The evidence continues to mount-up against this FRAUD ...
THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT
A key scientist has conceded that there has been no "statistically significant" rise since 1995
Monday February 15,2010
By Ed Price Have your say(60)
THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.
Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.
Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.
The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming.
Last month we revealed how the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was “speculation” lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The influential IPCC then admitted it had got the key claim wrong and announced a review.
The Daily Express has also published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man-made.
Yesterday it emerged that Professor Jones, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, had admitted he has trouble “keeping track” of the information.
Colleagues have expressed concern that the reason he has refused Freedom of Information requests for the data is that he has lost some of the crucial papers.
Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.
Climate change advocates have always said these temperatures cannot be compared to present day global warming figures because they only apply to one specific zone.
But Professor Jones said: “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not.
The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
“For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the southern hemisphere. There are very few climatic records for these latter two regions.
“Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”
Professor Jones first came under scrutiny when he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in which leaked emails were said to show scientists were manipulating data.
Researchers were accused of deliberately removing a “blip” in findings between 1920 and 1940, which showed an increase in the Earth’s temperature.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and a former lead author on the IPCC, said: “The apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”
Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited to review the IPCC’s last report said: “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias.”
WHERE DO YOU SEE CORPORATIONS IN THIS DOCUMENT?
24.02.10, 3:11pm
What is interesting to me is how so many of you play right into the hands of big oil and coal by not doing your own research on this issue. The effects of climate change are real and happening right now with terrible results. Carbon and methane are only increasing in the atmosphere and as negative feedback loops continue to spiral as countries like China and India put more coal plants online and more cars on the road, the effects will be hard for even deniers like you to ignore any longer.
The U.S. Census estimates that the world's population rise from about 2.5 billion in 1950 to about 9.2 billion in 2050. Do you not feel that we need to begin a serious change away from something as finite, politically challenging and polluting as fossil fuels?
Below is a copy/paste from the IPCC website explaining how it is organized. I don't see anything in here about corporations.
The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.
The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and it is open to all member countries of UN and WMO. Governments are involved in the IPCC work as they can participate in the review process and in the IPCC plenary sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau and Chairperson are also elected in the plenary sessions.
Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.
• Posted by: EngineeringGal • Report Comment
MUSSOLINI HAD A NAME FOR IT
22.02.10, 3:44pm
EngineeringGal, I can remember when Climatology was an objective study of the world’s climate that did not send students into the streets chanting socialist slogans. Because the UN IPCC’s socialist politicians have partnered with transnational corporations such as General Electric and ExxonMobil, the UN IPCC’s current status is more like one of Mussolini’s Committees during the 1930s in Italy than the Climate Fear Profiteer Scientists’ idealized Socialism. Mussolini had a name for his government that was to be run by committees made up of scientists, manufacturers, nonprofit institutions and government officials. If the Climate Fear Profiteer Professors and the IPCC get their way, the government of the entire world in 2030 will look like the government of Italy in 1930. EngineeringGal, do you know what the name was that Mussolini had for his government that was run by committees made up of scientists, manufacturers, nonprofit institutions and government officials?
• Posted by: QuiTam2 • Report Comment
THE US AND THE UK ARE INDEED CAPITALIST SOCIETIES
20.02.10, 4:16pm
I wonder if people think that companies that see the writing on the wall with regards to climate change should not be allowed to make a profit on the development of new technologies. I was happy to read that Exxon Mobile is taking the matter seriously be expanding its natural gas and algae operations. I hope they do make a profit on greener energy production.
In the meantime, though, you don't see Exxon really rallying the cause of climate change, right? In other words, they are simply trying to keep their bread buttered on both sides. Oil and gas continue to be their mainstream profit source and they still have scientists on board who are happy to point out that all climate research is wrong. But notice how they are looking to the future because they know that oil is a finite resource, is heavily polluting to use, and provides money to countries with terrorists.
Also, I ask you, do you really believe that our planet can process and sustain emissions from vehicles and coal plants at the current, ever expanding rate? Do you think that our population can continue to use fossil fuels with no affect to the environment? To me, it's plain common sense that billions of humans using coal to heat their homes, oil to drive their cars and fly their planes, and oil to fertiilize crops and make a long list of consumer products from textiles to tires, are having an unprecedented and extremely negative effect on our very air, soil, climate and water.
• Posted by: EngineeringGal • Report Comment
TRANSNATIONAL CLIMATE FEAR PROFITEER IPCC
19.02.10, 1:19am
EngineeringGal asks, “WHAT WILL YOU TELL YOUR CHILDREN?”
EngineeringGal, honest people will tell the children that the CO2 end of the world Scam fooled most of the people but that some emails written by some of the Climate Fear Profiteer Scientists were leaked exposing the Scam.
EngineeringGal said, “When you read someone's opinion about climate change, consider what his or her motives might be.” You got that right EngineeringGal. However, you don’t understand that transnational corporations have partnered with the United Nations in their effort to form a transnational Cap, Trade and Kickback scheme. One example of a Climate Fear Profiteer Transnational Corporation that has partnered with the Transnational UN IPCC is as follows:
Even ExxonMobil has joined with the Transnational Climate Fear Profiteer IPCC club. Please see the web page as follows:--- http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0824/energy-oil-exxonmobil-green-company-of-year.html --- “A levy of $20 per ton on CO2 would add $1.20 per thousand cubic feet to the cost of [LNG] gas. For coal the same amount of energy would suffer a $2 (or 80%) hike. That 80-cent difference translates into a roughly 1-cent increase in the cost of producing a kilowatt-hour of electricity. That's material when you consider that the pretax profit the average investor-owned utility makes on a kilowatt-hour is 1 cent.”
• Posted by: QuiTam2 • Report Comment
WHAT WILL YOU TELL YOUR CHILDREN?
17.02.10, 5:50pm
While I am sure that there have been mistakes made, the overwhelming evidence supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and the extremes are evident at the earth's poles. Yes, it is warming there and in other places it has cooled and in other places the precip has gone up, others down. Remember, the operative term is climate change, not global warming. Dumping carbon dioxide in the air at unprecedented levels for several decades does, indeed, have a deleterious effect on our planet's climate. Evidence of this is seen in many ways. Scientists measure temperature underground (bore hole measurements), on the surface of the ocean, in the ocean, in the atmosphere (troposphere and stratosphere), and on land. They can look at ice cores, sediment layers, behavior of species (85% of all plant and animal species are reacting to climate change-mountain species are moving upward in altitude, other species are moving northward at 6 km/decade, spring events are occuring 2-3 days earlier per decade), cryosphere changes (glacier retreat, artic ice quantities dropped 30% between 1980 and 2005).
In addition, scientists know to account for local temperature anomalies such as urban heat islands, measuring instrument placement and types, and water temperature sampling. According to temperature measurements which are consired accurate to .05 degree C., the ocean has experienced an increase in .65 degree C on average (higher at the poles) and 1 degree C on land.
There are weather events that support climate change theory as well, such as more brief and intense precipitation, an increase in diurnal temperature range, increase in tropical storm intensity, and more heat waves and extremely hot days.
Someone sent me this article and I am not a regular reader of the Express, but I am wondering if this is considered a conservative publication.
What is sad to me is that even though the science overwhelmingly supports the argument that humans have contributed to cllimate change through the burning of fossil fuel, deforestation, and even eating meat, certain segments of our society are so unwilling to believe the evidence that they will endanger the future of our planet for our very children and grandchildren. Climate change is happening right in front of us. It's only going to accelerate as more people in China and India and other developing countries demand the lifestyle of those in deverloped countries and add electricity, heating and cooling to their homes and businesses, drive cars, and eat higher on the food chain.
This should not be a political issue.
Another thing to think about is this. When you read someone's opinion about climate change, consider what his or her motives might be. Is the person vested in your not believing in it? Does the person work for an industry that profits from the status quo? Will the person stand to lose money if public opinion favors climate change legislation?
You can villify environmentalists, but it's not the greenies that are getting rich nor will they be rich if climate change legislation goes through. These are people that deeply care about keeping the planet healthy for generations to come, not about money. Oil and gas execs, coal lobbyists, and industry groups that support them will by nature come out against climate change because it threatens their way of doing business. Of course they'll deny the science or just throw a few confusing facts out there to make people doubt what they hear! They have one job and that is to make a profit. That is the number one, primary objective of any corporation. So it's completely PREDICTABLE that a corporation will fight anythign that they see as a threat to that profit. Ethics are not included in this decision. If a company makes profit on permanently rendering a landscape ruined, then it will do so if not prevented by law. Such is the case in the US with mountaintop removal coal mining. Really, do you want to believe those who are in it for money and profit or those who are in it to do the right thing for the long term health of the planet?
• Posted by: EngineeringGal • Report Comment
IT WAS GLOBAL...
16.02.10, 4:28pm
“For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the southern hemisphere. There are very few climatic records for these latter two regions." In a recent study published under the title, "“Putting the Rise of the Inca within a Climatic and Land Management Context”, there is strong evidence that indeed South America benefitted from the MWP. "The rapid expansion of the Inca from the Cuzco area of highland Peru produced the largest empire in the New World between ca. AD 1400–1532. Although this meteoric rise may in part be due to the adoption of innovative societal strategies, supported by a large labour force and standing army, we argue that this would not have been possible without increased crop productivity, which was linked to more favourable climatic conditions. A multi-proxy, high-resolution 1200-year lake sediment record was analysed at Marcacocha, 12 km north of Ollantaytambo, in the heartland of the Inca Empire. This record reveals a period of sustained aridity that began from AD 880, followed by increased warming from AD 1100 that lasted beyond the arrival of the Spanish in AD 1532. These increasingly warmer conditions allowed the Inca and their predecessors the opportunity to exploit higher altitudes from AD 1150, by constructing agricultural terraces that employed glacial-fed irrigation, in combination with deliberate agroforestry techniques. There may be some important lessons to be learnt today from these strategies for sustainable rural development in the Andes in the light of future climate uncertainty." Now what do they have to say?
Copyight ©2006 Northern and Shell Media Publications. "Daily Express" is a registered trademark.
All rights reserved. By viewing this site you agree to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
