Creeping up

Lead item in The Times (online) is the story of railway engineer Rajendra Pachaur promising a "UN inquiry" on Climategate. The issue is definitely creeping up the media agenda. When are we going to hear calls for a postponement of the Copenhagen slugfest though – pending the outcome of the inquiry?

Despite this, at 15:00 hrs, the TWI stood at 9,254 (30,400,000 - 3,285), an increase from this morning's figure of 9,137 (29,400,000 – 3,218), – suggesting that the MSM is not only still way behind the curve (unadjusted, without the 30-year smoothing), but dropping even further behind, as web interest intensifies at an even faster rate.

Delingpole is having fun - as usual – and Booker is, as we speak – preparing another "formidable article" for Sunday. In the meantime, Al Gore – ever in tune with public opinion - is telling us that the Copenhagen targets are "not tough enough" – even though he will not be there in person to make his case.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Not puzzling at all

"Plans to review permitted alcohol levels for drivers would have no impact on criminally irresponsible individuals who routinely drive while well over the limit," says The Daily Telegraph leader. "It is therefore puzzling that Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, wants to reopen this debate," it then observes.

No it isn't puzzling – it isn't puzzling at all. This is an EU initiative. It goes right back to May 2004 when the EU decided it wanted common drink-driving limits. Only, instead of coming out in the open, it is pushing for each member state "voluntarily" to impose harmonised standards, and only then will it issue a Directive, claiming that this is simply to regularise a position that already exists.

The EU commission is well-aware that bringing out a harmonising Directive at this stage would trigger a huge wave of protest and anti-EU sentiment, so it is working behind the scenes, with a threat that, unless the member states comply "voluntarily" it will push for a new law.

The whole agenda was set out in 2002 (138 pages .pdf) - a project called "ESCAPE", which plans EU-wide traffic law harmonisation and common enforcement standards. The drink-drive limit is only one of the proposals. Standard speed limits, random breath-testing and uniform fines are all proposed.

As always, though, the papers cannot see what id in front of their very eyes – hence the leader writer finding the current government action "puzzling". These people are children when it comes to understanding how our government now works.

COMMENT THREAD

The fraud exposed

The warmist religion relies of the fundamental premise that the recently engineered Mann-made global warming was higher than anything encountered previously. That in turn required getting rid of the even warmed Medieval Warming Period – which has been Mann-unmade.

How brazen is the Mann-made fraud is brought home in a post on WUWT. And guess what won't be making MSM headlines, even though the head of the IPCC – railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri – is now conceding that there must be an investigation of the IPCC process.

"We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail," he says, adding: "We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it."

And that position is?

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Caught short?

Ed Miliband uses disposable nappies! A very wise precaution for a politician of his ilk, methinks. Phil Jones must be buying them wholesale.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Measuring the media

The TWI for "Climategate" has dropped from 9693 last night to 9137 at 11:00 Hrs GMT this morning (29,400,000 – 3218), suggesting that there has been marginally more media interest. Incidentally, I tried the index out on a few blogs to see if they were gaining any significant media traction from their work on the issue.

Bishop Hill, who has made much of the running, turns out what appears to be a creditable 4357 (183000 – 42). But then you discover that there is a town in Illinois bearing the same name. The adjusted figure (CRU approved) with the addition of "blog" to the search string is actually 6950 (55,600 – 8).

Stateside, even one of the giants, Michelle Malkin only delivers 4272 (987000 – 231) and much of her coverage is not on "Climategate".

Of the specialist blogs, Watts Up With That fares very badly, with 33,824 (1,150,000 – 34), suggesting that when the media does take notice, it wants to "own" the issue and is loathe to give credit to the blogs which have been leading the way.

With a substantially lower web profile, Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit does better, at 2,621 (152000 – 58). By comparison, though, his putative nemesis, RealClimate scores extraordinarily well, coming in with 830 (332,000 – 400), almost certainly suggesting a massive warmist bias in the media.

On the other hand, our own James Delingpole outshines the warmists, at 809 (90,600 – 112), but that reflects a low web profile. He beats Christopher Booker though who, for all his MSM profile with his own column, delivers a relatively modest 1661 (103,000 – 62), faring marginally less well than Christopher Monckton at 1505 (140,000 - 93).

Demonstrating the effect of being at the centre of a media storm, however, "Phil Jones CRU" gets 62 (138,000 – 2225), indicating that he is a tad over-exposed – a sentiment with which he would doubtless heartily agree, especially as he rather puts Al Gore in the shade as the warmist's poster boy. He delivers a "mere" 399 (2,120,000 - 5,317). Even now, he must be working on hiding the decline.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

The Tiger Woods Index

Is the public more interested in Tiger Woods than Climategate? And does the media coverage reflect the public interest? Those were the questions posed yesterday by Jan Corn in an obscure publication called Associated Content.

Corn had her own ideas, using Twitter searches as a measure, suggesting that Tiger Woods is grabbing the lion's share of attention while issues like Climategate get a far smaller amount of interest – from the media at least.

Twitter may or may not be the best measure but, over the last two weeks, the measure most constantly referred to is the number of general web pages on Google compared with the number of news reports recorded.

This provides a measure in respect of one subject, but allows no comparison with other issues. Thus, as an experiment, I started trawling around, taking the stats on other issues in the news. To make the figures comparable, I then worked out the ratios of web pages to news pages reported.

On that basis, Tiger Woods delivered 22,500,000 web and 46,025 news pages, giving ratio of 489. That is the "Tiger Woods Index" (TWI) against which I chose to measure a raft of other issues.

"Climategate" was the next obvious choice and that produced 28,400,000 on the web page search, compared with 2,930 news items, delivering a ratio of 9,693. Using the TWI as a comparator, the public in general are more interested in "Climategate" than Tiger Woods, by a factor of nearly 20 times.

Applying the "ratio analysis" (doesn't that sound grand!) to ten current issues, including the two already mentioned, an arbitrary list emerged, ranked by importance to the general public, against media interest. This is as follows:

1. Climategate: 28,400,000 - 2,930 = 9693
2. Afghanistan: 143,000,000 - 154,145 = 928
3. Obama: 202,000,000 - 252,583 = 800
4. Tiger Woods: 22,500,000 - 46,025 = 489
5. Gordon Brown: 12,300,000 - 37,021 = 332
6. Climate change: 22,200,000 - 68,419 = 324
7. Sally Bercow: 25,000 – 86 = 290
8. David Cameron: 545,000 – 4837 = 113
9. Meredith Kercher: 261,000 - 3,471 = 75
10. Chilcot Inquiry: 125,000 - 4,350 = 29

Assessing this ranking, we see that the media is vastly more interested in the Iraq Inquiry – known as the Chilcot Inquiry – than is the general public. This rather fits with our own perception, that the inquiry is largely a media obsession.

By this measure, David Cameron gets far more attention than is warranted by the public interest, as indeed does Gordon Brown. That would accord with a general view that the media is far more interested in politicians than is the public at large.

President Obama, by contrast, is under-represented in the British print media (online), as is Afghanistan. But way out front in the annals of media neglect, romping home in first place with a clear lead is "Climategate".

Just for fun, I did another thirty issues, and ranked them. They are not random choices – the human animal is not capable of random actions. Nor are they scientifically selected, and they are most certainly not peer-reviewed. They have not even been "adjusted" or subject to "smoothing". For what it is worth, the list is here:

Royal Mail: 24,100,000 - 735 = 32789
Iain Dale: 356,000 - 14 = 25429
EU Referendum: 305,000 - 30 = 10167
Socks: 38,100,000 - 7,167 = 5316
Somalia: 85,500,000 - 23,388 = 3656
Glasgow: 46,500,000 - 16,733 = 2779
Cardiff: 29,800,000 - 11,439 = 2605
Wootton Bassett: 806,000 - 351 = 2296
Cricket: 69,200,000 - 32,809 = 2109
Immigration: 61,200,000 - 30,892 = 1981

Hospitals: 72,900,000 - 45,654 = 1597
Ryanair: 4,740,000 - 3258 = 1455
Childcare: 3,950,000 3,014 = 1311
Electricity: 58,000,000 - 49,495 = 1172
Muslims: 19,900,000 - 19,568 = 1017
Germany: 95,600,000 - 94,543 = 1011
Celebrity: 38,200,000 - 48,767 = 783
Education: 137,000,000 - 175,602 = 780
Parliament: 56,500,000 - 75,932 = 744
World Cup: 44,800,000 - 63,571 = 705

Paris: 86,700,000 - 157,319 = 551
Newspapers: 19,100,000 - 38,019 = 502
Trains: 9,900,000 - 22,499 = 440
Christmas: 81,900,000 - 187,331 = 437
Al Gore: 2,100,000 - 5,374 = 391
Supermarket: 5,450,000 - 14,124 = 386
London: 69,800,000 - 224,422 = 311
Football: 64,100,000 - 246,950 = 260
Putin: 4,840,000 - 18,983 = 254
Sarkozy: 7,740,000 - 45,336 = 171

Interestingly, the topic "newspapers" is closest to the Tiger Woods Index, by which measure Sarkozy is vastly over-reported. The Royal Mail, Iain Dale and EU Referendum are most neglected, far more so than even "Climategate", compared with their greater online presence. I am sure Dale will agree. Relatively, he gets even less profile than "socks" - which themselves have twice the relative media profile of "Climategate".

There is probably a more scientific way of picking the topics, and any qualified statistician would probably shoot my TWI to pieces. Make of it what you will. But at least, unlike Michael Mann, I can claim to have shown my working out.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Google on climate change

And you reckon Google isn't bent? It is "visualising" the "climate disaster" for us, we are told, as part of its efforts "to get people to understand what's happening around us." But then, it seems, Google stands to make a mint out of the scare.

Time to call the whole thing off says Michelle Malkin.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

How unkind!

Al Gore has cancelled his $1,209-a-handshake appearance in Copenhagen due to "unforeseen changes" in his programme.

Says Don Surber in his Daily Mail blog: "Yes, the unforeseen change is that Climategate has proven that everything Al Gore has said about the climate for the last 20 years is horse manure."

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Meanwhile

Fraser Nelson, writing in The Spectator - a mere 13 days into "Climategate" - is earnestly telling us: "no one can argue that the debate is over."

I really do not know how we would manage without the MSM keeping us so well-informed.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Flashback

To Earth Day 1970 ... what were they saying then? An interesting perspective on Michael Mann can be found on the same site, by the way.

You would think the media and the politicians would learn from experience ... but they never do. Each generation has to learn anew. Nature magazine is unrepentant though. "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories," it huffs.

Iain Dale, meanwhile, is finding that those warmists are not very nice.

And then there's Mikhail Gorbachev in The Guardian who tells us that: "The official response to climate change must be recalibrated to the level and urgency of the threat. A new global agreement must be science-based ... ".

Yea, right! Call for Phil Jones ... Phil Jones, are you receiving me?

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Doomed!

Mr Mohammad al-Sabban, Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator, has told the BBC he expects "Climategate" to derail the single biggest objective of the Copenhagen summit - an agreement on limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.

"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News.

This really must be worrying for the little warmist-in-chief, Ed Miliband (pictured), who is railing against "climate saboteurs".

"I do think that we have to beware of the climate saboteurs, the people who want to say this is somehow in doubt, and want to cast aspersions on the whole process," Miliband told reporters. "We are not going to take the easy way out, it would be a profoundly irresponsible thing to do -- the science is clear and settled."

Galloping Beelzebub! What does it take to get through to this man?

He can't put the genie back in the bottle though - Canadian MSM is also waking up. The admirable Small Dead Animals tells the tale ... and has the best comment yet: "Let them eat carbon"!

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Better in French?

Somehow, it looks that more impressive in French:

Un formidable article écrit par Christopher Brooker du London Telegraph exposant la fraude du changement climatique, est monté en flèche sur Google Actualités avec comme mots clés de recherche « global warming » pour disparaître seulement quelques heures plus tard.

"Un formidable article"! Doncha just love this! With the French picking it up, we are really motoring.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

The "Climate Comrades" fall out

This is getting really interesting. The media can't actually deal with issues. They prefer "human interest" and personalities – disputes and "biff-bam" slagging off.

And now they're getting it, with a delicious tale of Mike Mann and Phil Jones apparently in dispute, putting it exactly in the territory that The Daily Scarygraph can deal with. "Climategate" now has some "legs", as the MSM can get stuck in on things they can actually cope with.

And it does now look as if the University of East Anglia is taking its inquiry seriously. That should fuel the media pack a little bit more, even if WUWT is not impressed.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Which part of over?

Dellingpole in fine form. Google pages now up to 27 million. And some useful quotes on the Green Agenda. I used to think - a long time ago - that this talk of "world government" was just another of those conspiracy theories. It isn't.

Meanwhile, the penny is beginning to drop in supposi-Tory land.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

A scandal

"Whatever one thinks of climate change, the leaked University of East Anglia e-mails are a scandal."

So says The Times leader today. The dam has broken.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

It woz Hansen

Did the CRU "hacker" seek to protect us from the Copenhagen summit or harm it?

There is no doubt about that question, according to The Times, which avers: "Climate e-mail hacker[s] 'aimed to maximise harm to Copenhagen summit'".

The paper is retailing the views of an anonymous source, who claims that the CRU's computers were hacked in October or earlier, but the e-mails were not leaked until mid-November. By not releasing the e-mails until two weeks before Copenhagen, the hacker thus ensured that the debate about them would rage during the summit.

We are now variously told that the police are investigating the "theft" of the data, and have interviewed the temporarily redundant CRU director, Phil Jones, about the "crime".

If they are looking for a suspect, however, they need look no further than James Hansen "the world's pre-eminent climate scientist" – a man known to endorse criminal activity and support civil disobedience.

Although he might seem an unlikely suspect, in The Guardian today, he reveals his underlying motivation, telling the paper that it would be better for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in collapse.

Any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch, he says, adding: "I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it's a disaster track ... The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation."

So there we have it. This is a man with the motive and, from his elevated status in the "climate change community", he undoubtedly had the opportunity and the access.

By way of further confirmation that he dun it, it is highly suspicious that none of the emails released incriminate him or his Goddard Institute. And who else would have the knowledge to select such incriminating information from the mass of material that must be stored on the CRU computer?

Hansen, therefore, is most definitely "deep climate", the man who admits he wants Copenhagen to fail.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

An absolute disaster

The time zone difference between the United States and the UK meant that the Obama speech yesterday was broadcast here in the wee small hours, allowing only the briefest of analysis (and a trans-Atlantic conference call) before Morpheus cast his spell.

With the benefit of some hours of reflection, however, the "strategic review" announced by Obama looks no better than it did when he delivered it.

The deployment of an extra 30,000 troops for a short period – with withdrawals planned in 18 months – appears to be exactly what it is: an Afghan "surge" on the Iraqi model. It is an attempt, as we observed at the time, to impose a military solution on a strategic problem, which has no military solution.

More on Defence of the Realm.

Ideological warfare

They ain't slackening the pace in the lill'ol USofA. Michelle Malkin is having a go. Google pages are now in excess of 20 million. And the controversy has even reached the hallowed portals of the EU parliament. There, Dutch economist Hans Labohm told a hearing that "climate change has always been with us and always will be".

A member of the influential IPCC, Labohm said, "We are told that temperatures and sea levels are rising and the polar caps are melting. That is the bad news. The good news is that none of it is true." Meanwhile, Russell Gold in is WSJ blog says the debate over global warming is now not a scientific disagreement or even a political debate. It's all-out ideological warfare.

He's dead right, of course – which makes it all the more puzzling that the supposi-Tories and the Scarygraph are on the wrong side.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

A romp in the MSM

Picking up on the supposi-Tories discomfort, the climate-change fraud and diverse other matters to do with "Climategate", The Daily Mail is running a long round-up piece. There is nothing new to anyone who has been following the issue closely on the blogs, but this is another sign of how the sceptic agenda is taking hold in the MSM.

Not so in The Daily Scarygraph of course, which is still running full-bore on the warmist creed, giving the delightful Louise Gray a full page feature on how we're all gonna die ... or something like that. Most of the 28 comments are slightly uncomplimentary.

That fool Will Heaven is still on the case though – although one of his commenters notes, unkindly but accurately, that the only way little Willie can get a decent amount of comments on his blogs is when he disses James (Dellingpole).

Booker's column is running at 1246 comments at the moment, which must please little Louise and Willie mightily, and they will be especially pleased that Charles Moore is reviewing his mate's book under the title "'Saving' the planet will be the real disaster".

I'm not sure this is what the warmists had in mind for their slugfest in Copenhagen though.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Al-Gore gets it!

Subrosa has it. "This guy's a fraud!"

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Not just the CRU

Devil's Kitchen has an update. They're all at it – as if we didn't know that already.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Here we go

The BBC climate propaganda unit is in full flow, offering space to Mike Hulme (he of the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia), and Jerome Ravetz.

They say that "Climategate" shows that "we need a more concerted effort to explain and engage the public in understanding the processes and practices of science and scientists." But, courtesy of "Climategate", we understand those "processes and practices" all too well.

Nevertheless, these proto-Marxists acknowledge the need "for major changes in the relationship between science and the public." By this, though, they mean "a more concerted effort to explain and engage the public in understanding the processes and practices of science and scientists, as much as explaining the substance of their knowledge and how (un)certain it is."

And their answer to that is a "Citizen's Panel on Climate Change." Next in line, a Committee of Public Safety?

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Theft of data

Funny how the BBC and all the rest of the media fluff get on their high horse about the "stolen data" from the CRU.

Does anyone recall such constant references to "stolen data" when The Daily Scarygraph did its extravaganza on MPs' expenses? And how many media outlets didn't use that material because it was stolen?

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Oh dear, dear

Heffer really hasn't got it. Under the headline, "David Cameron must learn the dangers of tinkering with the constitution", we are told "Labour has not just hobbled the Union, but wrecked our whole system of government."

In the yards of EVM that follows, not one mention of the EU. Yet the consolidated treaties are part of our constitution, and our supreme government is in Brussels. How can you write about reforming our constitution without mentioning the elephant?

COMMENT THREAD

A peace conference

Bob Krause,Democratic candidate for US Senate today called for President Obama to call an international peace conference to find a permanent peaceful solution to instability in Afghanistan and the surrounding region.

"It is obvious from intelligence reports that various international interests are actually feeding the fire in Afghanistan, in part to tie down the United States. Russian arms, Chinese arms and Indian arms do provide some evidence that each of these regional powers is using the war in Afghanistan to achieve strategic advantage. In addition, friction between Afghanistan and Pakistan going back to the colonial division of the territory of the Pashtun tribal nation between Pakistan and Afghanistan is driving and complicating US efforts to stabilize the region." said Krause.

"Unless these regional frictions are identified and negotiated, we will only be spilling blood for a temporary fix that will disappear as a will-o-the-wisp into another round of brutal civil war.

This peace conference is urgent not only for the purpose of saving US, ally and Afghanistani lives, but it is also needed to prevent the US military incursion from destabilizing Pakistan. Pakistan has 180 million people. If we think we have troubles in this region of the world with Afghanistan destabilized, just wait until Pakistan is destabilized," added Krause.

The Bob Krause campaign sponsored a panel of military analysts to respond to President Obama's speech on the war escalation. Besides Krause, participants included Jeffrey Weiss, director of the Catholic Peace Ministry in Des Moines, Richard North, a noted military analyst from Europe, and Gordon Duff, senior editor of VeteransToday.Com.

An audio tape of the Krause discussion panel in response to President Obama's speech on Afghanistan is available. If you want to hear the discussion, you can call 605-475-4848. Use Access Code 975120#. This is a very detailed discussion Afghanistan and why we need an international peace conference there instead of more troops.

Krause, from Fairfield, is a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, with a brevet promotion to full colonel. He is past state president of the Reserve Officers Association and also served on the nation board of directors of the ROA. Currently he is chair of the Iowa Democratic Veterans Caucus.

COMMENT THREAD

Polyfilla at the ready

The Times is doing the collapse of the Australian carbon emissions trading scheme Bill big time.

The government's Bill was voted down 41 to 33 this morning at the end of a marathon debate, a defeat the paper says became inevitable "when the main opposition party dumped its leader and replaced him with a climate change sceptic."

This is Tony Abbott. Described as "a right-wing maverick", he has scuppered Kevin Rudd, the current prime minister, who "had been eager to be seen as a world heavyweight in tackling global warming and wanted the legislation in place before the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen next week."

There is a similar revolt brewing in the United States, which means a lot of climate alarmists and grandstanders are going to go to Copenhagen empty-handed.

With the cracks showing in the supposi-Tory party, ToryBoyBlog and Iain Dale are ladling in the Polyfilla in an attempt to shore up the crumbling edifice. It is going to take more than two tubs to fill this lot though.

As for the UK dumping its version of the emission trading scheme, which was at the heart of the Aussie Bill, well – ours is dictated by the EU, which means we are lumbered with it unless Dave grows some, or is otherwise ousted.

It would be hugely ironic if greenery, chosen by the Boy as a symbol of the renaissance of the Tories, should prove to be its downfall. It will be fun watching.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

The big climate change fraud

The scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a "load of hot air underpinned by fraud", says The Daily Express.

Professor Ian Plimer, we are told, condemned the climate change lobby as "climate comrades" keeping the "gravy train" going. Governments were treating the public like "fools" and using climate change to increase taxes.

He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years. "Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical."

You would expect Plimer to say such things, and he will have no immediate effect on the scientific community, or the politics. But the fact that this story is on the front page of a national paper is something of a breakthrough. The first glimmer of light.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Message to the Environmental Movement

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

The greenie's not for turning

The Independent is telling us that the Boy Cameron is facing "a growing challenge to his authority from senior members of his own party who say they have doubts about the Conservatives' stance on global warming."

Leading figures including Peter Lilley, the former cabinet minister, Andrew Tyrie and Ann Widdecombe are openly questioning the political consensus on climate change.

David Davis is also warning that the policy of tough targets to cut carbon emissions, supported by the Boy, is "destined to collapse". He criticises "the fixation of the green movement with setting ever tougher targets, in the face of failure to meet earlier promises".

He adds: "The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country."

Needless to say, Greg Clark, the shadow energy and climate change Secretary, denies that the supposi-Tories are split, insisting the party's sceptics hold "a minority view". He sees no evidence that their numbers are growing. "On policy, there is an increasingly strong consensus on what needs to be done," he adds.

Cameron's aides deny that the Tory leader would have to water down his "strong personal commitment to green issues," saying that would drive the party's policy. They said all parties had climate change sceptics in their ranks.

So there you are. Never mind about "Climategate". The greenie's not for turning.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

The news we want

Since August last Rupert Murdoch has been ramping up the volume on charging for online news content.

And he was at it again yesterday, reiterating his belief that internet users will pay for content, saying they would be happy to shell out for "information they need to rise in society". From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: giving readers the news that they want," he said.

This is from a media mogul whose business lost an eye-watering £2 billion last year, whose Times and Sunday Times newspaper group lost £51.3 million in the year to 29 June 2008 – before even the collapse of Lehman Brothers and recession hit the advertising market.

Nevertheless, one would like to think that Murdoch is right on two counts – that people are prepared to pay for information they need, and that newspapers have prospered for one reason: the have been giving readers the news that they want.

Therein, we feel, lies Murdoch's problem, which he shares with the rest of the legacy media. They have long ago stopped giving us the information we need, much less what we want. Instead, they have become propaganda organs, pushing their own agendas.

This disease, evident enough in The Times, is glaringly obvious in The Daily Telegraph, which is also losing money hand over fist. Despite there being the clearest of evidence that this paper's readers are hostile to the warmist creed, its output has been given over to promoting the cause, to an almost laughable extent.

Thus, with over 12 million pages on "Climategate", the Telegraph's environment correspondent Louise Gray chooses to visit the issue only now, towards the end of its second week. But even then, hers is only a passing reference, the main thrust of her story being to pick up a small error on Lord Lawson's think-tank website.

That is enough for Gray to write under the triumphal headline: "Climate sceptics get it wrong," as she gleefully announces that the think-tank was "set up in the wake of the 'climategate scandal' that saw scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) accused of manipulating climate change data."

But since Louise Gray is so concerned about accurate reporting, she might like to revisit a story published by her colleague Paul Eccleston on 14 November 2008, also in The Daily Telegraph. This announced: "Himalayan glaciers 'could disappear completely by 2035'", a report based – so we are told – on claims by "Indian climate experts".

However, the Pajamasmedia blog has tracked down the original source of the research on which this claim was based, which found its way into the IPCC 2007 climate change reports. And it turns out that the research was published in a paper by Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., in 1996, entitled "Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology."

Far from warning about the demise of the glaciers in 2035, though, the authors calculate, on the basis of linear projections of current trends, that the glaciers will disappear by 2350. The figure of 2035 then emerges in the official IPCC documents, explicable only because the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 - a typographical error.

From there, it seems, the lower, erroneous figure has acquired the mantle of fact, by dint of its authoritative provenance and its constant, uncritical repetition in the likes of The Daily Telegraph. Even yesterday our Louise was prattling on about glaciers disappearing, yet never once has she sought to check the source of her claims.

And that really is the problem writ large. The media have stopped giving us the news we want, and are now attempting to feed us with the news they want us to believe. And we ain't buying it – literally or figuratively. Nor will we buy it, for as long as the legacy media treats it customers with such contempt.

More on Your freedom and ours.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

The wages of "Climategate"

The Associated Press is reporting that Phil Jones, director of the "prestigious" Climatic Research Unit is stepping down "pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change".

We are told by the University of East Anglia authorities that he is to relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

This is the first scientific "casualty" of the Climategate scandal. And, although it may presage a whitewash, the fact that this action has been taken immediately prior to the Copenhagen conference, suggests that the furore is being taken seriously by the university.

The move on Jones follows the dumping of Malcolm Turnbull, the former leader of Australia's Liberal party, and his replacement by Tony Abbott, an avowed climate sceptic. Turnbull is regarded as the first major political casualty of the scandal.

Both these episodes largely vindicate bloggers and the few media commentators who took up the issue, leaving the MSM trailing. One wonders whether the media will now take the issue more seriously.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

The wages of Lisbon

The Tory Boy blog picks up the report that approval for the Boy is declining, the start of the fall coinciding with his sell-out on the EU referendum.

Cranmer gets the point, but it is clear that too many of supposi-Tories don't. The Boy thought he had parked "Europe" with his faux policy – he hasn't. It is coming back to haunt him, and will continue to do so until he addresses it.

COMMENT THREAD

More work needed

In the run-up to the Copenhagen conference the Science Museum, under the logo "PROVE IT!", invited visitors and web users to respond to the following statement with 'count me in' or 'count me out': "I've seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen."

In the PROVE IT! gallery, 3408 people chose to count in and 626 chose to count out. On the website, 2650 users counted in and 7612 counted out. That makes 6,058 who went for the crap, as against 8,238 who didn't.

That had Prof Chris Rapley, director of the museum - and Professor of Climate Science at UCL – weeping in his cups, telling the media:

More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution. Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.

These warmists have a great deal in common with the supposi-Tories and the EU. If you don't buy their message, never once does it occur to them that they might be wrong. The response to an outright rejection is simply calls to intensify the same message. "They don't understand – we must shout louder", seems to be their thinking.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

"Muddled and confused"

"The evidence is overwhelming. People have the right to speak up but if they are muddled and confused then they do not have the right to be described as anything other than muddled and confused on the basis of the arguments they set out and what is wrong with them," says the great Lord Stern.

I guess American Thinker would not be too impressed with that argument.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Supposi-Tory waffle

David Cameron has asked Lord Young, the Tory peer, to review "over-the-top health and safety laws" and scrap any legislation which does not fulfil a useful purpose.

The man claims that the European Union and Labour were "partly to blame" because of the volume of legislation they had created. But, he said, the biggest problem related to the way laws were interpreted. He complained about the "perception we have allowed to develop that in Britain today behind every accident there is someone who is personally culpable, someone who must pay."

Thus does he avoid the "elephant in the room". Health and safety at work is, of course, an exclusive EU competence. Thus, the EU is responsible for European directives concerning the protection of workers, of which this is a list:

1.1 Framework directive
1.2 Individual directives (within the meaning of Article 16 of Directive 89/391/EEC)
1.2.01 Workplaces
1.2.02 Use of work equipment
1.2.03 Use of personal protective equipment
1.2.04 Work with display screen equipment
1.2.05 Manual handling
1.2.06 Carcinogens
1.2.07 Biological agents
1.2.08 Safety signs
1.2.09 Pregnant workers
1.2.10 Mineral-extracting industries (drilling)
1.2.11 Mineral-extracting industries
1.2.12 Fishing vessels
1.2.13 Chemical agents
1.2.16 Temporary or mobile construction sites
1.2.14 Physical agents - vibration
1.2.15 Physical agents - noise
1.3 Temporary workers
1.4 Medical treatment on board vessels
1.5 Young people
1.7 Transport activities
1.8 Explosive atmospheres
1.9 Electrical equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres in mines susceptible to firedamp
1.10 Commission Communication on the practical implementation of the Framework Directive and first 5 daughter Directives, 05.02.2004
2. Protection of workers from risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents
2.1 Chemical agents
2.2 Individual directives
2.2.1 Metallic Lead
2.2.2 Asbestos
2.2.3 Noise
2.2.4 Banning
2.2.5 Indicative limit values
2.3 Vinyl chloride monomer
3. Working time
3.1 Working time
4. Equal treatment for men and women (employment, training and working conditions)
B. Internal market: approximation of laws
1. Machines, products and apparatus
1.1 CE marking 93/68
1.2 Machines
1.3 Lifts
1.4 Personal protective equipment
1.5 Equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres (ATEX)
1.6 Pressure vessels
1.7 Gas cylinders
1.8 Aerosol dispensers
1.9 Simple pressure vessels
1.10 Pressure equipment
1.11 Construction plant and equipment
1.11.1 General provisions
1.11.2 Noise emission of construction plant and equipment
1.11.2.1 Sound power level of welding generators
1.11.2.2 Sound power level of compressors
1.11.2.3 Sound power level of power generators
1.11.2.4 Sound power level of powered hand-held concrete-breakers and picks
1.11.2.5 Sound power level of tower cranes
1.11.2.6 Sound power level of lawnmowers
1.12 Limitation of noise emitted by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators, dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders
1.13 Construction products
1.14 Product safety
1.15 Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)
1.16 Electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits
1.17 Appliances burning gaseous fuels
2. Dangerous substances and preparations
2.1 Framework directive
C. European directives concerning the protection of workers, consumers and population
1 Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances
1.1 Framework directive
2 Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations
3 Safety data sheet
4 Risk assessment of substances
4.1 Risk assessment of existing substances
4.2 Risk assessment of new substances
5 Liability for defective products
6 General Product Safety
7 Major hazards of certain industrial activities
8 Transport of dangerous goods by road
8.1 Transport of dangerous goods by road
8.2 Checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road
8.3 Safety adviser for the transport of dangerous goods
9 Transport of dangerous goods by rail
10 Biotechnology
10.1 Genetically modified micro-organisms
11 Pesticides
11.1 Pesticides – Agriculture
D. Euratom
1 Ionising radiation

Those are just the Directives. That does not include the seven-page list of regulations, and the thousands of EU standards. The betting is that the Boy plans to scrap none of these. This is the usual supposi-Tory waffle - sound-bites to sound good, but no substance.

COMMENT THREAD

Lib-Dims go squidgy

The Lib Dems have ditched their pledge for an "in or out" referendum on UK membership of the EU. That is what the BBC tells us, citing ex leader Sir Menzies Campbell, so it must be true.

When he launched the policy in 2007, Sir Menzies said the public deserved an "honest debate" on Europe, arguing that a public vote was needed to reaffirm Britain's relationship with the EU. But now, on the day that the Lisbon treaty comes in to force, Campbell is saying that there is "no public appetite" for a vote.

Dead convenient, that ... now the deed is done, there is "no public appetite" for a referendum. Perhaps he is right. A revolution is more appropriate.

COMMENT THREAD

It woz Google?

... wot dun it and not the evil warmists in The Scarygraph?

Shucks.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

Where is Devil's Kitchen?

The only way to treat this lunacy on rising sea levels is ... a good swear blog. (Congratulations, by the way.) And they're all at it .

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

A dispatch from an occupied country

From today, as the Lisbon treaty comes into force, we are no longer masters in our own house. Our prime minister, as a member of the European Council, is obligated under this new treaty to promote the aims and objectives of the European Union, over and above those of the UK, and is bound by the rules of the Union.

Of course, this will make no immediate difference. It simply renders de jure what has been de facto for several decades, but the coming into force of the treaty marks an important symbolic turning point. We are no longer an independent country, de jure. Our prime minister and his government are now working for an alien government, based in Brussels.

In effect, that makes us an occupied country, but the alien creatures that rule us most directly are our own. We are "occupied" by our own political élites, who owe their allegiance not to the people who elected them and pay their wages, but to a more powerful, self-appointed élite in Brussels. They are sock-puppets, with less power than the Vichy government of the 1940s.

No longer will we have general elections to select our own government. All that is afforded to us now is the "privilege" of choosing an electoral college, comprised of people we still call Members of Parliament, who then go on to select the British member of the European Council, a man who is there not to represent us or serve our interests, but to participate in our supreme government.

It is perhaps rather fitting, therefore, that on this day, Mr Cameron's supposi-Tories should be confronting another drop in their poll ratings, attributable in part at least to the Boy's craven surrender to the forces of darkness.

The party is down three points to 37 percent, with Labour unchanged on 27 percent and the Lib Dems up two on 20 percent. This is the second such poll in recent times which indicates that the supposi-tories are unlikely to make a breakthrough and win the prize of nominating their leader as the British member of the European Council.

On current results, there could be a hung parliament after the next general election, a process which we have called an electorally-mandated reshuffle – for the only substantive result is that we change the people we send to our supreme government in Brussels.

Such an outcome is considered by some as undesirable, but it is of little importance. For sure, our provincial government will be able to exercise some residual powers, but over term, they will reduce even more, whoever is elected. Therefore, the results of this coming "reshuffle" are a matter of supreme indifference.

Others, who still seem to care, are put in an impossible position. On one of the major supposi-tory blogs, a commenter remarked: "My prospective Conservative MP is a Europhile 'climate change expert'. You expect me to vote for that? You must be having a laugh." You can see the poor man's problem.

The worst of it is that, in the streets today, nothing will appear to have changed. Everything will look much the same as it did yesterday. In No 10, a man by the name of Gordon Brown will still be calling himself prime minister. In the Houses of Parliament, there will still be MPs and peers, and the Union Jack will adorn the building.

But everything is different. We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. And things will stay different until we have regained our freedom. Until then, as I remarked before, we owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.

COMMENT THREAD

Why should he have all the best tunes?

Why should the Boss be the only one to rant about the Conservative Party? Hmmm? I am having a go as well over on Your Freedom and Ours. Enjoy.