And you thought Climategate was bad. When tens of thousands of emails implicating the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) went viral last November, the fraud that is man-made global warming was exposed - that is, everywhere except in American mainstream media outlets. The British media was all over it. Al Gore burrowed underground, like a gopher being chased by Bill Murray.
Now we learn thanks to emails obtained from NASA that CRU's American counterparts made East Anglia look like a beacon of facts and truth.
NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.
E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.
The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.
Is it over-simplifying things to make the claim that NASA considered its records inferior to those of an outfit in Great Britain whose most notorious professor once used the phrase, "hide the decline" when referring to climate data?
This one is really big. In light of last week's news that Phil Jones, climate scientist at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) who had to step down a few months ago for his prominent role in the scandal, contemplated suicide, he may be going through a real catharsis here. If he truly is having an epiphany, he needs support and not derision.
Did he do wrong? Absolutely, but when a human being puts this amount of pride and intellectual / emotional investment aside and truly humbles himself, it is a victory for that individual to be celebrated. It is liberating, whatever the consequences to himself. I don't know if that's happened with Jones but signs are that he's close to doing so if he considered taking his own life and is making these stunning admissions.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
While Jones' admissions were somewhat stunning, they didn't go all the way.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
Maybe I have a different take on this than most but if any of us were in a similar position, we'd be broken human beings in desperate need of support. Jones needs people around him that are going to help him go all the way through this admission. If he does, he will come out the other side as potentially one of the strongest allies in the fight against this despicable fraud. He's on the brink of admitting the entire truth and confessing the whole thing.
I am not saying that Jones shouldn't be held accountable for his complicity but I am saying it's time to start showing a little mercy and compassion.
Michael Mann on the other hand, still appears to be digging in his heels, displaying the raw arrogance and pride that only serves to anger those of us who know this entire charade is criminal. After all, now that his hockey stick chart has been proven to be completely fraudulent, he comes across as an arrogant boob, denying his hand is the one at the other end of his arm, inside the cookie jar.
h/t to Barrackaid #34 for sending this one in. I guess we can call this one East Anglia West. Meteorologist John Coleman at KUSI TV in San Diego is calling out the Allegory crowd, claiming slam dunk evidence of global warming fraud. When data manipulation at East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain was revealed to have taken place, many wondered when the research centers here in the United States would have to face the music.
The two big entities that "skeptics" have had their eyes on are NASA's Goddard Science and Space Institute (GSSI), with a center at Columbia University and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which falls under the umbrella of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
In this incredibly damning video, one of the allegations made is that beginning in 1989-90, the NCDC cut back from measuring temperatures in 6000 locations all over the world to about 1500. The even larger problem with that is that the colder locations are the ones that got removed from the data set so it wasn't even about reducing the sample size. It was about eliminating undesirable facts.
How does it feel to have your tax dollars going toward entities engaged in fraudulent practices in order to line the pockets of politicians?
Yet another example of something that should cause the American people to unplug themselves but hey, if the ACORN videos didn't do it......
Part 6 of 7 on YouTube (part four on KUSI website)
Part 7 of 7 on YouTube
HERE is a link to the KUSI page featuring the video, which has links to other blog posts on the subject.
HERE is a link to Coleman's page on the KUSI website.
Time to unplug, people. You're the victims of an international conspiracy - a provable one.
This is what you would call a virtual eco-wacko smackdown. Apparently filmed in Copenhagen, a scientist is asked about climategate in general and the University of East Anglia's CRU emails in particular. While she doesn't directly respond to that question, she finds herself cornered by another question, which focuses on revelations that CRU scientists discarded their raw data.
This scientist basically says that one is indefensible. The first step is admitting there's a problem and she has done that here.
A bit of perplexing yet refreshing reality here. As has been the case as climategate has been unfolding, the British press is putting the American press to shame. The longer that goes on, the more shameful the American press continues to look. Pride is a very powerful and destructive thing, isn't it? Thanks to James Delingpole at the London TELEGRAPH, it appears Russia is continuing to be a thorn in the side of the Allegory crowd, especially if the rumors that the release of the CRU emails were the result of Russia protecting its oil interests.
Delingpole quotes from a Russian press release:
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
Now it appears Russia views what CRU might have done with its data as an affront and may be willing to go to the mat over it.
Great news if you are a "denier". Not good news if you support Allegory.
It appears that journalism is being resurrected in Great Britain. Yes, East Anglia University is located there and it's more of an international story with severe local implications but it is nonetheless refreshing and encouraging to see this type of investigative reporting. Here a reporter seeks out a programming expert and listens as he explains his problems with the programming language used at the CRU at East Anglia.
It appears that this programmer, John Graham-Cumming, is more than just a bit taken aback by what he sees. I'm sure seeing the phrase "fudge factor" in the program code didn't help.
This one is pretty amazing. A division of the Department of Energy in South Carolin apparently has an employee that's been taking notice of Climategate since the emails from East Anglia University were released on November 19th. It also seems that the DOE has taken a bit of interest in this employee's interest in making it a topic of conversation in the office.
WATTS UP WITH THAT received an email from an alleged employee of the Savannah River Site (SRS), which is under the Department of Energy. Here is an excerpt from the inter-office letter sent to approximately 8000 employees at the SRS:
“December 14, 2009
DOE Litigation Hold Notice
DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”
This is extremely interesting. Why would the DOE take such an interest in squashing climategate talk?
Interestingly, it might be quite simple. WUWT puts forth an extremely viable possibility at the end of his post.
Steve McIntyre points out that Dr. Jones got funding from DOE (of which SRS is part of). The different pieces connect pretty well and I don’t have a reason to doubt this memo sent via email today. – Anthony
McIntyre is one of the unsung heroes in this whole scandal. Truly an underdog story.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is officially championing a view that is incoherent. This is what happens when you double down on something as absurd as climategate. As a result of the CRU emails being exposed, Blair has apparently decided that he must concede that the science of man-made global warming is not proven. However, in the same breath, he says the movement to cut back on energy should continue forward.
Following the ‘climategate scandal’, Mr Blair said the science may not be “as certain as its proponents allege”.
But he said the world should act as a precaution against floods, droughts and mass extinction caused by climate change, in fact it would be “grossly irresponsible” not to.
By calibrating his position like this, Blair is exposing himself as someone willing to perpetuate an agenda based on an unproven set of premises and he is apparently willing to do it at the peril of his own country, which is a developed nation that would have to cut back on its emissions in order to help poorer nations.
What does this reality say about Blair? Does it say he's willing to sell out his country? If he truly believed the world was in trouble as a direct result of man-made global warming and was willing to lead his nation in the "sacrifice" of cutting back on emissions, wouldn't he be using the occasion of climategate to get angry at those who have been perpetuating the fraudulent science?
Instead, he is still siding with them and in doing so, is aligning with a global organization (UN) against his own country. By taking this position on climategate, Blair has portrayed himself in a potentially treasonous light. Blair is quoted as saying:
“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity.”
Based on what? Where is this "huge amount of scientific support"? If Blair wasn't part of this fraud, wouldn't he be outraged at its being exposed?
Steven F. Hayword's piece in the Weekly Standard is lengthy but extremely compelling. It not only provides insight into the creation of the "Hockey Stick" chart by Michael Mann, but it also gives us a sneak peak into the relationships between the CRU / man-made climate change proponents. The portrait painted of Michael Mann is not very kind. Hayword's analysis leaves one with the Impression that Mann was blinded by something other than science and that people within his circle expressed doubts about his "hockey stick".
Quoting from Hayword:
It has long been thought that over the last thousand years the earth experienced two significant natural climate cycles: the "medieval warm period" (MWP) centered around the year 1000 and the "little ice age" (LIA) from about 1500 to 1850 or so. The first report of the IPCC in 1992 displayed a stylized thousand-year temperature record showing that the MWP was warmer than current global temperatures, but this was mostly conjecture. Yet it was a huge problem for the climate campaigners: If the medieval warm period was as warm as today, as some scientists believe, it would mean that today's temperatures are arguably within the range of normal climate variability, and that we could not yet confirm greenhouse gas emissions as the sole cause of recent increases or rely on computer climate models for predictions of future climate apocalypse. There had long been rumors that leading figures in the climate community believed they needed to make the medieval warm period go away, but until the CRU leak there was no evidence besides hearsay that scientists might be cooking the books.
So what happened between 1992 and 1998? Mann's "hockey stick" chart in 1998 seemed to disregard both the MWP and the LIA. Based on Hayword's article, Mann dug in his heals over the matter and wouldn't even listen to those in his inner circle.
The CRU emails reveal internal doubts about this entire enterprise both before and after the hockey stick made its debut. In a 1996 email to a large number of scientists in the CRU circle, Tom Wigley, a top climatologist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, cautioned: "I support the continued collection of such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community try to oversell their product." Mann and his colleagues made use of some of the CRU data, but some of the CRU scientists weren't comfortable with the way Mann represented it and also seemed to find Mann more than a bit insufferable.
Be sure to read the ENTIRE ARTICLE as it provides an "inside baseball" look into the culture within this group. It also puts the emails in a very logical and hard-to-argue-with context.
One of the best articles on this scandal I've seen.
Even if you're pressed for time, it's worth it to fit this one in. Two videos but fast forward to the 3:13 mark of the first one and let it rip. "Professor" Andrew Watson of East Anglia University is completely unhinged as he tries to face an opposing view from Mark Morano. There are several points along the way that are interesting such as Watson telling Morano to "shut up for a second". Morano responds with a "whoa". Watson's eye-rolling which is actually quite mesmerizing.
Both videos are a MUST SEE. Here is clip #1:
Here is the crescendo. Notice after Watson calls Morano an A-Hole, Morano is laughing hysterically before his mic is cut off.
Obama Science czar John Holdren has found himself in the middle of climategate. There are emails from him to other players in the saga - in particular Michael Mann - in which he is boasting about his efforts to discredit two solar scientists who were challenging Mann's "hockey stick" chart by pointing to the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). The MWP is generally considered to have been between the 9th and 14th centuries.
Considering the fact that Mann's chart covered the period between 1000 - 2000 A.D., the MWP was likely considered to be a period of "inconvenient truth". Otherwise, I don't know that Holdren would have been so concerned about discrediting them.
Here, Wisconsin Representative James Sensenbrenner (R) grills Holdren and rightfully so. While Sensenbrenner points to Holdren being wrong about the rise in sea levels in 2006 and the "hockey stick" chart, he neglected to mention Holdren's pathetically inaccurate predictions in the 1977 book of his titled, "Ecoscience". By the way, ZOMBIETIME did a thorough analysis of WackoScience a few months ago.
Before watching the video, check out the ACTUAL EMAIL Sensenbrenner is referring to when talking about correspondence between Holdren and Mann about the solar scientists, Soon and Baliunas.
This trend is becoming extremely disturbing. America's leaders are showing an ever increasingly blatant tendency to side with the true and likely criminals against those who expose them. California Attorney General Jerry Brown appears to be siding with ACORN in his investigation - before it's actually launched - based on an alleged audio recording of ACORN San Diego head David Lagstein saying Brown's office has assured him the Atty General will find fault with the "filmmakers and not Acorn".
Now we have what could be the biggest scandal to befall mankind thanks to someone who decided to expose it by leaking damning emails from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit and California Senator Barbara Boxer wants to give the potentially fraudulent scientists a pass while targeting the individual who released the emails.
"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting. "Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I'm looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public."
Unbelievably despicable but it does give us a clearer picture of just how personally invested America's leaders are in their own country's destruction.
Michael Mann, inventer of the faux "hockey stick" chart spoke with accuweather.com and let's just say that if you're looking for contrition, you will be disappointed. The smug and bullish man that appeared to be involved in those countless emails at the CRU comes across as just that in person too. Mann says the emails are taken out of context and that this whole episode is just a "distraction" and "policy-makers, in general are smart enough to recognize that".
Let's see... A discredited and debunked chart that Mann came up with, emails calling for the stonewalling of FOIA requests, ignoring peer review papers that disagreed with the agenda, emails calling the failure to account for global warming a "travesty", and bully tactics aimed at those who dared to question.
Phil Jones, the head of East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and author of the email serving as the poster child of Climategate emails is stepping down. While the MSM continues to avoid the biggest scandal in the history of mankind, Climategate continues to heat up.
Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.
Professor Jones said: "What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support."
Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said: "I have accepted Professor Jones's offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations.
“We will announce details of the Independent Review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Professor Peter Liss, FRS, CBE, will become acting director.”
Here is the now infamous email sent by Phil Jones that has garnered the most attention in Climategate:
From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@xxx, mhughes@xxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxx,t.osborn@xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers Phil
Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXXXX School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXXXX University of East Anglia
Since the over 1000 emails from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit were released to the internet on November 19th, there has been a whirlwind of activity surrounding what the emails say and who's involved. Thanks to this video, the latter is handled quite well. The players are many and when you factor in the definition of "conspiracy", it appears that's exactly what we've got here.
con⋅spir⋅a⋅cy [kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA –noun, plural -cies. 1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
There are still hundreds of emails from the University of East Anglia University Climate Research Unit to sort through in order to get to the bottom of the Climate Change / Global Warming fraud but the most notorious to date - and probably destined to be the signature email of the scandal - involves the "Nature Trick" of Penn State University Earth System Science professor Michael Mann. The intent of the "nature trick" was to "hide the decline".
Hence, the title of the song set to a very familiar melody. Very Catchy.
The email is from Phil Jones, of East Anglia's CRU and just in case you haven't seen it yet, here it is:
From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@xxx, mhughes@xxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxx,t.osborn@xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers Phil
Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXXXX School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXXXX University of East Anglia
The man you see pictured in this video is Dr. Michael Mann. Here is a LINK to his webpage. At the time of this post, his page boasts 28,405 visitors since 2005. Mann's likely not going to have to worry about hiding any declines when it comes to hits on his website.
This says a lot. It is very revealing on two levels. Level 1: this liberal at the Guardian, George Monbiot, is pained to admit it but says the CRU emails are very damaging. That alone speaks volumes about the overwhelming veracity of the evidence. But in true liberal fashion, admissions of guilt and being wrong are simply too much to bear.
That leads us to the second level of astonishment. Level 2: Monbiot decides to downplay the conspiracy talk and any "gotcha" claims by man-made global warming skeptics by crafting a fictitious email and pointing to it as an example of something that would finally convince him.
...do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
Wow. Confession and humility would be nice. Instead, Monbiot actually decides to first concede what is undeniable and then appears completely unable to process the sham he has bought. Rather than let the anger humble him, he somehow finds a way to re-channel it back to the same folks who tried to help him by seeking the truth about Global Warming - it's a FRAUD.
Amazing to watch someone actually write a fictitious email and then claim that such an email would be the only thing that would make him admit he was duped. Rather than read the more than 1000 real emails available, Monbiot writes and publishes one that doesn't exist and holds it up as a reason why he won't admit the truth. Ironically, Monbiot still ends up angry at himself while taking a slap at the skeptics by living vicariously through some person that doesn't exist.
I began this post intending to discuss an article in the New American about how the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is having to admit that the Climate Change movement is a fraud but while reading it, discovered a link to all of the emails released by the East Anglia University hacker.
Check 'em out HERE. Please let me know if you find any super juicy ones. Email me at benbarrack@yahoo.com
That said, the NEW AMERICAN article is pretty good too.
Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: "Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise." The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential "hockey stick" graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," wrote Jones. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Lies, coercion, intimidation, collusion, and destroying evidence. Go figure.
Some people simply cannot be helped. When denial reaches down to a level this low, I'm thinking Divine Intervention may be the only cure. New York TImes reporter Andrew Revkin, when confronted with the mountains of evidence coming out of the University of Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) this past week, he actually attempts to spin it.
The bias began in the headline, "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute." It avoided the substance of the scandal -- what the e-mails actually say -- and downplayed it to nothing more than just another he-said-she-said debate among global warming alarmists and critics.
Revkin took the same tack in the lead. The story as his biased mind saw it wasn't that scientists have been conspiring to "hide the decline" in temperatures that would undermine the theory of global warming but that the e-mails had given "skeptics" new ammunition to make that case.
Six paragraphs into the story, Revkin kicked his spin machine into overdrive. "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument," he wrote.
Translation: the fact that the hand of the perpetrator was actually caught in the cookie jar is not enough to convince those who believe cookies aren't being stolen.
Be sure to read the WHOLE THING, which includes pertinent links.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on Washington Times radio with Jed Babbin and Melanie Morgan to give his take on the recent release of over 1000 emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain that appear to prove what most already know - that the Global Warming movement is a farce and a fraud.
A point not lost on Inhofe is the timing of the surreptitious release of the more than 1000 emails that basically expose the Environmental movement for what it is - FRAUD. The World Summit in Copenhagen next month was dealt a significant blow by both the release of these emails as well as the timing of it.
Here is the transcript of the interview, which is also on Inhofe's BLOG if you want to follow along with the audio.
Monday, November 23, 2009 Senator Inhofe: This is a huge issue and of course we have the Gitmo issue and we have the, of course, cap-and-trade is now taking a new turn. Jed, if I could…
Jed Babbin: Yeah.
Senator Inhofe: Would you let me make one sentence?
Jed Babbin: Please.
Senator Inhofe: This is out of a speech that I made, Melanie, back on the floor of the Senate, and it was repeated, John Gizzi picked it up and put it in Human Events. This was 4 years ago, in talking about the science, cooking the science. I said I would discuss the “systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by which an international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective science assessment in the world on the subject of climate change, the United Nations IPCC.” Now that was four years ago; so we knew they were cooking the science back then, and you’ve been talking about the, you know, what’s happened recently with the bloggers coming up with what they did, what they…
Jed Babbin: Let me interrupt you there Senator, because I think that’s a really important point. Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven’t followed that story, what Senator Inhofe’s talking about, in Britain, a blogger got into some of the official government records about climate change and how the measurements were being taken to show…
Melanie Morgan: And the politics behind it.
Jed Babbin: And the – well but they were basically saying, “Oh yea, hey, let’s make it look like Jim so-and-so did that, and let’s help him cook the books, and let’s change the data…”
Melanie Morgan: And “let’s beat up those who don’t agree with us.”
Jed Babbin: Yea, but it’s all a huge fraud! I mean, Senator, am I exaggerating?
Senator Inhofe: No you’re not. If you remember, mine was the hoax statement, and that was, what, five years ago I guess.
Jed Babbin: Well, we ought to give you a big pat on the back for being …
Melanie Morgan: Yea, you deserve an an ‘atta boy, and now you are finally being vindicated.
Senator Inhofe: Well, on this thing, it is pretty serious. And since, you know, Barabara Boxer is the Chairman and I’m the Ranking Member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation. ‘Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.
Melanie Morgan: So what will you be calling for an investigation of?
Senator Inhofe: On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.
Jed Babbin: Should somebody stop further spending on this until we get this investigation, Senator?
Senator Inhofe: Well, I don’t know how you do that, though, ‘cause we’re not the ones that are calling the shots. The interesting part of this is it’s happening right before Copenhagen. And, so, the timing couldn’t be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their time was good.
Melanie Morgan: Well, Senator, thank you very much for coming back and handling a little bit, a tiny little bit of heat from the kitchen.
Senator Inhofe: Okay.
Jed Babbin: Thanks very much Senator.
Senator Inhofe: Thanks, you bet.
Jed Babbin: Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma on the Environment Committee over there, and one of the real fighters.
