Climate Science Scandal – will Paleo Dendrochronology survive?

Posted on by

For new readers please NOTE  that I am NOT a climate skeptic, I am just wondering why groupthink seems so pervasive in the climate science community, especially over at the key climate blog RealClimate .

Update: Two very thoughtful and balanced pieces written – by climate scientist Judy Curry – and by Peter Kelemen at Popular Mechanics .

Here’s the Wall Street Journal’s take on this.

Here are the infamous hacked emails.

There’s a remarkable development today on the climate front [thanks to Glenn for the link in the earlier post].   A huge amount of climate data, including some remarkable emails between scientists, have been hacked from the University of Anglia in England.   These mails and data may shed some light on some of the more contentious points in climate science.

The odd methods and math seem especially conspicuous in tree ring studies of climate trends.   Called Paleo Dendrochronology, these studies are VERY often used either alone or with other data in climate studies and often are used alone or with other data to make the case that global climate change is potentially catastrophic.

The best scientific work critical of global warming science seems to focus mostly  on attacking this weakest link – or should I say the weakest rings – over at ClimateAudit.org.

Here is a great balanced view at UK Guardian of the story so far:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

A critical view of the implications of this data is here at ClimateAudit

A sympathetic view is here at RealClimate where   I tried to post I posted this comment and I appreciate the good sportsmanship of them letting it through moderation.   When they do allow me to post this type of comment I wonder if I’ve been too hard on them for what seems like censorship, but possibly could be the crappy posting system they have over there where moderation, timestamps, and other factors seem to confuse everybody.

Somebody naively wondered why there are so few comments on this post. IMO the answer is that RealClimate is effectively content-censored to a large degree for conformance with the prevailing ideas here.

Uninformed dissenters are sometimes let in so the comment crew can bash them around, but reasoned dissenters are usually banned outright. Many don’t bother trying to post here for that very reason.

Gavin in the interest of transparency would you at least roughly estimate how many of the comments have been moderated out for this post? I would guess 95% have been zapped.

<i>[RealClimate wrote]  Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem” </i>

Could you give a few examples? I searched right here at Realclimate for uses of that term they tend to relate to “trickery”, not good science.

More climate updates:   Here’s the Copenhagen Diagnosis,  an excellent summary of the latest climate science  since the last big IPCC report.    For the record I do think this does suffer from the prevailing “somewhat alarmist” tone in some of the interpretations of the research.   For example a key observation is the current pause in warming noted by satellite measures, and this is given short shrift here.




143 thoughts on “Climate Science Scandal – will Paleo Dendrochronology survive?”

  1. Actually it has been exposed the realclimate is most definitely censoring a lot of this – on both sides…they had a lot more posted earlier including some very damning emails but took them down.

    I have been reading the actual emails and reports. There is widespread deception all along the chain Joe and it isn’t contained to just the people at Hadly it hits several key people arguing the AGW position.

    Reply ↓

    • See below, but Glenn as usual you are seeing some smoke and yelling “FIRE!” There are a few alarming emails but after reading the ones the frothing right wing blogs are pointing to I’m not impressed – they just show that RealClimate scientists are letting activism contaminate their thinking. Not a surprise – just spend ten minutes reading over at http://RealClimate.org !

      Sure this shows that a small group of scientists – mostly working with Dendro stuff – see themselves in a sort of science holy war with angry skeptics, and it shows they are choosing to react politically rather than scientifically, but …. that’s not news.

      Without more context it’s way too early to know if some of chatter about evading FOIA requests will have traction. That’s potentially illegal and I’m sure the lawyers familiar with FOIA are going to make a few bucks from this scandal.

      Reply ↓

  3. Uh oh, bad news on the Conspiracy front: “Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

    DAVID ICKE??! That seems to suggest that some …Shapeshifters might be found among the AGW experts, Glennster.

    Seriously, I found Mann’s response to be a predictable bureaucratic evasion. Don’t pay attention to the actual content of the hacked e-mails says Doc Mann (like the one showing that climate modellers might have manipulated the data); instead, insist that the evil hacker-perpetrators be brought to justice! Even if some of the email was hacked, the messages still matter.

    Reply ↓

    • Well actually the email show they absolutely manipulated the data, excluded and hid other day and engaged in the destruction of damaging email threads amongst several scientists.

      When you look at the “rulesofthegame.pdf” and see the structure of their misinformation campaign it really becomes clear what their intentions were.

      You also see clear linkages in the emails to the WTO and the overall goal of a new world government – this stuff you just can’t make up!!!

      Also there were amazing shenenigans played on getting funding, etc…

      Wait until enough people have had a few days to digest this…right now you are only hearing the tip of preverbial iceberg…

      Reply ↓

      • Really, not to break up the high-fiving at NWO.com, it looks too good to be true (as even a few sober people have said on some conservative sites, like Watts). “Trick” is being used in a sort of programming sense–a technique.

        It’s possible some fudging goes down, but is it merely a coincidence this happened right before the Copenhagen conference? Would high-powered climate types be THAT careless, even if they were tweaking the data? Unlikely. So I don’t recommend jumping to any grand conclusions ala Michelle Malkin style, Glennster.

      • Horatiox Hadly has already admitted to this. The emails are legit, the files are legit, the scam is what it is…

      • A “‘technique’ to hide the decline” is not any better than a “‘trick’ to hide the decline”.

  5. http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/21/manipulating-climate-change-warming-to-rico/

    Horatiox…this is the beginning of the end for this global scam…heads will roll.

    All it takes is the light of day to expose the lies of liberals…that is their problem, their arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny because their agenda is not based on truth or compassion – just smoke screens and people really don’t appreciate being lied to. Just like regligous fanatics, liberal idealogues have to use deception and fraud to manipulate people to their position.

    Why else would they try so hard to snuff out independent thought?

    Reply ↓

    • Many corporate liberals simply tune out any criticism of their Demo. Gurus, whether Obama, or the Clintons, or Gore, and the IPCC. That may be noted on New Worlds, a Bay Area liberal eco-blog. A year or so ago, Max, Demonweed (who was trashed on Watt’s site a few times, until he disappeared), Byronia, and their cronies raved about the great visionary Al Gore (amusing, since even many Demos consider Big Al fairly centrist and corporate, not to say anti-union).

      Now, with quite a few real scientists asking serious questions about the official AGW line (like from McIntyre, not to say Freeman Dyson, or Buzz Aldrin), Max and his pals never mention Al Gore (or IPCC), not even to defend him. It’s a type of implicit censorship and moderation.

      Reply ↓

      • I like this:

        McIntyre and McKittrick were there, and seem
        >>>to have left Gabi with the strong impression
        >>>that they will be insisting on having access
        >>>to supporting data, etc., used to build
        >>>reconstructions. Gabi says that this is
        >>>making her nervous, wants to make sure that
        >>>you are aware of the status of her
        >>>reconstruction, and wants to be sure that you
        >>>are comfortable with continuing to use it in
        >>>Ch 6.

        Oh no, Gabi, some right-wing fact-checkers, with real scientific expertise, will be there to ruin the par-tay!
        Fairly typical of those who agreed to the AGW ideology, really (instead of focusing on the data). The Gore/IPCC people are already spinning this as right-wing paranoia, etc. McIntyre’s the culprit for even daring to question Mann/IPCC and eco-vision of Al Gore.
        Even rational Demos (assuming some are left) should take note of these emails.

    • expose the lies of liberals

      Glenn as a conservative your job is to *expose the lies of CONSERVATIVES!* Since you wear your politics on your sleeve nobody is going to think your concerns are credible unless you are challenging the people you generally agree with.

      Tribal thinking is a waste of paper/electrons/ time.

      Reply ↓

  6. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11412

    Gets better every day. You can see the fraud and conspiracy is widespread and basically touches ALL that are involved in promoting the AGW agenda – with Al Gore as their leader.

    ALL of these people deserve life prison sentences…what a scam.

    Joe but I am sure you still think Gore is wonderful, that the UN is the answer and our pending healthcare is really going to improve the USA…

    Meanwhile they now project our deficit to go to 24 trillion that doesn’t even include the healthcare legislation that is going to be forced down our throats even though it has less support than Hillarycare.

    This truly exposes the giant lie of liberalism.

    Reply ↓

  8. Can you say meltdown? Joe the emails even expose the whole realclimate.org scam…LOL. You just can’t make this stuff up.

    http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/11/golbal-warming-scientists-are-in-global.html

    Evading taxes. (0826209667)

    Artificially truncating data sets. (0939154709)

    Plotting to violate relevant FOIA laws. (1212063122)(1219239172)

    Conspiring to hide data. (1254756944) (1059664704)

    Artificially altering underlying data. (0942777075)(1254108338)

    Suppressing criticism. (1139521913)(1054756929)

    Cheering the death of a skeptic.(1075403821)

    Plotting to destroy skeptics. (1047388489)(1256765544)

    Plotting control of review boards to suppress skeptics. (1051190249) (1106322460)

    Complete lack of outrage at fraud.(1188557698)

    Letting politics lead science. (0938018124)

    Poetic…

    Reply ↓

  12. Glenn there you go again! The emails only provide a little support for what a lot of the folks at ClimateAudit have been saying for some time and was pretty obvious to everybody with or without the mails – some climate scientists were working to keep data away from M&M (outrageous, but not surprising) and there was more “doubt” about some studies and such than was publicly acknowledged. No smoking guns that I’ve seen, just more support for the idea that the politics was sometimes trumping the science.

    The most damning items are the ones that suggest evading FOIA requests (perhaps illegal) and cherry picking data to get the graphed outcomes, but the emails don’t clear up the best questions about those issues – e.g. how much work is done to “find a signal” rather than figuring out if there is a signal at all, and how much of the obstruction was to keep secrets vs preserve what they felt was the integrity of the full body of research (I’m for total transparency but that is NOT the normal approach in these circles, where sometimes data use has restrictions so the scientists cannot disclose it all. That should not be allowed because it defies the rule of replicating results, but it’s been tolerated for some time.

    Reply ↓

    • Joe these are the key people…this isn’t an isolated small group of people. These emails span the key figures involved even outside Hadley.

      The truth is…even Al Gore is trying to spin this…that should tell you something. Instead of standing up and saying yep we have some bad people involved, yada yada ya…he provides cover just like Obama, et al. Scumbags of the world unite, protect and provide cover.

      It is ironic how you like to praise Bjorn at times but he doesn’t even believe CO2 and man is responsible for climate change.

      That is the point…the entire point. We have climate trends and it is truly arrogant that man can actually lay claim to impacting climate and can only be surpassed with even more arrogance claiming they can control it.

      Give it up already. It’s over, AGW was and is a fraud, you know it, the world knows stop providing cover – it is time to call a spade a spade!

      Reply ↓

      • Yes key people, but I’m right this is an isolated group. That is part of the larger problem in fact.

        A far more damning critique than these mails is the official public one by Wegman which suggests some flaws in method and social interconnection between the relatively small number of key people:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Committee_on_Energy_and_Commerce_Report_.28Wegman_report.29

        i[Lomborg] doesn’t even believe CO2 and man is responsible for climate change.

        Yes, of course he does. The case is solid. Lomborg just thinks there is no reason for alarm. He’s very right.

      • Joe by supporting AGW you are supporting the IPCC, Al Gore, Cap & Trade (which was invented by Enron!), one world government, etc… that is the part that you don’t seem to grasp. Bjorn does not believe man is responsible not at all.

        We have to stop this madness before it is used as a means to strip us of our freedoms and will quite frankly do more damage to the environment than not.

      • Joe you can go back on my blog almost 3 years ago and note the posts that I had made about the accuracy of the data and how things didn’t add up, etc…

        This has been a clear scam for many of us for a long time.

      • And you want to believe that the future danger from this might be real but you sit on the sidelines when our deficits are skyrocketing to the tune of 24 trillion dollars and that will cause far more REAL damage to every person in the USA than any “potentital” damage of AGW…yet…SILENCE…

      • Glenn you should read Lomborg – his thinking is clear and unless he’s reversed a position he’s had for over a decade he still believes in the IPCC approaches and in AGW.

        You’re confusing two issues: AGW which is very likely a good explanation for most warming, and the real and mitigation costs which are mostly not justified in my view.

      • Joe unfortunately the two issues are connected. This has gone beyond rational discussion. As soon as Al Gore knew he couldn’t defend his positions nor debate he declared the debate over, the science was finished, the verdict was in.

        So to support IPCC in any way shape or form now is support for the financial shenanigans associated with it.

        The IPCC isn’t honest and neither is the UN. They could even do an internal investigation of their corruption because the internal investigation become too corrupted.

        These emails do in fact show a conspiracy and not contained to the CRU, it implicates the IPCC. Now what should happen is ALL the emails, data, correspondence, memos, reports of the IPCC and anyone connected to the CRU should be supoenad and the truth should be revealed.

        Joe you want to assume the best in people and want to minimize any negative (except when it comes to Palin) but you were sure Obama was going to show is BC after he got elected, you thought ACORN was just a harmless organizing group, you thought Obama was going to run from the middle and bring the country together, etc…etc…) Sometimes when it quacks like a duck…it’s just a duck!

  13. Here’s a great example of a NON smoking gun that is just showing us what everybody knew already about RealClimate:

    Mike Mann to other scientists:

    …think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

    This is NOT a surprise – it’s just another example of advocacy working to trump a dialog. It’s distasteful to see scientists work like this to (wrongfully) diminish the impact of skeptical comments, but welcome to blog science. Although RC positions itself as a non-advocacy blog most know it it an advocacy blog.

    The people these emails should influence are the fools who argue that advocacy has NOT contaminated the science. That’s a pitifully uninformed, naive, and stupid position that has no rational defense. There is actually a lot MORE contamination in the skeptic community than the AGW activism community, especially since most skeptics don’t understand the science at all. But both “sides” aren’t seeing clearly anymore so I’d like to see us spend a few million of the 5 billion per year in GW research to hire a group of apolitical and super sharp young scientists acceptable to most of the parties arguing the points to evaluate some of the key points of contention (Medieval Warm Period, Natural Variation, Principle Component Analysis of data, Tree Ring anomolies, etc, etc).

    Glenn it is *beyond absurd* to suggest these emails undermine more than a tiny bit of the case for AGW. They do suggest that smart skeptical views like those at ClimateAudit are not treated fairly, but that was obvious to everybody anyway.

    Reply ↓

    • The emails do look something like a smoking gun , Duck, especially when taken together with the views of other skeptics–especially the scientific sorts, say Rancourt, or Dr Crichton (the AGW email scandal could have come right out of Crichton’s “State of Fear”)–though I would agree the politicizing and high-fiving may be premature. At any rate there are some AGW skeptics who are not conservatives or Fox-bots (like Rancourt, or the Counterpunch gang).

      Reply ↓

      • Horatiox in my view a lot depends on how critical tree ring stuff (paleo dendrochronology) is to AGW hypothesis, and in my only modestly informed view the answer is that it’s not at all critical – in fact it’s generally just used to “show” the GW, which is more a fact than an idea.

        AGW is the key contentious point here and there is plenty of reason to believe natural variability is not a good way to explain most of the observed warming even though I’d agree with skeptics who say we can’t rule that out yet.

        Do the emails reflect science at her finest? Nope. Do they reflect an evil conspiracy to hide big truths? Nope.

      • I can’t agree with JoeDuck’s interpretation that the e-mails don’t reflect an evil conspiracy to hide big truths. Here’s e-mail 1089318616.txt which proposes to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’.
        1047388489.txt suggests ‘ …Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department…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.’
        942777075.txt ‘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.’
        No they don’t say ‘we’re evil villains hiding the truth’, they just demonstrate it.

  15. Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud

    Nothing to see here…just move along…

    Reply ↓

  16. Joe why don’t you ask the question?

    Why would these “prominent” climatologist’s commit this fraud? Keep in mind the emails expose not only the CRU but the IPCC.

    The reason they would commit the fraud is that this is about an ideology, politics and has very little to do with science.

    The UN, socialists, progressives, etc have jumped on a bandwagon to manipulate public perception through a fraud to effect an outcome – environmental policy that enables massive taxation, special interest control and the next step in one global government.

    The lesson to be learned is that ALL science that is presented should be fully open for review by all, debated by all and proven one way or another.

    It is obvious that Al Gore is only in this for personal financial gain and manipulation of people herded into an agenda. Yet you still defend him? I really don’t get it.

    Many of us have held the position the only answer to ANY climate change/trend is adaption. But the UN, Al Gore, etc cannot handle adaption because that defeats their agenda, their religion, their desire to enslave the entire globe – adaption spurs more innovation, independent thought, free markets. We can’t have any of that anymore.

    That is precisely why you shouldn’t defend ANY of this. It has NOTHING to do with saving the planet or helping you and me.

    Reply ↓

    • Glenn calling the chinks in AGW hypothesis that have come from this “fraud” is like calling a jaywalker a hardened criminal. It’s possible Paleo Dendrochronology will suffer enough to be partially discredited, but not AGW.

      These emails appear to simply indicate what many have said for years – climate science has been compromised to a small extent by politics.

      Nothing here I’ve seen suggests the AGW hypothesis is likely to fall or even be seriously questioned. These guys saw themselves as “defending the honor of scientists and defending resarch they believed in – not being deceptive.

      That wasn’t their call to make of course, and I do think there may be evidence of evading FOIA and that could be serious, but you are simply not paying attention to the science surrounding AGW which is substantial and hardly reliant on a few “tricks” from a few overzealous researchers.

      I think the most significant thing to come of this – and very rightly so – will be an elevation of the work of MckIntyre and the blog http://www.ClimateAudit.org Much of the unreasonable activity was directed at preventing them from having the data needed to attack some questionable math and methods, especially in paleo dendro papers.

      Reply ↓

      • Joe,

        They have proven that the temp sensors were strategically placed to capture warmer temps.

        They have proven that the core data (which everyone at the IPCC used) was contaminated.

        They have proven that they shut down any opposite opinion or facts.

        They have proven there hasn’t been ANY object peer review – don’t you think the conclusions might have a chance of changing? If they were so sure of the result why would they fear an opposite opinion or honest peer review?

        They have proven based on their numbers that it would take 33 years of complete absolution of any CO2 production to affect the surface temperature increase by 1 degree. Just this FACT ALONE makes the entire AGW discussion nothing but a waste of time – it doesn’t matter what we try to do…NOTHING we do will matter – ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN NUMBERS AND CONCLUSIONS.

        And a few overzealous researchers…hmmm…just the primary scientists behind the entire theory. Joe wasn’t some small little group of people that were on the fringe of this.

        Don’t you get tired of being an apologist for the liberal miscreants?

    • Everyone should peruse the WSJ article showing Gore’s ties to Big Oil (Occidental, and Chevron), and his zinc mine, corporate affiliations, and family connections (not to say his poor academic record at Haw-vawd).

      Many out in Consumerland (like the hysteria cases ofNew Worlds–yikes, Sarah Palin the NAZI persecuting po’ Byronia!) consider Al Gore some great “liberal” visionary. The facts (rather than hyperbole) show otherwise. He’s always been close to corporations, and generally an opponent of unions; when he started his political career, he opposed abortion, and at times sided with fundamentalists.

      Gore did not support the Kyoto protocols initially, and as VP with Clinton stalled on many key environmental issues.
      Let’s not forget Gore ran with Lieberman as well–a centrist, strong defender of AIPAC, and hawk on the IWE. Nothin’ but a Demopublican (and the RICO speculations against Gore/IPCC also sort of interesting, though I doubt they could make any charges stick).

      Reply ↓

  17. Joe even the alarmist are now agreeing the debate is nowhere near over and there really is NO consensus that we are in a sustained warming trend and man is responsible for it.

    We just don’t understand the climate eco-system fully to make accurate computer models plus with the fraud being committed only clouds and confuses the issue.

    NOT ONE PENNY MORE SHOULD BE SPENT ON ANY OF THIS.

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzUwYzJmNzlkMzg3YWUyNmVmZWY1NzM1OTVkYzIxZGI=

    Reply ↓

  18. Now this is laughable…

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE9yAlgtiBwD9C5MD000

    This “scientist, “Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder[,]” is, as can be seen from the article, one of the main perpetrators of the AGW fraud. The most notable thing is that, while whining about the disclosed documents allegedly being taken out of context, he doesn’t deny their authenticity. Equally important, he’s shown no desire to reveal the whole body of documents to show the actual context of the revealed ones, clearly indicating that the revealed documents show exactly what’s been going on.

    This is classic under the Obama administration…the truth is found out, exposed to the light of day but let’s go after the people that exposed…ACORN part deux…of course this doesn’t apply if you hack Palin’s computer though.

    What a bunch of hypocrites and scumbags!!!

    Reply ↓

    • We should keep in mind, however, that McIntyre and many of the AGW skeptics have ties to Big Oil, Glennster. They are looking for anything that will make official AGW claims look bad, since the AGW advocates are putting some rather harsh restrictions on oil and coal into effect (not without reason). Michelle Malkin for one gets paid by many high-powered corporate sugar daddies to make any slightly Democratic policy look bad (tho’ some–like Al Gore hype–are worthy of criticism) .

      That said, I still think the emails are important, but we should keep in mind Trenberth’s comment that they were taken out of context. It’s not the mega-conspiracy that Malkinites think it is (but relevant).

      Reply ↓

      • Horatiox anyone with ties to special interest should be rejected…rarely do any of them represent what hard-working Americans want.

        I am totally against special interests, lobbyists, etc…those things along with PC, Obama are destroying our country.

      • Well, there are lobbyists on both sides of the aisle. Check out the most generous contributions made to powerful GOP politicians, and you’ll discover oil men, developers, casino owners, tobacco, liquor, and maybe AIPAC, and the NRA. Check out the largest contributors to powerful Demo politicians, and you’ll discover oil men, developers, casino owners, tobacco, liquor, AIPAC, and maybe a few environmental groups. The key difference being the NRA, I think.

      • Yes Horatiox – Important but not mega-conspiracy is a good way to view this. There’s a lot of ‘splainin’ to do, but hardly earth shaking as most of us knew about all the insider politicking that has made climate science so frustrating to follow.

  19. Like I said all who participate with or are lobbyists should be rejected regardless of their ideology.

    The two party system is killing our country…it needs to go.

    Reply ↓

    • We would have to reject ALL Democrats and repubs, given that criteria, Glennster. Big Oil, automotive corps, IT and AIPAC, unions are not merely special interests, G. That’s who calls the shots. When some energy bill comes up, the oil men tell the GOPers how to vote (usually NO). It’s fairly similar with union bosses, and the Demos.

      Reply ↓

      • Isn’t it obvious that is what we need to do? Let’s start with term limits and let’s outlaw any lobbying with any financial ties whatsoever. How about we vote for people for what they say they are going to do and have a recall if they don’t?

        A little accountability is what this country needs on Wall Street, Main Street, East Capitol Street NE and Penn Ave…

    • Certainly agree we need more representative political parties.

      Neither represents my views well at all. The American Experiment is supposed to be based on effective but small Government (that includes small but decisive military approaches for the 90% of fake conservatives out there who don’t get this obvious point). Taxes should be a tiny fraction of the current amount as Ben Franklin sagely advised.

      Government is supposed to cherish individual rights and liberties over collective ones (Democrats rarely even understand this while Republicans apply it too selectively, often making the absurd case that the collective good is served by ignoring international rights protection rules – even about torture and warfare).

      Not holding my breath on a third party anytime soon though..

      Reply ↓

  21. WHERE IS NBC?, CNN?, CBS?, ABC? Why would anyone watch those networks anymore? Do you like living in a communist style country? Of course that evil Glenn Beck was the ONLY ONE IN AMERICA to expose Holdren 9 months ago…YET SILENCE. You need to understand just who these people, who Obama surround himself with and what their goals are.

    Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal

    Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

    Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

    “The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

    “The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

    http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/25/climategate-is-not-the-first-time-progressive-scientists-have-lied-to-the-world/

    Reply ↓

  24. Climate czar rejects doctored data claims

    Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show that climate scientists trumped up global-warming numbers, saying she considers the science settled

    Of course Obama refuses to acknowledge the fraud even though the facts are now starting to come out from multiple sources just how deep this really goes. Reason is…Obama, Holdren, Browner are all deep in it. When this fully unwinds this will just be another clear example of the depth of fraud that this administration will go to promote their ideology that the American people are soundly rejecting. The climate change legislation is key to their socialist wealth redistribution program and has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.

    They are ALL frauds.

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/26/browner-rejects-doctored-data-claims/?feat=home_headlines

    Anyone interested in the truth would fully investigate ALL of this…not just dismiss it out of hand…unless of course they have something to hide.

    Reply ↓

  26. Although he’s not too PC now, Dr. Crichton’s comments on AGW, and the misuses of science still carry some weight:

    This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.

    Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

    Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

    Fairly spot-on–and that doesn’t mean one must agree with Crichton’s politics, whatever they were (he was reportedly a moderate, not a hawk, or Heinlein-like conservative).

    Reply ↓

    • Great quote, and it’s important to note Crichton was pretty sophisticated in academic terms – well versed in math. I’m suspicious that the current crop of “old school” AGW enthusiasts simply don’t care enough about the integrity of their mathematics methods, some of which are under attack from McIntyre and Wegman. The idea that complex statistical models should not be reviewed *every single time, at every step* by statisticians is preposterous, yet Wegman found this is rarely if ever done with climate papers.

      Here’s an alternative view: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/

      Reply ↓

      • I agree. Crichton was a fairly weighty thinker, really–even his supposed “pop-science” books, say Andromeda Strain or Jurassic Park were well-researched, and based on plausible scenarios (cloning,for one)—it’s not merely space-opera.

        Happy Guajolote day to you and your family,Duck, and to Glennster’s too. (guajolote = aztec-mexican for “turkey”, a semantic error actually. Turkeys, which is to say guajolotes, or pavo in sp. were from central America initially)

      • Joe in light of all that has happened including the clear revelation that realclimate.org is purely a propoganda tool of the dishonest scientists…why would you still even be going over there?

        Stop going to their kool-aid stand. Let’s force them to go back and start ALL over – on their own dime. They should be forced to prove their global warming position 100% and if they can’t they should get life in prison at a minimum.

        If they are right then they have nothing to lose…if the rest of us are right then we get rid of the element that would rather destroy the human race as we know it and they can join the ranks of the Hitler’s of the world.

  27. Crichton predicted many years ago exactly what is happening with MSM today.

    Happy T-Day to you to Horatiox, Joe, et al. Even though we are facing socialism in this country now we still have an awful lot to be thankful for.

    Speaking of thanks…at least in Australia there are some liberals that actually have conviction…this is the tip of preverbial ice berg…

    Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

    Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

    ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/

    BTW Joe…if there were truly nothing to this story and as mild as you would like to believe MSNBC, CNN, NBC would be all over this to create even more support…although they are silent and thus we can conclude this is truly a smoking gun.

    Reply ↓

  30. I would be willing to bet that the most accurate forecast for the next 1000 years of climate trend/change will be:

    Same as the last 1000 years…

    Reply ↓

  31. Now the CRU admits they actually eliminated the real data completely…it is all gone so no one can verify anything they have done.

    All involved should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

    Funny how when a Korean doctor “fudged” his cloning data he was outcast from the scientific community, lost all standing was basically was banished…too bad the same standard doesn’t apply to science when it really is religion.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    Reply ↓

    • Glenn it seems to me that most of the emails (with the exception of the FOIA evasions) simply show that scientists have egos and to a very limited extent that the RealClimate guys see themselves as advocates as well as scientists. That’s distasteful but hardly criminal and arguably only undermines a small part of the small segment of climate science. In fact given the huge trove of email it’s amazing to me that none of these have the RealClimate folks ripping much, much harder into ClimateAudit where they are routinely accused of serious data manipulations.

      I do think Paleo Dendro needs some sort of scientific statistical review that will either 1. Establish new procedures or 2. Totally vindicate the current ones. My understanding is that they continue to use some data in questionable ways, and that should be addressed.

      Reply ↓

  33. Joe if you want to call it Mann-Made global warming…I will buy that…because that is what it is.

    Here is Mann’s hockey stick graph re-done with real data and no tricks.

    http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/11/manns-hockey-stick-graph-without-hide.html

    You can clearly see there is NO MAN-MADE global warming. If you extrapolate out the graph the trend is going to look very similar to the last 1000 years.

    When are you going to get some help for your addiction to massive government? 🙂

    Reply ↓

    • Glenn you REALLY need to read up more on this. You can’t clearly see ANYTHING from this graph! Average temperatures are going UP, but the paleos have the problem that the tree rings don’t show this in recent years – I think the issue is called “divergence”, where warming temps and rings don’t match up as well as in the past. Nobody knows why and it’s reasonable to say we should NOT base any policy on dendro stuff, but the exaggeration of the importance of the “hide the decline” “trick” is really getting out of hand, and it is CERTAINLY not anything like a suggestion that there is no long term global warming trend – you know that, right? Very few informed skeptics believe there is no long term warming trend – only that the trend is not the result of human “greenhouse gasses”. This simple point is missed by so many people it’s ridiculous.

      Reply ↓

  34. Joe with the following facts yet you still believe this mumbo jumbo…

    1) Over 30,000 American Scientists have openly stated they reject the AGW science, its conclusion and its proposed solutions.
    2) RealClimate.org has been exposed as a propoganda machine controlled by the very people promoting AGW
    3) Al Gore created a propoganda film and got a nobel peace prize for it even though when the discussions first started you thought the inaccuracies were minimal
    4) The CRU emails provide ABSOLUTE proof of the scandal and that it was executed at many levels with one combined purpose: TO HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY COULD NOT PROVE GLOBAL WARMING WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING
    5) We cannot predict the weather 12 hours from now yet somehow you are comfortable with predicting the weather for the next 100 years
    6) We know we have 150 years of actual temp data…well we now know that the data has been manipulated to achieve a planned result and we also know the temp reading equipment was moved to ensure the highest temp reading including be influenced by external sources
    7) We know their climate models are WRONG
    8) We know that the CO2 absorbtion rate of the earth is the same as it was in 1850 thus disproving their claim that the earth is too full of CO2
    9) We know other planets in our solar system are experiencing climate changes as well
    10) We know based on the IPCC own numbers that there is NOTHING we can do to decrease the surface temp increase
    11) We know based on the IPCC own numbers that humans make up less than 50% of the CO2 production
    12) We know through ice core analysis that CO2 is not the culprit anyway. Water vapor plays just as big of a roll if not more
    13) Lastly we know the MSM isn’t reporting any of this – that should be the biggest clue that this is a scam

    Yet with all these facts you just roll along and dismiss anything that detracts from the worshiping of the ideology. I swear you could walk into a room and see Al Gore shoot somebody dead and whatever excuse that Gore would give you that he didn’t do it…you would accept and believe.

    Reply ↓

    • Glenn the AGW hypothesis is mostly based on something that is hard to refute. If you add CO2 and other GHCs to the atmosphere it’s hard to explain how this can have no effect on temperature. Few scientists dispute this. Now, as an open minded observer I’m willing to entertain the possibility that natural causes are causing the warming we’ve seen, but this is a very minority view even among most skeptics.

      There is warming
      It’s probably human caused
      It’s not worth worrying about much

      Reply ↓

  37. Now some academic heavy hitters are coming out and calling AGW a fraud.

    Prof Plimer told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”

    Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

    He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over ­billions of years.

    If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

    It is becoming increasingly clear that the green movement has been hijacked by the progressives and ultimately it will hurt legitimate environmental issues.

    Joe how many professors will it take exposing the fraud before you agree with them and not Al Gore?

    UPDATE on climategate: It wasn’t a hacker that hacked the files it was a whistleblower scientist that published the documentation after he tried to get CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc to tell the story and they refused.

    Wake up…

    Reply ↓

  39. Joe how many professors will it take exposing the fraud

    Glenn you only pay attention to the small number who support your idea this is a “fraud”. Even if the AGW hypothesis is faulty it’s not fraudulent, and there’s very little reason to believe that more than a handful of studies have been compromised so much they should be excluded from our analysis of AGW.

    Glenn do you believe that 100% of the warming is from natural causes? Are you saying there is *zero* effect from increasing GHCs? That is a very, very irrational point of view. You can make a case that there is enough uncertainty that we cannot yet conclude that the warming is human caused, but it’s not a very strong case.

    Reply ↓

    • First of all Joe over 30,000 scientists have put forward in writing that they question the science of this.

      And let’s define fraud.

      1) If I asked you to pay me $20 for cutting your lawn next week, you pay me and I never do it…that isn’t fraud.
      2) If I told you that I cut your grass last week and you owed me $20 for doing it and I never cut your grass…that is fraud.

      To claim they have the calculations and the raw data to support their climate models which they didn’t have…is fraud by definition. In fact most of their grant money was acquired through fraudelent means.

      To ask other people to assist you in thwarting or covering it up…well that is a conspiracy.

      There is a wide spread conspiracy to commit fraud, hide the fraud, etc…with AGW. It is a fact. You will see they will whitewash this whole thing including the whistleblower because the facts cannot stand the light of the day.

      The real question is…what is really going on?

      Is there global warming, global cooling, it is caused by man.

      I would submit there are climate trends that change from time to time. I would submit that the next 1000 years are going to be pretty similar to the last 1000 years as far as climate goes.

      Joe this game of gloom and doom isn’t new. It has been a cornerstone of the Progressive movement for over 100 years. Let’s review the New York Times:

      • 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”

      • 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”

      • 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”

      • 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

      • 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”

      • 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”

      • 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”

      • 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

      • 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”

      • 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”

      • 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”

      • 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”

      • 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”

      • 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”

      • 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”

      • 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

      source: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eternal_melting/

      So how many of those headlines have come true? How many things that the climate models and climate science has predicted has come true in the last 40 years?

      Pretty much NONE of them.

      Our climate is probably most influenced by solar activity as evidenced by our recent cooling trends that align with decreased solar activity. That is just common sense…oh yeah don’t forget all those other pesky planets in our solar system that are seeing similar trends like we are…but wait they don’t have too many humans on them do they?

      So if none of that convinces you then just take the IPCC data…if you believe that then…

      The IPCC claims that the surface temp will rise 7 degrees in the next 100 years. Based on their assumptions to change 1 degree temp you need to reduce 1 trillion tons of CO2 which if man completely stop existing today…in 100 years we at most would eliminate 3 trillion tons of CO2. So even in that extreme measurement we make up roughly 43% of the CO2 footprint – that even proves we are not main contributing factor.

      The bottom line…scientists shouldn’t get in bad with crooked dishonest politicians like Al Gore because at the end of the day the truth comes out and anything good you might have done will be thrown out with the dishwater.

      The sad part is that there are legitimate environmental programs and research going on but this will taint all of it…ALL BECAUSE OF POLITICS.

      AGW is more about a method for the progressives to push a new world order and a massive tax so they can redistribute our hard earned dollars to other people that don’t do chit.

      When this is done Joe…don’t be too shocked if Al Gore ends up in jail.

      It sounds like a great theme…save the world…however the destiny of this world was set and determined billions of years before us and it will play out billions of years after us – this is just human arrogance and fraud.

      As Jim Morrison once said…I gonna get my kicks before the whole chithouse goes up in flames 🙂

      Reply ↓

  41. Yeah let’s not forget Browner destroying the files at the EPA…this is unbelievable…

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_the_prez_climategate_deniers_zYFrmzZLmD366k4Ln6zpON

    * Energy Secretary Steven Chu picked derision as his weapon earlier this year when peddling the Obama administration’s greenhouse-gas emission policy. “The American public . . . just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” The Wall Street Journal quoted Chu. He dismissed dissent by asserting that “there’s very little debate” about the impact of “green energy” policy on the economy.

    There’s “very little debate,” of course, because dissenters get crushed.

    * The Obama team’s chief eco-dissent-crusher is climate czar Carol Browner. She oversaw the destruction of Environmental Protection Agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order during the Clinton years requiring the agency to preserve its records.

    Over the past year, the EPA has stifled the dissent of Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the agency who questioned the administration’s reliance on outdated research on the health effects of greenhouse gases. Recently, it sought to yank a YouTube video created by EPA lawyers Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams that is critical of cap-and-trade.

    And Browner is now leading the “science is settled” stonewalling in the wake of Climategate. “I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists,” she said. “These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real.” Book-cookers are good at making it seem so.

    In any case, last year, more than 31,000 scientists — including 9,021 Ph.D.s — signed a petition sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine rejecting claims of human-caused global warming.

    But hey, who’s counting? The science is settled.

    Reply ↓

  42. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

    This will all come out…we will see NASA will be in the same situation as the CRU. They are hiding the truth.

    Ironic isn’t it…we have clear example of progressive backed organizations like the New York Times making proclamations about the climate for over 100 years and none of their “emergencies” have ever come true…but how come the American public isn’t taught the truth about history?

    We are no longer taught how to think, but what and how to think all in support of the progressive ideology.

    Reply ↓

      • Sure off the top of my head…

        Bill Gates
        Richard Branson
        Elon Musk – caveat after Tesla deal with Government I am not 100% sure anymore.
        Might have to add Liu Qi or maybe Kim Yong-Chul.

        Lee Scott would definitely be on the list.

        Can you name three prominent Democrats in leadership roles in DC that aren’t corrupt or part of some scam to screw us?

  43. This is what climate change is all about…nothing to do with what you think. It is about redistribution and is driven by idealists who basically do not have a clue about reality. This is a massive scam.

    Reply ↓

    • Glenn I agree totally that many “social justice” groups are trying to bend Climate Change enthusiasm to support their anti-corporate agenda, but this is a small part of the overall picture. Warming alarmism is mostly just the old classic story – a real problem that has been exaggerated far out of proportion to its threat to humanity, then co-opted by everybody and their grandmother to justify their own agenda. In fact many conservatives are using warming politically as well – arguing nonsensically that CO2 has “no effect” on climate and is just part of an Obama conspiracy. That’s just kooky.

      The good news for those of us who think corporations are a fine and dandy way to organize and to make human progress is, ironically, a point of agreement with the folks in this video. The economic power will remain with those who are most actively involved in the economy. They’d say corps are shaping it in a bad way, I’d say mostly good, but we’d agree that corporations remain the key driver of economies.

      Reply ↓

      • I don’t think anyone is saying CO2 doesn’t have impact on climate…at least not that I have seen.

        However I think it is pretty obvious based on statements going back 30 years within the progressives that they have sought the ability to demonize a common element that would allow them the greatest leverage to assert control and taxation on the world and CO2 is definitely it.

        At the end of the day I think CO2 is as harmless as O2 or even H to our climate, etc. CO2 levels typically follow temperature changes anyway…it isn’t the other way around and no one seems to care about that little nagging fact.

  46. And now with the EPA move yesterday declaring CO2 a dangerous pollutant the unconsitutional regulatory czar extremist cas sustein can basically implement cap & trade without legislation.

    We are losing our country big time!

    Reply ↓

    • Another essay worth reading.

      Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.

      Of course according to climate-zealots (like the eco-phonies of New Worlds), what a Danish physicist says, or what any authentic scientist slightly skeptical of the official CO2- to-warming-hype says does not matter. The AGW ideology has been implemented, and Thou shalt not doubt Chairman Gore or IPCC–it is iniquity.

      Reply ↓

    • Dr. Gray’s essay is worth a read–of course Gore-o-crats aren’t really troubled by data, or the science of AGW itself, so it’s not likely to be read. Doubt Big Al, and why, you’re siding with the likes of Sarah Palin! (Actually, I don’t care too much for Miss Palin, but her rips of Gore were not completely misinformed..and I say that as non-conservative).

      Had I not devoted my entire career of more than half a century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events, I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.

      There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

      —Rising levels of CO2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO2’s influence on global temperature.

      Alarmists. Yes. And profitable alarmism at that: Big Al himself is now a multimillionaire from his global climate hype.

      Reply ↓

  51. The real truth about CO2mmunists and their agenda. It is all about control and specifically population control. We are quickly moving into a model where some corrupt bureaucrat is going to decide whether you can have kids, how many kids you can have and which ones the government has the right to kill.

    Why else would Obama’s key advisors want you to believe that a newborn really isn’t a person until after several years of social interaction. These people are truly sick.

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

    Reply ↓

    • Really, the Gore/IPCC crew seems more akin to a gang, than to responsible scientists or academics. Al “Fats” Gore, corporate Demo-mafia eco-boss. He’s an insult to rational democratic politics itself .

      Gore’s “denier” rant against Palin was typical–Palin merely said all the facts were not in, and mentioned the email issue–OK, Miss Palin’s not my preferred politician (and she might be shilling for Big Oil), yet as far as AGW goes, she made some reasonable comments. She said the science of AGW has not yet been established, which appears to be the case (as quite a few scientists claim; as Dr Crichton said as well). But the Gore-bots and pseudo-greens had to start ranting, mentioning Fox, etc. getting the hysteria on.

      Reply ↓

  54. Gee that old phrase follow the money is causing problems for the religous AGW zealots…how will they explain this one? Horatiox it seems that Rajendra “Caveman” Pachauri is following the same path as Al “Fats” Gore (ROFL) which his uncanny ability to make boatloads of money of CO2.

    What will the idealogues do now? Every day more and more is exposed about this AGW fraud.

    A story emerging out of Britain suggests “follow the money” may explain the enthusiasm of the United Nations to pursue caps on carbon emissions , despite doubts surfacing in the scientific community about the validity of the underlying global warming hypothesis.

    A Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman since 2002 of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, stands to make several hundred million dollars in European Union carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118659

    Reply ↓

  55. Hey look I found some more idiots out there against AGW…this time it is the Physicists of American Physical Society. Hey what do physicists now anyway, I am sure some of them are probably racists as well.

    Anyway they have called for greater integrity in climatological issues and asking to rescind the 2007 statement on global warming. Man these people need to go to the church of Gore to get edumacated!

    Physicists of American Physical Society fight back against Climate Scam

    Reply ↓

    • Glenn you are always the pot calling the kettle black on this stuff. That’s a statement from five of the thousands in that group but you are presenting it as if there’s a policy change in that group. It’s not even clear any of those five do not believe in AGW!

      The concensus is broad. A broad consensus can be wrong (usually unlikely in the sciences), but pointing to a handful of skeptics and saying “see, no AGW!” is a waste of time.

      Reply ↓

      • Joe why do you discount over 30,000 scientists that have signed a petition questioning AGW?

        Don’t those count? Aren’t there more scientists against AGW than for?

    • Note the New Worlds hysteria-crew with the Polar Bear hype again. http://new-worlds.org/blog/?p=3633

      Here’s Nurse Byronia with dee-eep brain fart thought of the day: Difficult question: why is the plight of polar bears any different from that of a pig in a factory farm, or a chicken being fed to the shredder?

      Apart from the paranoid vegan talk from Byronia (down with the…chicken eaters! that would include most Demos as well), he/she hasn’t yet realized that the polar bear hype was discredited. It’s another sentimental appeal used by Gore to get the sentimental-crats to rally behind the AGW ideology.

      Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

      The global warming-bots have been trying to ban Taylor from attending conferences; truth’s bad for business.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

      Reply ↓

    • Don’t worry, the hype will die down in this decade as people realize:

      1. The actual numbers we are talking about here. e.g. this much annual sea level rise: |

      2. We can’t do much about warming.

      3. Key players (US and China) will just keep pretending and *won’t* do much about warming.

      4. There are no looming big catastrophes and most of the actual problems can be solved using engineering and cleverness.

      Reply ↓

      • The hype may not be such a problem with the actual researchers and climate scientists (whether they agree to AGW/IPCC, or have doubts), but the polar bear images work as a sort of media scare tactic, regardless of the accuracy. The photographer who took the pics that Gore used in his flick has stated it wasn’t meant to be alarming (for one, polar bears swim). The whole AGW thing is odd.

        Read the report of the hurricane expert–he sounds far more reasonable than any of the AGW regs. So temperature went up like 1 or 2 degrees, probably due to natural causes (sea current, solar activity, wind, etc). Not the end of the world.

  57. truth’s bad for business.

    Yes, though I’m uncomfortable with the idea that money drives *most* of the alarmism and counter-alarmism. I see the real challenge as getting folks to *actually apply* the scientific principles they invoke in support of their arguments.

    For skeptics this means unequivocal agreement that there is a long term warming trend and a likelihood it is human caused. For alarmists this means stopping the catastrophe talk.

    I’m not holding my globally luke warmed breath on either of those events.

    Reply ↓

  59. After panel member Judith Miller argued that Climategate should have inspired more public debate among scientists — which could then have been covered by the media — Thomas responded:

    Well, one of the reasons it didn’t happen, of course, is because of the oppression of much scientific opinion. I’ve talked to scientists who say they can’t get the grants if they don’t toe the line. And many in the media don’t ask those kinds of questions, and so they feel, you know, shut out and shut up.

    Reply ↓

  61. Everyday something new…and they keep clinging…

    HOME

    Now an IPCC coordinator admits the process is filled with corruption…gee shocker how else could someone as clueless as Al Gore invent Cap & Trade with Ken Lay (Enron) and make 100 million…he could never do it honestly.

    Reply ↓

  62. Al “Fats” Goreacle once agains proves he is just an idiot and no one should listen to him.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece

    And now we can see the second wave of movement by the Progressives…Tony Blair now says we should implement the climate change doctrine even if the science has it wrong!!!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6803921/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Tony-Blair-calls-on-world-leaders-to-get-moving.html

    You know it has been interesting. Our country was set up with the following premise:

    God gave us rights, we give the government rights.
    so… God -> You -> Government

    Now the these whackos want to change it to the following:
    Planet needs protection from the government from you.
    so… Plant Government -> You

    That is the gig folks. That is why they try so hard to destroy God because until they do they can change the formula.

    Personally I like the equation where we tell the government what they can do…not the government telling us what we can do.

    Reply ↓

  69. Gee how many times can he lie before the sheeple wake up? The Goracle is no more correct about AGW than Oz actually having a wizard – pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…

    Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

    In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

    However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

    “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

    Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

    Reply ↓

  70. Alex Cockburn on Cop-enhagen :

    After some initial dismay at what has been called, somewhat unoriginally, “Climategate” the reaction amid progressive circles – 99 per cent inhabited by True Believers in anthropogenic global warming – has been to take up defensive positions around the proposition that deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate and, although embarrassing, the CRU emails in no way compromise the core pretensions of their cause.

    Scientific research is indeed saturated with exactly this sort of chicanery. But the CRU emails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers – always absurd to those who have studied the debate in any detail – that they commanded the moral high ground. It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as intellectual whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate modeling enterprises. There’s now a vast archipelago of research departments and “institutes of climate change” across academia, with a huge vested interest in defending the AGW model. It’s where the money is. Scepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/

    (not exactly your type of politics, Glennster, but he does skewer the Warmer racket rather effectively [and has quite a few scientists behind him, not of the Foxnews sort]….rumor is that Alex C has pissed off even Big Al, AGW klown-in-command–)

    Reply ↓

    • What is interesting Horatiox you would think any scientist with principles that truly believed in AGW would stand up and expose ALL the charlatans including Goracle and the other CO2mmunists?

      But they don’t…for them the end-game justifies the means…and that is where people should reject them. We should hold these important issues to an impeccable standard and force the politicians and scammers to just STFU as the people on Huffington Post would say…

      Thanks for the link…

      Reply ↓

  71. Joe if you are really interested in the truth you need to follow the money trail.

    Obama, Gore, Maurice Strong are key players and key financial benefactors to the AGW scam. You just have to open your eyes and follow the money trail.

    http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/obama-maurice-strong-al-gore-key-players-cashing-in-on-chicago-climate-exchange/

    Maybe you believe in the world goverment and the Progressive Movement…I really don’t know.

    Reply ↓

  74. “The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years.”

    Such thaw, cautioned Gore, “could increase sea levels by 67 metres” and that “each one metre of sea level rise (SLR) is associated with 100 million climate refugees in the world.” That’s up a full 47 meters from the already horrifying predictions he’s made previously.

    Incidentally, a climate refugee (or “environmentally induced migrant” as the UN would prefer we refer to them) is a person forced to move to a new country by global warming related environmental disasters. Where the whacky climate refugees per meter SLR figure came from is anybody’s guess.

    Anyway, if my math is correct, the 2007 Nobel laureate effectively predicted that by 2020, the oceans could rise 220 feet and 6,700,000,000 people will be forced to wander the planet in search of a less soggy domicile.

    Result of analysis…Al “Fats” Goracle is just dumber than a screen hatch on a submarine. This is up there with all his fraudulent claims and statements…just a complete idiot and to think something this stupid actually invented the internet!

    Reply ↓

    • The scientist who Gore quoted re the supposed melting polar ice cap actually objected to Gore-zo’s latest apocalyptic-lite rant at Cop-enhagen:

      “””Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up…””””

      “””Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

      In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

      However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

      “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece

      Why bother with scientific accuracy when you can scare the masses into obedience, and make millions doing it? Gore-zo belches fear again.

      Reply ↓

  76. Another great article…

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

    There is now overwhelming evidence to the depth of this scam and how the CO2mmunists have gone in their feeble attempt at one world government. At this point if you start believing in this crap you are either a progressive, communist whatever you want to call yourself.

    The true historical record of cooling and warming clearly shows the trends over the last few hundred years is nothing to worry about AT ALL. In fact the real reason they are playing the catastrophic story is because during warming humans thrive and grow and the population increases.

    So you see it always comes back to control and specifically control over who lives and dies.

    The people that practice this are sick and a true danger to a free society and the people that value freedom over tyranny will eventually rise up and you use whatever means necessary to stop this lunancy.

    So keep that in mind in the future when everything is burning because of unrest…you can pat yourself on the back for being part of the cause.

    Reply ↓

  77. The top cops in Europe say carbon-trading has fallen prey to an organized crime scheme that has robbed the continent of $7.4 billion — a massive fraud that lawmakers and energy experts say should send a “red flag” to the U.S., where the House approved cap-and-trade legislation over the summer amid stiff opposition.

    In a statement released last week, the Europol police agency said Europe’s cap-and-trade system has been the victim of organized crime during the past 18 months, resulting in losses of roughly $7.4 billion. The agency, headquartered in the Netherlands, estimated that in some countries up to 90 percent of the entire market volume was caused by fraudulent activities.

    “These criminal activities endanger the credibility of the European Union Emission Trading System and lead to the loss of significant tax revenue for governments,” Rob Wainwright, Europol’s director, said in a statement

    LESSON: It is easy to hide fraud within fraud. Our system will be riddled with theft.

    Reply ↓

  83. More proof of just how wrong they are about global warming!

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html#ixzz0erJfJ8Rf

    Reply ↓

  84. Now the truth is finally coming. There has been no warming since before 1995.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

    Joe will you know finally admist that AGW was a scam, the scientists and Al Gore knew it? How many of these hoaxes do you fall for? AGW, Obama, etc…you seem to be lock-stop with the kool-aid drinkers.

    Reply ↓

  85. Glenn I don’t agree with most of what you’ve said here (AGW is not a scam. It is the best description to date of what we are observing in real world as the earth warms. No big alarm over it though, which is the point “skeptics” should be making rather than challenging the long term thermometer data that makes both GW and AGW “pretty clear”.

    However I give you huge credit for massive comment posting – much more work than I put into the original post!

    Reply ↓

    • Of course you won’t it would mean you would have to admit that you have been duped and Al Gore was a criminal.

      A lof of people felt like you do during the 1930’s in Germany when all the scientists and academics were telling everyone there was an ayrian race, etc…it is no different than what they are doing today.

      Take the scientific process…focus on potential outcome out of 100’s, grab it, focus it…make it your agenda.

      That isn’t called science it is called ideology. That is exactly what the Germans did and it is exactly what the CO2mmunists are doing.

      Reply ↓

  86. So Glenn please riddle me these. You keep posting extreme skeptic talking points which generally ignore the real talking points:

    1. Has the earth warmed over the past 100 years? If yes, why? If no, are you nuts?

    2. Does the increase in CO2 have any relationship whatsoever to warming? You keep saying it does not, but this is completely well documented, intuitive, obvious. The only reasonable skeptic question is “does it have a *significant* relationship? The answer to that is “probably” but not “certainly”.

    Reply ↓

    • Joe point #1 you can’t definitely say that as a yes. Now we understand there has been NO warming since 1995 for sure.

      They admit the numbers are flawed and 100 years in a climate trend does not make for justification of everything Obama and UN want to do. That would be like saying I am going to be everything I have in predicting the world series winner in 4040 AD based on the very first pitch of the first baseball game ever played.

      It isn’t science, it is BS.

      Even if the climate is changing which it does on this planet it is normal part of much longer trends and certainly is more impacted by what is going on in your neighborhood than by man. What a joke, what arrogance.

      CO2 is not proven by a longshot as the man culprit. This argument is far from settled and anyone in light of what has been exposed as far as the corrupt data collection, reporting and suppression of scientific debate that still thinks this is settled has to be smoking crack.

      The truth will come out.

      BTW…how come NONE of the things predicted in Al Gore’s movie have come true? Or were ever true?

      Reply ↓

Leave a comment