Scandals old, scandals new--global warming needs a scorecard

The new scandal is potentially the most serious of all that has come to date. From Icecap, a skeptical website, comes the news that New Zealand cannot produce the calculations used to adjust raw temperature readings for the past 150 years. During that period, examinations of the raw data show no temperature rise. However, after the adjustments made by climate scientists, there is a distinct rise, much like that shown in other adjusted series.
...
The other scandal coming back to the surface is about Phil Jones' work on the Urban Heat Island effect.
...
The most interesting part about this scandal making a reappearance is where it came to light. The UK's Guardian (for whom I used to do some consulting work) is perhaps the second biggest champion of climate change as catastrophe--they have been staunch supporters of the alarmist position, and their columnist George Monbiot often makes Joe Romm look sane and tame. But this story resurfaced in the Guardian. The times, they are a'changing.

Gate Du Jour: IPCC AR4 references NYT story « Watts Up With That?

WUWT commenter “Galileonardo” writes:

I found this reference to the New York Times in WGII 14.4.6. Just thought it should be part of the growing record

BBC criticised for scientific 'cheap sensationalism' - Telegraph

The BBC has been accused of "exaggerating" the threat of global warming to the oceans in a documentary.

“Climategate” Ignored in Coverage of SEC Ruling

The report is straightforward and appropriately detached from any policy stance as far as it goes. But there’s rub. Unlike their liberal counterparts overseas, The New York Times, has gone out of their way to avoid any acknowledgment of the email scandal that reveals who global warming science has been doctored and manipulated. This is the same science that has been so often cited as justification for new regulations.

Sounds Familiar? Clique of Reviewers, Asinine Editors Stifle Scientific Research « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

And so we learn that the issue of having major scientific publications rely way too much on the biased opinion of a restricted number of self-appointed “experts” apparently working together to promote their own good selves rather than to advance knowledge, is not confined to climate research alone

BBC News - Scotland records coldest winter

Scotland has suffered some of the coldest winter months in almost 100 years, the Met Office has confirmed.

C3: Does Human CO2 Cause An Increase In Droughts? Peer-Research Provides An Answer: No

Recently, industrious researchers went to work to examine the drought hype claims. They identified 296 large droughts across the world between 1950 and 2000. They found that the mid-1950's had the most drought activity, not the end of the 20th century as expected by Al Gore and the celebrities.

Errors in IPCC climate science » Blog Archive » Is the US Dept of Energy still funding Professor Phil Jones ?

In my opinion it is vital the DoE cease funding Jones et al, CRU or the UKMO directly or indirectly. I believe that in time this 30 year waste of USA taxpayers money will be seen as an example of the WRONG model for the funding of science.
Remember that the DoE has provided this circa $5million + of funding amazingly WITHOUT requiring that Phil Jones provide data back to the DoE.
Can you believe that !!

EU Referendum: Death wish

...absolutely unbelievable ... just as the whole global warming scam is falling apart, the Tories re-affirm their commitment to it. You could not have better evidence that the hierarchy is completely out of touch with events.

At least in the United States, the Republicans (some of them) are beginning to stir, beginning to recognise that climate change is a major political issue - although the US media have yet to rise from their slumber. But here, with the media increasingly hostile to the scam, the Cameron tendency is living in a world of its own. I do not think I can every recall a time when the "disconnect" has been greater.