Fair Use Note

WARNING for European visitors: European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent. As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies. You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.

Thomas Paine

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

Friday, December 4, 2009

4 Dec - Following the Trail | Climate Fraud and Energy Deprivation

 Reposted from Opit's LinkFest! on My Opera

1 Dec - Following the Trail : Organized Destruction

Tuesday, 1. December 2009, 12:40:13

hatemongering power poverty robbery vandalism
1975 'Endangered Atmosphere' Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born

by Marjorie Mazel Hecht
"Global Warming" is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world's population.The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974.

Mead—whose 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific Islanders was later found to be a fraud—recruited like-minded anti-population hoaxsters to the cause: Sow enough fear of man-caused climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.
A North Carolina conference, which took place Oct. 26-29, 1975, was co-sponsored by two agencies of the U.S. National Institutes of Health: the John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Mead's population-control policy was firmly based in the post-Hitler eugenics movement, which took on the more palatable names of "conservation" and "environmentalism" in the post-World War II period. As Julian Huxley, the vice president of Britain's Eugenics Society (1937-44), had announced in 1946, "even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Huxley was then director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, which removed the role of scientific advances, was drummed into the public consciousness. Nuclear energy, in particular, was under attack, because of its promise of virtually unlimited cheap energy to support a growing population. In the guise of protecting the world from potential terrorism, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibited developing countries from acquiring civilian nuclear technologies.

Leaked Iran Paper Based on Intel That Split IAEA
Excerpts of the internal draft report by the staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published online last week show that the report’s claims about Iranian work on a nuclear weapon is based almost entirely on intelligence documents that have provoked a serious conflict within the agency.
Contrary to sensational stories by the Associated Press and the New York Times, the excerpts on the Web site of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reveal that the IAEA’s Safeguards Department, which wrote the report, only has suspicions – not real evidence – that Iran has been working on nuclear weapons in recent years.
The newly published excerpts make it clear, moreover, that the so-called "Alleged Studies" documents brought to the attention of the agency by the United States five years ago are central to its assertion that Iran had such a program in 2002-03.

Whether those documents are genuine or were fabricated has been the subject of a fierce struggle behind the scenes for many months between two departments of the IAEA.
The draft report says the agency "assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device." But other passages indicate the authors regard such knowledge only as a possibility, based on suspicions rather than concrete evidence.

It says the "necessary information was most likely obtained from external sources and probably modified by Iran." But it cites only the 15-page "uranium metal document" given by the A.Q. Khan network to Iran when it purchased centrifuge designs in 1987.

"Based on the information in the document," it says, "it is possible that Iran has knowledge regarding the contents of a nuclear package."

The IAEA "suspects" that the 15-page document was part of "larger package that Iran may have obtained but which has not yet come to the Agency’s attention," according to the leaked excerpts.

But that document only outlines procedural requirements for casting uranium into hemispheres, not the technical specifications, as the IAEA report of Nov. 18, 2005, noted. No evidence has ever surfaced to challenge the Iranian explanation that Khan’s agents threw in the document after a deal had been reached on centrifuges in an effort to interest Iran in buying the technology for casting uranium.

The IAEA affirmed that it has found no evidence that Iran ever acquired such technology.
The only external "nuclear package" ever reported to have been provided to Iran is a set of flawed technical designs for a "high-voltage block" for a Russian-designed nuclear weapon, which was slipped under the door of the Iranian mission in Vienna by a Russian scientist working for CIA’s Operation Merlin in February 2000.

Israel threatens to wage illegal, "pre-emptive" military attack on Iran 15 July 2008
On Monday July 14th Israel’s senior defence official, General Amos Gilad during an interview with BBC Radio four’s Today programme said that Israel is preparing itself to take military action against Iran and that it would do so if diplomacy fails. The statement came only a day after the Sunday Times revealed that “President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran”.

These threats are being made following reports of Israeli aerial military exercise in the first week of June which involved over 100 F-15 and F-16 fighters and was described by a senior Pentagon official as a dress rehearsal for a military strike on Iranian nuclear plants. In the same week, Shaol Mofaz, Israel’s deputy prime minister publicly stated that if Iran continues with its nuclear programme, Israel “will attack it”.

All of Iran’s nuclear plants are under Safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which after over five years of intrusive inspections has found no evidence of any diversion into a weaponisation programme. In mid June, Dr ElBaradei, the Agency’s Director General threatened to resign if there is any attack on Iran.

Israel’s threats against Iran are in gross violation of the UN Charter which clearly states in Article 2 that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The Bomb Iran Faction: An Existential Question for the Power Elite?
by Gary Leupp (source: CounterPunch)
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
There is clearly a faction of the power elite that is, and has for some years been pressing, for a U.S. military attack on Iran. It is not advocating a war, at least openly, or an occupation of that vast nation; rather, it is advocating an operation similar in concept to the Israeli attack on Iraq’s French-built Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981. In a word, it is both advocating an Israeli-like action and justifying it explicitly as one on behalf of Israel.

That Israeli raid on the Iraqi reactor in 1981, justified at the time by Tel Aviv as an act of “preemptive self-defense,” was condemned by the entire world as an egregious violation of international law. President Ronald Reagan directed the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to vote with other members of the Security Council to condemn the attack. It is a measure of the Israelification of U.S. foreign policy that a quarter-century later Vice President Cheney and the neconservatives who used his office as their general headquarters praised this action and raised preemption to the status of a sacred U.S. military doctrine. What was the attack on Iraq in 2003, to eliminate its (imaginary) weapons of mass destruction, but a preemptive Osiraq raid on crack?

George Bush declared that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction threatening its neighbors, requiring U.S. action (despite lack of UN approval). Iran and Kuwait, recent victims of real Iraqi aggression, stated that they did not feel threatened. Neither did any other bordering state. That left, by implication, Israel. But Israel was not much discussed as an issue during the massive propaganda build-up to the Iraq War. The last thing its proponents wanted was to convey the impression that this was a war for Israel, although that was in fact the only country in the world where the war enjoyed any popularity outside the U.S. (It was, as Joe Klein put it in a 2003 column, “thecasus belli that dare not speak its name.”)

With Iran, it’s very different. Those advocating the attack on Iran don’t mince words: the U.S. must, they tell us, use its armed might to destroy Iran’s nuclear program for Israel. For years now they’ve been telling us that Iran is months away from the bomb and that therefore Israel hovers on the edge of the abyss. Oh, the issue of Iranian nukes threatening Europe is also used to justify the construction of the Polish missile base and Czech tracking radar system which many mainstream analysts find at best strategically futile and diplomatically provocative to Russia. No one in Europe takes an Iranian nuclear threat seriously. And the U.S. rhetoric about those facilities last year following the Russian invasion of Georgia (following the Georgian attack upon South Ossetia), exposed their real purpose.

But to the Chicken Littles crying that the sky is falling, Iran’s nuclear program is an existential issue for Israel, hence for the Jewish people. There is a certain intransigent reasoning here and manifest desperation. One saw it in the screeching editorials of Norman Podhoretz in 2007 praying for Bush to bomb Iran to prevent a “nuclear holocaust.” One saw it in the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece by neocon Iran expert and Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute Michael Ledeen, “Iran and the Problem of Evil” in June 2008 linking the entire history of anti-Semitism culminating in its European fascist varieties with Iranian Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahhabis. And one sees this craziness too in the ceaseless barrage of AIPAC-backed congressional resolutions targeting Iran.

22 August 2008

Statement by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) on Iran's nuclear issue

The XV Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran on 27-30 July 2008 issued a statement in support of Iran's nuclear programme, which has just been circulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In the face of UN Security Council Resolutions on Iran, NAM, which comprises 118 nations (about two thirds of UN member states), has in this statement "reaffirmed the basic and inalienable right of all states to develop research, production and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, without any discrimination and in conformity with their respective legal obligations." It says Iran's choices "in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear technology and its fuel cycle policies must be respected."

Furthermore, the statement demands that "all safeguards and verification issues, including those of Iran, should be resolved within the IAEA framework, and be based on technical and legal grounds."

With respect to the ongoing talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), NAM has "welcomed the continuing cooperation being extended" by Iran and the voluntary steps Iran has undertaken "with a view to resolving all remaining issues." It welcomed the fact that "the IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran." It noted at the same time that "the process for drawing a conclusion with regard to the absence of undeclared material and activities in Iran is an ongoing and time consuming process. In this regard, the Ministers further welcomed the modality agreement reached between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on 21 August 2007 leading to the resolution of the six outstanding issues as a significant step forward towards promoting confidence and a peaceful resolution of the issue."
Dictatorial UN Crushes Media Freedom Before Copenhagen

Betraying its dictatorial and anti-free speech agenda, the United Nations has blocked two-time New York Times number one bestseller and World Net Daily senior staff writer Jerome Corsi from attending the Copenhagen climate conference next week.

Establishment propaganda organs like the Associated Press, who have dutifully echoed the UN’s hokey science on global warming, in spite of the recent climategate scandal which proved that top academics associated with the UN IPCC manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, have been graciously invited to attend the summit, but any media outlet that has questioned the United Nations’ monopoly on universal truth is not welcome.

Despite the fact that Corsi was previously accredited for coverage at the UN, namely for speeches given by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush, he has been banned from attending next week’s Copenhagen confab.
Of course, the real reason why Corsi and WND were banned from the event is because they have not prostrated themselves in front of the UN as a servile echo chamber for global warming brainwashing and propaganda, unlike organizations like the Associated Press who have profusely dothed their cap in support of the UN’s ceaseless drive to convince the world that the “debate is over” on global warming, despite the fact that temperatures have been falling for over 10 years.

The Copenhagen event is also being billed as a great leap forward for the implementation of a global government. Since Corsi and World Net Daily have consistently highlighted the anti-democratic nature of the march towards a new world order, their skepticism is obviously something the UN is trying to neutralize.

Will India’s Proposal to Invest Billions in Iran Undermine US Sanction Drive? Is Turkey the Winner?
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s ‘zero problems with neighbors’ policy has boosted the country’s influence in the region, Newsweek reports. AA photo

In an article titled “Triumph of the Turk,” Newsweek’s Owen Matthews and Christopher Dickey have written that Turkey was the real winner of the war of Iraq.

“The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 could be viewed as a last-ditch attempt by the world’s sole remaining superpower to impose order on the region. Instead, the net result was to create a power vacuum, leaving Iraq too weak to counterbalance its neighbors and threatening to destabilize the whole map,” the authors wrote in the Dec. 7 international edition of the magazine.

“Turkey did its best to stay out of that fight, refusing even to let U.S. forces cross Turkish soil for the 2003 invasion. Still, it’s the Turks – not the Iranians, as many observers claim – who are now emerging as the war’s real winners,” Matthews and Dickey wrote. “In economic terms, Turkey is running neck and neck with Iran as Iraq’s biggest trading partner, even as most U.S. businesses sit helplessly on the sidelines. And in terms of regional influence, Turkey has no rival.”
The weekly quoted Philip Gordon, Obama’s point man on Turkey at the State Department, as saying that there are “more points of disagreement than of agreement” between Washington and Ankara.

“What scares Washington most is the suspicion that Ankara’s new attitude may be driven less by the practical pursuit of Turkey’s national interest than by thinly concealed Islamist ideology *,” the writers commented. “In Turkey, the cumulative anti-U.S. resentment peaked in 2003 when the Bush administration pressed Ankara to let U.S. forces invade Iraq through Turkish territory – a plan that was derailed only at the last moment by a parliamentary revolt. That was the low point of Turkey’s relationship with the United States. But it was also the start of Turkey’s rise to economic recovery and regional influence, and the beginning of a new kind of relationship with Washington.”

Added Matthews and Dickey: “Indeed, Turkey’s new standing in the region has a chance of transforming the country into something far more valuable to Washington than a subservient tool or proxy. The Turks say they’re seeking to become what Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu calls a ‘partner to solve the region’s problems.’….

( * Never pass up a chance to do some 'drive-by hatemongering' )

Obscuring the right question behind the wrong question
( More flagrant anti-Muslim regulations : showing the virtue of misinformed hatred by example; the Crusades' terrible costs long forgotten. )
Global Warming And Glacier Melt-Down Debate: A Tempest In A Teapot?
” – A Guest Weblog By Madhav L Khandekar
Dr Madhav Khandekar is a former research scientist from Environment Canada and is an expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Documents. Khandekar has been in the fields of weather & climate for over 52 years. He has agreed to write this very informative guest weblog.
The debate over global warming & “rapid” melting of world-wide glaciers and in particular the Himalayan glaciers is once again heating up.
Vijay Kumar Raina, a senior glaciologist and an avid mountaineer himself, has carefully analyzed some 20 glaciers to document retreat as well as advance of some of the glaciers and has cautiously concluded that it is premature to make a statement that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating abnormally because of global warming. The Indian Minister of Environment Mr Jairam Ramesh hailed the report as an excellent latest study on glaciers and tacitly agreed with the conclusion.
Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University Peterborough Ontario Canada ) who has analyzed shrinkage rates of many glaciers also refutes the IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking faster than in any other part of the world. A recent news item from Science ( V 326 13 November 2009, p.924) cites Prof Jeffrey Kargel’s ( University of Arizona USA) study which suggests that many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains ( straddling India and Pakistan) have stabilized or undergone an aggressive advance in recent years.
Glaciers in the Himalayas, over the past 100 years, behave in contrasting ways. Some glaciers (e.g. Sonapani) have retreated by as much as 500m in the last 100 years, while others ( e.g. Kangriz) have retreated just by an inch or so during the same period.
Most glaciologists now agree that it is the moisture depletion, not temperature increase that is the primary cause for glacier retreat.
The depleting ice cap on Mt Kilimanajaro (in east Africa, near equator) is often cited as an “evidence” of global warming, however an excellent paper by Kaser et al ( 2004, Int’l J of Climatology) documents how the peculiar geography of the Mountain together with gradual decline of moisture at mid-tropospheric level since the late nineteenth century has resulted in depletion of its ice cap.

The Real Problem With the Climate Science Emails
by Megan McArdle
With Obama heading to Copenhagen, where he's expected to pledge some pretty big cuts in US carbon emissions, the ClimateGate story is an economic story as well as a political one. I said before that I don't think the emails refuted the notion that AGW is real, and happening. I still don't--the fact is, everything we know about carbon dioxide indicates that it has a greenhouse effect, because it is more efficient at passing sunlight through to the earth, than at allowing that energy to reradiate back into space as heat.
What's at stake is the degree of warming associated with our carbon dioxide emissions. In particular, to what extent the earth's many complex and not necessarily well understood feedback systems may mitigate (or exacerbate) temperature increases.
A Declan McCullough story suggests a more disturbing possibility: the CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish.The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks, and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data. These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now replicate its own past findings.
AJ Strada November 25, 2009 11:54 AM

" I still don't--the fact is, everything we know about carbon dioxide indicates that it has a greenhouse effect, because it is more efficient at passing sunlight through to the earth, than at allowing that energy to reradiate back into space as heat."

Sorry, but the only 'fact' I can detect is you are not a scientist. Atoms and Molecules do not 'pass sunlight, and there is no evidence CO2 hinders the radiation to space to any significant amount. NASA missions measuring radiation into space have seen the levels rise with temp and drop with temp - no dampening in the radiation. CO2 also is only a fraction of the so called GHG family coming in at less than 4%. The dominating 'gas' is H2O - aka water.

Also, the CRU data released indicates that today is not much warmer (and in many places cooler) than the 1940's. Which pretty much blows the whole CO2 hypothesis out of the water (so to speak).

Alexander Goristal
November 30, 2009 8:54 PM

I see that I was beaten to the punch in offering Dr. Zorita's statement. Ah, well. Here is a link to a paper that offers a contrarian analysis of the (alleged) CO2 contribution:

"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics"
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later

Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X,
c World Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.

Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universit¨at Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstraße 3
D-38106 Braunschweig Federal Republic of Germany

Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg Federal Republic of Germany


" Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse e
ffect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarifi ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse e
ffects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned di
fference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifi ed."


How To Hide Global Cooling: Delete The “1940’s Blip”
As I and others dive into the CRU data dump we learn more and more about how the Global Warming conspiracy was pulled off. We now know all you need to do to pull this off is statistically cover up true data that tells the wrong story with ‘bad’ data that tells the story you want to have told. Then you compute some statistical correlation factors (which mean you have ‘confidence’ the data is correlated, not ‘proof’ there is a physical connection) and a whole bunch of people with a high school grasp of science run with the new story you want told.

Rinse and Repeat.

In this theatre of the absurd, a couple of stories had to be told to make the case for out of control global warming. First, you have to cool off history because it has been as warm as it is now many times before, and that does not fit the plot. This is where we see issues related to the Medieval Warming period, but also about the ‘1940’s blip’ in the CRU emails - which turns out to be a real story killer. So after you cool off history, you have to then deal with the fact that global temps are now cooling off even more! So what do you do?

One line in one email from the charlatan Phil Jones at CRU caught my eye and I have been pondering it while I have been looking at the CRU raw temp data. Here it is:

Phil Jones tells Mike Mann and others how he made his data show warming:

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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Let’s think about this for a moment. To make it look warm now, Jones added back in the real temp data. The data shows it is cooler now than just recently, yet we put in real data to warm it back up? This could only mean the series before 1980 and 1960 must have been massaged a lot to really cool off something prior to that time.

RU Kidding November 25, 2009 2:34 PM

The real problem with ClimateGate is that it renders the entire argument worthless, because there is no way to know deception from fact. It no longer matters whether climatologists present real scientific fact or not, whether their models are adequate or not, their credibility is forever gone.

Once science crossed the seductive threshold of politics, its credibility had to be called into question. Once they conducted themselves in action as venal as demonstrated in the Climate Gate e-mails, any credibility was forever shot to hell.

"Little Ice Age" 12,800 Years Ago Was Triggered in Months (not decades)
William Patterson, from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, and his colleagues have shown that switching off the North Atlantic circulation can force the Northern hemisphere into a mini 'ice age' in a matter of months. Previous work has indicated that this process would take tens of years.
The 'Big Freeze', which lasted around 1300 years. Geological evidence shows that the Big Freeze was brought about by a sudden influx of freshwater, when the glacial Lake Agassiz in North America burst its banks and poured into the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. This vast pulse, a greater volume than all of North America's Great Lakes combined, diluted the North Atlantic conveyor belt and brought it to a halt. Their isotope record from the end of the Big Freeze shows that it took around two centuries for the lake and climate to recover, rather than the abrupt decade or so that ice cores indicate. "This makes sense because it would take time for the ocean and atmospheric circulation to turn on again," says Patterson.

Looking ahead to the future Patterson says there is no reason why a 'Big Freeze' shouldn't happen again. "If the Greenland ice sheet melted suddenly it would be catastrophic."

4 Dec - Following the Trail Sequel | More Climategate

Friday, 4. December 2009, 21:34:14

energy_policy, carbon_credits, hoax, Copenhagen ...
Dr. John v. Kampen has made a post about Climategate which includes a video.

Prof. Ian Plimer - The Missing Science... a final word on the nonsense about climate change

Climate related sciences have a huge problem. 'ClimateGate', the hacking of a database from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the UK, exposing thousands of e-mails from academics full of recommendations to falsify data and to use 'tricks' to keep the honey pot going for those who had jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon, the biggest political rip-off attempt ever made in human history, has taken the world by surprise. The scandal in which even the UNO is involved throws a deep dark shadow over other sciences as well. How trustworthy are outcomes of sciences, often written in unclear jargon and mathematical abacadabra, if at all exposed? Do I need to refer to the assumed swine-flu "pandemia" (with only several dozens quasi-related deaths worldwide), the accompanying political inoculation hysteria as well as old 'trick' of scare-mongering, to start us doubting and asking questions?! Prof. Ian R. Plimer, wants to clean up the climate mess in his book "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science" by giving the full facts, not only the 'atmospheric ones'. The latter being part and parcel of the incredible climate hoax. Whether he succeeds in it, depends on studying his all related themes encompassing, 500 pages long work. It is a bestseller already.

Backtracking from Opit's LinkFest! on Blogger to
1 Dec - The Fight for Head Room

University in climate flap details inquiry reach
Outside reviewer named, will eye e-mails for data 'manipulation'
The British university at the center of what climate skeptics are calling "Climategate" on Thursday named an outside reviewer and detailed what would be investigated.

The University of East Anglia said Sir Muir Russell, until recently vice-chancellor at the University of Glasgow, will investigate whether scientists at its prestigious Climate Research Unit fudged data on global warming.

Hundreds of e-mails and other data stolen from university computers and then leaked online late last month have been seized upon by skeptics as proof that scientists conspired to hide evidence that global warming was not as strong as generally believed.

Climate talk collapse better for planet: NASA's Hansen The planet would be better off if the forthcoming Copenhagen climate change talks ended in collapse, according to a leading U.S. scientist who helped alert the world to dangers of global warming.

Any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed, said James Hansen, that it would be better for future generations if we were to start again from scratch.

"I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it's a disaster track," Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, told the Guardian newspaper.

"The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing then will spend years trying to determine exactly what that means."

On Wednesday China and other big developing nations rejected core targets for a climate deal proposed by the Danish hosts in a draft text, such as halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

MIT Team Asks: Is Increase in Greenhouse Gas Part of Natural Cycle?
A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions

More On The Climategate Source Code

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

Jon Stewart Talks Climategate 

The Canadians who changed the climate debate 

1 comment:

  1. I always knew Julian Huxley was a eugenicist, but ol' Maggie Mead is news to me John.

    It doesn't surprise me any though.

    Keep your seat J and keep us informed!