.
Partially from Fox News via Der Spiegel - March 29, 2010
Germans citizens are losing faith in global warming following Climate-gate scandals, according to a new report in Der Spiegel.
The report indicates that just 42 percent of Germans are worried about global warming, down from the 62 percent in 2006.
German news site The Local analyzed the results from the poll. Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers, The Local explained, with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence.
This is largely due to mistakes and exaggerations propagated in a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- Following a leak of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, an endless catalog of mistakes, lies, coverups, and faulty assumptions by scientists working on the IPCC's report has been detailed in the past few months, all lumped under the name Climategate.
According to The Local, Germany’s Leibniz Community, an umbrella organization including many climate research institutes, broke ranks by calling for the resignation of IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri.
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/29/achtung-germans-giving-global-warming/?test=latestnews
Monday, June 28, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Eat Less Meat, Reduce Global Warming -- Not!
.
From Fox News - March 23, 2010
The largely reported link between global warming and cattle farming -- pushed by a United Nations report on "Livestock's Long Shadow" -- was also largely inaccurate, explains one scientist.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California said in a presentation before a national meeting of the American Chemical Society that the misleading claims came from a 2006 U.N. report. That report stated livestock was "responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," describing the figure as "a larger share than transportation."
According to Mitloehner, the claim is inaccurate because the numbers for livestock were calculated differently from the transport figures.
"This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said.
He argued that these claims distract society from effective solutions to global climate change, citing campaigns for "meatless Mondays" and a European campaign, called "Less Meat = Less Heat," launched late last year.
Numerous other mistakes in U.N. reports have been uncovered in recent months, following the leak of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia' Climate Research Center in England, a scandal labeled "Climate-gate."
- In Climategate, scientists at the Climate Research Center were caught covering up data that showed global warming has not occurred for the last 15 years. Then, the UN's IPCC researchers were forced to admit that their forecasts of melting Himalayan glaciers, disappearing polar ice caps, and dwindling Amazon rainforests were based on junk science and data obtained by activists, not scientists.
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/23/eat-meat-reduce-global-warming/
.
From Fox News - March 23, 2010
The largely reported link between global warming and cattle farming -- pushed by a United Nations report on "Livestock's Long Shadow" -- was also largely inaccurate, explains one scientist.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California said in a presentation before a national meeting of the American Chemical Society that the misleading claims came from a 2006 U.N. report. That report stated livestock was "responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," describing the figure as "a larger share than transportation."
According to Mitloehner, the claim is inaccurate because the numbers for livestock were calculated differently from the transport figures.
"This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said.
He argued that these claims distract society from effective solutions to global climate change, citing campaigns for "meatless Mondays" and a European campaign, called "Less Meat = Less Heat," launched late last year.
Numerous other mistakes in U.N. reports have been uncovered in recent months, following the leak of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia' Climate Research Center in England, a scandal labeled "Climate-gate."
- In Climategate, scientists at the Climate Research Center were caught covering up data that showed global warming has not occurred for the last 15 years. Then, the UN's IPCC researchers were forced to admit that their forecasts of melting Himalayan glaciers, disappearing polar ice caps, and dwindling Amazon rainforests were based on junk science and data obtained by activists, not scientists.
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/23/eat-meat-reduce-global-warming/
.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
A Pending American Temperaturegate
.
Good Article...
From American Thinker, February 24, 2010
"We have been repeatedly told (perhaps "lectured" is a better word) the past twenty years that global warming is occurring. With Climategate and subsequent confessions and bailouts by scientists at the CRU, Penn State, Arizona State, IPCC, et al., we are learning that little to none of the factual content in their "peer reviewed" articles is true. The Medieval Warming Period did occur, and it was warmer than currently; the oceans are not going to flood the plains; and the Arctic Ocean may not be turning into a summer water park. Of course, the mainstream media, especially in the United States, has reported little of this news, and President Obama appears not to be well-informed. But now the global warming story grows more interesting because here in America, we may have our own little "gate." I will call it ATG, for "American Temperaturegate."
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) informs us, based on their "Adjusted Data" for the period from the last decade of the 19th century to 2006, that the temperature for the contiguous U.S. has increased at a rate of 0.69oC/century. NCDC arrives at this conclusion by massaging raw data from a set of meteorological stations located in the contiguous U.S. which they selected on the basis of a 2.5-degree latitude- and 3.5-degree-longitude grid.
The most-asked question, most recently by D'Aleo and Watts, is whether the NCDC's reported increase is correct. Perhaps the value is due to a dominant use (over-selection) of stations in urban locations or because of other issues, such as leaving out stations at higher altitudes for the more recent history and retaining them for the more distant past.
Here, one aspect is considered -- that of the Urban Heat Island Effect, which is tagged as UHIE.
We selected two sets of meteorological stations (48 each, with one station per each of the lower 48 states) from the NCDC master list. The stations in one set were at rural locations -- a rural set. The stations in the other set were at urban locations -- an urban set. The NCDC latitude and longitude station coordinates were used to "fly over" the locations on a computer, using a GPS map application to confirm the rural and urban characteristics. For each of the 96 stations, the NCDC's raw and adjusted temperature data were entered into a spreadsheet application and studied. The "raw" data are the annual average temperatures of the measured data. The "adjusted" data are the annual average temperatures the NCDC derived from the raw data by making a set of "corrective" assumptions for time of day, type of instrument, etc. and guessing the temperature at stations for missing data based on temperatures of other stations at the same latitude and/or region. For a more in-depth understanding of the NCDC protocols for converting raw data to adjusted data, click here. A summary of the findings is in the following table. The values in the table show that the NCDC's rate of increase of temperature, 0.69oC/century, is based on an over-selection of stations with urban locations.
Station Set oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of
Raw Data
Adjusted Data
Rural (48)
0.11
0.58
Urban (48)
0.72
0.72
Rural + Urban (96)
0.47
0.65
The values in the table highlight four important considerations:
1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century.
2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone.
3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC.
4) And this is the "Temperaturegate" aspect: The NCDC's massaging -- they call it "adjusting" -- has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC's treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.
The criticism this makes of the NCDC's treatment of historical data for the contiguous U.S. is the same as a recent Russian paper made of the HadCRUT treatment of historical temperature data for Russia.
Edward R. Long holds a Ph.D. in physics. He is a retired NASA scientist who is a consultant on radiation physics for space flight and on energy/climate in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Read more http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_pending_american_temperature.html
,
Good Article...
From American Thinker, February 24, 2010
"We have been repeatedly told (perhaps "lectured" is a better word) the past twenty years that global warming is occurring. With Climategate and subsequent confessions and bailouts by scientists at the CRU, Penn State, Arizona State, IPCC, et al., we are learning that little to none of the factual content in their "peer reviewed" articles is true. The Medieval Warming Period did occur, and it was warmer than currently; the oceans are not going to flood the plains; and the Arctic Ocean may not be turning into a summer water park. Of course, the mainstream media, especially in the United States, has reported little of this news, and President Obama appears not to be well-informed. But now the global warming story grows more interesting because here in America, we may have our own little "gate." I will call it ATG, for "American Temperaturegate."
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) informs us, based on their "Adjusted Data" for the period from the last decade of the 19th century to 2006, that the temperature for the contiguous U.S. has increased at a rate of 0.69oC/century. NCDC arrives at this conclusion by massaging raw data from a set of meteorological stations located in the contiguous U.S. which they selected on the basis of a 2.5-degree latitude- and 3.5-degree-longitude grid.
The most-asked question, most recently by D'Aleo and Watts, is whether the NCDC's reported increase is correct. Perhaps the value is due to a dominant use (over-selection) of stations in urban locations or because of other issues, such as leaving out stations at higher altitudes for the more recent history and retaining them for the more distant past.
Here, one aspect is considered -- that of the Urban Heat Island Effect, which is tagged as UHIE.
We selected two sets of meteorological stations (48 each, with one station per each of the lower 48 states) from the NCDC master list. The stations in one set were at rural locations -- a rural set. The stations in the other set were at urban locations -- an urban set. The NCDC latitude and longitude station coordinates were used to "fly over" the locations on a computer, using a GPS map application to confirm the rural and urban characteristics. For each of the 96 stations, the NCDC's raw and adjusted temperature data were entered into a spreadsheet application and studied. The "raw" data are the annual average temperatures of the measured data. The "adjusted" data are the annual average temperatures the NCDC derived from the raw data by making a set of "corrective" assumptions for time of day, type of instrument, etc. and guessing the temperature at stations for missing data based on temperatures of other stations at the same latitude and/or region. For a more in-depth understanding of the NCDC protocols for converting raw data to adjusted data, click here. A summary of the findings is in the following table. The values in the table show that the NCDC's rate of increase of temperature, 0.69oC/century, is based on an over-selection of stations with urban locations.
Station Set oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of
Raw Data
Adjusted Data
Rural (48)
0.11
0.58
Urban (48)
0.72
0.72
Rural + Urban (96)
0.47
0.65
The values in the table highlight four important considerations:
1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century.
2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone.
3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC.
4) And this is the "Temperaturegate" aspect: The NCDC's massaging -- they call it "adjusting" -- has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC's treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.
The criticism this makes of the NCDC's treatment of historical data for the contiguous U.S. is the same as a recent Russian paper made of the HadCRUT treatment of historical temperature data for Russia.
Edward R. Long holds a Ph.D. in physics. He is a retired NASA scientist who is a consultant on radiation physics for space flight and on energy/climate in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Read more http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_pending_american_temperature.html
,
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
More Americans Agree: Global Warming Is Exaggerated
.
The Christian Post, Thursday, March 11
48 percent of the public think that global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41 percent in 2009 and 31 percent in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question. Gallup noted that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is generally overblown is the highest on its record.
“The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans’ attitudes about global warming,” reported Gallup. “[T]he public opinion tide turned in 2009, when several Gallup measures showed a slight retreat in public concern about global warming. This year, the downturn is even more pronounced.”
There was also a change in opinion on what causes global warming. Exactly half of the public believes that human activities are mainly responsible for the increase in the Earth’s temperature over the last century. This is a significant drop from the 61 percent in 2007 that held this view and the 58 percent in 2008.
The percentage of Americans who believe the warming of the Earth is mostly due to natural changes in the environment has steadily increased in recent years. In 2010, 46 percent hold this view, up from 38 percent in 2008 and 35 percent in 2007.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100311/more-americans-think-global-warming-is-exaggerated/index.html
.
The Christian Post, Thursday, March 11
48 percent of the public think that global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41 percent in 2009 and 31 percent in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question. Gallup noted that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is generally overblown is the highest on its record.
“The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans’ attitudes about global warming,” reported Gallup. “[T]he public opinion tide turned in 2009, when several Gallup measures showed a slight retreat in public concern about global warming. This year, the downturn is even more pronounced.”
There was also a change in opinion on what causes global warming. Exactly half of the public believes that human activities are mainly responsible for the increase in the Earth’s temperature over the last century. This is a significant drop from the 61 percent in 2007 that held this view and the 58 percent in 2008.
The percentage of Americans who believe the warming of the Earth is mostly due to natural changes in the environment has steadily increased in recent years. In 2010, 46 percent hold this view, up from 38 percent in 2008 and 35 percent in 2007.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100311/more-americans-think-global-warming-is-exaggerated/index.html
.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
'Archaic' Network Provides Data for Global Warming Theory
.
From Fox News, March 02, 2010
American climate data that provides the basis for trillion-dollar global warming legislation is obtained by a 120-year-old weather system.
The Historical Climatology Network consists of volunteers who take daily surface temperature readings and send their reports in by snail mail to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Volunteers take readings at different times of day, round the temperatures to the nearest whole number, and mark the measurements on paper forms.
It is very kind of these volunteers to do this; they're expected to take measurements 365 days a year. But they aren't scientists, and their reports are sometimes a hodgepodge.
Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, has been cataloging problems in the 1,218 weather stations since 2007.
"When the network was put together in 1892, it was mercury thermometers and paper forms. Today it's still much the same," he said.
Requirements aren't very strict: Volunteers need decent vision in at least one eye and a small amount of training to qualify.
Expecting volunteers to be strict about collection of data several times a day 365 days a year in our current busy society is insane. As one would expect, some volunteers don't bother to collect data when they go on vacation or are sick. Watts told FoxNews.com that one volunteer filled in missing data with local weather reports from the newspapers that stacked up while he was out of town. It's highly likely that most, if not all, do that type of thing.
"You've got this kind of a ragtag network that's reporting the numbers for our official climate readings," said Watts. He added that 90 percent of the stations violated governmental guidelines for location, and poor placement compromises data.
They are supposed to be situated in empty clearings, but many are close to heat sources, such as exhaust pipes, trash-burning barrels, chimneys, barbecue grills, and hot asphalt.
If numbers appear faulty or there are more than nine days missing from a month's tally, the whole month is thrown out. Then the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature might have been for the month at that station.
Further - the NCDC adjusts for biases caused by the time of day when measurements are taken, for differences between old and new equipment, and to account for flukes that might be caused by poor siting. As if...they can be sure that those bias adjustments are necessary (poor siting?) or that they are adjusting in the right direction...
The NCDC insists its adjusted numbers are an accurate representation of climatic reality, backed up by worldwide trends in air temperature, water temperature, glacier melt, plant flowering and other indicators of climate change.
The final, highly scientific and meticulously gathered numbers - no...wait... numbers that were initially altered by heat sources they were near, then rounded by volunteers, guessed at by the NCDC, then further adjusted to correct for "biases," including uneven times of day when measurements were taken -- ending up with a number that is 0.6 degrees warmer than raw data, which Watts believes is itself suspect...THESE numbers are then used by several top climate research centers, including the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - all three of which have been implicated in Climategate.
Watts says that even a single step — the rounding of the daily temperature — creates a margin of error about as large as the entire global warming trend scientists are hoping to confirm.
But the NCDC says not to worry, the volunteer system is only part of how they gather data. They make sure that the volunteer numbers fit the numbers they've gathered by other methods.
So..why bother with the volunteer system, then? It will probably become moot within a decade anyway.
Lawrimore told FoxNews.com that 5 percent of the historical network has already been automated. Further, a digitally run "Climate Reference Network" (CRN), a system of 114 stations, went fully online in 2008.
Carefully sited in fields around the country, the CRN automatically records daily climate data and transmits it at midnight local time, sending it by satellite directly to NCDC; eliminating snail-mail delay, rounding of numbers and human error.
But NCDC says it will continue to rely on volunteer readings to gather climate data on the local level. (Ummm...why?)
Actually, it sounds to me like the volunteer program exists only to give a good public relations appearance that the NCDC is collecting local data several times a day and cares about that data. The way it really sounds, with all their adjustments - yet a lack of real concern for how the data is gathered - is that the NCDC has decided what the temperature should be, and if it's not...well, then it needs adjusting. Keeping an archaic system justifies manipulating the data.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/archaic-weather-network-run-with-volunteers/?test=latestnews
From Fox News, March 02, 2010
American climate data that provides the basis for trillion-dollar global warming legislation is obtained by a 120-year-old weather system.
The Historical Climatology Network consists of volunteers who take daily surface temperature readings and send their reports in by snail mail to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Volunteers take readings at different times of day, round the temperatures to the nearest whole number, and mark the measurements on paper forms.
It is very kind of these volunteers to do this; they're expected to take measurements 365 days a year. But they aren't scientists, and their reports are sometimes a hodgepodge.
Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, has been cataloging problems in the 1,218 weather stations since 2007.
"When the network was put together in 1892, it was mercury thermometers and paper forms. Today it's still much the same," he said.
Requirements aren't very strict: Volunteers need decent vision in at least one eye and a small amount of training to qualify.
Expecting volunteers to be strict about collection of data several times a day 365 days a year in our current busy society is insane. As one would expect, some volunteers don't bother to collect data when they go on vacation or are sick. Watts told FoxNews.com that one volunteer filled in missing data with local weather reports from the newspapers that stacked up while he was out of town. It's highly likely that most, if not all, do that type of thing.
"You've got this kind of a ragtag network that's reporting the numbers for our official climate readings," said Watts. He added that 90 percent of the stations violated governmental guidelines for location, and poor placement compromises data.
They are supposed to be situated in empty clearings, but many are close to heat sources, such as exhaust pipes, trash-burning barrels, chimneys, barbecue grills, and hot asphalt.
If numbers appear faulty or there are more than nine days missing from a month's tally, the whole month is thrown out. Then the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature might have been for the month at that station.
Further - the NCDC adjusts for biases caused by the time of day when measurements are taken, for differences between old and new equipment, and to account for flukes that might be caused by poor siting. As if...they can be sure that those bias adjustments are necessary (poor siting?) or that they are adjusting in the right direction...
The NCDC insists its adjusted numbers are an accurate representation of climatic reality, backed up by worldwide trends in air temperature, water temperature, glacier melt, plant flowering and other indicators of climate change.
The final, highly scientific and meticulously gathered numbers - no...wait... numbers that were initially altered by heat sources they were near, then rounded by volunteers, guessed at by the NCDC, then further adjusted to correct for "biases," including uneven times of day when measurements were taken -- ending up with a number that is 0.6 degrees warmer than raw data, which Watts believes is itself suspect...THESE numbers are then used by several top climate research centers, including the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - all three of which have been implicated in Climategate.
Watts says that even a single step — the rounding of the daily temperature — creates a margin of error about as large as the entire global warming trend scientists are hoping to confirm.
But the NCDC says not to worry, the volunteer system is only part of how they gather data. They make sure that the volunteer numbers fit the numbers they've gathered by other methods.
So..why bother with the volunteer system, then? It will probably become moot within a decade anyway.
Lawrimore told FoxNews.com that 5 percent of the historical network has already been automated. Further, a digitally run "Climate Reference Network" (CRN), a system of 114 stations, went fully online in 2008.
Carefully sited in fields around the country, the CRN automatically records daily climate data and transmits it at midnight local time, sending it by satellite directly to NCDC; eliminating snail-mail delay, rounding of numbers and human error.
But NCDC says it will continue to rely on volunteer readings to gather climate data on the local level. (Ummm...why?)
Actually, it sounds to me like the volunteer program exists only to give a good public relations appearance that the NCDC is collecting local data several times a day and cares about that data. The way it really sounds, with all their adjustments - yet a lack of real concern for how the data is gathered - is that the NCDC has decided what the temperature should be, and if it's not...well, then it needs adjusting. Keeping an archaic system justifies manipulating the data.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/archaic-weather-network-run-with-volunteers/?test=latestnews
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Jail the Faux Scientists - Climategate: Senator Ask for DOJ Investigation
.
Excerpts from Pajamas Media - February 21, 2010- by Charlie Martin
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — ie Climategate: the actions of climate scientists and admissions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies are both of interest.
- Yeah, like the Obama Administration would do that.
Senator Inhofe also asked that Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify. Inhofe said, “In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted.”
- Well, that slime bucket will never subject himself to honest scrutiny. He'll only attend functions where he knows no one will confront him.
According to Pajamas Media, the Senator Inhofe minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee alleges:
Dr. Murari Lal, editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”
Senator Inhofe wants an investigation into research misconduct and criminal acts by the researchers. Further, Inhofe wants the EPA to drop its "Finding" that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and Congress to withdraw funding for consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
- Of all the stupid, ridiculous things the EPA and Congress have ever done...What was next, deeming all humans and animals major polluters for breathing out CO2??
The staff report noted the four major issues revealed by Climategate:
- Are you kidding me? You mean there's a chance that they WON'T go to jail??)
Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct.
Senator Inhofe believes Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”
- Excuse me, Senator Inhofe, but the lies of these men have affected the entire world. I pray that the conservatives in our government won't allow them to walk away with a slap on the hand.
- Of course, the Obama Administration probably won't even acknowledge Senator Inhofe's appeal. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science. We might have to wait and hope for a new administration before justice is done.
For more of PJM’s Climategate coverage, read Charlie Martin’s “Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/
.
Excerpts from Pajamas Media - February 21, 2010- by Charlie Martin
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — ie Climategate: the actions of climate scientists and admissions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies are both of interest.
- Yeah, like the Obama Administration would do that.
Senator Inhofe also asked that Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify. Inhofe said, “In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted.”
- Well, that slime bucket will never subject himself to honest scrutiny. He'll only attend functions where he knows no one will confront him.
According to Pajamas Media, the Senator Inhofe minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee alleges:
"[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes."According to Pajamas Media,
"The exposure of the "Climategate files" - ie leaked emails - has led to a reexamination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant."The IPCC has been forced to retract a number of conclusions — such as that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 - and has been forced to admit that the report was based on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific research.
Dr. Murari Lal, editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”
Senator Inhofe wants an investigation into research misconduct and criminal acts by the researchers. Further, Inhofe wants the EPA to drop its "Finding" that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and Congress to withdraw funding for consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
- Of all the stupid, ridiculous things the EPA and Congress have ever done...What was next, deeming all humans and animals major polluters for breathing out CO2??
The staff report noted the four major issues revealed by Climategate:
1.Scientists cooperated to obstruct the release of information and counter-evidence.The report also notes potential legal issues raised by Climategate:
2.Scientists manipulated data to reach predetermined conclusions.
3.Scientists colluded to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
4.Scientists involved in the report assumed the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.
1.Scientific misconduct may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct.If proven, these charges could debar the Scientists from federally funded research and maybe to criminal penalties.
2.Potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
3.Possibility of an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.
- Are you kidding me? You mean there's a chance that they WON'T go to jail??)
Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct.
Senator Inhofe believes Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”
- Excuse me, Senator Inhofe, but the lies of these men have affected the entire world. I pray that the conservatives in our government won't allow them to walk away with a slap on the hand.
- Of course, the Obama Administration probably won't even acknowledge Senator Inhofe's appeal. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science. We might have to wait and hope for a new administration before justice is done.
For more of PJM’s Climategate coverage, read Charlie Martin’s “Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/
.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Global warming is a "Scam"says Congressman Don Young:
.
In an interview with Matt Felling of KTVA TV, Congressman Don Young tells it like it is: Global warming is a 'Scam.'
Video - http://www.ktva.com/ci_14434574
In an interview with Matt Felling of KTVA TV, Congressman Don Young tells it like it is: Global warming is a 'Scam.'
Video - http://www.ktva.com/ci_14434574
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Vindicated: Global Warming denier "was right after all"
.
I like this guy. Honest, despite the huge consequences. There aren't many people like that in this world. God bless him.
National Post February 18, 2010, 7:10 AM by Lawrence Solomon
"De Telegraaf, the Netherlands' largest daily newspaper, has totally vindicated the country's most prominent global warming denier in a prominent article entitled "Henk Tennekes - He was right after all."
"Tennekes was the director of the Netherlands Meteorological Institute, KNMI, until the early 1990s, when his skepticism of the climate science coming out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to his forced resignation.
A translation into English of De Telegraaf's no-holds-barred vindication appears here.
Excerpts:
"In the nineties, Henk Tennekes was made to clear his desk and resign as Director of the KNMI (Dutch Meteorological Institute). His sin? In a newspaper column the world-renowned meteorologist had disproved all the bold claims about climate change.
Rehabilitation of the country’s first CO2-exile
By Edwin Timmer
ARNHEM - “I worry a lot these days. I worry about the arrogance of scientists who blithely claim that they are here to solve the climate problem, as long as they receive massive increases in funding. I worry about the way they covet new supercomputers.
Others talk about ”stabilizing the climate“. I’m terrified of the arrogance, vanity
and recklessness of those words. Why is it so difficult to demonstrate a little humility?“
Is this a response to recent climate scandals? Sober criticism of the failed IPCC UN climate panel that exaggerated the melting of the glaciers?
No, these are extracts from a column which appeared exactly twenty(!) years ago in a British scientific journal. When the then Director of Policy Development at the KNMI
(Holland’s Met Office,) Henk Tennekes put the cat among the pigeons. Watch out for all the unsubstantiated claims about climate!
“My role as research director was regarded by the people around me as primarily that of provider of the next even bigger computer. But I wanted to get to the heart of the problem. Are these forecast models reliable?
Not funny, everyone thought. Looking for the truth? You must be mad! That means you have to accept the fallibility of these models. That’s much too dangerous. Most of the KNMI researchers were happy if they could just sit in the cafeteria with their like-minded colleagues.”
Greenhouse Theory
The now 73-year-old scientist still persists in his fundamental criticism of climate modelling, for instance the often-heard argument that ‘95 percent of the greenhouse
theory remains valid’.
Tennekes: “Why does the IPCC ignore the oceans? The top 2½ meters of all sea-water contain as much heat as the total amount of heat in the atmosphere. Why has the topmost kilometre of the oceans turned colder during the last five years? We don’t know. Until we understand what is happening with the heat in the oceans, the models
which aim to predict the climate are totally useless.
“I am much more anxious about the cooling of the earth. The ultimate fate of this planet is a new ice age. If the main wheat belts of the Northern hemisphere fail to
produce their much needed harvest, heaven knows how we will feed ourselves.
Well, it could be that warming will lead to a disaster. I still want to accept that. But you must weigh this unknown risk against other problems. Why should we spend insane amounts to prevent CO2 emissions, while the risk is uncertain and any potential benefits of the solution unsure? With much less money we could eradicate malaria from this planet. Or fight HIV, before the entire African population decimates itself“.
Intimate clique
“No, I’m not surprised about the fuss surrounding current climate research. This storm has been brewing for years. The contributions of climate sceptics disappear unnoticed in the rubbish bin.
IPCC is run by an intimate clique of only a few dozen people. I believe that Minister Cramer (Environment) is a victim of the spin-doctors who surround her, people who believe ’good causes’ are served best by evil means. But these green bureaucrats do not understand the meaning of the proverb. It is the road to HELL that
is paved with good intentions, not the road to HEAVEN. You can print that.“
Translation: Richard Sumner (UK)
A translation into English of De Telegraaf's full no-holds-barred vindication appears here.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/18/lawrence-solomon-vindication-dutch-global-warming-denier-quot-was-right-after-all-quot.aspx
.
I like this guy. Honest, despite the huge consequences. There aren't many people like that in this world. God bless him.
National Post February 18, 2010, 7:10 AM by Lawrence Solomon
"De Telegraaf, the Netherlands' largest daily newspaper, has totally vindicated the country's most prominent global warming denier in a prominent article entitled "Henk Tennekes - He was right after all."
"Tennekes was the director of the Netherlands Meteorological Institute, KNMI, until the early 1990s, when his skepticism of the climate science coming out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to his forced resignation.
A translation into English of De Telegraaf's no-holds-barred vindication appears here.
Excerpts:
"In the nineties, Henk Tennekes was made to clear his desk and resign as Director of the KNMI (Dutch Meteorological Institute). His sin? In a newspaper column the world-renowned meteorologist had disproved all the bold claims about climate change.
Rehabilitation of the country’s first CO2-exile
By Edwin Timmer
ARNHEM - “I worry a lot these days. I worry about the arrogance of scientists who blithely claim that they are here to solve the climate problem, as long as they receive massive increases in funding. I worry about the way they covet new supercomputers.
Others talk about ”stabilizing the climate“. I’m terrified of the arrogance, vanity
and recklessness of those words. Why is it so difficult to demonstrate a little humility?“
Is this a response to recent climate scandals? Sober criticism of the failed IPCC UN climate panel that exaggerated the melting of the glaciers?
No, these are extracts from a column which appeared exactly twenty(!) years ago in a British scientific journal. When the then Director of Policy Development at the KNMI
(Holland’s Met Office,) Henk Tennekes put the cat among the pigeons. Watch out for all the unsubstantiated claims about climate!
“My role as research director was regarded by the people around me as primarily that of provider of the next even bigger computer. But I wanted to get to the heart of the problem. Are these forecast models reliable?
Not funny, everyone thought. Looking for the truth? You must be mad! That means you have to accept the fallibility of these models. That’s much too dangerous. Most of the KNMI researchers were happy if they could just sit in the cafeteria with their like-minded colleagues.”
Greenhouse Theory
The now 73-year-old scientist still persists in his fundamental criticism of climate modelling, for instance the often-heard argument that ‘95 percent of the greenhouse
theory remains valid’.
Tennekes: “Why does the IPCC ignore the oceans? The top 2½ meters of all sea-water contain as much heat as the total amount of heat in the atmosphere. Why has the topmost kilometre of the oceans turned colder during the last five years? We don’t know. Until we understand what is happening with the heat in the oceans, the models
which aim to predict the climate are totally useless.
“I am much more anxious about the cooling of the earth. The ultimate fate of this planet is a new ice age. If the main wheat belts of the Northern hemisphere fail to
produce their much needed harvest, heaven knows how we will feed ourselves.
Well, it could be that warming will lead to a disaster. I still want to accept that. But you must weigh this unknown risk against other problems. Why should we spend insane amounts to prevent CO2 emissions, while the risk is uncertain and any potential benefits of the solution unsure? With much less money we could eradicate malaria from this planet. Or fight HIV, before the entire African population decimates itself“.
Intimate clique
“No, I’m not surprised about the fuss surrounding current climate research. This storm has been brewing for years. The contributions of climate sceptics disappear unnoticed in the rubbish bin.
IPCC is run by an intimate clique of only a few dozen people. I believe that Minister Cramer (Environment) is a victim of the spin-doctors who surround her, people who believe ’good causes’ are served best by evil means. But these green bureaucrats do not understand the meaning of the proverb. It is the road to HELL that
is paved with good intentions, not the road to HEAVEN. You can print that.“
Translation: Richard Sumner (UK)
A translation into English of De Telegraaf's full no-holds-barred vindication appears here.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/18/lawrence-solomon-vindication-dutch-global-warming-denier-quot-was-right-after-all-quot.aspx
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)