Paper: UN climate chief Pachauri used ‘bogus’ climate claims ‘to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

UN IPCC Exposed: ‘Dozens’ of instances where WWF reports have been cited as the sole authority for contentious claims, including one about coastal developments in Latin America’   
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/not-one-but-two-and-counting.html

Obama must call out the UN IPCC to keep his inaugural pledge to ‘restore science to its rightful place’
http://algorelied.com/?p=3593

Australian Herald Sun: ‘Could the Nobel Prize be withdrawn’ from UN IPCC?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/investigate_pachauri_now#66070

‘Al Gore needs to be leading this charge (for Pachauri’s resignation) in the US. Where is he, and why is he silent?’  
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/23/ipcc-head-in-glaciergate-crime/
 
Na na na hey hey hey goodbye! Pew Survey: Global warming ranks dead last as concern for Americans — 21 out of 21 – ‘Global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey’
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-pew-survey-global-warming-finishes.html

‘Pachauri must resign’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/pachauri-must-resign-his-position-is-untenable/

Calls for Pachauri to resign: ‘His position is becoming more and more untenable by the day…UN IPCC ‘will continue to leach credibility while he remains in charge’  
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100023489/pachauri-must-quit-as-head-of-official-science-panel/

Flashback 2006: Morano Debates Pachauri at UN Conference in Kenya — Calls UN an ‘echo chamber’ where ‘dissent was being suppressed and demonized’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2860/Flashback-2006-Morano-Debates-IPCCs-Chairman-Pachauri-at-UN-Conference-in-Kenya

UN Climate Con is Ending! Shock Revelation: UN scientist admits fake data was used in IPCC report ‘purely to put political pressure on world leaders’ – UN IPCC Scientist: Phony glacier claim designed to ‘impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action’ – UK Mail – Jan. 24, 2009
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/5027/BREAKING-NEWS-UN-Climate-Con-is-Ending-Shock-Revelation-UN-scientist-admits-fake-data-was-used-in-IPCC-report-purely-to-put-political-pressure-on-world-leaders

UK Guardian: Global Warming Bubble Bursts: ‘Banks are pulling out of the carbon-offsetting market’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/carbon-emissions-green-copenhagen-banks

Flashback: 2009: Paper: ‘Don’t let Climategate melt down your portfolio…don’t get stuck with investments tied to global warming’
http://www.centrulemin.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=734&catid=43&Itemid=103

Flashback 2009: Carbon Bubble Fears! Asian Development Bank warns failure to ‘reach climate deal could lead to a collapse of carbon market’
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BC14S20091213

‘And now for UN’s Amazongate’: ‘Made false predictions’ on Amazon rainforest, referenced non-peer-reviewed paper produced by WWF
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html

Paging George Orwell: Stern Review ‘mysteriously changed’ – Prof. Pielke, Jr.: ‘As much as 40% of the Stern Review projections for the global costs of unmitigated climate change derive from its misuse of (extreme weather paper)’
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html

The IPCC scandal: the African data was sexed up, too
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_ipcc_scandal_the_african_data_was_sexed_up_too/

China surprises summit — Declares it has ‘open mind’ about global warming: ‘Alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html

Global Warming ‘is rapidly morphing into the greatest scandal in the history of science since the belief in a flat earth’
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/24/climategate-the-scandal-that-keeps-on-giving-even-here-in-austin/

For latest in the fastest ever collapse of any modern political movement, go to www.ClimateDepot.com

In the introductory material the report says:
The entire industry of “climate science” was created out of virtually nothing, by means of a massive influx of funding that was almost universally one-sided in its requirement that its recipients find evidence for man-made climate change—not investigate whether or how much mankind had caused climate change.
Many “climate scientists” built their entire careers on this funding; and so it is not surprising that they became so completely reliant on this conditional lifeline, that they became single-mindedly focused on achieving the ends for which they were commissioned—and viciously attacking any intruders who may threaten that lifeline.

The PDF file may be download from either of these links:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/yl8o3t8

Robert Ferguson, President
Science and Public Policy Institute
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org

The week ended with real heat: Climategate hit the United States. On Thursday night January 14, 2010, in an hour-long special broadcast on KUSI-TV San Diego, John Coleman revealed new research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo.

This new research demonstrates that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has been as intensely involved in manipulating global surface data as has the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, which is now under investigation in Great Britain. NCDC is a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The manipulated data is also used by the third organization reporting global surface temperatures – the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA GISS). Thus, all three organizations reporting global surface temperatures may be using similar manipulated data.

D’Aleo and Smith report that in the period of the 1960’s to the 1980’s the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. But it dropped rapidly to about 1,500 by 1990. Further, large gaps began appearing in some of the reported data.

This loss of stations and its possible consequences have been well established. For example, it is discussed in the 2008 NIPCC report Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. The stations lost appeared to be mostly in colder climates – which, if the data set is not adjusted, would lead to a false indication of warming. (D’Aleo was a contributor to the NIPCC report.)

In December, as Climategate was developing, TWTW referred to a Russian report stating the CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. Thus, the data loss was not due to just the closing of stations as earlier thought, but due to decisions by the CRU to ignore them.

Now D’Aleo and Smith report similar activities by the NCDC. Stations have been dropped, particularly in colder climates (higher elevations or closer to the Polar Regions), and now temperatures are projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.

The reports of the IPCC and governmental agencies such as the EPA are based, in a large part, on these data. If the data are wrong, then the reports are wrong.

It is now clear that the global surface temperature data are unreliable and must be thoroughly investigated. If not, any government policies based upon these reports should be rigorously challenged.

Thanks to the diligent work of John Coleman, Joe D’Aleo, Michael Smith, as well as many others, the US main stream media has no excuse for ignoring Climategate as merely a problem in Britain or a problem of no significance.

For John Coleman’s complete broadcast (five segments) please see:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html

For Joe D’Aleo’s preliminary report please see: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

[A brief comment: It is an impossible task to arrive at one precise number for a global surface temperature. But, one is often reported. Whatever is reported can only be approximate. However, if standard procedures are rigorously followed and stations are rigorously monitored, then trends can be established. Based on the new reports, such standard procedures were deliberately altered.. By removing stations in colder climates from the data set in recent years without doing so in past years, the CRU and NCDC exaggerate warming trends and, perhaps, even created one where there was none. A similar effect can be produced by underreporting high temperatures in early years. According to researchers such as Pat Michaels, this is apparently what NASA GISS is doing.]
*********************************************

SEPP SCIENCE EDITORIAL #3-2010 (Jan 16, 2010)
By S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
 [Note: This is the fifth of a series of mini-editorials on the “junk science” influencing the global warming issue. Other topics will include the UN Environmental Program, and some individuals heavily involved in these matters.]

Junk Science #5:  IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report [IPCC-AR4, 2007]
 
In line with its policy of ‘ramping up’ its case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and escalating climate fears, IPCC-AR4 concludes: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations” [my emphasis].  They helpfully explain that “very likely” means “90 to 99% certain.”  One wonders just how IPCC arrived at this rather precise estimate – since there is nothing in the report to back it up.
 
By now, the IPCC has mercifully abandoned some of the ‘evidence’ given in their earlier reports: They no longer feature the discredited ‘Hockeystick’ graph (that had done away with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age).  They recognize that melting glaciers cannot illuminate the cause of warming and that shifting and often reversing CO2-temperature correlation does not support AGW.  Instead, the ‘evidence’ now advanced is essentially circumstantial.  The logic which gets the IPCC to this conclusion (as pointed out in Scientific Alliance Newsletter 160) is as follows:

1. There has been a general rise in averaged measured surface temperatures over the past century.
2. At the same time, atmospheric concentrations of so-called ‘greenhouse’ gases, particularly carbon dioxide, have been rising. All the evidence points to the net increase being caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
3. Computer models of the climate (General Circulation Models) cannot account for the temperature changes on the basis of known natural variability in climate.
4. Therefore, the additional ‘anthropogenic’ carbon dioxide must be the primary driver of this change.

Yet as Scientific Alliance states: “On this unproven argument, a whole climate change industry has been built; academic researchers, civil servants, carbon traders, environmental and development NGOs, taxpayer-subsidised renewable energy companies and, of course, UN agencies beaver away in the shared assumption that this logic is compelling and demands concerted action.”
 
Can you spot the ‘hole’ in the IPCC ‘logic’?  The key word is “known.”  But they totally ignore the most important natural forcing: changing solar activity that modulates the intensity of galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) incident on the Earth.  This fact seems known to everyone except the IPCC group dealing with the most important issue:  the cause of climate change in the 20th century.  See evidence in Fig 14 of NIPCC.
 
It gets worse:  IPCC-AR4 claims they can simulate past century’s Global Mean Surface Temp (GMST) with ‘known’ natural and anthropogenic forcings (as displayed in Fig 5 of NIPCC).  But the uncertainties shown there are huge, especially for the indirect effects of aerosols.  Of course, the major forcings from solar activity-GCR are not even considered; nor the effects of clouds that likely produce negative feedbacks rather than reinforcing the warming of GH gases.
 
The upshot is that the IPCC’s claim of matching the GMST is nothing else but an exercise in curve-fitting, with several suitably chosen parameters.  I would be impressed if IPCC could match mean zonal temp, not just GMST– or the atmospheric temp obtained from radiosondes and satellites – using the same chosen parameters.
*******************************************************
ARTICLES:  [For the numbered articles below please see the attached pdf.]

1. Interviews with Fred Singer
William Westmiller of the LA Public Policy Examiner did a series of three interviews with Fred Singer. The second one is below.
“Climate Change 101: Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?”
http://www.examiner.com/x-33398-LA-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d29-Climate-Change-101-Is-the-globe-warming

2. BBC: forecast of mild winter ‘wasn’t actually wrong’. And they called climate skeptics ‘deniers.’
By Gerald Warner, Telegraph, UK, Jan 8, 2010 [H/t Gerald Malone]
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021755/bbc-forecast-of-a-mild-winter-wasnt-actually-wrong-and-they-called-climate-sceptics-deniers/

3. Climate change: the true price of warmists’ folly is becoming clear: From the Met Office’s mistakes to Gordon Brown’s wind farms, the cost of ‘green’ policies is growing
By Christopher Booker, Telegraph, UK, Jan 9, 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6958093/Climate-change-the-true-price-of-the-warmists-folly-is-becoming-clear.html

4. Climategate: How to Hide the Sun
By Dexter Wright, American Thinker, Jan 14, 2010
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_how_to_hide_the_su.html

5. The New Scientist for 12 December 2009 wrote an editorial comment supporting the Climategate emailers and saying they were not part of any kind of conspiracy.
Letter to the Editor of New Scientist
From Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, SIPPI Blog, [H/t Francois Guillaumat]
http://sppiblog.org/news/letter-to-the-editor-of-new-scientist

6. Phil Jones, head of the CRU, to Tom Wigley and Ben Santer commenting on the quality NASA GISS and NCDC data. [H/t Randy Randol]
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

7. Letter from Marlo Lewis of Competitive Enterprise Institute on EPA’s actions to regulate carbon dioxide. [No URL]

8. Post-Copenhagen: picking up the pieces
The Scientific Alliance, Jan. 8, 2010
http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/newsletters/newsletters.cfm
*****************************************************
NEWS YOU CAN USE:

Fred Singer’s speech at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London is now available on YouTube. [H/t Richard Wellings]
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYI0OkbhkjY
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO6nVlzIXlM&feature=related

Brrr, the thinking on climate is frozen solid
By Dominic Lawson, Sunday Times Online, Jan 10, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6982310.ece

Efforts to blame China for the failure of Copenhagen continue. China should be thanked. China’s leading geophysicist and vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences is more impressed by the correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and prosperity (high) than by the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures (poor). To some western minds this is a strange way of thinking.
World Watch: China’s imprints all over Copenhagen talks fiasco
By John Tkacik, Jr. The Washington Times, Jan 14, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/china-imprints-all-over-copenhagen-talks-fiasco/

With Western Countries slowly finding that becoming the world leader in alternative energy is extremely expensive, let China lead the way. Note private firms are taking the lead.
China Tries a New Tack to Go Solar
By Keith Bradsher, NYT, Jan 8, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/energy-environment/09solar.html?ref=science

Interesting research on a different type of photovoltaics.
Glitter-sized solar photovoltaics produce competitive results: Adventures in microsolar supported by microelectronics and MEMS techniques
Sandia New Releases, Dec 21, 2009
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/glitter-sized-solar-photovoltaics-produce-competitive-results/

A good comparison of wind power with nuclear power. Based on SEPP’s examination of actual output of areas such as the Columbia River George, the 31.8 percent effective capacity used in the article – mistakenly called reliability – is probably much too high. Production may virtually cease for days. Effective baseload capacity may be in the single digits.
The Green Con Job
By Dustin Chambers and Dan Ervin, The American, Jan 13, 2010 [H/t John Droz, Jr.]
http://american.com/archive/2010/january/the-green-con-job

The hidden fuel costs of wind generated electricity.
By K. de Groote & C. le Pair, Former Shell & STW, the Netherlands [H/t John Droz, Jr.]
http://www.clepair.net/windsecret.html
“Based on the German situation with 23 GW installed wind power we show that it becomes doubtful whether wind energy results in any fuel saving and CO2 emission reduction. What remains are the extra investments in wind energy.”

[SEPP Comment – Although CO2 emissions are increasing atmospheric CO2, the percentage of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has been roughly constant. Please see Figure 23 of the 2008 NIPCC report.]
The CO2 Lie
Investors Business Daily, Jan 5, 20101
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=517128

EPA regulations based on “spurious science” have consequences. As fruit and vegetable growers suffered huge losses due to the deep freeze, it is useful to note the logic of the EPA in denying farmers an ingenious means to prevent their crops from freezing. A particular bacterium promotes ice formation on crops. If a certain gene is removed from the bacterium, it will no longer promote ice formation. Though shown effective in preventing ice formation, the EPA prevented general use of the technique by declaring the ice-promoting bacterium a pest, therefore the modified bacterium a “pesticide” to be regulated by the EPA.
Feds freeze frost antidote: Crop damage costs billons a year
By Henry Miller, The Washington Times, Jan 11, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/11/feds-freeze-frost-antidote/

Last week we referred to articles on the EPA’s announcement of new smog standards, their paucity of scientific standards, and the possible economic consequences. Below are two additional articles on the subject.
Politicizing Smog
By Rich Trzupek, Front Page, Jan 13, 2010
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/13/politicizing-smog-by-rich-trzupek/

Roguish EPA’s Junk Science Risks Recovery
By Steve Milloy, Investors Business Daily, Jan 11, 2010
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=517723
SEPP comment: “  Note that EPA ambient standards apply to outdoor air and not to indoor air.  Most urban people spend little time outside their home or office.  Further, anyone sensitive to pollution would avoid outdoor exercise during the occasional ‘bad-smog alert’ day.”

Previously, TWTW has referred to articles with scientists from the UN Environment Programme or the EPA making incredible predictions on the impact of warming in tropical countries. The following two articles, in part, address these claims.
Exaggerating the impact of climate change on the spread of malaria
By Chris Goodall, The Guardian. UK, Jan 13, 2010 [H/t Paul Reiter]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/13/climate-change

“Socioeconomics Impacts of Global Warming are Systematically Overstated.
Part II: How Large Might be the Overestimation?”
By Indur M. Goklany, Watts Up With That blog, Jan 6, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/socioeconomic-impacts-of-global-warming-are-systematically-overestimated-part-ii-how-large-might-be-the-overestimation/#more-14872

And what about all the deaths reportedly caused by heat?
Winter kills: Excess Deaths in Winter Months: 108,500 Deaths in the US in 2008; 36,700 in England and Wales Last Winter; 5,600 in Canada (2006); 7,000 in Australia (1997-2006 Average); Thousands in Other Developed Countries
By Indur M. Goklany, Watts Up With That? Blog. Jan 6, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/#more-14962

And from “Down Under”
“Climate Madness and Electricity Realities.”
The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused the Australian alarmists of pursuing the same silly energy policies that are converting once-Great Britain into Poor Little England.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes said that people need to note conditions today in Britain.
“Ice laden wind turbines sit idle in the still air; solar panels are covered in snow; gas reserves are down to 8 days; pensioners are burning books to keep warm, and a bankrupt government chants global warming mantras.”
http://carbon-sense.com/2010/01/11/emissions-generation-lang/

Lord Monckton and Professor of Mining Geology Ian Pilmer, author of the best seller Heaven and Earth, will be touring Australia at the end of January and the beginning of February. Please see Jo Nova’s web site for dates and venues: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/monckton-plimer-tour-australia-dates-venues/#more-5933

I don’t have a conflict of interest because what I am doing is in my interest.
Pachauri in a spot as climategate hits TERI
By Ajmer Singh, India Today, Jan 10, 2010
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/78466/Pachauri+in+a+spot+as+climategate+hits+TERI.html?complete=1

And finally, it is time to bring in the lawyers and the various state attorney generals to demand their piece of the action.
AES Agrees To Climate Change Disclosure Protocol with NY Attorney General: Is SEC Guidance For Climate Change Disclosure Next?
By: Jeffrey B. Gracer, Law firm: Sive, Paget & Riesel PC
http://blog.sprlaw.com/2009/12/aes-agrees-to-climate-change-disclosure-protocol-with-ny-attorney-general-is-sec-guidance-for-climate-change-disclosure-next/ [may require manual entry]
************************************************
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE

Under the Freedom of Information Act, Greenpeace is demanding Universities release the emails of certain climate warming “skeptics.” Climategaters may be getting a rougher treatment.
Agent looking for ‘Climategate’ insiders
By Colleen Boyle, The Daily Collegian, Penn State, Jan 11, 2010 [H/t Brad Veek]
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2010/01/11/agent_looking_for_climategate.aspx

US Weather Bureau Report – November 2
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
  I’m sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.
[H/t Bill Gray]
################

 Kenneth Haapala   www.sepp.org

According to the New York Times the real success of Copenhagen was Western nations pledging to fund developing countries through international mechanisms. “Copenhagen’s One Real Accomplishment: Getting Some Money Flowing” by James Kanter, New York Times, Dec 20 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/energy-environment/21iht-green21.html?_r=1&hpw.

However journalists for Der Spiegel consider Copenhagen a failure. “Copenhagen Was an All-Out Failure” by Sobhan Dowling and Daryl Lindsey, Spiegel Online, Dec 21, 2009 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,668352,00.html#ref=rss

For the Journal “Nature” the major issue is the failure of scientists (advocates) to communicate. “After Copenhagen: The agreement reached last week lends fresh urgency to challenges in science and communication,” Editorial, Nature, international weekly journal of science, 12/24/09 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7276/full/462957b.html [SEPP Note: in this lengthy editorial the editors ignore the lack of physical evidence that carbon dioxide was the cause of the recent warming.]

Few have asked who will be handling the payments from developed nations to developing ones amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. Christopher Booker and Richard North have a few suggestions in “Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.” UK Telegraph, Dec 20 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

The Asian Development Bank is likely to be one entity that expects to profit from carbon trading and allocation of funds: “Eminent Persons to Advise ADB on Climate Change” Asian Development Bank Press Release, May 4, 2009, http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2009/12885-adb-annual-meetings/

On her web site, Jo Nova has posted a 30 year time line of Climategate created by Mohib Ebrahim.  It is long, but demonstrates that the Climategate scandal is not isolated or insignificant. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/

Many advocating that human emissions of CO2 cause global warming claim that the electricity produced by coal fired utilities can easily be replaced by wind or solar power both of which require huge amounts of land. Of course, in the US California is leading the way as illustrated in this New York Times article: “Desert Vistas vs. Solar Power” by Todd Woody, NYT, Dec 22, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/business/energy-environment/22solar.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Big Green is heavily involved in the well financed lobbying group, US-CAP, which advocates cap and trade. According to one US Representative, US-CAP provided the “blueprint” for the House passed cap and trade bill. No doubt some supporters of cap and trade assume that Big Green will not oppose sources for energy to replace coal. Will Big Green deliver? This article in the Wall Street Journal may provide a partial answer. “Sierra Club’s Pro-Gas Dilemma” by Ben Casselman, WSJ, Dec 21 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126135534799299475.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_news#

The Investors Business Daily has its own views on why development of US sources of natural gas is becoming difficult. “Get The Frackin’ Gas,” IBD, 12/22/09, http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516041

Not everyone is bowing the EPA’s finding that science supports the claim that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare, thus must be regulated. “Cattlemen challenge EPA greenhouse gas ruling in court,” Dec 24, 2009, [H/t Brad Veek] http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/cattlemen-challenge-epa-greenhouse-gas-ruling-in-court/13835.htmlprint/

from Kenneth Haapala at  www.SEPP.org

Our new and greener web address is now simply www.ILoveCO2.org. Those of you who send me news stories please add justin@iloveco2.org to your list. For 2010, the site will become very user-oriented. I’m opening it up for multiple writers, journalists, and scientists to contribute to the site on a regular basis, thus letting people get their views heard easily and quickly. Take a look at our revamped image, easy scanning of the latest news items on the home page, and stand by for upcoming merchandise.

I’ve been overwhelmed by emails asking for I Love CO2 t-shirts and bumper stickers, so rest assured I’ll make those items available as soon as possible! In the meantime, anyone is free to use our logo to create their own and I will send large versions for print by request.

ALL FOLLOWERS AND WEBSITE OWNERS WHO LINK TO US: Please update your RSS feeds to the new address, or http://www.iloveco2.org/feeds/posts/default

Those interested in becoming a contributor/writer please let me know and I’ll authorize you on the blog.

Cheers and a very Merry Christmas to all of you. Keep exhaling! Do it for the trees!

Justin,
Founder/Editor
ILoveCO2.org / ILoveCarbonDioxide.com

–
Relax, your footprint is green.
www.ILoveCO2.org
Facebook fan page: www.facebook.com/GreenTruth

The Earth’s atmosphere differs in essence from that of Venus and Mars. Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus: globally, about 40% of the sky is always clear. Also we have huge ocean surfaces that serve as a practically unlimited reservoir of water vapour for the air.

With the help of these two conditions, the Earth’s atmosphere attains what the other two planets cannot: a constant, maximized, saturated greenhouse effect, so that adding more greenhouse gases to the mix will not increase the magnitude of the greenhouse effect and, therefore, will not cause any further “global warming”.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/co2_cannnot_cause.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Saturated%20Greenhouse%20Effect%20Theory.pdf

Previous blog posts on the saturated greenhouse effect:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-climatically-saturated-greenhouse-effect/

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/03/new-theory-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

The response was a surprising rush of emails (more than 500 in 24 hours), most of which condemmed either the ABC or the article, or both. Out of this hive of activity then emerged the Queen Bee – in the form of former Labor government Science Minister Barry Jones, who proceeded to launch a fairly robust attack on my original article.

In turn, this provoked my colleague Alan Moran, of the IPA in Melbourne, to write a retort, which commented on the fact that the ripples of Climategate are running up on even Australia’s distant shores – in the form of Willis Eschenbach’s expose of probable tampering with the Darwin temperature record.

Overall, an astonishing number of more than 2,000 blog postings were made regarding these three articles, with the conversation also spilling over onto other blogs as well.

In order to try to restore some science into the conversation (silly, naive me), I have now written a reply to Mr. Jones, which is posted at Quadrant Online, at:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/why-barry-jones-is-wrong

This article contains links to the various The Drum pieces.

As a taster, one of my conclusions, with which I am sure some of your readers will agree, is:

“The practice, promulgated by the IPCC, of endlessly analysing short trend lines fitted in carefully selected ways through temperature data that is inherently cyclic has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.”

Finally, though on an apparently unrelated (but actually quite closely related) topic, The Drum has also published an extremely thoughtful and insightful piece by experienced ABC journalist Jonathan Holmes, on the problems of separating “fact” and “opinion” in news and current affairs programs.

I suspect that Holmes’ article will be of even more interest to your readers than yet another cat-fight “he says, she says” squabble over AGW! It’s at:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/08/2764585.htm?site=thedrum?site=thedrum

With seasonal greetings 

Bob Carter

Web home page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/ <http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

Earlier in the day the activists daringly boarded Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise with neither stealth nor force, but by baffling the crew with doughnuts, and unfurled a banner that read “Ship of Lies” off the starboard side.

“Greenpeace has been using these kinds of tactics for decades, and now they can find out what it’s like to have a little taste of their own medicine, “ said CFACT executive director Craig Rucker who masterminded the operation. 

CFACT unfurled the banners for two reasons, CFACT president David Rothbard explained. “Greenpeace ships, like the Rainbow Warrior and Arctic Sunrise, have become global symbols for radical environmentalism, and we wanted to call attention to the harm these groups are causing.  And second, it seemed appropriate to use one of Greenpeace’s favorite tactics to make this point.”

Greenpeace protesters frequently hang banners from factories and office buildings, paint slogans on smokestacks, and employ other publicity stunts. Some are relatively harmless, but others reflect a willingness to lie or even destroy property to make a point.

In 1995, Greenpeace launched a $2-million public relations campaign against Shell Oil, claiming the company was planning to dump tons of oil and toxic waste in the ocean by sinking its Brent Spar platform as an artificial reef. It was a full year before the group issued a written apology, admitting it knew all along that there had been no oil or chemical wastes on the platform.

Greenpeace has frequently destroyed bio-engineered crops, wiping out millions of dollars in research efforts designed to develop food plants that are more nutritious, withstand floods and droughts better, and resist insect infestations without the need for chemical pesticides. It has also waged an unrelenting campaign against insecticides and insect repellants that could prevent malaria, a vicious disease that infects 500 million people a year, kills over 1 million and leaves millions more with permanent brain damage.

 “Greenpeace employs the same deceitful tactics in opposition to nuclear, hydroelectric and hydrocarbon energy, even though 1.5 billion people still do not have electricity – and thus don’t have lights for homes, hospitals and schools, or power to purify water and run offices, shops and factories,” Rucker says.
Rothbard acknowledged Greenpeace was launched for the best of reasons.  “But it radicalized its mission. The more power it acquired, the more it abused that power,” he said. “Some of Greenpeace’s original cadre has left, feeling they can no longer associate themselves with its current agenda.”

Greenpeace claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing “dangerous global climate change.” Hundreds of climate scientists and thousands of other scientists disagree with that assertion, as frequently noted by Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a CFACT advisor.

“The continuing scandal over falsified and destroyed temperature data, manipulated climate models, and a perverted scientific and peer review process further demonstrates that there is no valid basis for this anti-energy, wealth-redistribution, global governance Copenhagen treaty,” said Rucker.

Anti-energy policies represent a “clear and present danger to the health and welfare of billions,” he added.  Mandates for wind and solar would send energy prices skyrocketing, sharply constrict economic opportunities and destroy jobs.

“People in developing countries simply want to improve their living standards, and give their children a chance to live past age five,” Rothbard said. “Greenpeace is diametrically opposed to giving them access to the modern technologies that would help them do that.”

Greenpeace is one of the “most unethical and irresponsible corporations on Earth,” said Christina Wilson, a recent graduate from the University of Minnesota-Duluth. “It’s time to expose it for what it is, and help promote real environmental justice. So I was really excited to participate in this human rights effort.”

“The ‘Ship of Lies’ and ‘Propaganda Warrior’ banners are part of CFACT’s long-term effort to bring sense and balance back to the environmental debate,” said Rothbard.

Marc Morano
http://cfact.org/a/1674/CFACT-drops-the-banner-on-Greenpeace-ships-in-daring-land-and-sea-raids

“Today’s G77 walkout at the Copenhagen climate conference is purely a negotiating tactic because there’s so much money at stake. Copenhagen is no longer about climate – it’s about cash and corruption, both for poor and wealthy countries. By accepting restrictions on carbon emissions in exchange for cash, the world’s poorest countries are offering to prevent growth and perpetuate poverty. Ultimately, this could be a tragic repeat of the aid industry in the 1960s and 70s, when the leaders of some of the poorest countries stuffed their Swiss bank accounts – all in the name of the poor.”