This is a spoof article whereby I’ve used the BBC Libor rigging article from today and changed it to see what it would sound like when the same laws are applied to those rigging the global temperature rate as those rigging Libor.
The name is a fictitious one (I searched and nothing similar came up, but if by some chance there is someone with this name then apologies it was not intended to be you.)
Note: “scientist” is clearly a false term, especially applied to those rigging global temperature, but it is the one the  media will use.

Climate scientist jailed for 14 years over global temperature rate-rigging

Former climate scientist Michael Deva-Jones has been found guilty at a London court of rigging global temperature rates.

He was sentenced to 14 years in prison for conspiracy to defraud.
The 35-year old is the first individual to face a jury trial for manipulating the rate, which was used to justify trillions of pounds of global warming spending and climate research.
Many of the world’s leading Climate institutes have already paid heavy financial penalties for tampering with the key benchmark.
The jury found Deva-Jones guilty on all eight charges of conspiracy to defraud.

From Anon, at Southwark Crown Court

Deva-Jones stood impassively as the foreman on the jury read out all eight guilty verdicts.
His wife noted down the verdicts as they were read out.
At one point, he shook his head and looked across at his wife, mother and stepfather in the public gallery.
Deva-Jones held his head in his hands while his lawyer read out a list of mitigating factors.
Deva-Jones was sentenced to 14 years, half to be spent in custody before any possibility of release on licence.
Justice Cooke said Deva-Jones was the “centre and hub” of the manipulation.
He said: “You succumbed to temptation because you could manipulate the global temperature and so gain status, seniority and remuneration,” adding that Deva-Jones’ actions were “dishonest and wrong”.

The case was brought by the Serious Fraud Office, which said Deva-Jones set up a network of data analysts spanning 10 climate  institutions and cajoled or bribed them to help rig global temperature rates for profit.
During the trial, jurors were told that Hayes promised to reward one participant to keep the temperature rate “as high as possible”.
It took the jury one week to arrive at the verdicts.
Defence barrister Neil Hawes asked the judge to take into account the prevalence of Global temperature manipulation at the time, and also that Deva-Jones had been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a condition on the autism spectrum.
Mr Hawes also said that managers and senior managers at Deva-Jones’ Institution knew of, and in some cases condoned, Temperature manipulation.

Deva-Jones, a former star scientist, rigged the global temperature rates daily for nearly fourteen years while working at AvCrap, from 2001 until 2015.
AvCrap says it has no comment about the verdicts.

‘Mars bar’

Hayes’s trading activities were based around movements in the global temperature rate – the rate those involved said the world was warming.
Rigging even minor movements in the rate can result in bumper profits for a trader manipulating the rates, or the rate can be moved simply to make a bank look more creditworthy.
Rigging the rate hugely benefited those involved financially as well as the institutions they worked for in the form of government grants.
During the trial, the court heard that manipulating the temperature rate was so commonplace that an offer of a Mars bar could get it changed.
Deva-Jones told a fellow “scientist”: “Just give the data clerk a Mars bar and they’ll set the temperature wherever you want.”
Deva-Jones confessed, saying that he did not want to be extradited to the US.
He claimed that the manipulation was widespread.

Court case

Deva-Jones initially co-operated with investigators, confessing to the manipulation.
But four months after he was charged in 2013, he changed his legal team, and his plea.
He pleaded “not guilty” to the charges, resulting in the trial, which began on 26 May.

After the fiasco with the Pope’s “endafticle”, and the drop in personal popularity and that of “global warming”, I’ve learnt my lesson, that such things don’t change much at all. So I will not be bothering saying much about the Obama as he’s always an idiot on climate and I’m sure there’s now plenty of people to tell him that.
Fortunately, that means most other climate news has been pushed out, so it’s a no news day (unless it’s news that democrats are being idiots on climate?)

News is just coming out on the South China Morning Post that:

“Two Chinese firms probed for spiking alcohol with Viagra

Chinese police have opened an investigation into whether two distillers in China’s southwestern Guangxi province added impotence treatment drug Viagra to their liquor in the country’s latest food-safety scare.

The Liuzhou Food and Drug Administration said it found that Guikun Alcohol Plant and Deshun Alcohol Plant in the provincial city of Liuzhou were putting sildenafil – more commonly known as Viagra – into three of their baijiu products. Baijiu is a fiery grain liquor that commands high prices in China.

Law enforcement officers confiscated 5,357 bottles of the suspect products, 1,124 kg of raw alcohol and a batch of white powder labelled sildenafil, in a case that involved more than 700,000 yuan (HK$872,000), according to a statement that the administration posted on its website on Saturday.”

Read more

Now, here is a lesson for Obama and Clinton, because if they are going to get together then they’ll need Viagra

Addendum

Forgot to mention: it’s the planet they’ll have to feed the Viagra to, if after 18 years without anything showing, they want to get a rise before the presidential election next year.

People often say “they’re a Nazi” in order just to mean they are immoral, but following a comment I read on a forum, I want to discuss instead whether the modern green movement might be more like the Nazi in their philosophy, propaganda techniques and general politics than most people would care to admit.
Left Wing
It’s often a favourite past time of the left to liken anyone on the right to the Nazis – no doubt because the left-wing were against Hitler and so they assume the German Nazis must be right wing. But even a cursory glance at the history of the Nazis tells us they were the “National Socialist Party”. (Not to be confused with the similar sounding & initials of the Scottish Nationalist Party).
Fascist
Second, the Nazis were undoubtedly fascist: bypassing democratic procedures forcing through dictate. However, anyone that’s seen the unconstitutional way the EPA (Energy impoverishment Agency?) in the US can’t help seeing the similarity to the Nazis. Because like the Nazis, the EPA are bypassing democracy. They have used legislation designed to control actual pollution to control energy, which in effect means they now control all production, all food, all dwellings, all (also) water – indeed given their undemocratic and unconstitutional behaviour it is only a small step for them to pass rules to prohibit various “unnecessary” parts of the internet as “causing pollution”.
The reality is that the EPA have redefined “pollution” to mean anything they don’t like. So whilst CO2 is good for plants, it is now a “pollution”. Likewise, anything else “harmful” (meaning they don’t like it) could be deemed a pollutant.
Thus, by this word-play they are able to bypass the constitution to give themselves the power to prohibit anything they don’t like. AKA fascism.
And of course, “Greens” aren’t really “green”. Rising CO2 is causing a greening on the planet. If these people were green, they would be celebrating the benefit of CO2 on plants globally. Instead, their politics means they are against everything and anything that gets in the way of forcing everyone to accept their views – including nature itself!
So, e.g. in our local nature reserve, an indigenous tree species in a wood that has been there over 100 years was cut down because the eco-fascists deemed the area to be “bogland”. And once these nutters have deemed an area “polluted by nature” – they will just destroy nature.
Pro- “hi tech/science”, anti simple engineering
One of the great divides in the war was a philosophical one about technology. In Britain and the US, we had the view that “the best technology which was not yet available was not as good as the second best that was available”. So, e.g. we focussed on producing Spitfires and other air-planes with a proven history of working reliably. In contrast, the Germans tried “inventing” new solutions: rockets like the U2, Jet planes & the atomic weapon. Continue reading →

I was watching this video and thought Jo Nova said a really pertinent thing about Peer Review. We wouldn’t let a company trade on the stockmarket if it had been audited by two colleagues, yet they expect us to alter the whole global economy. (should auto start at 7:00)

I was going to make a bet with a prominent climate sceptic about whether the climate scam would end before or after the US presidential election (I think before, he thinks in the first term).
However, fundamentally, we have a problem which is what do we mean by “the end” of the scam. Because in some senses it has been over for years. For example, the Kyoto Commitment was time limited to … I think it was Dec 2012. That came and went without any replacement, so technically I’ve already won. Except, I can’t claim the bet because the climate extremists are constantly talking about “the next agreement” (in reality they are being led by the nose by politicians talking green with no intention of any replacement).
Likewise with “gullibles” policy. In the UK subsidy to new wind and other gullibles are coming to an end. Again, that could have been a great signal for the end, but it’s being marketed as “it’s about time gullibles stop on their own two feet”. Of course only gullible people think that gullibles could ever exist without taxpayer money.
The again, we could have had “when they accept the pause is real”. But now at the very heart of darkness of the climate extremists in wikipedia there is an article about the pause. So whilst they are clearly intending the article to “prove” the pause does not exist, the very fact they have to write the article proves it does.
I could use as an end point – when climate sensitivities are not longer extreme. But in reality, they are now coming in below 2C.
So, what is left?
We could say the end is when cynical politicians like Car Crash Clinton stop jumping on the climate extremists bandwagon … but there will always be desperate presidential wannabes like Clinton jumping on bandwagons (even ones with the wheels falling off).
I suppose, we could say when Steyn wins his case against Mann.
We couldn’t use “when the UK Royal Society admits they are wrong” … because it took nearly 300 years for them to admit they were wrong about the Longitude prize.
I could use when “global warming” on google trends falls below the noise – but it already has.
We could use when we’ve got an admission of “global cooling” – which may happen sooner than anyone likes and if it does, I doubt few of us will feel like celebrating.
We could use when the eco-fascists stop their freebie yearly meet at the “Conference of the Parties” (joke) – which must now have racked up enough air miles between them to fly out of the solar system.
We could say “global warming” is over when the next climate scam has taken over …
The problem we sceptics have, is that there isn’t much left to achieve demolishing this scam except perhaps discouraging a few grubby politicians or academics jumping on the wheel-less bandwagon (and then flying off somewhere).

I’ve started a simple sceptic dictionary and would welcome suggestions for climatic terms to include and/or other improvements.
The reason this is necessary is that any sceptic knows that the stuff written on Wikipedia about climate is dishonest and not worth reading. As such many people including me have attempted to create an honest climate wiki. However, the problem we face is that many of the people editing wikipedia are writing the articles and then “buddy reviewing” the journals so not only is wikipedia corrupt but so is the general academic literature.
So whilst I would love a project like ClimateWiki to succeed, I’ve decided to try getting something very simple off the ground and so have chosen to focus on producing a sceptic dictionary: http://scottishsceptic.uk/dictionary/
I’ve kicked off with a few common terms I use. But I expect to add a few more including but not exclusively:

• ECS
• AGW
• CAGW
• Positive Feedback
• Forcing
• Global temperature
• greenhouse gas
• Greenspin
• greenhouse effect
• Adiabatic warming
• Skydragon
• Climate change
• Global cooling
• Global cooling scare
• Milankovitch cycle
• Ice-age cycle
• NOAA
• RSS, GISS, NCEI, UAH
• HADCRUT UKMO
• Natural variation
• hind cast
• Water Vapor
• Climate/weather
• models
• GW (global warming)
• Scientific method
• straw man arguments
• Ad hominen
• Argument from authority
• Real science/ “science”
• confidence (as in 95% confidence)
• ET AL
• ENSO, El Nino, Sothern Oscillaiton, PDO, NAO, etc,
• SAT ( surface air temperature taken over land ) and SST ( ocean temperatures taken just beneath the surface)

After some thought I’ve decided the project would be better described as a  dictionary than a wiki (with collaboration if  there are people interested) so I’ve started a new page: http://scottishsceptic.uk/dictionary/
I happened across a page in Wikipedia last night on the global warming pause (or as Wikipedia always bastardises things on climate the “Hiaitus”). As I’ve been saying for a while I invented the term “The Pause” in order to try to get a section on the Wikipedia global warming page so that there was a place to discuss the failures of the predicted warming. (For obvious reasons that proposal was rudely rejected by the eco-academics who dominate Wikipedia). So, I was more than a little amused that the same people who denied the original request were now being forced by the more or less general acceptance of the existence of the pause to to find ways to simultaneously admit and deny the pause. (And I will leave them squirming as I’ve no wish to help them out of that dilemma!)
However, let me be honest, we sceptics owe a great deal to these guys, because their overt bias and  vindictive arrogant behaviour did more than anything else to galvanise the online sceptic community. Each time some professional engineer or scientist honestly tried to contribute to Wikipedia by correcting the obvious bias – and got a bloody nose – those eco-academics thought it was a great victory. But the reality was that they were upsetting very intelligent people, usually retired, with plenty of time, with a high social standing and a lifetime of dealing with such idiots in their own working lives.
And of course, they looked elsewhere, found places like Wikipedia, and the constant attacks on the various online forums galvanised this sceptic community into one of the most effective fighting forces for scientific truth and integrity which the world has ever seen and now we more or less dominate the internet in this area.
So, for obvious reasons, Wikipedia has been a gift to us sceptics! Because whilst it might have been influential a long time ago, the reality is that Wikipedia lost its credibility because of their obvious bias and now it is very much a backwater on climate (I bet only visited by school kids) and blogs like WUWT are now probably the world’s most read sites on climate (and I’ve seen people at the top of the Met Office reading WUWT !)

Wiki-Climate

But to be frank, I miss having a decent wiki on climate. Yes I do occaisionally find myself going there but I’m always disappointed, because even on totally neutral topics or even looking for data supporting the CO2 “warming”, I’ve found that Wikipedia just doesn’t have the facts to support sensible debate. It’s written by climate propagandists as fact-lite propaganda and as such it is pretty useless when writing technical articles – even when the data is uncontentious. Continue reading →

Cfact have yet again shown the true nature of the daft people who believe in “global warming”.  They are just cannon fodder for the BIG ENVIRONMENT sharks who use them to line their own pockets: