By James Delingpole, UK Telegraph
Here is an amusing video of an actor named Ed Begley Jr getting weally, weally, WEALLY cross about the Climategate scandal. (hat tip Breitbart TV)
Well no wonder he’s cross. His world is falling apart. Ed Begley Jr - now probably better known as a climate activist than for his role TV medical soap St Elsewhere - bought in so heavily to Big Al Gore’s Man-Made-Global-Warming meme, he actually became a vegan and is engaged in a competition with some other actor you won’t have heard of to see who can get the lowest Carbon Footprint.
He was also captured in one of the more revealing scenes in Not Evil Just Wrong using his Team-America-style ACTING skills to make moving tears come from his eyes and sobbing sounds from his throat while addressing an audience about the horrors of ManBearPig. Afterwards, he admits these were, in fact, recreated using the amazing technique of acting.
Anyway, the reason I show you that first footage from Fox News - apart from the fact that it’s funny - is to show you an example of how obsessed Warmists are with the notion of “Peer review.” Note how Ed repeats it, mantra-like, to ward off any possible suggestion that the scientists supporting his bomb-the-global-economy-back-to-the-stone-age cause might be wrong. How can they be? They’re peer-reviewed-peer-reviewed-peer-reviewed.
Here’s what poor Ed doesn’t get. It’s perhaps the single most important fact to emerge from the Climategate scandal. Peer-review is dead. Meaningless. Utterly void of credibility. More irredeemably defunct than a Norwegian Blue.
Why? Let’s just remind ourselves what some of those hacked CRU emails said:
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that - take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board. What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” “It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
What the CRU’s hacked emails convincingly demonstrate is that climate scientists in the AGW camp have corrupted the peer-review process. In true Gramscian style they marched on the institutions - capturing the magazines (Science, Scientific American, Nature, etc), the seats of learning (Climate Research Institute; Hadley Centre), the NGO’s (Greenpeace, WWF, etc), the political bases (especially the EU), the newspapers (pretty much the whole of the MSM I’m ashamed, as a print journalist, to say) - and made sure that the only point of view deemed academically and intellectually acceptable was their one.
Neutral observers in this war sometimes ask how it can be that the vast majority of the world’s scientists seem to be in favour of AGW theory. “Peer-review” is why. Only a handful of scientists - 53 to be precise, not the much-touted 2,500 were actually responsible for the doom-laden global-warming sections of the IPCC’s reports. They were all part of this cosy, self-selecting, peer-review cabal - and many of them, of course, are implicated in the Climategate emails.
Now peer-review is dead, so should be the IPCC, and Al Gore’s future as a carbon-trading billionaire. Will it happen? I shouldn’t hold your breath. See post here. See also here how Ed Begley Jr is an ‘advisor’ to the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) where carbon is traded. No conflict of interest here.
Comment by Eon on Pajamas Media Story by Dr. William Briggs
In the latest excellent post on Pajamas Media “What is and What Isn’t Evidence of Global Warming” by William Briggs here, a very good read, there was an comment I thought worth posting by Eon.
The latest riposte’ from the AGW believers is the terrified cry that “icebergs are falling off the Antarctic ice shelf and reaching New Zealand! Hundreds of them! AAAAUUUGGH!!” (As Charlie Brown would say.)
Ahem. A few facts about that.
1. Those who claim that this is evidence of “excessively high temperatures in the Antarctic in the winter” neglect to consider one small detail; the seasons in the Southern Hemisphere are the opposite of those up here in the Northern Hemisphere. When it’s the coldest part of winter here in the U.S. and in Europe (generally from December to February), it’s the hottest part of the summer in Australia, New Zealand, Tierra del Fuego, etc. If bergs are going to calve off any part of the Antarctic sheet, the summertime is when you’d expect it to happen. Those who don’t understand the difference between when which seasons occur where (due to Earth’s axial tilt as it orbits the Sun) are obviously not sufficiently conversant with the subject to venture an informed opinion.
2. As was explained to me by in college by my geology professor (who was a glaciologist by trade), berg “calving” off an ice sheet is as much a function of the thickness of the ice as temperature; the thicker the ice, the greater the mass per square meter of surface area. Sooner or later, the mass being supported exceeds the ability of the ice’s tensile strength to support that mass. Crack. Bang. Calving.
Also, ice sheets that form on land tend to calve heavily when their movement extends out over the water, because the ice no longer has the support of the ground under it to help hold the mass up. In terms of basic mechanics, a land-formed ice sheet that now extends over water is a “second class” lever, with the load (the weight of the ice) at one end (the outer end), and the fulcrum at the other end (the inner end that’s still on land). This equals a very long “load arm” between the two, with the effort (the ice trying to hold together) applied in the middle. Under such circumstances, the load arm breaking somewhere near the load itself is only to be expected.
A thicker ice sheet= more mass per square meter surface area + extended out over water where there is less support for the mass= Big Bergs.
The primary source of bergs in the South Atlantic area south of New Zealand is the Ross Ice Shelf, which is an ice sheet which forms in the foothills of Queen Maud Land and Victoria Land, and then is “squeezed downhill” and northward by the fact that those foothills are either side of the gigantic bay known as the Ross Sea. Which means that the ice sheet is (a) forming on land, and (b) being forced out onto water, where the sheet inevitably calves. If the resulting bergs are bigger than average, this is an indication of colder temperatures where the ice formed, not warmer temps.
People who don’t understand these factors are likewise insufficiently schooled in mechanics to be making claims about the causes.
3. Finally, the fact that “large bergs” are getting close to New Zealand is interesting, but not in the way the AGW crowd thinks. Normally, the currents that carry bergs north toward New Zealand are fairly warm water, because they are part of the southern “limb” of the South Pacific Current flow, the huge rotational current system that encompasses the southern half of the Pacific the same way the Japan Current does the northern half, or the Gulf Stream does the North Atlantic. The South Pacific current flows in a clockwise direction, opposite the flow of the two Northern Hemisphere currents, due to Coriolis force derived from Earth’s rotation on its axis every day.
This means that since the South Pacific current flows from the tropics, down the west coast of South America, and then west and north past New Zealand, it is a fairly warm water current even in the south latitudes “below” 50 degrees. (New Zealand lies between 47 and 34 degrees south latitude, BTW.)
Normally, icebergs rarely reach New Zealand in any great numbers, even in mid-summer (which is what is fast approaching down there right now- see [1] above). The fact that large bergs are doing so now tells me two things;
A. those bergs are the result of a thicker ice sheet with more mass (see [2]); and
B. The water in the currents carrying them north are colder than they usually are- otherwise, even the larger bergs would be melting before they got north of 50 degrees.
They are colder, much colder than normal, see larger image here.
While I studied geology in college (You have your idea of fun, I have mine) I’m not a specialist; my scientific specialty is determining which bullet came out of which gun with a comparison microscope, determining whether the bloodstains came from a human being or a rabbit, and suchlike things. But if even someone with no more than an intelligent layman’s knowledge of the way the Antarctic ice machine works can figure this out, what does this say about the relative knowledge base of the AGW crowd, who are (supposedly) experts on this sort of thing?
It indicates to me that either they don’t know as much as they claim, or else they’ll say anything to get their agenda through, relying on the relative ignorance of the average man in the street to enable them to put the con over.
But then, I’m used to chasing crooks for a living, so maybe it’s just my naturally nasty, suspicious mind that makes me draw such a conclusion about such fine, altruistic, and wonderful people.
Who, after all, just want to oppress us for the good of...Holy Mother Gaia.
clear ether
eon
Icecap Note: Thank you Eon for an excellent and on target summary. The Australian Antarctic Division authored that obviously agenda driven study/story. Like most alarmist stories they make claims that all these observed changes are driven by AGW without really looking at the data. They are instead driven by the recent record ice extent and increased calving and very cold water between New Zealand and Antarctica which reduced the melting. Another alarmist story trying to drive the alarmist agenda to Copenhagen had to do with model forecast rising sea levels was produced by the authors from the once great Scripps Oceanographic Center. Scripp’s Somerville is one of the IPCC’s most vocal alarmist modeler. See the real sea level story here. See another ridiculous BBC story on the threat of Antarctic melt here.
By Noel Sheppard
Has the emerging international ClimateGate scandal changed President Obama’s global warming strategy? After winning the Nobel Peace Prize last month, expectations were that Obama would not attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen due to it conflicting with the Nobel awards ceremony in Oslo.
This speculation was supported in the past couple of weeks when world leaders meeting in Singapore punted on reaching any firm agreements at the upcoming Copenhagen meeting, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) delayed action on cap-and-trade legislation until next spring.
Yet, within days of the ClimateGate scandal breaking, Obama surprisingly announced that he’s going to Copenhagen with a pledge for serious carbon dioxide emissions cuts.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Chris Horner told FBN’s Charles Payne Wednesday that this is by no means a coincidence.
Is Horner right?
Well, let’s start with an October 24 article by Britain’s Times: “President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, The Times has learnt. With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and no prospect of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen, Mr Obama may disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a breakthrough. The White House would not comment on Mr Obama’s travel plans yesterday, but administration officials have said privately that “Oslo is plenty close” - a reference to the Nobel ceremony that falls on December 10, two days into the Copenhagen meeting.
The White House confirmed that the President would be in Oslo to accept the prize, but a source close to the Administration said it was “hard to see the benefit” of his going to Copenhagen if there was no comprehensive deal for him to close or sign. Another expert, who did not want to be named, said he would be “really, really shocked” if Mr Obama went to Copenhagen, adding that European hopes about the power of his Administration to transform the climate change debate in a matter of months bore little relation to reality.”
Three weeks later, the New York Times reported: “President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific “politically binding” agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future.”
At a hastily arranged breakfast on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting on Sunday morning, the leaders, including Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the prime minister of Denmark and the chairman of the climate conference, agreed that in order to salvage Copenhagen they would have to push a fully binding legal agreement down the road, possibly to a second summit meeting in Mexico City later on.
“There was an assessment by the leaders that it is unrealistic to expect a full internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen, which starts in 22 days,” said Michael Froman, the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs. “I don’t think the negotiations have proceeded in such a way that any of the leaders thought it was likely that we were going to achieve a final agreement in Copenhagen, and yet thought that it was important that Copenhagen be an important step forward, including with operational impact.”
Four days later, the Wall Street Journal reported: “Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they would put off debate on a big climate-change bill until spring, in a sign of weakening political will to tackle a long-term environmental issue at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty. Legislation on health care, overhauling financial markets and job creation will be considered before the Senate takes up a measure to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday. Climate legislation will be taken up “some time in the spring,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Tuesday after a Democratic caucus meeting.”
That was November 18. Two days later, NewsBusters reported: “E-mail messages between high-ranking scientists appear to indicate a conspiracy by some of the world’s leading global warming alarmists to falsify temperature data in order to exaggerate global averages.”
Now, five days after the scandal rocked climate alarmists around the world, Obama seemed to shift gears as reported by Britain’s Financial Times: “Barack Obama has thrown his weight behind a deal on climate change by announcing he will attend the Copenhagen summit with a pledge for a 17 per cent cut in US emissions. The US president’s pledge removes one of the final obstacles to a deal, as other developed countries have already announced their targets to cut emissions by 2020.”
Adding to the drama, the Los Angeles Times reported moments ago: “Canada’s prime minister is reversing his position and will attend a United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen next month, Stephen Harper’s spokesman said Thursday. Dimitri Soudas announced Harper decided to attend one day after U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao announced their attendance at the U.N. talks. Soudas said Harper’s decision was based on the fact that now “a critical mass of world leaders will be attending.”
So, four weeks ago, for a variety of reasons, Obama was believed to be skipping the Copenhagen conference. World leaders then decided to postpone coming to any major agreements there, and Reid similarly postponed bringing cap-and-trade legislation to the floor of the Senate.
Along comes ClimateGate, and Obama quickly announced that he’s heading to Copenhagen with a fairly serious emissions cut pledge. Coincidence?
Not likely, for the White House either realizes that the current momentum against cap-and-trade legislation needs to be halted quickly if it’s ever going to get passed, or they felt they needed to divert attention on the subject of global warming away from the growing scandal. After all, as e-mail messages and documents obtained from the computers of Britain’s Climate Research Unit continue to be analyzed, it seems likely that more revelations damaging to scientists involved as well as to the global warming myth are going to surface. As NewsBusters reported Wednesday, the American Thinker’s Marc Sheppard has already uncovered source code in CRU documents clearly used to manipulate climate data. More such discoveries seem a metaphysical certitude.
With calls out for CRU director Phil Jones to resign or be fired, such occurring while the Copenhagen conference produces absolutely nothing could be close to a death knell for the entire climate alarmism movement. Read full post here.
Meanwhile, collateral damage grows - Pressure Mounts From Inside: Disband UN IPCC? Scientist from U. of East Anglia Suggests ‘UN IPCC has run its course...politicizes climate science...authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production’. ClimateGate reveals science has become ‘too partisan, too centralized...more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures’. See how Mike Hulme admits “It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course.
By Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
Update: see a follow-up on Monbiot with agreement by Tom Yulsman in the Center of Environmental Journalism Journal “Monbiot: environmentalists in denial over CRU emails” here.
Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…
If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.
Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
(Thanks to reader Tony.)
UPDATE
When a warming alarmist like Professor David Karoly can get such a flogging on even an ABC chat site, you know the tide is turning. Unless you’re a Turnbull Liberal, that is.
UPDATE 2
Glenn Beck largely agrees with Monbiot, but with more jokes here.
UPDATE 3
The funniest email yet from the global warming conspiracy. CRU chief Phil Jones now disputes the data on that shows colder weather on the desperate grounds that when he sticks his head out of his Norfolk home he does feel quite the chill he’s told:
Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts. Maybe because I’m in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk) it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
Wow. That’s wild on so many levels. And whatever else it is, it sure isn’t science.
Ob, and read the rest of Power Line’s analysis, which notes another alarming hole in global warming theory that’s uncovered by these emails.
See post here.
By David Archibald, Geologist, Science Researcher
I grew up reading The Courier-Mail and, in those days, the religious column was somewhere in the second half of the paper - on the same page as the bridge notes if I remember correctly. Now I live in Perth and read The West Australian, in which the daily dose of religion is most often found on the news pages. State-sponsored religion it is, because the articles quote global warming predictions generated from government bodies such as the CSIRO.
Sometimes this results in hilarious juxtapositions, such as having an article predicting that our beloved wine industry will have to move to Tasmania to escape the coming heat, next to an article noting that a good proportion of the year’s grape crop was wiped out due to a severe frost. Among we sceptical scientists, there is argument as to whether the global-warming scientists believe the constant stream of apocalyptic visions they concoct or are bold-faced liars? But I think that is missing the point.
The global-warming religion was established without much of a written creed. The high priests of the religion, in the CSIRO and the universities, are still writing it, and it gets published daily in our newspapers.
Some of the lesser priests, or priestesses in the case of Sheryl Crow, tell their followers how to do menial things, like using only one sheet of toilet paper to wipe their bottom. Last week, it was an injunction not to wear socks.
Soon global warming will be an extremely difficult religion to adhere to properly. As a religion, it has borrowed heavily from medieval Christianity, with the sale of indulgences - by way of carbon offsets - and plenty of self-flagellation for imagined sins. Without global warming, the lives of many of its adherents would be shallow and meaningless. It also seems to make them blind to breathtaking hypocrisy.
No, I am not talking about Al Gore buying a property in San Francisco just above sea level. I am talking about restricting coal consumption in Australia while encouraging coal exports at an ever-increasing pace. I will leave it for someone else to explain away the intellectual contortions behind that one.
The warmers say that they will not debate the science because they say that the science is settled, which reminds me of the line from the Wizard of Oz: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
They are well aware that they are peddling a monstrous fraud, hoping for a quick closure at Copenhagen before the public wakes up to the fact that they have been had. The world has been cooling for the past 11 years. It may not have even warmed in the first place. The whole global warming debate has serious consequences but not in the way imagined by the warmers.
To quote Winston Churchill: “The whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” I do believe that Churchill was very prescient, and the perverted science he was referring to is global warming alarmism. Read story here.
By Anthony J. Sadar and Susan T. Cammarata
A climate crisis of worldwide proportions is unfolding right before our eyes, and not even the most powerful world leaders can do anything to stop it. It looks like 2009 may very well turn out to be the fourth straight year of declining global temperatures at a time when carbon dioxide levels continue to rise - the opposite of what was predicted by vaunted climate models.
Something must be done immediately to either (1) rework the temperature data so it vindicates esteemed climate visionaries, (2) come up with some scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo as to why long-term weather doesn’t conform to authoritative proclamations or (3) simply ignore or downplay the reality hoping people don’t finally catch on that they’ve been had. Perhaps it could at least be claimed that Mother Nature is giving us a reprieve to get our collective global act together before she really lowers the boom. After all, it has worked so well in the past to say that disaster is just around the corner.
Our guess is that the crafty climate chieftains will likely use a combination of the three smoke-and-mirror strategies listed (with a smattering of “denier” bashing thrown in just for fun).
But we wonder, when will ostensibly superintelligent people learn a simple fact that even a forecast is simply a guess at the future based on past and present information? Putting a lot of sincere confidence in your prognostication does not improve its predictive power.
The confidence just helps to make more people believe your forecast. More people buy into it. More people look to you for solutions, for salvation, and the whole thing takes on a life of its own. Knowing that you can in no way know the future for something as complicated as the Earth’s climate, at some point your confidence becomes inflated to the point of arrogance - it’s unavoidable. Soon you’re pushing a confidence game. And, since many in the general public and too many of the high and mighty can look with awe or advantage at the forecasts generated by sophisticated climate models, there will be no lack of sufficient players to keep the game moving. But, before we get into overtime, consider the reality of climate forecasting.
Everyone is aware of the folly of short-term weather forecasts. And, yes we know climate and weather are not the same! So, let’s consider short-term climate forecasts. A terrific example is the official U.S. prediction for the hurricane season of 2006. In May 2006, immediately preceding the onset of the Atlantic hurricane season (and again in August 2006), arguably the best hurricane forecasters on Earth couldn’t accurately predict even simply the total number of severe storm events.
The forecast was for another season of unusually numerous events (although not expected to be on par with the record-breaking 31 events of 2005, which included 15 hurricanes). But, the forecast was a bust, with only 10 events (five hurricanes and five tropical storms) recorded. Average was closer to at least 15 events ... so much for forecasting climatic conditions better than the weekend’s weather.
If we can’t accurately predict occurrences in a small portion of the globe in the short range, what then are we to make of the substantially more complicated art of long-range global climate forecasting? We see that the Earth’s temperatures don’t seem to be playing the game by the climate-wizard’s rules. Should we begin to admit that we’re not really as smart as we or others think we are; that the tremendous complexity of climate, although better understood than in decades past, is still a long way from being confidently forecasted in decades future? Or would that be too honest?
For now, continuous falling temperatures are truly a global crisis, coming at a time when some very powerful people will soon be meeting in Copenhagen to remedy increasing temperatures. World leaders should stay home and enjoy the weather. Unless, of course, they’re not as concerned about changing climate as they are about redistributing wealth. See post here.
Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and co-author of “Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry” (CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, 2000). Susan T. Cammarata is an independent environmental lawyer practicing in Pittsburgh.
By Alan Caruba
For those of us “skeptics” and “deniers” who have been jumping up and down, pointing at the Sun, and saying, “See, it’s the Sun that determines how warm or cool the Earth is. See it? Up there in the sky?” The day when the truth about some of the scientists behind the global warming hoax has finally arrived.
The hoax has its roots in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an instrument of the United Nations Environmental Program, for whom global warming was the open sesame to achieving a one-world-government by scaring nations into signing a treaty that would control their use of energy, the means of producing it, and require vast billions to be sent to less developed nations in exchange for “emitting” greenhouse gases.
Energy is called “the master resource” because, if you have lots of it, you can call your own shots. If you don’t, you are condemned to live in the dark and keeping people in the dark about the global warming hoax was essential.
For years the IPCC has been controlled by a handful of the worst liars in the world, utterly devoted to taking actual climate data and twisting it to confirm the assertion that the Earth was not only warming dramatically, but that humanity was in peril of rising oceans, melting glaciers and polar ice caps, more hurricanes, the die-off of countless animal species, and every other calamity that could possibly be attributed to “global warming”, including acne.
So, around November 20, when some enterprising individual hacked into the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), making off with thousands of emails and documents that demonstrate the level of collusion and deception being practiced by its scientists.
It’s a climate hoax expose that some are calling the revelations a “little blue dress” while others are comparing it to the Pentagon Papers. It has also been dubbed “climategate.”
As James Delingpole wrote in the Telegraph, one of England’s leading newspapers, “Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more” was revealed in the 61 megabites of confidential files released on the Internet for anyone to read.
The conspirators had a visceral hatred for scientists who challenged their phony statistics and climate data, but they also agonized over the difficulties of hiding a long established climate cycle such as the Medieval Warm Period. At one point it was left out of a graph that famously became known as “the hockey stick” because it depicted a ludicrous sudden rise in warming, ignoring the previous natural cycle.
At the heart of the revelations were the intense efforts to ensure that no legitimate scientist, particularly those dissenting from the various IPCC reports, would be allowed to participate in the peer review process. Peer review is an essential element in science as it permits other scientists to examine and test the data being put forth to substantiate a new interpretation or discovery.
The IPCC reports were the basis by which popular media such as National Geographic, Time and Newsweek magazines could spread the lies about a dramatic “global warming”, passing them off to an unsuspecting and scientifically illiterate general public. At the same time, the lies were integrated them into school curriculums and maintained by Hollywood celebrities, politicians and others, duped or deliberately ignorant.
To this day, otherwise legitimate news media outlets continue to trumpet and repeat absolute nonsense about “global warming” like brain-dead parrots.
Now that Hadley CRU and its conspirators have been exposed, there truly is no need to hold a December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen; one in which nations would be required to put limits on “greenhouse gas emissions” even though such gases, primarily carbon dioxide, have nothing to do with altering the Earth’s climate.
And that is why you are going to hear more about “climate change” and far less about “global warming.” Hidden in such discussions, intended to justify legislation and regulation, is that the Earth’s climate has always and will always change.
It is, for example, shameful and deceitful for the EPA to claim carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that should be regulated. The same applies to “cap-and-trade” legislation with the same purpose.
Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on studies of global warming and poured into agencies such as NASA that have lent credence to the global warming hoax.
“The U.S. taxpayer has much exposure here in the joint projects and collaborations which operated in reliance upon what the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was doing,” says Christopher C. Horner, a longtime global warming skeptic. “There are U.S. taxpayer-funded offices and individuals involved in the machinations addressed in the emails, and in the emails themselves.” Horner, the author of “Red Hot Lies”, said that the initial revelations “give the appearance of a conspiracy to defraud, by parties working in taxpayer funded agencies collaborating on ways to misrepresent material on which an awful lot of taxpayer money rides.”
The climate, defined as long term trends, and the weather has nothing whatever to do with human activity and suggesting it does reveals the depth of contempt that people like Al Gore and his ilk have for humanity and those fleeced by purchasing “carbon credits” or paying more for electricity when their utility does.
The East Anglia CRU charlatans have been exposed. Most certainly, the United Nations IPCC should be disbanded in disgrace. It belongs in a museum of hoaxes right beside the Piltdown Man and the Loch Ness Monster. See post here. See post on Global Warming Carnon Footprint Scam here.
By Gerald Traufetter, Spiegel On-line
The Difficulties of Predicting the Climate
Climatologists use their computer models to draw temperature curves that continue well into the future. They predict that the average global temperature will increase by about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, unless humanity manages to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, no one really knows what exactly the world climate will look like in the not-so-distant future, that is, in 2015, 2030 or 2050.
This is because it is not just human influence but natural factors that affect the Earth’s climate. For instance, currents in the world’s oceans are subject to certain cycles, as is solar activity. Major volcanic eruptions can also curb rising temperatures in the medium term. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991, for example, caused world temperatures to drop by an average of 0.5 degrees Celsius, thereby prolonging a cooler climate phase that had begun in the late 1980s.
But the Mount Pinatubo eruption happened too long ago to be related to the current slowdown in global warming. So what is behind this more recent phenomenon?
Weaker Solar Activity
The fact is that the sun is weakening slightly. Its radiation activity is currently at a minimum, as evidenced by the small number of sunspots on its surface. According to calculations performed by a group of NASA scientists led by David Rind, which were recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, this reduced solar activity is the most important cause of stagnating global warming.
Latif, on the other hand, attributes the stagnation to so-called Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). This phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean allows a larger volume of cold deep-sea water to rise to the surface at the equator. According to Latif, this has a significant cooling effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. With his team at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Latif has been one of the first to develop a model to create medium-term prognoses for the next five to 10 years. “We are slowly starting to attempt (such models),” says Marotzke, who is also launching a major project in this area, funded by the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology.
Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again?
If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years.
Betting on Warmer Temperatures
The Hadley Center group expects warming to resume in the coming years. “That resumption could come as a bit of a jolt,” says Hadley climatologist Adam Scaife, explaining that natural cyclical warming would then be augmented by the warming effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
While climatologists at conferences engage in passionate debates over when temperatures will start rising again, global warming’s next steps have also become the subject of betting activity.
Climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf is so convinced that his predictions will be correct in the end that he is willing to back up his conviction with a $3,700 bet. “I will win,” says Rahmstorf. His adversary Latif turned down the bet, saying that the matter was too serious for gambling. “We are scientists, not poker players.”
See more here.