Screenwriter Roger L. Simon and filmmaker Lionel Chetwynd discuss what the Climategate scandal reveals about the shaky foundations of Al Gore’s Oscar-winning “An Inconvenient Truth” and consider how the Academy might restore its reputation.

From What’sUpWithThat

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• The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the U.N. climate panel to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.

Read the rest of the post

From the Calgary Herald

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

Perhaps the scientists were just joking in some of the e-mails, as they now claim, and that they used “poorly chosen words.” If the East Anglia scientists were serious about everything in those e-mails, it’s a bombshell.

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-mailsindicate– 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.

Read the rest of the story

From Fox News

ABC didn’t cover it. CBS didn’t either. And NBC apparently wouldn’t go near it.

The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they’ve even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” produced its “reporting” on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

Stewart described leaked e-mails from Britain’s University of East Anglia, including one referring to a researcher’s “trick” to “hide the decline” in some temperature readings in recent decades.

“It’s just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data -– in order to trick you,” Stewart said sarcastically.

Read the rest of the story

In this hour-long interview, Lord Monkton explains some of the details behind ClimateGate and why those involved should be prosecuted for their crimes.

From Bristol University

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

 Read the rest of the column.

Obama’s plans for Copenhagen accord may violate US Constitution

President Obama’s plan for an international cap-and-trade agreement negotiated at the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference to go into “immediate effect” may violate the United States Constitution, claim representatives of the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition.

Quoted in a Reuters news story today, Obama said, “Our aim is not a partial accord or a political declaration but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations and one that has immediate operational effect.”

“Today President Obama exhibited the arrogance commonly associated with dictators and tyrants,” said Jeff Davis, organizer of NoCapAndTrade.com. “It’s hard to believe that a former constitutional law professor could forget that treaties require Senate ratification.”

President Obama made the remarks amid heavy criticism from Europe about the lack of progress in the U.S. toward cap-and-trade legislation and the expected failure of the imminent Copenhagen negotiations.

But such “immediate operational effect” is impossible, said Davis.

“Article II of the Constitution requires that treaties are approved by two-thirds of the Senate, so President Obama can’t just sign-up the U.S. and then start enforcing treaty provisions,” observed Davis. “Additionally, the cap-and-trade bill now in the Senate isn’t anywhere close to having the 60 votes necessary to avoid filibuster ─ trying to get 67 votes for a climate treaty looks pretty unlikely right now,” Davis added.

President Obama might have been thinking of using the EPA to regulate carbon when he made his statement. The EPA has proposed to designate carbon dioxide as a hazard to the public welfare and to regulate it under the Clean Air Act.

“If President Obama signed an agreement in Copenhagen and then tried to implement it through the EPA and Clean Air Act,” observed JunkScience.com’s Steve Milloy, the President would immediately be at war with Congress, including almost a two dozen Democratic Senators who are concerned about the harm cap-and-trade would do to the economy.”

The German magazine Der Spiegel criticized President Obama this week, asserting he’d been “lying to” and “betraying” Europe in failing to advance cap-and-trade in the U.S.

“President Obama is Europe’s last hope for ensnaring and crippling the U.S. with cap-and-trade,” said Milloy. “His desperate statement today indicates he’s feeling that pressure.”

From the Washington Examiner

If members of Congress need yet another reason to kill the Waxman-Markey bill, the Obama administration’s economy-suffocating, job-destroying energy program, Princeton University’s Tim Searchinger and his colleagues have a humdinger: Carbon reduction laws encourage widespread deforestation as trees and other vegetation are harvested to produce energy from biomass to replace oil and gas. The problem is that in long run, this process actually increases greenhouse gas emissions, which cap-and-trade is meant to reduce, according to Searchinger.

The Princeton researcher’s paper, published Oct. 23 in Science, points out that almost all prior global warming studies failed to take into account the carbon emissions that result from converting cropland and forests to energy production. This accounting error treats all bio-energy as carbon-neutral, the authors say, despite the fact that burning wood and clearing land actually releases quite a large quantity of carbon into the atmosphere.

“By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years,” the Princeton authors say. “Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%.” Neither the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nor existing European cap-and-trade programs have taken into account widespread deforestation as farmers worldwide respond to the new economic incentives, Searchinger added.

Read the rest of the column

Feeling guilty about your carbon footprint? You understand percent, which could be called parts per hundred. You’re almost there to understanding parts per million, which is the way trace gases are described. You are in for a big surprise!

From the Hearthland Institute

A large coalition of agricultural groups has come forward to oppose the Waxman-Markey bill restricting carbon dioxide emissions.

In a July 14 opening statement at Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) noted he had received “letters sent by 120 agricultural groups opposing the Waxman-Markey bill.”

Among the groups are the American Farm Bureau, Pork Producers Council, USA Rice Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, Council of Farmer Cooperatives, American Meat Institute, National Association of Wheat Growers, and North American Millers Association.

Long-Term Costs Much Higher

Tracy Taylor Grondine, director of media relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, strongly disagrees with Waxman-Markey supporters who cite a Congressional Budget Office report asserting the bill would cost the average U.S. household merely $175 per year in the year 2020.

“Most media outlets are only focused on the front-end effects of the climate bill,” Grondine explained. “In 2020, carbon reductions will only be starting and the industry will be receiving significant carbon credit giveaways. But by 2050, the 17 percent cut in agriculture emissions from 2005 levels is estimated to rise to 82 percent, and there will be no more credit giveaways. So, by 2050 that 5 percent hit will grow to something more like a 15 percent reduction in farm income.”

Adam Basford, national affairs coordinator for the Florida Farm Bureau Federation, agrees the costs down the road will be much higher. “According to the EPA, the legislation would cost farmers $5 billion [initially] and by 2050 the cost would rise to $13 billion,” he said.

Using the initial numbers conceals the bill’s real impact, Grondine says.

“We can’t just highlight costs in the first 10 years. We must look further down the road to how this legislation will impact American households, farms, and ranches and the overall U.S. economy,” Grondine said.

Farmers Paying the Price

Raising consumer prices is actually the point of the bill, says Basford.

“The very essence of cap-and-trade is to increase prices so much that consumption, and therefore emissions, are reduced,” Basford explained. “Farm Bureau has continually said that any cap-and-trade legislation must make economic sense for agriculture. It must be structured in a way that the costs do not outweigh the benefits for family farms, rural communities, and the overall economy.

“The Florida Farm Bureau opposes this bill because it forces Florida’s farmers, consumers, and families to lose,” Basford explained. “They lose through increased electricity, fuel, and fertilizer costs—and eventually higher food prices.”

Grondine said, “Farmers want to be a part of the climate change solution, but such a solution should not jeopardize their economic sustainability in the process, nor should it pave the way for additional economic burdens on American families.”

From the Wall Street Journal

A new poll out today on Americans’ attitudes about climate change presents sobering findings for those that favor aggressive action to curb U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases.

The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who see solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. According to the survey, conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, fewer respondents also see global warming as a very serious problem; 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.  The survey also points to a decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

Check-out this FACTS SHEET on public opinion from Climate Depot

Read the rest of the column

Yesterday British Prime Minister Gordon Brown issue dire warnings about global catastrophes that are to come if world leaders fail to come to an agreement and sign the Climate Treaty in Copenhagen this December.  His hyperbole sounds a lot like that of Al Gore in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.”  It is interesting to note that a British judge ruled that Gore’s movie contained 9 significant errors that had to be corrected before it could be shown in British schools.  We are wondering if the judge might not want to issue a ruling on Gordon Brown’s speech as well.

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.

There has been considerable debate raised about Monckton’s conclusion that the Copenhagen Treaty would cede US sovereignty. His comments appear to be based upon his interpretation of the The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2). This clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land. Concerns have been raised in the past that a particularly ambitious treaty may supersede the US Constitution. In the 1950s, a constitutional amendment, known as the Bricker Amendment, was proposed in response to such fears, but it failed to pass. You can read more about the Bricker Amendment in a 1953 Time Magazine article.

Click here to watch Lord Monckton’s entire 95-minute speech in which he utterly destroys the so-called ‘science’ behind global warming. 

Click here to read a draft copy of the treaty.

Click here to see Obama’s speech to the UN on Climate Change.

Click here to learn what you can do to stop this from happening.

More video: Minnesota Majority’s interview with Lord Monckton [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3]

A newly released scientific study published by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has the potential of destroying one of the fundamental underpinnings of global warming theorists.  The study collected 15-years of long wave radiation measurements from a satellite orbiting the earth.  The study correlates the change in the earth’s surface temperature with the change in outgoing long wave radiation.  Lindzen’s study shows that as the earth warms, the amount of radiation being bounced-back into outer space actually increases.  This is exactly the opposite result that is assumed to occur in the UN climate models.  The UN models predict that more radiation is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere as the temperature rises.  Lindzen’s findings blow a hole a mile-wide in the arguments used by global warming evangelists.

Read more about Lindzen’s study here.

From the Washington Examiner

Something important is happening when even the BBC is compelled to ask, as it did this week, “What happened on global warming?” The British news organization has heretofore insisted that the scientific consensus was cemented long ago that global warming is real and is mainly caused by human use of carbon-based fossil fuels. Put simply, what has happened is global temperatures have dropped every year since 1998, recent peer-reviewed research has uncovered the decisive influence of hot and cold cycles in the oceans on land temperatures, and growing numbers of scientists with unquestioned credentials are stepping forward to question the conventional wisdom.

But reaching a new consensus will be exceedingly difficult because the raw data on which the landmark 1996 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its conclusion has been destroyed. The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit acknowledged in August that it discarded data that, in addition to the IPCC report, has been cited by other international studies as the main justification for severe restrictions on carbon emissions worldwide. This development raises more troubling doubts about global warming just as scientists and policymakers are expected to call for harsh new limits on energy use in its name when they meet in December in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Read the rest of the story.