The Real Global Warming Agenda: Global Redistribution of Wealth

A better name would be "Global Scamming" or "Global Fraud"!

from Investor.com:

Freezing weather: Just another example of global warming? View Enlarged Image

Climate: Nothing makes fools of more people than trying to predict the weather. Whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? How about mini ice age?
The sight of confused and angry travelers stuck in airports across Europe because of an arctic freeze that has settled across the continent isn't funny. Sadly, they've been told for more than a decade now that such a thing was an impossibility — that global warming was inevitable, and couldn't be reversed.
This is a big problem for those who see human-caused global warming as an irreversible result of the Industrial Revolution's reliance on carbon-based fuels. Based on global warming theory — and according to official weather forecasts made earlier in the year — this winter should be warm and dry. It's anything but. Ice and snow cover vast parts of both Europe and North America, in one of the coldest Decembers in history.
A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility.
Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.
Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.
Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.
Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere. The Los Angeles Times, in a piece on the region's strangely wet and cold weather, paraphrases Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert as saying, "In general, as the globe warms, weather conditions tend to be more extreme and volatile."
Got that? No matter what the weather, it's all due to warming. This isn't science; it's a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed.
Why do we continue to listen to warmists when they're so wrong? Maybe it's because their real agenda has nothing to do with climate change at all. Earlier this month, attendees of a global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, concluded, with virtually no economic or real scientific support, that by 2020 rich nations need to transfer $100 billion a year to poor nations to help them "mitigate" the adverse impacts of warming.
This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate. If it did, we might pay more attention to Piers Corbyn, a little-known British meteorologist and astrophysicist who has a knack for correctly predicting weather changes. Indeed, as London's Mayor Boris Johnson recently noted, "He seems to get it right about 85% of the time."
How does he do it? Unlike the U.N. and government forecasters, Corbyn pays close attention to solar cycles that, as it turns out, correlate very closely to changes in climate. Not only are we not headed for global warming, Corbyn says, we may be entering a "mini ice age" similar to the one that took place from 1450 A.D. to 1850 A.D.
We don't know if Corbyn's right or not. But given his record, he deserves as much attention as the warm-mongers whose goal is not to arrive at the truth but to reorganize society in a radical way.

Global Warming - Not Just Faulty Data, But FRAUDULENT Data

from Gary Baise, a farmer and lawyer, at Farm Futures:
Agriculture has a lot at stake in the climate change or global warming debate. Troubling questions have been raised recently over the science supporting global warming.
As a corn and soybean producer and lawyer, I am always skeptical when someone like former Vice President Al Gore alleges he knows the complete story on global warming. In my opinion every story, like a pancake, has two sides.
The first story that got my attention refers to "Climategate," which began in November 2009 with an internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. The emails were used to support widely-publicized allegations by climate change skeptics that the emails showed scientific misconduct and mishandling of Freedom of Information requests.
Now a story written in Environment & Climate News, May 2010, by James M. Taylor, describes a recent letter sent by the Institute of Physics, a London-based scientific charity with a membership of over 36,000 devoted to the understanding and application of physics. Taylor’s article declares that “The letter criticizes global warming alarmists at the heart of the Climategate scandal for manipulating data, abusing the scientific method and strong-arming the peer-review publication process.”
The Institute further advises the British Parliament that it is concerned that some of the research and emails may prove to be “…forgeries or adaptations [with] worrying implications aris[ing] for the integrity of scientific research in this field…”
Forgeries of data? This is a strong accusation!
It is clear that the Institute of Physics wants to learn the truth about activities of scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Institute’s Memorandum sets forth 13 assertions and requests to Parliament. The most important paragraph declares “The emails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression in graphics widely used by the IPCC of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.”
Fraud? In plain English, the scientists are suggesting, as many articles have suggested, that the truth is not being told about global warming issues. (In other words, it is fraud!!!)
The second story that caught my attention arose here in Virginia from the Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, who filed a Civil Investigative Demand against the Commonwealth’s flagship University of Virginia (UVa). The Attorney General is demanding UVa produce all its documents in connection with one of its scientists, Dr. Michael Mann, who was implicated in several stories regarding the Climategate scandal. Dr. Mann is one of the major advocates of the “hockey stick graph” which demonstrates that global temperatures have risen suddenly and with an unprecedented upward spike and looks like a hockey stick.
Both the Institute of Physics and the Attorney General of Virginia are seeking facts and truth regarding the alleged Climategate scandal. Of course, the reaction against these efforts has been widespread and full of condemnation.
I find this curious, as you should, that people are afraid to have documents paid for by taxpayer money made available for others to read.
The Attorney General of Virginia, not being an academic, is concerned about Virginia taxpayer money being used by UVa and Mann to develop data and conclusions which also may be questionable (or fraudulent) as they relate to climate change. Mann has been accused of manipulating climate data to support the idea of manmade global warming.
As a result, the Attorney General has commanded UVa to produce all information and documentary materials that might show possible violations by Mann of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.
Among the 10 requests for information from Mann include a request for all of the computer programs that were created or edited by Mann from January 1, 1999 to the present. The Attorney General wants all of Mann’s hard drives, floppy drives, tape drives, optical drives, desktop and laptop - well, you get the idea. The Attorney General wants the truth. (Dr. Mann is no longer at the University of Virginia and now works at Penn State.)
Serious questions As I said earlier, I do not know the truth, but I do know the Institute of Physics is raising a number of serious questions regarding the integrity of the scientific research related to global warming. I also know the Attorney General of Virginia is a sincere and tough lawyer, and he will not stop until he is convinced we have the truth about Mann’s work while at UVa working on convincing the world that global warming is real.
Producing these documents from all the scientists will help all of us understand whether global warming is real or manmade.
Agriculture has a major stake in finding out the truth about Climategate. Many organizations believe agriculture is a major problem and contributes to global warming. Data should not be used that might unfairly target agricultural operations.

As has been said: “Sunshine is the best disinfectant” - Justice Lewis Brandeis.

Earth's Forests, Soils Have Much Greater Capacity to Capture Carbon

ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2009) — The first phase of a groundbreaking national assessment estimates that U.S. forests and soils could remove additional quantities of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere as a means to mitigate climate change.

Earth Has Much Greater Capacity to Absorb Carbon Than Previous Thought

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009) — New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO₂ than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO₂ should start to diminish as CO₂ emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early in December have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily," says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed."
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published in early November in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

No Rise in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide from Humans

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere...
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The Largest Manmade Hoax the World Has Ever Seen

Trent Loos

As we charge into 2010, those of us in agriculture have come to realize that we must deal with groups outside of agriculture that want to forever change the structure of food production and, in most cases, simply eliminate the production of meat, milk and eggs in this country. Today, I am adding another group to the list of those working against the heart of agriculture. You may have heard of it: the U.S. Department of Agriculture. If you think that sounds extreme, allow me to explain. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke in Copenhagen, Denmark, at last month's "climate change" conference. Here is an excerpt of what Vilsack had to say: "While climate change will affect us all, there are particular vulnerabilities and challenges for farmers, ranchers and those who make a living off the land. Higher temperatures, changing rainfall patterns and more frequent extreme events like droughts and flooding threaten to reduce yields and increase the occurrence of crop failure." I vividly remember Vilsack as governor of Iowa, and it was clear that agriculture was not his cup of tea, but he also doesn't appear to be good at history either. Forget about the 10,000-year-old models theorizing how extreme climate change has been over the history of the world. Let's just look at the past 234 years. The worst blizzards occurred before 1900, the worst hurricanes happened in 1900 and we called the decade of the 1930s the "dirty 30s" for a reason. My point is that farmers and ranchers have always dealt with climate change, and it has nothing to do with fossil fuels or carbon sequestration. While in Copenhagen, Vilsack also announced that USDA was releasing a report titled "The Effects of Climate Change on U.S. Ecosystems" (written in 2008 but not released until Dec. 17, 2009). I felt compelled to read this report, mostly because it has a polar bear on the front cover. What? A polar bear?! While I am always looking for diversity at my ranch, I thought maybe USDA was suggesting that I could start raising polar bears. Lord knows this would have been a good winter to get a herd started based on the weather we have already had in the Great Plains. Anyway, this report suggests that global warming could have a negative effect on livestock. Warmer temperatures could reduce mortality in the winter, but hotter summers will reduce productivity and increase death loss. Excuse me. The U.S. produces more than 9 billion animals each year, and the majority are in concentrated animal feeding operations. That means they are in a totally controlled environment, so no matter how hot or cold it is outside, the dairy cow, turkey, chicken or pig is in a temperature-controlled building without experiencing effects from the weather. Vilsack not only supports this global warming campaign but also rejected the advice of his own Chief Economist Joe Glauber, whose data indicate that the carbon program the government is hoping to implement is not beneficial or plausible for American farmers. Reportedly, Vilsack told Glauber to find a way to make it work. I can walk through this USDA report page by page and illustrate the incorrect statements made about modern food production, but allow me to just highlight some of what is said. The authors clearly state that there is no way to say whether humans had anything to do with climate change in the past, but "we need to change our farming practices" because we believe in our theory. In fact, on page 21, there is something that no one at USDA will likely include in their presentations to the media and the public. It reads: "For the moment, there is no viable alternative to using the existing systems for identifying climate change and its impact on U.S. agriculture, land resources, water resources and biodiversity, even though these systems were not originally designed for this purpose. "The authors of this report also have very limited confidence in the ability of current observation and monitoring systems to provide the information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken to mitigate or adapt to climate change impacts. Much of our understanding of the direct effects of temperature, elevated (carbon dioxide), ozone, precipitation and nitrogen deposition has come from manipulative experiments. Institutional support for such experiments is a concern," the report notes. Yes, it appears that we now have a new group looking to forever change the production of food in the U.S. through the use of an agenda and carefully selected bits of partial information that support its mission. This U.S. Global Change Research Program is housed -- where else? -- but at 1717 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington, D.C., and is working with the Heinz Center to develop "observation and monitoring systems that are able to support their analyses that can aid this management challenge." Doesn't that mean gathering only data that support their theory? I believe this may well be just another public relations stunt by the Obama Administration to scare the American public into believing that U.S. agriculture and food production are in jeopardy so they can implement massive legislative and regulatory changes. I, for one, am not buying it, and I will not budge off of my notion that global warming is the largest manmade hoax the world has ever seen.

Climate Crisis -- More About Enriching Elitists Than Weather

from IBD Editorials:
Climatologists are learning from economists. No, not how to more accurately forecast the future. Climatologists could certainly benefit from improving their forecasts, but they aren't likely to learn how from economists.
What climatologists are learning from economists is how to increase their importance by promoting a theory that gives politicians more power. Economists have shown that this can be accomplished with the flimsiest of evidence.
Economists began gaining in importance after World War II when they started rallying around a 1930s theory developed by John Maynard Keynes. The theory explained how politicians could prevent, or reverse, economic downturns by running budget deficits, and prevent, or halt, inflation by running budget surpluses.
Claiming budget deficits during World War II ended the Great Depression, economists convinced politicians to establish the Council of Economic Advisers in 1946 to give economic advice to the president.
By the 1960s there were claims of a Keynesian consensus of informed economists, with these economists knowing how to fine-tune the economy, effectively eliminating the business cycle, with advice on when and how to adjust government budgets to stimulate or dampen economic activity.
The result was better for economists than it was for the economy. The pronouncements of economists became more newsworthy, and government jobs for economists multiplied as the economy moved into the stagflation — economic stagnation with increasing unemployment and rising inflation — that characterized economic performance in the 1970s.
Stagflation had been predicted by Milton Friedman in the 1960s, even though the Keynesian model implied it was impossible. As a result of improved theories and accumulating evidence, the pretense of a Keynesian consensus among economists began to unravel. But the political popularity of Keynesian policy was not seriously threatened by its failures because that popularity was never based on solid evidence.
Rather, politicians embraced Keynesianism because it gave them a justification for expanding current benefits while postponing the costs with deficit spending. Of course, they conveniently forgot the part about reducing spending and running budget surpluses when the economy is strong.
Climatologists are now emulating economists' approach to political success. After an attempt to create a global cooling scare in the 1970s failed, mainly because weather trends have a tendency to reverse themselves, some climatologists reversed themselves as well with predictions of global warming.
And this time they had a theory indicating that the warming was the man-made result of carbon dioxide emissions, and that if nothing was done it would soon be too late to avoid a global catastrophe.

Global Scamming!

Al Gore certainly has enough hot air.

Positive Proof Global Warming Is a Scam

from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis blog;

It's now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam.

Thanks to hackers (or an insider) who broke into The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and downloaded 156 megaybytes of data including extremely damaging emails, we now know that data supporting the global warming thesis was completely fabricated.

Inquiring minds are reading Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files on The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic.

The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), usually working together with the Hadley center (recall HadCRUT3 global temperatures), has been hacked.

So far, the most interesting file I found in the "documents" directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls (Google preview, click) which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.

Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic. See Briefing Room.

He says that he "can't remember" what he meant by "hiding the decline." Well, let me teach him some English. First, dictionaries say that hide means

1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where did she hide her jewels?
2. to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one's feelings.
4. to conceal oneself; lie concealed: He hid in the closet.
5. British. a place of concealment for hunting or observing wildlife; hunting blind.
6. hide out, to go into or remain in hiding: After breaking out of jail, he hid out in a deserted farmhouse.

Here Are A Few Choice Emails

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

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

Cheers
Phil

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

===================================

From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (520) 621-2946
fax: (520) 621-8229
e-mail: gary@ltrr.arizona.edu
================================================

There is much more in that first link on The Reference Frame, including ways to download all the data yourself. Thanks Luboš!

Hadley CRU says leaked data is real

When this story broke, many assumed it was a fake. Nope.
Hadley CRU says leaked data is real

The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

"Have you alerted police?"

"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."

Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

Alert The Police?

Yes, someone ought to alert the police and have Phil Jones and everyone else involved in this fraud arrested.

Market Ticker On The Scam

Carl Denninger was also commenting on the scam on Friday in "Global Warming" SCAM - Hack/Leak FLASH.

.....
Yes, I have the file. So do a few million other people.

There's enough evidence in there, in my opinion, of outrageously fraudulent conduct to make this the scandal of the 20th and 21st century.

Sorry folks, there's no science here - this is, from what I see, a massive and outrageous fraud, and now that the documents have been confirmed as authentic, it is time to pull the curtain down on this crap and start locking up all of the proponents - starting with AL GORE.

Here are some interesting "meta statistics" on the documents, and the number of times the words referenced appear:

• Fraud: 79
• Falsify: 6
• Inflate: 14
• Conceal: 5
• Hide: 19

Just for starters.

If you think that's bad, you might like this - from the file "ipcc-tar-master.rtf":

47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?

And then there's this...

From: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.ac.uk
To: "Michael E. Mann" mann@meteo.psu.edu
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

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

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

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Rules Of The Game

Here is an interesting snip on Rules of the Game posted in What's Up With That?

I downloaded the zip file, unpacked it, browsed a bit. I opened a .pdf file entitled “RulesOfTheGame.pdf”. Very interesting document. Most compelling is that I broke open the metadata for this file. The file date stamp is Oct. 3, 2006, the metadata says it was created Oct 14, 2005 using QuarkExpress v.6.1 (released in 2004). All properties and metadata for this file definitely appear genuine to me.

Interesting that this document describes methods of convincing the public of the “crisis”.

Excerpt:

a new way of thinking

Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging from behaviour change modeling for sustainable development:

5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.

6. Use both peripheral and central processing Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.

7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.

8. Use transmitters and social learning People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.

9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.

How To Avoid Taxes On Grants

Mike Abbott (17:06:59):

Here’s a quote from one of the emails:

“Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.”

Reducing "Blips"

Ric Werme (19:43:43):

This sounds like a “get rid of the MWP,” I hope it’s just a what if
speculation/exploration that might lead to research directions.

tux:mail> cat 1254108338.txt
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

I downloaded the document and found some interesting stuff

Wang Fabrications

From: "D.J. Keenan"
To: "Steve McIntyre"
Cc: "Phil Jones" Subject: Wang fabrications
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO

Steve,

I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang case.

First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.)

Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang.

Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to him only, and I told no one about them. In Wang's reply, though, Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd.

Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud if he did not retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was up to me.

Fifth, I put a draft on my web site--
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
--and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations for improvement.

I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notify the media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud; it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the case makes this easier--no scientific knowledge is required to understand things.

I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to publish a retraction of Wang's claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879
There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature would simply say "no").

Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al. [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper.

Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. Phil?

Kind wishes, Doug

That is just an accusation but it looks pretty damning.

This whole thing with tree rings is pretty fascinating. There was a reference in the emails to this site: Ross McKitrick: Defects in key climate data are uncovered

Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph of global warming

Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a famous result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph. Developed by a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick, scientists had held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making the scale of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The dramatic revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick’s publication made it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless review reports.

Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world.

The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed bristlecone pine data. ...

Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science.

I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent.

Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.

That article is a fascinating read in and of itself, implicating U.S. climatologist Michael Mann.

By the way, I am questioning if this was really the work of hackers. It could just as easily be an inside job of some disgruntled worker deciding to expose the CRU.

It's a good thing Cap-And-Trade "Three-Card Monte" Dead For 2009.

Now let's kill it permanently. Global warming is a hoax. At least the data presented is a hoax. If there is a problem then the free market will find a solution. The idea that a bunch of politicians with an agenda can do anything about it is ludicrous.

The earth has gone through cooling and warming cycles for millions of years. Attempting to measure one small period and then thinking one can find the true cause of that change (assuming it even exists), goes beyond hubris.

It would just be just as correct to say ...

Beware The Ice Age Cometh

Because given enough time I am sure it will.

Global Warming Scientists Doctor the Data to Fit Their Agenda? Say It Ain't So!

from UK Times:

Exaggerated and inaccurate claims about the threat from global warming risk undermining efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and contain climate change, senior scientists have told The Times.
Environmental lobbyists, politicians, researchers and journalists who distort climate science to support an agenda erode public understanding and play into the hands of sceptics, according to experts including a former government chief scientist.
Excessive statements about the decline of Arctic sea ice, severe weather events and the probability of extreme warming in the next century detract from the credibility of robust findings about climate change, they said.

The Global Warming Fraud

It's OK to File Frivolous Lawsuits Over Global Warming

NEW YORK—The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York has ruled that five of the largest U.S. coal-burning electric utilities can be sued under the federal common law of “nuisance” for their alleged contribution to global warming.
A two-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit held that a lower court erred in dismissing the complaints on political question grounds, that all of the plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims and that the federal nuisance common law governs their claims.
The Monday decision, which overturned and remanded a judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in State of Connecticut et al. vs. American Electric Power Co. et al., effectively paves the way for other lawsuits against utilities alleging nuisance from carbon dioxide emissions, environmental attorneys say.

The Global Warming Borg

from my post on Marketwatch in reply to someone who suggested that Patriotic people don't believe in science:

We believe in science, just not the made-to-order JUNK science that Al "Chicken Little" Gore and the Global Warming Borg dole out! "Cluck, cluck! The climate sky is falling!" "You WILL comply!" "Resistance is FUTILE!" Global Warming is a religion now imposing a new tyrannical Inquisition on the world!

The Global Warming agenda is about money and power, not climate preservation or science! That's why Cap and Trade does NOTHING to reduce temperatures or carbon emissions, but imposes all sorts of new taxes and crushing regulation on everyone. It's amazing that there are so many people willing to give up their freedom for counterfeit pseudo-science! It will increase the cost of everything -- even food!

Global Warming is the "earth-is-flatism" du jour! Here today and disproven and forgotten tomorrow. How many scientific "certainties" have found their way into the trash heap of history in our lifetimes? There is just as much science -- and even more scientists -- debunking Global Warming! Of course, since their minds are shut and already made up, Al's goons and the Global Warming Borg ignore all that -- a truly inconvenient truth!

I seems hard to believe that the same people that can't consistently forecast the local weather more than 2 days from now also want us to believe that they can forecast the climate for the entire PLANET several decades from now. We believe in science! We're just not gullible enough to believe the Borg!

More on the Global Warming Sham

from WSJ:

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.