The Daily Telegraph editorializes today that CRU scientists got off too “lightly” in the review of their role in the Climategate scandal.  Like Der Spiegel before it, the Telegraph is rediscovering that every debate has two sides.  The voices of the climate realists are penetrating the climate fog at last.  The Telegraph reminds its readers that on climate, “there is another view, for which evidence can also be adduced, even if it seems to conflict with the received wisdom. The findings of the Oxburgh inquiry are not an excuse for again closing down the climate-change debate to the exclusion of those who take a sceptical attitude to what is arguably the most important issue facing the world.”

Polls show people turning their backs on climate propaganda.  The prospect of fair media treatment causes a shiver of fear down the necks of warming campaigners.  Their jeopardy is real.  Sunlight is a good disinfectant.

It certainly is more solemn here, than in Copenhagen, as most people as this conference persist in pointing out. I’m not complaining, and neither is the local community which this time seems to be spared from closed off traffic and broken glass.

The latter is instead provided by some of the few outdoor activists that are here. As a manifestation telling the politicians that “it’s time to pick up the pieces”. The symbolic broken glass (hope no one got hurt) is supposed to represent the results from Copenhagen.

Did anyone say desperate? Or trying to save face?

Did anyone consider that there might be reasons why the glass got broken in the first place?

Or might it even be admitting defeat?

Copenhagen has been labeled a fiasco by most sides. The politicians, who put their reputation at stake, the NGO’s who were closed out because of overbooking, the activists who were harassed and the police who could not keep things under control. Most blame China, and the Chinese suggest it’s probably the US’s fault. If anyone has ever tried to save face desperately, it’s certainly the IPCC itself.

Patching together that mirror will not make the picture less blurred.

University of East Anglia

Exonerated, is a beautiful word. It means that all your trouble are gone and you can go back to sleep, with no accusations hanging over your head. Consequently, it is also frequently used in the comments after the UK parliamentary committee delivered its report on Professor Jones’ responsibility for the strange events at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University. The problems with Climategate are instead described as a lack of routines and a culture of secrecy, something the panel advises CRU to do something about. Note that this is only about the E-mails at East Anglia, not the peculiar coincidence that all the other mistakes made by IPCC  were only detected after the Copenhagen Climate Chaos.

However, the panel also voices understanding over Jones, most likely being frustrated about handing over data to climate sceptics who just want to undermine his research. Is this a university or a political youth organisation?

Don’t submit that dissertation! The opponents might attack you. Don’t publish your findings. Other researchers might quote your work, or even challenge it. Don’t discuss! The others might try to undermine your research.

If this is the guiding principle for East Anglia, or indeed for all universities in the UK, it’s quite remarkable. Stop researching ancient Greece! The Greeks might use your findings in their fight to remain in the EURO system. Stop teaching languages! Your students might use them for all sorts of purposes. 

Or might it be that climate research has really turned into ordinary brutal politics?

“An entire branch of science is in crisis.”

Der Spiegel has posted an in-depth article on the UN IPCC’s fall from grace as people around the world examine the exaggerations, mistakes and manipulations of climate science.

Can the global warming propaganda machine go back to saying whatever it wants and suppressing all dissent?  If the folks at Der Spiegel are willing to open their minds, who is next?  We suppose the BBC is too much to hope for……

The campaign is on again with expensive ad’s for Earth Hour, and local politicians have been forced for months to defend their decisions on shutting of the lights on central buildings, or not.

In the midst of the IPCC debacle, the activists and politicians pretend that shutting out the lights for one hour from 8:30 pm will, if not save the climate, at least send a signal to those in charge. Whoever they are. To do what?

It is, indeed, an impressive campaign.

And possibly dangerous. I’m convinced even the organizers have realised that street lamps, hospitals and airports should not mind, but how about other things? It’s quite possible to live in the dark for an hour, but if you live in a city, or a house filled with lamps, the sudden change can be devastating. Now, where’s that land mark (which incidentally neither at sea, nor on land has to be a light house or a traffic sign)? Should the gas station get dark? The Eiffel Tower? The city lights below your trekking rout on a narrow path?

But above all, it’s an insult to all the people living without electricity, or desperatly trying to use the last light bulb in the smartest way. There is a reason why some years ago, the most energy efficient refrigerator in the world was produced in China, and not even by a Chinese company. The leading manufacturers of hospital equipment are desperate to find new solutions to handle electricity shortage in developing countries.

Low energy and low cost laptops are also being developed and distributed, but those who can read this, most likely have either chosen, or being forced by the EU to switch to low energy light bulbs, in homes where the energy efficiency of the well stocked freezer consumes half as much energy as the last one did.

Will the next campaign be to abstain from caviar and champagne for an hour?

LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON (Wisconsin)

Sometimes, just having fun is the best option

The Copenhagen process, or what has become the official name, is strolling along. Most countries (read: politicians) have signed the no-one-knows-really-what-to-call- it document, though some after deadline. Reviving Kyoto is still on the table, recently half heartedly suggested by the European Union (read: a bunch of politicians from countries with different agendas).

At the same time, the UN (read: even more people with different agendas) has decided to let new people have another look at the IPCC report that was the official document before the above mentioned became desperate to at least take some action. Before it became apparent that the report in many aspects was flawed. No one suggests it was altogether wrong.

The scientific work is starting – hopefully – all over again. The political game continues as if nothing, really, has happened.

In real life, people are constantly, sometimes more seriously confronted with choices. Make a huge investment? Buy  a house? Get married? Buy a dog?

Most often, these choices deserve some consideration. If on top, you discover that your bank man might not really be your best friend, or that maybe there’s something fishy about the kennel, you might want to reconsider. Or at least check out the facts. It might, after all turn out that your suspicions were wrong and you can get that dog you dreamed of.

These issues don’t affect millions of people unknown to you. There is a slight difference between forcing the rest of the world to adjust their life styles, pay billions for your projects and risk famine And risk having to apologize for a barking dog.

Hey my environmentalist big wig friends and whomever, let’s just sit down and take a deep breath. While waiting for the cleaning up to be finished, we could have a coffee, chat about other matters or, why not really continue the discussion! It’s not a game, so please don’t start throwing in your bets.

Some commentators don’t see it that way at all, but instead take all criticism as a personal insult. The examples are numerous, but the most blatant one I’ve found so far is from an otherwise classical liberal, sensible editorial page in a Swedish newspaper. (In Swedish, but you have to trust my summary, or use Google translator). The headline is, basically, “Wipe that smile of your faces – sceptics”.

Writes Ann-Charlotte Marteus: “When the credibility of the alarms is hurt, the Global Warming theories loose their ‘front pages’. It gets harder to comprehend and easier to ignore. That’s bad, as the climate has lots of natural enemies, and I’m not just thinking about Elisabeth Höglund.” (My clarification: Höglund worked as staff reporter for many years and could only write what she was told. As free lancer, she has now started to question the validity of the alarms. To some dismay in her old circles.)

What the editor writes, this time in my humble interpretation, is basically that it was not a fake. If it was a fake, that would not be a problem either. The problem is that ordinary people – who don’t understand what’s good for them – might think that it was a fake, and then the problems would persist. Because there is a threat out there, and that threat consists of the so called “Sceptics”, who falsely claim that it was a fake. The only solution is that the politicians start spending money again, and speak up, in order to create a general feeling that it was not a fake.

It’s not really circular. It’s something more. Maybe global?

If this is the new alarmist mantra, the debate really is over. In a new way.

Greenpeace International has now issued a statementsaying that they do not support the earlier demand by their UK chief that IPCC Chair, Dr Pachauri resigns. And besides, their executive director UK John Sauven was probably misunderstood by the Times. And in spite of the record cold winter, it’s hard to find snow in Vancouver.

Well well, when the going gets tough, unite behind the guy up front. At lease for a while.

Greenpeace also includes a rather well written list of all the “gates” recently, complete with an etymological and historic explanation. For some reason, the false claims about the polar beers, which their colleague organization WWF International already has refuted, or the mysterious “Hockey Stick” that whas removed from earlier IPCC reports, but somehow crept back in with the last report before Copenhagen, are not listed.

The most important issue is not if the IPCC report is a giant fraud. It’s not. And it’s not a conspiracy. All scientific predictions, and sometimes observations, can turn out to be at least partly wrong. It’s the essence of the scientific process. And virtually all attempted conspiracies, beyond a surprise party, tend to fail in the end. Life, and human interaction is simply too complicated.

The important question is why all these revelations – except from the initial Climate Gate - did surface after the Copenhagen summit. And why did the IPCC researchers accept to reintroduce the Hockey Stick, which they knew was wrong?

A likely explanation is that (though still no conspiracy here) the stakes were so high, the expectations and built-up hysteria before Copenhagen so immense, that among all the stakeholders, from IPCC to all fractions of the green lobby, no one dared – or could be heard – to point out that maybe the emperor was naked. This is not an unusual phenomena and most often, when later all the cards are on the table, the only thing left to do before it’s business as usual again, is to pick a scapegoat or two and send him to the wolves.

This is just a theory and I’m a bit surprised that Dr Pachauri has not yet resigned. However, if you have observed this peculiar world of power play for a while, which I admit to having done, you learn to recognize the footprints of the lamb on its way to be sacrificed.