In the interview Jones stated that although there has been a modest warming trend since 1995, it is not statistically significant. Further, there is no statistically significant difference among the four warming trends of 1860-1880, 1910-40, 1975-1995, and 1975-2009. Thus, one can not use the global surface temperature record to statistically establish that the recent warming was different from past warming periods. Many “skeptics” have been vindicated – the global surface temperature datasets do not establish a statistically defensible link between carbon dioxide emissions and the recent warming.

Jones claims the agreement between the CRU and the NASA GISS, and NOAA datasets indicates nothing is wrong. However all three may be wrong. Reports by D’Aleo, Watts, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis, etc. strongly suggest that the three global surface temperature datasets have been heavily compromised in recent years and likely contain strong warming biases.

These revelations contradict the findings of the IPCC and US EPA in its Endangerment Finding. Since, IPCC and EPA failed to offer strong physical evidence that the recent warming was caused by carbon dioxide emissions, their claims that CO2 was the cause are not scientifically defensible by statistics or physical science.
On New Year’s Eve, after years of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, NASA GISS released emails and data related to its reports on global surface temperatures. The NASA GISS dataset depends, in part, on NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center dataset but is calculated differently. It will take diligent work to understand the full impact of what is being revealed. But the January reports by D’Aleo, et al. on the disappearance of 565 of 600 Canadian weather stations from NASA and NOAA datasets are indications of what may come.

As a whole, the US media has been dismissive of the importance of Climategate and subsequent revelations. The non-scientific claims of the IPCC are considered by many commentators as insignificant. A reading of Chapter 9, “Transforming the Energy Sector and Addressing Climate Change,” in the recently released Economic Report of the President illustrates the significance of the scientifically unsupported claims by IPCC.

The chapter begins by citing claims that CO2 emissions will likely cause large temperature increases – all from IPCC models that have never been validated thus have no predictive power. It continues with claims of “increased mortality rates, reduced agricultural yields in many parts of the world, and rising sea levels that could inundate low-lying coastal areas.” 

“The planet has not experienced such a rapid warming on a global scale in many thousands of years, and never as a result of emissions from human activity.”

Elsewhere the President’s report cites EPA’s Endangerment Finding, calculates massive increases in property damage from increased severity of storms, justifies cap-and-trade, and promotes spending $60 Billion in cash and $30 Billion in tax credits for alternative energy. Of course tax credits benefit only those with high tax liabilities (high incomes).

The claims of increased mortality rates and reduced agriculture yields (found in IPCC reports) are directly contradicted by late 20th Century history, the period claimed to be one of unprecedented warming. During this time mortality rates generally went down, human longevity up, and agricultural yields increased dramatically. Ironically, after declaring agricultural yields will decline the President’s report embraced an increase in mandatory bio-fuel use in gasoline from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. It does not calculate the farm acreage required for this effort.

The claimed massive increases in property damage are, no doubt, based on IPCC’s claim in which the actual study found no statistically significant link between warming and catastrophic property damage. Sea levels have increased about 400 feet in the last 18,000 years or about 27 inches per century. The report cites a 7 inch rise since 1900 as if it is alarming. The statement that the “planet has not experienced such a rapid warming” has no merit.

Perhaps most journalists consider spending $90 Billion on various schemes to “fight climate change” insignificant. But one would hope for better scientific justification.
Finally, on Tuesday, the last day, SEPP, CEI and NIPCC filed a supplement to their joint petition to EPA to reconsider its Endangerment Finding. Others filing petitions include the states of Texas and Virginia, Peabody Energy, and a consortium of cattle, mining, and energy companies. The petitions are part of the public record. No doubt some will accuse SEPP of being a front for special interests. And, in one way, it is. The interest is the public interest in having rigorous science, rather than faulty science, guide public policy. The petition and the supplement are attached for TWTW readers to decide.

Also on Tuesday, SEPP joined CEI and FreedomWorks in a joint petition to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Endangerment Finding.
SEPP Correction: The headlines of an IBD article carried by TWTW last week implied that Arizona quit the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). SEPP was informed that this was incorrect and was sent a copy of the Governor’s Executive Order. The key issue appears to be in paragraph 3 of the order which states that Arizona will continue to be a member of WCI, however, “Arizona will not implement the GHG cap-and-trade proposal advanced by WCI”. (Emphasis added) [H/t Norman MacLeod]
*******************************************************
ARTICLES:  [For the numbered articles below please see the attached pdf.]

1. The end of the IPCC: One mistake too many! 
By S. Fred Singer
Hindustan Times, Feb 5, 2010
http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-end-is-not-near/H1-Article1-505317.aspx

2. A Most Important Interview,
The Clamour Of The Times, Feb 15, 2010 [H/t Mark Urbanski]
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/2/13_A_Most_Important_Interview.html

3. Climategate: So Jones Lost the Data? It Was Worthless, Anyway!
The “mean daily temperature’ CRU used is a statistically nonsensical calculation
By Vincent Gray, Pajamas Media, Feb 15, 2010 [H/t Francois Guillaumat]
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-so-jones-lost-the-data-it-was-worthless-anyway/

4. The Continuing Climate Meltdown
Wall Street Journal, Feb 16, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html

5. Collapse Continues
Investors Business Daily, Feb 17, 2010
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521421

6. Drilling Ban To Cost Trillions
Investors Business Daily, Feb 16, 2010
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521249

7. What to say to a global warming advocate
By Mark Landsbaum, 2-12-2010, Orange County Register
http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=234092
**********************************************
NEWS YOU CAN USE:

Question and Answer Interview with Phil Jones of the CRU
BBC News, Feb 13, 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Phil Jones momentous Q & A with BBC reopens the “science is settled” issues.
By Indur Gorklany, Feb 14, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/

Climategate 2.0 – The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU
By Christopher Horner, Pajamas Media, Feb 17, 2010
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/?singlepage=true

After two years of stonewalling, NASA GISS FOIA files are now online
Watts Up With That? Feb 17, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/17/after-two-years-of-stonewalling-nasa-giss-foia-files-are-now-online/

U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw
Reuters.com Feb 13, 2010
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213

Another IPCC Error; Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%
World Climate Report, Feb 16, 2010
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/

IPCC burned on claim of wildfires affecting Canadian tourism
Climatequotes.com, Feb 10, 2010
http://climatequotes.com/2010/02/10/ipcc-burned-on-claim-of-wildfires-affecting-canadian-tourism/

Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned
By Andrew Orlowski, The Register, UK, Feb 15, 2010 [H/t ICECAP]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/

Climategate: Seven Hard Questions from the Case Study of the Fall of Enron (will the AAAS panel consider them?)
By Robert Bradley, Jr., Master Resource, Feb 18 2010
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/climategate-7-hard-questions-from-enron/

The Snow Line is Moving South
By Steven Goddard, Watts Up With That, Feb 15, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/15/the-snow-line-is-moving-south/
A new ice age in the making? An alarmist would say so.

49 states with snow, 1180 new snowfall records set in the USA this past week – is February Headed for Record Snowfall?
Watts Up With That? Feb 13, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/49-states-covered-with-snow-1180-new-snowfall-records-set-in-the-usa-this-past-week-is-february-headed-for-record-snowfall/

Frozen Cattle Crisis In Harsh Mongolia Winter
Sky News, Feb 8, 2010, [H/t ICECAP]
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100208/twl-frozen-cattle-crisis-in-harsh-mongol-3fd0ae9.html
In the 1880’s great blizzards swept the US Great Plains killing humans and cattle as far south as Texas and prompting many, including Teddy Roosevelt, to question if the Plains were fit for human habitation. When we in developed nations face severe storms, we can thank use of fossil fuels and, to some extent, nuclear energy.

Many meteorologists break with science of global warming
By Rick Montgomery, Kansas City Star, Feb 13, 2010 [H/t Bill Watkins]
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1746746.html?story_link=email_msg
The dike is leaking and it is not from sea level rise.

Global doubting
Chicago Tribune Editorial, Feb 16, 2010
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-climate-20100216,0,1969729,full.story

The crackup of the climate ‘consensus’
By Steven Hayward, NY Post, Feb 19, 2010 [H/t Fred Holmes]
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_crackup_of_the_climate_consensus_T3eGnulTAq4Xm76qB0Mr7N

Global warming snow job – The scientific community has abandoned science
By Leonard Evans, The Washington Times, Feb 12, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/has-global-warming-got-you-snowed-in/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_must-read-stories-today

U.N. Housecleaning
Investors Business Daily, Feb 18, 2010
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521567

Solar Dynamics Observatory.
Launched Feb 11, 2010, [H/t Tom Sheehan]
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
The Observatory is designed to give high quality data on the changing sun and its influence on the earth, particularly changes in its magnetic fields. The experiments and data will be of interest to those following the solar flux-cosmic ray hypothesis of cloud formation.

Tisdale on the importance of El Nino’s little sister – recharging ocean heat content
By Bob Tisdale, Watts Up With That? Feb 13, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/tisdale-on-the-importance-of-el-ninos-little-sister/
Will this promote controversy?

Obama backs loans for new reactors
By Kara Rowland, Washington Times, Feb 17, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/17/obama-announces-cash-to-build-nuke-reactors/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_must-read-stories-today
A positive sign but the permitting process is a regulatory minefield. How many grass root advocates of closing down coal power plants will support new nuclear plants?

Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes
By Rebecca Smith, WSJ, Feb 18, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html#mod=todays_us_page_one
Perhaps some of our nuclear engineers would care to comment.

Shortage of Rare Earth Elements Could Thwart Innovation
By Jeremy Hsu, Live Science. Com, Feb 16, 2010
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100216/sc_livescience/shortageofrareearthelementscouldthwartinnovation
Some alternative energy sources depend upon rare earths – is China the key?
**************************************************
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:

Consistent with Being in a Deep Fog
Roger Pielke Jr’s Blog, Feb 16, 2010
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/consistent-with-being-in-deep-fog.html

Ocean levels could rise by 12 meters in the next half century unless atmospheric temperatures are controlled! – 1957
Climate hysteria won’t last test of time
By Garth George, NZ Herald, Feb 18, 2010 [H/t Bob Kay]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10626802&pnum=0
“Calculating the “Average New Zealand Temperature” is as meaningless as calculating the average telephone number  . . but the government thinks the country’s average temperature may have increased by 0.92C since 1853 . . . and they’re going to manage the “climate” (read Roaring Forties)?  How about fixing the earthquakes first?”  –  Bob Kay

Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches
By Lanai Vasek and Matthew Franklin, The Australian, Feb 19, 2010
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/penny-wong-signals-doom-for-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915

With Stakes This High
New York Times, Feb 17, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17wed2.html?th&emc=th
Once again declaring the consequences of global warming are so severe that self-flagellation is desirable. What if the globe is cooling?”

from Kenneth Haapala

www.sepp.org

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

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

 Climategate: Is Peer-Review in Need of Change?                       
Written by Chip Knappenberger 
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/climategate_peer_review.html

A Simple Proof that Global Warming is not Man-made                    
Written by Dr. David Evans
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/simple_proof.html

Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation                
Written by Christopher Booker
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/worst_scandal.html

In Praise of CO2: ‘Earth is the Greenest its been in Decades, Perhaps in Centuries’           
Written by Marc Morano
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/co2_praise.html

Climate Challenges                    
Written by Representative John Linder
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/climate_challenges.html

Global Warming’s New Clothes                  
Written by Rosslyn Smith
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/new_clothes.html

The Climate Science Isn’t Settled                     
Written by Richard S. Lindzen
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/science_isnt_settled.html

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme                     
Written by Senator Steve Fielding
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/carbon_scheme.html

Copenhagen Climate Concerns                   
  Produced by Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/copenhagen_climate_concerns.html

Three Speeches by Michael Crichton                    
By the late Michael Crichton
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/crichton_three_speeches.html

Climate Conspiracy                    
Written by Peter Wood and Ashley Thorne
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/c_conspiracy.html

My Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate                     
Written by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/top_10.html

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?                      
Written by Ross McKitrick 
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/hockey_debate.html

Extreme Heat vs. Extreme Cold, Which is the Greatest Killer?                  
Written by Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/greatest_killer.html

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

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

• How the Copenhagen global leader came about
• Write your own editorial
• The papers that carried the Copenhagen editorial
• In pictures: How newspapers around the world ran the editorial

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”

At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.

[This editorial is free to reproduce under Creative Commons]