By Chris Horner, CEI, Washington Times

The story “Markey probes forged letters” (Associated Press, Nation, Thursday) raises critical questions. It describes 12 forged letters to three members of Congress asking them to vote against the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation. That bill is premised on claims that the Earth is warming alarmingly and computer-model projections that it will get warmer still. Rep. Edward J. Markey, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, has expressed outrage that someone would engage in subterfuge on this issue and vows a congressional investigation.

Congressman Markey with Secretary Chu

Surely this investigation will come after, or at least include, an inquiry into the frauds and falsehoods underlying the legislation? Those include the “hockey stick” scandal in which history was rewritten on a graph to erase the Medieval Warming Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are now, and subsequent Little Ice Age, when they were colder than now; Al Gore’s claims that were outed by the U.K. High Court; the fraud at the University of Albany relating to a key, apparently fabricated, data set relied upon by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its claims; and NASA’s being caught in funny business with data, which subsequently got revised; taxpayer-funded surface-temperature stations being moved from fields to parking lots, over air-conditioning units and even next to barbecue grills.

Possibly the committee could first address the Environmental Protection Agency’s having outsourced its scientific research to the IPCC (which says on its Web site that it conducts no research) for the claim that CO2 poses an “endangerment” to the planet. It might even look into how alarmist politicians and bureaucrats have chased scientists Will Happer and Sherwood Idso out of the government and the current assault on EPA whistle-blower Alan Carlin.

If these issues are of no interest, perhaps our representatives could contemplate reports that some children suffer nightmares, refuse water and even get committed after being told they are contributing to an ecological crisis. Or maybe just a peek into the various physical attacks and death threats against skeptical scientists for the “crime” of speaking out about science?

Fraud appears to have been perpetrated specifically against Rep. Tom Perriello, Virginia Democrat, who was one of the three congressmen who did not succumb to the forged letters but instead voted in favor of the measure. Mr. Perriello, my representative in Congress, seems to have fallen prey to another patent misrepresentation. Defending his vote on a Charlottesville radio station the other day, he claimed that the bill and its mandates actually are good for job creation, as proved by the fact that the United States is already “hemorrhaging jobs” to India and China because those nations already have adopted such schemes.

Whoever is peddling such fraudulent misrepresentations must be held accountable. Congress must get to the bottom of climate fraud. I look forward to discovering the origin of such false claims. See post here.

Icecap Note: Here is a letter from Congressman Tom Perriello to Dr. Charles Battig of Charlotteville explaining why he voted for the house monstrosity called Cap-and-Trade (Cap-and-Tax). And here is Dr. Battig’s on-point response back. It is an example how you must get in their face and show them how unrealistic their plan and nonsensical their argument is.

-------------------------

Aug 5, 2009: Chris Horner, of the Cooler Heads Coalition, debates and debunks alarmist Brenda Ekwurzel, a federal climate scientist, on America’s Newsroom.

By Paul Chesser

How tremendously shallow of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Temperatures and public sentiment have cooled on global warming, while his political ambitions are now trained on the Senate, so what does he do? In a Schweitzer-like flip-flop, he hints that he’s having second thoughts on cap-and-trade. The Miami Herald reports:

Under mounting criticism from fellow Republicans, Crist looks ready to cancel his climate-change summit and is backing away from advocating a “cap-and-trade” energy policy.

At his well-publicized climate summit last summer, Crist pushed a number of energy plans to encourage renewable energy development and establish a cap-and-trade market that would penalize fossil-fuel use.

But Crist’s plans were shredded by the Republican Legislature and his cap-and-trade proposal has been bashed as a “tax” by his Republican U.S. Senate opponent, Marco Rubio, who has been ardently courting the GOP’s conservative wing.

“Well, it may be [a tax]. That may be accurate,” Crist, who recently signed an anti-tax pledge, said Thursday. Indeed when it served what he thought were his best political interests, Crist was gung-ho in the fight to stop global warming. He keynoted his own climate change summit in 2007 and brought in Arnold Schwarzenegger (also spoke last year), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Theodore Roosevelt IV to heighten his profile on the issue. He issued executive orders, created a “Climate Action Team” and hired the advocacy group Center for Climate Strategies to steer the agenda. The alarmist media lapped it up and bestowed the love.

Now he’s trained on the Senate, as is Rubio, who is vacuuming up conservative support while Crist suffers with a tax-raising, stimulus-supporting image. Global warming is a boat anchor for Crist’s campaign now, and he’s starting to make excuses for why he might not host another climate summit, The Herald says:

Crist was even more tight-lipped about hosting another annual “Serve to Preserve Florida Summit on Global Climate Change,” which for two years attracted international media coverage and large, enthusiastic crowds to a downtown Miami hotel. Crist and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger basked in the glow and vowed sweeping reforms to combat global warming.

Asked Thursday about the summit’s fate, Crist said he had not decided yet and cited the “cost” to potential sponsors. Florida Power & Light, a major sponsor of last year’s summit, gave at least $26,600 to Crist’s record-setting, $4.3 million campaign account in the past three months.

Gag me.

Read more here

Read also Paul’s post on ”The Energy Foundation’s Rubbish Research”

What a global warming alarmist beast the Energy Foundation is. For example, according to its 333-page (thanks to hundreds of grant awards to a seemingly infinite dependency class of environmentalist nonprofits) tax return for 2007 (the most recent available on Guidestar), EF has a bottomless well of funds to draw from: $68,907,029 in revenues (including $1.36 million in investment income); $53,600,903 in expenses - heck, they’re so rich, they even gave the Rockefellers money. Take that, big oil!

So how does EF get its money? They ‘splain:

Current Energy Foundation partners are: Cinco Hermanos, ClimateWorks Foundation, The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, The Grousbeck Family Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, The Mertz Gilmore Foundation, The Cynthia & George Mitchell Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Pisces Foundation, The Schmidt Family Foundation, The Simons Foundation, The Sea Change Foundation, and The TOSA Foundation.

The top four givers to EF for 2007 were the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation ($21,485,800), the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation ($20,727,743), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ($7,050,000), and The TOSA Foundation ($4,250,000). Consider that when you make your next computer printer purchase.

Also note that while these groups for climate and energy research readily receive 7 to 8 figure donations from the large foundations, those organizations that are presenting information on science and energy that is not biased by the profit motive like ICECAP, CO2Science, Watts Up with That and Climate Audit are thankful for 4 to at most 5 figure annual total donations and struggle. As a 501(c)(3) public charity, ICECAP accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations to fund its educational activities. All donations are kept confidential. If you have browsed our websites or utilized our material in the past year, please consider making a financial contribution. Donate button is on the left column. 

By L.B. Klyashtorin and A.A. Lyubushin (2003 paper in Energy & Environment)

Analysis of the long-term dynamics of World Fuel Consumption (WFC) and the Global Temperature anomaly (dT) for the last 140 years (1961-2000) shows that unlike the monotonously and exponentially increasing WFC, the dynamics of global dT against the background of a linear, age-long trend, undergo quasi-cyclic fluctuations with about 60 a year period. No true linear correlation has taken place between the dT and WFC dynamics in the last century.

Spectral analysis of reconstructed temperature for the last 1420 years and instrumentally measured for the last 140 years global dT shows that dominant
period for its variations for the last 1000 years lies in the 50-60 years interval. Modeling of roughly 60-years cyclic dT changes suggest that the observed rise of dT will flatten in the next 5-10 years, and that we might expect a lowering of dT by nearly 1-0.15C to the end of the 2020s.

Between 1861-1875, both WFC and dT exhibited simultaneous, well-correlated growth. During 1875-1910, the dynamics of these indices were different. WFC
continues to grow, while global dT decreases, which reflects in negative correlation between the indices. The next period, from 1910 to 1940, is of particular interest in this context. For these 30 years WFC shows virtually no increase because of the global economic crisis of 1920-30s. However, dT in the same period increased by more than 0.4C. During the subsequent 35-years (1940-1975), WFC increased by a factor of 2.5 (from 3 to 7 billion tons.). For the same period, global dT did not increase, but decreased roughly by 0.12C and negative correlation between the WFC and dT dynamics is characteristic of this time period.

Thus, on the background of monotonous increase in WFC during the last 140 years, global dT dynamics exhibited alternating 25-30-year periods of lowering or raising (with the corresponding alternation of positive or negative correlation between the WFC and dT trends). What changes in the dynamics of WFC and Global dT can we expect in the near future, between 2000-2030? Proceeding from the hypothesis of cyclic dynamics of global dT with a period of 50-60 years, we assume that the current “increasing” phase started in 1975 reached its maximum by 2000, then the gradual decrease in dT will start in the nearest few years and continue up to the 2030s.

See larger image here.

Read full paper here.

Icecap Note: Klyahtorin and Lyubushin were exactly right. See global temperature decline since 2002 even as WFC (CO2) continued to increase.

Hadley Monthly Anomalies in rose, UAH MSU in blue, CO2 monthly seasonally adjusted from ESRL. See larger image here.