Climategate: Is It Criminal?
The potential criminality of the Climategate scandal is exactly the issue that is being investigated by authorities in Britain. The British Parliament has convened hearings to investigate East Anglia University and the Climate Research Unit to uncover unethical and illegal activities. As more information is revealed, the whole Climategate affair begins to take on the makings of a good mystery novel. Like any good mystery or crime plot, the web of involvement is widespread.
But in order for a reader to be drawn in, the author must establish the motive and opportunity for the crime to be believable. To understand Climategate, we must start at the center of the web. At the center is the now-discredited Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University and the work he orchestrated at the Climate Research Unit (CRU). This is exactly where the British Parliament has started its investigation for possible criminal wrongdoing.
[More]
Popularity: 8% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
rob misek Says:
The crime was lying.
Motive and opportunity are irrelevant and degree damage merely represents the degree of punishment required for justice.
Until we criminalize all lying, we will be chasing shadows, wasting time and money in court, trying to redefine or recategorize the crime which was as always, lying.
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 8:29 am
stephen p Says:
Re #1
The crime is theft and the motive is self-enrichment, not necessarily by Dr. Jones and his cohorts at the CRU but by others completely unattached to the CRU and other scientists. Jones et al were/are merely useful idiots who sold their souls for a few moments of fame.
In order to steal, one must create a pool of money. The best source of money pools are sovereign flows, immense in size, with a wide population feeder base – levy a small fee over the total economic population in Western democracies is the best place to start.
Now link those cash flows to a market based trading scheme – i.e. carbon trading. Here we have the near perfect modus operandi, a fictitious but fungible commodity with no tangible value created by administrative fiat – a sort of anti-commodity – that people and organizations must purchase through the force of law and regulation.
Banks like the HSBC would be the first to put up their hands to assist in establishing such a market. Governments will be interested in such markets because it creates money flows from which taxes can be extracted. Large corporate interests will be interested because of the wide range of goods and services they could sell to consume the accumulating pools of money that might be spent on (generally economically inefficient) “Green” technologies. And of course there is a segment of our society (sometimes referred to as Rent Seekers) who will provide support studies for the scheme.
It is this last class where Dr. Jones and his ilk reside. Well down the food chain in the overall scheme of things, useful idiots as I mentioned earlier, who have sold their integrity for a few moments of fleeting fame.
And the worst of it for Dr. Jones is that if things turn really sour, he will be surprised indeed how quickly those he counted on as friends among former contacts in the other classes will suddenly no longer be available to take his calls. Shame really, Pride goeth before the Fall!
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Rhoda Says:
That’s the best synopsis of the interconnection among the various sectors, stephen p, to date. In large part, the data has been discredited and it is has even now had its economic reverberations. Namely, reports are widespread that investors are divesting themselves of the green technologies in droves. Some traditional print press are doing a decent job of informing the public re the manufactured CRU data. So it’s only a matter of time before the voting/job seeking public enmasse realize there’ll be little productivity or effect attached to the green initiatives. In Ontario it involves billions now allocated for the wind turbines.
What would be the financial penalty if Ontario citizens refuse McGuinty’s $7 billion dollar signed contract and force the gov’t to cancel the Samsung agreement? It’s possible it’d be cheaper to cancel in more ways than one than to proceed with the infrastructure building.
Of course, if this nightmare gets up and running, wouldn’t Samsung bear the responsibility for its likely failures. Also the costs attached to that??
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 10:27 am
stephen p Says:
Re #3
Hi Rhoda
Thanks for the compliment re the new order being established as we speak. Not to sound too “Suzie Crape-hanger” about it but I believe the ship has sailed on this one and this I will illustrate by commenting on your two questions.
“What would be the financial penalty if Ontario citizens refuse McGuinty’s $7 billion dollar signed contract and force the gov’t to cancel the Samsung agreement?”
Not going to happen any time soon. For this you need a) a political party that will take an anti – AGW scheme position and b) you need an electorate that will vote against the current purveyors of the scheme (Mr. McGuinty’s Liberals in Ontario). Even PMSH won’t touch Point a) and think yesterday’s Toronto Centre byelection result for evidence Point b) is some distance away.
“Of course, if this nightmare gets up and running, wouldn’t Samsung bear the responsibility for its likely failures. Also the costs attached to that??”
