Archive for november, 2009

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 29

30 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. And media is starting to cover it more and more as the consequences is starting to sink in.

In this case it’s Financial Time’s Washington columnist Clive Crook. He was a believer up to the end of last week.

“The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”

“The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side “deniers”.

“Remember that this is not an academic exercise. We contemplate outlays of trillions of dollars to fix this supposed problem. Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot. These people are willing to subvert the very methods–notably, peer review–that underwrite the integrity of their discipline. Is this really business as usual in science these days? If it is, we should demand higher standards–at least whenever “the science” calls for a wholesale transformation of the world economy. And maybe some independent oversight to go along with the higher standards.”

http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2009/11/more-on-climategate/

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php

More on Climategate

November 30, 2009 2:40pm

In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu [subscription required]. It goes to the core of that process.

One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson’s study raised, and it was also emphasised in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre’s campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.

I’m also surprised by the IPCC’s response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side “deniers”.

While I’m listing surprises, let me note how disappointed I was by The Economist’s coverage of all this. “Leaked emails do not show climate scientists at their best,” it observes. No indeed. I should say I worked at the magazine for years, admire it as much as ever, and rely on the science coverage especially. But I was baffled by its reaction to the scandal. “Little wonder that the scientists are looking tribal and jumpy, and that sceptics have leapt so eagerly on such tiny scraps as proof of a conspiracy,” its report concludes. Tiny scraps?  I detest anti-scientific thinking as much as The Economist does. I admire expertise, and scientific expertise especially; like any intelligent citizen I am willing to defer to it. But that puts a great obligation on science. The people whose instinct is to respect and admire science should be the ones most disturbed by these revelations. The scientists have let them down, and made the anti-science crowd look wise. That is outrageous.

Megan McArdle adopts a world-weary tone similar to The Economist’s: this is how science is done in the real world. If I were a scientist, I would resent that. She has criticised the emails and the IPCC response to them, then says she still believes the consensus view on climate change. Well, that was my position at the end of last week, and I suppose it still is. But how do I defend it? There is far more of a problem here for the consensus view than Megan and ordinarily reliable commentators like The Economist acknowledge. I am not a climate scientist. In the end I have to trust the experts. That is what we are asked to do. “Trust us, we’re scientists”.

Remember that this is not an academic exercise. We contemplate outlays of trillions of dollars to fix this supposed problem. Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot. These people are willing to subvert the very methods–notably, peer review–that underwrite the integrity of their discipline. Is this really business as usual in science these days? If it is, we should demand higher standards–at least whenever “the science” calls for a wholesale transformation of the world economy. And maybe some independent oversight to go along with the higher standards.

The IPCC process needs to be fixed, as a matter of the greatest urgency. Read David Henderson or the Wegman report to see how. And in the meantime, let’s have some independent inquiries into what has been going on.

November 30, 2009 2:40pm

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 28

30 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. And media is starting to cover it more and more as the consequences is starting to sink in.

“The emails showed how the global-warming group stifled dissent. They controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited ”peer review” as evidence of their ”consensus.”

“This unseemly business reveals another flaw. Why are scholars who review papers allowed to remain anonymous? Reforming scientists and lawmakers might put the question more concretely: How many of the anonymous reviewers who spiked skeptical scientific papers over the years are the people who wrote these emails detailing how they abused peer review to block contrary evidence?”

“Science was one of the first disciplines to insist on transparency in order to foster competition in data and ideas. In the case of global warming, transparency is better late than never, as policy makers now have the chance to review the facts. Facing up to high-profile flaws is hard for any profession, but honest scientists will cheer how in our digital era eventually the truth will out, and will accept that no scientific hypothesis can be viewed as sacred or can be proved in secret.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574564291187747578.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

NOVEMBER 29, 2009, 9:46 P.M. ET By L. GORDON CROVITZ

The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths

The world cannot trust scientists who abuse their power.

For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws. Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional files were published online, many of which boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data.

The emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name ”FOI,” were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming.

The findings from East Anglia have been at the core of policy reports by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC does not do its own research but compiles information relating to climate change. It has declared the evidence that the globe is warming to be ”unequivocal,” a claim routinely cited by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere as authoritative.

The IPCC stresses honest science. According to its Web site, its goal is to ”assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, now faces the inconvenient truth that it relied on scientists who violated scientific process. In one email, the Climate Research Unit’s director, Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the relationship between human activity and global warming. ”I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” he said. He pledged to ”keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: ”This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature.’ Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

Other emails include one in which Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit told Mr. Mann that ”I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same,” and in which Mr. Jones said he had employed Mr. Mann’s ”trick” to ”hide the decline” in temperatures. A May 2008 email from Mr. Jones with the subject line ”IPCC & FOI” asked recipients to ”delete any emails you may have had” about data submitted for an IPCC report. The British Freedom of Information Act makes it a crime to delete material subject to an FOI request; such a request had been made earlier that month.

Over the weekend, East Anglia officials disclosed they had disposed years ago of the historic weather data underlying their analysis. This may be one reason they’ve fought information requests. They say they’ll release the data they still have some time next year.

The emails showed how the global-warming group stifled dissent. They controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited ”peer review” as evidence of their ”consensus.” One of the dissident scientists, Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, wrote on his blog that the emails show the ”collusion to suppress other scientifically supported views of the climate system, and the human role within it, is a systemic problem with the climate assessment process.”

These disclosures have led to some soul-searching. ”Opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science,” wrote George Monbriot, a leading British environmentalist. ”There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.” Demetris Koutsoyiannis, a hydraulic engineer who has written on climate change, wrote that scientists who suppressed others ”must have felt that this secrecy was their best weapon: to censor differing opinions, to develop ‘trick’ procedures, to ‘balance’ the needs of the IPCC, and even to ‘redefine’ peer review.”

This unseemly business reveals another flaw. Why are scholars who review papers allowed to remain anonymous? Reforming scientists and lawmakers might put the question more concretely: How many of the anonymous reviewers who spiked skeptical scientific papers over the years are the people who wrote these emails detailing how they abused peer review to block contrary evidence?

Science was one of the first disciplines to insist on transparency in order to foster competition in data and ideas. In the case of global warming, transparency is better late than never, as policy makers now have the chance to review the facts. Facing up to high-profile flaws is hard for any profession, but honest scientists will cheer how in our digital era eventually the truth will out, and will accept that no scientific hypothesis can be viewed as sacred or can be proved in secret.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 27

30 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. And media is starting to cover it more and more as the consequences is starting to sink in.

This time from The Independent, one of the promoters of this hysteria.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-carr/simon-carr-so-scientists-are-just-as-political-as-the-rest-1831129.html

Simon Carr: So, scientists are just as political as the rest

We must add climate scientists to those who treat us as hawks treat chicks

Monday, 30 November 2009

The University of East Anglia climate fiasco has caused some in the laity to go back reaching for their brains. But sketchwriters recognised it all well enough, especially those of us without degrees in climate science. The problem isn’t science, it’s politics.

We’d already heard about the refusal of information requests. The tricks to shaft opponents. The plan to de-register an academic journal that had gone to the other side. The impulse to destroy files. The refusal to share primary data … We get that all the time in parliament.

And it fitted in with the communications strategy first leaked in the 1990s – the climatologists’ plan was to spread global warming panic as a spur to action. But as soon as the scientists adopted a public purpose they moved along the spectrum from academics to activists to lobbyists to political advisers and – please don’t think me cynical – that is a process of corruption and degradation.

And they’re important, these East Anglians. They are in charge of data-sets that underlie the ”settled science” of the multi-trillion dollar global warming movement.

And boy have they caught up with the lessons from the last decade of public administration (text in italics was written by the programmer processing the data at the university).

/”… the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”/

That is, only if you know nobody’s listening can you tell the truth. We saw that in No 10’s private Iraq emails revealed in the Hutton enquiry.

/”Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records. NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures than they should be, which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is …”/

That is, use the same data in opposite ways to make them fit the hypothesis. Gordon Brown’s always doing that.

/”… we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400”./

That is, keep the pesky 1,000-year heatwave out of the stats or modern times won’t look warm at all. Gordon did that for years.

So now we have to add climate scientists to the list of professionals who treat us as hawks treat chicks. The them-and-us is getting more pronounced. We’re all drifting apart from each other – it’s not to do with social equality but sectional interests, the triumph of the political class, and professional tribalism as they extract their fees from us with such impunity.

NB: Mind you, for all their apparent trickery the East Anglians might still be right. The pro-vaccine lobby in the mid-19th century falsified their data like billy-oh.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 26

29 november, 2009

And the Climate Gate temperature is rising. NOT the Global temperature.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?id=513642

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 25

29 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. And media is starting to cover it more and more as the consequences is starting to sink in.

Here are some very good points on Climate gates implications for science itself.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html

November 29, 2009

Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science

By J.R. Dunn

The East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) revelations come as no real surprise to anyone who has closely followed the global-warming saga. The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) thesis, to give it its semi-official name, is no stranger to fraud. It would be no real exaggeration to state that it was fertilized with fraud, marinated in fraud, stewed in fraud, and at last served up to the world as prime grade-A fraud with nice side orders of fakery and disingenuousness. Damning as they may be, the CRU e-mails are merely the climactic element in an exhaustively long line.

A short tour of previous AGW highlights would include:

The Y2K Glitch.  This episode involved the NASA/GISS team led by James Hansen, possibly the most fanatical and unrelenting of all warmists, a man who makes Al Gore look like a skeptic. (Among other things, Hansen has demanded that warming ”deniers” be tried for ”crimes against humanity”.)  While examining a series of NASA temperature graphs, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, himself not so much a skeptic as an anti-warming Van Helsing, uncovered a discontinuity occurring in January 2000 that raised temperatures gathered over widespread areas by 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit. McIntyre had no easy time of it, since Hansen refused to reveal what algorithm he’d used to process the data, forcing McIntyre to perform some very abstruse calculations to figure it out.

Once notified, Hansen’s team promised to correct the error, stating that it was an ”oversight”. When the corrected figures were at last released, they rocked the church of warming from bingo hall to steeple. Vanished was the claim that the past few years were ”the warmest on record”. Now 1934 took precedence. A full half of the top ten warmest years occurred before WW II, well prior to any massive CO2 buildup.

No explanation has ever been offered. We have a Y2K glitch that behaves like no other computer glitch ever encountered, uniformly affecting a large number of sources distributed almost nationwide. Although the incident trashed all recent data and raised uncomfortable questions about the warming thesis as a whole, NASA itself made no effort at an investigation or inquiry. All that we’re ever going to hear is ”oversight”. I guess that’s how they do things at NASA/GISS.

The Arctic Ice Melt. We’ve been informed for the better part of a decade that Arctic ice was melting at an unprecedented rate, and that the North Pole would be ice-free in twenty, thirty, or forty years, depending in the hysteria level of the media platform in question. In truth, ice thinning was due to a cyclical weather pattern in which winds blow ice floes south into warmer water. Everybody involved knew that this cycle occurred, everyone had seen it happen previously time out of mind. But it was too good an opportunity to pass up. Worse yet, when the weather returned to its normal pattern two years ago, large numbers of scientists put in considerable effort to suggest that the ”new” ice was thinner than usual and would vanish in a flash as soon as the temperatures went back up. The media went along with the joke. The Germans have a phrase to cover such eventualities: this crew should be stripped of their trade. (Several expeditions setting out for the Pole to ”call attention” to the coming Arctic catastrophe had to stop short due to icy conditions. In one case, both women involved suffered serious frostbite.)   

The Poor Polar Bears
. Closely related is the saga of the polar bears, staring extinction in the face due to warming while, somewhere beyond the aurora, Gaia weeps bitter tears. This was evidently inspired by a single photograph (you’ve seen it — the entire world has at this point) of a woebegone polar bear crouched on a melting iceberg. That bear had to be sulking over allowing a nice juicy seal to escape, because it was in no danger. Out of the twenty major polar bear populations only two are known to be decreasing. Estimates of bear population (there are no exact figures) have increased over the past forty years, from 17,000 to19,000 to the current number of 22,000 to 27,000. The bears are becoming pests in municipalities such as Churchill and Point Barrow. (As clearly shown here.)  Despite all this, last year the bear was put on the U.S. ”endangered” list.

The Hockey Stick That Wasn’t. The ”hockey stick” is a nickname for a chart prepared by Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University professor and leading warmist. The chart purports to show temperature levels for the past millennium, and consists of a straight line until it reaches the late 20th century, when it suddenly shoots upward, creating the ”hockey stick” profile. This chart was a major feature of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports on global warming and is a commonly-used media graphic.

This chart creates immediate doubt in anyone knowledgeable about the climate of the past millennium, which more resembles a roller coaster than a straight line. It developed — in yet another impressive McIntyre takedown, this time with an assist from Ross McKitrick — that Mann was utilizing an algorithm that would produce hockey sticks if you fed it telephone numbers. (Mann is the ”Mike” mentioned in the CRU e-mails, and this is one of his ”tricks”.) Despite this disclosure, Mann has never withdrawn the chart, offered an explanation, or made a correction. The chart remains an accepted piece of evidence among warmists.

Tree-Ring Circus. Due to the fact that direct temperature measures for past epochs are lacking, climatologists utilize ”proxy measures”, such as tree rings, glacial moraines, and lake sediments. Tree rings have played an important part in the warming controversy, as evidence backing the claim that temperatures have been consistently lower worldwide until recently. A crucial series of measurements, utilized by Mann among others, involves trees located on the Yamal peninsula in Siberia. How many trees were measured, you ask? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?

The answer is twelve. A number perfectly adequate to trigger international panic, overthrow the capitalist system, establish a Green totalitarianism, and completely turn Western culture on its head.

But it turns out that further measurements were in fact made in the area, involving at least thirty-four other trees. And when this data is added to the original twelve, then the warming evidence disappears into the same branch of the Twilight Zone as the blade of Mann’s hockey stick. Another ”oversight”, you understand.

We could go on to mention the automated U.S. weather stations chronicled by the tireless Anthony Watts, which were conscientiously placed next to air-con vents, atop sewage plants, in parking lots, and in one case, in a swamp (as many as 90% may be giving spurious high readings). The glaciers that are vanishing worldwide except where they aren’t. The endless papers demonstrating that the coral reefs, along with various birds, animals, insects, and plants, are facing extinction even though no warming whatsoever has occurred for twelve years. (And in the thirty years before that, the total rise was 1.25 degrees Fahrenheit, easily within normal variation.) Powerful stuff, this warming — it maims and destroys even when it’s not happening.  

It’s within this context that the East Anglia e-mails must be judged. The vanishingly small number of  legacy media writers who are paying attention behave as if the messages comprise some kind of puzzling anomaly, with no relation to anything that came before. In truth, they stand as the internal memos from the East Anglia branch of the Nigerian National Bank, which can save us from the horrors of global warming after payment of a small up-front fee.

There is always a deeper level to the damage caused by fraud. It strains social relationships, generates cynicism, and debases standing institutions. What has suffered the most damage from AGW is faith in the scientific method, the basic set of procedures — it could be called an algorithm — governing scientific investigation. These procedures embody simplicity itself: you examine a phenomenon. You gather data. You construct a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon. And then…

Well, first, let’s cover what you don’t do.

  • You don’t manipulate data. (As CRU chief scientist Phil Jones stated he was doing in the now-famous ”Mike’s trick” e-mail, not to mention throughout the now-famous source code.)
  • You don’t fabricate data. (As one CRU scientist did while compiling weather-station data. Running into problems, he states, ”I can make it up. So I did.” He adds an evil smiley face. This e-mail has gone under radar up until now. It can be found in the comments on James Delingpole’s blog.
  • You don’t deny data to other investigators. (As Hansen, Jones, and, it appears, everybody else in the warming community has done at one time or another.)
  • You don’t destroy evidence. (As the members of the CRU did following a Freedom of Information request.)
  • You don’t bury contradictory data. (As Jones and several colleagues did in an attempt to undercut the impact of the Medieval Warming Period.)
  • You don’t secretly manipulate the argument from behind the scenes. (As the CRU staff did with the website Realclimate.org., screening comments to allow only those that supported the warming thesis.)
  • You don’t secretly undercut your critics. (As Mann advised the CRU to do concerning the scientific journal, Climate Researh: ”I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”)
  • You don’t try to get a journal editor critical of your case fired. (As the CRU staff evidently succeeded in doing with an editor for Geophysical Research Letters.)

What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to falsify your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up. If they do — and the vast majority of hypotheses suffer the indignity embodied in a phrase attributed variously to Thomas Huxley and Lord Kelvin: ”a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact” — then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you don’t, you throw it out.

None of this, amidst all the chicanery, fabrications, and manipulations, appears to have been done by anyone active in global warming research, the CRU least of all. From which point we are forced to conclude that AGW is not science, and that any ”consensus” that can drawn from it is a consensus of fraud

(The late-breaking revelations of temperature manipulations at New Zealand‘s NiWA institute   — another one of Mike’s tricks? — merely underlines the lesson of CRU. Now that the dam has busted, we’ll be hearing dozens of stories like this over the weeks and months to come.)

The West is a technological society. Science is as responsible for making us what we have become as any other factor, including the democratic system of government. The two are in fact complementary, each supporting and encouraging the other across the decades since this country was established. (And yes, I am aware that Britain and Germany were both centers of scientific progress, both of them nations liberalized by the example of the United States. Even the utterly authoritarian Bismarck was forced to heed the voice of the people despite his inclination to do anything but.)

The technology developed from scientific research has created a world that would be unrecognizable to our forebears of even a century ago. Technology has transformed diet, health, communications, and transportation. It has doubled lifespans in advanced countries. Prior to the modern epoch, few ever caught a glimpse of the world past their own farming fields. India, China, and Africa were wild myths, the Pacific and Antarctica utterly unknown, the planets and stars merely pretty lights in the sky. Technology opened the world, not just for everyday men and women, but for invalids, the disabled, and the subnormal, who once lived lives of almost incomprehensible deprivation. Technology was a crucial factor in the dissolution of the ancient empires, the humbling of the aristocracies.

As Paul Johnson has pointed out, a technological breakout appeared imminent at a number of points in the past millennium. Consider the anonymous Hussite engineer of the 15th century who left a notebook even more breathtaking than that of Leonardo, or the revolutionary English Levelers of the 17th century who dreamed of flying machines and factories. If a breakout had occurred at those times, the consequences would have been unimaginable. But the Hussites were destroyed by the German princes, the Levelers by the reestablishment of the English crown. It required the birth of a true democratic republic in the late 18th century to provide the setting for a serious scientific-technical takeoff, one that after 200 years has brought us to where we stand today, gazing out at the galaxies beyond the galaxies with the secret of life itself within reach.

It is this, and no less, that scientific fraud threatens. This is no trivial matter; it involves one of the basic elements of modern Western life. When scientific figures lie, they lie to all of us. If they foment serious distrust of the scientific endeavor — as they are doing — they are creating a schism in the heart of our culture, a wound that in the long run could prove even more deadly than the Jihadi terrorists.

Such failings are not relegated only to climatology. With the apparent success of the climate hustlers, it has infected all areas of research. Over the past decade, stem-cell studies have proven a hotbed of fraud. Recall Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean biologist who claimed to have cloned various higher animals and isolated new stem cell lines, to worldwide applause. Suk was discovered to have faked all his research, prompting the South Korean government to ban him from taking part in any further work. Nor was he alone. Researchers throughout the field have been caught fabricating and manipulating data, and at least one large biotech company has developed the habit of announcing grand breakthroughs to goose its stock prices.

A number of factors are responsible, among them the grant-making process, which rewards extravagant claims and demands matching results, and the superstar factor, in which media adulation creates a sense of intellectual arrogance — as in the case of Dr. Suk — unmatched since Galileo’s heyday. But the major problem lies in politics, specifically as involves ideology.

In both major recent cases of fraud, science had become entwined and infected with ideology to a point where its very nature had been transformed. It was no longer science in the classic mold, boldly asking basic questions without fear or favor. It had become an ideological tool, carrying out only such research as met with the approval of political elites. Stem-cell research had become enmeshed with the abortion question. Embryonic stem cells, obtained by ”processing” aborted babies, received the lion’s share of funding and attention despite its showing no potential whatsoever. Adult stem cells, obtainable from bone marrow, skin cells, or virtually any other part of the body, were shunted aside despite extraordinarily promising research results. This bias permeated the entire field and distorted all perceptions of it — one of the reasons Dr. Suk was so wildly overpraised was his willingness to attack Pres. George W. Bush for limiting embryonic stem-cell exploitation.

The climatology story is little different. Environmentalist Greens needed a threat, one that menaced not only technological civilization but life on earth itself. They had promoted an endless parade of such threats since the 1960s — overpopulation, pollution, runaway nuclear power, and global cooling — only to see them shrivel like popped balloons. They required a menace that was overwhelming, long-term, and not easily disproven. With warming, the climatologists gave them one. In exchange for sky-high funding, millennial scientists, the heirs of Bacon, Copernicus, and Einstein, men who bled and suffered for the sake of their work, continually inflated the nature and extent of the CO2 threat, using, as we now know, the sleaziest methods available. The result has been complete intellectual degradation. 

Scientists were once among the most trusted figures in Western public life, similar to bankers, priests, and doctors, but in a real sense standing above them all. Scientists were honored as truth-tellers, aware that their reputation for veracity and seriousness was their only real asset. And while exceptions existed (read the story of Blondlot and his N-rays,   for one example), the public took them at their own valuation.

That is ended, one with the scholastic monasteries and the academy at Athens. Scientists today are well on their way to becoming an amalgam of the cheap politician and the three-card monte dealer. They are viewed by the less educated as a privileged class making alarming and impudent claims for their own benefit. The better informed find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being unable to defend something we once admired.

The next set of questions in physics cannot be answered without equipment costing billions at the very least, and possibly much more. Will a disbelieving public pay for that? We are facing serious dilemmas concerning breakthroughs in biology, not only in stem-cell technology but also in neurology and synthetic biology, breakthroughs that threaten to distort the very nature of humanity itself. Should we leave the solutions up to people who want us to pick a card, any card?

The collaboration between science and democracy is one of the great achievements of human history. It is now threatened by the behavior of people at the very heart of that collaboration. If it is destroyed, something of unparalleled value will have vanished, something that will be nearly impossible to replace. If the Western world wishes to continue its magnificent upward journey, we will have to save science from itself. An errant and corrupt climatology is the place to start.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 24

29 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. And media is starting to cover it more and more as the consequences is starting to sink in.

“…expose a hard truth at the rotting core of global warming hysteria: Advocates for harsh restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions are engaged less in science than in a crusade against Western capitalism.”

And before developed nations commit economic suicide by adopting cap-and-trade schemes or new emissions limits to be negotiated in Copenhagen this December, we ought to strip away the quasi-religious fervor surrounding global warming advocacy and get back to the dispassionate, free exchange of ideas expected of science.”

Until climate science extracts itself from political advocacy and returns to a pursuit of the truth for its own sake, no one can be sure of the accuracy of its claims.

Such shaky science is no basis for decisions involving hundreds billions of dollars that will affect the lives of billions of people.”

Editorial here:

http://www.eagletribune.com/puopinion/local_story_332193903.html/

Editorial: Warming advocates engage in crusade, not science

November 29, 2009 12:55 am

One knows a real scandal is brewing once some wag attaches the ”-gate” suffix to an otherwise innocuous word. Welcome to the latest: Climategate.

This one is important as it could save the United States and the rest of the developed world perhaps trillions of dollars and untold economic hardship for billions of people.

The exposure of internal memos and other documents written by climate researchers at a British university expose a hard truth at the rotting core of global warming hysteria: Advocates for harsh restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions are engaged less in science than in a crusade against Western capitalism.

And before developed nations commit economic suicide by adopting cap-and-trade schemes or new emissions limits to be negotiated in Copenhagen this December, we ought to strip away the quasi-religious fervor surrounding global warming advocacy and get back to the dispassionate, free exchange of ideas expected of science.

Recently unearthed documents from a British research facility show that’s been sorely lacking in global warming ”science” so far.

Last weekend, hackers broke into accounts at the prestigious Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. They released thousands of documents and personal e-mails that show researchers suppressing evidence that ran counter to their belief and even engaging in violent fantasies against global warming skeptics.

Some of the e-mails between British and American researchers lament the lack of recent data supporting warming claims. One comments on a ”trick” he used to ”hide the decline” in global temperatures.

The authors of the e-mails object that their statements are taken out of context. Perhaps. But it is difficult to misconstrue the context when these scientists discuss pressuring scientific journals not to accept papers from warming skeptics or how they’ll work to keep dissenting views out of the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

Is this how the fabled ”consensus” on global warming was built? By the suppression of opposing views? Science is supposed to be a dispassionate search for the truth, not a exercise in political manipulation worthy of Saul Alinsky.

Climate researchers need to cultivate the same courageous, devotion to truth in the face of political considerations displayed by one of the Western world’s first scientists, Galileo Galilei.

In the early 1600s, Galileo, through direct observation with his telescope, concluded the Copernican theory that the earth was moving around the sun was correct. This ran counter to Catholic doctrine of the time that an unmoving earth was the center of the universe.

The Church hauled Galileo before the Inquisition and forced him to recant.

Legend has it that, as Galileo made his public recantation, he muttered, ”Eppur, si muove” — ”And yet, it moves.”

The accuracy of the legend is questionable. Yet it illustrates the ideal of a scientist’s devotion to truth, even in the face of political and personal threats.

Until climate science extracts itself from political advocacy and returns to a pursuit of the truth for its own sake, no one can be sure of the accuracy of its claims.

Such shaky science is no basis for decisions involving hundreds billions of dollars that will affect the lives of billions of people.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 23

29 november, 2009

Warwick Hughes has made an interesting graph of the CRU emails showing exactly who was emailing who in Climate gate.

Blog post here

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=324

                   Click on the graph to get larger

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

 

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 22

29 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. And media is starting to cover it more and more as the consequences is starting to sink in.

It seems that some people, like Mr Hudson and the people at RealClimate (one of the high priests of this Hysteria) had copies of these emails and data OVER A MONTH BEFORE IT BECAME PUBLIC. And they did nothing about it or as in the case of RealClimate –they immediately alerted CRU of the “leak”.

Isn’t it nice with all the Hysterics and their secrecy?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html

BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails

By Mail On Sunday Reporter

Last updated at 10:00 PM on 28th November 2009

The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.

One of its reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.

Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.

This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC’s unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet.

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘We need to know more about the BBC’s role in this affair. Was Mr Hudson told by the BBC not to use the story?’

It was only after the same emails were published on a blog called Air Vent that Look North climate correspondent Mr Hudson owned up in his own blog to the fact he had also had the material.

In a bizarre twist, he claimed the leak had been triggered by an article he had written that questioned global warming.

Mr Hudson, 38, last night declined to comment. A BBC spokesman said: ‘Paul has nothing to add to what he has already said in his blog.’

And this is what he wrote on his blog on November 23:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml

‘Climategate’ – CRU hacked into and its implications

Paul Hudson | 13:07 UK time, Monday, 23 November 2009

Very busy with forecast duties right now, but I do intend to write a blog regarding the UK Climate research centre (CRU) being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.

I will add comment on this page as soon as I can free up some time. But I will in the meantime answer the question regarding the chain of e-mails which you have been commenting about on my blog, which can be seen here, and whether they are genuine or part of an elaborate hoax.

I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article ‘whatever happened to global warming’. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.

More later.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 21

29 november, 2009

The Global Warming Hysterics – they are SOOO ”scientific” are they not?

“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. “

Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled.

That is now impossible. “

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

From The Sunday Times  November 29, 2009

Climate change data dumped

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/news-release-in-the-sunday-times-by-jonathan-leake-climate-change-data-dumped/

News Release In The Sunday Times By Jonathan Leake – Climate Change Data Dumped

There is a news release in the Sunday Times by Jonathan Leake titled “Climate change data dumped” [Note: the Roger Pielke referred to in the article is Pielke Jr]. This startling disclosure means that  climate scientists will be unable to assess the mathematical methodology that CRU has used to convert the raw temperature data to the adjusted temperature data that were reported (at least up to the 1980s) in the 2007 IPCC assessment.

The article includes the text

“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. “

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”

As also written in the news article

“In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

This is an absurd claim that the new data is “value-added”.  Indeed, we document a number of unresolved issues with the surface temperature data, which CRU now prevents anyone from assessing in our paper

 Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

The claim in the article that this elimination of the data up to the 1980s, however,  suggests that raw data since that time period is available. This data needs to be independently scrutinized  (i.e. not by GISS or NCDC) and each step of their “quality control” and “homogenization” quantitatively assessed [of course, GISS and NCDC should have the raw data prior to the 1980s].

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 20

28 november, 2009

Climate gate: A Who’s Who

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 19

28 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. And media is starting to cover it more and more as the consequences is starting to sink in. It’s about time.

“Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “

“..is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.“

“The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to ”adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.”

“The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.”

“Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.”

Article here: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker

Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term ”Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s ”hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the ”hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves ”the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the ”Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got ”lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to ”adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the ”hockey stick”, he excoriated the way in which this same ”tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to ”peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 18

27 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. And media is starting to cover it more and more as the consequences is starting to sink in. It’s about time.

“The climate-gate revelations have exposed an unprecedented coordinated attempt by academics to distort research for political ends. Anyone interested in accurate science should be appalled at the manipulation of data ”to hide the decline [in temperature]” and deletion of e-mail exchanges and data so as not to reveal information that would support global-warming skeptics. These hacks are not just guilty of bad science. In the United Kingdom, deleting e-mail messages to prevent their disclosure from a Freedom of Information Act request is a crime.”

“We read and reread these CRU documents in stunned amazement. But rather than investigating all the evidence of so much academic fraud and intellectual wrongdoing, the University of East Anglia is denying there is a problem.”

“Unlike these global-warming propagandists, we expect research to be done in the open. Scientists who refuse to share their data, who plot to destroy information and fail to tell other scientists how their results were calculated should be severely punished. “

Exactly so!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-global-cooling-cover-up/

Friday, November 27, 2009

EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The climate-gate revelations have exposed an unprecedented coordinated attempt by academics to distort research for political ends. Anyone interested in accurate science should be appalled at the manipulation of data ”to hide the decline [in temperature]” and deletion of e-mail exchanges and data so as not to reveal information that would support global-warming skeptics. These hacks are not just guilty of bad science. In the United Kingdom, deleting e-mail messages to prevent their disclosure from a Freedom of Information Act request is a crime.

The story has gotten worse since the global-cooling cover-up was exposed through a treasure trove of leaked e-mails a week ago. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been incredibly influential in the global-warming debate. The CRU claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report.

Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU and contributing author to the United Nation’s IPCC report chapter titled ”Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes,” says he ”accidentally” deleted some raw temperature data used to construct the aggregate temperature data CRU distributed. If you believe that, you’re probably watching too many Al Gore videos.

Mr. Jones is the same professor who warned that global-warming skeptics ”have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

Other revelations hit at the very core of the global-warming debate. The leaked e-mails indicate that the people at the CRU can’t even figure out how their aggregate data was put together. CRU activists claimed that they took individual temperature readings at individual stations and averaged the information out to produce temperature readings over larger areas. One of the leaked documents states that their aggregation procedure ”renders the station counts totally meaningless.” The benefit: ”So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

Academics around the world who have spent years working on papers using this data must be in full panic mode. By the admission of the global-warming theocracy’s own self-appointed experts, the data they have been using is simply ”garbage.”

For global-warming advocates, there is an additional problem: The aggregated data appear to have been constructed to show an increase in temperatures. CBS’ Declan McCullagh finds that the computer code contains programmer-written notes addressed to themselves or future people who will be working with the program. The notes include these revealing instructions: ”Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!” and ”Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend – so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!”

The programmers apparently had to try at least a couple of adjustments before they could get their aggregated data to show an increase in temperatures.

Other global-warming advocates privately acknowledge what they won’t concede publicly, that temperature changes haven’t been consistent with their models. Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a prominent man-made-global-warming advocate, wrote in one of the discovered e-mails: ”The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Still other e-mails document how global-warming advocates tried to silence academic journals and professors who questioned whether there is significant man-made global warming.

We read and reread these CRU documents in stunned amazement. But rather than investigating all the evidence of so much academic fraud and intellectual wrongdoing, the University of East Anglia is denying there is a problem. Professor Trevor Davies, the school’s pro vice chancellor for research, issued a defensive statement on Tuesday claiming: ”The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”

Unlike these global-warming propagandists, we expect research to be done in the open. Scientists who refuse to share their data, who plot to destroy information and fail to tell other scientists how their results were calculated should be severely punished.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 17

27 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel and starting to have political consequences. It’s about time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB20001424052748703499404574558070997168360.html

‘Cap and Trade Is Dead’

NOVEMBER 26, 2009, 11:41 P.M. ET.

 The recently disclosed emails and documents from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit compromise the integrity of the United Nations’ global warming reports.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL..

So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. ”Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in.”

If any politician might be qualified to offer last rites, it would be Mr. Inhofe. The top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee has spent the past decade in the thick of Washington’s climate fight. He’s seen the back of three cap-and-trade bills, rode herd on an overweening Environmental Protection Agency, and steadfastly insisted that global researchers were ”cooking” the science behind man-made global warming.

This week he’s looking prescient. The more than 3,000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have found their way to the Internet have blown the lid off the ”science” of manmade global warming. CRU is a nerve center for many of those researchers who have authored the United Nations’ global warming reports and fueled the political movement to regulate carbon.

Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn’t toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. ”It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow,” glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents ”could scarcely be more damaging.” And that’s from a believer.

This scandal has real implications. Mr. Inhofe notes that international and U.S. efforts to regulate carbon were already on the ropes. The growing fear of Democrats and environmentalists is that the CRU uproar will prove a tipping point, and mark a permanent end to those ambitions.

Internationally, world leaders finally acknowledged that the recession has sapped them of their political power to impose devastating new carbon-restrictions. China and India are clear they won’t join the West in an economic suicide pact. Next month’s summit in Copenhagen is a bust. Instead of producing legally binding agreements, it will be dogged by queries about the legitimacy of the scientists who wrote the reports that form its basis.

The next opportunity to get international agreement is in Mexico City, 2010—a U.S. election year. Democrats were already publicly acknowledging there will be no domestic climate legislation in 2009 and privately acknowledging their great unease at passing a huge energy tax on Americans headed for a midterm vote.

Add to that the CRU scandal, which pivots the focus to potential fraud. Republicans are launching investigations, and the pressure is building on Democrats to hold hearings, since climate scientists were funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Mr. Inhofe’s office this week sent letters to federal agencies and outside scientists warning them not to delete their own CRU-related emails and documents, which may also be subject to Freedom of Information requests.

Polls show a public already losing belief in the theory of man-made global warming, and skeptics are now on the offense. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell argues this scandal gives added cover to Blue Dogs and other Democrats who were already reluctant to buck the public’s will and vote for climate legislation. And with Republicans set to pick up seats, Mr. Ebell adds, ”By 2011 there will hopefully be even fewer members who support this. We may be close to having it permanently stymied.” Continued U.S. failure to act makes an international agreement to replace Kyoto (which expires in 2012) a harder sell.

There’s still the EPA, which is preparing an ”endangerment finding” that would allow it to regulate carbon on the grounds it is a danger to public health. It is here the emails might have the most direct effect. The agency has said repeatedly that it based its finding on the U.N. science—which is now at issue. The scandal puts new pressure on the EPA to accede to growing demands to make public the scientific basis of its actions.

Mr. Inhofe goes so far as to suggest that the agency might not now issue the finding. ”The president knows how punitive this will be; he’s never wanted to do it through [the EPA] because that’s all on him.” The EPA was already out on a legal limb with its finding, and Mr. Inhofe argues that if it does go ahead, the CRU disclosure guarantees court limbo. ”The way the far left used to stop us is to file lawsuits and stall and stall. We’ll do the same thing.”

Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it’s that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They’d be better off acknowledging that the only ”consensus” right now is that the world needs to start over on climate ”science.”

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 16

26 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. Here some good points by Goldstein. Points which I have been saying in my post on this blog for over 2 years now.

“The moment they convinced politicians the way to avert the End of Days was to put a price on emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the unholy alliance of Big Government, Big Business and Big Green was forged.

Big Government wants more of your taxes. Big Business wants more of your income. Big Green wants you and your children to bow down to its agenda of enforced austerity.

What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power. “

True, very true.

Article here:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/26/

11929676-sun.html

Why ‘climategate’ won’t stop greens

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Last Updated: 26th November 2009, 8:22am

If you’re wondering how the robot-like march of the world’s politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed ”climategate,” it’s because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don’t give a s*** about ”the science.”

They never have.

What ”climategate” suggests is many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t either. Apparently they stifled their own doubts about recent global cooling not explained by their computer models, manipulated data, plotted ways to avoid releasing it under freedom of information laws and attacked fellow scientists and scientific journals for publishing even peer-reviewed literature of which they did not approve.

Now they and their media shills — who sneered that all who questioned their phony ”consensus” were despicable ”deniers,” the moral equivalent of those who deny the Holocaust — are the ones in denial about the enormity of the scandal enveloping them.

So they desperately try to portray it as the routine ”messy” business of science, lamely insisting, ”nothing to see here folks, move along.”

Before the Internet — which has given ordinary people a way to fight back against the received wisdom of so-called ”wise elites” — they might have gotten away with it.

But not now, as knowledgeable climate bloggers are advancing the story and forcing the co-opted mainstream media to cover a scandal most would rather ignore.

The problem, however, is those who hijacked science to predict a looming Armageddon unless we do exactly as they say, have already done their damage.

The moment they convinced politicians the way to avert the End of Days was to put a price on emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the unholy alliance of Big Government, Big Business and Big Green was forged.

Big Government wants more of your taxes. Big Business wants more of your income. Big Green wants you and your children to bow down to its agenda of enforced austerity.

What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power.

If it was about saving the planet, ”cap-and-trade” (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) — how Big Government, Big Business and Big Green ludicrously pretend we will ”fight” global warming and ”save the planet” — would have been consigned to the dust bin of history because it doesn’t work. We know it doesn’t work because Europe‘s five-year-old cap-and-trade market — the Emissions Trading Scheme — has done nothing to make the world cooler.

All it’s done is make hedge fund managers, speculators and Big Energy giddy with windfall profits, while making everyone else poorer by driving up the cost of energy, and thus of most goods and services, which need energy to be lighted, heated, cooled, grown, constructed, manufactured, produced and transported.

Readers often ask how they can fight back. First, forget about asking when the warmists will see reason. They won’t.

Instead, send a message to Prime Minister Stephen Harper by e-mail (pm@pm.gc.ca), fax (1-613-941-6900) or call toll-free (1-866-599-4999) and ask to be put through to the Office of the Prime Minister.

Do the same for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff by e-mail, (ignatm@parl.gc.ca). fax, (1-613-947-0310), or call-toll free (1-866-599-4999) and ask to be put through to the Liberal Leader’s Office.

Tell them you want no part of the madness in Copenhagen.

Blow their phones off the hook.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 15

26 november, 2009

As I wrote in my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 9

“Slowly, VERY SLOWLY at least some of the Global Warming Hysterics are BEGINNING to understand the scope of Climate Gate. But of course they still vehemently denies that this changes anything. One example below from The Guardian, one of the High Priests of this hysteria.”

Well, my respect for George Monbiot is growing. I don’t agree one iota with him or his “science”. And his role as a high priest in this religion.

But he’s honest when it comes to the consequences of Climate Gate. Even calling for the resignation of Jones. And demandig and end to secrecy.

That has my respect, regardless of everything else.

But of course he has to revert to the old tune of “skeptics” being bought by the oil industry, calling all of us liars etc.

Which is double hypocritical and ironic. Se my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 14

“But the REAL story as shown by these emails is that these guys REALY ARE IN BED WITH ALL THE BIG BUSNIESSES.  Receiving BIG MONEY and ACTIVLY PURSUING IT.”

And if there where manipulations, lies etc these emails show very clearly from which side it come.

Here in Sweden the so called “science editors” of the “news” papers DN and SVD (BOTH big promoters of the Global Warming Hysteria), aptly fit Monboits description “Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial.”

“When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.

I feel desperately sorry for him: he must be walking through hell. But there is no helping it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get. He has a few days left in which to make an honourable exit. Otherwise, like the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, he will linger on until his remaining credibility vanishes, inflicting continuing damage to climate science.”

“But the deniers’ campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.”

Article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away.

Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That’s why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science

Posted by  George Monbiot Wednesday 25 November 2009 17.23 GMT

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.

It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote ”I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.

Even so, his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the IPCC process is biased. However good the detailed explanations may be, most people aren’t going to follow or understand them. Jones’s statement, on the other hand, is stark and easy to grasp.

In this case you could argue that technically he has done nothing wrong. But a fat lot of good that will do. Think of the MPs’ expenses scandal: complaints about stolen data, denials and huffy responses achieved nothing at all. Most of the MPs could demonstrate that technically they were innocent: their expenses had been approved by the Commons office. It didn’t change public perceptions one jot. The only responses that have helped to restore public trust in Parliament are humility, openness and promises of reform.

When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.

I feel desperately sorry for him: he must be walking through hell. But there is no helping it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get. He has a few days left in which to make an honourable exit. Otherwise, like the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, he will linger on until his remaining credibility vanishes, inflicting continuing damage to climate science.

Some people say that I am romanticising science, that it is never as open and honest as the Popperian ideal. Perhaps. But I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.

The crisis has been exacerbated by the university’s handling of it, which has been a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond. RealClimate reports that ”We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.” In other words, the university knew what was coming three days before the story broke. As far as I can tell, it sat like a rabbit in the headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.

When the emails hit the news on Friday morning, the university appeared completely unprepared. There was no statement, no position, no one to interview. Reporters kept being fobbed off while CRU’s opponents landed blow upon blow on it. When a journalist I know finally managed to track down Phil Jones, he snapped ”no comment” and put down the phone. This response is generally taken by the media to mean ”guilty as charged”. When I got hold of him on Saturday, his answer was to send me a pdf called ”WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999”. Had I a couple of hours to spare I might have been able to work out what the heck this had to do with the current crisis, but he offered no explanation.

By then he should have been touring the TV studios for the past 36 hours, confronting his critics, making his case and apologising for his mistakes. Instead, he had disappeared off the face of the Earth. Now, far too late, he has given an interview to the Press Association, which has done nothing to change the story.

The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they’re up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.

The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore’s brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate scientists who look bad. By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed ”experts” to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan’s book The Heat Is On) are 100 times graver than anything contained in these emails.

But the deniers’ campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 14

26 november, 2009

Interesting isn’t it. The Global warming Hysterics always accuse every one that question their “science” or “facts” that they are in bed with the oil industry (which in their world seems to be the incarnation of the devil).

Because someone somewhere in the distant past received a small funding from an oil company.

But the REAL story as shown by these emails is that these guys REALY ARE IN BED WITH ALL THE BIG BUSNIESSES.  Receiving BIG MONEY and ACTIVLY PURSUING IT.

”I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measur[e]ments here in the UK — looking promising,” wrote Andrew Manning, a climate-science research fellow at the University of East Anglia,”

And that somehow is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

“The note and others like it reveal the intriguing relationship between industry giants like Siemens and the scientists driving climate change fears. More importantly, though, Manning’s e-mail shows the incentives of climate scientists: Convince people there is a climate disaster coming, get more money.

Manning and the warming crowd benefit from a beautiful feedback loop: The more governments, businesses, and media outlets you can convince that man-made global warming is a serious threat, the more these institutions will invest in climate change studies, solutions, and policies. And the more they invest in combating global warming — whether it’s a newspaper hiring a climate reporter, a company buying emissions credits and alternative energy sources, or a government building a climate lab — the less willing they are to tolerate dissent on the issue.”

“But Manning’s e-mail cannot be ignored, because it is self-evidently true. If the catastrophic-man-made-climate-change hypothesis melted down, these scientists would lose their funding.”

“Governments have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into climate research. News organizations have staked their credibility on the claim that climate science is ”settled.” With all this on the line for scientists, media, business, and government, are we really going to let some contrary data get in the way?

….but they do show that the industry built upon belief in man-made global warming has become too big to fail.”

 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Global-warming-industry-becomes-too-big-to-fail-8581165-72824992.html

Global warming industry becomes too big to fail

By: Timothy P. Carney, Examiner Columnist

November 25, 2009

”I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measur[e]ments here in the UK — looking promising,” wrote Andrew Manning, a climate-science research fellow at the University of East Anglia, ”so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases.”

Manning’s e-mail, written in October to a colleague at East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit, was one of the thousands of private communiques exposed to public view by a whistleblower or a hacker. The note and others like it reveal the intriguing relationship between industry giants like Siemens and the scientists driving climate change fears. More importantly, though, Manning’s e-mail shows the incentives of climate scientists: Convince people there is a climate disaster coming, get more money.

Manning and the warming crowd benefit from a beautiful feedback loop: The more governments, businesses, and media outlets you can convince that man-made global warming is a serious threat, the more these institutions will invest in climate change studies, solutions, and policies. And the more they invest in combating global warming — whether it’s a newspaper hiring a climate reporter, a company buying emissions credits and alternative energy sources, or a government building a climate lab — the less willing they are to tolerate dissent on the issue.

So the warming crowd, these e-mails show us, suffers from the same conflicts of interest and profit motives that are frequently attributed to skeptics. When Al Gore’s ”An Inconvenient Truth” came out, Gore charged that global warming deniers were trying to protect profits. Gore quoted fabled muckraker Upton Sinclair, ”It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it.”

Climate scientists derive both their sense of purpose and their paychecks from a perceived climate crisis. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, to see them putting their pet cause ahead of scientific standards. For instance, climate scientist Giorgio Filippo in a 2000 e-mail wrote about the drafting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s assessment of climate research: ”Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent, which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this.”

These are the scientists who drive climate policy.

Some critics writing about the leaked e-mails say they expose a ”fraud,” a ”hoax,” and a conspiracy. The warming crowd claim that everything is being taken out of context.

But Manning’s e-mail cannot be ignored, because it is self-evidently true. If the catastrophic-man-made-climate-change hypothesis melted down, these scientists would lose their funding.

Atlantic blogger Megan McArdle probably put it best: ”That doesn’t mean their paradigm is wrong; rather, it means we need to be less romantic about the practice of science. No scientific consensus is ever as powerful as its proponents claim, because no scientists are ever as perfect as we’d like to imagine.”

And scientists aren’t the only ones with skin in the game. Take manufacturing and transportation giant Siemens, for instance, whom Manning was wooing. In 2006, the company joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has been a key lobbyist for the sort of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade scheme at the heart of the climate bill currently before Congress. Siemens and other members of USCAP have invested billions in buying up greenhouse gas credits, alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, and carbon capture and sequestration (the attempt to trap CO2 underground). E-mails show CRU scientists pushing corporate donors to fund their climate science as a way of advancing carbon capture.

Governments have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into climate research. News organizations have staked their credibility on the claim that climate science is ”settled.” With all this on the line for scientists, media, business, and government, are we really going to let some contrary data get in the way?

The leaked e-mails don’t necessarily show a conspiracy, but they do show that the industry built upon belief in man-made global warming has become too big to fail.

 Timothy P. Carney, The Examiner’s lobbying editor

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

 

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 13

26 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. It’s about time.

”It is the warm-mongers who are spinning in the wrong direction. We win. You lose. Get a life.”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513195

The Day Global Warming Stood Still

Posted 11/20/2009 07:46 PM ET

Climate Change: As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.

It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.

The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate’s version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.

”I proudly declare 2009 as the ‘Year of the Skeptic,’ the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard,” Inhofe said to Boxer in a Senate speech. ”Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked.”

Inhofe added: ”Today I have been vindicated.”

The Ada (Oklahoma) Evening News quotes Inhofe: ”So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, ‘Yes. We’re going to pass a global warming bill,’ I will be able to stand up and say, ‘No, it’s over. Get a life. You lost. I won,'” Inhofe said.

Now we have the German publication Der Spiegel, which is rapidly becoming the house organ for climate hysteria, weighing in again with the sad news that the earth does not have a fever so we really don’t have to throw out the baby with the rising bath water.

In an article titled, ”Climatologists Baffled By Global Warming Time-Out,” author Gerald Traufetter leads off with the observation: ”Climatologists are baffled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.” They better figure it out, Der Spiegel warns, because ”billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.”

We are told in sad tones that ”not much is happening with global warming at the moment” and that ”it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.” But how can it be that the earth isn’t following all those computer models? Is the earth goddess Gaia herself a climate change ”denier”?

The article gloomily notes that a few weeks ago Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research pointed out that the earth had in fact only warmed 0.07 degree Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degree Celsius predicted by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

An even more inconvenient truth, according to the British experts, is that when their figures are adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Nino and La Nina, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degree Celsius. No, that’s not a typo.

As if that weren’t enough, it seems hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data.

While we don’t condone theft, the hacked data and e-mails have spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world’s leading climate change study centers, aren’t scientifically objective at all.

Indeed, in e-mails, they boast of twisting scientific data to suit their views and to ”hide” the truth. At one point, a scientist actually gloats over the death of global warming skeptic John L. Daly, saying, ”In an odd way, this is cheering news.”

If true, this is massive scientific fraud.

To add to the warm-mongers’ woes, patron saint Al Gore, the man who claimed to have invented the Internet, might also have claimed the discovery of Photoshop. Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, formerly with NASA, has taken a look at the pictures used to illustrate Gore’s new book, ”Our Choice: A Plan To Solve the Climate Crisis.”

Gore Photoshopped NASA imagery of the earth for the fold-out cover photo, adding four hurricanes at once, including one spinning in the wrong direction next to Florida and, in a physical impossibility, one on the equator next to Peru. Somewhere in the process, the island of Cuba was deleted.

It is the warm-mongers who are spinning in the wrong direction. We win. You lose. Get a life.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 12

26 november, 2009

Here are some very interesting words of professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis of the consequences for science of the climate gate.

“..that what I’ve been reading in the recently hacked and released confidential files from the CRU (aka “Climategate” documents) is not a surprise to me. Rather, and sadly, it verifies what I had suspected about some in the climate establishment.”

“One interesting lesson from this story is that secrecy is corruptible—and corruptive. The CRU people and their collaborators who wrote all these documents felt, no doubt, safe behind their secrecy. They must have felt that this secrecy was their best weapon: to censor differing opinions, to develop “trick” procedures, to “balance” the needs of IPCC, and even to “redefine” peer review.”

(He is professor of the National Technical University of Athens in Hydrology and Analysis of Hydrosystems; also professor of Hydraulics in the Hellenic Army’s Postgraduate School of Technical Education of Officers Engineers; Editor of Hydrological Sciences Journal; and member of the editorial boards of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences and Water Resources Research.

He has been awarded the Henry Darcy Medal 2009 by the European Geosciences Union for his outstanding contributions to the study of hydrometeorological variability and to water resources management.

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/dk/)

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/beware-saviors-by-demetris-koutsoyiannis/

November 24, 2009…7:00 am

Beware Saviors! By Demetris Koutsoyiannis

 Guest weblog by Demetris Koutsoyiannis (http://www.itia.ntua.gr/dk/)

Hydrological engineering is my scientific field and it is closely related to climate. In the last decade, I have been concerned about the state of research in climate and its detrimental influence on hydrology. Also, I should note up front that I try to be a skeptic; for a Greek, this is a positive quality (skeptic is etymologized from skepsis = thought). In recent years, I have tried to publish a few papers related to climate. Some of them were initially rejected, but eventually published elsewhere—usually in journals without a specific focus on climate. From the experience I gained through the review process of the rejected papers, I became more confident about the analyses I’d performed and the significance of the results I’d presented. I have not been surprised, therefore, to see that these once-rejected papers have become the most cited among my papers.

 Due to my skeptical inclination, I’ve had the feeling that my colleagues had serious doubts about my perspective. The common dogma is that “climate change is real” and its consequences are catastrophic, so why oppose those ideas and the people who arduously work to save the planet, and us, from catastrophes? I found it difficult to explain my convictions in a compelling manner. However, the explanation is actually simple and was formulated by my co-authors Alberto Montanari, Harry Lins, Tim Cohn, and myself in a recent paper criticizing the IPCC position on freshwater:

 “A common argument in favour of the political orientation of the IPCC is that its aims are good for humanity and the natural environment and that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases will be beneficial for the planet, regardless of the ultimate validity of the IPCC model predictions. However, we believe that science is a process for the pursuit of truth and that fidelity to this system should not be affected by other aims. History shows that such distractions can be detrimental to science.” (This paper can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1623/hysj.54.2.394 and a comment about it, as well as the IPCC authors’ reply, has been published on this weblog at http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/a-new-commentreply-on-the-subject-climate-hydrology-and-freshwater-towards-an-interactive-incorporation-of-hydrological-experience-into-climate-research/).

 Having had several negative experiences in my (rather indirect) interaction with mainstream “scientists” involved in “climate change” and “climate change impacts” (I put all these quotation marks because I believe that the latter terms are not scientific), I must say that what I’ve been reading in the recently hacked and released confidential files from the CRU (aka “Climategate” documents) is not a surprise to me. Rather, and sadly, it verifies what I had suspected about some in the climate establishment. I wonder if they take pride in seeing their own words—now in a public forum: 

I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=794).

 “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=419).

 “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”  (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=154).

 “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1048).

 “If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=544)

 “The skeptics appear to have staged a ‘coup’ at ‘Climate Research’ … Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
(http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=295).

 “It’s one thing to lose ‘Climate Research’. We can’t afford to lose GRL [Geophysical Research Letters]http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=484).

 I do not know how the majority of research scientists feel when reading these and similar quotations from those few people who—objectively—they’d viewed as the leaders in the “climate change” enterprise, and whose results and directions they were consistently following. Will they continue to recognize them as saviors? Saviors who wish “the climate change happen… regardless of the consequences”?  Moreover, how do the journal editors feel when they learn that the editorial process that they oversaw had been so effectively influenced by these few dominant people? I had my own experience with GRL: a paper co-authored by Alberto Montanari was rejected by the then (2006) editor (although it was eventually published in another AGU journal, Water Resources Research). This interesting story is described at http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/781/, where I have posted the entire prehistory. By the way, I continue to follow the same practice of posting the prehistory for all my initially rejected papers (http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/documents/?tags=rejected). I very much like transparency.

This brings me to the last point I wish to make: secrecy versus transparency. One interesting lesson from this story is that secrecy is corruptible—and corruptive. The CRU people and their collaborators who wrote all these documents felt, no doubt, safe behind their secrecy. They must have felt that this secrecy was their best weapon: to censor differing opinions, to develop “trick” procedures, to “balance” the needs of IPCC, and even to “redefine” peer review.

Unfortunately, current scientific ethics are based largely on the assumption of secrecy—as in the anonymity of reviews.  Apparently, as the CRU story highlights, secrecy is not safe. By analogy, how can one be sure that the archive containing the reviews of a journal (with reviewer names) will never be hacked and its contents released on the internet? Of course, there are also lots of other ways that secrecy gets (self-)destroyed. For example, it is often easy to find out who the anonymous reviewers of a paper are.

So, I hope that, as this story continues to unfold, it gives us pause to consider how secrecy and anonymity are non-productive and destructive practices in science. Indeed, through such consideration, we may come to realize that transparency forces us to be more productive and progressive in pursuing the truth—particularly in science.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 11

25 november, 2009

On this blog I have written extensively about press and mass media and their role in this the greatest scientific and political scandal of modern times.

The sad part about this Global Warming Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, the press and mass medias role in this.

More and more people have had enough of the religious gospel that most of the mainstream media is spreading. And their willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria.

AT THE SAME TIME AS THESE MEDIA HAVE TAKEN an ACTIVE PART in SUPPRESSING FACTS and IS CENSORING AND INTIMIDATING EVERYONE WHO HAS OPPOSED THIS HYSTERIA.

A truly “worthy” goal for the organizations and companies whose goals was supposed to protect and enhance freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Talking about the ultimate betrayal of all that good and independent journalism was supposed to be.

Below are two examples of this utter betrayal of journalism and the blatant hypocrisy from these “liberal” medias – TV news and New York Times. Who changes the “rules” as it suite their political needs.

And it’s no difference here in Sweden – the same “journalistic” shenanigan goes on. All in the name of spreading “the right” gospel.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox

ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)

November 24, 2009 – 11:03 ET  

The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.

Despite last Friday morning’s bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world’s leading global warming alarmists — many with direct ties to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.

LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.

By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:

  • ABC’s ”World News with Charles Gibson” Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
  • ABC’s ”World News with Charles Gibson” Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
  • CBS ”Evening News” Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
  • CBS ”Evening News” Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie ”New Moon”
  • CBS ”Evening News” Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
  • NBC ”Nightly News” Friday reported on Switzerland’s supercollider being turned back on
  • NBC ”Nightly News” Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
  • NBC ”Nightly News” Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle’s CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.

It’s not that these aren’t valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?

Also consider that the news divisions of ABC, CBS, and NBC broadcast many hours during the day besides their evening programs, and LexisNexis identified no ClimateGate reports in those either (through Monday).

As for CNN, it has been broadcasting for almost 100 straight hours since this story broke, and it appears the so-called ”Most Respected Name In News” has yet to devote one second to this scandal.

By contrast, Fox News did at least four reports on this subject on Monday alone. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has also done multiple stories on this matter, as has BBC.com.

Yet, despite the seriousness of this issue, as well as a prominent Senator calling for hearings to investigate it, America‘s television news organizations appear to be actively boycotting this growing controversy.

Is this a replay of how they ignored September’s ACORN scandal for many days until they were basically forced to cover what had gone viral across the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News?

What is it going to take for these so-called news outlets to begin sharing this subject with their viewers?

On a humorous related note, ABC might not be interested in ClimateGate, but it still is devoted to spreading climate fear.

On Tuesday, ABCNews.com’s top story was, ”Worse Than the Worst: Climate Report Says Even Most Dire Predictions Too Tame

There’s even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by 26 scientists from eight countries.

Sea level rise, ocean acidification and the rapid melting of massive ice sheets are among the significantly increased effects of human-induced global warming assessed in the survey, which also examines the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are causing the climate change.

”Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst-case projections” made three years ago by the world’s scientists, the new Copenhagen Diagnosis said.

Nor has manmade global warming slowed or paused, as some headlines have recently suggested, according to the report, which you can see here.

Well, at least ABC is consistent.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2009/11/24/bozell-column-when-press-favors-secrecy

Bozell Column: When the Press Favors Secrecy

By Brent Bozell November 24, 2009 – 23:33 ET 

Here’s a dirty little secret about The New York Times. It likes to leak things. Important things. Things that change the course of the public conversation. From the Pentagon Papers to the ruined terrorist-surveillance programs of the Bush era, the Times has routinely found that secrecy is a danger and sunlight is a disinfectant.

Until now. A troublesome hacker recently released e-mails going to and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, e-mails that exposed how the ”scientific experts” cited so often by the media on global warming display are guilty of crude political talk, attempts at censoring opponents, and twisting scientific data to support their policy agenda.

The e-mails prove just how dishonest this left-wing global warming agenda truly is. And now suddenly, the New York Times has found religion, and won’t publish these private e-mails. Environmental reporter Andrew Revkin, who’s more global warming lobbyist than reporter, quoted – sparsely – from the e-mails, but declared he would not post these texts on his ”Dot Earth” blog on the Times website: ”The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”

That rule didn’t apply to things like the disclosure of the SWIFT global bank monitoring program against terrorists.

Unlike our secret terror-fighting efforts, there is no grave matter of national security to protect here. There is only a danger of shredding the undeserved reputation of some global-warming alarmists as nonpartisan, nonideological, just-the-facts scientists with no preconceived environmentalist or statist agenda.

The networks also have ignored this emerging scandal with all the ignorance they could muster. But in the seven days after the New York Times revealed the existence of an NSA program to monitor communications to terrorist cells abroad, the three networks ran a combined 23 stories about the program, more than one story, per network, per night.

Revkin’s story in the Times did have some truncated quotes with ridiculous details. In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing apparent climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones of the CRU said he had used a ”trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to ”hide the decline” in temperatures.

Dr. Mann confirmed the e-mail was real, but told the Times ”the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem,” and not as something secret.

Doesn’t a network correspondent just smell the fraud when scientists start offering lame excuses for the words they somehow didn’t mean? Don’t just listen to conservatives. Try Nate Silver, a statistician and liberal-media favorite, recently named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People. He says the scientists in this exchange were unethical:

”Dr. Jones, talking candidly about sexing up a graph to make his conclusions more persuasive. This is not a good thing to do — I’d go so far as to call it unethical — and Jones deserves some of the loss of face that he will suffer.” But then he adds the typical liberal disclaimer: ”Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in both academia and the private sector — have you ever looked at the graphs in the annual report of a company which had a bad year? And it seems to happen all too often on both sides of the global warming debate.”

When conservatives are wrong, conservatives are wrong. When liberals are wrong, everyone does it, don’t you know?

It’s also important to note that these folks play a rough game of hardball. This isn’t about science. It’s politics – the brass-knuckles sort. In another e-mail from Jones to Mann, reported in The Washington Post, there’s talk of cutting skeptical scientists out of the official United Nations report: ”I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. ”Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal to reject the work of climate skeptics, perhaps with a boycott: ”Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. ”I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

This kind of censor-your-opponents activity ought to disgust a journalist who values openness and rigorous debate above all. Every day the networks avoid this story, they’re saying they don’t really care about either of those values. In fact, they become willing accomplices in a coverup of global proportions.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/11/24/tale-two-leaks-nyt-bashed-palin-wont-touch-climategate

A Tale of Two Leaks: NYT Bashed Palin, But Won’t Touch ClimateGate

By Lachlan Markay

November 24, 2009 – 12:41 ET

The ClimateGate email leak has demonstrated in full force a glaring double standard in the mainstream media’s coverage of leaked information. Too often, liberal media outlets jump at the chance to damage conservative figures by publishing sensitive information, but refuse to publish such information if it discredits or hinders the left’s efforts.

As Clay Waters reported yesterday, Andew Revkin, who writes for the New York Times’s Dot Earth blog, refused to publish emails from Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit showing efforts to manipulate climate data and marginalize global warming skeptics.

Said Revkin, ”The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”

Revkin is correct that the emails were never intended for the public eye, contained private communications, and were released by hackers who violated the law in obtaining them. But apparently this standard for publication of such documents does not apply to information about Sarah Palin.

The Times’s Caucus Blog reported on September 17 of last year:

Computer hackers broke into the private Yahoo e-mail account of Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, and posted some of her messages and a long list of contacts on the Internet.

The Web site Wikileaks posted screen shots of Ms. Palin’s inbox displaying her username, gov.palin@yahoo.com, and messages that were reportedly obtained by a group of hackers on Tuesday night.

The e-mails include an exchange between Ms. Palin and Alaska’s lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, as well as an associate, Amy McCorkell, who Ms. Palin appointed to a state drug and alcohol advisory board last year. Wired Magazine reported on its Internet privacy blog, Threat Level, that it obtained confirmation from Ms. McCorkell that she did, in fact, send the message to Governor Palin.

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign acknowledged the breach in a statement from campaign manager, Rick Davis: “This is a shocking invasion of the governor’s privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further comment.”

Governor Palin has faced criticism for reportedly using her private address to conduct government business.

When hackers posted screenshots of the then-Vice Presidential nominee on Wikileaks, the Times rushed to publish the information. It even included a link directly to a page displaying the screenshots, disclosing private communications and making available her personal email address and contact list. This is ”private information” in every sense of the term.

Guy Benson at National Review extrapolates that at the Times, ”it’s unacceptable to direct readers to hacked private emails that fundamentally disrupt a lefty meme-of-the-decade, but it’s totally cool to direct readers to hacked private emails of the lefty bete noire-of-the-year.”

Revkin’s statement displays a profound double standard in the Times’s reporting on leaked information. It managed, in the last sentence of the Caucus Blog post, to turn Palin’s email leak into an attack.

Yet in the case of the ClimateGate emails, which were obtained in a near-identical manner and contain similarly sensitive and personal communications, the Times suddenly finds ethical misgivings in publishing the information. The paper’s reservations appear to be a veiled attempt to shield the left’s global warming narrative from criticism. 

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 10

24 november, 2009

“These emails are very clear in several things. The scientists were deliberately changing, manipulating and deleting data. They were delivering data to computer modelers that were designed to give specific results, and were determined ahead of time.”

“The UN, the IPCC and all those who have been pushing this farce are borderline criminals bent upon robbing the American people along with the people of the world, all while lining their own pockets richly. Yes, that means you Al Gore and George Soros, both of whom have made hundreds of millions and an Academy Award off the scheme.”

Nothing more to say really.

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d24-Global-warming-corruption-and-unethical-scientists

Global warming, corruption, and unethical scientists

November 24, 11:11 AMPortland Civil Rights ExaminerDianna Cotter

In case you have not yet heard, the scientists behind the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have been exposed through their own email conversations. At this time, it is not known who or how the emails were obtained, though much speculation has been done. From the servers at the University of East Anglica in the UK being illegally broken into and hacked, to a whistle blower protected by UK laws as well as US laws, to an insider job, a person with legitimate access to the emails have all been discussed. More will be revealed certainly. What is known for certain is that the University of East Anglica and the CRU department there do not deny the authenticity of the emails.

These emails are very clear in several things. The scientists were deliberately changing, manipulating and deleting data. They were delivering data to computer modelers that were designed to give specific results, and were determined ahead of time. They were colluding to delete emails that were under Freedom Of Information Act laws in the UK, and were deliberately adding and removing data to make it appear that Global Warming was continuing, despite blatantly obvious data, temperature measurements, as well as worldwide growing ice sheets in order to continue the myth.

Why would they want to continue the myth?

1) To continue to receive funding from various government and environmental lobby sources. They even sent out emails telling everyone when funding was coming in and where from so that they could line up at the trough. It’s all about the money, and the money right now is for making Global Warming real, even though it most clearly isn’t.

2) To continue to back up the IPCC’s false claims of Global Warming in order to pass such Global Treaties as the Copenhagen treaty. Fortunately for the people of the world, it will absolutely fail this December. It was marked for failure before these emails were made public. Now it’s just that much more certain.

3) Numerous governments across Europe have enacted Cap and Trade schemes that have cost billions in lost GDP to nations like France and Great Britain. The scope of what has been quite literally robbed from the people of those nations is staggering – in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars. The economy of Great Britain is in shambles, and the people of those nations are suffering, their cost of living has gone up so fast that the poverty level has risen past the ability of their governments to write the welfare checks.

Their governments told them this was the best for climate, when in reality they were following pied pipers from the UN the IPCC and the East Anglica University and others who were all quite literally lying through their scientific degrees. All to justify a system of taxation that is nearly as bad as anything instituted during the middle ages – taking money from the people to fund the government class.

4) The entire point of the Copenhagen treaty was to use global cap and trade schemes to take money from 1st and 2nd world countries and give it to 3rd world nations as some sort of recompense for using Carbon, a naturally occurring element, as well as the single most common element on earth.

The single most amazing thing about this whole hoax is the numbers of people that actually bought into it. The amount of money that has been poured into this black hole of corruption is nothing short of astounding. Many people have known this and upon speaking out have been derided as nuts, deniers, ect. Well today is the day for all those who have been telling the truth to stand tall and bask in the glow of “I told you so.” The Global Warming Deniers were right all along. The IPCC data was not only wrong, but deliberately wrong.

The UN, the IPCC and all those who have been pushing this farce are borderline criminals bent upon robbing the American people along with the people of the world, all while lining their own pockets richly. Yes, that means you Al Gore and George Soros, both of whom have made hundreds of millions and an Academy Award off the scheme.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 9

24 november, 2009

Slowly, VERY SLOWLY at least some of the Global Warming Hysterics are BEGINNING to understand the scope of Climate Gate. But of course they still vehemently denies that this changes anything. One example below from The Guardian, one of the High Priests of this hysteria.

See also my previous posts on medias role in this hysteria.

Climate scientist, Dr. Hans von StorchProfessor at the Meteorological Institute in the University of Hamburg, gets it.

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/

24. November 2009 – The scandal around the stolen CRU-mails is rolling on; the interest, as documented by traffic on the internet is enormeous – and likely the damage done to the credibility of climate science by the unfortunate writing by Phil Jones and others as well. But inspite of this, one can interpret the whole affair also in positive way – namely that science was strong enough to overcome the various gatekeeping efforts, even it may take a few years. The self-correcting dynamics in science is robust and kicking. And the practice of allowing our adversaries to use our data (after a certain grace period) will become finally common.

We need to publically discuss the ethical norms, science is to operate under. Obviously, science can not define itself which these norms should be, but this is a task for society at large – who pays for the efforts and is looking for utility of science. The main guard to this respect is with the media – and it seems the media beginning to become serious, finally. An example is from Wall Street Journal – online. In Germany, journalists judge the affair more cavalier, e.g., in the Tagesspiegel.”

 The Guardian article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists

“It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is ”the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 8

24 november, 2009

More from the media and some important questions as yet unanswered by the Global Warming Hysteric crowd.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 7

24 november, 2009

More from the media and some important questions as yet unanswered by the Global Warming Hysteric crowd.

“The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud.”

“Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.”

Article here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/comments/

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Junk science exposed among climate-change believers

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the ”trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].”

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that ”scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ ” Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming ”to hide the decline.” Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann’s past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: ”If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and, ”We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): ”Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]?”

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: ”I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, ”I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails.” He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that ”IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on.” Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones’ institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it’s difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

We don’t condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain’s Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 6

24 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. And some of the media is catching on. It’s about time.

But most still continues to play the role of his master’s voice! (see my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 3) Betraying all that journalism is supposed to stand for!

”In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.”

Couldn’t agree more!

http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

NOVEMBER 24, 2009.

Global Warming With the Lid Off

The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.

‘The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to ”Mike.” Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU’s servers were hacked and messages among some of the world’s most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.

The ”two MMs” are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a ”unified” view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the ”common cause”; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to ”hide the decline” of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn’t have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: ”Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?” AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.

In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: ”[T]ry and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.”

When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn’t work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. ”The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we’re all using is this,” he wrote. ”IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren’t averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. ”I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal,” goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. ”Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

Mr. Mann’s main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

For the record, when we’ve asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he ”won’t dignify that question with a response.” Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he ”did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,” but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn’t to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann’s work, much less his right to remain silent.

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 5

24 november, 2009

“And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.”

“….with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.

At our expense, and at the expense of the truth.”

Well said about the biggest scientific and political scandal in modern time!

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/

Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)

The man who challenged Al Gore to a debate is furious about the content of the leaked CRU emails — and says why you should be, too.

November 23, 2009 – by Christopher Monckton

This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset — the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.

Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.

What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really.

No, they’re not. They’re criminals. With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute. But I won’t be holding my breath: In the police state that Britain has now sadly become, with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.

At our expense, and at the expense of the truth.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The EU Auditors have, for the 15th year in a row, refused to sign off the EU’s accounts owing to Fraud and Mismanagement in the budget

22 november, 2009

And here we go again! 15 years in a row – must be a world record of a sort.

And remember – This is our money they are misspending.

http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/here-we-go-again.html

Here we go again

The European Court of Auditors has, for the 15th year in a row, today refused to sign off the EU’s accounts.

EU anti-fraud Commissioner Siim Kallas anticipated this predicatable development in a piece on EUobserver yesterday in which he attempted to pin the blame for the mismanagement of EU funds on national governments and regional authorities.

(In classic Commission style, he also tried to ward off all critcism and shut down debate by getting in there first with the trademark ‘anti-EU’ jibe: ”some quarters will yet again use the report to promote their own anti-EU agendas, which have little or nothing to do with the report’s findings.”)

But, as we argue today in a new briefing, the problem is with the EU budget itself. It is dominated by two failing policies which even the current UK Government is essentially opposed to: the Common Agricultural Policy, and the so-called Structural Funds. The sheer size and complexity of these two top-down spending programmes means the EU’s budget is wide open to waste and mismanagement, regardless of whether the blame lays with the Commission or the member states. The budget therefore represents extremely bad value for taxpayers’ money.

Also, while mismanagement of the accounts continues to be problematic, arguably the most important issue is the fact that the EU budget is hugely wasteful and irrational in terms of what the money is actually spent on, and where the money is spent.

To illustrate this, we have today published a light-hearted list of 50 new examples of EU waste, which may make you smile and despair in equal measure.

50 new examples of EU waste

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/top50waste.pdf

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=126

Open Europe publishes 50 new examples of EU waste

10 November 2009

Today, the EU’s accountants – the European Court of Auditors (ECA) – have published their annual report on the EU’s budget. The ECA has refused to give the EU’s accounts a clean bill of health for the 15th year in a row, owing to fraud and mismanagement in the budget. Like last year, the auditors did sign off the Commission’s own accounts, saying that they accurately represented how much money was raised and spent.

Although the ECA’s report is about the management of the accounts, the occasion represents an opportunity to take stock of the EU budget as a whole. Because while mismanagement of the accounts continues to be problematic, arguably the most important issue is the fact that the EU budget is hugely wasteful and irrational in terms of what the money is actually spent on, and where the money is spent.

The budget is dominated by two failing policies which even the current UK Government is essentially opposed to: the Common Agricultural Policy, and the so-called Structural Funds. The sheer size and complexity of these two top-down spending programmes means the EU’s budget is wide open to waste and mismanagement, regardless of whether the blame lays with the Commission or the member states. The budget therefore represents extremely bad value for taxpayers’ money.

To illustrate this, Open Europe has produced a list of 50 new examples of EU waste. The list is by no means comprehensive, but designed to show the types of peculiar projects on which EU money has been wasted in the past. They give a light-hearted illustration of what is wrong with the EU budget, and the need for fundamental reform.

Open Europe Research Director Mats Persson said:

”The Commission tries to put the blame for fraud and waste on the member states, but the real problem is the EU budget itself. The EU’s spending programmes are overly complex, irrational and hopelessly out of date. Until they are subject to root-and-branch reforms, or scrapped altogether, waste and fraud will continue.”

”Too often, EU money is wasted on inefficient projects which are based on unrealistic expectations or for which there is no real demand. Because of the way the EU’s spending schemes are set up, bizarre or wasteful projects can receive funding which never would have received money if subject only to national spending priorities. Unfortunately, the focus of the EU budget is to get the money out of the door, not to spend the money wisely.”

“Surely, in a recession, we can think of better ways to spend £100 billon a year?”

To read Open Europe’s 50 new examples of EU waste see here:

www.openeurope.org.uk/research/top50waste.pdf

To read some background on the EU budget, please see below.

TOP 10 EXAMPLES OF EU WASTE

€173,000 for a luxury golf resort

€173,274 in EU funds were given to the luxury golf resort, Monte da Quinta Club, in the Algarve, Portugal,[1] where guests can choose between “the comfort of a villa with garden and private pool, or be dazzled by deluxe suites”.[2] There is also a luxury spa, health club, several restaurants and bars, shops and a hairdresser.

€2,500 for Chairman of Porsche’s hunting retreat

Wolfgang Porsche, supervisory board Chairman of Porsche, received €2,500 in EU rural development funds for a small estate in Bavaria, Germany, where he goes hunting in his free time.[3]

€100,000 for a luxury Spanish hotel chain

€99,877 in EU funds for 2009 alone were granted to Tils Curt, a chain of luxury restaurants and hotels across Spain, established in 1880. The funds were given as part of the Regional Development Fund.[4]

‘Donkeypedia’: the blogging donkey

As part of the EU’s €7 million ‘Year of Intercultural Dialogue’ initiative, the European Commission ran an art education project called “Donkeypedia”, in which a donkey travels through the Netherlands, and primary school children meet and greet the donkey. The aim of the project was “creating a reflection of all European identities. What are the similarities, what are the differences? What is it that makes Europe as unique as it is? Donkeypedia will try to make this feeling tangible by interacting and in dialogue with its surroundings while walking a European route through several countries and collecting data to support this image.” The donkey, named Asino, also maintained a blog throughout the walk. One entry reads: “We started really early today, Cristian slept in a bed in a house. It was a crazy morning waking up. I was under a chestnut tree sleeping in sand, when I opened my eyes there were animals all looking at me. I was embarrassed! Now I understand a little how people from different cultures may feel in the Netherlands.”[5]

€80,000 for a Swedish ‘virtual city’ in Second Life

In early 2008, Sweden’s third largest city, Malmo, was given an EU grant worth 800,000 Swedish kronor (€80,000), to create a virtual version of itself in “Second Life” ­- a virtual fantasy world inhabited by computer-generated residents. The project was an attempt to reach out to young people and envisioned some of Malmo’s most famous buildings – such as its library and university – to be mirrored in Second Life. In addition, the project included plans for a virtual “citizens’ office”, in which City officials could do their work and meet with those inhabitants of Malmö who were active in Second Life (the number of Malmo residents active on Second Life is thought to be very small).

In May 2009, Malmo was launched as a ‘virtual city’. By then, the budget had been busted – and the project had been subject to massive criticism, as Second Life was no longer regarded as the future of social media – particularly not amongst young people. One of the politicians involved in the project said: “Malmö wants to be at the forefront of IT, but we’re aware that Second Life is probably not at the absolute forefront anymore.” Joakim Jardenberg, of Swedish IT company Mindpark, added that he thought the project was a “bizarre joke” at first. “Second Life has never been particularly popular in Sweden. Facebook would have been a better tool”, he said. In March 2010 the project will be evaluated. If virtual Malmo does not have enough visitors by then, the project will be shut down.[6]

€850,000 for a ‘gender equal’ wood design centre

Local politicians in Orsa, a village of 5,000 inhabitants in Sweden, wanted a new wood ‘design centre’, describing the idea as “a catalyst and meeting place for all creative activities”. The project description stressed that “the building would clearly display a gender equality design.” The project won co-financing from the EU’s structural funds, which provided €850,000 of the €1.7 million that was budgeted for the project. However, when the funds ran out, the politicians decided to combine the wood design centre with the village’s other EU project, a wildlife centre, which had cost €3.2 million up to that point. The wildlife centre was in need of a spectacular new entrance hall – which became the wood centre. In their final report on the project the politicians confessed that the building had not necessarily promoted cultural events, but proudly emphasised that all parts of the building were “equally accessible regardless of gender.”[7]

€400,000 on a Marathon for a United Europe

In September 2008 the EU spent €400,000[8] on a “Marathon for a United Europe” for young people from across the EU. Among the aims for the three-day event in Greece was to “promote and support European citizen ideals.”[9] On the official website the Marathon is described as “a completely European event supporting in every way the harmonious and prosperous coexistence of young people under the EU umbrella.”[10]

The Swedish cannabis farmer

A Swedish farmer received around 2,000 kronor (€200) in subsides from the EU for land on which he grew cannabis plants. Selling the drug is illegal in Sweden, but growing the plant is allowed if it is used for “industrial” purposes – for example to produce robust nets – provided that the so-called THC dose in the plant is below 0.3%. The subsidy to the Swedish farmer was paid from the EU’s Single Farm Payment scheme, and the farmer had filled in all forms correctly. However, since farmers receive subsidies from this scheme irrespective of what they have grown on their land, there’s no obligation on the Swedish farmer to inform the authorities about what he actually intends to use the cannabis plants for.[11]

€400,000 to get children drawing portraits of each other in the name of European citizenship

“Alter Ego” is an art competition running in at least 22 EU countries. The aim of the project, which used €400,000 of EU funds[12], is to encourage young people aged 14 to 18 to “explore different and varied identities, by creating a double portrait” – a portrait of themselves and someone from a different cultural background[13]. The competition is intended to “Raise the awareness of all those living in the EU, in particular young people, of the importance of developing an active European citizenship.”[14]

€198,500 for EU puppet theatre network in the Baltics

In 2008, the Estonian State Puppet theatre received €198,500 in EU funds for a project with the Latvian State Puppet theatre and Vilnius puppet theatre, which aimed to “develop the cooperation between the puppetry masters and museology specialists with the EU in order to find new and innovative ways on how to archive the puppet performances and present the exhibits in the puppetry art museums; encourage the Baltic countries to take more actively part in the intercultural dialogue; encourage the creation of puppetry art museums in other European puppet theatres.”[15] This is not to be confused with the €105,996 EU grant the Estonian State Puppet Theatre received in 2006 “to explore the similarities and diversities within a range of European cultures and cultural expressions”, as reported in last year’s list of examples of EU waste.[16]

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1) For more information, please contact Mats Persson on 0044 207 197 2333 or 0044 779 94 606 91.

2) Open Europe is an independent think-tank calling for reform of the European Union. Its supporters include: Sir Stuart Rose, Executive Chairman, Marks and Spencer plc; Sir Crispin Davis, Former Chief Executive, Reed Elsevier Group plc; Sir David Lees, Chairman, Tate and Lyle plc; Sir Henry Keswick, Chairman, Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd; Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover KG, Life President, J Sainsbury plc; Sir John Egan, Chairman, Severn Trent plc and Lord Kalms of Edgware, President, DSG International plc; Hugh Sloane, Founder, Sloane Robinson.

For a full list, please click here: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/about-us/supporters.aspx

BACKGROUND

WHAT DID THE AUDITORS SAY IN THEIR REPORT ON THE 2008 EU BUDGET?

In its report on the 2008 EU budget, the ECA refused to sign off on how the money from the EU’s 2008 budget had been spent. While saying that the overall situation is improving, the Court noted that a number of spending areas in the budget are still “materially affected by errors”. These include the EU’s policies on cohesion; research, energy and transport; external aid and enlargement; and part of the agricultural programme.

However, the ECA gave an unqualified or clean opinion on the reliability of the 2008 EU accounts. This means that the Court considers the EU Commission’s accounts to present a fair and accurate picture of how much money was spent out of the EU budget.

The Court concluded that cohesion policy, or the Structural funds, which is the second largest spending area in the budget (representing almost a third of the budget), “remains problematic and is the area most affected by errors.” The Court estimated that at least 11 % of the total amount paid out in grants from the Structural Funds should not have been paid out in the first place.

Crucially, the auditors noted that “In many situations the errors are a consequence of too complex rules and regulations. Simplification, therefore, remains a priority.”

“Agriculture and natural resources” – part of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – was given a clean bill of health for the first time.

To read the ECA’s report, click here: http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/3258349.PDF

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE EU BUDGET

The EU budget is worth about €975 billion (£875 billion) between 2007-2013. According to the Treasury, the UK pays in almost £10 billion a year into the EU’s budget, on average (after the rebate), and gets back about £5.2 billion on average. Crucially, the UK’s net contribution will go from £3 billion in 2009-10 (gross contribution £7.6 billion) to £6.4 billion in 2011-12 (gross contribution £12 billion), according to the Treasury’s projection.[17]The UK is also the EU country that receives the least back from the budget per head.

Ultimate responsibility lies with the Commission

The EU Commission has consistently argued that responsibility for the mismanagement of the EU budget lies at the national level, not with itself, as 78 per cent of EU funds are distributed by member states in agricultural payments and structural funds. However, as the ECA made clear in this year’s report, “Responsibility for the legality and regularity of spending on Cohesion Policies starts in the Member States, but the Commission bears the ultimate responsibility for the correct implementation of the budget.” And in previous reports, the ECA has noted, ”Regardless of the method of implementation applied, the Commission bears the ultimate responsibility for the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts of the European Communities (Article 274 of the Treaty).”

No link between spending and need

Crucially, the link between spending and need in the EU budget is weak. Per head, the top three recipients of EU funds continue to be old member states – Luxembourg, Belgium and Greece. France continues to be the largest recipient of EU funds of any member state in absolute terms. France receives €89 billion from the EU between 2007-2013, compared to €46 billion for the UK.

The CAP is particularly bad in this respect. The CAP currently transfers money from the poorest member states to countries like France and Spain. For example, in 2004, the 10 new member states paid nearly €1 billion more into the CAP than they got out of it (€835 million).

KEY AREAS OF EU WASTE

Agriculture

· The EU spends some €54 billion a year on various types of farm subsidies (compared to €42 billion in 2001). In its opinion on the 2008 EU budget, the ECA signed off parts of the agricultural budget but stated that the “rural development” spending is still subject to errors. The ECA noted that 32 % of the transactions involving EU rural development funds were affected by error.

Even without the fraud and mismanagement, the CAP is a wasteful and distorting policy:

· According to an OECD estimate for 2006, the ”real” cost of the CAP is 125 bn euros a year, paid through higher prices and added taxes. The report also estimated that food in the EU is on average 20% above the world price, due to EU subsidies and tariffs.

· This hits the poor hardest because the bottom fifth of households in the UK spend 16% of their income on food – double the proportion spent by the richest fifth (7.5%)

· According to a 2005 report by Oxford Economic Forecasting, scrapping the CAP and reforming tariffs could make the bottom 10% of earners £437 a year per person better off.

· Since the introduction of the so-called Single Farm Payment a large part of CAP subsidies are now based on ”area” and have nothing to do with actual farming and production. As a consequence, a large number of non-farmers are now receiving subsidies. In recent years there has been a rash of stories about payments to golf clubs, various royalties, pony clubs and a number of large multinationals such as Coca-Cola.

· The real winners from the system are landowners, as subsidies allow owners of land and suppliers of inputs to put their prices up by an equivalent amount and so ”capture” the money spent on subsidies.

Structural Funds

· In its report, the ECA found that for the Structural Funds – which are worth around €45 billion a year 43% of the funded projects contained ”errors”. In terms of ”financial impact” the Court concluded that around 11%, of the total amount reimbursed to member states in 2008 should not have been reimbursed – the same share as last year.

Like the CAP, even without the notorious problems with fraud, the Structural Funds remain largely wasteful:

· The Structural Funds are aimed at creating jobs and boosting Europe’s competitiveness. In particular, the objective is to help poorer regions catch up with richer ones. However, there is no conclusive evidence that the Funds have had any positive economic impact. In fact, as the OECD has argued, the rate of ”convergence” in the EU is very slow – at the current rate of convergence it would take 170 years to halve divergence across the regions in the EU. (OECD 2007)

· The EU will spend close to 310 bn euros in 2007-2013 on the Structural Funds. Of this, only slightly more than 50% will go the new member states – the rest will be spent in the EU-15. (DG Regio 2006)

· Bizarrely, each region, no matter how rich, receives some sort of EU funding. For example, one of the richest regions in Germany, Lüneburg, was granted a staggering 900 million euros from the EU for the 2000-2006 financial period.

· Even within the regions, the funds are poorly targeted. Research by Open Europe found that as little as 10-30% of funds given to South East England were spent in the poorest one-fifth of areas.

· As the ECA has pointed out separately, the EU’s so-called N+2 rule (allocated funds must be paid out within two years or the money will be cancelled), encourages fast rather than wise spending. This has exacerbated problems with poor project selection.

· Even though regions now have significant autonomy in deciding which projects to select (they must select projects, or the funds will be cancelled), there are still restrictions on what they can spend the money on. For instance, national authorities are not allowed to spend funds on social housing.

Culture and citizenship projects

· The EU has a robust budget for promoting European culture and citizenship, particularly among young people. While this may on the face of it sound like a worthwhile way to spend money, it is clear from the EU’s many policy documents and project briefs that the underlying aim of culture and citizenship initiatives is to promote the idea of European integration and ‘ever closer union’.

· The EU makes millions of euros a year available in EU grants to all manner of projects intended to promote the EU and its policies in everything from schools to concert halls to cinemas, and even directly funds NGOs and organisations promoting European integration. This is an unacceptable use of taxpayers’ money, since it unfairly favours those who wish to see a more integrated EU at the expense of those who do not. Worse, it does not allow for a balanced debate about the future of Europe, and this is especially worrying when school children and young people are the targeted audience.

· In 2008 alone, the EU spent more than €2.4 billion promoting European integration and ‘ever closer union’ through a myriad of funding streams and through the various Commission departments – DG Culture, DG Education and Citizenship, and DG Communication. [18]

· For example, more than €34m was dedicated to “Fostering European Citizenship”, and a further €62m was spent on “Developing cultural cooperation in Europe.” The very candidly stated aim of this is to generate support and justification for European integration. As the 2006 decision on the “Europe for Citizens” policy notes: “The Treaty establishes citizenship of the Union… It is an important element in strengthening and safeguarding the process of European integration.”

· Likewise, the EU’s €400 million Culture Programme states that: “For citizens to give their full support to, and participate fully in, European integration, greater emphasis should be placed on their common cultural values and roots as a key element of their identity.”

· Many of the examples of this nature are included in our 50 top examples since they are simply bizarre, and it is very difficult to imagine how they could possibly represent value for taxpayers’ money.

· There is also the wider question about whether or not the EU should even have a budget for culture, citizenship, education and communication in the first place, since it has no democratic mandate to legislate in these areas. ——————————————————————————–

[1] Algarve regional development agency; http://www.ccdr-alg.pt/ccdr/parameters/ccdr-alg/files/File/upload//PO_Algarve_21/Projectos_Aprovados/Quadro_aprovacoes_webpage_emp_rev.pdf p.2

[2] See the club’s website here; http://www.mqclub.com/MQ.aspx?tabId=13&code=en

[3] TAZ, ‘Bayerische Promis streichen Agrarhilfen ein’, 4/8/2009; http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/print-archiv/printressorts/digi-artikel/?ressort=wu&dig=2009/08/04/a0076&cHash=0f03d0b936

[4] Andalucian Regional Government, Account of Operations by Beneficiary: Andalucian Operative Programme FEDER, September 2009; http://www.dgfc.sgpg.meh.es/aplweb/pdf/DescargasFondosComunitarios/(2104)AN1.pdf p.182; see also; http://www.tilscurt.com/

[5] http://www.donkeypedia.org/

[6] Tillväxtverket (Swedish managing authority for the structural funds), see ”Projektbanken”, http://projektbanken.tillvaxtverket.se/sb/d/1335/a/8133; Sydsvenskan, “Nu finns Malmö stad i Second life”, 10 May 2009, http://sydsvenskan.se/malmo/article430331/Nu-finns-Malmo-stad-i-Second-life.html : Sydsvenskan, “ Experterna gör tummen ner för Malmö stads satsning”, 6 May 2009, see http://sydsvenskan.se/malmo/article430333/Experterna-gor-tummen-ner-for-Malmo-stads-satsning.html

[7] Näringsliv och utvecklingskontoret, Orsa Kommun ”Slutrapport Designtorg Trä (W3041-991-02) 1 Januari 2003-30 september 2007, see http://www.projektbanken.z.lst.se/rapporter/Fil-200810311193.pdf ; Expressen, ” Björnkramar för miljoner”, 3 August 2009, see http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.1659350/bjornkramar-for-miljoner

[8] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/calls/docs/grants08dira.pdf

[9] http://www.britishcouncil.org/greece-sport-marathon-for-a-united-europe.htm

[10] http://marathonforaunitedeurope.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=92

[11] Aftonbladet, “Odlar cannabis med EU-bidrag”, 19 August 2009, see http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article3128434.ab

[12] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/calls/docs/grants08dira.pdf

[13] http://www.eunic-europe.eu/EUNIC-website/fileadmin/user_upload/Press_info/Alter_Ego.pdf

[14] http://www.pact-online.ro/aedi-en.php

[15]http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/culture/funding/2008/selection/documents/selection_strand_1_2_1_2008/selectionresults_strand1.2.12009.pdf

[16] See: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/top100waste.pdf

[17] See, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/european_community_finances_2009.pdf)

[18] For more see here: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/hardsell.pdf

Not a single climate model could simulate realistically key features of the Indian monsoon

22 november, 2009

As a complement to my posts on Climate Gate (se below). I have written extensively about the climate models. How uncertain and unreliable they are, how their parameters are “tweaked” to fit this Global Warming Hysteria, how a lot of the important natural forces and parameters that are involved in “creating” weather and climate are not included etc.

These climate models who cannot predict the weather 2 weeks from now, or how the weather was 2 weeks ago.

And these are the models they want us to believe that they can “predict” the temperature within a tenth of a degree in 100 YEARS!

And here is some more on their failures. In this case from India.

None of the multiple computer simulations used by a UN climate-change agency for assessments of global warming appears good enough to predict how India’s monsoon will behave, two Indian scientists have said.

The researchers examined 10 simulations of future climate scenarios used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and found none could reproduce correctly the behaviour of even 20th-century rainfall.

Not a single model could simulate realistically key features of the Indian monsoon such as maximum activity over the Bay of Bengal and the Northeast and along the west coast, and minimum activity over the northwest, the researchers said.”

Se my posts on climate models here:

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/klimatmodeller/

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091117/jsp/nation/story_11748791.jsp

Cold water on UN monsoon forecast models

G.S. MUDUR

New Delhi, Nov. 16: None of the multiple computer simulations used by a UN climate-change agency for assessments of global warming appears good enough to predict how India’s monsoon will behave, two Indian scientists have said.

The researchers examined 10 simulations of future climate scenarios used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and found none could reproduce correctly the behaviour of even 20th-century rainfall.

Not a single model could simulate realistically key features of the Indian monsoon such as maximum activity over the Bay of Bengal and the Northeast and along the west coast, and minimum activity over the northwest, the researchers said. They have presented their analysis in a review paper in Current Trends in Science, a publication of the Indian Academy of Sciences.

In attempts to assess impacts of global warming, the IPCC considered 17 models of how climate would evolve as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rose. Some models predict more rainfall over India, but with great uncertainty.

The models have very serious problems in simulating even 20th century monsoon patterns,” said Madhavan Rajeevan, a senior scientist at the National Atmospheric Research Laboratory, Tirupati, and a co-author of the paper.

When a model (computer simulation) cannot even show with reasonable accuracy monsoon behaviour in the past, there’s a big question mark over its ability to predict future patterns,” Rajeevan told The Telegraph.

Rajeevan and Ravi Nanjundiah, an atmospheric physicist at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, and co-author of the paper, studied the capabilities of the 10 “best-performing” models developed by climate scientists in Europe, Japan and North America, ignoring seven models whose performance was worse.

All 10 models predicted less rainfall over the atmospheric feature called continental tropical convergence zone -— the rain belt whose fluctuating positions over India determine where and how much rainfall will occur — than what had actually been observed. The models also failed to simulate the connection between Indian Ocean surface temperatures and rainfall.

But we have reason to believe that the monsoon is very sensitive to even slight changes in sea surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean region,” Rajeevan said.

The review paper comes within a week of India’s ministry of environment releasing a paper by an Indian glaciologist challenging suggestions from the IPCC that glaciers in the Himalayas are likely to disappear by 2035.

Vijay Raina, former deputy director-general of the Geological Survey of India, had, as reported by this newspaper last week, reviewed available data to argue that while Himalayan glaciers were melting, there was no evidence to suggest that global warming has enhanced this loss.

Atmospheric scientists say they are not surprised by the review on climate models.

“I also worry about climate change, but current predictions about how it may impact the Indian monsoon should be taken with a tonne of salt,” said Sulochana Gadgil, professor of atmospheric sciences at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, who has spent years analysing climate models.

A climate modelling specialist at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM), Pune, who had contributed to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, released in 2007, said that given the current state of knowledge of atmosphere and oceans, it would be “futile” to look for a single good model to predict the monsoon.

“The monsoon is among the most complex weather systems known —it is clear (that) all models get into trouble when trying to predict the monsoon,” said Kanikicharla Krishna Kumar, a senior scientist at the IITM.

All existing models have a major limitation. They fail to adequately take into account key terrain features that influence rainfall. Neither the Western Ghats nor the funnel-shaped hilly terrain of the Northeast is factored in these models.”

In a presentation at a conference organised by the environment and forests ministry last month, Kumar said his analysis of 48 climate simulations based on 22 models had revealed two patterns. About three-fourths of the simulations showed increased monsoon rainfall with global warming; the others showed reduced rainfall.

But the increase of 8 per cent was not statistically significant because it fell within the 10 per cent natural variability of the monsoon, Kumar said.

He said future attempts to predict the monsoon should be aimed at combining the results of multiple models, an ensemble that would allow scientists to correct inherent model errors and improve forecasts.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 4

22 november, 2009

Give this the biggest scientific and political scandal a name. Andrew Bolt want us to agree on a name and give a few suggestions. I prefer Climate Gate. It’s short and to the point.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/

comments/a_scandal_too_big_for_these_words

A scandal too big for these words

Andrew Bolt

Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 07:09am

We’re all struggling. What do we call this scandal?

It’s in fact a conspiracy of many of the world’s leading global warming scientists that involves massaging data, dodging scrutiny, hounding out sceptical editors, fudging figures, the possibly criminal destruction of data under FOI request, tax avoidance, gloating over a sceptic’s death, character assassination of sceptics. admissions of using “tricks” to “hide” inconvenient trends, farming grants, private admissions of grave doubts in their own public warming warnings, close collusion with green groups, the joint concocting of the most alarmist announcements and much more.

Whew. So your nominations, please:

– Climategate

– The Weathermen Conspiracy

– The Great Global Warming Swindle

– The Global Warming Conspiracy

– The Climate Conspiracy

– The CRU Conspiracy

– The Global Warming Scandal.

Help! Your own suggestion is probably going to be better.

UPDATE

On one thing, however, all should agree. This is not a case of “hacking” or “data theft” as several news outlets of the Left insist. This is whistleblowing, almost certainly by an insider.

UPDATE 2

Of the suggestions below, “The Weather Fakers” tickles me most. No apologies to Tim Flannery.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 3

21 november, 2009

And the press and mass media who have supported the greatest scientific and political scandal of modern times. AND taken an ACTIVE PART in suppressing facts and people opposing this hysteria. Continues to play the role of his master’s voice!

Betraying all that journalism is supposed to stand for!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/

Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 21st, 2009

Here’s what the Times has had to say on the subject:

E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

(Yep – definitely an improvement on their earlier, non-existent coverage; but not exactly pointing up the scandalousness of this scandal).

And the Independent:

(Yep. Nada)

And here’s how The New York Times (aka Pravda) reported it:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

(Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.)

And here’s how the Guardian has reported it:

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

(Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace).

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

Here’s the Washington Post:

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world’s foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

(Ah, so what the story is really about is ’skeptics’ causing trouble. Note how as high as the second par the researchers are allowed by the reporter to get in their insta-rebuttal, lest we get the impression that the scandal in any way reflects badly on them).

Here is the BBC:

E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

(Ah yes, another routine data-theft story so dully reported – “the police had been informed, he added” – that you can’t even be bothered to reach the end to find out what information was stolen).

Meanwhile, the Climategate scandal (and I do apologise for calling it that, but that’s how the internet works: you need obvious, instantly memorable, event-specific search terms) continues to set the Blogosphere ablaze.

For links to all the latest updates on this, I recommend Marc Morano’s invaluable Climate Depot site.

And if you want to read those potentially incriminating emails in full, go to An Elegant Chaos org where they have all been posted in searchable form.

Like the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal, this is the gift that goes on giving. It won’t, unfortunately, derail Copenhagen (too many vested interests involved) or cause any of our many political parties to start talking sense on “Climate change”. But what it does demonstrate is the growing level of public scepticism towards Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. That’s why, for example, this story is the single most read item on today’s Telegraph website.

What it also demonstrates – as my dear chum Dan Hannan so frequently and rightly argues – is the growing power of the Blogosphere and the decreasing relevance of the Mainstream Media (MSM).

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 2

21 november, 2009

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. It’s about time.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud

The Death Blow to Climate Science

By Dr. Tim Ball Saturday, November 21, 2009

Global WarmingChange is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate in particular.

Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”  He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”  The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.

 Total Control

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”

 You can download the climate change fraud documents from the link below:
http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009 or http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

 

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed

21 november, 2009

I have been saying all along that the Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the planet, it’s politics.  You can now read in black and white from one of the official promoters of this hysteria – East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and their Hadley CRU temperature series.

Read and be horrified of the state of officially sectioned “science” today. This is the truth behind this official hypocrisy and the lies they deliberately have been feeding us.

Feel free to go through all my posts and read it in the revelation of this “news”.

You can find all the emails and documents here:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

ClimateGate – Climate center’s server hacked revealing documents and emails

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate–Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails?cid=exrss-Climate-Change-Examiner

November 20, 7:27 AM

Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning.

Story recap & latest news: ClimateGate emails provide unwanted scrutiny of climate scientists

The electronic break in itself has been verified by the director of the research unit, Professor Phil Jones. He told Britain’s Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition ”It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

The file that has been making the rounds was initially brought to light by the website The Air Vent. The 61mb file contains thousands of documents and emails. As the archive was just discovered within the last 24 hours, its authenticity has not been determined and as such readers should cast a skeptical eye on the contents.  It should also be noted that it appears the emails were illegally obtained by whoever originally posted them. 

       File download: The archive is available on FileDropper.com here

At least one person that was included in some of the correspondence, Steve McIntyre of the website Climate Audit, verified the authenticity of at least some of the messages. McIntyre said, “Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine. It is really quite breathtaking.”

The contents of the archive contain documents and email correspondence from a veritable who’s who in climate science. Among those included in the emails are Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, his assistant, Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona, Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies and others.

The emails contain an array of discussions including what appear to be concerted efforts to withhold data. Just as troubling is conversations that allude to potentially manipulating climate data to “hide the decline” of temperatures seen in the last decade.

Some of the excerpts of emails within the archives (edited for brevity, emphasis added):

From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

From Nick McKay (modifying data):

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

From Michael Mann (truth doesn’t matter):
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to  the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t?  As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we  actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our  original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! …  The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act ! 

From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org – A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

If the emails and documents are a forgery, it would be an extremely large one that would likely have taken months to setup. No doubt much more will be coming out about these emails and their possible authenticity. Stay tuned to the Climate Change Examiner for updates as more information becomes available.

Update, 10:30am – Since the original publication of this article, the story is gaining steam and now the BBC is reporting on it. They report that a spokesman for the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), ”We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.”

Analysis of the emails and documents in the archives continues. We must stress that the authenticity has not been proven however there have been no denials of such by the climate center.  Some of the more recent revelations include:

From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

From Tom Wigley (data modification):

Phil, 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. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. 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? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

From  Thomas R Karl (witholding data) :

We should be able to  conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an ”audit” by Steven McIntyre;  without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.  In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I  am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research.  As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the ”derived” model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to  him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide  McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about  these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.  I will be consulting LLNL’s Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

From Phil Jones (forging of dates):

Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn’t appear to be in CC’s online first, but comes up if you search.  You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn’t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date!  Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

From a document titled ”jones-foiathoughts.doc” (witholding of data):

Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

From Mick Kelly (modifying data to hide cooling):

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Update, 3:45pm MDT: In regards to the authenticity, not one report disputing the veracity of the emails has come out. Many sources have talked to some of the email authors and they have not disputed the messages.

RealClimate, a website on which many of the scientists in the emails actively write has posted a response and does not deny their authenticity.

According to TIGF, a New Zealand new magazine, “The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.”

A spokesman for the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) told the BBC, “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.”

 Wired reports that Kevin Trenberth from NCAR “acknowledged the e-mail is genuine.”

Nature reports quotes Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University as saying, ”I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails.”

It would appear at this point that there is little doubt that the emails are authentic.  If they were not, the principle players would certainly have said so by now.

On the net:

Tom Nelson: Hadley hacked: Roundup with updates and hundreds of comments 

Herald-Sun (Australia): Hadley hacked: warmist conspiracy exposed?

the Air Vent: Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold

Watts Up With That? :Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

Gore Lied: From the hacked Hadley CRU files: IPCC lead author’s private admission: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’

Climate Audit: CRU Correspondence

 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

ClimateGate emails provide unwanted scrutiny of climate scientists

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d21-ClimateGate-emails-provide-unwanted-scrutiny-of-climate-scientists

November 21, 10:22 AM

As the contents of a hacked climate change unit’s server in Britain were exposed on the Internet Friday, the event had some of the scientists involved scrambling to explain their emails and skeptics believing they had found a smoking gun. On the surface, the emails seem to indicate scientists modified data to fit the anthropogenic global warming theory, tried to silence dissenting opinions and reflect a concerted effort to restrict access to climate data possibly by deleting it.

The emails and documents were illegally obtained from a server at Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia and then posted to a Russian server. From there, the file and its contents spread like wildfire across the Internet. Inside are over 1,000 emails and dozens of documents that detail private correspondence among some of the world’s top climate scientists.

A spokesman for the university said, “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.” Law enforcement is involved and is trying to track down the person responsible for leaking the emails. Speculation is high that it was an ‘inside job’ as the contents were all targeted toward the science and debate about manmade climate change.

       ClimateGate – Climate center’s server hacked revealing documents and emails

       Al Gore fuels climate change skeptics with cover of new book

Skeptics of the manmade climate change theory quickly poured over the messages and pointed to what the Australian Herald-Sun called “a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.” The emails point to a number of questionable actions by the scientists including the modification of data, destruction of data and evidence, collusion, admissions of errors in data and resistance to having their analysis scrutinized by outsiders.
 Emails from Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit, are arguably the most controversial. In multiple messages the director discusses his resistance to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests even alluding to destroying data rather than sharing it. In one message he says, “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” Jones apparently considered ways to stymie or limit FOIA requests by “removing station data” and “omit some other countries” because “it would annoy them [those requesting the data].”

Jones also exhorts his colleagues to delete email discussions saying in an email to Michael Mann, “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

The scientists also apparently struggled to account for the cooling the earth has seen over the last 10 years. One scientist, Mick Kelly, discussed giving a presentation and rather than include the cooling he said, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), was particularly frustrated by computer models that failed to predict the cooling. He said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

The scientists also did not approve of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its choices allowing opposing views to be heard. The group’s trade publication, Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) was targeted by Michael Mann as he wrote, “I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore.” He however acknowledged the publication’s importance saying, “We can’t afford to lose GRL.”

Mann seemed particularly concerned about a ‘contrarian’ with the name Saiers, presumably James Saiers of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences [where Saiers completed his PhD] that causes m some unease,” Mann wrote.

Tom Wigley, a senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at NCAR, felt though that they could deal with Saiers by getting him removed from the AGU. “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

Some have questioned the authenticity of the emails and documents with the university saying, “Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.” Realclimate.org, a website that oftentimes serves as a publicist for many of the scientists, said the messages were ‘possibly edited’ but was unable to cite any examples where that may have occurred.

None of the scientists whose emails were exposed have disputed the contents within the archive. Jones, did not dispute the authenticity of the messages in an interview with TGIF Edition. Kevin Trenberth told Wired that “the email is genuine.” Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University said, ”I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails.” Considering the incendiary nature of the emails one would expect those involved would have pointed out any messages that were illegitimate.

The discussion about climate change is at a fevered pitch and these emails and documents will likely damage the cause of those seeking to advance the manmade climate change theory. Those who doubt the theory have had great success this year in getting their voices heard and have been able to demonstrate that the ‘consensus’ in the scientific community on climate change is anything but.

The timing of their release is fortuitous for the skeptics as the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is set to begin next month. Hopes for a treaty from the conference had already been dashed with the UN willing to settle for a ‘political agreement’ rather than a binding agreement. The messages also could damage President Barack Obama’s hope for cap and trade legislation, something that has already come under fire.

On the net:

Searchable database of the CRU emails

ClimateDepot – Updated page of sources about ClimateGate

Climate Audit – CRU Correspondence

Tom Nelson – Hadley hacked: Roundup with updates and hundreds of comments 

the Air Vent – Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold

Watts Up With That? – Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

Herald-Sun – The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones#63704

The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones

Andrew Bolt

Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 12:19pm

These are the emails that should have Professor Phil Jones most worried about his future.

Jones, head of the CRU unit whose emails were leaked, has been under most fire so far over one email in particular in which he boasted of using a ‘“trick” to “hide the decline” that would have otherwise spoiled his graph showing temperatures soaring ever-upward.

But far more serious – at least in a legal sense – may be his apparent boasting of destroying data to stop sceptics from checking this alarmist work. If, as some emails suggest, he destroyed it to thwart FOI requests from Professor Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, who’d already exposed as fake the Michael Mann “hockey stick”, Jones, one of the most active of the IPCC lead authors, could even face criminal charges.

 (Note: in saying that, I should add that these emails may simply be poorly worded, out of context or even altered by the whistleblower who leaked them.  Jones may also not knowingly have done anything wrong, and there is no proof that he did anything against the law. UPDATE: Several updates on Jones below, including his “selfish” wish to see global warming “regardless of the consequences” just to be proved right.)

Whether laws were broken or not, the emails prove beyond doubt how resistant Jones and his colleagues were to having their work properly scrutinised by anyone not of their “team”. No wonder, perhaps, when the documents reveal Jones has so far attracted $25 million in grants.)

The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

Jones admits he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre – or anyone:

From: Phil Jones

To: santer1@XXXX

Subject: Re: A quick question

Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008

Ben,

Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!

Makes you wonder very strongly what Jones is trying to hide, doesn’t it? Also makes you laugh all over again at his claim once that the data being sought had, sadly, been … um, lost.

 In1212063122.txtm, Jones urges another colleague, Michael “Hockey Stick”, Mann, to join in the deleting – at least of emails about the IPCC’s controversial ARA report on man-made warming which Jones co-authored, and which claimed warming was “unequivocal” and “most likely” caused by humans:

From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil:

For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from the eyes of sceptics:


From: Phil Jones To:
mann@xxx.edu
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !

Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !

Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

Cheers

Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.

Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data, he considers ways to may checking it more difficult or annoying:

Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

But Jones figures a way out:

At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:

Mike, Ray, Caspar,

A couple of things – don’t pass on either…

2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this…

This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!

Cheers

Phil

Prof. Phil Jones

UPDATE

More from Don’t-Disclose Phil, who seems to have a like-minded acolyte in Melbourne’s own Bureau of Meterology warmist David Jones:

Email 1182255717.txt

Wei-Chyung and Tom,

The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?

Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.Nothing much else to say except:

1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit

.2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.

3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.

Cheers

Phil

Wow. Which sites may they be? And what does it say of David Jones that the reading of a single website renders you a non-person, whose inquiries must invariably be disregarded?

UPDATE 2

How impartial a scientist is Phil Jones? How open to evidence that he may be wrong? Gather from this confession to John Christy:

…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

Cheers, Phil

How typical for Jones to confuse “science” with “hypothesis”.

UPDATE 3

The attempts to stop the publication of papers by sceptics such as Chris de Freitas and Roger Pielke (sr?) are astonishing. This is how the image of consensus was forged – in both senses of the word: From Phil Jones to Michael

Mann, dated July 8, 2004:

The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

The trouble is the so many climate scientists and institutions are implicated in these emails, or are connected to those involved, that who is left in the scientific community to hold Jones and his mates to account? Who has even the will to strike against a high priest of the warming faith?

Yet from the reaction even at RealClimate, it seems even the faithful must now hold their nose.

UPDATE 4

It seems that Phil Jones’ request to his colleagues to delete emails followed an FOI request not from Steve McIntyre but from engineer David Holland. The following time-line (from Bishop Hill) of Holland’s FOI requests to Keith Briffa, a lead author of the IPCC’s key chapter 6 of ARA4, is especially damning:

May 5 – FOI request
May 6 – CRU Acknowledgement
June 3 – CRU Refusal Notice
June 4 – Holland Appeal
June 20 – CRU Rejection of Appeal

Fom the May 5 FOI request to the CRU, which employs Briffa:

Dear Mr Palmer,

Request for Information concerning the IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process

Drs Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn of your Climatic Research Unit served as lead authors on the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which by international agreement was required to be undertaken on an comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis.1 On 31 March 2008, I asked Dr Briffa for important specific information, not so far released, on his work as a lead author to which I have had no reply or acknowledgement, but have, through other FoI enquiries, been given a copy of his email dated 1 April 2008, to several other IPCC participants including Dr Philip Jones, and to which my letter was attached. He told his colleagues his response to me would be brief when he got round to it. Also included in the documents released to me is an email dated 14 March 2008 to Dr Briffa, among others, from Susan Solomon, Co-Chair of WGI, advising the addressees not to disclose information beyond that (which I consider inadequate) already in the public domain.

Accordingly, I hereby request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004:

But here, again, is CRU boss Phil Jones, just three weeks after David Holland’s FOI request:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

Prof. Phil Jones

UPDATE 5

No to disclosure to non-friends!:

From: Phil Jones
To: santer, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler

Ben,

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –

Ain’t peer reivew grand? You only get to be checked by the people you know will agree.  

Incidentally, where in FOI legislation does it say man-made warming sceptics are banned from using it?

  Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The New EU foreign minister – An undemocratic appointment to an undemocratic post created by an undemocratic treaty

20 november, 2009

A short but very succinct description of the Lisbon Treaty and what it really means for the common people.

And the background of the new EU foreign minister (the High Representative for Foreign Affairs). Here main qualification seems to have been here lack of diplomatic experience. And that she is a Labor Baroness (she worked with business to abolish inequality), and has never held an elected office before. As the Gerald Warner so aptly point out: “this serial appointee is custom-made for high EU office”.

As Peter Ludlow, the European Strategy Forum, a Brussels think-tank put it: ”She would be a first rate disaster”.

Or as a French official said: ”She has little experience and is a bizarre choice”.

But they always complain don’t they.

And as Andrew Duff, a Liberal Democrat MEP, described her ”reassuringly dull.”

European people – You have been forewarned.

Se my post about EEAS:

Den svenska utrikesförvaltningens död

Se also my other post on the Lisbon Treaty:

EU – The inner game and the Corruption that Cost £684 931,5 per hour EVERY hour EVERY day EVERY year. And is increasing

EU – The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable and unclear AND it can not be understood by ordinary citizens

Articles here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/danielhannan/6608253/A-President-of-Europe-When-did-we-ask-for-that.html

“A President of Europe? When did we ask for that?

One thing is clear about the new EU president, who will be named at a private dinner in Brussels: whoever it is, you won’t have had any say, says Daniel Hannan.

By Daniel Hannan

Published: 5:53PM GMT 19 Nov 2009

Who will it be? Who will emerge as the President of Europe, le plus grand de tous les fromages, the man who gets to snap his fingers and drawl ”Yo, Obama”?

One thing is clear: whoever it is, you won’t have had any say. Barack Obama got to be president of 300 million Americans after an exhaustive, and exhausting, series of primaries and ballots lasting over a year. By the end of that campaign, Americans knew exactly what they were getting. The man who will be president of 500 million Europeans, by contrast, will be selected at a private dinner in Brussels tonight.

In true EU style, the dinner will involve a lot of horse trading. Other jobs are in the frame, notably that of EU foreign minister. Balances must be struck: if one position goes to a large country, another will go to a small country. If Western Europe gets one prize, Eastern Europe will want another. If a Christian Democrat wins one plum, a Socialist can expect another.

And they are plums: quite apart from a largely tax-free salary of nearly quarter of a million pounds, you get 20 staff, a housing allowance, an entertainment allowance, a driver and a lifelong pension. No wonder that old freebiemeister Tony Blair was so interested – even if he is now out of the race.

In a sense, though, who gets the job matters less than the fact of its existence. When did you vote to create a President of Europe? When did you vote to give the EU a foreign minister, overseas embassies, a diplomatic corps? When did you vote to set up a pan-European system of criminal justice, complete with a European Public Prosecutor? All these things proposals are in the Lisbon Treaty, which comes into effect a week on Tuesday. Yet, despite the fact that all three British parties promised us a referendum on the treaty, we never got one.

How appropriate: an undemocratic appointment to an undemocratic post created by an undemocratic treaty.”

 

Herman Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton land top EU jobs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6609229/Herman-Van-Rompuy-and-Baroness-Ashton-land-top-EU-jobs.html

” The little-known Belgian federalist and the Labour peer who has never held elected office were selected at a meeting in Brussels.

EU leaders chose the Belgian prime minister as the first President of the European Council. Britain’s European Trade Commissioner was made the High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

The surprise combination emerged after Gordon Brown ended Tony Blair’s hopes of becoming president, abandoning his support for his successor and proposing Baroness Ashton for the foreign job instead.

The Prime Minister’s switch surprised European leaders, not least because of Baroness Ashton’s lack of diplomatic experience.

A former health authority chairwoman made a peer in 1999, she held a string of low-key ministerial posts until last year when she was sent to Brussels as an interim replacement for Lord Mandelson on his return to the Cabinet.

Mr Van Rompuy is a poetry-writing economist almost entirely unknown outside Belgium until he emerged as EU leaders’ choice for a president who could not possibly overshadow national leaders.

A staunch advocate of European integration, he has backed policies including a European-wide tax on all financial transactions to fund EU work.

The choice of two low-key candidates for the new posts reflected European leaders’ reluctance to transfer too much power to Brussels-based officials. Originally, the two jobs created by the Lisbon Treaty were intended to give the EU strong and unified voice in global affairs.

But Baroness Ashton’s lack of experience on the diplomatic stage was criticised last night. ”She would be a first rate disaster,” said Peter Ludlow, of the European Strategy Forum, a Brussels think-tank.

Andrew Duff, a Liberal Democrat MEP, described the peer as ”reassuringly dull.”

French diplomatic sources questioned Britain’s seriousness over proposing Baroness Ashton for Europe’s most senior foreign affairs post.

We think it is a British trick to point at Ashton while really preparing the ground for someone or something else,” said a French official. ”She has little experience and is a bizarre choice. It would be a sign that European diplomacy is downgraded to an economic policy post.”

British sources defended the nomination of Baroness Ashton, a Labour peer who has no formal diplomatic experience and has never won elected office. ”She is regarded by other European leaders as a very strong candidate,” said Mr Brown’s spokesman.

Another UK source said that by proposing her for the job, Mr Brown was ensuring the high representative could not be considered Europe’s foreign minister. The source said: ”This means the job is not a foreign minister job, it’s a job of co-ordinating policies among 27 members.”

Mr Brown had publicly campaigned for Mr Blair to take the presidency, but switched positions after European socialist leaders made clear they would not support the former premier.

As it became clear that the chances of a Blair presidency were declining, the Prime Minister made a decisive intervention and nominated Baroness Ashton,” Downing Street said.

But the demise of Mr Blair’s candidacy threatened to unleash some of the bitterness that marked his relationship with Mr Brown when the two men were in Government together.

Many diplomats in Brussels think that Mr Brown had not done everything he could to advance Mr Blair’s cause, considering the Prime Minister’s backing for his predecessor as half-hearted at best.

Anthony Seldon, Mr Blair’s biographer, said Mr Blair was ”disappointed” by what he saw as a lack of support for his candidacy in Britain.

The former Prime Minister has been left deeply ”disappointed that many of his friends in Europe, and a number of fellow countrymen, didn’t do more for his cause,” according to Dr Seldon.

A source close to Mr Brown insisted that he did everything he could for his predecessor. ”There is no question of being half-hearted,” the source said.

But one British Government source expressed irritation that Mr Blair persistently refused to declare himself a candidate for the post, apparently insisting that he would not seek the job but would accept it if it was offered to him.

The source said: ”If Tony had bothered to campaign, he might have had it, but he wouldn’t lower himself so we had to do it all for him.”

The end of Mr Blair’s presidential bid was major boost for Mr Van Rompuy. Before the dinner, his other main rival for the presidency, Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch Prime Minister, pulled out of the race and publicly declared ”I’m not a candidate”. The decision was made last night over a dinner of wild mushrooms, spiced sea bass and chocolate fondant.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6613112/Baroness-Ashton-ticks-all-the-right-EU-boxes.html

Baroness Ashton ticks all the right EU boxes

Just because you have never heard of her, that does not mean that Baroness Ashton, the new EU foreign minister, is negligible, says Gerald Warner.

Published: 9:44AM GMT 20 Nov 2009

Bang go the reputations of Metternich and Talleyrand. European diplomacy has a dynamic new exponent and it is none other than Baroness Ashton of Upholland (not, apparently, a derogatory remark made about the Netherlands No voters in their Lisbon Treaty referendum), the newly anointed High Representative for Foreign Affairs of the European Union.

And, wow, does this lady tick all the boxes. Just because you have never heard of her, that does not mean she is negligible. Hers is a CV to die for. Her first political office was as vice-chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; now she is in charge of European security policy. As Director of Business in the Community she worked with business to abolish inequality (that is why she is a baroness, unlike less equal people). From there she rose to global realpolitik, chairing Hertfordshire Health Authority, not to mention the board of governors of her children’s school.

After that, her career went stratospheric as she became successively Vice President of the National Council for One Parent Families (an iconic post, that), Leader of the House of Lords (thus successfully abolishing at least her own inequality) and UK European Commissioner in succession to the Grand Duke Mandy. She was also voted Politician of the Year by Stonewall, thus reinforcing her PC credentials. Now comes the final apotheosis, as successor to Richelieu, Bonaparte and Bismarck in shaping the destinies of Europe.

What’s not to like? From a Eurofederalist, right-on, PC, anti-Little Englander point of view? But the more discerning observers will already have noted the Baroness’s supreme qualification for Europower and endorsement by the elite: she is totally untainted by any experience of democratic election at any stage in her career – unless you are small-minded enough to count her coronation by EU leaders as a momentary brush with a miniscule ballot box. Horses for courses: this serial appointee is custom-made for high EU office.

450+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of ”Man-Made” Global Warming

15 november, 2009

Andrew at Popular Technology has compiled a list of Peer-Reviewed Papers that goes against the Gobal Warming Hysteria.

Remember the “science” is settled, there is nothing to discuss, “it’s completely immoral, even, to question now” (Gro Harlem Bruntland UN special envoy on climate change).

The whole list here:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Se also

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

Den svenska utrikesförvaltningens död

15 november, 2009

Den svenska utrikesförvaltningen (UD) är nu i praktiken “död” och begravd när nu Lissabonfördraget officiellt snart börjar gälla.

Den utveckling som tog sin början med Göran Perssons styre (1996-2006) där han med hjälp av Nuder och Danielsson plus statsrådsberedningen, AKTIVT arbetade för att degradera och sätta UD på ”plats”.  Allt för att göra UD till ett lydigt departement bland andra i regeringskansliet styrd av förvaltnings avdelningen.

Han ville bli av med alla dessa självständiga och kompetenta statstjänstemän/kvinnor som var ett hinder för den totala politisering av hela regeringskansliet som var hans strävan.

Den där gamla statsvetenskapliga modellen där regeringskansliet består av självständiga statstjänstemän som utför sina arbeten professionellt och utan partipolitiska bindningar, och några politiskt tillsatta personer i nyckelställning, är sedan läge död och begraven.

Hela regeringskansliet är nu i grunden GENOMPOLITISERAT NER TILL LÄGSTA NIVÅ.

Och den nuvarande borgerliga regeringen tog över detta utan att ändra något och har bara FORTSATT på denna linje.

Jag har alltid bedömt mina chefer (utrikesministrar) efter två mallar – dels hur de faktiskt sköter utrikespolitiken och dels hur de sköter departementet/myndigheten UD/UM

Och det är bara tyvärr att konstatera att Carl Bildt vad det gäller den senare frågan ÄR TOTALT OINTRESSERAD AV och har noll koll på vad som faktiskt händer på departementet och med dess personal.

Ej heller är han visat något som helst intresse för de kraftigt försämrade arbetsvillkoren, både ute och hemma. Och vi pratar här om allt från arbetsmiljö, godtycke i tjänstetillsättningar, extremt hård arbetsbelastning, urusel lön utom för chefernas gunstlingar etc. etc.

Som ett litet ex. kan tas de nya utlandsvillkoren UVA (som röstades igenom under den förra regeringen), som innebär att de utsända på våra ambassader, delegationer och konsulat FÖRLORAR mellan 7.000-25.000 kr I MÅNADEN NETTO i 91 % fallen.

Och vi pratar här OM DE FAKTISKA KOSTNADERNA för individen som det innebär att vara stationerad utomlands, och inte om någon tjusig representation under ”kristallkronorna”. 

Vilken annan arbetsgrupp skulle snällt finna sig i sådana försämringar? Om det vore ett privat företag så skulle LO slå på trummorna och ryta att detta var oacceptabelt och gå ut i strejkMen nu gäller det ju bara de tjänstemän som skall värna Sverige och vara vår spjutspetts utomlands så då är det tydligen inte så viktigt.

Med de nya villkoren så behandlas vi som den fattige kusinen från landet. Och vi behöver bara jämföra oss med våra nodiska granländer för att inse på vilken absolut bottennivå vi NU ligger.

För att nu inte tala om vi jämför oss med våra kollegor som jobbar åt svenska eller internationella företag utomlands.

Eller hemska tanke, om vi jämför oss med FN, EU och  det nya EEAS, IMF etc.

Men här kommer det fina i kråksången – UD anställda anses nämligen ”så värdefulla” att VI FÅR INTE STREJKA

Så här skrev jag för 2 ÅR SEDAN I mitt inlägg UD/RK: s lönepolitik:

”Föga anade man då vad som komma skulle. Jo, nog blev det individuell lönesättning alltid! Dvs. chefens gunstlingar och favoriter stack iväg som en raket vad det gäller löneutvecklingen. Däremot kärnan av duktiga medarbetare, framför allt sådana med lång erfarenhet och stor kompetens, och som alltid (dumt nog som det har visat sig) har ställt upp då det har behövts av en eller annan anledning.

Det är denna kärna av medarbetare som är ryggraden i all verksamhet i varje departement. De kan ”hantverket” utan och innan, lagar etc. och de är en grundförutsättning för den offentliga verksamhetens oförvitlighet. Kort sagt Sveriges fortlevnad som rättsstat.

Det är dessa personer som arbetsgivaren valt att inte belöna i den individuella lönesättningen förlovade land. Trofast förvisad om att de ändå lojalt kommet att ställa upp och därför behöver de inte ”belönas”.

Som lite kuriosa: I USA så finns det en federal etisk kod som gäller för alla statstjänstemän. Koden inleds med föreskriften, att ”Varje offentligt anställd skall sätta lojaliteten mot de högsta moraliska principer och landet före lojaliteten mot personer, parti eller myndigheter”. Någon motsvarande kod finns inte i Sverige. Utan här har det förutsatts, av hävd och gammal vana, att det är så statstjänstemän skall fungera. Det är med andra ord dessa kärnmedarbetare vi talar om och som utgör garanten för att det verkligen blir så.”

”Vi anses ju gubevars vara SÅ viktiga att vi har strejkförbud. Det märkliga är ju bara att om vi anses SÅ viktiga för samhällets funktion och överlevnad att vi måste ha strejkförbud (vi är en av de få yrkesgrupper som har det), varför har detta då inte synts eller markerats genom t.ex. våra löner och övriga arbetsvillkor??

Hittills har jag aldrig fått något bra svar av vår käre arbetsgivare, vare sig lokalt eller centralt.

Så ser situationen ut på det Utrikesdepartement som sägs utgöra en så viktig del av vårt värn av Sverige och våra relationer med omvärlden.”

Och situationen har bara blivit värre sedan dess.

Ex. det nya sjukvårdsförsäkringen utomlands, som mycket brådstörtat infördes utan förvarning den 27 april i år och skulle börja gälla den 1 maj. DVS. 3 DAGARS FÖRVARNING FÖR ETT HELT NYTT SJUKVÅRDS FÖRSÄKRINGSSYSTEM, där personalen kan få ligga ute med mycket stora sjukvårdskostnader innan de får ersättning.

Undrar hur svenska folket skulle reagera om reageringen plötsligt beslöt att slopa försäkringskassan och hela sjukvårdssystemet och införa ett helt nytt system 3 dagar senare? Och där man får betala sjukvårdskostnaderna direkt och kontant för att först LÅNGT senare få ersättning.

En vanlig svensk familj, där den ena partnern jobbar åt UD utomlands förutsätts alltså att ha en stor kontant buffert för att betala sina sjukvårdskostnader.

Intressant grepp av ”välfärdslandet” Sverige.  Vi är i praktiken tillbaks till det gamla ”feodala” UD där bara adel och rika borgare kunde jobba eftersom man inte fick någon riktig lön utan det var äran att få jobba där som räknades. Och man förväntades leva på sina tillgångar.

(Vid första världskrigets slut så var ca 50% av UD personal adliga, strax före andra världskriget var siffran omkring 30%).

Skillnaden numera är att det är en POLITISK adel som sitter på alla stolar samtidigt.

Och det här är inget ”gnäll” från champagnepimplande stroppar utan en beskrivning av TOTALT ORIMLIGA ARBETSVILLKOR för duktiga och kompetenta människor med familjer som valt att tjänstgöra i UD för att främja och ta till vara Sveriges intressen.

Och jodå, det finns inkompetenta personer på UD också, liksom över allt annars i Sverige.  Både på ”höga” och ”låga” positioner. Och där dessa personer har bidragit till denna förvrängda bild som råder om UD och arbetsvillkoren där. Vilket har fått till följd att mycket allvarlig kritik av arbetsmiljö och arbetsvillkor kan lätt avfärdas som ”tjafs” och ”gnäll” från privilegierade personer.

Och ingenting kan vara längre från sanningen. För att det finns några pellejönsar så skall inte en hel yrkeskår drabbas av fördomar och förakt.  Och där absurda arbetsvillkor och förhållanden (sett med vanliga svenska ögon) kan negligeras i trygg förevisning om att INGEN bryr sig.

Som någon så träffsäkert skrev: ”Bildt ägnar ingen uppmärksamhet åt den förvaltning, utrikesdepartementet, han är chef för. UD har istället blivit utrikesministern rundningsmärke”.

Jo, det finns faktiskt en person som har varit värre om någon undrar – Ola Ullsten (1979-82). Han var TOTALT ointresserad av ALLT som hade med departementet och den faktiska skötseln av myndigheten att göra och med ALLA dessa människor som arbetade där.

I EU:s nya utrikestjänst EEAS (the European External Action Service) så kommer antalet tjänster (och inflytandet) att fördelas mellan medlemsstaterna beroende delvis på fördelningsnyckeln till EU-budgeten. Sverige bidrar med ungefär 2,5-2,7% (varierar lite från år till år).

Det innebär att Sverige kan bidra med omkring 5-7 tjänstemän.

Och vilket inflytande kommer Sverige att få med dessa ca 2,6% när det finns drakar som Frankrike, Tyskland och Storbritannien som är vana att bestämma och få sin vilja igenom.

Tillkommer sedan alla halv och små drakar som Italien, Spanien, Polen etc.

Tror någon att EEAS kommer att tillvarata svenska intressen med de faktiska styrkeförhållanden som råder?

I Sveriges riksdag så måste man ha 4% för att överhuvudtaget komma in.

Kan någon nämna någon politisk församling (kommun, landsting, riksdag, partier etc.) där en grupp på ca 2,6 % har något som helst inflytande över någonting?

Än mindre har kommit in över spärrarna till dessa politiska organ?

Jag skall sluta här. Jag kunde fortsätta och ge ett otal exempel både ute och hemma på det som jag bara som hastigast har nämnt här ovan. Och mycket sorgset konstatera att den kompetenta personal och deras familjer som sägs utgöra ett första värn av Sverige (då vi numera inte har ett försvar som kan försvara Sveriges territorium), och sägs vara så viktiga för våra relationer och utrikeshandel, i många fall behandlas som skit.

Eller för att citera socialdemokraternas motion 2009/10:U340

”anför Socialdemokraterna att Sveriges representation utomlands är en viktig fråga för vår utrikes-, bistånds- och näringspolitik. Sverige måste ha en väl rustad utrikesförvaltning både på Utrikesdepartementet i Stockholm och på plats ute i världen för att kunna förstå politiska, ekonomiska och kulturella trender och för att kunna upprätthålla relationer som ligger till grund för samarbete på en mängd viktiga områden.”

http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/?nid=3324&doktyp=yttr&dok_id=GX05UU1y&rm=2009/10&bet=UU1y

Så näpet då att det var just sossarna som genomdrivit slaktandet av UD och försämringen av alla villkor främst på utlandssidan.

Hyckleri någon? Och förakt för hårt arbetande tjänstemän med familjer och deras levnadsvillkor under ofta svåra förhållanden utomlands.

Se även mina inlägg:

UD/RK: s lönepolitik

Sverige talar om för Världen hur den borde styras

Så här skriver några tidningar om det hela:

Nya utrikeschefen i EU får stor makt

http://www.dn.se/fordjupning/europa2009/nya-utrikeschefen-i-eu-far-stor-makt-1.982833

”Och dokumentet som DN tagit del av visar att den nya chefen för EU:s gemensamma utrikes- och säkerhetspolitik blir en tung och självständig maktspelare i Bryssel som styr över sin egen budget och sin egen personal.

Utrikestjänsten ”ska vara en avdelning av sui generis-karaktär (unik till sin karaktär), skild från kommissionen och rådssekretariatet. Den bör ha autonomi när det gäller sin administrativa budget och sin personalhantering”, heter det i dokumentet.

Varken EU-kommissionen eller EU-parlamentet får inflytande över denna nya maktbastion.”

Redesigning foreign policy

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/redesigning-foreign-policy/66221.aspx

“The Lisbon treaty will change the way the EU conducts its foreign policy, both on the top level and on the ground.

The Treaty of Lisbon will reshape the European Union’s institutional architecture for foreign policy from top to bottom. The top – a new-styled high representative for foreign affairs and security policy – is well-defined in the treaty. It is far better defined than the other senior position that the treaty creates, a president of the European Council.

The bottom – a new European diplomatic corps – is left in large part up to the new foreign policy chief, who early in his tenure is to propose to member states the details of its role and functioning.  Increased authority The Lisbon treaty hands the new high representative considerable authority. It adds the function of vice-president of the European Commission in charge of external relations to the existing portfolio of the current high representative, Javier Solana, who oversees the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) from the Council of Ministers secretariat.

He – or she – will also chair the monthly meetings of member states’ foreign ministers, replacing the foreign minister of the country holding the EU’s rotating presidency, the current arrangement.

Through this personal union of functions that are currently split between the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, the treaty aims to overcome some of the debilitating divisions between the two institutions that have hampered the EU’s foreign policy in past years. The development of the CFSP over the past ten years has outpaced the growth of co-ordination mechanisms in Brussels, although conditions on the ground often look less grim thanks to ad-hoc arrangements. The same applies to the EU’s military and civilian missions (13 at present, compared with none in 2002).

Double-hatting

The ‘double-hatting’ of the new high representative, which anchors the function both in the Commission and the Council of Ministers, is designed to address a problem that became evident years ago – a lack of strategic coherence between foreign policies driven by the Commission and by the member states.

In theory, the division between the two services is straightforward. The Commission handles routine policies towards third countries – enlargement, neighbourhood relations, trade, development assistance, humanitarian aid and so forth – while the high representative deals with security challenges, especially those that require a crisis response.

In practice, the two have frequently been at odds over who should do what, both in the field and at the policy-making level. Bernard Kouchner, France’s foreign minister, restated the problem before the French National Assembly last week (14 October) when he told parliamentarians that the EU’s activities in Afghanistan were “too dispersed between the Commission, the EU’s special representative and member states”. This, Kouchner said, prevented the EU from exercising its political leadership. “The Treaty of Lisbon,” he concluded, “will help us take our rightful place.”

Autonomous external service

At the local level, trial-runs of double-hatting have been undertaken in Macedonia and towards the African Union. These pilot projects are perhaps best seen as a precursor of the Lisbon treaty’s other main innovation in foreign policy – the European External Action Service (EEAS). The new service, which is to be set up as a body with autonomy from both the Council and the Commission, is to “assist” the high representative in fulfilling his mandate, according to the treaty, and is to draw its staff from member states, the Council and Commission. The main outlines of the EEAS are currently being debated. Its scope, status, financing and staffing are all up for negotiation because of the Lisbon treaty’s vagueness. The travails of ratifying the treaty led to an unhelpful secrecy about anything to do with the EEAS – policymakers in Brussels did not want to be perceived as taking ratification of the treaty for granted, for fear of alienating those in Ireland who were yet to vote in a second referendum.

After the Irish ‘Yes’ vote, some of this secrecy has now been lifted and the EU is now trying to make up for lost time and get the EEAS up and running. But the sense of haste and improvisation is less than ideal for laying the foundations of the EU’s new foreign policy. “

Smoothing the road from Nice to Lisbon

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/smoothing-the-road-from-nice-to-lisbon/66393.aspx

“Foreign policy

Member states’ security ambassadors, who meet in the Political and Security Committee (PSC), will meet under the chairmanship of a representative of the foreign policy chief, that is, a senior official of the European External Action Service (EEAS), the EU’s diplomat corps established under Lisbon.

The remit of the EEAS, whose exact set-up will be proposed by the high representative within a month of taking office and endorsed by EU leaders by next April, appears to have determined member states’ agreement, reached last month, on who should be in charge of which working groups. Nearly 40 working groups in the field of external relations prepare the Council’s work.

Member states have agreed that working groups in the field of trade and development will continue to be chaired by the EU’s rotating presidency, together with a few other groups including those on terrorism, international law and consular affairs.

By contrast, working groups on geographic areas, on most thematic areas such as non-proliferation or human rights, and on matters of security and defence will be chaired by an EEAS official representing the foreign policy chief. Even this second group of working parties, however, will continue to be chaired by the rotating presidency for a transition period – yet to be determined – of either six or 12 months.

The rules of procedure of the Council of Ministers will need to be adapted to reflect these changes.”

Se även

http://www.dn.se/fordjupning/europa2009/tva-nya-viktiga-poster-i-bryssel-1.982831

http://europaportalen.se/print_page.php?compID=1&newsID=45647&page=18001&preview=article&print=true&more=2

Se även mina inlägg om Lissabonfördraget:

EU – The inner game and the Corruption that Cost £684 931,5 per hour EVERY hour EVERY day EVERY year. And is increasing

EU – The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable and unclear AND it can not be understood by ordinary citizens

EU, Lissabonfördraget och den ”NYA” övervaknings stormakten

varning-2

Temperature in USA is now 2009 the same as in 1895

10 november, 2009

As a complement to my posts:

Global Warming Appetizer – October 2009 3rd Coldest for US in 115 Years

Global Warming Appetizer – Coldest October in many years and record snow Part 2

Global Warming Appetizer – Coldest October in many years and record snow

I here provide you with the graphs of the last 3 months, 6 months and the last year.

If you lock at the 3 month graph you see that it is over one degree under the 1901-2009 average. 

2009-11-10_3 months

For the 6 month graph you see that it is half a degree under the 1901-2009 average.

2009-11-10_6 months

And for the one year graph it is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE AVERAGE FOR 1901-2009.

The temperature now in 2009 is the same as it was in 1895.

That is what I call “Global Warming” or more appropriately Global Warming Hysteria.

2009-11-10_1year

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

Carbon Trading – A medieval pardon that is corrupt and inefficient 2

9 november, 2009

More on the same as in my last two posts.

The Carbon Con Game

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1102/opinions-china-carbon-greenhouse-gas-insights.html

Insights

The Carbon Con Game

Peter Huber, 11.02.09, 12:00 AM ET

China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas on the planet. We burn more carbon per person, but China has more people, and both its population and economy are growing much faster than ours. For many members of Congress, a vote for strict carbon limits will be politically suicidal if constituents continue to believe–correctly–that the vote will propel a massive shift of jobs, wealth and emissions from Peoria to Beijing. So in the coming months watch out for brazenly false claims that China is blazing the green trail, and getting richer by doing so, and that to compete we must outgreen them. China is of course delighted to jigger numbers to help frame the story.

”China attaches great importance to tackling climate change,” China’s climate commissar recently declared. The Middle Kingdom therefore promises to lower its energy consumption per unit of GDP. Translation: ”We promise to get richer.” Energy consumption per unit of GDP always falls as a country gets richer. The poorest countries in Africa spend 100% of their GDP on food, the most primitive form of energy. Bill Gates, on the other hand, has the lowest energy consumption per unit of household GDP on the planet. Carbon emissions per unit of GDP follow the same trajectory. China’s are about twice as high as ours, Africa‘s three times as high. The global climate, however, doesn’t care a fig about hyphenated emissions, whether per capita, per dollar or per unit of sly political prevarication.

”China also sets an objective of increasing the proportion of renewable energy in the primary energy mix to 10% by 2010, and to 15% by 2020.” Translation: ”We’ll keep on burning the stuff that poor people burn until we get rich.” Biomass accounts for 10% of the global energy supply but less than 4% in the developed world and closer to 2% in the U.S. The poor always burn more carbohydrates, fewer hydrocarbons. Calling something ”renewable” doesn’t mean that it saves carbon. Agriculture, forestry and deforestation already cost the planet more than twice as much in carbon equivalents as transportation–over 30% of all emissions. Since nobody can track how many twigs, cowpats and rice husks a billion peasants burn–or alternatively, leave to fungi to convert into methane, a powerful greenhouse gas–China‘s carbon accountants can make its renewable numbers come out anywhere they like.

China is proud to report that it has been shutting down ”small thermal power-generation units.” Translation: ”We’re replacing diesel generators with big coal-fired power plants.” Big, central power plants burn much cheaper fuel much more efficiently, and therefore generate much cheaper power, and therefore boost energy consumption, emissions and GDP even faster.

China touts its new wind, hydroelectric and nuclear capacity. Translation: ”China‘s energy policy is–and will remain–solidly anchored in coal.” The word ”capacity” next to ”wind” misleads by a factor of five or so, because much of the time the wind doesn’t blow. China’s nuclear plants and its gargantuan hydroelectric dams will indeed make a real dent in the carbon intensity of its energy supply. But mushrooming coal consumption will utterly swamp the savings for as long as anyone can possibly foresee.

China says it ”has increased its carbon sinks by promoting reforestation.” Translation: ”Your sinks don’t count.” North America has been reforesting since 1920, and continues to do so. So fast, in fact, that we’re currently sucking about two-thirds of our carbon emissions back into our forests and soil. Europe and Japan hate all such talk, at least when it’s America that’s talking, because we have lots of land to reforest and they don’t. U.S. greens do their best not to talk about it too, because–well, it gets in the way of other agendas.

China says because it’s poor and we’re rich, we must slash our emissions–absolute emissions, not the per-GDP kind–by 25% to 40% in the next decade, and also pay China and other developing countries in both cash and technology transfers to help them curb theirs. Translation: ”You’re responsible for our sorry past.”

Agricultural footprints shrink, forests recover and birth rates decline as people get richer. Our 19th-century birth rates were as high as China’s and India’s were through most of the 20th. Their huge, impoverished populations reflect economic and political choices that stifled economic growth in their countries during the century when we got rich, stabilized our populations, reforested our land and dispatched would-be global tyrants to the dustbin of history. China, not America, is responsible for the economic and demographic legacies of Puyi, Yuan, Sun, Chiang and Mao.

Peter Huber is a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute and coauthor of The Bottomless Well (Basic Books, January 2005).

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

Carbon Trading – A medieval pardon that is corrupt and inefficient

9 november, 2009

I am very happy to notice that some of the so called ”green movement” finally have wakened up to the giant scam called carbon trading. And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAM that puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

As I wrote in my post World’s Largest Auditor of Clean-Energy projects was suspended by UN inspectors because they had NO qualifications and did NO vetting:

 “The never ending story of the giant swindle that’s called cap and trade, carbon trading, CDM etc continuous with ever more revelations of the blatant corruption in the system.

As I have said in many of my posts: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.

The latest episode of “The Sopranos” is the news that the BIGGEST company that is supposed to do the vetting, verifying and checking of the projects BEFORE THEIR APPROVAL is now suspended by it’s UN masters.

As it turns out (surprise, surprise) the staff of SGS lacks skills, knowledge and where under “external influence”.

And these guys spends billions of $ of our tax money”

See also my last post:

 How They, the Politicians, Are Turning Off the Lights in America AND Europe

Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!

An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!

Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter! – U.N. Effort To Curtail Emissions In Turmoil

Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter! – UP IN SMOKE Two Carbon-Market Millionaires Take a Hit as U.N. Clamps Down

Global Warming Hysteria – It’s all about the money, YOUR money

Europe finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.

A CO2 graph that says it all!

The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK!

$ 2,9 Biljoner i sänkt BNP för en sänkning av CO2 på 25 ppm!

See  “Sustainability” and Carbon Taxes runs amok in my town for all my posts on carbon tax and its effect on America.

See all my posts on Carbon Trading here:

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/carbon-trading/

Friends of the Earth attacks carbon trading

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/05/friends-of-the-earth-attacks-carbon-trading

Friends of the Earth attacks carbon trading

An FoE report says ‘cap and trade’ carbon markets have done little to reduce emissions but have been plagued by corruption and inefficiency

Ashley Seager The Guardian, Thursday 5 November 2009

The world’s carbon trading markets growing complexity threatens another ”sub-prime” style financial crisis that could again destabilise the global economy, campaigners warn today.

In a new report, Friends of the Earth says that to date ”cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions but have been plagued by inefficiency and corruption that render them unfit for purpose.

As the world heads towards the Copenhagen climate summit, Britain and other developed countries want to see carbon trading expanded worldwide. The carbon market, mainly based in Europe, was worth $126bn in 2008 and is predicted to mushroom to $3.1tn by 2020 if a global carbon market takes off.

However, FoE fears that the area has been hijacked by speculators on the financial markets. Sarah-Jayne Clifton, the report’s author, said: ”The majority of the trade is carried out not between polluting industries and factories covered by carbon trading schemes, but by banks and investors who profit from speculation on the carbon markets – packaging carbon credits into increasingly complex financial products similar to the ‘shadow finance’ around sub-prime mortgages which triggered the recent economic crash.”

The FoE claims that the first phase of the European emissions trading scheme between 2005 and 2007 failed. And the second phase, from 2008-2012, is likely to fail too, it said. FoE is calling on governments to use more reliable instruments such as carbon taxes, which are harder to avoid and can be effective at changing people’s behaviour and reducing emissions.

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ”We agree that domestic action by developed countries as well as public finance is essential to meet the challenge of climate change and … the UK is going all-out to get an ambitious, fair and effective deal.

”But carbon trading can also play a role, making it far more likely that we tackle dangerous climate change, get cost-effective emissions reductions and get money to the poorest countries of the world.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

Ethical travel company drops carbon offsetting

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/ethical-travel-company-drops-carbon-offsetting-1816554.html

Ethical travel company drops carbon offsetting

Critics say the scheme merely permits people to continue polluting

By Jerome Taylor Saturday, 7 November 2009

One of Britain’s leading ethical travel operators has launched a scathing attack on the carbon offset industry and has decided to stop offering offsets to its customers as a way of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Justin Francis, the founder of responsibletravel.com, said he had decided to abandon offsets because he believes they have become a ”medieval pardon that allows people to continue polluting”.

In 2002 his company became one of the first British travel operators to begin offering customers the opportunity to buy into an offsetting scheme. By paying money to a third party operator that ran carbon-reducing projects in the developing world, holidaymakers could jump on board flights supposedly happy in the knowledge that any carbon dioxide released during their journey would eventually be reduced by the equivalent amount somewhere else.

Supporters of the scheme, which has now become a multibillion pound industry, say it is a vital way of quickly reducing the world’s carbon emissions and combating climate change. But a growing number of critics say it is simply a way for people and businesses in the developed world to buy their way out of a problem without actually committing themselves to reductions in their own emissions. After years of falling into the former camp, Mr Francis has now joined the growing number of offset critics.

”Carbon offsetting is an ingenious way to avoid genuinely reducing your carbon emissions,” he said yesterday. ”It’s a very attractive idea – that you can go on living exactly as you did before when there’s a magic pill or medieval pardon out there that allows people to continue polluting.”

As some of the top polluters, the aviation and travel industries have been keen to promote carbon offsetting to their customers. Until a fortnight ago responsibletravel.com used Climate Care, a major offsetting company which was recently acquired by the investment bank JP Morgan. But Mr Francis said he became increasingly uneasy about the way the travel industry was using carbon offsets and pulled his company out of the scheme.

He added: ”It was not an easy decision. It would have been much easier for me to go on blithely offering offsets, keeping my head below the parapet. But ultimately we need to reduce our carbon emissions. We can do this by flying less – travelling by train or taking holidays closer to home for example, and by making carbon reductions in other areas of our lifestyles too.” His decision, however, has been criticised by carbon offset companies who are adamant that buying carbon credits does lead to a tangible reduction in greenhouse gases.

Climate Care did not comment yesterday but James Ramsay, the commercial director of another offsetting firm, Carbon Clear, said: ”If you are going to take the view that offsets don’t work then presumably you just stop there. But the trajectory that we’ve got to achieve for climate change doesn’t give us the luxury of time. Waiting for, say, the aviation or travel industry to reduce its emissions leaves us way behind the trajectory of achieving 80 percent cuts in global carbon emissions by 2050.”

Carbon offsetting is something that has always divided the environmental movement. It was quickly transformed from a minor experimental idea into a multimillion-pound carbon market. Europe’s carbon market alone is now worth £81bn and is expected to account for at least half of the European Union’s carbon reductions to 2020.

Responsibletravel.com say they will now attach ”carbon warnings” to their holiday packages detailing the damage done to the environment by a flight, just as cigarette packets warn of the hazards of smoking. ”What we have to do is offer holidays that are the most beneficial to the environment,” Mr Francis said. ”What we have to tell people is: ‘Fly less and when you do fly, make it count’.”

A multibillion-pound industry: The cost of a clear conscience

What do some of the major offset companies charge for offsetting a return flight from London to Sydney for two people?

*Climate Care: 11.23 tonnes of CO2 which costs £98.03 to offset.

*Carbon Clear: 2.82 tonnes of CO2 which costs £21.15 to offset

*The Carbon Neutral Company: 6.1 tonnes of CO2 which costs between £52 and £122 to offset depending on which project you choose

*Offset Carbon: 8 tonnes of CO2 at £76

*What do you get? Carbon Neutral Company offers a number of options to offset a return flight to Sydney. The cheapest, costing £51.85, goes towards capturing methane gas from a landfill in China, the most expensive (£122) invests in a dam in India.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

How They, the Politicians, Are Turning Off the Lights in America AND Europe

8 november, 2009

Our “intelligent” politicians continue in an accelerated speed to deindustrialize America and Europe. And to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars of OUR money to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the Computer Models.

These climate models who cannot predict the weather 2 weeks from now, or how the weather was 2 weeks ago.

And these are the models they want us to believe that they can “predict” the temperature within a tenth of a degree in 100 YEARS!

The never ending story of the giant swindle that’s called cap and trade, carbon trading, CDM etc continuous with ever more revelations of the blatant corruption in the system.

As I have said in many of my posts: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

I have written extensible about the UN pack, this traveling circus that flies around the globe in first class, or private jet, stay in hotel rooms at £400-500 per night in spa resorts, and get wined and dined at expensive restaurants.

All of this of course paid by us, the normal people.

While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.

This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.

They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.

How ironic that today most of this class is leftists and so called “liberals”.

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the “motivation” that “they” are “saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.

Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.

The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

And their willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.

These people – Global Warming Alarmists – TOTALLY without any sense of proportions, priorities and what is important for the survival of the human race and the Earth We have entrusted to rule our countries?

As I said in my post The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!:

“So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:

Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.”

Se my posts:

Any reduction of CO2 emissions is considered a fantasy by China – the Biggest CO2 emitter in the World

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic

World’s Largest Auditor of Clean-Energy projects was suspended by UN inspectors because they had NO qualifications and did NO vetting

Cap and trade – What food, clothes, travel etc is the common people to be without?

Why Obama is losing it – He forgot the wellbeing of the normal people

Temperature measurements since 1701 Refute Human caused temperature fluctuations – Open letter from 67 German scientists

Cap and trade scheme defeated – And It should have been because it’s insane

Existing measurement methods are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions CO2 trends

The blatant hypocrisy from the UN pack and their jet set allies

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!

How can the Scientific Community Still Allow the Parody of “science” called Global Warming Hysteria?

See all my posts on Carbon Trading here:

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/carbon-trading/

See all my posts on Climate Models here:

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/klimatmodeller/

Here some more examples of this political driven complete destruction of our economies:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/berry-e1.1.1.html

How They Are Turning Off the Lights in America 

by Edwin X Berry

On October 31, 2009, the once largest aluminum plant in the world will shut down. With it goes another American industry and more American jobs. The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana will shut down its aluminum production because it cannot purchase the necessary electrical power to continue its operations.

How did this happen in America? America was once the envy of the world in its industrial capability. America‘s industrial capacity built America into the most productive nation the world had ever known. Its standard of living rose to levels never before accomplished. Its currency became valuable and powerful, allowing Americans to purchase imported goods at relatively cheap prices.

America grew because of innovation and hard work by the pioneers of the industrial revolution, and because America has vast natural resources. A great economy, as America once was, is founded on the ability to produce electrical energy at low cost. This ability has been extinguished. Why?

Columbia Falls Aluminum negotiated a contract with Bonneville Power Administration in 2006 for Bonneville to supply electrical power until September 30, 2011. But, responding to lawsuits, the 9th US Circuit Court ruled the contract was invalid because it was incompatible with the Northwest Power Act. Therefore, the combination of the Northwest Power Act and a US Circuit Court were the final villains that caused the shutdown of Columbia Falls Aluminum.

But the real reasons are much more complicated. Why was it not possible for Columbia Falls Aluminum to find sources of electricity other than Bonneville?

We need to look no further than the many environmental groups like the Sierra Club and to America’s elected officials who turned their backs on American citizens and in essence themselves, for they too are citizens of this country. These officials bought into the green agenda promoted by the heavily funded environmental groups. Caving to pressure, they passed laws and the environmental groups filed lawsuits that began turning off the lights in America. The dominos stated to fall.

They began stopping nuclear power plants in the 1970’s. They locked up much of our coal and oil resources with land laws. They passed tax credits, which forces taxpayers foot the bill for billionaire investors to save taxes by investing in less productive wind and solar energy projects.

In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency called a meeting of atmospheric scientists and others with environmental interests. I remember well the meeting I attended in the San Francisco Bay Area. The meeting was in a theater-like lecture room with the seating curved to face the center stage and rising rapidly toward the back of the room. Attending were many atmospheric scientists whom I knew from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute and some local colleges.

The room became silent when a man walked up to the lectern. He told us that the next big national problem was global warming. He explained how human carbon dioxide emissions were trapping the earth’s radiation like a greenhouse and causing the atmosphere to heat beyond its normal temperature. He said this will lead to environmental disasters. He finished by saying the EPA will now concentrate its research funding toward quantifying the disasters that would be caused by our carbon dioxide.

The room was silent. I was the first to raise my hand to ask a question, ”How can you defend your global warming hypothesis when you have omitted the effects of clouds which affect heat balance far more than carbon dioxide, and when your hypothesis contradicts the paper by Lee in the Journal of Applied Meteorology in 1972 that shows the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse?”

He answered me by saying, ”You do not know what you are talking about. I know more about how the atmosphere works than you do.”

Not being one to drop out of a fight, I responded, ”I know many of the atmospheric scientists in this room, and many others who are not present but I do not know you. What is your background and what makes you know so much more than me?”

He answered, ”I know more than you because I am a lawyer and I work for the EPA.

After the meeting, many of my atmospheric science friends who worked for public agencies thanked me for what I said, saying they would have liked to say the same thing but they feared for their jobs.

And that, my dear readers, is my recollection of that great day when a lawyer, acting as a scientist, working for the federal government, announced global warming.

Fast forward to today. The federal government is spending 1000 times more money to promote the global-warming charade than is available to those scientists who are arguing against it. Never before in history has it taken a massive publicity campaign to convince the public of a scientific truth. The only reason half the public thinks global warming may be true is the massive amount of money put into global-warming propaganda. The green eco-groups have their umbilical cords in the government’s tax funds. Aside from a few honest but duped scientists living on government money, the majority of the alarms about global warming – now called ”climate change” because it’s no longer warming – come from those who have no professional training in atmospheric science. They are the environmentalists, the ecologists, the lawyers and the politicians. They are not the reliable atmospheric scientists whom I know.

Nevertheless, our politicians have passed laws stating that carbon dioxide is bad. See California‘s AB32 which is based upon science fiction. (For readers who take issue with me, I will be happy to destroy your arguments in another place. In this paper, we focus on the damage to America that is being caused by those promoting the global-warming fraud.)

In the year 2000, America planned 150 new coal-electric power plants. These power plants would have been ”clean” by real standards but the Greens managed to have carbon dioxide defined legally as ”dirty” and this new definition makes all emitters of carbon dioxide, including you, a threat to the planet. Therefore, using legal illogic, the Sierra Club stopped 82 of these planned power plants under Bush II and they expect it will be a slam-dunk to stop the rest under Obama.

And now you know the real reason the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company had to shut down. America stopped building new power plants a long time ago. There is now no other source where the company can buy energy. Our energy-producing capability is in a decline and it is taking America with it.

I used to belong to the Sierra Club in the 1960’s. It used to be a nice hiking club. In the late 1960’s the Sierra Club began turning its attention toward stopping nuclear power. Then I quit the Sierra Club. It continues to prosper from the many subscribers who think they are supporting a good cause. What they are really supporting is the destruction of America brick by brick. The Sierra Club and similar organizations are like watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside. They are telling us we have no right to our own natural resources, and in doing so they are sinking America.

Inherent in ecology are three assumptions: ”natural” conditions are optimal, climate is fragile, and human influences are bad. Physics makes no such assumptions. By assuming climate is fragile, the global warming supporters have assumed their conclusion. In fact, the climate is not fragile. It is stable. The non-adherence to physical logic in the global-warming camp is what makes many physical scientists say that global warming is a religion.

So we have a new age religion promoted by environmentalists, incorporated into our laws and brainwashed into our people that is now destroying America from the inside.

Like a vast ship, America is taking a long time to sink but each day it sinks a little further. The fearsome day awaits, when America, if not quickly recovered by its real citizens, will tilt its nose into the water to begin a rapid and final descent into oblivion … her many resources saved for whom?

October 24, 2009

Edwin X Berry, PhD [send him mail] is an atmospheric physicist and certified consulting meteorologist with Climate Physics, LLC in Montana. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2009 Edwin X Berry, PhD

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59S37920091029

Europe metals producers warn of relocation

Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:01am EDT 

By Martin Roberts

MADRID (Reuters) – European non-ferrous metals producers may move to countries where environmental legislation is less strict unless the impact of forthcoming measures is reduced, an industry spokesman said on Thursday.

Javier Targhetta, president of Eurometaux, said the industry was concerned over high and unpredictable power costs, the added cost of a new emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2013 and a new registry of chemicals, amongst other issues.

Industry group Eurometaux estimates non-ferrous metals makers directly and indirectly employ one million people in Europe, and contribute 2 percent of its economic output.

Without satisfactory solutions in these areas, the European industry’s competitiveness will be seriously affected by the market and regulatory advantages of emerging countries,” Targhetta told journalists.

Electricity accounts for an average of 35 percent of production costs for non-ferrous metals — 60 percent for aluminum — and producers say big differences in policy between European countries and lack of interconnection make power more expensive.

Targhetta was particularly concerned over what he said was the reluctance of utilities to sell power for terms of three years or more following deregulation for heavy users in Spain last year.

This increases long-term insecurity and leads to a halt in investment. If we carry on like this, the industry is destined to disappear,” he said.

ETS COSTS

Eurometaux estimates a new phase of the ETS could hike its power costs by an unsustainable 150-200 million euros ($221.1-294.8 million), and may prompt ”carbon leakage,” or relocation to countries where emission costs are low or nil.

”Carbon will still be produced, it will still be producing the greenhouse effect, but a European plant will have been lost,” Targhetta said.

Under the current ETS scheme, national governments give heavy industry a quota of free permits, many of which have been resold at a profit. But many firms will have to buy permits at auction from 2013.

Also of concern were the potential costs of an EU law called Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACh), which is designed to protect the public and the environment from potentially harmful materials found in manufactured goods.

Targhetta, who is also president of Atlantic Copper, part of Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., estimated that gathering information for REACh had cost the copper industry alone 8 million euros.

”Measures like this are being pioneered in the European Union, which entails a special challenge,” he said.

(Reporting by Martin Roberts. Editing by David Brough)

EUROMETAUX WARNS OF THE RISKS OF DELOCALIZATION

http://www.eurometaux.org/files/DelocOct09-094008A.pdf

 Hundreds to lose jobs with Anglesey Aluminium closure

http://www.theonlinemail.co.uk/bangor-and-anglesey-news/local-bangor-and-anglesey-news/2009/08/19/hundreds-to-lose-jobs-with-anglesey-aluminium-closure-66580-24467566/

“Rather than take £48m offered by the government to keep producing metal, the company has chosen to wield the axe on over 400 job which will devastate the island economy for years to come.

Last week, Anglesey Aluminium announced that it would go ahead with plans of mothballing the aluminium smelter on September 30.

On that day, the cut price electricity deal which has powered the smelter lines will run out.

The major sticking point for Anglesey Aluminium has been the inability to re-negotiate another cut price energy deal for the smelter which uses around 12% of Wales’ electricity supply daily.”

“Following meetings in Cardiff last month it emerged that Anglesey Aluminium could continue to operate with 250 workers up until the end of December 2010, when the present Wylfa Nuclear power station is due to stop producing electricity.”

See also:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/07/a-tale-of-two-overkills/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

Global Warming Appetizer – October 2009 3rd Coldest for US in 115 Years

8 november, 2009

Another update:

                 October 2009 3rd Coldest for US in 115 Years

2009-11-07_233032 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

                                 2009 Temperature

2009-11-07_230852 

                                        North Plate, NE

2009-11-07_North Platte 

                                        Kansas City, MO

2009-11-07_Kansas City

                                          Boston, MA

2009-11-07_Boston

                                        Concord, NH

2009-11-07_Concord

                                         Bismarck, ND

2009-11-07_Bismarck

                                            Pierre, SD

2009-11-07_Pierre

                                          Pocatello, ID

2009-11-07_Pocatello

                                              Wausau, WI

2009-11-07_Wausau

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Winter_of_0910.pdf

See also

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/07/october-2009-3rd-coldest-for-us-in-115-years-what-about-the-upcoming-winter/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

Global Warming Appetizer – Coldest October in many years and record snow Part 2

4 november, 2009

An update: Here’s more of the same from New Zealand, Montana ,Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

Thank GOD for that Global Warming!

It’s official: October was frigid

http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/otago/80633/it039s-official-october-was-frigid

By Rebecca Fox on Wed, 4 Nov 2009

The Regions: Otago | News: Dunedin | Weather

Chilly weather kept temperatures down to record low levels across Otago last month, with Dunedin experiencing its coldest October since records began about 60 years ago.

Nationally, it was the coldest October in 64 years, with an average temperature of 10.6degC (1.4degC) below the long-term average) and record low temperatures recorded in many areas, including Otago, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) climate summary says.

Temperatures were more than 2degC below average throughout South Island eastern and alpine areas, climate scientist Georgina Griffiths said.

Queenstown recorded its lowest mean minimum temperature for October since records began in 1873, with a mean temperature of 2.8degC, 1.6degC below normal.

Dunedin also recorded its lowest mean minimum for the month since records began in 1947, shivering in 4.1degC (0.8degC below normal).

The city was the coldest of New Zealand‘s six main centres, with a record mean temperature of 9degC (1.5degC below normal).

It was also a dry month, with Dunedin the only main centre to experience below-normal rainfall of 40mm – only 60% of normal. The rest recorded about 170% of normal rainfalls.

In the extreme low mean maximum daily temperatures Dunedin at Musselburgh recorded its lowest at 12.8degC (2degC below normal) and the airport its fourth lowest of 14degC (2degC below). Oamaru recorded its second lowest at 13.4degC (2.6degC below) and Balclutha its lowest since records began 45 years ago with 13degC (2.5degC below).

The lowest October temperature of -5.5degC was recorded at Ranfurly on the 5th but it was not a record for the town.

Records were broken for extreme low daily minimum temperatures at Dunedin airport (-3.3degC on the 7th), the lowest since records began in 1947 and Queenstown (-3.5degC on the 5th), the lowest since 1871.

CHILLING OUT

 • Dunedin the coldest of New Zealand’s six main centres.

• Lowest mean maximum daily temperatures recorded at Dunedin 12.8degC, 2degC below normal.

• Queenstown recorded its lowest mean minimum temperature for at least 130 years.

Montana snowpack way above usual

http://m.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_647639f2-c837-11de-a3a4-001cc4c002e0.html

LORNA THACKERAY Of The Gazette Staff | Posted: Monday, November 2, 2009 10:10 pm | No Comments Posted

Billings didn’t take a serious hit from the October storm. But some surrounding areas and the mountains of central and Eastern Montana were buried, forming the foundation of the season’s snowpack.

”Pretty much in Eastern Montana, we’re running above where we usually are this time of year,” said Roy Kaiser from his Bozeman office of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Kaiser is Montana’s snowpack guru.

He keeps track of Snotel measuring sites throughout the state and issues river forecasts based on snowpack.

”This is the best start we’ve had in the last four years,” he said. ”On the Yellowstone, we’re seeing what we would usually see in mid-November.”

Very early snowpack numbers show that snowpack on the upper Yellowstone River basin, which stretches from Yellowstone Park to Custer, is 170 percent of normal.

The lower Yellowstone, from Custer to the confluence of the Missouri, is at 169 percent of average.

The Smith, Judith and Musselshell basins are in the best shape, with 416 percent of the normal snowpack. Western Montana didn’t start the snow season as well. Snowpack is 53 percent of normal on the Bitterroot and 31 percent of normal on the lower Clarks Fork.

Despite above-average precipitation in October – 1.45 inches compared with the normal 1.26 inches – Billings made little headway in a year-to-date moisture deficit of 3.36 inches. Just 10.09 inches of precipitation has fallen this year.

In October, measurable precipitation fell on 11 days. Trace amounts of snow fell on eight days.

October was made colder by winterlike winds, Meier said. Average wind speed for the month was 11.2 mph. The strongest sustained wind was 37 mph on Oct. 27. The highest gust, 44 mph, blasted Billings the same day.

Wind this time of year normally would be associated with warmer temperatures, but October again proved contrary.

”Most of the windy days last month happened on northwest-wind days, when the storm track brought cold weather from Canada,” he said. ”It was more typical of things we might see in December or January.”

http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/search/label/Record%20Cold

Monday, November 2, 2009

Record Monthly Temperatures and Snowfall in October

Midnight Update: October was the second coldest in Denver:

THE MONTH’S AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS ONLY 42.9 DEGREES WHICH MOVED OCTOBER 2009 INTO THE 2ND COLDEST OCTOBER IN DENVER WEATHER HISTORY.
THE COLDEST OCTOBER WAS A VERY FRIGID 39.0 DEGREES WHICH WAS RECORDED IN 1969.
THERE WERE 17 DAYS WHEN THE LOW TEMPERATURES WERE 32 DEGREES OR LOWER WHEREAS
THE
NORMAL AMOUNT IS ONLY 9.  THREE HIGH TEMPERATURES
DID NOT MAKE IT TO THE FREEZING MARK WHICH IS 3 ABOVE NORMAL.

Original post:
Several monthly cold temperature and snowfall records were set or approached for October in Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas:

Wyoming:
CHEYENNE WY SET NEW RECORDS FOR COLD AND SNOW DURING THE MONTH OF  
OCTOBER 2009
.  A TOTAL OF 28.0 INCHES OF SNOWFALL WAS MEASURED  
DURING THE MONTH…WHICH SET A NEW RECORD FOR THE MOST SNOWFALL EVER  
RECORDED IN
CHEYENNE DURING OCTOBER.THE OLD RECORD WAS 23.1 INCHES  
WHICH FELL IN 1906. 
 
CHEYENNE ALSO SET A NEW RECORD FOR THE COLDEST AVERAGE TEMPERATURE  
FOR THE MONTH.
 THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR OCTOBER 2009 WAS 37.0  
DEGREES WHICH JUST EDGED OUT THE PREVIOUS LOWEST OCTOBER AVERAGE OF  
37.1 DEGREES SET IN 1969. 

Oklahoma:
THE AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE AT THE TULSA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT  
FOR OCTOBER 2009 WAS 55.9 DEGREES WHICH WAS 6.7 DEGREES BELOW  
NORMAL. THIS TIES WITH OCTOBER 1925 FOR THE COLDEST OCTOBER ON  
RECORD.
THE DAILY HIGH TEMPERATURES WERE THE PRIMARY FACTOR IN THIS  
RECORD SETTING EVENT. THE OBSERVED AVERAGE DAILY MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE  
OF 64.5 DEGREES WAS 9.5 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL…WHILE THE DAILY  
AVERAGE MINIMUM OF 47.2 DEGREES FELL SHORT BY 3.9 DEGREES. THERE  
WERE 8 DAYS IN THE MONTH WHERE THE AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE WAS AT  
OR ABOVE NORMAL…WITH THE REMAINING 23 DAYS FALLING BELOW NORMAL BY  
-5 TO -18 DEGREES
. THE WARMEST TEMPERATURE WAS 84 DEGREES OCCURRED  
ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH…WITH THE COLDEST READING OF 35  
DEGREES OBSERVED ON THE 18TH OF OCTOBER. THERE WERE 284 HEATING  
DEGREES DAYS DURING THE MONTH WHICH WAS ABOVE NORMAL BY 132 DEGREES

South Dakota:
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AT THE RAPID CITY  
AIRPORT
SOUTH DAKOTA WAS 38.7 DEGREES. THE PREVIOUS RECORD FOR  
OCTOBER WAS 39.0 DEGREES BACK IN 2002.
 

Nebraska:
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2009 IN  
SCOTTSBLUFF WAS 40.5 DEGREES.  THIS SET A NEW RECORD FOR THE LOWEST  
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN SCOTTSBLUFF FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER.  THE  
PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 40.8 DEGREES WHICH OCCURRED IN 1925.
 

THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2009 IN CHADRON  
NEBRASKA WAS 40.0 DEGREES.  THIS SET A NEW RECORD FOR THE LOWEST  
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED IN CHADRON FOR THE MONTH OF  
OCTOBER.
  THE PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 40.8 DEGREES WHICH OCCURRED IN  
2002. 

OCTOBER WAS A HISTORIC MONTH FOR SNOWFALL IN NORTH PLATTE. DURING THE  
MONTH…30.3 INCHES OF SNOW FELL WHICH WAS A WHOPPING 29.2 INCHES  
ABOVE THE
NORMAL OF 1.1 INCHES. THE 30.3 INCHES WAS ALSO 1.9 INCHES  
ABOVE THE SEASONAL NORMAL OF 28.4 AND WE HAVEN’T EVEN REACHED WINTER  
YET! SNOWFALL RECEIVED IN OCTOBER 2009 BROKE THE OLD MONTHLY RECORD  
OF 15.7 INCHES WHICH FELL IN 1969. CONSIDERING ALL MONTHS…OCTOBER  
2009 WILL GO DOWN AS THE SNOWIEST MONTH EVER FOR
NORTH PLATTE. THE  
30.3 INCHES RECEIVED…BROKE THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 27.8 INCHES  
RECORDED IN MARCH 1912. IN ADDITION TO THE TWO MONTHLY RECORDS FOR  
SNOW…FOUR DAILY SNOWFALL RECORDS WERE BROKEN AND ONE RECORD WAS  
TIED. THESE ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW.  
 
DAILY SNOWFALL RECORDS IN OCTOBER 2009 FOR NORTH PLATTE 
 
DATE        AMOUNT          PREVIOUS RECORD AND YEAR 
 
 9           2.0                    0.1/1932 
10          11.8                    1.3/1987 * 
13         TRACE                  TRACE/1969 & 
22           4.2                    4.0/1906 
30           7.3                    4.0/1991   

Kansas:
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN GOODLAND KANSAS DURING THIS PAST 
OCTOBER WAS 43.7 DEGREES. THIS WAS THE COLDEST AVERAGE TEMPERATURE  
ON RECORD FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. THE PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 44.3  
DEGREES SET IN OCTOBER 1925.
 

…SECOND COOLEST OCTOBER AT WICHITA’S MID-CONTINENT AIRPORT 
 
OCTOBER 2009 FINISHED OUT THE MONTH BY GOING DOWN IN THE RECORD 
BOOKS AS THE SECOND COOLEST OCTOBER ON RECORD
THE AVERAGE MONTHLY 
TEMPERATURE WAS 51.2 DEGREES WHICH IS 7.4 DEGREES BELOW
NORMAL
THIS BEATS OUT THE PREVIOUS SECOND PLACE HOLDER FOR OCTOBER FROM 
1917
WHICH HAD AN AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE OF 51.9 DEGREES.  THE 
COOLEST OCTOBER ON RECORD IS 49.0 DEGREES SET IN 1925.

Meanwhile, monthly high temperature records were set in Florida:

AN ALL-TIME HOTTEST OCTOBER RECORD WAS SET IN MIAMI WITH AN AVERAGE  
TEMPERATURE OF 82.4 DEGREES FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. THIS WAS 3.6  
DEGREES ABOVE AVERAGE, AND BROKE THE PREVIOUS WARMEST OCTOBER RECORD  
OF 82.05 DEGREES SET IN 2002. MIAMI OBSERVED 14 DAYS OF TEMPERATURES  
REACHING 90 DEGREES OR HIGHER, WHICH TIED THE RECORD FOR MOST NUMBER  
OF 90-PLUS DEGREE DAYS SET BACK IN 1989.  
 
MOORE HAVEN RECORDED A TOTAL OF 18 DAYS OF TEMPERATURES REACHING AT  
LEAST 90 DEGREES. THIS BROKE THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 16 DAYS SET IN  
1986. LABELLE REGISTERED 22 DAYS OF 90-PLUS DEGREE TEMPERATURES, ONE  
DAY SHORT OF THE RECORD SET IN 2002. 

The National Climatic Data Center reports that 1,344 daily lowest minimum temperature records were set in October, and 616 daily highest maximum records were set.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

Global Warming Appetizer – Coldest October in many years and record snow

1 november, 2009

2009-11-01_152713

2009-11-01_152841

Sydney‘s Coldest October in 17 years

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/sydneys-coldest-october-in-17-years/12983

“Based on maximum temperatures and averaging 21.4 degrees, we have now seen our coldest October in 17 years.”

Sheridan on track for record cold October

http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=11419040

SHERIDAN, Wyo. (AP) – This month is on track to be the coldest October on record in Sheridan.

The National Weather Service says the average temperature in Sheridan so far this month has been 37.2 degrees. The previous coldest October in Sheridan was in 1969, when the average was 38.5 degrees.

Daytime high temperatures topped 60 degrees only three times this month, also a record.

Sheridan‘s coldest temperature this month was a record low of 5 degrees on Oct. 9. The previous record for that date was 16 degrees, set in 1993.

Inner Mongolia‘s Cold Snap Brings First Snow To Beijing

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=451514

A cold snap from inner Mongolia has brought the first snow to Beijing early dawn Sunday, two months ahead of winter.

According to Beijing Meteorological Department senior engingeer Zhang Mingying, cold snap of level 6-7 landed northern China yesterday, causing a 10 to 16 degree sharp drop of temperature in Beijing and Hebei, Jilin and Liaoning provinces.

”It is unusual for cold snap of this level to occur in October…this is the first time that Beijing is swept by cold snap in October since the 1970s,” he added.

Snow shifts east, paralyzing plains

http://www.wtvr.com/health/kdvr-snow-story-102909,0,1202500.story

DENVER – After pounding Colorado’s Front Range and metropolitan Denver for more than two days with snow, a powerful Winter Storm pushed into eastern Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas Thursday evening.

The snow and wind created blizzard conditions and forced the closure of several major highways, including Interstate 70 which was shut down from Aurora to the Kansas state line.

Also closed were I-76 from Brighton to Neb., US 34 from Brush to Neb., CO 71 from Neb. to Ordway, CO 61 from Sterling to Otis, and CO 59 between I-76 and Yuma.

LIVE TRAFFIC CAMS & ALERTS

The storm was the biggest October snowmaker in the Denver area since 1997, said Byron Louis, a weather service hydrologist in Boulder. It also broke records for total October snowfall in Wyoming.

”The track of this storm was more indicative of March and April heavy storm event,” FOX 31 Chief Meteorologist Dave Fraser said. ”A two day event of this magnitude is certainly an oddity for October and may be an indication of the winter to come, which is a scary thought.”

18 inches fell in Boulder, 37″ in Conifer, 23″ in Parker, 16″ in Aurora, 43″ in Pinecliffe, and 16″ in Castle Rock. Denver had received 14 inches of snow by Thursday evening with very little additional accumulation forecast.

Hundreds of schools in metro Denver stayed closed Thursday, but the University of Colorado in Boulder and Colorado State University in Fort Collins, where 17.5 inches fell, reopened a day after sending students home early.

Many schools opted to close Friday as well, however, some administrators planned to wait until morning to gauge conditions.

VIEW CURRENT CLOSINGS/DELAYS

Denver-based Frontier Airlines canceled 44 flights in and out of Denver International Airport due to ”ground blizzard” conditions. Other flights were delayed by up to four hours. United Airlines, the airport’s dominant carrier with about 400 flights per day, canceled half its flights Thursday to prevent delays and cancelations from spilling over into Friday, spokesman Charlie Hobart said.

Airport spokesman Chuck Cannon said crews were using 174 pieces of snow-removal equipment to keep runways and taxiways clear as they dealt with severe wind gusts. The airport received at least 16 inches of snow with 5-foot snow drifts east of Denver, the weather service said.

”It drifts and it blows and it cuts visibility. It just creates problems and safety is the big issue.” Cannon said. Travelers were urged to check flight status with their airlines before driving to DIA.

A Blizzard Warning was in effect for northeastern Colorado through 9 a.m. Friday.

Denver foothills get up to 4 feet of snow

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/10/31/

Denver_foothills_get_up_to_4_feet_of_snow/

Arizona gets some interesting new minimum high records

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/29/12266/

From the “weather is not climate department”….whether it is cold or snow, long lived records keep falling, and recently in large numbers.

Today, new “minimum high” records fell in a traditionally warm southwest state.

Flagstaff, and Prescott, Williams, and Winslow Arizona all significantly bested the old records set on this date.

The “cold war” hits home – October in like a lion, out like a fridge

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/the-cold-war-hits-home-october-in-like-a-lion-out-like-a-fridge/

 2009-11-01_151805

Cold start to fall continues, 252 more low temperature records set in the USA this week

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/252_new_usa_lows/

More new record lows, lowest max temperature, and snowfall this week. The new low records outnumber the high records. There were an impressive number of Lowest Max Temperature records

Here’s a listing of the record events by category:

Record Events for Sat Oct 17, 2009 through Fri Oct 23, 2009
Total Records: 2682
Rainfall: 812
Snowfall: 72
High Temperatures: 152
Low Temperatures: 252
Lowest Max Temperatures: 1129
Highest Min Temperatures: 265

All-time October low recorded in Bavaria

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20091020-22693.html

Meteorologists on Tuesday morning recorded the lowest ever October temperature in Germany, as the mercury dipped to a chilly -24.3 degrees Celsius in Bavaria’s Berchtesgaden national park.

October Cold Snap Sets 82-Year Record

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/october.cold.record.2.1247099.html

High On Tuesday Was Only 47 Degrees

October in Chicago is usually equal parts balmy T-shirt weather and nippy light jacket temperatures, but if it’s felt more like winter coat weather this year, it’s not your imagination. Chicago has spent the last 17 days with below-average temperatures, and a high of a mere 47 degrees made Tuesday the coldest Oct. 13 in 82 years, CBS 2’s Mary Kay Kleist says.

Comparing temperatures for the first 14 days of October 2008 to this year seems like comparing the tropics to the tundra.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2


%d bloggare gillar detta: