East Anglia University

Dark Green XVIII: The IPCC’s All-Seeing-Eye (2)

By M.K. Styllinski

All_seeing_eye2 © infrakshun


To reiterate, tearing strips off the IPCC is not some exercise in criticising for its own sake but to highlight where science has been politicised and corrupted. Similarly, there is obviously a huge need to care for our environment and everything else in this precious biosphere. We cannot do this until we have climate science firmly outside activism and where ecological conservation has been innoculated against corporatism and Establishment influence.

If we go back to the Climategate 2.0 scandal, we can see that some of the emails relating to the IPCC are quite illuminating on these points. For example, Professor Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona’s Department of Geosciences deciding what shouldn’t go into the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4):

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change.”

Commenting on another section of an IPCC report he states:

“Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?” [1]

Or Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University searching for a suitable hurricane paper that dovetails into his beliefs and thus the IPCC AR4 report:

“Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC [Tropical Cyclone] activity.” [2]

Each of the climate reports (CRs) are weighty, no more so than the 2007 report at 3,000 pages. No one is going to wade through all of that, least of all the sound-bite media. What is more concerning and goes straight to the heart of why science plays so little part in climate change policy, is the IPCC executive summaries which it prepares for the smaller reports that make up the CRs as a whole. Not more than 35 pages in length, this is called “Summary for Policymakers” which gives you an idea how the IPCC wants these summaries to be used, even though the depth of understanding and contextual analysis may be missing.

Scientists are tasked with drafting these documents which are then passed on to those who meticulously pore over each line so that a cleansed and white-washed copy can be presented for inspection by a clueless media and public. So, these will not be scientific documents at all. These “cleansing” meetings are not open to anyone but IPCC staff and suitably vetted observers from environmental groups or organisations. The media are not permitted entry. A core group of IPCC bureaucrats decide what goes into the reports.

A Climategate 2.0 email by Tim Carter of the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) and Climate Change Programme, writing to IPCC authors seems to confirm this fact even within the AGW brethren:

“Regarding the phrase ‘IPCC position’? Would it be wise to check that McCarthy /Watson have the same understanding as we do.”

And the reply:

[TC] You could try, but it has been tricky getting anyone to make statements about anything. It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” [3]

Governments and organisations like the IPCC are complicit in the cover up and manipulation of scientific facts. Scientists who contribute to the CRs are being played and used for a political agenda and the short-term greed and the MSM has cheer-led this subterfuge from the beginning. A summary document given out as a press release to the world’s media and public has been put through the politician, bureaucrat and diplomat’s PR machine, vetted to make sure that it conforms to the AGW paradigm in secret and without oversight.

Devoid of facts but replete with conjecture, the media simply parrots the information and goes back to sleep. Indeed, regarding the draft reports the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri openly stated that they are altered, stating: “we necessarily have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.” [4]This means regardless of the validity (or not) of expert science, the authors are side-lined and what they have written is tweaked to give unanimous support to the political agenda, an agenda that has been crystallized within the IPCC for more than twenty years.

vendetta3IPCC as authoritarian climate science?

Scientists within the IPCC also have misgivings, such as Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. Commenting in a Climategate 2.0 email, he states: “I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in – and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.” [5]

There’s an understatement to beat them all.

One of the holy grails of climate change science is computer modelling which has been responsible for much of the perceived advances in recent years. As we saw with the Club of Rome, the nature of computer modelling is fraught with assumption yet fully embraced as if the world operated on perfectly plotted principles. Evolution of any system is defined by its creative unpredictability a mathematical complexity of non-linear and often chaotic events far from equilibrium. In climate modelling a virtual world is set up that seems to be insulated from the “flies-in-the ointment” that may appear in long-term predicative analysis. The opinions of modellers then become a new science divorced from the observational inquiry. As LaFramboise asserts, the climate modelling science of opinion: “… is a recipe for tunnel-vision. It is group think waiting to happen,” and yet another example of the “group mind” steamrolling the creative sparks of objective thought which are not only needed in science but are essential to its healthy functioning so that it remains free from a political and belief-driven consensus.

No rigorous evaluation of climate modelling by independent parties has taken place. (This is presumably due to the love affair our culture is undergoing in relation to technology in general). Instead, the IPCC asks the same modellers to evaluate their own work. This is hardly scientific. Lead author roles for modellers is not the way forward, as there is little chance of them coming to the conclusion that climate modelling may be barking up the wrong tree. Since no true cold-blooded analysis of these models has taken place there is no way to know if they are even useful.

LaFramboise has also discovered that sections in the attribution chapter of the IPCC CRs are also written by climate modellers, the most crucial part of the report which decides the direction of global warming and if it is a man-made or natural cycle. Christopher Monckton and Garth W. Paltridge discovered that is wasn’t just the unreliability of climate modelling that is cause for concern but a strange coded bureaucracy that goes with it. The authors point out:

The big danger is that, with the increasing model complexity and cost, the number of truly independent climate models around the world is decreasing. This is because great slabs of the computer code of a model are often exchanged between research groups so as to avoid writing the stuff from scratch. This sort of exchange satisfies a general bureaucratic tendency to abhor what seems to be a duplication of effort. The net result must surely be a natural decrease in the spread of total feedback over the various remaining models and a consequent joy at the apparent tightening of the range of forecast temperature rise – a tightening that may have nothing at all to do with an improvement in the representation of the physics. [6]

Climate modelling does not ensure the validity of human-influenced global warming claims but rather fits neatly into circumscribed beliefs waiting in the wings. That does not mean to say that global warming is not a reality in some form, but to leave it to climate modelling to define all the parameters by which we can make informed decisions is dangerous because the solutions will lean hugely towards the overarching agenda explored previously. After all, even a minor tweak in feedback representations covering temperature rises can drastically alter a given a picture which can stretch from 1 degree celsius to infinity and beyond. That means that only thing we can be sure of is the fact that the much trumpeted “consensus” on global warming remains a myth.

Global_Climate_Model

“Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To ‘run’ a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points.” (wikipedia)

Climate modelling also fails an important test when it comes to CO2 and temperature increase. In the 2007 IPCC report it even admits that the models do not seem to show the extra heat that should be there if we are to believe the theory. But they believe that the models are still correct and somehow the data out there in the real world is at fault. [7]

And here we come to a few important points relating to climate modelling and the temperature rise hysteria that the media and most academic establishments take for granted. Firstly, and very simply: Positive feedback = the reinforcement or magnification of disturbance. Secondly, Negative feedback = disturb the balance – a counteraction occurs. Thirdly, we have the greenhouse gas theory and the doubling of CO2 which might cause some warming of one degree celsius over a century. But there is the assumption that the climate responds to minute changes resulting in amplification of these changes by hundreds of percent. Positive feedback. But negative feedback is the dominant factor in almost every process in nature yet in climate science positive feedback is assumed to the culprit. Law professor Jason Johnston found in his study that: “climate catastrophe is not an “output of climate analysis but an input.” [8] In other words, the science is based on an assumption with no mention of the positive-negative feedback dichotomy anywhere in the reports.

LaFramboise points out the inevitable conclusion that:

“… the only reason climate models tell us we are at risk of eco apocalypse is because the climate modellers believe our climate system behaves in a manner that is opposite to the way most natural systems behave. If the modellers had split themselves into two groups, half programming-in negative feedback and half programming-in positive feedback, the first group of models would predict nothing alarming.” [9]

Yet, when we add this to protective bureaucracy, conflict of interest in both journals, media and activist-scientists in educational institutions and further include those IPCC personnel who “systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties,” in IPCC reports, it is a clarion call for major change. [10]

And major change is the selling point at UN conferences. But rather than practical and preventative solutions emerging from such meetings, there is a lot of talk and a lot of political posturing with non-elected representatives of civil society pushing a consensus that doesn’t exist, except for those with a political agenda. What does happen is the organisation and allocation of mountains of CASH. The UN conferences in this respect are like a vast auction of clamouring NGOs and eco-activist groups seeking a top-up or first time injection for the cause, but it is the green of the dollar bill that informs the climate industry more than anything else.

dollarbillClimate Change is a multi-billion dollar industry

As we have seen, the United Nations and the UNEP are green-dipped in the New Age tank so that the various beliefs stick like parasites to the decision-making process. Not to mention the corruption and sexual abuse scandals which have dogged the UN for years. When you have a vast bureaucracy and a constant stream of money flowing into and out of the body sitting on top a system which has virtually no accountability any issue – no matter how noble – is going to be contaminated by politics, power and greed. It is about as basic a human fable as it gets. Add ponerology to the mix and you have a UN with its charters and declarations which work on paper only.

Like the perpetual rubber-stamping of the IPCC and other agencies, it is a symbiotic relationship of collusion rather than transparency. If you are not the most morally responsible individual and the rules do not apply to you by virtue of your status and you know you can get away with all kinds of back-handers and bribes, the system actively encourages you to maintain that trajectory. This is so often the nexus point for international decisions that determine the fate of nations. If there is no accountability, why should it be any different for UN bureaucrats who juggle the money flow?

***

We have barely touched the surface regarding the problems within the IPCC. What should be clear by now is that it is not a scientific body but a political one fused with the beliefs of scientist-activists. This was illustrated by a Climategate 2.0 email from Professor Heinz Wanner of the University of Bern. On reporting his National Academy of Sciences panel critique of Michael Mann to the media: “I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.” [11]
In the same way, politicians and environmental activists determine the form, content and outcome of IPCC reports that have been seen as the gospel truth for decades. Political discourse from more than 100 countries determines the direction. After all, it is worth potentially billions with a lot of academic posts, consultancies and companies riding on the AGW slipstream. Sounding the global warming bells in a variety of alarmist ways feeds into multiple agendas which have nothing to do with the truth. Consequently, to speak ill of AGW is to commit the outrageous sin of attacking the religious zeal of green militancy that has had a long and dark history.

wfarmsbirdsBirds flying into a wind turbines. Symbolic of IPCC climate science?

Is there any possibility that the IPCC can promote the same “radical shift” and “New value system” within its own ranks and which it insists society should adopt? Can it clean its own house to become the body of open-minded science that is so desperately needed?

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer believes thinks the organisation can never be fixed for the simple reason:

“… that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.” [12]

The organisation has embraced the same constructs that every co-opted movement has done in the past, whilst avoiding the opportunity to lead by example and follow the principles it continually demands from society. [13]The inherent danger of science and political ecology is what historian Anna Bramwell calls “a value-saturated creed” which acts like an open door for the movement to become fully ponerised. [14] Science is infused not with objectivity and a quest for truth but with subjective desires peculiar to a historical mind-set of authoritarianism, regardless of the root values present at its inception. This is the story of ponerology.

The legion of World State rulers in waiting would be very happy that a scientific elite is redefining human values for us. The myth that governments respond to the will of the people has never been clearer. The real choices and thus the potential solutions have been denied to us all.  As the Under-Secretary to one time UN Chief Kurt Waldheim, Brian Urquhart declared: “The worst way to make an argument is by reason and good information. You must appeal to emotions and to their fears of being made to appear ridiculous.” [15]Irony aside, so it is with the IPCC and so many other connected bodies inhabited by the same men and women willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.

The IPCC plays an extremely important role in the disseminating information on the science of climate change. If we cannot place our trust and faith in institutions who set themselves up to discover new solutions to some of the most pressing problems of our time then it means precious resources of creative energy is being wasted and re-directed into collective gutters of non-action and short-term gain. It becomes yet another example of pathological infection striking at the heart of what we consider to be our mentors, protectors and pioneers; expert minds dedicated to improving humanities lot. That means acknowledging the danger that ecology, environmental activism and any scientific discipline exposed to ponerological influences, must come under the same scrutiny.

If a deep love of Nature and the environment can historically sit side by side with the most virulent form of fascism then it behooves us all to guard against its all too easy re-appearance.

Pol Pot, the Cambodian dictator was responsible for the deaths of 21% of his country’s people.  He was also a former geography teacher.


Notes

[1] Email #4755 and email #1922 Jonathan Overpeck http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[2] Email #0170 Phil Jones http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[3] email #3066 Tim Carter. http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[4] ‘Food, Water Security threatened by Warming UN Panel says’ by Alex Morales,Bloomberg, February 16, 2011.
[5] email #0419 Mike Hulme. http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[6] p.28; The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming by Garth W. Paltridge. Published by Taylor Trade Publishing, 2010. ISBN-10: 1589795482
[7] op. cit. LaFramboise (p.69)
[8] ‘Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination’ by Jason S. Johnston, Law University of Pennsylvania Law School | “Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming. The only criticism that legal scholars have had of the story told by this group of activist scientists – what may be called the climate establishment – is that it is too conservative in not paying enough attention to possible catastrophic harm from potentially very high temperature increases.”
“This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change. A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative. The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss.
Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design. Such misimpressions uniformly tend to support the case for rapid and costly decarbonization of the American economy, yet they characterize the work of even the most rigorous legal scholars. A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested.”
[9] op.cit La Framboise (p.70)
[10] op. cit. Johnston.
[11] Email #1104 Heinz Wanner http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[12] ‘Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research’ November 23rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
[13] ‘Western Lifestyle unsustainable says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri’ The Guardian, June 20, 2011.
[14] The Fading of the Greens, by Anna Bramwell, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1994.(p.28)
[15] ‘The UN and Its Discontents’: An Exchange April 26, 1990 Shirley Hazzard, reply by Brian Urquhart The New Yorker March 15, 1990 issue.

Advertisements

Dark Green XII: Climate Change: Divide and Conquer all over again…(2)

By M.K. Styllinski

… the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS [American Physical Society] before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. … I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.”

– Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus UCSB


Jumping into the climate change debate is like voluntarily submerging yourself in the quicksand of dogma and propaganda. Once you are in, it can be difficult to find your way out; the more you struggle to maintain a grasp of current scientific principles the more easy it is to be sucked under. A helping hand can come from one camp or another, only to realise they’re actually trying to push you further down into the mire. Such is the murky world of climate science and commentary.

Despite all that, it is possible to extricate ourselves from all the obfuscation, politicisation and horrible academic egos on show. Not easy, but possible. What needs to be born in mind is Cui Bono? Who benefits from all this confusion and suppression of information? The global warming industry and the panic, urgency and fear promoted by outfits like the ICLEI serve to embolden UN Agenda 21 and its various tributaries. It doesn’t matter that some form of climate change is real, it is the overall engineering of the crisis to support and agenda that has nothing to do with climate science itself – that is the key point to remember.

Climate science is informed by the same principles of our official culture, which means it undoubtedly suffers from the exact same self-serving beliefs, and overarching agendas we found in UN Agenda 21 and politics in general. When human nature is immersed in such endemic pathology then we have to be extremely suspicious of any science which is given the wholesale support of the Establishment and their bull-horning lackeys. The same can be said of the fossil fuel industry, yet this is all part of the Divide and Rule formula.

Climate change science and the influences that contributed to the evolution of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) can be traced back to the early 1800’s and the First Industrial Revolution. This radical change resulted in a large increase in green-house gas emissions and a spike in population growth due to better agriculture and sanitation. The traditional view of a stable system, self-regulated by natural feedback dominated. By the end of the 19th Century a handful of scientists had suggested that a change in the level of carbon dioxide gas might cause an ice age or global warming, but most believed such theories were impossible.

By the 1930’s, enough data had been accumulated to suggest that the planet was undergoing a warming trend. As the 1960’s approached, meteorologists found the opposite: that this trend had now changed to a marked cooling in just a couple of decades. Climate change began to be seen as infinitely complicated with some scientists preferring the warming model and others predicting a continuance of the cooling model. Now, this is where it gets interesting …

During the early 1970s and all the environmental hullabaloo which arrived on the squeaky, donkey-driven cart of Club of Rome science, the green-house gas issue was enough to push most scientists over to the idea that continued warming would prevail. The larger natural cycle of cooling was displaced in favour of the apparent evidence in ice flows, tree rings and other natural phenomena to support that the world was indeed warming. In fact, the summary of warming-cooling oscillations appeared in 30 year trends dated as follows:

  • 1882 – 1910 Cooling
  • 1910 – 1944 Warming
  • 1944 – 1975 Cooling
  • 1975 – 2001 Warming.

And from around 2009-2010 indications are that the planet has started to cool again, and will probably continue to do so until about 2030. If these fluctuations are correct, then it merely confirms what has been happening for a long time. [1]

If we go back to what is known as the Medieval Warm Period beginning at AD 1000 – 1300 it was virtually a Mediterranean climate in Europe as well as other regions around the world which were experiencing a significant rise in temperature.[2]By the time we reached the beginning of the 1400s we were fighting freezing temperatures of what is called the “Little Ice Age” which lasted to the end of the 1700’s. Since then temperatures have been rising steadily at 0.5°C per century since about 1750, as a process of recovery from that mini ice age. [3]Once these effects have passed, the evidence suggests that the temperature will return to the Medieval Warm Period, continuing a natural cycle which had been repeated during what is called the Roman Optimum and in the Holocene optimum. [4]

The Maunder Minimum is the term used for the period beginning 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became extremely rare. The period happened to land right in the middle and coldest part of the Little Ice Age giving plenty of evidence that there is a strong causal relationship between low sunspot activity and the rise of cold, hard winters. [5]Solar UV output is also much more variable over the duration of a solar cycle than was previously thought linking terrestrial climate effects such as cold or warm winters according to that data. The effects of that vast ball of unimaginably white-hot fire the sun, has been strangely overlooked in much of mainstream climate science. As the Sun’s core is so hot that a piece of it the size of a pinhead would give off enough heat to kill a person 160 kilometres away, one would think perhaps it plays a small if not highly significant part in climate change science and in ways which may not fit conveniently into the current paradigm. [6]There is still much to be learned about the influence of the sun on climate change along with a host of other factors including cosmic rays.

sun_jove_earth_size_compareSource: Ethan Siegal Remember How Tiny We All Are

You think, just maybe … the Sun has more to do with Climate Change than we think?

Since the spectre of acid rain didn’t cut the mustard in the 1980s, carbon dioxide emissions has taken over as the stimulant to AGW hysteria, though there is still no compelling evidence that an increase in human produced CO2 levels is the main culprit of global warming. But one example, in a sea of refutation, critique and counter-critique is the discovery of “spurious bias” in satellite and modelling evidence as a result of “exaggerated estimates” and “faulty assumptions,” where it was found that: “… the new sensitivity estimate also suggests that warming over the last century cannot be explained by human greenhouse gas emissions alone, but instead might require a mostly natural explanation.” [7]

Another paper studied the IPCC’s projections for the mean global temperature anomaly and found the measurements to be incorrect, with global temperatures “even less than the projections with emission commitment held constant at year 2000”. As the Professor stated at the end of his findings: “It is crucial that public policy be based on facts. CO2 driven global warming is not supported by the data.” [8] As we shall see later on, the IPCC is about as far away from facts and impartiality as it is possible to be. Yet, this is the temple to which most climate scientists bow down in unquestioning homage.

Human caused CO2 emission levels did appear on the scene before about 1850 and were entirely insignificant when compared to current levels until after 1945. So, why the insistence that humans have contributed to a significant degree in destabilising the world’s climate?

One of the biggest examples of climate science controversy was the temperature graph given the nickname of the ‘’hockey stick,’ apparently showing a stable temperature from the year 1000 AD until the 20th century after which it began climb dramatically. The flat part of the line reminded people of the handle of an ice-hockey, while the upstick resembled the blade. It was appropriated by the IPCC and liberally used in its 2001 reports. It also featured heavily in Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

hocketst1The ‘hockey stick.’ (IPCC)

The problem with the climate activist viewpoint is that the studies carried out to check the veracity of the hockey stick data were carried out by the same small clique of researchers, using similarly flawed statistical techniques, and/or relying on the same dubious sources of data, something which happens quite often. It is therefore not a surprise that data is sought to reinforce beliefs rather than to find the truth. [9] The Hockey Stick revelation was made by a young American geophysicist named Michael Mann who had just been granted his PhD. Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick published a paper questioning the statistical methods used in the Mann et al. paper showing that the shape of the graph was determined mainly by faulty tree-ring data. Indeed, it was even discovered that the computer algorithm Mann used was so inaccurate and biased that hockey sticks could be produced from random noise! Their criticisms were upheld in 2006 by two expert committees: a US congressional panel headed by statistician Edward Wegman and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Both parties heavily criticised the science behind the Hockey stick data yet it was still being used in IPCC’s 2007 climate reports with carefully “cherry-picked” data all of which were produced by Mann’s colleagues. [10]

A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREE RING PROXIES

With 95% confidence intervals (in red) shows a non-tree-ring temperature reconstruction published by Craig Loehle and Hu McCulloch in 2008, show a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. The last point on the graph represents 1935. The temperature today is still below that during the MWP. (scienceandpublicpolicy.org)

Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Hans von Storch also offered substantial contribution to the critical storm, though the former authors have remained the more commonly quoted amongst climate sceptics. [11]

The way Michael Mann was given superstar status was bizarre to say the least. He was suddenly clasped to the bureaucratic bosom of the IPCC and the recipient of grants which fell like pennies from heaven. This was despite the fact that the institution never bothered to check the data, presumably because he fit so well into the preconceived beliefs rather than objective science the IPCC claimed to espouse. Consequently, Mann became  a new source of propaganda-fuelled cash injection.

Or in other words:

“If you look in GeoRef, which is the bibliography for publications in geology, you will find 485 papers on the Medieval Warm Period and you’ll find 1,413 on the Little Ice Age. So the total number of papers in the geologic literature is 1,900. And we’re expected to believe that one curve [based on] tree rings is going to overturn all of those 1,900 papers? I don’t think so.” [12]

So said Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, with B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Washington and who has studied global climate change for five decades. He has written many books, published more than 185 papers in professional journals, and presented 30 research papers at international meetings in 15 countries. He seems qualified to comment on the hockey stick temperature graph, which presented a totally new view of the temperature record, counter to the one long accepted by scholars. Not that this is necessarily indicative of skulduggery at this stage, nor should unorthodox contributions ever be dismissed, but it should give rise to caution at the very least. When coupled with the political interests within the climate change industry as a whole, it becomes highly suspicious. Indeed, as it stands, any departure from the Green Establishment line of AGW merits a tenacious orthodoxy which isn’t about to budge.

Former President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus describes the set of beliefs which make up the AGW, global warming “consensus” as “… an ideology, if not a religion.” He further states: “It lives independently on the science of climatology. Its disputes are not about temperature, but are part of the ‘conflict of ideologies’. Temperature is used and misused in these disputes. The politicians, the media and the public – misled by the very aggressive propaganda produced by the adherents of the global warming doctrine – do not see this. It is our task to help them to distinguish between what is science and what is ideology.” [13]

Which will be a tall order since science is about as far as it can be from being impartial and objective thanks to AGW supporters compromising much of the internet sources of information. Anyone perusing climate science articles on internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia would be forgiven for thinking that there is a scientific consensus on global warming.

Then there is the issue of “Climategate” which had climate activists scurrying around applying damage limitation editorials left, right and centre. It’s not difficult to see why.  In November 2009 The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) server was hacked at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by persons unknown. Possibly looking for maximum media coverage just prior to the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, over 4,000 emails and computer files were copied and uploaded to various locations on the Internet. Over 5,000 emails were hacked again in 2011 by a possible whistleblower calling himself “FOIA” and posted on his website. This was called “Climategate 2.0,” apparently timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original Climategate leak and with the United Nations Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa.

The correspondence included a host of characters but most notably Professors Phil Jones and Dr. Mick Kelly. Jones happens to be a prominent contributor to the IPCC and has worked on temperature records of the last 1000 years with Michael Mann, of hockey stick fame. The unit has received research grants totalling £2,725,000.00 since 1990. Other emails included frequent appearances by Tom Wigley, a climate scientist for the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and a major contributor to climate and carbon-cycle models; Kevin E. Trenberth head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and lead author for IPCC reports for 1995, 2001 and 2007; Thomas R. Karl Director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Centre; James Hansen Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Gavin Schmidt founder of the RealClimate website and contributor to ocean and climate models. There were many other scientists also involved in the scandal.

It was a gift for climate sceptics and no doubt those in the fossil fuel lobby happy to ride on the confusion and noise created. Though this did not disprove the theory of AGW, for many climate sceptics this was cast-iron proof that there was indeed a conspiracy to manipulate and cover up data. This was a serious blow however, to the credibility of AGW research and a vindication from many other scientists that the field was compromised by politics. Unsurprisingly, the CRU rejected the accusations and tried desperately to cultivate a business-as-usual approach. Clinging to their academic life-jackets like survivors of the Titanic, the CRU and climate activists insisted that all the comments were taken out of context and “merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.” [14]Yet, within that honest exchange lay blatant dishonesty, if not downright fraud which can only harm science in general.

Lon Glazer, a Chicago blogger at “Commission Impossible” gave a fine summary of the behaviour of those involved in the scandal the implications of which were being brushed under the carpet. He reveals that:

1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.

2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.

3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.

4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favourable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favourable online communities.

What the emails/files don’t do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don’t preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science. [15] [Emphasis mine]

The latter paragraph in italics is important to remember. This is about valuing good science and discarding politics of belief and large egos. The above is an example of the pervasive spectre of “group-think” rather than free thought which needs to be countered vigorously whenever it raises its ugly head – which is often.

To give the reader a taste of what Glazer has summarised let me offer some of the verbatim quotes from the scientists themselves.

>Phil Jones reveals 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 (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Mick Kelly, Professor of Climate Change at East Anglia University, on covering up recent cooling:

“Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

Prof. Phil Jones’ view on the sharing of scientific data:

“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

Dr. Mick Kelly confirms what we already knew:

Told Paul Horsman of Greenpeace “The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalization agenda driven by organizations like the WTO [World Trade Organization].”

Prof. Michael E. Mann on “cleaning up” code:

“I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.”

Tom Wigley on global warming:

“We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming – and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.”

Thomas R Karl on data requests:

“I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues.”

A CRU programming code for dealing with tree-ring data:

“Uses corrected MXD but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”

Adam Markham to the CRU:

“… are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.”

Phil Jones’ true colours:

“I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

From Phil Jones to Australian Tom Wigley regarding the Medieval Warm Period:

“Bottom line – there is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years … this is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and variability.”

More evidence of Phil Jones covering up and deleting data. He warns Michael Mann about Steve McIntyre and Prof Ross McKitrick, the first individuals to comprehensively debunk the “hockey stick”, and who wish to look at CRU data:

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone … We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

Phil Jones to staff:

“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

After FOI request from David Holland Phil Jones asks Michael Mann:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise … Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?”

Tom Wigley on ousting the editor of Geophysical Research Letters (which was achieved):

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann on two sceptics’ papers:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Michael Mann on removing the editor of Climate Science [This was achieved]:

“How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that anti-greenhouse science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).”

From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, on the death of Australian sceptic John Daly:

“In an odd way this is cheering news!”

IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth privately tells colleagues that global warming is absent from the data and counter to climate model predictions:

“… where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. … 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.” [16]

So, why so much emphasis on AGW? Is it just because the science says so?

When you read through the mountains of data you realise very quickly that underneath the teetering columns of graphs and pie-charts, references and citations there is still a whole lot of assumption and inconclusive data. No one really knows but so many want to know and are willing to jump to erroneous conclusions and blame humans for the whole kit and caboodle as a result. After all, it follows in a grand tradition does it not? And humans ARE destroying ecological systems and their wildlife at a terrific rate. Ergo…

PhilJones_1578026c

Professor Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia

‘University of East Anglia refused to share information on global warming’  |”The university at the centre of the ‘climategate’ scandal behaved in a “reprehensible” manner by refusing to release research behind the science of global warming, according to MPs.”

