"The level of non-disclosure of adverse data we saw was perhaps perfectly acceptable."

The quote in the title came from Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. It clearly shows how the AGW alarmist crowd is perfectly willing to unethically manipulte data and information to prove their cause.

No true scientist would ever accept any level of "non-disclosure" for anything. Non-disclosure is simply another way of saying "hiding the truth."

From the American Thinker:

After Apollo 17 moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt, gave a wonderful presentation on climate policy from a constitutional standpoint, Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre took the podium to discuss Climategate and the valuable role he played in uncovering the scandal. But after walking us through the Briffa and Mann reconstructions, Mike’s Nature Trick, the conspiratorial emails and other unscrupulous goings on at CRU, Steve stopped quite a bit short of passing judgment on the co-conspirators. In fact, referring to those who have obstructed the truth about the “hockey stick” and thereby climate sensitivity itself, Steve – who admitted he had no problem with governments dictating energy policy -- suggested only that their “tricks” be disavowed and “such practices be avoided in the future.” During the Q&A segment that followed, Bass let us in on something McIntyre told him upon ending his presentation – that the rousing standing ovation from the audience Steve received before his talk began and decidedly less enthusiastic and predominately seated reaction afterwards didn’t go unnoticed. When questioned why Mann, Jones, and company shouldn’t be thrown in jail, Steve surprised and, no doubt, disappointed many in attendance. He approached CRU’s trickery as “academic misconduct,” stating that in academic circles the level of non-disclosure of adverse data we saw was perhaps perfectly acceptable.

No. What they've have done and are doing is completely reprehensible and will only serve to undermine the public's trust of real science.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

ICCC 4 Opens With A Climategate Surprise
Marc Sheppard
American Thinker
May 18, 2010

Manipulating The Terminology To Confuse People About Climate Change

So, when "global warming" turns out to be "global cooling" what is a leftist activist to do? The main thing they try to do is to muddle the argument by changing the terminology they use to describe their agenda and the reasons for their agenda.

The is why the United Nation talks about "climate change" rather than "global warming." When it became clear that the earth was in fact cooling down and the people of this planet were witnessing record snowfalls and record cold temperatures, the left-wing climate activists knew they had made a mistake with the "global warming" theory and needed a way to tidy things up so that they wouldn't lose their cause nor the millions of dollars in donations they use to pay their own salaries.



From the New York Times:

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.” The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington. Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

That's right. Instead of admitting that they've bought into a flawed and scientifically untenable theory, they try to confuse people with new terminology in the hopes that the new words will somehow make people believe in the cause again.

And here is how they are doing it:

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders. Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

Not only are they doing research on how to make the issue more confusing, they do it in secret so that no one would have a chance to analyze what was really going on.

But why are they scrambling to do this? What changed so radically that they have to make this radical adjustment in their language?

Read on:

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists.

Despite shrill claims that the oil and coal lobbies are causing this, the truth is that Americans can look outside their windows and see what is really happening. They do not see a world getting warmer as the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) alarmists predicted. They see a world getting cooler and are trying to find the real answers as to why. That is what scares the left-wing environmentalists the most: that the truth might actually be revealed by legitimate scientists.

And how far has this gone?

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.” “Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study. Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

I hope you notice the following clause from EcoAmerica's quote: "... while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology."

They want to avoid the science behind the issue. The studies of climatology, meteorology and astrophysics are not to be allowed into the debate. Why would they want these aspects kept out of the discussion? Because it would allow people access to more information and more data, most of which shows that global warming, global cooling and climate change are natural phenomena rather than man-made.

Also note that they are briefing members of Congress to use the same words and terminology, just like trained parrots.

You can access an excellent webpage with loads of answers to questions about the global warming/cooling and/or climate change debate here:

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
JunkScience.org
August 2007

And you can access the New York Times article on-line here:

Seeking To Save The Planet, With A Thesaurus
John M. Broder
New York Times
May 1, 2009

Democrats Terrified Of Scientific Debate Over Global Warming Issues

Well, so much for "diversity" and trying to bring multiple points of view to the issues. And so much for any post-partisanship the Dems claimed would be their hallmark after the 2006 and 2008 elections. It is all straight-line partisanship now.

It all went out the window when the Dems chose ideology over science and refused to allowed an Anthroprogenic Global Warming (AGW) skeptic to testify before Congress concurrent with Al Gore. The UK's Lord Christopher Monckton had been invited to testify before Congress at the same time as former VP Al Gore, but when the Dems learned that Lord Monckton was an AGW skeptic and was prepared to offer evidence that Al Gore and other Global Warming alramists were wrong in their analysis of climate change, they refused to allow him to testify.

What are the Dems afraid of? That a true scientific debate would make Al Gore look like a fool? If they are so convinced that Al Gore is right, wouldn't they welcome such a public debate to further prove it? Why hide from such a forum?

From Climate Depot:

Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon. “The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.” According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance.

Why would Al Gore be afraid of going head-to-head with anybody? Maybe because he has been found to be mistaken about a great many things:

35 Inconvenient Truths; The Errors In Al Gore's Movie
Christopher Monckton
October 18, 2007

For example: Al Gore's hysterical claim after Hurricane Katrina that global warming would make subsequent hurricane seasons even worse. The truth is that each hurricane season since 2005 has been much less intense.

Or another example: Gore hysterically claims that severe tornadoes are becoming more frequent. But, information gathered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) since 1950 shows a downward trend of severe tornadoes, not upward and Gore claims:



Apparently, the Dems don't have the stomach to actually look through all the evidence and only want to allow such information that would further their own political agenda rather than actually provide good, complete information to the people. And they also don't have the stomach to see Al Gore ripped to pieces for pushing junk science instead of real science.

It is embarrassing that the Dems refused to allow this debate. It clearly shows exactly how scared they are that the truth about climate change will actually come out and expose AGW as a huge hoax.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Refuse To Allow Skeptic To Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
Marc Morano
Climate Depot
April 23, 2009

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions To Form New World Economy

The United Nations, that lovely bastion of anti-Americanism, wants to control the world's economies by invoking the hoax of human-induced climate change.

The very first paragraph of the Fox News story covering this says it all and should send chills up your spine:

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

The document is 16 pages long and it involves sending millions of American jobs offshore to other nations, all in the name of environmentalism.

And here is what is even worse:

The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

Didn't Barack Obama chastise American companies for out-sourcing jobs overseas and threaten to punitively tax anyone who did out-source their jobs? Yes, he did.

And now, Obama wants to send more American jobs overseas by signing on to this ridiculously anti-American U.N. treaty. I say anti-American because the United States will be the one nation that is hit the hardest in terms of economic losses. I also beleieve that the people at the U.N. who wrote this treaty are aiming precisely for such results.

The news article goes on:

The note adds only that industrial relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment." But at the same time it "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries."

This is what Obama supports? U.S. companies cannot out-source employement as a revenue saving measure, but he will allow the U.N. to force American jobs to "relocate" to other nations?

Can Obama possibly be a bigger hypocrite on this issue?

Here is more evidence of the anti-American slant that this treaty holds:

A "climate change levy on aviation" for example, is described as having undetermined "negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce," as well as "tourism services." But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)

The language of this document was no accident. It is clearly aimed directly at the economic throat of the United States and Barack Obama has already signed on as a supporter. Maybe Obama didn't read this proposal, just like he didn't read the Dodd Amendment of the stimulus package.

Anthroprogenic Global Warming is a hoax. But it is a hoax that the United Nations believes in and apparently Barack Obama does as well.

This new treaty would destroy the already fragile U.S. economy, destroy millions of American jobs and surrender our national sovereignity to the United Nations. I wonder if Obama is already aware of this.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions To Form New World Economy
George Russell
Fox News
March 27, 2009

Scientists Continue To Debunk "Consensus" in 2008: Global Warming Skeptics On The Rise

You know, when you ignore a very important issue simply because you do not agree with the politics of those driving it, that issue will come back to bite you in the rear-end.

Such is the case with those who embrace the idea that there is "concensus" among scientists that Global Warming is going to kill all of mankind and leave us drowning in a world that resembles a ridiculously bad Kevin Costner movie. They will ignore the issue that science is discovering new evidence that climate change is natural. You will see very little of the AGW debate broadcast over the main networks or CNN for the simple fact that the data is turning against Al Gore and all of his disciples and a leftist-leaning media does not want such information getting out. As such, the issue is starting to come back and bite them in the rear.

There is no concensus and the science isn't even close to being settled. But right now, the majority of legitimate scientists (i.e. those scientists who are not on someone's political payroll) are leaning towards the idea tha climate change is natural and we humans cannot do anything about it nor should we even try.

From Media Newswire:

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

Athropogenic Global Warming theory has met quite a few failures in its predictions. So many, in fact, that it can no longer be consider a valid theory as it has a failure rate of well over 50%.

More:

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC.']

The tables are turning as the world learns more about the truth of climate change. Pretty soon, people like Al Gore and those who blindly follow him are going to look more and more foolish, if it's even possible for them to look more foolish at this point.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Scientists Continue To Debunk "Consensus" In 2008
Media Newswire
January 15, 2009

Dr. James Hansen Gets It Wrong Again

Word is slowly getting out about the hoax of man-made global warming. As more legitimate and accurate scientific data gets out to the masses, the global alarmists are resorting to more and more propaganda, half-truths and sometimes outright lies.

Dr. James Hansen is one of those alarmists and his theories are is such a state of decline now that he is pushing bad data to shore up his ever failing reputation.

Christopher Booker at the London Telegraph has this story.

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record. This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So, what happened? Why did Dr. Hansen decree it to be the warmest October on record? Because he used bad data. In fact, he recycled old data to make his measurements. He used Russian data from September and inserted it into October.

More:

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

Hmmm. Obviously, the IPCC is more interested in the politics of global warming than they are in the legitimate science.

This isn't the first time Dr. Hansen has had his claims debunked. His famous "hockey stick" model was shown to be a fraud in 2007 when it was discovered that the satellites taking the temperature readings were improperly calibrated. When the temperatures were adjusted for the proper calibration, it turns out that the hottest years on record were in the 1930's, not the 1990's.

If fact, the National Oceanographic and Atmospherics Administration (NOAA) did a better job of getting good data. Note the following map showing that temperature change across the United States was mostly "normal" or showed a cooling trend so far in 2008:



You can access the complete article on-line here:

The World Has Never Seen Such Freezing Heat
Christopher Booker
The London Telegraph
November 16, 2008

And more information on this issue here:

James Hansen's Boldest Lie To Date
Hennessy's View
November 10, 2008

Watts Up With That

Climate Audit

Now There Is A 'Carbon Tax' In The Bailout!

As if taking your money and giving it to Wall Street wasn't enough! Now they want to reach deeper into your wallet and take even more money from you! All for a manufactured crisis called "Climate Change" that the legitimate sceintific world has shown to be a natural phenomenon.

Check this out from Matthew Vadum at Capital Research Center:

If you look at page 180 of the 451-page monster bailout bill that easily passed the Senate yesterday (PDF here), you will see that it includes at Section 116 language about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide.” It also provides, at Section 117, for a “carbon audit of the tax code.” What could a provision about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide” and another provision about doing a “carbon audit” of the tax code possibly have to do with restoring confidence in Wall Street’s troubled credit markets? The answer: NOTHING. This appears to be an attempt by global warming fanatics to lay the foundation for an economy-killing carbon tax just like the “cap-and-tax” system that is now destroying European industry. If you think the Mother of All Bailouts is bad, just wait till you see the carbon tax. Get ready to reduce your standard of living drastically.

And the amount of money you have to take care of your family.

This bailout is getting worse and worse.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Hidden Carbon Tax Provisions In Paulson’s Bailout 2.0
Matthew Vadum
Capital Research Center
October 2, 2008

The Myth Of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

And we have another convert on the Global Warming issue, that is convert from alarmist to skeptic. And it isn't just an individual, it is an entire organization.

The American Physical Society which once proclaimed Global Warming evidence to be "incontrovertible" is now saying that many of it's members "disbelieve human induced gloabl warming."

That's quite a statement given Al Gore's claim that there was supposedly a "concensus" of scientists on the issue. But why the change?

From DailyTech.com:

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate. Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

Why would the IPCC do this? And why would so many scientists come along and support them for doing it? To answer the first question: Because the IPCC is a body of politicians, not scientists. For the second: Those sicentists wanted money and going along with the flawed research of the IPCC was the only way for them to get the money.

More:

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method." According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low." Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Yet more turths that Al Gore and his psuedo-scientific followers are finding to be "inconvenient."

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Myth Of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher
Daily Tech
July 16, 208

Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 To $5 A Gallon

Get ready for it folks. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is the bill that is going to cost you more at the pump while at the same time not doing a damn thing to influence climate change. Why? Because we humans cannot control our own sun, that's why.

But that's a scientific debate that I've covered elsewhere on this blog. The economic realities of what Congress is about to screw us with is here:

Worried about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and beyond? Imagine if they were $6, $7 or even $8 a gallon. Those levels are a certain possibility should Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation, which could face a vote in early June. Oil is trading at record levels, in excess of $120 a barrel. Leading Republican Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) both told the Business & Media Institute (BMI) energy prices would drastically increase if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is signed into law. “The studies show it would be directly affected, would be a $1.50 a gallon, in addition to what it is today,” Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said to (BMI).

Let's see, currently, gas prices are pushing $4.00 a gallon. Adding $1.50 to that is $5.50 a gallon. And since supply is nowhere near keeping up with demand, expect it to go even higher.

This is a bill that will do nothing except further erode the American economy and cause more unemployment and other losses. But I doubt those who will be responsible for these consequences will be stepping forward to admit that they did so. They will find other excuses or other reasons to deflect the blame.

This bill must be defeated.

More:

Gas prices have been one of the most reported news stories of the past several years. Reporters have repeatedly warned of prices approaching the levels Inhofe and Sessions warned about. However, journalists have consistently complained about oil company profits, not taxes, making gas prices higher. On NBC’s May 15 “Today,” host Matt Lauer interviewed ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson. Lauer quizzed Tillerson on oil companies’ profit margins and higher gas prices, but Lauer didn’t ask Tillerson about the potential impact Lieberman-Warner would have on the price of gasoline. “Well, the problem we have right now, and fortunately we have several months before the election, to make sure the American people know that this is a supply problem that is causing the gas prices to go up,” Inhofe said to BMI. “You know the Democrats, right down party lines – they do not want to drill in ANWR, they do not want to drill offshore. They don’t want the tar sands. They don’t want more energy. And they don’t want refinery capacity.” The Senate defeated a measure to drill in ANWR on May 13. The vote, an amendment to another bill, was killed by a vote of 42-56, largely along party lines. Only one Democrat voted for the amendment, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and five Republicans voting against it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 To $5 A Gallon
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
May 15, 2008