These links tie the players and the conspiracy all together.Â Please review each of these links and then contact your representatives IMMEDIATELY regarding this fraud and tell them to STOP the Copenhagen Treaty.
President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders, perhaps with a handful of Republican moderates, seem poised to make the Copenhagen negotiations a suicide pact for the Western industrialized nations. In a complete reversal of the bipartisan policy of twelve years ago, they would lock America into impossibly severe restrictions on economic activity while the non-Western nations, who reject the climate paranoia that grips Western liberalism, move ahead with their own interests. The result will be a change in the balance of wealth and power in the world that will dwarf any change in the climate.
The aim of the U.N. bureaucracy and its leftist allies in the U.S. is to get Congress on board early, before the terms of the Copenhagen treaty are formally determined and it becomes clear to the public that the framework will be no different from Kyoto. According to Pasztor, "The Secretary-General said he was encouraged by the spirit of compromise shown in the bipartisan initiative announced by United States Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham. United States negotiators must be empowered in Copenhagen." These two senators authored an op-ed in the New York Times on Oct. 10 in which they claimed to be on the road to sixty Senate votes for climate legislation.
In their joint message on climate change negotiations released Nov. 13, President Barack Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama pledged "to reduce our own emissions by 80% by 2050 and endorse a global goal of reducing emissions by 50% by that year." The acceptance of disproportionate economic burdens is in accordance with the goals set last summer by the G-7 industrialized countries. It is a response to demands at the United Nations that such sacrifices are necessary to move negotiations forward in the face of disinterest and intransigence in the rest of the world.
Corsi quotes Lord Monckton as also saying, "I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity."
See Corsi's column here.
By Gerald Traufetter
Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.
At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host thewill be one degree above the long-term average.
Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.
Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.
Reached a Plateau
The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."
Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.
"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."
Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El NiÃ±o and La NiÃ±a, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Sure, this talk of the warmists at Copenhagen planning a new â€œworld governmentâ€ is crazy. I just wish the warmists wouldnâ€™t talk of it themselves. Take the new and first president of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy:
The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step forward towards the global management of our planetâ€¦
Andrew Bolt Friday, November 20, 2009
8.15 PM UPDATE: The Hadley University of East Anglia CRU director admits the emails seem to be genuine:
The director of Britainâ€™s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazineâ€™s TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."â€¦
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing â€œhiding the declineâ€, and Jones explained what he was trying to sayâ€¦.
So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. Iâ€™ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will â€œpeer reviewâ€ be used to shout down skeptics.
This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider whoâ€™s now blown the whistle.
Not surprising, then, that Steve McIntyre reports:
Earlier today, CRU cancelled all existing passwords. Actions speaking loudly.
But back to the original post - and the most astonishing of the emails so farâ€¦
Hackers have broken into the data base of the University of East Angliaâ€™s Climatic Research Unit - one of the worldâ€™s leading alarmist centres - and put the files they stole on the Internet, on the grounds that the science is too important to be kept under wraps.
The ethics of this are dubious, to say the least. But the files suggest, on a very preliminary glance, some other very dubious practices, too, and a lot of collusion - sometimes called â€œpeer reviewâ€. Or even conspiracy.
A warning, of course. We can only say with a 90 per cent confidence interval that these emails are real.
Ethics alert! (my bolding - and Iâ€™ve update this post with the full alleged email, now):
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Timâ€™s got a diagram here weâ€™ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
Iâ€™ve just completed Mikeâ€™s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keithâ€™s to hide the decline. Mikeâ€™s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Nice. This could be fun.
Surely these emails canâ€™t be genuine. Surely the worldâ€™s most prominent alarmist scientists arenâ€™t secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they canâ€™t find the warming theyâ€™ve been so loudly predicting?:
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , â€œPhilip D. Jonesâ€ , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earthâ€™s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we canâ€™t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we canâ€™t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***
This has to be a forgery, surely. Because if it isnâ€™t, weâ€™re about to see the unpicking of a huge scandal.
I mean, the media will follow this up, right? In the meantime, use with care.
Have I said â€œconspiracyâ€ already?
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming â€” and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
See attached note.
Mopping up any awkward evidence about the IPCCâ€™s latest report before Climate Audit gets hold of it?
From: Phil Jones
To: â€œMichael E. Mannâ€
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. Heâ€™s not in at the moment â€“ minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I donâ€™t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
Destroying government data subject to an FOI request is a criminal offence. Is this data being deleted the stuff CA asked from Jones in repeated FOI requests? If true, Jones had better get himself a lawyer very fast, but I doubt very much he would have done anything remotely illegal.
This, if true (caution!), is especially sick.Â (Note; John Daly was a Tasmanian sceptic who did superb work, especially on sea level rises on the â€œIsle of the Dead").Â Iâ€™ve added the boldening):
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
From: Timo Hâ€°meranta
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper â€“ just found another email â€“ is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
â€œIt is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly.Condolences may be sent to Johnâ€™s email account (daly@XXXX)
Reported with great sadness
I said conspiracy, but Professor Overpeck (a contact of Robyn â€œ100 metresâ€ Williams) prefers they be called the â€œteamâ€:
At 14:09 -0600 13-09-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
thanks David - lets see what others think. I agree, that we donâ€™t want to be seen as being too clever or defensive. Note however, that all the TAR said was â€œlikelyâ€ the warmest in the last 1000 years. Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that it is unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years. But, that said, I do feel your are right that our team would not have said what the TAR said about 1998, and thus, we should delete that second sentence.
any other thoughts team?
(Thanks to various readers.)
The anonymous hackers offer this brief summary of their alleged finds so far:
0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: â€œtry and change the Received date!â€
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: â€œtoo much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curveâ€
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRUâ€™s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: â€œsomething elseâ€ causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * â€œCarefully constructedâ€ model scenarios to get â€œdistinguishable resultsâ€
0968705882.txt * CLA: â€œIPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of resultsâ€
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death â€œcheering newsâ€
1029966978.txt * Briffa â€“ last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: â€œnot necessarily wrong, but it makes a small differenceâ€ (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: â€œKeenan has a valid pointâ€
1118949061.txt * weâ€™d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4