What happens when you try to debate climate change...

Neil Turner

Brilliant

Any student of body language should use Bob Ward's mannerisms, tone and facial expressions as case material

Logically though, if the case for AGW is disproven by the investigation (don't hold your breath), how many would lose out ? I guess anyone with "Climate" in their job description

No wonder there's so much resistance....

Henry Rogers

Fraser,

I watched the clip with increasing disbelief. Your self restraint you was awesome! That fellow is supposed to be an academic; I pity those who seek to learn anything useful under his direction.

Dan

You did well. Your opponent came across as a totally crazed idiot. You raised perfectly reasonable concerns about the emails, to be met by a completely disproportionate response. That guy is loony tunes.

barnacle bill

Bob Ward looks as if they just let him out of the loony ward so no wonder you couldn't have a proper debate with him!
So Fraser welcome to the ranks of the climate saboteurs.

In2minds

C'mon be fair here, if this 'goes wrong' Fraser Nelson carries on being a journalist but Bob Ward stacks shelves at a supermarket. Of course skin head was grumpy, have a heart!

mart

A word to the wise, Fraser. When someone is earnest, but you think their point laughable, do not laugh. Smile meekly and, if you must register a reaction, shake your head slightly. Everything else is far too violent to be conveyed well on a TV screen. In a very different context (nothing to do with TV) I was caught out once, laughing at something that was laughable. It didn't do me or my cause any good.

Otherwise keep up the good work; I am missing your graphs and pithy analysis on Coffee House, though.

Alexandrovich

Below what?

Colin

Jesus Christ! Ward is one angry man. Someone should make sure his DNA is on the database.

He protests far too much, because he knows that this issue will not go away.

A full public enquiry is needed to set things straight.

I'm assuming that the Information Commissioner will be looking at possible breaches of the law in relation to the numerous FOI requests received by the CRU?

Watt Tyler

Fraser Nelson - wow. Credit where credit is due.

You see, its not the AGW "deniers" who are the shrill fanatics. Did you see the projection from Bob Ward? The AGW "deniers" are using the data for political end, Lord Lawson is manipulating data! They are driven by ideology. etc etc. Wow. I never saw a real life fascist until now.

(I am expecting a statement from David Cameron soon).

Number7

He looks like the archetypical, twisted climate religion to***r (not you Fraser).

Having seen the video, I rest my case!

Yorkshireman

Well done Fraser, you certainly showed up this mediocrity!!!

Douglas Carswell MP had the same problem with Ward when he complained on Carswell's blog.....

http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=1138

Who does this apparatchik think he is>

Bob, your presentational skills are a shambles and you tried to win a debate via smears. Total waste of space.

By the way Bob, if you're reading this try Professor Richard Lindzens views on Anthropogenic Global Warming....

"Professor Richard Lindzen who, is one of the worlds best and most eminent Climate Scientist's and has over 200 peer reviewed papers has this to say :

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

"Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

"In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth's Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for....."

Rich B

I can only see ranting intolerance from Bob Ward there, and anywhere he starts talking about climate change. Interestingly, like George Moonbat, his graduate degree is in Geology. Check out his hysterical article in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/02/climate-denial-far-right

strapworld

But, do not overlook the fact that this idiot, Ward, is paid from public funds! He is reliant on ensuring that this huge lie and fraud continues, because it is paying his mortgage!

But the Conservatives, if they had any sense, should be using this and asking the question, DO you want your children taught by people like this?

I was lucky, i was taught by people who invited discussion, who wanted an alternative view, which expanded one's mind. Surely that is the only way rather than this communistic approach. I AM RIGHT.LISTEN!

Well done Mr Nelson, NOW will you do your promised article on Immigration please?

London Calling

The gnashing of teeth was deafening. A side effect of being confronted with the truth no doubt…not ice. Its remarkable how all the accusations against the sceptics actually reflect back to the accuser. A serious debate on climate change is welcome, however an investigation into an investigation is not. The hackers have broken the law, but then the exposure of distorted information on climate change is far more unlawful.

You kept your ground Fraser well done…Bob Ward came across as a thug…shut it
Or else what?… charming.

nev parker

The Australian Broadcasting Corp. in a TV program called Quantum had a segment on sea levels [30/3/2000] in which 2 University of New England [NSW[ Acedemics -- Dr Baker and Professor Flood, proved by carbon dating tube worm fossils, that 4,000 years ago our coastal sea level was up to 2 metres higher than today and that sea levels had risen and fallen like a roller coaster over the past 6,000 years. None of these changes were influenced by human behaviour. Probably the climate is changing slowly,nothing is permanent, but our part in this change is not large enough to scare the Bejesus out of everybody

Jeremy

If the scientists have been manipulating or distorting the data to make it accord with their own preconceptions, then what they have done is not science and nor are they - in any true sense of the term - scientists.

Science is not about the production of propaganda.

2trueblue

How can one learn anything form that man? Frazer well done. Ward is the reason people will doubt what our governments want us to believe. If you can not have a grown up conversation then where does it go next? I am a non believer. Ward says N Lawson omits data etc, Al Gore has 19 known inconsistancies in his little teachings, and one graph was inverted because it looked better! This truely is the biggest scam and all governments are into it because it is a great revenue raised.
Lets see what agreements are made and who sticks to them.
This re/depression is not over yet and the recovery will change a lot of countries attitudes. The public are fed up with being treated as idiots. A lot os us do understand that there is limate change, and that there always has been. No need to lie to us. show us the data and you will be amazed what we can grasp.
This will not happen as the detail does not stand up to scrutiny. They have denied us of real dailogue.

Pat Wen

What an idiot. He's clearly rattled by the success of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and that Lord Lawson is getting more kudos and publicity than Lord Stern. Is this the Bob Ward that initially said the emails generated more heat than light but then had to backtrack and call for an inquiry when he saw how seriously others were taking the issue. And who is calling for the enquiry, Lord Stern? The Grantham Research Institute? or Bob Ward, communications officer, and if its just him then who cares!

JohnOfEnfield

I always know when someone is losing an argument. Ward went for the man, not the ball - I thought he was going to chew his own face off!

Fraser, the more fundamental issue than the attempted news management by the CRU "scientists", is the fact that they are not prepared to support the "Scientific Method", i.e. go through the process of defining the problem, coming up with hypotheses, testing these against observations in an open manner. "We've lost the data" tells you that the whole AGW scam was just that . A scam.

And until some of these Climate Scientists enter into the "Scientific Method" in an open manner they are not worthy of one iota of consideration.

Miliband & Brown (& for that matter Obamah) trying to tell me that the science is "settled" doesn't convince me about AGW in any way whatsoever.

JoE BSc (Liverpool)

Andrew K

Interesting discussion on Newsnight between Professor Andrew Watson FRS from UEA and Mark Morano, US based climate sceptic.

Professor Watson's closing remark to camera was "What an asshole".

Tankus

Check newsnight on fri 4/12/09 on I player , even more excitable people on the same issue.

oldrightie

It happened again on Newsnight. The very pleasant Yank finished, before the sound was gone "What an asshole" with regard to Prof Watson. The Yank was spot on!

TrevorsDen

A professor Watson (of UEA) on Newsnight muttered 'what an asshole' as the debate with a US sceptic ended.

It shows what a blinkered arrogant pompous bigoted bunch they are. Watson's excuses were facile.

The US sceptic was brash but what do you expect.

As ever the BBC mismanaged the satellite linked debate and asked all the wrong questions. Of course the choice of sceptic was probably deliberate (do they think we are stupid).

Thats two AGW wallahs and both totally wound up and arrogant.

Holly ......

Whoever is right or wrong makes no difference.
e mails,fiddled/hidden/deleted stuff.
Liars in charge.
Their case is lost.
The debate should no longer be about who or what may or may not be causing it, but what are we going to do to live through it?
Supposing we do.
The only cast iron FACT is that taxes WILL NOT stop it.
Also protecting the resources of the planet and the environment is a completely different subject that is being muddled with climate change, like Iraq & Al Qaeda.
Again..If the truth is there, why make things up?
This is the third case of reverse FACT I have heard in as many weeks,
1- Brown to Cameron(PMQ's) Everything they come out with unravells within days.
2- Brown to Cameron(PMQ's) The more he speaks the less he says.
3- So called sceptics have been using this propaganda tool to promote political end...
Do they think we have just landed?
You just watch Fraser, it is quite remarkable.
Welcome to what we have had to endure for years.Lies,lies,lies and spin on top of lies.You will be noted as an enemy of the state and smeared as a fruit loop, for daring to challenge our great leaders.
Crock of shit.
Climate change is happening and fiddled stuff is typical of how things are done.
You were stirling by the way.
Thank you.
x

john

Another mad professor on Newsnight.
Debating with a USA sceptic, he finishes with: "What an arsehole!"
How long before the Labour Party tables a bill on Climate Change Denial?

denverthen

Grow up. Whatever you think you believe, young Frase, you're up against ruthless revolutionaries here.

Not sure you're up to the challenge, "old boy".

Nicholas

That Ward is unreal. Comes across as a crazed, deranged fanatic.

DaveP

"Lost the data" - Lost the data - the data on which public policy will involve taxing people and industry to death. The "dog ate my homework" from a child is beginning to look a very plausible reason, when compared to the shenanigans of these so-called scientists.

THX1138

Fraser Says "No ones denying that" On climate being changed by human activity. Can I suggest that you read the comment threads on the CH a bit more throughly.. Guy was a bit of "loon" though, he'd be a natural for the CH commentariat.

Patricia Shaw

Why you think somebody like you deserves to be treated civilly is beyond us.

Anybody who allows one of his bloggers to refer to a tainted x STel correspondent to create a picture of Palestine so far removed from reality deserves a swift kicking, not a civil debate.

daniel maris

Well done Fraser. A difficult pitch that sort of head to head but you handled it v. well. My own view is v. much yours: highly probable there has been global warming; possible it's man made; but highly sceptical of the mad scientists deleting e mails and foaming at the mouth when anyone disagrees with their fiats and ukases; and distrustful of tax-happy politicians, hyprocritical hucksters
(e.g. any rock band whingeing about climate while putting on carbon spewing world tours) and mad millenarians ready to climb on this bandwagon.

We do indeed need calm debate and a focus on how to switch to green energy, which is desirable for all sorts of reasons.

Frank P

old rightie

You'd better watch that Newsnight exchange again. It was the professor from UEA that called the American an an asshole.

I agree it should have been the other way round, which would certainly have been appropriate.

Trevor's Den got it right - as did 'john'.

Climategate

What exactly is a "so called sceptic" ?

In2minds

Patricia Shaw @ 12.22am, gosh you're up late keeping an eye on us, thanks for that. And the kicking, loved it!

climategate

30 yrs ago Bob ward would have been protesting in a similar hysterical manner against greenham common.

climategate

Someone posted earlier that Governments buy into this because it is an excuse to raise revenue by taxation, can I also add that celebrities and the gliterati sound off on this because it gives them a peg to hang their hats on and sell their product on the back off.

Adam Winter

Marc Morano WAS an asshole so the comment was accurate & justified.

Wassup?

Watt Tyler

Old THX80085 - he was an AGW "scientist" though, wasn't he. That's the problem for you, isn't it.

Its so true that a lot of people disagree with Fraser Nelson when he says that "no one is denying man made global warming." Lots of people do - lots of peoples who's work will hopefully now get a look in without being shouted down by fascists who think they know whats best, and wont be questioned. ANd when that happens, people like Fraser Nelson will perhaps be persuaded by the science to change their mind.

That's the difference between our side and yours.

MarkW

Saw the Newsnight piece this evening. The problem with the man-made-global-warming debate is that there hasn't been a proper debate until now. So far the 'pro' camp have had it all their own way.

Now a proper debate is opening up and they can't handle it. The reason is that their science is seriously flaky. I work with statistical models and the way they've been used to support man-made-global-warming is scandalous. Thank goodness we're now getting a more balanced view.

I'm happy to have an open mind but the evidence I've seen does NOT support the case for man-made gw. These guys know it and they're rattled. Prof Watson should be ashamed for his comment this evening. Whatever his view the sceptics have just as much right to an opinion as him. One very worried man, basically.

Frank P

Fraser

This gentlemanly desire to debate 'issues' 'rationally' is juvenile and misplaced when you are dealing with a group of very dedicated neo-Marxist conmen, posing as scientists, environmentalists, green campaigners, etc. etc.

By doing so you are swallowing their bait. Read all the documents; read them FFS! It's pretty obvious that you haven't or you wouldn't be joining in their chorus.

Listen to the vast majority of climate scientists who have quite plainly stated, with 'rational' evidence to back them up, that there is little or evidence to show that climate change has little or indeed anything to do with humanity's behaviour; that they have been blackmailed, blackballed and silenced.

Polluters we are, but changers of universal forces we are not.

It is convenient for your political mates to use 'Global Warming' as yet another way to screw us all into the ground with taxation; to attempt to destroy capitalism and America’s hegemony. It is also obvious, paradoxically, that cynical exploiters from within some multinational companies have devised ways of making money from the myths. I know that there are those who wish to replace the myths of religion with the myths of doomsday scenarios to keep the hoi polloi compliant - sedated by superstition and fear.

But I agree with 'denverthen' above, you are dealing with determined revolutionaries. Yet even when they get betrayed from within their ranks - and documentary evidence is produced to expose their machinations and lies (which have already cost us billions) - you want to debate with them as though they are misguided fools who may have a point but are being a little dishonest in presenting their case.

For God’s sake get off the fence and fight them tooth and claw. This is no time for student union debating, we are being screwed and you are turning the other cheek, smiling sweetly and expecting to get brownie points for being ‘reasonable’. This magazine should be leading the fight to expose them and adducing evidence to destroy their plots - and in some cases have them prosecuted; not waiting for some self-appointed ‘inquiry’ to whitewash the scandal. You need to have a long session with Melanie and get yourself educated in the hard facts of life. You've spent too much time with the Lefties and you're in the grip of Stockholm syndrome. get rid of these sidebar socialists and start running this as a conservative magazine again.

Nick J

Monckton's thesis of a totalitarian conspiracy being played out using education generally, climate science in particular, and I would suggest PC, is gaining more credibility by the minute.

Watt Tyler

Interesting stuff from todays Telegraph folks -

Brown says "With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.”

So, Brown is like the AGW thugs who prefer to shout insults. But as far as I am concerend, the Labour party is history, even if I and hundreds like me vote UKIP. This shows me that Labour are trying desperately to hold on to their core vote - you know, people like THX80085 and Bob Ward

The Tories' Greg Clark, who is now the shadow energy secretary (I am sure it was shadow climate change secretary last week), told the Daily Telegraph the climategate emails were a cause for concern.

“This has clearly concerned a lot of people, including myself. You need to be able to rely on the scientific opinion. It is important that we should be able to have confidence in the research,” he said.

Be prepared for a change in the Conservative stance - the Tories see a few votes in this. Then weigh up if they deserve them.

Fewrgus Pickering

Jeremy, these chaps are scentists al right. It is just that they are cheating, lying scientists. In the same way you can have mad scientits or mass-murdering scientists - indeed you often have done. The word Scientist does not mark you out as virtuous. It just shows how you earn your living. Scientists are no more trustworthy than artists or politicians or strippers or plumbers. A chap tried to sell us a house that was structurally unsound. He was a scientist. Come to that, the notorious Dr Mengele was a scientist and so was Werner Von Braun.

Michael Booth

You often hear politicians say 'We need a national debate on...' whatever it is they are pushing, but what they mean is nothing of the sort. Debate means taking views from all sides - what politicans want is a soap box to push their own view and for people to accept it. I think this Bob Ward chap is a disgrace to the scientific profession - science is about questioning, it is about testing theories and keeping an open mind. It is not about ranting or peddling pet theories. There was more than a whiff of 'Nazi' science about the way he put things across which was distasteful. If he is in receipt of public money can I please have my contribution returned immediately.

Tim Carpenter LPUK

Combining my metaphors here but Bob Ward is a cornered rat that is
seeing his rice bowl taken away. That goes for most in "the trade". They are dangerous animals.

Swiss Bob

Fraser, as I wrote on your last entry, you're forgiven.

Feel free to post this up, everyone else has, but dont forget the second part as it has all the best points made by you:

Fraser Nelson takes on Bob Ward, Sky News Dec 4th.

Swiss Bob

er, cancel my last, except for adding the second part. Your page took so long to load I didn't see you'd already embedded the first part of the video.

Pete-s

There are anonymous comments on the radio by teachers. Who are supposed to be saying to their pupils, when answering climate questions in exams, spout the gov dogma or you will fail! Unfortunately I find that very easy to believe.

he Laughing Cavalier

GK Chesterton remarked that when people ceased to believe in God they would believe in anything. In this post Christian society it would seem that many people have adopted the new religion of Gaia worship. The hysteria with which Ward preaches his faith would be amusing were it not for the alarming and sad truth that so many politicians (our very own dyngerous Dyve included) are also worshipers in this pagan cult.

Ralph Hicks

"Hope replied"

Hope or Ward?

[BTW if you want to leave comments without registering the pop-up screen does not open up wide enough to do so]

MarkW

Sorry, Frank P, but that's not the way to approach this argument. You play straight into the pro lobby hands because this issue is far too important to be turned into a left versus right confrontation. As the Sky News and Newsnight examples demonstrate very nicely, a rational approach is all that's needed. Give the pro lobby enough rope and they'll hang themselves because they don't have the proper scientific evidence to back them up and Joe Public is no mug (unlike the politicians).

EC

Fraser,

You do seem to bring out the worst in people, but well done for exposing the bald thuggery of the global warm mongers.

You have now personally experienced the tactics used to forge "the consensus." Nothing else but absolute compliance in thought, word and deed will do.

Frank P, "you are dealing with a group of very dedicated neo-Marxist conmen, posing as scientists, environmentalists, green campaigners, etc. etc."

Spot on!

Beer Moth

Belter. I think it would be a good idea to get the two of you in face to face debate, see how he handles that.

If and when, I'd make a point of digging out the old gumshield and popping it in my handkerchief pocket.

BTW this episode has obviously put our house idiots THX and his co-malcontent Patricia into something of a spin. Love it.

paul g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8WDcQon9DY

See above link for the Newsnight altercation. I'm afraid that the Professor's comment is understandable and that people like Morano do little to advance the cause of climate change scepticism.

Neil Turner

Just checked out the Newsnight piece - link is below

Rude word appears at 11m50s

The AGW crowd are clearly rattled !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p92nx/Newsnight_04_12_2009/

Bob Ward

Dear Fraser,

Sorry that you feel the need to pre-judge the outcome of the investigation at the University of East Anglia - seems a little bit of an extreme position for somebody who is claiming to want a rational debate.

Anyway, just in case you ever want to report on demonstrable manipulation of scientific data for political ends, you might want to check out this investigation by a journalist at 'The Times': http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/12/climate-sceptics-still-getting-it-wrong.html

Holly ......

Is this a case against governments of money by menace?

Chuck Unsworth

Watson on Newsnight was truly appalling. Apart from telling his interlocutor to shut up and then referring to him as an asshole, he made no case whatsoever and failed to directly address any of the points raised.

