Tagged: phil jones

Ad Hominem

An acquaintance said I must feel vindicated now that the extent of the corruption in climate science is exposed. The answer is no, because I knew all along there would be no pleasure in “I told you so”. The damage done to climate science, science, and environmentalism is serious.

Disastrous Computer Model Predictions: From Limits to Growth to Global Warming

No matter what political committees try to absolve corruption of climate science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they cannot hide the complete failure of the computer models to make a single accurate prediction. Leaked emails from the CRU received media attention, but the emphasis must shift to the computer models.

Climate Terrorism? Contrived Climate Science Holds World to Ransom

A small group of scientists – mostly associated with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia – have consciously withheld data and methods to place global progress, development, economies and peoples lives in jeopardy. Lord Monckton calls it a global fraud. It is that, but much more – and raises the question of accountability.

Atmospheric Aerosols: Another Major IPCC Omission

Political whitewash of the corrupted climate science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) illustrates the completely political nature of the issue. Indeed, the Chairman of the British Parliament investigating Phil Jones and the CRU specifically said they would not look at the science. If they had, they would see the extensive and outrageous scientific errors, manipulations of data, and omissions of large areas.

Climategate Cover-up Continues

The degree to which those in official climate science are incapable is illustrated by the reaction. The answer is in the reaction the whitewash has triggered; an orchestrated attack on the skeptics, those who dare to perform science by proving the hypothesis wrong, to ask questions or demand debate. Why? The obvious answer is because the public was increasingly skeptical as evidence accumulated that the hypothesis was wrong.