CO2 bears no relationship to average global temperature, geologic records show

.


"From 150 million years ago to 65 million years ago, CO2 levels decreased by 1000 ppm.

• During that same period, temperatures rose by 7 degrees Centigrade.

Why does this scam continue?"

ANSWER: Billions have already been stolen by organized crime in carbon trading and

• billions more lost in corrupt UN 'climate' programs.

from Real Science, Steven Goddard, via Tom Nelson, 12/13/10

'Obama sees America as the problem. I see it as the solution.' S. Palin

It isn't so much that the left's philosophy (or Soros' if you want) carried to its logical outcome results in suffering and death. It's that that doesn't bother them. Baseball joins in on this scam. (It didn't bother 900 people in Guyana either). The obsessive hate America mind set says it's our fault if someone doesn't like us, even if they kick us to the gutter and take our last penny. Martyrdom and self flagellation makes some people feel good, superior. (What would they do without this identity?) Sports is bad, it's terrible for the environment, everything is bad. Don't reproduce, don't go on vacation, try not to breath, better yet, die (if you are middle class that is--if you are in the Ruling Class, party down). Of course none of this makes sense-it's only emotion, but it works. The middle class is dying all over. And certain others are amassing all the world's wealth.

12/9/10, "Barack Obama faces democrat tax rebellion and Sarah Palin's verbal barbs," UK Telegraph, Alex Spillius

• via Tom Nelson

Global warming strikes again--photos November, 2010

Eye on the World, 11/25/10, via Weasel Zippers



11/24/10, Phone Booth in Scotland, Reuters

• 3/20/2000, "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past," Independent UK, Charles Onians

UK East Anglia (ClimateGate), Hadley global warming scientists in March 2000 said kids won't ever get to see snow in the UK again. Which is fine but this "science" was used to make US government policy and demand billions in 'reparations' from taxpayers. If such 'science' hadn't been used to extract money, it might not be a crime.

• But that's not what happened.

ClimateGate, 'One year and 60 House seats later'-the lead Nobel scientist says there's no warming, but NY Times ignores it

2/14/10, "ClimateGate U-Turn as scientist at centre of row admits: there has been no global warming since 1995," UK Daily Mail, J. Petre

• "He (Phil Jones) further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming,

• although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."...

11/17, UK Telegraph:"This week marks the anniversary of Climategate but even though I helped break and name the story I’m certainly not celebrating.

• That’s because, despite the marked shift it effected in public opinion, its effect on public policy-making has been close to zilch.

For chapter and verse on the horrifying disjunct between what all sane, informed people know about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (ie, it’s a crock) and what our governments are doing in response (ie, “Nyah nyah. Not listening. We’re going to go ahead with our crazy tax, regulation and wind farm schemes anyway”) I refer you to this

• superb summary by M’Learned Friend Booker.

Since then, despite a series of unconvincing attempts to clear the Climategate scientists, it has become clear that the 20-year-old climate scare is dying on its feet. The money draining away from the Chicago exchange speaks louder than all those inquiries – and the same point will be made obvious in a fortnight’s time in Cancun, Mexico, as the UN attempts to salvage something from the wreckage at a conference

• that will draw scarcely a tenth of the numbers that met in Copenhagen.

But to all this deflation of the bubble our political class in Britain remains quite impervious. Our governments in London and Brussels charge on with completely unreal and damaging policies which increasingly look as much of a shambles as the warming scare which inspired them.

• Scarcely a single politician dares question the Climate Change Act...."

11/17, American Thinker, Sheppard: (Immortalized in ClimateGate email 10/5/09 as American Stinker). "It’s been one year to the day since hero or heroes still unnamed and unrewarded bestowed upon the world a virtual dossier, the contents of

• which should have ended the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate abruptly and evermore. Remarkably, it didn’t.

Despite the revelations exposed in the now public climate huckster’s handbook, one year later the specter of governance and wealth redistribution both national and international based

• largely, if not solely, on pseudo-scientific hocus-pocus persists.

By all measures, last year’s U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen was an embarrassing flop for those who again tried to sell an international progressive fund reallocation scheme as the “last chance to save the planet” from runaway climate change.

But with Cancun’s “last chance to save the planet” climate talks just around the corner,

• the media is working overtime to explain away previous failures as anything other
  
• than the product of bad policy toward unproven hazards that they indeed were.

On Monday, The Washington Post ran a piece about an Oxford University's Reuters Institute study on who attended and how countries covered last year’s U.N. summit. But the paper’s emphasis was somewhat different and clearly divulged in its headline -- Coverage of climate summit called short on science. Yet what truly boggles the mind is their assessment of that which we celebrate today:

Much coverage from Copenhagen instead focused on hacked e-mails from a British university that
some skeptics took as evidence of efforts by scientists to ignore dissenting views.

The scientists involved have since been cleared of wrongdoing.

Ignore dissenting views? How about conspiring to block – not ignore -- the publication of rival scientific evidence?

• Or the Nixonian plots the communiqués disclosed, including conspirators discussing deleting emails and other documents in order to prevent disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information Laws?
• Or how access might be prevented to data, source code, and algorithms in an attempt to prevent external evaluation of their conclusions?

Not to mention their arrogant mockery of the peer review process atop a widespread complicity in and acceptance of hiding, manipulating, inventing and otherwise misrepresenting data in a clear effort to exaggerate the existence, causation, precedence and threat of global warming. What’s more, the fact that many of the conspirators were editors, lead authors, and

• contributors to the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

• and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reports on which international climate policy is made put all such reports and policies to question.

Indeed, the documents, source-code, data and e-mails contained in the folder purportedly "hacked" from Britain's University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) and first uploaded to a Russian FTP server in the wee hours of November 17, 2009 -- and announced that evening as a comment at Air Vent --

• revealed a widespread pattern of scientific misconduct amongst the very climate researchers on whose “science” the entire AGW theory and all consequent policy is based.

With trillions of dollars at stake, Climategate, as it was dubbed days later,
was and is about potentially astronomical criminal wrongdoing, not petty school-yard rivalries.

And as to those involved being “cleared of wrongdoing,” let’s consider both the tribunals and their actual pronouncements.

• On With the Showcase Investigations
  

Last November was not a good month for climate alarmists, particularly the two primary Climategate conspirators, CRU chief Phil “Hide the Decline” Jones and Mike “Nature Trick” Mann.

As the new-media-led understanding of the Climategate folder’s incriminating contents took wider purchase, with it did the cries for formal investigations, as the evidence of climate fraud appeared both devastating and incontrovertible. On December 1^st, against the backdrop of business pending in Copenhagen, the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee sent a letter of intent and preliminary questionnaire to the UEA. The university’s response that it had commissioned its own “independent inquiry” under the auspices of Sir Muir Russell failed to dissuade the Committee’s decision to proceed with its own inquiry.

As the Russell investigation was to focus primarily on policy, the UEA later asked Ronald (Lord) Oxburgh to lead another “independent” team to investigate the scientific methodology of CRU. As if by design, that action allowed many facets of each investigation to be ignored by one while fingers bore down on the other.

• The Russell report stated that although they didn’t actually examine the science -- such would be Oxburgh’s job -- the science was nonetheless correct.

• Meanwhile, Lord Oxburgh specifically stated that his inquiry, although named the Science Appraisal Panel, did not look at the science. Oh, and CRU’s was just fine.

By August’s end, the final reports were in from all three “formal” investigations into CRU: The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee [PDF], The Oxburgh Science Appraisal Panel [PDF] and the Independent Climate Change Emails Review under Sir Muir Russell [PDF].

• All three examinations took place within the country of physical jurisdiction, Great Britain, and none disappointed those of us anticipating whitewash.

Simply stated, all parties were cleared of all wrongdoing other than perhaps sloppy journaling and sophomoric note-passing and all suspensions were lifted. As Andrew Montford summarized in his report, The Climategate Inquiries:

[T] here can be little doubt that none of [the inquiries] have performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU. None has managed to be objective and comprehensive.
None has shown a serious concern for the truth. The best of them – the House of Commons inquiry – was cursory and appeared to exonerate the scientists with little evidence to justify such a conclusion.
The Oxburgh and Russell inquiries were worse.

But an investigation was also undertaken by a Pennsylvania State University Inquiry Committee into the specific actions of the institution’s employee -- Dr. Michael Mann. Based in the U.S., the Penn State inquiry offered perhaps the best hope of impartiality. After all, not only was a faculty member implicated at the deepest levels of the misconduct (See Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline), but also in the attempt to destroy evidence.

• Unfortunately, it was Mann’s fellow Penn professors tasked with investigating him.

According to the official report [PDF], following an interview with Mann during which he simply denied all particulars of misconduct against him, Inquiry Committee member Dr. Henry C. Foley “conveyed via email an additional request of Dr. Mann, who was asked to produce all emails related to the fourth IPCC report (AR4),

• the same emails that Dr. Phil Jones had suggested that he delete.”

So rather than demand a date-stamped e-mail dump from the University’s IT sector (the emails likely reside on their primary server or in some backup format and remain, in fact, the university’s property),

• the panel requested that the subject of their investigation make the decision which emails were relevant to their investigation.

And three days later, he “provided a zip-archive of these emails and an explanation of their content.”

• In other words -- Michael Mann was allowed to cherry-pick not only data, but
  
• also the emails to be presented as evidence that he did so. Crazier still -- one of the charges
  
• Mann faced was that he had deleted incriminating emails.

Given the hilarity of its methods, scant shock was elicited by the Investigatory Committee’s unanimous determination that “Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.”

• Mann wasted no time declaring himself “exonerated” and the MSM proved
  
• equally efficient in its blathering concurrence.

WaPo Leads the MSM Charge to Support Suppression

There’s little question that the initial silence and ultimate dismissal of the MSM was and remains a factor in Climategate’s surprisingly marginal effect on left-leaning policymakers. But the impacts, both societal and financial, of proposed policies shaped by the misinformation in question

• are nothing short of astounding.

• As such, it was the absence of any authoritative investigation, particularly here in the U.S, over the past 12 months which likely provided the greatest cover of all to alarmists both home and abroad.

As Ross McKitrick stated in Understanding the Climategate Inquiries [ PDF]:

The world still awaits a proper inquiry into climategate: one that is not stacked with global warming advocates, and one that is prepared to cross-examine evidence, interview critics as well as supporters of the CRU and other IPCC players, and follow the evidence where it clearly leads.

Perchance the gallant efforts of one man and the removal from Congress of 60 others will provide just that -- and more.

• Mann served as assistant professor of environmental sciences at University of Virginia from 1995 to 2005.

Back in May, Virginia’s Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli launched an exhaustive campaign to uncover the truth by filing a "civil investigative demand" for documents.

• These included five grant applications Mann prepared and any checks, purchase orders or other documents related to the pursuit of or disbursements from grant funds Mann received.

Cuccinelli alleges that Mann defrauded taxpayers by obtaining grants from the commonwealth to conduct fraudulent research on global temperatures.

• To prove it, he has also demanded Mann’s emails, correspondence, or messages to or from a list of some 39 fellow scientists and academics, as well as any computer source code or algorithms created or edited by Mann.

• All of which will likely reveal so much more.

Not surprisingly, WaPo, which first reported Climategate with the headline Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center, has been running interference for UVA right from the jump. The paper described “Cuccinelli's faulty investigation of Michael Mann,” which they insisted the university should fight, as an “ongoing campaign to wish away human-induced climate change.”

• And when Cuccinelli lost the first round in August by a judge’s ruling that “it’s not clear what [Mann] did was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia,” WaPo

• was downright giddy.

Until, that is, the bell rang for round two and the DA came out swinging a reissued civil subpoena,

• this time limiting his inquiry to just one specific $214,700 state-funded only grant

(the judge dismissed the other four as partially federally funded) that Mann received from the university.

• Cuccinelli’s confidence that his newly focused approach will ultimately prevail did not please his detractors.

th article amateurishly headlined Ken Cuccinelli seems determined to embarrass Virginia, WaPo actually accused the investigator of the transgressions of the investigated:

The attorney general's logic is so tenuous as to leave only one plausible explanation: that he is on a fishing expedition designed to intimidate and suppress honest research and the free exchange of ideas upon which science and academia both depend -- all because he does not like what science says about climate change.”

Talk about displacement. In the real world, it was Mann who suppressed “honest research and the free exchange of ideas” and manipulated data “because he does not like what science says about climate change.” And while UVA’s slippery slope argument of "academic freedom" is not entirely without merit, it’s not only light when weighed against the erroneous rewiring of an already flailing international economy (not to mention academic and scientific integrity) -- but also duplicitous.

As Dr. Fred Singer wrote in his Sunday AT Piece:

The University of Virginia is fighting the demand for the data using outside lawyers and

• claiming "academic freedom" among other such excuses.

I cannot comment on the legal implications of the AG's investigation. It should be noted, however, that UVA was quite willing to deliver up the e-mails of Professor Pat Michaels

• when Greenpeace asked for them in December 2009.

It makes the UVA protestations sound rather hypocritical.

Singer has been convinced from the get-go that Mann deleted crucial emails, and wrote in July that they’d likely be found amongst those still housed at UVA, adding that “Cuccinelli’s demand for those emails might put a new light on the whole Climategate affair.” In his ICCC-4 presentation in June, Dr. Singer proffered that all post-1979 “warming” is phony and that divulging the “hidden”

• 1979-1997 proxy data will likely prove it.

So WaPo took double aim on Monday when its screed decrying a WSJ video decrying the American Geophysical Union’s

• omission of skeptics in its program to link reporters with scientists during the Cancun conference

also targeted Singer. Referring to the renowned atmospheric physicist as “aging” (“but very gracefully, I should note,” Singer wrote with typical grace and good nature in an email), WaPo had the unmitigated gall to claim that “very few climate scientists would describe him as ‘renowned’ for his climate research.”

• -- the same news organization said to define investigative journalism in the ‘70’s now championing deceitful defamation and nondisclosure.

Nevertheless, should justice trump ideology, the court will deny the October 21^st UVA filings asking that Cuccinelli’s 2^nd subpoena also be set aside, and the truth the alarmists have fought so hard to suppress will finally be heard. In any event, the battle is far from over.

Climate Realists Regain Committee Gavels

Republicans’ Election Day landslide handed them control of the House by a colossal 239 to 186 margin. And, according to and much to the vexation of the George Soros-funded alarmism machine Think Progress, more than half of the 100-plus GOP freshmen “deny the existence of man-made climate change.” Better still, a full 86% “are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government costs.”

The consequence of the public’s ballot-box repudiation of liberal wealth redistribution policies on future ”climate” legislation was not lost on Think Progress’s Joe Romm. Days after the election, the uber-alarmist wrote a scathing rebuke of Barack Obama’s “failed presidency,” accusing him of “poisoning the well,” explaining that:

Obama hasn't merely failed to get a climate bill. Given the self-described (and self-inflicted) "shellacking" the president received Tuesday, he has made it all but impossible for a return to such an alignment of the stars this decade.

Indeed. Not only will alarmist shill Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) soon surrender the House Energy and Commerce Committee gavel, but

• over two dozen fellow Democrats who voted for the cap-and-tax bill Waxman co-sponsored were given the boot by enlightened voters who simply aren’t buying the snake oil climate alarmists are selling.

A recent PEW Poll found that while 59% of Americans “believe that the earth is getting warmer,” only 34% attribute that warming “mostly to human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” That’s down from 50% in a similar July 2006 poll. Undoubtedly, that rapidly dwindling number of reality deniers will have an impact both immediate and long term, as surviving House and Senate Democrats absorb its corollary on their fallen cohorts.

• What’s more, short the obstructive tactics of the befallen eco-socialist ruling class,

the colossal climate fraud uncovered over the past year both here and abroad will finally be scrutinized by the government of the country most affected by it. And not by those wishing to white-wash it, as has been the case elsewhere.

Last year, Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Rep. Darrell Issa condemned that it would be the U.N. and not the U.S. investigating the fraud uncovered in the Climategate matter:

“The very integrity of the report [IPCC AR4] that the Obama administration has predicated much of its climate change policy has been called into question and it is unconscionable that this administration and Congress is willing to abdicate responsibility of uncovering the truth to the United Nations.”

The California Republican will likely be chairing that oversight panel come January, and though he told reporters Monday that much of the investigation will rightfully fall to the Science and Technology Committee, Issa has promised to include the

• "politicization of science" that led to the corrupt findings released by the IPCC in his 2011 schedule.

And he’ll have wind of public opinion at his back, as an on-line Scientific American survey just found that 83.7% of Americans believe the IPCC is “a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.”

And Issa’s not alone in seeking true (not Marxist) climate justice. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), a likely choice to replace Waxman at Energy and Commerce, has stated that “no real science” exists to support climate policy and has also called for Climategate hearings.

And the investigations won’t likely stop there.

Climategate: The Truth Will Out

Climategate’s initial revelations of corruption at Britain’s CRU (details here, here, here, and here) proved to be just the beginning. In the months that followed, allegations of similar misconduct among alarm-leaning climate scientists throughout the globe arose almost daily. And their affiliations were as momentous as those of Jones, Mann, and Briffa, et al, including

• the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) (See Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg), and ultimately, the IPCC (See IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks) itself.

Hopefully, bona fide investigations will follow a similar course, with CRU first on the docket, followed closely by NOAA, GISS and ultimately, the IPCC itself. An InterAcademy Council’s Review of the IPCC found that the panel “needs to fundamentally reform its management structure and strengthen its [existing] procedures,” and to call that a gross understatement would be grossly understated.

Last week, Bracken Hendricks wrote an article for WaPo (I, too, am shocked) claiming that:

The best science available suggests that without taking action to fundamentally change how we produce and use energy, we could see temperatures rise 9 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit over much of the United States by 2090.

What’s most distressing about this statement isn’t the fact that to meet that projection, we’d need to warm every decade for the next 8 by about the about same amount the IPCC claims we warmed in all of the previous century.

• Nor that we’d need to start warming fast and soon, as the planet is currently in a cooling phase predicted to last for decades.

It’s that Bracken Hendricks was a key architect of the clean-energy portions of Obama’s failed Stimulus Bill

• and an advisor to Obama’s campaign and transition team.

He and the similar likes of Energy Czar Carol Browner, a former member of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance," and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who believes that CO2 caused Hurricane Katrina, and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy John “Ice Free Winter” Holdren, each have Obama’s ear. So does EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who has already put the wheels of carbon regulation in motion and must be stopped

• (Congress must overturn EPA’s Endangerment Rule) if the economy is ever to be saved.

Now consider the U.N. plan to levy a climate reparations tax on the developed world

• (read that United States)

• on everything from airline flights and international shipping to fuel and financial transactions to the tune of $100 billion annually.

That scheme is backed by both Obama advisor Lawrence Summers and radical anti-American billionaire George Soros as a means to meet the annual figure

• “international leaders” agreed to in Copenhagen and will

• be a primary goal at Cancun in a few weeks.

Will the 112th Congress have the votes to block all such junk-science-based policy? It will.

• But of greater magnitude will be its power to assure more durable protection by exposing the whole truth about “climate change.” As we’ve learned in the one year and sixty House seats since we first unzipped FOI2009 --

only full and fully transparent investigations into all of the agencies supplying such “truth” will provide the citizenry the clarity it deserves.

And, it seems, Climategate the commemorative status it deserves."

• (It would be nice, but I don't believe anything will change. The old-timers don't want anything done and will fight to get their way. They were happy to be in the minority and didn't want new people. Also organized crime is making big money from the 'climate' industry according to numerous reports.) ed.

D-Oh! Greek Prime Minister says it at last: Carbon tax good way to raise cash-Telegraph

11/16/10, "George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister has said that there may need to be new Europe-wide forms of taxation to help pay for the bail-outs that will be needed by the growing number of crashing economies in the euro-zone. His suggestions include

• “carbon dioxide taxes” which, he says, could provide “important revenues and resouces for funding such a [bail-out] mechanism.”

I’ve never actually heard a major politician (let alone a national leader) admit this before: what Mr Papandreou is saying is that carbon taxes would have not have the effect of reducing emissions - because if they did, they would be useless as an additional form of revenue.

• All the hokum that is talked about protecting the planet by taxing carbon use is just a front for the real purpose of such penalties on industry and consumers
  

which is to raise more money for governments to spend (in this case, on trying to remedy their own political follies)."

• 11/16/10, "Greek PM says it at last: carbon taxes are just another way to raise revenue," UK Telegraph, Janet Daley. via commenter to American Thinker
  

• (known in ClimateGate email as
  
• "American Stinker" by

ClimateGate emailer, 10/5/09:

• "Phil, It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith

• does seem to have got himself into a mess."...)

'Media Matters' type operation to blend celebrity climate 'scientists' with politics and demand for American taxpayer dollars. (Updated)

UPDATE, 11/8: AGU says original Tribune report was not accurate. It will provide what it deems scientific information to media, policy makers and others, but not necessarily as a broad outreach against climate/global warming skeptics. via Climate Depot

"Scientists" aim to "push back" newly elected US congressmen since their 'gravy train' to US taxpayer dollars is about to leave town. The matter has nothing to do with 'climate', but is about transferring money from the American middle class to billionaires and organized crime. When the BTU Tax was pitched in 1992-93, at least they admitted it was mainly about money. (ICECAP has seen this report and stands ready to chat with the politico/climate media celebrities).

• 11/8/10, "Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics," Chicago Tribune, by N. Bannerjee

"Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions."...

(What is a 'PROMINENT RESEARCHER'? A person with a computer? Financed perhaps by another set of politicians who gave American tax money to an institution seeking to justify the largest transfer of wealth in history. ed.)

• (continuing, Chicago Tribune): "The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media.
  

Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday's election.

On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.

John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate-change skeptics, is also pulling together

• a "Climate Rapid Response Team," which includes scientists
  

prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and television shows.

• "This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively
  

engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.

"We are taking the fight to them because we are …

• tired of taking the hits.
  

The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.""...

• (As politely as possible I must say this man can be taken apart in 5 seconds by ordinary Americans with statements like this. Notes at end of this post. ed).
  

(continuing, Chicago Tribune): "During the recent campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new GOP members of Congress, 50% are climate-change skeptics,

• according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Prominent Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa of Vista, Joe L. Barton of Texas and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They say they also intend to probe the so-called Climategate scandal, in which thousands of e-mails of leading climate scientists were hacked and released to the public late last year.

Climate-change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by skeptics and manipulated data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers involved and validated the science."...

• (This is not accurate although has been widely reported. There were some so-called inquiries, but nothing was really examined or validated, and personnel involved in the reviews had stakes in allowing the status quo to remain. Further, the reporter choosing to characterize the emails merely as 'sniping' indicates he or she has not read them nor talked to anyone else who has. See notes at end of this post. ed.)
  

(continuing, Chicago Tribune): "People who ask for and accept taxpayer dollars shouldn't get bent out of shape when asked to account for the money," said James M. Taylor, a senior fellow and a specialist in global warming at the conservative Heartland Institute in Chicago. "The budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists."

• Ongoing public interest in Climategate has prompted the scientists to act.

The American Geological Union plan has attracted a large number of scientists in a short time because they were eager to address what they see as climate misinformation, said

• Jeffrey Taylor, research fellow at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado

• and manager of the project.

Still, the scope of the group's work is limited, reflecting the ongoing reluctance among many scientists to venture into politics.

The rapid-response team, however, is willing to delve into politics. In the week that Abraham and others have been marshaling the team, 39 scientists agreed to participate, including

• Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
  

• Kevin Trenberth,*** head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and
  

• Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

"People who've already dug their heels in, we're not going to change their opinions," Mandia said. "We're trying to reach people who may not have an opinion or opinion based on limited information."

• ***Trenberth, from the 2007 UN Nobel winning team, said 4/12/10, global warming has stopped and he can't figure out why:
  
• Nobel Prize winning lead author Kevin Trenberth, says global warming has stopped. "“The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue." ...“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. "...

"'Missing' heat may affect future climate change," 4/12/10, from Newswire, Source: National Center for Atmospheric Research.

• From ClimateGate emails, items 1, 3, 5. Other items from press reports:

The lead UN Nobel winning scientist said publicly the planet has not warmed since 1995.

1. Even says climate has cooled 1998-2005, ClimateGate emails, July 5, 2005, from Nobel winner Phil Jones, head of CRU (whose data was used in UN Climate Report):

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.

• OK it has

but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."...####

2. 2/14/10, "ClimateGate U-Turn as scientist at centre of row admits: there has been no global warming since 1995," UK Daily Mail, J. Petre

• "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming,

• although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."...

3. ClimateGate email, July 6, 2005, Phil Jones reveals chump US taxpayers (unknowingly) have been supporting him for 25 years.

• "...I hope I don't get a call from congress ! I'm hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last

• 25 years....

• Cheers, Phil"

####
4. 11/19/09, "Climatologists baffled by global warming time-out," over 10 years, Der Spiegel, by G. Traufetter

• "Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.
  
• 
  
• Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents."...

5. After admitting no global warming has happened since at least 1995, Crusading ClimateGate figure

• receives congratulations from fellow 'scientist' for changing how the world sees "human effects on climate".

From ClimateGate East Anglia emails, 10/9/2009, "From: Ben Santer
To: P.Jones
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that
destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record. Dear Phil,

• ...I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted

• to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. I'll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.

• The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is of crucial importance -
  

it changed the way the world thinks about human effects on climate."...

6. 11/29/09, "Climate change data dumped," TimesOnline UK, by Jonathan Leake

"Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

• It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was

forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape —

• were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said:

• “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures.

• Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled.

That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records.

• “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.

• So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.

• The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years. He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans.

Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity."

• ####

"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."...

via Lucianne.com

The UN even banned the entire country of China from 'climate' deals due to suspected fraud. Coming from the UN it had to be pretty bad

12/8/09, (See very end of article written from Copenhagen climate where pressure was on to make 'deals'):

• "The UN last week banned several Chinese wind farms

from participating in the scheme,

• having temporarily suspended the whole country, over fears

• they had been playing the system. ...UK Telegraph, R. Mason, 12/8/09

"Criminal activity is not the exception to the rule, but intrinsic to a carbon market."...(3/5/10, EU Observer, 2/1/09, Guardian UK Commentary)

• 10/8, BBC, "Rich nations 'failing to deliver climate cash,' " by Roger Harrabin
  

What 'rich nations?' The world is in a huge depression with worse to come. The idea of global warming was only intended to subjugate the evil American middle class to corrupt UN grifters and transfer hard earned dollars of the few Americans who still have jobs to various climate crooks.

• The NRDC's mission statement even says it's about social justice. It makes them sound like they 'care,' that they must be 'good':
  

"We seek to break down the pattern of disproportionate environmental burdens borne by

• people of color and others who face social or economic inequities."...

It doesn't mention the trillions in carbon trading involved, that billions have already been scammed by organized crime in global carbon schemes and other climate industry schemes. That has caused some "inequality.":

• "Criminal activity is not the exception to the rule, but intrinsic to a carbon market."...(3/5/10, EU Observer, 2/1/09, Guardian UK Commentary)

UK Royal Society revises climate change view, says uncertainties exist and will not presume to advise governments

9/30, "Great Britain's leading scientific institution on Wednesday

• softened its position on manmade global warming.

In a document published after a rebellion by more than 40 of its fellows, the Royal Society's new guide to climate change says there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it previously had suggested.

As you might imagine, the following report from Britain's Times has climate realists all across the globe buzzing (subscription required):

Climate change: a summary of the science states that "some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced". Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide - the document it replaces - it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond.

The new guide says: "The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty."

The Royal Society even appears to criticise scientists who have made predictions about heatwaves and rising sea levels. It now says: "There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales."

It adds: "It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.

"There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding."

The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Benny Peiser was thrilled by this announcement:

The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved. "The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s

has come to a halt in the last 10 years," said Dr Benny Peiser, the Director of the GWPF. [...]

In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.

"If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position all along, its message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's unilateral climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world," Dr Peiser said."...

• via Climate Depot