A Message To All "Climate Scientists"

ClimateGate has revealed how rotten to the core the world of climate science is. All scientists in every field should be appalled and ashamed of the hoax that is man-caused global warming and climate change. The entire charade has been a distraction away from legitimate environmental and societal concerns. The following excerpt says clearly what many think about so-called climate scientists. Follow this link to read the entire article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/judith-i-love-ya-but-youre-way-wrong/#more-16698
Peter

"Notable Quotes"

"The solution is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science. The solution is for you establishment climate scientists to police your own back yard. When Climategate broke, there was widespread outrage … well, widespread everywhere except in the climate science establishment. Other than a few lone voices, the silence there was deafening. Now there is another whitewash investigation, and the silence only deepens.

And you wonder why we don’t trust you? Here’s a clue. Because a whole bunch of you are guilty of egregious and repeated scientific malfeasance, and the rest of you are complicit in the crime by your silence. Your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes."

source

Willis Eschenbach

A Voice Of Reason About Global Warming And Climate Change

And I might say, a very welcome and wise voice of reason. As I have been saying since I began this blog, this is really serious business folks! There are Billions and Billions of dollars at stake. If this global warming hoax and fraud is allowed to continue everyone on Earth will suffer far more than from any natural disaster.

Please note the author of the following is a PhD. (Harvard I think) Geologist, NOT a politician. It is a shame more geologists don't speak up and speak out, because I know most agree with Dr. Harrison Schmitt.
Peter

More than a rock collector

FROM-Pajamas Media

Climategate: What We Should Be Doing About Natural Climate Change


Just because AGW is a fraud doesn't mean that we should ignore the natural and cyclical changes in the Earth's temperature.

by Harrison Schmitt

Earth’s climate changes are extraordinarily complex phenomena. They represent decadal, to millennial, to epochal changes in weather patterns as nature continuously attempts to compensate for solar heating imbalances in and between the atmosphere and oceans.

Nature’s attempts to restore heat balance take place under the complicating influences of the Earth’s inclined daily rotation, movement and release of heat stored in the oceans, aerosol production by many natural processes, water and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, and periodically changing orbital position and orientation relative to the sun. In spite of all these variables and more, the Earth currently controls its temperature in a very narrow range as shown by satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere (troposphere) since 1979.

Global surface and near surface temperatures have risen about half a degree Centigrade (about 0.9 degree Fahrenheit) each 100 years since the minimum temperatures of the Little Ice Age in 1660. Multi-decade intervals of more rapid warming and cooling have occurred during this current, centuries-long general warming trend as they have for over 10,000 years since the last major ice age.

Indeed, by the end of the 17th century, glaciers had advanced over valley farmlands cultivated as those same glaciers receded during the preceding Medieval Warm Period (about 800-1300). Since the last major ice age, decades long periods of warming and cooling have been superposed on longer cycles, the longest repeating about every 1500 years.

All of this has occurred without any significant human activity. Cooling between 1935 and 1975 and since 2000, and warming between 1975 and 1995 have been the most recent such variations and correlate strongly with variations in solar activity.

In contrast to these facts, climate change assumptions and computer modeling, rather than real-world observations, underpin the government’s efforts to restrict American liberties and confiscate trillions of dollars of American income in the name of “doing something” about climate change. The scientific rationale behind this proposed massive intrusion into American life requires more than a “consensus” of like-minded climate analysts and bureaucrats. It needs to be right.

Recent disclosures and admissions of scientific misconduct by the United Nations and advocates of the human-caused global warming hypothesis shows the fraudulent foundation of this much-ballyhooed but non-existent scientific consensus about climate.

Still, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other government agencies persist in over-stepping their regulatory authority to jam climate related regulations into our lives and economy at the expense of liberty, jobs, and incomes. Federal control of energy production and use, advocated by special “climate” interests, will have a vanishingly small effect on slowing three and a half centuries of very slow, erratic, but natural global warming.

A long-term federal and commercial agenda to gather power and profit in the name of “environment” at the expense of liberty has no constitutional foundation. The Tenth Amendment leaves to the states all governance responsibility for environment as no direct or indirect mention of it exists in the Constitution. Prudent protection of local environments by the states and the people does have justification in the Ninth Amendment’s protection of natural rights, including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as formalized in the Declaration of Independence. The Feds need to butt out!

So, what should the people do now about climate, if anything? We must prepare to adapt to inevitable change, however unpredictable it may seem. We can recognize that production and use of our own domestic oil, gas, coal, and nuclear resources buys us time to meet these challenges and, at the same time, preserve our liberty.

We can develop far better surface and space observational techniques and use them consistently over decades to better understand the science of our Earth. On political time scales, we can quit taking actions with unknown and unintended consequences. We can choose sustained research and development of energy alternatives, those with clear paths to commercialization, rather than continue tax dollar subsidies and loan guarantees for premature or flawed introduction of politically motivated concepts. We can provide investment and business environments that will advance new sources of energy, particularly through reduction of personal and business income tax rates.

Basically, instead of being ideologically greedy and ignoring good science and economics, we can start being wise and truly concerned about our children, and their children, and the society in which they will live.

Harrison Schmitt is a a former senator from New Mexico and a geologist. He walked on the Moon as part of the crew of Apollo 17.

Climate Change? We've Been Lied To

Yes, we've been lied to, played for fools, defrauded, and worse; we've been and are being deceived by the mainstream media who pretend they are so caring and honest (think Brian Williams of NBC), and once reputable newspapers like the New York Times actively hide the truth or simply ignore it.

Then consider the garbage continually spewed out about the dangers of climate change by Newsweek Magazine, NBC and MSNBC, totally ignoring, or yes, denying the fact that man-caused global warming has been shown to be a complete fraud. Of course one must remember that these operations are purely propaganda mills for their owner, General Electric (GE).

Do you ever wonder why the Obama Administration is pushing so hard for "cap and trade" and regulating and taxing "carbon emissions"? Could it be that GE, a staunch supporter and financial contributor to Obama, happens to have Billions at stake with their "clean coal technology", wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power plants, and light bulbs. This is big, dirty business folks, and we Americans, in fact everyone on Earth is being screwed by these people, organizations, and the naive , "useful idiots" who have swallowed this man-caused global warming nonsense and "save Mother Earth" ideology. We had better wake up and stop this lunacy now!
Peter

The ‘snow job’ we know as global warming

FROM- The Times Herald

By DEROY MURDOCK

Some 49 of these 50 United States simultaneously laughed at so-called “global warming.” Every state but Hawaii had measurable snow on Feb. 13. An average eight inches covered 68.1 percent of the continental U.S., well above January’s more typical 51.2 percent.

Warmists correctly retort that a cold snap is no pattern. Instead, listen to East Anglia University climatologist Dr. Phil Jones. This world-famous advocate of so-called “global warming” conceded to the BBC that Earth’s positive temperature trend between 1995 and 2009 is “not significant.”

Jones, the chief figure in the “Climategate” e-mails scandal, rejected the oft-stated claim that “warming”-related science is settled. “This is not my view,” Jones said. “There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties...”

Thus, it has become nearly impossible to hear about “global warming” without giggling. The so-called “global warming” that Albert Gore promised has yielded to global cooling. Meanwhile, Gore’s vaunted scientific “consensus” has collapsed, like a roof buckled beneath too much snow:

• NASA is fending off charges that it “dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based,” according to Weather Channel founder John Coleman. Average global temperatures are calculated based on observations from some 1,500 weather stations today, versus about 6,000 in the 1970s. Canadian stations have fallen to 35 from 600.

Icecap.us meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, another Weather Channel veteran, says NASA has removed “higher-latitude, high-altitude” locations from its sample. Andean weather gauges, for instance, are overlooked, while regional temperatures now are based on readings “on the coast or in the Amazon,” D’Aleo says. He compares this to calculating Minneapolis’ average temperature by checking thermometers in St. Louis and Kansas City.

•The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) purports to be for “warming” science what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is to U.S. fiscal policy. If CBO were caught with a broken abacus making multiple errors, however, some politically motivated, it might face IPCC’s current level of embarrassment.

•In its Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report, IPCC’s Dr. Murari Lal asserts that so-called “global warming” would melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035, first drowning Asians in flash floods, and then dehydrating them beside desiccated rivers. Dr. Lal’s source for this apocalyptic vision was a non-scientific, 2005 World Wildlife Fund report, one of 16 non-peer-reviewed WWF papers that IPCC considered “evidence.” WWF, in turn, recycled two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain. WWF’s study also featured a massive mathematical mistake. It stated that a glacier receded at 134 meters (439 feet) annually. The correct distance was 23 meters (75 feet). WWF calculated annual shrinkage by dividing 121 years of glacier loss by 21, not 121. Oops!

•IPCC claimed that African, Alpine, and Andean mountain tops had lost ice between 1900 and 2000 “due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming.” One source for this conclusion was an unpublished master’s-degree geography thesis that quoted observations from Swiss mountain guides. IPCC also cited a 2002 “Climbing” magazine article that quoted mountaineers who had scaled glaciers since the 1970s.

“There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense,” Professor Richard Tol of Dublin’s Economic and Social Research Institute, said in January 30’s London Daily Telegraph.

Such monkeyshines have dominated this issue for four decades. As IPCC author Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

These revelations of slipshod and sinister “global-warming science” have crippled cap-and-trade energy taxes, job-killing international “climate change” treaties, and other self-destructive policies.

The fact that America is buried in snow is the icing on the cake.


More...

Global Warming, Climate Change Alarmists Humiliated

Those who knowingly promoted the myth of man-caused global warming have been exposed as frauds, cheats, and liars. They make the humiliation of Tiger Woods pale in comparison.
Peter

UN..done ?

New Climate Chief Won’t Change UN’s Problems with Addressing Climate Change

FROM-Heritage Foundation

Yvo de Boer, climate chief of the United Nations for four years, unexpectedly announced his resignation today. Although he officially won’t leave his post until July 1st, it marks another turn for the worse for those hoping to see action on climate policy. De Boer, who led the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali (2007) and more recently in Copenhagen (2009) said, “Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms, but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions world are overwhelming. This calls for new partnerships with the business sector and I now have the chance to help make this happen.”

Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman explains just how epic of a failure the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference really was: “To fully appreciate what a step backwards the final Copenhagen accord is, one has to recall the buildup to it. For the last two years, global warming activists and UN officials had circled December 2009 on their calendars as the watershed moment for creating a new carbon-constrained global economy for decades to come. And in the nick of time, they would argue, as the existing targets in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol are scheduled to expire in 2012. Furthermore, with the Bush administration gone in 2009, many in the international community felt that the path was clear for the Obama administration to finally include America in binding, verifiable, and enforceable restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.”

It also goes to show just how ill-suited the United Nations is at handling a climate treaty. The vastly competing interests of UN member states make it extremely difficult to reach an agreement. For instance, the Copenhagen conference sought to get developed countries to accept massive economic costs to meet carbon dioxide cuts and provide billions of dollars in wealth transfers to help nations cope with the projected consequences of a changing climate, while simultaneously exempting developing countries (even the large developing country emitters like India and China).. The kicker is that this deal – as bad as it would be for developed countries like the U.S. – would not significantly arrest greenhouse gas emissions.
More egregiously, the U.N. itself had become too invested in the agreement. As noted by Heritage fellow and UN expert Brett Schaefer:

“The U.N. is supposed to be a neutral facilitator, not a decision-making
body. The decisions over what commitments nations make should be left to their
respective governments — they have to justify them to the citizens who will be
affected. In this debate, the U.N. has moved inappropriately beyond serving as
bureaucratic “butlers of the process” to full-blown advocates pushing for ever
more stringent commitments in the face of countervailing evidence and lack of
political support for its suggested actions.”

With UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon selecting the de Boer’s successor, it’s unlikely we’ll see an effort to minimize the U.N.’s role in negotiating climate change treaties. But reversing that trend was unlikely anyway. The best option is to sideline the UN and shift negotiations on efforts to address climate change to a more effective forum of those states that would be expected to shoulder the burden of any proposed efforts and, therefore, would be sure to view those proposals in a proper cost-benefit framework.

As for de Boer, working with businesses may be easier said than done. BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar recently left the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US CAP), a coalition of business and environmentalists that support legislation to reduce greenhouse gases such as cap and trade. With trillions of dollars on the table and up for grabs, corporations worked hard for a seat at that table in search of corporate welfare at the expense of the consumer. But the recent revelations of flaws in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report as well as the ostensible data corruption and manipulation exposed by leaked emails and documents from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) have companies jumping off the global warming bandwagon. It’s certainly not going be a cakewalk convincing them to jump back on and willingly cut emissions given the economic cost and faulty science.

Some say de Boer’s resignation will add to the trouble. Agus Purnomo, Indonesia’s special presidential assistant on climate change admitted the resignation “comes at the worst time in the climate change negotiations. His decision will ultimately add to the difficulties we already have in reaching a successful outcome in Mexico.” Hopefully, participating governments take this opportunity to reassess the entire fiasco of UN led negotiations like Copenhagen.

More...

Global Warming House Of Cards Tumbling Down

The over-inflated myth of man-caused global warming has burst open like a rotten melon. People can't distance themselves from this fiasco fast enough. How is Obama going to blame THIS on Bush?

Peter

"catastrophic free fall"

FROM-NY POST

By STEVEN F. HAYWARD

The climate-change campaign is in catastrophic free fall.

Nearly every day brings a new embarrassment or retraction for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the supposed gold standard for "consensus" science. The withdrawal this week of BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar from the main US business lobby for greenhouse-gas controls is the latest political blow to the campaign.

The anti-warming lobby long demonized skeptics as the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers while warning of climate "tipping points." Now, the "Climategate" scandal that broke in November is looking like a true tipping point: The leaked e-mails have done to the climate-change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam War debate 40 years ago -- changed the narrative decisively.

For years, skeptics have been pointing out serious defects or gross exaggerations in the climate narrative -- glaciers that weren't actually melting; weak or incomplete data in the records of surface temperature that supposedly proved unprecedented warming; a complete lack of backup for claims that storms and drought are growing more severe. Plus, global temperatures have been flat for the last decade -- increasingly falsifying the computer models that project our doom.

The media long ignored every criticism, and generally joined the climate campaigners in denouncing skeptics for their turpitude. Now it's playing catch-up.

The latest bombshell is an admission from Phil Jones, the East Anglia University scientist at the center of the "Climategate" scandal: He says his raw data (a vital resource for those claiming climate change) is in such disarray that it probably can't be replicated or verified.

He also admits that the medieval warm period may have been as warm as today -- devasting the claim that today's temperatures are the clear result of modern industry. More, he agrees that there's been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years.

Jones hedged a bit on all these points, but it is telling that he broke ranks from the climate campaigners, who increasingly resemble a two-year-old having a tantrum as they stoutly deny the medieval warm period and that global temperatures have flattened out.

But the climate campaign's most ludicrous contortion is its response to the recent record snowfalls across the eastern United States. Ordinary citizens, repeatedly shoveling snow from their sidewalk, see global warming as a farce.

In answer, the climate campaigners note that "weather is not climate" and that localized weather events are consistent with climate "change." They may be right -- yet these are the same folks who jumped up and down claiming that Hurricane Katrina was positive proof that catastrophic global warming had arrived, even though the strong 2005 hurricane season was followed by four quiet years for tropical storms that made a hash of that narrative.

The ruckus exposes the greatest problem of Al Gore & Co.: They've pointed to any weather anomaly -- cold winters, warm winters, in-between winters -- as proof of climate change. That is, they can't name one weather pattern or event that would be inconsistent with their theory.

The citizenry seems to prefer common sense -- opinion surveys show declining public belief in global warming.

That outcome was predictable. Nearly 40 years ago, the distinguished political scientist Anthony Downs outlined the "issue-attention cycle," a five-stage process.

The public, activists and (especially) the media first discover an issue, then grow euphorically alarmed over it and agitate for action, generating piles of scary headlines.

Then comes the crucial third step -- where the public comes to recognize that the problem has been exaggerated or misconceived, and notice the price tag for sweeping action. This happened last year with the US debate over the "cap and trade" anti-warming bill, followed by the collapse of the Copenhagen process.

That set the stage for Downs' fourth step: declining public interest and media attention -- which yields the last stage, the post-problem.

The climate-change circus isn't yet ready to join such past enthusiasms as the "population bomb" or the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" nonsense: It has too much political and institutional momentum behind it, and there is no other ready outlet for the nearly endless supply of environmental zealotry.

But the whole climate campaign now resembles a Broadway musical that has run too long, with sagging box office and declining enthusiasm from a dwindling audience. Someone needs to break the bad news to the players that it's closing time for the climate horror show.

Steven F. Hayward is the F.K. Weyer haeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of the forthcoming "Almanac of Environmental Trends."


More...

Abandoning The Sinking Ship Of Man-Caused Global Warming/Climate Change

I expect that as the hoax behind the myth of man-caused global warming becomes more fully exposed, more and more companies and organizations will make further attempts to "gracefully" abandon the sinking ship that is man-caused global warming. I think the following action by BP, ConocoPhillips, and Caterpillar is just the beginning.
Peter

Defections Shake Up Climate Coalition

• By STEPHEN POWER And BEN CASSELMAN

Three big companies quit an influential lobbying group that had focused on shaping climate-change legislation, in the latest sign that support for an ambitious bill is melting away.

Reuters

BP PLC and two other major firms quit a lobbying group focused on shaping global-warming policy.

Several companies are quitting an influential lobbying group focusing in on legislation, despite the administratin's push to use the budget to pass greenhouse gas legistlation. WSJ's Grainne McCarthy reports in the News Hub.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.

Continued here

Bill Gates Promotes The Man-Caused Global Warming Hoax

I wonder where Bill Gates has been? Has he not heard of ClimateGate? Did he miss the fiasco in Copenhagen? Or maybe, just maybe, he has a vested interest in crying wolf about the dangers of "climate change". Of course the climate changes; it always has and always will. The question is: "Do man's carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming (climate change)"? The answer is increasingly clear --- NO.

We may need an "energy miracle" for other reasons, but not because of global warming. Bill Gates is just demonstrating his ignorance and gullibility. Perhaps he should stick to computer programing and stop listening to Al Gore the moron.
Peter

Bill Gates at TED: We Need an Energy Miracle [VIDEO]

BY Ariel SchwartzThu Feb 18, 2010

Avid followers of the TED Conference have almost certainly heard rumblings about Bill Gates' speech on why we need energy miracles to solve the climate crisis. And the blogosphere has already reacted both positively and negatively to Gates's theory that we can only reach zero emissions by reducing either our population, services, energy, or carbon output to zero. I decided to wait on passing judgment until the video of Gates's speech was released, and now that it has been, I can say that I agree with his assessment that we need to get to net zero CO2, and fast--though we should make sure not to ignore other environmental concerns in the process.

In his speech, Bill Gates touts TerraPower reactors that can be fueled by nuclear waste as one possible solution. Is nuclear power the answer? I don't know, but at the very least Gates should be applauded for highlighting the need for immediate innovation in the energy sector. The value of having someone of Gates's stature talk about getting

A Few Laughs.....

If these things weren't so sad, stupid, and wasteful, they would be humorous. Someone needs to wake these people up and tell them that man-caused global warming is and always has been a hoax. A big LIE folks, and we've been and you're being skammed, taken for a ride, conned, and ripped off.
Peter

Four iPhone Apps to Shut Up Climate Change-Doubters

BY Dan NosowitzThu Feb 18, 2010

If you've got a friend, relative, or famous radio personality who makes a point of doubting the effects or even the existance of climate change--especially if that person cites a snowstorm as evidence--we've got a few apps that'll learn 'em good, and then teach 'em how to make up for the damage they've done.

Skeptical Science: John Cook, creator of Skeptical Science, created this iPhone app as a handy go-to reference for deflecting questions (and embarrassing the questioner) on the subject of climate change. Got a friend who doubts mass climate change is the result of human impact? This app will teach you how to make him look like a complete idiot. Free. [iTunes via Treehugger]

Jungfrau Climate Guide: This guide is designed to show tourists to Switzerland's Jungfrau region how climate change has affected its scenic mountains and valleys--but should work just as well around the globe. If, for example, you walk over and stand in front of a glacier, the app will tell you how much smaller it is now than it used to be, and provide pictures of the same glacier 100 years ago to prove its point. Have you been to Jungfrau, Limbaugh? I think not. $9.99. [iTunes via CNET]

Now that you've taught your foolish, uninformed friend/relative/Fox News Host about both the scientific and practical effects of climate change, he'll be crushed. Here are a couple apps to help him right his wrongs.

Greenmeter: In case you weren't aware, you can't just give up on reducing the environmental impact of your car after you buy it. Greenmeter gathers information on your vehicle's power and fuel efficiency, and evaluates your driving before giving you tips on how to reduce fuel consumption and lessen the pain your car hands out to the air around it. It's also good for non-hippies who are just kind of cheap and want to learn how to save gas cash. $5.99. [iTunes via Greenmeter]

GreenYou: GreenYou calculates your carbon footprint, including the ways you kill the planet just by travelling, eating, and living, and then gives you tips on how to reduce that effect. Useful! $0.99. [iTunes via Treehugger]

TOP SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO AL GORE.......

PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE

NASA'S JAMES HANSEN

Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU

Written by Christopher Horner, Pajamas Media 17 February 2010

Hansen: Never answered a FOIA he didn't like.

In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).

I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.

On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.

The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.

As you examine the email excerpts below, as well as those which I will discuss in the upcoming three parts of this series, bear in mind that the contents of these emails were intended to prop up the argument for the biggest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity. NASA’s activist scientists leave no doubt in their emails that this was indeed their objective. Also, please note that these documents were responsive to a specific FOIA request from two years ago. Recent developments — combined with admissions contained in these documents — beg further requests, which have both been already filed and with more forthcoming.

Furthermore, on January 29, 2010, CEI filed our appeal of NASA continuing to improperly withhold other documents responsive to our FOIA requests. In this appeal we informed NASA that if they do not comply by the twentieth day, as required by law, we shall exercise our appellate rights in court immediately.

________________________________

Under Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA shepherds a continuing public campaign claiming clear evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — climate change induced by human beings. The documents released via the FOIA request, however, contain admissions of data unreliability that are staggering, particularly in light of NASA’s claims to know temperatures and anomalies within hundredths of a degree, and the alarm they helped raise over a mere one degree of claimed warming over more than an entire century.

Dr. Reto Ruedy, a Hansen colleague at GISS, complains in his August 3, 2007, email to his co-worker at GISS and RealClimate blogger Gavin Schmidt:

[The United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date (at this point the (sic) seem to end in 2002).

This lapse led to wild differences in data claimed to be from the same ground stations by USHCN and the Global Climate Network (GHCN). NASA later trumpeted the “adjustments” they made to this data (upward only, of course) in extremely minor amounts — adjustments they are now seen admitting are well within any uncertainty, a fact that received significantly less emphasis in their public media campaign claiming anomalous, man-made warming.

GISS’s Ruedy then wrote:

[NASA’s] assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data … may not have been correct. … Indeed, in 490 of the 1057 stations the USHCN data were up to 1C colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data were the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data were warmer than the GHCN data.

Ruedy claimed this introduced an estimated warming into the record of 0.1 deg C. Ruedy then described an alternate way of manipulating the temperature data, “a more careful method” they might consider using, instead.

Read rest…

There IS Hope That The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming Can Be Finally Crushed

When the magnitude of this hoax called "man-caused global warming" fully sinks in, heads will roll. Or they should. Try to comprehend the wasted tax dollars spend on funding this once honorable, now proven corrupt "climate science".

Where is Al Gore when he should be tarred and feathered and driven from town. Think of the millions of dollars donated to charlatans like the "World Wildlife Fund", Greenpeace, The Sierra Club. Think of all the well-meaning people who donated time, money and effort....because they trusted these "scientists". Now many of these trusting people are jobless, and under-water with their mortgages, and yet all they have is a completely inexpeirienced President promising "hope and change".

"Tea Party"? Whatever you want to call it, Americans are waking up and they don't like what they see coming out of Washington. This is not racial, it is not "partisan", not "Republican", not "hacking of secret climate files". It is common sense. Let's do it....take back control of America, "of the people, by the people, for the people".
Peter

Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU

Written by Christopher Horner, Pajamas Media 17 February 2010

Hansen: Never answered a FOIA he didn't like.

In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).

I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.

On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.

The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.

As you examine the email excerpts below, as well as those which I will discuss in the upcoming three parts of this series, bear in mind that the contents of these emails were intended to prop up the argument for the biggest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity. NASA’s activist scientists leave no doubt in their emails that this was indeed their objective. Also, please note that these documents were responsive to a specific FOIA request from two years ago. Recent developments — combined with admissions contained in these documents — beg further requests, which have both been already filed and with more forthcoming.

Furthermore, on January 29, 2010, CEI filed our appeal of NASA continuing to improperly withhold other documents responsive to our FOIA requests. In this appeal we informed NASA that if they do not comply by the twentieth day, as required by law, we shall exercise our appellate rights in court immediately.

________________________________

Under Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA shepherds a continuing public campaign claiming clear evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — climate change induced by human beings. The documents released via the FOIA request, however, contain admissions of data unreliability that are staggering, particularly in light of NASA’s claims to know temperatures and anomalies within hundredths of a degree, and the alarm they helped raise over a mere one degree of claimed warming over more than an entire century.

Dr. Reto Ruedy, a Hansen colleague at GISS, complains in his August 3, 2007, email to his co-worker at GISS and RealClimate blogger Gavin Schmidt:

[The United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date (at this point the (sic) seem to end in 2002).

This lapse led to wild differences in data claimed to be from the same ground stations by USHCN and the Global Climate Network (GHCN). NASA later trumpeted the “adjustments” they made to this data (upward only, of course) in extremely minor amounts — adjustments they are now seen admitting are well within any uncertainty, a fact that received significantly less emphasis in their public media campaign claiming anomalous, man-made warming.

GISS’s Ruedy then wrote:

[NASA’s] assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data … may not have been correct. … Indeed, in 490 of the 1057 stations the USHCN data were up to 1C colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data were the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data were warmer than the GHCN data.

Ruedy claimed this introduced an estimated warming into the record of 0.1 deg C. Ruedy then described an alternate way of manipulating the temperature data, “a more careful method” they might consider using, instead.

Read rest…

Let The Legal Battles (Over Global Warming) Begin

When the claims of man-caused global warming goes to court, the true-believers, Al Gore disciples, and global warming alarmists will be slaughtered. The science behind the myth of man-caused global warming is being shown (and admitted) to be ever more fraudulent by the day.

What happens when during a trial your "expert" witnesses, (in this case global warming-promoting, climate "scientists" are proven to be liars and a cheats? It is being shown they don't even merit the name scientist. They have been behaving like the worst kind of con-artists. Bernie Madoff pales when compared to these ClimateGate scoundrels. Well at best the case gets thrown out of court. At worst you lose the case, pay a hefty fine, and get thrown in jail. Such is the case going to be for people who continue to promote the concept of man-caused global warming. Their days are numbered. DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS.
Peter

The Rebellion Is On!

FROM-KVUE

Texas takes EPA to court

AUSTIN -- The State of Texas is taking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to court.
Top Texas leaders say the EPA used bad science when drafting new rules that say that the carbon dioxide from power plants and factories endangers Texans.

Now Texas leaders believe it's that ruling which endangers the Lone Star State.

"They’re using sweeping mandates, draconian punishments to force a square peg of their vision into the round hole of reality,” Governor Rick Perry, R-Texas, said at a news conference at the State Capitol Tuesday morning.

Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples are prepared for a years-long legal battle. They filed a 38-page petition asking the EPA to abandon its finding. They filed another with a federal appeals court in Washington.

"The EPA is required to base its decisions on scientifically reliable information, not dogma driving conclusions,” Abbott said.

”These regulations have the potential to drive domestic food production outside the borders of Texas and outside the borders of the United States of America. We need to focus on sound science and not political science,” Staples said.

In addition to weighing down Texas farmers and ranchers, the trio of Republican leaders believes the EPA’s rule uses information which has been discredited. Environmentalists stand-by the EPA regulation.

“Instead of suing the EPA, Gov. Perry should join the governors of 39 other states, by beginning to act on climate change or planning to do so,” said Tom Smith, Public Citizen.
“We’re here today to actually applaud the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, because it is a necessary step to protect all Texans and our economy,” said Eva Hernandez, Sierra Club.

Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Public Citizen, believe the EPA’s ruling helped protect family farms already reeling from drought.

While they blame global warming, Perry cited evidence to the contrary.

”The data is clear now that the globe has not warmed at all since 1995,” Perry said.
Perry's leading opponent in the Republican gubernatorial primary, Key Bailey Hutchison released a statement saying she's been fighting the rule in Washington. She characterizes the rule as disastrous for Texas.

Partners In Crime

Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chairman Winners of the Nobel Peace Price. The joke of all jokes. They're both a blight upon the world.

The Destruction Of The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

No, it's not about the "Al Gore Effect" causing the current record-setting snowfall and blizzard conditions in Washington, D.C., it is not about partisan politics, it is about the public recognition and for many, the begrudging acceptance that the idea of man-caused global warming, or climate change is utter and complete rubbish.

It is also about corruption and fraud on a massive national and international scale that has cost taxpayers Billions of dollars, Euros, Pounds and every other currency over at least two decades. It is about a corrupt and dysfunctional United Nations. It is about unethical, naive, and gullible, if not corrupt scientists, in America, and around the world. All this and more is coming to light as the house of cards that was the concept of man-caused global warming comes crashing down.

Should we be angry? Was it just a mistake? Was Al Gore just uneducated and stupid to believe the trash coming from these "climate scientists"? Do we pass this off as just "politics" as usual?
Or, as I say, we had better take what is happening as a wake up call. We had all better become skeptical and questioning about what our political leaders tell us. We had better question every decision, every claim, every policy decision, whether domestic or foreign. We had better not simply blindly assume that they have our best interests in mind. Let this be everyone's wake-up call!
Peter

The great global warming collapse

FROM-The Globe and Mail

Margaret Wente

As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.....
Read entire article here

ClimateGate: The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming Laid Bare

The following article summarizes what ClimateGate is all about. A related tragedy is how the American mainstream media is under-reporting and ignoring this important information. Of course they have played a major role in this great hoax. Everyone who reads this and many related stories should pass them around to as many people as possible. Only knowledge and truth will keep us free!
Peter

The Scientific Collapse of Man-made Global Warming

By Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a nuclear scientist

The underlying science of man-made global warming has always been quite thin and tenuous, with little hard measurable evidence to support the hypothesis. In fact many temperature stations have shown either no warming or actual cooling over the past 80 years or more.

Similarly exaggerations by many UN nations of sea level changes have flourished and in turn blamed the United States for imagined damages. These are alleged by many nations, even when actual sea level measurements show little changes from the estimated 8 inches per century which has gone on for millennia (http://tinyurl.com/ykb3ctc).

Even though the man-made global warming theory is now collapsing scientifically, it is utterly amazing to realize that many of the most powerful leaders and governments in the world had bought into fiction. Now named Climategate, this was aided and abetted by most (but not all) of the media, the greens, Hollywood, even the educational system.

Skeptics have been pointing to the dearth of such evidence which, if it had been widely understood, would have ended the exaggerations. Actual measured scientific evidence often does that.

The UN and its many sub-organizations have led the charge in promoting the scare around the world, with most of their members subscribing to it. The billions that have been spent for global warming research also suggests that these billions actually helped promote the failed science involved.

After all, the goal of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not a better understanding of the climate. It was intended only to find any man-made influences on the climate. International politics ruled the effort, not the pursuit of science. It was no coincidence that only the wealthy nations, especially the capitalist US, were found to be the villains.

Near the end of November 2009 a huge global warming eruption occurred when thousand emails, documents, and computer codes were release from the files of one of he world’s major institutes in global warming. This was the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU).

These findings were stunning to anyone familiar with the rules of science and the scientific method. Climate data manipulation, massaging, modification, and even omissions were common as indicated from the texts of the emails exchanged among world experts. Even worse, much of the original temperature data has now been lost. This means that that no replication of these studies starting with original data in the IPCC Assessment Reports is now possible. Such replications always begin with the raw data which are no longer available. To attempt replication with contaminated and corrupted data is simply not possible.

It’s been 60 days since the release of this information, with little it being reported in the US media. See link (http://tinyurl.com/y9enj2d). However, a lot of information about the man-made global warming collapse is being reported in the foreign media.

The head of the CRU has taken a leave of absence and now may be facing charges of fraud by the British government (http://tinyurl.com/yjec7ry). More members of the CRU team as well as American instigators may be charged since so many were involved.

Others are writing excellent analyses of the released CRU findings, given the short time for such important efforts. One of them is a 149 page analysis is called “Climategate Analysis” by John P. Costella (http://tinyurl.com/ydkd3cx). Costella is both a mathematical and statistical expert. He writes about the impact of Climategate fraud on the exacting and rigorous nature of honest science (p.5):

“Climategate has shattered that myth (of scientific rigor). It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their “old boys’ club”, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”. Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.”

Another excellent analysis of Climategate has been performed by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. It is titled “Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?” and is 111 pages of detailed analyses (http://tinyurl.com/ydmdtqp). These two analyses (and there are others) literally destroy nearly all of the scientific nature of the IPCC reports and pronouncements. They show that man-made CO2 still has little or nothing to do with climate, and most importantly has a great deal to do with international politics of the UN and allies.

D’Aleo and Watts provide 15 amazing summary points for policy makers describing the scientific malpractice among the UN, the IPCC and the rest of the global warming movement:

* 1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century. MF---Such tampering with data is utterly unprofessional.

* 2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends. MF---Little mention has ever been made regarding the actual quality of temperature data and the need for control of high quality data.

* 3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally. MF---It now seems clear that the global warming movement was hell-bent in producing a man-made global warming scare by a variety of data manipulations.

* 4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting. MF--- This is stunning. Try to imagine adult scientists trying to show climate warming by excluding temperature data from thousands of the world’s coldest stations. Amazing and dreadfully unethical.

* 5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.

* 6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.

* 7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.

* 8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

* 9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.

* 10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

* 11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming”. MF---This is important to understanding that these United States climate agencies were also very much involved with the climate deceptions.

* 12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.

* 13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.

* 14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”

* 15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.

The main stream media of the US have scarcely reported any of these skullduggeries, which means that the American public is essentially uninformed. We also learned during President Obama’s recent speech that even he has not been informed about the man-made global warming collapse.

This does not speak well of the wisdom of the president and especially of his vaunted science advisors. Obama’s NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, for example, is still under the belief that the IPCC is "the gold standard for authoritative scientific information on climate change because of the rigorous way in which they are prepared, reviewed, and approved." Unfortunately for some, the "gold standard" is at the heart of Climategate. (http://tinyurl.com/yd92q7n).

SOURCE

Man-Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Hoax And Fraud Of All Time

The following says what I and too few others have been saying for a long time. Man-caused global warming is a myth, a fraud, perpetuated by fools, liars and people who should be held criminally liable. Start with Al Gore.
Peter

Global Warming Update
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 (source)

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen here.

The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.



Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral."

Then there's Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming.

It's deeper than just money. Schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children when in fact there are more polar bears now than in 1950. They've taught children about melting glaciers. Just recently, the International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit that their Himalayan glacier-melting fraud was done to "impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

What would all the beneficiaries of the global warming hype do if it becomes widely known and accepted that mankind's activities have very little to do with the Earth's temperature? I don't know but a lot of people would feel and look like idiots. But I bet that even if the permafrost returned as far south as New Jersey, as it once did, the warmers and their congressional stooges would still call for measures to fight global warming.

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.