 1960 warm periods and raise up the most recent temperatures (see here and here).

The other ‘trick’ is to cherry pick data that supports the AGW fiction and discard data that contradicts that meme. Over at WUWT Warwick Hughes (original link) has discovered another smoking gun, showing how CRU selected stations and only used post 1950 data to create their fictional warming. When you use ALL the data, the myth of global warming magically disappears!

Likewise is this short video discussing what we are learning now from the released data sets and programs:

Its not that confirmation of any of this is surprising. Even for all their obfuscation, key planks of the AGW “science” have long been known to be fraudulent. [Update: An article by J.R. Dunn at the American Thinker rolls up all the evidence of past frauds in an exceptional article.] Michael Mann's “hockey stick graph” that the IPCC relied upon so heavily to promote AGW a decade ago, magically did away with the Medieval Warming Period and other periods of warming, thus showing a millennium long temperature constant, all ending in a huge spike in global temperatures since about 1980. It was proven an utter fraud by two Canadian computer analysts several years ago. Yet it didn't slow down the AGW juggernaut. The same is true more recently for the claims regarding Ymal tree ring study. Yet “climate scientists” and all of the vested interests simply ignored these frauds, attacked those who pointed out the AGW emperor was in the buff, and then increased the shrillness of their doomsday predictions. All of which brings us to the most pressing question, how will the AGW crowd, from Michael Mann to Al Gore to President Obama, treat the CRU file dump confirming the utter fraud, collusion and possible illegality occurring at the very core of AGW “science?”

On one hand we have the majority of AGW crowd who, in collusion with a compliant left wing press, are simply ignoring the issue. It clearly worked in the past. Thus do we have today the NYT refusing to print the e-mails because of their ethical concerns with hacking (oh spare me) and Obama going to Copenhagen as if nothing is amiss. Others are floating ancillary alternatives.

As equally surreal as Obama's trip to Copenhagen is the response of the head of UN's IPCC to this bombshell - that the IPCC's data and doomsday forecasts are accurate becasue they are all based on "peer reviewed" work.

The thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.

Even AGW acolyte Megan McCardle is having trouble with that one.

According to Salon.com, AGW science is simply beyond the ken of the unwashed masses and we should simply rely on faith. The author then goes a step further, implying that disbelief in AGW is a conspiracy of the energy industry.

You can see James Delingpole at The Telegraph for a further round up of equally laughable responses.

The AGW canard survived past frauds because so many on the left and so many rent seekers have such a vested interest. We can expect they will use every means at their disposal to keep the AGW canard alive - and they hold all the levers of power in both Europe and America. I suspect that this will only unravel when members of the AGW crowd begin to publicly turn on their own in order to protect their livelihoods. And indeed, we see evidence of that already beginning to happen, with, for example, the call of IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita to have "Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf . . . barred from the IPCC process" because "the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore." It has not made it into the MSM yet, but get a hundred more Mr. Zorita's and the MSM will no longer have any choice but to cover it. And that will mark the end to this mortal threat to Western Cvilization. To whoever released this tranche of e-mails and data from Hadley CRU, you, sir or madame, are a true hero.