The Death of Global Warming...

...has been formally announced by influential US commentator Walter Russell Mead... (and Mr Seal and his mates don't look too unhappy about it) H/T Wattie...

...The global warming movement as we have known it is dead. Its health had been in steady decline during the last year as the once robust hopes for a strong and legally binding treaty to be agreed upon at the Copenhagen Summit faded away. By the time that summit opened, campaigners were reduced to hoping for a ‘politically binding’ agreement to be agreed that would set the stage for the rapid adoption of the legally binding treaty. After the failure of the summit to agree to even that much, the movement went into a rapid decline.
The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics...Hyping the threat increasingly doesn’t look like an accident: it looks like it was a conscious political strategy.
Now it has failed. Not everything that has come out of the IPCC and the East Anglia Climate Unit is false, but enough of their product is sufficiently tainted that these institutions can best serve the cause of fighting climate change by stepping out of the picture...The global warming meltdown confirms all the populist suspicions out there about an arrogantly clueless establishment invoking faked ’science’ to impose cockamamie social mandates on the long-suffering American people, backed by a mainstream media that is totally in the tank...more here...

...leaving many questions still to be answered. One of them being, will Al The Fat Controller and The Railway Engineer say sorry for all the fuss, and give their Nobel's back ? And the UK Spectator covers the role of the bloggers, here...

...AND some timely words of caution from Climate Resistance...There is a curious consensus is emerging between some alarmists and some sceptics, that figures such as Phil Jones and Rajendra Pachauri ought to step down. On the one hand, this should be welcomed as an acknowledgement that there’s something wrong with the process. But it isn’t. Instead, it merely suggests that the problem with climate change alarmism has just been the failure of just a few individuals, bending a statistic here and there, or massaging data slightly when it’s inconvenient. This is not the case. If we start from the argument that the IPCC, and many other climate research institutes have been established (or have moved this way) to fulfil political needs, then the problem is the politics that existed well before that scientific process produced any data, corrupted or not...more here...

Cheats, crooks and frauds, and the silence in court...

...is deafening. Allegations of fraud dominate the field of climate science these days. In the USA lawyers are permanently poised to leap into lawsuits. Climate sceptics however, have over the last 18 months described high profile warmists as liars, crooks and frauds. (See this example.) No lawsuits have been presented against these specific allegations of scientific dishonesty. Today's article from The American Thinker details new allegations of fraud at two of the USA's leading scientific institutions...

...the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s (USA) principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda...Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked...the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”
And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales...we’d be nuts were we to surrender our freedoms, our economic growth, and even our simplest comforts to duplicitous zealots before checking and double-checking the work of the prophets predicting our doom should we refuse...more here...

...I wonder if the silence in court is due to articles such as THIS from today's Times of London...

"UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters..."