I can state from my experience in contract management, once the contract is signed, Samsung will be laughing all the way to the bank (maybe even their local HSBC branch!). They will guarantee to deliver machinery to the required location, erect, install and demonstrate the turbines will produce electricity provided the Province of Ontario supplies the WIND. NO WIND no takkie as they say in some places. Oh and another thing, the Province will need to provide a collection point for the electricity to be delivered. No Collection Point no …. Well you get the thread here (and there will be plenty of other caveats in the contract protecting Samsung’s profit position as well).
After signing the Samsung contract, that is pretty much all she wrote as far as the taxpayers of Ontario are concerned, it is pay-up time. Cancellation is a possibility as you suggest; typically the fee would be 20 to 30% of the contract value within the first month or so, rapidly escalating to 100% less savings for avoided material and labour costs to be negotiated. Six months into the contract and depending on the segregated contract value for delivery and installation, one might get away with only having to pay about 60 to 90% of the contract value.
However, as a prize, Ontario taxpayers now own various pieces of Wind Turbine machinery and related bits and pieces spread around various Samsung manufacturing facilities in Canada and abroad. For convenience, Samsung will arrange delivery of the stuff to a single staging and storage location at Ontario’s request and cost.
I am sure this last point will be of great comfort to Ontario taxpayers.
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Rhoda Says:
The riding went AGAIN to the liberals in TO yesterday. Oh boy, between 20-30 percent in first month — I think it’s almost up now, right. And you say Ontario would be stuck for between 60-90 percent of the contract value if termination happens after a given date. Someone’s gotten away with the Ontario store. Good work, McGuinty gov’t! No, really the Feds should be stepping in. That would be the Conservatives. Hudak’s PCs’ silence is thus far deafening which only indicates they’re on side, too.
Citizens will only REFUSE/OBJECT after they’re up and running and not too well as a slew of reports have indicated. More and more, I think ‘the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.’ Hard to conceive Ontario’s in this mess and we must state it, due to complete political ineptness. IF reports are accurate, investors are dumping the green technologies and reads like the wind turbines are at the top of the heap.
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
stephen p Says:
Re #5
It is awfully frustrating Rhoda, but there are very large sums of money in play and the players with their finger in the pie won’t stop anytime soon.
It will take the equivalent of a Tea Party movement to occur here in Canada before changes are made. This, by the way, may explain the sudden rise of the Wild Rose Party in Alberta. It will be interesting to see if other regions in Canada are ready to throw off the shackles of the old line political parties.
Anyway, don’t despair, your views are very sensible and well reasoned and when the majority of Canadians begin to see things as you do there will be better days ahead. I have every confidence this will be so in due course.
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Philanthropist Says:
Billions of dollars ripped off people’s paycheques and wasted on nothing, that’s fraud.
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
MaryT Says:
Could the bloc/coalition know that their spin re global warming was a scam and perhaps some of those behind it should go to jail. Could that be why they are spending so much time over some terrorist that had a shoe thrown at him. How about an inquiry into the whole climategate scam, and what political leaders knew about it and tried to keep it quiet. Follow the money.
Maybe that is why the bloc/coalition is working so hard to overthrow our elected government, they are afraid of the public finding out the truth re adscam, sponsorship, and their part in setting the agenda back in 2002 re the handling of detainees, and sending our troops to Afghan without a vote in the HofC.
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
rob misek Says:
Wasted on a lie.
Being an idiot is no defense.
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
jema54 Says:
Stephen P – Thank you for the information, and thank-you for writing it in such a clear, interesting manner. You would be an excellent teacher.
MaryT – like you, that outfit of blocheads sitting in the Canadian House of Commons, being paid by Canadian taxpayers, and having a vote on national issues make me see red every time one of them pops up. They don’t want to be Canadians, they claim they are not Canadians; the only time the Canadian tag kicks in is on payday and Party subsidy day – or when they are demanding more money from other Provinces for Quebec. They should have to sit over in Hull, get their paychecks from Queber, and never should they cast a vote unless it is something directly concerning Quebec, and then, in a riding that they hold.
The American, Quebec born Liberano leader and his pal, Jack the dipper want to form a government with the head blochead as the de facto Prime Minister of Canada!! How sinister is that?
Rhonda – I knew the people of Torana would vote Liberano/Dipper ; they would consider it beneath their imagined sophistication and superior intellect to not vote ‘progressive’. They can feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that their pristine hands did not mark the X for filthy farmers and oilmen (or any producer); that ilk of people disdain those who earn a living, they would never sink to that level; they would choose welfare first! Too bad that that city has sold it’s ‘good’ for such a pathetic set of non values.
American Thinker always gives me lots to think about. Thanks for the link, Jack.
Posted on February 6th, 2010 at 5:27 am