Climate Change Fraud: Hacked Emails!

[sullivan]

Toronto Sun, 30 November 2009

In the latest shocking development in climategate, scientists at the world's leading research facility studying climate change have admitted they threw out much of the raw temperature data on which they built their theory of man-made global warming.

The revelation in yesterday's London Sunday Times, reported by environment editor Jonathan Leake, means the original work that led to modern climate change theory developed at the now under fire Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia, cannot be independently verified by other academics, critical of CRU's methods.

They allege CRU manipulated data to exaggerate global warming, which it attributes to mankind's burning of fossil fuels.

These critics have been seeking CRU's raw data for years. Its research is central to the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming poses a major threat to mankind, the subject of an international meeting in Copenhagen starting Dec. 7 to draft a successor agreement to the Kyoto accord, aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

read full article

[sullivan]

Herald Sun, 29 November 2009

Frank J. Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, on the true significance of Climategate:

The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.

It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy.

read full piece

[sullivan]

The Scotsman, 29 November 2009

MOST of the world's population will be wiped out if political leaders fail to agree a method of stopping current rates of global warming, one of the UK's most senior climate scientists has warned.

Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, believes only around 10 per cent of the planet's population – around half a billion people – will survive if global temperatures rise by 4C.

Anderson's warning comes just eight days before global leaders meet in Copenhagen for the most crucial talks on climate change reversal since the Rio summit in 1992. Current Met Office projections reveal that the lack of action in the intervening 17 years – in which emissions of climate changing gases such as carbon dioxide have soared – has set the world on a path towards potential 4C rises as early as 2060, and 6C rises by the end of the century.

You can read the full article, if you like your fiction to be on the scarier side.

[MikeWB]

Taking the private jet to Copenhagen
Any celebrity flying the green flag needs glittering eco-credentials. But how do they justify the fleet of customised planes, the luxury homes and the posse of servants?

John Travolta
Jonathan Foreman
Hypocrisy is the vice we find hardest to forgive, but it's also the one we most enjoy discovering in others. And nothing piques our interest more than eco-hypocrisy as practised by the "green" celebrities who have been spouting green virtue but spewing out hundreds of tons of carbon from their private jets or multiple holiday homes around the globe.

There was Sheryl Crow, who had called upon the public to refrain from using more than one square of toilet paper per visit ("except on those pesky occasions when two or three are required") and who was leading a Stop Global Warming concert tour across America. It was revealed that while Crow travelled in a biodiesel tour bus, her 30-person entourage followed in a fleet of 13 gas-guzzling vehicles.

John Travolta notoriously encouraged the British public to do its bit to fight global warming — after flying into London on one of his five, yes, five private jets (one of which is a Boeing 707). In 2006 his piloting hobby produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions, more than a hundred times the output of the average Briton, according to the Carbon Trust.

It is less well known that Tom Cruise — who has campaigned for the LA-based environmental group Earth Communications Office — also has an air fleet and a licence to pilot his five planes, including a top-of-the-line customised Gulfstream jet he bought for his wife, Katie Holmes.

Harrison Ford, who is vice-chairman on the board of Conservation International, voices public-service messages for an environmental federation called EarthShare, and once shaved his chest hair to illustrate the effects of deforestation, is another hobby pilot. He once owned a Gulfstream but now makes do with a smaller Cessna Citation Sovereign eight-seater jet, four propeller planes and a helicopter.

Oprah Winfrey, who preaches eco-virtue from her TV pulpit, travelled in a 13-seat Gulfstream IV private jet for years — the preferred model for celebrities and the super-rich. (She has replaced it with a faster Bombardier Global Express.) The public first became aware of her private-jet habit when her plane had to make a forced landing in California in 2005; it was reminded of it this year after one of her stewardesses was fired for allegedly having sex with the pilot while Oprah and other passengers were asleep.

Jennifer Aniston told reporters that to save the Earth's precious water resources she brushes her teeth while in the shower. But she also flew a hairdresser to Europe to accompany her on a recent publicity tour for the film Marley & Me.

Perhaps more egregious, because she is a much more in-your-face global-warming campaigner, is Dame Trudie Styler, film financier and wife of Sting. Not only do she and her husband run seven homes and travel between them in private jets and a fleet of cars, but in 2007 an employment tribunal revealed Styler was furious when her pregnant chef refused to travel 100 miles to prepare some soup and salad. (The chef had regularly made the trip in the past, travelling by train and taxi.) And Sting recently had to contend with accusations that the Police were "the dirtiest band in the world" because of the scale of their last tour and the carbon footprint of the fans who went to see them.

This spring Styler was accused of hiring a private jet to take her and an eight-person entourage from New York to Washington, DC, for the White House correspondents' dinner, even though there are dozens of scheduled shuttle flights she could have taken, not to mention fast trains. Strangely, Sting flew commercial to the same dinner. When challenged, Styler reportedly defended herself by saying: "Yes, I do take planes. My life is to travel and to speak out about the horrors of an environment that is being abused at the hands of oil companies."

U2's latest world tour features three stages and a giant claw that ensures as many spectators as possible get a decent view. Alas, transporting the whole shebang around the world is estimated by carbonfootprint.com to produce the carbon equivalent of the annual emissions of 6,500 British homes — or a rocket trip to Mars and back.

Coldplay's Chris Martin has been fingered as one of music's biggest eco-hypocrites. George Monbiot, a writer and environmental campaigner, noted on his blog that Martin flew thousands of miles on his private jet, including brief trips between LA and nearby Palm Springs. Monbiot calculated that Martin's trips back and forth to see his family produced 250 times the carbon emissions of an average Briton.

Monbiot also cited an interview Martin gave in which he discussed his angry global-warming song, then boasted about his family's profligate private jet use, saying of his daughter: "As she gets older, hopefully she'll come and see us when she wants. I always thought it'd be cool to be in school and say, 'I'm not coming in today — I'm off to Costa Rica to see my dad play.' I do think that wins you a few points." Martin replied to criticism by pointing out that he paid for the planting of mango trees to offset the carbon emissions of his tours and flights home.

There are endless other examples of hypocrisy by green politicos. David Cameron was once photographed virtuously riding his bike to the House of Commons, with his official car behind him, carrying his suit and briefcase. Ken Livingstone, who swore he would make London the world's greenest city when he was mayor, made scores of arguably unnecessary flights to foreign destinations. The supposedly green Barack Obama had a St Louis chef flown 850 miles just to make pizza at the White House.

At the end of the film An Inconvenient Truth, the unbearably earnest former presidential candidate Al Gore asked his audience: "Are you ready to change the way you live?" His own huge Nashville mansion consumed over 20 times the electricity of an average American home. Indeed, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, it burnt twice as much power in the month of August 2006 than most American homes do in an entire year. Another inconvenient truth revealed that the former senator spent $500 a month just to heat the indoor swimming pool in his lavish domestic establishment. The 100ft houseboat he bought in 2008, on the other hand, was said to be powered by biodiesel.

Gore gave the usual response of the green celebrity caught not practising what they preach. He said he made up for his consumption of electricity and production of carbon dioxide by buying carbon offsets — some from his own offset company.

SUVs and four-wheel-drive cars are another eco-sin green celebs find hard to resist. Those who have harangued the public against driving these wicked vehicles — but who turn out to have recently owned at least one themselves — include Barbra Streisand, Gwyneth Paltrow and Cameron Diaz.

Of course, the SUV is often parked next to a virtuous Toyota Prius hybrid electric car, but the former doesn't exactly cancel out the latter. However, as one Hollywood agent told me, the real reason so many people in Tinseltown drive a Prius is because "it's the only car you can drive which costs under $35,000 which doesn't make everyone think that your career has gone down the toilet".

It was just as green activists began worrying about eco-fatigue — the green equivalent of compassion fatigue — two years ago that the first wave of celebrity eco-hypocrisy stories hit. The first thing these stories did was make us feel better about our own relatively minor eco-failings. They also allowed us to vent the irritation we feel about being lectured by actors, rock stars and lesser species of celebrity.

There is something annoying about the way "ordinary" people are being told they must give up their "addiction" to cheap travel, when no leading Hollywood star — not even Leonardo DiCaprio, who often flies commercial — can bring themselves to relinquish the private jet.

Yet there is something absurd about criticising celebrity eco-hypocrites. People who become film stars and rock gods usually do so because they want to join the jet set, and the jet-set life is inherently wasteful. It's the profligacy that makes it fun and gives it its status. They are unable to give up their private jets because celebrity status is connected to travelling in the most exclusive way possible. Hence, just about all the things celebrities do to get away from "civilians" are unsustainable in green terms.

There are notable exceptions to the rule of green-celebrity hypocrisy. Ed Begley Jr from St Elsewhere and Best in Show became a vegan in 1970, bought one of the first electric cars, and has lived for years in a self-sufficient house that uses not just solar and wind energy but a toaster powered by a stationary bicycle. And unlike so many green celebrities, Begley Jr has a sense of humour about his crusade: on an episode of The Simpsons in which he plays himself, he is shown driving a vehicle powered entirely "by my own sense of self-satisfaction".

The famous neo-hippie Woody Harrelson lives in a sustainable community in Hawaii, grows most of his food, uses only solar power, wears hemp clothes, eschews animal products, and fuels his car with biodiesel. Brad Pitt has done more than tell other people how to change the planet. His charity Make It Right New Orleans has built 13 ultra-energy-efficient greenhouses in an area devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

The Copenhagen summit next week will generate vast quantities of hot air. It will see 16,500 people coming in from 192 countries. That amounts to 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006. Also, the organisers will lay 900 kilometres of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals will be served and visitors will drink 200,000 cups of coffee — at least that will be organic.

When asked if the carbon footprint might have been reduced by turning Copenhagen into a video conference, a spokesman for the event said: "For such a major agreement, people need to meet together and negotiate face to face. We have delegates from all over the world. Video-conferencing systems are extremely useful, but they don't match the personal touch. This is one of the main factors in having a good conference."

Some of the charges laid against celebrities who are allegedly hypocritical about their green commitments are either unfair or don't really stand up when examined closely. In 2008, Sting took a lot of flak when a US watchdog organisation, Charity Navigator, rated his Rainforest Foundation as one of New York's worst charities. This was because only 41% of almost $2.2m raised at a Rainforest Foundation concert made its way to projects on the ground.

But while many leading charities spend at least 75% of their income on projects rather than fundraising and salaries, it is normal for charity concerts and balls to cost almost as much as they raise. Many of the better-known mega-charities spend a shockingly large amount of what they get from the public on fundraising, image advertising and swanky offices, but are not subject to the same scrutiny as organisations set up by a superstar.

It is also worth looking at the agenda of the green critics who slam celebrities for their eco-hypocrisy. They believe anything short of the immediate adoption of a pre-industrial way of life akin to that of peasant villages in the Middle Ages is a sellout. For them, Sting's Rainforest Foundation is unforgivably capitalist.

Perhaps it is better that public figures say the right thing, even if they are not doing it themselves. Does it really matter that much that those who ask us to behave better are imperfect in their own behaviour? You could argue that if Trudie Styler believes that GM food, which she fiercely campaigns about, is a bigger threat than global warming, she is entitled to do so, and to fly her organic non-GM products from her Tuscan estate to the counters of Selfridges.

After all, it seems fairly clear that celebrity advocacy of green lifestyles does actually work, at least in the sense that it has made green concerns extremely fashionable.

Some of the nastiest accusations of hypocrisy have been thrown at the Prince of Wales. The "Green Prince" has been mocked for, among other alleged crimes, chartering a plane to South America to raise eco-awareness. Prince Charles's spokespeople responded saying it would have been impossible to make 48 appointments across three countries in 10 days by regularly scheduled flights.

Unlike the common run of "green celebrities", at least the Prince of Wales publishes annually an exhaustive green audit of all his homes and activities. Its content includes the paper usage of his household, the fact that his thirsty Aston Martin runs on bio-ethanol from wine wastage, and that his emissions for non-official travel are less than half of what they were two years ago.

If film stars and rock stars followed his lead by publishing their own eco-audits, the public might be more likely to listen to their exhortations.

[sullivan]

From a comment on the ABC News site....

Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don't like, hide data they don't want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data.

[sullivan]

San Francisco Chronicle, 30 November 2009

This just in from the Times of London: After the leak of highly embarrassing e-mail messages from the University of East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit, CRU has been forced to admit that it dumped "the original raw" climate data used to bolster the case for human-caused global warming, while retaining only the "value-added" - read: massaged - data.

In short, the CRU dumped the scientific data, but archived information that supports its conclusions. "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years," wrote Times environment editor Jonathan Leake.

Of course global warming skeptics see Climategate as vindication. For years, global warming activists have maintained that they alone could claim the mantle of dispassionate science, while skeptics were venal, nutty or both.

The publication of these e-mails puts an end to that happy conceit, as they reveal a small cabal of scientists obsessed with obliterating dissenting scholarship and destroying the reputations of any who stood in their way.

read full article

[sullivan]

Fox News, 24 November 2009

Science depends on good quality of data. It also relies on replication and sharing data. But the last couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations. Computer hackers have obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These e-mails, which have now been confirmed as real, involved many researchers across the globe with ideologically similar advocates around the world. They were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims. The academics here also worked closely with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]." Professor Mann admitted that this was the exchange that he had and explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem, 'and not something secret.'" While the New York Times apparently buys this explanation, it is hard to see the explanation for "to hide the decline."

And there is a lot more. In another exchange, Professor Jones tells Professor Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Professor Jones further urges Professor Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's controversial assessment report: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?" In another e-mail, Professor Jones told Professor Mann and Professor Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona and Raymond S. "Ray" Bradley at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

read more

[sullivan]

From Armed and Dangerous

From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

All you apologists weakly protesting that this is research business as usual and there are plausible explanations for everything in the emails? Sackcloth and ashes time for you. This isn't just a smoking gun, it's a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.

read full piece with graphics

[sullivan]

From the Sydney Morning Herald, 1 December 2009

A colourful climate-change sceptic seized control of Australia's opposition on Tuesday, vowing to kill carbon trading legislation ahead of key UN talks in a step which could trigger snap polls.

Right-wing maverick Tony Abbott ousted Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull by just one vote, 42-41, in a shock backroom result that should doom marathon attempts to pass emissions laws.

A second defeat of the government bill -- aiming to cut carbon pollution by between five and 25 percent of 2000 levels by 2020 -- would give the government powers to call an early election.

"We will oppose the legislation in the Senate -- that is the right thing to do," Abbott told reporters, adding that he was "not frightened of an election on this issue".

read more

[sullivan]

Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

Wall Street Journal, 30 November 2009

Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."

To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

read more

[sullivan]

1hq1fzzw]

[sullivan]

The stakes are too high to treat Climategate as just another academic spat.

Wall Street Journal, 30 November 2009

The emails and documents leaked last week from some of the world's leading climatologists offer a rich trove of evidence that scientists were massaging the data and corrupting the scientific process to support their own preconceptions. But they also offer the beginnings of an explanation for why. In the words of another famous leaker, follow the money.

On its Web site, the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit describes how it could barely make ends meet for most of the years since it was founded in 1972, and how most researchers weren't even guaranteed salaries in the early years. "Since 1994, the situation has improved," CRU writes. Why 1994? That was the year the U.N.'s climate change convention came into force. Since then, it has been boom times for those lucky enough to have gotten in on the ground floor of a growth industry powered by grants from governments eager to understand just how quickly we were overheating the planet.

In the 1990s, CRU director Phil Jones helped bring in £1.9 million ($3.1 million) for climate research. But in this decade, according to one of the leaked documents, the total shot up to £11.8 million, including grants from the U.K. National Environmental Research Council, the U.S. Department of Energy and NATO. Another leaked spreadsheet for CRU researcher Tim Osborn shows a similar pattern. Between 1994 and 2000, Mr. Osborn secured research contracts totaling £173,881. Between 2001 and 2007, the last year covered by the file, his haul jumped to £764,055.

read more

[sullivan]

Hot 'Climategate' debate: Scientists clash on Russia Today

[youtube:3bkq4bwx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anHuOAXIl0M[/youtube]3bkq4bwx]

[sullivan]

US News & World Report, 30 November 2009

Among other things, the Watergate scandal of the 1970s gave us a great naming convention for future scandals. Take "Climategate" at Penn State. That's what people are calling the controversy surrounding leaked E-mails among climate change researchers that climate change opponents say expose the researchers' falsification of data. One Penn State professor is involved in the scandal.

The Penn State administration plans to investigate Climategate and determine if it needs to take further action, the Daily Collegian reports. A little more than a week ago, E-mails exchanged among an English university's climate change researchers were illegally obtained from a server and posted online, the report says.

Climate change opponents say the E-mails indicate that climate change researchers—including Penn State Prof. Michael Mann—exaggerated or fabricated global warming data. And, according to the report, some E-mails indicate that the director of the research unit in question may have contacted researchers and asked them to "delete certain E-mails."

Penn State officials, who will not discuss the matter, are investigating the controversy. If anything requires further inspection, the school will handle it, a spokesman tells the Daily Collegian. A panel will read every E-mail leaked and determine if climate change critics have any ground for their accusations, the report says.

read more

[sullivan]

The Hill, 30 November 2009

The White House on Monday made exceptionally clear that it wants nothing to do with the furor over documents that global warming skeptics say prove the phenomenon is not a threat.

Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes "climate change is happening."

"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," he said during Monday's press briefing.

Climate change skeptics have asserted over the past week that the publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails and documents once housed in the University of East Anglia's computer system refutes most modern global warming evidence.

read more

[sullivan]

gather.com, 29/30 November 2009

As the world ramps up to the United Nations' summit in Copenhagen, climate science experts such as the summit's scheduled keynote speaker Dr. Rajendra Pachauri continue to bang the drum of strict policies and regulation to curtail further environmental destruction, while global warming deniers call for the heads of those very same experts.

Pachauri, who serves as chair of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sounded an urgent clarion for "sustainable consumption" in the west saying, "Today we have reached the point where consumption and people's desire to consume has grown out of proportion. The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable." Personal accountability is high on Pachauri's list of regulation tasks, including charging hotel guests based on their monitored energy use.

A hefty tax on aviation travel that would go to subsidize more environmentally friendly modes of transportation is another Pauchari proposal: "We should make sure there is a huge difference between the cost of flying and taking the train." Not one to be shy with controversial ideas, Pauchari ruffled feathers last year when he suggested that people eat less meat due to the massive carbon emissions associated with raising livestock.

read more

[sullivan]

Climategate: The Phil Jones University could break into children's television, big time

The Telegraph, 30 November 2009

Damian's revelation that Futerra has gone so far as to train even CBeebies researchers in "green" communication may offer a lifeline to embarrassed academics at the beleaguered "University" of East Anglia. The ever-helpful BBC might be able to channel them towards a less challenging audience than those brutal sceptics who are holding the Phil Jones University up to so much painful ridicule. Might there not be very promising alternative careers for Phil Jones and Michael Mann if a happy collaboration between CBeebies and, say, Blue Peter could be devised?

"And now children, here are Phil and Michael to show you how to make your own global warming statistics at home."

"Hello, children, I'm Phil. Can anyone tell me what Michael is holding? Yes. It's a hockey stick. Does anybody know what that is for? No, Timothy, it is not to beat the crap out of nasty sceptic Pat Michaels, though that is a very good thing to do. It is to save the world. No, Prunella, Mr Brown did not do that last month, he was only speaking metaphorically. Michael..."

read more

[sullivan]

1y32rpz4]

[sullivan]

Newsbusters, 30 November 2009

An Associated Press article Sunday read like a virtual advertisement for global legislation on climate change: completely oblivious to the ClimateGate scandal and failing to give one drop of ink to anthropogenic global warming skeptics.

The piece, written by the AP's Ben Fox, announced its intent with the headline "Leaders Say Momentum Building on Climate Change." Readers were then treated to 570 words exclusively about these political leaders and their claims.

This idea of momentum was not about growing public support, or any increase in likelihood that local governments would enforce a global treaty. Proof of this building momentum? The fact that more politicians like President Obama have suddenly decided to attend Copenhagen in spite of public skepticism at home.

read more

[sullivan]

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

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

The Telegraph, 28 November 2009

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

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

read more

[sullivan]

The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign.

The Wall Street Journal, 3 July 2009

Wherever Jim Hansen is right now -- whatever speech the "censored" NASA scientist is giving -- perhaps he'll find time to mention the plight of Alan Carlin. Though don't count on it.

Mr. Hansen, as everyone in this solar system knows, is the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting in 2004, he launched a campaign against the Bush administration, claiming it was censoring his global-warming thoughts and fiddling with the science. It was all a bit of a hoot, given Mr. Hansen was already a world-famous devotee of the theory of man-made global warming, a reputation earned with some 1,400 speeches he'd given, many while working for Mr. Bush. But it gave Democrats a fun talking point, one the Obama team later picked up.

So much so that one of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

read more

[sullivan]

European Climate Exchange chief Patrick Birley defends the carbon trading system

People don't trade carbon because they are good people," exclaims Patrick Birley, the chief executive of the ICE European Climate Exchange, with characteristic bluntness.

The Telegraph, 29 November 2009

"Why should it be different as a commodity to the way people trade oil or gas?"

As the man in charge of the world's biggest exchange for companies, banks and hedge funds to trade permits to emit carbon dioxide, Birley is fed up with the environmentalists' charge that dirty capitalists should not profit from the global effort to tackle climate change.
 
Ahead of the Copenhagen summit next week, campaigners such as Friends of the Earth have argued that the entire system is so flawed it may need to be demolished in favour of a straightforward tax on polluters.

Firstly, they insist, the European system has failed in its fundamental aim to reduce emissions, meaning its only effect is to redistribute wealth among companies and traders. Secondly, the market is a magnet for derivatives that few people understand, brewing up a second sub-prime bubble. Lastly, the opportunities for fraud are vast, given the intangible nature of the product. .

These well-worn concerns are resurfacing as the whole concept of carbon trading stands at a crossroads. This totally invented $126bn (£76bn) market has the potential to flare into a $2 trillion green giant over the next decade, if US President Obama manages to push his carbon trading bill through the Senate early next year.

read more

[thirdeyewise]

What a moron that Ed is, came out defensive and had sweet fa all to say :lol:

"When you think about the environment and Jewish life in Southern California, you think Ed Begley," - Ed Begley Jr

the master of ceremonies at the fifth annual Environmentalist of the Year awards for The Coalition of the Environment and Jewish Life of Southern California (COEJL/SC)

[sullivan]

Phil Jones tried to hush my paper. SUNY Albany won't discuss the investigation my paper initiated. And QUB ignored my three FOI requests for their data.

The Fraud Is Everywhere

Douglas J. Keenan, Pajamas Media, 1 December 2009

Some of the emails leaked in Climategate discuss my work. Following is a comment on that, and on something more important.

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — thought my paper was valid. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.

After my paper was published, the State University of New York — where the research discussed in my paper was conducted — carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed — contrary to the university's policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report's release.

But I was not allowed to see the report. Truly Kafkaesque.

The report apparently concluded that there was no fraud. The leaked files contain the defense used against my allegation, a defense obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record. It is no surprise then that the university still refuses to release the report. (More details on all of this — including source documents — are on my site.)

My paper demonstrates that by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the urbanization research. Yet Jones continued to rely on that research in his work, including in his work for the latest report of the IPCC.

Misconduct at Queens University of Belfast

Arguably, the biggest concern with global warming is that warming itself will cause further warming. For example, the polar ice caps reflect sunlight back into space, thereby cooling Earth. A global warming theory suggests that if the caps shrink due to warming, then they will reflect less sunlight and so Earth will warm even further. It is possible that Earth warms so much that it reaches what is called a "tipping point," where the global climate system is seriously and permanently disrupted — like when a glass of water has been tipped over and the water cannot realistically be put back into the glass.

No one knows for sure how much Earth would have to warm before it reaches the tipping point — though about a thousand years ago, there was a time known as the Medieval Warm Period when much of Earth appears to have been unusually warm. It is not currently known just how warm the Medieval Warm Period was, but clearly the warmth then was below the tipping point because Earth's climate continued without problem.

read more

[sullivan]

Susan Swift, Gold Coast Chronicle, 30 November 2009

Anthropogenic, or manmade, global warming is not open to debate.  High Priest Al Gore said so.  And how do we know this?

The climatology scriptures (peer review journals) proved it.  If warming skeptics had legitimate claims, so the argument goes, then naturally their arguments and supporting data would appear in such journals – a persuasive argument, ably assisted by the fact that global warming zealots controlled those journals.

Problem is, at least one such peer review journal broke ranks *gasp* and, in Galilean fashion, began publishing articles questioning "The True Faith" of climatology.  Heresy!

How does the Church of Global Warming deal with heresy?  Well, burning atreligion-and-politcs-larger1 the stake would impose too large of a carbon footprint, so instead they resort to the age-old traditional method of shunning.

Enter "Climate gate," the recent disclosure of certain East Anglia emails (East Anglia is, in short, the Vatican of global warming theology, or, research), and some of the disclosed emails provide insight into the secretive workings of the Brotherhood of Climatologists.

read more

[sullivan]

The Daily Collegian, 1 December 2009

While some scientists involved in the international scandal now known as "Climategate" have admitted some raw data supporting the man-made global warming theory is now missing, the Penn State professor embroiled in the controversy said the data in question has nothing to do with any of his work.

But when reached Monday, Penn State meteorology professor Michael Mann was able to offer some explanation as to why the data is now unavailable.

The controversy over hundreds of illegally obtained e-mails leaked from a server at the University of East Anglia has created an uproar in the scientific community.

The director of the British university's climate change research center contacted his colleagues with the request they delete certain exchanges regarding data on global warming -- which skeptics have said indicate the scientists either manipulated or fabricated the data.

Mann said Sunday he did not follow through with the requests and believes there were no scientists who did comply.

Some of the scientists involved have since admitted they deleted e-mails concerning the data -- also confirming this week that some of the data they were referring to is now missing.

The missing data concerns surface temperatures from around the globe collected by a group within the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, Mann said. A lot of this work was done "decades ago" and wasn't stored on a computer, he said.

"What they're referring to is that some of the old adjustments are lost in files that disappeared into oblivion," Mann said.

But, he said, the basic data on the surface temperatures comes from a common data source that is still available.

Mann said Sunday he believes the debate about the e-mails is part of a "smear campaign" led by people who are against the theory of man-made climate change.

The e-mails were leaked one week before the United Nations-sponsored Copenhagen climate summit, which President Barack Obama will attend along with other world leaders and scientists.

read more

[sullivan]

A major scandal was exposed. So why won't Obama acknowledge it?

Forbes, 2 December 2009

Science and scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my administration on a wide range of issues, including ... mitigation of climate change," President Barack Obama declared in a not-so-subtle dig at his predecessor soon after assuming office. "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process. Public officials should not suppress or alter scientific technological findings."

Last week's Climategate scandal is putting Obama's promise to the test. If he wants to pass, there are two things he should do, pronto: (1) Start singing hosannas to whoever broke the scandal instead of acting like nothing has happened; and (2) Ask eco-warriors at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit next week to declare an immediate cease-fire in their war against global warming pending a complete review of the science.

read more

[sullivan]

Climategate Proves Sunlight Best Reply to Skeptics

Eric Pooley, Bloomberg

The shouting match known as Climategate, which erupted after damaging e-mails were hacked from the server of a British climate research center, has been dominated by wishful thinking on both sides.

Climate skeptics pretend the e-mails are proof that man- made global warming is a hoax, the scientific consensus rigged. That's preposterous.

The hacked scientists and their defenders argue that the e- mails amount to a tempest in a teacup, just another trumped-up attack from the skeptics. That's not true either.

read more

[sullivan]

The Telegraph, 1 December 2009

Australian conservatives have shown the way by dumping the party leader who was in favour of massive carbon taxes and replacing him with one who stated last month that AGW is "crap."

This makes Malcolm Turnbull, the suddenly-ex-leader of Australia's Liberal party, the first major political victim of the Climategate furore. And his replacement Tony Abbott, the first politician to reap the benefits of the world's growing scepticism towards ManBearPig. Of the three candidates, he was the only one committed to delaying the Australian government's proposed Emissions Trading Scheme.

read full article

[sullivan]

19uoyv1e]