Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud?
Top climate scientists discuss hiding contrary data, marginalizing dissenters

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Officials at a key global warming research center in the United Kingdom have authenticated a series of e-mails and other documents apparently taken from their computer system by a hacker, but they cannot explain what scientists in internal exchanges meant by references to a “trick” that would “hide the decline” of global temperatures nor by instructions to delete contrary data.

Author James Delingpole writes in a London Telegraph column the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have “manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.”

According to the Australian Investigate magazine, the 62 megabyte Zip file with documents, e-mail exchanges and other information from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit apparently was posted by an unidentified hacker on a Russian web server.

One e-mail said: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Another expressed internal doubts: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.”

“And, perhaps most reprehensibly,” Delingpole writes, “a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.”

He cites an e-mail: “This was the danger of always criticizing 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?”

Myron Ebell, of the GlobalWarming.org website where “cooler heads prevail,” said the e-mails are “shocking.”

“Its kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community,” he said.

The documents, he said, “raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community.

“What I’ve seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issues. It’s very improper,” he said. ” One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientist, and policy can be handled in public debate.”

Delingpole observes the world “is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called ’skeptical’ view is now also the majority view.”

Phil Jones, head of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, confirmed to Investigate magazine the documents appeared authentic.

“It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and e-mails,” he said.

“It’s completely illegal for somebody to hack into our system,” he told the magazine

But Jones denied there was any attempt to mislead or conceal.

“They’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years,” he said.

Jones said he could not recall what he meant when he wrote about a plan to “hide the decline.”

In the e-mail, dated 10 years ago, Jones wrote: “Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers, Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit.”

The documents also included a message dated last month from Kevin Trenberth to Michal Mann about the “U-turn on climate” by Britain’s BBC News.

“Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).”

Despite the advocacy of a financially vested former vice president, Al Gore, and others, public opinion about whether mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in global temperatures is shifting.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any “global warming.”

The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.

But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” the campaign has been reinvigorated.

“Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a ‘consensus’ and ’settled science’ in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” project spokesman and founder Art Robinson has told WND.

Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Paul cited the petition results in his statement to Congress.

“Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas,” Paul said. “They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.”

The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Robinson has warned of serious political and economic consequencesof assuming “global warming” results from mankind’s actions.

“The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded,” he said. “In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries,” he told WND.

Warned Paul, “Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.

“While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people’s freedom,” Paul said.

Earth approaching sunspot records

By Corey Jones

Created September 20, 2009 at 6:21pm

Updated September 21, 2009 at 12:50am

The average person may not associate coolness with the sun.

The sun releases energy through deep nuclear fusion reactions in its core and has surface temperatures as hot as 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NASA’s Web site.

Not cool at all.

But the sun’s recent activity, or lack thereof, may be linked to the pleasant summer temperatures the midwest has enjoyed this year, said Charlie Perry, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence.

The sun is at a low point of a deep solar minimum in which there are few to no sunspots on its surface.

In July through August, 51 consecutive days passed without a spot, one day short of tying the record of 52 days from the early 1900s.

As of Sept. 15, the current solar minimum ranks third all-time in the amount of spotless days with 717 since 2004. There have been 206 spotless days in 2009, which is 14th all-time. But there are still more than 100 days left in the year, and Perry expects that number to climb.

Perry, who studies sunspots and solar activity in his spare time, received an undergraduate degree in physics at Kansas State University and a Ph.D in physics and astronomy at The University of Kansas. He also has spent time as a meteorologist.

A sunspot, Perry explains, is a location on the sun’s surface that is cooler than the surrounding area. When there are more sunspots, the sun’s surface becomes more dynamic and an opposite effect takes place, releasing more heat and energy when other parts of the sun become hotter.

A solar minimum is when the amount of spots on the sun is at a low and the reverse is true for a solar maximum. The complete solar cycle is about an 11-year process. Perry says the current solar minimum could continue into 2010.

“There’s a fair chance it will be a cooler winter than last year,” Perry said.

Perry said there is a feeling from some in the scientific community the Earth may be entering into a grand minimum, which is an extended period with low numbers of sunspots that creates cooler temperatures. The year without a summer, which was 1816, was during a grand minimum in 1800 to 1830 when Europe became cooler, Perry said. Another grand minimum was in 1903 to 1913.

Perry said there is anecdotal evidence the Earth’s temperature may be slightly decreasing, but local weather patterns are much more affected by the jet stream than solar activity.

However, Perry said snow in Buenos Aires and southern Africa, the best ski season in Australia and a cooler Arctic region are some of the anecdotal evidence for a cooling period.

So, Perry said, sunspots may have a far greater impact on weather than previously thought.

Perry is a proponent of the cosmic ray and clouds theory as opposed to the CO2 global warming theory to explain recent global warming trends.

The cosmic ray and clouds theory was first put forth in the late 1990’s by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark.

In a July 2007 issue of Discover magazine, Svensmark said the theory is simply that solar activity can alter the amount of clouds in the atmosphere, which affects the temperature of the Earth. More clouds mean a cooler Earth because more of the sun’s heat is being reflected. Fewer clouds equal a warmer Earth.

Perry says data indicates global temperature fluctuations correlate to a statistically significant degree with the length of the sunspot cycle. Longer cycles are associated with cooler temperatures.

Johan Feddema, acting chair and professor of geography at KU, studies global warming. Atmospheric science is a program in geography at KU. He says he is skeptical of any one phenomenon being the direct cause of global warming because there are so many climate variables that factor into global temperatures.

Feddema said the warming trend earlier in the century could be attributed to anything from solar activity to El Ninos. But since the mid 1980s he believes data doesn’t correlate well with solar activity, but does correlate well with rising CO2 levels.

Feddema believes we may hit global high temperatures in a few years with the underlying factor being rising CO2 levels, coupled with the solar cycle returning to a maximum and an El Nino.

For more information or to view graphs of data pertaining to global climate change, Feddema recommends visiting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Web site at www.ipcc.ch/ where 2007 assessment reports on climate change can be viewed. He also recommends the Wikipedia entry on solar variation for good visual graphs of data.

Perry said he recommends www.icecap.us/ for climate information; www.discovermagazine.com to learn more about Svensmark’s theory; www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/sunspot-lenght-&-teperatur… to view a global temperature and solar activity graph; and his own research Web page at ks.water.usgs.gov/waterdata/climate/.

Corey Jones can be reached at (785) 295-5612 or corey.jones@cjonline.com.

Ethanol’s Grocery Bill

Two federal studies add up the corn fuel’s exorbitant cost.

U.N. ‘Climate Change’ Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy

Friday , March 27, 2009

By George Russell

A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations “information note” on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an “effective framework” for dealing with global warming.

The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the “Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol.” Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.

Getting that deal done has become the United Nations’ highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is seen as a critical step along the path to what the U.N. calls an “ambitious and effective international response to climate change,” which is intended to culminate at the later gathering in Copenhagen.

Just how ambitious the U.N.’s goals are can be seen, but only dimly, in the note obtained by FOX News, which offers in sparse detail both positive and negative consequences of the tools that industrial nations will most likely use to enforce the greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The paper makes no effort to calculate the magnitude of the costs and disruption involved, but despite the discreet presentation, makes clear that they will reverberate across the entire global economic system.

• Click here for the information note.

Among the tools that are considered are the cap-and-trade system for controlling carbon emissions that has been espoused by the Obama administration; “carbon taxes” on imported fuels and energy-intensive goods and industries, including airline transportation; and lower subsidies for those same goods, as well as new or higher subsidies for goods that are considered “environmentally sound.”

Other tools are referred to only vaguely, including “energy policy reform,” which the report indicates could affect “large-scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports.” When it comes to the results of such reform, the note says only that it could have “positive consequences for alternative transportation providers and producers of alternative fuels.”

In the same bland manner, the note informs negotiators without going into details that cap-and-trade schemes “may induce some industrial relocation” to “less regulated host countries.” Cap-and-trade functions by creating decreasing numbers of pollution-emission permits to be traded by industrial users, and thus pay more for each unit of carbon-based pollution, a market-driven system that aims to drive manufacturers toward less polluting technologies.

The note adds only that industrial relocation “would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment.” But at the same time it “would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries.”

There are also entirely new kinds of tariffs and trade protectionist barriers such as those termed in the note as “border carbon adjustment”— which, the note says, can impose “a levy on imported goods equal to that which would have been imposed had they been produced domestically” under more strict environmental regimes.

Another form of “adjustment” would require exporters to “buy [carbon] offsets at the border equal to that which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the good been produced domestically.”

The impact of both schemes, the note says, “would be functionally equivalent to an increased tariff: decreased market share for covered foreign producers.” (There is no definition in the report of who, exactly, is “foreign.”) The note adds that “If they were implemented fairly, such schemes would leave trade and investment patterns unchanged.” Nothing is said about the consequences if such fairness was not achieved.

Indeed, only rarely does the “information note” attempt to inform readers in dollar terms of the impact of “spillover effects” from the potential policy changes it discusses. In a brief mention of consumer subsidies for fossil fuels, the note remarks that such subsidies in advanced economies exceed $60 billion a year, while they exceed $90 billion a year in developing economies.”

But calculations of the impact of tariffs, offsets, or other subsidies is rare. In a reference to the impact of declining oil exports, the report says that Saudi Arabia has determined the loss to its economy at between $100 billion and $200 billion by 2030, but said nothing about other oil exporters.

One reason for the lack of detail, the note indicates, is that impact would vary widely depending on the nature and scope of the policies adopted (and, although the note does not mention it, on the severity of the greenhouse reduction targets).

But even when it does hazard a guess at specific impacts, the report seems curiously hazy. A “climate change levy on aviation” for example, is described as having undetermined “negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce,” as well as “tourism services.” But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)

In other cases, as when discussing the “increased costs of traditional exports” under a new environmental regime, the report confines itself to terse description. Changes in standards and labeling for exported goods, for example, “may demand costly changes to the production process.” If subsidies and tariffs affect exports, the note says, the “economic and social consequences of dampening their viability may, for some countries and sectors, be significant.”

Much depends, of course, on the extent to which harsher or more lenient greenhouse gas reduction targets demand more or less drastic policies for their achievement.

And, precisely because the Bonn meeting is a stage for negotiating those targets, the note is silent. Instead it suggests that more bureaucratic work is needed “to deepen the understanding of the full nature and scale of such impacts.”

But outside the Bonn process, other experts have been much more blunt about the draconian nature of the measures they deem necessary to make “effective” greenhouse gas reductions.

In an influential but highly controversial paper called “Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change,” British economist Nicholas Lord Stern, formerly a high British Treasury official, has declared that industrial economies would need to cut their per capita carbon dioxide emissions by “at least 80% by 2050,” while the biggest economies, like the U.S.’s, would have to make cuts of 90 percent.

Stern also calls for “immediate and binding” reduction targets for developed nations of 20 percent to 40 percent by 2020.

To meet Stern’s 2050 goals, he says, among other things, “most of the world’s electricity production will need to have been decarbonized.”

Click here for Stern’s paper.

By way of comparison, according to the U.S. Department Of Energy, roughly 72 percent of U.S. electrical power generation in 2007 was derived from burning fossil fuels, with just 6 percent coming from hydro-power and less than 3 percent from non-nuclear renewable and “other” sources. And even then, those “other” non-fossil sources included wood and biomass — which, when burned, are major emitters of carbon.

Click here to see the Department of Energy report.

George Russell is executive editor of FOX News.

More Global Warming Scare Mongering From Obama

Marc Sheppard

The president then proceeded to pitch the consequent necessity of his disastrous cap-and-trade program to the group.  Of course, there were no challenges to the wildly conjectural assertion that such a plan would actually lower atmospheric CO2 or, for that matter, temperatures – that’s sadly become a given.  But not one reporter questioned the complete lack of either conviction or logic in connecting not this yet perhaps future flooding to temperature increases and subsequently to why “we have to take this seriously.”   

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/more_global_warming_scare_mong.html at March 25, 2009 – 12:47:39 AM EDT

The Farce of Global Warming

By Janet Levy

With the Obama administration calling for curbs on greenhouse gas emissions and the nation in the grip of the most severe economic downturn since 1929, it would seem prudent to re-examine the debate on the causes of global warming before tossing aside entire industries and technologies in favor of untried, and possibly infeasible and unprofitable, “green” technologies.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_farce_of_global_warming.html at March 02, 2009 – 10:09:25 AM EST

AAA$ $ELL$ GLOBAL $IZZLE $CIENCE!

James Lewis
Famed physicist Freeman Dyson had it exactly right when he said that the global warming hype is driven by $$$. Our new Federal $timulus Gift Package has ju$t given 400 million greenback$ to that merry gang of global warming modeler$.

‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts.”

“Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions.” 

“Obama ‘mu$t act now’ on climate.”

“The planet will be in “huge trouble” unle$$ Barack Obama make$ $tride$ in tackling climate change, $ay$ a leading $cienti$t.

Prof Jame$ McCarthy $poke on the eve of the annual meeting of the American A$$ociation for the Advancement of $cience (AAA$), which he head$.

The U$ pre$ident ha$ ju$t four year$ to $ave the planet, $aid Prof McCarthy.

If major policy change$ do not happen within Mr Obama’$ term of office, they will not happen at all, he warned.

“We have a moment right now of extraordinary opportunity, with a new pre$ident, po$itioned with $cientific leader$hip that ha$ known no equal in recent time$,” the AAA$ pre$ident told BBC New$.

“The calibre of $cientific advice that i$ clo$e to thi$ man i$ truly exceptional.

“If in hi$ fir$t term, in the next four year$, we don’t make $ignificant progre$$ in the$e area$, then I think the planet i$ in huge trouble.

“Without U$ leader$hip, which ha$ been $orely lacking, we will not get to where we need to be.”

Posted at 07:53 PM | Email | Permalink | |  |   yahooBuzzArticleHeadline = “AAA$ $ELL$ GLOBAL $IZZLE $CIENCE!”; yahooBuzzArticleSummary = “Famed physicist Freeman Dyson had it exactly right when he said that the global warming hype is driven by $$$. Our new Federal $timulus Gift Package has ju$t given 400 million greenback$ to that merry gang of global warming modeler$. <di…”; yahooBuzzArticleCategory = “politics”; yahooBuzzArticleType = “text”; yahooBuzzArticleId = window.location.href; http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/aaa_ell_global_izzle_cience.html

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/aaa_ell_global_izzle_cience.html at February 13, 2009 – 10:09:05 AM EST