New Climategate SHOCKER: Russians Reveal How CPU "Cooked The Books"

In Copenhagen the gathering of the International Church of Global Warming Moonbats is ignoring the Climategate scandal as they do their best to pass their agenda of transferring of income from the developed to the undeveloped world.

While the Moonbats were playing a denial Climategate got much, much bigger. The Russians just dropped this huge bombshell just as the world’s big-shots are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing the developed world back into the stone-age. What the Russians found out is that Dr, Jones and the folks at CPU weren't using all the data from Siberia.  In fact they threw out all of the Russian Data except for the 25% that helped them prove their case.Read this from the RIA Novisti Newswire (H/T James Delingpole)

Russia affected by Climategate
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate," continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

 Oh how does it tie in to climate-gate? Read this Email from the Climategate files, Doctor Jones suppressed the data:

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Re: have you seen this?
Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004

Mike,
Yes, but not had a chance to read it yet. Too much else going on. Ed has a paper
reworking Esper et al. as you'll know. If you're going to Tucson, I suggest you talk to
Keith about it then - don't email him as he's too busy preparing to go and marking essays.
Jan is in one of our EU projects. Seems that Keith thinks Jan is reinventing a lot of
Keith's work, renamed the RCS method and much more. Jan doesn't always take in what is in the literature even though he purports to read it. He's now looking at homogenization
techniques for temperature to check the Siberian temperature data. We keep telling him the decline is also in N. Europe, N. America (where we use all the recently homogenized Canadian data). The decline may be slightly larger in Siberia, but it is elsewhere as well. Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations aren't that close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the temperature varies an awful lot from year to year.
 Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 11:20 30/03/2004 -0500, you wrote:

Phil,
Have you seen this piece of crap by Esper?
The JGR paper, which Scott is supposed to be finalizing, demonstrates quite convincingly
that the greater amplitude of Esper et al is due to spatial and seasonal sampling,
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

 This is as close to a smoking gun as we have so far.

Journalist Bullied by UN Cops For Asking Climategate Question at Copenhagen Press Conference

Phelim McAleer is an investigative journalist who spends much of his time debunking the Global Warming hoax. It was McAleer who asked a question of Al Gore a few months ago that caused the former VP's head to start melting (video at end of this post). McAleer is also the director and producer of Not Evil Just Wrong  documentary which looks at how  environmental extremism is damaging the lives of the most economically vulnerable populations (see trailer below)

Today the "Global Warming Mafia" gave new credence to the charges raised by Climategate, that there has been a concerted effort to cover-up dissenting voices. Because that's exactly what they did to McAleer when he asked some “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.

He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate

Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.

When McAleer replied that the University had confirmed that the emails were legitimate, all help broke lose, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.

As the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.

The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room. McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.

“It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”


“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”

Two officers corralled the film crew and one officer can be seen on tape (video below) threatening the cameraman. The Guard can also be heard warning that if the crew did not stop filming their would seize the equipment and the journalists expelled from the conference.

“I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.”


“This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.”

But it does seem like the job of Professor Schneider to help sweep Climategate under the carpet.

McAleer, who is from Ireland, has gained quite a reputation for asking difficult questions of those who have been promoting the idea of man-made Global Warming.

His microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations. Almost 500,000 people have watched the incident on youtube, in case you haven't it appears below:

Source Big Government

Virginia Attorney General Issues Subpoena For Climate "Hockey Stick"Files

Last week we reported that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investing the Penn State professor for Micheal Mann for fraud. Much of Mann's work on the hockey stick was completed when he was working at the University of Virginia. Helping to fund Mann's work was almost a half of a million dollars of grants from the State of Virginia. Cuccinelli is investigating Mann under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, a 2002 law designed to keep government workers honest. 

Now, according to the Washington Post the AG has found it necessary to issue a subpoena for the information. If Cuccinelli succeeds in finding a smoking gun like the purloined emails that led to the international scandal dubbed Climategate, Cuccinelli could seek the return of all the research money, legal fees, and damages.

According to the report:

The civil investigative demand asks for all data and materials presented by former professor Michael Mann when he applied for five research grants from the university. It also gives the school until May 27 to produce all correspondence or e-mails between Mann and 39 other scientists since 1999. 

As you might expect Mann decried Cuccinelli's subpoena as an unprecedented inquisition that could threaten academic freedom. 

"I think he's simply trying to smear me as part of a larger campaign to discredit my science," said Mann, who left the University of Virginia in 2005. 

Mann has discredited his own science.  Mann's most famous work has been revealed to be truth deficient many times. There was the study that showed Mann cherry-picked the trees that he used in for the study, they cherry-picked the weather stations to use in Russia, and the revelation that even the home of Climategate, the CRU, didn't want to use the hockey stick because they suspected that it was bogus.

Rachel Levinson, senior counsel with the American Association of University Professors, said Cuccinelli's request had "echoes of McCarthyism." 

"It would be incredibly chilling to anyone else practicing in either the same area or in any politically sensitive area," she said. 

There is certainly enough evidence of a fraud for an inquiry, McCarthyism? I don't think so, nor would anybody who has read many of the climategate emails, especially the one that talks about "Michael's trick"

From: Phil Jones

To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX 

Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement 

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 

Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX 

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, 

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray. 

Cheers 

Phil 

Prof. Phil Jones 

Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX 

School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX 

University of East Anglia 

Norwich 

 That certainty raised enough eyebrows to cause an independent investigation.

In an interview, Cuccinelli said the request is part of an "open inquiry" into whether there were "knowing inconsistencies" made by Mann as he sought taxpayer dollars to fund research. 

"In light of the Climategate e-mails, there does seem to at least be an argument to be made that a course was undertaken by some of the individuals involved, including potentially Michael Mann, where they were steering a course to reach a conclusion," he said. "Our act, frankly, just requires honesty." 

Carol Wood, a spokesman for the University of Virginia, confirmed that the school had received the April 23 request. She said that it will take time for the university to decide how to proceed but that "the university has a legal obligation to answer this request and it is our intention to respond to the extent required by law." 

According to the document, the demand was issued under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, a 2002 law that gives the attorney general the right to demand documents and testimony in cases in which tax dollars have allegedly been obtained falsely by state employees. The document indicates that Cuccinelli is investigating possible violations of sections of the act forbidding employees from making false claims for payment, submitting false records for payment or conspiring to defraud the state. 

Many people are saying that this is an attack on "scientific investigation." They don't understand that the issue is not necessarily whether Mann's hypothesis is fraudulent,or was wrong to conduct the study,  but the way he conducted his research and "fudged" the numbers was not honest. If anyone was retarding the development of science, it is the "global warming" scientists that have been objecting to any peer reviewed studies that do not agree with their hypothesis. 

Climategate Professor Claims Global Warming Scandals Are The Blogger's Fault

Everybody does it, bloggers are the "red-headed step-child" of the media world. Because we find and publish the news that the mainstream media is too biased to consider, we are also at the center of attacks when people lash out.  The President and his spokespeople do it, MSNBC does it and now the climatologist at the center of Climategate Phil Jones, is doing it.

In an interview with the science journal Nature, he admits some mistakes but really rips into the blogisphere. But then again, it was the blogisphere that brought down Jones, and threatens the entire hoax.

Phil Jones holds himself defensively, his arms crossed tightly in front of his chest as if shielding himself from attack. Little wonder: Jones has spent the past three months being vilified for his central role in what is now called 'climategate'.

Central to the Russell  investigation [of Jones] is the issue of whether he or his CRU colleagues ever published data that they knew were potentially flawed, in order to bolster the evidence for man-made global warming. The claim specifically relates to one of Jones's research papers1 on whether the urban heat island effect — in which cities tend to be warmer than the surrounding countryside — could be responsible for the apparent rise in temperature readings from thermometers in the late twentieth century. Jones's study concluded that this local effect was negligible, and that the dominant effect was global climate change.

In the paper1, the authors used data from weather stations around the world; those in China "were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times", they wrote.

“I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process.”

But in 2007, amateur climate-data analyst Doug Keenan alleged that this claim was false, citing evidence that many of the stations in eastern China had been moved throughout the period of study. Because the raw data had been obtained from a Chinese contact of one of Jones's co-authors, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany in New York, and details of their location had subsequently been lost, there was no way of verifying or refuting Keenan's claim.

What Jones doesn't understand is that if his data didn't seem "funky" Keenan wouldn't have tried to disprove it. And if he kept the raw information, he would have been able to prove Keenan wrong.  A successful scientific experiment gets a repeatable result. If he can't produce the raw data, the experiment cannot be repeated.

His other mistake was trusting a graduate of SUNY Albany, Never, Never trust a graduate of that school (except me).

Jones says that approaching Wang for the Chinese data seemed sensible at the time. "I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn't routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services," says Jones, who asserts that standards for data collection have changed considerably in the past twenty years. He now acknowledges that "the stations probably did move", and that the subsequent loss of the details of the locations was sloppy. "It's not acceptable," says Jones. "[It's] not best practice." CRU denies any involvement in losing these records.

It really doesn't matter Jones should review information before he uses it.

Jones says that he did not know that the weather stations' locations were questionable when they were included in the paper, but as the study's lead author he acknowledges his responsibility for ensuring the quality of the data. So will he submit a correction to Nature? "I will give that some thought. It's worthy of consideration," he says.

"The science still holds up" though, he adds. A follow-up study2 verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant. "They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion," says Jones of his critics.

And that fake hockey stick?

...In one of the leaked e-mails, Jones wrote that he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline". Jones was referring to the fact that he — like Mann — used only direct temperature measurements to reconstruct temperatures over the past 20 years or so, rather than using proxy data.

Palaeoclimatologists are confident that the width of tree rings reliably represents real temperatures because they tally with data from thermometers and other instruments taken since the nineteenth century. After the 1960s, however, there is a divergence, with most tree-ring proxy temperatures seeming to be lower than those from instrumental records across the Northern Hemisphere4. The exact cause of this problem is unknown, and is still being investigated by scientists.

Some argue that if the tree-ring data are unreliable for the recent past, including them in older temperature reconstructions is highly questionable, and could understate historic warming — including the MWP — relative to the present day. "It potentially does," admits Jones, but says that analyses using other methods — proxy temperature markers from ice core samples, for example — still show much the same temperature change over the past 1,000 years, backing up Mann's hockey stick.

Jones says that he is unconvinced that the MWP was a global phenomenon, but categorically denies that he has tried to downplay it. "A lot of people have this view that there was a MWP and then a little ice age," he says. "It might not be the case."

"We need more reconstructions from different parts of the world to reproduce a better history of the past thousand years". Jones challenges his critics to help with those efforts. "Why don't they do their own reconstructions?" he asks. "The work that's been published has been through the peer-review process; if they want to criticize that they should write their own papers."
Redefining review

But some of his critics say that Jones has tried to influence that very process by censoring them. In one e-mail, dated July 2004, Jones wrote to Mann: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Jones stresses that both papers did appear in the final version of the Fourth Assessment Report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But he also defends the right of IPCC authors to exclude papers from the report, based on their expertise.

"The IPCC [report] is an assessment, it's not a review," he says, "so the authors have to know something about the subject to assess which are the important papers to bring in to the particular chapter." In doing so, authors naturally would exclude papers that are scientifically weak or irrelevant, argues Jones.

But he fears that the aftermath of the climategate affair is undermining the integrity of the scientific review process. "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process," says Jones.

But since the Climate change proponents are not adequately reviewing the data (See IPCC), the blog world must pick up the slack.

Climategate II Emails Show US/British Govs Colluded W/Scientists to Suppress Anti-Warming Data

This past Tuesday more than 5,000 emails were leaked online as  follow-up to the first set Climategate emails released two years ago. These emails go even further than the first set in showing a systemic suppression of evidence, and even reports being published that the scientists knew were  based on bogus approaches, but since the findings were pro-global warming the papers were blessed by the University of East Anglia and the rest of the ruling members of the climate change Cosa Nostra.  This time not only are the scientists implicated but so are members of the British and US governments

For example there was this message from the British Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra):

One message appeared to show a member of Defra staff telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message’.

The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.

‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.

'They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’

They were assured by the head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (the now infamous Professor Phil Jones) that the findings would stand up.

Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.

And who was a party to suppressing that data?

'I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

In another email Professor Jones happily reported

 'I’ve been told that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is above national Freedom of Information Acts.

'One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.

Not all scientists were happy with this approach but some seemed happy to being a party to concealing and destroying evidence.

The lead author of one of the reports, Jonathan Overpeck, wrote, 'The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.'

 This time even the "science world" is coming down hard on the climate scientists.

Andrew Orlwowski, UK science site The Register's science correspondent comments on one email that says, 'What if climate change turns out to be a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'

'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.'

Clive Crook, a commentator for the Atlantic, who described the earlier inquiries into the Climategate emails as 'ineffectual' and 'mealy mouthed', reportedly said, 'The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me.

The climatologists in the climate change Cosa Nostra, are claiming the release of these emails is despicable, they are not (as of this writing) claiming the emails are bogus. Which based on the evidence shows that we have been lied to not only by members of the scientific community but by the
Department of Energy of the United States Government. Hopefully congress will investigate why the DOE is supressing information.

Climate Gate, Political Correctness, Allah, and Sammy on G. Gordon Liddy

Today I had the extreme pleasure of being a guest on the G.Gordon Liddy Show. Every time I appear on the show its fun, this time was the most fun ever.

Originally I was supposed to talk about yesterday's story about the Russian Climategate Revelation,

More on ClimateGate

There's even more to the ClimateGate controversy the mainstream media are ignoring. It turns out that 75% of the climate data accumulated by Russian scientists was ignored by scientists because it their belief of man-made global warming. Sammy Benoit, of YidWithLid.com has more.

....that is where we started, but the discussion moved on to the silly political correctness that happens during December and a parody I wrote last year called, "Lets Call God Bob", We were joined by Kevin Johnson who wrote a great song about Political Correctness and Christmas, Called Merry Christmas (Yes I Said it). You can hear it on his website http://www.captainquint.com, (when he puts it up on You Tube I will post it here).

We ended up the show with a quickie between me and Mike the "Chabad-nick" who disputed my comments about Chanukah being a minor holiday. Click on the link below and listen to the segment I guested.

Sammy on the Liddy Show




ppppppppppppppp

New ClimateGate Shocker: BBC Climate Reporter Sent Damning CRU Emails Month Before They Were Leaked

The Climate change scandal deepened today as the BBC Climate Expert/ Weatherman Paul Hudson made a shocking claim that he received the damning  'cover-up' emails a more than month before they were leaked over the internet,adding to the speculation that this wasn't a case of hacking into the University's computers from the outside but an internal whistle-blower:

Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world's leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.

In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'

Of Course this also begs the question why did Hudson wait six weeks before he told anyone that he had received the emails. In Hudson's full blog post he wrote:

Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications

Paul Hudson | 13:07 UK time, Monday, 23 November 2009

Very busy with forecast duties right now, but I do intend to write a blog regarding the UK Climate research centre (CRU) being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.

I will add comment on this page as soon as I can free up some time. But I will in the meantime answer the question regarding the chain of e-mails which you have been commenting about on my blog, which can be seen here, and whether they are genuine or part of an elaborate hoax.

I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.
More later.

In more Climategate news George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones the Scientist in the center of many of the most damning emails, should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data. In addition Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the University, called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading British climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for made-made global warming. The former Chancellor said the content of hundreds of leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit was a 'scandal' - and warned that the credibility and integrity of UK science was at stake.

Indeed the credibility and integrity of science across the world is at stake, its time to find out what is really going on.

Leading Climate Scientist "Bitch Slaps" IPCC and Those Who Deny ClimateGate is Scandal

It looks as if the cone of silence with-in the Climate Scientist community is breaking down. On February 2, Climate scientist William Sprigg delivered a rebuke to his fellow climate scientists in am address to the Energy & Environment Conference & Expo (EUEC).

Among the you can see in the video below Sprigg says the concerns about climate research arising from the Climategate scandal are justified, that there is a  a growing perception that "the IPCC is biased, conflicted, [and] pushing political agendas," and the UN's IPCC needs to be reformed. Read the press release below from the Heartland Institute and the video below:

PHOENIX (Feb. 3, 2010) — Climate scientist William Sprigg delivered a bold challenge to his fellow climate scientists in a blockbuster address to EUEC 2010 in Phoenix, Arizona on February 2.


Sprigg, an adjunct research professor in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, led the technical review of the first global warming report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990.


In his address to the Thirteenth Annual Energy and Environment Expo, Sprigg took on the ClimateGate scandal and called for “serious reforms” of the global scientific community. He warned of a growing perception that “the IPCC is biased, conflicted, [and] pushing political agendas.”


Sprigg called for a new climate research agency supported not entirely by the government, but in conjunction with the private sector.


“We need to stick to our scientific principles,” Sprigg said, referring at least in part to the critical importance of sharing data with other scientists so that hypotheses and methodologies can be checked and double-checked. “We need to improve our peer preview process, and expand the stakeholders’ role to keep us all honest.”


Sprigg’s remarks were videotaped by Heartland Institute Research Fellow James G. Lakely, attending the conference not generally friendly to skeptics of predictions of catastrophic, man-made global warming.


Heartland Senior Fellow James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, also attended the event, and during the Q&A following Sprigg’s presentation asked the scientist what he thinks the future holds for the IPCC.Sprigg nodded as Taylor referred to “mounting scandals” at the IPCC and then responded, “There will be some reform. I think there’s going to be big changes in the peer review process for the IPCC. There will be–there are–calls for the head of [IPCC Chairman Raj] Pachauri. Some of my colleagues have written letters saying that he needs to be taken off the job

Did ABC News Jump Off the Climate Change Bandwagon?

The Mainstream Media has been very reluctant to cover any chink in the global warming armor. For example, four days after climategate broke, Newsbusters reported:

...that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.

The MSM ignored the story because they bought into the "global warming consensus" hoax hook, line and sinker. Today however, one network ABC, jumped off the "consensus" bandwagon, it isn't calling Global warming a hoax, but it is asking questions:

... Himalayan glacier is also at the center of a scientific dispute. In its current report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that the glacier, which is 71 kilometers (44 miles) long, could disappear by 2035. It also predicts that the other 45,000 glaciers in the world's highest mountain range will be virtually gone by then, with drastic consequences for billions of people in Asia, whose life depends on water that originates in the Himalayas. The IPCC report led environmental activists to sound the alarm about a drama that could be unfolding at the "world's third pole."

"This prognosis is, of course, complete nonsense," says John Shroder, a geologist and expert on glaciers at the University of Nebraska in Omaha. The results of his research tell a completely different story.

WOW,this is from the network that Ignored Climategate but instead poured gasoline on the fire, one of the early days of the scandal, ABCNews.com's top story was, "Worse Than the Worst: Climate Report Says Even Most Dire Predictions Too Tame" There's even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by 26 scientists from eight countries.

The gaffe over the Himalayan glaciers has triggered an outcry in the world of climatology. Some are already using the word "Glaciergate" in reference to the scandal over a scientifically untenable claim in the fourth IPCC assessment report, which the UN climate body publishes every five years. The fourth assessment report was originally published in 2007. Last week, the IPCC withdrew the erroneous claim and apologized for the error.

German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), is also upset about the incident. "The error in the IPCC report is serious and should not have happened,"...But why wasn't this clearly nonsensical claim noticed long ago by at least one of the 3,000 scientists who contributed to the IPCC report? "What's really amazing is that such a blunder remained uncorrected for so long," says Shroder.

....other climatologists are calling for consequences. They insist that IPCC Chairman and Nobel laureate Rajendra Pachauri is no longer acceptable as head of the panel, particularly because of his personal involvement in the affair. "Pachauri should resign, so as to avert further damage to the IPCC," says German climatologist Hans von Storch. "He used the argument of the supposed threat to the Himalayan glacier in his personal efforts to raise funds for research." Storch claims that the Indian-born scientist did not order the retraction of the erroneous prediction until it had generated considerable public pressure.

Amazingly the man in charge of the project  for the IPCC Dr Murari Lal, knew all along the prediction did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. But the prediction was not fixed because they wanted to be able to put additional pressure on policy makers to take global warming action:

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

ABC then goes on to talk about the eroding of confidence in man-made global warming theories.

"Confidence in the authority of the science of climatology is currently eroding in the public consciousness," says Roger Pielke Jr., an American social economist and expert on natural disasters. Environmental economist Richard Tol agrees, saying: "Criticism of climate research has become fashionable." And the British science journal Nature warns that climatologists can no longer assume that solid evidence alone will convince the public.
New Ammunition from an E-Mail Scandal

For years, malaria expert Paul Reiter of the Paris-based Pasteur Institute has criticized the warning, as expressed in the third IPCC report, that climate change will lead to the spread of malaria, saying that there is no evidence to support such a claim. Reiter accuses many climatologists of perceiving themselves too strongly as activists who are more interested in spreading an alarmist message.

Scientists already feel that the second part of the IPCC report, which addresses the consequences of global warming, is not as sound as the first part, which deals with the underlying physical factors contributing to climate change. This could, in fact, explain how the erroneous Himalayan prognosis slipped into the report in the first place. The report's lead author, Murari Lal, defends himself by saying that "the melting of the glaciers is such a huge threat to so many people" and, for that reason, had to be included in the report. According to malaria researcher Reiter, it is precisely this passion that is so dangerous to science.

As part of this report the network finally talks about Climategate:

The e-mails hackers stole from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia last November and placed on the Internet have also provided critics with new ammunition. An e-mail exchange between climate modelers that took place in the fall of 1999 suggests that the scientists were biased.

...they even question the Hockey Stick:

The exchange involved the validity of a controversial temperature curve. The so-called hockey stick graph was intended to prove that the average global temperature in the last 1,000 years was never as high as it is today. To arrive at the date, several groups of researchers reconstructed past temperatures, to a large extent based on tree-ring data.

But one of the graphs differed markedly from the rest, leading to a controversy in the run-up to a conference of paleo-climatologists in Tanzania in September 1999. The abnormal temperature graph was "a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we'd like to show," paleo-climatologist Michael Mann wrote in an e-mail, adding that he didn't want to be the one to offer "the skeptics & a field day." The lead author of the IPCC chapter, Chris Folland, wrote in another e-mail that the divergent data set "dilutes the message rather significantly."

....For the IPCC report that was written at the time, the scientists eventually resorted to an underhanded solution to downplay the data behind Briffa's graph, which showed temperatures falling since the 1960s: the graph was simply cut off at 1960 in the IPCC report. "This sort of approach is considered problematic in science," says climate scientist Storch.

Briffa's unusually declining temperature graph points to a serious conundrum that no one has been able to explain yet: Since the 1960s, the tree-ring data no longer reflect actual temperature changes. But why, then, should tree-ring data be valid for periods before that?

At least the fourth IPCC report, published in 2007, discusses the problems with the tree-ring data at length. But even the current, valid report contains controversial passages.

Chapter 1.3.8, for example, contains a discussion of the possible relationship between climate change and the increased incidence of natural disasters, which, after Hurricane Katrina in the United States, have now become a politically charged issue.

At the IPCC report, the damage associated with such events "are very likely to increase due to increased frequencies and intensities of some extreme weather events" (italics in original). The report cites as evidence a study that supposedly demonstrates precisely this trend.

The only problem is that the study in question had not been subjected to outside peer review before the IPCC report went to press. This has since been done, and the conclusions are surprising: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses," read the report published in the compendium "Climate Extremes and Society."

Roger Pielke, a leading expert in this field, wrote in his blog: "The claims were not just wrong. The claims were based on knowledge that just doesn't exist."

This report from ABC.com, may have been the very first time a MSM outlet actually covered the hoax stories associated with global warming. Granted, it was ABC.com and not the broadcast network, but it was a "chink in the armor."

If you would like to read the entire story, Click Here

BREAKING Climategate News: Phil Jones of CRU Stepping Down Pending Investigation/ Professor Mann in Trouble

A shocking piece of news from Great Britain Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, who's emails are at the center of Climategate is stepping down pending the results of a university investigation. But he still defends his research:

The director of a research unit at the centre of a row over climate change data today said he would stand down from the post while an independent review took place.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), has said he 'absolutely' stands by the science produced by the centre - and that suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming were 'complete rubbish'.

He said today he would stand aside as director until the completion of the independent review, which is being conducted in the wake of the allegations by climate 'sceptics'.

The material was taken from servers at the world-renowned research centre before it was published on websites run by climate change sceptics, possibly in a bid to undermine the global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen.

Professor Jones, which one of these emails are "rubbish?" The one about...

Hiding Evidence?

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich
.

Erasing Emails to Hide Anti-Global Warming Evidence ?:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Which one of these Emails are bogus? Come on Phil explain them?

Prof Jones said: 'What is most important is that CRU continues its world-leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible.

'After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support.'

Professor Peter Liss will become acting director while the review is conducted, the university said.

Professor Jones is not the only Climategate figure in trouble.  There is new news regarding the investigation of Professor Mann inventor of the historical temperature "hockey stick." Penn State is questioning his suppression of data.

Lisa Powers, spokeswoman for Penn State, told The Daily Collegian that an ad hoc committee would review each and every one of the e-mails, a process that "could take quite some time." Mann himself indicated to the student paper that he was not afraid of the inquiry.

When The Daily Collegian asked Mann about Phil Jones' request for deletion of information, Mann acknowledged having received the request, but denied having made any deletions himself and suggested that no one else did, either. But that statement is at variance, not only with Phil Jones' initial letter to Mann, but also with Mann's immediate reply.

Mike:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

The "Keith" referred to is never identified but is most probably Keith Briffa, Jones' second-in-command at CRU. "AR4" refers to Fourth Assessment Report, the latest such report issued by the UN-IPCC.

The "Gene" presumably is Eugene R. Wahl, who is now employed at the National Climatic Data Center as part of its Paleoclimatology program. And in File No. 1212063122.txt (Mann to Jones, on subject "Re IPCC & FOI"), Mann makes this especially damaging statement:

I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx

Time to go to Sam's Club and get the Extra-Large bag of Popcorn, this is going to be fun too watch.

New Climategate Shocker: CRU's Phil Jones Hid Bad Numbers From Chinese Weather Stations

Phil Jones, former head of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) who is in the who's emails are at the center of the climategate scandal is facing brand new claims of a cover-up. A Guardian investigation of of the thousands of emails and documents a hacked from the CRU found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and the documents relating to them have disappeared.

It is difficult to imagine a more bizarre academic dispute. Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?

But the argument over the weather stations, and how it affects an important set of data on global warming, has led to accusations of scientific fraud and may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN's top climate science body.

It also further calls into question the integrity of the scientist at the centre of the scandal over hacked climate emails, the director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Dr Phil Jones. The emails suggest that he helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming.

The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.

Jones and his Chinese-American colleague Wei-Chyung Wang, of the University at Albany in New York,[Yes my Alma Mater but I was not a science major] are being accused of scientific fraud by an independent British researcher over the contents of a research paper back in 1990.

That paper, which was published in the prestigious journal Nature, claimed to answer an important question in climate change science: how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?

It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night.

So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas.

The pair, with four fellow researchers, concluded that the urban influence was negligible. Some of their most compelling evidence came from a study of temperature data from eastern China, a region urbanising fast even then.

The paper became a key reference source for the conclusions of succeeding reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – including a chapter in the 2007 one co-authored by Jones. It said that globally "the urbanisation influence … is, at most, an order of magnitude less than the warming seen on a century timescale". In other words, it is tiny.

Jones was asked to share the locations of the Chinese weather stations but refused, at first. When people became suspicious of his research he changed his mind.

And when, in 2007, Jones finally released what location data he had, British amateur climate analyst and former City banker Doug Keenan accused Jones and Wang of fraud.

He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the story period, perhaps invalidating their data.

Keenan told the Guardian: "The worst case was a station that moved five times over a distance of 41 kilometres"; hence, for those stations, the claim made in the paper that "there were 'few if any changes' to locations is a fabrication". He demanded that Jones retract his claims about the Chinese data.

The emails, which first emerged online in November last year following a hack of the university's computer systems that is being investigated by police, reveal that Jones was hurt, angry and uncertain about the allegations. "It is all malicious … I seem to be a marked man now," he wrote in April 2007.

Another email from him said: "My problem is I don't know the best course of action … I know I'm on the right side and honest, but I seem to be telling myself this more often recently!"

....The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university,[again I remind you I had a double major in Theater and Political Science, and had nothing to do with the Science Dept.] but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.

It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.

The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 – and UEA having been criticised last week by the deputy information commissioner for refusing valid requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Guardian has learned that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Jones headed up to the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

The temperature data from the Chinese weather stations measured the warming there over the past half century and appeared in a 1990 paper in the prestigious journal Nature, which was cited by the IPCC's latest report in 2007.

Climate change sceptics asked the UEA, via FOI requests, for location data for the 84 weather stations in eastern China, half of which were urban and half rural.

The history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang's 1990 study, as it concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of global climate changes rather the warming effects of expanding cities.

The IPCC's 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that "any urban-related trend" in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two "coordinating lead authors" for the relevant chapter.

The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang's work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. "Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?" he asked Jones. He continued: "Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?"

Jones said he was not able to comment on the story.

Its all just another brick in the Climate Change Hoax wall. A lot of that going around these days between all of the bad data coming from the IPCC and now fresh climategate frauds, its no wonder that the global warming argument is collapsing before our very eyes,

Global Warming is The Hottest Hoax in the World

So much has happened to the Holy Church of Global Warming Moonbats during the past few months, both before and after Climategate. Everything from a broken hockey stick diagram by Dr Mann to faked climate numbers presented by NASA's Doctor Hansen. Things have gotten so bad that the "carbon credit market" set up by Europe's Cap and Trade plan has collapsed, no one is interested purchasing carbon credits. And that scientific consensus? One scientist says he has reviewed over 1,100 scientific studies, about 1% specifically support the Man-Made global warming hoax.

Then there is that most recent controversy which has come from the UN's IPCC. It was wrong when it said the Himalayan glaciers were melting, it was wrong when it said other mountain ranges were losing their snow tops, and it was wrong when it claimed that global warming was damaging the rainforests. Worse yet, they didn't even get their data from scientific studies, but used anecdotal information from advocacy groups such as the WWF and from mountain climbing magazines.

Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri a scientist from India, is being pressured to resign his position because he is accused of putting advocacy in front of the scientific method. No where is the anger against Pachauri greater than in his home country India. Take for example this article from the Indian Magazine Open, which published a great summary of the case against Global Warming and against Pachauri:

It was presented as fact. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, led by India’s very own RK Pachauri, even announced a consensus on it. The world was heating up and humans were to blame. A pack of lies, it turns out.

If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see? —Alice in Wonderland

The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its deceit, unmatched in scope—and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the Richter scale. Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever.

The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely sacrificed.

The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way. Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like, ‘no-science’!

The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as if the money wasn’t enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have the coveted Peace Prize.

But let’s begin at the beginning. Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits, nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That’s not jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course on climatology.

You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.

THE GATHERING STORM
There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected.

This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.

The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.

The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.

The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in November 2009. It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.

HOUSE OF CARDS AND COLOUR OF CASH
So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. We have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative.

On the basis of that assertion, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) that Pachauri heads and where Hasnain works in the glaciology team, got two massive chunks of funding. The first was estimated to be a $300,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation and the second was a part of the $2 million funding from the European Union. So you write a report that is false on glaciers melting and get millions to study the impact of a meltdown which will not be happening in the first place. Now if this is not a neat one, what is?

The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be trusted to back this claim. They depended on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, instead, and now it has blown up in their faces.

There’s plenty more in this sordid tale. For one thing, there is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.’

An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus.

Speaking to Open, says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following its advice. Until it agrees to undergo a root and branch reform, it will continue to haemorrhage credibility and trust. The time has come for a complete overhaul of its structure and workings.”

Another fraud is in the very chart central to Pachauri’s speech at the Copenhagen summit. As Lord Monckton has pointed out, ‘The graph is bogus not only because it relies on made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, but also because it is overlain by four separate trendlines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however—neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it—is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.’

PACHAURI’S WRONG NUMBERS

This chart, tracking mean global temperature over the past 150 years, was central to the presentation that IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri made at the Copenhagen environment summit. Many scientists believe that the graph is fraudulent. First, there are strong allegations that the data, collected from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, is a tissue of lies. Plus, as British climate change expert Lord Christopher Monckton puts it: “(The main graph, in darker blue) is overlain by four separate lines, each carefully selected to give the entirely false im•pression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however... is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940, the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.” In other words, the graph has been drawn with a motive to prove one’s point, and not to show the truth.

Thus the earth has warmed at this rate at least twice in the last 100 years and no major catastrophe has occurred. What is more, the earth has cooled after that warming. Why is the IPCC not willing to explore this startling point?

Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.

THE COOKIE CRUMBLES
The fallout of Climategate is slowly but surely unfolding right where it hurts a large number of special interests—in the field of business. Yes, the carbon trading business is now in the line of fire. Under a cap-and-trade system, a government authority first sets a limit on emissions, deciding how much pollution will be allowed in all. Next, companies are issued credits, essentially licences to pollute, based on how large they are, and what industries they work in. If a company comes in below its cap, it has extra credits which it may trade with other companies, globally.

Post Climategate, this worldwide trade, estimated at about $30 billion in 2006, is finding few takers. It is under attack following the renewed uncertainty over the role of human-generated CO2 in global warming. In the US, which never adopted any of this to begin with, there is a serious move now to finish off the cap-and-trade regime globally. It’s a revolt of sorts. Six leading Democrats in the US Congress have joined hands with many Republicans to urge the Obama Administration to back off from the regime.

The collapse of the international market for carbon credits, a direct fallout of Climategate, has already sent shudders down many spines in parts of the world that were looking forward to making gains from it. It was big business, after all, and Indian businesses were eyeing it as well. In fact, Indian firms were expected to trade some $1 billion worth of carbon credits this year, and with the market going poof, they stand to lose quite some money (notional or otherwise).

Besides the commercial aspect, there is also the issue of wider public credibility. There have been signs of scepticism all along. In a 2009 Gallup poll, a record number of people—41 per cent—elected to say that global warming was an exaggerated threat. This slackening of public support is in sync with a coordinated political movement that is seeking to re-examine the entire issue of global warming from scratch. The movement is led by increasingly vocal Republicans in the US Senate and packs considerable political power.

Pachauri’s position is also becoming increasingly untenable with demands for his resignation becoming louder by the day. In an interview to Open, Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute, a noted US think-tank, who has followed the debate for years, says, “Dr Pachauri should resign because he has a consistent record of mixing his political views with climate science, because of his intolerance of legitimate scientific views that he does not agree with, because of his disparagement of India’s glacier scientists as practising ‘voodoo science’, and because of his incomprehension of the serious nature of what was in the East Anglia emails.”

Richard North, the professor who brought to light the financial irregularities in a write-up co-authored with Christopher Booker, has also said in a TV interview that, “If Dr Pachauri does not resign voluntarily, he will be forced to do so.”

GLOBAL STORMING AHEAD
The world awaits answers, based not on writings of sundry freelance journalists and non-experts, but on actual verifiable data on whether the globe is warming at all, and if so by how much. Only then can policy options be calibrated. As things stand, there is little doubt that the IPCC will need to be reconstituted with a limited mandate. This mess needs investigation and questions need to be answered as to why absurd claims were taken as gospel truth. The future of everything we know as ‘normal’ depends on this. The real danger is that the general public is now weary of the whole thing,a little tired of the debate, and may not really care for the truth, convenient or otherwise.

The global warming hoax may very well be on its death bed, we just need to tell people such as Al Gore, Dr Pachaur, Dr Mann and others that its time to lie down.

Institute of Physics Give British Parliament Devastating Assessment of "Climategeters'" Science

The 36,000 ember-strong Institute of Physics was asked by the British Parliament to take a look at Climategate and the University of East Anglia's CRU. They weren't asked to evaluate the findings themselves, but to look at whether or not the CRU had been adhering to the scientific method.

The institute said unless the released emails and documents were fraudulent, the CRU did not comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law and the use proxy reconstructions for the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. And that's just for a start.  The Institute was also not to happy with the independence of the review of the CRU performed in December, right after Climategate.

Below is the devastating assessment.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the
e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.

12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

Virginia AG Investigating Michael Mann (Mr Hockey Stick) For Fraud

Last week, another sacred cow (a non flatulent one) of the climate change world was taken down a peg, Professor Michael Mann's hockey stick In the same report exonerating the CRU scientists for Climate-gate, the data compiled for the Hockey stick was bashed because the data it used was compiled through inappropriate methods.

This wasn't the first time Mann's most famous work has been revealed to truth deficient, there was the study that showed Mann cherry-picked the trees that he used in for the study, they cherry-picked the weather stations to use in Russia, and the revelation that even the home of Climategate, the CRU, didn't want to use the hockey stick because they suspected that it was bogus.

It looks like Mann may be getting rewarded for his hard work deceiving the public, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investing the Penn State professor for fraud. Much of Mann's work on the hockey stick was completed when he was working at the University of Virginia. Helping to fund Mann's work was almost a half of a million dollars of grants from the State of Virginia. Cuccinelli is investigating Mann under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, a 2002 law designed to keep government workers honest.

According to the a local Virginia paper, the Hook, on April 23 the AG asked the university to turn over a truckload of documents related to the climate research funded by the grants (Mann was at UVA between 1999 and 2005).

If Cuccinelli succeeds in finding a smoking gun like the purloined emails that led to the international scandal dubbed Climategate, Cuccinelli could seek the return of all the research money, legal fees, and trebled damages.

“Since it’s public money, there’s enough controversy to look in to the possible manipulation of data,” says Dr. Charles Battig, president of the nonprofit Piedmont Chapter Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment, a group that doubts the underpinnings of climate change theory.

....Among the documents Cuccinelli demands are any and all emailed or written correspondence between or relating to Mann and more than 40 climate scientists, documents supporting any of five applications for the $484,875 in grants, and evidence of any documents that no longer exist along with proof of why, when, and how they were destroyed or disappeared.

Cuccinelli  has only been in office for four months, but in that short time has directed public universities to remove sexual orientation from their anti-discrimination policies, attacked the Environmental Protection Agency, filed a lawsuit challenging federal health care reform, and now the investigation of Mann.There is nothing like a young Attorney General looking to make a name for himself, to get to the bottom of an international scandal.  Lets hope he exposes the hoax that threatens to destroy our economy.