If anything was calculated to change people's minds, this was it. Watson's attitude was that of an arrogant academic who believes he knows best. It has done untold damage to his cause.

If UEA has any sense it will never allow him to appear in front of the cameras again. How many people do they wish to persuade, and how many do they wish to antagonise?

emil

I was always brought up to believe that people throw insults when they are losing the argument. Whenever the cause of dangerous climate change are debated it is always the Mr Wards, and their desire to close down valid debate, that resort to name calling. This alone, as I don't even profess to understand the science, tells me that before a headlong rush into draconian taxes and personal freedoms there should be open, honest debate amongst adults. Some chance huh?

emil

"He is policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the LSE."

And he accuses YOU of having a vested interest. hmmmm

BigAl

Macavity called those who are sceptical about CO2 and climate change as 'flat earthers'. Another example of his normal approach of stifling democratic debate.

oldtimer

I read that Mr Brown has attacked climate change sceptics as "flat-earthers" and "anti-science". Not for the first time, it is Mr Brown who has got it all wrong.

Far from being anti-science, we sceptics actually would like to see the the proper application of scientific method to this issue. The shocking aspect of Climategate is the apparent disregard of scientific method. This is what needs to be investigated.

As for the term "flat-earther", it is a misnomer for people like me. A better description of the difference between Brown and myself is this. He is a flat-liner (Mediaeval warming period flattened; Stern`s flat line into future oblivion). I, by contrast, am an oscillator who believes that the climate does change, both warmer and colder. In geological time it has demonstrated a capacity to do so with what would be catastrophic consequences for us all without our intervention or indeed our presence on this planet.

The fact is that the science of climatology is imperfectly understood. Climategate suggests that, in part, it is based on models and hypotheses of questionable validity. This will not do if you wish to tax people hundreds of billions of $ on the back of it.

TrevorsDen

Paul G - I see the point you are making but I do not agree. Its always the case in these satellite links where the participants do not see each other, that the talk across each other.

The US guy was brash, but the points he made about 'warmists' being appalled at the leaks is quite valid. Watson was irritable and clearly said what he thought of people who did not agree with him.
His asshole (arsehole?) remark showed a closed mind not a scientific one.

TrevorsDen

BigAl - lest anyone have any doubt, Brown has never ever been right about anything in his life. So the AGW debate is now settled.

Fergus Pickering

Who, Mr Ward, is investigating the thing? Is it policemen investigating policemen or politicians investigating politicians, or gangsters investigating gangsters? It sort of makes a difference. So, if you will just pop down from your cross again for a moment, can you tell us who is doing the investigating? Oh, and a word to the wise. Try not to make funny faces on television. It can do no good.

Swiss Bob

Mr Ward, Give it up :-)

I see someone has posted the iplayer link to Prof Watson calling Marc Morano an arsehole on Newsnight. Before they can disappear it, see it on YouTube:

Newsnight - Prof Andrew Watson on Marc Morano.

M. Rowley

Fraser 4 Slaphead 0

Publius

Bob Ward says:
"Sorry that you feel the need to pre-judge the outcome of the investigation at the University of East Anglia - seems a little bit of an extreme position for somebody who is claiming to want a rational debate."

-- Does it not trouble you, Mr Ward, that the supposedly objective findings of the experts at UAE are now deemed untrustworthy enough to warrant the new investigation you talk about?

-- Don't you think this new investigation ought to be in the form of a public enquiry? If not, how is one expected to trust the findings of the new investigation? After all, UAE's work itself was, or claimed to be, an objective investigation.

-- Are you calling for all the data to be placed in the public domain?

-- Are you calling for a full explanation of why such crucial data was lost or "lost"?

-- Are you calling for a proper answer to why FOI requests were ignored or, so it seems, deliberately and criminally circumvented?

Draughtsman

So Brown, the man whose touch turns gold to dross, is calling those of us who are totally unmoved at the hysterical tales being peddled by the global warming fanatics 'flat Earthers'. I suppose then he must include in that group the likes of Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT one of the world's foremost climatologists who has been at the forefront of climate research for many years.

Before Brown hurls epithets at people he perhaps should look at some of the real scientific findings of the last few years based on direct measurement and observation of the workings of the atmosphere and not the garbage spewed out by computers fed with fiddled codes and incorrect assumptions. He could start by reviewing some of Professor Lindzen's recent findings regarding the Earth's radiation budget.

Nice and Warm at Home

We need to get Ward on TV as much as possible in the next month while climategate is going on - people will start turning up their heating and booking flights as they watch.

John David Barnett

Fraser wore a tie. That put me on his side from the start. I instinctively distrust scruffs.

toni

"Bob Ward looks as if they just let him out of the loony ward so no wonder you couldn't have a proper debate with him!"

This comment and similar are just exaggerated and childish.
Mr. Ward did not shout or rant but made his points clearly and strongly, and my impression was that Frazer looked discomfited by Mr. Ward's initial reply. Frazer's next response was to call Mr. Ward hysterical, the typical re-action of the well rehearsed bully which in effect is: say something I disagree with and I label you hysterical, ergo attempting to discredit your 'opponent'personally.
It's hardly surprising that Frazer receives unqualified admiration here, but obviously it's too much to expect that he might find expressions like 'loony wards' inappropriate, even for this forum.

Frank P

MarkW

"This issue is too important to be turned into a left v right confrontation"

I’m not talking about a left v right confrontation; I’m talking about racketeering on the grand scale (as I thought I’d made clear). We used to have investigative journalists in the UK – now it seems that what we mostly have in journalism is ex-grads who have been badly infected by Leftist professorial mechanics in academia and now spend their days pissing up each other’s backs – and all over the rest of us – while pretending it is raining. Indeed I wish Joe Public was ‘no mug’. Events over the past half century or so have proved the opposite. Joe has, through his crass credulity, allowed the Long March kicked off by Antonio Gramsci to wend its way through all our institutions. He has allowed a modified Marxist administration to take over the government of this country and voted twice to retain it and thereby secede most of our sovereignty via Barking Creek to Brussels. At the same time his counterpart, transatlantic Joe Blow, has allowed its many sub-marches to occupy the Oval Office.

What we need is a counter-counter revolution, not a debating society. And we need more hard-nosed journalists like Melanie Phillips to rip second a-holes into Brown, Cameron, (and the other juvenile prat whose name I can never remember that now ‘leads’ the LibDems) before people like the egregious Nick Griffen fill the void of political resistance, attract the attention of your mate Joe Public and persuade him to make even more disastrous electoral choices.

I’m TPO with drawing room niceties and waffle. This is an opportunity to expose a gigantic fraud and it seems nobody here is prepared to step up to the plate. I repeat my question, why haven’t the police confiscated the computers of these subversive charlatans of the UEA. The campus has been hotbed of traitors for years. Fraser’s whimsical encounter with Ward was just another straw in the wind, as was last night’s Newsnight debacle. And Joe Public was probably watching Wossie – oblivious to the nuances of 'rational debate' skewed by the leftist Martha Blarney as a preliminary to launching a Newsnight Review packed with more AGW propaganda spewed out by a compliant bunch of arty-farty gasbags polluting Shepherd's Bush with their flatulent emissions.

Nicholas

THX1138: "Guy was a bit of "loon" though, he'd be a natural for the CH commentariat."

That includes you then since you too are one of the commentariat here - unfortunately. At least my first name is my real name and not a cute (?) reference to a dystopian fantasy movie. What an insufferably boring and supercilious prig you are, to dismissively stereotype the other posters on a forum which you yourself haunt and post on. I guess you are the only soldier marching in step here, eh?

Patricia Shaw: beyond parody as always. "Us"? Which "us" is that then - the ruling fascist elite of which you clearly consider yourself (or are) a member? Deeming some people unworthy of "civil" treatment is a classic leftist ploy to suppress any debate. Leftist "debate" (if that is what the relentless boasting of moral superiority, dogma, cant and propaganda can be termed) is usually far from civil anyway - as fanatics like Ward and your posts demonstrate. And suggesting someone should get a kicking because they disagree with your dogma and cant? Dear me, what happened to the "equality" and "fairness", the "respect" agenda, and all that bleating abhoring violence. Yeah, rhetorical question. We know. Don't do as we do, do as we say. Failed in the USSR and every other God-forsaken Peoples Republic where people like you who think they know best inflict misery beyond belief, now trying it on in Britain aided and abetted by all the other closet communists and Common Purpose stooges. No thanks.

But your posts are great, Patricia, and do keep them coming, because they reveal so admirably the bigoted leftist mindset, the Semitophobe racism, the creepy fascist desire to control the narrative agenda and "New Labour's vast apparatus of fake success" (q.v. Andrew Gilligan) that we all need to see revealed for its disgusting hypocrisy and miserable reality.

Publius

Apologies. In my earlier post, I of course meant UEA not UAE. (Too much Dubai on my mind)

Nicholas

Open letter to Britain's crop of faked-their-way-to-power fascist socialists apropos Frank P's post.

Couldn't agree more. When you push people so far and take liberties with their liberty eventually they bite back. They are. They will. And it is not going to be pretty. You deserve everything you are going to get. The genie is out of the bottle and hopefully a good many of you will eventually end up where your many lies, frauds and rape of our freedom warrant - in prison (a wall and firing squad being too much to hope for).

Snowman

Nicholas @ 1.06:

good stuff, spot on and all that but, my friend, it's utterly wasted on the likes of the Patricias of this world, trust me. I've often wondered what is it the fuels the brain of these people, and for the hell of it cannot figure it out.

Viv Evans

Bob Ward wrote:
"Dear Fraser,

Sorry that you feel the need to pre-judge the outcome of the investigation at the University of East Anglia - seems a little bit of an extreme position for somebody who is claiming to want a rational debate."

He made the same point during your debate.

This is total obfuscation - the inquiry is
not some sort of judicial trial, during which all sides have to keep quiet about the issue.

I'm sure we can look forward to having this 'argument' being rolled out by all AGW defenders.

Usual commie student debating technique.

Augustus

"...seems a little bit of an extreme position..."

"Winston sat a his desk in the Ministry of Climate Science..."

And I always thought it was the Brotherhood who were the extremists!

Frank P

Today, after the Newsnight spat (for which, we are told, the BBC later apologised - I missed that) Marc Morano lays out his rational case without interruption or the risk of being called an 'asshole' by a tetchy effete leftie academic prostitute - sorry - professor:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4292/Climategate-Professor-to-Skeptic-on-Live-BBC-TV-What-an-Asshle

Chuck Unsworth

@ Toni (or is that Tony?)

I feel it would be rather good if you could spell his name correctly whilst castigating....

Chuck Unsworth

@ Bob Ward

Who is carrying out this 'investigation'? What's their legal status? Why do we have to wait for these self-appointed judges to issue their findings?

We pay their salaries. We have the right to cast their quasi-legal opinion to one side and, given the track record of UEA in this matter, why should anyone believe what they say? The evidence to date in this matters is that the UEA is untrustworthy.

Nick

It's certainly true that the AGW spokemen on TV recently haven't done themselves any favours on the PR front. It is plainly clear that they are inexperienced in front of a camera.

Fraser, however, is on the TV almost every week. And I think it ill-behoves him to call Ward "hysterical" or to constantly interrupt him (I counted 4 occasions).

Mark Morano, whatever the sense of his points, was extraordinarily brash and wouldn't let the other guy make his points. I think most people faced with a similar situation would be equally annoyed and exasperated. Who here hasn't shouted similar abuse at the radio when listening to Humphrys or Naughtie ?

David Harington

The good Professor was in no way acting against the instructions of his University. He was sent out as an honest broker to diffuse the issue and he failed miserably so to do.

I saw the outburst on newsnight and immediately contacted Morano to make sure that he was aware of the matter.

It demonstrates that these guys are totally inept when faced with a media that is not 100% supine and they have yet to adjust to the new reality where they get asked “hard” questions

Hysteria

nicholas - great post - thanks

re the lette from Ward to Carswell referenced earlier - here is a very interesting quote - note the conditional "SHOULD"....

QUOTE

I can assure you that while the UK public may be confused about the causes of climate change, scientists are not. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere should cause the Earth to warm

END QUOTE

Afternoon Snooze

It must be exhausting knowing that you are right but then having to explain why. No wonder Mr Ward appeared so bad tempered. He should take a nap.

Climategate

It has been said on several occassions since this news broke that essentially the same data has been collated by other bodies such as NASA in a way which provides coroborration for man made Global Warming. However I am led to believe that like this discredited university NASA are also refusing to make their data avalable for scrutiny. Can anyone confirm if this is the case ?

Hysteria

just watched the end of the Newsnight clip. Not sure what to make of that - both sides missed the point a little - Morano definitely came across as shrill (but then that is often the style in US TV debates)

Watson's point was that the real science was being obscured by the leak and the focus on personality....

A neat diversion from the real issue which lies in the code, the commentary and where (if) it was used in any of the IPCC reports.

His final comment may reflect as much on his general opinion of people who debate the "facts" as it does his opinion of Morano specifically.

Minnie Ovens

denverthen.
Oh dear oh dear! What a patronizing fellow you are.

Swiss Bob

Mr Frank P, Mr Morano does indeed post on the spat on Newsnight, and very kindly links to me. I'm inundated with Yanks, but not complaining.

UK bloggers on the other hand just embed the video, with the odd exception. . .

Niall Warry

Fraser Nelson says:-"At the Spectator we do not dispute that global warming is happeningand we think it is more likely than not that mankind is contributing to it."

I disagree!

First climates do change but the earth's temperature has gone very slightly down in the last 10 years. 'Global Warming' is NOT happening.
Second with man's contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere being a mere 4% the likelihood is that man has nothing to do with climate change.

So finally why is it in the geological past with higher rates of CO2 than we have now the temperature dropped.

TGF UKIP

John at 11.33 on 4th Dec "How long before the Labour Party tables a Climate Change Denial bill?" Perhaps, that's not so far fetched for within the last few days we've had Milipede Minimus describing Nigel Lawson and David Davis as "climate saboteurs."

Saboteurs eh! Well perhaps they won't need a new bill, for with all the many add-ons to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and all its subsidiaries, they should be able to get their stasi to issue immediate warrants for the arrest of Davis and Lawson as terrorists bent on sabotage.

daifromwales

It's a sign of the times that LSE should have a "Research Institute on Climate Change". I thought LSE was best known for left wing sociology, not Pure Science.

LSE and Imperial College have £25m - directed at
"The Grantham's total investment of over £24 million to LSE and Imperial College, made through the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, is one of the largest private donations to climate change research."

At LSE, "It brings together international expertise on economics, finance, geography, the environment, international development and political economy to establish a world-leading centre for policy-relevant research and training in climate change and the environment."

At Imperial College, "The Grantham Institute work under this theme is focused on understanding the pressures and likely consequences of climate change for ecosystems and for people to inform better prediction and assist in the development of sustainable management plans and policy mechanisms."

All the above is highly laudable no doubt - but it makes no mention of research into what is happening and why.

RobC

Prof Watson of the UEA admitted on Radio 4 p.m.on Friday that they had manipulated tree ring data had because it did not fit the theory.
The question I would ask is do you believe scientists with huge budgets to back up the Politicians or a tree with, forgive the analogy,no axe to grind which has the growth trauma to confirm its provenance?

Mike

An excellent debate with Fraser Nelson easily holding his own against a ranting ideologist in denial of spun conclusions over global warming. When governments fund research with an aim to further their ideological pursuits its very obvious that there is both direct & indirect pressure to produce the answers their masters want to hear. Only recently we had a government scientist researching the comparative dangers over cannabis vs alcohol end up getting fired for stating the bleeding obvious & inconvenient truths that alcohol causes more deaths than smoking a joint. Does anyone think these scientist at East Anglia University funded by the government & for a government ideology are going to vote like turkeys for xmas, I don't think so. Even ignoring Bob Ward's pathetic attempts to debate this subject in a rationale manner his denial of the obvious conclusion from this email trail defies belief. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that data was manipulated and spun in grand Labour fashion to question its veracity. How many more times do these email deniers have to be told to release the data and all will become clear in the public forum. All this crap about privacy or intellectual property is just a smoke screen to block the use of the FOI act so other scientist cannot verify or reject these global warming fanatics.

Amanda in America

Phew, Frank P is a fire-breather. You must have singed Fraser's eyebrows with that one, Frank. I would have been a bit more humble perhaps, a bit more respectful of someone who is out there confronting this scandal and the scandalous activists who have created this mess -- but personally I think the stakes are as you say they are. The trouble is that, though you and I know what's what, others are still groping their way to the conclusion that perhaps Al Gore is not all that he claimed to be and that perhaps the job description of 'scientist' does not mean that you necessarily have integrity and that you are free of all political agendas.

What has struck me so far is how the thermomaniac advocates' response (see for instance the editor and contributors of Nature.com) accuses the skeptics and whistleblowers of their own sins/crimes: undermining trust in science, politicizing the issue, attempting to shut down debate etc. It is not just the pot calling the kettle black: they are guilty of all these things; skeptics most definitely are not.

The real cause of panic, as I see it, is that they are now being asked to push the reset button, to investigate climate(s) as natural phenomena instead of pushing change as a political agenda (with all sorts of highly costly political outcomes). They're panicking because, absent this agenda, climate change research means nothing to them. They hear people such as Canada's Rex Murphy saying 'now let's get on with doing this properly and honestly' (I paraphrase), and they know that if they do so, the battle is lost. Science is merely a pathway: political change is their real destination.

Rob

"Global warming" is now "climate change." Apparently.

It shows how the doomongers have shifted the focus of the debate as and when it suits them. Once upon a time "global warming" meant warm summers and winters but after a few cold summers and winters, "global warming" didn't necessarily mean things would get warmer! Then all of a sudden global warming becomes "climate change" and this new term doesn't necessarily mean things will get hotter! Honestly, you couldn't make it up.

The global warming/climate change doomongers only have themselves to blame for people's scepticism. The recent e-mails scandal has shown once and for all that this has been "politicised science" all along. Such an idea goes against the very idea of science.

Heads should roll. But I don't suppose they will - there's an agenda to be protected afterall.

Amanda In America

Footnote to my earlier post:

I'm not ignoring the extravagant economic dimension of the climate crusade (of which Bob Ward clearly sees himself as Captain Climate, albeit without cape). Rather, I was pointing to the political because the capeless crusaders can only achieve their desired economic redistribution and/or collapse through political means, i.e. legislation, judicial rulings, bamboozling of the public, etc. And their economic case is at root a political one which says that their notion of equality is more important than prosperity, liberty, and true diversity in the pursuit of happiness.

Clausewitz wrote that war is policy (politics) by other means. For the climate crusaders, science is politics by other means. We have just caught them in flagrante delicto. Hence the extremely rich and totally unconvincing outrage of the twitchy Bob Ward and the embarrassing Prof. Watson.

Jim-Bob Eagleburger

Maurice Strong
Rockefeller's "Coal Industry Hit Man" ?

Back in Canada, in December 1954, Maurice Strong went back to work for Dome, as well as the YMCA, where Tracy Strong was a leader at the Geneva headquarters. Strong also became involved in Canada's Liberal Party politics. During an oil glut, Strong quit Dome and formed his own company, MF Strong Management Empire Trust, which was run by McCloy's friend Brunie, with two representatives on its board from the Rockefellers' Standard Oil of New Jersey, and one from their former Texaco holding.

Next, through the Canadian head of the YMCA, Harold Rea, Strong got appointed as the new president of the Power Corporation, which Elaine Dewar describes: "Power Corporation was the network nodal point for Candian politicans and their arrangements. It had been put together in 1925, when Mackenzie King was prime minister, to control the ownership of power generation facilities across the country, specifically in Quebec, Manitoba, and British Columbia. Like a junior Octopus, it also held control blocks in many other oil and gas companies.... Power Corporation employed and still employs persons who organize the campaigns of those seeking public office."

As Strong described the advantages of being the president of Power Corporation to Dewar: "We controlled many companies, controlled political budgets. We influenced alot of appointments.... Politicians got to know you and you them."

Also, Strong could dole out patronage jobs. One person he hired was James D. Wolfensohn, a fresh, new Harvard MBA, to run the Australian-based subsidiary called SuperPower International. Wolfensohn went on to a lucrative career on Wall Street, and then created his own firm, James D. Wolfensohn Co., which is presided over by former Carter administration Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

Strong's close friend, the Australian-born Wolfensohn, was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II, shortly before taking over the World Bank, where he has worked closely with Prince Philip's pagan Alliance of Religion and Conservation (ARC) "to change the culture of the World Bank," as Martin Palmer reported previously.

Strong left his high-paying job with Power, to take over Canada's External Aid program, where he reported to the Minister of External Affairs, his old friend Paul Martin. In collusion with Martin, Strong set up two of the first combined public-private covert operations, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). An adjunct to the Canadian Foreign Ministry, IDRC was able to accept "charitable" donations from corporations and foundations. Chase Manhattan Bank and the Rockefeller Foundation, both at the time chaired by John J. McCloy, provided early largesse to the Strong unit, which spread environmentalist propaganda throughout the world, while also conducting a wide range of clandestine projects.

Strong confirmed to Dewar that he had employed the CIDA and IDRC to run political influence operations in Africa and other Third World countries.

In 1969, Strong got a call from the Swedish ambassador to the UN, whose country had pushed a resolution through to hold an international conference on the environment in Stockholm in 1972, asking Strong to take responsibility for this first-ever such conference. Canada's new Liberal Party Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, agreed to the appointment, and Strong went to New York, both as an Undersecretary General of the UN reporting to Secretary General U Thant, and as Secretary General of the Stockholm Conference.

He was made a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1971 (and serves still today as a board member), which gave a grant for running his Stockholm Conference office. He hired the British political intelligence operative Barbara Ward (Lady Jackson), who wrote much of the preparatory materials for the conference.

In parallel with former Rockefeller family protégé Sir Henry Kissinger, then President Nixon's National Security Adviser, Strong used his family ties with Anna Louise Strong to get Mao Zedong to send Beijing's first delegation to a UN event.

As Dewar reports: "At the Stockholm Conference opened in 1972, Strong warned urgently about the onset of global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, the polluted oceans, and the population time bomb.... As I read this old speech, I realized it could almost be repeated at the Rio Summit."

One by-product of the Stockholm Conference was a new UN bureaucracy, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). In 1992, Strong served as Secretary General of the UN Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED), which became known as the Rio Summit. Strong, who was later to be UNEP Secretary General, created the Earth Council out of that.

As Dewar writes: "The Rio Summit would take long steps towards a world in which nation states have withered away in favor of supranational and global institutions....

Advertised as the World's Greatest Summit, Rio was publicly described as a global negotiation to reconcile the need for environmental protection with the need for economic growth. The cognoscenti understood that there were other, deeper goals. These involved the shift of national regulatory powers to vast regional authorities; the opening of all remaining closed national economies to multinational interests; the strengthening of decision making structures far above and far below the grasp of newly minted national democracies; and, above all, the integration of the Soviet and Chinese ... into the global market system."

Strong knew that the Rio Summit was aimed to destroy the sovereign nation-state republic. And, he relied heavily on his pal, Al Gore, to convince the United States government to participate at the heads-of-state level. Also, at the 1997 Kyoto Summit, where Strong was the representative of the UN Secretary General, it was again Gore, together with the Vice President's long-time friend British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who pushed through a reduction of so-called "greenhouse gas emissions" for the ostensibly "industrialized nations," at levels that would mean economic devastation worse than the Great Depression.

Also, for good measure, Strong is the president of the World Economic Forum, the Davos, Switzerland annual summit of the world's private bankers.

There is more to this "science" than meets the eye. This will run and run - - - -

Mike Bartlett

Very interesting. I am sitting down here in Australia where we have just that problem, a Government determined to steamroll us into an ETS so the PM can strut the wider stage at Copenhagen, supported up until a few days ago by the leader of the opposition. Then along came a new opposition leader named Tony Abbott who decided we should all hear more from the other side of the argument and debate it and the cost.

Yes there are lots of questions that need more scientific answers and there are many very clever minds who are doubtful about this so called increase in CO2 and whether it really is the culprit.

There is no known computer grid yet available that can model the effect of vapor on climate change, and scientific evidence shows that even doubling the present CO2 level will really have little effect on increased global warming.

Many of the solutions are in themselves contributing to global warming. It takes 14 years for a solar panel to offset the GHG created during its manufacture, and because solar is black to attract the solar energy and only 12% efficient, the balance of the heat it attracts is radiated back into the atmosphere creating Global Warming! And Governments are bankrolling the solar alternative.

Mike B

Nicholas

TGF UKIP has it. How long before "climate change deniers" go on the database as "extremists"?

mike towl

Personally Lord Nelson, I thought you did rather well. Although taking on the likes of the bully Ward using reasoned intellect and a sense of propriety never seems to vanquishes this type.(Brown, Balls, Cambell for example)it does make for jolly good entertainment. Well done.

Frank P

Jim-Bob Eagleburger

A very, very interesting post. Consistent with your sobriquet, which seems to be a conflation of James B Foley and Lawrence Eagleburger those two wily old collaborators from a slightly earlier political era. Which one are you? Or are you just an admirer of both? I think we should be told.

Sir Arnold Robinson

Well done Fraser.

Amanda in America

Frank P: If it's a long, detailed post featuring Maurice Strong, then I would wager that 'Jim-Bob' is none other than our friend 'Captain Sherlock' from the Telegraph blogs.

Hysteria

this is an excellent discussion on the topic - with clear pointers to fraud..

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

Frank P

Hysteria

Thanks for that link; the commentary is also riveting. Excellent stuff.

Frank P

Amanda in America

Is what J-B Eagleburger delineates untrue? A voyage of discovery around the internet seems to confirm most of the data. I know not of Captain Sherlock. Elucidate?

derek oppen

I am surprised you didn't ask Bob Ward, since his constant complaint was that you weren't waiting for the investigation, if he would agree that Copenhagen should be cancelled until the investigation plays out. Oh, shucks, I know the answer.

HJ

Fraser,

You showed remarkable patience with this idiot. Like you, I think that global warming probably is happening, but there are so many variables it will be very difficult to quantify, predict or model and that all data should be approached with an open mind. I am a physicist by training, so I find this man's assertion that there is no doubt about the physics absurd.

Bob Ward is a geologist, by the way, so no scientific expert himself.

Jerry

I think you won that one, Fraser. This chap Ward came across as a serious fanatic, a climate change hedge priest, deeply impatient at meeting any criticism. With his level of tolerance of discussion he would probably be more at home circulating in Al Quaida venues.

As you said, it is far too early in the science of climate change to come to any fixed conclusions and some of the work done so far is pretty dodgy.

Tom Jaffray

Fraser

Have you actually looked into what Bob Ward was ranting about viz Nigel Lawson's think tank the GWPF? It's the GWPF logo!!! Is he seriously equating this with the sheenanigans at the UEA? He's a fool or a knave, that's for sure: take you choice. God give me strength.

Alun Reynolds

Did you see Milliband Minimus insulting Nigel Lawson on the Politics Show yesterday. Basically anyone who dares to voice concerns about the validity of Carbon/Climate Change is irresponsibly spreading alarm.

He was incredibly rude.

Dr John Hulbert FBCS

Dear Fraser,
I think that you did very well in that interview.
I am neither a Global Warming alarmist or a sceptic
However as an ex (senior) policeman and a well qualified scientist. I do get very suspicious when some one seems to be manipulating the evidence (I mean data) and nobbling the jury (I mean peer reviewers).
What might drive me into the sceptic’s camp is the messianic condescension of the ‘Warmers’ towards ordinary members of the public. Especially when so much of our future livelihood is at stake.
I do take one issue with your analysis, that is that there seems to be ample evidence of previous epochs when the temperature was higher than at present, such as the Medieval Warming periods.
Keep up the middle line.
regards
JohnH

Craig Pond

Fraser,
the next time you find yourself confronted by one of these hysterical data manipulators, ask them this question.
How much carbon is released per year, on a global basis.
They can't answer this because they don't know, so follow up with this.
If you don't know how much is released per year globally, how the hell can you know what percentage of that is man made?

I've used it several times to send these
chicken little sorts scampering off in a huff.

Amanda in America

Frank P: 'Captain Sherlock' posts often -- one might say long and often -- on James Delingpole's blog particularly. I don't have time (or frankly, deep enough an interest) to pursue his topics, which come across as rather abstruse and possibly crankish in the context of a blog (I'm not the only one that thinks so). However, those that are willing and able to discuss the finer points of debt obligations etc. find his posts cogent, I gather. Mind you, I say 'those' -- it amounts to one other poster that I know of. Since you are interested, that would make at least two! But as another Telegraph poster put it, people in general won't wade through convoluted posts, not addressed to anyone or any question in particular, that sound like a chapter ripped out of The Everything Files. Short and focused works better, it's been said.

James Murphy

Bravo Fraser! Grace under fire! Just watching the other bloke made want to reach into my computer and slap his stupid bald head! Not to mention his insufferable mosquito-thin voice! I mean, I speak as a bald git myself, but where your opponent is concerned, I guess if it looks like a git, talks like a git, chews its own tongue like a git, argues like a git, has thin lips like a git - then it must be a git.

James Murphy

Frank P - bravo - an impassioned, articulate call to arms against the Gramscian hordes! - Although I also found it a melancholy read in some ways. Truly the cultural horse has bolted, and we're all left heaving and grunting under the weight of that great big useless stable door! Certainly, we should cease being civil to these people: it simply cuts no ice with them: they regard it as weakness. Indeed, they'll lock you up and throw away the key as you respectfully call down the corridor requesting the right to an appeal in your best middle-class English.

GrassyKnollington

Excellent Fraser- this man was clearly your subordinate. Did he attempt to blame the Spectator for AGW dissent at one point? I think he did.

kevin king

Let's wait until the genuine scientists(physicists)
start delivering real results based on empirical data
and measurements carried out as part of their ongoing CLOUD
experiment at CERN.

This will bury AGW pretty quickly. I reckon by
this time next year we will start to see some pretty
conclusive links between reduced sun spot activity -->
weaker solar wind--> Increase in cloud formation
with high albedo through increase in flux in Galatic
Cosmic Radiation due to weaker solar wind.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/CREC.html

hro001

Fraser is right on the mark. Ward on the other hand is reduced to hand-wavng and exercises in projection. He accuses Fraser of having made up his mind, yet the emails clearly reveal that these scientists had already made up their minds - and sought spin the debate even before Kyoto. I've highlighted this in a post on my blog: http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/the-fog-of-uncertainty-and-the-precautionary-principle/

Rational Man

These clowns and Ward is one of the biggest bigots, close down debate and ridicule AGW sceptism.
This is precisely because they know and appreciate that there is conjectural doubt to the hypothesis of AGW, and they don't like it one bit.
After-all in Ward's case it is what puts bread in his pocket and on his table.
But why so aggressive?
Always the thug will out and this is very like Nu-labour, criticise, vilify, obstruct and paint your 'enemy' black and at the end change the subject, Ward should be a politician in the thug Nu-lab party.

michaelmph

You might like to know the genesis of the heavily doctored (i.e. photoshopped) shot being used on the BBC News website (among others) when reporting on the Copenhagen conference. The link is:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/09/ap-global-warming-fauxtography-updated/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29

As the caption says, it's truly 'fauxtography'.

Michael

UK_Academic

Well done Fraser. I recently Emailed an obsessed climate 'scientist' as follows:

"I am not at all certain that you have actually read the infamous UEA-CRU Emails.

The fundamental point that strikes any scientist is that the attempts to manipulate the previously respected peer-review process, and even to control the journals themselves, are at the heart of this scandal.

I'm afraid that the 'peer review' mantra doesn't cut it any more - only when climate science has been cleansed of those who brought this malignancy upon wider science will the situation be resolved. "