Hokkaido snowfall breaks records for January
Kyodo News
Record-breaking snow accumulations for the month of January were measured Wednesday in Hokkaido as inclement weather continued to pommel the prefecture as well as a wide area of Honshu along the Sea of Japan, the Meteorological Agency said.
In Erimo, Hokkaido, snow accumulations topped 115 cm, making it one of three observation points in Hokkaido that set a new record for January. Meanwhile, heavy snow stranded about 30 cars on a national road Tuesday night in the town, forcing 111 people to evacuate the vehicles and 84 of them to spend the night at nearby community centers.
Snowstorms may continue until Thursday, the agency said, warning of frozen roads and possible avalanches, as well as rough seas off Hokkaido and the Tohoku region.
More than 40 cm of snow fell on areas of Fukushima and Shiga Prefectures during the 24 hours through Wednesday morning. Winds up to 111.24 kph were also clocked at Cape Erimo.
'Climate science' is an oxymoron. Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
By Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: January 6th, 2010
Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply appreciative…
“Climate science” is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city, town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past week. This is the “exceptionally mild winter” that the climate change buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming. Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the bunker with their hands high and “fess up”. Patronisingly fobbing off the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them. Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to explain Britain’s Arctic conditions. Uh-huh? Is it the Gulf Stream that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of –25C? Is it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing since 1951?
The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal, part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government, state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
2010 should be the year when all that ends. It is time for Zero Tolerance of AGW fraudsters and their political masters. It is time to say: Green taxes? We won’t pay them. Nor will we vote for or permit to remain in office any politician or party that supports the AGW fraud. This year is one of those rare occasions when we have an opportunity to punish and control our political masters – provided Britons have the will to break with the two-party system.
Due to the rise of smaller parties – itself the consequence of the misgovernment of the Lab/Lib/Con consensus – it is a buyer’s market. The rule of thumb should be: any party that supports the global warming scam is ineligible for our votes. It doesn’t matter how ingrained one’s loyalty may once have been to one of the “major” parties, the time has come to impose the popular will on politicians who have learned, since the abolition of capital punishment in 1965, that by forming an anti-democratic consensus they can dictate to the public.
The coming general election is going to be an intelligence test. If people realise that voting for the slightly less objectionable choice gets them nowhere, that by holding out for what they really want they can actually obtain it, then we may be able to liberate ourselves from the tree-hugging New/Blue Labour consensus. If we fail to rise to that challenge we shall forfeit the right to complain about five more years of PC oppression. That is the answer: Zero Tolerance of “Green” agendas.
“ACID TEST: THE GLOBAL CHALLENGE OF OCEAN ACIDIFICATION” – A NEW PROPAGANDA FILM BY THE NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL FAILS THE ACID TEST OF REAL WORLD DATA
“OCEAN ACIDIFICATION” – THE EXTREMISTS’ FALLBACK SCARE
A critique by the Science and Public Policy Institute and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
SPPI ORIGINAL PAPER ♦ January 5, 2010
First, they called it “global warming”. Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years, and cooling for 9, so they hastily renamed it “climate change”. Then they noticed the climate was changing no more than it ever had, so they tried “energy security”, and even named a Congressional Bill after it. Then they noticed that most Western nations already had bountiful energy security, in the form of vast, untapped domestic supplies of oil, gas, coal, or all three, so they switched to “ocean acidification”.
This is the new phantasmagoric for the tired, old scare whipped up by the NRDC and the environmental extremist movement for their own profit at our expense. The world’s corals, they tell us, will be eaten away by the acidified ocean within not more than ten years hence. Shellfish will be no more, their calcified carapaces and exoskeletons dissolved by the carbonic acid caused by our burning of fossil fuels. The oceans will die. Sound familiar?
Yet, as the indefatigable Craig Idso here demonstrates, the scientific consensus – if science were done by consensus at all, which it is not – is that the rising “ocean acidification” scare is just more piffle.
Our harmless emissions of trifling quantities of carbon dioxide cannot possibly acidify the oceans. Paper after paper after learned paper in the peer-reviewed literature makes that quite plain. Idso cites some 150 scientific sources, nearly all of them providing hard evidence, by measurement and experiment, that there is no basis for imagining that we can acidify the oceans to any extent large enough to be measured even by the most sensitive instruments. And, as Richard Feynman used to say, no matter how elegant your theory, no matter how smart you are, if experiment proves you wrong then you need another theory.
Why can’t rising atmospheric CO2 acidify the oceans?
First, because it has not done so before. During the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago, there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today: yet that is when the calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis. During the Jurassic era, 175 million years ago, there was again 20 times as much CO2 as there is today: yet that is when the delicate aragonite corals first came into being.
Secondly, ocean acidification, as a notion, suffers from the same problem of scale as “global warming”. Just as the doubling of CO2 concentration expected this century will scarcely change global mean surface temperature because there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place, so it will scarcely change the acid-base balance of the ocean, because there is already 70 times as much CO2 in solution in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. Even if all of the additional CO2 we emit were to end up not in the atmosphere (where it might in theory cause a
very little warming) but in the ocean (where it would cause none), the quantity of CO2 in the oceans would rise by little more than 1%, a trivial and entirely harmless change.
New Delhi - At least 239 people have died as bitterly cold weather has swept across northern and eastern India over the past week, news reports said Sunday. More than 15 people died Saturday night in northern Uttar Pradesh state, NDTV news channel reported.
In national capital Delhi, the minimum temperature rose marginally to nine degrees centigrade whilst the maximum stood at 12 degrees, the lowest in five years.
Most victims were either the elderly or the poor, who have inadequate shelter and warm clothing.
Dense fog over many parts of northern India continued to disrupt train and air services and affected road traffic.
India's meteorological department said the cold weather conditions were due to western disturbances that led to snowfall in the hill states and upper regions of the Himalayas.
The department said the cold wave was likely to continue for another one to two days.
December 2009: Second Snowiest on Record in the Northern Hemisphere
According to the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, last month had the second greatest December Northern Hemisphere snow cover since records were started in 1966. Snow extent was measured at 45.86 million sq. km, topped only by 1985 at 45.99 million sq. km. North America set a record December extent at 15.98 million sq. km, and the US also set a December record at 4.16 million sq. km.
October, 2009 was the snowiest October on record in the US, and sixth snowiest in the Northern Hemisphere. Twelve of the last fifteen Octobers have had above normal snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, similar to the pattern of the 1970s.
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:46 am Post subject:
Hopefully another nail in the coffin of the AGW scam
Quote:
From The Sunday Times January 17, 2010
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."
The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: "Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.
"Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif."
The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain's 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.
When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.
The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.
Professor Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, said: "Even a small glacier such as the Dokriani glacier is up to 120 metres [394ft] thick. A big one would be several hundred metres thick and tens of kilometres long. The average is 300 metres thick so to melt one even at 5 metres a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”
Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about," he said.
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science".
Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.
He traced the IPCC claim back to the New Scientist and then contacted Pearce. Pearce then re-interviewed Hasnain, who confirmed that his 1999 comments had been "speculative", and published the update in the New Scientist.
Cogley said: "The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report. The problem is that nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose. It is ultimately a trail that leads back to a magazine article and that is not the sort of thing you want to end up in an IPCC report.”
Pearce said the IPCC's reliance on the WWF was "immensely lazy" and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.
The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:11 am Post subject:
Renowned blogger Poneke has done something very few people have done. He has read every single of the 1,000+ Climategate e-mails. He has a lengthy 4,500 word blog post on his findings.....
This is probably the most important news-story of recent times, yet it has been buried, with very little mainstream coverage. Has any newspaper appointed a journalist to actually read all the e-mails and draw conclusions?
Quote:
January 15, 2010...2:36 pm
13 years of Climategate emails show tawdry manipulation of science by a powerful cabal at the heart of the global warming campaign
This is the longest and most important article I’ve yet written for this blog and I make no apology for its 4600 words — more also than in any newspaper article. As a journalist, I believe the Climategate emails have exposed one of the most significant news stories of the decade. As the mainstream news media has so far barely gone beyond giving those who wrote them and their supporters time and space to deny their undeniable contents, I present here an extensive journalistic account of what they actually say in the context of the dates and events in which they were written, with full links to all the emails.
Having now read all the Climategate emails, I can conclusively say they demonstrate a level of scientific chicanery of the most appalling kind that deserves the widest possible public exposure.
The emails reveal that the entire global warming debate and the IPCC process is controlled by a small cabal of climate specialists in England and North America. This cabal, who call themselves “the Team,” bully and smear any critics. They control the “peer review” process for research in the field and use their power to prevent contrary research being published.
The Team’s members are the heart of the IPCC process, many of them the lead authors of its reports.
They falsely claim there is a scientific “consensus” that the “science is settled,” by getting lists of scientists to sign petitions claiming there is such a consensus. They have fought for years to conceal the actual shonky data they have used to wrongly claim there has been unprecedented global warming this past 50 years. Their emailed discussions among each other show they have concocted their data by matching analyses of tree rings from around 1000 AD to 1960, then actual temperatures from 1960 to make it look temperatures have shot up alarmingly since then, after the tree rings from 1960 on inconveniently failed to match observed temperatures.
The emails show that some of them at least concede in private that the world was warmer 1000 years ago (in the Medieval Warm Period) than it is today, but the emails also show they had to get rid of the MWP from the records to claim today’s temperatures are unprecedented.
They show Team members becoming alarmed and despondent at global temperatures peaking in 1998, then slowly falling to the present, while publicly trying to hide the fact that there was a peak and now a decline.
Revealingly, they show them even smugly nominating each other for prestigious awards, using factually wrong details in the information sent in nominating letters in support of the awards.
The Climategate emails (and accompanying computer data) were almost certainly leaked by a whistleblower inside the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (the “CRU” — the supplier of much key IPCC historic climate data), not hacked from there by an outsider, as initially thought. Their sheer volume and content makes that clear, as do postings to some websites made by the still anonymous leaker. They are a treasure trove that begins on March 7 1996 and runs to November 12 2009, just before they were released and first publicised in an incredulous post on the Watts Up With That blog, which had been sent a link to them.
Don’t take my word for what their contents reveal. Read the emails for yourselves. They have been conveniently posted online in full and in date order. My article here looks at a range of them to back up the assertions I have made about what they reveal. It would take a book to discuss all of them, and you can be sure several books are already being written.
The peer review charade
AGWarmers parrot the mantra that their view is supported by learned articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and that peer-reviewed contrary views cannot be found. The Climategate emails conclusively show that the Team control the peer-reviewed literature, to the extent they “peer review” each other’s reports, and veto publication of research they do not support, bullying the editors and owners of scientific journals.
