The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for the ‘Alarmism’ Category

Bjorn Lomborg: Government Plans to Stop Global Warming Won’t Work

Posted by iusbvision on November 13, 2010

‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ author Bjorn Lomborg argues global warming exists, but policies to improve the environment wont make a significant impact.

Right now there is a huge argument about whether man has a significant impact of climate change, of course those who argue “no” have been winning that argument as a result of massive widespread fraud among the pro-alarmist position on global warming; so much so that more and more scientists have/are reversing positions or have admitted that much of the science was just wrong, not documented properly, tampered with or just plain manufactured.

Bjorn Lomborg took an interesting approach: Let’s presume that man has had an impact on global warming, what will the results be if man implements the plans that governments have laid out. He concluded that governments will get much more powerful and have all sorts of control, the economy will be severely burdened, people’s quality of life will suffer and if we are lucky the globe will warm one hundredth of one degree less.

When the threat was global cooling the answer was to dump capitalism and freedom and have centralized control of our economy and when the shtick became global warming the answer is to dump capitalism and freedom and have centralized control of our economy.

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Government pays university $700,000 to study cow burps….

Posted by iusbvision on November 9, 2010

Have we had enough of this crap yet?

New Hampshire Union Leader:

DURHAM – University of New Hampshire and outside researchers are creating a computer model to help organic dairy farmers cut greenhouse gas emissions such as methane, because Beano probably isn’t an option.

Nitrogen- and carbon-based greenhouse gases are produced via a complicated system at dairy farms that is affected by everything from the weather to the soil to the feed to cow burps, among other things.

“Cows emit most of their methane through belching, only a small fraction from flatulence,” said the project’s principal investigator, Ruth Varner of UNH’s Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space.

UNH has been awarded a $700,000 U.S. Department of Agriculture grant to create a computer model that measures the amount of greenhouse gases an organic dairy farm produces and thus provide ways to cut those emissions.

 

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

NOAA Claim: Warmest June Ever – But They Made Up Much of the Data!

Posted by iusbvision on September 8, 2010

After all the mess that the now former global warming orthodoxy called data has been largely exposed as fraudulent, incomplete or just plain wrong. Some global warming alarmists never learn.

Meteorologist Art Horn:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claimed that this past June was the warmest ever in its temperature records, which go back to 1880. The global average temperature in June was 61.1 degrees, or 1.22 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees. At face value, this appears to be consistent with the theory that global warming is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. But face value can be deceiving, and the value is not what it appears to be.

In fact, the claim that June 2010 was the warmest on record has no value at all.

NOAA gets its temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. They calculate the average temperature of the Earth using data from land-based thermometers and ocean buoy and ship measurements of water temperature. However, there is a major problem with how GISS measures temperature in a very large region — the Arctic.

The problem is that they don’t have any thermometers there. So they make it up. No, really!

Despite this lack of arctic temperature data, GISS shows that this June the area north of eighty degrees latitude was up to four degrees warmer than the long-term average. You must be asking: how can GISS show any temperature readings at all north of eighty degrees if they don’t have any data? Really, I’m not kidding — they make it up.

GISS uses measured temperature data from lower latitudes and then extrapolates them to the Arctic. Using this method, any readings warmer than average in the lower latitudes are pushed into the Arctic by a smoothing technique. GISS uses a 1,200 kilometer smoothing for its data, meaning that the temperature reading for one thermometer is used as the temperature for a 1,200 kilometer box in all directions from that location. Where there are more thermometers, the boxes overlap, and the readings of one thermometer are averaged with others around them. This reduces the effect of each individual thermometer.

But in data-sparse regions, the value of one thermometer takes on a much greater value.

In the case of the Arctic that one thermometer and the few that are on the fringe of the Arctic are used to calculate the average temperature of everything north of eighty degrees. When one uses a 250-degree smoothing factor for the data from GISS, the truth is suddenly and shockingly revealed: they don’t have any thermometers north of eighty degrees and very few north of sixty degrees. The 1,200 kilometer smoothing floods the Arctic with assumed temperature readings that don’t actually exist.

 

More on those ground stations and how they are manipulated to generate fraudulent alarmist warming data HERE. We have written much more in our Alarmism category and of course Anthony Watts has been tracking hundreds of these ground stations in his series “how not to measure temperature“.

Before anyone says it, yes we know that it is not unusual to extrapolate data between temperature readings that are a bit far apart; but this method only works if you have a large sample over a large region. NOAA as they went further north has very few and eventually no stations to read from so the assumptions made in the extrapolations become  more than just useless, they become laughable. This is not the first time the data from these ground stations has been manipulated as we have shown you in our Alarmism category.

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

OOPS AGAIN: IPCC scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits…

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

HotAir.com (via Yid with Lid) found out an interesting little tidbit that the elite media hid from us:

It’s hard to believe that it’s been more than a month since the latest example of intellectual collapse at the IPCC. Now added to the fraudulent claims about Amazon rain forests, African crop harvests, and Himalayan glaciers comes the exposure of a very large error in the UN body’s warnings about flooding in Bangladesh. Turns out that the scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits (via Yid with Lid):

Scientists in Bangladesh posed a fresh challenge to the UN’s top climate change panel Thursday, saying its doomsday forecasts for the country in the body’s landmark 2007 report were overblown.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already under fire for errors in the 2007 report, had said a one-metre (three-foot) rise in sea levels would flood 17 percent of Bangladesh and create 20 million refugees by 2050.

The claim helped create a widespread consensus that the low-lying country was on the “front line” of climate change, but a new study argues the IPCC ignored the role sediment plays in countering sea level rises. …

But IPCC’s prediction did not take into account the one billion tonnes of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers into Bangladesh every year, which are crucial in countering rises in sea levels, the study funded by the Asian Development Bank said.

“Sediments have been shaping Bangladesh’s coast for thousands of years,” said Maminul Haque Sarker, director of the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS), who led research for the study.

Even if the sea level rises that far — a claim which is itself greeted with increasing skepticism — most of the coastline for Bangladesh won’t be affected. The study concludes that sedimentary deposits would rise in the same proportion as sea levels, providing protection for almost all of the coastline.

Ouch…

Ed Morrissey rubs it in with this:

That’s hardly the only error discovered in the IPCC’s claims and in the AGW industry over the last few months, either:

Pachauri continues to insist that the emperor wears clothes at the IPCC, when he’s been naked for months.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Obama Bows to Chinese Communist

Posted by iusbvision on April 12, 2010

Is anyone getting sick of this yet?

Why did the White House deny bowing to the Saudi King and the rest of them when he keeps on doing this?

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Feds Approving Bogus Products as ‘Energy-Star Compliant’, Investigation Finds

Posted by iusbvision on April 4, 2010

Fox News:

The federal government has been slapping “energy-efficient” ratings on products that don’t even exist — including a bogus space heater with a duster stuck to it and an alarm clock supposedly powered by gasoline. 

The federal government has been slapping “energy-efficient” ratings on products that don’t even exist — including a bogus space heater with a duster stuck to it and an alarm clock supposedly powered by gasoline. 

These fake products were submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy for approval as part of an undercover investigation by the Government Accountability Office. 

The office wanted to see how easily the feds could be duped, since the Energy Star program used to identify products as energy savers serves as a guide to businesses looking for such modern marvels and the basis for millions of dollars in incentivizing tax credits — including $300 million from the stimulus. 

The products fooled the federal government three out of four times. Of the 20 products submitted for approval, 15 were given the thumbs up. GAO reported that the federal government generally did not ask for critical evidence to back up its claims about how energy-efficient — or real — its bogus products were. 

“Certification controls were ineffective primarily because Energy Star does not verify energy-savings data reported by manufacturers,” the report said. Two of the fake firms even received requests from real firms to buy the products after they were listed. 

Among the products approved was a “room air cleaner.” The product image should have been a giveaway — it showed a space heater with a duster and several fly strips attached to it, looking more like a fire hazard than an energy saver. The EPA approved it in 11 days and listed it on the official Web site, according to GAO. 

The government also approved a “metal roof panel,” a “geothermal heat pump,” and a “gas-powered alarm clock.” The latter was described as a generator-sized clock run on gasoline.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

IPCC Author: Expect 30 Years of Global Cooling

Posted by iusbvision on April 1, 2010

Hat Tip RepublicanHeretic

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes | Leave a Comment »

Gallup: More Americans now believe the issue of man-made global warming is exaggerated

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

Gallup Poll shows that more and more Americans now believe the issue of man-made global warming is exaggerated:

Americans are not getting educated on this issue because of the elite media culture, as I discussed in this post most of the American elite media has ignored the key aspects of this important story. It is my view that this is an example of the impact of new media.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

The Roundup: IPCC Authors Now Admitting Fault – No Warming Since 1995 – Sea Levels Not Rising. – Senator Inhofe: Possible criminal misuse of taxpayer research funds.

Posted by iusbvision on February 23, 2010

******

UPDATE IV – UK Bans Global Warming Ads:

TWO government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for exaggerating the potential harm.

The adverts, commissioned by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, used the rhymes to suggest that Britain faces an inevitable increase in storms, floods and heat waves unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control.

The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science and has told the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they should not be published again.

It has also referred a television commercial to the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, for potentially breaching a prohibition on political advertising.

The rulings will be an embarrassment for Miliband, who has tried to portray his policies as firmly science-based. He had commissioned two posters, four press advertisements and a short film for television and cinema, which started appearing in October last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks.

They attracted 939 complaints — more than the ASA received for any advertisement last year. The deluge posed problems for the ASA, which is not a scientific body, so it decided to compare the text of Miliband’s adverts with the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Based on that comparison, it ruled that two of the DECC’s adverts had broken the advertising code on three counts: substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.

******

Be sure to examine our previous coverage  (LINKS  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16).

The University of East Anglia emails show how climate scientists tried manipulate and cover up dats and censor and punish other scientists who published data that went against the alarmist orthodoxy. The climate scientists agreed via email that if confronted with a FOI request for the raw data that they would destroy it rather than give it up. The scientists stayed true to that pact and now much of the raw data that global warming alarmism is supposed to be based upon is gone. That research data was mostly paid for by taxpayers.

This is contrary to the basic tenets of the scientific method, where other scientsist look at your raw data and see if your results can be duplicated.

*****

UPDATE – UK Parliament Launches Fraud Investigation! British Institute of Physics scathing report:

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.

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 [when faced with FOI requests for the raw data the global warming alarmists delayed till legal remedies were exhausted and then in flagrant violation of the law destroyed the data – IUSB Vision Editor] . 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.

The Royal Society of Chemistry also reports HERE.

Hat Tip Hotair.com!

UK Times 27 Feb 2010:

University tried to mislead Parliament on climate change e-mails

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament.

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act. [Just as we have stated from minute one – IUSB Vision Editor]

Professor Phil Jones, director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit, has stepped down while an inquiry takes place into allegations that he manipulated data to avoid scrutiny of his claims that manmade emissions were causing global warming. Professor Edward Acton, the university’s vice-chancellor, published a statement he sent to the committee before giving evidence to MPs at a public hearing on Monday. He said a letter from the ICO “indicated that no breach of the law has been established [and] that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie”.

But the ICO’s letter said: “The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.”

The letter also confirmed the ICO’s previous statement that the university had failed in its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by rejecting requests for data. The university had demanded that the ICO withdraw this statement.

The ICO letter, signed by Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: “I can confirm that the ICO will not be retracting the statement …The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. [This means that the only reason they are not being prosecuted is because the university managed to delay all of this until the statute of limitations ran out – IUSB Vision Editor]

“The ICO is not resiling from its position on this.”

The ICO cannot prosecute the university because the complaint about its rejection of the information request was made too late. The ICO is seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach of the act.

Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Committee, said: “It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy.

 

UPDATE IIIn their words:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

“A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.”
– Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

Dr. Jones Admits Emails are True – Breitbart News March 2 , 2010:

A British climate researcher at the centre of a row over global warming science has admitted he wrote some “pretty awful” emails to sceptics when he was refusing their requests for data.

But Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, defended Monday his decision not to release the data about temperatures from around the world, saying it was not “standard practice” to do so.

“I have obviously written some pretty awful emails,” Jones told British lawmakers in response to a question about a message he sent to a sceptic in which he refused to release data saying he believed it would be misused.

The admission from the scientist, who has stood aside as director of the climate centre while investigations take place, came at a parliamentary hearing in Britain into the scandal.

The leading research centre came under fire ahead of key climate talks in Copenhagen in December, after more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents were hacked from the university’s server and posted online.

 

UPDATE III – Report to UK Parliament: Climate Research Unit Software Did Not Meet Professional Standards

The report is HERE.  Anthony Watts comments HERE.

 

*****

UK Guardian 9 Feb 2010:

Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to ‘censor’ their critics

Peer review has been put under strain by conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions.

The Guardian has published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.

AP February 18, 2010:

Top U.N. Climate Official Yvo de Boer Resigning

De Boer’s resignation comes in the wake of the continuing Climate-gate scandal — a story that began with the leak of stolen e-mails from top climate scientists and led to revelations of sloppy science, efforts to suppress dissenting opinions and ultimately flaws in the U.N.’s top climate policy document.

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal recently dropped a bombshell of his own, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

UK Daily Mail 14 Feb 2010:

Phil Jones is the head of the climate unit at the University of East Anglia which was a primary source of the IPCC data.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.

  • Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing.
  • There has been no global warming since 1995.
  • Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes.

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

UK Daily Express Feb 15 2010:

THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

UK Times Feb 14 2010:

World may not be warming, say scientists.

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

We covered the story of the ground stations as well. They were put in parking lots, asphault, next to building heat vents etc.

UK Telegraph 13 Feb. 2010:

Read this VERY carefully.

One more alarming claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report is disintegrating under closer examination.

Ever more question marks have been raised in recent weeks over the reputations of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and of its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. But the latest example to emerge is arguably the most bizarre and scandalous of all. It centres on a very specific scare story which was included in the IPCC’s 2007 report, although it was completely at odds with the scientific evidence – including that produced by the British expert in charge of the relevant section of the report. Even more tellingly, however, this particular claim has repeatedly been championed by Dr Pachauri himself.

Only last week Dr Pachauri was specifically denying that the appearance of this claim in two IPCC reports, including one of which he was the editor, was an error. Yet it has now come to light that the IPCC, ignoring the evidence of its own experts, deliberately published the claim for propaganda purposes.

One of the most widely quoted and most alarmist passages in the main 2007 report was a warning that, by 2020, global warming could reduce crop yields in some countries in Africa by 50 per cent. Dr Pachauri not only allowed this claim to be included in the short Synthesis Report, of which he was co-editor, but has publicly repeated it many times since.

The origin of this claim was a report written for a Canadian advocacy group by Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan academic who draws part of his current income from advising on how to make applications for “carbon credits”. As his primary sources he cited reports for three North African governments. But none of these remotely supported what he wrote. The nearest any got to providing evidence for his claim was one for the Moroccan government, which said that in serious drought years, cereal yields might be reduced by 50 per cent. The report for the Algerian government, on the other hand, predicted that, on current projections, “agricultural production will more than double by 2020”. Yet it was Agoumi’s claim that climate change could cut yields by 50 per cent that was headlined in the IPCC’s Working Group II report in 2007.

What made this even odder, however, was that the group’s

co-chairman was a British agricultural expert, Dr Martin Parry, whose consultancy group, Martin Parry Associates, had been paid £75,000 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for two reports which had come to totally different conclusions. Specifically designed to inform the IPCC’s 2007 report, these predicted that by 2020 any changes were likely to be insignificant. The worst case they could come up with was that by 2080 climate change might decrease crop yields by “up to 30 per cent”.

British taxpayers poured out money for the section of the IPCC report for which Dr Parry was responsible. Defra paid £2.5 million through the Met Office, plus £330,000 for Dr Parry’s salary as co-chairman, and a further £75,000 to his consultancy for two more reports on the impact of global warming on world food supplies. Yet when it came to the impact on Africa, all this peer-reviewed work – including further expert reports by Britain’s Dr Mike Hulme and Dutch and German teams – was ignored in favour of a prediction from one Moroccan activist at odds with his own cited sources.

However, the story then got worse when Dr Pachauri himself came to edit and co-author the IPCC’s Synthesis Report (for which the IPCC paid his Delhi-based Teri institute, out of the £400,000 allocated for its production). Not only did Pachauri’s version again give prominence to Agoumi’s 50 per cent figure, but he himself has repeated the claim on numerous occasions since, in articles, interviews and speeches –such as the one he gave to a climate summit in Potsdam last September, where he boasted he was speaking “in the voice of the world’s scientific community”.

UK Guardian 21 Feb 2010:

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown.

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.

UK Guardian 20 Jan 2010:

IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers

Senior members of the UN’s climate science body admit a claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 was unfounded.

The UN’s climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 – was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph “refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.”

Newsweek – Which has been well invested in global warming alarmism published the following. For Newsweek to go this far in critiqueing the IPCC is stunning. Newsweek has changed its business model to move more towards NBC style leftist advocacy journalism. There is no question that Newsweek wants the global warming orthodoxy to be accepted because it would allow the kind of central control of socioety and the economy that Newsweek has been advocating.

Iceberg Ahead. Climate scientists who play fast and loose with the facts are imperiling not just their profession but the planet.

What went wrong? Part of the blame lies, of course, with those who obstructed the efforts of the IPCC and the individual scientists, including bloggers who tried to sandbag scientists with spurious FOIA requests, and the perpetrators (as yet unknown) of the hack at the Climatic Research Unit. Part of the blame also falls on the climate scientists themselves. Many of them—including perhaps Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC head—may have stepped too far over the line from science to advocacy, undermining their own credibility. Some scientists, as a result, are now calling for a change in tone from antagonism to reconciliation. Climate science, they say, needs to open its books and be more tolerant of scrutiny from the outside. Its institutions—notably the IPCC—need to go about their business with greater transparency. “The circle-the-wagons mentality has backfired,” says Judith Curry, head of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

The first thing to fix is the institution that has borne the brunt of the recent public-relations disaster: the IPCC itself. Recently there have been several minor revelations of sloppiness. A line in the group’s 2007 report stating that glaciers in the Himalayas will melt entirely by 2035 turns out to have come not from the peer-reviewed literature, but from a 1999 article in New Scientist, a popular magazine in the U.K. More damaging, IPCC chairman Pachauri has been acting as a consultant to financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank and Pegasus, an investment firm [those firms had a financial stake in global warming being true – IUSB Vision Editor]. Although he says he has donated the proceeds to the nonprofit organization he founded in Delhi to promote charitable programs in sustainability, many people have wondered whether the head of a scientific organization that calls itself “policy neutral” should be consulting with banks. Some have called for his resignation.

Herald Sun of Austrailia 15 Feb 2010:

Phil Jones, the University of East Anglia climate scientist at the centre of the Climategate scandal, concedes to the BBC we’ve had warming bursts just like the last one that the IPCC claims was probably man-made:

A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?…

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

He agrees that any warming since 1995 is “statistically insignificant”:

B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Jones also agrees there has been cooling since January 2002, but insists it’s statistically insignificant because the period is too short:


C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

And he is prepared to agree at least that even he’s not yet sure that it’s warmer now than it was in the Medieval Warm Period (which the IPCC pooh-poohed):

G – There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

So the recent rate of warming isn’t unprecedented when likened to recent warming periods that are not blamed on man. There has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years, and even cooling since January 2002. The world may, even in Jones’ view, still be cooler now than it was 1000 years ago,

And these facts, agreed to now by one of the scientists most responsible for the man-made warming theory, is behind the greatest mass panic in modern history.

Feel you’ve been had?

Here’s how Jones still justifies his belief that man is warming the world dangerously:

H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.

It seems the belief is based more on an absence of knowledge than the presence of proof.

UPDATE

More questions about the science that was once “settled”:

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution…

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC…

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site…

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

UPDATE 2

Joseph D’Aleo, a former professor of meteorology and climatology, is not impressed with the reason Jones gives for dismissing natural factors for the warming between 1975 and 1998. First, here’s the question put to Jones, and his answer:

Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998?…

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

D’Aleo:

He said the solar was flat. Here, it actually depends on what and whose measure of solar output you use.

Some, like Judith Lean, show flat solar output, but others like Hoyt/Schatten/Willson show an increase in line with recent decadal warming. Also, the other solar factors like ultraviolet (Shindell and Labitzke) and geomagnetic (Svensmark, Friis-Christensen), which can influence Earth’s temperature through ozone chemistry or cosmic ray cloud cover variations, were ignored by Lean and the IPCC (though they were discussed at some length in the IPCC science chapters). Scafetta and West have shown that, depending on which reconstruction is used and assuming that they are proxies for the total solar effect, you can explain up to 69% of the government (inflated) warming since 1900.

Anthony Watts 11 Feb. 2010:

New Paper in Science: Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower

This Week in SCIENCE, Volume 327, Issue 5967, Food Security dated February 12 2010, is now available at:  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol327/issue5967/twis.dtl

Fox News 22 Feb 2010:

New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge

Thomas Karl, the head of Obama’s new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department’s new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.

Thomas Karl, 58, was appointed to oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, an ambitious new office that will collect climate change data and disseminate it to businesses and communities.

According to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the office will “help tackle head-on the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change. In the process, we’ll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs.”

Karl, who has played a pivotal role in key climate decisions over the past decade, has kept a low profile as director of National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) since 1998, and he has led all of the NOAA climate services since 2009. His name surfaced numerous times in leaked “climate-gate” e-mails from the University of East Anglia, but there was little in the e-mails that tied him to playing politics with climate data. Mostly, the e-mails show he was in the center of the politics of climate change decisions. [Now the NOAA ground station data is known to be rigged, see other parts of this post – IUSB Vision Editor]

According to a school biography published by Northern Illinois University, Karl shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other leading scientists based on his work at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and he was “one of the 10 most influential researchers of the 1990s who have formed or changed the course of research in a given area.”

But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC’s most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.

The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.

Pielke said he agrees that global warming is happening and that man plays a significant role in it, but he said there are many  factors in addition to the release of carbon into the atmosphere that need to be studied to fully understand the phenomenon. He said he resigned from the IPCC in August 2005 because his data, and the work of numerous other scientists, were not included in its most recent report.

In his resignation letter, Pielke wrote that he had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten with a too-narrow focus.

One of the key areas of dispute, he said, was in describing “recent regional trends in surface and tropospheric temperatures,” and the impact of land use on temperatures. It is the interpretation of this data on which the intellectual basis of the idea of global warming hangs.

In an interview, Pielke reiterated that Karl “has actively opposed views different from his own.” And on his Web site last week, he said Karl’s appointment “assures that policy makers will continue to receive an inappropriately narrow view of our actual knowledge with respect to climate science.”

The UK Register 15th February 2010 11:00 GMT

IPCC hurricane conclusions unsupportable

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as meteorologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He’s a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community – his studies include critical systems analysis.

Hatton has released what he describes as an ‘A-level’ statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration. He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist.

Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.

“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity – 2005 – the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.

The IPCC does indeed conclude that “there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.” If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn’t support.

Claims and data

Thre IPCC’s WG1 paper states: “There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater.” Hatton points out the data quality is similar in each area.

The IPCC continues: “It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.” But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase.

“The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,” Hatton told us. A more scientifically useful conclusion would have been to ask why there was a disparity. “This differential behaviour to me is very interesting. If it’s due to increased warming in one place, and decreased warming in the other – then that’s interesting to me.”

Hatton has thirty years of experience of getting scientific papers published, but describes this one, available on his personal website, as “unpublishable”.

“It’s an open invitation to tell me I’m wrong,” he says. He was prompted to look more closely by the Climategate emails, and by his years of experience with computer modelling. All code and data on which policy conclusions are made should be open and freely downloadable, he says – preferably with open tools.

You can download both the paper and the code and tools from here.

UK Times 28 Feb 2010:

National Hurricane Center: IPCC Hurricane Claims Wrong

Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN’s climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms.

The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since 1970 was probably linked to global warming.

It followed some of the most damaging storms in history such as Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans and Hurricane Dennis which hit Cuba, both in 2005.

The IPCC added that humanity could expect a big increase in such storms over the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled.

The warning helped turn hurricanes into one of the most iconic threats of global warming, with politicians including Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, and Al Gore citing them as a growing threat to humanity.

The cover of Gore’s newest book, Our Choice, even depicts an artist’s impression of a world beset by a series of huge super-hurricanes as a warning of what might happen if carbon emissions continue to rise.

However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.

It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

It does, however, suggest that when tropical storms do occur they could get slightly stronger, with average windspeeds rising by 2-11% by 2100. A storm is termed a hurricane when wind speeds exceed 74mph, but most are much stronger. A category 4 or 5 hurricane such as Katrina generates speeds in excess of 150mph.

“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.

Anthony Watts has more on this story HERE.

Wall Street Journal 16 Feb 2010:

The Continuing Climate Meltdown. More embarrassments for the U.N. and ‘settled’ science.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there’s no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC’s headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.

Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state.”

But as Jonathan Leake of London’s Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, “did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning.”

The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the “transformation of natural coastal areas,” the “destruction of more mangroves,” “glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches,” changes in the ecosystem of the “Mesoamerican reef,” and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its “research” reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.

The IPCC has also cited a study by British climatologist Nigel Arnell claiming that global warming could deplete water resources for as many as 4.5 billion people by the year 2085. But as our Anne Jolis reported in our European edition, the IPCC neglected to include Mr. Arnell’s corollary finding, which is that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as six billion people.

The IPCC report made aggressive claims that “extreme weather-related events” had led to “rapidly rising costs.” Never mind that the link between global warming and storms like Hurricane Katrina remains tenuous at best. More astonishing (or, maybe, not so astonishing) is that the IPCC again based its assertion on a single study that was not peer-reviewed. In fact, nobody can reliably establish a quantifiable connection between global warming and increased disaster-related costs. In Holland, there’s even a minor uproar over the report’s claim that 55% of the country is below sea level. It’s 26%.

Meanwhile, one of the scientists at the center of the climategate fiasco has called into question other issues that the climate lobby has claimed are indisputable. Phil Jones, who stepped down as head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit amid the climate email scandal, told the BBC that the world may well have been warmer during medieval times than it is now.

This raises doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries. Mr. Jones also told the BBC there has been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years, though he considers this to be temporary.

All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobby’s regulatory agenda.

The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC’s shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

Australia Herald Sun 16 Feb 2010:

Climatequotes discovers another supposedly impeccable, peer-reviewed source for the IPCC’s alarmist claims in its 2007 report. The claim in question:

Climate variability affects many segments of this growing economic sector [Tourism]. For example, wildfires in Colorado (2002) and British Columbia (2003) caused tens of millions of dollars in tourism losses by reducing visitation and destroying infrastructure (Associated Press, 2002; Butler, 2002; BC Stats, 2003).

Climatequotes:

That’s two newspaper articles and one tourism statistics newsletter. I can’t find the first two articles, one is an old AP story and the other was in a newspaper that folded last year.

That doesn’t sound very scientific. And, in fact, the one source able to be checked – and the only one dealing with the impact of fires in British Columbia – shows no evidence for the IPCC claim. Here is the relevant passage from BC Stats, 2003: Tourism Sector Monitor – November 2003, British Columbia Ministry of Management Services, Victoria, 11 pp. [Accessed 09.02.07: :]http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/tour/tsm0311.pdf]:

Tourism is a seasonal phenomenon. The wildfires unfortunately burned mostly during July, August and September, the three months of the year when most room revenues are typically generated. More precisely, establishments generated 38% of their annual room revenues in these three months between 1995 and 2001. Moreover, the forest fires were at their peak in August, also
the peak month for tourism. Despite this bad timing, the peak of the 2003 season does not appear to be lower than the peak of previous years.

Climatequotes rightly concludes:

Once again, I am not saying that their claim is wrong. I am only underlining that their sources don’t match their claims. This shows that the IPCC already had a point of view, and they simply wanted a source to back up their claims. They found this BC Stats, probably didn’t read it because they figured it must show that fires reduce tourism, and cited it as the source of their claim. The IPCC makes a conclusion, then looks for evidence that supports their claims, and cite it. Sometimes they even cite evidence that doesn’t support their claims. Since no one read it for 2 years, they almost got away with it. This isn’t how a reputable scientific organization works.

World Climate Report 16 Feb 2010:

Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%.

Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC’s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.

The defenders of the IPCC have contended that most of these errors are minor in significance and are confined to the Working Group II Report (the one on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) of the IPCC which was put together by representatives from various regional interests and that there was not as much hard science available to call upon as there was in the Working Group I report (“The Physical Science Basis”). The IPCC defenders argue that there have been no (or practically no) problems identified in the Working Group I (WGI) report on the science.

We humbly disagree.

In fact, the WGI report is built upon a process which, as revealed by the Climategate emails, is, by its very nature, designed not to produce an accurate view of the state of climate science, but instead to be an “assessment” of the state of climate science—an assessment largely driven by preconceived ideas of the IPCC design team and promulgated by various elite chapter authors. The end result of this “assessment” is to elevate evidence which supports the preconceived ideas and denigrate (or ignore) ideas that run counter to it.

These practices are clearly laid bare in several recent Petitions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—petitions asking the EPA to reconsider its “Endangerment Finding” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases endanger our public health and welfare. The basis of the various petitions is that the process is so flawed that the IPCC cannot be considered a reliable provider of the true state of climate science, something that the EPA heavily relies on the IPCC to be. The most thorough of these petitions contains over 200 pages of descriptions of IPCC problems and it a true eye-opener into how bad things had become.

There is no doubt that the 200+ pages would continue to swell further had the submission deadline not been so tight. New material is being revealed daily.

Just last week, the IPCC’s (and thus EPA’s) primary assertion that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations” was shown to be wrong. This argument isn’t included in the Petition.

This adds yet another problem to the growing list of errors in the IPCC WGI report, this one concerns Antarctic sea ice trends.

While all the press is about the observed declines in Arctic sea ice extent in recent decades, little attention at all is paid to the fact that the sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been on the increase. No doubt the dearth of press coverage stems from the IPCC treatment of this topic. [Sources ar listed so follow the link and continue reading for this piece – IUSB Vision Editor]

Richmond Times-Dispatch 17 Feb 2010:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli turned up the heat on global warming yesterday.

On behalf of the state, Cuccinelli filed a petition asking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its December finding that global warming poses a threat to people.

Cuccinelli also filed a petition with the federal appeals court in Washington seeking a court review of the EPA finding.

Cuccinelli had no comment beyond a brief e-mail to news organizations. A news conference on the issue is scheduled for this afternoon.

Gov. Bob McDonnell supported the moves.

Author and Senior Fellow at CEI Christopher Horner 17 Feb 2010:

Chris Horner filed the FOIA request that NASA didn’t comply with for two years. Now we know what took so long. (Click here for the NASA files. This is Part One of a four-part series.)

In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).

I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.

On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.

The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.

As you examine the email excerpts below, as well as those which I will discuss in the upcoming three parts of this series, bear in mind that the contents of these emails were intended to prop up the argument for the biggest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity. NASA’s activist scientists leave no doubt in their emails that this was indeed their objective. Also, please note that these documents were responsive to a specific FOIA request from two years ago. Recent developments — combined with admissions contained in these documents — beg further requests, which have both been already filed and with more forthcoming.

Furthermore, on January 29, 2010, CEI filed our appeal of NASA continuing to improperly withhold other documents responsive to our FOIA requests. In this appeal we informed NASA that if they do not comply by the twentieth day, as required by law, we shall exercise our appellate rights in court immediately.

[After this point the article gets a bit arcane in explaining the details, follow the link above for the raw data. – IUSB Vision Editor]

Australian Herald Sun 21 Feb 2010:  – New Report shows Antarctic  sea Ice Increasing

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Orange County Register 12 Feb 2010:

It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We’re on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.

At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics’ views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the “science is settled?”

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff’s so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. “Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?” the paper asked. The paper’s investigation also couldn’t find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, “how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?” The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC’s Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was “speculation” lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced “voodoo science.” After the melting-scam perpetrator ‘fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn’t know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who “decided to overlook it.” Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was “preoccupied.” Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri’s India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming’s melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri’s resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.’s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication “some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.” Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence.” We’re shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as “peer-reveiwed” science. The Times said the assertion actually “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The “research” was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested “up to 40 percent” of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC’s climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they’ve often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can’t be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D’Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers’ anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find “further investigation is warranted” to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that “seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let’s not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers’ errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

The Examiner 6 Feb 2010:

European Parliament Member Godfrey Bloom Rips Global Warming Hysteria:

New Study:  Carbon dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature.

Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles and Carbon Dioxide

The latest submission to arXiv:physics.ao-ph by Gerald E. Marsh

Summary:

It has been shown above that low altitude cloud cover closely follows cosmic ray flux; that the galactic cosmic ray flux has the periodicities of the glacial/interglacial cycles; that a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux was coincident with Termination II [the warming that initiated the Eemian, the last interglacial] ; and that the most likely initiator for Termination II was a consequent decrease in Earth’s albedo.
The temperature of past interglacials was higher than today most likely as a consequence of a lower global albedo due to a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the galactic cosmic ray intensity exhibits a 100 kyr periodicity over the last 200 kyr that is in phase with the glacial terminations of this period. Carbon dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature.

Download Paper Here.

Globe and Mail 5 Feb 2010:

The great global warming collapse. As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement.

Meantime, the IPCC – the body widely regarded, until now, as the ultimate authority on climate science – is looking worse and worse. After it was forced to retract its claim about melting glaciers, Mr. Pachauri dismissed the error as a one-off. But other IPCC claims have turned out to be just as groundless.

For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”

Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri’s own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits.

Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they’re bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain’s Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri’s resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.

New study using satellite data: Alaskan glacier melt overestimated – Anthony Watts – 7 Feb 2010:

From a press release provided by Centre national de la recherche scientifique in Paris, France:

Glaciologists at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS – CNRS/CNES/IRD/Université Toulouse 3) and their US and Canadian colleagues (1) have shown that previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40 years. Recent data from the SPOT 5 and ASTER satellites have enabled researchers to extensively map mass loss in these glaciers, which contributed 0.12 mm/year to sea-level rise between 1962 and 2006, rather than 0.17 mm/year as previously estimated.

Canada Financial Post 8 Fen 2010:

IPCC faces another desertion – its own past chair!

The past chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has joined the growing list of IPCC critics. According to the Sunday Telegraph, Rajendra Pachauri, the disgraced current IPCC chair, now faces criticism from his immediate predecessor, Robert Watson. The Telegraph reports that Watson “stressed that the chairman must take responsibility for correcting errors.” In another indication that Watson is taking pains to distance himself from the organization he once headed, the Sunday Times, in a story entitled Top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility, reports that Watson warned the IPCC that it must tackle its blunders.

Watson’s comments come on the heels of another glaring embarrassment to come out of the IPCC, this time a claim that global warming could cut crop production in north Africa by up to 50% by 2020. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change,” Watson stated. “I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report.”

In this latest high-profile IPCC gaffe, which has been repeated around the world, including by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the IPCC seems to have relied on a 2003 report from a Winnipeg-based think tank called the International Institute for Sustainable Development. The report, which was not peer-reviewed, in turn seems to have relied on submissions to the UN by civil servants from Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, which also appear not to have been peer-reviewed.

Apart from his post as past IPCC chair, Watson is also the UK’s highest level environmental scientist, as Chief Scientist at the UK’s environment ministry. Prior to his current position, which he assumed in 2007, Watson was Chair of Environmental Science and Science Director of the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia, the same university caught up in the Climategate scandal.

Watson’s new-found scepticism of the science being produced by the IPCC represents an ironic reversal. In 2002, he remarked that “The only person who doesn’t believe the science is President Bush.”

American Thinker 8 Feb 2010:

Droughtgate: Study Finds IPCC had Temperature – Drought Connection Backwards

Add another to the growing list of IPCC outrages.

As I mentioned in last week’s IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks, in Chapter 9 of Assessment Report 4’s (AR4) Working Group One (WG1) Report, the IPCC claimed that manmade CO2-driven higher temperatures drive higher evaporation, and thereby cause droughts. As readers are all too aware, droughts are favorite ingredients in most alarmists’ recipes for manmade climate disaster. But a paper published last month in Geophysical Research Letters lays out a compelling argument that the IPCC has it completely backwards – that droughts are actually causing warming, not the other way around.

[Follow the link above to read the rest of this article as it gets into arcane nitty gritty of the science – IUSB Vision Editor]

Canada Free Press Dr. Tim Ball 8 Feb 2010:

IPCC And CRU Are The Same Corrupt Organization

Cost of the corruption of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is likely a trillion dollars already and there is no measure of the lives lost because of unnecessary reactions like biofuels affecting food supplies. Stories appear about the corruption at the IPCC and others about the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most people, including the media, don’t seem to realize the IPCC is the CRU. Some  articles mention both but don’t make the connection. A recent article in the Globe and Mail is a good example.

The article is a small shift because the Globe has consistently promoted human caused warming and attacked skeptics. However, failure to make the connection allows people involved to develop defenses, withdraw from associations or go into hiding.

A Very Large Cast

Universities and governments are already whitewashing the behavior of prominent individuals like Phil Jones and Michael Mann. Nobody else involved with the scandal is facing even biased internal investigation. Many are not mentioned in the limited media reports on the scandal. People like Mike Hulme, Tom Wigley, Benjamin Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Raymond Bradley, John Holdren, Jonathan Overpeck, Caspar Amman, Michael Oppenheimer, Tom Crowley, Gavin Schmidt, William Connolley, Tim Osborn, Thomas Karl, Andrew Weaver, Eric Steig, and all names on the CRU emails require investigation. They had to know what was going on, partly because they all used the same vehicles of attack and deception. By investigating only two individuals the collective culpability of the CRU and the IPCC goes unchallenged. Investigation of two individuals underscores the false claim there are one or two “bad apples” but the overall science is unaffected. The IPCC received a Nobel Prize collectively; they must bear the blame collectively.

There are also those in government who acted in extremely questionable ways. Chief among these are members of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) including John Mitchell. He was review editor of the IPCC and initially denied access to information then claimed it was erased. The UKMO later said the information existed but said it was protected information. The Telegraph newspaper said of this, Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.

[Be sure to read the rest of Dr. Ball’s important article at the link above – IUSB Vision editor]

American Thinker:

CRU was the tip of the iceberg NOAA deleted and manipulated data too.

Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.
Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.

Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate — American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.
As you’ll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering.

NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out

Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it.

Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections — some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata.

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.
Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that:

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

[Read the rest of the article at the link above, it contains scientific data, charts and graphs for those wishing to see the raw data. – IUSB Vision Editor]

Australia Herald Sun 25 Jan. 2010:

The IPCC scandal: the African data was sexed up too.

Yet more evidence that the IPCC cooked the books. Here’s its 2007 claim that global warming could devastate African agriculture:

In other [African] countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period…

In fact, that claim comes from a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper which looked at just three African countries, and was produced by a sustainable development lobby group. How did this end up as IPCC gospel?

Woooeb News 26 Jan 2010 :

Climate scandal grows as scientists detail “horrifying examples of deliberate tampering with the temperature data”

Washington, DC 1/26/2010 06:31 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)

An extensive survey of the literature and data regarding ground and sea surface temperature records uncovers deception through data manipulation, reports the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).

Authors veteran meteorologists Joe d’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”.

That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century.

The researchers found –

  • All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
  • All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
  • Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
  • There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
  • Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper station sitting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstate warming.
  • Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
  • Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
  • In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
  • Satellite temperature monitoring has already taken the place of terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record.
  • The terrestrial global-temperature databases on which so many important policy decisions based are entirely inadequate and unfit for further use.
  • NOAA, not CRU, was the driving force behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming” – a warming that has been exaggerated in level and rate.

Robert Ferguson, President of SPPI, said: “The entire case for alarm about ‘global warming’ is of course predicated on the assumption that ‘global warming’ has actually occurred. D’Aleo and Watts sampling of horrifying examples of deliberate tampering with the temperature data from all parts of the world raises very serious questions not just about how much ‘global warming’ occurred in the last century but also about whether there was any significant warming at all.

“The serious question now arises: do these transparent data manipulations by self-interested government agents add to cascading revelations of worldwide scientific and financial fraud?

This paper shows the question to be far more than merely academic or rhetorical. Unless climatology cleans up its act, it will discredit not only itself but science as a whole. Certainly there is now no scientific basis for any of the policies recommended by the UN’s climate panel or Western governments, now being pursued at catastrophic cost to national economies and personal liberties of a once sovereign citizenry.”

Read Full Paper Here

UK Telegraph 30 Jan 2010:

UN climate change panel based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC’s report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

UK Times 31 Jan 2010:

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

This is the third time in as many weeks that serious doubts have been raised over the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. Two weeks ago, after reports in The Sunday Times, it was forced to retract a warning that climate change was likely to melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. That warning was also based on claims in a WWF report.

Kansas City Star 1 Feb. 2010:

Climategate: ‘The global warming movement is dead’

By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

Walter Russell Mead writes that while the evidence of global warming is troubling — and deserves more intensive research — it wasn’t convincing enough to compel governments to do what many thought necessary to deal with the threat. Knowing this, the scientists hyped the evidence, even to the extent of breaking the law.

The British government has concluded that University of East Anglia, home of the research institute that provides the global warming [community] with much of its key data, had violated Britain’s Freedom of Information Act when scientists refused to hand over data so that critics could check their calculations and methods. Breaking the law to hide key pieces of data isn’t just ‘science as usual,’ as the global warming movement’s embattled defenders gamely tried to argue. A cover-up like that suggests that you indeed have something to conceal.

The unraveling is well underway, as we see in recent reports that the UN’s supposedly unimpeachable Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had only flimsy evidence for its claims of melting Himalayan glaciers and looming rainforest destruction.

We shouldn’t forget that the people who preened as climate saviors sought to impose measures, like the cap-and-trade plan, that would have jacked up energy prices and crushed economic growth. If you’re going to do that — if you’re going to argue that we face a threat that requires paying a price in diminished opportunity — you better have good evidence, and the IPCC simply didn’t have the goods.

TBR 1 Feb 2010:

NIWA reveals New Zealand original climate data missing.

More major embarrassment for New Zealand’s ‘leading’ climate research unit NIWA tonight, with admissions that it “does not hold copies” of the original reports documenting adjustments to New Zealand’s weather stations.

The drama hit the headlines worldwide in late November when serious questions were raised about the “adjustments” NIWA had made to weather records. The adjusted data shows a strong warming trend over the past century, whereas unadjusted records had nowhere near as much warming.

NIWA promised to make its data and corrections fully available, but responding to an Official Information Act request their legal counsel has now admitted it cannot provide copies of the original adjustment records.

Now, a news release from the Climate Science Coalition is blowing the NIWA climate scientists out of the water:

[Read this carefully – IUSB Vision Editor]

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been urged by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) to abandon all of its in-house adjustments to temperature records. This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.

In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”. On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature.

“The only inference that can be drawn from this is that NIWA has casually altered its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record. The result is that the official temperature record has been adjusted on unknown dates for unknown reasons, so that its probative value is little above that of guesswork. In such a case, the only appropriate action would be reversion to the raw data record, perhaps accompanied by a statement of any known issues,” said Terry Dunleavy, secretary of NZCSC.

“NIWA’s website carries the raw data collected from representative temperature stations, which disclose no measurable change in average temperature over a period of 150 years. But elsewhere on the same website, NIWA displays a graph of the same 150-year period showing a sharp warming trend. The difference between these two official records is a series of undisclosed NIWA-created ‘adjustments’.

“Late last year our coalition published a paper entitled ‘Are We Feeling Warmer Yet?’ and asked NIWA to disclose the schedule detailing the dates and reasons for the adjustments. The expressed purpose of NZCSC was to replicate the calculations, in the best traditions of peer-reviewed science.

“When NIWA did not respond, Hon Rodney Hide asked Oral and Written Questions in Parliament, and attended a meeting with NIWA scientists. All to no avail, and the schedule of adjustments remained a secret. We now know why NIWA was being so evasive – the requested schedule did not exist.

“Well qualified climate scientist members of our coalition believe that NIWA has forfeited confidence in the credibility of its temperature recording procedures, and that it cannot be trusted to try to cover up its own ineptitude by in-house adjustments. What is needed is open access in the public domain to all of the known reasons for post-reading adjustments to enable independent climate analysts to make their own comparative assessments of temperature variations throughout New Zealand since the middle of the 19th century,” said Mr Dunleavy.

Pittsburg Tribune Review 4 Feb 2010:

Penn State opens probe into climate-change researcher’s work.

Fearing erosion of public confidence in research climate-change scientist Michael Mann conducted, Penn State University officials said Wednesday they will formally investigate the co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

School officials dismissed three allegations against Mann that questioned whether he suppressed or falsified data, deleted or concealed e-mails, or misused privileged or confidential information.

But three authors of a Penn State internal inquiry could not “make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence” that Mann deviated from accepted research practices, said a report they published yesterday.

“I fully support the additional inquiry, which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts,” Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center and a meteorology professor, said in a statement. “I intend to cooperate fully in this matter, as I have since the beginning of the process.”

Five Penn State professors will investigate whether Mann violated the school’s research misconduct policy, the report said. The panelists must submit findings and recommendations within 120 days.

Controversy embroiled Mann in November when a hacker stole e-mails from computer servers at Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England and published them on the Internet.

The e-mails contained at least 10 years of communication among climate-change researchers, including Mann. He won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with several hundred other scientists for his work on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In one e-mail, Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit who resigned after the e-mails became public, specifically asked Mann to delete e-mails he wrote to another scientist. Mann did not comply with that e-mail, he said, and did not delete any e-mails.

Penn State officials thought the e-mail incident “raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity,” and those questions could undermine confidence in Mann’s science, in climate science specifically and in science generally.

“There has been more than a whiff of corruption that has followed Mann for years,” said Marc Morano, executive editor of Climate Depot, a Web site published in Washington skeptical of global warming. “The fact that even his own university could not clear his name does not bode well for Mann.”

Morano said “Mann represents everything that is corrupt and unethical in climate science today. He is one of the prime reasons that the global warming movement lay in tatters. Mann will go down in scientific history as a statistical charlatan.”

[What fascinates me is that the leaked emails and files prove that  Mann was a part of the inner circle of fraudulant climate scientists. Let us for a moment assume that Mann never did anything unethical with his data, the emails prove that he knew other climate scientists were, and that he also knew how they conspired to slander and censor other scientists who produced inconvenient data and he knew how they were manipulating the peer review process. Mann said nothing; he should have blown the whistle and he didn’t. This is likely because he pulled in millions of dollars for himself and his university in research grants. Penn State has a massive financial interest in clearing Mann. – IUSB Vision Editor]

Via Anthony Watts:

Christy and McKittrick in the UK Times: doubts on station data.

A new story by Jonathan Leake in the Sunday Times puts the spotlight on surface temperature data.

Rome Airport Weather Station Behind Jet Engine Wash

Above: Rome’s airport weather station. Here is the interactive view.

[IUSB Vision Editor’s Note – Too see more pictures of the outrageous places some of the ground weather stations are placed click HERE.]

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

PJTV 23 Feb 2010-

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate files has led to a reexamination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Based on this minority staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration’s attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia attorneys general.

Senator Inhofe’s announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.

The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations:

  1. The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
  2. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
  3. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
  4. They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:

  1. It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
  2. It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
  3. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.

By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.

Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”

The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.

Daily Telegraph Australia 19 Feb 2010:

Prediction of Droughts never Materialized

The Guardian, February, 2009:

The world’s pre-eminent climate scientists produced a blunt assessment of the impact of global warming on the US yesterday, warning of droughts that could reduce the American south-west to a wasteland and heatwaves that could make life impossible even in northern cities.

In an update on the latest science on climate change, the US Congress was told that melting snow pack could lead to severe drought from California to Oklahoma. In the midwest, diminishing rains and shrinking rivers were lowering water levels in the Great Lakes, even to the extent where it could affect shipping.

“With severe drought from California to Oklahoma, a broad swath of the south-west is basically robbed of having a sustainable lifestyle,” said Christopher Field, of the Carnegie Institution for Science. He went on to warn of scorching temperatures in an array of cities. Sacramento in California, for example, could face heatwaves for up to 100 days a year.

“We are close to a threshold in a very large number of American cities where uncomfortable heatwaves make cities uninhabitable,” Field told the Senate’s environment and public works committee.

ABC News (US), February, 2010:

In the span of just a couple years, the U.S. has gone from very high drought conditions to the lowest amount of drought in the last 10 years, [Doug LeCompte of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] says. “It’s only a few times, really, in the last century that we’ve had this little of the country in drought. That is unusual.”

Big Government.com:

$500,000 in Stimulus Funds to Climate Fraud Professor

The latest example of this is a $500,000 grant to Michael Mann, Professor at Penn State University and unintended c0-star of the ClimateGate e-mail scandal. The leaked e-mails revealed collaboration among scientists to stifle dissenting views on the extent of man-made global warming.

Mann is also the creator of the “Hockey Stick” graph, which purported to show a sharp increase in recent temperatures. That work has been thoroughly discredited by researcher Stephen McIntyre. Yet, in June 2009, the National Science Foundation awarded Mann a three-year $500,000 to further study the climate’s response to human activity.

MM

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Economics 101 | 2 Comments »

Trump: You can’t have a good economy with $80 oil – China is laughing at our stupidity – Global Warming a “Con”

Posted by iusbvision on February 19, 2010

The left will just say that Trump is stupid or something, but any competent observer knows that Trump didn’t get to where he is from being a fool.

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Climate Scientist Idiotic Quote of the Day: Only 10% of Population Will Survive Global Warming

Posted by iusbvision on January 28, 2010

Can only a PhD be this stupid? And of course he is advising the government. Create crisis= get funding.

UK Daily Scottsman:

Warming will ‘wipe out billions’

By Jenny Fyall

MOST of the world’s population will be wiped out if political leaders fail to agree a method of stopping current rates of global warming, one of the UK’s most senior climate scientists has warned.
Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, believes only around 10 per cent of the planet’s population – around half a billion people – will survive if global temperatures rise by 4C.

Anderson’s warning comes just eight days before global leaders meet in Copenhagen for the most crucial talks on climate change reversal since the Rio summit in 1992. Current Met Office projections reveal that the lack of action in the intervening 17 years – in which emissions of climate changing gases such as carbon dioxide have soared – has set the world on a path towards potential 4C rises as early as 2060, and 6C rises by the end of the century.

Anderson, who advises the government on climate change, said the consequences were “terrifying”.

“For humanity it’s a matter of life or death,” he said. “We will not make all human beings extinct as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive.

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Al Gore could become the world’s first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

Posted by iusbvision on January 21, 2010

UK Telegraph:

Last year Mr Gore’s venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Democrats Propose Bill to Have Federal Government “Design” Your Local Communities

Posted by iusbvision on December 15, 2009

Interesting article and the facts behind it are solid. More marxist utopian planning in the name of the “environment”.

 But hey who needs local government when we have a known crook like Senator Chris Dodd? Don’t you all know that a corrupt senator from Connecticut knows better what choices to make for your community than the local officials you elected? Dodd was the senator who slipped in the language in the stimulus bill to see to it that AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got their super bonuses paid for by you and me because they were the biggest people donating to his campaign.

WND:

When the term “Sustainable Development” first entered the world, it was defined to be:

“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The term and the definition are the creation of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, then vice-chair of the International Socialist Party.

To give meaning to this grandiose definition, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development adopted Agenda 21, signed by 179 nations, including the United States.  This document is a 40-chapter laundry list of recommendations to create “Sustainable Communities.” 

Sen. Christopher Dodd is facilitating these U.N. recommendations through his “Livable Communities Act” (S. 1619), which further defines the term this way:

“The term ‘sustainable development’ means a pattern of resource use designed to create livable communities by:

(A) providing a variety of safe and reliable transportation choices;

(B) providing affordable, energy-efficient, and location-efficient housing choices for people of all income levels, ages, races, and ethnicities;

(C) supporting, revitalizing, and encouraging the growth of communities and maximizing the cost effectiveness of existing infrastructure;

(D) promoting economic development and economic competitiveness;

(E) preserving the environment and natural resources;

(F) protecting agricultural land, rural land, and green spaces; and

(G) supporting public health and improving the quality of life for residents of and workers in a community.”

Dodd’s bill will authorize the appropriation of billions of dollars to bribe states and local communities to transform the nation into soviet-styled communities where freedom is sacrificed for the utopian vision of sustainable development.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

CATO Scholar Debates NYU Environmental Studies Students on the Global Warming Scare

Posted by iusbvision on December 11, 2009

Watch the nonsense they have been taught get shut down by simple facts and logic.

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

Two short lectures on some of the data that the “Climategate” scientists tried to hide and fraud.

Posted by iusbvision on December 7, 2009

They uncovered data that their methodology was unreliable and that the warming that was happening before last decade was within standard deviations. In order to hide that they tried to come up with a way to disprove the well documented and well evidenced medieval warming period. So instead of trying to get to the truth they set out to find a way to achieve a desired result; THAT is an anti-science as can be.

This firts video is just a few minutes long and is VERY informative.

Article explaining the above lecture in more detail LINK.

This next video is from Dr. Richard Lindzen, the head of climate research at M.I.T..

UPDATE – “How the World Works” examines the claims of a global warming alarmist trying to justify the emails. The arguments used are sweet sounding strawman arguments that one may fall for unless they are paying close attention. The emails mentioned in the video have been shown to be authentic since this video was made so that argument has been rendered academic.

I like how the alarmist argues that all the fraudulent emails doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is still a greenhouse gas. Well, it also doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of those gases. It is a trace gas, double it and it will still be just a trace gas.

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Scientific American thinks you are stupid: The dissection of a blatant propaganda piece for global warming alarmism.

Posted by iusbvision on December 6, 2009

Scientific American Magazine published an absolute farce of an article defending the scientists involved in the “climategate” scandal. Leaked emails and documents prove that an international cabal of the “global warming elite” rigged the data to show man-made global warming and conspire against other scientists who generated datasets through true scientific methods that challenged them. This cabal has received tens of millions in grant money for their alarmism.  The piece from Scientific American is a testament to the degree of dishonesty and self-delusion academics, journalists, college administrators and ideologues are willing to go; all while making it sound so reasonable.

This piece from Scientific American is a textbook example of first-rate “attitude change propaganda”. What is attitude change propaganda? Attitude change propaganda is the most modern and common form of propaganda and is practiced regularly by the elite media culture. It takes place when the media presents you with half-truths and strategic gaps in the information provided. The information that is provided is presented with an attitude, or particular tone that is designed to create a false narrative in the reader’s mind that is directionally different from the facts in context. Since the false narrative is usually implied or leads the readers there through suggestion and gaps in key information, it is easier to deny when called out on it.

Scientific American:

With all the “hot air” surrounding climate change discussions, none has been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. Longstanding contrarians, such as Sen. James Inhofe (R–Okla.), who famously dubbed climate change a “hoax” in a 2003 speech, has pointed to the stolen e-mails as information that overturns the scientific evidence for global warming and called on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to halt any development of regulation of greenhouse gases pending his investigation into the e-mails. And recent polls have found that fewer Americans today than just two years ago believe that greenhouse gases will cause average temperatures to increase—a drop from 71 percent to 51 percent.

Yet, Arctic sea ice continues to dwindle—as do glaciers across the globe; average temperatures have increased by 0.7 degree Celsius in the past century and the last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record; spring has sprung forward, affecting everything from flower blossoms to animal migrations; and the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to rise, reaching 387 parts per million in 2009, a rise of 30 percent since 1750.

[What they didn’t tell you:

North Pole Sea ice WAS dwindling and then shot up 28.7% the year after the date on their “sea ice continues to dwindle”  link. When sea ice goes up 28.7% and keeps going that is not continuing to dwindle and Scientific American knows that. Their writer is lying to you straight up. They also fail to mention that if this is “global” warming why is the south pole getting colder and did not have the same issues there? Greenland used to be green and now it is covered by a glacier, what did man do to cause the warming that made it green hundreds of years ago and then cause the cooling to have it covered in glaciers?

The “last decade being the warmest on record” link they provide is yet another deception. It was a study done for the purpose of trying to refute satellite and weather balloon data showing the cooling trend over the last 10 years, so the study did not have the goal of providing a comprehensive and accurate result, rather it had the purpose of achieving a specific result. The study which reported that we have seen more warming in the last 10 years was based largely on NOAA Ground Stations. Stations that are routinely placed on asphalt parking lots, on stone structures, next to the heat pumps of buildings, next to barbeque grills, next to chimney’s, surrounded by black tires etc; all of which give the result of higher temperatures. You can see pictures of some of these ground stations in our coverage of this very story HERE. You can also see in our coverage how the rigged raw data still wasn’t giving them the warming trend result they wanted so they just adjusted it, much like was done in the CRU scandal.

The CRU scientists leaked emails admit that they can’t explain the cooling trend over the last decade while publicly claiming that temperatures are still rising.

Again Scientific American is aware of all of this as the data showing it was posted. They are also aware that ground warming isn’t global warming and Arctic Sea Ice changes aren’t global warming any more than Antarctic temperature drops are global cooling.

Their link about the “concentration of greenhouse gases” is also misleading. CO2 is a tiny fraction of all greenhouse gases. It accounts for a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect and manmade CO2, while going up, is a tiny fraction of the previous tiny fractions. The decay of plant life that dies is responsible for far more CO2 than man’s activities. Notice that the article does not mention the most prominent of all greenhouse gasses, water vapor.

So why are they not asking the question, if man-made CO2 is up over the last decade why the global cooling trend? More on that later – Editor]

Nor has the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect changed: CO2 in the atmosphere continues to trap heat that would otherwise slip into space, as was established by Irish scientist John Tyndall in 1859. “There is a natural greenhouse effect, that’s what keeps the planet livable,” noted climate modeller Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) during a Friday conference call with reporters organized by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “Without it, we’d be 33 degrees Celsius colder than we are. That’s been known for hundreds of years.”

He added: “We’re getting up to the point where the total amount of forcing from these greenhouse gases is equivalent to the sun brightening about one percent. That’s a very big number indeed.”

[What they didn’t tell you:

They tell you that heat is being trapped at the greenhouse layer because of more man-made CO2 and Methane. If that is so then it would be easy to measure the heat changes at and just below the greenhouse layer with satellites and balloon instruments, but those methods are made fun of and minimized by the alarmist (LINK see CBS story at the link) because much of that data just doesn’t show the warming that want to see (LINK – LINK). For the reasons stated above as well the alarmists prefer the rigged ground station data.  – Editor]

In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause. “There is a robust consensus that humans are altering the atmosphere and warming the planet,” said meteorologist Michael Mann of The Pennsylvania State University, who also participated in the conference call and was among the scientists whose e-mails have been leaked. “Further increases in greenhouse gases will lead to increasingly greater disruption.”

[What they didn’t tell you:

What ever “consensus” there is or was, was based largely on what we now know is deliberately manipulated data from the CRU in England and other involved people caught in the fudging such as the aforementioned Michael Mann. That consensus is dwindling fast because the IPCC scientists are now (according to a BBC report) turning on each other as most of the data the IPCC used was from this very same cabal of corrupt people who have now been caught conspiring via email to destroy much of the raw data in case of Freedom of Information laws were used on them.

The “scientists” at East Anglia CRU carried out that plan as much of the raw data that was used to push the global warming agenda is now destroyed (LINK). Now that much of the key data is destroyed; they started claiming that they are releasing everything. A smart propaganda move as the elite media will say “see they released everything they had”, but most will not report that most of the key data is now gone forever and what is being released is just what is left (LINK).  The UK Telegraph says that this is the worst scientific disaster of our generation (LINK).

By the way, isn’t it rather odd that Scientific American is using as a source one of the very men at the heart of this scandal who is now fighting to keep his career, his credibility and his millions in grant money? Does anyone else find this strangely self-serving? Michael Mann has been in trouble before. His famous “hockey stick” computer model that “proved” man-made global warming was shown to be a fraud. When others punched in different data or random data the results were the same hockey stick graph showing global warming.

As far as the consensus, here is a LINK to 450 peer-reviewed articles written by global warming alarmism skeptics, or shall we say true scientists. So the truth is that there isn’t much of a truly scientifically based consensus at all. There is certainly a politically motivated consensus among leftists academics. There was even dissent among IPCC authors of the original UN global warming report (LINK). – Editor]

Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails’ wording. For example, the word “trick” in one message, which has been cited as evidence that a conspiracy is afoot, is actually being used to describe a mathematical approach to reconciling observed temperatures with stand-in data inferred from tree ring measurements.

[What they didn’t tell you:

This is where Scientific American gets desperate and really starts to treat you as if you are stupid….. a misreading of the wording they say… OK how about you just go read some of these emails and documents for yourself  (LINK) and you tell me if this is just people taking things out of context.  Even the National Association of Scholars, which has never taken a position on the global warming issue,  is shocked by these documents (LINK) stating that the scientists involved had a “bad faith agenda” went on to say:

The discovery that numerous scientists at CRU have distorted data, misled the public, and behaved in numerous ways counter to principles of academic and scientific integrity must be weighed very seriously.

Broadly speaking, this scandal will alter the burden of proof. From this point on, proponents of global warming theory will receive no benefit of the doubt. Wanton extrapolations, reliance on models in which data can be endlessly readjusted to fit the thesis, and attempts to stigmatize critics as scientifically illiterate will have to stop. Ad hominem attacks on critics suggesting that they are in the hire of “big oil” or other interests will be seen for the shabby evasions they always were.

 – Editor]

The scientists on the conference call, including atmospheric scientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, also addressed other parts of the content of the stolen e-mails, including some that griped about particular journals (Climate Research) or editors (at Geophysical Research Letters). “It’s important to understand what peer review really is,” Mann noted. “It’s not a license for anybody to publish.”

[What they didn’t tell you:

Here we are quoting Michael Mann again. No one said that peer review was a “license for anyone to publish”, and that is a complete and obviously deliberate misreading of what the emails were saying about how this cabal of scientists made clear that they would manipulate, bully and undermine the peer-reviewed process. Their own emails and documents show this effort clearly.

 Mark Steyn comments on how they manipulated the peer review process:

The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style.

– Editor]

As for charges that the CRU database is corrupt or compromised such that its results cannot be trusted, Schmidt noted that a number of other databases with climate records supporting global warming exist throughout the world—including NASA’s GISS, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and even the IPCC, all of which provide access to the raw data. Further, many of the same contrarians arguing that global warming has stopped in recent years are relying on the same CRU record that they are now disparaging as untrustworthy.

[What they didn’t tell you:

This paragraph really takes the cake. NASA and NOAA use the same ground stations that we showed are placed so as to create extra warming (remember on chimneys (new LINK), on black asphalt parking lots etc), so the raw data from those sources is so uncontrolled that it is rendered laughable.

Most of the IPCC data is not original raw data. Remember that much of the IPCC data was from CRU and this cabal of scientists. These same scientists who have now acted on their plan to destroy much of the original raw data. If that raw data was on duplicate at the UN why conspire to destroy data that everyone can get their hands on?

With that said NASA/NOAA/NCDC (all US Government) and even the embattled CRU did have available some raw data sets that showed that global warming alarmist skeptics are correct. We know they had that data because they admitted that they had it and tried to hide it from the public, but some of it has gotten out from time to time.

This piece of raw data came from the CRU and shows the cooling trend of the last decade (LINK). That link also tells of the harassment and death threats that scientists who don’t participate in global warming alarmism have to face (More death threats HERE). This is a raw dataset from the NCDC showing the cooling trend as well (LINK).

The cabal or conspiracy do pull off such a hoax does not end with the CRU, Micheal Mann, John Holdren and crew. A leaked document from the UN (LINK to article and documents) shows that the UN  the entire man-made global warming myth and resulting hysteria is all a scheme to redistribute wealth under the pretense of saving the planet.

The climate research center in New Zealand is now facing their own “adjusted data” scandal (LINK).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was caught via Freedom of Information laws of hiding data and reports that the claims of global warming skeptics are largely true (LINK). This includes emails and such discussing the effort to hide the data.

It isn’t just this field either, money and grant chasing have resulted in a massive plagiarism/ buying opinion scandal at numerous medical schools and  journals (LINK).

Just how badly has our academic system become corrupt? If I had a couple of billion dollars to spend and I started handing out fat grants to research the possible evolutionary existence and eventual extinction of unicorns and after a time I lowered and stopped grants to those who dismissed the idea and increased the grants to those who wrote of its possibility, soon I would see papers that  “presented evidence” of their previous existence. After a number of years we would see peer-reviewed published evidence of the previous existence of unicorns.

The Black Swan Fallacy and how many scientists get drawn into it.

In science very little is ever proven per se, things are ruled out. If I were to hypothesize that all swans are white, because I have never seen a black one or a brown one, as an ethical scientist I would mount a global search for the swan that is not white.

This is not what global warming alarmist scientists do. They are looking for and counting only white swans. They seek to lock out any indicators of black and brown swans. These global warming alarmists have largely ignored the sun, cosmic rays and other factors when it comes to global warming/cooling and blamed it on man. They try to avoid inconvenient questions like how it was that man effected the glacial and interglacial periods, caused the medieval warming period, the Maunder Minimum, etc.

Rex Murphy of the CBC comments “Let us not hear that the science is settled…Science has gone to bed with advocacy” 

– Editor]

UPDATE – The commenters on the Scientific American web site are tearing that awful article apart quite ably. It is a site to see. Here is a statement from one commenter:

This article did not address a single aspect of climategate. It hopes that the reader is so stupid as to believe that “trick” means something else that non-scientists can’t comprehend. We all know what a trick is. You don’t have to be a scientist to know when you are being lied to. If tree ring data was unreliable since 1960, why would it be reliable before 1960. The article ignores that “peer review” was redefined. Explain that one away, will you. Or how these “scientists” were going to beat up someone who disagreed with them. Very mature; very scientific. There was a consensus 30 years ago that there was “global cooling” by much more respected scientists like Carl Sagan that turned out to be false. Science is not supposed to be a religion. It is not based on faith or hope. Global Warming has become a cult, not a science. Nowhere is this more evident than in how the mainstream media have ignored this story for 2 weeks and how Scientists have resorted to the worst form of defensive group think.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 5 Comments »

Climategate II: Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Posted by iusbvision on November 29, 2009

UPDATE – The UK Daily Telegraph now reporting the story HERE. Newsbusters covers the American news media blackout HERE.

Busted. New Zealand’s climate center also caught fudging the data to make it look like there was global warming. So it is not just the whose who of European and American “climate science” who have, what the evidence now shows, was a clear act of conspiracy to push this fraud upon the world. See our “Alarmism” category for more details.

The famed WUWT blog has the details. So does Investigate Magazine who did much of the original reporting.

Mini UPDATE – The Coverup Begins: Investigate Magazine at the link above is spelling out the beginning sof the attempted cover up:

NIWA chief scientist David Wratt says he has no plans to release data backing up claims of different temperature adjustments between historial weather station sites.

Wratt told Investigate tonight that some studies existed which contained “overlapping” periods which allowed NIWA to compare the temperatures at both locations.

He said NIWA intendeds to release data regarding the Kelburn weather station tonight, but will not release other data.

“There are various other sites that will be affected by a change in location”

“Have you done a 12 or 24 month study comparing both locations simultaneously?”

“There’s been a whole lot of work behind this in terms of things like having overlaps between particular stations when they’ve moved. There’s a whole methodology, internationally accepted, where you actually work out how to correct for these sorts of site changes and so on.”

“But you’ll be providing all that shortly?”

“Well, we’re not going to run around in circles just because somebody has put out a press release. We will continue to put out what is reasonable to provide.”

“Wouldn’t it be important –“

“No!”

Yes you do pal, you darn near conned the world into spending trillions of dollars and giving up freedom to a cabal of power mad politicians frothing at the mouth with anticipation of taking central control of the economy for your scam. The New zealand government now wants answers, but will they break the law to hide more evidence just as the creeps at the CRU in England conspired to do?

More data fudging from the New Zealand Climate Center HERE.

New Zealand’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

NIWAtemps

The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:

From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

NIWAraw

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

The revelations are published today in a news alert from The Climate Science Coalition of NZ:

Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA’s web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger’s colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

Proof of man-made warming

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.

NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

“Do you agree it might look bad in the wake of the CRU scandal?”

“No, no,” replied Wratt before hitting out at the Climate Science Coalition and accusing them of “misleading” people about the temperature adjustments.

Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.

..

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 3 Comments »

Examples of the “Climategate” Documents – UPDATE: BBC Had the emails and files for 6 weeks, sat on story. UPDATE II – They carried out their conspiracy threat; much of the raw data from CRU destroyed!

Posted by iusbvision on November 28, 2009

The raw files are HERE.

Our first report on this story HERE. New Zealand Climate Center caught fudging the data too LINK.

UPDATE VII – 14 days go buy and ABC/CBS/NBC refuse to cover the story – LINK.

UPDATE VI – Obama and Democrats refuse to investigate the climate fraud emails and files – LINK.

UPDATE V – UK Daily Express – Climate Fraud and Arctic Sea Ice – LINK.

UPDATE IV – WSJ: The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science – LINK.

UPDATE IIIThey agreed in their emails that if forced to reveal the raw data from Freedom of Information that they would destroy it first. The “scientists” at East Anglia CRU carried out that plan as much of the raw data that was used to push the global warming agenda is now destroyed (LINK). Now that much of the key data is destroyed; NOW they are saying that they are releasing everything. The elite media will say “see they released everything they had”, but most will not report that most of the key data is now gone forever and what is being released is just what is left (LINK).  The UK Telegraph says that this is the worst scientific disaster of our generation (LINK).

UPDATE II – BBC Had the emails and files six weeks ago and sat on the story – LINK.

UPDATEMark Steyn:

The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style.

Via the National Examiner:

The contents of the archive contain documents and email correspondence from a veritable who’s who in climate science. Among those included in the emails are Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, his assistant, Michael Mann of Penn State, Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona, Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies and others.

The emails contain an array of discussions including what appear to be concerted efforts to withhold data. Just as troubling is conversations that allude to potentially manipulating climate data to “hide the decline” of temperatures seen in the last decade.

Some of the excerpts of emails within the archives (edited for brevity, emphasis added):

From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

From Nick McKay (modifying data):

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

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.

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

From Michael Mann (truth doesn’t matter):

Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to  the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t?  As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we  actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our  original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! …  The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org – A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

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.

From Tom Wigley (data modification):

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

From  Ben Santer * (witholding data) :

We should be able to  conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an “audit” by Steven McIntyre;  without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.  In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I  am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research.  As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to  him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide  McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about  these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.  I will be consulting LLNL’s Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

From Phil Jones (forging of dates):

Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn’t appear to be in CC’s online first, but comes up if you search.  You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn’t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date!  Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

From a document titled “jones-foiathoughts.doc” (witholding of data):

Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

From Mick Kelly (modifying data to hide cooling):

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

National Association of Scholars on the “ClimateGate” Scandal

Posted by iusbvision on November 28, 2009

First of all I appreciate the straight forwardness of the NAS statement. It calls out this scandal as what it is proved to be since the files were verified, a conspiracy among scientists from England, the United States etc some of who are affiliated with the IPCC that deliberately falsified, hid and manipulated data to show warming when there was none. The emails also talk about things like finding ways to discredit the medieval warming period and slandering scientists who dared oppose their conclusions. The emails and files are extensive and completely damning. The now caught scientists claim that the emails are taken out of context is clear. There are so many damning emails and statements in those files that the weak denails are not passing the snicker test.

NAS:

Climate Conspiracy

November 23, 2009 By Peter Wood and Ashley Thorne .

On Friday, November 20, the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) acknowledged to the BBC that its email account had been hacked. The night before, word had gone out on Pajamas Media drawing attention to the release of about 172 megabytes of data that had been anonymously posted to a German website. The email correspondence was from faculty members and researchers involved in the study of climate change and the promotion of the idea that global warming is caused by human activities. It showed researchers willfully distorting data to promote their own views, collusion aimed at suppressing or marginalizing discrepant material, including attempts to prevent the publication of competing scientific ideas, and a general attitude of zealotry for a cause. The CRU files have already blossomed into fetid international scandal.

The National Association of Scholars has never taken an official position on anthropogenic global warming. Our work on sustainability, however, has brought us into contact with scientists who have complained bitterly about the strong-arm tactics used by global warming theory proponents to impede other lines of research. It has become increasingly apparent that the ideological fervency that NAS has documented in the sustainability movement has extended into the scientific journals and funding agencies.

The CRU files go a long way towards documenting the bad faith of the agenda-driven pseudo-science of some of the global warming proponents. The revelations in the emails are certain to be seized by global warming skeptics as proof that the theory is entirely mis-founded. That is, of course, not necessarily the right conclusion. Shoddy science and dubious behavior on the part of some global warming proponents doesn’t mean that the theory itself is specious. What we need is good science—and that requires a fair-minded hearing for those who present alternate hypotheses and data that runs counter to the global warming thesis.

This is not to minimize the CRU scandal. CRU is one of the most important and influential academic centers for climate research. Its views have been granted exceptional weight by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN’s most vociferous proponent of global warming theory. CRU’s pronouncements have also substantially shaped the views of Americans who are attentive to the climate change debate. The discovery that numerous scientists at CRU have distorted data, misled the public, and behaved in numerous ways counter to principles of academic and scientific integrity must be weighed very seriously.

Broadly speaking, this scandal will alter the burden of proof. From this point on, proponents of global warming theory will receive no benefit of the doubt. Wanton extrapolations, reliance on models in which data can be endlessly readjusted to fit the thesis, and attempts to stigmatize critics as scientifically illiterate will have to stop. Ad hominem attacks on critics suggesting that they are in the hire of “big oil” or other interests will be seen for the shabby evasions they always were. Let’s hope that the result of this scandal is a restoration of principled inquiry to an important public policy debate.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Professors Paid to Plagiarize – UPDATE: Global warming scientists hacked emails show manipulation of data, hiding of other data and conspiring to attack/smear global warming skeptics!

Posted by iusbvision on November 19, 2009

UPDATE II – More on climategate HERE. New Zealand Climate Center caught fudging the data too LINK.

Professors Paid to Plagiarize

Before we dive into the meat of this important story let me state that we are woefully behind in our academics coverage. The editor has about 30 articles and posts in his head that he is ready to write if he can just find enough hours in the day. Constant news from the banking sector, government etc has been sucking the oxygen out of the air when it comes to news as well. We do hope to catch up soon. There is much news from our friends at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (www.thefire.org) so all readers are encouraged to read that site every day.

This news is so big that it cannot wait.

We hear it all the time, don’t plagiarise, never present an idea or thought that isn’t yours without crediting it.

But guess what….

If you are a professor and you are paid to put your name on an article written by another person, or a company or a research group to put your name on it to give it “added prestige” they no longer call it plagiarism, they call it “ghost writing” and that of course is peeeeeeerfectly ok …..

New York Times:

Senator Charles E. Grassley wrote to 10 top medical schools Tuesday to ask what they are doing about professors who put their names on ghostwritten articles in medical journals — and why that practice was any different from plagiarism by students.

Mr. Grassley, of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, sent the letters as part of his continuing investigation of so-called medical ghostwriting. The term refers to publication of medical journal articles in which an outside writer — sometimes paid by a drug or medical devices company whose product is being studied — has done extensive work on the article without being named on the publication. Instead, one or more academic researchers may receive author credit.

Mr. Grassley said ghostwriting had hurt patients and raised costs for taxpayers because it used prestigious academic names to promote medical products and treatments that might be expensive or less effective than viable alternatives.

“Any attempt to manipulate the scientific literature, which can in turn mislead doctors to prescribe treatments that may be ineffective and/or cause harm to their patients, is very troubling,” the senator wrote.

Some journals, medical associations, writers’ and editors’ groups and pharmaceutical companies themselves have called for crackdowns on ghostwriting. But some universities that employ the professors who put their names on the articles have been slow to respond. Merck, Wyeth (now part of Pfizer), GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca are among the companies accused by lawyers and investigators of providing ghostwriters for research papers.

Mr. Grassley asked the universities to describe their policies on both ghostwriting and plagiarism and to enumerate complaints and describe investigations into both practices since 2004.

Dr. Ross McKinney Jr., director of the Trent Center for Bioethics at Duke University, said faculty who took credit for a ghostwritten paper should suffer the same penalties as students who plagiarized.

“But it is a very, very difficult thing to prove, just as it turns out that plagiarism is hard to prove,” he said in an interview.

Some say “wow” after reading that, but this writer who has been researching for a new book on academia and its shortcomings, is not surprised one bit and you deserve to know why.

In academics it is no secret that money, prestige and ideological conformity (in that order) are the bread and butter for most academics and most universities. Most academic writings are designed to serve two purposes, to generate grant money and to win the praises of academic and journalistic peers. Generating true scientific discovery and debate is a distant third.

The current state of “global warming” academic writing is a real world example. Most of the grant money put up for such “research” are handed out by those who expect who to see papers that promote the idea that central control of our economy and lifestyles is the best way to combat “global warming”, which is now called “climate change” because of a minor 10 year cooling trend in global temperatures (even the EPA admits this in a report that they tried to suppress but was forced out by FOIA).

In short, if you publish studies and research that says that man-made global warming is such a tiny drop in the bucket that it is next to irrelevant you are likely to find much of your grant money drying up.

This results in a great deal of bought and paid for junk science. Most of the “science” that “proved” man-made global warming were computer models that are so flawed that if you put in yesterdays data it could not show today’s climate. After a long enough perioud of time, others will publish studies without funding to get their name out there and to be considered “in”.

Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT says the same thing although he is careful to be much nicer about it than we have to be, but his meaning is just the same. The prestige of his position protects him to be as honest as he likes and freely admits this and says that other less prestigious professors have no such protection.

I will put it in a way that is less nice but likely as accurate. If I had a couple of billion dollars to spend and I started handing out fat grants to research the possible evolutionary existence and eventual extinction of unicorns and after a time I lowered and stopped grants to those who dismissed the idea and increased the grants to those who wrote of its possibility, soon I would see papers that  “presented evidence” of their previous existence. After a number of years I would have peer-reviewed published evidence of the previous existence of unicorns.

UPDATE – How right I was proven above in such a short amount of time.

UK Telegrapgh:

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

By James Delingpole

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

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.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

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.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

Senator Inhoffe Responds:

UPDATE – Mark Steyn:

The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style.

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 3 Comments »

New AP Article on “Global Cooling Myth” Spins a Bad Study – UPDATED: Look where they put THIS ground station…

Posted by iusbvision on October 27, 2009

I saw the headline on the CBS web site “Statisticians: “Global Cooling” a Myth – Claims about Last 10 Years Are Deceptive; Temperatures Rise and Fall, But Overall Trend Is Higher”. Rest assured what is deceptive is this article that misrepresents what is already a bad study that stands in direct contradiction to a previous data set from the NCDC from January.

I was hoping that the Obama Administration had not politicized the National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) as they had the EPA when they suppressed a report showing how global warming skeptics are correct (LINKLINK).

CBS/AP:

Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.

Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

Ok time to stop right there, as has been documented by us (one example we reported LINK) and others such as the Media Research Center (example LINK, LINK, LINK and I could fill a page of links with examples of this problem), that almost always, the people the elite media portray as “independent” are people who are known to the reporter or news organization, with a known point of view, who will say what the reporter wants to report. The same few “random experts” appear in the elite media over and over and over again. It is a main component of how the elite media editorializes the news and hide the fact that in reality it is the news organizations editorial point of view they are presenting.

Why is IPCC author Dr. John Christy not a common talking head in the elite media?

CBS/AP continues:

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller “Freakonomics.” Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped – thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

[Oh wait, could they mean this, UK Telegraph: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved – UPDATED!. This was one of our little posts that went viral on the internet and got my little IUSB Vision Web Log pronounced the second most reviled web site on global warming by the Huffington Post. I really should buy Arianna a nice lunch for the publicity she gave me on that one – Chuck Norton]

Notice how they said that the study relies on ground sensors and pay special attention to the quote “recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data” …under NOOOOOO political pressure from the new administration I’m sure

So I headed over to the WUWT blog to see if they had found the data that I was suspecting and sure enough. The data the story relies on comes from NOAA ground sensors and ignores the oceanic data sets and other important data sets. The NOAA ground censors have been discredited as controlled data because in a great many cases the NOAA censors are placed on or near asphalt, stone, heat vents, parking lots, surrounded by black tires in junk yards etc. all of which absorb heat during the day and release it at night. Also notice how the article states that they did not rely on satellite data that tends to show cooling and that presents another problem. According to alarmist global warming theory more warmth is trapped under the “greenhouse layer” of the atmosphere causing temperatures globally to rise. This layer of the atmosphere can be read by satellites and weather balloons (the John Christy method). So if you are to measure greenhouse warming according to the theory, that is the place to do it. However, measuring it that way does not give global warming alarmists the measurements they want.

Pielke Senior via WUWT:

This [AP] article, however, (which is not a true independent assessment if the study was completed by NOAA scientists) is not based on the much more robust metric assessment of global warming as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content. Nor does it consider the warm bias issues with respect to surface land temperatures that we have raised in our peer reviewed papers; e.g. see and see.

So as Pielke points out at WUWT, the “study” and the AP article doesn’t even address oceanic data sets. Nor does it address other data sets. It gets worse, would you like to see examples of NOAA ground sensors??

WUWT is up to part 91 of its “How not to measure temperature” series on these NOAA ground sensors.

NOAA junkyard_mmts_org

Oh Look! Its a NOAA sensor in a junk yard with black tires.

NOAA Grill concrete hartington_ne_ushcn1

Oh Look! Its a NOAA sensor next to that concrete porch and look to the left, its a grill. It has no cover so I guess it has been used pretty frequently.

NOAA asphalt heat pump tremonton-ut-looking-south

Oh look! Its a NOAA sensor in a parking lot of asphalt. Would you like to walk barefoot on that on a warm summer day? I wonder how much heat the cars that park right next to it give off when the people who live in those apartments come home. Hey what is that a few yards behind the sensor? It's the heat pump for a home air conditioner!

But worry not scientific community and global warming alarmists, WUWT reports in “How not to measure temperature: Part 87” that NOAA “adjusts” for these types of anomalies….yup they adjust the temperatures DOWN in the PAST thus increasing the “current statistical warming trend”!! There are 91 of these ground sensors that WUWT has catalogued so far and they all seem to have one thing in common. They are placed in areas that will artificially make them read higher temperatures.

As we stated above, the new NCDC “study” ignored other data sets such as ITS OWN North American Temperature Data Set updated just last January… hmmm now what has happened between January and today….oh yes we have a new political administration that has already demonstrated that it has no problem trying to shut scientists up (LINKLINK) who dare tell the truth about global warming.

As we reported January 10, 2009:

Yet ANOTHER dataset showing the cooling of the last 10 years.

ncdc-dec-2008

NCDC now has December 2008 in the database. Annual North American temperature since 1998 (11 years of data) is falling over the period at a rate of 0.78(F)/decade or 7.8(F)per century. At this rate we will be in an ice age within 5 decades. If you can get the graphic, the heavy black line is the average over the century 1901 to 2000.

 

This data set is a collection of this continent only, but it shows the same cooling trend that other global data sets have shown. Since 1998 the Earth is cooling and it happens to coincide with a similar period of unusually low solar activity.

Of course we realize that to many people, including many radicalized professors, global warming alarmism is almost like a religion. No data set or series of data sets is going to put a dent in those people. Fortunately there are still plenty of people who are not zealots who can appreciate the information. Thanks to the famed WUWT Blog for the heads up.

Maybe this article can get the Huffington Post to rank me the number one most reviled global warming columnist on the internet. Being number two just seems so second best.

UPDATE – Via Anthony Watts:

Christy and McKittrick in the UK Times: doubts on station data.

A new story by Jonathan Leake in the Sunday Times puts the spotlight on surface temperature data.

Rome Airport Weather Station Behind Jet Engine Wash

Above: Rome’s airport weather station. Here is the interactive view

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Government Gone Wild, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Other Links | 2 Comments »

EPA Tried to Suppress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct

Posted by iusbvision on October 23, 2009

In light of recent and upcoming international global warming conferences, a new examination of this story seems in order.

The Washington Examiner:

CEI releases global warming study censored by Obama’s EPA

Natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature fluctuations, according to a new study the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released today as Congress prepares to vote on global warming legislation.

Internal email messages show the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suppressed the report and silenced the author because the scientific evidence did not square with the Obama administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide, CEI claims. The EPA has become overly reliant upon outdated information from the United Nations and has ignored major new scientific developments, the censored study concludes.

“While we hoped that the EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its administrator has been talking transparency, since she took office,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

New scientific data highlighted in the report shows that ocean cycles and solar cycles are probably the most important factors behind temperature fluctuations. Moreover, satellite information now indicates there is little chance of endangerment from greenhouse gases, according to the report.

Some of the major developments overlooked by EPA official include a continued decline in global temperatures, an emerging consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense and new studies that demonstrate water vapor will have a moderating influence on temperature.

The report was exposed by hard work from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  See the entire EPA Report HERE.

This is a key page in the report (Hat Tip Dwight Schultz):

EPA Page

This report has other gems like this one. The EPA and the UN have reports that they tried to hide from you that tell this simple truth. As we have said repeatedly in IUSB Vision coverage. The evidence is clear that there has been global cooling for over a decade and the WUWT Blog has published hundreds of articles and data sets demonstrating this.  The bulk of global warming and cooling cycles is the result of solar activity. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and man’s contribution to that is minor. Water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas.

Most “peer reviewed” global warming studies are based on computer models. The problem is that when actual recorded data from the past is entered into such models they cannot even accurately predict climate from yesterday or last year.

The CEI unveils the evidence that the EPA ordered people to shut up about the  findings and you can see the report with ALL of the emails HERE . Here are just two of the emails reveled (Via Powerline):

Here, the two scientists’ superior declines to make their report public because “the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment.” Click to enlarge:

EPA Email1

Here, Carlin and Davidson are ordered not to communicate to the public their conclusion that the global warming alarmist theory is wrong:

EPA Email2Powerline sums up this scandalous behavior with a devastating analogy:

Global warming zealots are a bit like Iran’s mullahs. They are fanatically devoted to a series of false propositions. Unable to win an open scientific debate, they consistently resort to bullying and brute force to suppress their opposition. Once again, we see the Obama administration taking the lead in this regard, putting political ideology above scientific truth and demanding that all others do likewise.

UPDATE: Newsbusters notes the almost complete media blackout of this story, and contrasts it with the news media’s treatment of the Bush administration.

Leftist BBC Asks: What happened to Global Warming:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is.

Gross Posted at Poligazette.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Dwight Schultz, Economics 101, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 4 Comments »

What if Star Wars was written by Enviro-extremists?

Posted by iusbvision on September 26, 2009

Via http://endciv.com/ :

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

Obama Lied in UN Speech on Global Warming

Posted by iusbvision on September 26, 2009

And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history. – B. Obama

The problem is that this statement is just not true.

As the Anchoress and Hotair.com correctly point out :

In the first place, we succeeded through partnership with the private sector where Europe and Kyoto did not in 2006, when we grew our economy and reduced our carbon emissions by 1.3%:

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions dropped slightly last year even as the economy grew, according to an initial estimate released yesterday by the Energy Information Administration.

The 1.3 percent drop in CO{-2} emissions marks the first time that U.S. pollution linked to global warming has declined in absolute terms since 2001 and the first time it has gone down since 1990 while the economy was thriving. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in both 2001 and 1991, in large part because of economic slowdowns during those years.

In 2006 the U.S. economy grew 3.3 percent, a fact President Bush touted yesterday as he hailed the government’s “flash estimate” that the country’s carbon dioxide emissions dropped by 78 million metric tons last year.

What’s more, while Europe pursued the completely ineffective Kyoto strategy, the US worked to engage the world’s biggest polluters in a joint program that seriously addressed both emissions and economic growth:

In a surprise move that caught Europe’s smug moralists and the environmental movement’s noisy extremists flatfooted, the United States announced in Vientiane, Laos, last week that it was joining five other nations – China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia — in a new pact that offers a refreshing and effective alternative route to tackling the problem of climate change.

While given short shrift by the puzzled media, this is a big deal, in many ways.

First, it breaks the climate-change deadlock. This is the agreement that responsible scientists and public officials have been seeking since the failure of the Kyoto Protocol became evident at the global warming conclave in Delhi two years ago. Call it “Beyond Kyoto” – Way Beyond Kyoto.

Second, the new deal was negotiated and settled without the involvement of the United Nations or the European Union – a clear message from the United States that multilateralism does not have a single definition. In fact, according to The Guardian newspaper, the agreement – called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate — was kept secret by President Bush from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, an uncompromising champion of Kyoto, during last month’s G8 meeting” in Scotland.

The net result of these policies?  Instead of imposing a $1700 cost burden per American household and costing the US 3.5% of its GDP by 2050, Bush grew the economy — and increased tax revenues as a result:

An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year’s levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

Tax cuts and pro-growth policies actually increased the economy while reducing carbon emissions, something that Europe has yet to match.  Perhaps that success should be the model of future programs for curbing emissions, although the need for it becomes less and less certain every year.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Avowed Communist & Presidential Advisor Van Jones Under Fire. – UPDATE: Bob Beckel Says Jones Must Go.

Posted by iusbvision on September 4, 2009

UPDATE IIOUT. Keep in mind that before the resignation, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT and WashPost did ZERO coverage of this story before the resignation. Fox News was the only one that covered it. – Byron York on the elite media giving no coverage of the mounting story.

UPDATE: Bob Beckel says that Jones should be filing for unemployment.

The past of Van Jones has been coming out for a while and as David Horowitz said, “One does not declare himself to be a communist three years after the wall came down without knowing and approving of what went on behind that wall.”

Gateway Pundit, a prominent blogger, did the background checks that the White House and/or FBI failed to do and found Van Jones as signatory number 46 on 911truth.org. The 9/11 Truther’s believe that the Bush Administration engineered the attack to murder 3000 Americans.

Jones was 47 on the list and now he is 46 (LINK to view), I wonder whose name got scrubbed.

Jones also helped to found a group called STORM, a self proclaimed revolutionary Marxist group. On September 12, 2001 STORM held an event to bring attention to the victims of evil AMERICAN imperialism. So much for our 300 victims of radical islamists.

Jones also led a protest to free a convicted cop killer LINK.

Charles Krauthammer, Mara Liasson and Stephen Hayes comment on Van Jones

In this video Van Jones Compares President Bush to a “Crack head” for wanting to increase the US supply of domestic energy. The problem with Van Jones point of view here is that it is typical of someone who is an avowed communist in that they are in complete denial of basic laws of economics. If I were thrown out a broken window I would hope that the laws of gravity would not apply to me, it is just as foolish to claim that the laws of supply and demand do not apply to energy as Van Jones does. perhaps Jones forgot that there is this oil cartel called OPEC that manipulates the market to suck as many dollars out of us as possible. The more domestic energy we produce the more energy prices fall and the more the influence of the cartel is lessened.

Van Jones says that white people and white environmentalists are putting poluution in minority communities. Ok talk about your goofball conspiracy theories.

Van Jones says and advocates that the “green movement” is being used to incrementally transfer the capitalist system to a socialist system. No shock we have been saying that for years, but at least now they admit it. Via Hotair.com and Naked Emporer News. This interview was from 17 months ago.  

Ed Morrissey comments: Jones, the green jobs czar, explains how his allies want to conduct a revolution on the sly.  Call it radical incrementalism, call it an offshoot of the Alinksy method, but it certainly seems that Jones is easily the most radical White House aide in many, many years.

By the way, the networks, the NYT and Washington Post  have not covered this story at all. If Bush were president and a joker like this was in the administration they would be all over it, wall to wall. Fox is covering it.

Glenn Beck dedicated a show to Van Jones:

Ann Coulter: The elite media has become the guard dog for the administration instead of the guard dog for the people –

Michelle Malkin – On Jones and the other Marxist Czar’s that got lucky and were propped up bt far left foundation money from Tides Foundation, Ford Foundation and George Soros. –

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

Africa wants $67 BILLION a year in global warming funds (your money).

Posted by iusbvision on August 24, 2009

Yet another example of what we have been saying since day one. Global warming hysteria would be used as an excuse to tax carbon dioxide, because almost every kind of economic activity produces or uses CO2. It would be used to tax and redistribute wealth around the world.  The fact that the Earth has been cooling since 1998 means nothing to those who want this tax.

For 67 Billion a year would you say that you believed that man made global warming is a “crisis”?

Reuters:

By Tsegaye Tadesse

ADDIS ABABA, Aug 24 (Reuters) – African leaders will ask rich nations for $67 billion per year to mitigate the impact of global warming on the world’s poorest continent, according to a draft resolution seen by Reuters on Monday.

Ten leaders are holding talks at African Union (AU) headquarters in the Ethiopian capital to try to agree a common stance ahead of a U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen in December.

Experts say Africa contributes little to the pollution blamed for warming, but is likely to be hit hardest by the droughts, floods, heatwaves and rising sea levels forecast if climate change is not checked.

The draft resolution, which must still be approved by the 10 leaders, called for rich countries to pay $67 billion annually to counter the impact of global warming in Africa.

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 3 Comments »

The Cap & Trade Song

Posted by iusbvision on August 23, 2009

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Al Gore: Climate change issue can lead to world government

Posted by iusbvision on July 11, 2009

Congrats Al, you just made every John Bircher member and conspiracy theorist correct about you.

Via Pat Dollard:

 

Climate Depot:

Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth’s temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

Gore’s call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000.

On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added.

Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, “Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.” Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed UN’s Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.”

‘Global Carbon Tax’ Urged at UN Meeting

In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The 2007 UN conference was presented with a report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

‘Redistribution of wealth’

The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 6 Comments »

Government to dictate what color car you can buy. Ok is government too big yet?

Posted by iusbvision on March 28, 2009

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild | 2 Comments »

The Debate is Over. Global Warming Alarmism is About Achieving Central Control of the Economy and Now They Admit It Openly.

Posted by iusbvision on March 27, 2009

Conservatives and science realists have said for years that the global warming hysteria has nothing to do with science and everything to do with central control of the economy and the global redistribution of wealth.

Global warming alarmists and leftists (who by ideology always wanted central control over the economy) said that we were nuts, they said we were akin to holocost deniers and other such silly attacks. Now we have this, which confirms everything we always said about the issue.
FNC:

U.N. ‘Climate Change’ Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy

Friday, March 27, 2009
By George Russell

A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations “information note” on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an “effective framework” for dealing with global warming.

The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the “Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol.” Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.

Noel Sheppard on the Fox Forum in reaction:

The UN Makes it Official: Global Warming Hysteria Is All About Redistributing Wealth

By Noel Sheppard
Associate Editor, Newsbusters.org

For years, climate realists around the world have been warning the international community that the entire man-made global warming myth and resulting hysteria is all a scheme to redistribute wealth under the pretense of saving the planet.

In a document obtained by FOX News, the United Nations has made it official.

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

How Radical Environmentalism Destroys an Oregon Town

Posted by iusbvision on March 24, 2009

We have some of the most fruitful forest land in the world and we are importing wood and putting our own out of work.

We have said before that “environmentalists” don’t care about the environment at all. They are anti-capitalists. This fact was proved with even more certainty given the fact that it is “environmentalists” that have opposed wind and hydro-electric power. They have even successfully opposed solar panel farms. They know that plentiful, affordable energy is the fuel of capitalism. These same groups are also perfectly happy to see Mexico and China make oil wells off our shores.

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes | Leave a Comment »

BBC changed coverage after threat from an eco-extreemist.

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2009

News Busters’ Noel Sheppard on the Glenn Beck program, which is now the second highest rated show on cable.

The BBC changed an article after a threat from environmentalist whacko who ended up being a nobody, just a nut. Unfortunately, all forms of media attract nuts, but there is no reason to give in to them.

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

AWESOME VIDEO: Steven Crowder on US “Torture” of Detainees

Posted by iusbvision on March 13, 2009

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton | 2 Comments »

The obligitory “Ashley Judd has no idea what she is talking about in regards to Palin” post…

Posted by iusbvision on February 5, 2009

This is why most actors should about making public political PR campaigns. The problem is that most every statement made in this ad is misleading or a direct falsehood. Here is the ad:

Governor Palin’s office put up a press release rebuking the ad . It was strong in rebuke but light on substance so I called Governor Palin’s press Secretary Bill McAllister and asked him to provide a link so we can look up the policies for predator control in Alaska on our own. This morning a new link appeared at the bottom of the press release (good job Bill).

Through that link I started reading, and reading, and reading and I found this report titled “Wolf Management in Alaska with an Historic Perspective Presentation to the Alaska Board of Game March 2002“. This report explains the history of wolf/predator control policy in Alaska almost step by step going back to the 1940’s.

You can read the report in full or I can just give you the “Cliff’s Notes” version; wolf control policy has been a subject of great political, scientific, and ethical study in Alaska for decades. After years of bipartisan efforts working with the scientific community as well as conservation experts, hunters, etc Alaska worked out a predator control policy that is limited and reasonably effective.  Much of the current law and scientific studies were completed before Palin was elected in previous administrations such as former Democrat Governor Tony Knowles. After reading this report no one could honestly say that Alaska’s predator control laws are unscientific.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com asks if Ashley Judd supports packs of wolves eating all the baby caribou. He also points out that the Anchorage Daily (who is often unfair to Palin) News has recently pointed out that Alaska’s predator control policy works and that previously the wolf population had gotten excessive resulting in significant losses in the caribou population.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, John Ziegler, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

UCLA “Study” Claims Conservative Talk Radio is Hate Speech – But Wow Look at the Real Hate Speech They Ignored

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2009

UCLA put out a ridiculously partisan study claiming that conservative talk radio is “hate speech”, but they ignored repeated calls for violence by left wing talkers.

So much so called “scholarship” today is nothing but propaganda with a predetermined outcome. This is not just in the social sciences, but in the biological and geological sciences as well.

 To quote Ben Stien, “I want all scientific inquiry to happen — not just what the ruling clique calls science.”

(Hat Tip Radio Equalizer)

Dana PerinoIn November 2007, NovaM syndicated libtalker Mike Malloy called for violence against White House spokesperson Dana Perino, as well as the Bush family. Removing any doubt about his wishes, he spoke of “violence fantasies” toward Perino.

In December of that year, Malloy was at it again, this time calling for the hanging death of Internet star Matt Drudge.

During a Randi Rhodes Show broadcast in February 2008, the host aired a prerecorded skit which claimed Mitt Romney supporters would go on a “killing rampage” if John McCain emerged as the GOP’s presidential nominee.

In 2005, Rhodes aired another bit that suggested the Bush family be taken out Sopranos-style.

Heading into the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Southern Californian libtalker Roseanne Barr called for violent riots during the Denver-based event.

And in November, Barr went on a verbal rampage against African-Americans for overwhelmingly supporting California’s Proposition 8 at the ballot box.

Finally, in a story just reported today by Tim Graham at NewsBusters, Malloy has called for the execution of Republicans (in addition to any Democrats who voted with President Bush).

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Government Gone Wild, Other Links | Leave a Comment »