Skip to content

Delingpole: Climategate – Ten Years On. ‘Move Along Nothing to See Here’, Says BBC and MSM

November 16, 2019

By Paul Homewood



This month marks the tenth anniversary of Climategate — the biggest scandal in the brief, ignominious history of “climate science”. So naturally, the left-wing media has commemorated the occasion with a series of articles and a documentary which could all have been titled: ‘Move along, nothing to see here.’

The most egregious offender was a BBC4 documentary, Climategate: Science of a Scandal.

This examined the evidence with about the same diligence and objectivity of Stalin’s formal investigations into the massacre of Polish officers by his NKVD at Katyn in 1940 and reached much the same conclusion: the perpetrators were completely innocent.

Not only were they innocent but, furthermore, they were heroic, wronged, and martyrly.

It began with Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann describing his shock and upset on being sent a package of mysterious white powder in the post and went downhill from there.

The take-home points of this shoddy, dishonest propaganda exercise were:

  • The Climategate scientists were just decent, hardworking, nice professionals doing an honest job
  • Climategate was a last ditch act of sabotage by a tiny minority of nasty, devious, anti-science climate deniers. A “rearguard assault on climate science” as Mann described it
  • The document dump was definitely not a leak but a criminal hack — an act of theft against a reputable and blameless scientific institution (the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia)
  • Any nefarious conclusions reached by sceptics were based on a few cherry-picked emails which they deliberately misrepresented to make them sound worse than they actually were, notably the ‘Hide the Decline’ email.
  • The Climategate scientists were really nice — oh, did we mention that already?
  • The Climategate scientists shed tears, real tears, not only at the time but also looking back, ten years on, when remembering how they felt at all those death threats they (allegedly) received from evil, vicious, hateful deniers.
  • Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ chart, far from being just about the most widely discredited artefact in the history of junk science, was in fact an “iconic” image
  • The notorious Mike’s Nature Trick email was not, in fact, an extremely dodgy and unscientific “apples and oranges” attempt to fudge the results of inconvenient proxy data by splicing on real temperature data. It was – Mann again – “an entirely innocent and appropriate conversation between three scientists”.
  • Climate science is entirely trustworthy and in no wise did Climategate demonstrate anything to the contrary.
  • “The modern period was likely the warmest in the last 1,000 years” (Tim Osborn of the CRU). So take that, Medieval Warming Period! Just like Mann’s Hockey Team had always hoped you’ve finally been written out of history…
  • George Monbiot never wrote this in the Guardian after Climategate: “No-one has been as badly let down by the revelations in the emails as those of us who have championed the science”. He can’t have done because he appeared on this documentary as one of the star witnesses, explaining how totally undamning and innocuous those emails in fact were.

The Climate Industrial Complex, as we know, operates like a giant tag team. Which is why a compliant media was ready and waiting to give this complacent piece of tosh the favourable attention it didn’t deserve.

Here is Guardian reviewer Lucy Mangan. (I love Lucy: she is my touchstone of wrong. If ever she writes favourably about something — be it the wokefest travesty that is the BBC’s His Dark Materials, or the PC atrocity that is Watchmen — you just know it’s going to suck, big time.)

She begins:

Is it pure arrogance that makes laypeople think they know better than scientists who have spent their lives painstakingly researching an issue? Or a desperate insecurity that makes them unable to stand the respect accorded to experts?

Yes, Lucy. Amateur psychoanalysis of your ideological enemies is so much easier than doing basic journalism, like, say, asking: “Do the claims in this TV documentary stand up?”

Unsurprisingly, Lucy can’t even get her basic facts right.

She dismisses Steve McIntyre, probably the most rigorous and scrupulous investigator of climate science shenanigans, as “Steve McIntyre, who worked in the fossil fuel industry.”

Not quite, but I can understand why young Lucy made this mistake. The documentary heavy-hinted that this was the case by captioning him — in order, of course, to slyly to discredit his testimony — “former minerals exploration executive”.

