Mancaused Global Warming Scam - BUSTED!!!

[HogTrash]

Hopefully heads will role for my wasted tax dollars.

Anyway.....Bye-Bye Cap-N-Trade!


Climate Skeptics Point to 'Hide the Decline' E-mail
Updated: Friday, 20 Nov 2009, 4:37 PM CST
Published : Friday, 20 Nov 2009, 4:37 PM CST

(FOX NEWS) - The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

In an exclusive interview in New Zealand current affairs magazine Investigate’s TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.

"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact the police about the data breach.

TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999. He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.

"That was an e-mail from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?" he said.

The London Daily Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.

But one notable e-mail clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:

"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?"


http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/Climate-Coverup-Hide-the-Decline-dpgo-jst-200911201258756648134

[-Cp]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zH6_hmEgfCs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zH6_hmEgfCs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Insein]

Hopefully something comes from it. There are still too many supporters in power right now to totally kill it. Delay it till after 2010 and hopefully we can survive the biggest scam of the modern era.

[stephanie]

Al Bore the head Liar of this scam should be in JAIL..

[HogTrash]

Billions of American taxpayer dollars knowingly wasted on junk science, all of which was created and manipulated to lie too and fool the people of the world.

Because I and others like me are not the type to follow the sheep, we have sought out the real truth ourselves and have known about this for many years.

All the information to dispute Mancaused Global Warming has been out there and available but has been witheld and buried and is known only to those who took the time to seek it out.

Everyone who has come forward and tried to tell the truth has been attacked, slandered and their reputations tarnished and many times ruined.

Our government, along with other governments and the United Nations, have been knowingly and vigorously involved in this giant scam from the very beginning.

The purpose of the scam is to pass laws and enact treaties that will bring the people and the nations under an eventual one world totalitarian government.

Right now today in our schools children are being taught and terrorized by a corrupt system, that they are facing disasters that will be brought on by the greed for cheap energy by their parents.

Notify your elected officials and let them know that you are aware of what they are attempting and in no uncertain terms that you will not tolerate this.

Not all of our electees are involved but even they must be told to speak up in opposition to those who seek to destroy the sovereignty of the United States by means of this giant lie.

Stop the lie today!

[NightTrain]

You beat me to it, HT. I was reading up on this story earlier this morning, I especially liked this little tidbit in the article I was reading:



Eilperin caught a vital tidbit about the advocates ("scientists" doesn't really fit, does it?) pressuring peer review journals not to accept work from climate skeptics, and then, in ultimate chutzpah, denigrating those same skeptics for not having published in peer-reviewed journals!

Here’s what Eilperin found:

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Honestly, though, while I'm happy to see some of the shenanigans with this bogus controversy come to light, I'm not in the least bit surprised to see what they've been up to behind the scenes.

It makes them money and that's the reason they continue to distort, skew and manipulate the evidence to the cause of what is obviously a natural phenomena that has existed since the dawn of time.

[MtnBiker]

They are a bunch of frauds, but plenty of sheep belive them and will defend them.

[HogTrash]

You beat me to it, HT. I was reading up on this story earlier this morning, I especially liked this little tidbit in the article I was reading:




Honestly, though, while I'm happy to see some of the shenanigans with this bogus controversy come to light, I'm not in the least bit surprised to see what they've been up to behind the scenes.

It makes them money and that's the reason they continue to distort, skew and manipulate the evidence to the cause of what is obviously a natural phenomena that has existed since the dawn of time.What disgusts me even more than the corrupt politicians is the ignorant voters who keep electing them.

If people don't wise up real soon our childrens future will consist of government oppression and slavery, immorality, hardship, famine and suffering.

[gabosaurus]

Of course, the link is from Fox News :rolleyes:

[MtnBiker]

http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_climate_hacked_e_mails (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_climate_hacked_e_mails)

word

[glockmail]

Hopefully heads will role for my wasted tax dollars.

Anyway.....Bye-Bye Cap-N-Trade!.... You're naive to think that bro. All the evidence with government health care points to rising costs, deep deficits, rationing, poor service and devastating effects on the economy yet the Democrats are passing it anyway. Their true motive is to obtain and hold power over as much of our lives as possible; that is the only way to explain their behavior.


http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_climate_hacked_e_mails (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_climate_hacked_e_mails)

word


"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a statement.


Years of demonizing and laughing off opponents to this scheme notwithstanding...

[HogTrash]

You're naive to think that bro. All the evidence with government health care points to rising costs, deep deficits, rationing, poor service and devastating effects on the economy yet the Democrats are passing it anyway. Their true motive is to obtain and hold power over as much of our lives as possible; that is the only way to explain their behavior.


Years of demonizing and laughing off opponents to this scheme notwithstanding...
Politicians are well aware that It would be political suicide to move ahead at this time with any bills or treaties that would inflate energy costs,

especially with the economy in shambles and more and more people discovering that Man Caused Global Warming is a giant scam.

In fact many politicians are gonna have alot of splainin to do anyway about their participation in this ripoff that has cost the taxpayers billions.

[jimnyc]

Of course, the link is from Fox News :rolleyes:

Gabs, have you read a paper, or ANY legit news site in the past 3 days? This news is all over the place. Of course it'll be hidden as much as possible, and none of the heavy hitters (Al Gore) will likely address it, and it won't be continually addressed on the liberal media - but undeniable proof now exists and that cannot be debated. It's obvious some have an agenda, and aren't against fudging a few numbers to make their argument appear better.

[glockmail]

Politicians are well aware that It would be political suicide to move ahead at this time with any bills or treaties that would inflate energy costs,

especially with the economy in shambles and more and more people discovering that Man Caused Global Warming is a giant scam.

In fact many politicians are gonna have alot of splainin to do anyway about their participation in this ripoff that has cost the taxpayers billions.

I don't think they care about that. They've got the media wrapped up, as well as the schools (meaning younger generation). These folks can lie right to our faces and most voters are too dumb to figure it out, or will forget all about it come election time.

[HogTrash]

I don't think they care about that. They've got the media wrapped up, as well as the schools (meaning younger generation). These folks can lie right to our faces and most voters are too dumb to figure it out, or will forget all about it come election time.I have never seen anything like the tea parties before and it has led me to believe that many people are wising up.

Anyway, I hope I'm right and you are wrong, but only time will tell...I've got my fingers crossed.

[HogTrash]

Of course, the link is from Fox News :rolleyes:Actually there was many sources to choose from but I chose FOX as a reward for their honesty.

They have reported the facts on Obama and his administration when everyone else was silent, sugarcoating and reporting fluff.

FOX is the lone voice in a sea of silence.

[Kathianne]

Regardless of source, the actually emails is what will make this a story that has legs:

The problems of the same tree-rings being studied, over and over. The issue of the inability to replicate findings, especially in light of the with holding of methodology. To me the most disturbing aspect was a coordinated effort to prevent contrary studies from being peer-reviewed and published, then using those results to discredit the studies by the argument that they were not peer-reviewed.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-violating-the-social-contract-of-science/

These problems were not contained to the UK, the US too, via NASA was also involved, in with holding information via the Freedom of Information Act:

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f


"Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA
By Chris Horner on 11.24.09 @ 9:46AM

Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal - for nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding "ClimateGate" scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK's East Anglia University.

All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, "cap-and-trade" legislation and the EPA's threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.

CEI sought the following documents, among others, NASA's failure to provide which within thirty days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

- internal discussions about NASA's quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact or wisdom or potential (or real) fallout therefrom or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007);
- internal discussions relating to the emails sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007);
- those relating to the content, importance or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or "blog" RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked "Hockey Stick" that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used "in any way you think would be helpful" to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt's active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by "skeptics" attempting to comment on claims made on the website.

This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.

[Kathianne]

Of all sources, CBS has a very good article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml


...The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law:
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Another, also apparently from Jones:
global warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.")

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:


I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh. ...

...As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

It's not clear how the files were leaked. One theory says that a malicious hacker slipped into East Anglia's network and snatched thousands of documents. Another says that the files had already been assembled in response to a Freedom of Information request and, immediately after it was denied, a whistleblower decided to disclose them. (Lending credence to that theory is the fact that no personal e-mail messages unrelated to climate change appear to have been leaked.)...

[Kathianne]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[MtnBiker]

Hide the Decline!

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/hidethedecline#link-productCategory-112 (http://http://www.cafepress.co.uk/hidethedecline#link-productCategory-112)

:D

[MtnBiker]

So, when nation sit down to sign climate treaties and emerging economy countries are asked to go along, these email and the alleged fraudulant behavior from the likes of Phil Jones and Michael Mann will give them the excuse to not sign any climate treaty.

[Kathianne]

So, when nation sit down to sign climate treaties and emerging economy countries are asked to go along, these email and the alleged fraudulant behavior from the likes of Phil Jones and Michael Mann will give them the excuse to not sign any climate treaty.

Here's to hoping:



http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/competitive-enterprise-institute-sues-nasa-in-wake-of-climategate-scandal/

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml


http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/88954/


NOVEMBER 24, 2009
CLIMATEGATE:

If these were internal Exxon-Mobil e-mails, the trial lawyers would be racing out the door with only one pants-leg filled and every Green press flack would be demanding this lead the evening news and front every newspaper above the fold. If similar e-mails came from the RNC showing racism or homophobia, the New York Times would not demur in the name of privacy, it would call for the GOP to go into federal receivership.

Since there’s federal grant money involved, might there be False Claims Act suits? That’s not my area, but I’d be interested in hearing from someone who knows.

UPDATE: A reader emails:
Please just identify me as a “government attorney” or something like that if you choose to post this.

In response to your question about whether the Climategate scandal could lead to a false claims case, the answer is probably no. A “false claim” generally means a false statement with a negative impact on the public fisc–a padded bill, an understated tax return, etc. Thus, it’s not enough to show that Research Institute X lied and received public money; the Institute’s lies must have caused the receipt of public money. Maybe that can be shown here (e.g., false statements in an accepted grant proposal), but I haven’t seen it yet.

However, if this does turn out to be a good false claims case, the judgment would likely dwarf the amount of grant money involved. Damages are automatically trebled, and defendants are also on the hook for penalties of $5 to $10 thousand for every false claim submitted. So, if Institute X filed semiannual grant applications for ten years and received a total of $5 million in government grants, their false claims liability would be $15.1 to $15.2 million.

If the case is brought by a private whistleblower, he/she would be in line for a qui tam share of up to 30% of the total award under the federal act (it’s 50% under California’s act). Using the hypothetical numbers above, that would mean a little over $4.5 million. Not a bad day’s work.

BTW, thanks for bringing up the False Claims Act! One of my personal pet peeves is that this nifty statute gets far too little attention. It is one of the most powerful fraud-fighting weapons in the government’s arsenal, but it is also one of the least known. Moreover, its power derives largely from its free market nature–it enables private individuals to fight large and politically-connected entities who might be able to quash or defang an official inquiry, and it promises lucrative rewards if they are successful. It creates an army of mercenary Davids, if you will.

Also BTW, there’s lots of info about false claims litigation at the Taxpayers Against Fraud website: http://www.taf.org/

Well, it’s too early to say, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that false information led to grants. And yes, though I’m not an expert on False Claims Act stuff, we wrote about it a bit in The Appearance of Impropriety, and I’m glad to hear that my impression that it’s underused is correct.

Links at site.

[theHawk]

Hmmm, where are all the fear-mongering libs at? This is really damaging stuff for their "global warming" cause. Of course, even without all this evidence of AGW being a complete fraud they've known for quite some time now that its all a sham, which is why they starting calling it "climate change".

Another huge liberal lie exposed.

[April15]

Considering how dumb all of you look I shall post the truth. I know you will say it is a lie but at least I will know you had your chance.
Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST

Email | Print |
Share
| Reprints | Single Page
[-] Text [+]
Featured Broker sponsored link

by Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate solveclimate.com/

(SolveClimate) Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.

"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.

The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.

The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a dismal update of the UN IPCC's 2007 climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.

Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy, known in the media as "Climate Gate."

The scandal began on November 20, when an unknown hacker stole at least 169 megabytes of emails from computers at the prominent Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and put them online for the world to see.

CRU is considered one of the world's leading institutions concerned with human-caused global warming. The leaked emails contain private correspondence on climate science dating back to 1996.

Skeptics of global warming say these messages are filled with evidence of manipulated data from lead authors of the UN's highly influential IPCC reports.

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma, pictured here), a climate skeptic, said he would launch an inquiry into UN climate change research in response.

In an interview with the Washington Times radio show, Inhofe explained the investigation would look into "the way cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies responded in an official statement:

"There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."

Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, blamed skeptics for taking the personal emails out of context.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world. Suddenly, all these are subject to cherry picking," he said.

They've turned "something innocent into something nefarious," Mann added.

The vital point being left out, he said, is that "regardless of how cherry-picked," there is "absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change."

This is a "smear campaign to distract the public," said Mann. "Those opposed to climate action, simply don't have the science on their side," he added.

Professor Davies called the stolen data "the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign" designed "to distract from reasoned debate" about urgent action governments must take to reverse climate change.

According to Somerville, the comments in the emails "have nothing to do with the scientific case" for climate change.

It is "desperate" to launch this right before Copenhagen, Eric Steig, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, said on the call.

Sen. Inhofe, meanwhile, lauded the timing of the incident.

"The interesting part of this is it's happening right before Copenhagen. And, so, the timing couldn't be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their timing was good," he said.

Science Can't Silence Skeptics, Still

The fallout from the scandal is putting some of the world's leading climate scientists on the defensive and underlining the influence of skeptics, even as the case for human-caused warming gets stronger.

According to the Copenhagen Diagnosis report, climate change has rapidly accelerated beyond all previous predictions and humans are to blame.

The findings are a synthesis of 200 peer-reviewed papers that continued to pour in from all over the world after the UN IPCC issued its 2007 analysis. Somerville described the report as an "authoritative assessment" of the newest climate change data.

The results reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Further, sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions.

If 2 degree Celsius warming is to be avoided—the point at which catastrophic damage is predicted to occur—fossil fuel emissions must peak between 2015 and 2020, "and then decline rapidly," the authors warn.

"There's an urgency to this that is not politically or ideological driven," said Somerville. This is "objective scientific reality," he added, and we're "running out of time," to stop the problem.

In a statement released on Tuesday, three of the UK's leading science organizations—the Met Office, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society—issued an unusually strong statement in advance of Copenhagen. They wrote:

The scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is very strong. Without co-ordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilization could be severe.

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

[red states rule]

Watch the liberal meltdown when he can't counter the truth. Many have known global wamring was a hoax - now those telling us how bad global warming is - are exposed as liars

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='FOX News' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=videolandingpage&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=undefined&referralObject=11904096' />

[chloe]

Watch the liberal meltdown when he can't counter the truth. Many have known global wamring was a hoax - now those telling us how bad global warming is - are exposed as liars

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='FOX News' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=videolandingpage&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=undefined&referralObject=11904096' />

:laugh2:

[red states rule]

:laugh2:

It is so typical of how a liberal reacts when the facts are clear and over whelming

They get excited, angry, and try to shout you down

[HogTrash]

Watch the liberal meltdown when he can't counter the truth. Many have known global wamring was a hoax - now those telling us how bad global warming is - are exposed as liars

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='FOX News' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=videolandingpage&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=undefined&referralObject=11904096' />I would have had a hard time not slapping Ed's teeth out of his mouth.

[Kathianne]

Considering how dumb all of you look I shall post the truth. I know you will say it is a lie but at least I will know you had your chance.
Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST

Email | Print |
Share
| Reprints | Single Page
[-] Text [+]
Featured Broker sponsored link

by Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate solveclimate.com/

(SolveClimate) Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.

"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.

The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.

The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a dismal update of the UN IPCC's 2007 climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.

Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy, known in the media as "Climate Gate."

The scandal began on November 20, when an unknown hacker stole at least 169 megabytes of emails from computers at the prominent Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and put them online for the world to see.

CRU is considered one of the world's leading institutions concerned with human-caused global warming. The leaked emails contain private correspondence on climate science dating back to 1996.

Skeptics of global warming say these messages are filled with evidence of manipulated data from lead authors of the UN's highly influential IPCC reports.

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma, pictured here), a climate skeptic, said he would launch an inquiry into UN climate change research in response.

In an interview with the Washington Times radio show, Inhofe explained the investigation would look into "the way cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies responded in an official statement:

"There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."

Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, blamed skeptics for taking the personal emails out of context.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world. Suddenly, all these are subject to cherry picking," he said.

They've turned "something innocent into something nefarious," Mann added.

The vital point being left out, he said, is that "regardless of how cherry-picked," there is "absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change."

This is a "smear campaign to distract the public," said Mann. "Those opposed to climate action, simply don't have the science on their side," he added.

Professor Davies called the stolen data "the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign" designed "to distract from reasoned debate" about urgent action governments must take to reverse climate change.

According to Somerville, the comments in the emails "have nothing to do with the scientific case" for climate change.

It is "desperate" to launch this right before Copenhagen, Eric Steig, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, said on the call.

Sen. Inhofe, meanwhile, lauded the timing of the incident.

"The interesting part of this is it's happening right before Copenhagen. And, so, the timing couldn't be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their timing was good," he said.

Science Can't Silence Skeptics, Still

The fallout from the scandal is putting some of the world's leading climate scientists on the defensive and underlining the influence of skeptics, even as the case for human-caused warming gets stronger.

According to the Copenhagen Diagnosis report, climate change has rapidly accelerated beyond all previous predictions and humans are to blame.

The findings are a synthesis of 200 peer-reviewed papers that continued to pour in from all over the world after the UN IPCC issued its 2007 analysis. Somerville described the report as an "authoritative assessment" of the newest climate change data.

The results reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Further, sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions.

If 2 degree Celsius warming is to be avoided—the point at which catastrophic damage is predicted to occur—fossil fuel emissions must peak between 2015 and 2020, "and then decline rapidly," the authors warn.

"There's an urgency to this that is not politically or ideological driven," said Somerville. This is "objective scientific reality," he added, and we're "running out of time," to stop the problem.

In a statement released on Tuesday, three of the UK's leading science organizations—the Met Office, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society—issued an unusually strong statement in advance of Copenhagen. They wrote:

The scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is very strong. Without co-ordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilization could be severe.

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

April, you need to provide a link and shorten this. Thanks.

[emmett]

The "Global Warming" scam is a bunch of man made shit April. Don't be so shallow as to buy into it. I know you are smarter than that!

[red states rule]

Global Warming Causes Third Coldest October in History!
by JackP on Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:20 am

Help! Help! We're all going to roast to death! Sea levels are rising! Polar bears are drowning! Penguins are using sun block! The sky is falling. . .(Whoops, sorry! Wrong fairy tale!)

The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.

For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.

# Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.

# Florida was the only state to have an above normal temperature average in October. It was the sixth consecutive month that the Florida's temperature was above normal, resulting in the third warmest such period (May-October).

# The three-month period (August-October) was the coolest on record for three states: Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma.

Five other states had top five cool periods: Missouri (2nd), Iowa (3rd) , Arkansas (5th) , Illinois (5th) and South Dakota (5th) Every climate division in Kansas (nine) and Nebraska (eight) recorded a record cool such period.

# For the year-to-date (January - October) period, the contiguous U.S. temperature ranked 43rd warmest. No state had a top or bottom ten temperature value for this period.

http://local.wnep.com/talkback/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4383#p52776

and


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report






The scam is obvious to anyone who is open to the facts. Global warming is the worlds biggest hoax - and it has cost hundreds of billions of dollars to finance

[Kathianne]

More dangerous to the world economy, the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen certain to raise taxes on 'wealthy countries' and give to poor.

[red states rule]

More dangerous to the world economy, the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen certain to raise taxes on 'wealthy countries' and give to poor.

For starters, in Cap and Trade, there is a $3.6 TRILLION gas tax increase that will surely wipe out a chunk of the US economy

Dems want to tax gas to close to $4/gal

Am I wrong or were Dems blaming Bush and his "greedy" oil company buddies for the economic hardships and out of work people when gas was $4/gal about a year ago?







Democrats' hidden gas tax


By Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Sen. Christopher S. Bond

There's something the Democratic lawmakers who are pushing cap-and-trade legislation don't want the public to know. The controversial climate-change legislation winding its way through Congress will impose a massive new national gas tax on the American people. We discovered this by analyzing what the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would do to gas prices and what Americans spend on gasoline, diesel and jet fuels. We found that cap-and-trade legislation will levy a $3.6 trillion gas-tax increase that will impact every American and important segments of our economy.

The goal of this climate-change legislation is actually to increase the price of traditional forms of carbon-based energy such as coal, gas and oil so that consumers will respond by using less of it. Some lawmakers call this "setting the price on carbon." Economists refer to this kind of policy as a price signal. But the bottom line is that the price of energy will go up. Ultimately, all Americans will pay directly or indirectly for the higher fuel prices the cap-and-trade legislation will cause.

Americans travel more than 200 million vehicle miles each month, and annually we spend nearly $1.2 trillion on gasoline and oil. The average household spends 5 percent of its annual budget on fuel. For many, gasoline is a mandatory expense. And this legislation disproportionately hits middle and lower income households that tend to have longer commutes to work and must drive in order to work. These families will be hit especially hard by the projected $1 per gallon increase for the additional gas tax the cap-and-trade legislation will bring.

Further, Americans will be double-hit by the gas tax when it raises the costs of goods and services such as groceries and utilities they must continue to purchase. Energy costs are among businesses' top operational expenses already. While companies face a variety of energy expenses, ranging from heating and cooling their work space to powering equipment and lighting, operating their vehicles is the most costly. Every company, from the small-town local florist to a package delivery service with nationwide operations, will be hard hit. In order for these businesses to withstand the heavier tax burden and to remain profitable, they will be forced to pass these energy cost increases along to consumers through higher prices.

Several industries will be penalized more severely by the gas tax than others. Our nation's farmers and ranchers, who are tasked with producing high-quality goods for much of the world, will be harmed by Waxman-Markey's $2 trillion tax on gasoline and $1.3 trillion tax on diesel fuel. Gas- and diesel-powered equipment, ranging from tractors to combines to fertilizing systems, are the operational foundation of American farms and ranches. Under the climate-change legislation, they will face $550 million in higher fuel costs in 2020 and $1.65 billion in 2050.

The American trucking industry will be another target of the cap-and-trade gas tax. In 2007, 1.7 million drivers of tractor-trailers logged 145 billion vehicle miles, consuming 28.5 billion gallons of fuel. That equates to $34,560 in annual fuel costs per driver. That number will skyrocket under Waxman-Markey. And when you consider that the average self-employed truck driver earns $43,545 in net revenue, the gas tax is essentially a new tax on the middle class. Of course, truckers will not suffer these higher gas taxes alone. Their costs are shared by all consumers. At some point, nearly everything bought or sold must be shipped from a manufacturer to a retailer. Thus, the sweeping effects of the gas tax will actually harm our entire economy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/21/democrats-hidden-gas-tax/?feat=home_commentary

[emmett]

More dangerous to the world economy, the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen certain to raise taxes on 'wealthy countries' and give to poor.

Absolutely!

[Little-Acorn]

As I've pointed out before, the leftists have had FORTY YEARS since the first Earth Day to come up with studies proving a link between man's activities and global (warming, coolinng, whatever the flavor of the month is).

And in that forty years, they have come up with NOTHING. No link, no proof, nada. Just things like, "Man is burning more fossil fuels. The climate is gettting (cooler, warmer, whichever). Therefore man's burning of fossil fuels is causing this climate change."

This is also known as the "Breakfast causes lunch" theory.

That plus a lot of "scientists" who merely point to this fallacy, and more "scientists" who ponit to those "scientists'" reports, ad infinitum.

Forty years, and not a single study that actually proves anything about man's impact on climate change.

And now, with the revelations of censorship, fudged data, and intimidation by leftist fanatics in the global-whatever community, we're starting to see why. There IS no proof, because no link exists: Man's activity HASN'T had any effect on the climate. And all the leftists have been able to do is conceal it, fake it, censor those who try to point out the truth.

[HogTrash]

The "Global Warming" scam is a bunch of man made shit April. Don't be so shallow as to buy into it. I know you are smarter than that!I don't know about that emmett...The gullible liberals have bought into this lie completely.

They have taken the Man Caused Global Warming bait and swallowed it hook line and sinker.

[HogTrash]

More dangerous to the world economy, the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen certain to raise taxes on 'wealthy countries' and give to poor.Has the decision already been made by US law-makers to comply?

Or will it have to be decided by Congress after the Copenhagen meeting?

[Kathianne]

Has the decision already been made by US law-makers to comply?

Or will it have to be decided by Congress after the Copenhagen meeting?

Obama is going with 'his intentions', it's been stalled in Senate since passed by House. I don't think it's going anywhere.

[HogTrash]

Obama is going with 'his intentions', it's been stalled in Senate since passed by House. I don't think it's going anywhere.Some energetic board member should research and post the name of every member of congress who voted in favor of this scam because every pole I have seen indicates that most Americans are aware this is a fraud.

[Kathianne]

Some energetic board member should research and post the name of every member of congress who voted in favor of this scam because every pole I have seen indicates that most Americans are aware this is a fraud.

If you are intimating that most Americans recognize the problems. :beer:

[April15]

LONDON, England (CNN) -- New data released Thursday suggests that the Arctic Ocean will be "largely ice free" during summer within a decade.
As the Arctic sea ice melts, polar bears face extinction.

As the Arctic sea ice melts, polar bears face extinction.
Click to view previous image
1 of 2
Click to view next image
more photos »

The report, complied by the UK-based Catlin Arctic Survey and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), is the latest research into ice thickness in the Arctic.

Researchers predict that within 20 years ice cover will be completely gone during the warmer months.

The expedition, which was completed in May, was led by UK explorer Pen Hadow.

He and his team collected data by manually drilling into the ice and noting its thickness along a 450-kilometer route across the northern part of the Beaufort Sea.

They found that the area surveyed was comprised almost exclusively of first year ice.

Scientists think this is significant because traditionally the region has been made up of much older, thicker ice.

"Discovering this area of younger ice provides another body of information that supports the rapidly emerging scientific consensus that it's going to be nearer 10 years from now that we will see roughly 80-85 percent free waters in the Arctic Ocean," Hadow told CNN.

[MtnBiker]

Climate models are very biased, hopelessly flawed and woefully inadequate.