| 8. |
Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away
Climate skeptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's
why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of
science.
George Monbiot - The Guardian (UK)
November 25, 2009.
I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know
have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated
out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which
the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate
science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.
The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we
spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a
real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with
technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where
appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.
It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and
thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the
scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most
damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He
wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will
keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to
be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief.
Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and
amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I
documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.
Even so, his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme
circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the
IPCC process is biased. However good the detailed explanations may be, most people
aren't going to follow or understand them. Jones's statement, on the other hand, is stark
and easy to grasp.
In this case you could argue that technically he has done nothing wrong. But a fat lot of
good that will do. Think of the MPs' expenses scandal: complaints about stolen data,
denials and huffy responses achieved nothing at all. Most of the MPs could
demonstrate that technically they were innocent: their expenses had been approved by
the Commons office. It didn't change public perceptions one jot. The only responses
that have helped to restore public trust in Parliament are humility, openness and
promises of reform.
When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones
might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one
case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which
means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other
message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of
the unit.
I feel desperately sorry for him: he must be walking through hell. But there is no helping
it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get. He has a few days left
in which to make an honourable exit. Otherwise, like the former Speaker of the House of
Commons, Michael Martin, he will linger on until his remaining credibility vanishes,
inflicting continuing damage to climate science.
Some people say that I am romanticising science, that it is never as open and honest as
the Popperian ideal. Perhaps. But I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies
of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure
revealed in these emails: unscientific.
The crisis has been exacerbated by the university's handling of it, which has been a
total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond. RealClimate reports that
"We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the
hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible
security breach later that day." In other words, the university knew what was coming
three days before the story broke. As far as I can tell, it sat like a rabbit in the
headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.
When the emails hit the news on Friday morning, the university appeared completely
unprepared. There was no statement, no position, no one to interview. Reporters kept
being fobbed off while CRU's opponents landed blow upon blow on it. When a journalist
I know finally managed to track down Phil Jones, he snapped "no comment" and put
down the phone. This response is generally taken by the media to mean "guilty as
charged". When I got hold of him on Saturday, his answer was to send me a pdf called
"WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999". Had I a couple of hours to
spare I might have been able to work out what the heck this had to do with the current
crisis, but he offered no explanation.
By then he should have been touring the TV studios for the past 36 hours, confronting
his critics, making his case and apologising for his mistakes. Instead, he had
disappeared off the face of the Earth. Now, far too late, he has given an interview to the
Press Association, which has done nothing to change the story.
The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in
this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea
what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but
their media strategy is exemplary.
The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and
deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan
and Richard Littlemore's brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate
scientists who look bad. By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the
driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have
employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their
book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100 times
graver than anything contained in these emails.
But the deniers' campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and
suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must
distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let
down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the
science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-
leak-crisis-response
Climate skeptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's
why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of
science.
George Monbiot - The Guardian (UK)
November 25, 2009.
I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know
have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated
out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which
the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate
science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.
The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we
spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a
real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with
technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where
appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.
It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and
thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the
scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most
damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He
wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will
keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to
be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief.
Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and
amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I
documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.
Even so, his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme
circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the
IPCC process is biased. However good the detailed explanations may be, most people
aren't going to follow or understand them. Jones's statement, on the other hand, is stark
and easy to grasp.
In this case you could argue that technically he has done nothing wrong. But a fat lot of
good that will do. Think of the MPs' expenses scandal: complaints about stolen data,
denials and huffy responses achieved nothing at all. Most of the MPs could
demonstrate that technically they were innocent: their expenses had been approved by
the Commons office. It didn't change public perceptions one jot. The only responses
that have helped to restore public trust in Parliament are humility, openness and
promises of reform.
When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones
might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one
case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which
means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other
message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of
the unit.
I feel desperately sorry for him: he must be walking through hell. But there is no helping
it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get. He has a few days left
in which to make an honourable exit. Otherwise, like the former Speaker of the House of
Commons, Michael Martin, he will linger on until his remaining credibility vanishes,
inflicting continuing damage to climate science.
Some people say that I am romanticising science, that it is never as open and honest as
the Popperian ideal. Perhaps. But I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies
of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure
revealed in these emails: unscientific.
The crisis has been exacerbated by the university's handling of it, which has been a
total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond. RealClimate reports that
"We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the
hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible
security breach later that day." In other words, the university knew what was coming
three days before the story broke. As far as I can tell, it sat like a rabbit in the
headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.
When the emails hit the news on Friday morning, the university appeared completely
unprepared. There was no statement, no position, no one to interview. Reporters kept
being fobbed off while CRU's opponents landed blow upon blow on it. When a journalist
I know finally managed to track down Phil Jones, he snapped "no comment" and put
down the phone. This response is generally taken by the media to mean "guilty as
charged". When I got hold of him on Saturday, his answer was to send me a pdf called
"WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999". Had I a couple of hours to
spare I might have been able to work out what the heck this had to do with the current
crisis, but he offered no explanation.
By then he should have been touring the TV studios for the past 36 hours, confronting
his critics, making his case and apologising for his mistakes. Instead, he had
disappeared off the face of the Earth. Now, far too late, he has given an interview to the
Press Association, which has done nothing to change the story.
The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in
this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea
what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but
their media strategy is exemplary.
The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and
deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan
and Richard Littlemore's brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate
scientists who look bad. By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the
driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have
employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their
book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100 times
graver than anything contained in these emails.
But the deniers' campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and
suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must
distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let
down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the
science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-
leak-crisis-response
My Personal Position Regarding Climate Change,
and Global Warming.
By Colin Andrews - November 22, 2009
I believe the most significant causes are man-made.
That said we are way to far down the road to engage in arguments about who is
to blame for climate change and if its caused by increases in the levels of CO2
or its this or that. Whether Al Gore is heading a secret agenda and even if he
deserves his Nobel Peace Prize and the rest is of little immediate concern.
The concern for most of us is that we begin to take all reasonable steps
urgently to improve our stewardship of this planet, who ever or what
ever the cause.
Climate change is taking place and it’s late in the day for us to be attending to
what we should have been doing when I was at primary school nearly sixty years
ago. The evidence of increased levels of CO2 in tree rings and ice cores alone
are plenty proof that dramatic increases are recent and so is the sudden
onslaught of climate change itself. There is no question the snow is lacking on
mountain tops and the ice is melting both top and bottom of our planet. Global
temperatures are currently rising, ask those who have already had to move
homes as a result - water is disappearing from regions where it has not done in
known history.
Whether man made or natural makes no difference to what we should be doing.
The selfish manner with which we behave around energy and waste is
staggering and irresponsible. To allow this to continue and deny our
responsibilities will be a disgrace.
We should drop the political hatchets on all sides and do what is right for the
planet. How can that be wrong?
and Global Warming.
By Colin Andrews - November 22, 2009
I believe the most significant causes are man-made.
That said we are way to far down the road to engage in arguments about who is
to blame for climate change and if its caused by increases in the levels of CO2
or its this or that. Whether Al Gore is heading a secret agenda and even if he
deserves his Nobel Peace Prize and the rest is of little immediate concern.
The concern for most of us is that we begin to take all reasonable steps
urgently to improve our stewardship of this planet, who ever or what
ever the cause.
Climate change is taking place and it’s late in the day for us to be attending to
what we should have been doing when I was at primary school nearly sixty years
ago. The evidence of increased levels of CO2 in tree rings and ice cores alone
are plenty proof that dramatic increases are recent and so is the sudden
onslaught of climate change itself. There is no question the snow is lacking on
mountain tops and the ice is melting both top and bottom of our planet. Global
temperatures are currently rising, ask those who have already had to move
homes as a result - water is disappearing from regions where it has not done in
known history.
Whether man made or natural makes no difference to what we should be doing.
The selfish manner with which we behave around energy and waste is
staggering and irresponsible. To allow this to continue and deny our
responsibilities will be a disgrace.
We should drop the political hatchets on all sides and do what is right for the
planet. How can that be wrong?
Other links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/23/climate-sceptics-bob-ward-nigel-
lawson
Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails. Both sides
of climate change debate urge investigation as Met Office dismisses 'shallow attempt to
discredit robust science'
==========
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Over the past 150 years human activities have released increasing quantities of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This has led to increases in mean global
temperature, or global warming. Other human effects are relevant—for example,
sulphate aerosols are believed to lead to cooling—and natural factors also contribute.
According to the historical temperature record
==========
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:
Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
According to all major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals
(see graph), the increase in temperature in the 20th century and the temperature in the
late 20th century is the highest in the record.
==========
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd5feb97_1.htm
Dr. Roy Spencer, a scientist at NASA/Marshall and principal author on the paper, has
been monitoring the temperature of layers in the Earth's atmosphere from space. Along
with Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Spencer has produced a
temperature record spanning 18 years. Acquired from Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
instruments flying aboard the TIROS series of weather satellites. Their data show
temperature variations in the lower troposphere, a region from the surface to about 5
miles into the atmosphere.
==========
http://www.panda.
org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/area/species/polarbear/population/
In 2005, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) reviewed the status of polar
bears using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria.
The group concluded that the Red List classification of the polar bear should be
upgraded from Least Concern to Vulnerable based on the likelihood of a decline in the
total global polar bear population of more than 30% within the next 35 to 50 years.
==========
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/something-is-x-in-the-state-of-
denmark/
29 November 2009 at 11:28 AM
Global warming deniers and skeptics have gone too far in confusing the public about
the climate change. Here is bold proposal for how we can stop them while placing the
issue of global warming at the center stage of media attention.
In the United States and other countries, climate change misinformation legislation is
clearly necessary to finally put, and keep, the seriousness of global warming at center
stage. An ingenious dynamic of this legislation is that it would not even need to pass
and be signed into law to have much of its intended effect.
==========
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-
tricks-carbon-count-control.html
Global warming? Don't wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count
in controlBy Ian Plimer, Professor Of Geology At The University Of Adelaide
Last updated at 2:54 PM on 29th November 2009
Perhaps it is comforting to believe that science is an absolute discipline: immune from
fads, fanatics and frauds, untroubled by extremists, evangelists, glory-seekers and
bigots. But it is not. It is as vulnerable to the vested interests and biases of its
practitioners as any corporate entity or political party.
Uncomfortable truths are suppressed and dubious evidence given undue prominence.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-
The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html#ixzz0YJ3DKHNs
==========
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1231788/U-turn-climate-change-cover-
university-says-publish-leaked-email-data.html
U-turn on climate change 'cover up' as university says it will publish leaked email data
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 4:49 PM on 29th November 2009
Comments (33) Add to My Stories
British scientists accused of manipulating figures to strengthen the case for man-made
global warming have bowed to international pressure and will publish their raw figures, it
emerged today.
The U-turn by the University of East Anglia follows a week of controversy over hundreds
of leaked emails which appear to show global warming academics 'spinning' research to
the media and discussing how to dodge requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1231788/U-turn-climate-change-
cover-university-says-publish-leaked-email-data.html#ixzz0YP4f40N5
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/23/climate-sceptics-bob-ward-nigel-
lawson
Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails. Both sides
of climate change debate urge investigation as Met Office dismisses 'shallow attempt to
discredit robust science'
==========
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Over the past 150 years human activities have released increasing quantities of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This has led to increases in mean global
temperature, or global warming. Other human effects are relevant—for example,
sulphate aerosols are believed to lead to cooling—and natural factors also contribute.
According to the historical temperature record
==========
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:
Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
According to all major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals
(see graph), the increase in temperature in the 20th century and the temperature in the
late 20th century is the highest in the record.
==========
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd5feb97_1.htm
Dr. Roy Spencer, a scientist at NASA/Marshall and principal author on the paper, has
been monitoring the temperature of layers in the Earth's atmosphere from space. Along
with Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Spencer has produced a
temperature record spanning 18 years. Acquired from Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
instruments flying aboard the TIROS series of weather satellites. Their data show
temperature variations in the lower troposphere, a region from the surface to about 5
miles into the atmosphere.
==========
http://www.panda.
org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/area/species/polarbear/population/
In 2005, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) reviewed the status of polar
bears using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria.
The group concluded that the Red List classification of the polar bear should be
upgraded from Least Concern to Vulnerable based on the likelihood of a decline in the
total global polar bear population of more than 30% within the next 35 to 50 years.
==========
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/something-is-x-in-the-state-of-
denmark/
29 November 2009 at 11:28 AM
Global warming deniers and skeptics have gone too far in confusing the public about
the climate change. Here is bold proposal for how we can stop them while placing the
issue of global warming at the center stage of media attention.
In the United States and other countries, climate change misinformation legislation is
clearly necessary to finally put, and keep, the seriousness of global warming at center
stage. An ingenious dynamic of this legislation is that it would not even need to pass
and be signed into law to have much of its intended effect.
==========
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-
tricks-carbon-count-control.html
Global warming? Don't wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count
in controlBy Ian Plimer, Professor Of Geology At The University Of Adelaide
Last updated at 2:54 PM on 29th November 2009
Perhaps it is comforting to believe that science is an absolute discipline: immune from
fads, fanatics and frauds, untroubled by extremists, evangelists, glory-seekers and
bigots. But it is not. It is as vulnerable to the vested interests and biases of its
practitioners as any corporate entity or political party.
Uncomfortable truths are suppressed and dubious evidence given undue prominence.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-
The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html#ixzz0YJ3DKHNs
==========
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1231788/U-turn-climate-change-cover-
university-says-publish-leaked-email-data.html
U-turn on climate change 'cover up' as university says it will publish leaked email data
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 4:49 PM on 29th November 2009
Comments (33) Add to My Stories
British scientists accused of manipulating figures to strengthen the case for man-made
global warming have bowed to international pressure and will publish their raw figures, it
emerged today.
The U-turn by the University of East Anglia follows a week of controversy over hundreds
of leaked emails which appear to show global warming academics 'spinning' research to
the media and discussing how to dodge requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1231788/U-turn-climate-change-
cover-university-says-publish-leaked-email-data.html#ixzz0YP4f40N5
Updated Dec 6, 2009.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8397742.stm
UN upbeat on Copenhagen global climate deal
The UN's top climate official has given an upbeat assessment on the prospects of a
global deal at a climate summit which opens in Copenhagen on Monday.
Yvo de Boer told the BBC things were in "excellent shape" as officials from 192 nations
began gathering in Denmark.
Any agreement is intended to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, aimed at curbing
greenhouse gas emissions.
The UN official panel on climate change says emissions must be limited to avoid
dangerous global temperature rises.
"Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different countries made so
many pledges. Almost every day now governments are announcing pledges - it's
unprecedented," Mr de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate convention, told the
BBC.
"We've got 100 heads of state and government coming to Copenhagen. And, in general,
heads of government come to celebrate success, not failure," he said.
Ahead of Monday's talks, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hit
back at claims that human influence on global warming has been exaggerated.
It said it was standing by its findings in response to a row over the reliability of data from
a UK university.
Hacked e-mail exchanges from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit have prompted
climate change sceptics to claim that data has been manipulated.
Top Swedish climate official Anders Turesson told the BBC that he hoped the issue "will
be investigated".
However, Mr Turesson, who will also be leading EU negotiations as Sweden currently
holds the rotating EU presidency, added: "But I cannot see it will in any way affect the
negotiations here."
Main issues
The Copenhagen talks are being held in recognition of the fact that the Kyoto Protocol's
targets are not sufficient to avoid impacts projected by the IPCC, and run out in 2012.
They are set to go on for nearly two weeks, with dozens of world leaders set to attend
the later stages.
These include US President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French
President Nicolas Sarkozy and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Almost all countries attending the meeting agree a deal must be reached.
The main areas for discussion include:
Targets to curb greenhouse gas emissions, in particular by developed countries
Financial support for mitigation of and adaptation to climate change by developing
countries
A carbon trading scheme aimed at ending the destruction of the world's forests by 2030
Environmental activists are planning demonstrations in Copenhagen and around the
world on 12 December, in an attempt to encourage delegates to reach the strongest
possible deal.
Tens of thousands marched in London and other UK and European cities on Saturday
to urge action.
But expectations for the meeting have fallen, correspondents say.
Whatever is agreed will no longer have a legally binding basis. Instead, experts hope to
produce a framework which could lead to the signing of binding final agreements by next
year.
'Problem'
The EU, which had sought a legally-binding agreement, has offered a 20% cut in its
emissions from 1990 levels by 2020, rising to 30% in the event of a global agreement.
The US is pledging to cut its emissions in several stages, beginning with a 17% cut from
2005 levels by 2020.
India and China have both agreed to reduce their "carbon intensity", a measure of the
amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of GDP.
Washington is currently unable to commit to its pledges for the talks, as a bill to cap its
emissions is currently stuck in the Senate and will not be passed before the new year.
Australia is in a similar position, after its opposition-controlled Senate rejected a bill to
curb emissions.
Mr Turesson said pledges on cutting emissions put forward so far were not enough.
"We have a problem here. First of all it is very welcome that we now indeed have figures
from all major players in the climate change negotiations - and that is indeed positive
because then we have a basis for discussions.
"But when we sum up here, they do not suffice, so something must be done
here in Copenhagen to enhance the pledges."
Sudan's Lumumba Di-Aping, a lead negotiator for the G77/China bloc at the talks, said:
"A deal can be done; the science is clear, the economics are clear, the legal issues are
clear.
"The question is that some leaders believe their narrow national economic interests take
primacy over the existence and well-being of the entire world."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8397742.stm
UN upbeat on Copenhagen global climate deal
The UN's top climate official has given an upbeat assessment on the prospects of a
global deal at a climate summit which opens in Copenhagen on Monday.
Yvo de Boer told the BBC things were in "excellent shape" as officials from 192 nations
began gathering in Denmark.
Any agreement is intended to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, aimed at curbing
greenhouse gas emissions.
The UN official panel on climate change says emissions must be limited to avoid
dangerous global temperature rises.
"Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different countries made so
many pledges. Almost every day now governments are announcing pledges - it's
unprecedented," Mr de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate convention, told the
BBC.
"We've got 100 heads of state and government coming to Copenhagen. And, in general,
heads of government come to celebrate success, not failure," he said.
Ahead of Monday's talks, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hit
back at claims that human influence on global warming has been exaggerated.
It said it was standing by its findings in response to a row over the reliability of data from
a UK university.
Hacked e-mail exchanges from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit have prompted
climate change sceptics to claim that data has been manipulated.
Top Swedish climate official Anders Turesson told the BBC that he hoped the issue "will
be investigated".
However, Mr Turesson, who will also be leading EU negotiations as Sweden currently
holds the rotating EU presidency, added: "But I cannot see it will in any way affect the
negotiations here."
Main issues
The Copenhagen talks are being held in recognition of the fact that the Kyoto Protocol's
targets are not sufficient to avoid impacts projected by the IPCC, and run out in 2012.
They are set to go on for nearly two weeks, with dozens of world leaders set to attend
the later stages.
These include US President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French
President Nicolas Sarkozy and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Almost all countries attending the meeting agree a deal must be reached.
The main areas for discussion include:
Targets to curb greenhouse gas emissions, in particular by developed countries
Financial support for mitigation of and adaptation to climate change by developing
countries
A carbon trading scheme aimed at ending the destruction of the world's forests by 2030
Environmental activists are planning demonstrations in Copenhagen and around the
world on 12 December, in an attempt to encourage delegates to reach the strongest
possible deal.
Tens of thousands marched in London and other UK and European cities on Saturday
to urge action.
But expectations for the meeting have fallen, correspondents say.
Whatever is agreed will no longer have a legally binding basis. Instead, experts hope to
produce a framework which could lead to the signing of binding final agreements by next
year.
'Problem'
The EU, which had sought a legally-binding agreement, has offered a 20% cut in its
emissions from 1990 levels by 2020, rising to 30% in the event of a global agreement.
The US is pledging to cut its emissions in several stages, beginning with a 17% cut from
2005 levels by 2020.
India and China have both agreed to reduce their "carbon intensity", a measure of the
amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of GDP.
Washington is currently unable to commit to its pledges for the talks, as a bill to cap its
emissions is currently stuck in the Senate and will not be passed before the new year.
Australia is in a similar position, after its opposition-controlled Senate rejected a bill to
curb emissions.
Mr Turesson said pledges on cutting emissions put forward so far were not enough.
"We have a problem here. First of all it is very welcome that we now indeed have figures
from all major players in the climate change negotiations - and that is indeed positive
because then we have a basis for discussions.
"But when we sum up here, they do not suffice, so something must be done
here in Copenhagen to enhance the pledges."
Sudan's Lumumba Di-Aping, a lead negotiator for the G77/China bloc at the talks, said:
"A deal can be done; the science is clear, the economics are clear, the legal issues are
clear.
"The question is that some leaders believe their narrow national economic interests take
primacy over the existence and well-being of the entire world."
| This is another excellent resource regarding the hacked e-mails. PLEASE get educated on this subject: HERE. |
Back to page 1.
Climate Change and the Time of Reckoning - continued.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
'Climategate' scientists receive death threats
Environmental Research Web
Dec 7, 2009
Two of the scientists involved in "Climategate" – the e-mail hacking incident at the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK – have received death
threats since the contents of their private e-mails were leaked to the world. No further
information can be revealed about these particular e-mails at present because they are
currently under investigation with the FBI in the United States.
Many other CRU scientists and their colleagues have received torrents of abusive and
threatening e-mails since the leaks first began in mid-November 2009. Tom Wigley,
previous Director of CRU and now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR), Boulder, US, has been horrified by the e-mails he and other colleagues have
received. "They are truly stomach-turning and show what sort of venomous monsters we
are up against," he told environmentalresearchweb.
The scandal, dubbed "Climategate", broke on 19 November this year when hundreds of
messages between scientists from CRU and their colleagues around the world were
posted onto websites. Since then, segments of the messages have been used by climate-
change sceptics to undermine the scientific case for climate change being caused by
humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
In the UK a police investigation is underway to uncover how the material was hacked or
leaked. Meanwhile, the University of East Anglia has ordered an independent review into
the allegations against CRU and Phil Jones has temporarily stepped down as director of
CRU, until the investigations are completed.
Many of the accusations being made by climate-change sceptics are based on fragments
and selected phrases from e-mails sent by eminent climate scientists, dating back to
1996. The scientists involved are confident that they can counter all of the claims against
them. “None of it affects the science one iota,” said Wigley. “Accusations of data
distortion or faking are baseless. I can rebut and explain all of the apparently
incriminating e-mails that I have looked at, but it is going to be very time consuming to do
so.”
In particular Wigley vigorously denies that any data was ever destroyed. “We did not
destroy any primary records,” he said. “All these data came from National Meteorological
Services, and the originals are still there for anyone to access. Indeed other groups such
as GISS and NOAA have independently accessed these data and independently
reproduced our results.”
Climate scientists not caught up in the scandal agree that the independent investigation
is necessary, but don’t believe that the CRU science will be discredited or any misdoings
uncovered. “CRU is just one of many climate-research institutes that provide the
underlying scientific basis for climate policy at national and international levels,” said
Dave Reay, a climate scientist at the University of Edinburgh, UK. “The conspiracy
theorists may be having a field day, but if they really knew academia they would also
know that every published paper and data set is continually put through the wringer by
other independent research groups. The information that makes it into the IPCC reports
is some of the most rigorously tested and debated in any area of science.”
And some scientists express little surprise at the tactics being used to try and undermine
the science. “We have always had a very vocal minority of people who have long since
decided to ignore the science and the data and take a deliberately and completely
contrarian view, and who have always and constantly accused (all) climate scientists of
falsehood and being in it for the money,” said Andy Ridgwell, a climate scientist at the
University of Bristol. “They have been playing Chicken Little and claiming the sky is falling
in on climate science for a decade. There is nothing left that is new or different that they
can (falsely) claim or accuse us of.”
Nonetheless there are now concerns that the e-mail leaks could derail some of the
objectives due to be set at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, next week.
On Friday 4 December Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator, Mohammad Al-Sabban,
told BBC news that the hacked e-mails suggest climate change does not have a human
cause, and that he thought it could have a huge impact on agreeing limitations of
greenhouse gases at the summit. Meanwhile, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was reported by the BBC as saying
that the claims were serious and needed to be investigated.
For now the scientists involved in the scandal are anxious to get back to doing their
research. “We must continue to do the science,” said Wigley. “As time goes by the
evidence mounts – it is already overwhelming – and we must continue to report this
through normal channels in peer-reviewed scientific journals. We must continue to strive
to understand the complexities of the climate system better and to improve climate models
so that we better know how to respond to future climate changes.”
But Wigley fears that time may be running out. “As time goes by, however, we are
approaching the point where any actions we might take will be inadequate to protect
humanity and the planet from dangerous climate change,” he said. “Those people – the
hackers, the sceptics, the luddite bloggers – who are hindering and slowing down the
process of response will, I hope, eventually be held accountable. They already have
much to answer for.”
About the author
Kate Ravilious is a contributing editor to environmentalresearchweb.
------
A comment from the public:
Graham Cogley Dec 7, 2009 6:18 PM
An independent investigation is not necessary
I am not sure that "Climate scientists not caught up in the scandal agree that the
independent investigation is necessary". At any rate, I do not.
I think that a more robust reaction from the scientific community would be more fitting. We
have become too accustomed to shock-horror revelations from whistleblowers to see that
this is not whistleblowing but larceny plain and simple. To be a whistleblower you have to
be in lawful possession of facts, presumably damaging facts, and to get away with it you
have to have a convincing public-interest defence. The UEA incident has none of these
attributes, particularly not the damaging facts, and the focus should be on bringing the
wrongdoers to justice.
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/futures/41182
Environmental Research Web
Dec 7, 2009
Two of the scientists involved in "Climategate" – the e-mail hacking incident at the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK – have received death
threats since the contents of their private e-mails were leaked to the world. No further
information can be revealed about these particular e-mails at present because they are
currently under investigation with the FBI in the United States.
Many other CRU scientists and their colleagues have received torrents of abusive and
threatening e-mails since the leaks first began in mid-November 2009. Tom Wigley,
previous Director of CRU and now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR), Boulder, US, has been horrified by the e-mails he and other colleagues have
received. "They are truly stomach-turning and show what sort of venomous monsters we
are up against," he told environmentalresearchweb.
The scandal, dubbed "Climategate", broke on 19 November this year when hundreds of
messages between scientists from CRU and their colleagues around the world were
posted onto websites. Since then, segments of the messages have been used by climate-
change sceptics to undermine the scientific case for climate change being caused by
humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
In the UK a police investigation is underway to uncover how the material was hacked or
leaked. Meanwhile, the University of East Anglia has ordered an independent review into
the allegations against CRU and Phil Jones has temporarily stepped down as director of
CRU, until the investigations are completed.
Many of the accusations being made by climate-change sceptics are based on fragments
and selected phrases from e-mails sent by eminent climate scientists, dating back to
1996. The scientists involved are confident that they can counter all of the claims against
them. “None of it affects the science one iota,” said Wigley. “Accusations of data
distortion or faking are baseless. I can rebut and explain all of the apparently
incriminating e-mails that I have looked at, but it is going to be very time consuming to do
so.”
In particular Wigley vigorously denies that any data was ever destroyed. “We did not
destroy any primary records,” he said. “All these data came from National Meteorological
Services, and the originals are still there for anyone to access. Indeed other groups such
as GISS and NOAA have independently accessed these data and independently
reproduced our results.”
Climate scientists not caught up in the scandal agree that the independent investigation
is necessary, but don’t believe that the CRU science will be discredited or any misdoings
uncovered. “CRU is just one of many climate-research institutes that provide the
underlying scientific basis for climate policy at national and international levels,” said
Dave Reay, a climate scientist at the University of Edinburgh, UK. “The conspiracy
theorists may be having a field day, but if they really knew academia they would also
know that every published paper and data set is continually put through the wringer by
other independent research groups. The information that makes it into the IPCC reports
is some of the most rigorously tested and debated in any area of science.”
And some scientists express little surprise at the tactics being used to try and undermine
the science. “We have always had a very vocal minority of people who have long since
decided to ignore the science and the data and take a deliberately and completely
contrarian view, and who have always and constantly accused (all) climate scientists of
falsehood and being in it for the money,” said Andy Ridgwell, a climate scientist at the
University of Bristol. “They have been playing Chicken Little and claiming the sky is falling
in on climate science for a decade. There is nothing left that is new or different that they
can (falsely) claim or accuse us of.”
Nonetheless there are now concerns that the e-mail leaks could derail some of the
objectives due to be set at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, next week.
On Friday 4 December Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator, Mohammad Al-Sabban,
told BBC news that the hacked e-mails suggest climate change does not have a human
cause, and that he thought it could have a huge impact on agreeing limitations of
greenhouse gases at the summit. Meanwhile, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was reported by the BBC as saying
that the claims were serious and needed to be investigated.
For now the scientists involved in the scandal are anxious to get back to doing their
research. “We must continue to do the science,” said Wigley. “As time goes by the
evidence mounts – it is already overwhelming – and we must continue to report this
through normal channels in peer-reviewed scientific journals. We must continue to strive
to understand the complexities of the climate system better and to improve climate models
so that we better know how to respond to future climate changes.”
But Wigley fears that time may be running out. “As time goes by, however, we are
approaching the point where any actions we might take will be inadequate to protect
humanity and the planet from dangerous climate change,” he said. “Those people – the
hackers, the sceptics, the luddite bloggers – who are hindering and slowing down the
process of response will, I hope, eventually be held accountable. They already have
much to answer for.”
About the author
Kate Ravilious is a contributing editor to environmentalresearchweb.
------
A comment from the public:
Graham Cogley Dec 7, 2009 6:18 PM
An independent investigation is not necessary
I am not sure that "Climate scientists not caught up in the scandal agree that the
independent investigation is necessary". At any rate, I do not.
I think that a more robust reaction from the scientific community would be more fitting. We
have become too accustomed to shock-horror revelations from whistleblowers to see that
this is not whistleblowing but larceny plain and simple. To be a whistleblower you have to
be in lawful possession of facts, presumably damaging facts, and to get away with it you
have to have a convincing public-interest defence. The UEA incident has none of these
attributes, particularly not the damaging facts, and the focus should be on bringing the
wrongdoers to justice.
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/futures/41182
The 'Climategate' Scientific and Political Disaster - Now The Fuel
Industries Own Notes LEAKED and Made Public by Scientists
Industries Own Notes LEAKED and Made Public by Scientists
| Updated Feb 15, 2010 Bottom Page |
| Updated Dec 15, 2009 |
==============================================
Thanks to Shannon Ramsby
Businesses hold world hostage over carbon credits
Even U.N. climate chief tied to new, 'green' extortion scam
Posted: December 13, 2009
10:21 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The cap-and-trade extortion racket promoted by the EU and UN has now blown sky high.
Please consider Businesses hold world hostage over carbon credits.
WND research reveals the European Union's cap-and-trade exchange is vulnerable to a
sophisticated form of corporate extortion in which EU bureaucrats in Brussels are
manipulated into paying hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon permit bribes to keep
companies from moving jobs to Third World nations.
In fact, it appears the scam is already under way.
The crux of the scheme is this: European steelmakers have threatened to leave the EU
for India, eliminating the jobs of thousands of workers in the process, unless the EU
grants the steelmakers free carbon credits worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Eurofer, a European trade group, is at the center of the scheme. The web of the plot,
however, weaves in not only several companies, but also the United Nations' climate
change chief:
Among its members, Eurofer represents two EU steelmakers, Corus Redcar and
ArcelorMittal, each of which has ties to India as well as to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the
Indian industrial engineer who has been chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, or IPCC, since 2002.
Eurofer appears to have coordinated a threat to the European Union Greenhouse Gas
Emission Trading System that its steelmakers would move their operations from the EU to
India unless the EU cap-and-trade exchange issued them – at no cost – carbon
emissions permits worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Once the bureaucrats in Brussels acquiesced, Corus Redcar and ArcelorMittal
maneuvered to cash in windfall profits from the EU carbon permits given them at no cost.
Additionally, Corus Redcar has now announced a decision to close operations in Great
Britain nonetheless and relocate its steelmaking activities to India in order to gain
additional U.N. carbon credits.
Ironically, EU and U.N. officials who might have thought requiring cap-and-trade permits
would operate as "protection racket" in which EU companies need to buy carbon credits
to continue operations, have now found themselves on the losing end of the reverse
scheme.
In the final analysis, the winners are the European Union corporations willing to play
hardball with the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System, and the
losers are the EU middle class workers that are held hostage in the scheme.
Cashing In On The Scam
Inquiring minds are reading how Carbon credits bring Lakshmi Mittal £1bn bonanza.
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a
European scheme to curb global warming. His company ArcelorMittal, the steel business
where he is chairman and chief executive, will make the gain on “carbon credits” given to
it under the European emissions trading scheme (ETS).
The scheme grants companies permits to emit CO2 up to a specified “cap”. Beyond this
they must buy extra permits. An investigation has revealed that ArcelorMittal has been
given far more carbon permits than it needs. It has the largest allocation of any
organisation in Europe.
The investigation has also shown that ArcelorMittal and Eurofer, which represents
European steel makers at European level, have lobbied intensively in Brussels. This has
included threatening to move plants out of Europe at a cost of 90,000 jobs, and asking
European commissioners to meet Mittal.
ArcelorMittal is now free to sell its surplus permits on the market or to hoard them for
future use. The latter would allow it to avoid cutting greenhouse gas emissions for years,
effectively undermining the point of the scheme.
ArcelorMittal, which is based in Luxembourg and has more than 80 steel plants around
Europe, has confirmed Pearson’s figures. The ETS covers 10,000 industrial installations,
responsible for 40% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The world's biggest polluters wanted the carbon cap so they could trade their permits
(acquired for free), to other businesses who will have to buy them to expand.
Now some of those polluters are going to move to India anyway after extorting extra
permits out of the EU.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=118953
Thanks to Shannon Ramsby
Businesses hold world hostage over carbon credits
Even U.N. climate chief tied to new, 'green' extortion scam
Posted: December 13, 2009
10:21 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The cap-and-trade extortion racket promoted by the EU and UN has now blown sky high.
Please consider Businesses hold world hostage over carbon credits.
WND research reveals the European Union's cap-and-trade exchange is vulnerable to a
sophisticated form of corporate extortion in which EU bureaucrats in Brussels are
manipulated into paying hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon permit bribes to keep
companies from moving jobs to Third World nations.
In fact, it appears the scam is already under way.
The crux of the scheme is this: European steelmakers have threatened to leave the EU
for India, eliminating the jobs of thousands of workers in the process, unless the EU
grants the steelmakers free carbon credits worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Eurofer, a European trade group, is at the center of the scheme. The web of the plot,
however, weaves in not only several companies, but also the United Nations' climate
change chief:
Among its members, Eurofer represents two EU steelmakers, Corus Redcar and
ArcelorMittal, each of which has ties to India as well as to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the
Indian industrial engineer who has been chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, or IPCC, since 2002.
Eurofer appears to have coordinated a threat to the European Union Greenhouse Gas
Emission Trading System that its steelmakers would move their operations from the EU to
India unless the EU cap-and-trade exchange issued them – at no cost – carbon
emissions permits worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Once the bureaucrats in Brussels acquiesced, Corus Redcar and ArcelorMittal
maneuvered to cash in windfall profits from the EU carbon permits given them at no cost.
Additionally, Corus Redcar has now announced a decision to close operations in Great
Britain nonetheless and relocate its steelmaking activities to India in order to gain
additional U.N. carbon credits.
Ironically, EU and U.N. officials who might have thought requiring cap-and-trade permits
would operate as "protection racket" in which EU companies need to buy carbon credits
to continue operations, have now found themselves on the losing end of the reverse
scheme.
In the final analysis, the winners are the European Union corporations willing to play
hardball with the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System, and the
losers are the EU middle class workers that are held hostage in the scheme.
Cashing In On The Scam
Inquiring minds are reading how Carbon credits bring Lakshmi Mittal £1bn bonanza.
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a
European scheme to curb global warming. His company ArcelorMittal, the steel business
where he is chairman and chief executive, will make the gain on “carbon credits” given to
it under the European emissions trading scheme (ETS).
The scheme grants companies permits to emit CO2 up to a specified “cap”. Beyond this
they must buy extra permits. An investigation has revealed that ArcelorMittal has been
given far more carbon permits than it needs. It has the largest allocation of any
organisation in Europe.
The investigation has also shown that ArcelorMittal and Eurofer, which represents
European steel makers at European level, have lobbied intensively in Brussels. This has
included threatening to move plants out of Europe at a cost of 90,000 jobs, and asking
European commissioners to meet Mittal.
ArcelorMittal is now free to sell its surplus permits on the market or to hoard them for
future use. The latter would allow it to avoid cutting greenhouse gas emissions for years,
effectively undermining the point of the scheme.
ArcelorMittal, which is based in Luxembourg and has more than 80 steel plants around
Europe, has confirmed Pearson’s figures. The ETS covers 10,000 industrial installations,
responsible for 40% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The world's biggest polluters wanted the carbon cap so they could trade their permits
(acquired for free), to other businesses who will have to buy them to expand.
Now some of those polluters are going to move to India anyway after extorting extra
permits out of the EU.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=118953
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 came and
went with a huge disappointment for our Kids:
support Climate Change, the truth slowly emerges and its not pleasant -
The fraud was a fraud as many suspected - But Copenhagen came and
went with a huge disappointment for our Kids: