ABC ABC News Aletho Alex Jones American Spectator American Thinker Associated Press Australian Climate Madness BBC Biased BBC Big Government Big Hollywood Bloomberg Boston Globe Business and Media Institute Business Green Canada Free Press Cattle Network Channel 4 Christopher Booker Chron Climate Conspiracy Climate Depot Climate Skeptic Climategate CNN co2science Corbett Report CounterThink Daily Caller Daily Courier Daily Nexus Dakota Voice David Icke Deccan Herald Documents EcoGeek Economic Times Enterprise IT Planet EPA Ethanol Producer Magazine Examiner Express Financial Times Forbes Fortune Fox Gerald Warner Global Research Globe and Mail Gov Monitor Guardian GWPF Heartland Institute Henry Makow Herald Sun Heritage Foundation Human Events Humour IBN Live Independent Independent.ie Infowars inhabitat Investors Business Daily Island of Doubt James Delingpole Jewish World Review John Birch Society JoNova Lew Rockwell Lid Lord Monckton Lusaka Times MacLeans MagicJavaTV MailOnline Mens News Daily Michael Crichton Moderate Voice Mongabay MSN NASA National Geographic National Post National Review Natural News Nature New Europe New Scientist New York Post New York Times News Busters Newser NewsReal No Frakking Consensus North Star National NY Daily Orlando Sentinel Pajamas Media Palestine Telegraph Penny For Your Thoughts Petition Project Popular Technology PressTV Prison Planet Private Eye Probe International Public Citizen Rasmussen Reports Raw Story Reason Red Ice Creations Register Rense Reuters Right Pundits Russia Today Scotsman Shanghai Daily Spiked SPPI Sydney Morning Herald Telegraph Thunderbolts Time Times Higher Education Times Live Times of India TimesOnline Toronto Sun Triple Pundit truTV Turkmenistan News UKIP UPI US News USA Today Václav Klaus Video Voice of America Vote Vets WAG tv Wall Street Journal Washington Examiner Washington Post Washington Times Washington's Blog Watts Up With That? We Are Change Westmorland Gazette What Really Happened Wicked Local Wired World Net Daily YOUTUBE CENSORED

Yet more IPCC Lies


by James Delingpole
25th May 2010


Pope Catholic; night follows day; IPCC
found telling pack of lies about sea level rises

IPCC lies, cheats, distorts again. Yes, all right, it is a bit of a “dog bites man” or “pizza found to contain mozzarella and tomato resting on dough base” kind of story. But on the day in which Britain’s new Prime Minister announced in the Queen’s speech that one of his government’s main goals is to “combat climate change”, it’s perhaps just as well to remind ourselves of the kind of junk science and misinformation that is inspiring his green policies. (Hat tip: Barry Woods)

This one comes from the great Canadian blogger Donna Laframboise, who has noticed that the most recent report (2007) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change liberally cited a scientific paper which wasn’t published until 29 months after the cut off date for submissions.
“Ah what’s 29 months between friends?” you might say. But as Laframbroise rightly observes it strips the process of its integrity.
If IPCC authors are to accurately describe the scientific literature, an agreed-upon cutoff date is required. If expert reviewers are to comment on the IPCC’s use of that literature, they must be afforded adequate opportunity to examine it.
More sinister still, though, is the way the IPCC report has twisted the paper – by one David G Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey – for its own ends. Here’s what Vaughan’s paper said about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).
Since most of WAIS is not showing change, it now seems unlikely that complete collapse of WAIS, with the threat of a 5-m rise in sea level, is imminent in the coming few centuries.
Note that phrase “it now seems unlikely”.
Now see how the IPCC interprets Vaughan’s paper:
If the Amundsen Sea sector were eventually deglaciated, it would add about 1.5 m to sea level, while the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would account for about 5 m (Vaughan, 2007).
Yes, yes, IPCC no doubt it WOULD. But as the report you cite to prove it made pretty explicit: IT AIN’T GOING TO HAPPEN.

Tax Dollars Perpetuate Global-Warming Fiction


Editorial
25th May 2010


$6 million study is used to lobby for cap-and-tax

With public faith in the global-warming myth on the wane, leftist zealots are desperate to spin a new tale - and they're spending your tax money to do it. Three years ago, Congress appropriated $5,856,600 for the National Academy of Sciences to complete a climate-change study. This bureaucratic attempt to cook the books, which was completed last week, may be too late to save this dying religion.

The academy now offers the taxpayer-funded research for download in three separate sections for $44 each. The first volume presents the case that human activities are warming the planet and that this "poses significant risks." A second report urges that a cap-and-trade taxing system be implemented to reduce so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The final section of the study explores strategies on adapting to the "reality" of climate change, meaning purported "extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves."

None of the big-government recommendations are worth the 1,089 pages of presumably recycled paper on which they are to be printed if planetary warming is actually a phenomenon beyond human control, so the first volume is of primary interest. "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" asserts that the Earth's temperature has risen over the past 100 years and that human activities have resulted in sharp increases in carbon dioxide. The coincidence of these facts on their own, of course, proves nothing. The Earth has been as warm or warmer in past periods, such as the medieval and Roman warm periods, long before the internal combustion engine and coal plants were around to take the heat for a particularly sweltering summer day.

"Both the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and more detailed calculations dictate that increases in atmospheric GHGs should lead to warming of Earth's surface and lower atmosphere," the National Academy report goes on to assert. That is to say, the theory that mankind's increased carbon-dioxide output is responsible for warming is true because the theory's calculations say so. "Detailed simulations" of climate provide verification in the eyes of these left-leaning scientists. The same climate models that can't predict tomorrow's weather accurately are supposed to forecast decades into the future.

That this logic is entirely circular is not lost on the public, only a third of whom believe mankind's collective exhalations are about to destroy the planet. A recent Rasmussen survey found that a majority (59 percent) think it's more likely that scientists are falsifying research data to support their own personal theories about global warming.

The overall message of climate alarmists is "Trust us," but the Climategate e-mails exposed these hacks' lack of credibility, as they are willing to manipulate and suppress data to try to prove their point. Science should not be abused to push a political agenda - and here the National Academy is doing the work of Democrats by taking tax dollars to pimp for higher taxes on gasoline, electricity and other essential elements of modern life. In return, these ideological leftists are rewarded with even more of your money to conduct additional "research."

It's time to pull the plug on public funding for these science-fiction writers.


Article courtesy of The Washington Times

Lord Monckton wins Global Warming debate at Oxford Union


by Anthony Watts
24th May 2010

I’m waiting for actual photos of the event from the official photographer, but for now I’ll make do with what can be found on the Internet. For those who don’t know, the Oxford Union is the top of the food chain for scholarly debate. This is a significant win.

The Oxford Union Debate Chamber - image from Wikimedia

Founded in 1823 at the University of Oxford, but maintaining a separate charter from the University, The Oxford Union is host to some of the most skillful debates in the world. Many eminent scholars and personalities have come and either debated or delivered speeches in the chamber. Monckton was invited as part of the formal Thursday debate.

It is described as follows:

The Union is the world’s most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 182 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

Here is a view inside from a previous debate:

The Debate Chamber - Photo by: Rajiv Dabas

From the SPPI Blog, an account of the debate:

National Academy of Sciences completely ignores Climategate


by T. Lau
25th May 2010


National Academy of Sciences
Issues Reports on Climate Change

During the Bush administration, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences, comprised of the nation's elite scientists, to study the issue of climate change and issue a report. Last week the NAS did exactly that, and issued three sobering reports on climate change. The reports (titled Advancing the Science for Climate Change, Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change and Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change) are notable because they abandon normal scientific language for an urgent tone in calling for action.

The first report concludes that climate change is happening, and it is caused by humans. The report notes that science is never closed and that there is still serious debate about global warming, but the report states that "climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for -- and in many cases is already affecting -- a broad range of human and natural systems. The report recommends that a single government entity be given the authority and resources to coordinate a national effort to improve understanding and responses to climate change.

The second report on limiting the magnitude of future climate change recommends that the U.S. must reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions which will require actions beyond business as usual. The report suggests either a tax on emissions or cap and trade, or both, but cautions that putting a price on carbon alone will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The third report about adapting to the impacts of climate change makes several recommendations to lawmakers, including making plans now for a possible five foot rise in sea levels by the end of the century. These plans may include relocating population areas away from coasts and shore lines.

Overall the NAS says there is an "urgent need" for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists also conclude that the evidence makes a "compelling" case that climate change is happening now. With all this science weighing in, and climate reports that 2010 is already shaping up to beat 2009 as the warmest year on the planet on record, are there any climate change doubters left out there?


Article courtesy of Enterprise IT Planet

>>>> discuss this topic @ Enterprise IT Planet >>>>

More on the ABC News Hit Job


by Jeff Poor
25th May 2010

Left on the Cutting Room Floor: Climate Depot's
Marc Morano Takes on ABC News' Dan Harris

'World News' segment cut skeptic interview from 11 minute
to just 10 seconds, then links it with white supremacists

We’ve all sort of known the media have been in the tank for the global warming alarmist movement. For evidence, look no further than a March 2008 segment that aired on ABC “World News” attacking leading climate skeptic, University of Virginia environmental scientist Professor Emeritus Fred Singer.

And the same culprit behind that 2008 segment, “World News” weekend anchor Dan Harris, was at it again with a piece that aired on May 23 attempting to link climate change skeptics to white supremacists.

But for balance, Harris included a few brief remarks, all of 10 seconds, from Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, a news aggregator website Harris called “aggressive.” But the actual interview Harris conducted with Morano was much more extensive and in depth. Throughout the interview, Harris asked Morano questions, but with premises that weren’t necessarily true.

During the back-and-forth, Harris asked Morano about the “threat” from people who challenged global warming skeptics, the validity that ClimateGate was a real scandal, the charges from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., that ClimateGate exposed fraud, how someone could be skeptical of global warming with such a broad consensus and what Harris deemed as “interesting,” that climate skeptics were susceptible to threats as well. However, 99 percent of that was left out of the segment. What was left out of the ABC News segment? Transcript as follows:

HARRIS: So we’ll just get your reaction, I know this is a complaint you’ve heard before, but of late, climate scientists say they’re seeing a big spike in threatening e-mails, and the FBI is looking into it and the scientists say that it’s stopping them from doing their work for some are quite scared. What is your – what do you think of this alleged trend?

MORANO: Well, first of all, no one advocates violence. There’s always lunatics on any side of any hotly contested debate that will make threats or do threats of physical harm or death threats. No one is advocating that. But, what I will say is these scientists who for decades have been telling people that the debate was over, the science is settled and that we must act now. We must radically alter our lifestyles. We need to make all these changes in order to confront the crisis of global warming.
That’s all been now exposed, especially the lie of consensus as a con job. The idea that all scientists agree with a con job, the idea, you know, that this was the best science that we can have was a con job. So right now, the public is very appropriately venting their anger to the very scientists who spend decades refusing to debate, suppressing dissenting opinion, trying to redefine what peer-reviewed literature meant and using the U.N. political process, which called -- demonized skeptics as “flat-earthers.” And so, the public is appropriately angry at these scientists. And again, no one’s advocating violence but it is refreshing to see these scientists hear from the public, when you go to a used car salesman and you get conned, you get a lemon, you don’t go back to the used car dealer all happy and pleasant. You have a lot of anger and that’s what these scientists are appropriately feeling and that is why I actually published the e-mails, publicly available e-mails, of these scientists on my Web site, Climate Depot.

Brits turn skeptical on Global Warming


by Kevin Spak
25th May 2010


ONLY 26% BELIEVE IN MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE

Campaigners wave a flag to call for action against the climate change, from the roof of the House
of Parliament in central London, with Big Ben's clock tower in background, Sunday, Oct. 11, 2009.
(AP Photo/Akira Suemori)

Britain is suddenly a nation of climate skeptics. In a February poll, just 26% agreed that “climate change is happening now and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41% as recently as November 2009, the New York Times reports. The sudden plunge is probably due in part to the so-called “climategate” emails, heavily covered by the UK media, and in part to the seemingly cold winter.

Of course, two independent panels have found that the “climategate” emailers didn't intentionally distort any data, and the winter was actually the fifth warmest on record, globally. But the perception persists, and has made climate change a non-starter politically. David Cameron barely touched the issue in his campaign, and in a poll, conservative lawmakers ranked it as their bottom priority.


Article courtesy of Newser

>>>> discuss this topic in Newser >>>>

Billionaire Buys Blair Climate Change Advice



25th May 2010


Tony Blair hired by US billionaire
Vinod Khosla for climate change advice

Tony Blair has been hired as an adviser on climate change
by Californian billionaire Vinod Khosla, the latest in a
string of jobs the former prime minister has taken

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair during a visit to Alexandra Avenue Health and Social
Care Centre in Harrow, north London, which he visited as part of the Labour party's
General Election campaign Photo: PA

The agreement will see Tony Blair Associates give strategic advice to Khosla Ventures, a venture capital firm that invests in companies pursuing green technologies. Mr Khosla, who made his fortune as co-founder of computing giant Sun Microsystems, is hoping that Mr Blair's decade on the global stage helps unlock doors for the companies that California-based Khosla Ventures invests in.

The former prime minister, briefly enlisted last month by Gordon Brown to help Labour's flagging election campaign, will lend his name to projects, make introductions and deliver advice. Khosla Ventures has already raised more than $1bn from investors to bet on a range of technologies from solar power to biofuels.

Mr Khosla said that "with Tony's advice and influence' we will create opportunities for entrepreneurs and innovators to devise practical solutions that can solve today's most pressing problems."

It wasn't disclosed how much Mr Blair will be paid for the advice he gives to Khosla. He already has a £2m lobbying post with JP Morgan Chase and a £500,000 job with Zurich Financial.

Mr Blair also charges tens of thousands of pounds for public speaking, received a £4.5m advance for his memoirs and set up Tony Blair Associates to advise foreign countries including Kuwait. In total, he is estimated to have earned at least £15 million since leaving office two and a half years ago.

Mr Blair said that he believes "entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley and beyond will have a tremendous impact on our environmental future."


Article courtesy of  Telegraph.co.uk

Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons


by Elisabeth Rosenthal
24th May 2010

Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet? 

Nowhere has this shift in public opinion been more striking than in Britain, where climate change was until this year such a popular priority that in 2008 Parliament enshrined targets for emissions cuts as national law. But since then, the country has evolved into a home base for a thriving group of climate skeptics who have dominated news reports in recent months, apparently convincing many that the threat of warming is vastly exaggerated. 

A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier. 

And London’s Science Museum recently announced that a permanent exhibit scheduled to open later this year would be called the Climate Science Gallery — not the Climate Change Gallery as had previously been planned. 

“Before, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this climate change problem is just dreadful,’ ” said Jillian Leddra, 50, a musician who was shopping in London on a recent lunch hour. “But now I have my doubts, and I’m wondering if it’s been overhyped.” 

Perhaps sensing that climate is now a political nonstarter, David Cameron, Britain’s new Conservative prime minister, was “strangely muted” on the issue in a recent pre-election debate, as The Daily Telegraph put it, though it had previously been one of his passions. 

And a poll in January of the personal priorities of 141 Conservative Party candidates deemed capable of victory in the recent election found that “reducing Britain’s carbon footprint” was the least important of the 19 issues presented to them. 

Politicians and activists say such attitudes will make it harder to pass legislation like a fuel tax increase and to persuade people to make sacrifices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Garbage In >>>> Faster Garbage Out



by Megan Treacy
24th May 2010


Climate Change Research gets its own Supercomputer


Some of the world's most powerful supercomputers have been working on climate change research and solutions, but their time is split among many of the globe's major issues.  That is changing now that one supercomputer is dedicated solely to running algorithms and calculations in the name of climate change.

Computer-maker Cray has just been awarded $47 million from the DOE to build supercomputers that will be used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  The first computer will be a Cray model XT6 called the Climate Modeling and Research System and will be in the lab's hands by the end of the year.

Cray will supply the lab with another, more powerful computer in 2011 called "Baker" and more high-performance computing gear in 2012.  With the budget assigned to this project, the computers will easily have a speed of a petraflop or greater.


Article courtesy of EcoGeek

>>>> discuss this topic @ EcoGeek >>>>

Heartland Institute’s 4th Annual Conference on Climate Change


by Ross Kaminsky
24th May 2010


Heartland Conference Gave Global
Warming Skeptics Great Ammunition

Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley pulled an enormous calculator out of the inside pocket of his finely tailored English suit, pointed to a formula in the paper he was holding, punched some buttons, and explained, showing me the calculator results, that if we shut down the entire world’s economy for 25 years, the maximum possible impact on global temperatures would be 1 degree centigrade.

That’s what passed for light banter at the Heartland Institute’s 4th Annual Conference on Climate Change, which I had the good fortune to attend for three days last week, meeting a pantheon of climate “skeptic” heroes including Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Steve McIntyre and Roy Spencer, just to name a few of the dozens of speakers hailing from two dozen nations.

Heartland’s president, Joe Bast, set the tone the first night while addressing the meeting’s roughly 800 attendees. Bast quoted a scientist—and I use that term very loosely—from the University of East Anglia, home of the Climategate scandal, who actually wrote in a recently published book: “We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us.” Rarely has there been a more public statement of the mindset of global warmists.

The three-day meeting was composed of meals in a large room for all attendees with four simultaneous interspersed break-out sessions, usually with three or four speakers each, on topics of science, economics or public policy. Because there were four sessions at once, I necessarily missed three quarters of the presentations, but Heartland has already begun posting video coverage and PowerPoint presentations on their web site so people can see what they missed. Pajamas Media (PJTV) also streamed and archived many of the presentations and speeches.

Following are some of the highlights of the various presentations and speeches I attended. My focus tended toward the science-oriented break-out sessions.