A sad little figure

The Prince of Wales "spoke out" yesterday, according to The Scotsman, over his "dismay and alarm" at those who question the science behind climate change.

In his strongest comments yet attacking so-called climate sceptics, Charles said the evidence for manmade global warming was "utterly overwhelming". Anyone who refused to play a part in tackling global warming were playing "Russian roulette" with their children's futures.

Charles said carbon dioxide levels are 40 percent higher now than they were before the Industrial Revolution and spoke of the "alarming messages" from explorers such as Pen Hadow about the melting polar regions of Earth. (my emphasis).

I don't think he can realise that anyone who takes Pen Hadow seriously simply is not worth listening to. Charles, therefore, makes for a sad little establishment figure, wrapped up in his bubble, totally oblivious to the real world – of which he has never been part.

Like so many establishment figures, he cannot even begin to countenance that he could be wrong and, surrounded by sycophants and courtiers, there is no-one to tell him that. His stance is that, because he believes something – and everyone around him tells him how clever he is – everyone else should believe it.

In a way, you can almost feel sorry for him, except that there is a strong core of arrogance here as well. And it does not matter how well motivated he is – pulling the "children's future" card is so low grade as to be despicable. How dare he presume that "sceptics" are any less concerned for their own children, or that their convictions are not a match of his?

Moreover, anyone who read the piece in Watts up with that yesterday, and understood the political implications (I will write about them later today), will realise that the global warming creed – in effect if not intent – is pure evil.

By focusing on carbon dioxide instead of real pollution (something of a refrain of mine) the warmists are diverting attention, funds and resources away from the problems that are killing people by the hundreds of thousands, and blighting millions of lives.

Further, as we run into the third severe winter in a row, with Watts telling us that the US is about to be hit by another major snowstorm, there is a very real possibility that we are entering, if not actually in, a period of cooling. And, as is evident to anyone who has evaluated the relative consequences, that – not warming – is the more immediate and far more serious danger.

Charles and his ilk, therefore, do themselves no service. They invite derision and contempt – and a deal of resentment. We can do without their preaching and do not recognise their right to take the moral high ground. Thus, while Charles may complain about facing "unbelievable abuse" every time he opens his mouth to speak his mind, there is a very obvious remedy.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

The killer blow

Pachauri is on the ropes but he ain't down yet. The view is it will take one more "killer blow" to fell him .. and it looks as if its been found! Under wraps at the moment, for obvious reasons, but all will be revealed.

R K Pachauri needs to be acquainted with the first rule of politics - DFWN ... since it is a family blog, you'll have to work it out for yourselves.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Broken Trust

Another superb analysis of the BBC and climate change, over on Biased BBC.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

And the latest version is?

"You might find that difficult to believe, but that's a fact. I just don't know what my salary is." Rajendra Pachauri, interviewed by The Economist.

There's no answer to that.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

British Council spends £3.5 million on climate change propaganda

In the space of two years, the British Council has spent more that £3.5 million of British taxpayers' money on climate change propaganda – according to information released to this blog under the Freedom of Information Act.

It has been spent on recruiting young people in 60 countries to pressurise world leaders to "to take action on climate change". This included funding groups to attend the December Copenhagen summit in order to take part in demonstrations.

Founded in 1934 to promote Britain's international cultural relations, and funded heavily by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), this body until recently chaired by Lord Kinnock has become one of Britain's lead bodies overseas, in promoting the climate change agenda.

The £3.5 million expenditure has been incurred on two initiatives. The first, and most expensive, costing £2.5 million, is the "International Climate Champions" programme. which "engages young people around the world as communicators who will help to influence and educate their peers and the general public on the urgency of climate change".

This is matched by the European element known as "Challenge Europe", which has cost hard-pressed British taxpayers £1.1 million to date. The British Council describes it as a three year project "that aspires to make a definite and lasting impact on the climate change debate, and is ambitious in its aim to accelerate change to a low carbon future."

The second year of the project started this month and aims to select "15-20 young influencers" to become British taxpayer-funded "Climate Advocates". They are drawn from 17 countries across Europe: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey, UK and Ukraine.

Norway and Denmark have been amongst the biggest recipients, each getting £36,000 in the financial year 2009/10 and, although the British Council has an international remit, £35,000.00 was spent in Great Britain to recruit "Climate Advocates", with another £37,000.00 being spent in Ireland. Sweden received £34,500.00 and money even went to the Ukraine, with £2,050.16 being spent there.

As regards the flagship programme, the "International Climate Champions", this was launched in 2008 in 13 countries (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) and then grew to encompass more than 800 in 29 countries.

Last year, this was expanded to 60 countries across the globe, recruiting over 1,300 young people "who are passionate about and committed to taking action on climate change." The British Council describes their "champions" as "not only leaders in their communities" but young people who "are also participating in international peer networks, both in person and online, to share ideas, projects and experiences."

Of the recipients, in 2008/9 £50,000 was spent in the United States, £30,775 in Mexico, £49,831.74 in Brazil and even £3,406.43 in China. South Africa received £48,211.45 but, in a programme that reflects the underlying tensions between the British Council and Russia, only £10.34 was spent in that country (on what?). Canada was paid £54,861.05 and despite the parallel European programme, Germany got £43,280.93, Italy £40,416.40 and France £44,392.54. Japan was given £50,258.13 while £245,382.93 was spent in the UK.

This expenditure totalled £660,827.83 but in 2009/10 – with not all funds disbursed, spending went up to £1,852,010.28. This time, the largest recipient was China, which was given a massive £303,093.24.

Other big recipients were India, which was given £70,132.88 – including over £11,000 to Dr Pachaur's institute, TERI. Brazil got £71,262.91 and oil-rich Qatar was awarded £77,587.89. A clutch of European countries were again funded, with £30,347.77 going to Germany, £13,955.23 to Italy and £9,952.69 to France. Canada was given £29,384.74 and the United States got £21,115.88. Mexico was given £3,417.57, Greece £5,867.41 and Turkey £3,890.91.

Bangladesh was given £43,306.34, Nepal £45,642.89 and Uzbekistan £13,202.03. Indonesia gained £38,992.36, Japan £55,006.25 and Korea £13,379.84. Even Singapore was not left out. It got £693.56 while Thailand got £24,327.37 and Vietnam was awarded £15,264.68.

Over £120,000 went to a raft of 12 African counties, with £21,620.88 going to famine-torn Sudan and another £14,286.31 to Mr Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Zambia got 29,486.00 and Tanzania £10,542.47, while poverty-stricken Sierra Leone was given £69.47. However, the British Council kept £810,788.14 which was spent in the UK.

Nevertheless, taxpayers will be pleased to learn that the money is in good hands. Head of the programme is the famous Dr Viner, formerly of the East Anglian Climatic Research Unit. It was he who in 2001 was telling The Independent that within a few years winter snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event".

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Repeating its mistakes

Pachauri is looking even more shaky, according to Ben Webster in The Times, as his allies peel away.

The latest is John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK, who wants Pachauri replaced. He says of the Himalayan glaciers that the good doctor should have acted as soon as he had been informed of the "error", even though issuing a correction would have embarrassed the IPCC on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.

"Mistakes will always be made," says Sauven, "but it's how you handle those mistakes which affects the credibility of the institution. Pachauri should have put his hand up and said 'we made a mistake'. It's in these situations that your character and judgment is tested. Do you make the right judgment call? He clearly didn't."

Pachauri is the man, of course, who when first confronted with doubts as to the glacier claim, dismissed their author as indulging in "voodoo science", refusing even to countenance error. And now, under the tutelage of its master, the IPCC is repeating the mistake.

In a press release issued yesterday, it gave a no compromise response to the latest gaffes to be detected. It writes:

Recent media interest has drawn attention to two so-called errors in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, the first dealing with losses from disasters and the second on the subject of Amazon forests. The leadership of the IPCC has looked into both these instances and concluded that the challenges are without foundations.

In neither case, did we find any basis for making changes in the wording of the report. We are convinced that there has been no error on those issues on the part of the IPCC. We released a statement about the disaster issue. As far as the second subject dealing with the Amazon is concerned, again, the IPCC has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands in the report.

In response to these baseless charges, we have decided to provide details on the manner in which the IPCC has implemented its principles and procedures. These are the foundations that provide assurance on the validity and accuracy of statements made in the AR4.

Those "details" are here, an amalgam of complacency, insufferable arrogance and wishful thinking, demonstrating that the organisation has learned nothing from its "Glaciergate" experience. Such is its inability to read the mood, it seems set to conspire in its own downfall.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

A well-financed and vicious plot

"For the first time, Indians are experiencing an organised, systematic and vicious attack by powerful and well-funded lobbies in the developed world.

These lobbies are aiming to diminish the perception of the impact of global warming and climate change on our common future, and the consequent need to change our lifestyle. Such lifestyle changes will damage the future of many industries, so there are vast resources and stakes in continuing present consumption styles."

That is the considered view of S L Rao, a visiting fellow at Dr Pachauri's Teri and former director general of National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER), writing in the Indian Business Standard under the headline: "Behind the attacks on Pachauri".

Pachauri himself is just as bad, if less explicit, reported in The Financial Times as declining to name anyone behind the concerted attack on the IPCC (and himself), saying it was probably backed by powerful corporate interests determined to thwart concerted action against global warming.

There I am then, sitting in the back room of a house that is not even worth as much as Dr Pachauri's back yard, deep in an obscure suburb of unfashionable Bradford, 200 miles north of London, fending off the bailiffs only with the help of our generous readers and the occasional commission for a newspaper – bashing away at a £300-laptop, so worn that the lettering on some of the keys is now invisible.

And now, variously, my little free-lance effort has become part of "an organised, systematic and vicious attack by powerful and well-funded lobbies in the developed world" backed by "powerful corporate interests determined to thwart concerted action against global warming" (probably).

I wish.

But, according to S L Rao, the anti-climate change lobby has, after Copenhagen, mounted such an attack on R K Pachauri, and thus on the credibility of the IPCC and its reports on climate change. It started with vicious personal attacks on Pachauri’s earnings from his counselling of various organisations around the world.

When they discovered that Pachauri gave all payments made to him in connection with such work to Teri, says Rao, they charged him with using his position to help fund Teri. They then found a serious mistake in the findings in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report relating to the melting of Himalayan glaciers, and used this mistake to condemn the idea of climate change itself!

In the case of Himalayan glaciers, by focusing on an overstated conclusion of obviously incompetent "assessment", the anti-climate change lobby is trying to deny climate change as a whole. With its personal attack on the chief of the IPCC, it is trying to discredit his values and principles to claim that IPCC's reports are biased for his personal financial benefit and that of his organisation, thus discrediting all IPCC's laborious work in four reports over many years.

By further extending the attack to Teri, the lobby is trying to discredit the work of a unique Indian interdisciplinary research-cum-action organisation, and attack its funding sources — a vulnerable point of any research organisation.

We, in India, warns S L Rao, "must be aware of this well-financed and vicious plot by international agencies."

While the IPCC and all research organisations must be ever vigilant in terms of the quality of people it employs, the quality of supervision, and review, the work of two Indian "glaciologists" must not be allowed to bring disrepute to Indian science. But, we can be certain that the anti-climate change lobby will persist in trying to discredit IPCC's work, its president and others in the organisation.

These people just can't cope with the idea that they've been blagged by an unpaid blogger on the other side of the world, reaching out through the power of the internet, one of many other bloggers who have taken on the might of the warmists and have given them – and all their billions in funding – a run for their money.

Roger Harrabin of the BBC half gets it, noting that "the web is the home of right-wing bloggers who campaign politically against the IPCC." But, for all its frequent vitriol and false accusations, he writes, "the blogosphere has been proven at least partially right on occasions. Any future iteration of the IPCC, he says, will have to find a way of taking the serious bloggers seriously."

The trouble is they don't understand bloggers, don't understand how they derive their power and, most of all, cannot conceive that a few dedicated people, motivated entirely by principle, can use the medium blogging affords and run circles round them.

In their narrow, corporate world, slaves to their paymasters and their vested interests, they can only see the world through the prism of their own experiences. And, like S L Rao, they get it hopelessly and laughably wrong. That is why we're going to beat them. The "monster" always has a blind spot – and we've found it.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Carnegie suspended Pachauri grant

Despite Dr Pachauri's claims that his research institution TERI was being funded from a grant of $500,000 from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the money from one of America's leading and oldest charities had already been suspended by the time he announced the grant.

The announcement of the funding was made jointly at a prestigious press conference by Pachauri and the president of Iceland, Dr Ólafur Grímsson on 15 January of this year.

On the day, the TERI press release claimed that, "according to predictions of scientific merit they [the glaciers] may indeed melt away in several decades. This, in turn, will have implications for the entire water system of the sub-continent, with immediate effect on soil, water management, and the possibilities of food production."

"Looking at the unfolding scenario in the mountains and the immediate need for scientific collaboration and research on this issue," the release continued, "[the] University of Iceland in collaboration with The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and the Carnegie Corporation of New York have joined hands to work in the fields of glaciology and soil science."

Although the release claimed that the collaboration, "will be funded primarily by the Carnegie Corporation of New York", the celebrations were a sham as, according to the Indian DNA news agency, no money had been given to either TERI or Grímsson's Global Centre.

This is confirmed by Susan King, vice president for public affairs at the corporation. "In September 2008, we approved a $500,000 grant to the Iceland -based Global Centre towards research on water-related security and humanitarian challenges to South Asia posed by the melting Himalayan glaciers. It was a one-time grant," she said.

"No funds have been paid to the centre as the grantee (the centre) told us not to send it because of political and economic challenges facing Iceland," she added.

No timescale is given by King, but from a separate e-mail sent to us from Carnegie official George Soule, we learn that the grant was suspended shortly after it had been approved, i.e., well before TERI's January launch. The Corporation has not answered queries about whether the grant will be reinstated.

The DNA agency notes that, "Clearly, the US charity's money hasn't been squandered on a Himalayan blunder." King declined to comment, or get dragged into the climate row, the agency says, but did the centre and Carnegie smell a rat? The grant never happened despite being approved in September 2008.

It's terribly odd for a receiver of a grant to turn down generous funding "unless, of course, the centre felt the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was far-fetched," the agency concludes.

However, there is more. On Sunday, we noted that an emergency workshop of glacier experts had been convened on 28 December by UNEP, the sponsoring organisation for the IPCC – specifically to discuss the melting glacier claim.

Then, the considered response was that the claim was unsupported by science and that the IPCC conclusion "may have to be revised". Yet Dr Pachauri, head of the IPCC – who must have known of the conclusion – did nothing until 20 January, three days after it had been raised by The Sunday Times and five days after his TERI press launch.

Had the controversy broken earlier, it would clearly have been embarrassing to Drs Pachauri and Grímsson but was there a more sinister motive? With the Carnegie funds having been suspended, was Pachauri keeping quiet in order to avoid the very controversy he feared might happen – knowing that a major press row might end any chances of reinstatement?

Do we have a cover-up here?

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

The latest exaggeration

Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit picks up the latest exaggeration in the IPCC report, via the Dutch newspaper Vrij Nederland.

This is to be found in Chapter 12 of the WGII report, where it tells us:

The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced.

In fact, as the newspaper tells us, these figures are far too high. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) states that only one fifth of the Netherlands is below sea level and that only 19 percent rather than 65 percent of the GDP generated is generated in that area.

Steve observes that even 20 percent is not something that can be ignored, but the percentage below sea level is the sort of thing that primary school geography classes should be able to get right.

There is more to it than that, though. As the evidence builds, it is possible to say that this is more than sloppy work or a few "mistakes". As with the temperatures claimed to prove global warming, every "error" points in one direction, exaggerating the impacts of climate change.

Thus, while glaciers may or may not be melting, if you accept that they are, then the 2035 figure is a gross exaggeration. A portion of the Amazon rain forest may be at risk from climate change – specifically reduced rainfall – but both the figure of 40 percent and the suggestion that the forests are susceptible to slight reductions in precipitation are gross exaggerations.

That seems to be the underlying modus operandi of the IPCC – serial, structured exaggeration in order to build its case. How many more examples do we need before they stop talking about "mistakes" and admit to deliberate fraud?

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Another day, another (10,000) dollar(s)

The "embattled" Dr Pachuri (as the media are now describing him) has his UN colleagues rallying around him in a desperate attempt to restore something of his tarnished prestige, offering him yet another award.

This one is the 2010 UN-HABITAT Cities Lecture Award. As well as the $10,000 cash prize, a key component is the delivery, by the award winner, of a lecture before a live audience. Dr. Pachauri will present his lecture at 1400 on Tuesday 23rd March at the World Urban Forum, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The award, we are told, is in recognition of Pachauri's "outstanding contribution and leadership in the area of climate change and, in particular, his contribution to knowledge and global action on climate change and cities."

Ostensibly, Pachauri might welcome the $10,000 as a supplement to the meagre £2,600 a month salary which he claims is paid to him by his "research institute", but with this man, what you see is not what you yet.

Curiously, amongst the great accomplishments attributed to Dr Pachauri in the UN-HABITAT press release – in addition to him receiving the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC – is his service as President of the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi 2004-06.

The irony of citing the Habit Centre is almost certainly lost on the award committee as it was Pachari's tenure on the governing council of the centre, during its development, which first exposed him publicly as a consummate and unprincipled liar.

As set out in our earlier post, it was then that judge K Ramamoorthy in the Delhi High Court condemned Pachauri for suppressing material facts and swearing a false affidavit.

There is something of the psychopath in the ease and fluidity with which Pachauri so often lies – which makes him seem to plausible – but it is in that context that his current salary claim must be seen.

Here, one has to note that he refers only to his "research institute", but that is only one of the many enterprises under the TERI brand-name that he heads. Amongst others, there is the commercial company TERI Biotech, which has a 47 percent share in the joint venture company called ONGC TERI Biotech Ltd (OTBL).

There is also the TERI University which, despite its title, is a commercial enterprise, of which Pachauri is chancellor, and there are many other organisations and divisions which could be separate companies, which have not been identified. And there is also his Houston Glori Oil company, about which the man is strangely reticent.

The one thing Pachauri does not tell us, therefore, is his total earnings, which may include shares, share options and other cash equivalents which all go towards what is often called the "compensation package". Rather, he leaves us with the impression that the salary is his income, which is unlikely to be the case.

Another problem we have is that a man who sees no problem with swearing false affidavits is hardly going to have a problem lying about his income, so even if he did come up with a total figure, how would we believe him?

As for the $10,000 prize, it would not surprise me if, in a grand public gesture, Pachauri "donates" the money to some worthy cause. After all, for a man living in a house worth £4.5 million who only pays his tailor £30 "to stitch his suits" (although he does not say how much he pays for the cloth), and who has a fleet of chauffeur-driven cars at his disposal while living the life-style of a multi-millionaire, a mere $10,000 is loose change.

Frankly though, how much he does earn is not the central issue. It is only relevant inasmuch as we have in Pachauri a man who is quite obviously well off telling other people who are less well off than him that they must cut back on their consumption. Hypocrisy is the issue, not greed.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Gone native

Based on a press release issued by the energy regulator Ofgem, multiple news reports today warn of impending power shortages. In the vanguard is the BBC, which also tells us that the regulator has also warned that a significant number of consumers may not be able to afford the higher energy prices they would have to face.

Details also emerge in agency copy and outlets such as Bloomberg but nowhere does it seem to me that the full context of the press release is properly explained – the nature of which is devastating.

To put it in context, Ofgem - the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets - tells us that "protecting consumers is our first priority," then listing "other priorities and influences", which include "contributing to the drive to curb climate change and other work aimed at sustainable development."

What this press release actually tells us though is that Ofgem has gone native, ditching it first priority – the very reason for which it was set up - replacing it with climate change. The effect of that will not only ensure that we do run out of electricity but we will also have to pay through the nose for the limited supply that remains available.

This, of course, it not stated overtly, but what we are dealing with is a long-term initiative called Project Discovery. This takes as its starting point UK "carbon targets" - reductions of 80 per cent by 2050 and then notes that there is "an urgent need to plug the generation gap as coal and oil plant comes off the system to meet 2015 European emissions limits."

As an aside here, it misstates the reason for the coal and oil plant coming off the system – this has nothing to do with emission limits, but is entirely due to the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive, which imposes limits on sulphur dioxide which pre-date the current obsession with global warming.

Anyhow, the essential element of the Ofgem plan is that it takes as a given the government objective of replacing the lost capacity with renewables – mostly with offshore wind power - picking up the 33GW figure that is needed to maintain energy supplies. It then observes that the current financial environment is not conducive to incentivising investors to cough up with the £200 billion needed.

What is entirely missing from the analysis is the simple but inescapable fact that, even with the best will in the world, it is not technically feasible to deliver 33GW of wind power within any foreseeable time frame, irrespective of whether the finance is available.

This we explored way back in June 2008, with two posts, one pointing some of the technical problems and the other citing Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, who was calling for an "honest debate" on energy provision.

Nothing much has changed since then, other than to bring to light additional technical difficulties – not least undersea cabling problems and growing concerns about the durability and reliability of turbines in highly aggressive offshore environments. In short, what was true then is true now – the offshore plan proposed by the government is not technically feasible.

Having ignored this completely, Ofgem thus focuses on financial incentives which it deems necessary to "unlock" the necessary investment, coming up with a package of measures which it sets out in the diagram illustrated above. First amongst these is imposing a minimum carbon price (level unspecified) to "encourage investment in low carbon technologies."

Bearing in mind that Ofgem is warning about unsustainable price rises, with consumers no longer being able to afford electricity, this is a stunning proposal. Translated, what it is suggesting is a mechanism to increase the costs of conventional power generation to the point where the vastly more expensive renewable energy becomes "competitive" and thereby promotes investment in it.

Totally missing is any indication of who will pay for the increased carbon price, and/or the vastly increased cost of power generation. Somehow, Ofgem seems to believe that this is a no-cost option.

Its next brainchild it calls "Enhanced Obligations and Renewables Tenders", a plan to increase the subsidies (although it does not call them that) to renewable energy providers, and giving them a guaranteed return, "over say a 20 year period," again to "encourage investment in renewable energy". Precisely who pays those subsidies, Ofgem does not say.

Should that be insufficient, Ofgem then argues for "co-ordinating all future investment through a single entity," – essentially re-nationalising power provision, with a state authority (called a "central energy buyer") determining the amount and type of new generation needed and entering into long-term energy contracts for power. Thus, electricity generators will be told what to build, and then the price structure is rigged to cover their (inflated) costs.

To legitimise this, Ofgem chief executive Alistair Buchanan is saying that without what he euphemistically calls "reform" there could be a "degree of crisis" in 2013 or 2014 and warns the situation could then become "quite uncomfortable". Failure to act would risk shortages after 2015 and mean customers would end up footing the bill for costly short-term solutions.

What he is actually saying is that, to stave off short-term problems and price increases, (brought about primarily, although not exclusively, by the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive – which he does not address), we must adopt a price and control system which will ensure vastly increased prices and fail to deliver the necessary capacity.

In fact, what is already happening is that the generators are investing in increased gas-fuelled capacity, notionally needed as back-up to the wind system but which will actually become our base-load provider. That will precipitate precisely the problems which Ofgem claims to be seeking to avoid, with local gas shortages during peak demand, requiring emergency purchases of gas on the spot market, at highly inflated prices.

The really worrying thing here, then, is that Ofgem is living in a fantasy world, which has not even the slightest acquaintance with reality, bolstered by the idiot Ed Miliband, who says the Government is "confident" of meeting energy supply needs, with a low-carbon transition plan delivering secure supplies until 2020.

And waiting in the wings is David Cameron, whose plans for a "low-carbon transition plan" are indistinguishable from Miliband's fantasy, thereby ensuring that a change of administration – if we get one at the next election – will ensure that our electricity system continues to deteriorate. These fools, between them, will do for us all.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

BBC – a hotbed of denial?

Sunny Hundal in The Guardian thinks that Newsnight is evidence that the BBC "has become this country's most pernicious climate-change-denying media outlet in the UK."

The hook for last night's Newsnight report, he writes, was today's Guardian reporting that the IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri rightly refusing to apologise for a mistake that wasn't made under his watch.

Eh? This is the man who accepted the Nobel prize on behalf of the IPCC, on the basis of AR4 ... which contains the "mistake", that wasn't made under his watch?

Much more of this and David Cameron will be signing him on as a climate change advisor. With that degree of intellectual coherence, he and Osborne should be soul mates.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Sooooo yesterday

"In normal times, a resurgent Conservative Party, the party of sceptical common sense, of fiscal prudence, would be assuring itself of a 300-seat majority in May by kicking to death Labour's discredited climate nonsense. Instead, Dave is doggedly pursuing his kamikaze course on Green policies. He and his cronies may be the last people in Britain to believe in AGW.

But that is consistent with the whole Cameron phenomenon, which is a slavish recreation of the Blairism of 13 years ago. Cameron's 'modernisation' amounts to a cunning plan to win the 1997 general election. Unhappily, this is 2010 and Dave is on course to make Conservatism history – alongside the superstition of man-made global warming."

Gerald Warner on his blog. What more can you say ... the Conservative party has been taken over by idiots. Heffer gets close, mind you: "I cannot bear to rehearse once more the inadequacies of the shadow chancellor, Mr Osborne ...". Quite!

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Phil Jones on Channel 4

The only thing they don't do is use soft focus when they film him ... he will be vindicated ... yeah!

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Worth a snigger or two

It is almost impossible to suppress a snigger when Pachauri, with all the sincerity he can muster, tells us it would be "hypocritical" to apologise about the melting glaciers.

Hypocrisy is something Pachauri knows a great deal about, and on this he is perfectly right. It would indeed be hypocritical, for he feels not the slightest bit of remorse. Nor does he seem to have any sense of responsibility for his own conduct.

Nor indeed, do his statements have even a passing acquaintance with the truth, as he persists in perpetrating the falsehood that the glacier claim was "an isolated mistake," that it was "down to human error" and "totally out of character" for the panel.

Those that care enough to find out will already know that it was not a mistake – the inclusion of the false claim was deliberate – it wasn't isolated, and human error did not come into it. As to it being out of character, unfortunately, it is all too representative of the IPCC and its structured, premeditated scaremongering.

However, the statements uttered by Pachauri, and retailed in today's edition of The Guardian are part of a sustained damage limitation exercise which started on Sunday in the Indian media and which is radiating outwards in a last-ditch attempt to salvage the tattered reputation of the IPCC and the good doctor.

Observing some of the efforts of the IPCC's defenders, Mrs EU Referendum was heard to observe: "they couldn't even lie straight in bed". This, I believe, is a traditional Yorkshire saying – usually reserved for politicians.

Most enjoyable of all Pachauri's thrashing was his piece in the Hindustan Times where he declares: "They can bend me, but they can't break me."

The man is obsessed with the idea that there is a global conspiracy ranged against him, unable to understand that he is actually facing a backlash from real people who are just sick of his cant and his scaremongering. But, even under attack, his arrogance shines through, as he tells us:

The IPCC was also correct on its claim on Amazon forests … the IPCC isn't here to answer deniers of climate change. Their sole objective is to damage the credibility of IPCC, not answering people whose only motive is to deny the science of climate change.

He then also declares:

There is only one error (Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035), to which we have admitted. After that the errors reported are spurious. They (some western media) said the IPCC claim on the losses from disasters was not from an authentic source. We checked the source; it was authentic.

We will put up a statement on IPCC website (clarifying errors), this is it. We are not going to answer these spurious individual complaints coming in only two sources, The Times (London), and, more importantly, The Telegraph.

Despite what Pachauri is saying, there was expressed a real sense of unease in the Newsnight programme (we'll post a link when it's up - part here), as numerous commentators gave every indication that they understood the depth of the crisis confronting them.

And, with Fred Pearce back in The Guardian, questioning peer-review and the hockey stick, with Moonbat also holding forth, it is clear that there is indeed a crisis.

Even Phil Jones says he's concerned that scepticism about climate change appeared to be growing, recorded in The Times telling us: "It makes me quite worried people are beginning to doubt the climate has warmed up." He should be more worried that Moonbat has declared, again, that the e-mail scandal shames the university and requires resignations, not only Jones but others.

"You'd have to have a heart of ice not to laugh," writes Melanie Phillips on her blog. She’s referring to Stern and the Tories, but she could just as well be writing about the whole mess. And if not a laugh, it's certainly worth a snigger or two.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Delingpole is suitably caustic

There must be very few examples of rats climbing aboard a sinking ship – holed at the Stern, one might say. Delingpole rises to the occasion, the comments reinforcing the enormity of the blunder made by that idiot Osborne.

Strangely enough, there is no comment on the unofficial Tory party blog, while Tory wannabe MP Iain Dale is also silent on the matter. Having to go to non-Tory sites to get news of the not-the-Conservative party, one finds, is a very sure sign of problems.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Comments have been disabled

"I wouldn't want to take all the credit for the IPCC, but ... " Strangely, "Comments have been disabled on this video".

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Videolog

We're putting together a single blog using available videos to form a running videlog on Cimategate and related issues. It is work in progress, but you can see it here. Let us know what you think.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

They can't even get that right

Following on from the "shock” announcement that the Tories were co-opting Nicholas Stern to help them develop a "green investment bank", Stern has issued a denial.

"I should stress that I am not, and have no plans to be, an adviser to any political party," he said in a statement. This, says Sky News "may be an embarrassment for shadow chancellor George Osborne," who announced in a high-profile speech that he was "delighted that Lord Stern has agreed to advise us."

After the debacle over the appointment of General Dannatt as a Tory defence advisor, this is yet another unforced error which projects the Tory team – and Boy George Osborne in particular – as a bunch of kack-handed amateurs.

Even Iain Martin on the WSJ blog thought the appointment "odd", while Witterings from Witney chews over the implications. When the Tories have their announcement subsequently denied, "odd" doesn't even begin to describe it.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

An unbiased view?

That is the latest offering from the BBC in its so-called "green room". Of course, it would help us better judge her argument if we knew more about Malini Mehra – details which the BBC does not provide.

For instance, she is a "political scientist" (whatever that is) and gender specialist by training. Having "worked" on the NGO circuit, variously for Oxfam and Friends of the Earth, she participated in the UK-funded Sustainable Development Dialogues and served as a member of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on UN-Civil Society Relations.

She also contributed to UN publications such as the Human Development Reports on Democracy (2002) and Human Rights (2000) respectively. She has been involved on climate issues since the United Nations’ conference in Kyoto (1997) where she coordinated the input of Friends of the Earth International.

From that, the question really should be, are Malini Mehra's views worth the paper they are not printed on?

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Under the radar

Amid the torrent of "climate change" news, we missed this one, the government's very own "cap and trade" scam, disarmingly labelled the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme – formerly the Carbon Reduction Commitment.

This is the child of the Climate Change Act 2008 (approved by parliament in October of that year, while it was snowing outside), a new "carbon tax" which takes effect this April. As the official guide helpfully explains:

CRC will affect large organisations in both the public and private sector. Organisations that meet the qualification criteria, which are based on how much electricity they were supplied in 2008, will be obliged to participate in CRC.

Participating organisations will have to monitor their emissions and purchase allowances, initially sold by Government, for each tonne of CO2 they emit. The more CO2 an organisation emits, the more allowances it has to purchase.

Initially, about 5,000 organisations will be caught in the net – including many of our major national retailers who between them account for many thousands of premises. The threshold is electricity usage of 6,000 MWh/year, with those users required to buy their allowances at an introductory price of £12 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. They are then required to buy credits on the carbon market if they exceed their quota.

A singular feature of this system is that it does not cover those businesses and operations already covered by the EU's emission trading scheme, so these are additional to the current system.

Also included in the net are government-funded organisations such as local authorities, schools, hospitals and universities, which are already under financial pressure and which will now be subject to this bizarre system where the government gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

In what must also be the height of perversity, even central government departments fall into the net, so it would appear that the cash-strapped Ministry of Defence is going to have to divert funds from its front-line operations in Afghanistan to feed the ravenous carbon machine.

Needless to say, there is a massive bureaucracy involved in administering the scheme and, to add insult to injury, there is a registration fee of £950 for all "participants", plus an annual subsistence fee of £1,290 for administration.

Autonomous Mind has a good look at the scheme and concludes, as do we, that it confirms that it is money and not "saving the planet" which is driving the government's obsession with climate change.

What is surprising – although perhaps not, considering that we failed to register it – is that this has almost completely slipped under the radar and has remained unnoticed by the MSM in general - although not by the BBC.

From that, though, you would hardly realise there was a problem but, when the media discover that patients are being turned away from hospitals, school places are restricted and RAF aircraft are being kept on the ground, as funds are diverted to pay the carbon tax, perhaps sentiment will change.

As for business, this is another "own goal" on the part of the government, driving enterprises off-shore and adding to the growing ranks of the unemployed. Some, though, will doubtless become CRC administrators, so at least we get some more "green jobs" to keep Mr Cameron happy.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Le GIEC est mort

In Le Monde today - Le GIEC est mort, vive le débat! par Drieu Godefridi.

I rather like the idea of the IPCC being called the "GIEC" (Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat) in France – pronounced "GEEK", it sort of brings it home to you what we are dealing with, especially when Pachauri becomes Chef de GIEC.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Death wish

Lord Stern as a Tory advisor? There can be no other explanation – the Tories want to lose the next election. We will be happy to assist them in that endeavour, although from the look of it, they need very little help.

It is also covered in The Daily Telegraph - absolutely unbelievable ... just as the whole global warming scam is falling apart, the Tories re-affirm their commitment to it. You could not have better evidence that the hierarchy is completely out of touch with events.

At least in the United States, the Republicans (some of them) are beginning to stir, beginning to recognise that climate change is a major political issue - although the US media have yet to rise from their slumber. But here, with the media increasingly hostile to the scam, the Cameron tendency is living in a world of its own. I do not think I can every recall a time when the "disconnect" has been greater.

A political party has been reborn: ABC - Anyone But Cameron. You can't say "Conservative". By no stretch of the imagination is Cameron a Conservative.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Climbing down

If Sir David King had that mysterious quality of prestige yesterday, he has a whole load less of it today.

The Guardian (again!) does the honours, recording Sir David pontificating that: "The operation looked amazingly efficient and amazingly sophisticated. It looks very much like an intelligence operation."

But, the paper says coyly, "it emerged that he had been misinformed about key facts." Misinformed? The man was talking out of his rear end, from a standpoint of total ignorance. However ...

One of his grounds for believing a high-powered team of professionals were behind the leak, he said, was that there had been a wide spread of emails going back decades "between very different people". He told The Independent: "The emails date back to 1996, so someone was collecting the data over many years."

But, as UEA confirmed today, all the files and emails were archived on a single backup server on the Norwich campus. Once access was gained, it would have been simple to copy all the material.

That is exactly what Lance Levsen had surmised – and furthermore, Guardian inquiries indicate police investigators have no evidence of foreign intelligence involvement.

Similarly, we are told, the fact that the leaked files were originally posted on a Russian server, and links to them came from servers in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, does not prove the operation was "highly sophisticated".

Computer hackers say that there are simple pieces of software which can divert a file through layers of so-called open proxy servers. One called TOR can be downloaded from the internet. It renders the origin of the message anonymous.

Thus, from the initial days, when the Mail on Sunday was hyperventilating about Russian agents, we see "a marked change of emphasis" on the part of police and information commissioner investigators.

While the University of East Anglia, which had called in the police, talked about illegal hacking and "theft of data", the police now say that they are investigating "criminal offences in relation to a data breach."

There are an awful lot of people going to have to eat their words over this affair, especially R K Pachauri, who has gone along with the rest of the warmists, alleging "theft" and all sorts of dire conspiracies.

For the moment, though, we can be content with the fact that the great Sir David King has made a complete fool of himself – and has been "outed" by The Guardian.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

The para-governmental organisation

Autonomous Mind draws attention to the enthusiasm for climate change measures on the part of Big Oil – and Shell in particular. He reminds us that oil companies are making a fortune out of global warming, and are very much part of the consensus.

Meanwhile, John Rosenthal writing in Pajamasmedia puts the WWF under the spotlight, pointing out that the organisation soaks up so much government money – including a small fortune from the EU – that it should no longer be called an NGO. It is a para governmental organisation (PGO).

In July 2007, we came to the same conclusion about Friends of the Earth Europe, which we called a quasi governmental organisation.

That label didn't stick, and I think I prefer PGO. I hope that does catch on. To describe this wholly new form of organisation as an NGO is a misrepresentation.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Another crack

Fred Pearce, the New Scientist of "Glaciergate" fame (his 1999 article having been quoted by the WWF 2005 paper), is in The Guardian today, with two linked stories, based on an analysis of the "Climategate" e-mails.

The stories can be found here and here, questioning the work done by Jones et al, of CRU fame, on the Chinese urban heat island effect.

The remarkable aspects of these reports are, firstly, that Pearce is a staunch "warmist" who has been in the forefront of hyping up climate alarmism. Secondly, this appears to be the first occasion where an MSM journalist has initiated his own investigation on the "Climategate" e-mails. Thirdly, the stories are published in the temple of "warmism", The Guardian.

Pearce, as one might expect, stresses that the findings do not change the global picture of temperature trends, quoting his source saying, "My interest in all this arises from concern about research integrity, rather than about global warming per se. Jones knew there were serious problems with the Chinese research, yet continued to rely upon the research in his work, including allowing it to be cited in the IPCC report."

This, nevertheless, is another major crack in the dam, a damning indictment of Jones, the CRU and, indirectly, the IPCC. The edifice is tottering.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

The power of prestige

Dominating the front page of The Independent today was a hokum story about the "hacking" of the "Climategate" e-mails being the work of a national intelligence service.

The Mail on Sunday tried this on last December, which we challenged at the time, but the most masterful and comprehensive debunking came from Lance Levsen, a network analyst, who posted his arguments on the blog Small Dead Animals.

Levsen then decided that the simplest explanation was that someone at UEA (University of East Anglia) found the incriminating folder and released it to the wild.

The release of FOIA2009.zip wasn't because of some hacker, he decided, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples. In other words, the evidence points to a whistleblower - an inside job - rather than a hacker, and certainly not a national intelligence service.

Against this, one might ask what induced The Independent to dredge up a tired old story, but the explanation is not difficult to find. In its leading article, it refers to the source, "an eminent figure in the climate field, the former Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King." The paper continues:

Sir David is not claiming that he possesses hard evidence to support this assertion. Nevertheless, the lightest word of a man who held a position such as he did is heavy.

And, in that last sentence lies the explanation what is going on, which we see courtesy of a nineteenth Century writer, Gustave Le Bon . Sir David possess the quality to which he gives the name of "prestige". Explaining the effect of this quality, Le Bon goes on to tell us – and I quote in full, given its importance and clarity:

Great power is given to ideas propagated by affirmation, repetition, and contagion by the circumstance that they acquire in time that mysterious force known as prestige.

Whatever has been a ruling power in the world, whether it be ideas or men, has in the main enforced its authority by means of that irresistible force expressed by the word “prestige.”

The term is one whose meaning is grasped by everybody, but the word is employed in ways too different for it to be easy to define it. Prestige may involve such sentiments as admiration or fear.

Occasionally even these sentiments are its basis, but it can perfectly well exist without them. The greatest measure of prestige is possessed by the dead, by beings, that is, of whom we do not stand in fear — by Alexander, Cæsar, Mahomet, and Buddha, for example.

On the other hand, there are fictive beings whom we do not admire — the monstrous divinities of the subterranean temples of India, for instance — but who strike us nevertheless as endowed with a great prestige.

Prestige in reality is a sort of domination exercised on our mind by an individual, a work, or an idea. This domination entirely paralyses our critical faculty, and fills our soul with astonishment and respect.

The sentiment provoked is inexplicable, like all sentiments, but it would appear to be of the same kind as the fascination to which a magnetised person is subjected. Prestige is the mainspring of all authority. Neither gods, kings, nor women have ever reigned without it.

The various kinds of prestige may be grouped under two principal heads: acquired prestige and personal prestige. Acquired prestige is that resulting from name, fortune, and reputation. It may be independent of personal prestige.

Personal prestige, on the contrary, is something essentially peculiar to the individual; it may coexist with reputation, glory, and fortune, or be strengthened by them, but it is perfectly capable of existing in their absence.

Acquired or artificial prestige is much the most common. The mere fact that an individual occupies a certain position, possesses a certain fortune, or bears certain titles, endows him with prestige, however slight his own personal worth.

A soldier in uniform, a judge in his robes, always enjoys prestige. Pascal has very properly noted the necessity for judges of robes and wigs. Without them they would be stripped of half their authority. The most unbending socialist is always somewhat impressed by the sight of a prince or a marquis; and the assumption of such titles makes the robbing of tradesmen an easy matter.

The prestige of which I have just spoken is exercised by persons; side by side with it may be placed that exercised by opinions, literary and artistic works, &c. Prestige of the latter kind is most often merely the result of accumulated repetitions.

History, literary and artistic history especially, being nothing more than the repetition of identical judgments, which nobody endeavours to verify, every one ends by repeating what he learnt at school, till there come to be names and things which nobody would venture to meddle with.

For a modern reader the perusal of Homer results incontestably in immense boredom; but who would venture to say so? The Parthenon, in its present state, is a wretched ruin, utterly destitute of interest, but it is endowed with such prestige that it does not appear to us as it really is, but with all its accompaniment of historic memories.

The special characteristic of prestige is to prevent us seeing things as they are and to entirely paralyse our judgment. Crowds always, and individuals as a rule, stand in need of ready-made opinions on all subjects.

The popularity of these opinions is independent of the measure of truth or error they contain, and is solely regulated by their prestige.

And there we have it. If you have "prestige", like Sir David, you can get away with talking any old tosh, and still be revered. If, like Lance Levsen, you have enormous experience and knowledge, produce a brilliant analysis and come to the best and most reasoned conclusion possible, but lack that essential "prestige", you will be ignored.

"The popularity of these opinions is independent of the measure of truth or error they contain, and is solely regulated by their prestige," writes Le Bon. And that is why the IPCC and Dr Pachauri get away with it ... they too have "prestige".

That is why the likes of Anthony Watts and the many others who are attacking the science cannot prevail. Theirs is a necessary but not sufficient endeavour. This is not about science but "prestige". Their own "prestige" is trumped a thousand-fold. The only sure way to destroy the scam is to rob the players of that vital quality, their own "prestige".

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Follow the money

This time, make the link with the BBC. Biased BBC spills the beans.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

The "controversial" Dr R K Pachauri

"This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and misguide the public," claims Pachauri, talking about Jonathan Leake. Asked, "Are you trying to say that the science editor (Leake) of The Times is part of a big diabolical conspiracy against you?" Pachauri answers: "Well, they are against anything to do with action against climate change. They are a bunch of skeptics. They are supported by lobbies...".

Says the interviewer, with more than a little scepticism creeping into his tone: "Times of London is part of the skeptic ...". Pachauri responds: "Well of course, well of course. I mean you have people of this shade of opinion all over the world. They exist in London. London is still not ruling the empire."

This is from a four-part interview – see the rest on Liberty News Central, with commentary.

The interesting thing is the damage-limitation technique being employed. Pachauri clings to the line that the Himalayan debacle was a "mistake" – when he knows full well that it was not. He then tries to narrow the field, focusing on the "single mistake", without acknowledging that there are many more.

As to the role of Hasnain, he limits his narrative to the single episode of the WHO report citation, but does not deal with his wider role in promoting the glacier scare. Incidentally, Pachauri repeats the scare, dropping into the conversation that the glaciers are going to melt in 50 years. "Ok, let me first clarify," he says, "... the glaciers are melting. Now whether they melt by 2035 or 2050 is another matter."

On the matter of the funding, he admits that his institute is being paid to examine the downstream effects of the glacier melt – i.e., that the work does depend on the scare that his own Dr Hasnain raised. He admits to a share of just over €400,000 (about £350,000 at current exchange rates) from the EU work – but has not actually received any money yet.

Nor, he says, has he received any money from the Carnegie Corporation – so the charge that he has been paid this money is "lies". "We haven't got a single penny from the Carnegie corporation. We have been in a discussion with them to fund our glacier research... ". But, he adds: "it will come to us ... Who's going to stop that money coming to us? Because the funding organizations are not fools. They're not going to listen to all these lies."

The interviewer suggests that Pachauri goes into the Himalayas and reflects upon the mistakes he's made. All we can suggest is that he makes it a very long time.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

The invisible India

This is the side of India they don't want to talk about. While Pachuari lives it up in Delhi, with his luxury home and chauffeur-driven cars, weeping crocodile tears about "poverty", this is the reality for millions of Indians.

We get a brief glimpse from the BBC, but without the broader context or any clue of the scale of the problem – some of which we touched on here and here.

The real evil of the global warming scam is here. While the Western nations and the rich industrialists and politicians in the developing world – with the active assistance of the NGOs – conspire together make "carbon", i.e., carbon dioxide, the poster child, enriching themselves in the process to the tune of hundreds of billions, real pollution, real poverty and real deprivation are ignored.

Unless you put a "climate change" tag on it, you won't get any money. On the other hand, if you hype up the scare, the funds come pouring in, as Pachauri has found to his great benefit. For the evil they do, such men should be shamed. Instead, the "great and the good" heap honours on them, and then work out how they too can enrich themselves.

And the stupid greenies fall for the scam, living off grants from their rich sponsors, chasing after miasma and missing the point entirely. For their stupidity, they too should be condemned.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

A triumph of hope?

So it is against the law to dump batteries in your bins? That is what this article says, but I don't think it's right. This is about requiring businesses to accept spent batteries. The law does not apply to households.

But the article poses obvious questions. If it was law, how would they stop householders putting batteries in their bins? Would they employ legions of "battery detectors" who routinely monitored dustbins, with special stickers that must be affixed to them before they can be emptied?

We shouldn't ask. That is just mad enough for it to happen – more "green jobs" in the making.

COMMENT THREAD

The "larger truth"

Compared with pre-Copenhagen when we were getting a daily diet of climate scares from the WWF groupie Louise Gray, her output has virtually dried up as the succession of "gates" assailed the "climate community". So silent has she been, we thought she might be having a nervous breakdown.

But here she is, coming out of her box to defend her precious religion, with a piece in The Daily Telegraph, telling us to keep the faith and hold on to the "larger truth".

This really is like a religion – recognisably so. At one time, it used to be verboten even to question the truth of the bible, but as the iron grip of dogma was relaxed and scholars began to question whether the holy script was the literal truth, the same mantra was offered. Yes, there may be "inconsistencies" in the narrative, but hold on to the "larger truth" my child – keep the faith.

Thus it is with the warmists. Their holy writ, the IPCC report in tatters - and even "Amazongate" gets a mention - they resort to exactly the same mantra: never mind the detail ... keep the faith my child, the world is warming. But gradually, their churches are emptying, leaving poor little Louise and her friends desperately trying to hold the line. The poor dears – one almost feels sorry for them.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Amazongate lives

Despite the attempted sabotage of "Amazongate" by The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, the Daily Express does it big. The Guardian also mentions it and so does The Daily Mail.

The Daily Telegraph, on the ball as always, lifts the story done by The Times last Saturday on "Glaciergate", disguising its source with the formulaic "it has emerged".

The Independent, meanwhile, has completely lost it, claiming that the "Climategate" e-mail "hacking" was "probably carried out by a foreign intelligence agency," citing as their "expert" source, the government's former chief scientist and surface chemist,. Sir David King.

But the paper also has Britain officially expressing its concern to the IPCC about lax scientific procedures used by the body which supplies the world with the facts about global warming. Alongside The Guardian, this paper also mentions "the destruction of the Amazon rainforest," as one of the problem areas.

Against that, I measure well over 2,000 references to "Amazongate" on the blogosphere, leaving the MSM trailing. When it comes to the heavy lifting, the MSM is making itself redundant.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

"Profoundly irresponsible"

The pomposity of a second-rate politician - of whom even his best friends would admit has a brain cell count that matches the number attributed to the average IQ of a chimpanzee - telling his audience that it would be "profoundly irresponsible" to use "one mistake" as an excuse not to act on climate change, is beyond breathtaking.

But that is Ed Miliband for you, a climate change secretary who manages to display a level of arrogance on the subject which can only stem from a man possessed of an uncharted void in place of a brain. Only one so handicapped could speak in a public forum without being mortally embarrassed by his own inadequacies.

The intellectual pygmy thus speaks of "one mistake", referring to "claims that some leading scientists exaggerated the melting of the Himalayan glaciers." This, Miliband avers, does not "undermine decades of climate research"

What he ignores – or simply does not know – is that the inclusion of the claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 in the IPCC AR4 report was not a "mistake". The man who included it, professor Murari Lal, says so - stridently - so who are we to disagree with him?

Thus, while the dismal Miliband avers that "recent controversies over scientific data have not undermined efforts to tackle global warming," he glides over the essential element of the Himalayan glaciers scandal (and that it is) – that the authors of the report deliberately, with premeditation, set out to deceive, falsely to misrepresent the scale of the problem, such that it is, for wholly political reasons.

And, while a simple "mistake" could not be taken as undermining a broader thesis, evidence of structured deception is in a different league – especially the cumulative evidence from "Climategate", through "Glaciergate" to "Amazongate" and beyond. This is a powerful indicator that the whole of the IPCC AR4 is nothing but a systematic fraud.

In The Observer yesterday, however, we get the full force of Miliband's moronic tendencies, where the fool tells us: "We know there's a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures, that's a question of physics."

For a graduate in philosophy, politics and economics to presume to lecture us in basic physics is an arrogance beyond measure, but then to offer us a Janet and John version of the presumed behaviour of a trace gas in a complex, chaotic system that is poorly understood and even less well modelled, and to present it as the gospel truth, rises to the level of the surreal. The problem is that the man is so utterly stupid that he probably believes what he is saying – a very dangerous trait for a politician.

"We know," he bleats, that "CO2 concentrations are at their highest for 6,000 years" – a contentious statement at best. But then, he plumbs the hitherto unexplored depths of ignorance by telling us that "we know there are observed increases in temperatures."

Clearly, this pathetic excuse for a human being simply does not have the intellect to perceive that the "temperatures" to which he refers are artifices, constructs which are calculated from adjusted raw data, of dubious provenance, subject to multiple errors, distortions and, most likely, fraud. They are no more real than was Luke Skywalker flying in his X-wing fighter into battle against the Death Star.

Not content with this, though, Miliband then struggles to a climax, managing to gather a quorum of brain cells sufficient to deliver the immortal, if risible assertion that: "we know there are observed effects that point to the existence of human-made climate change. That's what the vast majority of scientists tell us."

These "observed" effects, presumably, include the shrinking glaciers, the melting icecaps, the dying polar bears and the disappearing Amazon forests, all of which his "vast majority of scientists" are telling him are caused by climate change.

Fortunately for this creature – the thing that calls itself Miliband – its bizarre utterances were delivered at some distance from its audience. It is thus – one hopes – sublimely unaware that its sentiments cause to surface primitive urges from the depths of the subconscious, buried so deep that one is shocked to learn that they still exist.

One is hesitant to allow these "urges" full rein. Now that would be profoundly irresponsible.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD