The graphic alongside Dr. Ball's article. heh
Posted on 11/21/2009 5:31:48 AM PST by PapaBear3625
Like the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal, this is the gift that goes on giving. It won’t, unfortunately, derail Copenhagen (too many vested interests involved) or cause any of our many political parties to start talking sense on “Climate change”. But what it does demonstrate is the growing level of public scepticism towards Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. That’s why, for example, this story is the single most read item on today’s Telegraph website.
[...]
But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
BFL
You ommitted the clown who runs the tree ring circus at the University of Arizona.
I hate to sound like a broken record but I'm skeptical that will actually take place. Science these days has become too much of a "follow the money" kind of business. The Grants are the source of the income for many if not most of the "Climate Scientists" and this story will not stop that money train.
And, if Al Gore can win a Nobel Prize, albeit a Peace Prize, so can these guys. The Nobel Prize process is just as corrupt as these supposed scientists from CRU.
great post
“silent majority” would not include anyone under the age of 18 in public or private schools, or those in our state colleges, and their staff and faculty. Any Green school proudly went along with this 21st Century hippie movement and yowza is it expensive!
Gore won’t fare too well during the multiple telling of this one!
When an a group of “scientists” subverts the scientific method to this extent, the scientific community will turn on them like a wolf pack that’s suddenly realized some of them are poodles. They have to, and it’ll be just about that ugly.
I've known a few scientists. Some of them are honest seekers of truth. Others are just hungry for the next grant.
The danger to both groups is that, if the public starts to perceive research as just a fake PR effort for the agenda of whatever faction controls the grant process, this would create opposition from the public for spending government money for scientific research in general.
When scientists perceive their own careers in danger, they WILL turn on these guys.
Mann confirms: “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.”
Gene Wahl, NOAA!!!!
One of the CO2 Liberals on a RANT on a conservative talk show... when the Host got the LIB to SHUT UP for a second, he asked...
“when we INHALE, we take in OXYGEN.. what do we release when we EXHALE?”
The caller said... “I’m NOT a SCIENTIST and never CLAIMED TO BE.”
I Laughed until I realized it was not a setup
“Seriously, I think the vast majority of scientists are honest and support the scientific method. “
I agree, to a point. As funding becomes tougher to get a lot of corners get cut. There’s no doubt about this. In most places whether or not you have a job depends on whether or not you have federal funding. There’s a huge incentive to convince yourself that your data show what you want the data to show.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102
Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud
The Death Blow to Climate Science
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.
(snip)
Total Control
These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.
CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”
You can download the climate change fraud documents from the link below:
http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009 or http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about how the scientific community will react to this. We’ll sure see soon enough. :-)
“The Nobel Prize process is just as corrupt as these supposed scientists from CRU.”
Can you name a single Nobel Science Prize that was later found to be based on bad science? I don’t recall any...
Excellent article!
I did a search of the documents for "Gore". The only thing that came up was an email that mentioned "Clinton/Gore proponents", but it's still interesting in that it points out the political activism that is rampant in the Global Warming movement:
From: Mike Hulme
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: [Fwd: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote]
Date: Mon Apr 22 18:14:44 2002
Cc: s.raper
Phil,
I can't quite see what all the fuss is about Watson - why should he be re-nominated
anyway? Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC? One could argue the CC issue is
more important for the South than for the North. Watson has perhaps thrown his weight
about too much in the past. The science is well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why
not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with
energy and money, than natural science.
If the issue is that Exxon have lobbied and pressured Bush, then OK, this is regrettable
but to be honest is anyone really surprised? All these decisions about IPCC chairs and
co-chairs are deeply political (witness DEFRA's support of Martin Parry for getting the
WGII nomination).
Mike
At 07:17 20/04/02 +0100, you wrote:
There is more on the BBC Sci/Tech web site.
Phil
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:24:58 -0600
From: Tom Wigley
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Phil Jones , Sarah Raper ,
Mike Hulme
Subject: [Fwd: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote]
You may not have seen this latest piece of politicalization by the
Bushies.
Tom.
*************************
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:00:59 -0400
From: "SSI Mailbox"
******************* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ********************
ISSUE: Today - April 19, 2002, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) plenary voted for Dr. Rajendra
Pachauri as the sole chair of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri, an
economist and engineer, will replace Dr. Robert Watson, an
atmospheric chemist, as chair of the IPCC. This outcome was
actively sought by the Bush Administration at the behest of
the most conservative elements of the fossil fuel industry.
This development threatens to undermine the scientific
credibility and integrity of the IPCC and may weaken the job
this extraordinary body has done to bring the world's
attention to one of the most pressing environmental
problems.
ACTION: Monitor your local paper and respond to news stories
with a letter-to-the-editor.
MAIN MESSAGE: Given the Bush Administration's consistent
opposition to climate change mitigation, it is especially
imperative at this time that the scientific community and
Dr. Pachauri work together to ensure that the IPCC remains a
strong and credible scientific process.
DEADLINE: As soon as possible after the story runs in your
paper -- preferably the same day but no later than a day or
two after.
******************************************
*** THE ISSUE ***
According to a report by Associated Press today (appended
below), Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was elected as Chair of the
IPCC at a plenary meeting in Geneva. As you would be aware
from our earlier SSI alerts of the past several weeks, this
follows on from intense lobbying of the US government by the
fossil fuel industry to remove Dr. Robert Watson as Chair.
Although reports from Geneva are still sketchy, our sources
on the ground tell us that there was intense behind-the-
scenes lobbying by Saudi Arabia, with assistance from Don
Pearlman -- a well known oil and gas lobbyist with strong
connections to industry-backed organizations opposed to
climate change mitigation. Through their maneuvering, the
co-chair compromise approach -- comprised of former chair
Dr. Robert Watson and Dr. Pachauri -- was not considered.
As a result of this election, there is considerable concern
in the climate science and environmental communities --
reinforced by the intensive lobbying from fossil fuel
interests on this decision -- that the Bush Administration's
lack of support for former IPCC Chair Dr. Robert Watson
signals a more general lack of support for the IPCC as a
credible international scientific assessment process that
provides governments with sound information on climate
science, impacts, and solutions.
By supporting Dr. Pachauri for primarily political purposes,
the Bush Administration has seriously threatened the
scientific credibility of the IPCC process. The conservative
fossil fuel interests should be exposed for their role in
influencing the US government's stance on this issue, and
the IPCC process must remain a scientifically credible and
non-politicized process.
The next IPCC Climate Change Assessment is due out in five
years, and it is the chair's role to oversee this complex
process. The scientific community's voice is important in
this issue to ensure that the IPCC process remains strong
under the leadership of Dr. Pachauri and that the Bush
Administration does not erode the effectiveness of this
important international body.
*** THE ACTION ***
-- Monitor your local paper and respond to news stories with
a letter-to-the-editor.
Information on how and to whom to submit a LTE is usually
found right on the Letters Page in your paper. Many papers
now accept letters via email. If you can't find the
information you need, simply call the paper and ask how to
go about submitting a letter in response to a recently
published article.
To increase the chances that your letter will be published,
do the following:
- keep it under 200 words and stay focused on one or two
main points you'd like to make;
- focus on a local angle, if possible, that adds something
new to the story that appeared in your paper;
- be sure to include your name, address, and daytime phone
number; the paper will contact you before printing your
letter; and
- submit the letter on the same day the story appears, if
possible.
[For additional help with writing an effective letter to the
editor, you may turn to the reference guide on the SSI
member page at <[1]http://www.ucsusa.org/ssimembers/index.html >.]
-- MAIN MESSAGE: Given the Bush Administration's consistent
opposition to climate change mitigation, it is especially
imperative at this time that the scientific community and
Dr. Pachauri work together to ensure that the IPCC remains a
strong and credible scientific process.
-- TIMING: Your letter to the editor should reach your paper
within a few days of the publication of the story to
increase the chances of it being published.
-- SPECIAL NOTE: If your paper did not carry the story at
all yet, send an LTE describing the story and emphasizing
that this issue is of great interest to the paper's
subscribers.
*** SUPPORTING MESSAGES ***
-- [Be sure to include a description of your scientific
expertise, your involvement with the IPCC process, or the
importance of the climate issue to your community.]
-- For the past 10 years, the IPCC's science has been the
foundation for sound policymaking on the climate issue. The
IPCC's unique intergovernmental approach to scientific
consensus has worked amazingly well but is now threatened.
-- It is disturbing that the Bush Administration sought and
received advice from the fossil fuel industry on the
leadership of an important scientific body such as the IPCC.
A politicized IPCC threatens the integrity and credibility
of the scientific process.
-- There are fears that it will now be easier for the US to
distance itself from the IPCC process. You may point out
that the US already rejected the Kyoto protocol last year.
-- It is vital that the scientific process for the next
Assessment Report (due out in another five years) not be
compromised so that the IPCC continues to produce sound
science on climate change.
-- The credibility of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report
(TAR) findings were strongly affirmed by the US National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), which published its supportive
report in response to President Bush's request for an
independent assessment on the state of climate science.
*** SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ***
-- Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri is an Indian engineer and
economist. Pachauri, formerly one of the five vice chairs of
the IPCC, is highly regarded but will be the first non-
atmospheric chemist as chair of the IPCC.
-- For more information on the ExxonMobil memo urging the
Bush Administration to remove Dr. Watson from his position
as IPCC Chair, please see
< [2]http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf >.
-- For information on the Saudi/Pearlman connection, see the
summary by Jeremy Leggett, author of "The Carbon War", at
< [3]http://www.carbonwar.com/ccchrono.html >.
-- IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was
established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations
Environment Programme and the World Meteorological
Organization for the purpose of assessing "the scientific,
technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the
understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change."
To date, the IPCC has issued three comprehensive
assessments. The first assessment report (FAR) was released
in 1990, the second assessment report (SAR) was released in
1996, and the third assessment report (TAR) was released in
2001. These assessments are based on "published and peer
reviewed scientific technical literature"
For more information see < [4]http://www.ipcc.ch >
******************
NOTE: Please send us an email message that tells us what
action you took. If you actually send a letter, please send
us a "blind copy." (A blind copy simply means that you do
not indicate anywhere on your letter that you are sending a
copy to us.) Send to: ssi@ucsusa.org or UCS, 2 Brattle
Square, Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 (attn. Jason Mathers).
CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS: Help us keep you posted! If your
email address will soon change, or if you'd like us to use a
different address, please let us know by sending a message
to ssi@ucsusa.org with your new address. Thanks!
***********
Associated Press
Fri Apr 19, 1:18 PM ET
U.S. scientist voted off international climate panel
By JONATHAN FOWLER, Associated Press Writer
GENEVA - A U.S. scientist was voted off an international
climate panel Friday following what campaigners claimed was
pressure from the oil industry and Washington.
Atmospheric scientist Robert Watson was seeking re-election
as head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
World Meteorological Organization (news - web sites)
spokeswoman Mo Lagarde said Watson was defeated by Indian
challenger Rajendra Pachauri. Some 76 countries supported
Pachauri, while 49 voted for Watson in the secret ballot,
she said.
Seven nations voted for Jose Goldemberg, a Brazilian (news -
web sites) who entered the race this week.
The WMO and the U.N. Environment Program jointly host the
IPCC's offices and organized the Geneva meeting.
Environmental groups have accused the administration of
President George W. Bush (news - web sites) of caving in to
a request from Exxon Mobil that it try to remove Watson, a
leading expert on global warming (news - web sites), because
he had consistently warned governments of the dangers of
climate change.
"The fossil fuel industry and the U.S. government will be
celebrating their success in kicking out Bob Watson, an
experienced scientist who understood that urgent action is
needed to tackle global climate change," said Kate Hampton,
international climate co-ordinator for British-based Friends
of the Earth (news - web sites). "The Bush administration
and its friends would rather shoot the messenger than listen
to the message," Hampton said in a statement.
The Swiss-based Worldwide Fund for Nature said it was
worried by the "apparent politicization" of the IPCC.
"WWF is concerned that oil and gas interests had too much to
say in the removal of Dr. Watson as chairman of what should
be an impartial, scientific body," said Jennifer Morgan,
Director of WWF's Climate Program.
But, Morgan said, the "IPCC is a vibrant group of scientists
and WWF looks forward to working closely with Dr. Pachauri
to protect the integrity of the IPCC and ensure that it
continues to produce sound science on climate change."
The U.S. State Department said earlier this month that it
would support Pachauri, who was the Indian government's
nominee, to become the next chair.
Two weeks ago, the Natural Resources Defense Council, a
Washington, D.C.-based environmental group, said the White
House's Council on Environmental Quality received a memo
from Exxon Mobil in February 2001 that asked, "Can Watson be
replaced now at the request of the U.S.?"
The memo, which the group said it obtained through the
Freedom of Information Act, also recommended that the
administration "restructure the U.S. attendance at upcoming
IPCC meetings to assure none of the Clinton/Gore proponents
are involved in any decisional activities."
U.S. officials were unavailable for comment.
Watson has been an outspoken proponent of the idea that
fossil fuel emissions contribute to rising global
temperatures. He has led the panel since 1996 and is also
the chief scientist of the World Bank (news - web sites).
Pachauri is an engineer and an economist and is the director
of the Tata Energy Research Institute in New Delhi, India.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.ucsusa.org/ssimembers/index.html
2. http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf
3. http://www.carbonwar.com/ccchrono.html%A0
4. http://www.ipcc.ch/
“The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing”
Revkin must be pretty ticked. CRU folk referred to him as a “useful idiot” behind his back. LOL
LOL. No I can't. But then give them time and they will find a way. In any case, I never said Science. Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize based on bad science. These guys are at least as qualified for that prize as Al.
Excellent article. Thanks for posting it. Sounds like this is potentially going to take a few lefty journalists down too. Whoever hacked into these fraudster’s emails should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to save the planet from the global marxists!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.