Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Lobbyists who cleared 'Climategate' academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC
A shadowy lobby group which pushes the case that global warming is a real threat is being funded by the taxpayer and assisted by the BBC.
By Jason Lewis, Investigations Editor
The little-known not-for-profit company works behind the scenes at international conferences to further its aims.
One of its key supporters headed the official investigation into the so-called "Climategate emails", producing a report which cleared experts of deliberately attempting to skew scientific results to confirm that global warming was a real threat.
Another scientific expert linked to the group came forward to praise a second independent investigation into the Climategate affair which also exonerated researchers.
Set up with the backing of Tony Blair, then the Prime Minister, and run by a group of British MPs and peers the organisation, Globe International, started life as an All Party Group based in the House of Commons.
It is now run as an international climate change lobbying group flying its supporters and experts club class to international summits to push its agenda. Last year, it said, it spent around £500,000 flying its supporters to these meetings.
It has also paid out at least £75,000 on travel for prominent UK politicians, including for its former presidents Elliot Morley, the ex-Labour environment minister now facing jail for expenses fraud, and Stephen Byers, the former Labour cabinet minister who was suspended from the Commons after he was filmed describing himself a "cab for hire" when offering to lobby his parliamentary contacts for cash.
Now Globe is planning a mass lobby of the United Nations Rio 2012 summit in Brazil, where world leaders will discuss climate change, by holding a World Summit of Legislators in the city to coincided with the event.
Next week the group's current President Lord Deben, the former Tory Cabinet Minister John Gummer, is due to launch a major report on climate change policy alongside Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary.
Globe has also recently held behind-closed-doors meetings with William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, and other senior Coalition ministers.
Last year two prominent experts linked to Globe were drawn into the controversy over emails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.
Lord Oxburgh, the organisation's director, was called in to head an internal inquiry into the leaked emails which included one infamous message referring to a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.
The peer's investigation cleared the scientists of malpractice. But critics claimed the report was a whitewash and Lord Oxburgh also failed to declare his involvement with Globe before he began his investigation...
To assholes like Chris and Old Rocks, 100% legit!!
Yeah....Like G. Gordon Liddy vouching for Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mithcell and Hunt.
Waaaaah......waaaaah, they didn't repeat my lies. sob, snivel.
Lordy, lordy, you fellows lost. Not a single scientific society anywhere in the world agrees with your idiocy. Not a single Academy of Science, not even lower Slobovia, not a single major university.
The evidence stands. The globe is warming, and the manmade GHGs are the cause.
Waaaaah......waaaaah, they didn't repeat my lies. sob, snivel.
Lordy, lordy, you fellows lost. Not a single scientific society anywhere in the world agrees with your idiocy. Not a single Academy of Science, not even lower Slobovia, not a single major university.
The evidence stands. The globe is warming, and the manmade GHGs are the cause.
hahaha, you consider that relavent? was OJ innocent or just found not guilty?
the globe has warmed slightly since the Little Ice Age. so what? catastrophe? highly unlikely.
the second, and mostly unconnected portion of your statement is that GHGs caused it. unproven and also highly unlikely
Waaaaah......waaaaah, they didn't repeat my lies. sob, snivel.
Lordy, lordy, you fellows lost. Not a single scientific society anywhere in the world agrees with your idiocy. Not a single Academy of Science, not even lower Slobovia, not a single major university.
The evidence stands. The globe is warming, and the manmade GHGs are the cause.
hahaha, you consider that relavent? was OJ innocent or just found not guilty?
the globe has warmed slightly since the Little Ice Age. so what? catastrophe? highly unlikely.
the second, and mostly unconnected portion of your statement is that GHGs caused it. unproven and also highly unlikely
Only to the chronically logic-impaired.
Waaaaah......waaaaah, they didn't repeat my lies. sob, snivel.
Lordy, lordy, you fellows lost. Not a single scientific society anywhere in the world agrees with your idiocy. Not a single Academy of Science, not even lower Slobovia, not a single major university.
The evidence stands. The globe is warming, and the manmade GHGs are the cause.
hahaha, you consider that relavent? was OJ innocent or just found not guilty?
the globe has warmed slightly since the Little Ice Age. so what? catastrophe? highly unlikely.
the second, and mostly unconnected portion of your statement is that GHGs caused it. unproven and also highly unlikely
Only to the chronically logic-impaired.
You have to bear in mind that "climate change" is both a religion and a political ideology.It's adherents will lie, manipulate data, and commit academic and scientific fraud to promote it; "any means to the desired end. That movement was revealed for what it was in "climategate", it deserves no futher credibility, or funding, ,of course, academia, being first and foremost politically Leftist, will do or say anything to try to mitigate the damage, but like the many lies and so-called "tolerance" of the left, this too, is just another part of the big lie. The sooner we give these egomaniacs no more funding, and purge them from academia (to stop their political indoctrination of yet another generation), the batter!
You have to bear in mind that "climate change" is both a religion and a political ideology.It's adherents will lie, manipulate data, and commit academic and scientific fraud to promote it; "any means to the desired end. That movement was revealed for what it was in "climategate", it deserves no futher credibility, or funding, ,of course, academia, being first and foremost politically Leftist, will do or say anything to try to mitigate the damage, but like the many lies and so-called "tolerance" of the left, this too, is just another part of the big lie. The sooner we give these egomaniacs no more funding, and purge them from academia (to stop their political indoctrination of yet another generation), the batter!
You're the one that's lying.
Simple logic tells you that, if CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration is going up, more energy will be absorbed. More energy, more heat. Your arguments are totally political. But they have to be, because neither logic nor science are on your side. You swallow any rap the skeptics hand out not because you understand the theory, but because it fits your political bias.
Yeah....Like G. Gordon Liddy vouching for Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Hunt.
You have to bear in mind that "climate change" is both a religion and a political ideology.It's adherents will lie, manipulate data, and commit academic and scientific fraud to promote it; "any means to the desired end. That movement was revealed for what it was in "climategate", it deserves no futher credibility, or funding, ,of course, academia, being first and foremost politically Leftist, will do or say anything to try to mitigate the damage, but like the many lies and so-called "tolerance" of the left, this too, is just another part of the big lie. The sooner we give these egomaniacs no more funding, and purge them from academia (to stop their political indoctrination of yet another generation), the batter!
You're the one that's lying.
Simple logic tells you that, if CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration is going up, more energy will be absorbed. More energy, more heat. Your arguments are totally political. But they have to be, because neither logic nor science are on your side. You swallow any rap the skeptics hand out not because you understand the theory, but because it fits your political bias.
If what you say had any basis in fact there would be significant warming now. Instead there is cooling and will be for the next 20 to 30 years. That means CO2 is not a significant contributor to global temperatures. This fact is consistently born out by the Vostock Ice Cores. Yours is the political position, not ours.
You're the one that's lying.
Simple logic tells you that, if CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration is going up, more energy will be absorbed. More energy, more heat. Your arguments are totally political. But they have to be, because neither logic nor science are on your side. You swallow any rap the skeptics hand out not because you understand the theory, but because it fits your political bias.
If what you say had any basis in fact there would be significant warming now. Instead there is cooling and will be for the next 20 to 30 years. That means CO2 is not a significant contributor to global temperatures. This fact is consistently born out by the Vostock Ice Cores. Yours is the political position, not ours.
Oh my, the chief liar for the deniars now chips in. Well, Walleyes, even the little avatar that Ian has shows the warming. The fact that you and he deny any warming with that staring you in the face merely demostrates that you put political idiocy ahead of truth.
Now we are finding out how quickly the Conservatives here can go from "these guys are going to prove you wrong" to "what else can you expect from Berkeley!".
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011
Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects
well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity
is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most
worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.
if the new data table finds that 1/10th of the temperature increase was due to unreasonable adjustments will you consider that a 'full exoneration'? what about 1/6th or 1/3rd?Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most
worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.[/