Roy Spencer, PhD was the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001; Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre; NASA U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is a scientist well qualified to comment on the nature of global warming. Awarded NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring work with satellites with Dr. John Christy, he continues to provide congressional testimony on the subject of global warming. As he mentions on his website: “He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.” [16]

Dr. Spencer explains the logic which appeals to so many singing the AGW tune:

Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40 percent to 45 percent higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

Spencer explains that the well-worn word: “consensus” sees the Earth’s sensitivity as high (about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C) and warming every ten years as long as the use of fossil fuels continues as our main source of energy. The climate sensitivity is very high and thus the limiting of fossil fuels and CO2 production is the primary pillar of AGW beliefs. He thinks that knowledge on ‘climate sensitivity’ has been difficult to accrue and believes they are missing a vital point:

How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming are critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’sceptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate. Climate change — it happens, with or without our help. [17]

[Emphasis mine]

The climate change industry is hugely influenced by the idea that carbon dioxide emissions have been fingered as the evil villain of anything from freak tornadoes to flash floods and future sea-level rises where islands will cease to exist. Though human activity does indeed have a lot to answer for – certainly in terms of ozone depletion and rainforest destruction, to name but two examples – placing non-linear weather patterns and their effects at humanity’s door is both unrealistic and prescriptive, though it has provided a thriving industry of computer modelling and carbon credit companies. Without this much-touted “scientific consensus” climate change would be a very different beast indeed.

CFCs Climate Change

The graph shows the predicted path of global temperatures is set to continue their decline as a result of depletion of CFC’s in the atmosphere. Credit: Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo Source: http://www.Phys.org

One of the most recent studies from the University of Waterloo in Canada published in the International Journal of Modern Physics confirmed that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide. An “in-depth statistical analysis” shows that: “CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change.” Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science state”: “Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” he said. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.” [18]

A correlation perhaps, but one certainly a whole lot more watertight than the present evidence for CO2.

Indeed, in a recent article by Paul Driessen he highlights the problems with the AGW climate change which clearly seems to have been going on throughout history reiterating the fact that: “… it is costly policies imposed in the name of preventing change: policies that too often destroy jobs, perpetuate poverty and kill people.”

He states further:

“Those perceptions are reinforced by recent studies that found climate researchers have systematically revised actual measured temperatures upward to fit a global warming narrative for Australia, Paraguay, the Arctic and elsewhere. Another study, ‘Why models run hot: Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,’ concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be ‘no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections’ – that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.” [19] 

It doesn’t stop there. Steven Goddard’s Real Science blog also provides some interesting information direct from the National Climate Data Center. His comments follow each graph reproduced here:

There is only one piece of US climate data which correlates with CO2 –  the amount of data tampering NCDC is applying to US temperature.

ScreenHunter_3233 Oct. 01 22.59

All of the other relevant metrics show either no correlation, or negative correlation vs. CO2.  The whole thing is a 100% scam – from top to bottom.

Hot days show no correlation vs. CO2

ScreenHunter_3341 Oct. 05 06.14Severe tornadoes have declined as CO2 has increased

ScreenHunter_3337 Oct. 05 05.58

Measured (untampered) US temperatures show no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3332 Oct. 05 05.19US hurricane strikes have declined as CO2 has increased

ScreenHunter_3328 Oct. 05 04.41US heavy rainfall events show no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3315 Oct. 04 14.20East Coast sea level rise shows no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3311 Oct. 04 11.20

Once again, if anything is going to have a drastic effect on temperature change and any possibility of warming trend it is the Sun, rather than CO2.

***

Clearly, there is much more to this subject than is possible to summarise, even in a whole book. The point to remember is that science is working for social engineering programs which incorporate both conscious and unconscious agents which are always determined by their psychological profile. This is true for all societal domains where psychopathy has a foothold and its psychological footprint has gained ground. The exact same indications of ponerisation appear in climate science as it does in all other spheres of official culture. The organising principle is one of confusion and disinformation which is propagated by large egos and beliefs. These latter attributes manage to create obstruction and stagnation quite nicely without any radical influence from agents on high. The ultimate agenda is to create so much hysteria, fear and co-opted scientific inquiry so that the real creative solutions are left by the wayside.

There is global warming but not of the type presented by most scientists and their media lackeys. Such a phenomenon may exist cyclically and precede global cooling, substantial earth changes ending with an Ice Age. If the World State ideologues knew very well about this epochal changes but wished to retain control when much of the population had been wiped out, do you think they would reveal such information to the public at large and risk the eventual dilution of their powerbase?  **

Blaming humans for what are very possibly complex cosmic processes far beyond the physical influences of humanity feeds into the same disinformation and ignorance we have been exploring in the last series of posts. What is more important, is that it once again distracts from the theories of cyclic catastrophes which have visited this planet over and over again, strangely enough, at the exact moment when Global Pathocracies are reaching their zenith.

Perhaps it is this knowledge that is really being concealed by the climate change debate?

 


* Reading Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion will bring the reader up-to-date on every aspect of the famous temperature graph and which reveals the same story of financial and ideological fraud running rampant in climate change science.

** I strongly urge readers to read Earth Changes and the Cosmic-Human Connection by Pierre Lascaudron which goes into the complex forces at work from the electric universe to cometary bombardment. From the book description:

“Jet Stream meanderings, Gulf Stream slow-downs, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteor fireballs, tornadoes, deluges, sinkholes, and noctilucent clouds have been on the rise since the turn of the century. Have proponents of man-made global warming been proven correct, or is something else, something much bigger, happening on our planet?

While mainstream science depicts these Earth changes as unrelated, Pierre Lescaudron applies findings from the Electric Universe paradigm and plasma physics to suggest that they might in fact be intimately related, and stem from a single common cause: the close approach of our Sun’s ‘twin’ and an accompanying cometary swarm.

Citing historical records, the author reveals a strong correlation between periods of authoritarian oppression with catastrophic and cosmically-induced natural disasters. Referencing metaphysical research and information theory, Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection is a ground-breaking attempt to re-connect modern science with the ancient understanding that the human mind and states of collective human experience can influence cosmic and earthly phenomena.”

 


Notes

[1] ‘Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism’ by Dr. David Evans, Science and Public Policy Institute, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, April 2, 2009. (PDF)
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.” (Wikipedia).
“Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over the latter part of the 20th century was greater than it has been at any other time over the past one to two millennia, because this contention helps support their claim that what they call the “unprecedented” temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced. Hence, they cannot stomach the thought that the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago could have been just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently, especially since there was so much less CO2 in the air a thousand years ago than there is now. Likewise, they are equally loath to admit that temperatures of the Roman Warm Period of two thousand years ago may also have rivaled, or exceeded, those of the recent past, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations at that time were also much lower than they are today. As a result, climate alarmists rarely even mention the Roman Warm Period, as they are happy to let sleeping dogs lie. In addition, they refuse to acknowledge that these two prior warm periods were global in extent, claiming instead that they were local phenomenon restricted to lands surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean. In another part of our Subject Index we explore these contentions as they apply to the Medieval Warm Period. In this Summary, we explore them as they pertain to the Roman Warm Period, beginning with Central Europe.” […] See: ‘Roman Warm Period (Europe – Central) – Summary’ http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropecentral.phpfor further discussion.
[5] ‘Regular Solar Cycle Could Be Going on Hiatus’ by Nancy Atkinson on June 14, 2011 Universe Today at http://www.universetoday.com/86643/regular-solar-cycle-could-be-going-on-hiatus/#ixzz2HnDWS1eq
[6] http://www.solarspace.co.uk/Sun.php
[7] ‘Global Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found? ‘ by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. updated 7:00 a.m. CDT, June 30, 2008 Including a simplified version of a paper entitled “Chaotic Radiative Forcing, Feedback Stripes, and the Overestimation of Climate Sensitivity” June 25, 2008 for publication in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
[8] Ibid.
[9] The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by Andrew Montford. Published by Stacey International, 2010. ISBN-10: 1906768358.
[10] Climate Audit by Steve McKntyre at http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
[11] ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series’ published in Energy & Environment 2003.Mcintyre, S. and R. McKitrick | Also see: “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance”. Geophysical Research Letters 32 (3): L03710. Bibcode 2005GeoRL..3203710M. 2005 | ‘The decay of the hockey stick’ by Hans Von Storch, May 3, 2007, http://www.nature.com
[12] ‘Don Easterbrook PhD, Mann Hockey Stick graph not supported by data’ audio=YouTube.com
[13] Václav Klaus, Magistral Lecture at the International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, organized by the World Federation of Scientists, Erice, Sicily, Italy, 20 August 2012. (For full transcript see Appendix 15, Vol. III).
[14] ‘Sceptics publish climate e-mails ‘stolen from East Anglia University’ by Ben Webster, The Times (London). November 21, 2009.
[15] ‘Commission Impossible: ‘Men Behaving badly’ by Lon Glazer at http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2009/11/men-behaving-ba.html
[16] ‘Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues’ November 22, 2009. | All email data and individual emails can be found on www.http://di2.nu/foia/
[17] http://www.drroyspencer.com/
[18] Ibid. (‘Global Warming’)
[19] ‘Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, new study says’ http://www.Phys Org, May 31, 2013.