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