Global Warming

“something the Na'vi would say for $5,000”

“I'll be danged if it ain't winter!

LOL.”

“
“I don't know how I'm going to shovel all this global warming out of my driveway.” Use your BS shovel. LOL”

“Oh No!!!! Some DC private jet hangar couldn't carry the snow load, two dimensional luxury transportation the new vogue. Get your check books out , you're gona pay for this with taxes and insurance premiums.

http://wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1882549”

“Even more problems found in IPCC report on AGW

First, the IPCC Himalayan glaciers claim turned out to be based on speculation from an interview — and copied incorrectly. Almost immediately after that scandal, the claim that anthropogenic global warming could kill off 40% of the rainforest was exposed as an unsubstantiated claim from the World Wildlife Fund, postulated by two activists, neither of whom were climate scientists. It just seemed like a matter of time before someone started digging through the IPCC’s report to knock down the entire house of cards. Today the Telegraph reports on its research into the basis for the IPCC’s claims on AGW and discovers that much of its foundation consists of highly suspect components (via Newsbeat1):
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming.
But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:
•The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.
•Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.
•New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.
•More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.
Student dissertations? The IPCC claims to use the peer-reviewed standard; in the East Anglia CRU e-mails, its chief threatened to redefine peer review to block legitimate scientists from introducing peer-reviewed papers that contradicted AGW claims. And in this case, these aren’t even doctoral theses:
It can also be revealed that claims made by the IPCC about the effects of global warming, and suggestions about ways it could be avoided, were partly based on information from ten dissertations by Masters students.
One unpublished dissertation was used to support the claim that sea-level rise could impact on people living in the Nile delta and other African coastal areas, although the main focus of the thesis, by a student at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, appears to have been the impact of computer software on environmental development.
The IPCC also made use of a report by US conservation group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures. The panel has already come under fire for using information in reports by conservation charity the WWF.
Estimates of carbon-dioxide emissions from nuclear power stations and claims that suggested they were cheaper than coal or gas power stations were also taken from the website of the World Nuclear Association, rather than using independent scientific calculations.
In fact, the Telegraph also reports that the IPCC deliberately ignored a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Roger Pielke, an AGW believer who considers much of the alarmist rhetoric as fantasy. The IPCC says that they believed Pielke “changed his mind” based on nothing at all, certainly not on any contact with Pielke, whose complaints led to the disclosure.
The IPCC doesn’t do science. They do advocacy, mainly for the idea of international control of energy and manufacturing, with a healthy dose of redistribution of wealth. These revelations should put an end to any reliance on IPCC work for American policy, and the UN should be pressured to fire everyone involved in this sham, starting with railroad engineer Rajendra Pachauri.”

“
Genuine imitation.
Clean coal.
Republican backpacker.
Dry lake.

”

“follow the

M
O
N
E
Y”

“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml54UuAoLSo

this was my favorite super bowl commercial”

“Administration Proposes New Agency to Study Climate Change

A new Climate Service agency will operate with NOAA's National Weather Service and National Ocean Service, the Commerce Department announced Monday.

AP

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate, which has drawn concern among many scientists in recent years.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced NOAA will set up the new Climate Service to operate in tandem with NOAA's National Weather Service and National Ocean Service.

"Whether we like it or not, climate change represents a real threat," Locke said Monday at a news conference.

Lubchenco added, "Climate change is real, it's happening now." She said climate information is vital to the wind power industry, coastal community planning, fishermen and fishery managers, farmers and public health officials.

NOAA recently reported that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record worldwide; the previous warmest decade was the 1990s. Many atmospheric scientists believe that global warming is largely due to human actions, adding gases to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.

Researchers and leaders from around the world met last month in Denmark to discuss ways to reduce climate-warming emissions, and a follow-up session is planned for later this year in Mexico. But a U.N. report that preceded the conference in Copenhagen has been widely disputed after much of the data in it was found to have been gathered unscientifically.

"More and more people are asking for more and more information about climate and how it's going to affect them," Lubchenco explained. So officials decided to combine climate operations into a single unit.

Portions of the Weather Service that have been studying climate, as well as offices from some other NOAA agencies, will be transferred to the new NOAA Climate Service.

The new agency will initially be led by Thomas Karl, director of the current National Climatic Data Center. The Climate Service will be headquartered in Washington and will have six regional directors across the country.

Lubchenco also announced a new NOAA climate portal on the Internet to collect a vast array of climatic data from NOAA and other sources. It will be "one-stop shopping into a world of climate information," she said.

Creation of the Climate Service requires a series of steps, including congressional committee approval. But if all goes well, it should be finished by the end of the year, officials said.

In recent years, a widespread private weather forecasting industry has grown up around the National Weather Service, and Lubchenco said she anticipates growth of private climate-related business around the new agency.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Just what we need. Another barking moonbat govt. agency, funded by American taxpayers, accomplishing nothing but driving up the deficit, driving up the cost of energy and driving up unemployment (except for those employed by said barking moonbat agency).”

“Warming Oceans Meet Heaving Bosoms in U.N. Climate Chief's Racy Novel

Times of London

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel, already under fire over errors in a key 2007 report, is raising eyebrows again after publishing a raunchy novel and accepting help in promoting it from BP and the head of India’s biggest gas producer.

The Indian head of the U.N. climate change panel, already under fire over errors in a key 2007 report, is raising eyebrows again after publishing a raunchy novel and accepting help in promoting it from BP and the head of India's biggest gas producer.

The novel by Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is called Return to Almora and follows a character called Sanjay Nath, who, like him, is an environmentalist and former engineer in his sixties.

For a country where sex is rarely discussed in public the book mingles lectures on climate change with descriptions of Sanjay's sexual encounters, including frequent references to "voluptuous breasts."

More controversially, it was released in Mumbai by Mukesh Ambani — India’s richest man and the head of the oil and gas conglomerate Reliance Industries, the largest private Indian company.

Reliance has close links to Dr Pachauri's The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), and has received environmental awards from it, including one for its work on HIV/Aids in 2007. Mr Ambani has also been on the steering committee of TERI's Centre for Research on Energy Security.

Neither man was available for comment, but sources close to them denied a conflict of interest, saying that they were friends and that Mr Ambani had released the book to highlight climate change. "If they wanted to boost sales, they could have got [the Bollywood star] Shahrukh Khan," a source close to Mr Ambani told The Times.

For the Delhi launch of the book dinner and drinks were paid for by BP India, a big TERI sponsor.

It is unclear whether Dr Pachauri will profit from the novel. Many environmentalists regard it as unwise for a co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to accept such personal favors from energy industry giants.

For more on this story, read the Times of London.

Holy crap!!! Is this moron deliberately trying to destroy his credibility? BP??? Reliance Industries???

I do like his reference to 'voluptuous breasts', though. Definitely two of my favorite things...”

“What's the correlation between an oil company and our current, waning ice age?”

“that these pinheads aren't even remotely interested in the truth. They just want to promulgate their agenda. The IPCC should be tarred and feathered and run off the planet on a rail. To wit;

Dutch Point Out New Mistakes in U.N. Climate Report

The IPCC's beleaguered climate report faces the prospect of still more errors, as Dutch authorities point out factual inaccuracies about the Netherlands.

Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart has asked the U.N.'s climate change panel to rethink its assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level. Dutch authorities explain that, in fact, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level.

According to an AFP story, IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said. "They should have been clearer," Vallaart pointed out, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had the exact figures.

He noted that correcting the error had been "on the agenda several times" but had never actually happened. Vallaart told the AFP that he regretted the fact that proper procedure was not followed, adding that it should not be left to politicians to check the IPCC's numbers.

The Dutch environment ministry will order a review of the report to see if it contains any more errors, Vallaart said.

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been mired in scandal since the theft and subsequent publishing on the Internet of e-mails from a key climate research group. The e-mails revealed internal debate about the veracity of certain studies, and led to revelations about mistakes in the IPCC's main report.

The IPCC report inaccurately warned that Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035, and included apparently unsubstantiated fears about threats to the Amazon rainforests.”

“The more interesting question, my friend, is what is the relationship between the head of the IPCC and two of the largest oil companies on the planet?”

“And they believe all these things because their friendly neighborhood coal-fired powerplant operator tells them so.... through their industry PR operation.... which also happens to send cash to the Teabaggers....

You might want to ask the folks in Tennessee about coal ash while you're at it.


By some coincedence, Lush Rimjob concurs wholeheartedly with the power companies....

� � � Polly wanna cracker?

”

“Genuine imitation.
Clean coal.
Republican backpacker.
Dry lake.

Fresh T*lt post”

“T*lt backpacker

BAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA”

“Is Ol' Clean Coal a black Tea bagger?”

“I wonder how many others will sink with this ship RATher than jump off?”

“Where does your power come from, tilt? Serious question.”

“He powers his computer with pedal power and his internet provider is using ocean currents, ... I'm almost certain.”

“Yeah, yeah.... Science is evil; we're all deluded by the concept of independently reproducible results.... Scientists are all on the take but your buddies making trillion$ off the status quo aren't (LMAO).... Aaaaaaaaaand Yer Grandaddy Waren't No Monkey.


And you wonder why people think you have brain damage.

”

“So to be clear, you're cool with the lying and deceiving thingy?”

“Politicized Science is evil

Fixed.

Also, no answer to my question, which means only one thing: tilt supports Big Coal monetarily.”

““Is Ol' Clean Coal a black Tea bagger?”
salebored
11:19:31 PM
2/08/10

Perhaps it is Orange Pekoe.

“Where does your power come from, tilt? Serious question.”
Mutt
6:29:17 AM
2/09/10

From his local utility. Serious answer to an inane question.”

“T*lt send his money to "Big Coal" just like everyone else but he walks it to the post office instead of driving. Plus he buys carbon....ha.....hahahaha....carbon credits from one of Al Gore's companies. So he's good.”

“Mark, "where" as in what physical source - coal, oil, gas, nuke. If Tilt got his energy from anything other than coal, he'd be crooning about it loudly. As it is, though, he's just another elitist wannabe limousine-liberal hypocrite.”

“The Orange Pekoe comes buy my house in rail cars on it's way to balance(haha) trade with China. For real balance we'd need twenty south bound tracks with continuous cars for ever. All those cars rattle empty on the north bound.”

“The Orange Pekoe comes buy my house in rail cars on it's way to balance(haha) trade with China. For real balance we'd need twenty south bound tracks with continuous cars for ever. All those cars rattle empty on the north bound.”

“Guys Tilty has issues..TRUST me on this. He has believed his Rev Moon so long it will take YEARS to deprogram him.”

“HERE ya go...typical of the HEROES of the LEFT.

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


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

In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill. Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington's C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html#ixzz0f3J23cDS”

“Tilt, back slowly away from the crack pipe. Yer not makin' any sense, boy. Guinness Extra Stout is better for ya.”

“WELLL...it looks like Tilty is professionally writing for someone.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/02/09/msnbcs-ratigan-blames-snowpocalypse-global-warming



But no, Dylan Ratigan thinks it's ridiculous to suggest all the snowfall totals could cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic global warming. On MSNBC's Feb. 8 "The Dylan Ratigan Show," Ratigan criticized those who would dare express misgivings about climate change based on the so-called "snowpocalypse."

"Here's the problem - these �snowpocalypses' that have been going through D.C. and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming," Ratigan said.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/02/09/msnbcs-ratigan-blames-snowpocalypse-global-warming#ixzz0f91GQExB”

“
Scientists dispute climate sceptic's claim that US weather data is useless

Ex-weatherman Anthony Watts says many US weather stations produce unreliable data because they are located next to artificial heat � but a scientific analysis suggests that, if anything, such stations underestimate warming

James Randerson
guardian.co.uk,
Monday 15 February 2010 16.22 GMT

It appeared to have shaken the credibility of one of the most important global warming data sets in the world. A blog-inspired campaign by amateur climate sceptics seemed to show that numerous weather stations across the US were so poorly located they could not be relied upon.

But a new scientific analysis, using data from the sceptics, has shown that, if anything, the poorly located stations underestimate warming, rather than exaggerating it.

The US temperature record uses data from thousands of weather stations spread around the country. Their accuracy was called into question following a campaign by climate sceptic Anthony Watts, an ex-weatherman who runs the influential blog WattsUpWithThat.

He set up a site called surfacestations.org for readers to post photos of poorly located weather stations, particularly in places that could be influenced by artificial heat, such as air conditioning units or car parks. The photos were compiled into a book published by the right-wing thinktank the Heartland Institute. In it, Watts wrote: "The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable. And since the US record is thought to be 'the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable."

But scientists at the National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) in North Carolina have analysed the weather station data to see what difference poor location actually makes. Watts had ranked the stations by his estimation of the quality of their location, so Dr Matthew Menne and colleagues compared the results from high- and low-ranked stations. They described their results as "counterintuitive" � poorly located stations were actually more likely to be cooler than those in better locations. This is probably because the poorly located stations are more likely to use more up-to-date measuring equipment called Maximum-Minimum Temperature System (MMTS), which has a slight "cool" bias that is already well documented.

"NCDC has spent more than 25 years developing methods to correct for biases such as those introduced by the MMTS switch, and published numerous articles documenting these methods and their reliability in the peer-reviewed scientific literature," said Dr Scott Hausman, NCDC's deputy director. "These methods have proven time and again to be robust at removing these biases and providing a true climate signal in regional to global temperatures, and we are highly confident in our results."

He said the NCDC had invited Watts to collaborate on the paper, which appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research last month, but he declined.

Watts challenged this account. He said the NCDC director, Dr Tom Karl, wrote to him in September to offer a "joint scientific inquiry". Watts said he responded nearly two months later to accept the invitation but never received a reply. "The appearance of the Menne et al paper was a bit of a surprise," he said. "By not bothering to reply to our letter about an offer he initiated, and by not giving me any review process opportunity, [Karl] extends professional discourtesy to my own volunteers and my team's work."

["professional discourtesy".... to an ex-weatherman with a webpage.... and his 'team.']

He argued that the analysis in the paper is flawed because it only uses preliminary data from 43% of the stations surveyed. But Hausman said he did not believe this would affect the results. "We tested the sensitivity of our results to this and found the differences to be insignificant," he said.

Watts said he is now producing an analysis using data from 87% of the stations.

”

“It's kind of sad to see a few people still clinging on to the global warming thing after all of the proof against the science, and the scientists. They raised such a stink about it over the years, and now, accepting they were wrong, is hitting at the core of their very existence.”

“check out this video: (in their own words)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021210/content/01125107.guest.html”

“The science is settled, rednecks.
Just ask those noted TT men of science, t*lty and markO.”

“Funny... It doesn't even say he was a forecaster or a meteorologist. He's an Ex Weather Man.

What they have is Yet Another "influential climate skeptic" who was simply some clown who read the weather report from the National Weather Service on the 11 0'clock news ----


We know Science just isn't their thing.... They still think the planet's about 4,000 years old.”

“But we KNOW for sure that the man-made global warming scientists are 100% correct.


There's nothing quite like the "open-mindedness" of a scientific leftist.”

“I hear they simply add up the lifespans of all the dudes from the Old Testament like in Inherit The Wind.

And if anthropomorphic climate change interferes with the enjoyment of their monster trucks, it must come from Satan.”

“That "critical thinking" sure is a neat trick....”

“UK NEWS
THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT


A key scientist has conceded that there has been no "statistically significant" rise since 1995

Monday February 15,2010
By Ed Price



THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.


MORE FROM EXPRESS.CO.UK ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE...

* WHAT A CLIMATE CON!

* CLIMATE CHANGE 'INDUSTRY' IN DEEP TROUBLE

* GLOBAL WARMING 'TO BECOME' GLOBAL COOLING


The revelations will be seized upon by sceptics as fresh evidence that the science of global warming is flawed and climate change is not man-made.



The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming.

Last month we revealed how the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was “speculation” lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The influential IPCC then admitted it had got the key claim wrong and announced a review.

The Daily Express has also published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man-made.

Yesterday it emerged that Professor Jones, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, had admitted he has trouble “keeping track” of the information.

Colleagues have expressed concern that the reason he has refused Freedom of Information requests for the data is that he has lost some of the crucial papers.

Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.

Climate change advocates have always said these temperatures cannot be compared to present day global warming figures because they only apply to one specific zone.

But Professor Jones said: “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not.

The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

“For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the southern hemisphere. There are very few climatic records for these latter two regions.

“Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”

Professor Jones first came under scrutiny when he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in which leaked emails were said to show scientists were manipulating data.

Researchers were accused of deliberately removing a “blip” in findings between 1920 and 1940, which showed an increase in the Earth’s temperature.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and a former lead author on the IPCC, said: “The apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited to review the IPCC’s last report said: “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias.””

“It's like that highschool kid from West Virginia on that PBS show a couple of years ago....

"Jesus Wudn't No Monkey!"


(that's a Direct Quote, complete with phonetic spelling)




That's who you're dealing with on "the right" in terms of Science and Public Policy.”

“so Tilt, after years of you telling us "it's all peeted reviewed", and laughing at us because we pooh-poohed the peer review process due to it's inherent built in biases, and now knowing that a great amount of that peer reviewed process has been ADMITTADLY flawed abd broken all this time ... you're still cool with using that as the cornerstone of your argument? You're cool with how "science" has handled the collection, analysis, storage, release, and peer-reviewed processes of the data?”

“A monkey could see through this climate change BULLSH1T


but you buy it hook , line, and sinker....

wow....that's weird....”

“Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre



Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.


Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
Enlarge Chart


But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fe5fjGoB”

“US Chamber of Commerce Calls Out EPA on Transparency
by SusanAnne Hiller



The U.S. Chamber strongly supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, but we believe there’s a right way and a wrong way to achieve that goal.

The wrong way is through the EPA’s endangerment finding, which triggers Clean Air Act regulation. Because of the huge potential impact on jobs and local economies, this is an issue that requires careful analysis of all available data and options. Unfortunately, the agency failed to do that and instead overreached. The result is a flawed administrative finding that will lead to other poorly conceived regulations further downstream.

Today the Chamber is filing a formal petition indicating it will challenge EPA’s decision to trigger Clean Air Act regulation, based on lapses in EPA’s process in making that decision. The Chamber’s legal challenge will focus specifically on the inadequacies of the process that EPA followed in triggering Clean Air Act regulation, and not on scientific issues related to climate change or endangerment.

We continue to call for Congress to address climate change policy through the legislative process, rather than having EPA misapply environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act or Endangered Species Act that were not created to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Emphasis mine.

In addition to ignoring its own internal rules and working outside the legislative branch, the EPA is acting on a 2007 Supreme Court Ruling, which, based on new developments in the Climategate scandal, should be revisited. The ruling states the EPA was found to have the authority to regulate emissions that contribute to global warming and climate change. In addition, the Court stated:

Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of “greenhouse gases,” a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA “shall by regulation prescribe…

The EPA, in concert with with Obama administration, is attempting to force through a modified version of cap-and-trade through regulation, a signal that Obama realizes cap and trade is dead in the Senate–especially after this death blow to the global warming/climate change movement:

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

It will be interesting to watch the Obama administration attempt to circumvent and spin lead scientist Professor Jones’ statements. Will the EPA revise its final report based on this new information?

Global warming, climate change, and cap and trade will be that much harder for the Left to sell. Americans weren’t buying them in the first place. Cap and trade was recognized for what is was and is–the legislation that provided the trigger for the transfer of wealth to poor nations–wealth redistribution on a global scale.

What, now, is the fate of the “Copenhagen Accord” non-binding agreement where:

The Copenhagen Accord is a 12 paragraph document that sets a 2 degree Celsius limit on future warming. Its provisions address emissions cuts, verification and deforestation. It would also commit 100 billion dollars from wealthy countries and global institutions over the next 10 years to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

Based on all of the new information on climate change and the manipulation of the “science” for some 15 years, it will be revealing if the United States adheres to this agreement. If Obama continues with this nonsense of climate change and insists on transferring United States’ wealth to third world countries, my assertions have been correct all along–that the core intentions of the Obama agenda are to place severe hardship on the American people by destroying the nation’s wealth. After all, Obama is intentionally proposing, supporting, and forcing policies through–by any means–that bankrupt the United States and weaken our economy, discourage businesses from investing and hiring workers, deepening unemployment and stifling innovation, and squeezing the American people into desperation for federal aid (there is a record number of food stamp recipients now, for example) and health care benefits.

It seems the end goal of the Obama Administration is to make people dependent upon the federal government. How’s that for some hope and change.”

“It's kind of sad to see a few people still clinging on to the global warming thing after all of the proof against the science, and the scientists. They raised such a stink about it over the years, and now, accepting they were wrong, is hitting at the core of their very existence.�
HighPlainsDrifter
12:39:39 PM
2/15/10

Sad? I think it's funny as hell! However, if I was a betting man, I'd wager that Tr*ll doesn't believe for one second the drivel that he spews on any of the Global Warming threads. Nobody is that dumb, lol.”

“I agree Non, I'd bet he stands to gain somehow from this colossal scam....”

“Either that or he just really, really cares about the planet and his fellow man---so much so that looking foolish doesn't bother him.”