Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese


Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - What is Going On Around The Melting Polar Cap?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Online Discussion: Tracking new emerging diseases and the next pandemic

What is Going On Around The Melting Polar Cap?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
Mary008 View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 5769
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mary008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What is Going On Around The Melting Polar Cap?
    Posted: November 15 2009 at 10:48am
.
Polar%20Ice%20Cap%20melt

Polar Ice Cap melt

 

So... what's going on... in that area over there... where it seems to be melting a lot?
 
A lot is going on...around the Polar Ice Cap
.................................................................
 
Could this all have anything to do with it Melting?
 
File:ArcticLocationMap2.gif
        Petroleum exploration in the Arctic
 
 
 

The Beaufort Sea is also the location of what are believed to be significant petroleum reserves beneath the seabed, a continuation of proven reserves in the nearby Mackenzie River and North Slope.[1] The Beaufort Sea was first explored in the 1960s and the Amauligak Project of 1986 began operating the first functioning oil platform.
 
 
Canada

Extensive drilling was done in the Canadian Arctic during the 1970s and 1980s by such companies as Panarctic Oils Ltd., Petro Canada and Dome Petroleum. After 176 wells were drilled at billions of dollars of cost, approximately 1.9 billion barrels (300×10^6 m3) of oil and 19.8 trillion cubic feet (560×10^9 m3) of natural gas were found. These discoveries were insufficient to justify development, and all the wells which were drilled were plugged and abandoned.

Drilling in the Canadian Arctic turned out to be expensive and dangerous. The geology of the Canadian Arctic turned out to be far more complex than oil-producing regions like the Gulf of Mexico. It was discovered to be gas prone rather than oil prone (i.e. most of the oil had been transformed into natural gas by geological processes), and most of the reservoirs had been fractured by tectonic activity, allowing most of the petroleum which might at one time have been present to leak out.[4]
 

Russia

In June 2007, a group of Russian geologists returned from a six-week voyage on a nuclear icebreaker. They had travelled to the Lomonosov ridge, an underwater shelf in Russia's remote and inhospitable eastern Arctic Ocean.

According to Russia's media, the geologists returned with the "sensational news" that the Lomonosov ridge was linked to Russian Federation territory, boosting Russia's claim over the oil-and-gas rich triangle. The territory contained 10bn tonnes of gas and oil deposits, the scientists said.[5]
Back to Top
endman View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: February 16 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 912
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote endman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2009 at 12:52pm
The answer is Al Gore
But seriously who cares you cannot stop it now if it’s due to green house gases or normal earth cycles, Earth orbit is incline (hat why we have seasons) I don’t know how many degrees and geographical north pole wobbles and the angle is changing that so if earth angle to the sun now is getting smaller then the sun rays are striking the earth at more direct angle and heating the earth more so the ice is melting at the poles. Earth had many ice ages and many heat waves do to volcanoes, comets, asteroids here is another one human made if you believe in it
Back to Top
Mary008 View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 5769
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mary008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2009 at 8:28pm
hi...It would be good to cut down on air pollution... and get away from tossing our dollars at mid east oil...  anyone elses oil... and come up with some new ideas so future generations will enjoy clean air and water...  I do agree that some of it is just nature taking it's course.
but hopefully we won't add to it happening any faster.  So hard to get the big corps on board.
Back to Top
endman View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: February 16 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 912
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote endman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 02 2009 at 12:38pm
I don’t believe in big corps if you want to change the world you need green revolution and dedicated men to preach in every corner of the world, on how to use earth resources more efficiently, how to conserve and preserve equisetums, how to grow biodivers crops 
I think the world needs population control if we want to live in the better society in the future. Most of the world population growth is coming from countries that cannot feed themselves now, that why we need world policy of one or two children per family not green house gases policy population policy less people less problems and wars more land for animals. People stop making babies you can’t afford them anyway. I think some of the population control measures have been implemented already like HIV and H1N1 virus.   
Back to Top
Technologist View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: May 05 2009
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 1192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technologist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 7:23am
OK here's a Question:

If a hundred trillion pounds of Floating iceberg were to melt in the ocean.

Would it raise the oceans sea level?
Would it stay the same?
Would the sea level drop?   

I'm not giving the answer but I would like to know who can answer the question and why would you come up with that answer?
Back to Top
nc_girl View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 19 2006
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nc_girl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 10:14am
I'll bite.  I say it will stay the same or go down.  I base my answer on how ice cubes behave in a glass of water.  When they melt, I see appreciable rise or fall in the level of the water in my glass, but then I'm drinking it the whole time.  hehehe  I believe the liquid form would take up less room that the solid form being that the solid is more dense.
Back to Top
Mahshadin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3872
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mahshadin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 12:59pm
Sea Ice Yearly Minimum with Graph Overlay 1979-2008

The continued significant reduction in the extent of the summer sea ice cover is a dramatic illustration of the pronounced impact increased global temperatures are having on the Arctic regions. There has also been a significant reduction in the relative amount of older, thicker ice. Satellite-based passive microwave images of the sea ice cover have provided a reliable tool for continuously monitoring changes in the extent of the Arctic ice cover since 1979. The ice parameters derived from satellite ice concentration data that are most relevant to climate change studies are sea ice extent and ice area. This visualization shows ice extent in the background and ice area in the foreground. Ice extent is defined here as the integrated sum of the areas of data elements (pixels) with at least 15% ice concentration while ice area is the integrated sum of the products of the area of each pixel and the corresponding ice concentration. Ice extent provides information about how far south (or north) the ice extends in winter and how far north (or south) it retreats toward the continent in the summer while the ice area provides the total area actually covered by sea ice which is useful for estimating the total volume and therefore mass, given the average ice thickness. For more information about these ice datasets, see The Journal of Geophysical Research VOL. 113, C02S07, doi:10.1029/2007JC004257, 2008

Annual%20Arctic%20Sea%20Ice%20Minimum%20from%201979%20to%202008.    Annual Arctic Sea Ice Minimum from 1979 to 2008.
Duration: 35.0 seconds
Available formats:
  3840x2160 TIFF         7 MB
  320x180     PNG           222 KB
  160x80       PNG           55 KB
  80x40         PNG           15 KB
  1280x720 (29.97 fps) MPEG-4   12 MB
  512x288 (30 fps) MPEG-1   1 MB
  1280x720 (30 fps) Frames (Combined)
  1280x720 (60 fps) Frames (Combined)
  640x360 (29.97 fps) MPEG-4   5 MB
  346x260 (29.92 fps) WMV         1 MB
How to play our movies


Overlay%20sequence:%20graph%20showing%20annual%20trend%20from%201979%20to%202008.    Overlay sequence: graph showing annual trend from 1979 to 2008.
Duration: 32.0 seconds
Available formats:
  3840x2160 TIFF         3 MB
  320x180     PNG           128 KB
  1280x720 (29.97 fps) MPEG-4   5 MB
  512x288 (30 fps) MPEG-1   337 KB
  1280x720 (30 fps) Frames (Graph Overlay)
  1280x720 (60 fps) Frames (Graph Overlay)
How to play our movies


Minimum%20Sea%20Ice%20Sequence%20with%20Date%20Overlay%20from%201979%20to%202008.    Minimum Sea Ice Sequence with Date Overlay from 1979 to 2008.
Duration: 32.0 seconds
Available formats:
  3840x2160 TIFF         7 MB
  320x180     PNG           208 KB
  1280x720 (60 fps) Frames (Dates Sea Ice Minimum)
  1280x720 (30 fps) Frames (Dates Sea Ice Minimum)
  512x288 (30 fps) MPEG-1   1 MB
  1280x720 (29.97 fps) MPEG-4   15 MB
How to play our movies


Minimum%20Sea%20Ice%20Sequence%20from%201979%20to%202008.%20This%20image%20is%20the%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20during%20the%20week%20of%20September%2012,%202008.    Minimum Sea Ice Sequence from 1979 to 2008. This image is the Arctic sea ice minimum area during the week of September 12, 2008.
Duration: 32.0 seconds
Available formats:
  3840x2160 TIFF         7 MB
  320x180     PNG           207 KB
  512x288 (30 fps) MPEG-1   1 MB
  1280x720 (29.97 fps) MPEG-4   15 MB
  1280x720 (30 fps) Frames (Sea Ice Minimum)
  1280x720 (60 fps) Frames (Sea Ice Minimum)
How to play our movies


Date%20Overlay%20from%201979%20to%202008.    Date Overlay from 1979 to 2008.

Available formats:
  3840x2160 TIFF         91 KB
  320x180     PNG           2 KB
  1280x720 (60 fps) Frames (Dates)
How to play our movies


21%20September%201979%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201979    21 September 1979 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1979

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     208 KB


05%20September%201980%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201980    05 September 1980 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1980

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     210 KB


10%20September%201981%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201981    10 September 1981 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1981

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     208 KB


17%20September%201982%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201982    17 September 1982 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1982

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     208 KB


18%20September%201983%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201983    18 September 1983 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1983

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     209 KB


16%20September%201984%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201984    16 September 1984 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1984

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     208 KB


07%20September%201985%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201985    07 September 1985 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1985

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     207 KB


06%20September%201986%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201986    06 September 1986 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1986

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     209 KB


02%20September%201987%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201987    02 September 1987 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1987

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     209 KB


12%20September%201988%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201988    12 September 1988 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1988

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     213 KB


23%20September%201989%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201989    23 September 1989 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1989

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     211 KB


19%20September%201990%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201990    19 September 1990 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1990

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     210 KB


16%20September%201991%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201991    16 September 1991 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1991

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     212 KB


04%20September%201992%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201992    04 September 1992 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1992

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     209 KB


11%20September%201993%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201993    11 September 1993 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1993

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     210 KB


05%20September%201994%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201994    05 September 1994 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1994

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     212 KB


01%20October%201995%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201995    01 October 1995 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1995

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     209 KB


10%20September%201996%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201996    10 September 1996 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1996

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     211 KB


19%20September%201997%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201997    19 September 1997 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1997

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     210 KB


12%20September%201998%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201998    12 September 1998 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1998

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     212 KB


11%20September%201999%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%201999    11 September 1999 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 1999

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     211 KB


11%20September%202000%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%202000    11 September 2000 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 2000

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     211 KB


19%20September%202001%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%202001    19 September 2001 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 2001

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     212 KB


12%20September%202002%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%202002    12 September 2002 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 2002

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     210 KB


11%20September%202003%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%202003    11 September 2003 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 2003



Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     211 KB


11%20September%202004%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%202004    11 September 2004 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 2004

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     210 KB


21%20September%202005%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%202005    21 September 2005 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 2005

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     205 KB


14%20September%202006%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum%20area%20for%202006    14 September 2006 Arctic sea ice minimum area for 2006

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     211 KB


14%20September%202007%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20minimum    14 September 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum

Available formats:
  3840 x 2160     TIFF 7 MB
  320 x 180         PNG     216 KB
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."   G Orwell
Back to Top
Mary008 View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 5769
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mary008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 1:39pm
 
 
If it is nature.... it's significantly different these days...   There is a lot going on in that area, people were unaware of the blasting up there.
 
 
Drilling in the Canadian Arctic turned out to be expensive and dangerous...
 
this fracting has been known to cause quakes...  176 wells....   at a cost of Billions.

Extensive drilling was done
in the Canadian Arctic during the 1970s and 1980s by such companies as Panarctic Oils Ltd., Petro Canada and Dome Petroleum.

 ...discoveries were insufficient to justify development...
 
Back to Top
Dr.Who View Drop Down
Advisor Group
Advisor Group


Joined: January 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 392
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr.Who Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 3:57pm
Answer: a lot is going on with the ice caps.

One thing that is happening is that snowfall is increasing in the center of the area in the photos so the snow is deeper inland and there is less further out.

Another thing that is happening is that there is more ice in other areas of the planet.

Another thing that is happening is that global temperatures have been going DOWN for a little over ten years now, including the years that your pictures cover. So one thing we can say is that global warming is not causing the ice to melt.

In fact some of the ice melts every summer and is replaced by more every winter. But if the snow is falling further north or in other parts of the globe it wont be replacing the ice where we see it receeding.

The last thing we can say is that scientist who give up these nifty pics and graphs and things and let (or hope) people misinterpret them are not being completely honest. But now we know that the few scientists at the core of the fiasco are lying to us.
Back to Top
4=laro View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: April 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 731
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 4=laro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 6:56pm
You are all so silly, but dont send this solution to WDC.

It can easily be solved, all we need is an ICE CAP AND POLAR TAX.
Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 8:08pm
 
 

SUPPRESSING SCIENCE: IS CLIMATEGATE WORLD'S BIGGEST HOAX?

On the eve of next week's Copenhagen climate summit, the evidence couldn't be more embarrassing for proponents of global warming, says the Calgary Herald.  Leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU), one of the world's leading climate change research centers, indicate that prominent scientists cooked the books to make the case for man-made global warming.

Misconduct at an institute as respected and influential as Hadley -- including the manipulation and deletion of data and deliberate attempts to suppress peer-reviewed papers skeptical of global warming, as the e-mails indicate -- would undermine the very basis of an issue that is driving much of the world agenda.  Global warming, endorsed by the national science academies of every major industrialized nation, would not only be flawed science, it would be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the world, says the Herald.

The e-mails indicate an agenda-driven willingness among a group of like-minded scientists to influence what research gets published:

  • In one 2003 e-mail, a scientist suggests boycotting the journal Climate Research, and manipulating its editors or getting them fired, for publishing articles contrary to the views of the Hadley CRU.
  • In another message, the head of the Hadley climate unit, Philip Jones, wrote that he would try to exclude papers written by climate skeptics from a 2007 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
  • He vowed in the e-mail to "keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

If he wasn't kidding, Jones's e-mail, and others like it, are distressing, says the Herald.  On Tuesday, Jones announced his resignation while the school investigates the e-mails that indicate scientific and professional misconduct have been perpetrated by Jones and others.

Even those who accept the need to act on the theory of man-made global warming can't deny that all science should be allowed to speak for itself.  Nothing should be suppressed, says the Herald.

As U.S. climatologist and global warming skeptic Roy Spencer notes: "Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting IPCC politics, not to find out how nature works.  The 'data spin' is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science."

Source: Editorial, "Suppressing science: Is Climategate world's biggest hoax?" Calgary Herald, December 3, 2009.

For text:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Suppressing+science/2297620/story.html

For more on Global Warming:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=32

Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 8:10pm

Telegraph

UK

CLIMATE CHANGE: THIS IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF OUR GENERATION

The reason why there has been an expression of total shock and dismay over the leaked University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails is that the senders and recipients of the mails constitute a cast list of scientific elite.  They are the authors of global temperature record that is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and governments rely -- not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it, says author Christopher Booker.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world, say Booker:

  • A series of emails shows how Professor Philip Jones, head of the CRU, and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws; scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
  • Other emails show how the scientists manipulate data through their tortuous computer programs, always to point in only the one desired direction -- to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.
  • Lastly, the emails demonstrate the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods -- not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work.

Last week, the former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skullduggery revealed by the CRU leaks.  Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age, say the Booker.

Source: Christopher Booker, "Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation," The Telegraph, November 28, 2009.

For text:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html 

For more on Global Warming:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article

Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 8:12pm
Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 8:14pm
 
 
 

12 Days of ClimateGate and Network News Programs Are Still Ignoring the Scandal

By Julia A. Seymour (Bio | Archive)
December 2, 2009 - 16:16 ET

It's been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people's faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university's Climate Research Unit.

Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent - not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.

MRC's President Brent Bozell called the networks' silence a "cover-up" Dec. 2.

Other news outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Associated Press have deemed ClimateGate worthy of reporting, but the networks were too busy reporting on celebrity car accidents and the killer whale that ate a great white shark. Instead of airing a broadcast news segment that might inform the public about the science scandal, both ABC and CBS relegated the story to their Web sites. There was one mention of the scandal on ABC's Sunday talk show: "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

The ClimateGate scandal, as it is being called, has the hallmarks of a major news story: private emails purporting to show unethical or illegal behavior supplied by a hacker or whistleblower, high profile scientists like James Hansen and Michael Mann, and a potential conspiracy to distort science for political gain. But the networks haven't bothered with the story.

Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and BMI adviser, said Nov. 20 of the leaked e-mails and documents: "This isn't a smoking gun, it's a mushroom cloud."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a question about ClimateGate by insisting that "global warming is happening" and that for most people it isn't really a question anymore. That is the same message viewers get from the network news about climate change.

An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions. But during the same time period, the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods' "minor" car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president's State Dinner.

ClimateGate began after someone (hacker or whistleblower) attacked servers of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and made thousands of e-mails  and documents public. Those e-mails appear to show a conspiracy to falsify temperature data, a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles.

CRU's director Phil Jones admitted real CRU e-mails had been stolen when he told New Zealand's Investigate magazine, "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." Others argue a whistleblower was responsible for the breach.

One of those alleged e-mails was from Jones to Michael Mann (famous for his hockey stick graph of global warming) and two others appeared to indicate manipulation of scientific data.

Jones wrote: "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 [Sic] from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Jones, who contributed to a chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report, claims the term "trick" was used "colloquially as in a clever thing to do." Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), supplied his own view of what Jones and Mann meant by hiding the decline.

Ebell wrote in the National Post: "What is the clever method that Prof. Jones learned from Prof. Mann? I think he is referring to the way Prof. Mann constructed his celebrated hockey stick graph. His proxy records showed flat temperatures for the past 1,000 years, including the past century. But everyone knows that temperatures have gone up rapidly in the past few decades ... So what Prof. Mann did was splice the last few decades of surface temperature records onto his proxy record. Voila! - the hockey stick."

The alleged e-mails were enough to force Jones' temporary resignation. On Dec. 1, Associated Press reported that Jones is "stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change."

Other leaked e-mails asked people to delete e-mails and one said that if information was requested using FOI, it would be deleted rather than turned over:

Alleged e-mail from Jones to Mann Feb. 2, 2005:

"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does !  The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

In Britain, it is a crime to delete information requested under FOI.

You can read the Business & Media Institute's entire assessment of the ClimateGate scandal and the networks' refusal to report it on the BMI Web site.

—Julia A. Seymour is an assistant editor for the Business & Media Institute.

Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 8:44pm
 
Wall Street Journal

How to Forge a Consensus

The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.

The climatologists at the center of last week's leaked-email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of the some of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science, which is as certain as ever.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."

Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week.

We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. His May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" does not "read well," it's true. (Mr. Mann has said he didn't delete any such emails.)

But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.

This past September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who fact-checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds—including some in Mr. Mann's work—on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more-famous papers.

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted to several colleagues in an email from March 2003, when the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

The scare quotes around "peer-reviewed literature," by the way, are Mr. Mann's. He went on in the email to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, re-define what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views. It's easy to manufacture a scientific consensus when you get to decide what counts as science.

The response to this among the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science we've got. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature.

Even so, by rigging the rules, they've made it impossible to know how good it really is. And then, one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim. If there's an innocent explanation for that, we'd love to hear it.

 

 
Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 8:47pm
 
 

An Obama science policy flashback from March 2009:

"But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Words, just words.

Remember.....Watch what he does; Not what he says.

Document-dump-a-palooza — plus an Obama/sound science flashback; Update: Official White House position on ClimateGate: So what?

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 30, 2009 02:21 PM

 

“Document dump” is the operative word of the month, isn’t it?

We had another holiday weekend document dump of visitor logs from the White House, which included these trips:

Former Vice President Al Gore had four White House meetings in April. The records suggest these were not social calls for Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work to curb global warming. Two of the meetings were with John Holdren, Obama’s top science and technology adviser.

Holdren, of course, is the population control freak/global warming zealout/science czar — who, as I noted last week, is smack dab in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal.

Speaking of which, the research institution at the center of ClimateGate admitted its own document dump over the weekend:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

And to round out document-dump-a-palooza, here’s the latest on the massive ACORN docdump.

Viva transparency!

***

More:

*Paul Mirengoff at Power Line: The Obama-Holder Justice Department turns a blind eye to ACORN . More here.

Well now: ACORN and NBC collaborated together on an undercover sting project.

See my “ACORN Watch: A ’sting’-ing indictment of media hypocrisy” for more on NBC hypocrisy and the old media protection racket.

*There is now a searchable ClimateGate database here.

*White House press secretary Robert Gibbs — echoing data destruction expert/energy czar Carol Browner — says ClimateGate has no bearing on Obama’s push for massive global warming taxes/intervention. The science is “settled.”

Yeah, who cares about the global warming scandal of the century?

An Obama science policy flashback from March 2009:

But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

Words, just words.

***

The Atlantic’s Clive Crook blasts ClimateGate corruption:

In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu [subscription required]. It goes to the core of that process.

One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson’s study raised, and it was also emphasised in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre’s campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.

I’m also surprised by the IPCC’s response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side “deniers”.

Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 8:55pm
 
 
Christopher%20C.%20Horner

Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!

by Christopher C. Horner

To the credit of the New York Times, Associated Press and Washington Post — reliable outlets for promoting global warming alarmism, protecting those who craft it and marginalizing those who point out its weaknesses and excesses — they all ran stories in the past 48 hours addressing the documents somehow obtained from the computers of a UK university serving as the warming movement and industry’s Mother Ship. My great surprise is even greater because these outlets have demonstrated a pattern of only giving ink to embarrassing controversies after a week or so, once it appears that damage control is needed and the alarmists have gotten their story straight.

al-gore-404_682507c

I documented this pattern in a book published one year ago this month, subtly titled “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.” The title says it all, including all that surely seems to have been affirmed by the documents posted, by “anonymous” on a Russian server and otherwise covering his tracks.

Since this affirms, not “reveals”, the scandal that so many have been explaining is the global warming industry, it also raises the issue of how can each of these media outlets still miss the plot? Well, they are doing so in a fashion so uniform, and in the face of such outrageous exposition of the scandal that is unfolding, that I conclude it is nonetheless yet another exercise in damage-control.

The emails, let alone the data still being combed over by the pointy-heads, plainly affirm everything I wrote, in detail, about the scams being run by the booming industry of Big Academia and Big Science suckling at the teat of the “global warming” panic they are also fostering.

I was by no means without company, but I did name and go into detail about all of the stars of this alleged correspondence, and how they are engaging in everything these documents appear to confirm. None of them lawyered up to challenge what I wrote. I suspect, however, that each and every one has retained counsel in the past few days, and not because they plan on suing anyone. They — rightly in my opinion — fear legal consequence as a result of what has been revealed. And not for writing nasty emails about people who disagree with them.

Yet the media have defined the story down, focusing on sideshow issues such as conspiring or hateful commentary about those who cause problems for the authors. Think of the wisdom of that approach: whose emails do not somewhere include such things? Surely this will also be proved with more emails stolen from skeptics’ computers, dispatching the story with an “everybody does it” narrative that entirely elides the meaning of the far more important admissions. Heck, Greenpeace used to peddle emails taken from my trash to the press, and got the Guardian and others to excerpt sections, out of context, with phony context padded around them and without calling me before running their “story”. That’s how they roll. They’ve no room for outrage. Still, that poses no resemblance to what’s going on now.

How it is possible that these media outlets’ regular “issue” reporters do not recognize the import of the fraud admitted to in the emails which, broadly, have been acknowledged as genuine?

Incidentally, also note how all of these outlets emphasize as fact, up front, that these documents, codes, data and emails are the product of “hackers” (this has grown from “a hacker” when the story first ran, though no outlet has offered any explanation for that change let alone evidence of the hacking). They simply accept that the University of East Anglia’s computers were hacked, on the word of people who are shown by what was hacked to be liars and charlatans and who have an interest in making the story be something other than the substance of the material.

I do not know if the computers were hacked. I do know that there is just as much reason to suspect that the documents were posted by someone on the inside who still possesses a conscience, a “whistleblower”. Remember that this incident occurred after the most recent and audacious twist in the university’s Climatic Research Unit refusal of access to basic raw data and other material necessary to validate their claims serving as the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol (and Kyoto II), “cap-and-trade”, and so on. This was a four-year campaign to hide material — a campaign whose tactics were also admitted to in the alleged emails now made public.

After running out of excuses, in September CRU’s Phil Jones simply claimed that he had lost the data so, sorry, no, no one can check it. Implausible beyond comprehension. And if the emails are real and any indication of the way this group operates, deeply dishonest.

Soon thereafter someone went and downloaded material that, again if real, says enough, you are scandalizing and perverting “science”. This shall stop. Someone took it upon themselves to enforce a UK freedom of information act that its targets allegedly and apparently admit to subverting.

No matter how many stories seek to distract you with the shiny objects of prurient dialogue between sniveling, petulant and nasty global warming alarmists, that isn’t the story. The story is the exposition . Not the revelation, in fact, but merely the revelation of their affirmation of it.

I’m told by a cable news producer that, across the board, the green pressure groups, the supposedly “Concerned Scientists” (they even have a Union!), all of them are refusing to come out and speak to the issue. That could be because they understand that what is out is described by the material’s anonymous source as “a random sample.” There could be many more shoes to drop. Why hitch your organization further to the anchor threatening to sink a $7 billion per year (that’s just federal taxpayer-funding) industry? Live to fight another day. There will always be a new Man-as-agent-of-doom theory attracting college kids, Statists and wealthy elites.

This cannot simply be a three-day story about titillating emails. The edge seems to have been turned up on information proving everything we have been saying, often in great detail if to no media interest, for years. Kyoto II, “cap-and-trade” and EPA must all be stayed, at least so far as the U.S. is concerned, until the truth is outed and admitted to.


 

Posted Nov 23rd 2009 at 8:38 am in Environment, Media Criticism, News | Comments (103)

Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 9:02pm
 
 

REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE

The "Climategate" whistleblower at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities.  His crime?  He revealed what many had long suspected, says the former science advisor to Lady Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton.

A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today's climate.  The "Team," as they called themselves, bent and distorted scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99 percent of all scientific research, says Monckton.

What the hacked emails revealed:

  • The CRU at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in "research" grants from the Team's activities.
  • The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel's conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
  • The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the U.N. climate panel to report.
  • They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

Also:

  • They had emailed one another about using a "trick" for the sake of concealing a "decline" in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
  • They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years.
  • They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
  • Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their "research" was either honest or competent.

Source: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, "Lord Monckton's summary of Climategate and its issues," Science and Public Policy Institute, November 30, 2009.

For text:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/ 

For report:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html 

For more on Global Warming:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category

Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 9:05pm

Lead Story

All the president’s ClimateGate deniers

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 2, 2009 09:54 AM


Graph via Steve McIntyre

My syndicated column today looks at the global warming cultists in the Obama administration who are working overtime to paper over the ClimateGate scandal. Yesterday, Phil Jones, the head of the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia stepped aside while the university investigates. Penn State prof Michael Mann, purveyor of the infamous hockey stick graph of spiking global temperatures peddled by Al Gore, is also under investigation. GOP Sen. James Inhofe, vigilant watchdog over global warming shenanigans, wants Babs Boxer to investigate. As Obama heads to Copenhagen to crusade for massive interventions to stop global warming, a new Harris Poll shows a significant shift in public opinion away from the cult of climate change. Jonah Goldberg dissects the groupthink that has gripped the global warming industry and its media enablers. Ed Driscoll takes you on a tour through global warming evolution in six and a half minutes. Well now: “Moderate” (liberal) GOP candidates/lawmakers led by GOP cap-and-tax 8′er Mark Kirk are running as fast as they can from the global warming hot mess.

Hide the decline, hide the decline…

Oh, and just a reminder:

Former Vice President Al Gore had four White House meetings in April. The records suggest these were not social calls for Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work to curb global warming. Two of the meetings were with John Holdren, Obama’s top science and technology adviser.

***

All the president’s ClimateGate deniers
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

“The science is settled,” we’ve been told for decades by zealous proponents of man-made global warming hysteria. Thanks to an earth-shaking hacking scandal across the pond, we now have mountains of documents from the world’s leading global warming advocacy center that show the science is about as settled as a southeast Asian tsunami. You won’t be surprised by the Obama administration’s response to ClimateGate.

With pursed lips and closed eyes and ears, the White House is clinging to the old eco-mantra: The science is settled.

Never mind all the devastating new information about data manipulation, intimidation, and cult-like cover-ups to “hide the decline” in global temperatures over the last half-century, they say. The science is settled.

Never mind what The Atlantic’s Clive Crook, after wading through the climate science email files of the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, called the overpowering “stink of intellectual corruption” — combined with mafia-like suppression of dissent, suppression of evidence and methods, and “plain statistical incompetence” exposed by the document trove. The science is settled.

Never mind the expedient disappearance of mounds of raw weather station data that dissenting scientists were seeking through freedom of information requests from the Climatic Research Unit. The science is settled.

In March, President Obama made a grandiose show of putting “science” above “politics” when lifting the ban on government-funded human embryonic stem cell research. “Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry,” he said during the signing ceremony. “It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

Yet, the pro-sound science president has surrounded himself with radical ClimateGate deniers who have spent their entire professional careers “settling” man-made global warming disaster science through fear-mongering, intimidation, and ridicule of opponents.

*Science czar John Holdren, who will testify on Capitol Hill this week at a hearing on ClimateGate, infamously hyped weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population control freak pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich. He made a public bet against free-market economist Julian Simon predicting dire shortages of five natural resources as a result of feared overconsumption. He lost on all counts. No matter.

Holdren’s failure didn’t stop him from writing forcefully about mass sterilization and forced abortion “solutions” to a fizzling, sizzling, overpopulated planet. And it didn’t stop him from making a living making more dire predictions. In 1986, Ehrlich credited Holdren with forecasting that “carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.” He went on to Harvard and the White House. On the David Letterman show earlier this year, Holdren fretted that his son “might not see snow!”

Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball notes that Holdren turned up in the ClimateGate files belittling the work of astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division. Holdren put “Harvard” in sneer quotes when mocking a research paper Baliunas and Soon published in 2003 showing that “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” First, deny. Next, deride.

*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 “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.

As I’ve reported and reminded over the years, she oversaw the destruction of Environmental Protection Agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records during the Clinton years.

Over the past year, the EPA has stifled the dissent of Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, who questioned the administration’s reliance on outdated research on the health effects of greenhouse gases – and also sought to yank a YouTube video created by EPA lawyers Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams that is critical of cap-and-trade. Browner reportedly threatened auto execs in July by telling them to “put nothing in writing…ever” about their negotiations with her.

And she 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 PhDs — 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.

***

Australia rejects a massive cap-and-tax bill.

Richard Lindzen: No, the science isn’t settled.

Paul Driessen: Time to cancel Copenhagen.

Ron Bailey on the scientific tragedy of ClimateGate:

How can the world of climate science recover? First, carry out independent investigations of the activities of the researchers involved. Pennsylvania State University has announced that it will investigate the activities of researcher Michael Mann who worked closely with the CRU and several times expressed in the leaked emails his desire to stifle the scientific work of researchers with whom he disagreed. In Britain, Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, has called for an independent investigation of the CRU. Tireless journalistic global warming scold George Monbiot has declared, “It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow…. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign.”

Back to Top
Mary008 View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 5769
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mary008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 03 2009 at 9:05pm
 the greatest scientific scandal of our age, say the Booker.
...................................................
 
I beg to differ... the biggest 'scientific' scandal of our age is -    Virusgate.
 
 
.........
 
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down