When climategate hit I was sceptical. When we had inquiry after inquiry, I was sceptical. Even when fakegate hit, I was sceptical. Now I’m not.
ALEA IACTA EST
Latin for “The die has been cast”, the words attributed to Julius Caesar on January 10, 49 BC as he led his army across the River Rubicon in Northern Italy. Having crossed the Rubicon, there was no turning back for Caesar: he had instigated a civil war.
We sceptics are no Caesar, not even a great Roman army. We are just a rabble of individuals who believe in good science and above all else honesty. But never-the-less like Caesar we have no choice now we have the evidence but to engage in battle and win.
Like Anthony Watts, I just cannot see any way an honest person would have removed good data they used in 2006 from the reconstruction in 2008. And, I have no idea how honest people could have run so many inquiries which Nelson-like, turned a blind eye to the evidence and said: “wrongdoing, I see no wrongdoing”.
Every scandal these days gets likened to Watergate. But this really does deserve it. The original crime was almost so trivial that it could have been dealt with by an internal panel. But the cover up of that crime was just breath-stopping. It was not just those involved but the whole UK establishment including the approval of politicians to the highest level. OK, no one has died yet, which is kind of the point … except those who die each winter in the UK and who the politicians don’t think count, but …
the total cost of this global warming scam has been estimated to be of the order of £1trillion. Let me put that again:
£ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
How do I express that? A pile of £1 coins ten times the distance to the moon? That it would take an individual earning one millions pounds per day, 2800 years to earn this much? 10,000 hospitals. Or that if the world sued England for the £1trillion its bad science and cover-up cost (notice the quick exit of Scotland) it would cost each and every English household around £50,000.
It is unbelievable when so much money was at stake, that if we follow this sorry paper chain costing £1trillion back to the key evidence, what do we find? Years of painstaking research by thousands of scientists as we were constantly told? No!
Just one tree.
Yes, that is right. All of this largely results from one tree core taken from one stump by one person. Shall I put the cost another way: £2,000,000 for each cell in that tree! Nothing has ever cost so much, based on so little. I can’t put my disgust at this whole episode much better than expressed in the Climategate emails:
I note that 1032 is not cold in Yamal. Seems odd. Is it cold in *all* of the three chronologies at issue? Or did a reindeer crap next to one of the trees?
(1136918726.txt on Jan 10, 2006 from Wigley to Briffa)
One tree with a growth spurt in the 20th century corrupted the sample of 12 trees which were taken to represent 20th century growth of all trees, which in turn allowed these charlatans to forge a historic temperature reconstruction that seemed to show the climate had never changed before and that the small, even minuscule change in the 20th century was so unprecedented that it required this £1trillion goverment public spending.
I can’t express exactly what I feel because (unlike all the warmists who lie about us being in the pay of BIG OIL) I don’t have the money to do so. I have to put it this way. If one were to lie and that lie was the basis of securing financial gain like e.g. a grant. Then that is fraud. If a group of people conspire together to commit a crime, then that is a conspiracy. If a group then try to cover up a fraud, then it would be a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
If one lies to parliament (or to a select committee) then there is a charge of misleading parliament (which is a legal charge with penalties)
If people work together to break Freedom of Information law and then there is an attempt to hide their actions then this is a conspiracy to break that law. So whilst the Freedom of Information act may have a time limit, does conspiracy?
The question the police have to answer is whether there is any honest way a large chunk of good data could be taken out from the 2008 paper when it was used in 2006? Was the action done honestly and the data was “never considered” as the UEA suggest or was there an intention to cherry pick data in order to create a hockey stick to further their careers? If it was a lie, did those who made the lie gain financially? Did they then misuse their position as experts to mislead others like parliament and the various inquiries? Is this a fraudulent use of public office?
Finally, why didn’t the inquiries pick up on this key point raised by Steve McIntyre? Why were the UEA who were being investigated asked to select the papers to examine – with inevitable results? Was there a conspiracy by the inquiries to mislead? Is it possible that any of those in the inquiries intended to mislead and had a financial interest which might indicate fraud? Did Lord Oxburgh’s renewable interests have any bearing on the way he ran the inquiry? If there was a conspiracy, how far did it go? Did those who selected Lord Oxburgh know he had these interests?
Obviously I have my own personal opinions which I have expressed to the police and my MP. I hope everyone else will do the same.
The real hockey stick is the number of people interested in this.
My blog statistics (shown above) are sky-rocketing.
See Also:
