posted March 09, 2011 07:33 PM            

quote:

---

The hoax, scam and fraud artist Michael Mann of the "Hockey Stick" debacle is in deep doo and so are any other Americans named in those emails who destroyed evidence subject to a FOIA request....because the Inspector General has those emails, knows who they are and has jurisdiction.

---

You're overstating things as usual. I didn't see any indication from the report that their investigation of Mann is ongoing, or that they are looking to prosecute him for not fulfilling an FOIA request.

posted March 09, 2011 11:22 PM            

Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick graph have been thoroughly discredited.

Phil Jones and his deleted temperature data have been thoroughly discredited.

posted March 13, 2011 12:49 PM            

March 13, 2011
Good bye, Kyoto
By S. Fred Singer]/b]

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, after surviving 15 years, mostly spent on life support. It reached its peak in Bali in 2007 at the annual UN gabfest, had a sudden unexpected collapse in Copenhagen in 2009, and has been in a coma since.

Kyoto had its real beginning at the 1992 Global Climate Summit in Rio de Janeiro. I missed that great party but George Bush the elder went and signed up for the United States. The language of the Global Climate Treaty, the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), was vague enough to not be completely objectionable -- although we should have known better than to let the camel's nose enter the tent. It has prejudiced the subsequent discussion by focusing only on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The 1997 Protocol, negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, tried to put teeth into the FCCC. And its bite was strong enough so that the United States never ratified it -- even during the Clinton-Gore years in the White House. The US Senate, bless their hearts, had voted unanimously, 95 to 0, for the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution against imposing any kind of restrictions on energy use mandated by the United Nations. And during the Obama administration, with the most pro-AGW people in the White House, the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to consider the Cap-and-Trade bill (to restrict emissions of CO2) that the House had passed in 2009.

The origin of Kyoto and its demise is a thrilling tale, full of heroes and villains, which has never been fully told. It produced some household words like "Hockeystick," "Climategate," "Mike's trick" and "hide the decline." I was fortunate, if that is the right word, to have been involved continuously in all aspects of Kyoto. Much of it is published in a Hoover Institution booklet "From Rio to Kyoto" -- and I am now working on the sequel "From Kyoto to Copenhagen."

The Rise of Kyoto

I trace the main actor behind Kyoto as the UN-sponsored IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Its first full assessment report in 1990 provided the basis for the Rio Summit and its doctored second assessment report of 1996 provided the scientific underpinning for the Kyoto Protocol.

What exactly did the IPCC have to say in 1996, when its printed report became available? Those of us present in Madrid in 1995, when a final draft was approved by the scientists, became aware that the crucial language was changed after its approval and before it was printed. While this has been hotly denied by the perpetrators, the evidence is quite clear; one only has to compare the two documents. Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of America's most distinguished scientists and President Emeritus of the Rockefeller University, had this to say in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on June 12, 1996:

"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

And he had good reason to be upset because here are the phrases that were deleted from the final draft:

[b]•"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
•"While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data - an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."
•"Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
•"While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."
•"When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know."

But the following sentence was added in the "revision":

The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. [IPCC chapter 8, p.439]

The memorable phrase "the balance of evidence" used in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is essentially meaningless, and certainly not backed by any scientific evidence. It turns out that the two main pieces of evidence, two crucial graphs in the IPCC report , were based on bad information or had actually been doctored [see my Hoover report].

Kyoto: A Money Machine -- for Some

The Kyoto Protocol was a fraud right from Day One. Even if it had been punctiliously followed by all of the nations who ratified it, it would have achieved essentially nothing -- a measly reduction in the calculated temperature half a century hence of 0.02 degrees C -- an amount too small to even measure.

Kyoto was all about politics and money. The terms of the Kyoto Protocol demanded a 5.2% overall reduction from the emission levels of 1990 for industrialized nations. The choice of 1990, however, favored Europe, Britain, Germany, and Russia at the expense of the United States.

Around 1990, Britain switched from primarily coal to natural gas, thus reducing CO2 emissions. And at about the same time, the Soviet Union collapsed and Germany took over its Eastern part, closing down much of its inefficient coal-fired electricity production.

The most pernicious provisions of the Kyoto Protocol were permits for emissions trading within the European Union and the so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). CDM permitted industries and others to keep emitting CO2 while buying unused credits from other Kyoto nations or by sponsoring projects in developing nations that would reduce emissions.

What a racket this turned out to be. It has made Al Gore a "climate billionaire" who emits CO2 copiously from his four residences, jet planes and yachts, but then buys "carbon offsets," emission credits from his own company, set up to trade CO2 permits.

The other big money item has been the drive for so-called "clean energy" -- with its huge subsidies for wind power and solar energy, widely abused in Europe -- but especially in the United States where the subsidies are among the highest.

The poster child for clean energy is probably ethanol -- a huge sink for government subsidies, essentially a wasteful scheme to transfer money from consumers to corn growers and refiners. Even environmentalists admit that ethanol does not lead to CO2 reductions overall -- and has many other undesirable environmental consequences.

Among the worst of the consequences of this "bio-fuel craze" has been the rise in the world price of corn -- doubling to $7 a bushel in the past six months -- wheat, and other agricultural commodities. It has led to food riots in many developing nations and served to perpetuate poverty throughout the world.

The general restrictions on CO2 emissions have also slowed down economic growth by making energy more expensive. All in all, the Kyoto Protocol has caused nothing but disasters.

The Fall of Kyoto

Just as Rio marked the beginning of the Kyoto misadventure, the end became really evident in 2009 in Copenhagen. Even desperate efforts by scientist-alarmists (that went well beyond the IPCC) failed to make an impact. Who still remembers the "Copenhagen Diagnosis" or UNEP's rehash of the IPCC, churned out at the last minute? Ultimately, China and major developing nations rejected all efforts to impose limits on the use of fossil fuels; economic growth proved to be more important than hypothetical climate disasters.

The Climategate revelations may have played a decisive role in shaking the public's faith in the climate science of the IPCC. Not only did a clique of key IPCC scientists hide their raw temperature data and the methodology of their selection and adjustments, but they conspired to delete incriminating e-mails and fought hard against all attempts by independent outside scientists to replicate their results. They also undermined the peer-review system and tried to make it impossible for skeptical scientists to publish their work in scientific journals. In the process, they damaged the whole science enterprise, based on full publication of data and methods, replication of results, and open debate.

No Sequel to Kyoto -- We Hope

And what about the future? There is not likely to be an extension of the Protocol or any similar international demand for emission restrictions. The 2010 gab fest, held in Cancun, Mexico, was not even a holding action and the 2011 conference in Durban, South Africa, will surely be an even greater waste of time and money.

But the financial subsidies have established politically important stakeholders who will continue to fight for programs of "clean energy", "renewable energy", and other such programs -- all in the name of "saving the earth's climate for our children and grand-children."

One only has to look at the current situation in the United States to realize how bad things have become. Western states, under the leadership of California, have established the Western Climate Initiative. Eastern states have established a similar regime. One of the worst ideas is the so-called Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which would force electric utilities to generate a certain percentage of their power from "renewable energy". Many of these groups demand a 20% "feed-in" quota by 2020, although politicians are playing all kinds of games with numbers. President Obama is calling for a 80% reduction by 2050. As he promised during the 2008 campaign, under his plan "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Probably the worst of all of the proposals may be the scheme to capture and sequester the emissions of CO2 from power plants. Fortunately, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) may never come to pass because of technological reasons. In the US, a little more than 50% of electric power is produced from coal burning plants, with the cheapest and most secure fuel we have.

The George W. Bush administration was not much better in this respect than the Obama White House. Remember the "hydrogen economy"? Bush is responsible also for feeding the various interest groups with subsidies -- even while he refused to consider CO2 as a pollutant.

Unfortunately also, his EPA and his Justice Department did not mount an adequate scientific defense before the Supreme Court in 2007. By a 5-4 decision, the Court called CO2 a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, but left it up to the EPA to demonstrate that it would constitute a hazard to "human health and welfare." The EPA has now issued an Endangerment Finding based only on the flimsy evidence of the IPCC. But without waiting for the legal challenge to the EF to be settled in court, the EPA is trying to proceed energetically to impose CO2 restrictions under the Clean Air Act. It would be interesting to see how the EPA will set the national ambient air quality standard for CO2, which is globally determined now by the emissions of China and other developing nations - and no longer under the control of the United States.

The battle against the unreasonable efforts of the EPA has to be fought on several fronts. The Congress, with a Republican majority in the House, is trying to cut off funding for EPA programs that involve dubious efforts to control climate change. In the House, the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011" is sure to pass. The US Senate may finally pass the "Murkowski Resolution", which would nullify the Endangerment Finding of the EPA.

On the scientific front, it behooves us to demonstrate to all concerned that the conclusion of the IPCC about anthropogenic global warming is not based on any credible evidence. Future generations will thank us for this service: "skeptics" now labeled "deniers," "traitors," "criminals," and worse, will become the "realists" who correctly recognized Global Warming as a non-problem and saved our economy from going down the drain.

Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and as Vice Chairman of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. His most recent book, "Unstoppable Global Warming -- Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), was on the New York Times bestseller list. He is the founder and chairman of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which acts an independent scientific body to check the conclusions of the UN-sponsored IPCC. NIPCC has published a summary report [2008] "Nature - Not Human Activity - Rules the Climate" http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf and a full NIPCC report by Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, "Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2009. 880 pp. www.nipccreport.org.

posted March 18, 2011 10:40 AM            

If their entire program was adopted all over the Earth...at a cost of many trillions of dollars and if everything worked out perfectly, per their computer projections, temperatures would go down only .3%. That's right, 3 tenths of 1 degree.

March 18, 2011
The Warmist Cult
By Andrew Thomas

I have been reading that the world is going to end on May 21, 2011. This is extremely distressing to me, since I have a daughter who is getting married on this date and it's too late to reschedule the wedding.

This apocalyptic prediction is being promoted by a group of religious cultists. Big surprise. They are being led by radical evangelist Harold Camping. He has been labeled a "false prophet", mainly due to the fact that his predictions are not reliable. His previous pronouncement of the "end times" was September 6, 1994. As the thousands of cult leaders before him, his track record as a prognosticator stinks on ice. Nevertheless, his devoted followers will uncritically follow him into the abyss.
In a similar manner, the global warmist cult has its false prophets as well. George Soros-sponsored climatologist James Hansen leads with the prediction that we only have two more years before it will be too late to save the world from a fiery fate. I would be more inclined to take him seriously if he hadn't previously made a number of erroneous apocalyptic pronouncements. In the mid-1980's he confidently proclaimed that the Earth would be 2 to 4 degrees warmer by 2010 and New York City highways would be under water.

Leading global warming proponent and climate scientist Phil Jones (co-creator of the infamous "hockey stick" graph used by Al Gore in his infamous fiction film "An Inconvenient Truth") revealed that he destroyed the original raw data that supported the global warming hypothesis, making it impossible to review or verify his findings. Additionally, Jones and other climate science associates actively suppressed any scientific studies which disputed their claims, as evidenced in the "Climategate" e-mails.

Jones confessed last year that no warming of the Earth has actually occurred for the past fifteen years. This has been confirmed by NOAA satellite temperature data records.

The lead author of the also infamous UN IPCC report, Dr. John Christy recently admitted that global warming is a "non-falsifiable hypothesis". This means it cannot be classified as an actual scientific theory, but instead relegated to a quasi-religious dogma based upon a belief rather than verifiable facts.

Since the principle warmists have admitted the sham or have been revealed as "false prophets", I view those who remain "true believers" to be truly pathetic individuals. They are cultists worshiping at the altar of Gaia, anxiously wringing their hands in fear and demanding tribute and sacrifice from the masses.

This Shakespearean comedy would be hysterical was it not for the tragic fact that billions of dollars have been squandered and continue to be stolen from our economy and our personal finances because of this blatant falsehood and these misguided individuals.

A US Senate report on EPA global warming policy released in September, 2010 indicated that the EPA estimated that an expenditure of $78 billion per year until 2100 (90 years) will result in lowering the Earth's temperature by 0.006 to 0.0015 degrees centigrade. If the average of these predicted temperature reduction figures (0.00375 degrees) is used to calculate the cost of lowering the Earth's temperature, the result is a mind-boggling $1,900 trillion for each degree of lowered temperature.

Since the entire US economy only consists of about $15 trillion this year, it will take every dollar bill on the planet for the next 90 years to make an insignificant dent in the phantom global warming threat. In other words, the whole idea that human beings can affect the temperature of the Earth is preposterous and the EPA has admitted as much.

Coincidentally, an official report from an economically-troubled Japan just revealed that the country spent $78 billion on global warming research that was determined to be "fruitless". Imagine if they had used that money for a better purpose, such as improving the safety of their nuclear reactors.

For that matter, imagine what the US could do with the extra trillions of dollars we will "fruitlessly" flush down the toilet in the worship of Gaia if the warmist cult has its way. Could we find cures for cancer and heart disease? Could we permanently address worldwide hunger with advanced agricultural processes? Perhaps we could use it to eventually colonize Mars.

With that amount of capital, the possibilities for realistically improving our lives are limitless. Maybe we should just be more pragmatic and actually balance the budget first.

Maurice Strong, another George Soros-sponsored false prophet and primary architect of the UN global warming and global governance project Agenda 21, once asked "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

posted April 07, 2011 10:00 AM            

I wonder if they realize just how insane they sound when they make pronouncements like this.....

Really? Dem Congresswoman Says Climate Change Bigger Health Threat Than AIDS, Malaria, Flu

posted April 08, 2011 12:06 PM            

Listen it's simple, that many humans around the world are making more cookies. This will be contributing to the increase in wierd weather.

posted April 22, 2011 09:26 AM            

So, what's wrong with the UN IPCC, the so called scientists of the man made global warming religion, the dunce politicians, the hack political activist journalists and the deluded bitter clingers to Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming...AGW?

Nothing really...unless you consider the fact their computer models don't work, temperatures going the opposite direction of what they predict, the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific haven't swallowed continental coasts as predicted, and fraud amongst their scientific priesthood.

Reasonable people might say those facts should send delusional man made global warming adherents stampeding for the exits.

Not me though. I recognize we're dealing
with a cult religion and no facts will ever penetrate their delusion.

posted April 22, 2011 11:10 AM            

quote:

---

Though the US Senate rejected the Kyoto Treaty 95-0 in 1997, the man made global warming crackpot religionists are still resisting real climate science and pushing their fraud, hoax, scam and con...as real science.

---

He says before posting an article from Fred Singer.

posted April 22, 2011 11:31 AM            

As for Dr. Singer, he's forgotten more about climate science than the fraudsters, Phil Jones and the hockey stick huckster Michael Mann ever knew. They're still trying to drive square pegs into round holes.

Nevertheless, the global temperature mean temperature is in a downtrend and the fraudsters and hucksters predicted the opposite.

posted April 22, 2011 11:46 AM            

Fred Singer isn't, and hasn't been a credible climate scientist. His word on the subject is moot by any intellectual guage.

posted April 22, 2011 12:48 PM            

Dr Fred Singer is the foremost climate scientist in the world. Singer is head and shoulders above the hucksters and fraudsters Jones and Mann. Their professional reputations pale into insignificance compared to Dr Singer.

American Thinker a conspiracy site.

posted April 23, 2011 10:47 AM            

quote:

---

American Thinker a conspiracy site.

---

Pretty much.

quote:

---

Well, I didn't think you would like it and you're free to go to that thread and attempt to refute the fact that the modern "Green" movement origins are found in Hitler's National Socialist Germany.

---

Any article containing a line like this should be suspect to any rational human:

On the other hand, do we really believe Cameron does not know Hitler was called "Avatar" by Savitri Devi in her 1958 Neo-Nazi manifesto called "The Lightning and the Sun?"

When things are that tangential, there's typically a conspiracy theorist involved. Only in Conservative circles would such an illogical premise be taken as plausible. Perhaps you'd benefit from a study on the word "Avatar," so that you might understand that a Hitler use of the term is probably the least likely connection possible. This is a great example of the poor thinking I was talking about in the other thread.

posted April 23, 2011 11:43 AM            

You just didn't like the preceding line...

"Certainly James Cameron loathes the mythical Hitler of the modern leftist imagination that trumpets the Nazis as an extreme right wing movement thanks to 80 years of Marxist and Socialist propaganda."

Socialists, including Communists have been running away from the fact Hitler was one of their guys...a fellow Socialist. 70 years of running from facts and leftists are still trying to bury the Socialist Hitler.

There's nothing illogical in tracing the roots of the greens. The tracks lead straight back to Hitler's Nazi Germany.

Oh btw, Savitri Devi dedicated her book to....guess who.

"It is dedicated "To the god-like Individual of our times; the Man against Time; the greatest European of all times; both Sun and Lightning: Adolf Hitler"

Dr Singer's credentials and reputation don't need any polishing...unlike the hucksters and fraudsters Jones and Mann over whom you drool in typical leftist sycophant fashion.

Here, let me put them before your eyes so you can see what a real climate scientist looks like, academically and professionally.