More CRU Censorship

Source: SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

James Delingpole has an article posted on Climate Realist,  which was also carried by the UK Daily Express, until they were challenged by the University of East Anglia. This the message you now get:

“ARTICLE MISSING: The article you are looking for does not exist. It may have been deleted.”

He was discussing the impact of the released CRU e-mails one year on and had the temerity to criticise the scientists involved and their institution.

James Delingpole: The Public is now so sceptical about global warming.

“In bare detail, Climategate sounds quite dull: the leak, on to the internet, of a large number of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

But the contents of those emails were dynamite. What they showed was that the scientists at the very heart of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) ?supposedly the world?s ?gold standard? of climate change science ? were mired in such incompetence, skulduggery and deceit that you couldn?t trust a word they said.

THE two key figures in the emails were an American professor, Michael Mann and an English one, Phil Jones. Mann was already a legend in his own lunchtime thanks to the Hockey Stick ? the scary graph he had invented to show how dramatically global temperatures will supposedly rise as a result of man-made carbon dioxide. Jones was ? and still is, unfortunately ? head of the CRU, guardian of Britain?s temperature records. These men were among the most important figures in climate science: now their reputation and their predictions of man-made ecodisaster lay in tatters.

Since Climategate, the scientific establishment (helped by three disgraceful official whitewashes) has been busily claiming that the leaked emails are a story of no significance. But even the most cursory examination tells you this is nonsense.

Probably the most infamous email is the one about using ?Mike?s Nature trick? to ?hide the decline?, which essentially means fudging raw data in a most unscientific way to get the ?right? result. (Or as you and I would call it: ?cheating?.) There are others even more damning.

In one, Jones threatens to breach Freedom of Information laws by illegally deleting important emails; in several others, a cabal of climate science insiders is shown conspiring to prevent  dissenting scientists airing their views by getting the magazines that publish them shut down. At the very least it invites the question: ?If the scientific consensus on global warming is really so rock solid why does so much of it seem to depend on lying, cover-ups, bullying and trickery?? The public, to their credit, have been quick to grasp this fact. Our politicians far less so.

Indeed it?s hard to think of any subject ? and that includes immigration and the EU ?where the political class has remained quite so out of touch with the popular mood.

In the real Britain you and I inhabit we see our gas and electricity bills rising ever higher because of hidden ?renewables? tariffs; we notice that our winters are getting colder; and we see our countryside being blighted by expensive, grotesquely inefficient wind turbines. In Whitehall and Westminster, however, all we see is the messianic fervour of such crazed eco-zealots as Energy Secretary Chris Huhne on their suicidal mission to turn Britain into the ?world?s greenest nation?.

And I do mean suicidal. Britain?s national debt is currently around £4.8 trillion (£1 trillion more than the total value of every single home in Britain), our economy is in ruins and we?re told that spending cuts are essential, even to the point of destroying our Armed Forces.

Yet at the same time we have a government committed to an entirely pointless ?decarbonisation? programme which will cost the taxpayer £18 billion a year until 2050.

If it weren?t such a tragedy you?d laugh. Under the Climate Change Act 2008 Britain remains the only country legally committed to the kind of CO2 reductions (80 per cent in 40 years) which can only be achieved by bombing our economy back into the Dark Ages.

AND on top of that £18 billion a year, we?re expected to stump up another £100 billion (payable via our utility bills) to cover the costs of the massive windfarm building programme, plus £40 billion to hook the turbines up to the grid; at a time when Spain, Denmark and Germany are ruing the cost of their wind farms and solar generators having found them to be an economic disaster.

What our political class hasn?t yet realised is that Climategate was just the beginning. Each day new evidence emerges of the junk science of the global warming lobby; and with each new opinion poll, public scepticism rises.

One day, hard questions are going to be asked about the taxpayers? money which has been squandered in the name of combating a non-existent problem. And when that day comes it won?t just be corrupt scientists? heads that roll but those of naive politicians also.”

A page scan of the removed Daily Express page containing this article is included.

Richard North at EUReferendum seems to have a little inside knowledge on this, in a comment to the article:

“This might have had something to do with a communication to the newspaper from the odious Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia.

Acton seems to think that Dellers is not entitled to claim that CRU workers are “mired in such incompetence, skulduggery and deceit that you couldn’t trust a word they said” and might have written to the newspaper in terms not dissimilar to this, to the effect that he:
“… would expect the Express to retract or correct the impression that has been given. The article should either be amended or taken down from your website and I would request that a retraction or correction is published in a prominent place in the paper and on the website as soon as possible.”

It seems the Express obeyed.