Inhofe Weighs Criminal Probe of Scientists’ Climate Change E-Mails

FOXNews.com
February 23, 2010

The Senate’s top global warming skeptic on Tuesday is calling for a possible criminal investigation into the scientists accused of manipulating the data once used as the centerpiece of international climate change research.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., is considering a request to the Department of Justice for a probe of scientists who he claims deliberately falsified data used by climate change advocates. He is also planning on grilling Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson at a hearing Tuesday morning about her decision to rely on information from the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change to institute an endangerment finding that gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Inhofe is releasing a 40-page report that will be used by Republicans to answer how she can continue to advocate for new global warming regulations even as the findings by the IPCC and the work of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit in Britain create doubt about climate science.

Read entire article

75 Reasons to be Skeptical of "Global Warming"

by Josh Fulton

Global Research, February 23, 2010

joshfulton.blogspot.com - 2010-02-21

* Carbon dioxide contributes to only 4.2 - 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect

* Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is man-made

* Water vapor accounts for 90 - 95% of the green house gas effect

* 99.99% of water vapor is natural, meaning that no amount of deindustrialization could get rid of it

* There have been many times when the temperature has been higher than it is now including the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene, the Jurassic, and the Eemian

* Increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them

* Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU, and key figure in the "climategate" scandal, admits that there has been no "statistically significant" global warming since 1995

* 2008 and 2009 were the coolest two years of the decade

* During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times what they are now, and the temperature was lower

* Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change:

* Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar

* Mars has warmed about 0.5°C since the 1970's, approximately the same that earth has warmed over the same period

* The 0.7°C increase in temperatures over the last century is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends

* The distance between Earth and Sun changes every year, affecting the amount of energy the earth receives

* Earth’s tilt oscillates between 21.4° and 24.8°, which affects the distribution of the sun's energy

* Dr. Roy Spencer has written that clouds have been a more important driver of climate than carbon dioxide since 2000

* Approximately 40% of the uncertainty in temperature projections come from uncertainty in the strength of the "feedback loop" between temperature and carbon dioxide. Recent research suggests the "feedback loop" is less than half as strong than many had presumed

* James Hansen of NASA said in a simulation of temperatures from 1880 to 2000 soot accounted for 25% of observed global warming

* Research suggests that soot could have nearly as much impact on climate change as carbon dioxide

* Antarctica has 90% of earth's ice and it is growing

* Arctic sea ice has returned to 1979 levels, which is when records began

* The Arctic ice caps have recovered from their loss in 2007

* The Arctic is now 1°C cooler than it was in the 1940's

* Polar bear populations are increasing

* Polar bears are able to swim over 60 miles continuously

* Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher than it is now while carbon dioxide levels were lower

* A chart of sea level change over millions of years looks like this:

* According to satellite data, sea level has been decreasing since 2005

* Instead of hurting forests, the increased level of carbon dioxide has been helping them grow

* The official "record" for temperatures only goes back 150 years

* Although the IPCC may have 2500 members, only approximately 800 contribute to the scientific writing of the report

* Only 52 scientists contributed to the 2007 IPCC summary for policy makers, although diplomats from over 115 countries contributed

* Only 20% of the members of the IPCC deal with climate science

* Head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri has no background in climate science. His PhD is in economics and he worked as a railway engineer before becoming head of the IPCC

* Former IPCC lead author Ben Santer openly admits that he altered portions of the 1995 IPCC report to make them "consistent with the other chapters"

* John Christy, former lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, speaks of his former co-lead authors deliberately trying to sensationalize the report

*Richard Lindzen, another lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, accused the IPCC of being "driven by politics"

* Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph, which was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC report, was created using only portions of a data set. The red line is the graph of Mann's selected data, while the black line is the graph of all the data:

* When asked to act as an expert reviewer on the IPCC's last two reports, Dr. Nils Axel-Morner was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist"

* Until 2003, the IPCC's satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend in sea level, so they used an increase of 2.3mm in one Hong Kong tide-gauge to adjust the entire global sea level up 2.3mm

* The IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers were melting was based off of a phone interview with a non-scientist. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC claim that global warming was led to increased natural disasters was based on an unpublished report that had not been subject to peer-review. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC's claim that global warming was going to lead to deficiencies of up to 50% in African agriculture was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC's claim that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC reported that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level when just 26% of the country is below sea level. They were later forced to retract the claim

* According to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHNC,) 90% of US climate-monitoring surface stations have been found to be "poorly situated," meaning that they have a margin of error greater than 1°C, more than the global warming in the entire 20th century. (The US surface data is generally considered the best surface data in the world):

* Many climate-monitoring surface stations are in locations that look like this:

* Temperature measurements from climate-monitoring surface stations are collected by hand. At one surface station in California, Anthony Watts found that only data from 14 out of 31 days had been completed in a month

* If a surface station is missing data for a particular day, data from surrounding surface stations is used to fill-in. Since 90% of all surface stations are poorly situated, even if a surface station itself is not poorly situated, if its data is missing for a day, there is a very good chance its temperature will be calculated using data from surface stations that are poorly situated

* In April 1978, there were 6,000 climate-monitoring surface stations. There are now about 1,200

* The vast majority of climate-monitoring stations that were lost were rural ones, which have been shown to give the most accurate data:

* The raw data is "adjusted" by a computer program. The net effect of this "adjustment" has been to increase the "adjusted" numbers over the "raw" numbers by .5°F, an increase that has been growing year by year:

* Difference between the USHCN "raw" data (in blue) and NASA "homogenized" data (in red):

* According to a leaked email in "climategate," "temperatures in Darwin [a monitoring station in Australia] were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century […]but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celsius per century. [...][W]hen those guys “adjust,” they don’t mess around."

* According to a leaked email in "climategate," computer programmer Harry Harris called the CRU data set "hopeless," and said "the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. [...]This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!"

* When looking at source code leaked in "climategate" used to "process" and "adjust" temperatures, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said he found at least five errors and "wouldn't trust it"

* The Hadley CRU, the institution at the center of the "climategate" scandal, threw out original temperature data because it claimed it did not have "storage space"

* In 1990, Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the "climategate" scandal, contributed to a paper arguing that the effect of urban warming in eastern China was "negligible." This became a key reference source for the IPCC. It turns out that 49 of the 84 climate-monitoring stations used for this report had no history of their locations or other details. This included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had "certainly been moved" during the study period, including one that was moved five times over a total distance of 41 km. When Jones "re-examined" data in the same area for a 2008 paper, he found that urbanization was responsible for 40% of the warming found from 1951 to 2004

* Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels have argued that half of the global warming trend from 1980 to 2002 is caused by urban warming

* The Hadley CRU has been accused of using data from just 25% of Russia's surface stations, deliberately overstating Russia's warming by .64°C between the 1870's and 1990's

* According to emails leaked in "climategate," when "Climate Research" published articles by global warming skeptics, Phil Jones and others urged scientists to "stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal"

* William Connolly, a Wikipedia administrator and co-founder of Realclimate.org, a website that supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming, "touched" over 5,400 Wikipedia articles, routinely omitting voices that were skeptical of global warming

* Large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years

* This is a picture of what Britain looked like in the summer of 2009 when its sophisticated climate "supercomputer" had predicted a "barbeque summer":

* The US government spends over $2.5B funding climate research every year, and over $7B when grants for technology, tax breaks, and foreign aid are included (this is while Exxon gave $22M to global warming skeptics over a 10 year period)

* Many scientist assert that government grant money is given preferentially to advocates of man-made global warming

* Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner, said "carbon markets could be worth $2 trillion in transaction value – [...]within five years of trading (starting). [...]That would make it the largest physically traded commodity in the US, surpassing even oil"

* The owners of the trading floor where the carbon credits will be traded, including Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, stand to earn trillions if cap-and-trade is passed

* The cap-and-trade bill allows the government police powers to come into your home and inspect it for "energy efficiency," and to fine you every day your home is not compliant

* Australian homes now have to undergo a mandatory energy-efficiency assessment - costing up to $1500 per property - before they can be sold or rented under new laws to tackle carbon emissions

* UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called for "global governance structure" to monitor greenhouse gases, which everyone on the planet emits with every exhale

* The United Nations forecasts that the global population will rise, peak and then decline between 2050 and 2300 to just under 9 billion

* Despite proclamations that there is a "consensus" and the debate is "settled," 18% of scientists surveyed in the last poll trying to discern scientific opinion do not believe in man-made global warming

* 45% of Americans think global warming is man-made, down 9% from just half a year earlier

* In the court case Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills, a British judge ruled that there were nine "inaccuracies" in An Inconvenient Truth, including Gore's claim that sea level could rise by up to 20 ft. The IPCC's own report predicted a maximum rise of 59cm in sea level over 100 years. The Science and Public Policy Institute has taken issue with thirty five of Gore's claims in An Inconvenient Truth

* Al Gore bought a $4M condo feet from ocean in Fisherman's Wharf, San Fransisco, a city he had explicitly warned about in An Inconvenient Truth

UN Climate Panel Admits Dutch Sea Level Flaw

Posted by bluemana on February 17, 2010

Reported via Reuters:

OSLO — The UN panel of climate experts overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level, according to a preliminary report on Saturday, admitting yet another flaw after a row last month over Himalayan glacier melt.

A background note by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding along rivers.

The United Nations has said errors in the 2007 report of about 3,000 pages do not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe.

“The sea level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions,” the IPCC note dated February 12 said.

Skeptics say errors have exposed sloppiness and over-reliance on “grey literature” outside leading scientific journals. The panel’s reports are a main guide for governments seeking to work out costly policies to combat global warming.

Read More: Reuters

Climategate update: ‘The wheels are coming off for the IPCC’

E. Thomas McClanahan
Kansas City Star Editorial
January 25, 2010

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is supposed to represent the unimpeachable view of science. Now we’re learning just how sloppy it’s methods have been. First came the revelation that the prediction on melting Himalayan glaciers was unverified. Now comes a report that the UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters.

What’s happening is that after the Climategate e-mail revelations, skeptical views from credentialed scientists — dismissed or suppressed up to now — are getting a second look. In other words, the wheels are coming off for the IPCC.

All in all, not a good week for the IPCC. Two major errors, both of them integrating inflammatory, un-reviewed results into what had been advertised as the most authoritative peer-reviewed summary of the state of climate science. This follows the collapse of Copenhagen, and the Climategate emails’ evidence of pressure to influence the results of climate science. All of them working in the same direction: to slant the evidence presented to the world toward the conclusion that AGW is a current crisis, a world cataclysm.

Research related links

1. Climategate: why it matters
2. Climategate Investigator Is Member Of Vehemently Pro-Man Made Global Warming Organization
3. “Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists
4. ClimateGate For Dummies
5. Rep. Miller Calls For Climategate Investigation
6. First Climategate, now Glaciergate
7. UN defends scientists over leaked emails
8. Scientific Siege Against UN-IPCC Farce Revealed
9. Penn State Will Investigate Climategate
10. Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal
11. Inhofe Announces Climategate Investigation on Fox News
12. TV Environmentalist Goes Nuts Over ClimateGate

THE NEW CLIMATE CHANGE SCANDAL

Express.co.uk Monday January 18,2010

By: Anil Davar

FRESH doubts were cast over controversial global warming theories yesterday after a major climate change argument was discredited.

The International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed up by research.

It was also revealed that the IPCC’s controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, described as “the world’s top climate scientist”, is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics and no formal climate science qualifications.

Dr Pachauri was yesterday accused of a conflict of interest after it emerged he has a network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies. One of them, The Energy Research Institute, has a London office and is set to receive up to £10million from British taxpayers over the next five years in the form of grants from the Department for International Development.

Dr Pachauri denies any conflict of interest arising from his various roles.

Yesterday, critics accused the IPCC of boosting the man-made global warming theory to protect a multi-million pound industry.

Climate scientist Peter Taylor said: “I am not surprised by this news. A vast bureaucracy and industry has been built up around this theory. There is too much money in it for the IPCC to let it wither.”

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, a glacier specialist at Cambridge University, said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one even at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”

The IPCC was set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. It issued the glacier warning in a benchmark report in 2007 that was allegedly based on the latest research into global warming.

The scientists behind the report now admit they relied on a news story published in the New Scientist journal in 1999. The article was based on a short telephone interview with scientist Syed Hasnain, then based in Delhi, who has since said his views were “speculation”.

The New Scientist report was picked up by the WWF and included in a 2005 paper.

It then became a key source for the IPCC which went further in suggesting the melting of the glaciers was “very likely”.

Yesterday, Professor Murari Lal who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, then I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

Last year the Indian government issued its own scientific research rejecting the notion that glaciers were melting so rapidly.

Before the weakness in the IPCC’s research was exposed, Dr Pachauri dismissed the Indian government report as “voodoo science”.

The revelations are the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus on climate change.

It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal in November last year when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit appeared to show scientists fiddling the figures to strengthen the case for man-made climate change.

The scandal prompted critics to suggest that many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research.

Last month, the Daily Express published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man made.

The greatest threat of the 21st century: not AGW but Eco-Fascism

James Delingpole
London Telegraph
Friday, January 8th, 2010

As you freeze your butt off in a winter whose severity the politicised weather forecasters of the Met Office utterly failed to predict, and as you wonder how you can afford gas and electricity bills which have been grotesquely inflated by taxes and legislation designed to “combat global warming”, spare a thought for a fellow victim of eco-fascism who’s even worse off than you. In a week or so this poor man could be dead.

His name is Peter Spencer, he’s a farmer in New South Wales, and his livelihood has been stolen by the Australian government in the name of – you guessed it – “combatting climate change.” That’s why he is now sitting atop that windblown tower you see in the photograph, on sheep farmland rendered useless by eco-legislation, starving himself to death in protest at his government’s callous disregard for his property rights. This is his 46th day on hunger strike.

Jo Nova has been following the story closely. Here’s the eco-political background:

As a part of Australia’s commitment to protect native vegetation and to reduce carbon emissions under the Kyoto protocol, Peter Spencer and thousands of farmers like him, have been subjected to a government imposed ban on land clearing.

The saved trees are natural carbon sinks worth an estimated $10.8 billion to the government in reduced carbon emissions, should Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme go ahead. But the farmers, who can no longer develop this land have received no compensation.

Peter Spencer is among the victims of this legalised theft. He first told his story here in 2006.

Full article here

Research related links

1. Be Part Of The Spiritual Renaissance of the 21st Century
2. Unconventional Warfare in the 21st Century: U.S. Surrogates, Terrorists and Narcotraffickers
3. 21st Century Traitors
4. The Great Depression of the 21st Century: Collapse of the Real Economy
5. Welcome To The 21st Century Police State
6. WHO declares first 21st century flu pandemic
7. Electronic Elections: Vote Fraud in the 21st Century
8. The Final Solution: Bio Solutions for the 21st Century (Satire)
9. Climate pact in jeopardy as China refuses to cut carbon emissions
10. 21st Century Internment Camps: Disaster relief or civil rights disaster?
11. Bill Gates Supports Fascism With His Money
12. Greens at G-20 Summit Call for ‘Rich’ Nations to Fund Underdeveloped Countries

Big Chill: Coldest Weather in Over Two Decades

Infowars.com
January 6, 2010

Global warming? What global warming? How will Al Gore explain this?

From AccuWeather:

Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill.

“It’ll be like the great winters of the ’60s and ’70s,” said AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi.

The last time a large swath of severely low temperatures struck the nation was in January 1985. That historic arctic outbreak had below-zero temperatures Fahrenheit stretching from Chicago eastward to New York City, and all the way south to Macon, Ga.

Read entire article

Research related links

1. December was coldest month in 28 years
2. Cold weather kills scores in India
3. Weather Channel Founder to Sue Al Gore
4. Weather Channel Founder Wants To Sue Al Gore For Global Warming Fraud
5. Global warming? Temperatures break 125-year-old record in New Brunswick
6. Highest Unemployment in Three Decades
7. Frigid Weather on Earth Day Cools Global Waming Hype
8. Russia reigns over its weather
9. Holdren Can’t Get Climate Change Doomsday Story Right
10. U.S. Manufacturing Slumps to Weakest in 2 Decades
11. Climate change rhetoric spirals out of control
12. Playing with weather stirs debate in China

Leading Global Warming Crusader: Cap and Trade May INCREASE CO2 Emissions

Washington’s Blog
Friday, Jan 1st, 2010

James Hansen – the world’s leading climate scientist fighting against global warming – told Amy Goodman this morning that cap and trade not only won’t reduce emissions, it may actually increase them:

The problem is that the emissions just go someplace else. That’s what happened after Kyoto, and that’s what would happen again, if–as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned someplace. You know, the Europeans thought they actually reduced their emissions after Kyoto, but what happened was the products that had been made in their countries began to be made in other countries, which were burning the cheapest form of fossil fuel, so the total emissions actually increased…

See also this and this.

Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are also against cap and trade (and see this and this), as is the head of California’s cap and trade program for the EPA.

Hansen also told Goodman that (notwithstanding Paul Krugman’s assertions) most economists say that cap and trade won’t work:

I’ve talked with many economists, and the majority of them agree that the cap and trade with offsets is not the way to address the problem.

As I have previously pointed out:

• The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won’t work for global warming

• European criminal investigators have determined that there is a tremendous amount of fraud occurring in the carbon trading market. Indeed, organized crime has largely taken over the European cap and trade market.

• Former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro says that the proposed cap and trade law “has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives.”

• Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this). As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:

• Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.

  In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.

• One the largest boosters for cap and trade invented credit default swaps – which were supposed to increase financial stability, but instead were a large part of the reason that the world economy crashed last year

Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri

London Telegraph
Monday, Dec 21st, 2009

The head of the UN’s climate change panel – Dr Rajendra Pachauri – is accused of making a fortune from his links with ‘carbon trading’ companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North write.

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

Full article here

Scientists worry about climate change enforcement

Brian Winter
USA Today
December 11, 2009

COPENHAGEN — Ray Weiss looks at the chanting protesters, harried delegates and the 20,000 other people gathered here for a global warming summit and wonders: What’s the fuss all about?

Weiss, a geochemist who studies atmospheric pollution at San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed.

Specifically, he says the cuts that countries including the USA are proposing in greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies.

Read entire article

Copenhagen Report: IPCC’s Damage Control and Hitler Youth

The Moral Liberal
December 9, 2009

IPCC’S DAMAGE CONTROL

As the evidence continues to mount against top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located at England’s University of East Anglia from emails a hacker obtained proving man-made global warming is a fabricated concept, the IPCC issued a statement to contain the damage. The statement is a definite indication the IPCC is feeling the pressure from the world community over the scandal.

The statement’s first paragraph calls the emails “stolen” and “condemns the illegal act which led to private emails being posted on the internet” and the IPCC “stands by the findings” of the researchers “whose professional standards and careful scientific work . . . provided the basis for these conclusions.” The standards mentioned are obviously not the same standards used by most of the scientific community. Also, if the information revealed in these emails supported their data, they would be applauding the disclosure.

The statement also claims their assessment process considers all relevant scientific information from journals with “robust peer review processes, or from other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review.” Additionally, “Every layer in the process plays a role in keeping IPCC assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new relevant literature.” Not so. The emails obtained proved there was a deliberate attempt to exclude or discredit any peers or peer reviews that disagreed with the IPCC findings. The statement simply perpetuates more false claims and lies. To admit otherwise would be to admit there is no evidence for man-made global warming. It was signed by Prof. Thomas Stocker and Prof. Qin Dahe both co-chairs of the Working Group I which contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

HITLER YOUTH

Every arm of the United Nations is designed to bring the world into a one world government through treaties. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) is working steadfastly and stealthily under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) to this end creating a worldwide youth movement reminiscent of the Hitler youth. The UNCROC has been ratified by more countries than any other treaty. It makes the child the equal of the parents thus taking away all parental rights. Parental rights are passed to the United Nations. If governments are not moving fast enough, raise up a generation indoctrinated in the UN theology and the ball will not only move to the finish line, it will be carried over the finish line.

The ball is now the new climate change treaty known as the Copenhagen Protocol meant to replace the Kyoto Protocol due to expire in 2012. UNICEF got the ball rolling a week before the actual Conference of the Parties (COP 15) begins by holding the Children’s Climate Forum. From November 30-December 5th, 164 young Climate Ambassadors — children ages 14-17 from 44 countries — were brought to Copenhagen to discuss or in actuality, be told, what their rights are related to climate change and how they must commit to change. They were told if they are forced to live in an environmentally compromised planet, they won’t be able to enjoy their lives fully, since threats to their health and wellbeing will increase.

At the end of the week, the Climate Ambassadors had prepared a “Children’s Forum Declaration” which was presented in a special Friday night ceremony to the President of COP 15, Ms. Connie Hedegaard. The Declaration states “We commit to personal lifestyle changes that place the common good above our individual desires and current way of life;” “We commit to engage and actively cooperate with . . . governments in combating climate change;” and finally, “We are prepared to give all we have as long as there is the possibility of saving our planet.” The last sentence, directed at the government leaders of the conference states, “We expect the same courage from you.”

I attended the special ceremony Friday night, December 4, 2009. The celebration was held in Copenhagen’s majestic City Hall and the large hall was filled with young people, some looking as young 10 yrs. old. Posters were exhibited all around the room expressing the supposed problems climate change has caused in each country represented.

I spoke with a 16-year-old young man from Florida in the U.S. named Pulkit Agrawal. Pulkit explained to me he was worried South Florida would soon be under water if the glaciers continue to melt. He was one of four young people chosen out of 75 from the U.S. to be a Climate Ambassador. He first attended a Junior 8 Summit held in conjunction with the G8 Summit last July in Italy. At the J8 Summit young people discussed their rights as related to the global financial crisis, again ending with a Declaration to be presented to the leaders of the G8 Summit. Pulkit along with the others from the U.S. met with Obama in Italy.

In order to be considered for the Climate Forum, Pulkit submitted four essays explaining what he was doing to combat climate change. He attends the North Miami Senior High School in Florida where he has started a UNICEF club. It is easy to understand why these young people have an automatic allegiance to an organization that flies them all over the world not only to meet with world leaders but to demand their rights from these leaders. Talk about building an unrealistic image of one’s own importance.

The celebration ended with a Danish rock group singing “It’s My World” written by a Danish composer especially for the forum. Some of the verses of the song are:

Everyday when I get home, I can see what I did wrong

And the back of my mind says, that I should know better

And I would give it all up, if I could turn back the clock

Would’ve treated you better, now I see it clearer.

I do believe there’s a time to change

And I’m not caught up in yesterday

Chorus

‘Cause the world will keep on turning

And the light will keep on burning

For the fact that I’ll be learning

Every minute of the journey

But if we don’t stop pretendin’

There will be consequences

For the rivers that are flowing

When the fire’s on the fire’s on

It’s my world, it’s my world, it’s my world

(repeated two more times)

Somebody made it all up, the beauty of a raindrop

Just like a work of art, mountains and rivers

I wanna see where it ends up, if I give it all my love

Every thought I give her will come back forever

I know that we’ve got a right to change

And there’s no reason to place the blame

Chorus

I’ve got a choice to make, before it fades away

It’s now or never, can’t be like “hey, whatever”

Whatever motivates, I’ve gotta make a change

Make a change, make a change

We’re in this together.

The backdrop on the stage was a large tree made of construction paper. The Climate Ambassadors were asked to make a one-year commitment to take action against climate change. Each ambassador wrote their commitment on a paper leaf which was then pasted on the tree.

UNICEF is an evil organization intent on controlling the hearts and minds of our children.

The Climate Change Propaganda Machine

Paul Murdock, Psy.D
Infowars
December 9, 2009

	The ability to set the public agenda and determine social perceptions is a powerful tool in social psychology.

In the last several weeks we have learned several new facts about climate change research. First, climate scientists’ motives are biased. Second, scientists actively discussed how to achieve political ends through their research. Third, and more disturbingly, the public has learned of discarded data, attempts to keep opposing views silent, and total political adherence to an ideology. Yet, without thinking twice, the main stream media and President Obama have shrugged off the controversy and continued boldly with their partisan agenda. It is clear the science behind climate change is biased and disputed, leaving the propaganda machine as the only fact that remains.

Research by the conservative Media Research Group has stated that since the Climategate scandal broke out, ABC, CBS, and NBC have not mentioned the story in any of their news casts including their morning shows. Even when the outlets discussed Obama’s upcoming trip to Copenhagen, the controversy was never mentioned. There has been no mention of recently published research questioning climate change or that thousands of scholars disagree. Recently, the Wall Street Journal has raised questions of silencing dissenting opinions at the EPA, and there are now questions about NASA’s data. Even with a wide variety of dispute, the networks continue to use the language of propaganda including “undisputed, unequivocal, settled, and consensus.”

Despite the media’s refusal to discuss dissenting opinions, the media continues to universally promote climate change policies. Just as the climate conference begins, the EPA announced that greenhouse gases are toxic, the UN stated this decade may turn out to be the hottest on record, and 56 newspapers around the world ran a common front page editorial supporting drastic climate change action. Here is an excerpt from the editorial:

Social justice demands that the industrialized world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions…. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The authors also continue on to invoke the words of Lincoln to inspire us to change and then finish by calling those who do not, “stupid.” Again, it is clear only calculated propaganda remains!

Most people believe propaganda is just “lies” or “tall stories” that influence the weak and feeble minded. However, modern propaganda is a sophisticated and calculating machine that invades every aspect of our lives. The formidable author Jacques Ellul in his expansive work on the subject describes this process as designed to create proselytes and militants rather than wise or reasonable men. In support of Ellul, a judge in Britain recently ruled that Tim Nicholson’s climate views “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations.” Now environment organizations and fanatics such as Greenpeace can literally join the religiously deluded.

Despite the role of the media, our most pernicious enemy is found in the classroom. The first goal of modern propaganda is to develop conditioned reflexes through education and social dialogue. Jacques Ellul describes the role of education as “pre-propaganda.” Thus, it is no accident that climate change, social justice, and sex education are taught to young students, while there is no religious acceptance or comprehensive discussion of the principles of liberty and freedom.

Let’s review a few recent headlines. Yesterday in Columbia, Missouri notebooks were being given to students with Obama’s slogan and campaign picture on the front. Children have been videotaped literally signing President Obama’s praises and the University of Minnesota is discussing how to best reindoctrinate “biased” individuals. Today, there is news about Obama’s education czar’s educating children with “black books” which included discussions of grotesque sexual acts.

Around the world, educational systems, beginning in elementary school, are organized to promote social change. In some instances, children can now attend public schools such as The Little Village Lawndale High School in Chicago and focus exclusively on social justice classes. To highlight the calculated attempt to indoctrinate our youth, in March 2009 the United States Congress passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE). Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” the legislation states “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

In addition to education, modern propaganda must build on societies need for safety, security, and community. It must exploit human weaknesses in a comprehensive, total, and unyielding manner through all available channels. This is accomplished by inundating individuals with constant propaganda such as the news, youtube, magazines, and teachers.ons. As previously mentioned, the large media outlets refuse to provide dissenting opinion. The UN now has its own youtube channel called “Raise your voice and change climate change.” The cover of the Economist on newsstands today reads “Stopping Climate Change,” and every news article I read uses the word “consensus.”

The end effect of this organized media blitz is to focus the public on one event, climate change, to the exclusion of all the rest. The ability to set the public agenda and determine social perceptions is a powerful tool in social psychology. For it is clear that when individuals are faced with large social opposition or view themselves as out of the norm, individuals typically move towards the mean. The mean in this case is fascism and socialism.

Dr. Paul Murdock is the co-founder of The Freemen Institute, www.freemeninstitute.com

Climategate spells end to the false science of climate change

Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars
November 27, 2009

With the release of over 60 megabytes worth of incriminating emails, and the world getting a glimpse into the world of fanatical pseudo-science, there is little that can be done by the professors who are now on intellectual trial. Whether the emails were leaked or hacked, the people responsible for getting the information out have helped uncover the truth about “climate change” like no news story before it. While there have been piles of evidence to expose the global warming fraud in the past, a written exchange in their very own words is the ultimate proof.

Lord Monckton on the Alex Jones Show, November 27, 2009. Hear the rest of the interview.

With Lord Christopher Monckton making an appearance on the Alex Jones show on Friday to discuss the Climategate story, it is evident that even top political figures are speaking out against phony “climate change”. The very premise that carbon dioxide is bad for the environment goes against the basic fundamentals of science. While it is absurd to think the public would fall for something so outlandish as to say that one of the building blocks of life is a poison, you must remember that many agreed to ban water under it’s scientific name dihydrogen monoxide.

One would believe that the day the groundbreaking emails surfaced would be the last for global warming propagandists, yet the professors still attempt to lie their way out of the issue. Some so-called environmentalists even went into a state of hysteria upon finding out about the leaked emails. The professors can dance around on television all day, but the truth cannot be silenced by a thousand lies.

When looking at the history of the climate change scandal, you will find that the alarmist terminology shifts repeatedly. First they warned against global cooling, warning of a new ice age. Shortly after the warning of a new ice age, global warming was toted as the new killer. The mainstream media picked up global warming as the story of the generation, claiming it was the inevitable killer of humanity. As more and more evidence surfaces, they are now forced to admit that we are entering a cooling trend. As more and more saw this repetitious cycle for what it is, phony scientists toting global warming were forced to change their wording. “Climate change” emerged as the new word used in order to accommodate any environmental change.

The ludicrous claims made by pushers of the global warming scam have been thoroughly debunked, and those in charge of creating false numbers have been exposed. It is time to inform everyone you know about these recent findings. Don’t let false science dictate the actions that you make in your life.

Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate On the Alex Jones Show

CRU emails reveal a worrying pattern of bad behaviour

November 13, 2009

By Sinclair Davidson (crikey)[1]

Sometime last week the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia was hacked and materials stolen off its server. That information, including thousands of emails, has been posted on the internet (including at Wikileaks) and has caused a weekend of frantic blogging. There is more or less a rather juicy scandal brewing.

There is more to this story than the “ho hum, nothing to see here, the making of sausages, and science, shouldn’t be seen by the public” attitude being displayed by warmenists. There is, however, less to the story than the “this proves the greatest scientific fraud in human history” attitude being taken by denialists.

So far, there is no evidence I have seen that suggests the fabrication of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Certainly, scientists at the CRU are not the only scientists working on climate science. These emails do not provide a silver bullet to kill off that theory.

Much has been made of an email by Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, where he says: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The word “trick” doesn’t suggest anything untoward, rather being somewhat clever about some technique. “Hide” could be a problem.

This email is dated November 16, 1999, so it cannot relate to more recent arguments over the extent of global warming.

It is clear, however, that statements suggesting “the science is settled” can no longer be sustained. In an email from Mike Kelly to Phil Jones (dated October 26, 2008), we find this gem, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.” While on July 5, 2005, Phil Jones wrote: “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 seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

It is possible that plausible explanations can and will be made to explain these sorts of statements. At the same time the emails do provide evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, refusal to make data available to journals, attempts to manipulate the editorial stance of journals, attempts to avoid releasing data following FOI requests, tax evasion, rejoicing at the deaths of opponents, manipulation of results, apparent misappropriation of grant money, and threats to physically assault rivals.

This is not a good look at all. Some of this behaviour is bad form, some of it unethical, and some of it potentially illegal. The destruction of data subject to a freedom-of-information request is illegal. The CRU has argued that a lot of their early raw data was destroyed because they couldn’t store it. That explanation is, unfortunately, all too plausible. We live in a world where as recently as 20 years ago, data would have been thrown away for want of storage space. These irreplaceable and valuable historical documents are likely to have been tossed. Why then find a 2005 email from Phil Jones: “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”?

If this is a global Godwin Grech moment and the incriminating emails have been seeded with misinformation, then they are in the clear. Since the scandal has broken that argument is yet to be made. Indeed, several individuals have confirmed the authenticity of emails and condemned the invasion of their privacy.

This incident reflects poorly on academics and universities everywhere.

It is important to remember that the taxpaying public invests a lot of trust and respect in academic processes; not to mention, money. The peer-review process, for example, has been held up as the “gold standard” of integrity. Yet we see numerous emails subverting peer-review. We see attempts to avoid freedom-of-information requests — something the media and the public are increasingly impatient about.

We see overall a pattern of poor behaviour. Some have chosen to represent that behaviour as the workings of elite scientists going about their business. I am not convinced that the public, whose taxes finance that behaviour, are going to be pleased. Nor should they be.

As published in crikey. Thanks to Sinclair Davidson and crikey for covering this material. Copyright remains with the aforementioned.

Source documents:

• Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal

By Dr. Tim Ball and Judi McLeod Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.

A throwback to the intro of the television series Dragnet, “Ladies and Gentlemen: “The story you are about to hear is true, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent”, the innocent in Climategate have already been thrown to the ravening wolves.

“There is a multitude of small but frightening stories in the massive files,” Ball writes. “For example I’ve known solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for a long time. I’ve published articles with Willie and enjoyed extensive communication. I was on advisory committees with them when Sallie suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray. I don’t know if the following events were contributing factors but it is likely.

“Baliunas and Soon were authors of excellent work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several scientists challenged the claim that the latter part of the 20^th century was the warmest ever. They knew the claim was false, many warmer periods occurred in the past. Michael Mann ‘got rid’ of the MWP with his production of the hockey stick, but Soon and Baliunas were problematic. What better than have a powerful academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work.”

Indeed, Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”.

How the deed was done

“A perfect person and opportunity appeared. On 16^th October 2003 Michael Mann, infamous for his lead in the ‘hockey stick’ that dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal; “

Dear All,

Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along…” At the time Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government. (Editor’s Note: He is now Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States Science Czar. )

““In an email on October16, 2003 from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we are told:

”“I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”

The Wednesday Breakfast Group

“This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group.

“I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.”

“The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003 Schulz wrote;

“In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [1 techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?”

“Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16 but comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies, “I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily, much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?” Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies, “But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.” No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolves to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a measure of the man’s blindness and political opportunism that pervades everything he says or does.

“Schulz provides a solid summary when he writes, “I’ll close by saying I’m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question. How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people?”

“We now know it was deliberately placed beyond the reach of the people by the group that he used to ridicule Soon and Baliunas. Holdren was blinded by his political views, which as his record shows are frightening. One web site synthesizes his position on over-population as follows, “Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

“Holdren has a long history of seeking total government control. He was involved in the Club of Rome providing Paul Ehrlich with the scientific data in his bet with Julian Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet. Holdren’s behavior in this sorry episode with Soon and Baliunas is too true to form and shows the leopard never changes his spots,” Ball concludes.

Meanwhile, even with an AWOL mainstream media, the Climategate snakes continue to slither out from under the rocks.

Al Gore to Speak at November Allstream Marquee Event

Event Proceeds Go To the David Suzuki Foundation

Changes in the global economy continue to shape the world and the environment in which we live. Guests of the 2009 Allstream Global Forum will be the first in Canada to hear former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore share his new and compelling vision of how business can play a pivotal role in ensuring these changes are for the better through innovation and investment in new technology. Proceeds from the event, which will take place on November 24, 2009, at the Allstream Centre at Exhibition Place in Toronto, will go to the David Suzuki Foundation and its efforts to help transform the Canadian economy in ways that are consistent with a sustainable future. Co-founded by award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki, the David Suzuki Foundation is a world-renowned organization committed to helping Canadians achieve sustainability within a generation

IPCC caught faking science. Internal emails reveals complete fraud!

On the Climategate emails

9:28 am November 24, 2009, by Kyle Wingfield

Doubts about how much humans are contributing to changes in the climate have had an increasing number of things in their favor: a leveling off and even cooling of global temperatures over the past decade; the fact that Anthropogenic Global Warming theory (AGW) doesn’t account fully for a number of natural effects on the climate; admissions that the likes of Al Gore have trumped up the potential consequences of global warming in order to gain public attention; serious questions about the accuracy of the data that AGW proponents cite, and the scientific rigor with which the data have been collected.

What was missing was a paper trail indicating that warmists were manipulating the exchange of information and attempting to silence skeptics. Until now.

The recent release of several dozen megabytes of information from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has struck a huge blow against the politics, and perhaps the science, of AGW. It’s unclear whether these data — including thousands of emails (UPDATE: sorry, make that “emails and other documents”) from some of the world’s most prominent warmists — were hacked by an outsider or leaked by a whistleblower on the inside. But the people who wrote and received the emails have verified their veracity.

Lest you doubt the impact of these emails, know that one of AGW’s greatest fanatics, George Monbiot of London’s Guardian newspaper, has described them as “a major blow” that “could scarcely be more damaging.” The fact that Monbiot tries to play down their impact on the science of AGW by concocting an over-the-top fake email, saying that only this kind of email would prove an over-arching conspiracy among warmists, merely shows that this crowd can do nothing but deal in hyperbole.

Science writer Ron Bailey — who, perhaps surprisingly for a staffer at uber-libertarian Reason Magazine, is convinced by the science of AGW, or at least was 18 months ago when I met him in Copenhagen — was compelled to write:

Hmmm. Data not agreeing with model predictions. Very interesting. And of course, Flannery is right, science does work through “a robust interchange and testing of ideas.” But interchanging ideas about how to hijack some aspects of peer review and by trying to suppress the work of researchers with whom one disagrees? Messy indeed.

Now, on to the emails.

I haven’t read through even a fraction of the emails, so I will only pass on what others, who have spent more time looking at them, have found.

One good summary is at Powerline blog, which includes emails suggesting that the CRU scientists tried to eliminate inconvenient “blips” in the data; complained about journalists, specifically Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, who were “not as predictable as we’d like”; and mused about ways to make sure the grant money from green-friendly corporations kept coming (while complaining about companies that funded alternative viewpoints). More from Powerline here, here and here.

Perhaps the most damning email threads describe the lengths to which the CRU crew went to silence debate. Pajamas Media has done a great job compiling messages along these lines. The PJM articles include: Charlie Martin on how the men violated the social contract of science; Rand Simberg on scientists as politicians; and Christopher Monckton, a British lord who gave an incredibly informative and entertaining talk this summer at a Georgia Public Policy Foundation event, and whose offer to debate Al Gore on the science of global warming has gone unaccepted, on why the CRU scientists are criminals.

A longtime thorn in the side of the AGW crowd, Steve McIntyre, hosts several discussion threads on some of the implications of the emails, including some back-and-forth about computer coding that I frankly do not understand in the least, here.

This undoubtedly won’t end the debate about global warming, but then again the only people who were trying all along to end the debate were the AGW crowd. What it ought to do, though, is provide real impetus for these supposed scientists to follow the normal procedures of science — including revealing their data so that others can test their hypotheses, a staple of scientific research that the CRU crew had until now avoided with all their might.

And at the very least, this ought to be reason enough for Congress, and the poo-bahs at next month’s U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen, to back off any dramatic new anti-carbon measures until we know whether the scandal goes deeper than this.

More on those climate emails

Kyle Wingfield
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 25, 2009

To get up to speed if you haven’t been following this story closely, here’s my post on it yesterday. Short version: A large batch of data from one of the world’s leading climate science centers was released on the Internet last week; this includes thousands of emails and other documents that reveal scientists at the center — people who have been intimately involved in the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — may have been manipulating their data, and certainly intended to foil Freedom of Information requests and keep contrarian researchers out of peer-review journals if possible.

The focus on the story has turned from the emails the scientists exchanged to the computer code their center was using to produce its data sets, which have been an integral part of the IPCC’s reports. Declan McCullagh at CBS News reports some of the findings so far:

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: “I feel for this guy. He’s obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.”

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend – so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!”

At Pajamas Media, which has been producing some of the most in-depth coverage of this story, Charlie Martin examines the code further and concludes:

[P]ut this in the context of what else we know from the CRU data dump:

1. They didn’t want to release their data or code, and they particularly weren’t interested in releasing any intermediate steps that would help someone else

2. They clearly have some history of massaging the data — hell, practically water-boarding the data — to get it to fit their other results. Results they can no longer even replicate on their own systems.

3. They had successfully managed to restrict peer review to what we might call the “RealClimate clique” — the small group of true believers they knew could be trusted to say the right things.

As a result, it looks like they found themselves trapped. They had the big research organizations, the big grants — and when they found themselves challenged, they discovered they’d built their conclusions on fine beach sand.

But the tide was coming in.

Even if the CRU crew are only guilty of promising more than they could deliver, that’s still a hugely important turn of events in the climate-change debate — and reason enough to put the policy debate on pause while this new information is sorted out.

Finally, on a more humorous note, check out this video created for Minnesotans for Global Warming by the folks at JibJab.com: