Scientific scandals and record snowfalls have begun to melt away the congressional appetite for more global-warming regulations. On Sunday, to take the latest example, a major scientific journal admitted that "oversights" compelled the retraction of its conclusion that sea levels were rising as a result of increased worldwide temperatures. Reports of this sort make it increasingly difficult for members of Congress to enter iced-over districts to ask their constituents to make economic sacrifices in an attempt to appease Mother Earth into favoring us with colder weather.

This does not mean, however, that the left has given up on global warming as a means of exerting more government control over the economy.

To avoid a potentially messy vote, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency has turned to the administrative rule-making process to impose climate-control regulations. In December, the agency made an "endangerment finding" that declared that six gases - including the carbon dioxide you are exhaling as you read this - are putting the planet's well-being in peril. The first major rule based on this finding will be finalized next month.

President George W. Bush's EPA administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, warned that such a finding would result in a major government power grab. "[T]he potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land," he explained.

Fortunately, Mr. Obama's team might not get away with it. So far, 40 senators have signed on to an effort by Sen. Lisa A. Murkowski, Alaska Republican, to nullify the EPA endangerment finding. Three Democrats have been willing to co-sponsor the legislation, but Senate sources suggest a number of others may be willing to vote for the bill when it comes to the floor.

Mrs. Murkowski, who takes a moderate stand on the issue, is key to lining up the bipartisan support required for passage. In the past, the Alaska senator has embraced government efforts to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, including a limited form of cap-and-trade. Her resolution is evidence that both sides of the global-warming issue can agree that such a fundamental public-policy question should not be decided by unelected bureaucrats. Both sides also should be troubled by the EPA's twisting of the Clean Air Act, which originally was designed to cut down on actual pollutants, into regulating so-called greenhouse gases.

Instead of preventing smokestacks from belching noxious fumes and toxic chemicals harmful to the health of human beings, the agency has made its new enemy No. 1 a cow chewing grass in a field. Citing U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the EPA declared "enteric fermentation" - a fancy phrase to refer to a cow's natural emissions in the field - to be the primary source of methane, which is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in planetary warming.

The EPA placed what it called a "primary reliance" on reports like those of the IPCC instead of conducting independent research to make its finding. Given the retractions and revelations of faulty science surrounding the global-warming religion, especially at the IPCC, it's time to take the issue out of the EPA's hands so Congress can address it in the open. The Senate should pass Mrs. Murkowski's disapproval resolution when it comes for an expected vote next month.

Source

Evan Bayh falls victim to a mutation in the Gore Effect, Dead Kennedy’s view is likely to be spoiled by a zombie wind farm and the IPCC becomes a gated community.

Also, there’s a nice bit of Welsh for your global hottie.

Part One: Al Gore & Friends

Al Gore has buried his head in the sand and continues to pretend that his global warming hoax is still credible. When Climategate broke, Al said this:

“A few out-of-context lines from decade-old e-mails aren’t going to change that in the long term, and anyone who thinks we’ll be talking about these e-mails a year from now hasn’t been paying attention to a news cycle that moves at Twitter speed.”

As we know, Climategate was always about more than emails. Even Phil ‘Hide the Decline’ Jones has admitted that there has been no warming since 1995.

Al doesn’t want to hear that, he wants you to believe that it’s even worse than we thought:

…as Barber and his colleagues explain in a recent paper in Geophysical Review Letters, the analysis of what the satellites were seeing was wrong. Some of what satellites identified as thick, melt-resistant multiyear ice turned out to be, in Barber’s words, “full of holes, like Swiss cheese.”

Kind of like AGW science, right Al?

As Al doubles down on the ‘climate crisis’, a growing chorus of voices are calling for some kind of reckoning for the profiteer prophet of doom. Rush Limbaugh ponders a fraud conviction while the Donald wants Al’s Nobel stripped:

..

Even lowly people like you, the evil skeptic Round-Up readers can sign a petition asking the Nobel Committee to take back the Gore award and give to a far more deserving winner.

The Gore Effect is a fun method of referring to adverse weather events that disrupt climate protests and so forth. Perhaps there is now a new Political Gore effect emerging. As soon as Gore’s Repower America ran ads targeting Senator Evan Bayh to support the cap and tax bill, Bayh announced he would not seek re-election.

No one expects Al Gore to present a balanced view of the global warming debate, but even he must realize that something is seriously wrong when three major US firms quit the Climate Action Partnership. Just last September Al celebrated Alstom’s decision to join the CAP as a sign that “slowly and surely we are winning.”

So what does he think losing BP America, ConocoPhilips and Caterpillar means? Al, buy a clue: slowly and surely, you are losing.

Part Two: AGW Scaremongers

Hippies hate science, otherwise how do we explain their serial refusal to respect the scientific method?

More preposterous is the conceit that only the warmists are actually taking account of hard science. In fact, the scandal of the past several months (which liberals have not digested) has been the long-term and systematic abuse of science in the name of politics.

Ouch.

Adherents to the global warming hoax are reacting badly to the collapse of their neo-religion, casting about at those who show them the mirror and resorting to name calling. Others ignore years of nasty abuse from warmists and decide that now the tables have turned, maybe we can all just get along. Here’s a question for Jerome Ravetz, are we supposed to forget that alarmists wanted skeptics silenced, jailed or worse for asking questions? Hippies sure are sore losers.

Some warmers wonder where all their friends went. Rats from a sinking ship, perhaps?

Last week we discovered that your choice of phone can reveal if you are a hippie or not, to the chagrin of some readers. Now, to back that up, we learn of an App for alarmists to use when confronted by a skeptic. To keep things balanced, here’s a great summary of the ‘Gates’ of hell for skeptics to fire back with. You’re welcome.

Paranoid, or prepared? A skeptical journalist (yes, you read that right) waits for the next great scare the warmists will reveal in the hope that it will distract us from the IPCC’s meltdown.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST!

That sound you hear is Al Gore sobbing. A new Rasmussen study that shows only 35% of Americans still believe in man-made global warming. When you subtract out all the people who make money off this colossal scam, we estimate that the resulting figure is about 2%.

Here are the details from Rasmussen:

Questions continue to mount over the science behind years of studies that say humans are chiefly to blame for global warming. But reflecting a trend that has been going on for more than a year, just 35% of U.S. voters now believe global warming is caused primarily by human activity.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 47% think long-term planetary trends are mostly to blame, down three points from the previous survey in January. Eight percent say there is some other reason, and 10% aren’t sure.

But 56% say President Obama still believes that human activity is the main cause of global warming. That’s the highest finding on that question since last March.The president went to a United Nations summit in Copenhagen in December in hopes of reaching an international agreement that would limit human activities that some scientists say contribute to global warming.

Thirty-five percent? Hell, Al, you could find a higher percentage of people who believe in flying saucers. And with good reason.

Source: Rasmussen via IHateTheMedia

Oops. UK Times: 'World may not be warming, say scientists' -- UN IPCC 'faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably' - -
'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' -- 'IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

Watch Now! Climate Depot's Morano in MSNBC TV Debate with Daniel Weiss of Center for Am. Progress: Morano: 'The whole entire [warming] industry has been exposed as sub-prime science'
Morano: 'Now [the warmists] are trying to say global warming causes blizzards, that's the level of climate astrology -- it's like a daily horoscope -- nothing that happens falsifies the [warming] theory' -- 'He (Weiss) need's Tarot cards, that is what he needs, he is peddling astrology'
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=XdnzVruzkU


Hebrew University Scientists publish study in Nature: 'AGW is refuted' -- 'Claims that carbon emissions permanently increase global temperature are false'
'Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC arenot supported by the data' More info here.
http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf


Reuters on UN IPCC Train wreck: 'Admitting yet another flaw': UN climate panel admits sea level flaws
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213

Via email

By Andrew Bolt

Niche modeller David Stockwell is profoundly unimpressed with what’s billed as the latest “proof” of man-made warming - that winds are now pushing rain away from Western Australia, and dumping snow on Antarctica. And the funny thing is that not even the man spruiking this ”proof”, Professor Tas van Ommen, seems to have much faith in it:

The basic conclusion is that if this is being driven by human impact then you would expect it to continue but as climate change continues to change, the current situation changes too.

So if this keeps going, that’s evidence of man-made warming. And if it doesn’t, that’s evidence of climate change. It’s a win-win. And when you see van Ommen’s reasoning for assuming man is to blame you see exactly the same kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose reasoning:

This pattern has strengthened in the past 30 years and some of the computer models that reproduce this are showing that it looks like it has happened because of greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide – and also ozone (being depleted).

The models that reproduced this warming must be believed, but the blame-man ones that didn’t should be ignored.

And here’s the seal to the deal: this great change in the Antarctic oscillation just brings us to where we were in 1960. From Jones, J. M. and M. Widmann, 2004. Early peak in Antarctic oscillation index. Nature, 432, 290–291:

Here we reconstruct the austral summer (December–January) Antarctic oscillation index from sea-level pressure measurements over the twentieth century5 and find that large positive values, and positive trends of a similar magnitude to those of past decades, also occurred around 1960, and that strong negative trends occurred afterwards. This positive Antarctic oscillation index and large positive trend during a period before ozone-depleting chemicals were released into the atmosphere and before marked anthropogenic warming, together with the later negative trend, indicate that natural forcing factors or internal mechanisms in the climate system must also strongly influence the state of the Antarctic oscillation.

Source

By Tony Hake

Despite Congress’ inability to agree to climate change legislation, falling public belief in global warming, and new questions about the science behind the theory, the Obama administration announced plans to launch a new climate change agency. Falling under the umbrella of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Climate Service would be the U.S. government’s one-stop-shop for climate change information.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said, “By providing critical planning information that our businesses and our communities need, NOAA Climate Service will help tackle head-on the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change.” Locke reiterated President Barack Obama’s oft-repeated refrain that ‘green jobs’ and technology will help the nation out of the recession. “In the process, we'll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs.”

The new service would bring together all of NOAA’s climate-related departments under a single agency called the NOAA Climate Service. NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said it would look much like the National Weather Service but dedicated to climate change instead of weather.

Carol Browner, President Obama’s ‘global warming czar’, echoed Lubchenco saying, “Through NOAA’s improved climate services we will be better able to confront climate change, and the many challenges it presents for our environment, security, and economy.”

The timing of the announcement has raised eyebrows given the current state of climate science and growing doubt amid the public and policy leaders.

One claim in NOAA’s press release has drawn been looked at with bemusement by some. Touting NOAA’s past climate work, the statement discussed, “The climate research, observations, modeling, predictions and assessments generated by NOAA’s top scientists – including Nobel Peace Prize award-winners.”

This presumably is alluding to the work of many climate scientists on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its work on climate science and the group’s AR4 report has been viewed as one of the most important pieces of work in the field.

That very same report however has recently come under fire for dozens of errors and questionable citations. Claims of disappearing glaciers and rain forests, humanitarian disasters in Africa, increased natural disasters and more have all been disproven in recent weeks. Scientists that participated in the authoring of the report have said the spurious claims were included simply for political reasons.

Some of those very same scientists were also at the forefront of the Climategate email scandal that continues to reverberate throughout the discussion on manmade climate change.

The source of those emails, the University of East Anglia in Britain, has been found to have broken the law by trying to prevent the release of climate information. The head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the university, Dr. Phil Jones, continues to be investigated for his role. Jones and his fellow scientists at CRU were principal contributing authors to the IPCC’s work. In the United States, Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University similarly finds himself under investigation.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, has similarly come under fire after it was revealed he chose to ignore the errors leading up to the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in Denmark. Investigations by British media have also shown that Pachauri has financially benefitted from his position raising calls that he has a severe conflict of interest.

The attempt to create a new government agency is being viewed by some as an ‘end run’ by the Obama administration around Congress and the American people.

Climate change legislation incorporating a cap and trade tax scheme was considered a hallmark of the administration but it has since stalled in Congress. While the House of Representatives passed a version of the legislation, a similar measure sits fallow in the Senate and it appears unlikely it will move forward any time soon.

Public doubts about global warming are also on the rise as shown by recent polls. According to the Pew Research Center, it ranks last in what the public believes should be a priority for the federal government. The American people, already casting a wary eye on a growing U.S. government and ballooning debt are not likely to view the new agency favorably.

The state of climate science has not been at a lower point than it is now. 2009 was dubbed “The year climate change and global warming activists would like to forget” for the many events that dealt significant blow to the theory.

Source

By Kevin Mooney

Washington D.C. and the Mid-Atlantic States have been hammered by another major snow storm, which exceeds the Dec. 19, 2009 storm that forced President Obama to curtail his time in Copenhagen.

This is the first time since record keeping started that two storms of such magnitude have hit the region during one winter. Already some localities are reporting the largest snowfall ever recorded.

To be sure, these events do not prove or disprove human caused global warming. But the momentum is now very much on the side of skeptical scientists who question these theories and President Obama should at least pull back from his awkward juxtapositions.

Here's what he said in The State of the Union:

"I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -- because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation."

On Saturday, during a gathering of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in Washington D.C., Obama called this most recent storm "Snowmaggeddon" putting it on a par with what he experienced in Chicago.

Looking ahead to the 2010 mid-term elections, Republicans should make more of an issue out of the "climategate" scandal involving leaked emails Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. It's always possible to persuade the public on the basis of dire emergencies, which is why scientific evidence undermining alarmism deserves greater expression.

The science the EPA has used to justify its finding that human emissions of carbon dioxide endanger public health and welfare should be subjected to vigorous criticism in the coming months.

In the Federal Register, EPA states:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

... Global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries."

Last year The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) exposed how the EPA had suppressed a scientific study that concludes natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature changes.

Now is the time to attack the soft underbelly of unsubstantiated global warming alarmism.

More snow is on the way tomorrow.

Source

Big Green gets an endorsement from global terrorists, Al Gore pretends Bill Gates is his friend and ripples from Climategate continue to harsh hippie mellows. All this, a beach hottie and 10% more snark in your weekly round-up.

Part One: Al Gore & Friends

Here’s a simple question. How can you tell that Al Gore’s schedule isn’t as crowded as it was? Answer: Al posts on his blog 10 times in a week, that’s how. Let’s see what the profiteer prophet had on his mind:

He don’t like Sen. Murkowski one little bit, and he thinks that the noughties were the warmest years evah. He still reads the New York Times (so that’s who it is!) and likes it when they write fawning editorials on global warming. He quotes Bill Gates, but only where it suits him (more on that later), and goes on to find the one poll that suggests his AGW hoax isn’t deader than the average Ted Kennedy date.

You’ll be happy to know that Al found time to attend the launch of the new iTampon, or whatever its called, but unfortunately for Mother Earth, Al took a plane. Why, oh why can’t he take the bus?

Have savings? Not if Al has any say in it you won’t. He’d like them invested in Green things. Preferably green things controlled by Al Gore, natch.

The Goreacle’s oddest blog post became the subject of one of my own posts, in which readers waded in with woeful tales of lives destroyed by global warming. Feel free to add your own to the list, there might even be a prize for the best entry. Or not.

Conspiracy? Al Gore, Al Jazeera and Al Qaeda, united in greenity? Tell me that’s not fishy. Al Gore’s self-detonating AGW hoax received some much needed support in a brand new live-from-the-cave special from Osama Bin-Laden himself. Osama’s wars have gone about as well as Al’s recent battles, so he’s figured out it’s time to encourage the great Satan to self-immolate. Good luck with that, you evil hippie-bearded goat f-f-fancier.

Part Two: AGW Scaremongers

The Securities and Exchange Commission has decided that corporations must provide details to investors of the business risks of climate change. I wouldn’t worry too much, if the SEC is as competent at monitoring global warming as they are Madoff, Enron, Lehman et al, this initiative can be filed under idiotarian greenwashing.

KalliVornya might be bankrupt, but the valiant state lawmakers can still reach out and make a difference. So, take that, evil Free Parking. wait, what?

CLICK HERE TO THE READ THE REST!

By Justin Credible

When it rains, it pours. And in the environmental movement, it's a torrential downpour of idiocy!

With the recent Climategate and Glaciergate scandals, the so-called science of global warming has been rapidly crumbling into oblivion faster than anyone could have ever hoped for. The head of the IPCC has been called out for being just as fraudulent as Al Gore's claims. Scientists and media have been demanding his resignation and the public is quickly realizing the climate change farce. But somehow, a few stubborn eco-terrorists are still making their crazy claims.

It was bad enough that someone actually blamed global warming for the Haiti earthquake, and now we have an even better funny farm minute for the 2010 Olympics.

Here in the one Canadian city famous for warm winters we are about to begin the Winter Games. There is little snow on Cypress Mountain, which happens every few years normally. I know, I worked there for years. The mountain is less than 20 minutes from Vancouver beaches. Warm? Huh? It's not rocket climate science. So of course, all we really wanted now was for some anti-carbon scaremonger to blame it all on alleged global warming.

And sure enough, we just got it! The predictable alarmist (not climatologist) David Suzuki jumped all over the chance to make the absurd AGW claim. And the reactions have begun:

David Suzuki, the local rabid hippie totalitarian hasn’t gotten the memo that blaming everything on global warming is so 2009, and beclowns himself trying to hijack the Olympics to the global warming hoax.

Thankfully the people aren't buying his garbage anymore. Every time Suzuki's articles are published online, hundreds of readers leave their comments, and very few of them are kind to the senile old hippie.

Meteorologists predicted last July that El Nino was coming and that warm weather would hit us in January and February of this year.

Mr. Suzuki, you claim to be a scientist, so please don't tell me you've never heard of El Nino, the natural weather pattern that circulates warm air from Hawaii up to the Canadian west coast? Or the fact that 30 years ago there was NO snow on the local mountains for most of the season and Vancouver's Grouse Mountain went bankrupt? Perhaps you were too stoned at the time to remember that. Clearly you still haven't quit smoking it either.

And how come you conveniently brush off the fact that the rest of the entire top half of planet earth is currently experiencing the coldest winter in a century? Your press releases claim that the coldness everywhere else is a result of "local weather patterns, not climate". So how come when we get a WARM spell in one area - Vancouver - you suddenly blame it on "global climate change", and not local weather??? LMFAO. How convenient. You and your foundation are hilariously stupid. Your attempts at fear mongering for support and funding are absolutely disgusting.

And you also ignore the fact that average global temperatures are dropping and have been dropping for a decade.

Oh that's right, I forgot. Global cooling is also because of global warming. And CO2 aka plant food is poison.

OMG UNPLUG YOUR CELLPHONE CHARGERS! DESTROY YOUR CARS! WE MUST ALL CHANGE OUR LIFESTYLES, PAY GREEN TAXES, AND WRECK THE ECONOMY BEFORE WE MELT AWAY!!!1!!1!

Source

By Alan Caruba

The utterly baseless case for “global warming” is melting a lot faster than the glaciers in India’s Himalayas which, by the way, are not melting.

It is time for the Nobel Committee to rescind the Peace Prize given to Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It is time for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences committee to take back Al Gore’s Oscar for “An Inconvenient Truth”, an alleged documentary that became mandatory viewing for students in the U.S. and around the world. Purporting to “prove” that the Earth was rapidly warming due to the rise in “greenhouse gases”, it is a fraud.

In the event the news hasn’t reached you, in mid-August 2009, after repeated requests for the Climate Research Unit’s raw data from which it calculated global temperatures, the CRU at the University of East Anglia (UK), a key element of the UN’s IPCC, announced that it had discarded the data, thereby making it impossible to determine if their assertions of rising global temperatures were accurate and true. Or not.

In October 2009, in the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, it was demonstrated that the IPCC’s tree ring data from Russia that showed a cooling after 1961 had been disguised in its report (AR4) that, of course, asserted the Earth was warming.

A month later, just prior to a huge, international Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, emails from the CRU were leaked, revealing the lengths to which the CRU staff had gone to discredit and suppress any independent studies that disputed the global warming thesis.

In brief, the entire "scientific" basis on which the IPCC “scientists” and global warming advocates like Al Gore made their claims was a fraud. It rendered AR4 “scientifically questionable” in the polite parlance of the worldwide scientific community.

In January, Joe D’Aleo and E. Michael Smith released a detailed report that indicted the U.S. National Climatic Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies for having eliminated many meteorological stations from their data bases in recent years and, to no one’s surprise, the stations were mostly in colder climate areas. Without their data, the “warmists” could continue to claim the Earth was in a warming cycle.

None of this came as a surprise to the “deniers” and “skeptics”, many of them internationally renowned climatologists and meteorologists, who had attended the Heartland Institute’s two international conferences on climate change, participating in seminars and addressing attendees to provide the truth; the Earth has been in a cooling cycle since 1998, any prior warming was a normal and natural cycle following the Little Ice Age that ended around 1850, and the claims of the IPCC and other alleged science-based government agencies were utterly false.

The sheer magnitude of the deception, directed and orchestrated from within a United Nations entity, given support by United States and British agencies, and further supported by multi-national groups such as the European Union, made it difficult for the average person to believe anything other than the elements of the hoax that were constantly proclaimed and then reinforced by the media and Hollywood.

When the global warming dam burst, millions around the world would conclude what they had always suspected; there was no global warming and all the billions spent in the name of “reducing greenhouse gases” or “clean energy” was part of a massive fraud, a set-up to permit new forms of taxation and to enrich the participants.

That is the case against multinational organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union, to name just two. They are, too often, giant propaganda machines whose agenda is to eliminate fundamental concepts of individual liberty and freedom, replacing them with faceless bureaucrats with no obligation to be responsive to citizens anywhere.

A U.S. President, Barack Obama, who attended the UN Copenhagen Conference and would, in the course of his State of the Union speech, claim that there was “overwhelming evidence” of climate change a.k.a. global warming, is part of the cabal that would waste taxpayer’s billions on "green jobs", “clean energy”, and “biofuels” as opposed to actually encouraging the building of nuclear and coal-fired plants, exploring and extracting offshore oil and natural gas reserves, and maintaining the nation’s vital infrastructure.

A rogue government agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, is brazenly warning Congress that it will regulate carbon dioxide if it does not pass the patently false “Cap-and-Trade” legislation intended to limit so-called “greenhouse gases.” The EPA must be reined in and a complete housecleaning is necessary to repeal the many regulations and laws based on the global warming fraud.

The U.S. needs a new Congress filled with men and women who want to protect the nation against the frauds perpetrated by its own science-related agencies, to kill legislation that would impose a massive tax on energy use, and bring the global warming advocates within the government to the bar of justice.

The world needs to dissolve the United Nations in the same way it shunted aside the useless League of Nations. The present institution should be broken into units that perform legitimate services, but governance is not a legitimate purpose. No global taxes. No global army. No global propaganda machine.

Nations, worldwide, need to reclaim their sovereignty and then work together for the mutual goal of peace and other worthwhile causes.

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

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

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

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

The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way. Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like, ‘no-science’!
The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as if the money wasn’t enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have the coveted Peace Prize.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source by Ninad D. Sheth

Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate, Pauchauri…and now comes Greenpeacegate. We can barely keep up. Every time we think we can rest, another global warming scandal comes up. Hey, not that we’re complaining–it’s all falling apart faster than any of us had dreamed.

Let’s just go to Donna Laframboise out of Toronto Canada, the creator of NOconsensus.org, who yesterday broke the story that the IPCC is using the politcal activist group Greenpeace as source for quite a few “facts” in its report; in fact, in at least one case, they were the sole source. She begins:

Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.

Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace – an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.)

In one section of this Nobel-winning report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled “Pacific in Peril” (see Hoegh-Guldberg below). Here the report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).

When discussing solar energy elsewhere, the report references two Greenpeace documents in one sentence. Here it uses a Greenpeace paper as its sole means of documenting where the “main wind-energy investments” are located globally (Wind).

[Continue reading her terrific article at her blog...]

Source

The findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often held up as representing “the consensus of scientists”—a pretty grandiose and presumptuous claim. And one that in recent days, weeks, and months, has been unraveling. So too, therefore, must all of the secondary assessments that are based on the IPCC findings—the most notable of which is the EPA’s Endangerment Finding—that “greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

Source by Chip Knappenberger