Obama’s Science Czar Linked to Climategate Scandal

News Busters
November 26, 2009

Read Full Article Here

After the hacking of the CRU and the release into the public domain of over 3 000 documents and emails that many believe shed doubt on the integrity of the pro-AGW lobby, the University of East Anglia has conducted an inquiry into the leak.

A couple of interesting comments have been made prior to a likely public disclosure of the findings.

Professor Sir David King, the former government chief scientist, told BBC News there are three key issues:

• how did the leakage occur – was there any payment in the process?
• the alleged behaviour of the scientists indicated by the e-mails
• does this have any impact on the scientific conclusion?

If an independent inquiry encompassed all three aspects, Professor Sir David said he would support it.

Well, more than a little lukewarm perhaps, but at least there seems to be some appetite for looking beyond the immediate breach of security and into the underlying scientific basis of the CRU’s conclusions.

However, totally opposed to the very concept of such an inquiry is the IPCC:

…Professor Sir John Houghton, chair of the IPCC’s first science panel, said he would not support an inquiry as many of those demanding one were biased.

It is my understanding that although science seeks to acquire new knowledge, it is always open to re-evaluation so that it constantly redefines and refines this knowledge.

Professor Houghton seems not to agree and is quite content to conclude that any difference of opinion to his own – and by extension that of the IPCC – is a result of bias and in this respect he is no different to any member of a religion which seeks to establish itself as ‘the one true path to salvation’.

And this is what the AGW lobby is fast becoming – a religion as intolerant of criticism and inquiry as any that the world has previously experienced. Contrary opinions are dismissed as biased, ignorant, rooted in self-interest and even anti-social.

A certain ‘A Mullen’ recently commented on this blog:

The dangerous idiots behind the illegal break-in and release have unleashed the stupidity of the flat-earth crowd. The worst of the hundreds of emails and reports on emails that I have read (much on the so called skeptic sites) does nothing to dent the reality that the temperatures on Earth are warming not only in line with the theoretical models, but that many of the projections of AR4 have been exceeded. You and your children and grandchildren will live with the results of your ignorance and your assault on reason. If you think your god will save your ignorant asses, that holds about as much credibility as the rest of your “arguments”.

I could fisk this, but all I think I need to do is ask one simple question of A Mullen and his or her ilk:

If you’re so sure that all the conclusions of the IPCC establish, beyond any doubt, the existence of AGW which could lead to the eventual destruction of this planet, then what difference are a few ‘dangerous idiots’ going to make by exposing material that you say does nothing to weaken the IPCC’s case?

This ‘flat-earther’ awaits your reply…

Hoy 28 de noviembre aparece publicado en El País este artículo donde Rajendra Pachauri, presidente del Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC), proclama que hacerse vegetariano es una buena forma de luchar contra el cambio climático. Una ventaja más sociopolítica de la dieta. Somos lo que comemos y el planeta también es lo que nosotros comemos.

Rajendra Pachauri

ENTREVISTA: Rajendra Pachauri

“COMER CARNE ES TAN MALO COMO LLEVAR UN TODOTERRENO”

Presidente del Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC)

R. M. – Madrid – 28/11/2009

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/Comer/carne/malo/llevar/todoterreno/elpepisoc/20091128elpepisoc_2/Tes

Rajendra Pachauri, presidente del Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC), lleva lejos su lucha contra el calentamiento. Por eso hace siete años se hizo vegetariano. “Para comer carne hay que cortar bosques para cultivar pastos. Luego hay que alimentar esos animales con grano, que se produce de forma que consume mucha energía. Esa carne hay que refrigerarla. Reducir el consumo de carne es bueno para la salud y el planeta. Posiblemente es peor que conducir un cuatro por cuatro. Pero eso no significa que uno deba conducir un cuatro por cuatro. No hay que hacer ninguna de esas cosas”, sentenció ayer en un encuentro con la prensa en la Casa Asia de Madrid, donde se mostró optimista ante la cumbre del clima de Copenhague.

El indio Pachauri, que lidera el grupo científico que en 2007 recibió el Nobel de la Paz, no ve relevante el robo de correos electrónicos entre investigadores británicos en los que intentan tapar datos que contradicen el calentamiento: “Incluso si hay alguien que dice algo con un amigo, ¿podemos llegar a alguna conclusión? ¿Qué van a hacer conmigo si digo voy a matar a ese hombre? ¿Significa que voy a matarlo de verdad?”.

Añade que sus informes no son fácilmente manipulables. “En el IPCC los autores funcionan en grupos y cada borrador está revisado por otros expertos. En el informe del IPCC hay muchas partes donde se dice que los datos científicos no son suficientes”.

Sobre la negociación del clima, apoya la postura de Obama: “En los últimos 10 años EE UU no ha hecho nada y las emisiones no han hecho más que subir. Obama lleva menos de un año en el cargo. Teniendo en cuenta esto, su anuncio es un primer paso que merece ser alabado”.

Incertezze nei modelli climatici

Le equazioni che compaiono nel modello sono solo approssimazioni dei processi fisici che avvengono nell’atmosfera. Mentre alcune di queste approssimazioni sono altamente precise, altre sono alquanto grezze. Questo è dovuto al fatto che i processi reali che avvengono sono o troppo complessi per essere inclusi nel modello (il supercomputer non riesce ad eseguirli) o perché la nostra comprensione di questi processi è ancora troppo scarsa. Quest’ultima è particolarmente vera per la formazione e la dissipazione delle nuvole. Si sta ancora cercando di implementare nei modelli l’influenza climatica delle differenti varietà di nuvole che compaiono nelle diverse regioni del pianeta e nelle varie stagioni. La modellazione del comportamento delle nuvole è molto difficile ed è qualcosa che ancora non è stato realizzato nei modelli climatici globali.
Tutti i modelli climatici IPCC assegnano un feedback positivo alla riduzione delle nubi medio basse e questo è il motivo principale delle differenze nel riscaldamento fornito dai diversi modelli climatici (Trenberth e Fasullo, 2009). Prevedo che questo modello di comportamento (delle nubi) si dimostrerà essere non corretto. E anche se gli autori sono restii ad ammetterlo c’è già qualche elemento di prova nella letteratura scientifica (Spencer et al., 2007; Caldwell e Bretherton, 2009). Credo che i modellisti hanno erroneamente interpretato il fatto che il riscaldamento provochi una diminuzione delle nuvole, mentre in realtà è stata la diminuzione delle nuvole che ha causato la maggior parte del riscaldamento del pianeta. Questo è fondamentalmente un problema di nesso di causalità: una direzione del nesso di causalità è stato ignorata quando si cerca di valutare il nesso di causalità nella direzione opposta (Spencer e Braswell, 2008).
Il problema fondamentale del nesso di causalità nella modellazione del clima non si limita solo alle nuvole. Mentre il riscaldamento provoca, in media, un aumento del vapore acqueo alle basse quote, tutto il sistema di precipitazioni controlla il vapore acqueo contenuto nella parte restante dell’atmosfera. Quindi da un parte l’evaporazione contribuisce ad incrementare l’effetto serra immettendo vapore acqueo in atmosfera, dall’altra le precipitazioni lo riducono. Ma mentre il fenomeno fisico dell’evaporazione è stato capito molto bene, lo stesso non si può dire dei processi fisici di conversione di vapore acqueo in nubi e in precipitazioni, che rimangono piuttosto complessi e misteriosi. E’ l’equilibrio tra questi due processi – l’evaporazione e le precipitazioni – che determina l’umidità atmosferica.
Anche nei modelli fatti ad hoc per studiare il comportamento e l’accrescimento delle nuvole (modelli che presentano molti calcoli complessi) il momento in cui inizia una precipitazione non viene calcolato ma bisogna fornirglielo. Questo fatto è una fonte di enorme incertezza e non viene sufficientemente considerato dagli scienziati. Alla fine, molte delle approssimazioni nei modelli climatici probabilmente non sono così importanti per la previsione dei cambiamenti climatici, ma basta un solo processo critico per portare le proiezioni del modello in una direzione completamente sbagliata. L’IPCC ammette che la loro principale fonte di incertezza è il feedback delle basse nuvole, cioè come la bassa copertura nuvolosa cambierà con il riscaldamento.

La causa del riscaldamento globale: l’uomo o la natura?

L’aggiunta di più di anidride carbonica in atmosfera deve avere qualche effetto sul bilancio energetico del pianeta, ma quanto è grande in confronto allo squilibrio energetico che il sistema climatico impone su se stesso?
Il risultato è stato che questi modellisti considerano il sistema climatico molto sensibile alle nostre emissioni di gas serra e che in primo luogo esso è in uno stato di equilibrio energetico.Vi è una pervasiva e non scientifica convinzione che la natura è in una situazione precaria di equilibrio. Sia che si tratti di ecosistemi o del sistema climatico, si sentono scienziati che sostengono la presunta fragilità della natura. Ma questo è un concetto soggettivo, non scientifico. Proprio perché la natura tende verso un equilibrio non significa che l’equilibrio sia in qualche modo ‘fragile’. E che cosa significa ‘fragile’, quando la natura sembra sconvolgere questo equilibrio comunque?
Perché questo è così importante per la modellazione del clima? Perché se questi scienziati ignorano la variabilità naturale indotta del clima, e la maggior parte dei cambiamenti climatici sono dovuti alle attività dell’uomo, allora inevitabilmente si arriva alla conclusione che il sistema climatico è fragile. Se il riscaldamento osservato nel corso del 20 ° secolo è stato causato dall’uomo, ne consegue che il sistema climatico è abbastanza sensibili (feedback positivo). Ma se il riscaldamento è stato in gran parte causato da una variazione naturale della copertura nuvolosa, allora il sistema climatico è più probabilmente insensibile (feedback negativo). E non c’è modo di sapere se sono avvenuti cambiamenti naturali nella copertura delle nubi semplicemente perché le nostre osservazioni sul secolo scorso sono molto poco accurate.
Così, i modellisti climatologi partono dal fatto che non vi sono cambiamenti a lungo termine delle nubi, del vapore acqueo, ecc, e programmano i loro modelli climatici in modo da essere abbastanza sensibili nel produrre il riscaldamento del pianeta nel corso degli ultimi 50 anni con l’aumento delle concentrazioni di biossido di carbonio. Il presupposto è sempre quello: esso partono dal fatto che la Terra fosse in uno stato di equilibrio energetico, prima che l’uomo cominciasse ad usare i combustibili fossili. Ma, come è dimostrato dalla seguente ricostruzione della temperatura degli ultimi 2.000 anni (dal Loehle, 2007), vi sono state continue variazioni di temperatura che implicano necessariamente continui cambiamenti nel bilancio energetico della Terra.

fonte: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2000-years-of-global-temperatures-small.gif

E mentre i cambiamenti dell’attività solare sono una possibile spiegazione per questi eventi, è anche possibile che ci siano a lungo termine, internamente al sistema, delle fluttuazioni nel bilancio energetico globale, determinate dalla variabilità naturale delle nubi e del vapore acqueo.