Here’s a bit more Lucy, just because I think it’s quite helpful to see how the left are busily spinning Climategate:

It is a story we are now depressingly familiar with, and it induces the same incredulous rage. Beyond the trolls, who have their own revolting pathology, who are these people who feel justified to try to undo a life’s work? Who feel able to set themselves up in judgment? What have they added to the sum of human knowledge?

Yeah — denying deniers with their wicked denialism! How dare they criticise such giants of intellect and integrity as Michael Mann and Phil Jones!

Meanwhile, the Evening Standard — a London freesheet read mainly as a last resort by desperate commuters when their mobile phones have run out of juice — went one further, by attempting to discredit one of the true heroes of the Climategate story, the guy who actually broke it in the mainstream media.

The mainstream media ran with the story just ahead of the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen that December. James Delingpole published a piece in the Daily Telegraph, headed “Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?” —  “climategate” being a  term he had picked up from an Australian blogger.

Delingpole was crowing about this “scoop of a lifetime” again this week, as “the first solid proof that the scientific establishment wasn’t being altogether honest about man-made global warming”. Except it wasn’t.

Hmm. I like the sound of that Delingpole guy. So much so that I’m going to tell you more about his side of the story in a Climategate special article tomorrow.

Finally, the Financial Times — a rampantly Europhile rag, highly favourable to the crony capitalism which gorges, leech-like, on the Potemkin industry of greenery. So, naturally enough, it too had kind words to say about the BBC’s Climategate whitewash.

Measured, circumspect, cautious, these were unlikely men to be at the heart of a global storm of controversy and invective. Although in a sense, global storms were their métier. 10 years ago, the scientists of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia were accused of withholding and manipulating data after more than a thousand emails were hacked in a malicious attempt to deny their findings on climate change. Police investigating the breach classed it as a Category A crime, as serious as terrorism: the perpetrator was attempting to sway the decisions of nations on an issue of global concern.

The hacker was never caught, but this documentary rounds up other key players to lay out the instructive tale of “Climategate”. It did indeed derail the 15th UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen, convening just a fortnight after the leak. Even more significantly, it sowed doubt in the minds of the public about the reality of global warming. And it all began with a simple, elegant image.

Actually, that claim about Climategate derailing the UN’s Copenhagen conference isn’t true: it’s a misleading claim made by the documentary in order to muddy the waters. In fact, Copenhagen fell to pieces because the Western nations (led by then U.S. President Obama) could not find an accommodation — and vice versa — with the emerging BRIC nations. Correlation is not causation; anyway, it ought to be obvious that all the delegates at a UN climate conference are fully on board with the environmentalist programme. It’s hardly as though the release of a few emails, however discrediting of the alarmist cause, were ever going to derail the climate gravy train or deter those travelling on it.

At the beginning I mentioned Stalin. I’m going to end with him too by recalling this habit he had of airbrushing inconvenient people and events out of history.

This, of course, is exactly what the mainstream media is now trying to do with Climategate. We mustn’t let this happen. In my next article, I’ll explain why…

Meanwhile, here’s the most sensible commentary on the Climategate whitewash from my sceptical friend and comrade in arms Josh:


  1. Joe Public permalink
    November 16, 2019 2:12 pm

    There’s an excellent & detailed analysis by John Costella of the Climategate emails here:

    Click to access climategate-emails.pdf

    This link is to many of the actual emails:

    • November 16, 2019 3:44 pm

      Joe. I have an earlier version of the analysis of the emails entitled ‘Climategate Analysis’, dated 18th January 2010, that I helped John Costella write.

      • Joe Public permalink
        November 16, 2019 4:28 pm


      • dearieme permalink
        November 16, 2019 4:49 pm

        Thank you, JP. Well done, PB. And a repeat of my occasional thanks to Mr Homewood.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 17, 2019 10:44 am

      There is the book ‘Climategate’ which gives the background to what was going on at the time, such as the FOI requests that Jones and the CRU were trying to block. At the time the climate crooks were trying to claim that the emails in the first release were being taken out of context. The book provides the context, which of course highlights how shady the so called scientists are.

  2. charles wardrop permalink
    November 16, 2019 2:13 pm

    What can have made scientists so dishonest?

    • Broadlands permalink
      November 16, 2019 2:38 pm


      From Climategate e-mails….

      Phil Jones… Date: Mon Sep 28 10:20:14 2009

      “Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, but the adjustments won’t reduce the 1940s blip but enhance it. It won’t change the 1940-44 period, just raise the 10 years after Aug 45.”

      “Land warming in the 1940s and late 1930s is mainly high latitude in NH.”

      At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.”

      “The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910?”

      At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface

      “Turkey indicates that they think their 1971-2000 Normals are more reliable than their 1961-1990 Normals. I would agree with them that they are probably correct in that. I believe the same could be said about the US Normals.

      1. Would it make a difference in climate monitoring? Yes for those users who make use of the anomaly values it could make a big difference. More important, probably, than reliability is that the climate changes over a decade and taking 1961-1970 out and substituting in 1991-2000 to the base period calculation may make a big difference in some cases.”

  3. November 16, 2019 2:26 pm

    yep nothing to see-

    “In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.”

    “The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago”

    “The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) was established to give the most accurate temperature readings compared to the old Cooperative Observer Network (COOP) which suffers from urban encroachment, siting problems, and a multitude of human induced inhomgeneities such as station moves, incomplete data, closed stations, and runway condition stations at airports that were never designed to report climate data”

  4. November 16, 2019 2:36 pm

    I’ve started a transcript (work in progress) of the BBC’s Climategate: Science of a Scandal, here:

  5. Stonyground permalink
    November 16, 2019 2:48 pm

    How dare a lay person like me claim to know more about climate change than the experts? well, they have been making predictions now for thirty years and so have I. My track record is rather better than theirs, in fact by a quite considerable margin.

  6. Peter F Gill permalink
    November 16, 2019 2:49 pm

    I noticed that there was to be a BBC4 programme on the evening of Thursday 14 November “Climategate – Science of a Scandal”. The brief synopsis in my TV paper read as follows: Investigating suggestions that scientists exaggerated evidence about climate change.

    Well, given that the BBC has an unblemished reputation for extreme bias on anything related to what used to be called Anthropogenic Global Warming now called (understood man made) Climate Change, I was expecting to be shouting at the TV. This indeed happened.

    Actually, the programme was far worse than I expected. Michael Mann appeared still pushing his thoroughly debunked hockey stick. Phil Jones also appeared without apologies. I guess it was almost inevitable that Moonbat would make a few points too. Significantly there was little or no mention of the three or so whitewashing inquiries that took place. The programme did also feature Ross McKitrick but I suspect that much of his material was edited out. But no surprise no other sceptics were featured although I thought I saw a brief picture of Peirs Corbyn. The take home message was clearly nothing to see here which I have now noticed was James Delinpole’s conclusion too.

    As someone who was hounded at the time for my contribution to one of the inquiries (see I found the whole programme sickening. Perhaps the only redeeming feature was that neither BBC’s current Energy and Environment Analyst, Roger Harrabin nor ex BBC Richard Black now of The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit appeared. By the way when I checked on Richard Black I noticed that he operates from 180 Borough High Street in London. He would do well to cross the road to Delta House (numbers 175 & 177) and get some updated intelligence from friend Piers Corbyn of Weather Action

    • Bertie permalink
      November 16, 2019 8:44 pm

      Congratulations (or commiserations) on having the fortitude to see it through to the end – and still with a working television set.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 17, 2019 10:52 am

      Perhaps McIntyre and McKitrick would have been better advised not to get involved with it as it was a given that the prgramme would be biased. Nice of Delingpole to point out the hypocrisy of Monbiot compared to what he wrote at the time. Richard Black would have no need to cross over from the dark side of Borough Road as he would have no intention of learning anything truthful. He has the status of being wilfully ignorant as the facts would contradict his tenets.

  7. Bill Lancaster permalink
    November 16, 2019 3:16 pm

    Thank you Paul and James Delingpole. I watched a few minutes of the programme but had to turn it off – unbelievable!. What are we going to do about it?

  8. It doesn't add up... permalink
    November 16, 2019 3:22 pm

    Being on BBC4, I doubt the audience extended much beyond some XR activists and those who need to keep an eye on them. The BBC left it to the compliant press to press home the message more widely. It would be interesting to see whether there is an upward blip in sales of the books by Andrew Mountford chronicling the issues.

  9. Ian Wilson permalink
    November 16, 2019 3:36 pm

    i have already complained to the BBC about this disgraceful programme and I hope many more readers of this blog will do likewise. No doubt I’ll receive a whitewash response but a deluge of complaints might just show not everyone swallows their Goebbels-like propaganda.

  10. Vernon E permalink
    November 16, 2019 3:45 pm

    The programme was deliberate pernicious propaganda at all levels – even subliminal. Did you notice the repetition of cleverly framed shots of the admittedly rather glamorous and futuristic buildings of the CRU (or were they UEA in general) but they were deliberately sending the message “who are these erks to challenge people from such a superdocious environment?” Didn’t work for me though; besides knowing the true story from the likes of the Bish, Delors and Paul over the years I just thought gosh there must be loads of dosh swilling around this scam.

    • Victor Hanby permalink
      November 16, 2019 5:43 pm

      The last funded research project I ran (2008 – 2011) was to investigate how the climate projections UKCP09 would, if realised, impact on the built environment. Phil Jones was a co-investigator so I can confirm that the cylindrical building in the programme was CRU – the other buildings were mainly student accommodation to the brutalist design of, I believe Denys Lasdun.

      I was fully prepared for the slant of the programme to reflect the BBC bias, but the sheer extent of this took me by surprise. From the start, it looked like I was watching the Michael Mann show and his theme that any criticism of ‘the science’ was motivated by a kind of class warfare. The idea that there were other people out there who were simply trying to get at the truth didn’t get any traction. Nobody mentioned that the hockey stick had been widely shown to be flawed, and the ‘divergence’ of the trree-ring reconstructions from temperature data was simply glossed over.

      I shouldn’t be upset – this from an organisation whose correspondent thinks that Clausius and Clapeyron were meteorologists who discovered that warmer air holds more moisture. It’s clear that most of the supportive criticism is from people who have absolutely no idea of what constitutes science.

      How can you take seriously attempts to invalidate lots of peoples’ life work? Ask Lavoisier?

  11. November 16, 2019 4:46 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate-

  12. November 16, 2019 4:54 pm

    They are still at it:

    “For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it is the 30 years centred on the present.

    There are some obvious problems with this hidden change of goalposts. We have observational temperature data for the past 15 years but, of course, none for the next 15 years. However, never let it be said that the absence of data is a problem for inventive climate scientists.

    Global warming is now defined by the IPCC as a speculative 30-year global average temperature that is based, on one hand, on the observed global temperature data from the past 15 years and, on the other hand, on assumed global temperatures for the next 15 years.

    This proposition was put before the recent IPCC meeting at Incheon, in the Republic of Korea and agreed as a reasonable thing to do to better communicate climate trends. Astonishingly, this new IPCC definition mixes real and empirical data with non-existing and speculative data and simply assumes that a short-term 15-year trend won’t change for another 15 years in the future.”

    “The Science” marches on…

    • Broadlands permalink
      November 16, 2019 7:30 pm

      RE: Changing base periods:

      In 2008 David Parker (Hadley) wrote:
      “The World Meteorological Organization and its predecessors long
      ago established successive non-overlapping 30-year averages as
      normative: shorter periods would yield uncertain results owing to
      interannual variability, and longer periods could be unrepresentative of
      the present owing to climatic change. 30 years also approximately
      reflects people’s memory.”

      NOAA now uses the 20th century mean. GISS continues with 1951-1980. People’s memory??

  13. john cooknell permalink
    November 16, 2019 5:48 pm

    On the BBC website the programme short is entitled “Climategate’: Did a hacking scandal slow down action for climate change?”

    The BBC made up their mind that was the issue here, then produced a programme to show that. They were not interested in whether the science was correct. this comes from the BBC people who have told me UK East Coastal erosion is due to climate change, and that they first broadcast the Boxing Day Asian Tsunami was caused by Climate Change. (they really did that)

    But they all still support the MBH98 Hockey Stick, and I know the hockey stick is false because if it wasn’t false, 20 years on, I should be really hot, and i am not!.
    I am bl**dy freezing and have cold wet feet!

  14. Coeur de Lion permalink
    November 16, 2019 6:44 pm

    “Climate Change – The Facts” showed the BBC for what it is. This programme has I think stepped over the edge into direct lying for their cause. I find it inexplicable that they should behave like this. I wonder if enough fuss is made that the next Tory government might clip their wings? What is the motivation here? Is it anti capitalist leftism? It’s weird and an abegnation of their duty.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 17, 2019 10:57 am

      Look at where the BBC puts its pension funds……

  15. TomO permalink
    November 16, 2019 7:45 pm

    I don’t think Red Sky Productions of Glasgow and London should be let off the hook, regardless of the “creative brief” that must have been handed to them by BBC Commissioning … and then – there’s a question – did Red Sky come up with it all – or was there overarching direction from Broadcasting House ?

    Are Red Sky are the “Truly independent production company making first-class factual television” or just very well paid arms-length propaganda peddlers?

    Are commissioning docs FoI-able ….. anyone?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 17, 2019 10:59 am

      I would have thought they could be requested under FOI but I would expect the BBC to have covered their tracks somehow such as delivering the brief verbally in person while Red Sky wrote it down.

  16. Thomas Carr permalink
    November 16, 2019 7:56 pm

    It may not be fair to suggest that journalists sometimes find that they have to deliver copy and cast about for something that can be used as a filler . For Hugo Rifkind in today’s The Times – Saturday Review Page 7 — it may have been one of those days.
    See his article Climategate: Science of a Scandal.

    The absolute conviction that “old climate-change deniers are still out there ………….” does him no credit as journalism with its reference to bullshitters, harrumphing laymen and the seeming spread around the world like conjunctivitis of conspiracy theories.

    Is it not time that our sage, the convenor of notalotofpeopleknowthat, assembled a short list of the most compelling authorities/experts who are not convinced by the jeremiads from the Thunberg tendency and made sure it was sent to Rifkind, BBC experts et al? PH must have all this material at his fingertips.

    As a community it does us no credit for either side in this matter to refuse to listen to the other in the absolute conviction that they are right. Pace the thin-skinned and egotistical.

    • Charles Wardrop permalink
      November 17, 2019 11:06 am

      A very, very useful suggestion, provided there is no legal barrier, that list could answer and repudiate the oft-uttered untruism to the effect that “all” real scientists are agreed on the AGW hypothesis, so it must be correct.

  17. MrGrimNasty permalink
    November 16, 2019 8:09 pm

    Just watched Wales Land of the Wild on BBC2, nice!

    It’s good to be reminded what wildlife documentaries can be like, instead of the usual stomach churning DA climate change propaganda. I hope the rest remains the same and doesn’t ruin it.

    The program charted the natural wild swings of the weather, but correctly mentioned how nature slowed, and then caught up. The farmer even mentioned a disastrous year for the hill ponies where they had to bury 100, but then went on to say how his father told him about the years it had happened in the past, that it was nature’s way, a natural cull, and the herd would recover and be stronger.

  18. I_am_not_a_robot permalink
    November 16, 2019 8:30 pm

    What can be malicious about the publication of a series of emails between mostly (if not all) government — i.e. public — employees?
    No national security or commercial intellectual property was involved.
    How can their publication be a “rearguard assault on climate [change] science” as if that ‘science’ contained secret knowledge akin to medieval alchemy.
    The commentary can’t be ‘nothing to see here’ and outrage at the same time.
    If the practitioners’ reputations were harmed in any way, they brought it on themselves by their behaviour.

    • TomO permalink
      November 17, 2019 2:04 pm

      As far as FoI is concerned – there is a tactic deployed in recent years that definitely takes a bit of challenging…. the target of a FoI request is allowed to charge an admin fee – I had two FoIs – the first cost £1000 = a bargain >>>> the 2nd which was approximately 80% smaller and was consequent on the first one was billed at £37,000

      Say hello to The Environment Agency.

  19. Pancho Plail permalink
    November 16, 2019 10:13 pm

    Luckily, the only people likely to watch BBC productions like this are people who already believe it. In the meantime we only have 11 years to wait to find that the world didn’t burn up as predicted by the ER idiots. That has been the most public prediction with a measurable outcome. If we are still here in 2030, then they were all wrong.

  20. mwhite permalink
    November 17, 2019 9:59 am

    If no one has seen it yet,BBC reporter wins award.

    “the new Biophilia Award for Environmental Communication, funded with an annual prize of 100,000 euros,”

    I’m sure he doesn’t see a penny?

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      November 17, 2019 11:38 am

      How about HMRC?

  21. Gerry, England permalink
    November 17, 2019 11:03 am

    Very keen to push the ‘it was a hack’ line as opposed to the far more embarrassing truth that they were leaked by an employee with a conscience. Surprised they aren’t blaming the Russians for it.

  22. November 17, 2019 12:21 pm

    Climategate–when science died.

  23. jack broughton permalink
    November 17, 2019 12:48 pm

    I’m surprised that no one has taken the comment by Mickey Mann further. He said that the hockey stick was “Just cover-art”, while it was actually held-up as scientific proof that we were headed for Armageddon. This was the true essence of the Climate-gate scandal that so-called scientists covered up the fake science while being aware that it was fake (also the fact that peer-reviews accepted it is a true disgrace).

    The House of Commons Committee was cited as having exonerated them….. OMG / LOL….that well known source of common sense!

  24. Sheri permalink
    November 17, 2019 12:55 pm

    This is EXACTLY how the governments and media of most European countries, the US, and Canada react to EVERYTHING they don’t want to be true. Really, Dellingpole throws his little sarcastic hissy, but it’s NOT news or anything he or anyone else will ever change unless the electorates get their heads out of their behinds and a snowball has a better chance in hell than that happening. “Free” people inevitably turn completely and fatally stupid, worship government and end up in hell as a result. History tells us this will happen and there is no apparent way to stop it, anymore than stopping the climate from changing as it has for eons. I’m sorry, but reality says at this point, the car is off the cliff and gravity has taken over. It’s not saying to give up the fight, just realize that you can’t stop the car, only maybe save a few survivors minds that might in another few centuries manage to live free for a couple of centuries or so before the stupid returns. Humans are what they are.

    Joan: Science was dead long before that. Maybe that could be considered the grave marker….

  25. Cat permalink
    November 17, 2019 2:29 pm

    The real scandal: The Beeb is funded by the British public.

  26. Philip Mulholland permalink
    November 17, 2019 8:55 pm

    The official definition that climate is the average of 30-years of weather is truly appalling in its naivety, this is how we measure climate it is not what climate actually is. Climate is the presence and action of a solar energy driven atmospheric cell over the surface of a terrestrial planet.

  27. November 18, 2019 4:30 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  28. mjr permalink
    November 18, 2019 10:12 am

    Just in case people have not seen it (and apologies if it is duplicated) but this link via GWPF highlights many of the dodgy emails that remarkably BBC did not mention in their “objective and unbiased” report. . Read and enjoy

  29. November 18, 2019 10:03 pm

    Yes, there really IS something to see there.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: