VIDEO: The UN IPCC Climate Change Report Debunked?

When I wrote the description for the video, it was written with sarcasm in mind. The choice for me has never been to believe the so-called man-made climate change scientists, especially for the fact that the United Nations is behind it with their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Their credibility was destroyed with Climategate, relating to the falsification of research data by the East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

When it comes to catastrophic damage to Earth because of climate change (man-made or not), I'm not just skeptical;  I would be more likely to believe that Godzilla is going to come out of the Pacific Ocean near Fukishima, Japan before you are done watching the video below.  This segment only reinforces my climate change denial. Just sayin'...

RELATED LINKS:

• Heartland, NIPCC in Washington for Release of Latest Edition of 'Climate Change Reconsidered'

• Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

• Thatcher adviser: Copenhagen goal is 1-world government ~ Monday, October 19, 2009, and updated Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Please note:  To see the following video, you must be logged in to Facebook.

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Please note:  To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Fewer manufacturing jobs a good thing ~ By Walter E. Williams

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent, and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink. Because of automation, the U.S. worker is now three times as productive as in 1980 and twice as productive as in 2000. It's productivity gains, rather than outsourcing and imports, that explains most of our manufacturing job loss.

Walter E. Williams explains that America's manufacturing production is really not down like people think it is. Though the number of people employed in manufacturing has been drastically reduced by 40% since 1979, Walter explains why that may not really be a bad thing.

Fewer manufacturing jobs a good thing

WALTER E. WILLIAMS

By Walter E. Williams

January 05, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

So many statements we accept as true, plausible or beyond question; but are they? Let's look at a couple of important ones: global warming and U.S. manufacturing decline.

In 2000, Dr. David Viner of University of East Anglia's disgraced Climatic Research Unit advised, "Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event," and "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." Britain's Meteorological Office said this December was "almost certain" to become the coldest since records began in 1910. Paul Michaelwaite, forecaster for NetWeather.tv, said, "It is looking like this winter could be in the top 20 cold winters in the last 100 years."

In reference to the last decade of the Earth's cooling, geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, emeritus professor at Western Washington University, says, "Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely." Global warming hype is nothing less than a gambit for more government control over our lives.

How about statements like these: "The United States got to where it is today by making things." "There's nothing made here anymore." "One-third of the nation's manufacturing jobs have vanished in the past decade." These statements suggest that we are no longer the world's top manufacturer; we have all but turned into a nation of "hamburger flippers."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

'Hockey stick' graph was exaggerated

The key word in this story is "exaggerated." Wasn't that the whole point shown by the emails from East Anglia Climate Research Unit in the "climategate" scandal? Global warming and climate change being a threat to the world is being exaggerated.

The 'hockey stick' that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using 'inappropriate' methods, according to the head of the Royal Statistical Society.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

Published: 2:52PM BST 14 Apr 2010

Professor David Hand said that the research – led by US scientist Michael Mann – would have shown less dramatic results if more reliable techniques had been used to analyse the data.

Prof Hand was among a group of experts charged with investigating the "climategate" email scandal that engulfed the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) last year.

Sceptics claimed that the hacked messages showed scientists were manipulating data to support a theory of man-made global warming.

However the review, led by Lord Oxburgh into the research carried out by the centre, found no evidence of ''deliberate scientific malpractice".

Lord Oxburgh said the scientists at the research unit arrived at their conclusions ''honestly and sensibly''.

But the reviewers found that the scientists could have used better statistical methods in analysing some of their data, although it was unlikely to have made much difference to their results.

That was not the case with some previous climate change reports, where "inappropriate methods" had exaggerated the global warming phenomenon.

Prof Hand singled out a 1998 paper by Prof Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a constant target for climate change sceptics, as an example of this.

He said the graph, that showed global temperature records going back 1,000 years, was exaggerated - although any reproduction using improved techniques is likely to also show a sharp rise in global warming. He agreed the graph would be more like a field hockey stick than the ice hockey blade it was originally compared to.

"The particular technique they used exaggerated the size of the blade at the end of the hockey stick. Had they used an appropriate technique the size of the blade of the hockey stick would have been smaller," he said. "The change in temperature is not as great over the 20th century compared to the past as suggested by the Mann paper."

READ FULL STORY at Telegraph.co.uk

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Warmists overwhelmed by fear, panic and deranged hatred as their 'science' collapses

It's again time for another great James Delingpole column (or blog) to contribute to the anti-AGW material I've been checking out today. Delingpole never disappoints me.

Sorry chaps, it won’t wash. The debate has moved on. It’s not about “the science” any more. (Not that it ever was). It’s about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government.

By James Delingpole

Last updated: March 5th, 2010

A sharp-eyed viewer has noticed that when I was debating George Monbiot on TV yesterday and I mentioned that his cherished “peer-reviewed science” had been discredited by Climategate he bared his teeth like a cornered cur. Says my body language expert John Lish:

“It was a quite aggressive and defensive gesture which was noticeable when he was attempting to dismiss you (talking about peer review). A definite body-language sign of being rattled. He’s definitely uncomfortable about what’s occurring and others will have spotted that as well.”

Monbiot isn’t the only one. Consider the paranoid tone of this email from climate-fear-promoter Paul Ehrlich, during an exchange with fellow members at the National Academy of Scientists on how best to deal with the Denier threat: (Hat tip: Marc Morano)

“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.”

And consider this tragic response from the editor of the US magazine Skeptical Inquirer when faced with declining readership. Despite its name, the Skeptical Inquirer has tended to adopt a none-too-sceptical position on AGW. This has annoyed one or two readers who have been cancelling their subscriptions in disgust. The editor Kendrick Frazier seems to imagine that this is not a reflection on his editorial policy but on his readership’s ‘false consciousness’ – as he shows in this robust editorial. (hat tip: Philip Thomas)...

READ FULL STORY at Telegraph.co.uk

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Clash over 'global warming' ratcheted up another degree

"It's about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government," says U.K. writer James Delingpole of the Telegraph.  There was never anything more true. After you read this column, you will soon realize just how nervous the global warming scammers are getting that their religion of consensus science is continuing to fall apart. And when the press even covers the startling news of such things as ClimateGate, their desperation grows to all new levels...

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


~ From the Petition Project, which now list tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorse the above statement

Congressman wants funding stopped; scientists plan retaliation campaign

By Bob Unruh

Posted: March 05, 2010 ~ 9:50 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The clash over "global warming" has been ratcheted up another degree this week, with one member of Congress demanding U.S. taxpayer funding for the research be halted and scientists who have been accused of slipshod and deceptive work planning a campaign of retaliation against their critics.

The controversy moved to the front burner late last year when a series of e-mails was hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain that indicate scientists were hiding and manipulating data and trying to marginalize critics.

The revelations were significant, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed two findings Dec. 7 that concluded greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations." The EPA's rulings could mean thousands of dollars in additional taxes for individual consumers.

Now, Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, is citing the doubts about the integrity of "climate change" science in a letter asking for an accounting of U.S. taxpayer support for the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

The U.S. since 1994 has given some $50 million to the panel, and contributions under Obama now have doubled.

Barton, writing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asked the State Department to stop any contributions until an up-to-date audit is released.

"In recent months, the IPCC has come under significant criticism for the quality of its principal work product: the periodic assessments of the causes ofclimate change and related impacts from a changing climate," Barton wrote.

"Various reports have identified problems concerning quality-control procedures, peer review, and political influence on the assessment writeups, raising serious questions about the scientific integrity of the enterprise," he said.

The congressman asked Clinton to provide details of U.S. funding and state what controls – if any – have been placed on the funds.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times reports "global warming" scientists are preparing to strike back at their critics.

The report by Stephen Dinan said the newspaper had obtained private e-mails in which climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences said they were tired of "being treated like political pawns."

The e-mails revealed a strategy to form a nonprofit group that would challenge "global warming" critics in public newspaper ads. One suggested "an outlandlishly aggressively partisan approach" that would gut credibility of critics.

"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails obtained by the newspaper.

Many of the scientists in the "climate change" advocacy camp have been "under siege," the newspaper reported, since the East Anglia e-mails revealed discussions about skewing data to push chosen results.

Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., has suggested the Justice Department investigate scientists for potentially falsifying data.

Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said scientists should be shoring up their own research and eliminating mistakes.

"Hinging all of these policies on global climate change with its substantial element of uncertainty is unnecessary and is bad politics, not to mention having created a toxic environment for climate research," she told the newspaper.

In the Telegraph in the U.K., writer James Delingpole who has followed the "Climategate" scandal as the purloined e-mails have been dubbed, said the arguments are beginning to border on paranoia.

The issue, he said, no longer has anything to do with climate, global warming or even science.

"It's about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government," he wrote.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Does Glenn Beck really believe in global warming?

I've been listening to or watching Glenn Beck for a long time, and I would really have to say I don't think that Glenn believes in global warming. Maybe Glenn will talk about it on his radio show this morning.

Blogosphere on fire: 'Is this satire? I really want to know!'

By Chelsea Schilling

Posted: February 26, 2010 ~ 12:40 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

"Is this satire? I really want to know!"

That's just one of many questions bloggers and Glenn Beck fans are asking about a Feb. 21 interview story in a leading national Sunday-newspaper magazine that claims the newest superstar among conservatives "believes in global warming."

"You'd be an idiot not to notice the temperature change," Beck said, according to USA Weekend.

Writer Dennis McCafferty reported Beck also thinks global warming could be caused partly by man's activity. At home, he's going green by using energy-saving products, according to the report.

On his top-rated nationally syndicated morning radio show and Fox News Channel television program Beck has been a frequent critic of scientists and advocates such as Al Gore who contend man is causing catastrophic changes in the Earth's climate. Many Beck supporters say his record of opposition to global warming alarmism should speak for itself.

In response to some suggestions that a layer of pollution be released into the atmosphere to cool the earth and counteract global warming, Beck said in a 2007 segment on his show, "Welcome to Crazy Town, USA."

"I believe something is happening. I'm not sticking my head in the sand here. Global warming probably is having ... global climate change is real. It probably is natural," Beck said. He railed against Al Gore's proposed solutions to offset the purported effects global warming.

"A lot of people say the planet is doomed, and global warming is here to stay," Beck said. "I don't know. There's bound to be a solution to this. I think we just need to start looking outside the box."

In yet another 2007 segment, Beck gave a preview of his book, "An Inconvenient Book." He specifically referenced Chapter 1, titled, "Global Warming: Storming and Conforming."

"I wrote this chapter basically as kryptonite for you to use against your Gore-worshipping psycho friends," he said.

Just two days after the USA Weekend story ran, Beck equated proponents of global warming with conspiracy theorists who intentionally deceive Americans.

"We know they're capable of continuing the charade on global warming even though the consensus is currently imploding, there is no consensus," he said. The scientists themselves are saying that. The science is bogus. It is falling apart. … We're still having our politicians tell us, 'We're not going to be able to leave a planet for our kids if we don't act now on cap and trade."

He continued, "They're willing to bankrupt the entire world for a lie."

The following is a video of the segment (global-warming comments at 3:30 mark):

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Our climate czar's faith in fraud ~ By Walter E. Williams

The religion of consensus science continues to unravel for the global warming fraud. Professor Williams correctly points out that the EPA and the global warming czar, Carol Browner shouldn't continue to be "spending billions of dollars and enacting economically crippling regulations in the name of fighting global warming."

Given all the false claims and evidence pointing to scientific fraud, I don't think it wise to continue spending billions of dollars and enacting economically crippling regulations in the name of fighting global warming. At the minimum, we should stop the Environmental Protection Agency from going on with their plans to regulate carbon emissions.

By Walter E. Williams

Posted: February 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Private industry and governments around the world have spent trillions of dollars in the name of saving our planet from manmade global warming. Academic institutions, think tanks and schools have altered their curricula and agenda to accommodate what was seen as the global warming "consensus."

Mounting evidence suggests that claims of manmade global warming might turn out to be the greatest hoax in mankind's history. Immune and hostile to the evidence, President Barack Obama's administration and most of the U.S. Congress sides with Climate Czar Carol Browner, who says, "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."

The scientists whom Browner references are associated with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. Let's look some of what they told us. The 2007 IPCC report, which won them a Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" as a result of manmade global warming. Recently, IPCC was forced to retract their glacier-disappearance claim, which was made on the basis of a non-scientific magazine article. When critics initially questioned the prediction, Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC's chairman, dismissed them as "voodoo scientists."

The IPCC also had to retract its claim that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by "tropical savannas" if temperatures continued to rise. The IPCC claim was based on a paper co-authored by the World Wildlife Fund and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, two environmental activist groups.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Sarah Palin: “Global Warming” – More Like a Snow Job

Sarah Palin weighs in the "consensus science" of the mythical man-cause global warming hysteria, and how it prevents America from having a common sense energy policy.

The man-made global warming hysteria isn’t based on sound science, and the Obama administration’s energy policy isn’t based on sound economics. If the climategate revelations teach us anything, it’s that we need to cool down the rhetoric and fire up our common sense.

By Sarah Palin

Friday, February 19, 2010 ~ 12:31 a.m.

Over the last few months, and even again today, very unsettling revelations have come to light about the “settled science” of man-made global warming. With all of these shoes dropping you’d think every member of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would be barefoot by now.

One thing after another keeps popping up to further discredit the theory of man-made global warming. The IPCC’s supposedly definitive report proving the theory is riddled with serious errors. The organization has been publicly chastised by everyone from its former chair to the heads of the UK’s biggest funder of climate research and Greenpeace UK. One of the world’s top climate change scientists, Prof. Phil Jones, has conceded that there’s been no significant warming since 1995; that the medieval period may have been warmer than today; and that he’s had trouble even keeping track of raw data crucial to the global warming theory. Yet President Obama still seeks to create a federal office for global warming, and they’re still talking about mandating their cap-and-tax plan that's based on discredited data.

READ FULL STORY at Sarah Palin's Facebook Notes

Where the jobs are ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb

Posted: February 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Everyone agrees that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Everyone agrees that we need to increase American jobs.

Everyone, except perhaps the president and his minions in the majority, agrees that the government cannot afford to subsidize either of these goals.

Both of these goals can be achieved quite easily with no government subsidy: drill here; drill now!

Congress could open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the twinkling of a Senate vote. This would pave the way to upwards of 10 billion barrels of new crude for America. Paving the road to this new inventory would provide employment for as many as 735,000 people – at no cost to the government.

Congress could open the oil-rich areas offshore, where as much as 85 billion barrels of oil is waiting for our use. Every new barrel produced provides new jobs for America – at no cost to the government.

Instead of choosing this perfectly logical course of action, the president and his minions in the majority chose to spend $159 billion to create 640,000 jobs.That's $248,000 per job, for a job that typically pays much less than $100,000 per year and in many cases will last only a few months. How dumb is that?

When a stupid program doesn't work as well as was projected, the only thing to do is to up the ante and do it again. That's why the president wants to spend another $100 billion doing what didn't work last time. How dumb is that?

This stupidity cannot be laid at the feet of this president alone. Democrats, and a few Republicans, in Congress have justified this wrongheadedness on the U.N.'s threat that the continued use of carbon fuels would sink the continents and fry the polar regions. Anyone who still believes this nonsense has refused to read the preponderance of evidence that is now available.

Global warming that may have occurred over the last century is well within the range of normal variability.

READ FULL STORY >

Tea partier shares 'single greatest threat to America'

From WorldNetDaily

Climate alarmism dubbed bigger danger to nation than terrorism, nuclear weapons

By Chelsea Schilling

Posted: February 05, 2010 ~ 11:50 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

NASHVILLE – "When it comes to your freedom in day-to-day life, environmentalists are the greatest threat to America now and America in the future."

That is the stern warning Junkscience.com publisher and self-described libertarian Steve Milloy told a packed room at the first national tea-party convention in Nashville today.

Milloy castigated both Republican and Democrat politicians for their global alarmism, saying those on the "right" have failed Americans because, "Republicans have been terrible when it comes to environmental issues," he said. "Don't even get me started about the nit-wit governor in California."

A resounding applause erupted from a crowd of 600 attendees.

He continued, "By contrast, there's the left. Although the left has think-tanks, they don't really need them. Their thinking was done for them by Karl Marx and hasn't changed much since. … The left rarely thinks; it usually just acts with reckless abandon."

Milloy called for the tea-party movement to become more engaged at every level of government in the battle against global-warming alarmism.

"Through global-warming alarmism and cap-and-trade regulation, the greens will use the force of government to tell us where we can work, where we can live, how many children we can have, how much energy we can use, how much water we can use, what sort of food we should eat, what the temperature of our homes can be, what sort of cars we can drive," he said. "In California, regulators are already deciding what color cars we can drive."

Modern environmentalist has nothing to do with saving the planet, Milloy explained, calling it a method in which socialists and totalitarians advance their social and political agendas.

READ FULL STORY >

Climategate: The Truth Hurts When It Hits You in the Head

From American Thinker

By Dexter Wright January 18, 2010 The joke on the internet these days is "What do Tiger Woods and Phil Jones of East Anglia University in Britain have in common? They both got hit in the head by a model." In 2007, Professors David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, and Fred Singer wrote a scientific paper in the International Journal of Climatology, which compared Global Climate Models (GCMs) with real observed data. GCMs were theoretically designed to forecast how greenhouse gases (GHGs) are warming the planet. There are certain rules that must be followed in scientific investigations in order to ensure that the results and conclusions are not erroneous. Basically, the process requires an investigator to operate under multiple hypotheses so that he is not blinded to facts that might contradict one of his hypotheses and leave him with a dead end. An investigator should start by working from the known to the unknown, from the simple to the complex, and always bend the theory to fit the facts -- not the other way around. This is exactly how the four scholars led by Professor Douglass conducted their investigation into the accuracy of the GCMs. The GCMs were touted by the now-discredited Dr. Jones as accurate predictions of how the planet is responding to GHGs, but no serious published work had been done to compare these GCMs with real observations to find out if the theoretical models agreed with the established facts. The results of these comparisons done by Prof. Douglass and his team were found to be significantly divergent. The paper states the following:

Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean.

In English, that says that the models could not be trusted. This news publicly enraged the gang led by Dr. Jones. They fired off more than 29 e-mails concerning this one paper. But the real story is that these findings did not surprise them. In one of the recently uncovered Climategate e-mails from Dr. Fred Pearce to Dr. Keith Briffa, dated the 13th of October, 1996, Dr. Pearce delivers the bad news that the data does not agree with the models. READ FULL STORY >

Son of Climategate! Scientist says feds manipulated data

From WorldNetDaily

Reporting points in coldest regions simply eliminated by U.S. agencies By Bob Unruh Posted: January 16, 2010 ~ 12:20 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily In a one-two series of Climategate aftershocks that assuredly will further rattle the global warming community, a report has been issued by U.S. researchers accusing government agencies of cherry-picking temperature readings used to assess global temperatures, and a series of embarrassing e-mails were released revealing what happened when a blogger dared to point out a mistake by NASA climate scientists. The new report is from scientist Joseph D'Aleo and was highlighted in a report on global warming on KUSI television in San Diego. It comes only weeks after the tumultuous climategate e-mail scandal in Britain erupted, proving top global warming scientists manipulated data there. The report from D'Aleo, a retired climatologist who has been skeptical of global warming, contends climate data has been corrupted and skewed by "urbanization and other local factors such as land-use-land-cover changes and improper siting." He blamed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which he described as "seriously complicit in data manipulation and fraud." The East Anglia e-mail leak focused on the work at the Climate Research Unit there, but the director there has confirmed "almost all the data" in the archive "is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center," D'Aleo said. But he noted that an analysis by San Jose computer programmer E.M. Smith of the data "found they systematically eliminated 75 percent of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations." "The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs," he said. For example, the report said the number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35 with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations plummeted. Further, a vast majority of the climate stations reporting in the U.S. were either poorly or very poorly sited, taking temperature readings from paved driveways, in a waste treatment facility, on rooftops or near the exhaust from idling jet engines, rather than in open areas. Stations in such locations as the Andes and Bolivia have virtually vanished, meaning that temperatures for those areas now are "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon." "[Think] of it this way," D'Aleo told the television station, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St. Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis' temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?" D'Aleo said that the coolest stations in a particular reporting period sometimes disappeared in the next. "This would indicate a deliberate attempt to create a warm bias on the part of NOAA because in calculating the average temperatures in this way it would ensure that the global average temperature for each month and year would now show a positive temperature anomaly," the report said. Such anomalies, it added, make climate reports based on those figures simply unreliable. READ FULL STORY >

Meteorologist predicts global cooling

From WorldNetDaily The CIA has been been involved in climate research before, as you will learn from this column by Jerome Corsi. Be sure to see the related video at the bottom of this post.

Fears of imminent ice age to replace warming alarm? By Jerome Corsi Posted: January 09, 2010 ~ 12:00 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily Fears of a new ice age not seen since the 1970s are arising in the aftermath of the "Climategate" scandal that has cast doubt on the legitimacy of scientific research forming the basis for the theory that mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in temperatures worldwide. Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi has produced a video suggesting the current frigid conditions in North America, Europe and Asia are very similar to the weather patterns in the 1970s that produced fears a new ice age was imminent. In the video, Bastardi explains his theory that "weather goes in a lot of cycles, and we're going to see a lot more of the cold trending here over the next 20 or 30 years." WND previously reported President Obama's science czar John Holdren was among the scientists who predicted 1 billion people would die in "carbon-dioxide induced" famines in a coming new ice age by 2020. In the 1970s, Holdren's theme was that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent "eco-disasters" such as the forecast ice age. Today, Holdren urges immediate passage of the Obama administration's cap-and-trade legislation to control carbon emissions before it is too late to save the planet from "global warming." READ FULL STORY >

RELATED VIDEO: January 07, 2010 - Lord Nigel Lawson says, "Let's go to Plan B, Humans can adapt"

Exactly. Keep energy costs low, allow humans to adapt, mostly by searching for cheaper energy sources. Allow our ingenuity to find solutions, as we always have, and as we have gotten better at over the last 200 years. Quit taking away the incentive that Free Enterprise offers us. We will adapt. We always have.

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Climategate: Michael Mann's very unhappy New Year ~ By James Delingpole

From Telegraph.co.uk

By James Delingpole Last updated: January 3rd, 2010 As I said yesterday, one of our jobs this year is to wipe the complacent smiles off the smug faces of the lobbyists, “experts”, “scientists”, politicians and activists pushing AGW. This is why I am so glad to report that Michael Mann – creator of the incredible Hockey Stick curve and one of the scientists most heavily implicated in the Climategate scandal – is about to get a very nasty shock. When he turns up to work on Monday, he’ll find that all 27 of his colleagues at the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University have received a rather tempting email inviting them to blow the whistle on anyone they know who may have been fraudulently misusing federal grant funds for climate research. READ FULL STORY >

Copenhagen’s political science ~ By Sarah Palin

From Sarah Palin's Notes (Facebook page)

Copenhagen’s political science The Washington Post Op-ed and Response to Climate Change and Gravity By Sarah Palin Wednesday, December 9, 2009 With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue. “Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse. The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development. READ FULL STORY>>

N.Y. Times edits truth of Climategate ~ By Jack Cashill

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Jack Cashill Posted: December 10, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 The respective investigations into the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 and into climate change have something very specific in common beyond the corruption of results for political ends. That is the role of the New York Times, in particular Times' environment reporter Andrew Revkin, in enabling that corruption. In both cases, Revkin and the Times would pick sides in a scientific controversy, cozy up to the side picked, champion its counterfeit data, and marginalize the opposition. As to "Climategate," the e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit show Revkin very much an active participant in the information flow. What they reveal is an insecure reporter working hard to ingratiate himself with the world's most influential global-warming advocates. In one relatively benign e-mail to "dear all," for instance, Revkin addresses a specific "bone of contention with a lot of the anti-greenhouse-limits folks." Although the issue is too dense to explore here, Revkin concludes his e-mail with his trademark sycophancy: "hoping to show a bit of how that works.thanks for any insights. and i encourage you to comment and provide links etc with the current post to add context etc." Incredibly, after Climategate broke, the Times' editors allowed Revkin to continue covering the scandal even though he himself was central to the story. His subsequent reporting has drawn intense heat from critics, especially since his instinct has been to cover for his friends. "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument," Revkin wrote at the scandal's outset. READ FULL STORY>>

Famous weather scientist: Climategate 'tip of iceberg'

From WorldNetDaily

'Conspiracy would become manifest' if all climate research e-mails unveiled Posted: December 08, 2009 ~ 9:46 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily The Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as "the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" says the "Climategate" e-mails from the United Kingdom that revealed possible data manipulation are evidence of a conspiracy among "warmists," those who believe man's actions are triggering possibly catastrophic climate change. "The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years," said Colorado State University's William Gray. His annual hurricane forecasts are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, and he has served as weather forecaster for the U.S. Air Force. He is emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU and heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project. Gray was referring to e-mails and other information obtained by a hacker and posted on a Russian web server that included interactions among the world's most influential climate-change scientists. One e-mail said: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Another expressed internal doubts: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." READ FULL STORY>>

Chestnuts roasting on a Copenhagen fire ~ By Chuck Norris

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Chuck Norris Posted: December 07, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Copenhagen is on fire this week, and there's far more heating up than just the climate. While heads of state and others gather this week at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (Dec. 7-18), bonfires have already been blazing for weeks on that European front. Let me see if I can summarize the chestnuts roasting on that Copenhagen fire. Shocking e-mail exchanges from scientists at an eminent global-warming research center in the United Kingdom have proven that key climate-change scientists have suppressed evidence to "trick" or "hide the decline" of global temperatures. Rather than focus on the audacity of the climate-gate cover up, Obama's top science adviser, John Holdren, downplayed the e-mails, telling Congress that the controversy involved a small group of scientists. And others like Sen. Barbara Boxer blamed the hackers who exposed the e-mails rather than the scientists who deceived the world with false global climate reports. Similarly, the U.N. was caught recently deleting documents that would disclose how member states are leading (or not leading) the way in self-greening efforts. The scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters documented that ice melt on Antarctica was the lowest in 30 years during the 2008-2009, a fact being intentionally ignored by NASA. A U.S. scholar is threatening to sue NASA (see video I have included at the bottom of this column) to prompt the agency to release climate-change data, which he says has been manipulated just like over in Britain. Officials in the Environmental Protection Agency gagged one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee submitted an internal critique of the EPA's climate change position. Unlike the U.S., China and India have already opposed foreign climate governance because it would jeopardize their national sovereignty. Nearly two months ago Lord Christopher Monckton, once science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, warned us that the real purpose of the conference was more about global government than global warming. In my former column, titled "Obama's one-world government," I've already detailed more than a dozen actual statements in the proposed summit treaty that threatens our national sovereignty, could severely cripple our already depressed economy and are so globally socialistic that they would make even a communist blush. READ FULL STORY >

December 04, 2009 - Climategate reaches NASA: Caught manipulating data?

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Confusion of the Copenhagen faithful ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb Posted: December 05, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 More than 14,000 people have pre-registered to attend the shindig in Copenhagen next week, none of whom are delegates. The facility, which accommodates only 15,000 people, will be overrun by special-interest groups, all clamoring for attention and a piece of the $94 billion pie that is divided annually among the global-warming congregation. The number of delegates that attend these meetings usually reaches 4,000, and the press adds another thousand or so. The conference is an economic boon to the host city, an opportunity to party for the attendees – and a potential disaster for everyone else in the world. The Copenhagen meeting is the 15th official meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is the annual "biggie"; delegates and special-interest groups meet four or more times each year, each meeting drawing 5,000 to 10,000 people. The U.N. actually pays a per diem to the majority of the delegates; expenses for most of the special-interest groups come from grants from various governments, or from major foundations. The U.N. works hard to see that a good time is had by all; they screen attendees tighter than the Secret Service screens state dinners at the White House. WorldNetDaily, for example, is not allowed to attend; they may report something that the U.N. does not want reported. The press that is allowed to attend may not film or record the meetings. They may not even carry their equipment into the area where the meetings are held without an official U.N. "minder" with them. Everyone is free to photograph and record in the public areas such as the restaurants and the exhibit area. READ FULL STORY >

Christopher Monckton: CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED!

From Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)

Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley November 30, 2009 THE WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better. In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming”. For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here. (43 pages)