By Evan Lehmann of ClimateWire

A major trade group for the insurance industry is warning that it is “exceedingly risky” for companies to blindly accept scientific conclusions around climate change, given the “serious questions” around the extent to which humans cause atmospheric warming.

The assertion was made in a letter (pdf) to insurance regulators, who will administer the nation’s first mandatory climate requirements on corporations in May. Large insurers will have to answer about a dozen questions related to the preparations they are taking to safeguard themselves from climatic hazards.

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies believes that the new regulation leaves little room for companies to cast doubt on widely accepted assumptions about global warming. Insurers are hamstrung to provide answers that dovetail with the perception of key regulators who believe climate change threatens the industry’s financial strength, said Robert Detlefsen, the group’s vice president of policy.

“It’s fairly obvious that certain regulators have made up their minds about what the answers to those questions are, and are just proceeding on the assumption that their answers, or the ones that they subscribe to, are correct and unimpeachable,” Detlefsen said in an interview. “There really is no room, as I see it, for any sort of legitimate, in their minds at least, for legitimate dissent.”

The group consists of 1,400 insurance companies that underwrite about 40 percent of the nation’s property and casualty premiums, according to its Web site. Only a fraction of its membership, however, would be required to answer the climate survey when the new regulation goes into effect this spring. The rule covers large companies that collect at least $500 million in annual premiums.

State insurance regulators adopted a white paper in 2008 that states “global warming is occurring.” That preceded the new regulated survey, which flustered many insurance officials during its drafting. But most of the opposition was rooted in concerns around revealing secrets to competitors and making companies vulnerable to lawsuits, not around doubts about climate science.

Now, four months before insurers have to submit their climate answers, Detlefsen is raising perhaps his strongest concerns around the state of scientific integrity, regulators’ belief in those findings, and the way that the companies’ answers could be exploited by environmentalists.

“We fear ... that the wording of the survey questions, together with the public pronouncements of some regulators, will inhibit the expression of what might be viewed as unwelcome ‘contrarian’ responses,” Detlefsen wrote in the letter earlier this week.

E-mails said to show some climate scientists ‘at war’ with others

His concern was based primarily on the release of stolen e-mails late last year from scientists working at the premier Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. Supportive scientists and politicians have largely dismissed the controversy, saying it does not undercut years of research on rising temperatures, expanding seas and precipitation changes.

But Detlefsen’s letter says the “e-mails show that a close-knit group of the world’s most influential climate scientists actively colluded to subvert the peer-review process ... manufactured pre-determined conclusions through the use of contrived analytic techniques; and discussed destroying data to avoid government freedom-of-information requests.”

“Viewed collectively, the CRU e-mails reveal a scientific community in which a group of scientists promoting what has become, through their efforts, the dominant climate-change paradigm are at war with other scientists derisively labeled as ‘skeptics,’ ‘deniers,’ and ‘contrarians,’” he added.

The upcoming survey regulation has also caused jitters among some regulators. Indiana Insurance Commissioner Carol Cutter, who was appointed by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, an opponent of cap-and-trade legislation, is still considering whether to administer the survey at the state level.

Overall, the insurance industry is addressing climate change, which might increase damage claims, affect insurers’ investments, and provide opportunities to offer “green” policies, Joel Ario, Pennsylvania’s insurance commissioner and chairman of the national climate change task force that adopted the new survey, said in an interview last week.

“The insurers are perhaps the one group that is more concerned about climate change than the environmentalists,” Ario said. “If climate change does pose the risk that environmentalists say it does, then guess who’s going to bear that risk on their business? It will be the insurers.” Read more here.

Update: NOAA, the primary chef at the GLOBAL WARMING DINER announced that the The 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, easily surpassing the previous hottest decade - the 1990s - researchers said Tuesday in a report providing fresh evidence that the planet may be warming at a potentially disastrous rate. In 2009, global surface temperatures were 1.01 degree above average, which tied the year for the fifth warmest year on record, the National Climatic Data Center said.  And that helped push the 2000-2009 decade to 0.96 degree above normal, which the agency said “shattered” the 1990s record value of 0.65 degree above normal. This fabrication is due to the many issues in the data base they have assembled.
A preliminary version of the report is available online here. A more detailed report will be posted on the Science and Public Policy Institute website will be posted soon.

KUSI TV, channel 9 and 51 presented a special program on the global warming/climate change controversy Thursday night at 9 p.m. The program was moderated by the station’s meteorologist, John Coleman, a prominent skeptic of man-caused global warming.

Global Warming : The Other Side

A press release on the special says Coleman presented evidence of chicanery by global warming activists to make the issue seem more serious than it is:

Climate researchers have discovered that government researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as “THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special that aired on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. The segments may be viewed on the Internet at the KUSI website .

In a new report supported by SPPI, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations and then ‘adjuting the data in ways that increase the apparent warming. A preliminary version of the report is available online here. A more detailed report will be posted on the Science and Public Policy Institute website will be posted soon.

Computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government’s primary climate center: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina.  Smith and D’Aleo found that NOAA manipulated temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and cherry-picking the location of weather observation stations.

The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures calculations was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 now. “That leaves much of the world unaccounted for. The greatest losses were in areas where, NOAA and the other data centers claim the warming was the greatest like Siberia and Canada,” according to D’Aleo, who adds “In these regions, NOAA ‘estimates’ temperatures based on stations that may be 700 miles away.”

E.Michael Smith notes “When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations.” Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. “The more I looked, the more I found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental.  Thermometers moved from cold mountains to warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations, and from pristine rural locations to jet airport tarmacs.  The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called ‘The Garden Spot of the Arctic,’ always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda,” Smith says.

This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with NCDC data. “For one thing, it is clear that comparing data from previous years, when the final figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures, with those of later years, produced from a small temperature sampling with lots of guesswork, is like comparing apples and oranges,” says Smith.  “When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons,” added D’Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is “scientific travesty” that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.

From KUSI’s promo for “Global Warming: The Other Side”:

Is civilization doomed because of man-made global warming? You’ve been told your carbon footprint could lead to skyrocketing temperatures, melting ice caps, dying polar bears and “superstorms.” KUSI meteorologist, John Coleman, has an amazing story to tell of science gone bad, and new revelations as the “climategate” scandal comes to the United States. But there is another side to the story. See the special report that will explode the global warming myth here!

By Tony Hake, Denver Climate Examiner

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) is once again seeking to push its belief of the manmade climate change theory onto its members (see this sad story here). The group recently sent out requests for its members to partake in a survey that will be conducted by someone who views global warming as the “ultimate threat” to mankind.

An email to AMS members as well as members of the National Weather Association (NWA), and the Radio and Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) asks them to participate in the survey. Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the survey is ostensibly an attempt, “to better understand TV meteorologists’ and news directors’ opinions about climate change.” See below for the complete message.

Members of the AMS instantly reacted with shock and disdain not only at the message but its source. The message was sent by Ed Maibach, Professor and Director of the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. As it turns out, Dr. Maibach is hardly an impartial player in the game and certainly not one that should be conducting an impartial survey. Maibach’s biography on his employer’s website discusses his thoughts on manmade climate change:

In 2006, while on a walk in the mountains - with Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber - Ed had an epiphany that forever changed his life. He realized that climate change is the ultimate threat to the public’s health and wellbeing, worldwide, and Ed responded by refocusing his work entirely on climate change prevention and adaptation. Ed moved to Mason in 2007 to join the communication faculty and create the Center for Climate Change Communication.

The biography goes on to say that Maibach’s primary area of interest is in answering the question, “How can we use communication and marketing to influence the behavior of populations for the benefit of society?” It is Maibach’s background and the statement that he seeks to “influence the behavior of populations” that has many AMS members deeply troubled.

The Climate Change Examiner has spoken to a number of meteorologists that received the survey request and all expressed their concerns. One award-winning meteorologist said, “I cannot tell you how disturbing this is to me both professionally and as someone who has been a meteorologist for nearly 30 years.”

“Science should be allowed to function without the push and pull of zealots on either side dictating outcomes before studies are even conducted,” he said. “Climate change, global warming or whatever you want to call it is not settled science. Let me make this clear...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE...never was...never will be.”

The fact the survey is being funded by the National Science Foundation, a taxpayer funded government entity with an annual budget of over $6 billion is troubling as well. Science is about unbiased results and opinions and it would appear the NSF cannot be viewed as an honest broker, especially if it is funding a study by someone who clearly is far from unprejudiced.

Others were concerned that the AMS shared their personal contact information with someone outside the organization, something which obviously raises concerns of privacy violations. In the wake of the Climategate email scandal, this is not something that should be taken lightly.

Some meteorologists felt they could not be honest about their opinions that man is not the driving force behind the climate. They said by sharing their opinions in this matter, they could very well find their current and future employment threatened.

This is not the first time the AMS has found itself at the center of the debate about manmade climate change. In the wake of it bestowing its highest honor on climate alarmist Dr. James Hansen, one of its most prominent members, Dr. William Gray, said the group was being ‘hijacked’ by global warming alarmists.

It was only two months ago that the AMS released the results of another survey it conducted that clearly showed much of its membership did not agree with the manmade climate change theory. When asked about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) statement that “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50% of respondents to that survey either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Despite dissent amongst its own membership and contrary to its own statements, the AMS continues to pursue an activist agenda. In its Statement on the Freedom of Scientific Expression, the AMS says it believes in presenting research “objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts.” It is clear that is not the case.

Complete text of email sent to AMS, NWS and RTDNA members:

Dear AMS/NWA or RTDNA member,

Ed Maibach, MPH, PhD
Professor and Director
George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication
climate@gmu.edu

See post here.

ICECAP Note: The survey showed up on broadcaster and news director emails this morning. ICECAP.US is receiving numerous reports from television meteorologists and weathercasters from across the country. We can report the following at this time. The survey includes a number of questions regarding climate change views and prompts participants to answer what specific content they would enjoy airing regarding climate education. prompted by specific answers, further questions appear related to political affiliations and other social issues. There is an apparent number code assigned to each particpant. ICECAP will continue to update visitors to this site regarding the survey and its emerging content.

What is this person’s first and last name?

What is this person’s occupation?

Where does this person work? (organization name, city & state)

How often do you directly communicate with this person?
- More than once per week
- About once per week
- About once per month
- Several times per year
- About once per year
- Less than once per year
- Don’t know