?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
27 December 2009 @ 10:01 pm
Climategate - Politicization of Natural Climate Change? Links to articles and vids  
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
More by CB
Climategate: 'the most influential tree in the world'


The timeline of Climategate by Mohib Ebrahim as a poster, as a PDF and in various print sizes at Joanne Nova's place;
ClimateGate: 30 years in the making
The web page includes 'CLIMATEGATE: A STORY OF DECEPTION AND INTRIGUE' and 'THE CLIMATEGATE TIMELINE AND THE TICKING TIME BOMB'
(This question is asked: Science has come full-circle, taking a page from the medieval Church by using fear and persecution to silence sceptics. The oppressed have become the oppressors. Given that most professional scientific bodies and peer-reviewed journals have been active accomplices in this scandal, one wonders how many other so called scientific consensuses have been similarly engineered and waiting for their own ClimateGates before truth is known.

My answer, hyped as dangerous  - DDT, - CFCs, - second hand smoke, and flu scares that permit untested drugs to be peddled worldwide come to mind.)

A Climatology Conspiracy? By David H. Douglass and John R. Christy
The CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in IJC by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer (DCPS). The DCPS paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant "global warming" in fact largely disagreed with the observational data.

Climategate: How To Follow the Money
It appears that most of the Copenhagen participants saw the money they spent as an investment. Here's how December 23, 2009 - by Charlie Martin
There’s big money in climate. (3 pages)
That became strikingly obvious in Copenhagen. The conference itself cost in the neighborhood of $30 million, but that was only the visible tip of the melting iceberg. Add to that the celebrities, the demonstrators, the congressional delegations, and the corporate displays, and you can bet something closer to $60 million was really spent on the conference — along with, of course, a carbon footprint the size of Morocco’s. The one significant outcome of the Copenhagen conference was an agreement to continue the international market in carbon offset trading that would otherwise have expired in 2012 and to prevent a crash in the carbon credits market.
It appears that most of the participants saw the money spent as an investment.
To see why, we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the biggest names in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how the whole carbon trading scheme works.
Simple Carbon Trading
Start with the simple proposition that you want, for whatever reason, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) being emitted by human activities worldwide. The reasons, of course, are all based on the idea that humans emitting GHGs are causing unexpected and unacceptable changes in the climate. Whether that’s true or not is a topic for other articles; for now, just take it as given.
There are actually a number of GHGs that could be an issue, but the largest share of human-produced GHGs is in carbon dioxide (CO2). So for simplicity, the Kyoto Protocol normalizes everything in terms of CO2 alone, using a number called the global warming potential (GWP). By definition, the global warming potential of CO2 is 1; the highest GWP is for sulfur hexaflouride, a gas used mainly in electrical equipment. Sulfur hexaflouride has a GWP of 23,900, so for Kyoto Protocol purposes, releasing 1 ton of sulfur hexaflouride is considered to be 23,900 tons of CO2.
Now, if there were a king of the world, that dread sovereign might just say: “Hey! Stop emitting GHGs!” And that would be that. In the real world, if you want to reduce GHGs, you have to come up with some kind of scheme to get people to do it (more or less) voluntarily. Governments do this, normally, with taxes. The simplest scheme is just to tax anyone who emits GHGs, charging them enough to pay for the bad effects. Reduce the amount you emit and your taxes go down.
Of course with a government program, and particularly with the UN, nothing is that simple.
Developing countries, particularly India and China, have rapidly growing economies and populations that really enjoy that their standards of living are rising toward first-world levels. These countries, as they improve their standards of living, are necessarily going to release more CO2. In the simple model, they would be expected to pay for those emissions.
Carbon Trading after Kyoto  /
continues
Page 1 of 3  Next ->

Condemnation:
Detroit News: Climategate prof raked in $22.6 million in grants (Money for bunkum and your fame for free)

Alarmists in denial
about the release of CRU mails and code that were available on a public server:

Greenpeace, the Sierra Club (OMG if it all implodes, where are they to get money for BS from?)

World Bank echoing IPCC twaddle. (OMG if it all implodes the opportunity for EU fraud suffers a severe financial setback.)

Climategate won’t make global warming go away, despite what Delingpole tells you.
(Will Heave)
 (No need for JD, the climate is doing a nice job of it regardless of IPCC dictates.)
So. What is it Delingpole tells you?
Climategate goes SERIAL: Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages. Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta,
Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia   If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal

Climategate
: 'It's all lies!' lies Pachauri (again)
Surely not even an organisation as a corrupt and dishonest as the IPCC can afford to keep Dr Rajendra Pachauri on as its chairman after the weekend’s damning revelations by Christopher Booker and Richard North? But Pachauri – with all the chutzpah we have come to expect of our favourite jetset
Climategate: it's all unravelling now So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it's not like you're going to find much of this reported in the MSM.
1. Australia's Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time.

Climategate
: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain
Just in case you wondered why the Tories – up against the worst British government in living memory – are still doing so relatively badly in the opinion polls, David Cameron gives all the answers in today’s Guardian. As far as he’s concerned, Climategate might never have happened.
Climategate
: James Randi forced to recant by Warmist thugs for showing-wrong-kind-of-scepticism
You all know James Randi. He’s the world famous Psychic Investigator whose rigorous scepticism has been the undoing of many a fraudulent spoonbender, dodgy faith-healer and ouija-board-wobbling spiritualist. Randi is the expert magician and escape artist who is offering $1 million in his Paranormal Challenge
Climategate
: we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war
Copenhagen has been a disaster for the free world and hardly anyone seems to have noticed. We have been distracted by the sweet schadenfreude as the event was overshadowed by the Climategate scandal at the beginning, and the Russian bombshell at the end.
Climategate
: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection
This is a guest post by contributor Andrew30 (whose full name I’ll give you when he reminds me via email). He put it up in comments but it’s so interesting it really deserves a blog all to itself). Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a British Climate research business?

Lucia's Blackboard posts here.

Some of Viscount Monckton's articles.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html
Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
Himself on youtube

Climategate - Directory of PJTV Coverage:

View Articles and Videos: Interviews, Opinions, Analysis
Click on links in "Climategate Overview" below to view by date or by topic.
CG Document & Email Database -Read and Investigate
here.
View the Climategate database of 1,073 emails and 3,485 other documents.
If you want, help us investigate these documents by reading, rating, tagging, and commenting. Click here.

Take the Climategate Survey re Gore, Oscar, Nobel Prize
Do you think Al Gore's Oscar or Nobel Prize should be rescinded , etc  -click
here.
PJTV Facebook Group for Climategate
Join the Group - comment, discuss, share -click
here.
Climategate Overview
December 22
December 19
December 18
December 17
December 16
December 15
December 14
December 13
December 11
December 9
December 8
December 7
December 6
December 4
December 3
December 2
December 1
November 30
November 27
November 26
November 25
November 24
November 23
November 22
November 20

Conspiratorium 101 Articles
Russians Confirm That UK Climate Scientists Manipulated Data To Exaggerate Global Warming
“Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists
White House Science Czar Involved in Climategate
The Devastating Book Which Debunks Climate Change
The Climate Change Propaganda Machine

There are a whole lot more, the majority of links by a huge majority are those finding fault compared to those with the predictable attempts at snowing us and making out it doesn't affect the legitimacy of carbon credits, shares, taxes, ETS, some like greenpeace and the sierra club in denial that any wrong doing was committed. The IPCC via the world bank is the funniest, the usual amplification and colour emphasis to attempt to show the lie that the majority of scientists support the fantasy that human emissions have a significant impact on climate. How many dentists were included?
Here is a proper snow job.
877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week

Courtesy of the real climate boss, water.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/page/1/ is worth a look as is American Thinker's take-down of realclimate.
*************
 
 
Current Location: Planet Gored
Current Mood: indifferentindifferent
Current Music: Europe - Long Time Coming