Saturday, January 16, 2010

Global cooling: Global warming myth-makers must now switch to "climate change"

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.
Non Science Nonsense
The hacked Hadley emails pulled the curtain on the greatest FRAUD ever perpetrated on the public
By Joseph A Olson, PE
Friday, April 9, 2010
The problem with insatiable greed is that it is….insatiable. There exist among us a group of mega-wealthy megalomaniacs, who have a lust for power that knows no bounds. The world is their monopoly game and their fellow humans are mere place chips to be pushed and shredded for their delight. These demonic demigods have been consolidating their power for centuries and have set their ‘carbon control trap’ to leverage their complete planetary domination.
The East Anglia Event Horizon, on Nov 19, 2009 was a watershed moment in scientific and human history. The hacked Hadley emails pulled the curtain on the greatest FRAUD ever perpetrated on the public. The post industrial monopoly playing pump and dump syndicate made two tactical errors. First, that their well-woven web would not be prematurely disclosed.
The second error was that science was just another commodity that could be pumped and dumped with the same ease as a credit default swap, a derivative or a hedge fund. True scientists are the most objective, most informed and most moral sub-set in the entire human population. Despite two decades of government and Wall Street propaganda, the failed hypothesis of human caused climate change was still totally transparent.
Hadley huckster, Phil Jones
Hadley huckster, Phil Jones stated that the “published emails do not read well”, but in fact they read quite well. The Hadley emails show the level of manipulation, coordination and concealment necessary to foist a world class fraud. Part of that manipulation involved the peer review process and the presumed neutral presenters of science facts, the peer review journals.
Renown hockey stick de-bunker, Ross McKitrick has an article, “Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC” which details the warmist bias of seven peer review publications. This behavior is endemic in the mass media. In a world of nanosecond response, it is interesting how the Jurassic Press responded since the Climategate disclosure six months ago.
Pseudo-science periodicals, Popular Science and Popular Mechanics have both run numerous articles on green energy and carbon footprints every issue for the last six months and not a mention of any unsettling of false climate science. One of the editors of these magazines responded to this author saying “why should I believe you when 95% of the professional climatologists conclude otherwise”. Discover magazine has followed the same template until this month.
In the April 2010 issue of Discover there is an article on the rapid melting of the Greenland ice cap and book review of “Making a Life on a Tough New Planet”, a warmist tome. Another article is hard to mention with a straight face, “Beavers Sign Up to Fight Climate Change”. Supposedly, leaky twig dams built by these rodents offset the effects of amplified flood/drought cycles caused by human burning of fossil fuels.
Rodents play a pivotal role in the climate tale. It is the ‘rats’ on Wall Street who bought out the government and academia. It is the little ‘mice’ at East Anglia and Penn State that sold out our beloved science. And on February 2, 2010 another Pennsylvania rodent broke all American Meteorological records by correctly predicting six additional months of winter for the northeast. Discover magazine then broke their silence and exposed its readers to the possibility of climate orthodoxy conflict.
Cover story, “After Climategate, Coming Clean About Global Warming” is an interview with the creator of the world’s greatest hockey stick, Michael Mann and admitted middle of the road advocate, Judith Curry. What bold journalistic balance, a warmist and a luke warmist discuss warming. The predictably tepid ‘debate’ answered the need for immediate government intervention like this:
DIS: What about risk ? Isn’t it worth heading off even a small risk of catastrophe ?
JC: Oh, absolutely.
DIS: Do you subscribe to the argument that today’s climate models are crude and need to be taken with a grain of salt ?
JC: No, I think the climate models are becoming quite sophisticated. We learn a lot from simulations. But keep in mind that these are scenario simulations. They’re not really forecasts. They don’t know what the volcano eruptions are going to be.
They don’t know what the exact solar cycles are going to be. There are a whole
host of forcing uncertainties in the 21st century that we don’t know.
Mike Mann does his usual chest thumping about the “stolen emails” and the “serious criminal breach”. He then trumpets his whitewash on three of four counts of misconduct by the Penn State inquiry board. Any difference from his contrived orthodoxy is just the product of “the so-called denial machine” and not from true understanding of his flawed hypothesis or his manipulated data sets.
It is ironic that in the same issue, Discover touts the courage of Galileo in challenging the flat Earth hypothesis and three radical theories that challenge Einstein’s ideas of space and time. The latter states, “Physicists should not spin any theories that require the existence of things, such as multiverses, that cannot be disproved”….but oddly, the rest of the science community must accept the warmist spun hypothesis, which also cannot be disproved.
The article “Impossible Particles” describes Galactic supernova explosions which bath the Earth in 100 million times the normal number of cosmic rays. Discover seems to support diversity of opinion on every subject except human caused climate change. Subscribers should never accept the token Curry/Mann interview to be a resolution to the climate conflict.
The Curry comment on forcing factors is worth revisiting. Climate is the final, visible effect of the sum of energy transfers from a variety of sources. The three greatest, in no order of magnitude are Galactic, Solar and terrestrial radiation. The Universe has a heartbeat of gravity and energy waves. These affect both the Earth and the Sun. The Sun has minor fluctuation in total energy, but great variation in various frequency ranges. The Earth’s geo-nuclear reactions are governed by both of these forces and are not constant. These are just some of the unknown climate forcing factors.
Mankind does not know the relationship of all of these forces, cannot control these forces and is in no way responsible for the results of these forces. What mankind can do is identify and control the forces that have chosen to demonize humans and carbon dioxide for the benefit of the privileged ruling elite.
Until 1989 the single greatest act of cowardice had been Neville Chamberlain’s ‘Munich Accord’ with Der Fuehrer. During Tiananmen Square the world teetered on the edge of universal democracy. King Bush the First ended that hope and cast a billion Chinese into continued bondage. King Bush I also bumped human caused research funds from $20 million per year to $2 billion by federal funding of ‘endangerment finding’ research.
When you fund findings for danger, danger is all you find
Funny thing, when you fund findings for danger, danger is all you find. Two unbroken decades of this wasteful spending did indeed convince some that the sky was falling. It also bought the complete cooperation of the fledgling climate scientists. Those not bribed directly were silenced out of respect for their ‘profession’. That explains the 95% of climatologists support for AGW mentioned by the Popular Mechanics editor.
Wrapping climatology in the science mantle was premature and undeserved when compared to the traditional sciences. Imagine the dangerous world we would live in if material science had a three day prediction rate of just 50%. Bridges would collapse during construction, planes would fall apart on their test flights, OH WAIT. Those things did happen and true science analyzed the failures and took corrective action.
If the ‘climate science’ community continues its silence on the AGW fraud, then it is incumbent on the balance of the science community to publicly rebuke them. Science is the vanguard for civilization and has no business distorting itself for political motives, even if there is perceived benevolence. In this case the political motive is demonic population control and reduction.
The Blessed Hadley Hacking has exposed the false science of human caused warming
The Blessed Hadley Hacking has exposed the false science of human caused warming. It prematurely tipped the elitist hand and they are in a mad scramble to put their draconian plans in place before their victims awake. Robbed of the warming argument, the carbon tax, trading schemes and funding, the evil elite must face defeat. The elite’s villainous reign has reached its end game with one thing left for me to tell. I will be a hound on their heels from here unto hell. That Lucifer palace from whence they came, that warmist world that they know so well.

Climate Wars!
Billions are at stake so far as the “climate scientists” are concerned, Climate wars shift into a new phase, one intended to obfuscate and confuse the public again
By Alan Caruba
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Wars come and go, cities are destroyed and rebuilt, monuments are erected, and life goes on. This is the traditional view of war, but right now the world is engaged in the latest battle of a “climate war” that has been going on since the 1970s when the Club of Rome concluded in a report titled, “The real enemy then, is humanity itself”, that the world’s population had to be reduced.
Whereas wars in the modern era have killed millions and communism as practiced in the former Soviet Union and the early decades of Red China under Chairman Mao killed millions more on a scale with which war could not compete, the advocates of population reduction rival the worst despots to have ever walked among us.
With the revelations from leaked emails between the conspirators who kept the global warming fraud going for many years, the so-called “climate scientists” who, in fact, had created phony computer models and engaged in endless studies to “prove” that global warming posed a threat to mankind, the term “Climategate” was coined to describe their collusion.
Billions are at stake so far as the “climate scientists” are concerned
Billions are at stake so far as the “climate scientists” are concerned. They have received millions for their research in the United States and in England. Presumably other nations, too, have provided such grants and the result of the research must always be a continuation of the “global warming” fraud. Beyond the scientists are those who profit from the sale of “carbon credits” to permit “greenhouse gas emissions”, and the millions that environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, and others rake in.
It is no surprise, then, that those who have been victimized by the fraud will see a coordinated campaign of opinion editorials in newspapers, advertisements, and other means to keep the “global warming” fraud intact. These efforts have been renamed “climate change”, but therein lies the utter mendacity of the campaign because the Earth has always passed through cycles of climate change and always will.
On February 15th, the Boston Globe published an opinion editorial by Kerry Emanuel, the director of the Program in Atmosphere, Oceans, and Climate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was filled with the usual “global warming” themes; the repetition of the lie that carbon dioxide and other minor atmospheric gases are causing a huge shift that is warming the Earth. Smoothly, the inaccuracies of climate computer models are dismissed as “uncertainties” resulting in “divergent predictions.”
The finest weather-related computer models available are unable to account for the action of clouds, an essential element in weather everywhere, nor can they include the unknown effects of countless undersea volcanoes in the world’s oceans that are another contributing factor. At best, if your local weatherman can accurately predict what will occur in the next two to four days, he’s doing fine.
Predicting what the climate—not the weather—will be decades and even centuries from now is pure fiction. It is the claim that is central to “global warming” and/or “climate change.”
In a rebuttal to Emanuel’s opinion editorial, Bill Gray, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University, noted that “A high percentage of meteorologists and/or climate scientists do not agree that the climate changes we have seen are mostly man-made. Thousands of us think that the larger part of the climate changes we have observed over the last century are of natural origin.” He added, “Over 31,000 American scientists have recently signed a petition advising the U.S. not to sign any fossil fuel reduction treaty.”
Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has just released a statement based on the release of still more emails between desperate “climate scientists” whose careers depend on the “global warming” fraud.
“According to recently disclosed e-mails from a National Academies of Science listserv, prominent climate scientists affiliated with the U.S. National Academies of Science, have been planning a public campaign to paper over the damaged reputation of global warming alarmism.”
The emails explored the ways the public could be distracted from the revelations of Climategate and enticed back to believing that “global warming” is based in real science and occurring. Among the suggestions were “Op eds in the NY Times and other national newspapers would also be great.”
Referring to this as a climate war is no exaggeration. One email said, “Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.” One of those rules most certainly is to tell the truth!
What the public has never grasped is that this is not a science-based war. It is entirely political in nature and the Green’s enemy has been the resource industries, oil, natural gas, and coal, that provide the means by which energy is generated for industrial use and for societies that depend on electricity to function. The subtext of the war is the deliberate destruction of human life on the planet on a mass scale.
That explains why it is especially troubling that President Obama continues to refer to global warming as real, and advocates “cap-and-trade” legislation, the largest tax on energy use in the history of mankind. It is the reason he continues to divert millions to “clean energy” and “green jobs”, neither of which have ever proven to equal traditional energy sources or provide sufficient employment to merit support.
Climate wars shift into a new phase, one intended to obfuscate and confuse the public again
So now the climate wars shift into a new phase, one intended to obfuscate and confuse the public again in the quest to foist the greatest fraud and attack on mankind in human history.
The Climate Funding Trough; The Canadian Example
Misuse of Funding By Environment Canada
By Dr. Tim Ball
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Exposure of corrupt climate science and fraudulent claims has completely upended the climate debate. Now the climate skeptics and deniers are those who pushed the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claim. Falsely accused of receiving oil company money, I know how they used funding to smear people. In reality, almost all the funding came from government and because of the political objective went to block science and promote propaganda. The US Department of Energy (DOE) and other government agencies provided a portion of the approximately $21 million research funding obtained by climate researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
Joanne Nova provided a detailed analysis of US funding in a study for the Science and Public Policy Institute and put the figure at $79 billion since 1998.
Now, politicians aware that misuse of tax money angers, scramble to address the issue while avoiding accusations that they don’t care about the environment. They won’t escape those accusations but leadership is about making tough, fair, and logical decisions.
In a legitimate and necessary action, Prime Minister Harper has stopped funding government agencies used to promote biased and false climate science.
How Canadians Funded False Climate Science
A Calgary Herald (February 23) article, “Canadian climate scientists fight for renewed research funding,” tells a far from complete story. It claims a petition signed by 1,400 students and researchers demands new funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), which they say will die otherwise. There’s the usual emotional appeal; “The foundation’s projects at universities across the country, which are seen as key to understanding the remarkable change underway in the climate, are already being dismantled. And young scientists, trained at substantial cost to the taxpayers, have begun leaving the country in search of work.” But there are no remarkable changes in the climate except in the falsified reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and nothing to support the claim of students leaving the country. The article provides no background of how and why the Foundation was created, which is essential to understanding the story.
Why the Funding Agency Was Established
Environment Canada set up CFCAS as just one program to control climate research and funding. Gordon McBean was Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of Environment Canada (EC) in 2000 when $61 million was assigned to CFCAS. He became Chairman of the Foundation in the month he retired from EC and continues in that position today. A further $50 million was given in 2004.
McBean had extensive involvement in the exposed climate fiasco. He chaired the 1985 meeting in Villach, Austria, that established the IPCC. Phil Jones, now deposed and discredited Director of the CRU and his predecessor Tom Wigley were also in attendance. Both were at the heart of the corruption of climate research exposed in the leaked emails. They also controlled the IPCC process by assuring Lead Author (LA) status for CRU and affiliated people for critical chapters in the Science Report (Working Group I) including atmospheric chemistry, paleoclimates, and computer models. Most important was their control of the science provided to politicians in the Summary for Policymakers group. The Herald article says, Andrew Weaver, Canadian computer modeler, “likens last fall’s no-cash extension to postponing critical life-saving surgery.” Weaver was LA of the modeling chapter of the IPCC Reports and his name appears in the leaked emails.
McBean joined EC in 1994, and promoted total acceptance of the IPCC Reports while the Department excluded climate scientists marginalized as skeptics. Former Minister of Natural Resources David Anderson announced he’d consulted all Canadian climate experts on Kyoto. Eight of us went to Ottawa and held a press conference to say none of us were included. Sixty of us wrote a letter to Prime Minister Harper asking for inclusion and open debate on the issue – nothing happened.
Money went to research proving the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, thus thwarting the normal scientific method that tries to disprove the theory. As Princeton Physicist William Happer says about the theory, “It’s not falsifiable. Serious scientists, when they look at this, say this is an example of a theory that cannot be falsified and a theory that cannot be falsified is not science. It’s religion.” Money also went to agencies promoting the AGW claim and programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, specifically CO2 and methane. Trouble is, they were unnecessary because neither CO2 nor methane are causing warming or climate change. Because of their involvement with IPCC, Environment Canada didn’t want to know. They made it national policy despite the evidence of corruption and falsity of the science.
Misuse of Funding By Environment Canada
Money to support the singular approach to climate research came from department funding diverted from other uses. Weather stations were closed; Canada has fewer stations now than in 1960. Many were converted to Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS) so unreliable that NavCanada initially rejected them when they took charge of airports. Services were curtailed and data was restricted or only available with payment. The Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board (ARMAB) was told by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) Environment Canada wanted several thousand dollars for a single DVD of weather data for research to “drought proof” the Prairies. Environment Canada employees sought and competed with private companies for contracts. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific used two EC employees when sued for non-delivery of grain by the Canadian Wheat Board. These and other diversions from primary goals caused complaints that triggered public inquiries.
Environment Canada funding was directed to research that studied the impact of global warming. The IPCC Technical or Science Report of Working Group I incorrectly claims warming is due to CO2. The major project the Herald article cites, “studies interactions governing the climate and how to adapt to coming change that could transform large swaths of Canada.” So all EC research assumes the world is warming but the world is cooling and has for 15 years as Phil Jones now concedes. Taxpayers are now expected to continue funding research based on incorrect and falsified science preparing us for the wrong threat.
Prevention of Further Waste Is Necessary
Could this be avoided? Absolutely! All you need to understand is why and how the process was set up. Maurice Strong told Elaine Dewar he could not achieve his goal of getting rid of the industrialized nations as a politician, but could get all the money he wanted and not be accountable through the UN. He set up the IPCC and used the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to get access to the weather services in each country. They then diverted funding to the self-proclaimed national emergency of global warming. We must direct funding through agencies already established with filters necessary to eliminate any political bias or influence.
Scientific research is funded through the peer review process of NSERC (National Science Engineering & Research Council), why not all climate research? Graduate research in other areas is done through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Medical Research Council (MRC). There are no guarantees, but with bureaucrats doing or controlling research funding, political bias is almost guaranteed. Environment Canada must be forced back to their mandate of collecting data and providing weather forecasts. They should not do research or have control of research funding. The damage done to climate science and the creation of unnecessary energy and climate policies must stop. News reports require context; without it, stories like claims for more funding for CFCAS provide a completely false impression of sensible actions by a government.
Warmer Of The Day
John Kerry: The science “has been maligned and misinterpreted, and we need to fight back"
By Bob Parks
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The arrogance of this Capitol Hill bunch never ceases to amaze.
Even though the majority of Americans don’t want socialized medicine, Democrats will ram or shove it up a bodily orifice. Even though a new poll shows that “56 percent of those surveyed don’t trust the things scientists say about the environment”, John Kerry is going to make sure “climate legislation” that would limit carbon dioxide emissions is also rammed through…
“What we have to do is go on the offensive.” The science “has been maligned and misinterpreted, and we need to fight back… people (need to) stop being moved by these talk show (hosts) and start looking for the facts” themselves.” — Senator John Kerry, interview with the Boston Globe, 3/8/10
If the science has been “maligned”, I would counter that the maligning happened after the revelations of emails where scientists talked freely about manipulating (and withholding Freedom of Information requests challenging) data. If the science was “misinterpreted”, it was intentionally done so by scientists who wanted that grant money flowing in, despite findings that proved their findings were wrong.
Climatology: A Generalist Study In a Specialized World
Confused Public
By Dr. Tim Ball
Thursday, February 25, 2010
In the climate debate most are struggling because they can’t see the forest for the trees.
They’re confused by disagreements between scientists and the diversity of information from a multitude of areas.
Their dilemmas are a function of 200 years of evolution of knowledge and research, especially in weather and climate.
Historical Developments
We talk about Renaissance people, those with a wide range of knowledge, but not Universal people. The last identified as such was Alexander von Humboldt who reportedly knew all known science and was familiar through visits with all continents except Antarctica. Intriguingly, he died in 1859 the same year Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published.
Knowledge proliferated beyond the ability of one person to encompass even part of a discipline and academic departments multiplied accordingly. Gradually study and knowledge became specialized and compartmentalized. Further isolation occurred in introductory university courses with unique terminology and definition of terms. They institutionalized knowledge and thereby limited understanding. A student said he didn’t mention something in an exam because he learned it in another department and didn’t think it could be applied.
Interdisciplinary Studies
In the 1970s the trend to specialization triggered another academic reaction with further expansion, but no solution. People in the real world were confronted with problems that required integrated and generalized solutions, but found they couldn’t get useful information from academia. A farmer told me he went to the local university department of agriculture about problems with his soil. They only had specialists dealing with singular components such as trace minerals. Gradually new composite departments appeared under the rubric of interdisciplinary studies around society’s problems. Chief among these were departments of Environmental Studies, which attracted Arts students imbued with the new environmental goal of saving the planet, but most issues required understanding science.
Climatology is a generalist discipline and comes from the Greek word klimat that means angle referring to the angle of the sun. It studies the patterns of weather in a region or over time. Ancient Greeks determined there were three zones, Hot, Temperate and Frigid. In a historical twist most people knew about meteorology before they knew about climatology. It’s odd because meteorology is a specific part of climatology, the study of physics of the atmosphere. Momentum came from attempts to measure and understand the atmosphere and how the interactions that create weather. Meteorology continued ascendancy during World War I as pilots needed accurate forecasts. It’s why most weather stations are at airports and now suffer from interference from growing urban centers. Climatology gained attention in the academic world through the work of various people like Reid Bryson in the US, Kenneth Hare in Canada, Mikhail Budyko in Russia and Hubert Lamb in England. It only came to public attention when it became political.
Early Identification of the Real Problems in Climate Science Hubert Lamb, founder of the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia, would be mortified at how his creation was misused. He set it up separate from the UKMO because there was no interest in climatology. As he explained in his autobiography, “When the Climatic Research Unit was founded, it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climates in times before any side effect of human activities could well be important. A world-wide record was needed, particularly on the time scale of human history – a project which, surprisingly, no other body had attempted in any coordinated way. There was only one other similar, institution anywhere else in the world, the Center for Climatic Research set up by Reid Bryson in the University of Wisconsin at Madison in the nineteen-fifties, which soon became the nucleus for an Institute of Environmental Studies.” Inadequate historic data is still a problem and was a factor behind my doctoral research. The shift to Environmental Studies undermined Madison and many other programs but Lamb identifies the worst problem and one I experienced. Nobody was interested in getting the data needed to understand weather and climate. As Lamb explains, “We are living in a time when the glamour of the much more expensive work of the mathematical modeling laboratories, and the tempting prospect of their theoretical prediction, are stealing the limelight.” He hired a modeler, Tom Wigley, and the CRU degenerated to the fiasco exposed in the leaked emails.
The fiasco revolved around falsification of two specialized areas: the modern temperature record, which Phil Jones, former Director of the CRU manipulated and still denies the data and record to the world; and the hockey stick reconstruction produced by Michael Mann. The hockey stick evaded inspection because as Professor Wegman said in his Report to the US Senate inquiry, “In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.”
People wonder how they controlled climate science for so long and to such an extent. Climatology is a small community with a multitude of smaller specialized communities within. All paleoclimatologists had to do was counteract another specialized group, historical climatologists, to prove the Medieval Warm Period did not exist. It was Mann using mathematical models and statistics against those doing what Lamb promoted using a multitude of historic sources.
However, it was the statistics that exposed the fraud. “It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.” Statistics is a common analytical technique across specialties and Steve McIntyre’s skills as a statistician triggered his concerns, not climate knowledge. Cover-up by Mann and the gang then exposed how the problem was much more than bad statistical techniques. Wegman again; “Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.” Remember this assessment was done before the emails were leaked.
Fundamentals Transcend Specialization
Climatology is a generalist study in a world of specialist studies, which requires linkage and understanding. A good analogy is climate is a jigsaw puzzle with thousands of pieces. Each specialist has one piece of the puzzle but doesn’t know where it fits and we don’t have the box top. Meanwhile society has glorified the shift to domination of people who are extremely specialized. Consider the comment, “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist” used to suggest a rocket scientist is superior. Then consider, “You don’t have to be a farmer.” It rings odd because we have a low opinion of farmers and the demands of what they do. In reality the farmer is a generalist who must know everything including soils, plants, chemicals, equipment, markets, not to mention the weather.
Inadequate mainstream coverage of CRU/IPCC scandals is an outrage but equaled by lack of protest from most scientists. Silence over corruption of the peer review process is disturbing. Maybe it’s blindness induced by funding or politics, but mostly specialization is the cause. Lack of knowledge of other specialties is a problem, but issues that cross boundaries do trigger concern. Some scientists address fundamental and therefore generalist issues. For example, Princeton Physicist William Happer said, “It’s unbelievable, you hear of an event when the weather’s warm and it’s proof of global warming. Then if the weather’s cold, that’s proof of global warming as well. And that reveals the problem with the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are causing a climate catastrophe. It’s not falsifiable. Serious scientists, when they look at this, say this is an example of a theory that cannot be falsified and a theory that cannot be falsified is not science. It’s religion.” AMEN!
Science vs Alarmism
by Tom DeWeese
February 16, 2010
4th International Conference on Climate Change
It has been an amazing year, watching the once-powerful global warming movement virtually collapse into scandal and disrepute as the “climategate” revelations of data tampering continue to grow.
I have written many times on these pages that “there is no man-made global warming.” The powerful global warming lobby has attacked its opponents of “cooler heads” scientists who have demanded facts rather than political agendas. The Global Warming alarmists have blocked grants from being given to researchers that dispute their findings that the earth is being destroyed by human civilization. They have intimidated science publications that dare print opposing reports. They have even called for “Nureumberg-style show trials for anyone who dares disagree with them.
And so it was for almost two decades. However, just a couple of years ago a group of courageous scientists were given the opportunity to have their say, in opposition to the alarmists strong-arm tactics. First through congressional hearings chaired by U.S. Senate Environment Committee Chairman James Inhofe. Those hearings were the first time the Global Warming “skeptics” were given a public voice. The results were astounding. Cracks began to surface in the once mighty global warming juggernaut.
Then the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free-market think tank sponsored the first ever Climate Change conference featuring the “skeptics” viewpoint. More than 700 of them gathered in New York City to tell the world of their findings that clearly disputed the claims of global warming. That conference and the Senate hearings started a lively debate between the two sides. No longer could the acolytes of Al Gore claim consensus. Far from it. In a short time the tide began to turn. Global warming was losing its stranglehold on policy. Legislation like Cap and Trade, once considered unstoppable, was suddenly derailed.
Then came the December, 2009 Climategate scandal. On the eve of the most important International Climate Change conference in history, in which the final provisions for world-wide environmental restrictions were to be imposed on every nation in the world, scandal erupted. Ten years worth of e-mail correspondence among the leading Climate Change proponents revealed devastating details of manipulation of research data for the purpose of supporting a cynical political agenda based on global warming propaganda. The e-mails, in fact, revealed precisely what the “skeptics” had been claiming all along, that climate change had very little to do with environmental protection – and everything to do with the creation of a new global economic system intent on wealth redistribution. And the climate change walls came tumbling down.
Now, in May, 2010, in Chicago, the Heartland Institute is going to hold its 4th International Climate Change Conference – the first since the Climategate scandal was revealed. This event may well be the final nail in global warming’s coffin.
You can be there to witness history. The American Policy Center and the DeWeese Report are proud to be co-sponsors of this historic event. And I invite you to join me at this incredible event. Mingle and meet with more than 900 scientists and policy makers who have stood up to the global warming alarmists.
You will not want to miss the address by Lord Christopher Monckton, the man who has challenged Al Gore to a debate on the issue, a “anywhere, anytime.” And you will hear from scientists like Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Patrick Michaels, who have fought right from the beginning against the lies of the global warming alarmists. The speaker lists includes more than 70 scientists, economists and policy experts, including two former astronauts.
IPCC And CRU Are The Same Corrupt Organization
Legacy: Billions of Dollars and Unmeasured Loss of Lives
By Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, February 8, 2010
Cost of the corruption of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is likely a trillion dollars already and there is no measure of the lives lost because of unnecessary reactions like biofuels affecting food supplies. Stories appear about the corruption at the IPCC and others about the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most people, including the media, don’t seem to realize the IPCC is the CRU. Some articles mention both but don’t make the connection. A recent article in the Globe and Mail is a good example.
The article is a small shift because the Globe has consistently promoted human caused warming and attacked skeptics. However, failure to make the connection allows people involved to develop defenses, withdraw from associations or go into hiding.
A Very Large Cast
Universities and governments are already whitewashing the behavior of prominent individuals like Phil Jones and Michael Mann. Nobody else involved with the scandal is facing even biased internal investigation. Many are not mentioned in the limited media reports on the scandal. People like Mike Hulme, Tom Wigley, Benjamin Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Raymond Bradley, John Holdren, Jonathan Overpeck, Caspar Amman, Michael Oppenheimer, Tom Crowley, Gavin Schmidt, William Connolley, Tim Osborn, Thomas Karl, Andrew Weaver, Eric Steig, and all names on the CRU emails require investigation. They had to know what was going on, partly because they all used the same vehicles of attack and deception. By investigating only two individuals the collective culpability of the CRU and the IPCC goes unchallenged. Investigation of two individuals underscores the false claim there are one or two “bad apples” but the overall science is unaffected. The IPCC received a Nobel Prize collectively; they must bear the blame collectively.
There are also those in government who acted in extremely questionable ways. Chief among these are members of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) including John Mitchell. He was review editor of the IPCC and initially denied access to information then claimed it was erased. The UKMO later said the information existed but said it was protected information. The Telegraph newspaper said of this, Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.
What was the role of government officials who selected their country’s representatives to prevent skeptics participating. Such was apparently the case in Canada, the UK and likely the US. UK Science advisor John Beddington has already said failure to include skeptics was a mistake. “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.” The problem is exacerbated when it is still an active policy of government. Work for the next IPCC Report is underway and there’s no apparent change in participants or procedures. CRU people were involved from the start and triggered the first problems
Corruption From the Start
After the IPCC was formed at Villach Austria in 1988 work began on the first Report that appeared in 1990. This report is no longer available on the IPCC website. It included Figure 7.1c the diagram of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) that challenged the CRU claim the 20th century was the warmest ever. (Figure 1). This led to the first major corruption as they rewrote the historic record by creating the hockey stick.
(Right_Figure 1: The controversial Figure 7.1c in IPCC 1990 Report)
There is extensive discussion of the origin of the diagram in a January 5, 2007 email from Phil Jones, disgraced Director of the CRU and Wikipedia exploiter William Connolley. As Jones says, I’ve added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to see if we can definitively determine where the figure in the subject title comes from. The background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I’d like to prove that it is a schematic and it isn’t based on real data, but on presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s. If you think it is based on something real. What we’d like to do is show this either on ‘Real Climate’ or as background in a future paper, or both. The diagram contradicted the hockey stick graph in the 2001 Report so proving it was not valid strengthened the case. At the same time they undermined the credibility of Soon and Baliunas who proved existence of the MWP in a multitude of other records.
The first public exposure was dubbed the Chapter 8 scandal and involved Benjamin Santer. He was lead author of that chapter and rewrote portions without consulting other authors. As Lord Monckton explains, “In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature — I’ve seen a copy of this — Santer went through, crossed out all of those, and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.” Santer originally denied the accusations and said his actions were covered by the rules that required the Scientific Report agree with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). It was an early measure of the way the CRU people used the rules to control the results. They even stared down a senior US scientist Dr Frederick Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences over the issue.
CRU control increased in degree and extent. It became arrogant and bullying so they believed they could control all aspects. They accepted as fact the unproven hypothesis that increasing human CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a runaway global temperature. With the help of bureaucrats they ensured exclusion of skeptics. They falsified the weather record of stations and used a reduced number to prove their claims. Phil Jones refused to disclose how he calculated the increase of 0.6°C since the end of the 19th century. This with the hockey stick was pivotal in the claim for human causes in the 2001 IPCC Report. Jones still fails to disclose the information. They built models with inadequate data and programmed them to produce the results they wanted. They left out major parts of the natural system of climate effectively ignoring the Sun, water vapor, and geothermal heat among others. They controlled published literature, the peer review process, and what was included in the Reports. They controlled and falsified the world’s view of climate change by deliberately releasing the Summary For Policymakers (SPM) with all its exaggerations and limitations. That the factual Technical Reports were required to agree with the political SPM indicates deliberate deception.
The Cost Is Enormous
The CRU is the IPCC. Their work has cost the world an enormous amount of grief, conflict and money. It is time to total the massive amounts of money given to narrowly directed research; the cost of the impact on energy policy and economies; the lost jobs and opportunities from industries forced out of business; the unnecessary subsidies to research and businesses chasing unworkable alternate energies; the taxes and legislative restrictions on businesses and other activities. They provided the false vehicle to carry left wing policies of tax and total control followed by President Obama. Their deception has set world progress back at massive cost and it is time they are all held accountable.
Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say
Researchers discover that the global-warming myth is based on data from only a small fraction of weather stations in the warmer areas of the world. Data from colder areas are replaced by computer models programmed by global-warming myth-makers. Yes, global warming truly IS man made.
Richard Foot, Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.
Two months after "climategate" cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.
Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.
In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.
Yet as American researchers Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses "just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees."
Both the authors, and the institute, are well-known in climate-change circles for their skepticism about the threat of global warming.
Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have "cherry picked" the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.
A weather research laboratory located on Ellesmere Island at Eureka, Nunavut
Over the past two decades, they say, "the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half."
Using the agency's own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA's Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.
Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.
They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead "interpolates" or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from "nearby" temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.
The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.
"NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."
The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York.
Neither agency responded to a request for comment Wednesday from Canwest News Service. However Hanson did issue a public statement on the matter earlier this week.
"NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis," he said. "The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures."
In addition to the allegations against NOAA and GISS, climate scientists are also dealing with the embarrassment this week of the false glacier-melt warning contained in the 2007 report of the UN Panel on Climate Change. That report said Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear within three decades if current rates of melting continue.
This week, however, the panel admitted there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim.
The revelations come only two months after the "climategate" scandal, in which the leak or theft of thousands of e-mails -- private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain -- showed that a group of influential climatologists tried for years to manipulate global warming data, rig the scientific peer-review process and keep their methods secret from other, contrary-minded researchers.
The mini ice age starts here
Global cooling is here and may last for 20 or 30 years according to eminent climate scientists. Global warming myth-makers must now switch to "climate change" as their new bogyman.
by David Rose
Last updated on 10th January 2010
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.
They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.
This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.
However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.
This image of the UK taken from NASA's multi-national Terra satellite on Thursday, 07 January 2010, shows the extent of the freezing weather
Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’.
Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.
Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.
He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.
Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.
'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.
‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’
As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.
Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.
The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.
On the one hand, it is true that the current freeze is the product of the ‘Arctic oscillation’ – a weather pattern that sees the development of huge ‘blocking’ areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south.
Meteorologists say that this is at its strongest for at least 60 years.
As a result, the jetstream – the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain – is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar.
However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs).
For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming.
But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.
'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.
'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’
Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.
Pictures of the snow in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, last week show the city is the coldest it has been since 1970
But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise.
Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago.
For example, in 1922, the Washington Post reported that Greenland’s glaciers were fast disappearing, while Arctic seals were ‘finding the water too hot’.
It interviewed a Captain Martin Ingebrigsten, who had been sailing the eastern Arctic for 54 years: ‘He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, and since that time it has gotten steadily warmer.
'Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended into the sea they have entirely disappeared.’
As a result, the shoals of fish that used to live in these waters had vanished, while the sea ice beyond the north coast of Spitsbergen in the Arctic Ocean had melted.
Warm Gulf Stream water was still detectable within a few hundred miles of the Pole.
In contrast, Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow.
‘That hasn’t happened for several decades,’ he pointed out. ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’
He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world’s media were preoccupied by fears of freezing.
For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted ‘Another Ice Age’, saying: ‘Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.’
Prof Tsonis said: ‘Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.’
Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.
'This isn't just a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while'
But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.
'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’
Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.
He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’
He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.
The work of Profs Latif, Tsonis and their teams raises a crucial question: If some of the late 20th Century warming was caused not by carbon dioxide but by MDOs, then how much?
Tsonis did not give a figure; Latif suggested it could be anything between ten and 50 per cent.
Other critics of the warming orthodoxy say the role played by MDOs is even greater.
William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect.
According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’
But last week, die-hard warming advocates were refusing to admit that MDOs were having any impact.
In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.
Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.
'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’
The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion.
Also See:
Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill, Global Warming - Who Benefits?
Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?