IPCC “Consensus”—Warning: Use at Your Own Risk — MasterResource

Recent events have shown, rather embarrassingly, that the IPCC is not “the” consensus of scientists, but rather the opinions of a few scientists (in some cases as few as one) in various subject areas whose consensus among themselves is then kludged together by the designers of the IPCC final product who a priori know what they want the ultimate outcome to be (that greenhouse gases are leading to dangerous climate change and need to be restricted).

Video: Lord Monckton in Sydney | Australian Climate Madness

I didn't record the entire presentation (I didn't have a tripod with me), but I have put together a few clips of the introductions, and Lord Monckton's conclusion.

Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges | CLIMATEGATE

In conclusion, we may determine that Professor Jones’ conduct may be found by a Crown prosecutor to be sufficient to obtain a conviction against him for obtaining services dishonestly (government climate research grant funds) and of possessing, making and supplying articles for use in frauds (climate data, graphs, computer models).

The Fraud Act creates serious offenses of dishonesty and the statute of limitations is six years. Unless the factors against prosecution outweigh those in favour, a prosecution will normally take place. The offense is triable either way and carries maximum 10-year sentence or a fine (or both) on indictment.

Climate Research News » DfT Survey Finds That The Public Don’t Support Making Petrol and Flying More Expensive to Fight Climate Change

Just 10 per cent supported increased taxes on petrol, just 21 per cent supported increasing the cost of flying, just 16 per cent supported charging motorists to enter more towns and cities, just 6 per cent supported increasing car parking charges and only 37 per cent supported higher taxes on “less environmentally friendly cars” (and the public tend to be even less supportive of that agenda when they find out that such policies don’t just target the likes of the Hummer but also more ordinary family cars).

Roger L. Simon » Climategate: The Shaming of “Scientific American”

Pity Scientific American. Little did the magazine’s editors know when putting together their February issue that their boneheaded article Negating “Climategate”: Copenhagen Talks and Climate Science Survive Stolen E-Mail Controversy now reads as if it were written by David Biello somewhere around 1993. Oh, well, back when this nonsense was written (December?) some people still believed the Himalayan glaciers were about to disappear, not to mention the Amazonian rainforests. Nor did we know that not just the East Anglia CRU, but also our own NASA had been playing fast and loose with AGW temperature facts, for some reason needing a FOIA to cough up data that should be public record in such a scientific endeavor. The poor editors of SA are taking a drubbing in the comments, which they richly deserve.