After a lapse in any blogging I’ve had a rush of posts on various topics to Scottish Sceptic.  And when Climategate III came along I remembered the fun in blogging … and it seems others like Philip Bradley had the same idea. But as is my character, as soon as I saw that Philip Bradley had set up a new blog I started thinking “how can I help him”?
OBVIOUSLY  the first step is to add a few links and recommend others to go and comment on his first article.
BUT, I also felt a bit guilty encouraging someone to get involved in something that can take so much time – and often is very unrewarding.
WUWT works well because a group of people work together to create the blog. From outside, we probably don’t appreciate just how much the people get out of the group co-operation and I suspect many would be just as happy with a fraction of the readers if they maintained the same friendships. Continue reading →

Like many of my posts, I started to write this as a reply to a post on WUWT. It started as a list of comments. But as I found more and more, it grew into a more thorough review of what other people had said and more details of why I have reached the conclusions I have.
So where is FOIA from? First, of all let’s try to summarise the various suggestions by listing what others have said:
JanSmit: As a translator from Dutch to English, I can’t help sensing a Dutch mind at work.
normalnew: About the letter. There is something about it that make me think it’s a fellow Norwegian
Espen: I’m not a native English speaker myself, … possible native language to one of the slavic languages (except Bulgarian), the baltic languages or the Finno-Permic languages (Finnish, Saami, Estonian).
Enjoying the speculation (Climate Audit) “Climate protection” also translates nicely to Finnish (ilmastonsuojelu, ilmasto = climate, suojelu = protection). I believe there are no equally fitting ways of saying this in swedish, norwegian, danish or german. So that narrows it down a bit. Finnish and Hungarian have some similarities in grammar but I still feel this must be a Finn.
Coldish (Climate Audit) ‘Climate protection’ is a literal translation of the common German term ‘Klimaschutz’
hro001 (Climate Audit) “The quirks of grammar/sentence structure that some have noticed remind me of the those that one might encounter when talking/writing to a Quebecois and/or other francophone who has become fluently bilingual (but whose mother tongue is French, rather than English). “
Oscar Bajner. (I think jokingly) Rules how out England, Wales, Scotland, Americans, French, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, Swiss, Scandinavians, & “the rest” (Irish, Antipodean/Canadian) and … by eliminating the impossible, what remains, however improbable, is that our boy is:
South African — Vat Hom, Fluffy! Skrik vir niks boet!
wws the phrase “It’s easy for many of us in the western world” to me rules out Russia,
Ryan says:But the writer does say he is a part of the Western world (so not Indian..
pottereatonCould be a Canadian but I don’t think so. Uses phrases like “game-changer” and “over and out” that while not exclusively American are probably used here more often than elsewhere.
Armagh Observatory: Eugene WR Gallun draws attention to the phrase used by FOIA – “Papal Plural” ie “we” meaning himself. It would be strange for a Brit to use this phrase …. We would use the phrase “the royal we” in this context.
Reed Coray: he/she has excellent command of the English language. … my gut feeling tells me he/she is from an English speaking environment.
Pat Frank: F writes English with a completely American idiom. His syntax also has none of the subtle errors that betray a foreign first language. All-in-all, he’s a native American speaker.
DubFOIA’s native language might be revealed in his expression, “hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor.” This awkwardness of this expression in English indicates it is a literal translation from a different language.
SimonThe covering note has clearly been machine translated from some other language.
Chad WozniakThe omission of articles might also reflect practice in the Scandinavian languages and Romanian and Bulgarian,
Philip BradleyI find it difficult to believe the above wasn’t written by a native English speaker. I’ve read it carefully, and there are none of those small things that result from translating from a foreign language that don’t sound quite right to a native English speaker.
Eugene WR GallunIt seems to me –
The persona of FOIA is that of an Indian who has learned English as a second language.
So with all these desperate suggestions how on earth do we decide what to make them? Continue reading →

When I was running SCEF, I tried to keep some clear water between SCEF and UKIP.
On the pro side, they are the only party with any common sense on the climate, they are the only party that talks about the serious policy of immigration and are willing to stand up to the racists like the BBC who falsely and maliciously use the race card to stifle political debate. They also have a good EU policy.
On the negative side … they are a political party and …. well a plague on all politicians.
But, I have been so sickened by the democratically corrupt political elite in Scotland and … particularly the Civil servants in the Climate Division whose behaviour puts cowboy builders to shame. Scotland can’t go on like this. I don’t mind political arguments. But when the people playing politics are the supposedly neutral civil servants, there is something seriously wrong and perhaps it is now time to join UKIP.

I’m still trying to fathom the linguistics of the Climategate III text. The author(s) appears to be overly concerned with linguistics and I quote the first few sentences in full:-

It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.

Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time.  After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural

If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).

They write to tie up loose ends, dispel speculation … then rather than doing this, they focus on the linguistics of “I” vs. “WE” and then go on to explicitly state the linguistics are odd attributing this to their “linguistic background”. There is certainly a strong emphasis on language right from the second paragraph.
This was probably what sent me off trying to locate the likely linguistic background from the turn of phrase used. At first I thought that would be a latin derived language, but there are also a number of noteworthy Germanic (group of language) phrases (which may have been picked up as phrases). But nothing I found linked the phrases used to foreigners speaking English. If they were created by someone because their first language wasn’t English, the odd phrases should have been readily found on the internet being used by foreign speakers. They weren’t.
So, my next assumption was that this was some kind of computer generated speech. The obvious example would have been to translate the text through a language translation program several times. This would tend to “standardise” the words used into the linguo-franco of the world “USScandoLatinoChienglish”. Continue reading →

Hereafter is the text of a post I put on WUWT. I used to think it was a lone individual in the UEA who had contacted another lone hacker who had then disseminated the material. The text of the letter sent out with Climategate III strongly suggests US republican links. The only additional note of caution I would add, is that being technically minded myself, I may have missed the more obscure technical turn of phrases which would be what is needed to find links to technical language articles.
C.W. Schoneveld says: “The spelling “endeavor” suggests a non-Brtish educational background”.

In the past, I found a good barometer of the latest propaganda from the warmists was to search the BBC for their copy-and-paste warmist articles.
I can’t find any! Searching BBC + “Global warming” brings up nothing but other people talking about global warming (or perhaps more accurately, the word “global warming” perhaps as an out of date link on a page with recent news).
Indeed, I thought I had found an offender in Paul Hudson’s article “Still no sign of spring“, but reinforcing my previous post … it was a sceptic comment that brought up the subject and not Paul Hudson.
The daft thing, is that if anyone were to suggest erecting massive skyscrapers throughout the British countryside based on the flimsiest evidence … the chattering classes as represented by the BBC would be the first to object. So, starting from where we are now, there is no way on earth anyone could introduce the policy of destroying the countryside on the basis of such flimsy “evidence” on the climate.
So, we do not carry on the policy of wind because it is supported, by the chattering classes, but because attacking the policy means attacking their own actions. In short, all that is keeping this bandwagon going, is the momentum it gained from a decade of spin … because those usually tasked with applying the breaks (politicians, green groups, environmentalsists, etc.) are too damned embarrassed by their own hypocritical actions attacking the sceptics to now do the job.

