| Climate Change and the Time of Reckoning. Yes of course we are arguing about Climate Change but then we argue about everything. On this one we had better know what the consequences are if the wrong guy wins. This might be the most important page on this website or any other. Please take the time to read both sides below, take a look out of your window and check out the weather and the plants and other creatures and then look into the eyes of your children and decide what we should be doing. Colin Andrews November 28, 2009 UPDATE: August 11, 2010: This is one sign of the price we pay for the political crime carried out on US at The World Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this year (Comment by Colin Andrews). ====================================== |
"The latest science is telling us we are in more trouble than we thought," said Janos
Pasztor, climate adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, to AP News.
It is suspected that since the original agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan, in
December 1997, is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has grown 6.5%.
Officials will meet in Copenhagen next month to seek create a new pact, which
President Barack Obama says "has immediate operational effect ... an important step
forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution."
From 1997 to 2008, world carbon dioxide has leapt up 31%. Emissions from China
have doubled since 1997.
"Back in 1997, the impacts (of climate change) were underestimated; the rate of
change has been faster," noted Virginia Burkett, leading scientist for global change
research at the U.S. Geological Survey. This scares former Vice President Al Gore,
who helped create a last-minute pact in Kyoto.
"By far the most serious differences that we've had is an acceleration of the crisis
itself," Gore said to The Associated Press.
Since 1997, the issue of global warming has spread to all facets of business.
"We've come from a time in 1997 where this was some abstract problem working its
way around scientific circles to now when the problem is in everyone's face," said
Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate scientist.
The issue that has scientists most afraid deals with the Arctic and melting summer
sea ice. Back in 1997 "nobody in their wildest expectations," would have
contemplated a loss of summer sea ice, Weaver said.
Globally, glaciers are disintegrating three times rapider than in the 1970s and the
normal glacier has melted 25 feet since 1997, mentioned Michael Zemp, scientist at
World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich.
"Glaciers are a good climate indicator," Zemp said. "What we see is an accelerated
loss of ice."
Oceans are also growing more acidic due to carbon dioxide in the air that is being
drawn into the water. Acidic water is hazardous to coral, oysters and plankton and will
harm the ocean food chain, biologists note.
"The message on the science is that we know a lot more than we did in 1997 and it's
all negative," said Eileen Claussen, head of the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change. "Things are much worse than the models predicted."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1789881/staggering_global_warming_statistics_emerge_as_un_meeting_looms/
Source: RedOrbit Staff & Wire Reports
Pasztor, climate adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, to AP News.
It is suspected that since the original agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan, in
December 1997, is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has grown 6.5%.
Officials will meet in Copenhagen next month to seek create a new pact, which
President Barack Obama says "has immediate operational effect ... an important step
forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution."
From 1997 to 2008, world carbon dioxide has leapt up 31%. Emissions from China
have doubled since 1997.
"Back in 1997, the impacts (of climate change) were underestimated; the rate of
change has been faster," noted Virginia Burkett, leading scientist for global change
research at the U.S. Geological Survey. This scares former Vice President Al Gore,
who helped create a last-minute pact in Kyoto.
"By far the most serious differences that we've had is an acceleration of the crisis
itself," Gore said to The Associated Press.
Since 1997, the issue of global warming has spread to all facets of business.
"We've come from a time in 1997 where this was some abstract problem working its
way around scientific circles to now when the problem is in everyone's face," said
Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate scientist.
The issue that has scientists most afraid deals with the Arctic and melting summer
sea ice. Back in 1997 "nobody in their wildest expectations," would have
contemplated a loss of summer sea ice, Weaver said.
Globally, glaciers are disintegrating three times rapider than in the 1970s and the
normal glacier has melted 25 feet since 1997, mentioned Michael Zemp, scientist at
World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich.
"Glaciers are a good climate indicator," Zemp said. "What we see is an accelerated
loss of ice."
Oceans are also growing more acidic due to carbon dioxide in the air that is being
drawn into the water. Acidic water is hazardous to coral, oysters and plankton and will
harm the ocean food chain, biologists note.
"The message on the science is that we know a lot more than we did in 1997 and it's
all negative," said Eileen Claussen, head of the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change. "Things are much worse than the models predicted."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1789881/staggering_global_warming_statistics_emerge_as_un_meeting_looms/
Source: RedOrbit Staff & Wire Reports
| 1. |
| 2. |
| 3. |
| 4. |
| 5. |
| 6. |
CLIMATE SCIENCE STATEMENT FROM THE BRITISH MET
OFFICE, N.E.R.C. AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY
Natural Environment Research Council
November 24, 2009
The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by
world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in
Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change now and in
the future. Climate scientists from the UK and
across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate
change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As three of the UK's leading scientific organisations involving most of the UK
scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of
scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we
reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to
the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-
making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate
change up to Copenhagen and beyond.
The 2007 Assessment Report of the UN's climate change panel (the IPCC)
--
made up of the world's foremost climate scientists - provided unequivocal evidence
for a warming climate, and a high degree of certainty that human activities are largely
responsible for global warming since the middle of the 20th century. However, the
IPCC process is based only on information already published and even since the last
Assessment Report the scientific evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially
irreversible climate change has strengthened significantly:
* Global carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise, and methane concentrations
have started to increase again after a decade of near stability;
* The decade 2000-2009 has been warmer, on average, than any other decade in
the previous 150 years;
* Observed changes in precipitation (decreases in the subtropics and increases in
high latitudes) have been at the upper limit of model projections;
* Arctic summer sea ice cover declined suddenly in 2007 and 2008, prompting the
realisation that this environment may be far more vulnerable to change than
previously thought;
* There is increasing evidence of continued and accelerating sea-level rises around
the world.
We expect some of the most significant impacts of climate change to occur when
natural variability is exacerbated by long-term global warming, so that even small
changes in global temperatures can produce damaging local and regional effects.
Year on year the evidence is growing that damaging
Climate and weather events -- potentially intensified by global warming – are already
happening and beginning to affect society and ecosystems. This includes:
* In the UK, heavier daily rainfall leading to local flooding such as in the summer of
2007;
* Increased risk of summer heat waves such as the summers of 2003 across the UK
and Europe;
* Around the world, increasing incidence of extreme weather events with
unprecedented levels of damage to society and infrastructure. This year's unusually
destructive typhoon season in South East Asia, while not easy to attribute directly to
climate change, illustrates the vulnerabilities to such events;
* Sea level rises leading to dangerous exposure of populations in, for example,
Bangladesh, the Maldives and other island states;
* Persistent droughts, leading to pressures on water and food resources, and the
increasing incidence of forest fires in regions where future projections indicate long
term reductions in rainfall, such as South West Australia and the Mediterranean.
These emerging signals are consistent with what we expect from our projections,
giving us confidence in the science and models that underpin them. In the absence of
action to mitigate climate change, we can expect much larger changes in the coming
decades than have been seen so far.
Some countries and regions are already vulnerable to climate variability and change,
but in the coming decades all countries will be affected, regardless of their affluence
or individual emissions. Climate change will have
Major consequences for food production, water availability, ecosystems and human
health, migration pressures, and regional instability. In the UK, we will be affected
both directly and indirectly, through the effects of climate
Change on, for example, global markets (notably in food), health, extent of flooding,
and sea levels.
The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to long- term changes
in the climate system that will persist for millennia. Our growing understanding of the
balance of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans and
terrestrial systems tells us that the greater the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, the greater the risk of long-term damage to Earth's life support systems.
Known or probable damage includes ocean
acidification, loss of rain forests, degradation of ecosystems, and desertification.
These effects will lead to loss of biodiversity and reduced agricultural productivity.
Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases can substantially limit the extent and
severity of long-term climate change.
Summary
The 2007 IPCC Assessment, the most comprehensive and respected analysis of
climate change to date, states clearly that without substantial global reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions we can likely expect a world of
increasing droughts, floods and species loss, of rising seas and displaced human
populations. However even since the 2007 IPCC Assessment the evidence for
dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened.
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 civilisation could be severe.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2009/29-climate.asp
OFFICE, N.E.R.C. AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY
Natural Environment Research Council
November 24, 2009
The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by
world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in
Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change now and in
the future. Climate scientists from the UK and
across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate
change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As three of the UK's leading scientific organisations involving most of the UK
scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of
scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we
reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to
the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-
making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate
change up to Copenhagen and beyond.
The 2007 Assessment Report of the UN's climate change panel (the IPCC)
--
made up of the world's foremost climate scientists - provided unequivocal evidence
for a warming climate, and a high degree of certainty that human activities are largely
responsible for global warming since the middle of the 20th century. However, the
IPCC process is based only on information already published and even since the last
Assessment Report the scientific evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially
irreversible climate change has strengthened significantly:
* Global carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise, and methane concentrations
have started to increase again after a decade of near stability;
* The decade 2000-2009 has been warmer, on average, than any other decade in
the previous 150 years;
* Observed changes in precipitation (decreases in the subtropics and increases in
high latitudes) have been at the upper limit of model projections;
* Arctic summer sea ice cover declined suddenly in 2007 and 2008, prompting the
realisation that this environment may be far more vulnerable to change than
previously thought;
* There is increasing evidence of continued and accelerating sea-level rises around
the world.
We expect some of the most significant impacts of climate change to occur when
natural variability is exacerbated by long-term global warming, so that even small
changes in global temperatures can produce damaging local and regional effects.
Year on year the evidence is growing that damaging
Climate and weather events -- potentially intensified by global warming – are already
happening and beginning to affect society and ecosystems. This includes:
* In the UK, heavier daily rainfall leading to local flooding such as in the summer of
2007;
* Increased risk of summer heat waves such as the summers of 2003 across the UK
and Europe;
* Around the world, increasing incidence of extreme weather events with
unprecedented levels of damage to society and infrastructure. This year's unusually
destructive typhoon season in South East Asia, while not easy to attribute directly to
climate change, illustrates the vulnerabilities to such events;
* Sea level rises leading to dangerous exposure of populations in, for example,
Bangladesh, the Maldives and other island states;
* Persistent droughts, leading to pressures on water and food resources, and the
increasing incidence of forest fires in regions where future projections indicate long
term reductions in rainfall, such as South West Australia and the Mediterranean.
These emerging signals are consistent with what we expect from our projections,
giving us confidence in the science and models that underpin them. In the absence of
action to mitigate climate change, we can expect much larger changes in the coming
decades than have been seen so far.
Some countries and regions are already vulnerable to climate variability and change,
but in the coming decades all countries will be affected, regardless of their affluence
or individual emissions. Climate change will have
Major consequences for food production, water availability, ecosystems and human
health, migration pressures, and regional instability. In the UK, we will be affected
both directly and indirectly, through the effects of climate
Change on, for example, global markets (notably in food), health, extent of flooding,
and sea levels.
The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to long- term changes
in the climate system that will persist for millennia. Our growing understanding of the
balance of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans and
terrestrial systems tells us that the greater the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, the greater the risk of long-term damage to Earth's life support systems.
Known or probable damage includes ocean
acidification, loss of rain forests, degradation of ecosystems, and desertification.
These effects will lead to loss of biodiversity and reduced agricultural productivity.
Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases can substantially limit the extent and
severity of long-term climate change.
Summary
The 2007 IPCC Assessment, the most comprehensive and respected analysis of
climate change to date, states clearly that without substantial global reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions we can likely expect a world of
increasing droughts, floods and species loss, of rising seas and displaced human
populations. However even since the 2007 IPCC Assessment the evidence for
dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened.
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 civilisation could be severe.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2009/29-climate.asp
Hot times As a crucial climate change conference nears, more
evidence of a warming globe
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Nov. 22, 2009, 9:29PM
As world governments prepare for a pivotal conference in Copenhagen next month to
map future strategy to contain global warming, and the U.S. Congress debates
legislation to reduce carbon emissions, evidence continues to accumulate that the
threat is accelerating.
A new study by a team of British scientists indicates that man-made carbon emissions
continue to increase despite the global recession. While emissions in the United
States fell by 3 percent last year, they jumped 2 percent worldwide, most of the
increase coming from China. The U.S. and China are the world's largest carbon
emitters.
Equally ominous, the planet's oceans are steadily losing capacity to absorb the
greenhouse gases that trap heat and fuel global warming.
The Global Carbon Project study concludes that unless emissions are substantially
reduced, the result would be a rise in average global temperature by nearly 10
degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That is on par with previous worst-case
scenarios outlined by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Scientists have estimated that temperature spikes above 2 degrees could have
disastrous consequences, including large rises in sea level, droughts and stronger
storms.
One of the authors of the study, Professor Corinne Le Quere of the University of East
Anglia, says the conclusions raise the stakes for delegates to the Copenhagen
gathering, who will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto Accords that committed
signatory governments to emission reduction goals. The United States did not sign on
to that agreement.
In another indication that global warming is accelerating, record minimum sea ice in
the Arctic was reported last month. The Catlin Arctic Survey estimates that based on
the dwindling expanse and thickness of ice coverage, the Arctic Ocean will become
ice free in summer within two decades.
The latest developments should raise the political heat in Washington to produce
workable legislation to reduce carbon emissions while propelling the U.S. into a
leadership role in crafting an international agreement to limit climate change.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6734481.html
evidence of a warming globe
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Nov. 22, 2009, 9:29PM
As world governments prepare for a pivotal conference in Copenhagen next month to
map future strategy to contain global warming, and the U.S. Congress debates
legislation to reduce carbon emissions, evidence continues to accumulate that the
threat is accelerating.
A new study by a team of British scientists indicates that man-made carbon emissions
continue to increase despite the global recession. While emissions in the United
States fell by 3 percent last year, they jumped 2 percent worldwide, most of the
increase coming from China. The U.S. and China are the world's largest carbon
emitters.
Equally ominous, the planet's oceans are steadily losing capacity to absorb the
greenhouse gases that trap heat and fuel global warming.
The Global Carbon Project study concludes that unless emissions are substantially
reduced, the result would be a rise in average global temperature by nearly 10
degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That is on par with previous worst-case
scenarios outlined by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Scientists have estimated that temperature spikes above 2 degrees could have
disastrous consequences, including large rises in sea level, droughts and stronger
storms.
One of the authors of the study, Professor Corinne Le Quere of the University of East
Anglia, says the conclusions raise the stakes for delegates to the Copenhagen
gathering, who will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto Accords that committed
signatory governments to emission reduction goals. The United States did not sign on
to that agreement.
In another indication that global warming is accelerating, record minimum sea ice in
the Arctic was reported last month. The Catlin Arctic Survey estimates that based on
the dwindling expanse and thickness of ice coverage, the Arctic Ocean will become
ice free in summer within two decades.
The latest developments should raise the political heat in Washington to produce
workable legislation to reduce carbon emissions while propelling the U.S. into a
leadership role in crafting an international agreement to limit climate change.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6734481.html
He said they were the remains of a massive ice floe which split from the Antarctic as
sea and air temperatures rise due to global warming.
"All of these have come from a larger one that was probably 30 square kilometres
(11.6 square miles) in size when it left Antarctica," Young told AFP.
"It's done a long circuit around Antarctica and now the bigger parts of it are breaking
up and producing smaller ones."
He said large numbers of icebergs had not floated this close to New Zealand since
2006, when a number came within 25 kilometres of the coastline -- the first such
sighting since 1931.
"They're following the same tracks now up towards New Zealand. Whether they make
it up to the South Island or not is difficult to tell," Young said.
New Zealand has already issued coastal navigation warnings for the area in the
Southern Ocean where the icebergs have been seen.
"It's really just a general warning for shipping in that area to be on the alert for
icebergs," said Maritime New Zealand spokesman Ross Henderson.
The icebergs are smaller remnants of the giant chunks seen off Australia's Macquarie
Island this month, including one estimated at two kilometres (1.2 miles) and another
twice the size of Beijing's "Bird's Nest" Olympic Stadium.
Young earlier told AFP he expected to see more icebergs in the area if the Earth's
temperature continues to increase.
"If the current trends in global warming were to continue I would anticipate seeing
more icebergs and the large ice shelves breaking up," he said.
When icebergs last neared New Zealand in 2006, a sheep was helicoptered out to be
shorn on one of the floes in a publicity stunt by the country's wool industry.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123/ts_afp/australianzealandantarcticaclimateiceberg
Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate as Global Warming
Fraud Implodes
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, November 23, 2009
Calls for an independent inquiry into what is being dubbed “Climategate” are growing
as the foundation for man-made global warming implodes following the release of
emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the
decline” in global temperatures.
Former British chancellor Lord Lawson was the latest to demand an impartial
investigation be launched into the scandal, which arrives just weeks before the UN
climate conference in Copenhagen. “They should set up a public inquiry under
someone who is totally respected and get to the truth,” he told the BBC Radio Four
Today programme.
The emails were leaked at the end of last week after hackers penetrated the servers
of the Climatic Research Unit, which is based at the University of East Anglia, in
eastern England. The CRU is described as one of the leading climate research bodies
in the world.
The hacked documents and communications reveal how top scientists conspired to
falsify data in the face of declining global temperatures in order to prop up the
premise that man-made factors are driving climate change. Others illustrate how they
embarked on a venomous and coordinated campaign to ostracize climate skeptics and
use their influence to keep dissenting reports from appearing in peer-reviewed
journals, as well as using cronyism to avoid compliance with Freedom of Information
Act requests.
As expected, the establishment media has gone into whitewash overdrive,
characterizing the emails as evidence of “rancor” amongst the climate community and
focusing on some of the lesser emails while ignoring the true significance of what has
been revealed.
Organizations with close ties to the CRU have engaged in psychological terrorism by
fearmongering about the planet with doomsday scenarios, illustrating their argument
with outlandish propaganda animation videos which show pets drowning and others
that show computer-generated polar bears (Note 01) crashing to earth in a throwback
to 9/11 victims jumping from the towers, when in reality polar bear population figures
are thriving.
“One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre’s director, in 1999,
reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the
real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
for Keith’s to hide the decline,” reports the London Telegraph.
The author admitted to the Associated Press that the e mail was genuine.
In another example, researchers discuss data that is “artificially adjusted to look closer
to the real temperatures”. Apparently, the “real temperatures” are whatever global
warming cheerleaders want them to be.
As Anthony Watts writes, attempts to claim e mails are “out of context,” as the defense
has been from CRU, cannot apply in this instance.
You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of
context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can
document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it
later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not
allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer
months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these
will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some
post processing routine.
Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word
of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.
Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially
adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.
Another email discusses changing temperature data to fix “blips” in studies so as to
make them conform with expectations, which of course is the cardinal sin of scientific
research.
“Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of
embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data,
private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more” was revealed in the
61 megabites of confidential files released on the Internet for anyone to read, writes
Andrew Bolt.
Another email appears to celebrate the death of climate change skeptic John L Daly,
with the words, “In an odd way this is cheering news.”
In another communication, the author expresses his fantasy to “beat the crap out of”
climate change skeptics.
In another exchange, researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of
the Geophysical Research Letters journal, by means of an academic witch hunt,
because of his sympathies with climate change skeptics.
“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find
documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him
ousted.”
Other emails express doubt about whether the world is really heating up and infer that
data needs to be reinterpreted.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement
on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
Our observing system is inadequate.”
Scientists discuss trying to disguise historical data that contradicts the man-made
climate change thesis, such as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), which must be
‘contained’ according to one email.
Suppression of evidence is also discussed, with scientists resolving to delete
embarrassing emails.
“And, perhaps most reprehensibly,” writes James Delingpole, a long series of
communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer
review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who
disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of
authority.”
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-
reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So
what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the
climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We
would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable
colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they
rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number
of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few
papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch
about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice!”
Scientists also “discussed ways of dodging Freedom of Information Act requests to
release temperature data,” reports the Daily Mail.
The emails show that scientists relied on cronyism and cosying up to FOIA officials to
prevent them from being forced to release data.
“When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the
requests,’ the email says. “It took a couple of half-hour sessions to convince them
otherwise.”
“Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at
UEA became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the chief
librarian – who deals with appeals.”
It is important to stress that this compendium merely scratches the surface of the
monumental levels of fraud that have been exposed as a result of the hacked emails.
People will look back on this moment as the beginning of the end for global warming
alarmism and the agenda to implement draconian measures of regulation and control
along with the levy of a global carbon tax.
Many more revelations will be forthcoming as a result of this leak, and the desperate
effort on behalf of the establishment to whitewash the whole issue will only end up
making the damage worse.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/call-for-independent-inquiry-into-climategate-as-global-
warming-fraud-implodes.html
Fraud Implodes
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, November 23, 2009
Calls for an independent inquiry into what is being dubbed “Climategate” are growing
as the foundation for man-made global warming implodes following the release of
emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the
decline” in global temperatures.
Former British chancellor Lord Lawson was the latest to demand an impartial
investigation be launched into the scandal, which arrives just weeks before the UN
climate conference in Copenhagen. “They should set up a public inquiry under
someone who is totally respected and get to the truth,” he told the BBC Radio Four
Today programme.
The emails were leaked at the end of last week after hackers penetrated the servers
of the Climatic Research Unit, which is based at the University of East Anglia, in
eastern England. The CRU is described as one of the leading climate research bodies
in the world.
The hacked documents and communications reveal how top scientists conspired to
falsify data in the face of declining global temperatures in order to prop up the
premise that man-made factors are driving climate change. Others illustrate how they
embarked on a venomous and coordinated campaign to ostracize climate skeptics and
use their influence to keep dissenting reports from appearing in peer-reviewed
journals, as well as using cronyism to avoid compliance with Freedom of Information
Act requests.
As expected, the establishment media has gone into whitewash overdrive,
characterizing the emails as evidence of “rancor” amongst the climate community and
focusing on some of the lesser emails while ignoring the true significance of what has
been revealed.
Organizations with close ties to the CRU have engaged in psychological terrorism by
fearmongering about the planet with doomsday scenarios, illustrating their argument
with outlandish propaganda animation videos which show pets drowning and others
that show computer-generated polar bears (Note 01) crashing to earth in a throwback
to 9/11 victims jumping from the towers, when in reality polar bear population figures
are thriving.
“One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre’s director, in 1999,
reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the
real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
for Keith’s to hide the decline,” reports the London Telegraph.
The author admitted to the Associated Press that the e mail was genuine.
In another example, researchers discuss data that is “artificially adjusted to look closer
to the real temperatures”. Apparently, the “real temperatures” are whatever global
warming cheerleaders want them to be.
As Anthony Watts writes, attempts to claim e mails are “out of context,” as the defense
has been from CRU, cannot apply in this instance.
You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of
context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can
document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it
later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not
allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer
months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these
will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some
post processing routine.
Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word
of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.
Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially
adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.
Another email discusses changing temperature data to fix “blips” in studies so as to
make them conform with expectations, which of course is the cardinal sin of scientific
research.
“Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of
embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data,
private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more” was revealed in the
61 megabites of confidential files released on the Internet for anyone to read, writes
Andrew Bolt.
Another email appears to celebrate the death of climate change skeptic John L Daly,
with the words, “In an odd way this is cheering news.”
In another communication, the author expresses his fantasy to “beat the crap out of”
climate change skeptics.
In another exchange, researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of
the Geophysical Research Letters journal, by means of an academic witch hunt,
because of his sympathies with climate change skeptics.
“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find
documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him
ousted.”
Other emails express doubt about whether the world is really heating up and infer that
data needs to be reinterpreted.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement
on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
Our observing system is inadequate.”
Scientists discuss trying to disguise historical data that contradicts the man-made
climate change thesis, such as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), which must be
‘contained’ according to one email.
Suppression of evidence is also discussed, with scientists resolving to delete
embarrassing emails.
“And, perhaps most reprehensibly,” writes James Delingpole, a long series of
communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer
review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who
disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of
authority.”
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-
reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So
what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the
climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We
would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable
colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they
rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number
of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few
papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch
about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice!”
Scientists also “discussed ways of dodging Freedom of Information Act requests to
release temperature data,” reports the Daily Mail.
The emails show that scientists relied on cronyism and cosying up to FOIA officials to
prevent them from being forced to release data.
“When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the
requests,’ the email says. “It took a couple of half-hour sessions to convince them
otherwise.”
“Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at
UEA became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the chief
librarian – who deals with appeals.”
It is important to stress that this compendium merely scratches the surface of the
monumental levels of fraud that have been exposed as a result of the hacked emails.
People will look back on this moment as the beginning of the end for global warming
alarmism and the agenda to implement draconian measures of regulation and control
along with the levy of a global carbon tax.
Many more revelations will be forthcoming as a result of this leak, and the desperate
effort on behalf of the establishment to whitewash the whole issue will only end up
making the damage worse.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/call-for-independent-inquiry-into-climategate-as-global-
warming-fraud-implodes.html
Climate change skeptics use hacked emails as propaganda
November 22, 5:35 PM
Portland Progressive ExaminerMichael Stone
Climate change skeptics are using hacked emails as propaganda in their campaign to
suppress and deny knowledge of anthropogenic climate change. The emails were
stolen from a climate research institute in Great Britain. The utilization of hacked
emails is just the latest ploy of right wing nuts and other outliers who refuse the reality
of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change.
The emails were hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia. It is one of the United Kingdom’s leading climate research centers and has
been a strong proponent of the position that global warming is real and has human
causes.
More than 169 megabytes worth of global-warming emails and related files were
hacked. Climate change deniers are at this very moment pouring through the data,
pulling quotes and numbers out of context and cherry picking facts and statements in
order to make their case against climate change, a case that stands not on science,
but on propaganda and denial.
Most U.S. politicians, most citizens, do not question whether humans are changing the
world's climate. It is simply accepted as a truth, a truth that is at once both intuitive and
unavoidable given the activity of humanity in the last 500 years.
It is sad, and a curious fact of human nature, that a minority of humans, given the
opportunity, wind up wearing the proverbial "tin foil hat", and deny what science gives
as fact. Public debate will persist. The theft of the emails will simply fuel the delusions
and confusions, and perhaps even postpone action that is required now in order to
minimize the damage we are doing to our planet.
November 22, 5:35 PM
Portland Progressive ExaminerMichael Stone
Climate change skeptics are using hacked emails as propaganda in their campaign to
suppress and deny knowledge of anthropogenic climate change. The emails were
stolen from a climate research institute in Great Britain. The utilization of hacked
emails is just the latest ploy of right wing nuts and other outliers who refuse the reality
of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change.
The emails were hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia. It is one of the United Kingdom’s leading climate research centers and has
been a strong proponent of the position that global warming is real and has human
causes.
More than 169 megabytes worth of global-warming emails and related files were
hacked. Climate change deniers are at this very moment pouring through the data,
pulling quotes and numbers out of context and cherry picking facts and statements in
order to make their case against climate change, a case that stands not on science,
but on propaganda and denial.
Most U.S. politicians, most citizens, do not question whether humans are changing the
world's climate. It is simply accepted as a truth, a truth that is at once both intuitive and
unavoidable given the activity of humanity in the last 500 years.
It is sad, and a curious fact of human nature, that a minority of humans, given the
opportunity, wind up wearing the proverbial "tin foil hat", and deny what science gives
as fact. Public debate will persist. The theft of the emails will simply fuel the delusions
and confusions, and perhaps even postpone action that is required now in order to
minimize the damage we are doing to our planet.
Climate-gate Has Begun; It Only Gets Worse From Here.
Mitch Battros
November 24, 2009.
Earth Changes Media
This email exchange shows how the global warming regime has with full
acknowledgement and intent, simply "made up" data to support their scam. As the title
says --- this is only the beginning. I expect a congressional investigation will be called,
and I would think criminal charges may be filed.
This scam has all the markings of Watergate, Iran/Contra, 9-11=Terrorists=Iraq, 2000
Election, 2004 Election, and Wall Streets repackaged derivatives and swaps. It was all
a lie then, and it is all a lie now -------
From: Keith Briffa k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
To: Malcolm Hughes mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
Subject: Re: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:28:22 +0100
Cc: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk
I understood that the chronology was published and so thought to compare our RCS
version with it if we could produce it in time. We are being accused of not using that
chronology in the Science paper- so then asked Anders for it. I am having to start
thinking about the Yamal crap (Yamal Peninsula, tree rings and subfossil wood which
shows the falsehoods of global warming).
Sorry if you thought I was doing anything without your knowledge - TO BE HONEST
ALSO - I actually was not really aware that the data you were producing and that used
by Sidorova were one and the same. I assume that we are allowed to use the
chronology as published - are we?
Keith: At 16:50 02/10/2009, you wrote:
Dear Keith - I'm really reticent to raise something else, but must. What's going on?
21st September I got an email from Tom (Melvin) that contained the following para,
among other more general discussion: "Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit
for cherry picking and not using your long Indigirka River data set. Not used because
we did not have the data. Please, could we have the data? We will make proper
acknowledgement/co-authorship if we use the data."
I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom - please find the Esper article in
question attached. The so-called Indigirka River data set is not yet available because it
has not been published. I am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and
was indeed in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on specifically
this."
So far, no direct response to this email from Tom (Melvin). This morning I get an email
from Anders Moberg, telling me that you had asked him for the "Indigirka data". I've
waited a couple of hours before writing this email so as to try to be constructive. To be
sure that you understand what that dataset is and is not, please read the attached
2006 Moberg corrigendum. Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of
having been discussed in the Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large proportion
of the raw data are not yet in the public domain, and so you would not be able to
critically evaluate the chronology as a possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said
- adequate metadata not available, please see Moberg corrigendum?
By the way, a 600-year reconstruction is available (Hughes et al 1999, also attached),
and all those raw data are at the ITRDB. As you know, it is my intention to be friendly,
cooperative and open, but I'm determined to get some scientific value from all the
years of work I've invested in the Yakutia work, and in cooperation with Russia in
general. Releasing these data now would be too much.
Cheers, Malcolm --
Malcolm K Hughes Regents' Professor Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research The
University of Arizona 105 W Stadium Tucson, AZ 85721 USA tel: +1-520-621-6470
fax: +1-520-621-8229 mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909Fax:
+44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa
Malcolm K Hughes: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8
Keith Trenberth: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Tom Melvin: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/
_________________________
This exchange of emails (which includes James Hansen) shows the global warming
regime has actually applied pressure, manipulation, and corruption against news
agencies to keep in lock-step with their agenda. Yes, evidenced from the emails below
show the BBC has fallen prey to political pressure involved in propagating a scam.
From: Kevin Trenberth trenbert@ucar.edu To: Michael Mann mann@meteo.psu.edu
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600 Cc:
Stephen H Schneider shs@stanford.edu, Myles Allen allen@atm.ox.ac.uk, peter stott
peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk, "Philip D. Jones" p.jones@uea.ac.uk, Benjamin Santer
santer1@llnl.gov, Tom Wigley wigley@ucar.edu, Thomas R Karl
Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov, Gavin Schmidt gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, James Hansen
jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, Michael Oppenheimer omichael@Princeton.EDU
Hi all,
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that
here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days
on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the
normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low
was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is
January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday
and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An
imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,1,19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001.
[1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement
on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the
PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). People like CPC (Climate Prediction Center) are
tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what
they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO
is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in
September for first time since Sept 2007.
Kevin (Trenberth)
____________________
Michael Mann wrote: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on
BBC. Its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he
does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the
Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might
be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black
what's up here? Mike (Mann)
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all.
Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling
errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and
as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another
dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger
maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years??
Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9
of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of
the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to
straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun"
Cheers, Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor,
Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment -
Mailing address: Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 473 Via
Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
______________________
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" ndrao@stanford.edu
To: "Stephen H Schneider" shs@stanford.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on
Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will
force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as
are other skeptics' views. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US. Do you think this merits
an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha ------------------------------- PhD Candidate, Emmett Interdisciplinary
Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER) Stanford University Tel:
415-812-7560
Michael E. Mann Professor - Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX:
(814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University
Park, PA 16802-5013
website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section,
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318Boulder,
CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO
80305
References
1.http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers
2. http://www.cpc.ncep
3. mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu
4. mailto:shs@stanford.edu
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
6. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/1000
7. mailto:mann@psu.edu
8. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
9. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/Dire
10. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Mitch Battros says: Oh yes, there is more ---- lots more. Stay Tuned ....... Now that
the global warming scam has been revealed, we must ask ourselves -- "what is the
cause of warming and cooling trends?" The answer is in both the books "Global
Warming: A Convenient Disguise" and "Solar Rain: The Earth Changes Have Begun".
Mitch Battros
November 24, 2009.
Earth Changes Media
This email exchange shows how the global warming regime has with full
acknowledgement and intent, simply "made up" data to support their scam. As the title
says --- this is only the beginning. I expect a congressional investigation will be called,
and I would think criminal charges may be filed.
This scam has all the markings of Watergate, Iran/Contra, 9-11=Terrorists=Iraq, 2000
Election, 2004 Election, and Wall Streets repackaged derivatives and swaps. It was all
a lie then, and it is all a lie now -------
From: Keith Briffa k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
To: Malcolm Hughes mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
Subject: Re: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:28:22 +0100
Cc: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk
I understood that the chronology was published and so thought to compare our RCS
version with it if we could produce it in time. We are being accused of not using that
chronology in the Science paper- so then asked Anders for it. I am having to start
thinking about the Yamal crap (Yamal Peninsula, tree rings and subfossil wood which
shows the falsehoods of global warming).
Sorry if you thought I was doing anything without your knowledge - TO BE HONEST
ALSO - I actually was not really aware that the data you were producing and that used
by Sidorova were one and the same. I assume that we are allowed to use the
chronology as published - are we?
Keith: At 16:50 02/10/2009, you wrote:
Dear Keith - I'm really reticent to raise something else, but must. What's going on?
21st September I got an email from Tom (Melvin) that contained the following para,
among other more general discussion: "Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit
for cherry picking and not using your long Indigirka River data set. Not used because
we did not have the data. Please, could we have the data? We will make proper
acknowledgement/co-authorship if we use the data."
I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom - please find the Esper article in
question attached. The so-called Indigirka River data set is not yet available because it
has not been published. I am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and
was indeed in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on specifically
this."
So far, no direct response to this email from Tom (Melvin). This morning I get an email
from Anders Moberg, telling me that you had asked him for the "Indigirka data". I've
waited a couple of hours before writing this email so as to try to be constructive. To be
sure that you understand what that dataset is and is not, please read the attached
2006 Moberg corrigendum. Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of
having been discussed in the Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large proportion
of the raw data are not yet in the public domain, and so you would not be able to
critically evaluate the chronology as a possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said
- adequate metadata not available, please see Moberg corrigendum?
By the way, a 600-year reconstruction is available (Hughes et al 1999, also attached),
and all those raw data are at the ITRDB. As you know, it is my intention to be friendly,
cooperative and open, but I'm determined to get some scientific value from all the
years of work I've invested in the Yakutia work, and in cooperation with Russia in
general. Releasing these data now would be too much.
Cheers, Malcolm --
Malcolm K Hughes Regents' Professor Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research The
University of Arizona 105 W Stadium Tucson, AZ 85721 USA tel: +1-520-621-6470
fax: +1-520-621-8229 mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909Fax:
+44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa
Malcolm K Hughes: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8
Keith Trenberth: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Tom Melvin: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/
_________________________
This exchange of emails (which includes James Hansen) shows the global warming
regime has actually applied pressure, manipulation, and corruption against news
agencies to keep in lock-step with their agenda. Yes, evidenced from the emails below
show the BBC has fallen prey to political pressure involved in propagating a scam.
From: Kevin Trenberth trenbert@ucar.edu To: Michael Mann mann@meteo.psu.edu
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600 Cc:
Stephen H Schneider shs@stanford.edu, Myles Allen allen@atm.ox.ac.uk, peter stott
peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk, "Philip D. Jones" p.jones@uea.ac.uk, Benjamin Santer
santer1@llnl.gov, Tom Wigley wigley@ucar.edu, Thomas R Karl
Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov, Gavin Schmidt gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, James Hansen
jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, Michael Oppenheimer omichael@Princeton.EDU
Hi all,
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that
here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days
on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the
normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low
was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is
January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday
and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An
imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,1,19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001.
[1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement
on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the
PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). People like CPC (Climate Prediction Center) are
tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what
they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO
is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in
September for first time since Sept 2007.
Kevin (Trenberth)
____________________
Michael Mann wrote: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on
BBC. Its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he
does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the
Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might
be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black
what's up here? Mike (Mann)
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all.
Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling
errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and
as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another
dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger
maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years??
Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9
of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of
the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to
straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun"
Cheers, Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor,
Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment -
Mailing address: Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 473 Via
Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
______________________
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" ndrao@stanford.edu
To: "Stephen H Schneider" shs@stanford.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on
Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will
force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as
are other skeptics' views. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US. Do you think this merits
an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha ------------------------------- PhD Candidate, Emmett Interdisciplinary
Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER) Stanford University Tel:
415-812-7560
Michael E. Mann Professor - Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX:
(814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University
Park, PA 16802-5013
website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section,
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318Boulder,
CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO
80305
References
1.http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers
2. http://www.cpc.ncep
3. mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu
4. mailto:shs@stanford.edu
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
6. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/1000
7. mailto:mann@psu.edu
8. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
9. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/Dire
10. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Mitch Battros says: Oh yes, there is more ---- lots more. Stay Tuned ....... Now that
the global warming scam has been revealed, we must ask ourselves -- "what is the
cause of warming and cooling trends?" The answer is in both the books "Global
Warming: A Convenient Disguise" and "Solar Rain: The Earth Changes Have Begun".
| 7. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Staggering Global Warming Statistics Emerge As UN Meeting
Looms.
Posted on: Monday, 23 November 2009, 06:20 CST
Since the 1997 international agreement to address global warming, climate change
has seen its ups and downs, including extremely bleak warnings.
So far, the world’s oceans have raised an inch and a half, serious droughts have
plagued parts of the world, temperatures everywhere are warmer, and several
endangered species continue to be threatened.
Looms.
Posted on: Monday, 23 November 2009, 06:20 CST
Since the 1997 international agreement to address global warming, climate change
has seen its ups and downs, including extremely bleak warnings.
So far, the world’s oceans have raised an inch and a half, serious droughts have
plagued parts of the world, temperatures everywhere are warmer, and several
endangered species continue to be threatened.
Huge storms hit England November 16th 2009. Thirteen Inches of rain fell in less than 24 hours
an all time record.
an all time record.
Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand: official
Mon Nov 23, 2:09 am ET
SYDNEY (AFP) – More than 100, and possibly hundreds, of Antarctic icebergs are
floating towards New Zealand in a rare event which has prompted a shipping warning,
officials said on Monday.
An Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist said the ice chunks, spotted by satellite
photography, had passed the Auckland Islands and were heading towards the main
South Island, about 450 kilometres (280 miles) northeast.
Scientist Neal Young said more than 100 icebergs -- some measuring more than 200
metres (650 feet) across -- were seen in just one cluster, indicating there could be
hundreds more.
Mon Nov 23, 2:09 am ET
SYDNEY (AFP) – More than 100, and possibly hundreds, of Antarctic icebergs are
floating towards New Zealand in a rare event which has prompted a shipping warning,
officials said on Monday.
An Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist said the ice chunks, spotted by satellite
photography, had passed the Auckland Islands and were heading towards the main
South Island, about 450 kilometres (280 miles) northeast.
Scientist Neal Young said more than 100 icebergs -- some measuring more than 200
metres (650 feet) across -- were seen in just one cluster, indicating there could be
hundreds more.
| As this e-mail to me shows, there are strong views on this subject. My Comment first: Showing concern for our environment, other species and our children also a willingness to listen to the other guys opinion seems more than some can tolerate. Its hard to see where we are going when simply providing data from both camps to think about and become informed which is what Ive tried to do gets this kind of reaction: Colin. ---- The E-mail: name = xxxx Please stop lying about climate change. Carbon taxes wouldn't help even if it were true. But it's not. The U.N. just got busted lying about it. Wake up and start worrying about real issues besides that and 2012. Jeez your lame. You make it hard for people looking for real truth to actually find it. REMOTE_HOST: 68.68.172.47 -------------------- UPDATE - DEC 6 2009. EXCELLENT INFORMATION FOR AND AGAINST FROM THE B.B.C. HERE |
| UPDATED Aug 11, 2010 |
SCEPTIC V COUNTER
============================================
| This is another excellent resource regarding the hacked e-mails. PLEASE get educated on this subject: HERE. Scientists cleared |
MORE >>>> Page 2.
Mysterious spiralling light or object seen in sky above Norway as
Climate Change Conference takes place - Photos, Video and Reports.
Climate Change Conference takes place - Photos, Video and Reports.
Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist months after the charade
surrounding the alleged forged figures to support Climate Change, the truth slowly
emerges and its not pleasant - The fraud was a fraud as many suspected - But
Copenhagen has come and gone with a huge disappointment for our Kids -
Mission accomplished and big industry gets straight back down to its dirty tricks:
Sir John Houghton explains to Steve Connor how global warming skeptics have
misrepresented his views
Wednesday, 10 February 2010. HERE
surrounding the alleged forged figures to support Climate Change, the truth slowly
emerges and its not pleasant - The fraud was a fraud as many suspected - But
Copenhagen has come and gone with a huge disappointment for our Kids -
Mission accomplished and big industry gets straight back down to its dirty tricks:
Sir John Houghton explains to Steve Connor how global warming skeptics have
misrepresented his views
Wednesday, 10 February 2010. HERE