The anonymous climate document leaker aka “Mr. FOIA” has released a new batch of e-mails and documents in what is being described as Climategate 3.0. Ron Arnold reports on this here and Roy Green interviews Arnold here (about 2:20 from the start).
For the first time ever, the anonymous leaker has purportedly released his own thoughts. Of course the MSM and Suzuki-Gore cult members will do everything they can to suppress this but it’s well worth a read.

SDA readers may take some solace in finding out that the CBC is not the only highly biased taxpayer funded “news” organization in the world. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Managing Director, Mark Scott, recently pronounced that his network does not have any particular political bias. Another Australian begs to differ. Reading through that, a lot of the same devious techniques employed there are also used by the CBC.
The best line of all was this one:

“I guess if you stand on a platform that leans to the left for long enough, it begins to seem level again.”

14 is the new 15.

For years the BBC has claimed that its propagandistic position of promoting the catastrophic global warming fraud, censoring the appearance of dissenters and even getting rid of anybody who refused to push the party line (e.g. Johnny Ball, Peter Sissons and the still very popular David Bellamy) was justified. The justification for this was that they claimed to have called, in 2006, a meeting of the country’s 28 “best scientific experts” who had unanimously told them that there was no scientific doubt that we were experiencing catastrophic warming.
[…]
So who are Britain’s 28 “leading scientists”. There is a recently published list of Britain’s 100 leading scientists and none of them are on it. There is an MP, a Church of England devine, representatives of Greenpeace (2), Stop Climate Chaos, the US government, BP, a “renewables” company director, and other “environmental” activists. Of the very few of these “leading scientists” who have any claim to being scientists one is a gentleman who has gone on record as saying what he does (which he calls “post normal science”) is to tell those in power whatever they want to hear.

More at WUWT.

Transparency!

[Lisa] Jackson is the “eco-warrior”, “most progressive EPA chief in history” — pushing Obama’s backdoor march (other ways “of skinning the cat”) toward cap-and-trade.
Or, as you may come to know her, “Richard Windsor.”

Hmmm. It’s probably nothing.

“Congratulations, Penn State!”

Notorious climate scientist Michael Mann is going to proceed with his lawsuit against National Review Online, Mark Steyn, and a few others. Steyn shares a few preliminary thoughts.
Here’s a prescient question: Does Prof. Mann fully understand the concept of “discovery” under American law? During this phase of his lawsuit he will be required to release any & all documents that the lawyers of the defendants demand of him. The public release of those will be beyond fascinating!

Rich Lowry;

Usually, you don’t welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because it’s a nuisance. It consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery.

“None of this makes any sense.”

“The secret letter UEA and CRU doesn’t want us (or anybody else) to read…”

On Feb 26, 2010, as part of their first response to Climategate, Thomas Stocker, a Climategate correspondent of Phil Jones and by then Co-Chair of AR5 WG1, sent a still secret letter to all WG4 Lead Authors, Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors under the letterhead of WG1, purporting, it seems, to represent the parent IPCC organization. The existence of this secret email came to light as a result of David Holland’s persistence in trying to cut through IPCC authoritarianism and secrecy. After learning of its existence, David submitted an FOI request, which has been refused, and which is now under appeal at the Tribunal.

Quixotes Last Stand links to a Law and Economics Prof studying the implementation of Ontario’s Green Energy Act. Read the study. To call it damning of Ontario Premier McGuinty would be generous.

This is a sorry and sobering story of how a combination of unreflective environmental fundamentalism, a massive feeding-frenzy by corporate rent-seekers, and political hubris has the makings of an economic disaster for a province already in serious fiscal difficulties.

Another one of those pesky Profs who use real numbers. Bastards.
Interestingly enough, the study is for Energy Probe Research Foundation. They are described in the study as:

Energy Probe is the consumer and energy research team at EPRF, active in the fight against nuclear power, and dedicated to resource conservation, economic efficiency, and effective utility regulation.

This seems to differ from how they describe themselves on their web page.
Part of the conclusion:

The environmental assessment process for industrial wind turbine projects fails to meet all of these preconditions and hence justifies, with little or no qualification, the cynical view of the regulatory process. Only the role of the courts in policing administrative due process in this context remains to be tested.

h/t: pkuster

Oh, and it’s the end times as well….
The writer hits them all: drought, sea levels, forest fires, consensus, end times, media bias. the ‘well-respected’ IPCC. It’s like the entire decade of fluff all rolled into one article ending with the inevitable call to arms.
Good for a chuckle, at the least.
h/t: Climate Depot

Guardian, 15Apr2012: “3D altitude maps captured by satellites show glaciers in part of the greater Himalaya range are bucking the global trend of continued ice loss”
Guardian, 15Apr2012: “The glaciers are still shrinking – and rapidly”
h/t Dwayne in Reader Tips.

In her latest column, Margaret Wente outlines why David Suzuki is so upset. Here’s an excerpt:

In fact, Mr. Suzuki believes the movement has been going backward for 20 years: “We didn’t sell the right message.” Instead of arguing that environmental responsibility could co-exist with economic growth, he thinks, in effect, that the movement should have argued that we must abandon the quest for economic growth altogether. “We thought if we stop this dam, if we stop this clear-cutting, that’s a great success. But we didn’t deal with the underlying destructiveness, which was the mindset that attacked the forest or wanted to build the dam.”

Earth to Dave and his ilk: Perhaps not smearing your opponents and avoiding all debate with them might not have been the best idea? Perhaps outright lying about the facts might not have been so smart either? Perhaps walking the talk rather than being an eco-hypocrite might have been advisable?
Ezra Levant sums up the abject failure that has been Suzuki’s crusade against progress:

You might want to consider our friends up north:

h/t Plainzdrifter

So, given this, doesn’t that then mean the opposite of this?

The importance of the loss of sea ice is twofold – first, it shows undeniable evidence of global warming, and second, it reduces albedo.