The Reference Frame: Huge EU funds plan to corrupt Czech science and fabricate Czech alarmists

In other words, the EU will fund 150 people who will suddenly emerge out of the vacuum and who will spread lies about the climate and create the completely flawed impression that the Czech scientists have actually reached a conclusion that there is a global warming worth talking about. And you should have no doubt that the loyalty to the global warming lies is a key necessary condition for a person to be paid out of the grant.

Austrian Weather Service Scientist: COP16 “Usual International Climate Hype”

Even a moderate warmist like Böhm admits what the IPCC is all about.

C3: Researchers Detect Large Negative Feedback From Global Warming That's Unaccounted For In IPCC Climate Models

Terrestrial nature abhors positive feedbacks; that's why the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks. IPCC scientists hate natural negative feedbacks because they automatically reduce future global warming, and that's why the IPCC climate models either minimize negative feedbacks or entirely ignore them. Unfortunately for the IPCC Climategate scientists, the science research continues about natural climate feedbacks, which has now led to a new major negative feedback being identified in a new region of the world by peer-reviewed research.

Motes, beams and the University of East Anglia – Telegraph Blogs

Thanks to further research by Bishop Hill and the indefatigable David Holland – he who uses FOI requests like the US military uses drone strikes – we learn that the UEA paid no less than £300,000 for another of these “independent” inquiries, the Russell Review. And to judge by the latest revelations here and here the UEA is not about to acquire a reputation for fairness and scrupulous transparency any time soon.

Obviously, if Sir Edward Acton wants me to go into a bit more detail about the grotesque inadequacies of the Climatic Research Unit, why the University of East Anglia has become a standing joke, how the Climategate emails showed the scientists at the very heart of the IPCC to be untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions,or why it is that Professor Phil Jones is more likely to find himself remembered for the Climategate scandal than he is to find himself mentioned in the same breath as Einstein, Newton or Watson and Crick, I should be more than happy to do so.