Worse, though, is the emails’ revelation that even material they put into the hallowed reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not peer reviewed, and knowingly shabby.
See, for example, this email, by Filippo Giorgi, head of the physics of weather and climate section of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, writing on September 12 2000 to fellow lead authors of Chapter 10 of IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR) then about to be published:
I myself think that material for a document as important as the TAR cannot be drawn from last-minute barely quality checked and un-peered reviewed material (people have barely looked at the MPI run that was completed last friday !!).
Fabricating temperature records from ancient trees
To be able to claim that recent global warming was unprecedented, man-made and dangerous, the Team had to prove current temperatures are the highest ever and going up at an alarming pace. Unfortunately, thermometers have only been around for a few hundred years and actual temperature records from many parts of the world only began around 1850. The Team therefore decided to use temperature “proxies,” looking at the growth rings in 1000-year-old trees (there are some, in Siberia and North America) and deciphering what temperature each year’s ring suggested.
In this email of September 22 1999, discussing proposals for a “nice tidy” 1000-year temperature graph for an upcoming IPCC report, the East Anglia University CRU’s tree ring specialist Keith Briffa expresses concerns to other Team members:
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. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.
Briffa, as is apparent from that last sentence, believes the MWP existed, however inconvenient it might be for his colleagues needing it to disappear so they can claim it has never been as warm as today.
What Briffa was pointing out to colleagues such as CRU chief Phil Jones (who has stood aside while EAU investigates the scandal) and Penn State University’s Michael Mann (creator of the fraudulent “hockey stick” graph the IPCC has quietly dropped from its reports and whose activities are also under investigation) is that Briffa’s tree ring data showed warming 1000 years ago, and very inconvenient cooling since the 1950s. The emails show Mann decided to run several series of tree ring data and average them.
Responded Mann to the Team the same day: I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the plot, and can ask Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been preparing (nobody liked my own color/plotting conventions so I’ve given up doing this myself). The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.
Mann’s highlighting the “vertically aligned” refers to his insistence that the 1000-year temperature chart they are discussing leaps vertically after 1950 from his previously straight line, to produce his now infamous “hockey stick” chart, discussed later in this article.
Hide the decline
Mann’s final comment above about “the late 20th century decline” is the genesis of the now-infamous “hide the decline” email that is the most quoted of the Climategate treasure trove, almost always out of context. The context is being given here.
Mann went on to say the problem remained that Briffa’s proxy data differed sharply in the late 20th century from his and Jones’s. He continued: This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case…. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!
The problem Mann saw was soon solved, as shown by that infamous email dated November 16 1999, from Phil Jones to Mann, Briffa and others:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
What this is saying – and no amount of obfuscation can alter the fact – is that a 1000-year “global temperature” chart was created – fabricated – by using tree-ring proxy data from 1000 to 1960, then using actual temperatures from 1961 on, to “hide” the fact that the tree ring proxies showed a “decline” from 1960 onwards. There can not be a more blatant example of using apples and oranges to “prove” a point than this, and they would have got away with it if not for the Climategate whistleblower.
NZ link in push to ban contrary views
In 2003, the peer-reviewed journal Climate Research decided to publish a paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas that declared the the 20th century was “probably not” the warmest climatic period of the last 1000 years nor a uniquely extreme one. One of the editors at Climate Research was none other than Auckland University associate professor Chris de Freitas, a climate contrarian who is constantly vilified in the news media by AGWarmists and their journalist allies. The Climategate emails show the hysteria the Soon-Baliunas paper aroused in the Team as it slipped through their control of the peer review process.
By email to the team on March 11 2003, Jones said: Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.
De Freitas is of course the “well known NZ skeptic.” Von Storch, a German climate scientist, was a member of the journal’s editorial board. The email shows Jones was happy to dismiss the article without even having read it. The Team followed up with a welter of actions to discredit the article, the journal and all associated with it.
Later that day, Jones emailed the Team again, after a quick look at the article: I am becoming more convinced we should do something – even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
To which Mike Mann replied: The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility–that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department… The skeptics appear to have staged a ‘coup’ at “Climate Research” (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite ‘purpose’).
Mann realised that a contrary paper being published in a peer reviewed journal jeopardised the Team’s smug claim that there was no peer-reviewed research questioning the Team’s line. In the same email, he said: This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…
This exchange, and the lengthy campaign against Climate Research that followed, is but one of many examples in the Climategate emails that show the lengths the Team have gone to attempting to prevent publication of any contrary peer-reviewed research, and demonstrates the control Team members believe they should have on the supposedly independent peer review process.
Totally destroying the Hockey Stick chart
Worse was to follow. In 2003, Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick began investigating Mann’s now infamous “hockey stick” graph, the centrepiece of the IPCC’s 2001 report. The hockey stick –based on the tree ring data cited above — purported to show the world’s temperature being stable from 1000 to 1950, then shooting upward, in the shape of a hockey stick.
McIntyre and McKitrick earned the hatred of the Team by demonstrating major mathematical fallacies in the chart — this long before anyone realised how it had actually been put together — leading to its being totally discredited and dropped from subsequent IPCC reports.
Hiding data in breach of information laws
McIntyre went on to request the raw data and computer programs behind numerous climate change charts, graphs and papers. You can find the results of his work on his Climate Audit blog. The Team responded to his requests for information under US and UK freedom of information laws by stonewalling, ignoring him, claiming to have lost data and, most outrageously, by discussing destroying their data to stop it being checked.
Apart from the latter being in serious breach of the freedom of information laws, it is in flagrant breach of the scientific principle that research should be capable of replication by others. If you refuse to tell others how you came to your conclusion, your work cannot be replicated, or, more to the point at issue here, it cannot be falsified, another important scientific principle.
See this email from Phil Jones to other scientists on May 7 2004: Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything, partly because we don’t have some of the series he wants, also partly as we’ve got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he’ll distort and misuse them.
And this from Jones to Mann, headed HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, on July 8 2004: The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Jones to Mann, again, on February 2 2005:Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. [Emphasis added]
The discussions about hiding or destroying data and entire sets of emails became more frantic as the months and years rolled by. The tone of the emails became increasingly hysterical, suggesting the Team was feeling ever more pressured because of the requests to produce the raw data their conclusions were based on, despite revealing such data being a basic scientific tenet.
Mike Mann on April 26 2006: I’m saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to NCAR, NSF, NAS, IPCC and everyone else. Rest assured that I won’t ever respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you any email he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way…
New Zealander Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder Colorado, to Phil Jones, April 21 2007: I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don’t think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.
Smoking guns
And, on May 29 2008, the smoking gun of the many smoking guns related to document destruction in the Climategate emails. Jones to Mann: Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. Cheers Phil
The AR4 referred to is the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, published in 2007.
But wait, there’s more. Mann replies: I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.
McIntyre and others continued to use the US and UK freedom of information acts to try to extract the information they sought, with the US law in particular forcing material to be made public, including by being placed on the websites of various institutions for everyone to see.
The Team’s increasing paranoia is palpable in this email from Mann to Jones on September 30 2009: Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama’s health plan, we’ll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed congress this summer. It isn’t coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S. senate was considering the McCain Lieberman climate bill in ‘05.
Such comments show clearly that the Team see their work as political — they are fighting the good fight for the green left, while their opponents are a rabble of right wing bigots funded by the oil industry, or whoever. It’s certainly not science, which does not sit on the political spectrum.
But there is no doubt they sincerely believe in their mission — they believe they are saving the planet, no less, as have so many other religious fundamentalists before them.
That does not excuse their way of operating. One gets the impression from their emails, so condemnatory of any other view but their own, that the Team would have been at the forefront of the priests and bishops demanding Galileo’s execution, had they been alive in 1633 (coincidentally during the Little Ice Age, which, like the Medieval Warm Period, they deny happened, as it upsets the hockey stick).
Their hiding and calls for destruction of data are not just a historic event. It continues. Tom Wigley, former head of the EAU CRU, to Jones, regarding growing controversy over Briffa’s tree ring data, on October 5 2009 — just three months ago: the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden. I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours
The emails give an extraordinary insight to the vanity and personality of these cardinals of global warming. There is a delicious series of emails in which Mike Mann offers to nominate Phil Jones for an award by the American Geophysical Union. Jones tells Mann the award he’d like, then works with Mann to help with the nomination. Jones duly gets the award, and Mann then asks Jones to nominate him for one.
Mann to Jones, December 4 2007: By the way, still looking into nominating you for an AGU award, I’ve been told that the Ewing medal wouldn’t be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options you’d like me to investigate…
Jones to Mann, same date: As for AGU – just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine.
Mann to Jones, same date: Will look into the AGU fellowship situation ASAP.
Mann to Jones, June 2 2008: Hi Phil, This is coming along nicely. I’ve got 5 very strong supporting letter writers lined up to support your AGU Fellowship nomination (confidentially: Ben Santer, Tom Karl, Jean Jouzel, and Lonnie Thompson have all agreed, waiting to hear back from one more individual, maximum is six letters including mine as nominator). Meanwhile, if you can pass along the following information that is needed for the nomination package that would be very helpful. thanks in advance! mike
Jones sent him the requested information, including information for an index based on the number of papers he’s had published and how many times they have been cited. Jones to Mann, June 11 2008:this is what people call the H index. I’ve tried working this out and there is software for it on the web of science. Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through and deleted those in journals I’d never heard of and got 52. I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s, so go with 52.
But Mann, shamelessly, thinks the higher, wrong, number would look more impressive. Mann to Jones, same date: OK–thanks, I’ll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.
Lo and behold, on January 29 2009, Jones gets the wonderful news. He emails Ben Santer, an American Team member, one of his nominators, though he’s not supposed to know that (see the Mann email of June 2 2008 above): I heard during IDAG that I’ve been made an AGU Fellow. Will likely have to go to Toronto to Spring AGU to collect it. I hope I don’t see a certain person there!
The person he does not want to see in Toronto of course is the Team’s Canadian nemesis, Stephen McIntyre.
Mann waits a decent interval before he blatantly asks for Jones to return the favour. Mann to Jones, May 16 2009: On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem w/ some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year I’ve looked over the current list of AGU fellows, and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) who aren’t as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate. anyway, I don’t want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you’d be willing to help organize,I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year.
Jones to Mann, May 18 2009: I’ll email Ray and Malcolm. I’d be happy to contribute.
Then some bad news. Jones to Mann, May 19 2009: Mike, Have gotten replies -the’re both happy to write supporting letters, but both are too busy to take it on this year. One suggested waiting till next year. Malcolm is supporting one other person this year. I’d be happy to do it next year, so I can pace it over a longer period.
Mann takes it like a man. Mann to Jones, May 19 2009: thanks much Phil, that sounds good. So why don’t we wait until next round (June ‘10) on this hen. That will give everyone an opportunity to get their ducks in a row. Plus I’ll have one more Nature and one more Science paper on my resume by then more about that soon!). I’ll be sure to send you a reminder sometime next may or so!
The ‘travesty’ of unpredicted cold weather
As noted early on in this article, the Climategate emails ran until late last year, until just before the failed Copenhagen scare fest. The very last word must go to the expatriate New Zealander, Kevin Trenberth, from his cold hole in Boulder Colorado on October 12 2009.
In an email series between Team members bemoaning the normally staunch BBC’s running an item asking what has happened now there had been 11 years without global warming, the shivering Dr Trenberth now famously stated: Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
Footnote: A Melbourne physicist, Dr John P Costella, has written a 63,000-word article on the Climategate emails and posted it on a part of the website where I have linked to the full chronological series of the emails cited in my article. While the website appears to be a conspiracy theorist’s picnic of the kind that would delight Ian Wishart, its unedited publication of the emails in chronological order is a public service that should not detract from the odd nature of the website hosting it.
"Baron von Lotsov Wrote: I see someone else does not know their basic physics. When talking about the greenhouse effect the minimum I would expect is for people to understand what the mechanism is. The gas itself does not retain the heat, it works because the sun energy that shines onto the earth is a lot shorter wavelength than the black body infrared energy that gets re-emitted from the earth's surface, and materials have a tendency to be transparent to some wavelengths and opaque to others. Try it yourself with a piece of glass in front of a gas fire. You can see through the glass but heat does not transmit so easy. This is why greenhouses are made of glass."
Baron von Lotsov of UKIP promotion.
Quote:The gas itself does not retain the heat,
?
That’s what I was saying, this is basic physics
Like a green house gets warm because the short wave radiation comes through the glass hits surfaces warms them up then emits longer wave radiation which then does not go through the glass as quickly. With a net result of warmer temperatures in the green house.
Other examples would be a car on a sunny day.
A vacuum tube solar water heater which can get very hot.
Double glazing with different gases and/or glass, rather than atmospheric air for insulation.
Or welding when Co2 is used as a shield gas not only to stop oxidization but also because it retains more of the heat of the plasma giving more penetration into the metal being welded.
-----------------------
Quote:
Quote:Higher R-Factor means less energy loss. Figures courtesy of Guardian Industries using ASHRAE or AAMA tests. R-values calculated at center of glass with 9/16" air space width. Calculated using NARC WINDOW 4.1 and FRAME 4.0 computer programs. The higher the R-factor, the greater the insulation value.
Low E Glass Options
More than any other single improvement, the invention and widespread commercial development of low-emissivity (Low E) coatings in the 1980's revolutionized window technology.
Thin, transparent coatings of silver or tin oxide permit visible light to pass through, but they effectively reflect infrared heat radiation back into the room in the winter This reduces heat loss through the windows in the winter, and cooling loss in the summer.
These coatings are inexpensive compared to total window replacement, save energy, reduce fabric fading, and increase comfort.
Low-Conductivity Gas Fill
By substituting the air in a sealed insulated glass window for a denser, lower conductivity gas such as argon, heat loss can be reduced significantly.
Most major manufacturers offer argon gas fill as an option. Other gases that have been or are being used in windows include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), krypton (Kr), and argon-krypton mixtures.
http://www.targetwindowdoor.com/rfactor.htm
By convection and by long/short wave radiation.
-------------------------------------------
Quote:
Hopefully another nail in the coffin of the AGW scam
Mmm. The upshot of the AGW knockback seems to be to promote and rank up Nuclear/Coal/Crude/Gas powered energy consumption and above all POLLUTE like there's no tomorrow and as it now doesn't affect anything, with a new cleared conscience and everything "green" by association.
Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: January 16th, 2010
For those who haven’t seen it, here’s a link to US weatherman John Coleman’s magisterial demolition of the Great AGW Scam. I particularly recommend part 4 because that’s the one with all the meat. It shows how temperature readings have been manipulated at the two key climate data centres in the United States – the NASA Goddard Science and Space Institute at Columbia University in New York and the NOAA National Climate Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina. (Hat tip: Platosays)
This is a scandal to rank with Climategate.
What it shows is that, just like in Britain at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) temperature data records have been grotesquely distorted by activist scientists in order to exaggerate the appearance of late 20th century global warming. They achieved this – with an insouciant disregard for scientific integrity which quite beggars belief – through the simple expedient of ignoring most of those weather station sited in higher, colder places and using mainly ones in warmer spots. Then, they averaged out the temperature readings given by the warmer stations to give a global average. Et voila: exactly the scary “climate change” they needed to persuade bodies like the IPCC that AGW was a clear and present danger requiring urgent pan-governmental action.
The man who spotted all this is a computer programmer called EM Smith – aka the Chiefio. You can read the full report at his excellent blog. In the 70s, the Chiefio discovered, GISS and NOAA took their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the world. By 1990, though, this figure had mysteriously dropped to 1500. Even more mysteriously this 75 per cent reduction in the number of stations used had a clear bias against those at higher latitudes and elevations.
Here’s an excellent example of this: Bolivia.
Notice that nice rosy red over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It has a patch of high cold Andes Mountains where most of the population live.
One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.
None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.
So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?
Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.
Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks and high cold desert, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know?
Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo has also been on the case. You can find a link to his superb analysis of the scandal at Watts Up With That. (Sorry: I would give you a more direct link to his pdf file but I can’t work out how to do it)
In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” .
You know what this means, don’t you? It means the ragbag of eco-loons, politicians and technocrats pushing AGW can no longer plausibly deploy their main excuse about Climategate – that it was all a little local difficulty of no great importance because the HadCrut temperature data sets were independently confirmed by those at GISS and NOAA. What this story demonstrates, as many of us suspected all along, is that not just the British temperature records but those in the US too have been hijacked by political activists. I need hardly say that this breaking scandal has been almost completely ignored by the MSM.
Not unpredictably, the director of one of the two institutions implicated in this – Dr James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies – has issued a (very carefully worded – which makes you wonder what he’s not telling us) denial of any skullduggery.
“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis.”
The idea that a man of Dr Hansen’s radical persuasion should be running an organisation as important as GISS is looking increasingly absurd. To get an idea how absurd, think Tony Benn in charge of Britain’s defence policy, or – let’s get really weird – imagine if Ed Balls were in charge of Education or Gordon Brown were running the country. More on Hansen’s activist sympathies in another blog.
Andrew, I'd caution against becoming the new 'chek' in this thread, you're just screaming into the spam-y wind. You're going against the notion that all you need to disprove AGW is blogger posts repeated ad nauseum, scientific reports taken out of context, and the fact that it snows in winter. Sometimes a lot. _________________ "What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:01 pm Post subject:
TmcMistress wrote:
Andrew, I'd caution against becoming the new 'chek' in this thread, you're just screaming into the spam-y wind. You're going against the notion that all you need to disprove AGW is blogger posts repeated ad nauseum, scientific reports taken out of context, and the fact that it snows in winter. Sometimes a lot.
Or even e-mail proof from one of the top CRU's in the world that they are 'liberal' with the truth, or reports from quality broadsheets that many of the claims of imminent disaster are in fact scaremongering with wildly exaggerated figures with no basis in reality?
Awww, it's so cute when you think you're actually going to draw me into arguing with you... _________________ "What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:50 pm Post subject:
Actually I couldn't care less what you think, and won't be arguing with you. Mark Gobell's thoughtful and thought provoking post (take note TMC) from a few pages back is a different matter, and will definitely receive a full reply from me, as and when time allows....not that I disagree with anything he says.
Andrew, I'd caution against becoming the new 'chek' in this thread
There's a different solution to that of what chek seemed to be for.
Quote:
you're just screaming into the spam-y wind. You're going against the notion that all you need to disprove AGW is blogger posts repeated ad nauseum, scientific reports taken out of context,
You have that the wrong way around.
Quote:
and the fact that it snows in winter. Sometimes a lot.
Not as much as it did here (England)
I'll caution you also in that you are not above the Law, your opinion or mine does not matter on what the Law is, learn it and save yourself. Nothing personal, it’s for everyone.
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:44 am Post subject:
Andrew. wrote:
Pollution does exis. The simple physics shows us that at some level it is you who are confusing matters by intent.
The two positions don't have to be mutually exclusive, a disbelief in AGW doesn't necessarily mean a free pass to pollute and waste resources. In any case the fossil fuels will run out within the next century, so the switch to alternative fuel sources must happen sooner rather than later. This would be especially desirable for a country like the UK which is utterly dependent upon imported energy.
There's room for scepticism of both sides of the argument. We all know about the oil companies, and how they would prefer to maintain the status quo, but the serious money being made in carbon trading should also cause concern. Naturally wherever there's big profits, people will go to extremes to defend their revenues. Carbon trading is essentially a scammers dream come true, getting people to assuage their guilt by handing over large sums in exchange for non-quantifiable (to most people) ' services'. No need to change anything - just hand the cash over and all will be well. Governments see this as a politically acceptable route to raise taxes and so on, but it only works if there's a 'problem' to be fixed.... I don't accept that these supposedly altruistic climatologists aren't getting some tasty backhanders either - as long as they keep up a steady flow of doom-mongering.
What would I do? Go for the green solution wherever possible - reduce consumption and strive for efficiency, walk or cycle and drive a small efficient car - this is all common sense and the benefits stretch far beyond environmental concerns. Don't put off opportunities to travel because some rich hypocrite says you should and fight all attempts at 'green' taxes and surcharges - they're a scam and a form of oppression - the elites won't find their lifestyles hindered in any way by such charges. A belief that AGW is a scam doesn't have to equate to an irresponsible attitude.
U.N. climate change panel under fire for bogus claims of glacier retreat
January 19, 8:30 AMClimate Change ExaminerTony Hake
Just three years ago, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the stark claim that it was “very likely” that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. In a blow to its credibility, the IPCC was forced to acknowledge this week that the assertion was incorrect despite being oft repeated by its leaders.
The claim was contained in the IPCC’s seminal “AR4” report that was issued in 2007, the same year the panel and Al Gore won Nobel Peace Prizes for their work combating anthropogenic global warming. The document has served as a guide to policymakers in their efforts to force heavy regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.
The passage in question said, “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”
Concerns of glacial retreat have been used to provide an exclamation point on the claims that action must be taken immediately to stem man’s purported influence on the climate. According to the IPCC’s methodology, “very likely” is meant to have a 90% or greater chance of occurring. With millions of people in Asia relying on glacial ice for their water supply, the threat was considered to be great.
The claim was said to reference a study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a global environmental advocacy group performed in 2005. The WWF’s study in turn cited a 1999 story in New Scientist that contained the claim.
New Scientist had interviewed Dr. Syed Hasnain who was working at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi at the time. No quote is attributed to Hasnain where he mentioned the 2035 date although it appears in the narrative of the story. Earlier this month, Hasnain said that the statement was pure “speculation” and not based in scientific fact.
Many are now raising a red flag over the inclusion of the claim in the IPCC report and say it calls into question the basis of much of the IPCC’s work.The fact that the organization chose to include data from an activist group like the WWF in what is supposed to be a scientific document has many wondering what other errors lie within.
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC said yesterday the organization would examine how the bogus claim made its way into the report. Pachauri himself however has come under fire recently as new revelations of his financial dealings and how he benefits from the IPCCs work thus causing a potential conflict of interest.
Ironically, a paper published in November by the Indian government said there was nothing abnormal about the retreat of the glaciers. India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh said the IPCC was being “alarmist” by making claims of severe glacial retreat.
Pachauri fired back at the time saying the paper was “voodoo science.” He went on to defend the IPCCs report on glaciers saying, “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”
Many who are doubtful of the manmade climate change theory are saying the claim of ‘voodoo science’ was directed at the wrong document.
2009 saw a number of setbacks against the global warming movement as the so-called ‘consensus’ on the manmade climate change theory crumbled. Since the Climategate scandal broke in November, climate scientists have found themselves under siege and this latest event will only add fuel to their fire. 2009 saw a number of setbacks
The fact a document reviewed by the world’s top climate scientists and presented by the United Nations contains such poorly reviewed material only causes further doubts about the IPCCs work.
"2009 saw a number of setbacks against the global warming movement as the so-called ‘consensus’ on the manmade climate change theory crumbled. Since the Climategate scandal broke in November, climate scientists have found themselves under siege and this latest event will only add fuel to their fire."
Naw!! Nothing happened. Really - just read what the clowns who support the scam are saying. Its just "spam" to point out all the lies. Everything is fine - we're all going to fry/freeze (delete as convenient) to death.
What would I do? Go for the green solution wherever possible - reduce consumption and strive for efficiency, walk or cycle and drive a small efficient car - this is all common sense and the benefits stretch far beyond environmental concerns. Don't put off opportunities to travel because some rich hypocrite says you should and fight all attempts at 'green' taxes and surcharges - they're a scam and a form of oppression - the elites won't find their lifestyles hindered in any way by such charges. A belief that AGW is a scam doesn't have to equate to an irresponsible attitude.
Glad to hear you go for a better solution, but the simple physics shows us there is a problem at some level and in the time between now and 'the next century' a lot of suffering will be, if nothing is done. Obviously the tax solution is a scam, they know only to well after the ‘poll tax’ (people did react on the street with that) that most people not seeing the bigger picture will say it’s a scam, carry on regardless. Just like you have said in part and ‘hey presto’ people will suffer as part of the population reduction programme continues.
If the mainstream media do not start telling the truth about the man-made climate change scam then some less desirable politicians will jump on the popular bandwagon!
“The World Is Cooling and Global Warming Is a Fraud,” Nick Griffin Tells Euro Parliament
Time-magazine-April-1977The world is cooling and “global warming” is a fraud, Nick Griffin MEP told a shocked European Parliament this afternoon.
“After Copenhagen, let us reassess the whole global warming story,” Mr Griffin started out by saying.
“At Copenhagen we had the irony not just of Climategate Two, but also the onset of one of the harshest winters in decades.
“Since then we have seen the debunking of the Potsdam sea level scare. The Goddard Institute has been caught fiddling the temperature records. The vanishing Himalayan Glaciers have been exposed as a fantasy. Mr Pachauri has emerged as a climate change profiteer.
“The world is cooling. Global warming is a fraud,” he said to shocked stares from his fellow MEPs.
“This is not a victimless crime. Carbon taxes push up fuel prices, killing our old folk as we speak. The billions wasted researching this non-existent problem are billions that cannot be spent defeating real scourges such as Alzheimer’s, or ending real environmental disasters such as deforestation.
“Carbon credit trading makes billions for City sharks at the expense of families in poverty. The loss of agricultural land to bio-fuels has already doubled food prices, so millions starve while greedy corporations make even fatter profits.
“Those pushing the unscientific nonsense of manmade climate change — Shell, Monsanto, the international banks, Bilderberg One Worlders, carbon billionaires and their useful idiot allies on the Left — are running the biggest fraud in human history. They must and will be called to account, as should their collaborators in places such as this,” Mr Griffin concluded.
* The next MEP to speak, a German MEP, started off his talk with a plea to the chair of the session to always force Mr Griffin to speak last, while a short while later, British MEP Chris Davies called himself a “collaborator” in reference to Mr Griffin’s speech.
Florida Freeze Kills Estimated 70% of Southwest Vegetable Crop
By Elizabeth Campbell
Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- At least 70 percent of southwest Florida’s winter crop of vegetables, including tomatoes and peppers, were destroyed by freezing weather, said Gene McAvoy, the director of the Hendry County extension office for the University of Florida.
Losses will be more than $100 million, McAvoy said today in a telephone interview. Tomatoes, peppers, squash and cucumbers are the major crops in the estimate, he said. In the U.S. winter, Florida provides about 70 percent of the tomatoes sold in the nation, McAvoy said from LaBelle, Florida.
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:56 am Post subject:
Andrew. wrote:
Glad to hear you go for a better solution, but the simple physics shows us there is a problem at some level and in the time between now and 'the next century' a lot of suffering will be, if nothing is done. Obviously the tax solution is a scam, they know only to well after the ‘poll tax’ (people did react on the street with that) that most people not seeing the bigger picture will say it’s a scam, carry on regardless. Just like you have said in part and ‘hey presto’ people will suffer as part of the population reduction programme continues.
The question is what if any climate change is attributable to man, that is if climate change is occurring at all - of which there must be doubt given the doom-mongers proven propensity to fudge figures to suit their own agenda. When there isn't even proof as to whether CO2 levels cause or are caused by climate change the picture becomes even more convoluted. It may even be that industrialization has masked natural temperature changes as the world emerges from the 'mini-ice age', and that various clean-air acts around the world have produced an upsurge in temperatures over the last 30 years - if that in itself is true........
Every side in this argument seems to have an agenda, and for some AGW seems to provide an ideal Trojan horse. You touch upon depopulation - that seems to be a key aim amongst some environmentalists who seemingly view humanity as a scourge on their own 'god'. I genuinely believe AGW is a front for Peak-Oil - a more palatable way for politicians to act on the fact our oil dependent economies are doomed unless change occurs. Its strange how little attention is paid to Peak Oil - perhaps because its been predicted since the 1960's and yet the PTB have swept it under the carpet in favour of short-term gain. AGW is squarely aimed at the general populace, its the masses fault that this is happening due to over-consumption, laziness, etc (but of course taxes will make it all better). Notice how we are all to blame for AGW but no mention is made of decisions made at the top which allowed it to happen in the first place - this argument would be impossible with Peak-Oil since no alternatives to fossil fuels have ever really been allowed - the story of the electric car being a prime example.
of which there must be doubt given the doom-mongers proven propensity to fudge figures to suit their own agenda. When there isn't even proof as to whether CO2 levels cause or are caused by climate change the picture becomes even more convoluted.
I have no faith in the PTB agenda. Eighter the tax or depopulation or any of thier agenda at all. It's your choice to see cause and effect and decide.
If 1 million people suffer or doom-mongers 2 million in years to come, does that make a right.
It's about time people realised that the PTB will not give up on their power and control (of any of thier many agendas) by just asking them nicely. You/they eighther obey the Laws or cause and effect will get you/they. So you are between a rock and a hard place. if the NWO dosent get you cause and effect will, by nature and spiritual means.
Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash
By James Delingpole Last updated: January 22nd, 2010
The Commons Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into “the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)” – ie Climategate. (hat tip R. Campbell; Platosays).
On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.
The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (’the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (’the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .
But here’s the really surprising part: it’s planning to ask the right questions.
— What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
— Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
— How independent are the other two international data sets?
This is very heartening news for taxpayers, rationalists, and everyone who believes in the integrity of the scientific process. More encouraging still is Bishop Hill’s suggestion that it might be used by climate realists in the US government to launch a pincer movement against the eco fascists in the Obama administration:
Joe Barton, the man behind the US Senate’s 2006 hearings on the Hockey Stick, has been stirring things up in Washington again:
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is pressing Energy Secretary Steven Chu for information about department ties to the U.K. climate institute at the center of the controversy over the infamous hacked climate science emails.
Barton, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) wrote to Chu Friday asking about DoE funding for projects connected to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
Observes the Bishop: Coming so soon after the announcement of the UK Parliamentary inquiry, one can’t help but wonder if the timing is entirely coincidental. Nevertheless, shedding sunlight on what has been going on is certainly no bad thing.
UPDATE: The following quote in today’s Telegraph from committee chairman Phil Willis suggests that the panel has a Warmist bias:
“There are a significant number of climate change deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science that has been changed or at worst manipulated.
We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so the public can see what they are saying”
Bishop Hill, meanwhile, has moderate-to-bad news about the panel members, most of whom have Warmist sympathies. Especially the Conservative ones.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
United Nations caught lying again, this time Stormgate
THE UN climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny - and ignored warnings from scientific advisers. The report's author later withdrew the claim because the evidence was too weak.
The link was central to demands at last month's Copenhagen climate summit by African nations for compensation of $US100 billion from the rich nations.
However, the IPCC knew in 2008 that the link could not be proved but did not alert world leaders, who have used weather extremes to bolster the case for action on climate change.
And the world leaders have been spewing the unsubstantiated claims.
PM Kevin Rudd- ""We will feel the effects of climate change fastest and hardest, and therefore we must act this week, and the government will be doing everything possible to make sure that can occur,"
US President Barack Obama- "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."
What is that saying about lies? There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Dam Lies and Statistics.
The UN provided the world with all 3 types.
January 22, 2010
Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg
By Marc Sheppard
Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.
Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.
Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate -- American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”
And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.
As you’ll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering.
NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out
Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it.
Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections -- some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata.
Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.
Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
