Archive for december, 2009

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 169

31 december, 2009

So for my last post of the year I choose a very appropriate picture in the name of Global Warming Hysteria:

First from NASA’s Earth observatory

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42067

Click on the pictures and they get bigger

And here is the world picture from NASA

For a big picture click here

http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/RenderData?si=1483660&cs=rgb&format=JPEG

Also see:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/30/land-surface-temp/

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 168

31 december, 2009

WeatherActions Piers Corbyn

Download PDF file to read FULL message from Piers Corbyn

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/

WA10No1NewYearMessageFerociousWinterWeatherWarning.pdf

See also:

Climategate analysis by John P. Costella, B.E. (Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/cg.pdf

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 167

31 december, 2009

“Lefties have long mocked Christians on the fringe for proclaiming the imminent end of the world and the coming of God. Yokels, bumpkins, knuckle-draggers, Bible-thumpers, crazies, and zealots are but a few of the epithets that have been hurled at End-Times Christians. 

It’s therefore more than a little ironic — perhaps divinely ironic — that many of these same oh-so-worldly liberals have come to embrace their own version of the end times.”

“The scientific priesthood that surrounds global warming theory seems far more determined to protect the theory from the rigors of scientific method than to open it up to challenge.

“The global warming cult, in one sense, is the left’s last stand: It’s a lashing out at the human race for all its perceived deficiencies, avarice, narrowness, and failings — or at least, that portion of the human race that resides in the west.” 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/the_lefts_end_times.html

December 31, 2009

The Left’s End Times

By J. Robert Smith

Lefties have long mocked Christians on the fringe for proclaiming the imminent end of the world and the coming of God. Yokels, bumpkins, knuckle-draggers, Bible-thumpers, crazies, and zealots are but a few of the epithets that have been hurled at End-Times Christians. 

It’s therefore more than a little ironic — perhaps divinely ironic — that many of these same oh-so-worldly liberals have come to embrace their own version of the end times. Theirs, though, hasn’t a hint of the divine in it; that would smack of the wrong sort of primitivism and violate their steadfast secularism and their claim to upholding down-to-earth science and ideology.

Their chicken-littleism, preaching, and rants about global warming (or climate change, or whatever else they think helps sell the goods) is never portrayed as such — not, of course, by themselves or by a pliant establishment media. Theirs is ”settled science,” according to movement gurus, with Al Gore being the most conspicuous. 

Mr. Gore is never wont to mention that legions of scientists back up claims that the world’s very existence hangs in the balance. The world’s end may or may not surpass the year it ends (2012) in the Mayan calendar. Never mind the large and growing body of scientists who are openly dissenting from the global warming creed. Never mind that some of the scientists — or high priests — who are quite zealous regarding global warming doomsday scenarios have been caught cooking the science or obscuring findings that run counter to their claims. Isn’t that, in a sense, what priests in a bygone era did to discredit Galileo? Or what clerics did when they burned witches at the stake?

As the informed know, science isn’t science unless theories — if they are that — are subject to rigorous examination and criticism. Theories stand or fall through a relentless process of challenge and elimination. Call the method scientific musical chairs. The last to have a seat wins…for a while, anyway.    

The scientific priesthood that surrounds global warming theory seems far more determined to protect the theory from the rigors of scientific method than to open it up to challenge. This bespeaks a couple of important things: 1) that so jealously guarding global warming theory from scrutiny and challenge means that its advocates have little confidence in it; 2) that it reduces the theory to an article of faith, which anyone is entitled to hold, but not to impose on the rest of us

It must strike those who are stridently secular as peculiar for anyone to suggest that global warming science is nothing more than a faith, and that their deep need for faith — as there’s a deep need for faith in all human beings — is being satisfied and expressed through pseudo-science. 

Global warming adherents are simply replacing God — Christian or otherwise — with constructs of their own. It’s quite remarkable that socialism or Marxism — which are generally hostile to religion or faith, which lay claims to objectivity and reality, and which most global warming adherents are in sympathy with — should fall into the hands of those who, despite their protestations, are decidedly antagonistic to the openness and dissent that in large part makes science science. Granted, socialism and Marxism are frauds (the latter especially), but they maintain some pretense of being reality-tested. 

Global warming isn’t a religion, not even figuratively. It more resembles a cult. In a couple of generations — let’s hope — the global warming camp of our time will be seen clearly as having occupied the fringe of science; a heretical (in scientific terms) movement given to wild claims and inspired by a cultish fervency to convert fellow humans to their extreme beliefs — findings and facts be damned

It’s quite possible that future Americans who watch the videos of a ranting Al Gore will widely consider him an unhinged buffoon.  Gore’s name may make it into the lexicon, to be used along this line: ”Don’t go Gore on me” to refer to anyone who’s about to go red-faced and scream and froth in favor of or opposed to anything.  

The End-Times Left is more than the sum of global warming enthusiasts, boosters, and acolytes. Broadening the secular left’s universe are those who are anti-life. 

For the secular left, there’s no redemption, no God to judge, no life beyond this one. Oh, certainly, many secular leftists pay lip service to a misty utopianism — you know, the peoples of the world will unite and live as one, human nature will be transformed into the angelic, disease and poverty will be eradicated, and so on and so forth. Again, leftists seek immortality of a sort but absent Providence.   

But the commitments and actions of the secular left speak to the underlying emptiness of its faith in utopianism. Utopianism reveals itself day by day, year by year, as a great conceit. As leftism has aged since the 19th century, its repeated collisions with the world’s hard realities have gutted its faith in humanity. Human nature isn’t so plastic after all. The peoples of the world have many differences, some good and some bad, but often not easily reconciled, if at all. Where there’s poverty, there’s usually tyranny of the left variety, or of corrupt oligarchs, who often mouth fealty to leftism. 

This gulf between an unobtainable ideal and world and human reality has made left-wingers quietly disillusioned and bereft. Their ”isms” have failed or are failing. Communism, as practiced behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, weren’t just failures, but monstrosities. Butchery — mass genocide — was a feature of the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Fascism — communism’s first cousin — was equally monstrous. Hitler and Tojo peddled utopianism with nationalistic and ethnic twists.      

Modern European socialism is certainly more benign, but it lacks dynamism. It’s a smothering wet blanket to initiative, creativity, and reward.  It seeks to eliminate risk but really eliminates the daring that advances civilization. It eschews the cultural traditions, religious faith, and character that made Europe great; it does so in a fawning gesture to multiculturalism and aggrandizement of third-world anti-western prejudice. 

European socialism is proving to be a slow death to western civilization. This smotheringly wet statist blanket has seriously affected European birthrates. Europeans are going extinct. Europe as we know it will not exist by the end of the century if present trends continue

The left’s failures have bred widespread nihilism among its adherents, and that nihilism has crept into western culture. If the left can’t succeed, nothing can succeed. Failure isn’t theirs alone, but a global disaster. What’s life worth if humans are intrinsically unable to live up to the left’s ideals? What does life matter? Hedonism and libertinism — why not?    

This, in part, has given rise to the left’s embrace of a range of anti-life propositions, from abortion to stem cell research (on living embryos) to end-of-life counseling to sexual promiscuity that results in disease and, in some instances, death. Some leftists are now calling for a one-child policy to be imposed on all nations. Crazy? Indeed, but today’s crazy leftist idea often becomes a serious proposal or policy tomorrow. Check the history for yourself. 

The global warming cult, in one sense, is the left’s last stand: It’s a lashing out at the human race for all its perceived deficiencies, avarice, narrowness, and failings — or at least, that portion of the human race that resides in the west.  The human race stands in the docket accused of degrading the world with the intent of destroying it. But the evidence doesn’t bear out the charge. It is instead the accuser who has and continues to destroy human life. It’s the left that’s intent on making the end times a self-fulfilling prophecy.

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 166

31 december, 2009

“The decade just past marked the transition from red into green. It was the decade in which environmentalism replaced socialism as the authoritarians’ and the busybodies’ ideology of choice.”

“Given the absence of such commitments, you would think environmentalists  like Al Gore would be in full hand-wringing, caterwauling dudgeon since the collapse at Copenhagen. Just weeks ago they were claiming we would die out as a species if no deep, binding emission cuts were agreed. None were. Yet, while not fully happy, eco-activists have not been screaming at world leaders over their unwillingness to accept meaningful emissions caps. Instead, the greenies have been doing their best to put a sunny face on the results.

Why? Mostly because saving the planet is not what environmentalism is all about. Saving the planet is just the excuse. Controlling other people’s lives and redistributing global wealth is the true goal.”

“That’s why so many greens are at least half happy about Copenhagen. The Earth summit kept alive their demand for wealth transfers of historic proportions. And it saved their desire for a greater role for international bureaucrats in the business of sovereign nations.”

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/30/lorne-gunter-environmentalism-is-just-the-latest-way-to-tell-other-people-what-to-do.aspx

Lorne Gunter: Environmentalism is just the latest way to tell other people what to do

Posted: December 30, 2009, 9:00 AM by NP Editor

The decade just past marked the transition from red into green. It was the decade in which environmentalism replaced socialism as the authoritarians’ and the busybodies’ ideology of choice.

Why are so few environmentalists truly unhappy about the failure at Copenhagen? In the run-up to this month’s Earth summit in the Danish capital, many “greens” were warning that if the world’s leaders failed to reach a comprehensive pact to control climate change our planet was doomed within the century. In the summer, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon insisted “we have four months to save the planet.”

But nothing that will save the planet came out of the UN eco-fest.

Yes, world leaders kinda, sorta agreed to limit global average temperature rise to two degrees Celsius over the next 100 years (as if they had some magical powers to achieve that end). But that is a political goal, not a scientific one. No formula has been worked out detailing what concentration of carbon dioxide in the air will keep temps from rising by more than two degrees. And even if there were such a calculation, it wouldn’t matter: Leaders at the summit made no firm commitments to keep their countries’ CO2 emissions to amounts within scientifically verifiable limits.

Given the absence of such commitments, you would think environmentalists  like Al Gore would be in full hand-wringing, caterwauling dudgeon since the collapse at Copenhagen. Just weeks ago they were claiming we would die out as a species if no deep, binding emission cuts were agreed. None were. Yet, while not fully happy, eco-activists have not been screaming at world leaders over their unwillingness to accept meaningful emissions caps. Instead, the greenies have been doing their best to put a sunny face on the results.

Why? Mostly because saving the planet is not what environmentalism is all about. Saving the planet is just the excuse. Controlling other people’s lives and redistributing global wealth is the true goal.

I’m not saying there is a conscious conspiracy by old socialists meeting in secret to rebrand themselves as new environmentalists so they can revive their Cold War-era campaign for international governance and regulation.

Rather, it’s a mindset. The instinct to tell other people what to do is as old as human society. The instant two homo sapiens first came together, one of them probably decided that the other was doing things in a way he or she disliked and that what was needed to deter this miscreant behaviour was a new rule based on an appeal to the “common good.”

So the mindset that today wants to tell others how much carbon energy they can consume — what kind of vehicle is “responsible,” how big their homes should be, how many hours a day they should run their furnaces or air conditioners or televisions, what kind of light bulbs they should use and so on — is as old as mankind itself.

Sometimes it has manifested itself as a demand by high priests for devotion to pagan deities. Sometimes it has been the demand for blind loyalty to a monarch. Other times it has been the insistence that the church is infallible and must be listened to on all matters lest our immortal souls be damned for eternity. More recently, it has raised its preachy, sanctimonious head as communism, socialism, political correctness and environmentalism.

There is no question the political right has its incidents of interfering, controlling behaviours: the insistence, for instance, that the state pass laws upholding socially conservative morals.

However, it’s no coincidence that much of the impetus for worldwide control of emissions comes from the left. Nor is it a coincidence that most environmentalists are also supporters of universal health care, social justice, high taxes, the heavy regulation of commerce and the transfer — by compulsion, if necessary — of hundreds of billions of dollars from rich countries to poor.

That’s just their mindset: To be happy, they have to be telling others what to do based on a self-assured belief in their own moral and intellectual superiority.

That’s why so many greens are at least half happy about Copenhagen. The Earth summit kept alive their demand for wealth transfers of historic proportions. And it saved their desire for a greater role for international bureaucrats in the business of sovereign nations.

When socialism collapsed as an intellectual movement in the 1990s, the intrusive, holier-than-thou, we-know-best attitude behind it did not disappear, it merely refashioned itself in the last decade as environmentalism.

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 165

31 december, 2009

See my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 133

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/photos/2009/dec/28/67003/

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 164

31 december, 2009

“What climatologists are learning from economists is how to increase their importance by promoting a theory that gives politicians more power. Economists have shown that this can be accomplished with the flimsiest of evidence.”

“Climatologists are now emulating economists’ approach to political success. After an attempt to create a global cooling scare in the 1970s failed, mainly because weather trends have a tendency to reverse themselves, some climatologists reversed themselves as well with predictions of global warming.”

“Many politicians saw global warming as a crisis too politically profitable to waste. It gives them an excuse to increase spending and expand government control over even more of the economy by claiming that the future of mankind depends on doing so. Whether the spending and control reduce global temperatures is less important than the belief that they will, and how well they promote the narrow interests of important voting blocks.

For example, subsidizing U.S. corn production, subsidizing its conversion into ethanol that motorists are required to use, while imposing high tariffs on cheaper sugar-based ethanol from Brazil, does more to buy votes from farmers and ethanol producers than to reduce global warming, since the latter is probably unaffected.”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516674

Climate Crisis Was Too Good To Waste

By J.R. CLARK AND DWIGHT R. LEE

Posted 12/30/2009 07:05 PM ET

Climatologists are learning from economists. No, not how to more accurately forecast the future. Climatologists could certainly benefit from improving their forecasts, but they aren’t likely to learn how from economists.

What climatologists are learning from economists is how to increase their importance by promoting a theory that gives politicians more power. Economists have shown that this can be accomplished with the flimsiest of evidence.

Economists began gaining in importance after World War II when they started rallying around a 1930s theory developed by John Maynard Keynes. The theory explained how politicians could prevent, or reverse, economic downturns by running budget deficits, and prevent, or halt, inflation by running budget surpluses.

Claiming budget deficits during World War II ended the Great Depression, economists convinced politicians to establish the Council of Economic Advisers in 1946 to give economic advice to the president.

By the 1960s there were claims of a Keynesian consensus of informed economists, with these economists knowing how to fine-tune the economy, effectively eliminating the business cycle, with advice on when and how to adjust government budgets to stimulate or dampen economic activity.

The result was better for economists than it was for the economy. The pronouncements of economists became more newsworthy, and government jobs for economists multiplied as the economy moved into the stagflation — economic stagnation with increasing unemployment and rising inflation — that characterized economic performance in the 1970s.

Stagflation had been predicted by Milton Friedman in the 1960s, even though the Keynesian model implied it was impossible. As a result of improved theories and accumulating evidence, the pretense of a Keynesian consensus among economists began to unravel. But the political popularity of Keynesian policy was not seriously threatened by its failures because that popularity was never based on solid evidence.

Rather, politicians embraced Keynesianism because it gave them a justification for expanding current benefits while postponing the costs with deficit spending. Of course, they conveniently forgot the part about reducing spending and running budget surpluses when the economy is strong.

Climatologists are now emulating economists’ approach to political success. After an attempt to create a global cooling scare in the 1970s failed, mainly because weather trends have a tendency to reverse themselves, some climatologists reversed themselves as well with predictions of global warming.

And this time they had a theory indicating that the warming was the man-made result of carbon dioxide emissions, and that if nothing was done it would soon be too late to avoid a global catastrophe.

Fortunately, the climatologists claimed to know what to do. They claimed their theory commanded a consensus among informed scientists, and politicians could prevent global disaster by fine-tuning global temperatures if they followed the advice of informed climatologists.

Many politicians saw global warming as a crisis too politically profitable to waste. It gives them an excuse to increase spending and expand government control over even more of the economy by claiming that the future of mankind depends on doing so. Whether the spending and control reduce global temperatures is less important than the belief that they will, and how well they promote the narrow interests of important voting blocks.

For example, subsidizing U.S. corn production, subsidizing its conversion into ethanol that motorists are required to use, while imposing high tariffs on cheaper sugar-based ethanol from Brazil, does more to buy votes from farmers and ethanol producers than to reduce global warming, since the latter is probably unaffected.

There are far less expensive, and more effective, ways to prevent global warming than reducing American carbon emissions 80% by 2050, as some climatologists claim is necessary to avoid a devastating rise in temperatures by the end of the century.

Geo-engineering approaches, such as injecting relatively small amounts of sulfur into the stratosphere, cost little and their cooling effect can be quickly reversed if it turns out that the warming effect of carbon emissions is overstated. But when Al Gore was asked what he thought of geo-engineering approaches, he reportedly responded, ”I think it’s nuts.”

He is correct if the objective is to expand government and increase the importance of politicians and, maybe, climatologists.

Whether climatologists achieve the political success of economists, as measured by the latter’s ubiquity in government employment and public policy debates, remains to be seen. But by claiming that they can predict global temperatures a hundred years in advance and advise politicians on how to save the world from catastrophic temperature fluctuations, many climatologists are making claims for their political importance that make the most enthusiastic Keynesian economists appear modest in comparison.

And it may be working. There is now a climate czar in the White House.

• Clark holds the Probasco Chair at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

• Lee has the William J. O’Neil Chair of Global Markets and Freedom at SMU’s Cox School of Business.

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 163

31 december, 2009

“Food prices have risen worldwide as farmland has been converted to the production of energy-deficient biofuels such as ethanol. They’ll rise even further as valuable acreage is taken offline for the planting of trees to absorb the carbon dioxide that was declared to be a pollutant in need of regulation.”

“When the enemy was Big Agriculture, Willie Nelson started Farm-Aid and elites lined up to save the family farm. Now, it seems, saving the planet is more important. Who really needs cheap and plentiful food when we can hug trees and get rid of all those pesky barnyard animals and their greenhouse-gas emissions in the process?”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516681

Food Vs. Trees

Posted 12/30/2009 06:57 PM ET

Agriculture: Already buffeted by rising food prices due to biofuels, consumers face a bigger hike if climate-change legislation is passed. Farming costs will rise, and it may be more profitable to plant trees than crops.

If the cap-and-trade provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill become law, you can wave goodbye to those amber waves of grain as America’s heartland falls victim to a perverse set of incentives and a process called ”afforestation.” Soybeans and wheat will give way to elms and oaks.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack wants a review of what amounts to an agricultural impact study of HR 2454, which shows it would make planting trees more profitable than planting food.

The study, which was released by the USDA earlier this month, reckons that as a result of cap-and-trade, farmers with energy-intensive crops would see their cost of production go up 10% over the next 50 years. Couple that with the money to be made from carbon offsets, and it may not be long before we’re unable to see the farms for the trees.

The USDA projects that under cap-and-trade — or is it cap-and-trees? — fuel costs will rise as much as 5.3% from 2012 to 2018. ”The conclusion of all the studies remains the same: that cap-and-trade has the potential to devastate the agricultural community with higher energy prices,” says Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

Food prices have risen worldwide as farmland has been converted to the production of energy-deficient biofuels such as ethanol. They’ll rise even further as valuable acreage is taken offline for the planting of trees to absorb the carbon dioxide that was declared to be a pollutant in need of regulation.

But according to a model created at Texas A&M University and used by the Agriculture Department and EPA, cap-and-trade would give farmers incentive to convert up to 59 million acres of farmland into forests over the next four decades.

”If landowners plant trees to the extent the model suggests, this would be disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country,” Ag Secretary Vilsack says.

In a teleconference with reporters earlier this month, Vilsack said that the carbon offset market in the House bill could generate $10 billion to $20 billion for the farm sector. But, according to the Ag Department, the model projects that food prices would rise an additional 4.5% by 2050 compared with a scenario wherein cap-and-trade was ultimately defeated.

When the enemy was Big Agriculture, Willie Nelson started Farm-Aid and elites lined up to save the family farm. Now, it seems, saving the planet is more important. Who really needs cheap and plentiful food when we can hug trees and get rid of all those pesky barnyard animals and their greenhouse-gas emissions in the process?

The next great American novel may very well be ”A Tree Grows in Iowa.”

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>

Gott Nytt ÅR! – Happy New Year!

31 december, 2009

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 162

30 december, 2009

As a complement to my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 160 I give you some more graphs to ponder.

But they are worth repeating to give perspective to this the biggest political and scientific scandal in modern time – The Global Warming Hysteria and it’s short-sighted political hubris.

Tornetrask tree-ring width and density AD 500-2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers.

Grudd, H. 2008; Climate Dynamics: 10.1007/s00382-0358-2

http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/?p=b851a8f6195a400084f98f58b8efe335&pi=6

                   Click on the graphs and they get bigger

Temperature patterns over the past eight centuries in Northern Fennoscandia inferred from sedimentary diatoms

Weckstrom, J., Korhola, A., Erasto, P. and Holmstrom, L. 2006; Quaternary Research 66: 78-86

doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2006.01.005    

Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century

ohnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J. 2001; Journal of Quaternary Science 16: 299-307

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/82002932/abstract

Five thousand years of sediment transfer in a high arctic watershed recorded in annually laminated sediments from Lower Murray Lake, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada

Cook, T.L., Bradley, R.S., Stoner, J.S. and Francus, P. 2009; Journal of Paleolimnology 41: 77-94

http://www.springerlink.com/content/7m27472845280367/

El Niño variability off Peru during the last 20,000 years

Rein B., Lückge, A., Reinhardt, L., Sirocko, F., Wolf, A. and Dullo, W.-C. 2005; Paleoceanography 20: 10.1029/2004PA001099

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004PA001099.shtml

Generation, transport, and preservation of the alkenone-based U37K’ sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin (Venezuela)

Goni, M.A., Woodworth, M.P., Aceves, H.L., Thunell, R.C., Tappa, E., Black, D., Muller-Karger, F., Astor, Y. and Varela, R. 2004; Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 10.1029/2003GB002132

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GB002132.shtml

Impact of climate and CO2 on a millennium-long tree-ring carbon isotope record

Treydte, K.S., Frank, D.C., Saurer, M., Helle, G., Schleser, G.H. and Esper, J. 2009; Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73: 4635-4647

doi:10.1016/j.gca.2009.05.057    

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 161

30 december, 2009

As a complement to my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 156.

This time to UK institutions.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/29/the-foi-myth-2/

The FOI Myth #2

As noted in yesterday’s post, Nature recently editorialized:

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden…

Similar sentiments have been expressed elsewhere e.g. New Scientist here.

In today’s post, I’ll review FOI requests to UK institutions for data other than CRU station data and unarchived IPCC review comments, showing that these requests were reasonable, that the use of FOI was entirely appropriate and that complying with FOI requests enabled the matters to be dealt with efficiently and expeditiously. I’ve reserved FOI requests for CRU station data and for unarchived IPCC review comments to separate posts, because they are longer topics and raise different issues. Contemporary CA posts on FOI requests are here.

Thus far, I’ve identified three FOI requests for data other than CRU station data by myself or CA readers to UK institutions, none of which can be reasonably described as “endless, time-consuming demands for information”.

Jones et al 1990

On Feb 22, 2007, I submitted an FOI request to CRU for station lists and data for three networks (Russia, China, Australia) used in Jones et al 1990, which had been cited in IPCC AR4, then newly released. (As noted yesterday, a concurrent request for the same data was made to NOAA in the US.)

This request was expeditiously resolved when the requested information was placed online in April 2007 but not before CRU had first attempted to repudiate the request by making untrue statements to support a claim for FOI exemption. In its initial response, CRU stated (1) that the requested data (even station lists for Jones et al 1990) were already “publicly available” at NOAA, and (2) that they no longer possessed the “rural” data. I immediately asked the FOI officer to reconsider the ruling, observing that (1) it was (obviously) impossible to identify the Jones et al 1990 stations by inspection of the GHCN data sets; (2) my disbelief that Jones et al no longer even possessed a record of what stations they used. FOI officer Palmer quickly resiled from these untrue claims and reported:

upon further investigation and work, we have uncovered the annual input data for the paper of Dr. Jones from 1990.

This data was placed online in April 2007 (See cache here). The release of this data confirmed my previous surmise (see CA here, Feb 22, 2007) that the following representation in Jones et al 1990 about the Chinese network was untrue:

The stations were selected on the basis of station history; we selected those with few, if any changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.

I had surmised this representation was untrue because a contemporary technical report (NOAA NDP039) said of its 205-station Chinese network:

Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available for any of the stations in the 205-station network; therefore, details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times, and official data sources are not known.

This misrepresentation became the theme in numerous 2007 Climategate Letters. One letter from me attached to a thread shows that I suggested that Jones issue a correction notice, something that Kevin Trenberth, an unlikely ally, also suggested. However, Jones decided to do nothing. (Climategate strands lead in all directions – I’m quite prepared to discuss the Wang issues, but would rather do so in a separate thread in a forthcoming post and focus in this thread on FOI compliance issues.)

IPCC AR4 Durbin-Watson Statistics

In May 2007, also arising out of AR4, I submitted a second FOI request to CRU (see post here) regarding the calculation of Durbin-Watson statistics in IPCC AR4, then hot off the press.

Although IPCC is supposed to only use results from peer-reviewed studies, in response to criticisms from Ross McKitrick and Cohn and Lins, Jones inserted his own statistical calculations (including Durbin-Watson statistics for temperature trends) into the AR4 chapter of which he was chapter author. I urge readers to consult the original CA post.

After carefully examining the AR4 references for Jones’ calculation – none of which was precisely on point – I asked Jones to clarify this (non-peer-reviewed) calculation as follows:

In Table 3.2 of IPCC AR4, you refer to Durbin-Watson statistics for various trend calculations, but do not show them. Could you please provide me with these statistics.

I am unfamiliar with any prior use of the Durbin-Watson statistic “after allowing for first-order serial correlation”. Could you please provide me your statistical reference showing how one calculates a Durbin-Watson statistic “after allowing for first-order serial correlation” and giving significance levels for the statistic “after allowing for first-order serial correlation”.

Could you please identify the statistical packages used in your calculation of REML trends and Durbin-Watson statistics? Would it be correct to say that (1) fitted a trend to the various series; (2) fitted an AR1 arima model to the residuals from (1)? (3) carried out a Durbin-Watson test on the residuals from (2)?

Where applicable, these requests are made under FOI provisions.
Thank you for your attention, Steve McIntyre

Copying the FOI officer should obviously not have been necessary but the Climategate Letters show unambiguously that Jones and associates had adopted a policy of unresponsiveness. Unlike requests without an FOI number, this request was resolved quickly and in a prompt and professional manner.

Gridded MXD Data Used in Mann et al 2008

Mann et al 2008 used gridded MXD data attributed to Rutherford Mann et al (J Clim 2005). Rutherford et al had stated that the gridded MXD was online at Rutherford’s website, but this was untrue.

In Sep 2008, I sent an FOI request (my third such request to CRU), asking for the gridded MXD data as sent to Mann and associates. I did not ask them for anything new or anything that had not already been sent to others. Had Rutherford et al lived up to their representations to Journal of Climate, the request would not have been necessary.

Whereas previous attempts to obtain this data directly or through the journal (edited by Andrew Weaver) had been unsuccessful, this request through FOI was resolved promptly and expeditiously by CRU placing the requested information on a webpage (see CA discussions here here

Interim Summary

Thus far, over the five year period from 2005 to 2009, I’ve located three UK FOI requests from me or CA readers not involving CRU station data or unarchived IPCC review comments (which I’ll discuss separately.) In making this summary, I’ve reviewed relevant CA threads. If readers are aware of any requests that I’ve missed in this inventory – other than station data/associated confidentiality agreements and IPCC comments, please advise me and I’ll amend accordingly.

Each of these three requests was reasonable and resolved promptly.

At least one of them would have been unnecessary had Rutherford (Mann, Briffa … ) et al complied with their explicit undertakings to Journal of Climate or had Andrew Weaver ensured that they had done so. In any event, complying with this FOI request took negligible effort as precisely the data had already been sent to associates.

In a second case (Durbin-Watson statistics), the FOI request would have been unnecessary if Jones had complied with IPCC policies not to use results not reported in the peer-reviewed-literature. In any event, the request was resolved quickly and professionally.

In the third case (the Jones et al 1990 networks), after a short delay resulting from false statements by CRU, the data was located and placed online and the matter quickly resolved.

Compliance with the FOI requests discussed above cannot reasonably be characterized as “endless, time-consuming demands” under the UK Freedom of Information Acts. A few readers observed yesterday that it was possible that non-CA readers (or CA readers of which I was unaware) had sent “endless, time-consuming demands for information” prior to Climategate. However, there is no evidence of such FOI requests (abusive or otherwise) in the Climategate Letters. Nor has such activity been mentioned at realclimate prior to Climategate. Nor is there evidence of such activity in the NOAA FOI logs.

In our review thus far, the FOI legislation seems to be doing exactly what it was supposed to do – and with negligible effort on the part of the scientists in question. I’ll get to FOI requests for CRU station data and unarchived IPCC review comments in subsequent posts on this theme, following which I’ll make some overall assessment.

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 160

29 december, 2009

Some of the graphs I have posted in some of my early posts 1 ½-2 years ago.

But they are worth repeating to give perspective to this the biggest political and scientific scandal in modern time – The Global Warming Hysteria and it’s short-sighted political hubris.

See also my post

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 108

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 2500 B.C. TO 2008 A.D.

Climatic and anthropogenic influence on the stable isotope record from bulk carbonates and ostracodes in Lake Neuchâ, Switzerland, during the last two millennia

Journal of Paleolimnology, Volume 21, Number 1 / January, 1999

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r18305861087j242/?p=2f7956abc73c4ac5a6e9dc3b1e970dd2&pi=2

                          Click on the graph and it gets bigger

The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa

Tyson, P.D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. and Heiss, G.A.  2000;  South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126

http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/africaiceage.php

http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/millennialafrica.php

A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa

Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001; South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51

Environmental changes in the northern Altai during the last millennium documented in Lake Teletskoye pollen record

Andreev, A.A., Pierau, R., Kalugin, I.A., Daryin, A.V., Smolyaninova, L.G. and Diekmann, B. 2007; Quaternary Research 67: 394-399

doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2006.11.004    

Climate changes and flood/drought risk in the Yangtze Delta, China, during the past millennium

Zhang, Q., Gemmer, M. and Chen, J. 2008; Quaternary International 176-177: 62-69

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2006.11.004  

Climatic implications of δ13C variations in a Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) during the last two millennia

Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E. 1995; Geophysical Research Letters 22: 2155-2158

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95GL02066.shtml

A quantitative high-resolution summer temperature reconstruction based on sedimentary pigments from Laguna Aculeo, central Chile, back to AD 850.

von Gunten, L., Grosjean, M., Rein, B., Urrutia, R. and Appleby, P. 2009.; The Holocene 19: 873-881

http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/19/6/873

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 2500 B.C. TO 2008 A.D.

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 159

29 december, 2009

“Interesting that “could not comment on the longer term” bit. Normally, this is the Met Office’s prime speciality. It may not be able to tell us with any reliability what the weather is going to be like next weekend. But ask it to predict what global climate is going to be up to in 50 or a 100 years time and its prescience is truly uncanny.”

“How does the Met Office know this? Because it’s on a mission, that’s why. Visit its website and you’ll quickly appreciate how this supposedly authoritative and balanced taxpayer-funded body has become the most strident activist on behalf of the global climate-fear-promotion movement.”

“The rot set in under its former director Sir John Houghton, a man so fanatically committed to the idea of man-made global warming that he once likened it to “a weapon of mass destruction”. As Christopher Booker reports in The Real Global Warming Disaster, Houghton not only chaired the first IPCC working group on  assessing the “scientific information on climate change” but also established in 1990 the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. “

“With friends like that, is it any wonder that the Met Office gets it so wrong so very often? Its computer models, like those of the IPCC, are so thoroughly committed to the idea of Man-Made Global Warming that they continue to predict it regardless of all evidence to the contrary from real-world thermometers.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020868/the-uk-meterological-office-slightly-less-reliable-than-tea-leaves-or-cock-entrails/

The UK Meteorological Office: slightly less reliable than tea leaves or cock entrails

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 29th, 2009

One of my personal favourite Comedy Moments of 2009 came in the unlikely context of a BBC Radio 5 Live debate on climate change. The female presenter, as we’ve come to expect of the BBC, was quite shamelessly biased towards the Warmist camp, but this apparently wasn’t enough for the show’s resident weatherman. When his turn came to read the weather, he instead chose to deliver an impromptu homily on the seriousness of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I forget the exact words but his speech began something like:  “Well I work for the Met Office and I’d just like to say….”

Dear, oh dear. The poor chap. I fear the time will soon come – if it hasn’t already – when the phrase “I work for the Met Office” will command about as much respect as “I was in charge of the New Orleans levee defences in the run-up to Katrina” or “I’m head of security at Lagos International Airport.”  The UK Meteorological Office – established in 1854 – is supposed to be Britain’s greatest authority on forecasting the weather. So how come  these days its predictions are so risibly inaccurate you’d probably be better off consulting tea leaves or cock entrails?

We all remember (with some bitterness) the glaring contrast between the Met Office’s rosy prediction of a “barbecue summer” and the chilly wash-out we actually experienced. This month, you may have noticed, they’ve screwed up yet again. A “mild winter” was what the Met Office promised us. But a “mild winter” (clue: notice how many fewer toes you have than you did in June) is what we definitely haven’t got. This has not, of course, prevented the Met Office coming up with one of its characteristic “even though we’re wrong we’re right” defences:

A Met Office spokesman said: “That forecast was dealing with the whole of the winter. December has certainly been cold but the prediction is for December, January and February.”

He believed the “climate team” was updating the prediction “perhaps over the course of the next week.”

The spokesman added: “It has certainly been a cold winter so far in most parts but the seasonal forecast has not been proven one way or the other.”

He said the weather was expected to remain cold for “the next week or so” but he could not comment on the longer term.

Interesting that “could not comment on the longer term” bit. Normally, this is the Met Office’s prime speciality. It may not be able to tell us with any reliability what the weather is going to be like next weekend. But ask it to predict what global climate is going to be up to in 50 or a 100 years time and its prescience is truly uncanny. It’s going to be warmer, apparently. Much, much warmer. With drastically risen sea levels. Melted glaciers and ice caps. Ravening packs of emaciated polar bears cruising the world on diminishing ice floes. etc.

How does the Met Office know this? Because it’s on a mission, that’s why. Visit its website and you’ll quickly appreciate how this supposedly authoritative and balanced taxpayer-funded body has become the most strident activist on behalf of the global climate-fear-promotion movement. According to the Met Office’s official climate change guide, computer models are “reliable”, the “overwhelming majority of scientists agree on the fundamentals of climate change”, human activity is a major driver of climate change and the Urban Heat Island Effect is an urban myth.

The rot set in under its former director Sir John Houghton, a man so fanatically committed to the idea of man-made global warming that he once likened it to “a weapon of mass destruction”. As Christopher Booker reports in The Real Global Warming Disaster, Houghton not only chaired the first IPCC working group on  assessing the “scientific information on climate change” but also established in 1990 the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.  In conjunction with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – whose scientists and associates were so roundly discredited in the Climategate scandal – the Hadley Centre provides one of the four main datasets (HadCrut) used by the IPCC for its increasingly hysterical predictions of man-made climate disaster.

With friends like that, is it any wonder that the Met Office gets it so wrong so very often? Its computer models, like those of the IPCC, are so thoroughly committed to the idea of Man-Made Global Warming that they continue to predict it regardless of all evidence to the contrary from real-world thermometers. If it weren’t so depressing – the Met Office, after all, plays a key role in informing public policy and therefore, in how your money is to be wasted by the government of the day (be it run by Green Gordon or Green Dave the disaster will be just as great) – it would almost be funny.

In fact it is funny, as this glorious Independent article dug up by Richard North reminds us. It was written in March 2000 and has various “experts” explaining how very soon in Northern Europe, the sight of winter snow will almost be as unfamiliar as marauding packs of wolves:

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.”Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

“We don’t really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like,” he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

North contrasts it with this more recent article from the Daily Telegraph, predicting sub-zero temperatures and widespread snow showers over New Year. Let’s hope our kids make the most of this “very rare and exciting event”. If we believe the Met Office – and who could possibly not – it will almost certainly be their last chance ever to build a snowman in England’s green and increasingly subtropical land.

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 158

29 december, 2009

More on Pachauri, head of IPCC, and his direct economic involvement with the biggest Indian oil and gas company.

The hypocrisy is so staggering it’s beyond belief!

And remember that the favourite weapon of Global Warming Hysterics when attacking ANYONE that question the “science” or “facts” behind this political religion have ALWAYS BEEN THAT THEY ARE PAID BY BIG OIL (The evil incarnated in their world).

And of course it’s extra hypocritical since BIG OIL is NOW funding a lot of this Global Warming Hysteria and their institutions.

And of course the mainstream media is utter silent, totally shaming their journalistic endeavor, and continuing to preach this political hysteria. As a further betrayal of their heritage.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-and-big-oil.html

Pachauri and Big Oil

Posted by Richard Tuesday, December 29, 2009

The Indian company, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), is ranked 152nd in the Fortune Global 500 list of companies. It contributes 77 percent of India‘s crude oil production and 81 percent of India‘s natural gas production.

The Indian government holds 74.14 percent equity stake in this company which, in the financial year ending 2009, achieved its highest-ever sales revenue of £8.6 billion.

And, for the period of June 2006 to June 2009 it had the good fortune to have as one of its non-executive directors a certain Dr R K Pachauri, also director general of TERI and chairman of the IPCC.

When it comes to ”Big Oil”, there are bigger but ONGC certainly qualifies as a member of this club. And at the heart of the beast for three years, at a crucial point in the development of the IPCC agenda, was Dr Pachauri.

During that time, though, no one could accuse the good doctor of getting rich out of the deal – not directly at any rate. The company paid its non-executive directors a modest attendance fee only. And for the two years of 2007-08 and 2008-09, such was his pitiful attendance record that he netted only just over £2,000.

However, Dr Pachauri is nothing if not good at multi-tasking and networking. And, while diligently looking after the interests of ONGC he was, of course, looking after his own, setting up an offshoot of his institute TERI as a separate company called TERI-Biotech.

This company had developed a patented process for the biodegradation of oil, which could be used for extending the productivity of oil wells and for cleaning up oil spills. And its first – and main – client became ONGC, which allowed it to test and refine its process.

So successful was the association, we are told, that the two companies, TERI-Biotech and ONGC decided to formalise the relationship, forming on 26 March 2007 a joint venture company called ONGC TERI Biotech Ltd (OTBL). TERI – director general Dr R K Pachauri – holds 47 percent of the equity, while ONGC has 49 percent. The remaining 2 percent is held by financial institutions.

Needless to say, the financial contribution to Dr Pachauri’s evident wealth has not been recorded, but his continued partnership with ”Big Oil” is now set to yield dividends. Reported in April 2009, two months before Pachauri stepped down from the main board of ONGC, the joint venture company had decided to bid for a share of a $3bn UN-funded contract to clean up the oil pollution in Kuwait, left behind by Saddam’s invasion.

That Pachauri just happens to be a senior official of a UN institution is, of course, a complete coincidence. But his joint company seems remarkably confident of getting a sizeable slice of the work, so much so that it was telling the Indian financial press that it has ”a plan to clock a top line of $2.1 billion in the next three to four years.”

One can only wish the enterprising Dr Pachauri the best of luck in his venture, but it should be recorded that, while the likes of George Monbiot are quick to associate ”climate deniers” with Big Oil, no one is actually closer than his all-time hero, Dr R K Pachauri.

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 157

29 december, 2009

“Climategate reveals skulduggery the general public can understand: that a tightly-linked clique of scientists were behaving as crusaders. Their letters reveal they were working in what they repeatedly labelled a ”cause” to promote a political agenda.”

“If scientific objectivity is corrupt at the top, there’s every reason to think that the rot spreads through the entire body. And evidence suggests it has.”

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/denial/2385380/story.html

Who’s in denial now?

By Kenneth P. Green, For The Calgary HeraldDecember 28, 2009

Responses to ”Climategate”–the leaked e-mails from Britain’s University of East Anglia and its Climatic Research Unit — remind me of the line ”Are your feet wet? Can you see the pyramids? That’s because you’re in denial.”

Climate catastrophists like Al Gore and the UN’s Rajendra Pachauri are downplaying Climategate: it’s only a few intemperate scientists; there’s no real evidence of wrongdoing; now let’s persecute the whistleblower. In Calgary, the latest fellow trying to use the Monty Python ”nothing to see here, move along” routine is Prof. David Mayne Reid, who penned a column last week denying the importance of Climategate.

Unfortunately for Reid, old saws won’t work in the Internet age: Climategate has blazed across the Internet, blogosphere, and social networking sites. Even environmentalist and writer George Monbiot has recognized that the public’s perception of climate science will be damaged extensively, calling for one of the Climategate ringleaders to resign.

What’s catastrophic about Climategate is that it reveals a science as broken as Michael Mann’s hockey stick, which despite Reid’s protestations, has been shown to be a misleading chart that erases a 400-year stretch of warm temperatures (called the Medieval Warm Period), and a more recent little ice-age that ended in the mid-1800s. No amount of hand-waving will restore the credibility of climate science while holding onto rubbish like that.

Climategate reveals skulduggery the general public can understand: that a tightly-linked clique of scientists were behaving as crusaders. Their letters reveal they were working in what they repeatedly labelled a ”cause” to promote a political agenda.

That’s not science, that’s a crusade. When you cherry-pick, discard, nip, tuck, and tape disparate bits of data into the most alarming portrayal you can in the name of a ”cause,” you’re not engaged in science, but in the production of propaganda. And this clique tried to subvert the peer-review process as well. They attempted to prevent others from getting into peer reviewed journals — thus letting them claim skeptic research wasn’t peer-reviewed — a convenient circular (and dishonest) way to discredit skeptics.

Finally, people know that a fish rots from its head. The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was considered the top climate research community. It was the source of a vast swath of the information then that was funnelled into the supposedly ”authoritative” reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If scientific objectivity is corrupt at the top, there’s every reason to think that the rot spreads through the entire body. And evidence suggests it has. A Russian think-tank recently revealed the climate temperature record compiled by the Climatic Research Unit cherry-picked data from only 25 per cent of Russia‘s climate monitoring sites, the sites closest to urban areas, biased by the urban heat island effect. The stations excluded data from 40 per cent of Russia’s total land mass, which is 12.5 per cent of all the Earth’s land mass.

Reid’s indignation about Climategate is beyond ludicrous. ”It is wrong,” intones Reid, ”to castigate people for things said in private, and often taken out of context.” He equates the response to Climategate with a ”lynch mob.” Funny, the professor seems to have highly selective indignation; he is apparently unaware of the unremitting attacks on people skeptical of climate science or policy by climate scientists and politicians.

People skeptical of any aspect of climate change have long been called ”deniers,” an odious linkage with Holocaust denial, and various luminaries have called for them to be drowned, jailed, and tried for crimes against humanity. One prominent columnist called skepticism treason against the very Earth itself.

As for indignation about the release of private correspondence, where was Reid’s indignation when Greenpeace, looking for something to spin into an incriminating picture, stole skeptic Chris Horner’s trash? Where was his indignation a few years ago when scientist Steve Schroeder showed a routine letter of mine to another climate scientist (Andrew Dessler), who posted it to the Internet where it was spun into the scurrilous accusation that I was trying to bribe UN scientists? Reid’s indignation is the chutzpah of a man who kills his family then wants pity because he’s an orphan.

The Climategate scandal, like others in biology and medicine erodes the credibility of both the scientists involved, and the institution of scientific research. And it should: it has become evident that there is a lot of rot going on in the body of science, and too little effort made to fix it.

A start could be made. They should start by practicing the scientific method: release all data, and release all assumptions and methods used to process the data at the time of publication. Make it available to researchers (even lay researchers) who are outside the clique so the work can be checked. Had the researchers involved in Climategate done this from the beginning, instead of circling their wagons and refusing to allow outsiders to check their work, they would have taken less hectoring. As a bonus for them, Climategate would never have happened.

Former IPCC reviewer Kenneth P. Green, has his doctorate in environmental science and engineering and is an Advisor to the Frontier Center for Public Policy, (www.fcpp.org).Green is a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

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 156

29 december, 2009

These poor people, I completely understand why everything come to a standstill because of 3 FOI requests during 5 years. SOOOO much hard work. Especially since ALL 3 was refused.

And remember, dear folks, NEARLY ALL OF THIS “RESEARCH” IS DONE WITH OUR TAX MONEY.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/28/foi-myth-1-usa/

 FOI Myth #1: USA

Climate scientists have recently been promoting the myth that providing data in response to FOI requests was interfering with their work. Nature uncritically accepted this myth in a recent editorial calling for action to protect climate-change researchers from “endless time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.”:

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden…

While the scientific method is supposed to require fact checking, in this case, the mantra had merely been repeated over and over by climate scientists like a sort of tribal chant and, without carrying out even a modicum of due diligence to determine the veracity of the claims, Nature joined into the chant.

Today I’m going to review the allegation that U.S. scientists have been unduly burdened by FOI requests, showing that they haven’t. I’ll discuss the UK situation in a follow-up post (and would appreciate that commenters defer discussion of the UK situation until then.)

In the five-year period from 2005-2009, I made a total of three FOI requests to U.S. institutions. I am unaware of other FOI requests made by CA readers (there is no record of any such requests in CA posts included in the FOI category). Of the three requests, only one actually resulted in the provision of data under the FOI request. (In the other two cases, the institutions apparently planned to archive the data anyway and the requests were resolved outside FOI – see below.) To say that U.S. climate scientists were inconvenienced in any way by the provision of data in response to FOI requests is totally untrue. I will review each of the three FOI requests below.

FOI to NOAA regarding Jones et al 1990

My first FOI request to a US institution (NOAA) was in March 2007. This was the only request actually resulting in information being sent to me pursuant to the FOI request.

This FOI request requested station lists and data for networks (China and Australia) used in Jones et al 1990, an influential study on urban heat island effect that had then been recently cited in IPCC AR4. The request to NOAA was concurrent with an identical request to CRU (coauthors were at each institution.) Oddly, as of a year later, I hadn’t heard back from NOAA – not even an acknowledgement that my request was under consideration.

However, the parallel request to CRU was resolved expeditiously (anomalously.) In April 2007, they posted up station lists for China, Russia and Australia (cache here) As I result, I didn’t follow up with NOAA, as the request had become moot.

To my surprise, as I reported at CA here, I saw two NOAA presentations on the internet referring to my FOI request (not identifying me by name, but referring to an “international researcher” and quoting the exact language of my request.)

Mildly amused, I emailed Tom Karl of NOAA, twitting him about the oversight. He promptly apologized and sent me the station lists for the Russian network (by then moot as noted above.) They also provided information on U.S. stations that I hadn’t requested but appreciated. See here here . The data provided by NOAA consisted only of station lists (the original data having been overwritten by subsequent data) and was not extensive in scope.

IPCC Review Comments

My second FOI request to a U.S. institution, also in 2007, was about IPCC Review Comments.

As an IPCC reviewer, I had previously asked IPCC to provide me with AR4 Review Comments, which IPCC was obliged under its procedures to maintain in an open archive for up to 5 years. IPCC’s answer was that I could inspect a hard copy of the Review Comments in person at Harvard Library during limited hours, where I would be able to only copy up to 100 pages. In an internet age, I (and others) regarded this response as an affront to IPCC’s obligation to be “open and transparent”. This view was shared by some “community” climate scientists, who supported my request for an online archive (e.g. Andrew Dessler, James Annan.)

After IPCC refused to provide a digital version of the Review Comments, I submitted an FOI request to NOAA asking them for any copies of IPCC Review Comments in their possession (US FOI requiring institutions to provide digital copies of information if available). The Chair of Working Group 1 (Susan Solomon) and the head of the WG1 Technical Services Unit (Martin Manning) were both NOAA employees. Both of them had used their NOAA email addresses for their IPCC correspondence. Astonsihingly, NOAA refused the FOI request on the grounds that NOAA did not possess any relevant documents, apparently taking the legal position that correspondence by NOAA employees pertaining to IPCC was IPCC property. In my opinion, this unsupportable legal theory was simply one more case where a climate institution diminished its reputation by making an untrue and absurd statement.

However, shortly after the NOAA refusal, IPCC reversed its stance and placed the majority of Review Comments online. (While the online archive is very extensive, it does not include review comments if chapter authors evaded the requirement to archive all review comments, e.g. Eugene Wahl’s “off the record” review comments sent to Keith Briffa outside the IPCC system to Keith Briffa, or review comments by review editors, but that’s another story.)

Santer Data
My third FOI request was for the monthly tropospheric data for the 49 individual models used in Santer et al 2008. See here for Santer posts.

In October 2008, I had noticed that Santer had used obsolete observations (ending in 1999) and that some key results for model ensembles were reversed using up-to-date data. (Ross and I submitted a comment to IJC on this topic in January 2009, where it was promptly tied up by reviewers – see discussion in the Climategate Letters.)

I was interested in doing a similar comparison of Santer’s individual models with up-to-date data and, in late October 2009, I emailed Santer requesting the monthly tropospheric data used in the statistical analyses reported in Santer et al 2008. (Santer, by the way, is an employee of PCMDI, one of whose principal missions is to provide data to the research community in user-friendly formats.)

In one of the Climategate Letters [link], Tom Wigley suggested to Santer that the requested data would be of considerable benefit to the community and even recommended that Santer provide an even more extensive archive than I had requested. In January 2009, the requested data was placed online. Shortly thereafter, in response to a CA post, Dave Bader, Santer’s supervisor, notified me by email as follows (see here) that the archiving of the data was not in response to my FOI request and that Livermore had always planned to archive the data:

I want to clarify several mis-impressions on your “climateaudit.org” web site with respect to the Synthetic MSU data sets on the PCMDI website.

1. The data were released publicly on 14 January 2009, at which time our Department of Energy sponsors and NNSA Freedom of Information Act officials were notified. These data were released voluntarily by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and we were never directed to do so as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Furthermore, preparation of the datasets and documentation for them began before your FOIA request was received by us.

Taking Bader’s statements at face value, Santer should obviously have informed me of these plans when I originally requested the data in October 2009. Instead, as reported at CA here, Santer not only made no mention of Livermore’s data release plans, instead repudiating my request in extremely rude terms, broadcasting his refusal to 16 climate scientists around the world, most of whom were not employees of Lawrence Livermore or the US Department of Energy, the operator of Lawrence Livermore.

I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC.

I gather that you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter of the appropriate use of statistical tools in climate research. Rather that “auditing” our paper, you should be directing your attention to the 2007 IJoC paper published by David Douglass et al., which contains an egregious statistical error.

Please do not communicate with me in the future.

Other contemporary Santer emails are in the Climategate Letters and contain a variety of inappropriate allegations and language. After Santer’s refusal, I sent FOI requests to NOAA (the home of several coauthors) and DOE.

Lucia reported on these events in a contemporary post here, drawing the conclusion that it was “Santer’s intransigence” that resulted in any unnecessary paper work – not the FOI requests. Lucia:

Taken at face value, this means that Santer’s intransigence resulted in a lot of unnecessary paper work for SteveM, FOI officials and Bader. Right? Too bad Santer didn’t just hand over the data in the first place, right?

Summary

Nature’s claim that US scientists have been inconvenienced by “endless time-consuming demands for information” under FOI is totally untrue. As noted above, during the five years from 2005 to 2009, there were only three FOI requests in the US involving me (or, to my knowledge, CA readers). In two of the three cases (IPCC, Santer), archiving the requested data was either endorsed by “community” climate scientists or had been planned all along or both. In both these cases, the FOI requests were turned down (but became moot before an appeal was necessary because of institutional recognition of the desirability of archiving the data.) In the third case (the request to NOAA for Jones et al 1990 data), NOAA did not even acknowledge the FOI request, which was moot by the time that it had responded; in any event, the data consisted only of station lists and did not inconvenience NOAA scientists.

The claim by Nature and various climate scientists that U.Sclimate-change researchers had been subjected to “endless time-consuming demands for information” under U.S. Freedom of Information requests is unsupported by the record – something that could have been easily determined had Nature carried out any due diligence, instead of relying on gossip.

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 155

29 december, 2009

More on the EPA.

As I wrote in my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 91:

This one’s for the EPA and the Obama administration. Who in their political “wisdom” in the name of Global Warming Hysteria, have decreed that the trace gas CO2, which is essential for ALL LIFE ON EARTH, is a ”dangerous pollutant”.

Every time we and ALL animals breathe we produce CO2. So how is EPA going to solve this “problem”?

Kill us all?

And the cartoon in that post says it all.

See also my posts:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 127

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 104

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 103

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 102

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 92

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 78

“This ploy is basically extortion. As an experienced lawyer, I bristle at this brutish tactic to induce business to plead for the mercy of the regulatory guillotine instead of being drawn and quartered.  “

“Most Americans do not understand the chokehold carbon dioxide control would give government over almost everything we do. Giving government the power to allot carbon dioxide gives it essential control over most means of production.  This is ”the road to serfdom” that the great F.A. Hayek warned about.”

“People need to see the wolves in green clothing for what they are: charlatans. Honest environmentalists need to stop their unquestioning clamor, revisit the science, and recognize the truth, lest the very good cause they serve be seriously harmed.”

“This is the fight that will define the twenty-first century as either a time when mankind advances due to honest enterprise, quality science, and technical achievement…or we are subjugated by government micro-regulation from manipulative control freaks based on false and slanted data from grant recipients with no scruples.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/clearing_the_air_on_the_clean.html

December 28, 2009

Clearing the Air on the Clean Air Act and Climate Change

By Harvey M. Sheldon

Green believers give no indication of slowing their quest for carbon dioxide control. On December 7, 2009, coincident with the convening of the since-failed Climate Conference in Copenhagen, the USEPA made final the ”finding” that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, threaten human health and the environment.

According to alarmists and the Obama administration, there is a scientific ”consensus” that man’s activities threaten our planet with detrimental global warming, dangerous sea-level rise, disease, and more destructive storms. Even though the North Pole had open water in the 1940s, and temperatures were higher both in the middle ages and 7,000 years ago, we are said to be in danger. An atmospheric trace gas (CO2) is the supposed culprit, even though plants depend on it to live and there used to be much more of it in the atmosphere. 

On December 9, news reports said ”the Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a ‘command-and-control’ role over the process in a way that could hurt business.” The threat is to use the Clean Air Act.

This ploy is basically extortion. As an experienced lawyer, I bristle at this brutish tactic to induce business to plead for the mercy of the regulatory guillotine instead of being drawn and quartered. 

I think too many law firms and consultants are playing the politically correct game of being silent and just giving their clients notice of new rules. They stay mum on policy out of fear of criticism or loss of client loyalty. This is short-sighted and not really in the best interest of their clients. Counselors and consultants should give meaningful advice, even if it is sometimes unpopular. Given the evidence of data manipulation and falsification by alarmist ”scientists” and many of the assumptions or assertions of the IPCC and the alarmists, this ”go along” attitude is looking less like prudent caution and more like disbelieving ”good Germans” afraid to confront reality

Most Americans do not understand the chokehold carbon dioxide control would give government over almost everything we do. Giving government the power to allot carbon dioxide gives it essential control over most means of production.  This is ”the road to serfdom” that the great F.A. Hayek warned about.

Whether global warming is occurring at a significantly increased and dangerous pace over normal variations because of mankind is the issue. Very credible data show and numerous scientists contend that there is little effect on climate from carbon dioxide emissions, and that mankind’s contribution of carbon dioxide to the alleged problem is not predominant to boot. I recommend to all the report ”Climate Change Reconsidered” on the web at NIPCC.

Public companies must account to their stockholders for material risks from regulations and proposed laws. At this point, the red tape and cost in the laws proposed to deal with global warming pose a higher risk to the health of most American businesses than the changes that may or may not occur in climate. (Indeed, if you want to discuss real climate risk, perhaps you should be discussing the risk of global cooling, which has serious basis in science.) 

American businesses now face the prospect of government regulating how they buy and use energy and produce products, falsely pitched as a way to protect the Earth’s climate. They need to challenge such regulation. They need to consider saying that carbon dioxide regulation poses a systemic risk to free enterprise and the health of the economy. The ”science” demonstrating that global warming is man’s fault lacks credible proofs. The very capacity of the so-called general circulation models relied on by the United Nations’ IPCC to predict the future has been disproved in several ways. Other important IPCC assumptions are wrong, too. Now that evidence of conscious manipulation of fundamental historic data has been revealed, perhaps the ”skeptic” side will get a hearing. If it doesn’t, we will be shooting ourselves in the gut. 

If Waxman-Markey passes, the federal government will supervise all forms of industrial, residential, and commercial energy use. That bill will charge for carbon, impose a ”cap-and-trade” system, and mandate renewable energy standards and energy efficiency requirements for American business and industry. There will be a tight nationwide system of federal supervision and regulation of energy use and climate control efforts reaching down to local building codes and housing inspectors. The 1,427 pages of the bill are a monument to the ambition of some to have rules for everything.

Indeed, even some of the most ardent alarmists say that the bill will do little to change the future climate. However, it will cost staggering sums and countless wasted man-hours. Furthermore, the emphasis on ”green energy” in the bill is an engineering pipe dream because the ”green” sources relied on and subsidized are inherently inadequate for the task on a national scale, and emphasis on them also would cause hardship in the third world.

The threat to use the Clean Air Act to control carbon dioxide has a somewhat hollow ring to me. I would call the administration’s bluff. Let me explain.

The two principal programs that affect business under the Clean Air Act are the Stationary Source programs of Title I and the Motor Vehicle programs in Title II. (Also, there is a separate ”acid rain” program that affects utilities primarily and does not include greenhouse gases.) Under Title I, the basic starting point for the development of regulations is the establishment of ”air quality criteria.” Once those criteria are in place, the states or federal government plan for an emission-control regime that will achieve a healthy or safe level of the pollutant — i.e. one that will meet the air quality criteria.

The ”finding” of the administrator was not made under Title I. In fact, its legality is highly questionable even under Title II. I seriously doubt the EPA can escape a duty to develop national air quality standards under Section 108(b) of the Act based on statutory history and the case law. Promulgating such standards requires consideration of ”all relevant science” before it can occur. In short, if this is made into a fight over genuine science, with rules in play about the competence of evidence and witnesses, I have little doubt that the skeptic view will win. 

People need to see the wolves in green clothing for what they are: charlatans. Honest environmentalists need to stop their unquestioning clamor, revisit the science, and recognize the truth, lest the very good cause they serve be seriously harmed.

Americans and American business should not knuckle under to this cynical and corrupt power grab. Before new policy and rules are made, we must demand a thorough airing of the climate science with a fair and honest process by a reliable investigating team. It will not be that hard to root out the fudging and falsification of data. 

This is the fight that will define the twenty-first century as either a time when mankind advances due to honest enterprise, quality science, and technical achievement…or we are subjugated by government micro-regulation from manipulative control freaks based on false and slanted data from grant recipients with no scruples.

Mr. Sheldon is a Chicago attorney specializing in environmental law. He is a graduate of Amherst College and Harvard Law School. The views expressed are personal and do not reflect any firm or client.

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 154

28 december, 2009

More on medias role and their NON coverage. In this case The BBC and their betrayal of their journalistic role.

See also my posts:

How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics!

How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics – part 2

How BBC sold out all of its declared values!

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 22

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/12/bbc-editor-is-climate-change-activist.html

BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

>> Monday, December 28, 2009

I’ve become increasingly convinced that the BBC is part of an international conspiracy about ‘climate change’. It isn’t simply that the reporting is so biased; it’s also because there seems to be a concerted effort to make sure that whatever so-called sceptics discover, for example over Climategate, the warmists bounce straight back with a new set of warped theories or bent facts to support their arguments. The feed of material is relentless, as if it is coming from an organised source. Over the holidays, I’ve been doing some digging on this, and I wanted to share one of my first findings.

A BBC journalist called Peter Thomson is not a household name in this country, but he’s the environment editor of the BBC programme (made jointly with WGBH Boston and RPI) The World, which on a daily basis pushes out climate scare stories to millions of people. Mr Thomson, it turns out, is also the secretary of the Society of Environmental Journalists, a US organisation, the main purpose of which is to spread alarmism through a ‘guide’ about ‘climate change'(masked of course, under the cloak of ‘objectivity’). There can be no doubt that this is a campaigining organisation which wants to achieve political change because it believes that the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions.

Mr Thomson’s activism does not stop there. He’s also a member of the advisory board of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, yet another international organisation with alarmist goals. It, too, publishes a guide to how journalists should cover ‘climate change’; in truly chilling McCarthyite terms, the introduction explains how anyone who disagrees with ”the consensus” should be ignored and that journalists should frantically pester editors to publish ‘climate change’ scare stories.

So, to recap. One of the BBC’s most senior editors responsible for environmental reporting has formal roles at the epicentre of a worldwide coinspiracy among ‘climate change’ alarmists. Not only that, he is assisting in the international propagation of so-called science communication guides, the main purpose of which are to enlist other journalists to spread the same lies in which he also believes. I suspect there’s a whole phalanx of Peter Thomsons, all feeding the BBC’s insatiable appetite to feed us with moonshine.

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 153

28 december, 2009

Some excelent points by Willis Eschenbach, and the utter unreliability of these computer models and their ”predictions”. And remember it’s upon these models that the WHOLE Global Warming Hysteria is based.

See, among others, my posts:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 141

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 124

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 122

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 107

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 90

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 88

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 82

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 63

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 31

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

“Unfortunately, while the physics is simple, the climate is far from simple. It is one of the more complex systems that we have ever studied. The climate is a tera-watt scale planetary sized heat engine. It is driven by both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial forcings, a number of which are unknown, and many of which are poorly understood and/or difficult to measure. It is inherently chaotic and turbulent, two conditions for which we have few mathematical tools.

The climate is comprised of five major subsystems — atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. All of these subsystems are imperfectly understood. Each of these subsystems has its own known and unknown internal and external forcings, feedbacks, resonances, and cyclical variations. In addition, each subsystem affects all of the other subsystems through a variety of known and unknown forcings and feedbacks.

Then there is the problem of scale. Climate has crucially important processes at physical scales from the molecular to the planetary, and at temporal scales from milliseconds to millennia.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/27/the-unbearable-complexity-of-climate-2/

The Unbearable Complexity of Climate

27 12 2009

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Figure 1. The Experimental Setup

I keep reading statements in various places about how it is indisputable “simple physics” that if we increase amount of atmospheric CO2, it will inevitably warm the planet. Here’s a typical example:

In the hyperbolic language that has infested the debate, researchers have been accused of everything from ditching the scientific method to participating in a vast conspiracy. But the basic concepts of the greenhouse effect is a matter of simple physics and chemistry, and have been part of the scientific dialog for roughly a century.

Here’s another:

The important thing is that we know how greenhouse gases affect climate. It has even been predicted hundred years ago by Arrhenius. It is simple physics.

Unfortunately, while the physics is simple, the climate is far from simple. It is one of the more complex systems that we have ever studied. The climate is a tera-watt scale planetary sized heat engine. It is driven by both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial forcings, a number of which are unknown, and many of which are poorly understood and/or difficult to measure. It is inherently chaotic and turbulent, two conditions for which we have few mathematical tools.

The climate is comprised of five major subsystems — atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. All of these subsystems are imperfectly understood. Each of these subsystems has its own known and unknown internal and external forcings, feedbacks, resonances, and cyclical variations. In addition, each subsystem affects all of the other subsystems through a variety of known and unknown forcings and feedbacks.

Then there is the problem of scale. Climate has crucially important processes at physical scales from the molecular to the planetary, and at temporal scales from milliseconds to millennia.

As a result of this almost unimaginable complexity, simple physics is simply inadequate to predict the effect of a change in one of the hundreds and hundreds of things that affect the climate. I will give two examples of why “simple physics” doesn’t work with the climate — a river, and a block of steel. I’ll start with a thought experiment with the block of steel.

Suppose that I want to find out about how temperature affects solids. I take a 75 kg block of steel, and I put the bottom end of it in a bucket of hot water. I duct tape a thermometer to the top end in the best experimental fashion, and I start recording how the temperature change with time. At first, nothing happens. So I wait. And soon, the temperature of the other end of the block of steel starts rising. Hey, simple physics, right?

To verify my results, I try the experiment with a block of copper. I get the same result, the end of the block that’s not in the hot water soon begins to warm up. I try it with a block of glass, same thing. My tentative conclusion is that simple physics says that if you heat one end of a solid, the other end will eventually heat up as well.

So I look around for a final test. Not seeing anything obvious, I have a flash of insight. I weigh about 75 kg. So I sit with my feet in the bucket of hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth, and wait for my head to heat up. This experimental setup is shown in Figure 1 above.

After all, simple physics is my guideline, I know what’s going to happen, I just have to wait.

And wait … and wait …

As our thought experiment shows, simple physics may simply not work when applied to a complex system. The problem is that there are feedback mechanisms that negate the effect of the hot water on my cold toes. My body has a preferential temperature which is not set by the external forcings.

For a more nuanced view of what is happening, let’s consider the second example, a river. Again, a thought experiment.

I take a sheet of plywood, and I cover it with some earth. I tilt it up so it slopes from one edge to the other. For our thought experiment, we’ll imagine that this is a hill that goes down to the ocean.

I place a steel ball at the top edge of the earth-covered plywood, and I watch what happens. It rolls, as simple physics predicts, straight down to the lower edge. I try it with a wooden ball, and get the same result. I figure maybe it’s because of the shape of the object.

So I make a small wooden sled, and put it on the plywood. Again, it slides straight down to the ocean. I try it with a miniature steel shed, same result. It goes directly downhill to the ocean as well. Simple physics, understood by Isaac Newton.

As a final test, I take a hose and I start running some water down from the top edge of my hill to make a model river. To my surprise, although the model river starts straight down the hill, it soon starts to wander. Before long, it has formed a meandering stream, which changes its course with time. Sections of the river form long loops, the channel changes, loops are cut off, new channels form, and after while we get something like this:

Figure 2. Meanders, oxbow bends, and oxbow lakes in a river system. Note the old channels where the river used to run.

The most amazing part is that the process never stops. No matter how long we run the river experiment, the channel continues to change. What’s going on here?

Well, the first thing that we can conclude is that, just as in our experiment with the steel block, simple physics simply doesn’t work in this situation. Simple physics says that things roll straight downhill, and clearly, that ain’t happening here … it is obvious we need better tools to analyze the flow of the river.

Are there mathematical tools that we can use to understand this system? Yes, but they are not simple. The breakthrough came in the 1990’s, with the discovery by Adrian Bejan of the Constructal Law. The Constructal Law applies to all flow systems which are far from equilibrium, like a river or the climate.

It turns out that these types of flow systems are not passive systems which can take up any configuration. Instead, they actively strive to maximize some aspect of the system. For the river, as for the climate, the system strives to maximize the sum of the energy moved and the energy lost through turbulence. See the discussion of these principles here, herehere, and here. There is also a website devoted to various applications of the Constructal Law here.

There are several conclusions that we can make from the application of the Constructal Law to flow systems:

1. Any flow system far from equilibrium is not free to take up any form as the climate models assume. Instead, it has a preferential state which it works actively to achieve.

2. This preferential state, however, is never achieved. Instead, the system constantly overshoots and undershoots that state, and does not settle down to one final form. The system never stops modifying its internal aspects to move towards the preferential state.

3. The results of changes in such a flow system are often counterintuitive. For example, suppose we want to shorten the river. Simple physics says it should be easy. So we cut through an oxbow bend, and it makes the river shorter … but only for a little while. Soon the river readjusts, and some other part of the river becomes longer. The length of the river is actively maintained by the system. Contrary to our simplistic assumptions, the length of the river is not changed by our actions.

So that’s the problem with “simple physics” and the climate. For example, simple physics predicts a simple linear relationship between the climate forcings and the temperature. People seriously believe that a change of X in the forcings will lead inevitably to a chance of A * X in the temperature. This is called the “climate sensitivity”, and is a fundamental assumption in the climate models. The IPCC says that if CO2 doubles, we will get a rise of around 3C in the global temperature.

However, there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim, only computer models. But the models assume this relationship, so they cannot be used to establish the relationship.

However, as rivers clearly show, there is no such simple relationship in a flow system far from equilibrium. We can’t cut through an oxbow to shorten the river, it just lengthens elsewhere to maintain the same total length. Instead of being affected by a change in the forcings, the system sets its own preferential operating conditions (e.g. length, temperature, etc.) based on the natural constraints and flow possibilities and other parameters of the system.

Final conclusion? Because climate is a flow system far from equilibrium, it is ruled by the Constructal Law. As a result, there is no physics-based reason to assume that increasing CO2 will make any difference to the global temperature, and the Constructal Law gives us reason to think that it may make no difference at all. In any case, regardless of Arrhenius, the “simple physics” relationship between CO2 and global temperature is something that we cannot simply assume to be true.

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 152

28 december, 2009

“Sorrel et al. found periods of intense storm activity around 2,700 BP and 1,250 BP, and they note both of these were unusually cool periods. They note that the Medieval Warm Period (around 900 AD to 1200 AD) was a time of few storms, while “In the subsequent 600 years after the MWP, corresponding to the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA), our proxy records mark the return towards more energetic conditions in the Seine estuary”. Basically, they showed over and over that storm activity increases in cold periods and diminishes in warm periods. Claiming that global warming will result in increased mid-latitude storm activity is simply not consistent with 1,000s of years of climate information collected in northwestern France.”

“Fortunately, an article has just appeared in the Journal of Climate on trends in extreme snowfall seasons in the United States. To make a long story really short, Kunkel et al. conclude “The 1900–01 to 2006–07 trends in the annual percentage of high- and low-extreme snowfall years for the entire United States are not statistically significant.” Once again, there is no evidence of any trend upward or downward in extreme storm events in the winter season.”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/12/27/winter-storms-update/

December 27, 2009

Winter Storms Update

If we happen to see an unusually large number of winter storms this year, we suspect some reporter or some scientist will insist we are witnessing the effects of global warming, or at least declare we are witnessing climate change before our very eyes. Oppositely, if this year’s winter storms are infrequent, we will expect to learn from someone that we have seen the effects of climate change. In fact, in a recent paper in the International Journal of Climatology, the authors begin their piece noting “One area of growing concern in climate science is the impact that global warming could have through modulations of the nature and characteristics of naturally occurring extreme events, such as severe mid-latitude storms.” In the very next sentence, the research team from the United Kingdom and Australia state “However, both observational and modelling studies of historical and future storminess patterns and scenarios are divided on the role that global warming has played, or could play, in changing patterns of mid-latitude storms”. Once again, we find any straightforward link between global warming and winter storms is a bit more dicey than originally thought … there is always more to the story.

The authors of the latest piece are Rob Allan, Simon Tett, and Lisa Alexander of the UK Met Office, the University of Edinburgh, and Monash University in Australia; funding for the research was provided by various sources including the UK Ministry of Defense … go figure? Anyway, Allan et al. made use of a newly digitized 3-hourly station surface pressure data for the United Kingdom and Ireland to extend previous analyses that used data beginning in the 1950s; the new dataset allowed analyses to extend back to 1920. They used the 3-hourly surface pressure data to identify severe winter storms, and their analyses suggested that no major severe winter storm would go undetected by their network of stations.

Allan et al. divided their work into two sub-periods including October – December (OND) and a second period including January – March (JFM). The first figure (Figure1) of special interest to us is below, and it immediately shows the importance of having the additional 30 years of data. The authors note “pronounced inter-annual variations in OND severe storminess across the British Isles are evident” “with most prominent activity in the 1920s and 1990s. There is evidence in the literature to support the 1920s period of a high frequency of severe storms in OND.”

Figure 1. History of OND decadal average severe storm frequency over the British Isles from 1920 (from Allan et al., 2009).

The authors also conducted the analyses for the JFM period, and when the results for OND are combined with the JFM period, the pattern below is established (Figure 2). Allan et al. conclude “The results from this study suggest that natural climate variability will play an important role in future changes in storminess, and thus could overwhelm any anthropogenic signal there might be.” We completely agree, and yet, the popular press continues to suggest that global warming is to blame for anything from few storms to big storms – it is all climate change!

Figure 2. History of October – March decadal average severe storm frequency over the British Isles from 1920 (from Allan et al., 2009).

A second article on storminess in Europe takes on a different perspective in terms of time period; Sorrel et al. were interested in reconstructing storm activity over the past 3,000 years. The research team is from impressive institutions in France, and effort was funded by the French state, the Haute Normandie Region and the other regions of the Paris Basin, the Agence de l’Eau Seine Normandie, and the industrial firms of the Haute-Normandie. Allan et al. collected sediment cores near the mouth of the Seine River in northwestern France and they used radiocarbon dating and paleomagnetic information to date the material in the core. The marine hydrodynamics are reflective of storm activity in the Seine River basin, and the sediment patterns within the core reveal periods of frequent large storms and periods with few or any storms.

Sorrel et al. found periods of intense storm activity around 2,700 BP and 1,250 BP, and they note both of these were unusually cool periods. They note that the Medieval Warm Period (around 900 AD to 1200 AD) was a time of few storms, while “In the subsequent 600 years after the MWP, corresponding to the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA), our proxy records mark the return towards more energetic conditions in the Seine estuary”. Basically, they showed over and over that storm activity increases in cold periods and diminishes in warm periods. Claiming that global warming will result in increased mid-latitude storm activity is simply not consistent with 1,000s of years of climate information collected in northwestern France.

Finally, President Obama returned home from Copenhagen recently only to find a massive snowfall covering much of the Northeast, including Washington DC. With climate change fresh on his mind, he might have wondered global warming impacted the massive winter storm. Fortunately, an article has just appeared in the Journal of Climate on trends in extreme snowfall seasons in the United States. To make a long story really short, Kunkel et al. conclude “The 1900–01 to 2006–07 trends in the annual percentage of high- and low-extreme snowfall years for the entire United States are not statistically significant.” Once again, there is no evidence of any trend upward or downward in extreme storm events in the winter season.

References:

Allan, R., S. Tett, and L. Alexander. 2009. Fluctuations in autumn–winter severe storms over the British Isles: 1920 to present. International Journal of Climatology, 29, 357-371.

Kunkel, K.E., M.A. Palecki, L. Ensor, D. Easterling, K.E. Hubbard, D. Robinson, and K. Redmond. 2009. Trends in twentieth-century U.S. extreme snowfall seasons. Journal of Climate, 22, 6204-6216.

Sorrel, P., B. Tessier, F. Demory, N. Delsinne, D. Mouaze. 2009. Evidence for millennial-scale climatic events in the sedimentary infilling of a macrotidal estuarine system, the Seine estuary (NW France). Quaternary Science Reviews, 28, 499-516.

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 151

28 december, 2009

“The point, of course, is that India – as with China – is in competition with the UK (and the rest of Europe) for this coal resource. Yet, while we are saddling our own generators with increased costs, supposedly to combat global warming, not only are we providing cheap money for Asian development, in the case of India we are actually subsidising the coal plants by allowing them to claim ”carbon credits”.

Fair competition is one thing but castrating our own industries while subsidising our competitors, who are then able to outbid us in the same markets from which we source our energy supplies, is little short of economic suicide. And that is real effect of our government’s obsession with global warming.”

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/economic-suicide.html

Economic suicide

Posted by Richard Monday, December 28, 2009

Although, as The Daily Telegraph observes today, there are many dismissing coal as the unwanted black sheep of the fossil fuel family, coal-fired generation still provides 37 percent of our electricity supply. Moreover, unless or until the lunacy of carbon capture takes hold, it is one of the cheapest means of generation.

However, because of the high fuel cost, relative to capital outlay, coal fired generation is sensitive to increased coal prices. Doubling the price would force a 66 percent increase in the retail price of electricity.

Yet, it seems, with demand set to rise, price increases are precisely what we are having to confront. Analysts from JP Morgan, we are told, are forecasting that thermal coal, used in power stations, will rise from $70 to $85 per ton next year. And the direct cause of this is ”rebounding demand” from China and India.

Part of this is the result of mine closures in the Shanxi region of China and the rise in electricity generation, factors which are expected to drive world stocks down from their current level of 40 million tons to 22.7 million in 2010. But this is only half the story.

In the longer term, global coal usage, far from declining, is set to increase substantially. The International Energy Agency believes that coal will account for 29 percent of global energy needs in 2030, compared with 26 percent four years ago, making this rather than ”green energy” the key fuel for the future.

And, while the focus has been on the increase demand in China, an increasingly important player in the global market is India, not least through the inability of its own domestic industry efficiently to exploit its own reserves.

Only this month an Indian parliamentary panel was ”shocked” to find ”inordinate delays” were slowing development and about 100 coal projects had failed to take off, resulting in a shortfall of domestic coal production.

Thus, to fuel a planned expansion of electricity production from 78 GW in 2006 to 142 GW in 2030 – the bulk of it coal-fired – the state-owned Coal India Limited is rapidly forming strategic partnerships with Australia, the US, South Africa and Indonesia in order to secure future coal supplies.

More recently, the company has secured an agreementwith the Mozambique government to exploit two blocks of land totalling over 220 sq km in which high-grade deposits of coal have been found. The Indians won the bid from nine other bidders, while two bids each from the UK and China were disqualified. There were a total of four Indian bidders in the process.

Elsewhere, Indian interests are highly active in Indonesia where India’s National Aluminium Co aims to buy at least 200 million metric tons of coal reserves from the eastern Indonesian islands of Kalimantan and Sumatra in order or secure aluminium production in India.

This is in addition to the 4GW Mundra power project in India’s Gujarat State which will also be sourcing its 12 million tons of coal each year from Indonesiaand it has eight more such ”ultra mega” projects planned with a total combined coal-fired generating capability of 32 GW.

The point, of course, is that India – as with China – is in competition with the UK (and the rest of Europe) for this coal resource. Yet, while we are saddling our own generators with increased costs, supposedly to combat global warming, not only are we providing cheap money for Asian development, in the case of India we are actually subsidising the coal plants by allowing them to claim ”carbon credits”.

Fair competition is one thing but castrating our own industries while subsidising our competitors, who are then able to outbid us in the same markets from which we source our energy supplies, is little short of economic suicide. And that is real effect of our government’s obsession with global warming.

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 150

28 december, 2009

“Experts are also predicting a shortage in coking coal used to make steel over the next year, driven up 12-fold by demand from China. “

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6896140/Old-King-Coal-will-stay-on-the-commodities-throne-for-years.html

Old King Coal will stay on the commodities throne for years

Waking up to a stocking full of coal is probably not the most exciting start to a Christmas morning. But at least it’s got a better chance of increasing in value by next year than a Wii Fit or a Zhu Zhu Pet.

By Rowena Mason, City Reporter (Energy)

Published: 6:16PM GMT 27 Dec 2009

There are many dismissing coal as the unwanted black sheep of the fossil fuel family, blamed for 40pc of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming.

But in defiance of environmental concerns, there has been little sign that any fall off in coal demand this year is due to anything other than the recession.

Analysts from JP Morgan reckon that thermal coal, used in power stations, will rise from $70 to $85 per tonne next year, based on rebounding demand from China and India. While global inventories have been unusually high in the downturn, the bank believes stocks may decline from 40m tonnes this year to 22.7m in 2010.

”Supply will be tight in the next two years,” said Stevanus Juanda, a mining analyst. ”In the second half of 2009, we have observed sizeable imports of coal by China, due to the closure of mines in the Shanxi region and rise in electricity generation.”

Experts are also predicting a shortage in coking coal used to make steel over the next year, driven up 12-fold by demand from China.

Macquarie, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley estimate that prices may jump by between 23pc and 38pc in 2010, as global demand rebounds.

And the International Energy Agency believes that coal will account for 29pc of global energy needs in 2030, compared with 26pc in 2006. For Deloitte’s energy consultants, this all goes to show that green problems with coal do not yet tarnish its prospects as a ”key fuel for the future”.

Listening to the political leaders at the Copenhagen climate change conference, you could be forgiven for imagining that the world was about to be seized with a Thatcherite fervour for closing down the mines.

That was the political rhetoric. But the summit failed to reach agreements on targets for lowering emissions and how they should be financed – mostly because burning coal is still in the national economic interest of most developing countries.

In the aftermath of the Copenhagen chaos, Western politicians have been blaming China and India for sabotaging the talks. If true, it is hardly surprising that they want to resist curbs on the predicted growth of their emissions, largely based on soaring use of coal.

The Copenhagen accord may have been vaguely worded, but its implications for commodities are clear: businesses still have little incentive to invest in more expensive renewables and nuclear power while coal and gas are cheaper.

Europe has decided to start closing coal plants without ”carbon capture” facilities and China is keen to get its hands on this future technology, but the fact remains that old coal stations are still being built at the rate of one a day.

With ”clean coal” technology unlikely to be commercial for another decade, it at least remains a helpful myth for politicians and companies to justify continued investment in the commodity.

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 149

28 december, 2009

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and seven state AG allies plus New York City are suing American Electric Power and other utilities for a host of supposed eco-maladies. A native village in Alaska is suing Exxon and 23 oil and energy companies for coastal erosion.

What unites these cases is the creativity of their legal chain of causation and their naked attempts at political intimidation. ”My hope is that the court case will provide a powerful incentive for polluters to be reasonable and come to the table and seek affordable and reasonable reductions,” Mr. Blumenthal told the trade publication Carbon Control News. ”We’re trying to compel measures that will stem global warming regardless of what happens in the legislature.”

Mull over that one for a moment. Mr. Blumenthal isn’t suing to right a wrong. He admits that he’s suing to coerce a change in policy no matter what the public’s elected representatives choose. “

“But global warming is, well, global: It doesn’t matter whether ubiquitous CO2 emissions come from American Electric Power or Exxon—or China. ”There is no logical reason to draw the line at 30 defendants as opposed to 150, or 500, or even 10,000 defendants,” says David Rivkin, an attorney at Baker Hostetler and a contributor to our pages, in an amicus brief in the Katrina case. ”These plaintiffs—and any others alleging injury by climatic phenomena—would have standing to assert a damages claim against virtually every entity and individual on the planet, since each ‘contributes’ to global concentrations of carbon dioxide.”

See also my posts:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 91

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 92

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 127

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612150621257422.html

DECEMBER 28, 2009 The New Climate Litigation

How about if we sue you for breathing?

Fresh from the fiasco in Copenhagen and with a failure in the U.S. Senate looming this coming year, the climate-change lobby is already shifting to Plan B, or is it already Plan D? Meet the carbon tort.

Across the country, trial lawyers and green pressure groups—if that’s not redundant—are teaming up to sue electric utilities for carbon emissions under ”nuisance” laws.

A group of 12 Gulf Coast residents whose homes were damaged by Katrina are suing 33 energy companies for greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly contributed to the global warming that allegedly made the hurricane worse. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and seven state AG allies plus New York City are suing American Electric Power and other utilities for a host of supposed eco-maladies. A native village in Alaska is suing Exxon and 23 oil and energy companies for coastal erosion.

What unites these cases is the creativity of their legal chain of causation and their naked attempts at political intimidation. ”My hope is that the court case will provide a powerful incentive for polluters to be reasonable and come to the table and seek affordable and reasonable reductions,” Mr. Blumenthal told the trade publication Carbon Control News. ”We’re trying to compel measures that will stem global warming regardless of what happens in the legislature.”

Mull over that one for a moment. Mr. Blumenthal isn’t suing to right a wrong. He admits that he’s suing to coerce a change in policy no matter what the public’s elected representatives choose.

Cap and trade or a global treaty like the one that collapsed in Copenhagen would be destructive—but at least either would need the assent of a politically accountable Congress. The Obama Administration’s antidemocratic decision to impose carbon regulation via the Environmental Protection Agency would be even more destructive—but at least it would be grounded in an existing law, the 1977 Clean Air Act, however misinterpreted. The nuisance suits ask the courts to make such fundamentally political decisions themselves, with judges substituting their views for those of the elected branches.

And now that you mention it, the U.S. appeals courts seem more than ready to arrogate to themselves this power. In September, the Second Circuit allowed Mr. Blumenthal’s suit to proceed, while a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court’s dismissal of the Katrina case in October. An en banc hearing is now under consideration.

But global warming is, well, global: It doesn’t matter whether ubiquitous CO2 emissions come from American Electric Power or Exxon—or China. ”There is no logical reason to draw the line at 30 defendants as opposed to 150, or 500, or even 10,000 defendants,” says David Rivkin, an attorney at Baker Hostetler and a contributor to our pages, in an amicus brief in the Katrina case. ”These plaintiffs—and any others alleging injury by climatic phenomena—would have standing to assert a damages claim against virtually every entity and individual on the planet, since each ‘contributes’ to global concentrations of carbon dioxide.”

In other words, the courts would become a venue for a carbon war of all against all. Not only might businesses sue to shackle their competitors—could we sue the New York Times for deforestation?—but judges would decide the remedies against specific defendants. In practice this would mean ad hoc command-and-control regulation against any industries that happen to catch the green lobby’s eye.

Carbon litigation without legislation is one more way to harm the economy, and the rule of law. We hope the Fifth Circuit will have the good sense to deflect this damaging legal theory before it crash-lands at the Supreme Court.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16

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 148

28 december, 2009

“With trillions of dollars at stake in the battle over global warming, now would be the time for the press to closely scrutinize the claims of those who would reorganize the world’s economy from farm to factory and laboratory to living room. And the Climategate scandal – where leaked e-mails and dodgy computer programs from the University of East Anglia raise powerful new questions about the role of politics in climate science – would be the perfect opportunity to explore what is going on behind the scenes.

That’s not happening. To judge by recent coverage from Associated Press, the Fourth Estate watchdog has acted like a third-rate pocket pet.”

“The Washington Times tried to raise these issues with the reporters and editors involved, but Jack Stokes, AP’s manager of media relations, said that none of the five reporters who worked on the article nor their editors had time to answer questions.

If AP refuses to explain how it could have given readers across the planet such a distorted view of Climategate, maybe an explanation can be found buried in the article itself. One of the reporters, Seth Borenstein, the AP science reporter who writes on global warming and who is the lead author on the piece, is part of the Climategate story himself.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-climategate/

Monday, December 28, 2009

EDITORIAL: Biased reporting on Climategate

Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

With trillions of dollars at stake in the battle over global warming, now would be the time for the press to closely scrutinize the claims of those who would reorganize the world’s economy from farm to factory and laboratory to living room. And the Climategate scandal – where leaked e-mails and dodgy computer programs from the University of East Anglia raise powerful new questions about the role of politics in climate science – would be the perfect opportunity to explore what is going on behind the scenes.

That’s not happening. To judge by recent coverage from Associated Press, the Fourth Estate watchdog has acted like a third-rate pocket pet. Case in point is an 1,800-word AP missive that appeared in hundreds of publications, many carrying it on the front page of their Sunday, Dec. 13 issue with the headline, ”Science not faked, but not pretty.” AP gave three scientists copies of the controversial e-mails and then asked them about their conclusions. The wire service portrayed the trio of scientists as dismissing or minimizing allegations of scientific fraud when, in fact, the scientists believe no such thing.

The first scientist quoted in the article, Mark Frankel, is director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. AP quotes him as concluding that there is, ”no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations.'” While the article mentions that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and some Republican lawmakers are calling for independent investigations, AP doesn’t note the views of the scientists they interviewed.

When The Washington Times talked to Mr. Frankel, the scientist gave a quite different impression. The e-mails, he said, are not sufficient to reach any judgment at all on whether the data or science was faked or misleading. ”You can’t do that on the e-mails alone, you can’t do it on the e-mails or the program,” he concluded. For that reason, Mr. Frankel supports investigation of East Anglia and related allegations of fraud at Pennsylvania State University.

There’s a big difference between saying that there isn’t sufficient evidence to determine if falsification of data occurred – and that there should be an investigation – and saying, as AP did: ”Science not faked.”

Mr. Frankel also believes outsiders to the two schools should be asked to take part. ”You should be willing and open to going to outside people to be part of your inquiry,” he advised. ”If I were Penn State, I would certainly be advising them to be very open to the possibility of bringing in one or two people who have impeccable credentials, well-respected, to join in ….”

Arizona State University professor Dan Sarewitz is quoted by AP as saying, ”This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds.” However, Mr. Sarewitz wasn’t speaking about the validity of the climate science; he was discussing his belief that politics infects how most scientific research is conducted. While AP used the quote to suggest that there was nothing terribly wrong that had been revealed in Climategate, Mr. Sarewitz was trying to issue a warning that politics infects too much science and that reporters, politicians and the public are naive about that reality.

As he told The Washington Times, ”When the human underside (of science) gets revealed, then suddenly people are disillusioned and they say, ‘Oh, how shocking!’ But it’s not particularly shocking.” Indeed, Mr. Sarewitz suggests that reporters ask scientists about their political views. (For the record, he is a liberal Democrat.) He also is skeptical of the university investigations, particularly if they don’t include outsiders. ”I think they should have external people [involved in the investigations]. Certainly. … The challenge here might be, can you find people who are independent but also understand the science well enough to really tell (if there was wrongdoing)?”

The third scientist interviewed by AP, professor Gerald North at Texas A&M University, joined Mr. Frankel and Mr. Sarewitz in hoping that climate data would be more readily shared in the future. He told us he also thinks it is important that investigations proceed at the two universities.

The Washington Times tried to raise these issues with the reporters and editors involved, but Jack Stokes, AP’s manager of media relations, said that none of the five reporters who worked on the article nor their editors had time to answer questions.

If AP refuses to explain how it could have given readers across the planet such a distorted view of Climategate, maybe an explanation can be found buried in the article itself. One of the reporters, Seth Borenstein, the AP science reporter who writes on global warming and who is the lead author on the piece, is part of the Climategate story himself. In the last sentence of the article, the authors note that the archive of disputed Climategate e-mails ”includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.”

But Mr. Borenstein’s e-mail was hardly standard and far from neutral. In it, the reporter disparages Marc Morano, a critic of man-made global-warming claims, as ”hyping wildly” the study that Mr. Borenstein asked scientists to comment on. The e-mail almost makes it appear as if Mr. Borenstein were asking those involved in Climategate to help him discredit critics of man-made global warming.

East Anglia and Penn State are not the only two institutions that need to answer questions about what is going on behind the scenes.

 Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

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 147

28 december, 2009

And Pachauri, head of IPCC, again,

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-not-300000-but-800000-admitted.html

Pachauri: not $300,000 but $800,000 admitted

Posted by Richard Sunday, December 27, 2009

Following our publication of details of some of Pachauri’s earnings, gleaned from an Indian newspaper, we attributed some $300,000 income to which Pachauri had admitted.

However, now we have seen the original copy (I have put that section of the press release  below) of the press release issued by TERI, it seems we may have significantly underestimated even that amount. In the entry for Yale University, we see the sum of $48,750 declared. But alongside this, we see the legend: ”Monthly payments received upto (sic) 30th Nov 2009.”

There is an element of ambiguity here, but the $48,750 could either be the total payment from Yale, or it could be the monthly payment. If it is read as the latter – which is how it actually reads – that would produce an annualised figure of over $500,000 ($585,000 to be exact). This is closer to the sums paid for ”star” performers.

The classic example is Tony Blair who was paid $200,000 by the university after a deal to give seminars ten times a year on religion.

Like Pachauri, Blair ”laundered” the fee through his own set-up, in this case the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, although he also took a direct fee of $10,000 from the university for a speaking engagement. The balance, after tax, was paid to his foundation.

Certainly, Yale University has enough money in the kitty to pay Pauchari more than half a million a year. The Climate and Energy Institute to which he was been appointed head has been funded to the tune of $3 million, provided by an ”anonymous donor,” a base on which it aims to build ”via private donor contributions.”

Who these anonymous donors are, of course, we will never know, which makes the University itself a perfect way of laundering payments to Pachauri. By the time they have been transferred to the university and then TERI, they have passed through two ”cut-outs” and are entirely untraceable.

With his Yale fee, though, Pachauri’s known earnings are in the $800,000 bracket, and these only cover some of the organizations we named in our article. Add the rest, plus Pachauri’s payments from the IPCC, and he must easily be in the million-dollar bracket for his annual earnings. Yet, about how much of that is paid to Pachauri by his own TERI, he remains curiously reticent.

Honoraria payments received by TERI during  the period: July 2006 – 21 December 2009
Sl. No. Organization Amount Purpose
       
1 Deutsche Bank Euro 100,000 Member, Climate Change Advisory Board
       
2 Credit Suisse US$ 25,000 Senior Advisor to Credit Suisse
       
3 Toyota Motor Company US$ 80,000 Member, Toyota International Advisory Board
       
4 Yale University US$ 48,750 Monthly payments received upto 30th Nov 2009
       
5 Asian Development Bank US$ 4425 ADB’s Advisory Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development
       
6 EDF Euro 1200 SD Panel meeting
       

http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Telegraph-IPCC-reply.doc

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 146

27 december, 2009

And more on Pachauri, head of IPCC.

“Rejecting that submission and those of the others, the judge observed that, ”The members of the Governing Council must have been aware of what was going on,” adding: ”If they want us to believe that they did not have any knowledge of the agreement, I am afraid, they demonstrate themselves totally unequal to the task entrusted to them.”

This must have applied in spades to Dr Pachauri who, a year before had moved the offices of TERI, his own organisation, into the building. Certainly, the judge was entirely unconvinced, declaring that the three officers of the Council, including Mr (sic) Pachauri, ”have suppressed material facts and they have sworn to false affidavits.” (No doubt Pachauri was rehearsing for his later roles.)

The Judge went on to say that the defendant had acted in a very arbitrary way, stating: ”such things could not be tolerated in a democratic set up.” In a coruscating indictment, he then declared:

And I am afraid, that the affairs and the efficient management of the Centre are not safe in the hands of officers like … Dr R K Pachauri … and they had ignored that the officers have to function as a public functionaries within the parameters of the Constitution. “

See also

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-moving-goalposts.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-hornets-nest-stirred.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-another-tata-link.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-theyve-all-got-it-in-for-me.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/hypocrite-as-well-as-liar.html

A hypocrite as well as a liar

Posted by Richard Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Many people will remember the strident headline at the end of November blaring: ”Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri”. That was the version in The Guardian, but other papers carried something very similar.

How so very different might have been the reception had the newspapers carried a photograph of the house occupied by multi-millionaire businessman Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, currently 160 Central Golf Links Road, New Delhi. This is situated in a delightful residential area (pictured above and below) very close to Khan Market, the most expensive market in India.

It is described as one of the most expensive places to live in India. The cheapest houses sell for millions of US dollars. It is considered one of the richest neighborhoods in India and the name is inspired by the Delhi Golf Course nearby. It has only 210 detached houses.

Methinks that a man who lives in a house worth millions, travels nearly half a million miles in 19 months by air and then tells us our lifestyles are ”unsustainable” might possibly qualify for the label ”hypocrite”.

As for being a liar, it seems we are not the first to suggest this of Dr Pachauri. Amongst others, we have K Ramamoorthy, who in 1996 was a High Court Judge in Delhi.

After hearing the case of Old World Hospitality Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) vs India Habitat Centre, he handed down a judgement against the Habitat Centre after it had arbitrarily and in breach of its contract, dismissed Old World Hospitality as suppliers of hospitality services to what was one of the largest conference centres in India.

The details are set out here and need not detain us greatly. Suffice it to say that the Habitat Centre’s defence rested on a claim that the Governing Council had not approved the original contract, and therefore the contract was not valid.

On the Governing Council was a certain Dr R K Pachauri, who gave sworn evidence to the effect that the agreement ”was never brought up for discussion nor was any analysis on the implications of the same ever submitted to the Governing Council.”

Rejecting that submission and those of the others, the judge observed that, ”The members of the Governing Council must have been aware of what was going on,” adding: ”If they want us to believe that they did not have any knowledge of the agreement, I am afraid, they demonstrate themselves totally unequal to the task entrusted to them.”

This must have applied in spades to Dr Pachauri who, a year before had moved the offices of TERI, his own organisation, into the building. Certainly, the judge was entirely unconvinced, declaring that the three officers of the Council, including Mr (sic) Pachauri, ”have suppressed material facts and they have sworn to false affidavits.” (No doubt Pachauri was rehearsing for his later roles.)

The Judge went on to say that the defendant had acted in a very arbitrary way, stating: ”such things could not be tolerated in a democratic set up.” In a coruscating indictment, he then declared:

And I am afraid, that the affairs and the efficient management of the Centre are not safe in the hands of officers like … Dr R K Pachauri … and they had ignored that the officers have to function as a public functionaries within the parameters of the Constitution.

A year after that judgement, Pachauri was elected to become co-chair of the IPCC. He is still on the Governing Council of the Habitat Centre and between September 2004 and September 2006 was its president.

Now, this multi-millionaire businessman is still calling our work a ”pack of lies” and is demanding an apology. The second word of the response I have in mind is ”off”. Booker, on Sunday, might be less terse.

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 145

27 december, 2009

And more on Pachauri, head of IPCC.

“And neither has there been any attempt so far to explain how a UN official can work on a fee-paying basis for organisations such as the Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, without there being a potential conflict of interest.”

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-admits-to-300000-in-payments.html

Pachauri: admits to $300,000 in payments

Posted by Richard Thursday, December 24, 2009

In a press release purporting to rebut our Sunday Telegraph piece, Dr Pachauri’s TERI – of which he is Director General – admits to receiving over $300,000 for ”services rendered by Pachauri.”

This, however, only covers ”some of the payments made to TERI”. It includes €100,000 from the Deutsche Bank, $25,000 from Credit Suisse and $80,000 from Toyota Motors. The institute also received $48,750 from Yale University, $4,425 from the Asian Development Bank – which has given loans to Tata – and €1,200 from the French electricity giant EDF. At current conversion rates, that totals $302,746.

The periods for which the payments were made are not specified and neither are the precise ”services rendered” identified. For some organisations, such as Yale University, Pachauri performs more than one service – and his current post as head of the Climate and Energy Institute has only just started.

Pachauri’s institute denies that it has received any payment from the Risk Governance Council in Geneva, the Chicago Climate Exchange, or the New York Investment Fund Pegasus for which he is ”strategic advisor”. This is difficult to believe in respect of the latter two, but the phrasing of the ”rebuttal” does not rule out the possibility of benefits in kind being offered by these companies.

No mention is made of Pachauri’s other current posts. Thus, we know nothing of payments (if any) from GloriOil, Siderian ventures, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Nordic Glitnir Bank, the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund, SNCF, his work as a Hindustan Times columnist, the Asian Energy Institute, FEOP (Far East Oil Price) Advisory Board, the International Solar Energy Society, the World Resources Institute or the World Energy Council.

Nor do we learn whether payments were made for Dr Pachauri’s work for the Indian government, in particular the National Environmental Council, the Economic Advisory Council and the Oil Industry Restructuring Group. Nor is it specified whether he is paid for his role on the Governing Council of the India Habitat Centre. Other notable omissions are, as admitted by Pachauri, the ”sometimes pretty generous honoraria, for giving talks in various places” – which themselves could amount to millions of dollars.

As to why TERI’s (Indian) accounts are not published, the reason given is that TERI has tax-exempt status in every country in which it operates. ”Such status is granted on the basis of proper auditing of accounts and proper scrutiny of documents.” Nonetheless, accounts are published in the UK and the US relating to local operations, but not in India.

The US IRS return for the TERI-NA operation in Washington identified a total revenue of $66,701 against expenses of $121,810, leaving a loss on the trading year ending in 2009 of $55,109. The expenses included two remittances totalling $54,000 to TERI India. Also identified is a payment made to Dr Pachauri from a ”related organization” – which is not identified – of $45,791.

This is the only public record of which we are aware which identifies a direct payment to Dr Pachauri. Neither Pachauri nor TERI have chosen to reveal payments made to him by TERI or his salary and other emoluments from the IPCC.

Despite that, TERI is claiming as ”unfounded and false” our charge that Pachauri holds posts in a number of organisations, including Credit Suisse Bank, and is silent about the money he earns, ”which must run into millions of dollars”. Yet nothing so far offered by way of evidence would even begin to rebut that charge.

And neither has there been any attempt so far to explain how a UN official can work on a fee-paying basis for organisations such as the Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, without there being a potential conflict of interest.

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 144

27 december, 2009

And more about Rajendra Pachauri, the head of IPCC, and all his financial dealings. And his involvement with companies that are directly to profit from this Global Warming Hysteria.

“On the face of it, therefore, this appears to be another example of Dr Pachauri working for his own commercial interests while booking his expenses to the IPCC.”

“As for Deutsche Bank, it actually has four billion reasons for its interest in climate change and Dr Pachuari, something which its website so clearly explains.

Having identified climate change as ”one of the mega-trends that would drive the global asset management business for the next generation and beyond,” it has become ”one of the leading climate change investors in the world.” As of March 2009, it had approximately $4 billion under its management.

At a mere €100,000 – so far declared – they might think Pachauri comes relatively cheap.”

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-deutsche-bank-connection.html

Pachauri: the Deutsche Bank connection

Posted by Richard Saturday, December 26, 2009

Attendees at the inaugural Deutsche Bank Leadership Forum in Berlin on 4 June this year were there for a specific purpose. Unashamedly, the ”DB Leadership Forum”, as the Bank likes to call it, exists solely to discuss ”Business opportunities in addressing climate change”.

Would that they knew it, one of their keynote speakers was a living testament to the ”business opportunities” so afforded. This was none other than Dr Rajendera Pachauri, whose TERI business was being paid €100,000 (that we know of) for his membership of the Climate Change Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank. Whether TERI was paid separately for its Director General’s guest appearance in Berlin, we have not been told.

However, it would appear that Dr Pachauri is not exactly heavily taxed by his duties for the Advisory Board. On its inception in April 2008, its members were scheduled to meet with the Bank’s own Environmental Steering Committee (ESC) twice a year.

We are told also that, in addition to these two main meetings, the two committees conduct an ongoing dialog in smaller committees dealing with specific topics, such as energy efficiency.

Nevertheless, even the generous payment for Dr Pauchauri’s services seems not to have been sufficient for the chairman of the IPCC. For its first meeting on 2 April 2008, according to official UN documentation, Dr Pachauri also claimed this meeting as part of his ”outreach” activities on behalf of the IPCC.

To attend this meeting, Dr Pachauri flew 3,676 miles from Addis Ababa to London on 30 March, where the business recorded is the advisory board meeting, a meeting with Mr Caio Koch-Weser vice chairman of the Bank and a meeting with Emma Duncan, deputy editor of the Economist. From there, Pachauri flies – again at IPCC expense – a further 924 miles, this time to Budapest for the 37th Session of the IPCC Bureau on 6 – 10 April.

On the face of it, therefore, this appears to be another example of Dr Pachauri working for his own commercial interests while booking his expenses to the IPCC.

You could, perhaps, take the view that Pachauri’s meeting with the Economist’s Emma Duncan might have justified the trip – except that Duncan does not seem to have been acting in a journalistic capacity. She is perhaps more concerned with the forthcoming Economist conference, entitled, ”The Carbon Economy: New Opportunities for Green Business”.

At the time, this was being organised by the Economist, to be held on 17-18 November 2009 in Washington. Pachauri was to be a keynote speaker – his fee is not recorded.

On that day of 2 April, though, Pauchauri, has yet other interests. His separate meeting with Mr Caio Koch-Weser, clearly yields dividends.

On 26 June, less than two months after the meeting, Deutsche Bank announces the launch of a Deutsche Bank Scholarship for the MBA (Infrastructure) programme at the TERI University in Delhi. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to this effect is signed by Dr R K Pachauri, the Chancellor, TERI University and Mr. Caio Koch-Weser, vice chairman, Deutsche Bank Group.

Commenting on the partnership, Mr. Koch-Weser says, ”I am delighted that Deutsche Bank has joined hands with TERI.”

The assiduous courting of Koch-Weser has paid off. Pachauri’s meeting with the Bank’s vice-chairman on 2 April was by no means the first. They also meet on 3 October 2007, at the international lecture by The Royal Academy of Engineering in London, and also with the Academy president, Lord Browne of Madingley, who is also later co-opted on the Bank’s advisory board. Koch-Weser and Pachauri then meet on 17 January 2008, this time at the Carbon Trust Winter Lecture, also in London.

Both of these meetings, incidentally, are claimed as part of the IPCC chairman’s ”outreach” activities. And, strangely, there is no further record of a Deutsche Bank advisory board meeting until 14 November 2008. We have not yet been advised whether Pachauri claimed the expenses from the UN.

For the record, they do meet yet again, at the World Sustainable Development Forum on 5-7 February 2009, where the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit of 2009 is holding a conference under the title ”Towards Copenhagen: an equitable and ethical approach”. Koch-Weser, by the way, is chaired by Mr Nik Gowing, main presenter of the BBC World Service.

As for Deutsche Bank, it actually has four billion reasons for its interest in climate change and Dr Pachuari, something which its website so clearly explains.

Having identified climate change as ”one of the mega-trends that would drive the global asset management business for the next generation and beyond,” it has become ”one of the leading climate change investors in the world.” As of March 2009, it had approximately $4 billion under its management.

At a mere €100,000 – so far declared – they might think Pachauri comes relatively cheap.

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 143

27 december, 2009

A continuation of my post  Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 115 about Rajendra Pachauri, the head of IPCC, and all his financial dealings. And his involvement with companies that are directly to profit from this Global Warming Hysteria.

“Just how surreal the business of ”carbon trading” has become is illustrated by another project, which has no direct connection with Dr Pachauri but which involves the plan by a Tata subsidiary to build one of the world’s largest coal-fired power stations in the state of Gujarat. Nearly $1 billion needed to build the 4 gigawatt Mundra plant is being supplied in cheap ”green loans” by the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank (to both of which Dr Pachauri acts as an adviser), because the plant will emit CO2 at a ”lower intensity” than older power stations in India. For the same reason, the plant will also qualify for a potential $560 million in ”carbon credits” under the UN’s CDM scheme, which can then be sold on the world market.

If our own Government allows E.on to build a similar but much smaller coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, however, we shall have to pay out millions of pounds through our electricity bills to buy those same ”credits” which in India the UN hands out free – to help Tata build a plant which will be responsible for emitting 26 million tonnes a year of CO2, well over twice as much as Kingsnorth.

Similarly it is Tata which next month is to close down its Corus steel works at Redcar, to make a potential £600 million in ”credits” from the carbon emissions this will save, while in India it will earn a similar amount in UN CDM ”credits” by building a plant of similar capacity in Orissa. It will thus make a potential gain of £1.2 billion, at the expense of 1,700 jobs on Teesside, for no overall reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. “

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6890839/The-questions-Dr-Pachauri-still-has-to-answer.html

The questions Dr Pachauri still has to answer

At the least, Dr Rajendra Pachauri’s IPCC position as the world’s ”top climate official” has been earning a substantial income for Teri, the institute he runs.

By Christopher Booker

Published: 6:01PM GMT 26 Dec 2009

It was not just in Britain last week that we all shivered through pre-Christmas snow, ice and cold. Blizzards sweeping across Europe, from the Channel Tunnel to Moscow, killed more than 100 people. Even the beaches of Nice and the gondolas of Venice lay under a blanket of white.

Across the Atlantic, as the northern hemisphere was plunged into its third freezing winter in succession, violent snowstorms left more than two thirds of the US and almost the whole of Canada under December snow for the first time in decades. In the wake of that acrimonious shambles in Copenhagen, ever more questions are now being asked not only over the validity of the science behind the belief that man-made CO2 is causing runaway global warming but about the methods being used to meet that supposed threat.

last week’s Sunday Telegraph Richard North and I wrote an article revealing the worldwide business interests of Dr Rajendra Pachauri who, as chairman since 2002 of the UN’s Inter­governmental Panel on Climate Change, is the world’s ”top climate official”. Our report was picked up by newspapers and blogs across the world, and was even the basis for a question put to Ban Ki-moon, the UN’s Secretary General, at a New York press conference. But nowhere did it provoke a greater storm than in India, where Dr Pachauri is director-general of The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), based in New Delhi, the country’s most influential private body involved in climate-change issues and renewable energy. In addition, as we reported, Dr Pachauri also holds more than a score of positions with banks, universities and other institutions that benefit from the vast worldwide industry now based on measures to halt climate change.

In a series of press and television interviews, Dr Pachauri described our report as ”a pack of lies”. He accused us of being part of that same ”powerful vested interest” responsible for ”Climategate”, the emails and other documents leaked from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, which revealed the methods used by the small group of scientists at the heart of the IPCC to manipulate temperature data to show that the earth has been warming further than is justified by the evidence.

When asked whether he intended to take legal action over our article, Dr Pachauri replied that he hadn’t yet made up his mind. But Teri issued a press release listing its main complaints against the article.

A first point to emerge from these responses is how much of what we wrote they do not contradict. Dr Pachauri does not deny that he holds all the positions referred to in our article, such as giving advice on climate change to bodies ranging from major banks such as Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank to the Chicago Climate Change, the worlds’s largest dealer in buying and selling the right to emit CO2.

He and Teri insist, however, that all the money he receives for his services, such as 100,000 euros from Deutsche Bank and $80,000 from Toyota Motors are paid not to him personally but to his institute (and that he receives no fee from the Chicago Climate Exchange). Teri denies that it does not publish its accounts simply by stating that its accounts are supplied to the relevant tax authorities.

Dr Pachauri repeatedly denied that Teri still has any links with the Tata Group, India‘s largest privately-owned business empire, with interests ranging from coal and steel to renewable energy, and which set up Teri as the Tata Energy Research Institute in 1974. He now claims that Teri has had no ”direct links” with Tata since 1999 (or, in another interview, 2001). But it was not until 2003 that the name changed to The Energy and Resources Institute, and then a Teri spokesman explained that ”we have not severed our links with the Tatas” and that the change of name was ”only for convenience”.

Indeed one of the Tata group of companies is still listed among Teri’s corporate sponsors, several directors of Tata serve on Teri’s Business Council for Sustainable Development, and one senior director serves on Teri’s Advisory Board. Other links include the fact that Dr Pachauri and Ratan Tata, the head of the group, both serve on the Indian Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change, advising on all aspects of national climate policy.

In short, these initial responses to our article leave many questions unanswered. At the least it seems that Dr Pachauri’s position as the world’s ”top climate official” has been earning a very substantial income for the institute of which he is director-general; and the only way to avoid further questioning must now be for both Dr Pachauri and Teri to come out into the open over all those issues that remain obscure.

For a start, we should be allowed to know what Dr Pachauri is paid by us all as chairman of the IPCC, a figure that remains confidential. Teri should make public its accounts, including details of all payments it has received from Dr Pachauri’s work for other organisations – particularly those that stand to benefit from policies arising directly or indirectly from the recommendations of the IPCC.

Nor is it clear why, on various occasions, the IPCC has listed trips made by Dr Pachauri as part of his ”Outreach” as chairman, stating that the UN has paid for the ”offsetting” of their carbon footprint, when the purpose of these meetings was to further the interests of Teri itself.

There is no question that Teri, an organisation employing 700 people, based in lavish offices near the exclusive residential enclave where Dr Pachauri lives, in one of the most expensive homes in Delhi, has become a very successful enterprise, with connections in the profitable field of ”sustainable energy” all over the world.

It has, for instance, carried out two research contracts for Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative, which is helping to build the world’s largest ”solar park” near the Indo-Pakistani border. Promoted under the Indian government’s drive for renewable energy, and partly-financed by ”carbon credits” under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), this project is due to return an estimated $2 billion a year on an initial $10 billion investment.

Just how surreal the business of ”carbon trading” has become is illustrated by another project, which has no direct connection with Dr Pachauri but which involves the plan by a Tata subsidiary to build one of the world’s largest coal-fired power stations in the state of Gujarat. Nearly $1 billion needed to build the 4 gigawatt Mundra plant is being supplied in cheap ”green loans” by the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank (to both of which Dr Pachauri acts as an adviser), because the plant will emit CO2 at a ”lower intensity” than older power stations in India. For the same reason, the plant will also qualify for a potential $560 million in ”carbon credits” under the UN’s CDM scheme, which can then be sold on the world market.

If our own Government allows E.on to build a similar but much smaller coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, however, we shall have to pay out millions of pounds through our electricity bills to buy those same ”credits” which in India the UN hands out free – to help Tata build a plant which will be responsible for emitting 26 million tonnes a year of CO2, well over twice as much as Kingsnorth.

Similarly it is Tata which next month is to close down its Corus steel works at Redcar, to make a potential £600 million in ”credits” from the carbon emissions this will save, while in India it will earn a similar amount in UN CDM ”credits” by building a plant of similar capacity in Orissa. It will thus make a potential gain of £1.2 billion, at the expense of 1,700 jobs on Teesside, for no overall reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.

Truly, as the snow falls, does the business of saving the planet from global warming become more convoluted and more lucrative by the day.

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 142

26 december, 2009

“However, if these published emails are genuine, the contents indicate a scandal in the climate science community that is an insult to the integrity of the entire scientific community. It’s an insult to truth.”

“We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.”

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/12/an-insult-to-all-science-%E2%80%93-are-we-beyond-reproach/

An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach?

By Guest Author on December 23rd, 2009

By Nancy Neale

How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith – faith in the integrity of the scientiststhat these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. We’ve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.

A few weeks ago, emails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England were published on the internet. With any illegally obtained information, the credibility of the contents should be questioned. However, if these published emails are genuine, the contents indicate a scandal in the climate science community that is an insult to the integrity of the entire scientific community. It’s an insult to truth.

Many scientists have had suspicions about the state of the climate science and the overstated solidity of its predictive ability for some time. I am not a ‘denier’, whatever a denier denies; but I, along with several others have been asking questions about the peer-reviewed science. We cannot conflate climate scientists with environmentalists and activists, though. The latter two have compiled predictive models by the former and asserted that we are headed for doom and destruction if extreme environmental policies are not enacted immediately. Many scientists and critical thinkers have dared ask fundamental questions, though. We have questioned whether the state of the science can allow any definitive conclusion about the significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global warming, let alone its ability to predict future effects.

Climate scientists peddling predictive models, and the environmentalists who have compiled them, present these models where almost any combination of datasets are consistent with the predictive model indicating near disaster. The Third Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the most celebrity in that predictive science. Climatologist Roger Pielke, for example, has demonstrated that there has yet to be a dataset that is not consistent with these models. The prediction scientists rarely articulate a hypothetical dataset that would be inconsistent with a predictive model. A hypothesis or theory is falsifiable, thus scientific, if it can be both verified and falsified through physical experiments and/or observations. If there exists no dataset for which the IPCC predictive models are inconsistent, the model was never scientific. Where is the demarcation of predictive climate science and pseudo-science if there is no falsifiability?

Other indications and warnings that the science is less than solid have been there as well. A rhetorical analysis of many of the reports indicates that the focus on the science and logic have taken a back seat to a focus on the source and emotions, combining near sophistry and propaganda with bandwagon (consensus) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) fallacies in logic, for example. When presenting science, if the primary tools of rhetoric are not the science and logic, we should immediately probe further into the actual science.

With the allegedly hacked emails, there is apparent evidence of manipulation, fabrication, and suppression of data; collusion to marginalize colleagues who ask and publications who publish valid scientific questions; and manipulation of our currency of knowledge exchange, the peer-review process.

We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.

Nancy Neale, former professor of Chemistry, is a guest Liberty Features Syndicate writer for Americans for Limited Government.

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 141

25 december, 2009

I have written extensively about the unreliability of these computer models and their ”predictions”. And remember it’s upon these models that the WHOLE Global Warming Hysteria is based.

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!

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 these totally unreliably Computer Models.

Here are is another example from two of these models (Hadley and Canadian). Who cannot agree on ANYTHING EVEN if the area covered is just a small one compared to the global scale THEY SAY THAT THEY CAN ACCURATELY “PREDICT”.

Se my posts:

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

Figure 16: A result from the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change [NACC 2000]: Expected precipitation for 18 regions of the United States, according to the Hadley model and Canadian model. Note the huge differences between the two model results in magnitude and even in sign. For example, the Dakotas (Souris – Red – Rainy) can turn either into a swamp or into a desert, depending on which climate model is used.

Page 25

http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf

                    Click on the graph for larger image

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 140

24 december, 2009

An update on my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 132.

It seems that William Connolley and his Global Warming Hysteric cohorts are AS BUSY AS EVER upholding ALL THE LIES and MANIPULATIONS on WIKIPEDIA.

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, as well as a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favours.

That this is STILL GOING ON AFTER SO MANY YEARS IS A BIG SCANDAL AND MAKES WIKIPEDIA A DISGRACE!

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/23/lawrence-solomon-climategate-at-wikipedia.aspx

Lawrence Solomon: Climategate at Wikipedia

Posted: December 23, 2009, 7:47 PM by Lawrence Solomon

Since my Saturday column described how Wikipedia editors have been feverishly rewriting climate history over much of the decade, fair-minded Wikipedians have been doing their best to correct the record. No sooner than they remove gross distortions, however, than the distortions are replaced. William Connolley, a Climategate member and Wikipedia’s chief climate change propagandist, remains as active as ever.

How does Wikipedia work and how does Connolley and his co-conspirators exercise control? Take Wikipedia’s page for Medieval Warm Period, as an example. In the three days following my column’s appearance, this page alone was changed some 50 times in battles between Connolley’s crew and those who want a fair presentation of history.

One of the battles concerns the so-called hockey stick graphs, which purport to show that temperatures over the last 2000 years were fairly stable until the last century, when temperatures rose rapidly to today’s supposedly dangerous and unprecedented levels. In these graphs, the Medieval Warm Period – a period of several centuries around the year 1000 – appears to be a modest bump along the way. Before the hockey stick graphs began to be published about a decade ago, scientists everywhere – including those associated with the UN itself – viewed the Medieval Warm Period as much hotter than today. Rather than appearing as a modest bump compared to today’s high temperatures, the Medieval Warm Period looked more like a mountain next to the molehill that is today’s temperature increase.

The hockey stick graphs led to an upheaval in scientific understanding when the UN reversed itself and declared them bona fide. Soon after, the hockey stick graphs were shown to be bogus by a blue-chip panel of experts assembled by the US Congress. The Climategate Emails confirm the blue-chip panel’s assessment – we now know that Climategate scientists themselves doubted the reliability of the hockey stick graphs.

With the hockey stick graphs so thoroughly discredited, you’d think they would become a footnote to a discussion of the Medieval Warm Period, or an object of amusement and curiosity. But no, on the Wikipedia page for the Medieval Warm Period, the hockey stick graph appears prominently at the top, as if it is settled science.

Because the hockey stick graph has become an icon of deceit and in no way an authority worthy of being cited, fair-minded Wikipedians tried to remove the graph from the page, as can be seen here. Exactly two minutes later, one of Connelley’s associates replaced the graph, restoring the page to Connelley’s original version, as seen here.

Battles like this occurred on numerous fronts, until just after midnight on Dec 22, when Connolley reimposed his version of events and, for good measure, froze the page to prevent others from making changesand to prevent the public, even in two-minute windows, from realizing that today’s temperatures look modest in comparison to those in the past. In the World of Wikipedia, seen as here, the hockey stick graph, and Connolley’s version of history, still rules.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

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 139

24 december, 2009

Now we have the 30 year timeline of Cliamte Gate thanks to Mohib Ebrahim. Study it and read all the details of the biggest political and scientific scandal in modern time – The Global Warming Hysteria.

“ClimateGate: 30 years in the making

Mohib Ebrahim has created professional timelines for exhibitions, so it must have seemed only natural to him to want to visually piece together the full timeline of ClimateGate, laying out the analysis, graphs, emails and history of the scandal as revealed by dozens of researchers over the past weeks, months and years.

The PDF chart is available in different sizes, each also with the 10  pages of cited references. The full chart is over 2 meters wide (94″x34″, or 2 A0  landscape pages) and best viewed on screen where you can zoom in and out,  scroll vertically to see everything in a given time period or horizontally across time to see everything related to a particular theme.

From time to time the file will be updated and/or corrected as needed. This is its home, so check back here to download the latest file, and  please link to here so people will be able to access the updates. The PDF chart is available in different formats, each also with the 10 pages of cited references.

Think of it as a full poster that shows some key events which built up, year by year, the billion dollar enterprise that now promotes man-made CO2 global warming.”

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/

Here’s a Spectacular Poster of ClimateGate covering 3 decades

You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails. To better appreciate the past and what was exposed by the CRU emails, the time-line chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That the chart exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/23/the-climategate-timeline-30-years-visualized/

             Click on the graph for larger image

 

Download the PDF here:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/

2009.12.23_climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf

Download in A4 format as a PDF here:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/

2009.12.23_climategate_timeline_a4_18p.pdf

Download in US letter size format as a PDF here:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/

history2009.12.23_climategate_timeline-us_letter_2p.pdf

Download in US Tabloid size format as a PDF here

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/

2009.12.23_climategate_timeline-us_tabloid_18p.pdf

Plus A2 and A3 formats.

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>

God Jul – Merry Christmas

23 december, 2009

Vill ta tillfället i akt att önska all mina läsare en riktigt God Jul.

De närmaste två veckorna  kommer jag bara sporadiskt att publicera inlägg.

Så här skrev jag för exakt ett år sedan:

”Jag ser med förtröstan fram mot 2009. Det år då den största politiska och vetenskapliga skandalen i modern tid kommer att spricka – Global Warming Hysterin.”

Nå, det blev ju så eller hur.

Så år 2010 ser jag med förtröstan fram emot att den största politiska och vetenskapliga skandalen i modern tid– Global Warming Hysterin – kommer att falla ihop som det korthus det är.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all my readers a Merry Christmas!

The next two weeks I am only going to publish posts sporadically.

In my post exactly a year ago I wrote:

“I am looking forward to 2009, the year when the biggest political and scientific scandal in modern time is going to implode – The Global Warming Hysteria.”

Well, it did happen.

So for 2010 I am looking forward to that the biggest political and scientific scandal in modern time – The Global Warming Hysteria – is not only going to implode, it is going to vanish into thin air.

christmas_graphics_12

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 138

21 december, 2009

“The latest hit to climate-change credibility comes via an embarrassing revelation from Ben Santer, one of the lead authors of the 1995 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I report, which is one of the holy documents of global-warming theology. Mr. Santer admitted that he deleted sections of the document that stated that humans were not responsible for climate change. “

“According to the Russians, the Hadley Centre used numbers that showed temperatures rising and omitted data that did not support global-warming conclusions. We are witnessing the rolling collapse of one of history’s great intellectual frauds.”

“The only reason China gives lip service to the global-warming alarmist agenda is to hamper the competition – and our Democratic president is falling for the trap. Mr. Obama pledged that the United States would move forward with strict emissions limits whether or not the international community did the same. From Beijing’s perspective, if the foolish Americans want to wreck their economy based on the misguided belief that they are saving polar bears, who is China to say no? “

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/20/obamas-cold-day-in-denmark/

Sunday, December 20, 2009

EDITORIAL: Obama’s cold day in Denmark

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Copenhagen was a cold town last week for the global-warming crowd. The expected reorganization of the world economy to fit the green template vanished amid blizzard conditions in a country that has had just seven white Christmases in the past century. God certainly has a sense of humor.

President Obama showed up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference having been assured he would be able to make history, only to find that the proceedings were a flop. The promised treaty – billed with the characteristic understatement of the alarmist community as ”the single most important piece of paper in the world today” – was an anticlimax. Earlier drafts conjured images of world government, command economies and a future free of the evils of greenhouse gasses. It promised a green utopia.

However, as the conference neared, huge gaps in the treaty language persisted. The final three-page version was tossed together in the closing hours with little deliberation and wound up saying little. The much-ballyhooed treaty promises next to nothing, other than a $100 billion slush fund for Third World dictators to ”adapt to climate change,” which probably involves buying mansions in southern France.

Mr. Obama’s speech reflected the general frustration of the hour and was uncharacteristically flat and angry. The president fumed that it was ”not a time to talk but to act,” but we wonder why he’s in such a hurry. There is no particular crisis. The inflated gravitas of the event was punctured by the ongoing collapse of the scientific basis for global-warming theory in the wake of the scandal about fudged scientific research.

The latest hit to climate-change credibility comes via an embarrassing revelation from Ben Santer, one of the lead authors of the 1995 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I report, which is one of the holy documents of global-warming theology. Mr. Santer admitted that he deleted sections of the document that stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.

Also on Tuesday, the Institute of Economic Analysis in Moscow claimed that the influential Hadley Centre for Climate Change at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter, England, apparently had tampered with Russian climate data. According to the Russians, the Hadley Centre used numbers that showed temperatures rising and omitted data that did not support global-warming conclusions. We are witnessing the rolling collapse of one of history’s great intellectual frauds. Global warming is turning out to be a lot of hot air.

The Chinese seem to have been on the right side of this debate all along. China was viewed as the major stumbling block at the conference, and Mr. Obama met privately with Premier Wen Jiabao to try to iron out the wrinkles. It’s ironic that dictatorial goons like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe blamed capitalism for the world’s global-warming ills while China puts the brakes on monitoring emissions. Having weighed all the factors, Beijing would rather be an economic powerhouse.

The only reason China gives lip service to the global-warming alarmist agenda is to hamper the competition – and our Democratic president is falling for the trap. Mr. Obama pledged that the United States would move forward with strict emissions limits whether or not the international community did the same. From Beijing’s perspective, if the foolish Americans want to wreck their economy based on the misguided belief that they are saving polar bears, who is China to say no?

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 137

21 december, 2009

“Granting the spotlight to the tyrannical trio of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez so they could express their profound concern for Mother Earth is like asking former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his prostitute Ashley Dupre to propound upon the state of marriage.

“No doubt the tanks Mr. Chavez is buying from Russia will come with efficient hybrid engines and will be used only to demand that neighboring countries tighten fuel-efficiency standards. Those TV stations he shut down must have refused to use clean and responsible solar energy.”

“Iran and Venezuela, in particular, finance their oppressive governments with the export of oil. Now what was it that causes carbon emissions again? Fossil fuels, was it? “

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/20/the-green-dictatorship/

Sunday, December 20, 2009

EDITORIAL: The green dictatorship

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Last week’s Copenhagen summit surrendered all pretense to significance when it turned into a showcase for dictators’ attempts to greenwash their bloody regimes. Granting the spotlight to the tyrannical trio of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez so they could express their profound concern for Mother Earth is like asking former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his prostitute Ashley Dupre to propound upon the state of marriage.

Mr. Mugabe used the opportunity to blame global warming for the deaths of millions of his subjects. No doubt his country turned from food exporter to famine because of coal electric plants in Idaho. Of course, driving thousands of farmers from their land, rejecting modern farming methods, confiscating his people’s wealth and turning his nation into a police state have little to do with Zimbabwean poverty.

”When we spew hazardous emissions for selfish, consumptionist ends, in the process threatening land masses and atmospheric space of smaller and weaker nations, are we not guilty of gross human rights violations?” Mr. Mugabe asked. In case you didn’t recognize him, that’s the good dictator, the campaigner for human rights and pollution control.

In Mr. Ahmadinejad’s case, he unsurprisingly pushed an agenda of spreading nuclear technology to all nations. In a slight oversight, the misunderstood Iranian president failed to mention his desperate hurry to create a nuclear arsenal. No matter, the good Mr. Ahmadinejad is about saving the environment with a profound commitment to disarmament. ”Would it not be better that part of the military funds of some countries be dedicated to improving the welfare of people and reducing pollution?” pleaded the green Iranian dictator.

That’s rather an ironic color choice, as Mr. Ahmadinejad recently stole elections from an opposition party using green as its signature campaign color.

Not to be left out is Mr. Chavez as representative of a nation feverishly arming for war with its neighbors, nationalizing whole industries and silencing the opposition press. He believes, ”The cause of all this disastrous situation is the destructive capitalist system. … Capitalism is the road to hell.” No doubt the tanks Mr. Chavez is buying from Russia will come with efficient hybrid engines and will be used only to demand that neighboring countries tighten fuel-efficiency standards. Those TV stations he shut down must have refused to use clean and responsible solar energy.

Such deep concern for Western capitalism, consumerism and militarism didn’t keep the dictators from joining other less developed nations with their hand out for a $100 billion bribe to be financed by that awful capitalism. But these green dictators have more in common than a desire for handouts. Iran and Venezuela, in particular, finance their oppressive governments with the export of oil. Now what was it that causes carbon emissions again? Fossil fuels, was it?

To call the eco-friendly posturing of Third World dictators a farce is to understate the scandal. That the audience greeted such self-serving insanity with applause and that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama sanctified the gathering with their presence exposes a dark side to the green agenda. Global-warming theology is not just a fraud; it attacks freedom and encourages dictatorship.

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 136

20 december, 2009

Everything is SOOO FAKE it’s beyond belief! Just one small titbit among so many.

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

comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans/

UPDATE 3

Nothing is real in Copenhagen – not the temperature record, not the predictions, not the agenda, not the “solution”. In fact, here’s how fake it all is:

The lead negotiator for the small island nation of Tuvalu, the bow-tie wearing Ian Fry, broke down as he begged delegates to take tough action.

“I woke up this morning crying,” and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit,” Mr Fry said on Saturday, as his eyes welled with tears.

”The fate of my country rests in your hands,” he concluded, as the audience exploded with wild applause.

So moving. But let’s now learn more from Samantha Maiden about this former Greenpeace official from “Tuvalu”:

But the part-time PhD scholar at the Australian National University actually resides in Queanbeyan, NSW, where he’s not likely to be troubled by rising sea levels because the closest beach at Batemans Bay is a two-hour, 144km drive away. Asked whether he had ever lived in Tuvalu, his wife told The Australian last night she would “rather not comment”….

Still, it’s a long way from the endangered atolls of Tuvalu, with his neighbour Michelle Ormay confirming he’s lived in Queanbeyan for more than a decade, while he has worked his way up to being “very high up in climate change”.

(Thanks to readers captainperi and Observer of Wodonga.)

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 135

20 december, 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/19/copenhagen-climate-summit-benny-peiser

This fiasco will further alienate an angry public

Benny Peiser  Saturday 19 December 2009 17.54 GMT

I hate to say I told you so, but I have predicted the failure of the Copenhagen summit to agree to binding commitments for over a year.

The Copenhagen fiasco was not just foreseeable, it was inevitable. The inability of the international community to break the climate deadlock reflects the incompatible national interests and demands that divide the west and the rest. This is now a permanent feature in what is likely to become an indefinite moratorium on international climate law-making.

In light of the Copenhagen non-agreement, there will be increased pressure by EU members states to water down unilateral emissions targets that are conditional on an international treaty. Just like Japan, it will be impossible for Europe or, indeed, the UK to continue with policies that are burdening national economies with huge costs and damaging their international competitiveness.

Climate politics face a profound crisis. Revolts among eastern European countries, in Australia and even among Obama’s Blue Dog Democrats are forcing law-makers to renounce support for unilateral climate policies. In the UK, the party-political consensus on climate change is unlikely to survive the general elections as both Labour and the Tories are confronted by a growing public backlash against green taxes and rising fuel bills.

However, the biggest losers of the Copenhagen fiasco appear to be climate science and the scientific establishment who, with a very few distinguished exceptions, have promoted unmitigated climate alarm and hysteria. It confirms beyond doubt that most governments have lost trust in the advice given by climate alarmists and the IPCC. The Copenhagen accord symbolises the loss of political power by Europe whose climate policies have been rendered obsolete.

It is a remarkable irony of history that when the leading voices of the radical environmental movements of the 1960s and 70s occupy governmental power in most western nations, their political and international influence is on the wane. The weakening of global warming anxiety among the general public and the marked decline of western influence and authority on the international stage is a clear manifestation of the green slump.

• Dr Benny Peiser is the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation

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 134

20 december, 2009

“If the United Nations cannot run a conference in Copenhagen without riots in the streets, why would anyone want to turn over the governance of the world to these people?

“In the weeks, months and years ahead is the slow unraveling of the past twenty years of unrelenting lies about global warming. It will be slow because the mainstream media will be the last to acknowledge that they were wrong.

What lessons can we draw from this huge fraud? Given control or the collusion of the mass media, it is possible to fool a lot of people a lot of the time.

Given the backing of the government, billions in taxpayer’s money can be given to organizations and individuals who are delighted to cash in on the fraud.“

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18082

The Real Melt-Down in Copenhagen

 By Alan Caruba  Friday, December 18, 2009

If the United Nations cannot run a conference in Copenhagen without riots in the streets, why would anyone want to turn over the governance of the world to these people?

For old “skeptics” like myself, watching the chaos in Copenhagen was sheer joy. It’s always a mistake for liars to gather in one place to trumpet their lies because it always attracts people who believe that the truth is the best antidote.

And for believers in the universal God of mankind and the universe, how lovely to see four inches of snow fall on Copenhagen in the midst of speeches and panels claiming that the Earth is warming. Even atheists who understand that global warming was and is a fraud could take some pleasure in that. In German, it’s called “schadenfreude.”

What became abundantly clear was that the Climate Change Conference was not about climate at all. It was about getting the developed nations to send billions to the undeveloped nations that have, as in the case of Africa, lived off of this largess while loudly criticizing the donors for being horrid capitalists.

The other aspect of the conference was the way the handful of global warming entrepreneurs like Al Gore (a) journeyed there in their private jets, (b) drove around town in their rented limousines, and (c) desperately repeated all the worn-out and discredited global warming claptrap about melting glaciers and ice caps, the die-off of every species known to man, including man, and the fact that this would occur in five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty or fifty years. Take your pick.

Who do you think is heavily invested in and dependent on the sale of bogus “carbon credits” for the use of “dirty” fuel such as coal, oil, and natural gas? Answer: Al Gore and the other scoundrels who have spent years creating the mechanisms to cash in on this. When the Russians sold their oil or natural gas in Europe, they were delighted to also sell the carbon credits necessary to use it under European Union (Kyoto Protocol) rules.

The other melt-down involved the totally specious “science” that carbon dioxide has anything to do with the Earth’s climate. Or that man-made CO2 can or does change the climate. The carefully constructed spider’s web of lies put forth by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were destroyed by the release of thousands of emails by the “scientists” who, it turns out, were deliberately falsifying the data.

The new addition to the Big Lie of global warming is that the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University had its computers “hacked” when it is abundantly obvious all the emails and other data were on a CD in the event that it was demanded under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act. It was leaked, not hacked. Similarly, the U.S. Act is being used to secure the data behind NASA’s claims supporting global warming.

Naturally, Al Gore claimed that the CRU emails were at least ten years old. NOT! He also managed to claim that all the ice at the polar caps was melting. NOT! And that the center of the Earth is millions of degrees hot. NOT!

And, of course, like a moth drawn to a candle, President Obama had to make an appearance and repeat all the global warming lies that no one believes any more except for the 20% of the U.S. population that thinks he is the Second Coming. NOT! Take note, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was also there telling lies.

In the weeks, months and years ahead is the slow unraveling of the past twenty years of unrelenting lies about global warming. It will be slow because the mainstream media will be the last to acknowledge that they were wrong.

What lessons can we draw from this huge fraud? Given control or the collusion of the mass media, it is possible to fool a lot of people a lot of the time.

Given the backing of the government, billions in taxpayer’s money can be given to organizations and individuals who are delighted to cash in on the fraud.

Those entrusted with teaching our children the truth about the real world betrayed them.

Those perpetrating the global warming fraud are among the worst liars and hypocrites to walk the Earth.

There is no end to the evil of Marxist socialism. It must be fought every day and all through the night. It takes many forms, but it is always about enriching an elite few at the expense of freedom for the rest.

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 133

20 december, 2009

Wattsupwiththat has issued a challenge to come up with a caption to this photo by Doug Mills/The New York Times. It shows Air Force One returning from Copenhagen in the midst of a snow storm.

“A major winter storm was moving up the Atlantic Coast on Friday night, with forecasters expecting accumulations of one to two feet of snow in some areas. President Obama returned early Saturday from climate talks in Copenhagen, landing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland in the midst of the storm.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/obama-returns-from-the-copenhagen-global-warming-conference/

My contribution was “Thank GOD for this Global Warming!

The picture here:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/12/19/us/20091219-winterstorm_3.html

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 132

19 december, 2009

“One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band.”

“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

See my posts:

Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything critically of Global Warming!

Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views!

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 70

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor

Posted: December 19, 2009, 2:49 AM by NP Editor

How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

By Lawrence Solomon

The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

The Medieval Warm Period, which followed the meanness and cold of the Dark Ages, was a great time in human history — it allowed humans around the world to bask in a glorious warmth that vastly improved agriculture, increased life spans and otherwise bettered the human condition.

But the Medieval Warm Period was not so great for some humans in our own time — the same small band that believes the planet has now entered an unprecedented and dangerous warm period. As we now know from the Climategate Emails, this band saw the Medieval Warm Period as an enormous obstacle in their mission of spreading the word about global warming. If temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago than today, the Climategate Emails explain in detail, their message that we now live in the warmest of all possible times would be undermined. As put by one band member, a Briton named Folland at the Hadley Centre, a Medieval Warm Period “dilutes the message rather significantly.”

Even before the Climategate Emails came to light, the problem posed by the Medieval Warm Period to this band was known. “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” read a pre-Climategate email, circa 1995, as attested to at hearings of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. But the Climategate transcripts were more extensive and more illuminating — they provided an unvarnished look at the struggles that the climate practitioners underwent before settling on their scientific dogma.

The Climategate Emails showed, for example, that some members of the band were uncomfortable with aspects of their work, some even questioning the need to erase the existence of the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years earlier.

Said Briffa, one of their chief practitioners: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.” 

In the end, Briffa and other members of the band overcame their doubts and settled on their dogma. With the help of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the highest climate change authority of all, they published what became the icon of their movement — the hockey stick graph. This icon showed temperatures in the last 1,000 years to have been stable — no Medieval Warm Period, not even the Little Ice Age of a few centuries ago.

But the UN’s official verdict that the Medieval Warm Period had not existed did not erase the countless schoolbooks, encyclopedias, and other scholarly sources that claimed it had. Rewriting those would take decades, time that the band members didn’t have if they were to save the globe from warming.

Instead, the band members turned to their friends in the media and to the blogosphere, creating a website called RealClimate.org. “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds” in aid of “combating dis-information,” one email explained, referring to criticisms of the hockey stick and anything else suggesting that temperatures today were not the hottest in recorded time. One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

Financial Post

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

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 131

19 december, 2009

“As Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. The fact is that imminent man-made climate disaster has been shown to be a massive fraud driven by manipulated data and deliberate suppression of facts to the contrary.”

“Russia accounts for 12.5% of the earth’s land mass and has weather stations throughout, so ignoring vast swaths of it can greatly skew any analysis. The IEA says CRU ignored data covering 40% of Russia, preferring data from urban centers and data that showed a warming trend. On the final page of the IEA report is a chart that shows the CRU’s selective use of Russian data produced 0.64C more warming than using all the data would have done.”

See my posts:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 125

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 122

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have

The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515789

To Denmark, From Russia, With Lies

Posted 12/18/2009 07:53 PM ET

Global Warming: Russian analysts accuse Britain’s Meteorological Office of cherry-picking Russian temperature data to ”hide the decline” in global temperatures. Is Copenhagen rooted in a single tree in Siberia?

Michael Mann, a Penn State meteorologist, wrote in Friday’s Washington Post that ”stolen” e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit still don’t alter the evidence for climate change.

Mann, a creator of the discredited hockey-stick graph used in reports from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to show man-made warming, attacks climate skeptics, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, saying they ”confuse the public.”

Chutzpah has been redefined.

As Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. The fact is that imminent man-made climate disaster has been shown to be a massive fraud driven by manipulated data and deliberate suppression of facts to the contrary.

The latest Climate-gate shoe to drop is the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) accusation that the Hadley Center of Britain‘s Meteorological Office deliberately relied on a carefully selected 25% of Russia‘s weather stations that fit its theory of global warming.

By ignoring those that don’t, the Russians say, the CRU overestimated warming in the country by more than half a degree Celsius.

Russia accounts for 12.5% of the earth’s land mass and has weather stations throughout, so ignoring vast swaths of it can greatly skew any analysis. The IEA says CRU ignored data covering 40% of Russia, preferring data from urban centers and data that showed a warming trend. On the final page of the IEA report is a chart that shows the CRU’s selective use of Russian data produced 0.64C more warming than using all the data would have done.

Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit reports that the CRU has long been suspected of misusing Russian data. He notes a March 2004 e-mail from CRU director Phil Jones to Mann that says: ”Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears (in these journals) I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.” (JGR and GRL are scientific journals).

Siberia has played a pivotal role in this outright fraud. In 1995, a paper by the CRU’s Keith Briffa asserted the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. It relied on tree ring data from trees on Siberia’s Yamal Peninsula.

Here too data were carefully selected. Those from just 12 trees from 252 cores in the Yamal data set were used. A larger set of 34 tree cores from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages. They weren’t used.

The hockey-stick graph was produced in 1999 by Mann using these manipulated tree ring data. The graph supposedly proved air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Mann et al. had to make the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.

McIntyre, who with fellow Canadian researcher Ross McKitrick exposed the hockey-stick fraud, says the evidence from only one Siberian tree, known as YAD061, seemed to show a hockey-stick pattern. If they look hard enough, the CRU can probably find a tree that shows evidence of elves making cookies.

This tree spawned the hockey stick that found its way into the reports of the U.N.’s climate change panel. It led to Kyoto and Copenhagen, which is why McIntyre calls it ”the most influential tree in the world.” As the CRU e-mails and other evidence reveal, Mann and his unindicted co-conspirators are barking up the wrong one.

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 130

19 december, 2009

“No doubt under the agreement China will continue to get a free climate pass despite its role as the world’s No. 1 emitter. At Copenhagen the emerging economies nonetheless proved skilled at exploiting the West’s carbon guilt, and in exchange for the non concession of continuing to negotiate next year, or the year after that, they’ll receive up to $100 billion in foreign aid by 2020, with the U.S. contributing the lion’s share.

We can’t wait to hear Mr. Obama tell Americans that he wants them to pay higher taxes so the U.S. can pay China to become more energy efficient and thus more economically competitive.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703523504574604130737360364.html

DECEMBER 19, 2009

Copenhagen‘s Lesson in Limits

And we don’t mean carbon limits.

Whatever led President Obama to believe that his personal intercession at the climate-change summit would achieve something major, his very presence in Copenhagen made ”a significant breakthrough” a political imperative, no matter how flimsy. And that’s exactly what a senior Administration official called a last-ditch deal—details to come—in a media leak as we went to press last evening and the conference headed into overtime.

Mr. Obama’s inexplicable injunction yesterday that ”the time for talk is over” appears to have produced an agreement to continue talking. The previous 12 days of frantic sound and pointless fury showed that there isn’t anything approaching an international consensus on carbon control. What Copenhagen offered instead was a lesson in limits for a White House partial to symbolic gestures and routinely disappointed by reality.

Apparently, the agreement provides ”the foundation for an eventual legally binding treaty,” but that same ”foundation” has been laid many times before. Copenhagen was supposed to deliver ”legally binding” limits. However, the successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol became a pre-emptive dead letter because countries like China, Brazil and India said they were unwilling to accept anything that depressed their economic growth.

No doubt under the agreement China will continue to get a free climate pass despite its role as the world’s No. 1 emitter. At Copenhagen the emerging economies nonetheless proved skilled at exploiting the West’s carbon guilt, and in exchange for the non concession of continuing to negotiate next year, or the year after that, they’ll receive up to $100 billion in foreign aid by 2020, with the U.S. contributing the lion’s share.

We can’t wait to hear Mr. Obama tell Americans that he wants them to pay higher taxes so the U.S. can pay China to become more energy efficient and thus more economically competitive.

Copenhagen also got hung up on whether countries (especially China) will be ”transparent” about whether they are meeting their anticarbon commitments, and the Administration claims to be satisfied with whatever verification pact was struck. Yet nearly every country that ratified Kyoto cheats on it today. Honest carbon accounting would also impede programs like the corrupt ”clean development mechanism,” where European consumers end up paying Chinese companies for emissions reductions that either aren’t real or would have happened anyway. At least Copenhagen’s talk did less tangible harm.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12

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 129

19 december, 2009

“When the Climate Change Bill passed through parliament last year, I read the cost benefit assessment ministers are obliged to produce for any bill. Amazingly, it put the potential costs (of reducing carbon emissions by 60%) at £205 billion ($331 billion)—yet the maximum benefits (of reduced climate change damage) were estimated at only £110 billion. This is the first time any government had asked parliament to support a bill that its own figures say will do more harm than good. Yet just five of us voted against it. At least I had the satisfaction of pointing out that while the House was voting for a bill based on the assumption the world is getting warmer, it was snowing in London in October for the first time in 74 years. I was told, ”extreme cold is a symptom of man made global warming.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574601762696721506.html

DECEMBER 17, 2009, 3:45 P.M. ET

Global Warming as Groupthink

By PETER LILLEY

It is easy to mock the thousands of activists, officials and ministers flying to Copenhagen in their jets, driving around in an immense fleet of limousines, and collectively emitting more carbon dioxide than a small African country—all to force the rest of us to reduce our carbon footprints. But it is one thing to accuse them of hypocrisy in not living out their beliefs. Casting doubt on their belief that global warming poses an imminent threat to life on this planet is another.

To question so much scientific expertise and governmental authority seems arrogant or foolhardy—even in the city where Hans Christian Anderson wrote about the little boy who blurted out that the Emperor had no clothes.

Can so many experts be wrong? Well, it is worth remembering that the experts were supposedly united about the apocalyptic dangers of the Y2K millennium bug. Half the world was persuaded to spend an estimated $600 billion to save us from disasters that embarrassingly failed to materialize in the countries and companies that omitted to take any pre-emptive action. Then intelligence agencies around the world were allegedly so convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that we went to war, only to find—zilch. In both cases there was a solid foundation of truth on which enthusiastic professionals and governments constructed an exaggerated scare story that the media lapped up. I was skeptical enough to delve into both those scares and rapidly found the experts were not as unanimous as supposed. But the dissenters were persuaded to keep quiet, bar a handful who were ruthlessly stereotyped as mavericks or worse.

In each case the driving force was ”groupthink.” Irving Janis defined this as ”a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” The symptoms include:

Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group; Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as evil, biased, etc.; Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group; Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus; Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.” Campaigners against climate change show remarkably similar symptoms.

There is a solid basis of truth for their claims. Having studied physics at Cambridge I do not for a moment doubt the existence of the greenhouse effect. Without the warm blanket provided by greenhouse gases—mainly water vapor and carbon dioxide—the earth would be a frozen uninhabitable rock. If the amount of CO2 is doubled, the direct effect—other things being equal—would be to raise the Earth’s temperature by about one degree Centigrade. Since warmer air holds more water vapor, that could double the impact—or reduce it if the resultant clouds reflect more sunshine.

But to move from the modest but scientifically well-founded range of 0.5 to 2.0 degrees Centigrade to catastrophic impacts on human life requires successively more uncertain layers of conjecture. Higher temperature projections are obtained by constructing elaborate computer models that build in complex feedbacks that amplify warming and assume nothing could dampen these effects—both tendentious and unproven assumptions. Then, even more unwarranted assumptions must be adopted about the impact of higher temperatures on sea levels, hurricane frequency, disease propagation, and so on (glossing over the fact that it would take centuries for higher temperatures to melt the ice caps sufficiently to raise sea levels substantially).

Finally, heroic assumptions are necessary about low discount rates to maximize the present value of future benefits from cutting carbon, and that decarbonizing industry will be cheap. Meanwhile, the supposed damages from climate change must be aggregated over centuries to prove that we need to remove CO2 immediately rather than adapt to change. Far too little attention is given to measures to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries adapt, rather than spending huge sums to prevent what may not occur.

The tendency of those committed to the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming to unquestioningly adopt the assumptions, at every stage, that maximize the expectation of calamity should alert us that groupthink is driving the movement.

The recently leaked email exchanges between scientists at the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia and their colleagues in the U.S., who are among the illuminati of the global warming movement, show vivid evidence of groupthink at work. These scientists have become so committed to a cause that they think it natural to perform ”tricks” to ”hide the decline,” as one email says. Another is so upset by ”The fact… that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” that he suggests ”the data are surely wrong.” It is reminiscent of the German philosopher Hegel who, on being told by his disciples that the facts refuted his scientific theories, replied: ”So much the worse for the facts.” It is clear that while governments think they are pursuing evidence-based policies, these institutes have been serving up ”policy-based evidence.”

The whole U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process could not be better designed to institutionalize groupthink on a global scale. It puts enthusiasts at the helm. It seeks to establish a single view on the science, modeling, and economics. Dissent is banished. Loyalty is demanded. Silence is deemed consent. Moral fervor is reinforced by massive cash research budgets.

Even the British parliament has become caught up in groupthink. Dissent (and there are silent skeptics in both Labour and Conservative ranks) is suppressed by equating skepticism with Holocaust denial. Moral zeal replaces reasoned debate. Scrutiny of costs and benefits of alternative policy options is suspended. Desirable policies such as nuclear power to reduce dependency on hydrocarbons are sidelined in favor of a whimsical dependency on wind and sunshine.

When the Climate Change Bill passed through parliament last year, I read the cost benefit assessment ministers are obliged to produce for any bill. Amazingly, it put the potential costs (of reducing carbon emissions by 60%) at £205 billion ($331 billion)—yet the maximum benefits (of reduced climate change damage) were estimated at only £110 billion. This is the first time any government had asked parliament to support a bill that its own figures say will do more harm than good. Yet just five of us voted against it. At least I had the satisfaction of pointing out that while the House was voting for a bill based on the assumption the world is getting warmer, it was snowing in London in October for the first time in 74 years. I was told, ”extreme cold is a symptom of man made global warming.”

The absurdity did not end there. Because the target for reducing emissions was amended upwards to 80%, I asked for a new cost-benefit assessment. Ministers eventually slipped one out—long after the bill had become an Act. It showed that the cost of meeting this more onerous target had doubled to £400 billion. Yet, miraculously, the government estimate of the likely benefits had risen tenfold. They had apparently previously mislaid nearly £1 trillion of benefits. It would be hard to find clearer evidence of the flaky nature of figures governments employ to justify their commitment to climate-change policies.

More carried away by groupthink than his colleagues, Gordon Brown has strutted his stuff in Copenhagen—the prime minister of a near-bankrupt country offering to bankroll a global deal. When he returns we will find that although the benefits are flaky, the costs are real.

Mr. Lilley is a Conservative member of the U.K. Parliament.

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 128

19 december, 2009

And the polls shows it

 Graphs here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/12/18/GR2009121800213.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121800002.html

How much do you trust the things that scientists say about the environment – completely, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, or not at all?

10% completely, 19% a lot, 40% a little, 14% not at all

Do you think (most scientists agree with one another) about whether or not global warming is happening, or do you think (there is a lot of disagreement among scientists) on this issue?

36% most agree, 62% a lot of disagreement

                  Click on the graph for larger image

            

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 127

18 december, 2009

“But there’s something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a ”pollutant.”

“Then, in 1999, Mr. Mann published his famous ”hockey stick” article in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), which, through the magic of multivariate statistics and questionable data weighting, wiped out both the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent ”Little Ice Age” (a cold period from the late 16th century to the mid-19th century), leaving only the 20th-century warming as an anomaly of note. “

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html

DECEMBER 17, 2009, 10:47 P.M. ET

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should know.

By PATRICK J. MICHAELS

Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).

But there’s something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a ”pollutant.”

The bible I’m referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific literature. It’s our canon, and it’s all we have really had to go on in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted). When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science.

That can no longer be the case. The alliance of scientists at East Anglia, Penn State and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (in Boulder, Colo.) has done its best to bias it.

A refereed journal, Climate Research, published two particular papers that offended Michael Mann of Penn State and Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. One of the papers, published in 2003 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), was a meta-analysis of dozens of ”paleoclimate” studies that extended back 1,000 years. They concluded that 20th-century temperatures could not confidently be considered to be warmer than those indicated at the beginning of the last millennium.

In fact, that period, known as the ”Medieval Warm Period” (MWP), was generally considered warmer than the 20th century in climate textbooks and climate compendia, including those in the 1990s from the IPCC.

Then, in 1999, Mr. Mann published his famous ”hockey stick” article in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), which, through the magic of multivariate statistics and questionable data weighting, wiped out both the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent ”Little Ice Age” (a cold period from the late 16th century to the mid-19th century), leaving only the 20th-century warming as an anomaly of note.

Messrs. Mann and Wigley also didn’t like a paper I published in Climate Research in 2002. It said human activity was warming surface temperatures, and that this was consistent with the mathematical form (but not the size) of projections from computer models. Why? The magnitude of the warming in CRU’s own data was not as great as in the models, so therefore the models merely were a bit enthusiastic about the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Mr. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research out of business. ”Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” he wrote in one of the emails. ”We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

After Messrs. Jones and Mann threatened a boycott of publications and reviews, half the editorial board of Climate Research resigned. People who didn’t toe Messrs. Wigley, Mann and Jones’s line began to experience increasing difficulty in publishing their results.

This happened to me and to the University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer, who also hypothesized that global warming is likely to be modest. Others surely stopped trying, tiring of summary rejections of good work by editors scared of the mob. Sallie Baliunas, for example, has disappeared from the scientific scene.

GRL is a very popular refereed journal. Mr. Wigley was concerned that one of the editors was ”in the skeptics camp.” He emailed Michael Mann to say that ”if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official . . . channels to get him ousted.”

Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Wigley on Nov. 20, 2005 that ”It’s one thing to lose ‘Climate Research.’ We can’t afford to lose GRL.” In this context, ”losing” obviously means the publication of anything that they did not approve of on global warming.

Soon the suspect editor, Yale’s James Saiers, was gone. Mr. Mann wrote to the CRU’s Phil Jones that ”the GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there.

It didn’t stop there. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19, 2009, that ”If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.”

Messrs. Jones and Santer were Ph.D. students of Mr. Wigley. Mr. Santer is the same fellow who, in an email to Phil Jones on Oct. 9, 2009, wrote that he was ”very tempted” to ”beat the crap” out of me at a scientific meeting. He was angry that I published ”The Dog Ate Global Warming” in National Review, about CRU’s claim that it had lost primary warming data.

The result of all this is that our refereed literature has been inestimably damaged, and reputations have been trashed. Mr. Wigley repeatedly tells news reporters not to listen to ”skeptics” (or even nonskeptics like me), because they didn’t publish enough in the peer-reviewed literature—even as he and his friends sought to make it difficult or impossible to do so.

Ironically, with the release of the Climategate emails, the Climatic Research Unit, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley have dramatically weakened the case for emissions reductions. The EPA claimed to rely solely upon compendia of the refereed literature such as the IPCC reports, in order to make its finding of endangerment from carbon dioxide. Now that we know that literature was biased by the heavy-handed tactics of the East Anglia mob, the EPA has lost the basis for its finding.

Mr. Michaels, formerly professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia (1980-2007), is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

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 126

18 december, 2009

“Any international meeting that invites Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe to speak has no legitimacy. But that’s not the worst of it.

When these fellows spoke in Copenhagen, their asinine remarks were cheered and applauded by attendees who seemed to think they were in the presence of great men. Surely the world now gets what the global warming alarmists are about.

Doesn’t it?”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515696

Losers Of World Unite — In Denmark

Posted 12/17/2009 07:46 PM ET

Copenhagen Conference: The United Nations summit was promoted as a serious effort to mitigate climate change. But it’s turned into an attack on capitalism. So what does the U.S. do? It pledges money.

Any international meeting that invites Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe to speak has no legitimacy. But that’s not the worst of it.

When these fellows spoke in Copenhagen, their asinine remarks were cheered and applauded by attendees who seemed to think they were in the presence of great men. Surely the world now gets what the global warming alarmists are about.

Doesn’t it?

For reasons that remain a mystery to us, Chavez was celebrated as if he were a popularly elected president who has led his country toward greater freedom and prosperity instead of a socialist who rigged his election to be president for life, crushed civil liberties and wrecked his nation’s economy.

Nevertheless, ”President Chavez brought the house down,” according to newspaper the Australian, when he addressed the U.N. Climate Change Conference on Wednesday. ”When he said there was a ‘silent and terrible ghost in the room’ and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.”

Socialism, Chavez told the fawning audience, is ”the way to save the planet” while ”the destructive model of capitalism is the eradication of life.” And: ”Capitalism is the road to hell. … Let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.”

For that nugget of nonsense, Chavez received a standing ovation.

Proceeding Chavez to the rostrum was Evo Morales, a pal of Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro and the first fully ”indigenous” head of state in Bolivia. Morales set the table for Chavez, declaring the real cause of climate change to be ”the capitalist system.”

”If we want to save the earth,” he said, ”then we must end that economic model.”

This man, a socialist who also fixed his election and consolidated his power, proposed an ”international climate court of justice to prosecute countries for climate ‘crimes.'”

Mugabe, who has beaten, tortured and killed his opponents and has been sanctioned for human-rights abuses, held forth on the anti-capitalist theme. He scolded the ”capitalist gods of carbon” who ”burp and belch their dangerous emissions,” leaving ”the lesser mortals of the developing sphere” to ”gasp and sink and eventually die.”

The gasping, sinking and dying who Mugabe is most familiar with are within his own country. Tens of thousands have been killed by the poverty, cholera, famine and outright murder brought on by his socialist policies that ruined a once-thriving economy.

On Thursday, the day before the conference wrap-up, Ahmadinejad, another unsavory character, kept alive the narrative that the developed nations should pay for ”improving the welfare of people and reducing pollution.”

And pay we apparently will. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Thursday the U.S. will contribute to an annual $100 billion-a-year climate protection fund. The money will ostensibly cover costs in developing countries associated with global warming.

But who’s she kidding? As with almost all foreign aid, the money will instead be stolen by Third World kleptocrats and never used for its intended purpose.

As economist Gary Becker has said, ”Foreign aid programs other than of a humanitarian nature are destined to fail because they involve transfers of resources from one government to another.” Mugabe, for example, has been accused of misusing hundreds of millions in aid from the U.S. and Britain.

The speakers’ rants, the attendees’ raves and the pledges of greenmail payments from guilt-ridden leaders of developed nations are almost comical.

It’s particularly dispiriting to know that there are those among us who think that living under capitalism — the only system that has improved human existence — is a burden; that handing money to dictators will improve the lives of those they oppress and that the United Nations has only the planet’s interest in mind when it pushes for international global-warming agreements.

Their lack of understanding is far more of a threat than man’s carbon emissions.

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 125

17 december, 2009

More on the Russian view of Climate Gate from Professor Vitaly Bushuyev, Director of the Energy Strategy Institute.,

Global climate change is not just man’s fault

http://en.rian.ru/video/20091216/157258712.html

Vodpod videos no longer available.

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 124

17 december, 2009

When you reflect on this much, much broader view, and there is other forces of this big scale at work which is not mentioned here, and compare it with this political Global Warming Hysteria it’s beyond pathetic

A “predicted” rise of temperature by the computer models of the order of 0,5-1,5C in the next 100 years, is supposed to be catastrophic and eminent treat within the next 5 years according to the high priest of this hysteria.

And for this they, the politicians, are willing to destroy our livelihood, wealth and the economic foundations of our nations?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004574599981936018834.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

DECEMBER 16, 2009, 8:56 P.M. ET

Climate Change Is Nature’s Way

It’s our good luck one of Earth’s many ice ages ended 12,000 years ago..

Climate change activists are right. We are in for walloping shifts in the planet’s climate. Catastrophic shifts. But the activists are wrong about the reason. Very wrong. And the prescription for a solution—a $27 trillion solution—is likely to be even more wrong. Why?

Climate change is not the fault of man. It’s Mother Nature’s way. And sucking greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is too limited a solution. We have to be prepared for fire or ice, for fry or freeze. We have to be prepared for change.

We’ve been deceived by a stroke of luck. In the two million years during which we climbed from stone-tool wielding Homo erectus with sloping brows to high-foreheaded Homo urbanis, man the inventor of the city, we underwent 60 glaciations, 60 ice ages. And in the 120,000 years since we emerged in our current physiological shape as Homo sapiens, we’ve lived through 20 sudden global warmings. In most of those, temperatures have shot up by as much as 18 degrees within a mere 20 years.

All this took place without smokestacks and tailpipes. All this took place without the desecration of nature by modern man.

The stroke of luck that’s misled us? The sheets of ice in whose shadow we made a living for two million years peeled back 12,000 years ago leaving a lush new Garden of Eden. In that Eden we invented agriculture, money, electronics and our current way of life. But that weather standstill has held on for an abnormally long amount of time. And it’s very likely that this atypical weather truce shall someday pass.

Why? What’s the real cause of the Earth’s norm—a climate that rocks back and forth from steamy tropical heat to icy freeze? A climate that deposits fossilized seashells on mountaintops and makes dry land into seas and swamps?

The Earth is a traveler. Its angle as it sweeps around the sun produces the massive weather flips we call seasons—the dance from summer to winter and back again. But there’s more. Our planet has a peculiar wobble—its precession. And that precession produces upheavals in our weather, weather alterations we cycle through every 22,000, 41,000 and 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovich cycle, named for the Serbian engineer and geophysicist who discovered it.

But the wobbles in our trip around the sun are just a start. The sun is a traveler, too. It circles the black hole at the galaxy’s core every 226 million years. And it takes its tiny flock of planets with it. That means us. The result?

The journey around the galactic core is fraught with dangers. For example, every 143 million years we pass through a spiral arm of the galaxy, an arm that tosses tsunamis of cosmic rays our way. Those rays produce massive climate change. Then there’s the innocent-sounding stuff astronomers call galactic ”fluff,” massive clouds of cosmic dust lurking in our solar system’s path that also cause dramatic climate change.

Meanwhile, the sun itself is going through a cycle from birth to death. As a result of its maturation, good old reliable sol is 43% warmer today than it was when the Earth first gathered itself into a globe of planetesimals 4.5 billion years ago.

The bottom line? Weather changes and the occasional meteor have tossed this planet through roughly 142 mass extinctions since life began 3.85 billion years ago. That’s an average of one mass extinction every 26.5 million years. Where did these mass die-offs come from? Nature. There were no human capitalists, industrialists or cultures of consumerism to blame.

We do not want to be the victims of one of these extinctions. Nor do we want to see whales, elephants and pandas go the way of trilobites and dinosaurs. We need to prepare for far more than just the changes we think we make. We need to prepare for the challenge that forced us to evolve into our modern, highly adaptable form. We have to realize that nature tosses us tests, and that we grow by outwitting her. We have to prepare for fire and ice. And we have to realize that Mother Nature is not nice.

Mr. Bloom is the author, most recently, of ”The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism,” published last month by Prometheus Books. He is also founder and head of The Space Development Steering Committee.

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 123

17 december, 2009

“Mr. Hansen skated deftly around Climategate, noting that it didn’t matter to the science, which was settled. However, his most worrying remark — given his views on activism — was that scientists should be politicized. Of even more concern is how widely Mr. Hansen’s activism is promoted by the warmist lobby, which doesn’t  just theorize about skirting the democratic process.

Maurice Strong, the self-confessed “world’s leading environmentalist,” recently wrote that “Our concept of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified.” This would be less of a concern if Mr. Strong had not also been instrumental in allowing NGOs inside the Rio/Kyoto/Copenhagen process. “

“GO was set up by José Maria Figueres, a former President of Costa Rica. Exactly what Mr. Figueres has in mind when he talks about “bringing the public into negotiations” is clear from a clip available on YouTube, in which he frankly admits that the key to getting the “right” decisions is using NGOs to assemble mobs to pressure politicians.”

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/16/peter-foster-james-hansen-and-mob-rule.aspx

Peter Foster: James Hansen and mob rule

Posted: December 16, 2009, 10:40 PM by NP Editor

The climate action group ‘GO’ seeks to influence the politics of climate change through mob intimidation

By Peter Foster

The CBC seemed yesterday to be very much on the side of the protesters who attempted to break into the deadlocked Copenhagen climate talks.  Reports expressed sympathy with the mob’s  “frustration” at the “lack of progress.” Inside the Bella conference centre, meanwhile, a bunch of NGOs reportedly tried to help those storming the barricades to infiltrate the building.

Far from being unwelcome to promoters of draconian action, these arrogant noisemakers are a welcome force for intimidation. Take James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who appeared yesterday morning on CBC’s The Current. Mr. Hansen’s Al Gore-orchestrated testimony before Congress in 1988 and 1989 was of seminal importance to the UN climate agenda. He has become perhaps the most oft-quoted voice of official climate alarmism. Like Mr. Gore, Mr. Hansen recommends direct action. In his new book, Storms of My Grandchildren, he writes: “As in other struggles for justice against powerful forces, it may be necessary to take to the streets to draw attention to injustice. Civil resistance may be our best hope. It is crucial for all of us, especially young people, to get involved. This will be the most urgent fight of our lives.”

Mr. Hansen did not mean “fight” metaphorically. He testified on behalf of the “Kingsnorth Six,” a group of Greenpeace activists who caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of criminal damage in trying to shut down a British coal utility.

The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti — in soft, deferential, non-Larry Solomon mode — claimed that Mr. Hansen, who had allegedly suffered “gagging” by the Bush administration, was giving a “rare interview.” In fact, the gagging consisted of an attempt by NASA officials to get Mr. Hansen to obey the rules which applied to all NASA scientists about giving interviews. Meanwhile Mr. Hansen is reckoned to have given over a thousand interviews during his “silent” period.

Nevertheless, a lot of what Mr. Hansen said yesterday made sense: the Copenhagen process is hypocritical and should scrapped; cap and trade is a crock, from which the only people likely to get rich are Goldman Sachs and JpMorgan Chase; current negotiations are all about paying off developing countries so that developed countries can continue emitting greenhouse gases.

Mr. Hansen suggests that if you want to slash emissions you have to tax them and rebate all the proceeds to citizens. Of course, this is Stephane Dion’s Green Shift, except that Mr. Hansen suggests that “Not one dime should go to … politicians to pick winners.” No argument there. Mr. Hansen calls his system “fees and dividends:” from each according to his emissions, to each according to … well, to just being there. But the key issue is how far human emissions contribute to global warming, and thus how far there is any point in slashing them. This rather essential point didn’t come up yesterday.

Mr. Hansen skated deftly around Climategate, noting that it didn’t matter to the science, which was settled. However, his most worrying remark — given his views on activism — was that scientists should be politicized. Of even more concern is how widely Mr. Hansen’s activism is promoted by the warmist lobby, which doesn’t  just theorize about skirting the democratic process.

Maurice Strong, the self-confessed “world’s leading environmentalist,” recently wrote that “Our concept of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified.” This would be less of a concern if Mr. Strong had not also been instrumental in allowing NGOs inside the Rio/Kyoto/Copenhagen process.

Mr. Strong himself hasn’t been so prominent since the Iraqi oil-for-food fiasco, but he is involved in something called The Global Observatory, GO, an organization designed to act as “a catalyst, bridging the gap between those responsible for making the decisions at [Copenhagen] and the public.”

GO was set up by José Maria Figueres, a former President of Costa Rica. Exactly what Mr. Figueres has in mind when he talks about “bringing the public into negotiations” is clear from a clip available on YouTube, in which he frankly admits that the key to getting the “right” decisions is using NGOs to assemble mobs to pressure politicians. Mr. Figueres says that he’s not willing to leave the future of his children in the hands of the 1,500 negotiators at Copenhagen, so his plan was to set up a “tent” at the meeting in which there would be scientific experts (He mentions Mr. Hansen). If such scientists declared that, say, Costa Rica was “backtracking,” then GO would get on the phone to select NGOs, who could have a mob outside the presidential palace in 45 minutes. This would result in a call to the country’s environment minister in Copenhagen to change their position.

And lest you think that GO is some fringe group, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, recently said: “The Global Observatory is a useful, timely initiative that can make a difference. We have to back up our words with action. The GO can help create the political space that will inspire, engage and enable leaders from all around the world to take action.”

By mob intimidation.

Every NGO should be tossed out of the Bella centre so that national leaders can come to a non-conclusion today in peace. Meanwhile noisy protesters should be seen for what they are: not idealistic young people, but political dupes of a plot to subvert democracy.

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 122

16 december, 2009

The Russian connection.

“On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.”

See my posts:

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have

 The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data

PDF in Russian here:

http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

Article here:

http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

Russia affected by Climategate

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as ”Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

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 121

16 december, 2009

“Generation green doesn’t recognize the trade-offs of costs and benefits. Indeed, they don’t seem to recognize costs at all. This is likely the fault of politicians in Western countries.”

“After two years of intense negotiations, however, diplomats have made exactly zero progress in answering the all-important question: Who is going to pay the $45 trillion that the International Energy Agency says it would cost to cure the climate of its supposed ills?”

“As such, thousands of young people spewed untold tons of greenhouse gases flying to and living in Copenhagen for a pointless climate conference. The only lasting impact of COP-15 will be its huge carbon footprint! By participating in the Copenhagen climate confab, generation green exhibits the same sort of mindless consumption that it came to protest. “

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/16/a-green-woodstock/

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

A green Woodstock

William Yeatman

Don’t be fooled by the lavish media attention given to raucous anti-globalization types at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, Denmark. I’ve seen only scant traces of that riffraff.

Instead of Seattle 1999 – the site of massive rioting at a World Trade Organization meeting – COP-15 is more like a green Woodstock. Thousands of naive young environmentalists have come to Copenhagen to revel in eco-harmony.

The UNFCCC classifies participants to the COP-15 three ways: observers, media and negotiators. Of the three, observers are by far the largest group, and they mostly fit a similar profile. They are younger than 30, they work in the nonprofit sector in the United States or Western Europe, and they passionately believe the world needs to fight global warming.

Yet dedication to the cause isn’t the only reason they traveled to Copenhagen. They also came for the vibe.

Concerts are constant in the huge temporary soundstage erected in city square. At the end of the first week, seemingly everyone was excited for the ”NGO Party” on Saturday at Vega, Copenhagen’s foremost discotheque. The party flier screamed in bold, ”Free Entrance/Conference Badge Required!” According to the hash peddlers in Christiantown, an anything-goes commune in the northern part of the city, business has been brisk during the Copenhagen conference.

To be sure, I don’t begrudge anyone a good time, and I admire these young people’s passion for their chosen cause. My main problem with this generation green is that not very many of them seem to have thought things through. When encountered by the nuance of a nation’s interest or the compromise inherent to democratic politics, they revert to slogans and chants. Like most idealists, they are all too readily mugged by reality.

It is also true that this green corps isn’t interested much in intellectual consistency. Outside the COP-15 Saturday night, a vigil marked the end of a march from the Danish Parliament building. The crowd cheered when a British rocker called for a ”revolution,” and it cheered five minutes later when an Indian academic urged support for China’s rejection of emissions targets. These are mutually exclusive exhortations, mind you.

Generation green doesn’t recognize the trade-offs of costs and benefits. Indeed, they don’t seem to recognize costs at all. This is likely the fault of politicians in Western countries. Consider President Obama, who refuses to acknowledge that his renewable-energy policies are expensive energy policies, for the simple reason that renewable energy costs more than conventional energy. Instead, he trumpets the creation of green jobs. The president surely knows better, so he is pretending that his energy policies are all gain and no pain. The problem is that the youth are listening, and they believe him.

Perhaps the biggest indictment of the young idealists who descended upon Denmark is the mere fact that they came. After all, world leaders conceded that COP-15 would be a failure a month before it even started. Since 2007, the Copenhagen climate conference was supposed to have been the deadline for a legally binding, multilateral treaty to fight global warming.

After two years of intense negotiations, however, diplomats have made exactly zero progress in answering the all-important question: Who is going to pay the $45 trillion that the International Energy Agency says it would cost to cure the climate of its supposed ills? Developed countries refuse to pay without significant participation from developing countries, which refuse to pay anything. In the face of this diplomatic gridlock, world leaders announced at November’s Asian Pacific Economic Conference Summit that COP-15 would fail to produce a treaty. As such, thousands of young people spewed untold tons of greenhouse gases flying to and living in Copenhagen for a pointless climate conference. The only lasting impact of COP-15 will be its huge carbon footprint! By participating in the Copenhagen climate confab, generation green exhibits the same sort of mindless consumption that it came to protest.

All the time I’ve been here in Copenhagen, I have kept thinking about the opportunity cost of generation green’s quixotic dedication to ”doing something” about global warming. What if they cared this much about homelessness? Or mental illness? Or breast cancer?

For a decade, temperatures on Earth have remained the same, but human beings still suffer much the same as they always have. Generation green’s passion is commendable. Its priorities, however, are abominable.

William Yeatman is an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a contributor to Globalwarming.org.

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 120

16 december, 2009

How the humans became extinct. Hmm it seems to have happened before. And I wonder if our “intelligent” politicians also have “brains” the sixe of walnuts?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/photos/2009/dec/16/66190/

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 119

16 december, 2009

“More than anything else, Monday’s walkout revealed the real reason that the developing world is in Copenhagen in the first place: They see climate change as a potential foreign-aid bonanza, and they are at the table to leverage the West’s environmental angst into massive transfers of wealth.

In theory, the money is supposed to help poor countries pay for their transition to a carbon-neutral future. But the developed world has been pouring trillions of dollars into development aid in various forms for decades, with little to show for it. The reasons are well-known: Corruption, political oppression, government control of the economy and the absence of rule of law combine to keep poor countries poor. And those factors also ensure that most aid is squandered or skimmed off the top. Recasting foreign aid as ”climate mitigation” won’t change any of that. “

The world’s scientists and policy decision makers have publicly stated that this is the greatest risk humanity has ever faced,” says Mr. Di-Aping. ”Now if that’s the case, it’s very strange that $10 billion is considered adequate financing.” Mr. Di-Aping deserves credit for taking the climate alarmists on their own terms and drawing consistent conclusions. “

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574597900307712862.html

DECEMBER 16, 2009.The Copenhagen Shakedown

Developing countries understand the real costs of climate change.

The U.N. climate-change conference in Copenhagen was supposed to be the moment when the world came together to save us from an excess of carbon dioxide. Like all such confabs, it’s coming down instead to cold, hard cash.

On Monday, the so-called G-77—in effect, the Third World—walked out of the talks for several hours in protest of the unwillingness, as they saw it, of rich countries to foot the bill for averting or mitigating climate catastrophe in the developing world. The negotiations have since resumed, but with the most difficult questions set aside and expectations lower than ever.

More than anything else, Monday’s walkout revealed the real reason that the developing world is in Copenhagen in the first place: They see climate change as a potential foreign-aid bonanza, and they are at the table to leverage the West’s environmental angst into massive transfers of wealth.

In theory, the money is supposed to help poor countries pay for their transition to a carbon-neutral future. But the developed world has been pouring trillions of dollars into development aid in various forms for decades, with little to show for it. The reasons are well-known: Corruption, political oppression, government control of the economy and the absence of rule of law combine to keep poor countries poor. And those factors also ensure that most aid is squandered or skimmed off the top. Recasting foreign aid as ”climate mitigation” won’t change any of that.

Still, Copenhagen’s fixation on who pays for these huge wealth transfers is instructive because it lays bare the myth that greening the global economy is a cost-free exercise. The G-77 scoffed at a European offer of €7.2 billion ($10 billion) over three years. Instead, the Sudanese chairman of the group, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, suggested in an interview with Mother Jones magazine that something on the order of a trillion dollars, or more, would be appropriate.

The world’s scientists and policy decision makers have publicly stated that this is the greatest risk humanity has ever faced,” says Mr. Di-Aping. ”Now if that’s the case, it’s very strange that $10 billion is considered adequate financing.” Mr. Di-Aping deserves credit for taking the climate alarmists on their own terms and drawing consistent conclusions.

Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the Malthusian 1972 classic ”The Limits to Growth,” also served up some climate honesty in a recent interview with Der Spiegel. ”I lived long enough in a country like Afghanistan to know that I don’t want us to have to live like that in the future. But we have to learn to live a life that allows for fulfillment and development, with the CO2 emissions of Afghanistan.” Mr. Meadows’s chilling corollary: ”If you want everyone to have the full potential of mobility, adequate food and self-development, then . . . one or two billion” people is about all the population the planet can sustain.

Given that the world’s population is now about 6.8 billion people, that’s not likely to happen. Nor is the developed world about to reinvent itself as a greener version of Afghanistan, much less fork over trillions of dollars to avert the supposed catastrophe it has done so much to trumpet. If the summit at Copenhagen achieves nothing else but to expose the disconnect between climate alarm and climate ”solutions,” it may even be worth it.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A26

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 118

16 december, 2009

“Scientists at Zurich’s Federal Institute of Technology have found that solar activity caused Alpine glaciers to melt in the 1940s at rates faster than today’s pace, even though it’s warmer now.”

“The Swiss researchers are spinning their own work, saying that the evidence doesn’t mean the public can stop worrying about man-made warming. But their finding validates other researchers who have said solar activity has a far greater impact on temperatures than human CO2 emissions.”

“It wasn’t the first time Gore has crossed into fantasyland. Last month, he announced on the ”Tonight Show” that ”the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees,” when in fact it’s no more than 9,000 degrees Celsius and might be only 4,000. Not even the sun is ”several million degrees.” Its surface — based on Gore’s criteria — is a cool 5,550 to 6,000 degrees Celsius.”

“The truth, though, is that Gore and so many others gathered in Copenhagen are propagandists. They know that the way to arrange the world economy to fit their preferences and require lifestyle changes in developed nations is to demand that governments do something about the environment.”

Se my posts:

Mt Kilimanjaro – the snow cover is increasing says Tanzanian minister

Alaska’s Glaciers Are Growing

Glaciers in Norway Growing Again. And Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515430

Here Comes The Sun

Posted 12/15/2009 07:28 PM ET

Global Warming: Drip by drip, like a glacier melting in the sun, the claim that man is changing the climate is dissolving into irrelevance. The recent findings of Swiss researchers expose another hole.

Former Vice President Al Gore has for years warned that man-made global warming is melting the world’s glaciers — a tactic commonly used by alarmists who want to whip up hysteria. Swiss researchers, however, have presented evidence that weakens the argument.

Scientists at Zurich’s Federal Institute of Technology have found that solar activity caused Alpine glaciers to melt in the 1940s at rates faster than today’s pace, even though it’s warmer now.

The study found that the sun in the 1940s was 8% stronger than average and far more powerful than it is today. It also concluded that solar activity was weaker from the 1950s to the 1980s, an era in which the glaciers advanced.

The Swiss researchers are spinning their own work, saying that the evidence doesn’t mean the public can stop worrying about man-made warming. But their finding validates other researchers who have said solar activity has a far greater impact on temperatures than human CO2 emissions.

This report from Zurich reminds us of another myth perpetrated by Gore. In his Academy Award-winning documentary, ”An Inconvenient Truth,” he contends the snowcap on Mount Kilimanjaro has retreated because of human greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet scientists have been telling a different story.

They say the melting on the 19,340-foot mountain has been going on for more than a century, beginning long before man accelerated CO2 emissions. They also report that temperatures at the top of Kilimanjaro never fall below freezing, so the reason for snowcap loss has to be due to one or more causes not related to temperature. A lack of snowfall is likely one of those.

Just as the Swiss researchers tried to soft-pedal their findings, the scientists who have studied Kilimanjaro also refuse to let the narrative unravel. They say the facts about the snowcap shouldn’t be used to raise doubts about the official line that man is warming the planet. Nothing to see here, they say in effect, so move on.

Another sign that the alarmists’ claims are falling apart is the statement made Monday by Gore at the global warming conference in Copenhagen: ”Some of the models suggest … that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

While the chance that sea ice will disappear that soon is virtually nil, there’s a 100% certainty that Gore was wrong.

”It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” said Wieslav Maslowski, a scientist from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School whose work Gore had misused. ”I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

It wasn’t the first time Gore has crossed into fantasyland. Last month, he announced on the ”Tonight Show” that ”the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees,” when in fact it’s no more than 9,000 degrees Celsius and might be only 4,000. Not even the sun is ”several million degrees.” Its surface — based on Gore’s criteria — is a cool 5,550 to 6,000 degrees Celsius.

Then there’s his movie, so full of scientific errors — at least nine of them — that a British court two years ago ruled it could be shown in secondary schools only when notes to balance its political bias were also presented in class.

Despite his poor stewardship of the facts and his refusal to debate the issue, Gore is still the go-to guy for most journalists who cover global warming. He’s still identified as the climate guru who actually has something to contribute to the conversation.

The truth, though, is that Gore and so many others gathered in Copenhagen are propagandists. They know that the way to arrange the world economy to fit their preferences and require lifestyle changes in developed nations is to demand that governments do something about the environment.

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 117

16 december, 2009

“The one thing of which we can be sure is that the end of the week will see the announcement of more tens of billions of dollars in transfers to the Third World, which will mostly wind up in UN salaries, consulting fees, contracts for favoured alternative energy manufacturers, and Swiss bank accounts.”

“Of course, we’re on the side of the angels. We can do what we like.”

Never were truer words spoken. Being “on the side of the angels” means being beyond facts or science, and frequently beyond the law. It means feeling free to rappel down Parliament or stop industry at will, free to engage in street theatre or property-destroying thuggery, free — like Al Gore — to spout any alarmist factoid that comes into your head. Glacier melt threatens a billion!”

“Copenhagen represents the hypocritical in pursuit of the suicidal. There could be nothing better for the citizens of the world — as opposed to power, rent and publicity seekers — than that this toxic process should collapse. Unfortunately, it is likely to be rescued at the eleventh hour, attached to artificial life support systems, and propped up to generate more posturing and policy poison another day. At least Canada will not have been too much a part of it all.”

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/15/peter-foster-canada-s-galileo-government.aspx

Peter Foster: Canada’s Galileo government

Posted: December 15, 2009, 7:22 PM by NP Editor

The Copenhagen agreement will increase bureaucracy and Swiss bank accounts without helping the planet

By Peter Foster

U N Secretary General Ban Ki Moon announced this week on his way to Copenhagen that “There is no time for posturing or blaming.” Good heavens, if there is no time for the UN’s two main activities, the climate talks must really be in peril.

Yesterday the U.S. and the EU were at loggerheads, China accused rich nations of making “empty promises,” and a leaked Cabinet document suggested that Canada, outrageously, wanted to pursue sensible policies by not penalizing particular industries more than the U.S. does. Environment ministers were burning the midnight biomass ahead of the arrival of 115 world leaders.

Will this supertanker of fools succeed by Friday in cobbling together an agreement that will ensure both more intrusive government and more global poverty without doing anything for the environment? Will they manage to sweep Climategate under the carpet? Will they win their clichéd “race against time?” Or will the talks end in “catastrophic failure?” Catastrophic failure, that is, to promote economic catastrophe.

The one thing of which we can be sure is that the end of the week will see the announcement of more tens of billions of dollars in transfers to the Third World, which will mostly wind up in UN salaries, consulting fees, contracts for favoured alternative energy manufacturers, and Swiss bank accounts.

There has been some progress in boosting the demand for bureaucracy. It was announced, after a couple of leaks and a walkout or two, that the conference would continue to pursue “two tracks:” one on behalf of Third World hand-biters to keep the pointless but expensive Kyoto Accord going; the other to frame a new, equally unworkable, agreement.

The government of Canada, like others, feels compelled to replay the Kyoto charade, but is in a uniquely uncomfortable position. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have to negotiate while being vigorously stabbed in the back by a motley crew consisting of the governments of Ontario and Quebec, most of the Canadian media, the global radical NGO movement, and a bunch of self-appointed poobahs who go under the name Power Up Canada.

Power Up delivered a letter yesterday telling Mr. Harper not to be “defeatist” on climate change. Its luminary signatories included not merely former Soviet leader Mikhail Rent-a-Gorbachev but former Canadian prime ministers Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. These were the men who signed Canada up for the Kyoto fiasco. Have they no shame?

The Canadian media did its best to create a broken-off chunk of Antarctica out of an ice cube via a non-story about an American group of lefty satirists named the Yes Men. These clowns issued fake press releases and a fake news story, and organized a fake press conference. This was portrayed as an “embarrassment” for the government, but how? The only coverage of this non-story outside Canada was in — where else? — The Guardian.

This all-out attack on the Harper government may backfire. When I read the cover story in the latest issue of Maclean’s, “Why the World Hates Canada,” I felt a surge of genuine pride in Mr. Harper for his bravery in resisting the enormous pressures brought to bear by the vociferous cabal of radical NGOs, international bureaucrats, Big Corporate appeasers and political poseurs that make up the world-according-to-Copenhagen.

Canada appeared to stand like Galileo in front of the Inquisition.

As part of their war on Mr. Harper, Canadian news organs (this one included) have taken to quoting the words of Guardian columnist George Monbiot as if they represent received wisdom. Maclean’s too quotes Mr. Monbiot’s claim that Canada is the “real villain” of Copenhagen. But who the hell is George Monbiot?

Mr. Monbiot, at the Munk Debate in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, apart from demonstrating a slim grasp of both facts and logic, provided perhaps the most telling comment of the evening. Having just pulled out a blank piece of paper to demonstrate opponent Nigel Lawson’s “original research” on climate change, Mr. Monbiot declared “this is not a time for intellectual games or for cheap debating society point scoring.” When the audience laughed (at him), he responded “I’m sorry, what I should have said was, this is not a time for their cheap debating society points. Of course, we’re on the side of the angels. We can do what we like.”

Never were truer words spoken. Being “on the side of the angels” means being beyond facts or science, and frequently beyond the law. It means feeling free to rappel down Parliament or stop industry at will, free to engage in street theatre or property-destroying thuggery, free — like Al Gore — to spout any alarmist factoid that comes into your head. Glacier melt threatens a billion!

The Maclean’s story noted how Canada has received numerous “Fossil of the Week” awards from the radical NGO junta represented by the Climate Action Network for the sin of standing against the braying “international consensus.” But Environment Minister Jim Prentice came across as a model of good sense, and perhaps the story’s most hopeful paragraph was: “And for those who so clearly hope that the bad publicity will force Stephen Harper into a grand gesture at the summit, Prentice had a message: don’t hold your breath.”

Copenhagen represents the hypocritical in pursuit of the suicidal. There could be nothing better for the citizens of the world — as opposed to power, rent and publicity seekers — than that this toxic process should collapse. Unfortunately, it is likely to be rescued at the eleventh hour, attached to artificial life support systems, and propped up to generate more posturing and policy poison another day. At least Canada will not have been too much a part of it all.

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 116

15 december, 2009

                  Have Fewer Children, Don’t Eat Meat

                              Tree-Hugging Dictators?

                          Al Gore Telling More Lies

               ”I Pledge Allegiance To The…Earth?”

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 115

15 december, 2009

“No longer, it seems, does Rome hold a pre-eminent position. In this brave new world of climate change and sustainable development, all roads lead to Rajendra K. Pachauri.”

“Thus, at the end of the day, Redcar will lose its biggest employer and one of the largest manufacturing plants left in Britain. Tata, having gained up to £1.2 billion from “carbon credits”, will get its new steel plants – while the net amount of CO2 emitted worldwide will not have been reduced a jot.

This is the real reason why so many big businessmen, bankers, politicians, scientists – led, of course, by Al Gore – are backing stiffer, pan-global governmental legislation on carbon emissions. Because there are such stupendous quantities of money to be made.”

“Last year, on official figures, buying and selling the right to emit CO2 was worth $126 billion across the world. This market, now enriching many of our leading financial institutions (not to mention Al Gore), is growing so fast that within a few years it is predicted to be worth trillions, making carbon the most valuable traded commodity in the world. Forget Big Oil: the new world power is Big Carbon.Truly it has been a miracle of our time that they have managed to transform carbon dioxide, a gas upon which all life on earth depends, into a “pollutant”, worth more than diamonds, let alone oil. And many of those now gathered in Copenhagen are making a great deal of money out of it.”

They are SOOO altruistic aren’t they. ONLY thinking about what’s best for us. That’s why THEY HAVE TO SCARE US.

What links the Copenhagen conference with the steelworks closing in Redcar?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html

EXECUTIVE PROFILE Rajendra K. Pachauri     

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=9089242&privcapId=22361&previousCapId=138823&previousTitle=General%20Catalyst%20Partners

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019821/climategate-with-business-interests-like-these-are-we-really-sure-dr-rajendra-pachauri-is-fit-to-head-the-ipcc/

Climategate: with business interests like these are we really sure Dr Rajendra Pachauri is fit to head the IPCC?

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 14th, 2009

After the Climategate scandal erupted, few were quicker to dismiss the significance of the leaked emails than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In no way, he insisted, just two days after the story broke, had the integrity of the IPCC  been compromised:

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said.

“Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

And if any investigation into the affair were necessary, argued Dr Pachauri, it ought purely to be a criminal one into how the emails came to light.

Pachauri said he doubted that trust in the IPCC would be damaged by the affair. “People who are aware of how the IPCC functions and are appreciative of the credibility that the IPCC has attained will probably not be swayed by an incident of this kind,” he said.

Quite so. And I’m quite sure that no one will in any wise have their faith in the integrity of the IPCC shaken by these revelations courtesy of the mighty Richard North.

North’s tribute to Dr Pachauri’s multifarious talents is so startling I think I shall have to quote it in full:

As reported by Reuters – with a slight correction: The head of the Asian Development Bank (ADP), Haruhiko Kuroda, warned governments that a failure to reach a climate deal in Copenhagen could lead to a collapse of the carbon market, which would hit efforts to deal with climate change make carbon traders very rich.

It helps of course to know that Mr Kuroda is best known in greenie circles for setting up the ADB Advisory Group on Climate Change – chaired by millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri, part-time chairman of the IPCC.

An interesting member of that Group is Dr Klaus Toepfer, Founding Director, Institute for Advanced Studies Climate, Earth System and Sustainability Sciences and former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). And it was UNEP, of course, which set up the IPCC – which now has as its part-time chairman millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

One other member is professor Hironori Hamanaka, Chair, Board of Directors, Institute of Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). The IGES claims to be “a research institute that conducts pragmatic and innovative strategic policy research to support sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region.” It will come as no surprise, therefore, to learn that the organisation works very closely with TERI, whose Director-General is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

Yet another is Ms Huguette Labelle, also a Board Member of the UN Global Compact organisation, the very same UN to which millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri belongs. Hilariously, Ms Labelle is Chair of Transparency International, the global civil society organisation “leading the fight against corruption.” TI’s mission “is to create change towards a world free of corruption.”

The Board also includes professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, The Earth Institute at Columbia University. This is the same Earth Institute which set up the Climate-Risk Center, inviting millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri to become its first Board Chairman.

One other interesting character is Dr. Emil Salim, an adviser to Indonesia’s President on environment and sustainable development issues. But he is also a member of APFED – the Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment and Development. One of its major activities is sponsoring the “Partnership Initiatives for Knowledge Network and Capacity Building” – in conjunction with TERI as a major partner, the Director General of which is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

And last but not least is Professor Dadi Zhou, Director General (Emeritus) of the Energy Research Institute, which of course is otherwise known as TERI, the Director General of which is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

No longer, it seems, does Rome hold a pre-eminent position. In this brave new world of climate change and sustainable development, all roads lead to Rajendra K. Pachauri.

Particularly interesting is Dr Pachauri’s connection with the “not-for-profit organisation” TERI. As we learn from its website, this used to stand for Tata Energy Research Institute, but was renamed in The Energy And Resources Institute in 2003. Nothing sinister, I’m sure, in its decision to play down the Tata connection; nor in the fact that Dr Pachauri makes no mention of the fact that he is funded by Tata on his website. And obviously, it is quite normal that TERI makes no disclosure on its website – or in its downloadable annual report (all you get is a pie chart with no figures on it) – about its financial arrangements: the pay scales of its 800 staff members and its esteemed director general are quite rightly hidden from the world’s prying eyes.

Nevertheless, as Christopher Booker has noted elsewhere, one of the global business interests which will make – and indeed already has made – large sums of money thanks to the climate doom scenarios of the IPCC, is the Indian giant Tata. By fingering CO2 as the primary driver of AGW, the IPCC has been primarily responsible for creating the market in carbon trading. Dr Pachauri was, of course, the lead author on the IPCC’s second report which paved the way to Kyoto – which in turn ushered in the world’s first carbon trading schemes.

As Booker reported, what has been great for Tata’s bottom line has not been so good for useful for the 1700 workers who recently lost their jobs in Redcar, North Yorkshire, when the owner of the Corus steelworks – Tata – decided to close its plant.

The real gain to Corus from stopping production at Redcar, however, is the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU under its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). By ceasing to emit a potential six million tonnes of CO2 a year, Corus will benefit from carbon allowances which could soon, according to European Commission projections, be worth up to £600 million over the three years before current allocations expire.

Will this make any difference at all to the quantities of plant food – sorry, deadly, planet-destroying CO2 – pumped into the atmosphere? Not at all, as Booker goes on to explain:

But this is only half the story. In India, Corus’s owner, Tata, plans to increase steel production from 53 million tonnes to 124 million over the same period. By replacing inefficient old plants with new ones which emit only “European levels” of CO2, Tata could claim a further £600 million under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, which is operated by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – the organisers of the Copenhagen conference. Under this scheme, organisations in developed countries such as Britain – ranging from electricity supply companies to the NHS – can buy the right to exceed their CO2 allocations from those in developing countries, such as India. The huge but hidden cost of these “carbon permits” will be passed on to all of us, notably through our electricity bills.

Thus, at the end of the day, Redcar will lose its biggest employer and one of the largest manufacturing plants left in Britain. Tata, having gained up to £1.2 billion from “carbon credits”, will get its new steel plants – while the net amount of CO2 emitted worldwide will not have been reduced a jot.

This is the real reason why so many big businessmen, bankers, politicians, scientists – led, of course, by Al Gore – are backing stiffer, pan-global governmental legislation on carbon emissions. Because there are such stupendous quantities of money to be made.

Last year, on official figures, buying and selling the right to emit CO2 was worth $126 billion across the world. This market, now enriching many of our leading financial institutions (not to mention Al Gore), is growing so fast that within a few years it is predicted to be worth trillions, making carbon the most valuable traded commodity in the world. Forget Big Oil: the new world power is Big Carbon.Truly it has been a miracle of our time that they have managed to transform carbon dioxide, a gas upon which all life on earth depends, into a “pollutant”, worth more than diamonds, let alone oil. And many of those now gathered in Copenhagen are making a great deal of money out of it.

One thing is for certain in all this business: Dr Pachauri’s behaviour has been beyond reproach. We know this because Dr Pachauri is a fervent advocate of what he calls “sustainable consumption”. A committed vegetarian, he believes that we should all learn to fly less, be made responsible for energy use in our hotel bedrooms (”I don’t see why you couldn’t have a meter in the room to register your energy consumption from air-conditioning or heating and you should be charged for that”), eat less meat, and do without ice in our water in restaurants (”It is just an enormous amount of waste that we don’t even think about”). It would be quite outrageous to suggest that a man of such extreme ascetism could in any way be benefiting financially by the worldwide promotion of AGW theory.

Nevertheless, with the best will in the world, does the good Dr Pachauri not feel there might be certain potential conflict-of-interest issues between his role as head of the IPCC and his sundry business interests?

Oh, and while he’s mulling over that question, here are a few more of Dr Pachauri’s business interests listed below, as disclosed by Business Week.

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is a Strategic Advisor at Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P. He has been a Director-General of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) since April 2001. Dr. Pachauri has been Head of Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi (now known as The Energy and Resources Institute) since April 2001.He has been the President of the Asian Energy Institute since 1992. Dr. Pachauri has been the President of the International Association for Energy Economics … since 1988. He has been Chairman and Member of the Advisory Group at Asian Development Bank since May 2009. Dr. Pachauri has been an Independent Director of Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd., since June 26, 2006. He serves as Vice-Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Pachauri serves as Director of GloriOil Limited. He serves as Director of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan. Dr. Pachauri serves as a Member of External Advisory Board of Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc. He serves as Member of the Advisory Board on Energy. Dr. Pachauri serves as a Member of the International Advisory Board of Toyota Motors. He serves as a Member of Climate Change Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank AG. Dr. Pachauri served as Chairman of the International Association for Energy Economics from 1989 to 1990. He served as an Independent Director of NTPC Ltd. (National Thermal Power Corp.), from January 30, 2006 to January 2009. Dr. Pachauri served as a Director of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited until August 28, 2003. He served as non-official Part-time Director of NTPC Ltd., from August 2002 to August 2005. Dr. Pachauri served as a Director of Gail India Ltd. from August 18, 2003 to October 26, 2004. He served as Director of Tata Energy Research Institute., since 1981. Dr. Pachauri serves as Member of National Environmental Council, Government of India under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister of India. He serves as a Member of the International Solar Energy Society, World Resources Institute, World Energy Council. Dr. Pachauri has been Member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India since July 2001. He serves as Member of the Oil Industry Restructuring Group, for the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. Dr. Pachauri serves as a Member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India. He served as an Advisor to the Government of India. Dr. Pachauri also served as Director of Consulting and Applied Research Division at the Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad. He served as Visiting Professor, Resource Economics at the College of Mineral and Energy Resources, West Virginia University. Dr. Pachauri served as a Member of the faculty of several prominent academic and research institutions and has published 22 books and several papers and articles. He received the Padma Bhushan award. Dr. Pachauri was a Senior Visiting Fellow of Resource Systems Institute, East — West Center, USA. He was a Visiting Research Fellow at The World Bank, Washington, DC and McCluskey Fellow at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University. Dr. Pachauri received a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A. and a Masters of Science in Industrial Engineering in 1972.

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 114

15 december, 2009

“Worse still, some at the World Bank have vowed to divert actual development and disease prevention aid help to global warming causes — something that didn’t sit well with countries that actually care about real jobs and infrastructure.”

“Meanwhile, a draft climate accord by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, calling for a 50% cut in global emissions by 2050, has been kicked down the road till 2015 or 2016. Gee, maybe it’s not the most urgent threat facing humankind after all.

This shows that all the pretty words about going green and controlling climate have turned into nothing but a money-grab.

Maybe the reality is sinking in that the entire science of climate change is a sham.”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515260

Copenhagen Collapse

Posted 12/14/2009 06:55 PM ET

Copenhagen: When an overblown environmental conference culminates with Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lecturing the West on virtue, color it another shakedown.

The United Nations’ Copenhagen Climate Conference is going fast into meltdown. It may be because it’s not about climate anymore, but fitting a noose on the world’s productive economies and extracting wealth transfers.

Poor countries have gone from defending their right to economic development as a reason for exemptions to emissions cuts to claiming a ”legitimate” right to vast wealth transfers from the West to prevent emissions. They call it ”climate justice.”

Monday, the Group of 77, led by African states, shut down the conference for the second time, saying they would pick up their marbles and go home if the West didn’t agree to their formula for emissions cutbacks and send them more than the $10 billion promised by the West.

Sudanese diplomat Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping said the African states would ”not participate in any negotiations until the issues of Kyoto Protocol are discussed.”

Having manipulated the foreign aid racket for decades, the African officials knew just what buttons to push with Western Europeans. Not surprisingly, they won concessions. No doubt they’ll do it again to get more, and the Danes and other one-worlders will give them what they want.

It’s no surprise it’s come to this. It follows calls from environmental extremists like billionaire George Soros to have the International Monetary Fund front billions in cash to third world countries for climate control, creating a vast pool of money for Third World kleptocrats that won’t be subject to accountability by pesky taxpayers.

Worse still, some at the World Bank have vowed to divert actual development and disease prevention aid help to global warming causes — something that didn’t sit well with countries that actually care about real jobs and infrastructure.

Meanwhile, a draft climate accord by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, calling for a 50% cut in global emissions by 2050, has been kicked down the road till 2015 or 2016. Gee, maybe it’s not the most urgent threat facing humankind after all.

This shows that all the pretty words about going green and controlling climate have turned into nothing but a money-grab.

Maybe the reality is sinking in that the entire science of climate change is a sham.

The hacked CRU e-mails of the University of East Anglia show science has been corrupted by supposedly respected scientists in charge of the climate data at the university from the beginning. They falsified data and repressed inconvenient facts and then tried to silence real scientists who tried to determine the truth.

In such an atmosphere of unreality, it’s no surprise the radical thugs attracted to United Nations extravaganzas were out in force.

In Copenhagen, violent radical extremists burned cars and spattered the Danish capital with graffiti in the name of the environment. Over 1,200 were arrested over the weekend, with the bacchanalia of barbarism expected to continue through the week.

Now, during the conference’s waning days, it’s also become a dirt-magnet for dictators with their hands out.

Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are expected this week to hector the West on wealth transfers and to browbeat guilt-ridden liberals to get more cash for their own dictatorial schemes.

These three lawless leaders have laid waste to their nations’ own economies in some of the world’s most perfect models of unsustainability. Now they want the West to give them money for it.

Is there someone out there who will stand up and say enough?

Or must this farce continue in a bad memory of the Jimmy Carter 1970s?

It’s time to scrap the entire Copenhagen concept and for developed countries to jump from this sinking ship while they still have their wallets. It’s time they recognized zealous climate change movement for what it is: a very large, very expensive hoax.

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 113

14 december, 2009

The temporary buildings housing delegation offices are not well insulated and are warmed by oil heaters, so this area is the most energy-wasteful, she said.”

“Balslev said most of the energy used by the conference was from coal fired power stations that power the electricity grid, but some was from wind power.”

As a complement to my posts Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 81 and  Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 75  about the UN pack, this travelling circus that fly around the globe in first class, or private jet, stay in hotel rooms at £400-500 per night in spa resorts, and gets wined and dined at expensive restaurants.

And the enormous costs and hypocrisy of Copenhagen. Here they are arriving in their chauffeur driven limousines, and their special busses are of course empty. Their housing warmed by oil heaters and the energy used by the conference was from coal fired power stations.  And seventy percent of the summit’s greenhouse gas emissions came from activities inside the conference center,

Telling us THAT WE HAVE TO CUT BACK!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BD4D020091214

Copenhagen summit carbon footprint biggest ever: report

Mon Dec 14, 2009  2:28pm EST

By Sunanda Creagh

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) – The Copenhagen climate talks will generate more carbon emissions than any previous climate conference, equivalent to the annual output of over half a million Ethiopians, figures commissioned by hosts Denmark show.

Delegates, journalists, activists and observers from almost 200 countries have gathered at the Dec 7-18 summit and their travel and work will create 46,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide, most of it from their flights.

This would fill nearly 10,000 Olympic swimming pools, and is the same amount produced each year by 2,300 Americans or 660,000 Ethiopians — the vast difference is due to the huge gap in consumption patterns in the two countries — according to U.S. government statistics about per person emissions in 2006.

Despite efforts by the Danish government to reduce the conference’s carbon footprint, around 5,700 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be created by the summit and a further 40,500 tonnes created by attendees’ flights to Copenhagen.

The figure for the flights was calculated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), while the domestic carbon footprint from the summit was calculated by accountants Deloitte, said Deloitte consultant Stine Balslev.

This is much bigger than the last talks because there are many more people here,” she said, adding that 18,000 people were expected to pass through the conference center every day.

”These are preliminary figures but we expect that when we do the final calculations after the conference is over, the carbon footprint will be about the same.”

Deloitte included in their calculations emissions caused by accommodation, local transport, electricity and heating of the conference center, paper, security, transport of goods and services as well as energy used by computers, kitchens, photocopiers and printers inside the conference center.

Accommodation accounted for 23 percent of the summit’s greenhouse gas emissions in Copenhagen, while transport caused 7 percent. Seventy percent came from activities inside the conference center, she said.

”We have been forced to put up some temporary buildings in order to provide the delegation rooms because the number of participants is so much larger than expected,” said Balslev.

”For instance the U.S. delegation has ordered an area that’s five times as big as last year.”

The temporary buildings housing delegation offices are not well insulated and are warmed by oil heaters, so this area is the most energy-wasteful, she said.

The researchers assumed that 60 percent of conference participants would catch public transport to and from the conference but Balslev said that was probably optimistic.

Balslev said most of the energy used by the conference was from coal fired power stations that power the electricity grid, but some was from wind power.

© Thomson Reuters 2009. 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 112

14 december, 2009

Armed UN Security Officers Stop Questions About ClimateGate

Journalist Phelim McAleer  asks Al Gore an Inconvenient Question about ‘Climategate’ emails. McAleer is interrupted by Al Gores “press secretary” and armed UN security guard pulls the cable from the microphone

This is UN, IPCC and Global Warming Hysterics and there “consensus” in action – i.e. SILENCE EVERYONE NOW!

Se also my posts:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 106

Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?

Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press -2?

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 111

14 december, 2009

“Mr. Gore and his cohorts have consistently smeared climate realists and policy skeptics as “deniers,” paranoiacs or corporate shills. “Denier” invokes Holocaust denial. Paranoia is linked to those conspiracy theorists who claim that Neil Armstrong’s lunar landscape was really a movie backlot. The corporate shill angle is usually based on “exposing” some skeptical individual’s or organization’s link to Big Oil, which is in fact irrelevant unless you judge science on the basis of funding rather than objectivity. Oil companies in fact devote far more money to supporting climate hysteria.

Nevertheless, the corporate angle means that skeptics can simultaneously be identified as crazy conspiracy theorists, and part of a corporate conspiracy!”

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/11/peter-foster-the-goracle-speaks-on-climategate.aspx

Peter Foster: The Goracle speaks on Climategate

Posted: December 11, 2009, 9:10 PM by NP Editor

The emails, far from being meaningless or out of context, show alteration of data and attempts to rig the peer review process

By Peter Foster

True believers in catastrophic man-made climate change have been waiting for Al Gore to lead them through the Valley of Climategate. This week, The Goracle spoke. Appearing on CNN, he claimed that the emails to and from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia were more than 10 years old and amounted to a mere discussion of “arcane points.” What this was really about, he said, was an example of “people who don’t want to do anything about the climate crisis taking things out of context and misrepresenting them.” But then what would you expect Mr. Gore to say about his co-recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize? If they go down, he goes down.

The emails, (which in fact date up to late this year), far from being meaningless or out of context, show alteration of scientific data and flagrant attempts to rig the peer review process, which the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has always claimed was the bedrock of its scientific objectivity.

During his CNN interview, Mr. Gore went through his usual parade of extreme weather factoids, technological wonkery and green stimulus fantasies, while spouting blatant untruths. Asked about the relative contribution of humans to atmospheric CO2 emissions, he claimed that they put up “the majority” (in fact, they are estimated to contribute about one-twentieth). Interestingly, though, Mr. Gore didn’t use one of the staples of his climate vaudeville act: that “deniers” are like those who believe that the moon landing was faked. Perhaps even he lacked the gall to bring up conspiracy theories when the evidence of a genuine conspiracy is so obvious.

Mr. Gore and his cohorts have consistently smeared climate realists and policy skeptics as “deniers,” paranoiacs or corporate shills. “Denier” invokes Holocaust denial. Paranoia is linked to those conspiracy theorists who claim that Neil Armstrong’s lunar landscape was really a movie backlot. The corporate shill angle is usually based on “exposing” some skeptical individual’s or organization’s link to Big Oil, which is in fact irrelevant unless you judge science on the basis of funding rather than objectivity. Oil companies in fact devote far more money to supporting climate hysteria.

Nevertheless, the corporate angle means that skeptics can simultaneously be identified as crazy conspiracy theorists, and part of a corporate conspiracy! For example, U.S. warmist Senator Barbara Boxer recently claimed that “email-theft-gate” required “looking at a criminal activity which could well have been co-ordinated.” We don’t have to ask who did the co-ordinating.

The anti-skeptic smears serve to avoid addressing the valid issues they raise. Mr. Gore has resolutely refused to debate his opponents on the basis that there is nothing to debate. The shenanigans at CRU prove there is. The new line of obfuscation is that the past century’s temperature record is still intact and the glaciers are still melting! But the key issue is why, and what can or should be done about these alleged facts (which now require treble checking).

Nobody is denying that the past 10 years may have featured some of