This, of course, will be front page news above the fold all across North America tomorrow morning and the lead item on all network newscasts tonight. Can't wait.

of course the MSM ignores the "weather" choosing the longer view of "climate". any of these folks breaking out the suntan lotion this "summer"?

i'd consider selling an over-priced canadian home with all that "green" insulation/hi-e-furnace/triple-glazed windows, etc, ad nauseum, for an american shack in the south. probably fund the retirement!

Prophets are generally unrecognized in their own country.

M&M are to be honoured/awarded in the USA.

A salute and thank-you to Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.

Canada salutes Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.

Bravo.
…-

[Canadians] “McIntyre and McKitrick to receive award”

“Two important figures at the heart of the ClimateGate e-mails, Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, will provide key information on the remarkable revelations in thousands of e-mails and files that were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in November last year.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

…-

“Tories put climate change on G8 agenda after pressure from world leaders

Nobel Peace Prize laureates and environmentalists had joined chorus calling to put climate change on the table”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-put-climate-change-on-g8-agenda-after-pressure-from-world-leaders/article1603818/

The IPCC may not have given all the facts to the media but, as "deniers" have shown, the media players didn't go searching for answers either. They imbibed whatever the IPCC said because of their deference to any organization or unit prefixed with "UN." Their presumptions of inherent legitimacy caught up with them and the associated complacency resulted in abysmal reporting of one of the biggest environmental scandals and money grabs in history.

The IPCC may have misled the media, but the media misled the public by failing to apply due diligence to the facts. Neither is innocent.

And the dumb thing is that everyone must have known -- at some level -- that it was baloney. The idea that there were 2,500 experienced climate scientists who had enough detailed knowledge about the driving forces behind the world's overall climate to offer an expert opinion is ludicrous, and the idea that they came to a consensus is beyond ludicrous.

There are undoubtedly many excellent climate scientists doing good work, and who have much to say about the relationship between mankind and climate. But they have been badly served by the politicization of climate change. The zeolots have grossly overplayed their hand by trying to claim certainty and consensus where there was none.

..and the few scientists who were there cooked the books and supported the big lie.

They should be jailed..

Was Mike Hulme the UEA CRU Whistle Blower perhaps?

I'm reading the book "Heaven and Earth" by Australian scientist, Ian Plimer. He says the same thing. In fact, I've got several quotes from the introduction on my blog (shameless plug). He just completely destroys the warm-mongers arguments.

maz2
close but no cigar......
"A prophet is not without honour except in his own country."

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick seem to be only feted at WUWT....regretably.

I figured anyone smarter than a 5th grader could see through this----infact most of the kids I consulted called BS.

I doubt that the main idiots number in the dozens.
Hansen, Jones, Mann, Schmidt pretty well covers it. Stern is a lefty politician.
Prince Chuck--------a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother...
In fact the CRU emails pretty well bear this out.
Pauchauri is just a 3rd world UN bureaucratic opportunist.
Watermelons all......

“What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act, ...”

David Suzuki on political leaders who, he claimed, were ignoring the science behind climate change. McGill University, Feb. 6, 2008

I would guess his science was backed by these "2,500 world leading scientists."

as the saying goes, "some one should have asked the janitor"

There was a 'news' piece today about the alarming rate the ice-cap was melting. Funny how when ice-cap re-froze after the previous shocking melt it was never reported in the news.

Does it really matter how many people are contributing to the lie?

I have always been a skeptic on the science behind global warming. Especially when David Suzuki, the terrorist, chanpioned the cause. The Al Gore rhythm method gave me negative vibes as well.

Regardless, we ought to minimise pollution wherever it comes from. CO2 is a separate matter that needs more study. All development needs to progress, since if CO2 is a problem there is nothing at this stage that can rationally be done about it.

How about that for progressive thinking?

rabbit @ 7:46 said "the dumb thing is that everyone must have known -- at some level -- that it was baloney".

We have to remember that to a Marxist anything that furthers their cause is truth, no matter how blatant a lie it is. This has worked mostly well for them for 90 years.

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are heros.

An interesting article, but a slightly longer excerpt, which includes both of Solomon's, might be in order. And the National Post link title "the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-wasphoney-says-ipcc-insider" is even more disingenuous than Hulme says the "2500 scientists etc" statement is. It's the 2500 he is objecting to.

He's talking about "consensus building" --
// Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.

But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative,[...] far from reaching a premature consensus, the AR4 report stated that in fact no consensus could be reached on the magnitude of the possible fast ice-sheet melt processes that some fear could lead to 1 or 2 metres of sea-level rise this century. Hence these processes were not included in the quantitative estimates.
This leads onto the question of how uncertainty more generally has been treated across the various IPCC Working Groups. [...]http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf

Note: Hulme is a climate scientist, but this is not climate science. It's sociology of knowledge, or "higher criticism". Someone cracked that his new field is "Post Modern Science"

[quote]Does it really matter how many people are contributing to the lie? [/quote]POWinCA

YES it really matters... Those that seek Global Governance have a foolish, child like, belief that they could have enforced AGW....(a Climate Accord) They don't live in the real world where folks will shove it up your nose when it's found to be inconvenient...Of course those still in the game are the gangsters, stupid Communists, and perverted science....The MSM is part of one of those groups....

At least One Smart person has decided this is a good time to dump big AL, "Tipper Gore". The Divorce will insure she gets her share before he goes missing.... It was the skid marks on his Johnson.....

The current federal government, Conservative in name only and led by Stephen Harper, are fully prepared to tax you to the max on AGW and believe wholeheartedly in the IPCC's conclusions.

How do I know? I have it in print, direct from Assistant Deputy Minister Brian T. Gray, PhD. Science and Technology Branch.

In reply to emails sent to Harper and Prentice and forwarded to Environment Canada civil servants, last February 1, 2010.

I received my reply, the gist being:

"The intergovermental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, concluded that the climate system is clearly warming, as shown by increases in global average air and temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. The Report concluded that it is very likely that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century, and that a human influence is now evident in many other aspects of the Earth's climate. The Government of Canada has accepted these findings. A fifth assessment cycle is currently under way, which will culminate with completed reports to be delivered over the period September 2013-September 2014.

The Government of Canada will continue to take a realistic, responsible approach to addressing the challenges of air pollution and climate change. The Government is committed to reducing Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. Canada has consistently emphasized the importance of harmonizing its approach to climate change with that of the United States, as a means of maximizing progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining economic competitivenes and prosperity. As the federal government moves forward, it will work closely with the provincial and territorial governments, as well as stakeholders, to develop a coherent national climate change and energy security policy."

No other references were cited in the email to back their position.

Form your own conclusions.

"I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead."
-- http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf

6 cheers for McIntyre and McKitrick!
Way to go guys.

The part that amuses me now is that some climate 'scientists' are trying to sue people for defaming them as being part of the AGW crowd.

I mean really, you never heard them saying anything when the climate 'experts', a lawyer and a fruit fly guy was running around trying bully people into accepting their outrageous BS about AGW.
And that's what the '2500 scientists' thingy was - a cheap bully boy tactic.

Now all of a sudden the rats are abandoning the ship by saying they were not part of that crowd.

Mark Francis, quoting Hulme --
"I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone"
So Solomon et al are the phoneys. I don't suppose it's worth checking to see if the National Putz runs this correction.
Hulme should join Weaver's lawsuit.
Meanwhile the sedulous apes jump up & down screeching "Victory!!"

DailyPenguin

Another reason not to trust the UN, and rather, to look at the science itself. Alarmist predictions should be ignored in exchange for rational analyses of our current situation and the potential for future outcomes. The IPCC, after all, is not just a scientific organization, but combines social, political, and business concerns. Inaccuracies are bound to be the norm from such a broad committee, in an attempt to give an all encompassing summary.

This does not change the realities of our unsustainable energy situation, pollution, resource usage, and lack of development combined with a changing climate, which require real solutions, real advances in technology, and social advancements.

This man is not denying AGW. This article does nothing to deny the science of climate change, it questions the accuracy and effectiveness of the spread of knowledge to the public.

It is slowly becoming more obvious to the general public who think, that the left governments in the west, and, the marxist green groups are the useful idiots of a higher power with a hidden agenda.

It would appear that many governments are side stepping and excusing them selves, with out loosing face. They seem to be awakening to the fact that they have been useful idiots.

President Obama seems to be not backing away, which makes one wonder if he is not one of those with the hidden agenda. That he learned his trade in a notorious city, and has his fingers in the carbon market, might say some thing.

Curioser and curioser are the machinations of the would be tyrants.