Baseball Media Watch2

$200 million wind farm frozen stiff for weeks, blades iced

2011-02-16T07:39:00.000-08:00

2/15/11, "Northern New Brunswick (Canada) wind turbines frozen solid," Telegraph Journal, National Post

"A $200-million wind farm in northern New Brunswick is frozen solid, cutting off a potential supply of renewable energy for NB Power.

The 25-kilometre stretch of wind turbines, located 70 kilometres northwest of Bathurst, N.B. has been completely

shutdown for several weeks due to heavy ice covering the blades.

GDF SUEZ Energy, the company that owns and operates the site, is working to return the windmills to working order, a spokeswoman says.

“We can’t control the weather,” Julie Vitek said in an interview from company headquarters in Houston, Texas."...

via Tom Nelson

In 2011 the US will spend $4 billion taxpayer dollars on global warming 'research,' though the science is supposedly 'settled'

2011-01-16T22:55:00.000-08:00

"The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation"...

So much porn viewing was going on at the NSF among even elite staff members that it states it doesn't have time to do its regular job.

It is unable to devote time and personnel to picking worthy projects and checking to see that taxpayer money was spent correctly. Everyone at the NSF should have been fired, instead they get more of our money. Don't be a murderer and complain, now.

1/15/11, "This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding

no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature.

The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect;

water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect.

By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%.

Here is what the federal government thinks is happening with the Earth’s climate due to the burning of fossil fuels — the following quote is from chapter 15 of the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request:

Past scientific research demonstrates that the Earth’s climate is changing, that humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century, and that further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption. This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species.

The first sentence is obvious: of course the Earth’s climate is changing; it always has and always will no matter what we do.

The next statement — “humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century” —

is speculation.

The statement completely ignores any natural variability in the climate. Apparently all of nature’s power to regulate the Earth’s temperature, which has been going on for millions of years,

stopped 50 years ago,

and now carbon dioxide is the principal driver of the climate. This is political and social advocacy,

not science.

Then, this statement: “further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to

additional

widespread climate disruption.” The implication is that there has already been widespread climate disruption — there has not. There is no more extreme weather going on now than anytime in the last 2,000 years. Per the complex Orwellian world of government-speak, we

have now moved on from “global warming”

to “climate change” to

“climate disruption.”

Climate change wasn’t frightening enough! What’s next? My money’s on “climate disintegration” — that should keep the money flowing so we can figure out who and what will be disintegrated.

The statement then reads: “This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species.” And that is the key to all of this: the fear factor. Pitching rising sea levels and other catastrophic consequences to keep the research money coming.

If you want to know where to save money in the budget, cut the vast sums of redundant funding headed to redundant federal agencies doing redundant climate change research. Four billion dollars to study climate change — and that’s just for this year!

Check the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request, and go to chapter 15: Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget. The numbers are staggering.

In 2011, your government will spend $10.6 million a day to study, combat, and educate about climate change.

The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation — they are requesting $1.616 billion. They want $766 million for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program, a 15.9% increase from their last budget.

They also need another $370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%.
They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and
Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.

Oh, and $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%.

The second largest request for money in 2011 comes from the Department of Energy. They say they need $627 million for things like funding for renewable energy. The request represents a whopping 37% increase from last year! They want a 12% increase for energy efficiency programs. They want to eliminate $2.7 billion of subsidies for industries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Let’s get NASA in on the parade! For 2011, NASA wants $438 million to study climate change, an increase of 14%. NASA’s total Earth Sciences budget request is actually $1.8 billion.

Some $809 million of that is for satellites, some of which are specifically put in orbit to study climate change.

It is difficult to separate out which ones are for climate monitoring and which ones are not, so I won’t include this number in the overall climate change money train. But make no mistake: a significant percentage of the $809 million is exclusively for climate change satellites.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research. This is an increase of 21.4% from the previous budget. This includes funds for regional and national assessments of climate change, including ocean acidification. Once again, another meaty bag of money to tap into for researchers, who have nice cars and big houses and need to keep up the payments.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is also interested in robbing the climate change vault — they say they need $244 million in 2011. Of this total, $171 million is for the Climate Change Adaptation initiative. This program identifies areas and species that are most vulnerable to climate change, and

implements coping strategies.

Another $73 million is needed for the New Energy Frontier initiative. The goal of this program is to increase solar, wind, and geothermal energy capacity.

Solar and wind power don’t survive without this government funding.

Is that $14 trillion making sense yet?

Of course, there’s more. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an increase of 1%. Do you believe that next year greenhouse gases will be reduced by the EPA spending $169 million? I would bet the ranch that greenhouse gases will continue to increase next year, and the year after that, and the year after that despite EPA spending your money.

Is there any government agency that does not get some climate change funding?

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants $338 million for climate change programs. They want $159 million for climate change research, up a whopping 42%. They also want another $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41%! The USDA’s climate change efforts are supposed to help

farm and land owners adapt to the impacts of climate change. Yes, really.

Redundancy on top of redundancy, piles of money on top of piles of money. All to study climate change, which, according to the theory, should be warming us rapidly, but, according to the data, has stopped. How much of the requested money these government agencies actually get is not yet known. The way they spend money in Washington, you can rest assured they’ll get most of it.

If you’re looking to cut the budget, climate change is a good place to start. If we don’t get a handle on Washington’s spending soon, and I mean very soon, climate change will be the least of our problems."

By Art Horn, "How much of your money wasted on 'climate change'? Try $10.6 million a day,"

Pajamas Media, via Tom Nelson

==================================================
Reference:

Washington Times by Jim McElhatton, "Porn surfing rampant at US Science Foundation"

"NSF should review stimulus grants to scientist involved in e-mail scandal," 2/16/10

"Mann claims his hockey stick was given "clean bill of health"" 4/19/10

National Science Foundation $10.5 million grant to PBS station WNET investigated for misuse by the station, 9/16/09, instances ongoing since 2000.

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

2010-12-13T03:42:00.000-08:00

.

"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

2010-12-10T03:16:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-26T20:45:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-17T21:37:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-17T20:47:00.000-08:00

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)

2010-11-07T19:48:00.001-08:00

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

2010-10-09T03:44:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-30T22:04:00.000-07:00

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

Scientists admit mistake about key mantra, dire shrinking Arctic ice, now say not so bad after all-BBC

2010-09-16T19:04:00.000-07:00

9/16, BBC, "Rapid 2010 melt for Arctic ice but no record," Richard Black

Americans are told they must pay billions annually in climate 'reparations' because of constantly retracted 'science,' such as Arctic Ice extent, measurements for which do not exist over a substantial period of time to begin with. The entire climate reporting business is overseen by the same people

who run the postal service, the US government
(occasionally in cooperation with other governments).

BBC: "Ice floating on the Arctic Ocean melted unusually quickly this year, but did not shrink down to the record minimum area seen in 2007.

That is the preliminary finding of US scientists who say the summer minimum

seems to have passed and the ice has entered its winter growth phase.

2010's summer Arctic ice minimum is the third smallest in the satellite era.

Researchers say projections of summer ice disappearing entirely within the next few years

increasingly look wrong."...

####

Ice Ages have come and gone long before the industrial era. How do they explain that? They can't. At best they say, well carbon trading is a good idea anyway. We all want clean air and water, but those are

separate issues from catastrophic man induced CO2 danger and carbon trading. ed.

As per its mission statement,* the NRDC is anxious to

transfer hard earned US taxpayer dollars to 'developing' third world dictatorships:

9/16, NRDC, Climate finance: "This summer the Senate Appropriations Committee released budget recommendations for 2011 which include over

1.2 billion to combat the impacts of global warming

pollution

and shift to a clean energy future. The funding will provide critical

investments in developing countries to reduce tropical deforestation,

drive clean energy investment and help vulnerable people adapt to climate change. The Senate recommendations released in July represent a significant increase from the 2010 climate change finance budget, despite some cuts by the Senate to the President’s proposed budget.

The anticipated 2011 climate funds are a good first step,

but the United States must step up its level of investment

over the next few years to shift developing countries away from highly polluting energy programs and toward low-carbon energy pathways. Increased public investment will be needed to scale up to the goals in the Copenhagen Accord. The funds available through this budget cycle will be an

important part of the global fast start-finance commitments and the anticipated Green Fund to be agreed in Cancun this December. "...

*NRDC's mission statement says global warming is political, that environmental injustice is unfairly

"borne by people of color and others who face social and economic inequalities." They are about forcing the transfer of money from industrial nations (the bad guys) to unknown and unaccountable persons in the third world and/or helpers in the endless "climate" industry (including groups like the WWF which displace masses of indigenous people and land).

Brutal equatorial dictators have been cashing in on do-gooder instincts of Americans for many years. Because of global warming (which does not exist), we are told we're still bad and must give billions more every year. But the climate profiteers are good, trust them.

The NRDC also promotes carbon trading programs in states and regions....

Robert Redford spoke to the George Soros climate pressure group Ceres in April 2009

and reportedly said one of the 3 reasons Al Gore's 2006 movie was a turning point was:

"Wall Street realized there was money to be made in 'going green.'"

Cap and Trade strangling 10 northeastern states via RGGI auctions, but NY exec Schrag just bought $2.2M Manhattan condo

2010-09-08T18:39:00.000-07:00

Climate guys say 'our lifestyle is not sustainable', but what they mean is YOUR lifestyle must collapse. THEIR lifestyle is a different story.

Babe Ruth's daughter has said you can't live in New England and not be a Red Sox fan. She held out for awhile, then gave in. Harvard seems to have the same effect on people vs the global warming scam, ie, no matter what you think when you enter Harvard, by the time you leave you'll buy into it along with cap and trade. For example Jonathan Schrag, the head of the 10 northeast state 'mandatory' cap and trade outfit, RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

"Jonathan Schrag, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc.

(3/09) Jonathan Schrag joined RGGI, Inc. as Executive Director in May 2008. Before RGGI, Mr. Schrag was a partner of Hudson Strategic Energy Advisors LLC, where he worked with the state governments of Wyoming, West Virginia, and Montana and the Western Governors Association on energy, climate and the environment. From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Schrag was an Assistant Director of the

Earth Institute at Columbia University and the Executive Director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy,

where he ran programs on carbon capture and sequestration,

nuclear energy, carbon policy, and renewable energy technologies. Mr. Schrag also served as Research Staff with the Global Roundtable on Climate Change and as a Research Associate for Columbia University's Center for Carbon Management. Mr. Schrag earned AB and AM degrees

from Harvard University and

received a Fulbright scholarship for research in the history of electrification. He lives in New York City."

In July 2010, Schrag and his wife bought a $2.2 million condo in Manhattan.

We must take steps to un-do the corruption of government funded science

2010-08-29T23:38:00.000-07:00

8/28/10, "Many people have come to understand that the climate scam involves collusion between corrupt politicians and dishonest scientists. The problem however, is much broader even than Al Gore. Science is critical to our modern existence. Large amounts of public money are spent on a wide range of scientific activities each year; a practice that has become the heart of the problem.

Yet, precious little focus has been placed on developing reforms

to undo the ongoing damage.

The climate change example has demonstrated that scientific integrity can be compromised with money. This doesn’t mean that all scientists are dishonest. But experience shows that these kinds of problems, involving insufficiently safeguarded access to money, tend to grow. Indeed, as more money was offered to a broader group of scientists during Al Gore’s political tenure, we discovered that many scientists are willing to compromise at least a little. When funding was offered to virtually any scientist who was willing to include an untested support phrase for man-made global warming in final reports and articles, propagandists got the result they wanted; a large number of published papers containing a gratuitous statement of support.

(Publishing scientists cited reports that claimed that man-made global warming is really bad and destined to get worse without containing any research to test the claims.)

Those who compromised got funding and published papers, padding out their resumes and improving their chances of more funding and greater numbers of research students. Those who did not compromise would later be characterized as lesser scientists by those who did, based on having received less funding and having published fewer papers in “climate science,” an activity now nearly completely defined by paid support for a political agenda. The snowballing continues as

increased taxation and spending related to global warming is one of the key goals in the Obama agenda; it’s execution already involving impeachable abuses of power and

open corruption in the EPA. The argument for their agenda is that they are supported by a “scientific consensus.”

The circle of corruption is almost complete. As children were indoctrinated with the fake science, they (and many others) were pushed to a level of ignorance previously thought impossible in the modern, civilized world. Millions accepted, in effect, the outlandish superstitious idea that insufficient sacrifice to and worship of the leftist Political Class would summon the wrath of nature.

The social, emotional, and intellectual damage caused by such well-funded misinformation campaigns is immeasurable.

Corrupt use of experts is not confined to research. It is common practice for politicians and bureaucrats to construct commissions to investigate policy issues, padded with members who they can trust will recommend the policies that they desire. Policies are then constructed based on commission reports,

allowing bureaucrats to sidestep lack of real justification and to ignore public criticism. (Related article on publicly funded EPA propaganda campaign.)

Commission members can easily be found among academics who have built careers on public funding and have shown a willingness to compromise on other occasions. They can even be drawn from the population that owes their appointments to cronyism; providing them with pseudo-qualifications by job title and position history. (Even in Supreme Court appointments. This is how the Political Class operates.)

In reaching toward One World Government, US government funding has even been causing chaos in other countries.

Using counter-terrorism related funding, the Department of Homeland Security has been able to fund technical research and development in all politically friendly nations. This gave an unprecedented level of control to a US bureaucracy in effecting strategic research throughout the Western World. Thinking it a good deal, and feeling some obligation to join a unified front against terrorism, politicians accepted the offer and reorganized their strategic research plans toward a “cooperative” plan. This sometimes involved dropping some of the most promising and critical research being done in their own countries; decisions that will ultimately weaken the Western alliance economically and militarily.

What to do? Certainly, public funding for science and engineering has historically produced enormous benefits. It would be easy to respond to the misuse of the power of funding by politicians by simply arguing for greater scientific independence. But we know that scientists are people too, subject to temptation like everyone else. One should also consider that mission focused research and development in some areas, such as military technology, is critical. Advancements in energy production, storage, distribution, and use throughout our history (not all publicly funded) have dramatically improved our lives and will likely lead to economically sound alternative energy sources in the future. Someone has to decide how and how much public money should be spent.

How do we allow continuous spraying of funds into the right areas while assuring that holes are not being poked in the hose?

How do we sustain an effective public effort while checking the influence of our government representatives?"

"What about the destructive influence of US government funding on science?" by Roger F. Gay, Mens News Daily

The US taxpayer via the government has funded the ClimateGate group every year since 1990, to the sum of at least 131,000UK pounds per year:

from Times UK, 7/18/10

"The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the (East Anglia CRU) unit’s main sources of funding for its work assembling a database of global temperatures.

It has supported the CRU financially since 1990 and gives the unit about £131,000 a year on a rolling three-year contract."...

(The above article mentioned payments were going on slight hiatus, but they've no doubt resumed ten-fold. There are of course many other ways US taxpayers have "contributed" to global warming "research" they never know about).

via Tom Nelson

"What the Chinese really think about 'man-made global warming'"

2010-08-19T00:58:00.000-07:00

Robert Redford raises himself to the level of Frank Luntz (who dreams things up for money) when he claims that US cap and trade would mean we'd have a chance to beat China in a so-called race for 'green jobs.'

8/12/10: "One of the great lies told us by our political leaders in order to persuade us to accept their swingeing and pointless green taxes and their economically suicidal, environmentally

vandalistic wind-farm building programmes is that if we don’t do it China will.

Apparently, just waiting to be grabbed out there are these glittering, golden prizes marked “Green jobs” and “Green technologies” – and if only we can get there before those scary, mysterious Chinese do, well, maybe the West will enjoy just a few more years of economic hegemony before the BRICs nations thwack us into the long grass.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. The Chinese do not remotely believe in the myth of Man-Made Global Warming nor in the efficacy of “alternative energy”. Why should they? It’s not as if there is any evidence for it. The only reason the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming myth has penetrated so deeply into Western culture is… No. I’m going to save that stuff for my fairly imminent (Nov?) book on the subject which I hope you’re all going to buy.

What do the Chinese think about CAGW? Well, until now it was largely a question of educated guesswork, based on inferences like the fact that it was the Chinese who derailed the Copenhagen negotiations. But thanks to a new book called Low Carbon Plot by Gou Hongyang we know exactly what the official view is....

Here, for example, is the author’s damning verdict on the Climate Change industry. Noting the irony of the spate of freezing cold weather that greeted the Copenhagen summit, the author wrily notes:

It was as if the freezing cold winter was having a laugh at all of these “Global Warming” theories. If the world was warming at an ever quickening pace, as all of these environmentalists say, then whence from such extreme cold? Whenever there are any doubts about Global Warming, it is almost as though environmentalists turn everything around and claim that this is too, a result of Global Warming. The Greenhouse Effect has turned in to a big basket, no matter what bad thing it is, just chuck it in.

He is even more damning about solar power in which, let it not be forgotten, China is supposed to be the world’s most shining example of just how well it can work.

First, he neatly captures the wishy-washy, John-Clare-esque pastoral utopianism which drives greenies to throw commonsense out of the window and pursue “renewable energy” regardless of all the facts:

Isn’t this the most beautiful thought possible, no pollution, everywhere is just greenery mountains and rivers, people won’t need to worry about coal mines collapsing, no need to worry about forests being chopped down, no need to worry about rising sea levels submerging island nations. It is as if, if only humanity could adopt clean energy, then all of our problems would be resolved with one sweep of the knife. But is the result really thus?

There is a very real problem staring everybody in the face. Solar power, wind power, can they be implemented on a large scale? Can they provide large scale industries with enough electricity? Can they supply trains with the power to fly along the tracks?

It is obvious, that the answer is in the negative.

He then – rather daringly, I think – weighs into the environmental unsoundness of this supposedly clean energy source:

Is solar power really clean? Investigations show that the base silicon that solar panels rely on is extracted via a energy intensive, heavily polluting industry. And where is this industry based? China.

China has already become the world’s biggest photovoltaic industrial market. The most important ingredient in solar power is polycrystalline silicon. The efficiency of manufacturing the panels is rather low, and a lot of pollution is generated as a by-product. When local industries started producing polycrystalline silicon, they were mostly reliant on outdated technology. Apart from high energy consumption, for every ton of pure polycrystalline silicon created, there were also more than 8 tons of ammonium chlorid[adized] silcon as by-product, as well as [other shit that a cursory look at google translate doesn't answer].

The prosperity of China’s solar power industry, at the price of the environment of those rather weak distant regions, in order to attract commerce and investment, in order to collect tax revenue, very many environmental appraisal programmes have not yet been strictly implemented.

Here is the author eloquently demolishing the Carbon = Poison meme:

Will the increase in Carbon Dioxide definitely lead to the planet warming? Although there have been many many reports published by research institutes that verify this, but from the viewpoint of the history of man, and scientific method, the theories have not yet achieved scientific proof.

But, after many years of repeated indoctrination from every kind of propaganda machine, and the mixing together of environmental pollution and the exhaustion of natural resources, people have already formed a conditioned reflex, when the wind blows, the grass bends with it, and quickly hang these things on the hook of “carbon”, and attempted to get rid of carbon at a faster rate. We need to start peeling, and get back to the real world, and cannot stick labels everywhere. “Carbon” is the same “carbon” it was before, we must not get in to too much of a fluster. It is with polluted water/effluent, acid rain, destructive logging and waste with which we must struggle over the long term.

And here he is concluding that it is a fiendish plot – a new Cold War to all intents and purposes – by the West to suppress the economic growth of the BRICS nations.

"Behind the back of the demonizing of “carbon”, we must recognize that it is the sinister intention of the Developed Countries to attempt to use “carbon” to block the living space of the Developing Countries.

There is only one Earth, natural resources are limited. If according to current technological conditions, and Developing Countries had the same living standard as Developed Countries, then we’d need at least 3 to 5 Earth’s to satisfy our appetites. This is what Developed Countries are most afraid of, the development of the Developing Countries poses an enormous threat to their way of lives....

In the eyes of some Westerners, the many developing countries have absolutely no right to enjoy the same standard of life as them.

If we really are equal, are of one mind, and together protect the Earth – our garden, we really can see a beautiful utopia in the future. But the Developed countries do not in the slightest wish to take any responsibility, they have set up double standards over “carbon emissions”, everywhere reflecting their arrogance and selfishness.

Behind “the Carbon Plot” is national interest, it is the bitter struggle for the right to existance for every country.

At this time, we again see the struggle between two camps, Europe, the USA and other developed countries, and China, India, Brazil, and Russia as the representatives of the Developing Countries, owing to their common interest, now walking closely together."

Personally, I think his conclusion says more about BRICs chippiness and paranioa than it does socio-political actualite.

The CAGW scam owes much more to an attempted power grab by the left in order to achieve “environmentally” in the 21st century what it couldn’t achieve economically in the 20th Century, viz: total state control of the means of production, in the guise of ecological correctness.

But it doesn’t really matter whether the author is right or wrong in what he thinks. What matters is simply that this IS how the Chinese think, which, whether you love China or loathe it

is fantastically good news for those of us in the realist/sceptics camp.

China, after all, is the world’s future dominant economic power and, this being so, it makes an absolute nonsense of attempts by the EU and the US to hamper our industrial growth by imposing on our economies

eco-taxes and eco-regulations which the Chinese intend to ignore completely.

This truth hasn’t hit home yet: not in the EU; not in the Cleggeron Coalition; not in Obama’s USA. Here’s my bet. The first to see sense on this will be whichever Republican administration takes over from Obama’s one-term presidency in 2012. From that point on – by which time we’ll have had two more exceptionally cold winters to concentrate our minds – British and European environmental policy will look increasingly foolish and irrelevant." ***

Great piece except I question the ending-the Republican Party still does not exist in the US. Those who control the apparent 'business side' of the entrenched GOP are determined to re-elect Obama. On top of that, from what I see of new guys elected on the Republican line such as Scott Brown and Chris Christie, they're already completely detached from American voters. ed.

article via Prison Planet

P.S. If you gave a billion dollar grant to an impoverished nation in Africa or a small island nation in the Pacific for a 'jobs' program, the money would eventually run out.

The jobs would mostly be temporary, transferred from productive people elsewhere. Unless people develop their own industry, they will always be poor. This is what is happening now, as a Chinese poet describes communism and tyranny:

"I felt that I wanted to drink some water but you
used a kiss to block off my mouth
I don’t want to leave and I don’t want to cry
Because my body is already withered and dry"...

poem via American Thinker

(The few words of that poem made me think of the George Soros method).

UK carbon schemes well set up for organized crime, 'green' taxes pile on already struggling companies

2010-08-11T18:01:00.000-07:00

8/9, Central Europe's largest utility "CEZ stops some carbon trade over fraud suspicions," Reuters,

"A 5 billion euro ($6.65 billion) tax evasion scam in carbon trading in at least 11 countries" is being investigated by authorities.

8/10, "Business facing a wave of green taxes," Telegraph UK, by Kirkup, Wallop, and Gray

"From April 2011, firms will need to buy permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted.

Companies that fail to register their energy use by next month will be hit with fines that could reach £45,000

under the little-known rules.

Those that do participate in the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) initiative by declaring their energy use will face charges for every ton of greenhouse gas they produce.

These payments are expected to average £38,000 a year for medium-sized firms, and could reach £100,000 for larger organisations.

Surveys have shown that

thousands of businesses are unaware they are supposed to be taking part,
or even that the scheme exists at all.

The imposition of new charges and fines will put pressure on firms at a time when economists are

warning of a “double dip” recession as companies, consumers and the public sector all
cut their spending....

The scheme is intended to create a financial incentive

to cut energy use,

and those organisations that record the biggest reductions will get bonuses, funded by penalties imposed on those with the worst record.

Of about 4,000 organisations estimated to qualify for the scheme, only 1,229 have registered to date,
leaving thousands at risk of fines....

Another 15,000 smaller organisations are also required to register and could be expected to buy permits in the future. If they miss the September deadline, they face fines of £500....

The Environment Agency, which will run the scheme for the Government,
has refused even to publish a list of the companies that are required to register.

The Coalition is pressing ahead with the CRC despite Conservative pledges to cut red-tape on businesses.

Business groups said the paperwork and costs involved in complying with the CRC scheme could put a

significant new burden on companies already struggling

in an uncertain economic climate.

The Bank of England is expected to underline fears about the economy today with forecasts for

faltering economic growth and persistent inflation.

Yesterday, the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply reported

a slowdown in British manufacturing exports to Europe."...

6/22/10, "UK raises VAT tax to 20% in budget," RTE News. (VAT tax countries are most easily exploited

by organized crime carbon trading).

via Tom Nelson

35th anniversary of the term "global warming"

2010-08-06T00:16:00.000-07:00

"I strongly doubt whether Wally Broecker realised that when his 1975 Science paper was titled "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?"

he knew that the term would go on to gain such international traction."...Guardian UK, Environment blog, "Is is time to retire the term 'global warming'?"

Time to retire another member of the Ruling Class, Senator Sam Brownback (R) Kansas over 'wind' pork

2010-08-01T20:37:00.000-07:00

Senator Sam Brownback, (R) Kansas wants "wind" dollars pretty bad. That means abandoning the country and jumping on board with 'climate' profiteers. A concerned citizen writes an open letter to him about how wrong this is.

A Commenter to the letter says this is a great example of how our entire political system is now an open pig call, in effect:

"Jon Boone { 08.01.10 at 10:29 am }: "Nothing exemplifies the rot at the core of our political culture like the ongoing bipartisan rush to the bottom in support of wind technology subsidies. For those who think the Obama Administration is pushing wind as part of a “liberal” agenda, let me suggest they look at the

recent activities of former president George W. Bush, who is now a poster boy for the American Wind Energy Association:http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/05-19-10-Speakers_at_WindPower2010.html.

As governor of Texas, Bush signed into law one of the early RPS bills, then appointed the head of the Texas Public Utility Commission, Pat Wood, to “put in place non-discriminatory transmission policies,” assuring wind would not pay its fair share of the costs of doing business.

Sam Brownback is merely securing pride of place at the public trough, joining colleagues like North Dakota’s Byron Dorgan and Chuck Grassley from Iowa, among many others on both sides of the aisle–from Boxer to Snowe, from Mikulski to Landrieu. And, hey, let’s not forget Lindsey Graham.

Using public funds to pimp for the wind welfare queen brings us all together, in the process corrupting; the heart and soul of our body politic."
from 8/1, "Open letter to Senator Brownback on his support for a federal renewable energy standard" by Thomas Stacy II, MasterResource blog

via Tom Nelson

Parent says Al Gore book inappropriate for 4th grader summer reading

2010-07-27T00:40:00.000-07:00

7/26, "Parent concerned that Al Gore's book on summer reading list for 4th graders," WVEC.com, K. Hopkins, Norfolk, Virginia

Norfolk: "A Norfolk woman says Al Gore’s book on global warming isn’t appropriate reading for fourth graders.

The book, An Inconvenient Truth, is on the Norfolk Public Schools’ recommended summer reading list for fourth graders.

"It shows the different things in the planet erupting and visual disturbances in the book itself. I have skimmed through it, there are frightening things in there.
His whole point to that book is to shock people," says Laura Brown.

Also are the list are more standard fare – like Matilda or The American Girl.

School officials say the list of books is just a suggestion as recommended by the American Library System.

Board vice chair Karen Squires Jones says she has no problem with Gore’s book, but says it's likely better material for high school students.

She also believes some people are opposed to Gore and his viewpoints so they won't see his book as being factual.

In England, the High Court ruled the film, which won two Academy Awards, could be sent and used in schools - if accompanied by guidance

giving the other side of the argument.

Parents can fill out a form challenging instructional materials." via Tom Nelson

ClimateGater Michael Mann throws bouquet to pals in the 'prestige press' in email to NY Times

2010-07-18T16:08:00.000-07:00

'Prestige press' is much more flattering than 'mainstream media' or 'legacy media.' Especially when addressing NY Times buddy Andrew Revkin as Mann was:

"September 29, 2009, at 5:08PM, Michael Mann wrote:

Hi Andy,

"All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and
the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn
Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are
parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections
with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer
review.

Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?

mike"

Mann's email to Revkin was in response to the following:

"On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:

needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid
picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements
about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct?
--
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax: 509-357-0965
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin"

In between the 2 emails was this reference to the US Senate's vote on CAP AND TRADE:

"I'm sure you're aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the
science in the weeks leading up to the

vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is no"...

NOTE to climate scientists: None of this is about you, but you probably already know that. You're just something thrown in to distract American citizens from the real issue. Which is carbon trading and the 'climate' industry, which existed long before anyone ever heard of you. ed.

Amazongate media debacle with billions at stake goes down to defeat--again. IPAM sham.

2010-07-10T22:44:00.000-07:00

The Amazongate lie has again and finally been exposed. A good day

for those who really care about the planet as opposed to media shills and insanely rich grand standers like the WWF and NY Mayor Bloomberg stomping their feet, throwing fits to get their one last bottle: THE US SENATE's passage of an "energy" bill and the enslavement of a distracted American citizenry in perpetuity. By people utterly without conscience:

7/10/10, "Amazongate: At last we reach the source," UK Telegraph, C. Booker

"The (UN) IPCC's attempts to hide the truth about its exaggerated claims on the deforestation of the Amazon have ended in defeat...Fire in the Amazon, it turns out, was not a 'report' or a scientific paper but,

as the WWF now acknowledges, a text published by IPAM(?) on its website in 1999." (Taken down in 2003)

"Last week, after six months of evasions, obfuscation, denials and retractions, a story which has preoccupied this column on and off since January came to a startling conclusion. It turns out that one of the most

widely publicised statements in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –

a claim on which tens of billions of dollars could hang –

was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated

solely from anonymous propaganda

published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy group.

The ramifications of this discovery stretch in many directions. First, it seems to show that the IPCC – whose reports

governments rely on to justify presenting mankind with the largest bill in history

has been in serious breach of its own rules.

Second, it raises hefty question marks over the credibility of

the world’s richest and most powerful environmental pressure group, the WWF,
credited by the IPCC as the source of its unsupported claim.

And third, it focuses attention once more on a bizarre scheme, backed by the UN and promoted by the World Bank, whereby the WWF has been hoping to share in profits estimated at $60 billion,

paid for by firms all over the developed world.

“Amazongate”, it may be recalled, was one of the rash of scandals which rocked the authority of the IPCC last winter, when it was revealed that many of the more alarmist statements in its 2007 report

originated not from peer-reviewed science but from papers written by environmental pressure groups. One which aroused particular controversy was a warning that

climate change was putting at risk up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest.

Chapter 13 of the IPCC’s Working Group II report on “climate impacts” specifically claimed that “up to 40 per cent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation”.

It went on to say that this would cause such chaos in local climate systems that the forest could rapidly revert to savannah.

The only source cited for this claim was the Global Review of Forest Fires, a paper written for WWF and the International Union for Conservation of Nature in 2000,

the lead author of which was an environmental activist and freelance journalist.

This in turn appeared to cite a paper published in 1999 by a team led by Dr Daniel Nepstad, “senior scientist” with another advocacy group closely linked to the WWF, the Woods Hole Research Center.

However, Nepstad’s paper was primarily concerned not with climate change but with the impact of logging and fires.

When this created a storm last January, the WWF quickly issued a “clarification”, stating that its own paper “does not say that 40 per cent of the Amazon forest is at risk from climate change”. But it went on to say that the real source of the claim

quoted by the IPCC was a document, Fire in the Amazon, published

by the “respected Instituto de Pesquiza Ambiental da Amazonia (IPAM)”.

Headed by Nepstad, IPAM is a Brazilian advocacy group, also closely linked with the Woods Hole Research Center.

The document cited by the WWF, which it later described, after a full internal inquiry, as a “report”, proved remarkably difficult to track down.

Since then, both the WWF and Dr Nepstad have cited other papers in support of their claim – but

none of these provided any support for the specific claim about the impact of climate change made by the IPCC.

Only now, after I was able to confront them with evidence from an internet archive, has the WWF finally admitted the precise origin of the IPCC’s much-quoted claim. Fire in the Amazon, it turns out,

was not a “report” or a scientific paper but, as the WWF now acknowledges, a “text published by IPAM… on its website in 1999”.

It was merely a brief, anonymous and unreferenced note on the exposure of the forest to fire risks, posted in February 1999 and taken down four years later.

Here, at last, is the sole source for the statement later published by the IPCC.

The original read:

“Probably

30-40 per cent of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” This was hyped up in the final drafting of the IPCC report, to claim that “up to 40 per cent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation”. “Brazilian Amazon” – only around half the total rainforest area – was changed to include the entire forest.

The word “sensitive” was changed to “react drastically”.

And the original IPAM note had made no mention at all of climate change.

To begin with, this would seem to justify a formal complaint to the IPCC that it was acting in breach of its own rules. Annex 2 of its rules of procedure lays down that

non-peer-reviewed material should only be cited when it has been subjected to rigorous critical appraisal

and that “each chapter team should review the quality and validity of each source before including results from the source into an IPCC report”.

Last week I put it to the IPCC that it should at least acknowledge this blatant breach of its rules and withdraw the passage, as it did last winter when it was revealed that it had no scientific basis for claiming that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

To date I have had no reply.

Neither WWF nor Woods Hole come well out of this story.

In seeking to justify their part in the IPCC’s statement, they have cited other studies which they claim support it – but neither, until now, has been honest enough to admit that it was based on an unsubstantiated website claim.

This curious episode may also point to another reason why WWF and Woods Hole have been so active in recent years to promote concern over the danger of global warming for the Amazon rainforest.

As I revealed here on March 20, they have been closely allied in support of a scheme known as REDD (Reduction in Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation of Tropical Forests).

Its aim is to turn the CO2 in forest trees into “carbon credits”, saleable on the world market to allow firms to continue emitting CO2. Backed by $80 million from the World Bank, WWF, Woods Hole and IPAM are partners in a consortium, supported by the Brazilian government, to protect and manage a vast area of forest in the Tumucumaque region, in return for which they would have the right to sell its carbon credits.

In 2007 Dr Nepstad published a formula which would allow the carbon contained in the entire forest

to be valued at $60 billion.

Although the REDD scheme was approved in principle at December’s UN Copenhagen conference, two serious snags remain.

First, it has yet to be approved in detail (although they still hope to achieve this in Cancun later this year).

Second, the US Senate still hasn’t passed its cap and trade bill, which would open up a lucrative new market for anyone involved in carbon trading, such as
those with a stake in REDD.

Finally, we may recall, another newspaper recently published a prominent “correction” to its earlier report on Amazongate –

accepting that “the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence” and that this was “based on research by the respected IPAM which did relate to the impact of climate change”. Since neither of these statements seems to be true,
perhaps we can look forward to a retraction of the retraction?

Equally unhappy may be all those global warming enthusiasts who took this climbdown as licence to crow shamelessly over those of us who, last January, helped to expose Amazongate as a major IPCC system failure.

The IPCC, they chorused, had been totally vindicated,

the climate change sceptics had been utterly routed. Today, I fear, it is they who have been put to rout and

we who have been vindicated."

via Climate Depot

P.S. This blog makes no money, never has and never will. I have never been to an 'international seminar' funded by an oil company. Climate scientists are bit players in this. The big player in 'climate' is the media, especially the US media. ed.

TIME to stop patronizing Time Magazine partners Shell Oil and Siemens

2010-07-05T17:03:00.001-07:00

Time says it's making climate/energy related presentations in association with
Shell Oil and Siemens. It's time to stop patronizing Shell Oil, Siemens and all global warming related sponsors of Time.

Both from Time.com website, 7/5/10

It's Time to stop patronizing Time Magazine's advertisers especially those advocating man-made global warming

2010-07-04T20:24:00.000-07:00

My personal view is Time Magazine should not purchased nor its advertisers patronized. Using Time's logic, if Dick Cheney had been accused of a crime while at Halliburton, and Halliburton did an in depth investigation and found him innocent, Time would shout from its rooftops, "Score one for Dick Cheney! Halliburton has cleared him of all charges!"

It is obvious Time Magazine would never do that, nor should it or anyone for that matter. But it just screamed a big lie about so-called climate science, Penn State, and Michael Mann. The entire basis for its cheer leading of global warming rests on the assumption of climate crimes by evil Americans who are causing sinking islands in the Indian Ocean and must pay billions in "reparations" to UN racketeers and third world dictators. The last paragraph of NRDC's mission statement says its goal is social justice. The global warming scam is not about science.

7/2: "Time magazine, for example, writes, “Score a win for climate science: Penn State University announced today that climate scientist Michael Mann had been cleared of all scientific misconduct charges…”"...

from the Heartland Institute on Penn State clearing its employee, Michael Mann

"Global warming funding is a gravy train for universities, with the government spending literally billions of dollars each year on global warming research. The universities that receive the most government funding are those that most prominently assert a global warming crisis.

Mann, in that regard, has been a cash cow for Penn State....

Accordingly, objective observers have long predicted the university’s internal review of Mann’s conduct would amount to nothing more than snake oil salesmen circling the wagons to protect their vested interests. Penn State lived up (or down) to all expectations yesterday by clearing Mann of all alleged misconduct, despite the explicit and irrefutable evidence contained in the Climategate emails (some of which they acknowledged).

While Penn State’s conduct was sadly predictable, the mainstream media has been equally predictable – and equally devoid of all objectivity and credibility – in unquestioningly championing Penn State’s internal review as “proof” that Mann did nothing wrong, despite the irrefutably damning evidence of the Climategate emails.

Time magazine, for example, writes, “Score a win for climate science: Penn State University announced today that climate scientist Michael Mann had been cleared of all scientific misconduct charges…”

More accurately, how about, “Score a win for corrupt propagandists and bloated university bureaucrats seeking to defend their share of government pork…”?

And “Score a win for shamefully biased leftist cheerleaders disguised as objective journalists…”"...

Gore massage friend feared loss of credibility for global warming movement if she told

2010-06-29T23:48:00.000-07:00

6/29/10: "Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming.""

from police report, "Sex complaint against Gore detailed, credible," Washington Examiner.

Factual error in Laurie David global warming book for children, Leo DiCaprio video withdrawn

2010-06-17T22:18:00.000-07:00

Al Gore friend Laurie David in forefront of twisting innocent minds of other peoples' children, then having the children sell the damage to their parents. Parents pay for the scam with their hard earned taxes. Schools are starting to pick up on their mistake.

6/17, Laurie David global warming children's' book to be withdrawn due to factual error. Say will be returned after corrections. Farther down the article is revealed that a "video" has been shown to children along with presentation of David's books. the video, of course with Leo DiCaprio, is being permanently withdrawn from classroom showing in Nebraska's Millard School district.

"materials used in...class portrayed global warming as fact when scientists disagree.

In the video, DiCaprio attributes global warming to mankind’s "destructive addiction" to oil. He says "big corporations" and politicians gained too much money and power "on our addiction," making them "dangerously resistant to change.""

from Omaha.com, "Global warming book withdrawn," via Tom Nelson

(Di Caprio, what are you telling us to use in our cars instead of oil, starting tomorrow? If you were the "caring" person you imagine yourself to be, wouldn't you have that worked out before selling your anti-oil pitch? ed.)

6/17, NY Times, Big inroads into school rooms of China's children by global warming profiteers."British-run climate projects take root in Chinese schools" via Tom Nelson

Note to all geniuses in Cambridge, Mass. re "the science": UN Climate Scientist says climate "is dominated by weather/natural variability"

2010-06-15T15:13:00.000-07:00

6/15, NY Times Dot Earth blog: UN Climate Report scientist: "[Kevin Trenberth]" The way I think about is that for precipitation there is a shift in distribution caused by increased water vapor. So everything we see has an element of global warming but

is dominated by weather/natural variability."" (Kevin Trenberth led 3 UN Climate Reports. Sorry.) via Tom Nelson

Al Gore lied about islands sinking but he succeeded in pushing the death of the US middle class

2010-06-13T20:21:00.000-07:00

Even Ariana Huffington admits (6/9/10) the US middle class has been killed. This was always the aim of the global warming agenda (among others). Why the surprise at this late date?

Gore could not have sold his 'sinking islands' scam without partners in the media, taking pictures of fake events, underwater cabinet meetings, etc. and telling us it was tragedy and it was all our selfish fault. They made money along with him.

6/11/10: "Of all the apocalyptic imagery summoned by global warming's proponents, the most compelling has been the threat of coastal devastation from rising sea levels. In his best-selling work "Earth in the Balance,"

Al Gore argued that the selfishness of Western industrialization would obliterate small, impoverished countries.

"Although the sea level has risen and fallen through different geological periods, never has the change been anywhere near as rapid as that now expected as a consequence of global warming," he wrote. "... [I]sland nations like the Maldives and Vanuatu (formerly New Hebrides), will be devastated if the projections made by scientists turn out to be accurate."

Mr. Gore solemnly predicted that millions of poor inhabitants would be forced to flee their homelands in a desperate bid for survival - unless we adopt his political agenda.
It just isn't so.

In a forthcoming issue of the journal Global and Planetary Change, researchers from the University of Auckland in New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji documented changes in 27 vulnerable, low-lying reef islands in the Central Pacific.

Using aerial photographs taken as early as 1944, the areas were carefully mapped and compared with modern satellite images.

It turns out that the islands did, in fact, change over time, but they are hardly sinking. Overall, 20 grew or remained stable. The island of Funamanu, for example,

expanded from 7.4 acres to 9.5 acres in size - a 28 percent growth. Only seven islands shrunk, with the
biggest percentage change occurring on Tengasu, which dropped from a tiny 1.7 acres to 1.5 acres - a diminishment of 9,670 square feet, the
size of Mr. Gore's Tennessee mansion."...

Washington Times editorial, "Pacific Islands not sinking from global warming"

Islands not sinking-global warming racketeer has to come up with new angle, get media to fall for

2010-06-03T00:53:00.000-07:00

6/3: Research "published in a scientific journal, Global and Planetary Change. "It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown," Prof Kench told the New Scientist. "But they won't. "The sea level will go up and the island will start responding.".Mentions Tuvalu had increased due to a typhoon in 1972..Sinking islands due to excess CO2 was never true, was never proved to begin with, just an idea used by thugs to beat the American middle class to death.
6/3/10: "New Zealand research shows Pacific Islands not shrinking," from New Zealand television, via WUWT via Tom Nelson

Lufthansa seeks to delay financial strain of carbon trading

2010-05-30T00:07:00.000-07:00

3/29: Berlin - "Europe's largest airline, Lufthansa, wants to delay the start of the introduction of emissions-trading rules for the industry because of the costs incurred after the Icelandic ash-cloud.

Lufthansa Chief Executive Wolfgang Mayrhuber told Die Welt newspaper in an interview to be published Sunday that the airline industry should not be expected to carry both costs alone....

The CEO said that the emissions trading scheme would cost airlines 30 to 40 million euros per year because they would be obliged to buy carbon certificates for flights above their allotted quota." monsters and critics via lucianne.com

Communist China out of any 2010 climate deal

2010-05-25T21:33:00.000-07:00

5/25: "Top European and U.N. officials had already all but ruled out a deal this year, but Xie's comments are the first time the world's number one emitter has confirmed it also does not expect to seal a new pact in 2010."...Reuters, via Tom Nelson

Global warming defeated at Oxford Union, world's most prestigious debate society

2010-05-24T20:10:00.000-07:00

5/24: Final score 135-110 in favor of Climate Realists. "At one point, Lord Lawson was interrupted by a US student, who demanded to know what was his connection with the Science and Public Policy Institute, and what were the Institute’s sources of funding. Lord Lawson was cheered when he said he neither knew nor cared who funded the Institute."...via Tom Nelson, WUWT

Calif. governor office admits improper global warming email, says won't do it again

2010-05-20T23:58:00.000-07:00

"and we'll make sure it doesn't happen again." (Gov. spokesman) (AP gets to this near end of article) ed.

5/21: "A group seeking to suspend California's global warming law said Thursday that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration used its offices to campaign against the initiative, a violation of state law.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said it had filed requests under the California Public Records Act seeking correspondence conducted with state e-mail accounts. The group released an e-mail it said was sent by Schwarzenegger chief deputy director Lisa Kalustian and
included campaign literature and an endorsement form from a campaign committee.

Supporters of the proposed initiative are waiting to see whether it will qualify for the November ballot. If approved by voters, the initiative would delay the 2006 climate regulations until

California's unemployment rate now at 12.6 percent drops to 5.5 percent and stays there for a year.
That's only happened three times in the past three decades.

"The governor's office is misusing taxpayer funds, taxpayer-funded staff and potentially other public agencies

to undermine a ballot initiative just because he disagrees with it," said Howard Jarvis President Jon Coupal.

The group also filed requests with the California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency, and

notified the state's elections watchdog, the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Schwarzenegger's spokesman, Aaron McLear, acknowledged an e-mail was sent from a state account that should not have been

"and we'll make sure it doesn't happen again." He said the governor's office is investigating whether any other e-mails were improperly sent from state accounts.

But he said, "The governor's office absolutely has the right to educate Californians on the benefits of AB32, such as job creation, and the consequences of dirty Texas oil companies killing California's energy policies."

Oil companies are funding the drive to put the initiative on the November ballot."...(italics added)

AP story, Sacramento, by Juliet Williams, "Foes of Calif. global warming law seek Gov. emails" via Tom Nelson

The AP "reporter" makes a statement about "oil companies" without any substantiation whatsoever. There are trillions of dollars behind the global warming fraud, including many from oil companies. UN climate chief Pachauri was installed by Saudi Arabia and heavily favored by oil interests (Climategate emails 4/19/2002).
Job creation? Everyone knows 'green' programs are designed to kill jobs. The AP should check Spain on which the US has based its green jobs projections. Fail. Perhaps the AP reporter attended public schools and as such is not well educated.

The AP proves again it is not a news organization. If it were it would know that Saudi Arabia lobbied intensely for election of UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri to head the IPCC. It's in the Climategate emails, 4/19/2002, that supposedly meant nothing to people at the AP. Oil companies are in the global warming cash coming and going. It's been widely reported that Obama has been the largest recipient of BP oil contributions over the past 20 years. The AP is not much different than Media Matters anymore.

Soros Fabianism continues strangling America, citizens twist slowly in the wind

2010-05-19T16:29:00.000-07:00

5/18, Soros 'climate' pressure group Ceres.org pushes intertwining executive compensation with crippling 'environmental' dogma. Says current financial 'scandals' show the need. (They don't say Soros made billions during the 'scandals' making him the actual 'scandal').

from Guardian UK, "Bonuses can be a good thing if they're linked to carbon emissions," via Tom Nelson

Soros end is near--Spain dumps suicidal, phony global warming schemes

2010-05-14T17:18:00.000-07:00

Soros figured all the world was his Jonestown, that everyone would commit suicide.

5/13 "Better still, all the big money-wasting "green" and "alternative energy" projects — which a Spanish university study exposed as job killers — were scrapped. That's right,

all the global warming measures put in place because of the "emergency"
were dumped.

Not surprisingly, markets rallied on this amazing show of will, whose message was that Spain is not Greece.

It's a heartening story to see a nation on the precipice decide to walk back from the cliff instead of jump. Up until now, socialist states from all over — from Venezuela to Greece — have always resorted to blaming others when the money ran out.

Spain's window into Europe and Latin America gave it a better view than most into how many different ways there are for socialist nations to commit suicide. Spain also witnessed real Hispanic success stories in Chile, Peru and Colombia, as well as Brazil; its recent cutback s would not have been unusual in those successful countries.

This offers important lessons for Europe, but even more so for the U.S., which has embarked on a spending spree and an expansion of public-employee unions."...IBD, "Escaping the PIIGS" 5/13 via Tom Nelson

Winning a war with one tool: ridicule-and the expectation that the target will back down

2010-05-09T20:52:00.000-07:00

"It’s a gradual process and one that the real Statists intend to continue honing and perfecting for

as long as it takes.

They’re not going to do it at knifepoint or gunpoint, they’re simply going to make it

impossible for you to think otherwise

and be taken seriously."

commenter kowalski, 5/9/10, "Post modern politics is about coercion" redstate.com

The media must be fought as a war because it is-Breitbart

2010-05-07T15:54:00.000-07:00

My own observation-if both baseball and news media's sentiments were carried out to their logical conclusion, their own deaths would be the result. They are at minimum, suicidal. I don't accept that agenda. (ed).

"The bias of the liberal media is so deeply ingrained that it is an essential part of its structure -

one that conservatives must fight hard to challenge effectively, according to conservative new media guru Andrew Brietbart. "The left, to me, in essence, is the media," said Breitbart....

Big liberal names like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he explained, "possess limited charms." "Their ability to get what they need to get done is because

they're carrying the water of the media," said Breitbart. "The media is

a left-of-center ecosystem, it's a left-of-center organism.

So the media can change the dynamics of what we're talking about."

Known for attacking liberal media bias head-on, Breitbart is a political commentator who owns his own news web site, Breitbart.com, as well as the blogs Big Hollywood, Big Government and Big Journalism. He also serves as an editor for the Drudge Report.

“I aim everything at attacking the media for its biases and holding them accountable for their biases, and the things that they report incorrectly,

or the things they fail to report,” he said.

“By aiming everything at the media I’ve pretty much done the one thing they ask you not to do.

‘Please accept the premise that we’re fair, and let’s move on.’ No. I’m not going to accept that premise.

“For these people to tell me with a straight face that they don’t come to the media and their jobs from a political perspective, from a left-of-center perspective, is just a bald-faced lie.”

When facing mistreatment by the media, Breitbart urged conservatives

not to play by the rules as defined by the mainstream media.

"These people don't fight fair," he said. "The left does not fight fair, and so I'm basically saying to conservatives, you don't have to fight fair.”

“I want to break down this politically correct paradigm. These are rules that tell conservatives:

you're not allowed to say this, you're not allowed to think that. This type of Orwellian thought crime crap is what I'm fighting against."...

Christians, he said, will only exacerbate the problem if they continue to react

passively to media slander.

"Christian turn-the-cheek tactics do not work agianst this crowd," he said.

Breitbart said he hoped his battle against the liberal media could become "an international movement,"

and likened the battle to the previous century's battle against Communism.

"This is the same battle that Ronald Reagan and many millions of other people fought in the 20th century, it just has a 21st century new media battleground," he said.

"The Cold War is now a new media war."" 5/7

"Andrew Breitbart: The left is, is essence, the media", via gateway pundit

Fannie Mae, Cantor Fitzgerald in global warming carbon trading scheme similar to sub prime mortgages

2010-04-28T16:46:00.000-07:00

WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENTS?
WHERE IS ANYBODY?

"When he wasn't busy helping create a $127 billion mess for taxpayers to clean up, former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines, two of his top underlings and select individuals in

the "green" movement were inventing a patented system to
trade residential carbon credits.

Patent No. 6904336 was approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 -- the day after Democrats took control of Congress....

It wasn't about mortgages. It was about greenbacks. The patent, which Fannie Mae confirmed

it still owns with Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiary CO2e.com,

gives the mortgage giant a lock on the fledgling carbon trading market, thus also giving it a

major financial stake in the success of cap-and-trade legislation.

Besides Raines, the other "inventors" are:

* Former Fannie Vice President and Deputy General Counsel G. Scott Lesmes, who provided legal advice on Fannie Mae's debt and equity offerings;

* Former Fannie Vice President Robert Sahadi, who now runs GreenSpace Investment Financial Services out of his 5,002-square-foot Clarksburg home;

* 2008 Barack Obama fundraiser Kenneth Berlin, an environmental law partner at Skadden Arps;

* Michelle Desiderio, director of the National Green Building Certification program, which trains "green" monitors;

Former Cantor Fitzgerald employee Elizabeth Arner Cavey, wife of Democratic donor Brian Cavey of the Stanton Park Group, which received $200,000 last year to lobby on climate change legislation; and

* Jane Bartels, widow of former CO2e.com CEO Carlton Bartels. Three weeks before Carlton Bartels was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks,

he filed for another patent on the software used in 2003
to set up the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The patent, which covers both the "cap" and "trade" parts of Obama's top domestic energy initiation, gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over an automated trading system that pools and sells credits for hard-to-quantify residential carbon reduction efforts (such as solar panels and high-efficiency appliances) to companies and utilities that don't meet emission reduction targets. Depending on where the Environmental Protection Agency sets arbitrary CO2 standards, that could be every company in America.

The patent summary describes how carbon "and other pollutants yet to be determined" would be "combined into a single emissions pool" and traded -- just as Fannie's toxic portfolio of subprime mortgages were.

"Fannie Mae earns no money on this patent," communications director Amy Bonitatibus told the Washington Examiner.

"We can't conjecture as to the cap-and-trade legislation."

But passage of the legislation would create an artificial, government-mandated,

trillion-dollar carbon trading market that would drive up the price of energy, indirectly

making housing more expensive.

If the proprietary emissions trading system functions like other exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange, which makes most of its revenue on listing and trading fees, its owners could see extremely generous profits, especially with a

patent that keeps out competition for two decades.

So Fannie Mae, a quasi-governmental entity whose congressionally mandated mission is to make housing more affordable, has been a behind-the-scenes participant in a carbon trading scheme that would do just the opposite.

In January, Europol announced that up to 90 percent of the volume in the European Union's own carbon-trading market was fraudulent, costing EU members $5 billion during the previous 18 months.
That would be just the tip of the iceberg if the Congress were to make a similar mistake.

But if it does, thanks to Raines and his fellow "inventors," Fannie Mae will be laughing all the way to the (bailed-out) bank."

"Fannie Mae owns patent on residential cap and trade exchange," Washington Examiner, Hollingsworth, 4/20/10, via Climate Depot

"The $10 trillion climate fraud," 4/28/10, IBD editorial

"Green" fat cats at BBC take 68,000 air flights while lecturing others to take the train nor not go

2010-04-25T21:02:00.000-07:00

"The BBC has spent almost £5million on flying its directors, staff and guests around Britain, it has been revealed.

Despite the corporation’s pledge to be more environmentally friendly, the licence-fee payer has funded almost 100 short-haul flights a day for BBC staff - a massive 68,000 plane trips over the past two years.

And BBC chiefs have been among the biggest culprits for making these journeys - despite an internal report stating that staff will be encouraged ‘to use rail rather than air wherever that is feasible’.

Director general Mark Thompson, who earns £834,000 a year, took 16 internal flights including one to Newcastle from London to attend a Conservative Party reception, and a flight from London to Glasgow to attend a concert.

Mark Byford, deputy director general, flew from Southampton to Edinburgh to watch an England vs Scotland rugby match.

Mr Byford, who earns £471,000 a year, also took a flight from London to Manchester - a trip which takes less than three hours by train - to attend the Open golf championship in Birkdale."...

from Daily Mail Online, "Green BBC spends 5 million pounds flying directors around Britain," 4/25/10, via Tom Nelson

ClimateGate review 'funded by University of East Anglia' and therefore not an independent study

2010-04-17T16:35:00.000-07:00

BBC: "The review has been funded by UEA"...

That fact doesn't preoccupy the BBC.

How would they view an oil company funding and staffing an 'independent review' of its own claim forcing a multi-trillion dollar global industry, the overtaking of governments, citizens, and families in perpetuity?

The BBC and the panel are in full knowledge that much CRU data has been lost or thrown out. Obviously all current data is therefore invalid. Is it not either insane or criminally complicit to avoid this conclusion? Who will speak up for the people in this huge fraud? Following, the BBC ignores all of this.

BBC: "But the BBC understands the panel has taken a hard look at CRU methodology.

It is thought to have focused on statistical methods used by the CRU and the way uncertainties inherent in climate science may have been down-played by government bodies."...

from 4/13/10 report, "'Climategate' panel set to report" by Roger Harrabin

BBC: "The second of three reviews into hacked climate e-mails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) is set to be released later.

It has examined scientific papers published over 20 years by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the heart of the e-mail controversy."...

To the BBC: No. They may have some papers going back 20 years, but it is a matter of record that they have lost or discarded many as you note in this article. Missing data cannot be reviewed for accuracy.

BBC, continuing: "The panel was nominated by the Royal Society, and climate sceptics forecast it would defend establishment science.

But the BBC understands the panel has taken a hard look at CRU methodology.

It is thought to have focued on statistical methods used by the CRU and the way uncertainties inherent in climate science may have been down-played by government bodies."

To the BBC: Why wouldn't the BBC want to establish a judge's credentials? Why would you dismiss that crucial task and ascribe its interest to a group you see as fringe 'sceptics?' You rely on "understanding" and "thought" rather than fact on this issue. Why should anyone accept that? Why do you even have a job?

BBC: continuing: "Global picture

The review has been funded by UEA and chaired by Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and industry scientist.

The chair has been challenged over his other interests. Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables.

Critics say clean energy companies would benefit from policies to tackle climate change. But Lord Oxburgh insists the panel did not have a pre-conceived view. "

To the BBC: That's enough for you, that the judge says he's ok, so it's ok with you?

BBC, continuing: "The panel includes Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, who has been examining the way CRU used statistical methodology to develop an average annual global temperature.

It is easy to get a measurement precise in space and time from an individual weather station -

albeit with uncertainties attached.

But some countries have many weather stations while others have very few, and there are large areas of the Earth with

no surface measurements at all.

So to build up a global picture by assigning a proper statistical weighting to the importance of the various measurements is a

notoriously challenging task.

Climate sceptics say CRU's statistical methods have been inadequate, and it is thought the Oxburgh panel will look at this issue.

However, if the panel follows the recent House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report

into the e-mails it will conclude that the scientists involved had no intention to deceive."

To the BBC: You acknowledge but fail to examine uncertainties, complete absence of weather stations, and shucks the work is notoriously challenging. Fine. Then why was its data used in a UN report submitted for a Nobel Prize, and a blueprint to overtake entire nations and their citizenry without a peep from you?

BBC, continuing: "Different practices

The Oxburgh panel also studied how the CRU acknowledged

unavoidable scientific uncertainties in its work,

especially over research into the Medieval Warm Period.

Climate sceptics complain that the summary reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not always properly reflect the uncertainties defined in the underlying science, and the panel may comment on this.

It is also understood that members of the panel have remarked on the difference in practice between university science and industry science.

Many climate sceptics in the blogosphere are former industry scientists. In industry it is

routine for original scientific research data to be archived by a records team and kept safe for as long as it might prove useful.

University scientists, on the other hand, are said to be have been more used to a culture in which

notes are kept until papers are peer-reviewed -

but then are filed in a less rigorous fashion."

To the BBC: You acknowledge files and papers are routinely discarded as a matter of custom. How can you substantiate this work? How can you keep your job as a reporter? Would you let an oil company get away with this, "well it's ok because we say so and you just shut up?"

BBC, continuing: "This is an area where the House of Commons committee said that academic science needed to improve - particularly in an issue as contentious as climate change."

To the BBC: Fine, if they want to "improve" in the future. All data to date must be kept but viewed as inaccurate.

BBC, continuing: "Members of the panel

are said to have

cross-examined CRU researchers for a total of 15 man-days.

The final review to be published will be the review headed by Sir Muir Russell, which will, among other things investigate whether the scientists manipulated data."

Sure. ed.

"The panel, whose members were appointed by the university"...TimesOnlineUK

Bankers and hedge fund thugs still await delivery of the American middle class to the CO2 crime family

2010-04-08T22:49:00.000-07:00

Truth has gained a foothold late in the game in which deliberate falsehoods dominated for decades. Trillions of dollars, much of it criminal, is still at stake for the fake CO2 crowd.

"Unwarranted Trust" published in the Financial Times, April 7, 2010.

"Climate change is simply natural and disaster isn't imminent," Lindzen, Modesto Bee, April 6, 2010

"I don’t think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn’t only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called “the scientific community” had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).

Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science.
Because “science” said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Not every day does the work of scientists lead to galactic events simply called Kyoto or Copenhagen.
At least not since the Manhattan Project.

What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities

devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences.

Postmodernism, a self-consciously “unprovable” theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences."...

from Wall Street Journal by Daniel Henninger, April6, 2010, "Climategate: Science is Dying"

all above via SPPI blog

P.S. And what a huge waste of time this whole fraud was, how many lives it ruined for no reason. ed.

Global warming's thin ice has broken, but that's peanuts. The real scandal is the silence of big US media.

2010-04-04T19:29:00.000-07:00

Letter to OC Register: ""Let's hope that your editorial, "Arnold's global warming ardor cooling" [March 30], marks the beginning of new sanity emerging from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the massive economic destruction that AB 32 will bring to California if we implement its onerous and, from a global-impact perspective, totally meaningless provisions.

There is no more iconic symbol of the colossal failure of the global-warming alarmists' climate-fear predictions than
the claim that the Arctic sea ice will disappear in a few years.

All 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report Arctic sea ice model predictions show that there will be no recovery of this ice from its recent historical low point in the summer of 2007.

Yet a huge recovery of that sea ice is exactly what has happened again, showing how political activist scientists twisted their models and data to get the "right" answer. A number of studies published in the Geophysical Research Letters by the Jet Propulsion Laboratorystarting in late 2007 used satellite data to show that unusual Arctic winds conditions,

and not global warming, drove the recent 2007 reductions in sea ice. Yet these studies were simply ignored by the climate alarmists. Later studies have shown that these wind conditions have abated, which is leading to increased sea ice growth.

According to surface temperature data from the Climate Research Unit, Arctic temperatures have declined since 2004 and continue that trend.
Thus the 2007 Arctic sea ice decline was not driven by changes in temperatures, which further supports the conclusions of the JPL studies.

According to satellite data from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency there is now more Arctic sea ice present than at any time during the last seven years and the trend of growing sea ice continues for both winter and summer conditions. This outcome is completely opposite to what the United Nations IPCC predicted, again demonstrating their political climate-fear bias.

California needs to stop the economic suicide contained in AB 32 and start reconsidering the overwhelming evidence showing that the

global warming crisis is a fraud driven by political ideology.

Larry Hamlin

Dana Point"

Letter to Orange County Register, 4/2/10, "Get ready, global warming's thin ice is breaking," via Tom Nelson

Another cash generating Hollywood hyped climate catastrophe turns out to be make believe --the Gulf Stream

2010-03-29T22:14:00.000-07:00

BBC: "Fantasy and reality"

BBC: "Driven by Hollywood, a popular image of a Gulf Stream slowdown shows a sudden catastrophic event driving snowstorms across the temperate lands of western Europe and eastern North America.

That has always been fantasy - as, said (NASA's) Josh Willis, is the idea that a slow-down would trigger another ice age.

"But the Atlantic overturning circulation is still an important player in today's climate," he added.

"Some have suggested cyclic changes in the overturning may be warming and cooling the whole North Atlantic over the course of several decades and affecting rainfall patterns across the US and Africa, and even the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic."...

The Gulf Stream does not appear to be slowing down, say US scientists who have used satellites to monitor tell-tale changes in the height of the sea.

Confirming work by other scientists using different methodologies, they found dramatic short-term variability but no longer-term trend.

A slow-down - dramatised in the movie The Day After Tomorrow -

is projected by some models of climate change.

The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The stream is a key process in the climate of western Europe, bringing heat northwards from the tropics and keeping countries such as the UK 4-6C warmer than they would otherwise be.

It forms part of a larger movement of water, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which is itself one component of the global thermohaline system of currents.

Between 2002 and 2009, the team says, there was no trend discernible - just a lot of variability on short timescales.

The satellite record going back to 1993 did suggest a small increase in flow, although the researchers cannot be sure it is significant.

"The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Josh Willis from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California.

"The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling."

The first observations suggesting the circulation was slowing down emerged in 2005, in research from the UK's National Oceanography Centre (NOC).

Using an array of detectors across the Atlantic and comparing its readings against historical records, scientists suggested the volume of cold water returning southwards could have fallen by as much as 30% in half a century - a significant decline.

The surface water sinks in the Arctic and flows back southwards at the bottom of the ocean, driving the circulation.

However, later observations by the same team showed that the strength of the flow varied hugely on short timescales - from one season to the next, or even shorter.

But they have not found any clear trend since 2004.

The NOC team now has a chain of instruments in place across the Atlantic, making measurements continuously.

"In four-and-a-half years of measurement, we have found there is a lot of variability, and we're working to explain it," said NOC's Harry Bryden."...

by Richard Black 3.29.10 "The gulf stream is not 'slowing down'"

top photo from bbc, second photo from dailymail uk from Day After Tomorrow

via Tom Nelson, Climate Depot

Chief ClimateGate overseer failed to declare Eco-Directorship--UK Register

2010-03-24T23:52:00.000-07:00

"Exclusive: The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it.

Lord Oxburgh, a geologist by training and the former scientific advisor to the Ministry of Defence, was appointed to lead the enquiry into the scientific aspects of the Climategate scandal on Monday.
But Oxburgh is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.

GLOBE may be too obscure to merit its own Wikipedia entry, but that belies its wealth and influence.

It funds meetings for parliamentarians worldwide with an interest in climate change, and prior to the Copenhagen Summit GLOBE issued guidelines (pdf) for legislators. Little expense is spared: in one year alone, one peer - Lord Michael Jay of Ewelme - enjoyed seven club class flights and hotel accommodation, at GLOBE's expense. There's no greater love a Parliamentarian can give to the global warming cause. And in return, Globe lists Oxburgh as one of 23 key legislators.

In the House of Lords Register of Lords' Interests, Oxburgh lists under remunerated directorships his chairmanship of Falck Renewables, and chairmanship of Blue NG, a renewable power company. (Oxburgh holds no shares in Falck Renewables, and serves as a non-exec chairman.) He also declares that he is an advisor to Climate Change Capital, to the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank. For a year he was non-exec chairman of Shell.

GLOBE is conspicuous by its absence, however. Oxburgh joined GLOBE in 2008. The

University of East Anglia appointed Oxburgh after consulting the Royal Society.

"We are grateful to the Royal Society for helping us to identify such a strong panel and to the members for dedicating their time to this important matter," said the University in a press statement. It may not be the smartest advice the UEA has ever received -

the Royal Society's partisanship is well known....

GLOBE's worldwide secretary Elliott Morley and its British branch secretary David Chaytor were two of three MPs to face criminal charges last week. Brent MP Barry Gardiner, co-chairman of the GLOBE Dialogue on Land Use Change & Ecosystems claimed for a second home eight miles from Westminster, and worked the system for £200,000.

In 2007 Oxburgh won a Lifetime Achievement Award from Platts. The judges said they were also impressed by “his very high ethical standards."" 3/24/10 A. Orlowski

Is it not criminal for Al Gore to be preaching false storm data proving need for carbon trading (and Goldman Sachs)?

2010-03-16T09:14:00.001-07:00

The claim about increased storms by Gore and the UN was never published or reviewed, per the TimesOnline UK, 1/24/10. Anyone who read the report could have seen this in plain site, nothing esoteric. The public generally is unaware of this giant fraud because

the US media refuses to report it.

UK Times: "The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month.

It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts —

but were ignored."...

If this isn't criminal fraud that Gore is allowed to push, against the American people, what is? (ed).

"If there’s a drought – it’s global warming. When there’s a hurricane – it’s global warming. If there are heavy snows or even blizzards – it’s somehow global warming. And amazingly, the latest round of rainy and windy weather in the Northeast, well that’s consistent with this phenomenon as well, so says former Vice President Al Gore.

Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed
to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.

“[T]he odds have shifted toward much larger downpours,” Gore said. “And we have seen that happen in the Northeast, we’ve seen it happen in the Northwest – in both of those regions are among those that scientists have predicted for a long time would begin to experience much larger downpours.”

But Gore had a specific example in mind. He explained this recent soaking in the Northeastern United States was “consistent” with what global warming alarmists were projecting."...

More from TimesOnline UK, 1/24/10 about false storms claim used to get money from Americans and permanently enslave them:

"The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become

embedded in political and public debate.

It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation

of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming.

Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."...

Reference, "UN Wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters," by Jonathan Leake,
via Tom Nelson

Continuous media assumes US taxpayers are slaves of organized climate crime, done deal

2010-03-12T18:34:00.000-08:00

Even if we were slaves, this long-planned global ponzi scheme misses other points.

First, the US is broke, we are owned by Communist China. We are not a 'rich' nation.
Second, man made global warming does not exist.
Third, US taxpayers do not owe "reparations" to anyone. If anything, all you people owe us.
Fourth, we have given billions away to other countries and the United Nations and it's been put in the pockets of corrupt individuals. There is no oversight, no accountability.
Fifth, all the money in the world is banking on global carbon trading and these forces control everything including the media.
Sixth, we're not becoming your slaves, ever. This may come as a shock to you.
Seventh, Nancy Birdsall and all her cohorts are insane to imagine any legal mechanism whereby they will destroy our country, our lives, and our families.

London, Reuters AlertNet - "The annual $100 billion rich countries have agreed to mobilise by 2020 to help developing nations address climate change is "a very modest sum", according to a top academic who is a member of a high-level panel that will work out how to raise the money.

The pledge "is a small sum in relation to the type of challenges we are talking about," Nicholas Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics, told a conference of development experts in London this week....

The "High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing", which has been set up by the U.N. Secretary-General and is co-chaired by the British and Ethiopian prime ministers, has been charged with exploring ways of raising the money

promised by rich countries.

Stern said it will look at innovative methods including

carbon taxes,

auctioning emissions permits, and

levies on financial transactions,

air travel and shipping.

The group plans to hold its first meeting in London in late March and will submit its final report before U.N. climate talks that kick off in Mexico at the end of November. How best to raise and distribute money to

help poor countries tackle climate change is a
hot topic which is a long way from being resolved.

Many development experts feel a fresh approach is needed from the usual aid mechanisms - not least

because they see it as form of compensation
rather than charity.

Nancy Birdsall, president of the Washington-based Center for Global Development, proposed a mechanism based on responsibility for carbon emissions and vulnerability to climate change in which

rich polluting nations would have a
legal duty to contribute and

poor countries would receive allocations according to their susceptibility to the impacts of global warming. "...

via Tom Nelson

'Green' fades as cache of our betters--green blog chills out

2010-03-09T14:32:00.000-08:00

"In mid-February, The Christian Science Monitor decided to cancel its Bright Green blog after twenty-two months in operation."...

CSM editor John Yemma""Environmental coverage, however, has become much more mainstream in recent years.

We expect all of our reporters to be well versed in environmental issues and to pursue these as a matter of course.""...

from CJR, 3/9/10, via Poynter.org/Romenesko

Global warming profiteers infect inurance business in US and abroad--governments roll over and give taxpayer dollars

2010-02-28T21:25:00.000-08:00

"Over the past year, Australian insurance companies increased their rates to cover the damage costs from predicted "extreme weather events".

Note that we're not talking about any extreme weather events in particular, or events predicted to occur at any precise time or location.
Just, you know, extreme weather events. Due to, um, climate change.

Everyone's talking about it, so, like, it's bound to happen. Better jack up those rates. The climate change is upon us.

Rate increases for household and car insurance were practically industry-wide.

As my Daily Telegraph colleague Andrew Carswell reported last week, some companies blew things out by as much as 10 per cent, driven by insurance industry claims that "severe weather events ... are

now no longer unusual events, and the pricing models of the insurers must reflect this".

Insurance rates are usually based more on history

than prediction.

If you've had your car broken into several times, your insurance costs will rise accordingly. But climate change is yet to damage a single house or car.

No matter; you're going to pay for it anyway.

And Australians did. One company alone, Insurance Australia Group, the owners of NRMA, increased rates to cover an expected $166 million in payouts for "natural peril" claims. As Carswell reported, however, payouts fell $45 million short of that sum.

Why? Because catastrophic climate change events didn't happen. Therefore, that $45 million became profit.

Insurers Suncorp-Metway, QBE and Allianz also enjoyed similarly massive payoffs thanks to climate change's no-show. You've got to hand it to them; in the middle of a global financial crisis, these businesses turned nothing into gold.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is hot for regulating big-business profiteers.

This case is almost perfect for him. Check it out, Kev. You've got your fear mongering, your industry collusion, your poor blameless consumers being shaken down. What's holding you back?

At a guess, one thing. Rudd and his Government have led the climate change panic that these insurers are cashing in on.

In January 2009, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong warned that "the number of heat-related deaths in our capital cities is projected to double to about 2300 a year" by 2020. As well, infectious diseases, bushfire-related injuries, food-safety related illness and dengue fever would all soar.

With Australia becoming a toxic, burning fever-swamp littered with boiling corpses, it's only reasonable to expect some slight increases in property damage along the way.

Someone driving to the dengue clinic could catch fire and crash into a house, if it hasn't already been burned to the ground by Peter Garrett's roving incineration installers.

That's a bunch of payouts right there. Insurance companies have got to be alert to these issues. They're also awfully worried about how much they'll be charging people to insure beachside properties. Lots, probably, on account of the sea-level rises that will wipe out coastal Australia. The Government is fond of talking about this, too.

Strange thing, though. While insurance rates increase, so do beachside property values. If these places are such death traps, why are they so expensive?

If the government-insurance complex is convinced that coastal Australia is just a holding pen for the doomed, how come there isn't a rush for the inland?

It's not as though high property prices in, say, Orange are holding anyone back. There's a nice little three-bedroom place available right now in North St for just $140,000, which is just slightly less than you'll pay in Sydney for a mailbox. And, by virtue of its inland location, it's completely safe from climate change. Sadly, however, even Orange isn't safe from universal climate change-related insurance increases.

And if you think insurance is where is ends, consider where your taxes are going.

In Britain, a report recently found that the Government's taxpayer-financed Climate Challenge Fund had spent nearly $A16 million on idiotic stunts intended to alert citizens about global warming and the like.

Not only were these stunts stupid, they didn't work. Public opinion in the UK, as everywhere else, is trending against climate change alarmism.

The same capers are under way here, beginning with the Department of Climate Change. Your money is being stolen by artists of the con variety. And unless an elderly German fag-bandit is somehow responsible for all of this, you're never getting any of it back."

3/1/10, "Merciless pirates of disaster run amok" The Daily Telegraph, AU, Tim Blair via Tom Nelson

SEC forces climate regulation on business, ignores that UN disaster data admitted fake

2010-02-15T21:33:00.000-08:00

It is unlikely businesses even know the disaster/hurricane projection data was fake, as the main media refuses to report it. It was only the claim used to demand billions in 'climate reparations' from US citizens.The average business person in the US spends most of his time working. He is therefore unaware that many others spend all their time trying to break him.
This is easily done by endless legal measures.

The UN Climate report used unverified data about climate disasters which was promoted repeatedly by the media and is being used by the SEC to regulate businesses. Since the report now has no merit, why is the SEC continuing to force businesses to elaborately address a crisis that doesn't exist?

This error was in plain view, a matter of form, so anyone could have found it were they looking, and was acknowledged and reported on 1/24/10 by TimesOnlineUK by Jonathan Leake.

"The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered

rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming

and cited the unpublished report, saying:

"One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim

had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month.

It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn."...

from TimesOnlineUK, "UN Wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters," by Jonathan Leake, 1/24/10

For those interested, report from the UK Register, "Now IPCC Hurricane data is questioned,"
by Andrew Orlowski, 2/15/10

Efforts to shakedown US business by using the SEC

Our priority is billions in carbon trading, not the environment. Gordon Brown, UK

2010-02-10T19:18:00.000-08:00

"No less chagrined must be Gordon Brown, who sees the carbon market as key to the global response to climate change, and to the economic fortunes of the City of London. As Brown told WWF in 2007, the government wanted binding limits on developed country emissions in a post-2012 climate agreement, because London was the world's carbon trading capital, and "only hard caps can create the framework necessary for a global carbon market to flourish".

Thus he made it clear that the health of the carbon market took a rather higher priority than the health of the climate system."...

"The great achievement of the (Kyoto) protocol was not to reduce carbon emissions –

they actually rose at an increasing rate under its watch,
three times faster in the early 2000s than during the 1990s –

but to create a market in emissions rights and notional emissions reductions worth tens of billions of dollars a year.".. (paragraph 3 in article)

Guardian UK, "Don't let the carbon market die," 1/25/10, by Oliver Tickell.

This from 'climate central,' the UK. The useful idiots drawn into the global warming scam are salesmen of hate for billionaires peddling the biggest crime in history. The NY Times and Washington Post refuse to report this scandal, much less make it front page news. Too much money involved. Anyone who cares to look will find carbon trading's roots had nothing to do with saving the environment. You remember of course, Enron? ed.

$60 billion coal deal between Communist China and Australia. Evil US taxpayer to pay billions though had nothing to do with it.

2010-02-07T15:13:00.000-08:00

Only a vague passing reference to the environment--late in the article. No mention of the Maldives sinking close by, well promoted as reason to hate Americans and destroy their civilization. The White House said fine and rushed to rip billions from US taxpayer wages and "hand over" cash for 'climate' reparations, (you know due to evil coal and stuff). Now:

BBC: "An Australian firm has signed a $60bn (AUS$69bn; £38bn) deal to supply coal to Chinese power stations.

Clive Palmer, chairman of the company, Resourcehouse, said it was Australia's

"biggest ever export contract".

Under the deal, the firm will build a new mining complex to give China Power International Development (CPI) 30m tonnes of coal a year for 20 years....

But the lucrative Sino-Australian deal will
almost certainly
disappoint some environmental groups, says the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney.

They believe Australia's reliance on plentiful reserves of coal, both for domestic electricity generation and for export, should be reduced in favour of renewable sources of energy."...

How polite and unstrident they are now....whatever happened to urgent climate holocaust caused by burning coal especially near the Himalayas, the Maldives and others?

Photo above president of the Maldives holding a widely publicized meeting underwater (October 2009) to dramatize how cruel US citizens were causing his island to sink (near the Himalayas) and his people to die. AFP photo.

Now that Copenhagen is over, China goes back to belching coal into the atmosphere non-stop.

The so-called leaders of the US continue blaming its citizens for the world's problems, punish US families by stealing food from their table and
"hand it over" to corrupt dictators, UN crooks, and billionaire hedge fund slobs. ed.

China uses coal for 80% of its energy needs! BBC. photo ap.

Obama wastes billions more on carbon scams that could be spent on the poor

2010-02-05T21:42:00.000-08:00

What lucky '5 to 10' corporations will get paid off by Obama for a non-existent problem that over 20 years (due to lax US leadership) has turned into the world's biggest industry?

" “US President Barack H. Obama issued a presidential memorandum creating an inter-agency task force to develop a comprehensive carbon capture and storage strategy. …

While the CCS initiative will have a bigger direct impact on coal producers and users, it potentially will affect oil and gas producers, several of whom already use carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery. …

US Department of Energy and

Environmental Protection Agency officials

will chair the task force, which will develop within 6 months a plan to overcome barriers to widespread CCS deployment within 10 years, the White House said. It added that the group’s goals also will include

bringing 5-10 commercial demonstration projects on line by 2016.” “Obama memorandum creates CCS task force""****

Even the UN decided to exclude so-called 'CARBON CAPTURE' from its bottomless pit of approved carbon cures (12/09 at COP15). The 'big oil' villains Obama, Gore and others refer to are of course very much in on the cash behind the carbon scam. Royal Dutch Shell is in line for 'carbon capture' cash.

via Tom Nelson

Global Warming profiteers place their guys in all the right jobs in UK, dissenters simply frozen out

2010-01-28T17:44:00.000-08:00

Who needs guns? By controlling outlets of information, no one will know about opposing views.

"He (Lord Nigel Lawson) created the Global Warming Policy Foundation as a public vehicle to confront and debate the issue with the entrenched

GW (Global Warming) establishment –

who control just about every other institution in Britain:

BBC Radio,

BBC Television and BBC Online – all strongly PRO AGW,

the Royal Society,

the MET Office,

ALL the universities,

the RSPB,

WWF (World Wildlife Fund),

English Nature,

Scottish Natural Heritage,

ALL the Wildlife Trusts,

the British Museum.

It is a staggeringly UN-Sceptical establishment and it has not been achieved without massive effort on the part of the AGW lobby

to place their men in all the right jobs.

To go up against all that is a very, very brave thing to do! Lawson will be blackballed from just about every gathering of the establishment – and I have never seen him on the BBC since he ran his colours up the mast. Another prominent sceptic – the famous botanist – David Bellamy

– has been banned from appearance on the BBC for at least a decade – simply because he opposed the blanket coverage of windfarms and the CO2 AGW theory.

The UK feels more and more like the old East Germany – certainly as far as the imposition of the ‘Party Line’ is concerned -

which is promulgated by the BBC all day, every day.

Lawson deserves a medal; maybe the Nobel Prize for 2011?...Lord Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer during Margaret Thatcher’s government; here in the UK, the role of Chancellor is only second in importance to the Prime Minister – as the controller of all economic policy in the UK. Lawson always came across as a highly intelligent man and a highly honourable man – even to those on the opposite side of the political fence.

He has been exemplary in being the only member of the British parliamentary establishment to speak out about the Global Warming scam."...

Borderer, 10:51:44 1/29/10, commenter to WUWT post, "Lord Lawson calls for CRU inquiry to be held in Public

D'oh!#* Nobel Prize winning UN Climate Report used unverified data from lobby group

2010-01-24T21:56:00.000-08:00

Andrew Bolt: "Yet more evidence that the IPCC cooked the books. Here’s its 2007 claim that global warming could devastate African agriculture:

In other [African] countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include
greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period,
and reductions in crop growth period…

In fact, that claim comes from a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper which looked at just three African countries, and was produced

by a sustainable development lobby group. How did this end up as IPCC gospel?

Call in the auditors. Now."

"The IPCC Scandal: The Africa data was sexed up too," by Andrew Bolt, HeraldSun.comAU, 1/25/10, via Tom Nelson

United Nations Climate Czars make own rules

2010-01-16T20:51:00.000-08:00

Because the United States' has had 20 years of weak leadership, people like UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri think they can bully us. Pachauri's IPCC chairmanship is "unpaid," (although he has a travel and expense account) so he is free to make various associations, and is exempt from having to report where he derives any of his income (UK Telegraph, below). And he has no education in climate science (economics and industrial engineering).

April 2002 ClimateGate emails say the UN climate chief job is political more than anything else. So here is an admittedly political job, billions of dollars riding on his every word, yet he technically doesn't have to tell anyone how he is paid from his countless advisory jobs. In the UK, millions of pounds have been contracted to a firm from which he draws a salary, prompting an inquiry:

1/16/10 "The grant comes amid question marks over the finances of The Energy and Resources Institute's (TERI) London operation. Last week its UK head called in independent accountants after admitting 'anomalies' – described as 'unintentional' – in its accounts that have prompted demands for the Charity Commission to investigate....

Dr Pachauri, TERI's director-general, has built up a worldwide network of business interests since his appointment as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2002. The post, argue critics, has given him huge prestige and influence as the world's most powerful climate official....

Because Dr Pachauri's role at the IPCC is unpaid – although he does receive tens of thousands of pounds in travel expenses – he is exempt along with other panel members from declaring outside interests with the UN.

But he is paid an undisclosed salary by TERI while the institute has also received payments from a number of organisations and businesses he has advised in recent years including 100,000 euros (£88,400) from Deutcshe bank, $80,000 (£49,000) from Toyota Motors, and $580,000 (£357,000) from Yale University, where he serves as head of its new Climate and Energy Institute. ...

Ritu Kumar, who runs TERI Europe, said in response to inquiries by this newspaper she had called in independent accountants Mazars.

Dr Kumar wrote: "As a result of this, Mazars has advised us that there are anomalies in the accounts filed with the Charity Commission.

As soon as we learned of these anomalies, which were unintentional on our part, we informed the Charity Commission and immediately asked the accountant to prepare revised accounts, which will apply the correct accounting treatment.""...

from UK Telegraph by Robert Mendick, "Taxpayers' Millions Paid to Indian Institute run by UN Climate Chief"

Campbell Soup registers as a climate change lobbyist

2010-01-09T21:22:00.000-08:00

"The Science" says, Nature abhors a vacuum. In 20+ years absent American leadership, in walked Maurice Strong, George Soros, and a host of weak, greedy politicians... George Bush was the nail in the coffin. His biggest fault was remaining silent while allowing sick and diseased people from around the world to dominate public consciousness via television and other media....

Even companies that don't use much energy will be forced to bid at auction:

12/28/09: "Take the concerns raised by the world's largest maker of soup, Camden, N.J.-based Campbell Soup Company, one of a slew of grocery producers (including Kellogg Company, Del Monte Foods, and the Alliance of Food Associations) registered to lobby on climate change for the first time in the July-September quarter.

"It wasn't until we analyzed what was going on in the House (of Representatives) that we thought, 'Oh, gosh, we are being affected by this,'" said Kelly Johnston, Campbell Soup's vice president for public affairs, in an interview.

At issue are the free "allowances," or carbon dioxide pollution permits that the House-passed climate bill would give to manufacturers that use a lot of energy to produce internationally traded products, like steel and aluminum.

Those energy-intensive industries fighting international competitors successfully lobbied for protection from loss of jobs to China and other cheap-energy countries

if the United States unilaterally enacted a carbon reduction program that would make coal-burning more expensive here.

But the House bill's approach means manufacturers that don't use as much energy—like Campbell—would have to bid at auction for carbon emissions allowances from the federal government.

Johnston argues that Campbell should either be exempt from that process or provided some freebies, too. "I think it's clear from our view that we're not being treated as fairly as carbon-intensive industries," Johnston said.

"There needs to be some recognition of the role the food industry plays in our economy.""...

"Five Climate Lobbyists for Every Member of Congress--from Soup to Nuts," from The Cutting Edge by Marianno Lavelle and M.B. Pell, 12/28/09, adapted from Center for Public Integrity

ClimateGate: $creaming failure of blind and bia$ed media

2010-01-04T20:21:00.000-08:00

Who's watching the 'watchdogs'? It's helpful to remember media people are often looking for their next job. Experts say (no pun intended against Seth Borenstein) the best way to get a new job is via networking, building on one's associations. This has been my experience in and observation of persons in media over time. It may explain in part the united front of climate propagandists. There's something about mobs. Though they need no help given the billions riding on this scam.

Carbon trading is now the biggest profit center at investment banks.

From the article: The key has been exploiting the fact that the average person has been unaware how much the climate changes NATURALLY.* (graph at end of this post). That, for example, palm trees once grew in the Arctic and the planet has been at times completely ice-free.

1/4/10: "It’s beyond belief that the mainstream media can’t see the devastating importance of the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) known as Climategate. The blindness cancels the claim they’re society’s watchdog. Left wing journalist Amy Goodman said when writing about the Bush administration, ”You know governments are going to lie, but not the media.” Now, with a new administration she is silent, proving there are lies of commission and omission.

Most haven’t read the emails or summarily dismiss them because of political bias.

Journalist Clive Crook illustrated an open mind, albeit on second look. “In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend

I take that back. The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”

The mainstream media willfully ignore the massive deception just as they have the political exploitation of climate science. In fact, most led or joined attacks on scientists who dared to point out the problems. They’re still doing it directly or by their silence.

There’s no excuse for missing the biggest story in history. It proves the adage that there are none so blind as those who will not see....

Michael Mann, the most aggressive, bullying and deceptive member of the CRU gang, claims without embarrassment there’s nothing significant in the emails. As Keith Briffa wrote,

It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”

He even scared his fellow CRU conspirators as one noted on October 26 2003, “Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past….” A psychologist can probably identify these behavior characteristics.

In a Washington Post article Mann said the content “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.” It’s the confidence trick they’ve always used

exploiting the fact most people don’t know how much climate changes
naturally. *(graph at end of this post)

As a result they can report natural change as unnatural and

by implication caused by humans.

The real issue is the cause of climate change. Now we know how the CRU gang used deception to falsely prove it was human produced CO2.

But the mainstream media brush it off, ignore it, or deliberately play along with the CRU gang denials. ...

The Stink is Unavoidable

Evidence of wrongdoing in the emails doesn’t require understanding of the science.

Any objective reading quickly dispels the claim they are normal banter between colleagues.

On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones, “Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.”“We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??”

They’re talking about releasing an annual global temperature a month before the year is over. Hardly scientific or responsible bureaucratic behavior, but they think deceiving the public is “fun”.

On March 11, 2003 Mann acknowledges they silenced skeptics by criticizing them for not having peer-reviewed publications.

They could do this because they believed they controlled peer review of climate change papers. Mann writes,

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

On May 29, 2008 Jones directs Mann to delete emails about requests
for Freedom of Information.

On 24 April 2003 Wigley upset about Hans von Storch’s editorial role proposes to mislead the publishers,

“One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since

whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal is seen
by the community that counts.”

Is this normal discourse between academics?

On 21 Jan 2005 Jones writes to Wigley about requests under the Freedom of Information Act, “Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.“

Why would he need to hide?

On 8 July 2004 Jones to Mann, I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Even if the malfeasance wasn’t obvious a check of the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review all literature would disclose it.

On 2 February 2005 from Jones to Mann “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

“They”are McIntyre and McKitrick (MM) names already familiar in the mainstream media.

On 29 April 2007 Briffa to Mann; a red flag is waved by the comment, “I tried hard to balance

the needs of the science and the IPCC,

which were not always the same.”

The only need for science is accuracy and openness, which means

the IPCC is not about science. That alone should trigger further investigative journalism.

Unbelievable Ignorance

Those involved in the original deception now present ludicrous arguments. The journal “Nature"used in the corruption of the peer-review process and biased throughout says,

“If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.

Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing
such a burden.”

Absolute rubbish! They should read their guidelines, which say in part, An inherent principle of publication is that

others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims.

Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions. (Their emphasis).

The ability to reproduce results is fundamental to science.

Jim Hoggan, Chairman of the Board of the Suzuki Foundation and founder of the sleazy, squalid, web site Desmogblog, says the real issue is the

agenda of the people who stole the files.

It’s an agenda Hoggan, a professional spinner, and the biased mainstream media would not recognize or understand;

a desire for openness and the truth."

"Climategate: Failure of a blind and biased mainstream media," Canada Free Press, by Dr. Tim Ball, 1/4/10 ****************

*graph showing glacial retreat since 1850 from Climate Sceptic

Long-time Hurricane chief outraged at ClimateGate emails

2010-01-04T19:38:00.000-08:00

Of the bullies and tools who aim to take what little remains of America's economy away from its citizens. With a 20 year absence of leadership in the White House and a 24/7 complicit media, they almost succeeded.

Neil Frank: "Climategate reveals how predetermined

political agendas shaped science

rather than the other way around. It is high time

to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat

and to bring skeptics" (realists) "back into the public debate."...

from his editorial in the Houston Chronicle, 1/2/10, "ClimateGate: You should be steamed"

"Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008."

'Scientists and climatologists have a lot of money and power behind them' 5/27/04

2009-12-30T17:34:00.000-08:00

5/27/04, Cinema Confidential News, "Director Roland Emmerich on (the movie) "The Day After Tomorrow"

"Q: How have you been handling all of the attention the movie is receiving in the press?

ROLAND: It’s strange that a popcorn movie is becoming a political news item on “The Today Show.” I was on several of these news shows lately and it’s quite interesting to watch. You see these people appearing and everybody has warned me about it,

like the scientists and the climatologists.

But they have a lot of money and power behind them so they get

heard very loudly. ...

But I’m not that political as a person. I’m more interested in subjects."...

""What we're doing to the planet is scary. And what the planet might do back is even scarier.""...5/04 (this is stated as if it were fact by the director).

"Former vice president Al Gore has rallied behind the film and plans a series of

town hall meetings to discuss global warming.

The activist group MoveOn.org is dispatching thousands of volunteers to hand out leaflets about climate change to moviegoers."... 5/04

(about a film stated to be ficticious).

An overworked citizenry bombarded by Hollywood, corrupt grifters, endless leftwing propaganda and the media decided it was easier to join the criminals than fight them.
Until now. The 11 th hour. It is the peoples' time.

More on the left see man made 'climate change' for political con it is--Cockburn

2009-12-25T11:59:00.000-08:00

Actual polluters go free while innocent wage slaves pay.The oil companies are actually in the Warmers' pockets.

12/24/09: "The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. It became one of the

climate-modeling grant mills supplying tainted data from which the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) has concocted its reports.

Deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate.

But in displaying all these characteristics, the CRU e-mails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers that they command the moral as well as scientific high ground.

It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW.

Actually, the precise opposite is true.

Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate-modeling enterprises and a vast archipelago of research departments and "institutes of climate change" across academia.

It's where the money is.

Skepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker.

Many of the landmines in the CRU e-mails tend to buttress longstanding charges by skeptics (yours truly included) that statistical chicanery by professor Michael Mann and others occluded the highly inconvenient Medieval Warm Period, running from 800 to 1300 AD, with temperatures in excess of the highest we saw in the 20th century,

a historical fact that makes nonsense of the thesis that global warming could be attributed to the auto-industrial civilization of the 20th century.

Here's Keith Briffa, of the CRU, letting his hair down in an e-mail Sept. 22, 1999: "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. ...

I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago."

Now, in the fall of 1999, the IPCC was squaring up to its all-important "Summary for Policymakers" - essentially a press release, one that eventually featured the notorious graph flatlining into nonexistence the Medieval Warm Period and displaying a terrifying, supposedly unprecedented surge in 20th-century temperatures.

Briffa's reconstruction of temperature changes, one showing a mid- to late-20th-century decline, was regarded by Mann, in a Sept. 22, 1999, e-mail to the CRU,
as a "problem and a potential distraction/detraction."

So Mann, a lead author on this chapter of the IPCC report, simply deleted the embarrassing post-1960 portion of Briffa's reconstruction. The CRU's Jones happily applauded Mann's deceptions in an e-mail in which he crowed over "Mike's Nature trick."

Other landmines include e-mails from Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. On Oct. 14, he wrote to the CRU's Tom Wigley: "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget.

"The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!"

Only a few weeks before Copenhagen, here is a scientist in the inner AGW circle disclosing that "we are no where close to knowing" how the supposedly proven AGW warming model might actually work, and

that therefore geoengineering - such as carbon mitigation - is "hopeless."

This admission edges close to acknowledgment of a huge core problem: that "greenhouse" theory violates the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body without compensation.

Greenhouse gases in the cold upper atmosphere cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space.

(Readers interested in the science can read Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner's "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics," updated in January 2009.)

Recent data from many monitors including the CRU, available on climate4you.com, show that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans near the surface of the earth has

decreased significantly across the past eight years or so.

CO2 is a benign gas essential to life, occurring in past eras at five times present levels.

Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with human emissions of CO2, the latter being entirely trivial in the global balance.

The battles in Nicaea in 325 were faith based, with no relation to science or reason. So were the premises of the Copenhagen summit, that the planet faces catastrophic warming caused by manmade CO2 buildup, and that human intervention - geoengineering - could avert the coming disaster. Properly speaking, it's a farce.

In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, it's a terrible tragedy."

from "Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Farce," by Alexander Cockburn, 12/24/09, Real Clear Politics

Using and terrifying children about non-existent global warming

2009-12-10T18:29:00.000-08:00

"Out of the mouths of babes come a conniving adult’s words | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

There is something profoundly immoral about terrifiying children for a political cause and something profoundly anti-intellectual in
demanding adults then heed the childrens' cries to settle immensely
complex questions of science and economics.
This tactic alone suggests on which side of this debate reason lies."

via Tom Nelson, Th., 12/10/09

Meet Celebs! Meet Hedge Funds and other crooks! Carbon Trading Expo!

2009-12-05T21:33:00.001-08:00

$1 TRILLION in North America alone!!! Everyone knows global warming was just an excuse to create carbon trading scams.

"Following the success of our previous event, iGlobal Forum is pleased to announce the 2^nd Annual Carbon Trading Summit taking place on January 12^thand 13^that the Embassy Suites Hotel in New York. Taking place immediately after the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in December’09, the event will steer discussions between leading carbon market experts about the conclusions and implications of the COP 15 as well as it will examine the latest developments in the future

$1 trillion North American Carbon Market.

The event will be the premier gathering of key executives of energy and utilities companies, government representatives, investment banks, hedge funds, carbon credit aggregators, heads of global environmental exchanges, experts in environmental policy, and carbon traders to address the future of the Carbon Trading industry. The 2^nd Annual Carbon Trading Summit will provide the perfect platform to meet face-to-face and network with the
top qualified carbon trading executives. "...

Global warming looks to be 'the biggest transfer of funds in history'-Guardian

2009-12-01T22:33:00.000-08:00

Guardian: "Ecology and morals count in the public arena, but as the negotiations progress and world leaders arrive to take the stage, money will dominate the backroom talks....Copenhagen may lead over the next 20 years to the

largest transfer of money in history from the global north to the south, dwarfing the amount that developing countries now receive in aid."...

UK Guardian by John Vidal, 11/30/09, "Copenhagen summit: It's money that matters in the back room talks"

It's why the whole global warming movement started. Ordinary Americans slaved their lives away while international bankers and hedge fund thugs viewed them with scorn and contempt, with no thought but to squash them like bugs. (ed)