Conclusioni

Non c’è dubbio che molti sforzi sono stati fatti per migliorare i modelli climatici. Ma ciò non significa che tali modelli possono necessariamente prevedere il clima tra 20, 50 o 100 anni da adesso. In ultima analisi, il modellista (e quindi il politico) deve prendere come una questione di fede il fatto che oggi i modelli climatici computerizzati contengono tutti i processi importanti necessari a prevedere il riscaldamento globale.
Questo è il motivo per cui convalidare le previsioni di una teoria è così importante per il progresso della scienza. Purtroppo, non abbiamo un buon sistema per testare rigorosamente modelli climatici nel contesto della teoria che il riscaldamento globale è antropico. Gli scienziati affermano che i loro modelli possono spiegare i cambiamenti di temperatura avvenuti nel 20 ° secolo. Ciò è vero solo in parte, infatti: primo, non è improbabile che la loro è l’unica spiegazione e secondo, loro forniscono una spiegazione conoscendo già la risposta. Il punto è che, mentre i modelli climatici attualmente offrono una possibile spiegazione per il cambiamento climatico (umanità emissioni di gas serra), non è affatto l’unica possibile. E ogni modellista che sostiene di aver trovato l’unica possibile causa del riscaldamento globale è in malafede. Anche l’IPCC (2007) ammette c’è un 10% di probabilità che si sbagli sul fatto che il riscaldamento degli ultimi 50 anni sia di origine antropica.

FINE

Fonti: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/how-do-climate-models-work/

ANGELO

Mamma mia leggete l’ultima parte, il nostro angelo (che vi saluta tutti) è come sei ci avesse visto lungo 3 mesi fa quando scrisse questo pezzo… sara mica lui la famosa talpa del CRU???

Who knew that someone from the CRU at East Anglia University would dare to release documents that had been denied for release via Freedom of Information, and that with the release of those documents the whole notion of man-made global warming would begin its own melt-down.  Well, yes it happened and at this point in time we do not know if it really was the work of a hacker, or it was the work of a whistle-blower.

I have been a sceptic for a very long time when it comes to this notion of man-made global warming and especially the way in which everything is being blamed on Climate Change. In recent years the scenarios have been getting more and more “frightening”, and absurd. One of the latest that I read was the scenario where it is claimed that with global warming there would be more cases of malaria (preventable with a good eradication program), Lyme disease and even kidney stones. Such scenarios are used in situations where there is outright ignorance about the causes of such diseases.  In the case of malaria, which is common in tropical regions, there had been success with eradication of the mosquitoes that cause malaria until the program was stopped – DDT was used to spray the areas where the mosquitoes were breeding, but a successful campaign to end the use of DDT put an end to these eradication efforts.) Lyme Disease is caused by getting a bite from a tick that is prevalent in areas where there are deer, and more than likely diagnostic techniques for identifying Lyme Disease are getting better. In the case of kidney stones, I do not know if retaining fluid on hot days helps to bring on kidney stones, but I do know that there is a link with diet….

For years we have been hearing about how there will be a rise in sea levels, that the arctic ice caps are melting, etc. etc.  The most recent expedition to the Arctic circle was not all that successful, yet the people who went on that expedition released a paper that offered conclusions that were probably false about the depth of the ice etc. I am not an expert in this area at all. If anything I rely on my own experience when it comes to climatic changes in my own lifetime. I live in Australia, being brought up in Melbourne. Last summer Melbourne and Adelaide experienced a week of extremely high temperatures over 40C. At the end of the week there was a devastating and deadly bushfire, with a record number of lives being lost.  I cannot preempt the findings of a Royal Commission into the bushfires, so for now all I can say is that blaming Global Warming for the disaster is plain ludicrous. It was not the first time that Victoria had experienced these high temperatures, and in my own lifetime, in 1959 Melbourne had equivalent temperatures over an equivalent period of time. The same thing happened in 1939 before the outbreak of another deadly bushfire known as Black Friday.

When I was in the USA during July, I found that temperatures were lower on the East coast than I expected and higher on the West Coast, with Seattle and Vancouver reaching a record temperature. This was not evidence of Global Warming. It is possible to have a temperature over 100F and be surrounded by glaciers. In fact that was my experience in the Canadian Rockies. It was an amazing sight.

Climate Change is a normal phenomenon, however, what is not normal, and what is not proved, is that the changes are due to the existence of man, including man’s use of fossil fuels. However, the scientists involved in the IPCC, or at least a select group of scientists have been manipulating data in order to try and prove that man-made global warming exists. This has now been exposed.

Saturday, November 28 2009
http://wp.me/ptYuG-Q

In the lead-up to the Copenhagen conference on Climate Change, is is time for a change in the way the ’science’ is done. By that I mean that openness and scrutiny by other scientists needs to be reinstated and the Peer-review process abandoned as it has just descended into mere cronyism. When a belief gains sufficient support that it can block any contrary viewpoint from being published, as it is evident from the Climategate revelations it has and does, then the peer-review process itself needs to be changed. Let research stand on its merits, on its reliance on data that can be checked and on logical deductions therefrom, not on the approval of a biased and incestuous group of people with vested interests of their own to protect.

Here is a widget that will monitor the current status of climate change. Hopefully it will be factual and not politically-distorted like some other reports.

This widget was obtained from World Climate Widget

Also recommended is : –

climate science

This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don’t believe the scare stories – YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07)

Paul

Global Warming Or Global Governance?

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: I’ve posted this before and here it is again. Watch it, folks! - SJH

Extreme left journalist George Monbiot ignored all the facts I provided when he was pointing a finger at me. He’s ignoring them again, which forces him to assume the deniers are at fault. He wrote, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”

The sphere is expanding for several reasons.

• All evidence rejects the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming or climate change.
• Facts are gradually getting to the public despite obstructionism by journalists like Monbiot.
• Temperature projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are consistently wrong.
• Record cold temperatures are occurring everywhere.
• Motives of those pushing the need for reduction in CO2 are being exposed.
• Economic costs of a completely unnecessary action are emerging.

An incredible revelation

I’ve been watching the news unfold about the E-mails and documents that were somehow pilfered (or leaked) from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) last week.  I have been reading everything that I can find on the internet about the subject, including the E-mails themselves and some of the programmer comments embedded in the CRU software.

I have been stunned.

So it appears that either a) the science behind anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is dubious, or b) the entire global warming panic has been an outright fraud perpetrated by politically-motivated scientists against an unsuspecting, and largely gullible, world population.  I tend to believe the latter.

Not only am I stunned, I’m also livid.  At the same time, however, I’m also relieved that the priests of global warming now have serious reasons to be worried…if not afraid.  And now I hope the Senate will have more reason to look at the pending cap and trade debate with more skepticism.  Given the current–and very real–economic crisis, we don’t need Congress levying additional taxes with the intent of thwarting a crisis that doesn’t even exist.

Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you’re wrong

I am an AGW denier.  I have always been a denier.  I am proud of the fact that I never fell for what, in my mind at least, always came across as being specious bullshit.  I’m so, so grateful that I’m not among the millions and millions of gullible idiots who took the bait hook line and sinker.

Up until now the term “denier” has been used as a pejorative by global warming adherents to describe skeptics.  But now one is led to ask the question: Who exactly are the real deniers?  Those of us who refuse to believe alarmist prognostications of imminent climatic doom, or those who refuse to recognize and consider evidence that sits before their very eyes?  Again I say the latter.  They are the ones in a deep state of denial, after all.  But why?

Because (probably subconsciously) they simply cannot bring themselves to admit that they have been wrong all along…they cannot admit that they have allowed themselves to be duped.  They have been fooled by perhaps the most outrageous con job of all time, and they cannot bear to face up to that single, pitiful, ignominious truth.  They are sheep, pure and simple.

Case in point: Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post:

Stop hyperventilating, all you climate change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week — portraying some leading climate researchers as petty, vindictive and tremendously eager to make their data fit accepted theories — does not prove that global warming is a fraud.

If I’m wrong, somebody ought to tell the polar ice caps that they’re free to stop melting.

That said, the e-mail episode is more than a major embarrassment for the scientists involved. Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real — a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make to begin seriously limiting carbon emissions. But consensus on the nature and scope of the problem will dissipate, and fast, if experts try to obscure the fact that there’s much about the climate they still don’t know.

[Goes on to outline the UEACRU E-mail hacking scandal in some detail.]

It would be great if this were all a big misunderstanding. But we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we know the planet is hotter than it was a century ago. The skeptics might have convinced each other, but so far they haven’t gotten through to the vanishing polar ice.

Yep.  There’s that “denier” word again coming from the mouth of a denier.  It doesn’t get funnier than that.  And you’ve got to love Mr. Robinson’s flippant comment about melting polar ice caps.  This is especially humorous since researchers have shown that the volume of the polar ice caps stabilized in 2007 and has  been expanding ever since.  In his opinion piece, Mr. Robinson also declares that “climate science is fiendishly hard” to study.  Well, no kidding.  But unicorn science is fiendishly hard to study, too…BECAUSE UNICORNS DON’T EXIST ANY MORE THAN ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING DOES!

Yes, it’s problematic to study something that simply isn’t there, isn’t it?

But let’s name a few of the other dupes that got sucked into believing the AGW myth, shall we?

• Barack Obama
• Just about all of the members of the Obama administration (most notably the eco-fascist Carol Browner)
• Gordon Brown
• Tony Blair
• Angela Merkel
• Nicolas Sarkozy
• The European Union
• The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• Many members of the U.S. House of Representatives
• Many members of the U.S. Senate (to include John McCain)
• ABC
• NBC (see: General Electric)
• CBS
• MSNBC (see: General Electric)
• CNN
• BBC
• PBS
• The New York Times
• The Washington Post
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• The Los Angeles Times
• Too many other U.S. newspapers to count
• Too many U.S. corporations to enumerate

I didn’t mention Al Gore because he’s among the “dupers,” not among the ”dupes.”  He’s just one of the dudes making hundreds of millions of dollars off of the global warming hysteria scam.

Actually, the list of dupes goes on and on and on and I don’t have time to list them all.  But the scariest dupes of all are the ones who are supposed to report the news and keep the public informed (see all of the television networks and newspapers above).  Most of the news sources listed above are being notoriously silent about the ClimateGate scandal.  This in itself is terribly insidious, given the fact that the Obama administration and the Democratic majority in Congress seem intent on foisting a cap and tax scheme on the American people that will greatly damage businesses in the United States and increase energy costs for all.

Yet, the mainstream media, cognizant of its humiliatingly supine complicity in an apparent world-wide con scheme, remains silent.  They are worthless now.  They have been worthless.

And now we hear that President Obama, despite the revelation of the UEACRU E-mail and document disclosure, intends to attend next month’s climate summit in Copenhagen anyway, where he intends to promise that he will commit America to reducing greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time forfeiting transferring billions of American taxpayer dollars to an apparently fraudulent international carbon blackmail tax scheme.

Good luck, Mr. Obama.  We’re watching you.

The American public is watching you.

As an aside, I wonder if Mr. Obama and his family will watch “The Day After Tomorrow” on DVD this weekend.  Maybe it will help build up his courage to travel to Denmark and betray the American people.

Note

Some of the bloggers at the Telegraph have, indeed, been covering the CRU E-mail story.  Here’s Gerald Warner:

At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.

The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.

Good to see a Brit taking a position on this travesty.  James Delingpole (from the same paper) has been doing superb work, too (actually, it’s been Delingbore–as some of Delingpoles’s detractors call him–who has done the yeoman’s work on this story at the Telegraph).  Well done, Sir!

Hacked climate emails include calls for ‘Earth Government’ as foundation of new world order, splitting of America

Infowars
November 24, 2009

Read Full Article Here

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. And media is starting to cover it more and more as the consequences is starting to sink in. It’s about time.

“The climate-gate revelations have exposed an unprecedented coordinated attempt by academics to distort research for political ends. Anyone interested in accurate science should be appalled at the manipulation of data “to hide the decline [in temperature]” and deletion of e-mail exchanges and data so as not to reveal information that would support global-warming skeptics. These hacks are not just guilty of bad science. In the United Kingdom, deleting e-mail messages to prevent their disclosure from a Freedom of Information Act request is a crime.”

“We read and reread these CRU documents in stunned amazement. But rather than investigating all the evidence of so much academic fraud and intellectual wrongdoing, the University of East Anglia is denying there is a problem.”

“Unlike these global-warming propagandists, we expect research to be done in the open. Scientists who refuse to share their data, who plot to destroy information and fail to tell other scientists how their results were calculated should be severely punished. “

Exactly so!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-global-cooling-cover-up/

Friday, November 27, 2009

EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The climate-gate revelations have exposed an unprecedented coordinated attempt by academics to distort research for political ends. Anyone interested in accurate science should be appalled at the manipulation of data “to hide the decline [in temperature]” and deletion of e-mail exchanges and data so as not to reveal information that would support global-warming skeptics. These hacks are not just guilty of bad science. In the United Kingdom, deleting e-mail messages to prevent their disclosure from a Freedom of Information Act request is a crime.

The story has gotten worse since the global-cooling cover-up was exposed through a treasure trove of leaked e-mails a week ago. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been incredibly influential in the global-warming debate. The CRU claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report.

Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU and contributing author to the United Nation’s IPCC report chapter titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes,” says he “accidentally” deleted some raw temperature data used to construct the aggregate temperature data CRU distributed. If you believe that, you’re probably watching too many Al Gore videos.

Mr. Jones is the same professor who warned that global-warming skeptics “have been after the CRU station data for years. 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.”

Other revelations hit at the very core of the global-warming debate. The leaked e-mails indicate that the people at the CRU can’t even figure out how their aggregate data was put together. CRU activists claimed that they took individual temperature readings at individual stations and averaged the information out to produce temperature readings over larger areas. One of the leaked documents states that their aggregation procedure “renders the station counts totally meaningless.” The benefit: “So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

Academics around the world who have spent years working on papers using this data must be in full panic mode. By the admission of the global-warming theocracy’s own self-appointed experts, the data they have been using is simply “garbage.”

For global-warming advocates, there is an additional problem: The aggregated data appear to have been constructed to show an increase in temperatures. CBS’ Declan McCullagh finds that the computer code contains programmer-written notes addressed to themselves or future people who will be working with the program. The notes include these revealing instructions: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!” and “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!”

The programmers apparently had to try at least a couple of adjustments before they could get their aggregated data to show an increase in temperatures.

Other global-warming advocates privately acknowledge what they won’t concede publicly, that temperature changes haven’t been consistent with their models. Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a prominent man-made-global-warming advocate, wrote in one of the discovered e-mails: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Still other e-mails document how global-warming advocates tried to silence academic journals and professors who questioned whether there is significant man-made global warming.

We read and reread these CRU documents in stunned amazement. But rather than investigating all the evidence of so much academic fraud and intellectual wrongdoing, the University of East Anglia is denying there is a problem. Professor Trevor Davies, the school’s pro vice chancellor for research, issued a defensive statement on Tuesday claiming: “The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”

Unlike these global-warming propagandists, we expect research to be done in the open. Scientists who refuse to share their data, who plot to destroy information and fail to tell other scientists how their results were calculated should be severely punished.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel and starting to have political consequences. It’s about time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB20001424052748703499404574558070997168360.html

‘Cap and Trade Is Dead’

NOVEMBER 26, 2009, 11:41 P.M. ET.

 The recently disclosed emails and documents from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit compromise the integrity of the United Nations’ global warming reports.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL..

So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. “Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in.”

If any politician might be qualified to offer last rites, it would be Mr. Inhofe. The top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee has spent the past decade in the thick of Washington’s climate fight. He’s seen the back of three cap-and-trade bills, rode herd on an overweening Environmental Protection Agency, and steadfastly insisted that global researchers were “cooking” the science behind man-made global warming.

This week he’s looking prescient. The more than 3,000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have found their way to the Internet have blown the lid off the “science” of manmade global warming. CRU is a nerve center for many of those researchers who have authored the United Nations’ global warming reports and fueled the political movement to regulate carbon.

Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn’t toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow,” glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents “could scarcely be more damaging.” And that’s from a believer.

This scandal has real implications. Mr. Inhofe notes that international and U.S. efforts to regulate carbon were already on the ropes. The growing fear of Democrats and environmentalists is that the CRU uproar will prove a tipping point, and mark a permanent end to those ambitions.

Internationally, world leaders finally acknowledged that the recession has sapped them of their political power to impose devastating new carbon-restrictions. China and India are clear they won’t join the West in an economic suicide pact. Next month’s summit in Copenhagen is a bust. Instead of producing legally binding agreements, it will be dogged by queries about the legitimacy of the scientists who wrote the reports that form its basis.

The next opportunity to get international agreement is in Mexico City, 2010—a U.S. election year. Democrats were already publicly acknowledging there will be no domestic climate legislation in 2009 and privately acknowledging their great unease at passing a huge energy tax on Americans headed for a midterm vote.

Add to that the CRU scandal, which pivots the focus to potential fraud. Republicans are launching investigations, and the pressure is building on Democrats to hold hearings, since climate scientists were funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Mr. Inhofe’s office this week sent letters to federal agencies and outside scientists warning them not to delete their own CRU-related emails and documents, which may also be subject to Freedom of Information requests.

Polls show a public already losing belief in the theory of man-made global warming, and skeptics are now on the offense. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell argues this scandal gives added cover to Blue Dogs and other Democrats who were already reluctant to buck the public’s will and vote for climate legislation. And with Republicans set to pick up seats, Mr. Ebell adds, “By 2011 there will hopefully be even fewer members who support this. We may be close to having it permanently stymied.” Continued U.S. failure to act makes an international agreement to replace Kyoto (which expires in 2012) a harder sell.

There’s still the EPA, which is preparing an “endangerment finding” that would allow it to regulate carbon on the grounds it is a danger to public health. It is here the emails might have the most direct effect. The agency has said repeatedly that it based its finding on the U.N. science—which is now at issue. The scandal puts new pressure on the EPA to accede to growing demands to make public the scientific basis of its actions.

Mr. Inhofe goes so far as to suggest that the agency might not now issue the finding. “The president knows how punitive this will be; he’s never wanted to do it through [the EPA] because that’s all on him.” The EPA was already out on a legal limb with its finding, and Mr. Inhofe argues that if it does go ahead, the CRU disclosure guarantees court limbo. “The way the far left used to stop us is to file lawsuits and stall and stall. We’ll do the same thing.”

Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it’s that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They’d be better off acknowledging that the only “consensus” right now is that the world needs to start over on climate “science.”

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Strano ma vero, in Italia tarda a montare la polemica sulle mail degli scienziati dell’IPCC, sorpresi a mettersi d’accordo per truccare i dati. Una polemica che sicuramente arriverà anche da noi, ci staranno già pensando quelli del Foglio di Ferrara e svariati altri addetti ai lavori.
La storia per alcuni dimostra che i cambiamenti climatici sono una grossa montatura. Per altri le cose sono più complesse. Non è detto che le ricerche fossero completamente sballate, anzi. Le mail riguarderebbero piuttosto la presentazione dei dati. E comunque la polemica riguarda il modo di esporli, piuttosto che il metodo scientifico per ricavarli.
Insomma, si aspettano i giorni del vertice di Copenaghen per parlarne anche qui in Italia. La storiella dovrebbe aprire gli occhi agli scienziati su un problema grave, quello di comunicare i risultati del loro lavoro. Da questo punto di vista l’IPCC è un disastro. E questo tentativo di arrivare a una rappresentazione “addomesticata” della realtà rischia di costare caro. Ciò detto, niente di nuovo sotto il sole. Quando impareranno?

Another Prominent Scientist Calls CRU Scientists “Criminals”

Leaked documents prove alarmists planned to seek funding from “energy agencies”

Ian Plimer joins another prominent figure in the debate, Lord Christopher Monckton, who called for a full investigation and criminal prosecutions earlier this week.

Climate Expert: “Compromised” UN Scientists should be excluded from IPCC, Peer-Review Process

Says “Gatekeepers” have been exposed, should be barred

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to Michael Mann, We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Riporto in questo articolo un lavoro del dottor Roy Spencer sui modelli climatici che gli scienziati utilizzano per fare le loro previsioni sul clima. L’argomento mi sembra interessante perché viene esaltata incondizionatamente, almeno dai media, la loro validità quando in realtà presentano non pochi limiti.

Un modello climatico è sostanzialmente un programma per computer (o meglio un supercomputer, vista la mole di calcoli da eseguire) costituito per la maggior parte da equazioni matematiche. Queste descrivono quantitativamente come, la temperatura atmosferica, la pressione, la velocità e la direzione dei venti, la concentrazione del vapore acqueo, le nuvole, le precipitazioni, rispondono al riscaldamento solare della superficie e dell’atmosfera terrestre. Naturalmente in queste vengono incluse anche le equazioni che descrivono gli effetti “serra” di alcuni elementi dell’atmosfera (soprattutto vapore acqueo, anidride carbonica e metano). La superficie sferica della Terra viene suddivisa in tante griglie (vedi l’immagine sotto) e in ognuna di queste viene fatto partire questo programma.

fonte: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/climate-model-1.jpg

Esistono poi modelli climatici, detti “accoppiati”, dove compaiono le equazioni che descrivono tridimensionale la circolazione oceanica, il trasporto dell’energia solare assorbita intorno alla Terra, e gli scambi di calore e di umidità con l’atmosfera. Nei moderni modelli accoppiati compaiono anche equazioni che descrivono l’influenza della vegetazione, del suolo, della neve o del ghiaccio sullo scambio termico con l’atmosfera. L’immagine mostra la temperatura della superficie del mare, la direzione dei venti in superficie e la distribuzione dei ghiacci ottenuta da un modello del NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric of Research).

Fonte: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/climate-model-2.jpg

Se volete vedere come un modello di simulazione del clima evolva nel tempo, un suggestivo video del NCAR lo trovate al seguente link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbXwRP0CQNA

L’importanza del bilancio energetico nei modelli climatici

I modelli climatici sono solitamente utilizzati per studiare come il clima della Terra potrebbe rispondere a piccole modifiche di due flussi energetici: quello solare in entrata e quello emesso dalla Terra in uscita sotto forma di radiazione infrarossa. Proprio quest’ultimo è influenzato dall’aggiunta di gas serra che riducono la capacità dell’atmosfera terrestre di liberare energia verso lo spazio (riscaldamento antropico). È l’equilibrio tra i due flussi di energia radiante che determina la temperatura media a lungo termine del clima. Se sono in equilibrio allora la temperatura media si mantiene costante, altrimenti si osserva un cambiamento. E’ semplicemente una questione di bilancio energetico. L’energia in gioco è stimata essere in 235 o 240 watt per metro quadro, che corrisponde all’energia solare assorbita dalla Terra ed emessa sotto forma di raggi infrarossi (siamo in equilibrio termico). Parliamo di stima perché il sistema satellitare per la misurazione del bilancio di energia radiante della Terra non è ancora abbastanza buono da fornire una precisione assoluta.
Tutta una serie di variabili nel modello vengono cambiati fino a quando il modello stesso si avvicina alla media stagionale dei modelli meteorologici di tutto il pianeta e alla energia assorbita dalla Terra ed emessa a un tasso medio globale di 235 o 240 watt per metro quadro. Gli scienziati che fanno modelli ritengono che se il modello riesce a imitare queste caratteristiche di base del sistema climatico terrestre, allora sarà in grado di prevedere l’eventuale riscaldamento globale. Questo presupposto potrebbe essere buono oppure no, ma nessuno è in grado di dirlo.

Il riscaldamento globale di origine antropica nei modelli climatici

L’aggiunta di anidride carbonica nell’atmosfera dalla combustione di combustibili fossili ha provocato uno squilibrio di un valore stimato di circa 1,5 Watt per metro quadrati rispetto ai soliti 235-240. Questo squilibrio energetico è troppo piccolo per essere misurata dai satelliti e di fatto viene calcolato teoricamente. Quindi, se la Terra è inizialmente in uno stato di equilibrio energetico, e il tasso di radiazione assorbita dalla Terra è esattamente 240 Watt per metro quadro, il tasso di perdita di radiazione infrarossa nello spazio passa da 240 a 238,5 Watt per metro quadro (240 meno 1,5). Ciò determina un incremento di temperatura fino a quando non sarà ripristinato l’equilibrio termico. A quel punto l’energia persa sotto forma di radiazione infrarossa e quella solare assorbita si eguaglieranno e si avrà nuovamente una temperatura costante nel tempo.
La principale fonte di incertezza nella modellazione del clima è questa: il sistema climatico (la Terra) come si comporterà per ridurre la piccola quantità di riscaldamento dovuto alla CO2? Il modello climatico (così come il vero sistema climatico) ha diversi modi in cui uno squilibrio energetico dovuto all’aggiunta di anidride carbonica in atmosfera possa essere ripristinato. La risposta più semplice è un aumento della temperatura. Ad esempio, si può calcolare che il 40% di aumento di CO2 dovuto alle attività umane negli ultimi 150 anni abbia causato un incremento di 0,5 C. Questa risposta teorica è chiamata “no feedback” (senza risposta) perché nessuna cosa è cambiata tranne la temperatura.
Ma un cambiamento di temperatura può modificare altri elementi del sistema climatico, come le nuvole e il vapore acqueo. Questi altri indiretti cambiamenti sono chiamati “feedbacks”, e possono amplificare o ridurre il riscaldamento dovuto alla sola CO2. Nella figura seguente, vengo mostrati più di venti modelli climatici attualmente monitorati dalle Nazioni Unite mediante l’ IPCC che amplificano il riscaldamento del pianeta.

fonte: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/21-ipcc-climate-models.jpg

Questa amplificazione è in gran parte dovuta all’aumento di vapore acqueo – che è il principale gas serra- e alla diminuzione delle nubi che si formano alle altitudini medio-basse, il cui effetto principale è quello di lasciare arrivare maggiore radiazione solare e causare un ulteriore riscaldamento del pianeta. Questi cambiamenti vengono implementati nei modelli che assegnano all’aumento del vapore acqueo e alla diminuzione delle nubi un feedback positivo.

E’ questo realmente il modo in cui funziona il sistema climatico terrestre?

Fine prima parte (Domani la seconda)

ANGELO

Global Warming On Trial: Inhofe Calls For Investigation Of UN IPCC

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 23, 2009

In response to the astounding revelations arising out of the hacked CRU emails, Senator Jim Inhofe has stated that unless something is done within the next seven days, he will lead the call for a rigorous investigation into mounting evidence that top climate scientists conspired to manipulate data to hide evidence of global cooling while engaging in academic witch hunts to eliminate scientists skeptical of man-made climate change.

However, there seems little doubt that this bombshell will go a long way to derailing, or at least delaying the agenda for a global carbon tax that will be collected by the very same elitists aggressively pushing the fraud of global warming.

Nicht nur per Karikatur wurde die Klimareligion der gemeinschaftsfeindlichen Globalisten ins Wanken gebracht: Entlarvende Dateien eines britischen Klimaforschungsinstitutes wurden jetzt der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht. Offizielle Version: Durch “Online-Hacker”. Manche Skeptiker glauben jedoch: Durch wohlvorbereitete Insider. Ist dies der Anfang vom Ende der Grünen Neuen Weltordnung? Das Portal Infokrieg.tv liefert dazu einen hörenswerten Audiokommentar [ mp3 ]

The greatest scientific and political scandal in modern times continues to unravel. Here some good points by Goldstein. Points which I have been saying in my post on this blog for over 2 years now.

“The moment they convinced politicians the way to avert the End of Days was to put a price on emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the unholy alliance of Big Government, Big Business and Big Green was forged.

Big Government wants more of your taxes. Big Business wants more of your income. Big Green wants you and your children to bow down to its agenda of enforced austerity.

What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power. “

True, very true.

Article here:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/26/

11929676-sun.html

Why ‘climategate’ won’t stop greens

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Last Updated: 26th November 2009, 8:22am

If you’re wondering how the robot-like march of the world’s politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed “climategate,” it’s because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don’t give a s*** about “the science.”

They never have.

What “climategate” suggests is many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t either. Apparently they stifled their own doubts about recent global cooling not explained by their computer models, manipulated data, plotted ways to avoid releasing it under freedom of information laws and attacked fellow scientists and scientific journals for publishing even peer-reviewed literature of which they did not approve.

Now they and their media shills — who sneered that all who questioned their phony “consensus” were despicable “deniers,” the moral equivalent of those who deny the Holocaust – are the ones in denial about the enormity of the scandal enveloping them.

So they desperately try to portray it as the routine “messy” business of science, lamely insisting, “nothing to see here folks, move along.”

Before the Internet — which has given ordinary people a way to fight back against the received wisdom of so-called “wise elites” — they might have gotten away with it.

But not now, as knowledgeable climate bloggers are advancing the story and forcing the co-opted mainstream media to cover a scandal most would rather ignore.

The problem, however, is those who hijacked science to predict a looming Armageddon unless we do exactly as they say, have already done their damage.

The moment they convinced politicians the way to avert the End of Days was to put a price on emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the unholy alliance of Big Government, Big Business and Big Green was forged.

Big Government wants more of your taxes. Big Business wants more of your income. Big Green wants you and your children to bow down to its agenda of enforced austerity.

What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power.

If it was about saving the planet, “cap-and-trade” (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) — how Big Government, Big Business and Big Green ludicrously pretend we will “fight” global warming and “save the planet” — would have been consigned to the dust bin of history because it doesn’t work. We know it doesn’t work because Europe’s five-year-old cap-and-trade market — the Emissions Trading Scheme — has done nothing to make the world cooler.

All it’s done is make hedge fund managers, speculators and Big Energy giddy with windfall profits, while making everyone else poorer by driving up the cost of energy, and thus of most goods and services, which need energy to be lighted, heated, cooled, grown, constructed, manufactured, produced and transported.

Readers often ask how they can fight back. First, forget about asking when the warmists will see reason. They won’t.

Instead, send a message to Prime Minister Stephen Harper by e-mail (pm@pm.gc.ca), fax (1-613-941-6900) or call toll-free (1-866-599-4999) and ask to be put through to the Office of the Prime Minister.

Do the same for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff by e-mail, (ignatm@parl.gc.ca). fax, (1-613-947-0310), or call-toll free (1-866-599-4999) and ask to be put through to the Liberal Leader’s Office.

Tell them you want no part of the madness in Copenhagen.

Blow their phones off the hook.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

As the scandal envelops more and more scientific bodies, and we pretty much find out that the entirety of global warming is a hoax, the media, Democrats, and the rest of the environmental left continue to ignore the story, pretend it doesn’t exist, and push to use Global Warming to remake society as they would like – just as I (and pretty much everyone else on the right) predicted several days ago.

This time it’s not working. Just like the big exposure of corruption at the heart of ACORN and the Democratic party, this story has legs, and informed readers aren’t letting it die down. The more the left ignores it, the sillier they end up looking. Truth and sunshine really are the best disinfectants.

Environmentalists Get Angry Over Climategate Scandal

“Hide The Decline” YouTube Music Video