After I stopped spending all my time campaigning to end the nonsense of Global Warming, I had anticipated some changes in view. But not the one I’ve had.
SCEPTICS ARE TOO BELIEVING OF GLOBAL WARMING.
Yes! One of the biggest culprits for continuing the scam is the way sceptics are still thinking there is something to fight.
Strangely, the main change I’ve felt is “what on earth was I fighting?” Because the only people I see seriously suggesting that global warming may still be real are the sceptics. (I discount “UFO-spotting” type commentators)
To use an analogy. It is like a battle field. The leaders are still very much preoccupied hacking away at a very small group of people, and for those close to that action, it looks as if there is a fierce battle. But walk away, and there is only one side left on the battle field as the opposition have fled. Indeed, so decisive is the victory that most people don’t see the point in hanging around to watch a foregone conclusion.
As for those like the wikipedia climate “team”. They remind me of the soldiers in an impenetrable armoured car … which has run out of petrol. Yes, the natives are incapable of penetrating their armour. But sooner or later they are going to have to get out of their armour and climb down. The only question is this: is their best strategy to wait out the natives in the hope their anger will disperse, or … will making them wait longer and longer just infuriate them more? …. and I should also comment about the soldiers who have already turned “native” … who no one seems to notice except me.
As for the politicians …. they are as ever, like some Gadaffi madman, sitting in their bunker broadcasting the delusion that their forces are winning, that the rebels are a few isolated individuals …. still clinging to the words of their hand picked special advisers that victory is inevitable … but somehow all those so learned advisers now seem to have left the country and want nothing to do with the noble leader.

Throughout history and long before, society has been made up of families. This was the basic building block of society. It is in the bible, it was such an intrinsic part of Greek culture that the family was the unit of democracy. Your name is your family name, indeed many clans were considered families of the chieftain.
Even the gods were considered to be families. We see this in the Norse family of gods, the Greek and then the Roman.
Then along came Caesar … Caesar wanted to be considered a god like Alexander the “great”.  These developed the concept of the individual … the god who was not part of a family. Then came Jesus … the fatherless Jew (without an earthly father) …  but yet again, sSlowly, and steadily, those cultures that valued the family turned this god into a family: father, son and virgin Mary.
2000 years later, we see yet another attempt to destroy the family, to deny the legitimacy of the union between a man and a woman which is the unit of the family tree of humanity.
Why would they do it? Why would these politicians seek to destroy the family unit and assert their illegitimate power to redefine marriage in their own perverse concept of society?
Because the real family is a threat to these politicians? These are the politicians who try to indoctrinate (aka poison the minds of) our children in school by teaching them the global warming religion that says that everything we humans do is evil … unless it is sanctioned by the holy church of Global Warming fanatics who will allow us indulgences to emit CO2 (aka breath … in the bible the direct Greek translation of pneuma is both breath & holy spirit=CO2).
But their indoctrination has failed. They don’t understand that it was because it was total claptrap, so instead like all zealots they seek to assert their power even more and this time it is to destroy the essential bond of society: the family, and replace this family-orientated society with a new society where the family is just a cosmetic relationship which can be made and broken at the behest of politicians.
In other words, a society where children do not rightly belong with married couples – but instead they belong to the state.
Destroy the family to empower the state … to empower the politicians whose utter stupidity gave us the non-science of global warming, almost sent Europe into the economic quagmire (and still might).
And all for what? To give gay people the right to be a heterosexual couple who have promised to support any children of that coupling? Well let them have the right to have a womb/penis even if it is physically impossible … if that is what they really want … but don’t take away my right to be married.
So let’s be sensible.
There are many people in society who form relationships which are not marriage. Gays are but one. Many sons live with their mothers. Some siblings live together for their whole lives. Some relationships are sexual some are not. What does that matter if they either cannot (or should not as in the case of close relatives) produce children.
The whole point about marriage is that it is part of the family tree of life. Getting married used to mean you were going to produce children if the couple were fertile. Now it means children are an option, but still a very likely one.
That is not true of gay couples, nor siblings nor many other long-term relationships which have as much right as anyone else to have some legal protection if e.g. one partner falls ill. Why are gay people so selfish that they cannot see the benefit of long-term couples for the many people who are not gay? Why are they so hostile to hetero-sexual couples, who need marriage for the legal protection of children, that they feel they have to destroy marriage and replace it with McDonald’s plastic-relationships one-size fits everyone “marriage”.
I thought civil partnership was a great idea. I didn’t realise that [some] gay people** are actually deeply hostile to heterosexuals. Perhaps that is because of the way they have been treated, but personally, I’ve become less sympathetic to gays, the more they try to destroy our society …. the society that gave them the right to be proud of themselves.
My belief is that this is just another group of zealots who are doing no real good for most of the people they claim to represent who have yet again got the ear of the idiots in parliament and are yet again railroading their idiotic ideas through parliament and yet again championed by the idiots in the BBC.
Addendum
**My attention had been drawn to this part of the article. Although the style of the blog is sometimes “tongue in cheek”, I accept it could have been better phrased. I was not referring to any individuals but to the publicly portrayed views of high profile gay groups & particularly those professional lobbyists who come across as being deeply hostile to heterosexuals.

Historical Note

After this article was written I joined UKIP and was appointed Scottish spokesman on Energy and Climate. A journalists who hated UKIP, wanted to destroy UKIP, and so tried to create an attack on me by blatantly lying about what I had said in this article calling me a “homophobe” … which clearly was entirely unjustified and I did think of suing, but I’m glad I did not.

Because, by lying about me, that journalist raised the profile UKIP in Scotland and  Scotland in UKIP, and that led directly to David Coburn, an openly gay candidate and a good speaker, standing in the European election. He won! That showed that UKIP could win even Scotland. I’m sure, that one MEP, was the straw that showed if Cameron didn’t do anything UKIP would soon be making it impossible for the Tories to get elected anywhere. That led to the Brexit referendum, and that led to us leaving the EU … which is exactly what that journalist lied to try to stop. So ….

Karma!!!

Yes, I was just one little guy, who really didn’t do anything except stand up for what I believe, and found themselves almost by accident, being the target of the vile hatred & lies of one journalist who was hated even by his colleagues.

I really didn’t do anything myself, but it is kind of funny, when I think about it.

When I read James Lovelock writing:

“I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage…” (link)

my initial thought was “too little too late”. The man is an idiot, anyone with any intelligence looking at wind should have known that this huge industrial business had only one philosophy: “destroy your ecology to save the planet (also known as: make us loads of money)”.
The big difference between this load of lying cheating money-grabbing developers and every other run of the mill lying cheating money-grabbing developer which the greens so strongly opposed … was that the wind developers (superficially) suited the world view of Greens like Lovelock. And Greens don’t look at any issue except superficially until, like Lovelock, the reality of the windmills looming over their homes makes them look just a bit deeper … and suddenly they change their mind.
But the irony is that Lovelock is the master of skin-deep philosophy! Gaia is the “theory” that a minuscule skin deep layer of living matter on earth makes the whole planet “alive”.
If I sound particularly cynical, it’s because even in the early naughties when I was a member of the Green party and even on the executive, I couldn’t believe how little any of them knew about wind energy and clearly Lovelock was one of these naive idiots. Most literally thought a few house sized windmills so small you would need signs to tell everyone they were there … would replace the power stations. The reality, is that it “sounded a good idea” … and that was enough for them.
Which reminds me. I’ve not noticed any sceptics highlighting the evidence that Bacteria cause rain This is important because the lack of enough organic agents in the clouds to trigger rain was perhaps the sole remaining argument against cosmic ray induced climate feedback. Now it has been shown that rain is (relatively) heavily polluted by organic materials apparently as part of a bacterial mechanism to aid their dispersal by promoting rain … it’s the final nail in the coffin of the denialists of solar climate impacts. (But it hardly matters as it was already over)
So what does matter?
Having spent some time away from global warming, I was genuinely surprised this morning to read an article where someone still talked about it as “true”. Not till afterwards did I realise that “it’s just not done” any longer to be madly keen on global warming. It is the genuinely mad, the religiously bigoted and/or the scientifically illiterate who “believe” in global warming – not sensible people. No, sensible people now avoid the subject … because it now attracts the lunatics bores of the party who’ll argue anything to death. Only these people still care about it. It’s frankly embarrassing to see people on both sides getting so het up. Get a life!
The reality is that most people now want to “save the world” but are de facto in the sceptic camp … CO2 does cause warming … but its effects do not warrant any more increase in my fuel bills. So, why have argument when we all agree? As a political movement “global warming” is dead … with the proviso that just as there will always be train spotters there will always be people who also believe in global warming – but they will grow up!
But what does still matter is the way that such an outlandish philosophy took hold of academia and UK politics and the corruption, deceit, lies and a cauldron of other anti-democratic activities were mixed together for this poisonous propaganda.
Why it does matter is because it shows that UK politics and very particularly Scottish politics  (and in that regard I include politicians, media commentators and academic “experts”) was wholly and completely deluded and viciously attacked anyone who dared to question them. And it shows that when they are so completely deluded – they allow nothing to stop them. Not science, not the facts. The voice of reason is very easily squashed by the relentless and ruthless dictate of the BBC and its puppets in government (and I mean it that way). It really was like living in a Nazi state … thank goodness, it was something quite benign – if you call the destruction of UK industry benign – but it hardly matches concentration camps. But what if next time it does involve concentration camps? What this episode shows is that nothing will stop them! It really is very very worrying that we are controlled by a single group that can be so deluded.
Indeed, Neil Craig in his question “can you name a single scientist who is not government funded who believes in global warming” …  has hit the nail on the head. Not that government funding is the cause … instead government funding, or more accurately “civil servants” were the drivers of what can only be described as a bizarre religion. I’m reminded of mithraism in the Roman empire … a religion that solidiers seemed to have particularly liked. Likewise, the religion of “global warming” was one that somehow atuned to the civil service mentality.
And that is by far the biggest lesson we have to learn from this debacle. This was a “state-funded” religion … in the sense of a religion particularly endorsed by those who take their earning from the state. And the fact it was so dominant in the UK, more so in Europe and particularly in Scotland, shows the dead-hand of the state funded mentality: I haven’t checked, but it is almost certain that economic performance is inversely proportional to a country’s enthusiasm for the global warming religion … or perhaps we should admit it … the anti-consumerist religion … the anti-profit, anti-industry religion.
The Most Chilling words of Lovelock
Of all that Lovelock wrote, the most chilling is contained in these words:

“that our original good intentions…”

for in these words, he makes it clear, that this was not a movement responding to something. Lovelock’s green movement was not acting purely in response to a need. Instead it was much much more. It had an aim, an intention that went far beyond the particularly response to any immediate concern. The reality appears to be that “Global warming” was just a convenient means to an end – a convenient means that people like Lovelock never seriously questionned because it justified their politics. And let’s not forget that Lovelock’s politics justified the chilling echo of the Nazi state: those calling for concentration camps for sceptics. It justified the wholesale lies and deceit that hid the destruction of wildlife and natural landscape to “save the planet” aka line the pockets of wind developers.
So, yes, isn’t it good that Lovelock has finally seen the light … it only took 16 years of no warming!!!
I think I might have had more respect for this individual if he wasn’t just another NIMBY here today-gone when it’s a windmill in my backyard … live in the countryside … consuming a lot more energy travelling anywhere, using all the convenience of the modern manufacturing world … whilst constantly sticking the knife in … to those who made that world happen.
I might have respected him more if he’d stuck to his guns and said: “despite the fact my backyard is going to get these birdkilling monsters … I still believe in them”. He might then have had some credibility as a “visionary” … because perhaps in 100 years or more, we may need to kill birds to get power this way.
But now all he appears to be is another behind the times – do what I tell you not what I do – Green (as in Naive) NIMBY.
Addendum
Strangely this article from new Scientist (a notoriously alarmist & deceptive in its alarmism rag) more or less backs me up:

• Kyoto is effectively dead … but …
• All that this green debacle  has done is to INCREASE fossil fuel use as UK industry has been pushed abroad.

Let’s reiterate that. If it wasn’t for Kyoto something like 10% of our fossil fuel use (which more or less equates to economic output) would now be located in the UK. The civil-service & BBC hatred of the UK has caused at least 10% of industry (25% by other figures) to move abroad.