Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

[kimmielittle]

openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/open_letter.html

**Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council: An Open Letter to the Council of the

American Physical Society

As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate

change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human --on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.**

• The statement of the APS Council, adopted on November 18, 2007 is as follows:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”

— APS News; January 2008 (Volume 17, Number 1)

It seems the leadership at APS has also been politicized.

 

[buffalo]

“The Pacific Yew can be cut down and processed to produce a potent chemical, taxol, which offers some promise of curing certain forms of lung, breast and ovarian cancer in patients who would otherwise quickly die. It seems an easy choice – sacrifice the tree for a human life – until one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient treated, that only specimens more than a hundred years old contain the potent chemical in their bark, and that there are very few of these yews remaining on earth.” - Gore, in “Earth in the Balance”, p. 119

Was he not aware that by the time the book was published, there were already known, viable alternatives for pacific yew bark? If I’m not greatly mistaken, at least one of them went into mass production the very year the book was published. But the alternative resource applications were known before that. Maybe he dealt with that in the book, and the pacific yew example was only meant to be illustrative of what MIGHT have been a resource bottleneck but for the development of other sources.

Yes - the chemo treatment taxol is now synthesized and patentable as most medicines are.

 

[kimmielittle]

It’s not a scandal, or a hoax.

First of all, “Global Warming” might be a mis-nomer. We don’t know exactly what will happen in the end, but Global Climate Change in imminent. It’s at least partly man-made.

The data from the last few years, IF manipulated, is irrelevant. Scientists have been studying this since the 1970’s.

As a grad student studying Geography and Environmental Studies, I can tell you that all science is political, not just environmental science. All disciplines have scientists who will stretch the truth and try to outwit or push out the people who disagree with them. It’s sad, but science is not usually a cooperative environment. They all compete for funding. This is true weather you are studying weather, microbiology, pharmeceuticals, computer science, chemistry, or any thing else. This is not new or novel.

However, the media will pick up on this “leak” and magnify it…even if it is not out of the norm. I don’t know much about data in this report specifically, but it is only one of hundreds…perhaps thousands. The overwhelming amount of data that points to Global Climate Change should not be ignored. The 2000’s has been the warmest decade on file. Glaciers are retreating. Ocean chemistry is changing. Storms are increasing. The natural patterns of climate change in the earth are known and measurable. This should not be happening at this time.

Yes, it’s all about “money and power” for some. When people in the 70’s were trying to get people to change their minds about the environment, they encountered resistance from the “powers that be” of the time. They concluded anti-environment attitudes were beacause of the influence of money and power. Now that “green thinking” is more mainstream, the people who oppose it are saying that PRO-environment attitudes are based on money and power. It can’t work both ways, it’s silly.

Base your opinions on more than one “news leak”. Read the data yourself. The studies are available. Check out a college library. BEst of luck!

Hiyas

I , and others have read…both for and against.

IMHO, You suggesting that we haven’t is the same arrogant position that have led to skeptics being labeled and bullied into silence.

We have checked out the Collage Libraries…The problem is…what is printed and held there, is from these scientists who did their all to suppress. They controlled the educational / media materials. These are the same scientist who scared me and other kids that the polar bears were dying. When the 4 that did die were from a freak storm. Here again… they used 4 bears to present fear-mongered hyperbole to promote THEIR interests.

Try some of the MANY links here:shrug:

As always, just my thoughts

 

[4elise]

Sea level rise is not something to play around with.

We in the west won’t be impacted - so who cares right?

Those in the Marshall Islands, Bangladesh - they have no political clout - no resources the west wants - and these are the people the Church encourages us to speak for - to CONSIDER that our actions impact - but some scientists who have been less than honest in their desire to prove their portion of the science makes the deniers feel justified in the ‘see it is all wrong!’ ---- ‘we don’t need to do anything to change OUR lives!’ IMHO a response that is both sad and selfish and certainly not in keeping with what our Church calls us to -

 

[4elise]

It’s not a scandal, or a hoax.

First of all, “Global Warming” might be a mis-nomer. We don’t know exactly what will happen in the end, but Global Climate Change in imminent. It’s at least partly man-made.

The data from the last few years, IF manipulated, is irrelevant. Scientists have been studying this since the 1970’s.

As a grad student studying Geography and Environmental Studies, I can tell you that all science is political, not just environmental science. All disciplines have scientists who will stretch the truth and try to outwit or push out the people who disagree with them. It’s sad, but science is not usually a cooperative environment. They all compete for funding. This is true weather you are studying weather, microbiology, pharmeceuticals, computer science, chemistry, or any thing else. This is not new or novel.

However, the media will pick up on this “leak” and magnify it…even if it is not out of the norm. I don’t know much about data in this report specifically, but it is only one of hundreds…perhaps thousands. The overwhelming amount of data that points to Global Climate Change should not be ignored. The 2000’s has been the warmest decade on file. Glaciers are retreating. Ocean chemistry is changing. Storms are increasing. The natural patterns of climate change in the earth are known and measurable. This should not be happening at this time.

Yes, it’s all about “money and power” for some. When people in the 70’s were trying to get people to change their minds about the environment, they encountered resistance from the “powers that be” of the time. They concluded anti-environment attitudes were beacause of the influence of money and power. Now that “green thinking” is more mainstream, the people who oppose it are saying that PRO-environment attitudes are based on money and power. It can’t work both ways, it’s silly.

Base your opinions on more than one “news leak”. Read the data yourself. The studies are available. Check out a college library. BEst of luck!

many however prefer the echo chamber of the blogisphere that reinforces their already held opinions ‘it is not real’ ‘I do not have to do anything to change’ ‘and anyway, it won’t impact me’

 

[4elise]

• The statement of the APS Council, adopted on November 18, 2007 is as follows:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”

— APS News; January 2008 (Volume 17, Number 1)

It seems the leadership at APS has also been politicized.

Or else they are right?
Note that more than one greenhouse gas is listed - Animal agriculture is one of the greatest factors that as individuals we can make a choice to make a difference - even if one doesn’t chose to ‘go vegan’ decreasing the amount of meat and dairy consumed can have a great impact -

 

[buffalo]

Lord Monckton Debunks it and adressess sea level bunk and more. Watch the whole thing. It is amazing how these guys manipulated the data.

 

[buffalo]

Sensenbrenner to Tell Copenhagen: No Climate Laws Until ‘Scientific Fascism’ Ends

Republican lawmaker says he’s going to U.N. climate conference to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the U.S. until “scientific fascism” ends.

The ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming said Tuesday he is going to attend the Copenhagen conference on climate change to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the United States until the “scientific fascism” ends.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., also wrote to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on Monday to demand that researchers who authored e-mails and documents that demonstrate climate change data were manipulated should not be allowed to participate in the latest report written by the U.N. panel.
“I call it ‘scientific fascism,’” Sensenbrenner said during a press conference with fellow climate change skeptics. “The U.N. should throw a red flag. … They relied on these scientists unjustifiably in my opinion.”

more…

 

[StAnastasia]

We in the west won’t be impacted - so who cares right?

4elise, nice reflection. But the US will be impacted. An eighteen inch sea level rise would put two of the SF Bay Area’s airports under water during storms, ramshackling the economy. Every major seaport would be faced with costly infrastructure changes; New Orleans might be very soggy again, Holland would have to pay enormous amounts to raise and shore up its dikes, and we could probably kiss most of Florida goodbye. Even Republicans should be worried about that last prosect!

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Republican lawmaker says he’s going to U.N. climate conference to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the U.S. until “scientific fascism” ends.

Science fascism? What is the alternative – Creationist Noah’s Ark science?

 

[buffalo]

Science fascism? What is the alternative – Creationist Noah’s Ark science?

Ha - you even carry your absolute faith in science over to this thread.

 

[StAnastasia]

Ha - you even carry your absolute faith in science over to this thread.

What are you talking about?

 

[kimmielittle]

4elise, nice reflection. But the US will be impacted. An eighteen inch sea level rise would put two of the SF Bay Area’s airports under water during storms, ramshackling the economy. Every major seaport would be faced with costly infrastructure changes; New Orleans might be very soggy again, Holland would have to pay enormous amounts to raise and shore up its dikes, and we could probably kiss most of Florida goodbye. Even Republicans should be worried about that last prosect!

StAnastasia

Are you telling us that what they purpose will stop it?

Prove it so, please

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you telling us that what they purpose will stop it?

Prove it so, please

Kimmielittle, can you rephrase your question, please? I don’t understand what you are asking.

 

[kimmielittle]

But things are not so clear. It is not just the University of East Anglia data that is at question. There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty. Thus, there is hardly the unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind’s role in producing it. But even for the sake of argument, assuming that there*** is*** significant man-made global warming, many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people’s health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.
Let’s take the issue of data. The three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report came from the University of East Anglia, NASA, and the British Met Office. As noted in my previous piece for the Fox Forum, the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the University of East Anglia. NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia (ocean temperatures were collected separately), though there are signs that things might be speeded up.
Neither the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia nor the British Met are able to provide their raw data to other research scientists because of the confidentiality agreements that Professor Phil Jones at CRU entered into. Unfortunately, Jones did not keep records of those agreements and, according to the British Met, can neither identify the countries with the confidentiality agreements nor provide the agreements. Earlier this year the British Met wrote the following to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:
“Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.”

A press spokesman for the British Met, John Hammond, confirmed this statement in a telephone conversation on Monday to FoxNews.com. But the claimed confidentiality restrictions have hardly been followed consistently. When asked why the University of East Anglia was allowed to release the data to the Met but not to other academics, Mr. Hammond e-mailed back: “This is a question for the UEA.” Unfortunately, however, neither the University of East Anglia nor anyone associated with the CRU was willing to answer any questions about the climate research conducted at the university.
But why would countries want confidentiality agreements on decades old data that they are providing? “Climate data continues to have value so long as it is commercially confidential,” Mr. Hammond says. But when pushed for evidence that this was in fact the concerns that countries had raised, Mr. Hammond said: “Although I do not have evidence to hand at the moment, some nations, especially in Africa for example, believe that the information does have commercial value.” Earlier, in July, the Met had raised a different issue – that scientists in other countries would be less willing to share their scientific research if the Met could be expected to pass on the data to others.
However, professional meterologists are unimpressed by the claimed reasons for confidentiality. “Research data used as the basis for scientific research needs to be disclosed if other scientists are to be able to verify the work of others,” Mike Steinberg, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, told FoxNews.com. In addition, while the data access may be restricted in some countries because they sell data and forecasts, that doesn’t explain why the data isn’t released for all other countries.

foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/08/john-lott-climate-gate-global-warming-east-anglia/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r2:c0.111150:b29271130:z10

 

[CJFrancis]

The difference between the scientists who are studying climate change and those who deny climate change is that the scientists are doing measurements and collecting data. Those who deny climate change are not collecting any data.

For example, the summer ice cover in the Arctic this year was slightly higher than in the previous two years. However, the summer ice cover was still the third least amount ever recorded. I heard a scientist on the radio who was in the Arctic studying the ice this summer. The ice-breaker cut through the ice like butter, unlike in previous years. So, a lot of the summer ice cover is very thin and won’t last long.

We are heading into uncharted territory. Carbon dioxide is currently 385 parts per million in the atmosphere and we are adding 1.9 ppm each year. Studies show that before the modern era, in the last 2.1 million years, the highest level of carbon dioxide was 280 ppm.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm

Earlier this year, Bolivia’s 18,000 year old ChacaItaya glacier finished its melting process. 80% of the glacier melted between 1987 and 2007. No one is saying that this glacier melted only due to man-made factors. However, green-house gases are speeding up the warming of the Earth.

Thousands of scientists are studying climate change by collecting and analysing information. Climate change deniers can fill forums like this with their opinions and links to denier blogs. However, they aren’t measuring ice thickness or carbon dioxide levels.

Here is a column in the New York Times that says we should take action to fight global warming even if we aren’t 100% sure about what the impact will be:
Going “Cheney” on Climate
nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html?ref=opinion

 

[kimmielittle]

**

II. Why melting is not a threat

While today’s balance between the icecaps and global sea level has been relatively steady since about 1000 B.C., it would be careless to assume that this is the Earth’s natural state and that it should always be this way. What could happen to climate naturally in the next few thousand years? If the Earth continued to warm and break from ice age conditions, some of the remaining ice caps could melt. On the other hand, climate might swing back into another ice age. (In fact, some of the environmentalists now worried about global warming were worried about another ice age in the 1960s and 1970s.)
In either case, such a change in climate would take thousands of years to accomplish. **Note that it has taken 18,000 years to melt 60% of the ice from the last ice age. **The remaining ice is almost entirely at the north and south poles and is isolated from warmer weather. To melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years under any realistic change in climate. In the case of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which accounts for 80% of the Earth’s current ice, Sudgen argues that it existed for 14,000,000 years, through wide ranges in global climate. The IPCC 2001 report states “Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C… In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years.” [31] The IPCC is the United Nations’ scientific committee on climate change; its members tend to be the minority that predicts global warming and its statements tend to be exaggerated by administrators before release. Given that the IPCC tends to exaggerate the potential for sea level rise, it is clear that no scientists on either side of the scientific debate on global warming fear the melting of the bulk of Antarctica’s ice. Consider also this abstract of an article by Jacobs contrasting scientific and popular understanding:

A common public perception is that global warming will accelerate the melting of polar ice sheets, causing sea level to rise. A common scientific position is that the volume of grounded Antarctic ice is slowly growing, and will damp future sea-level rise. At present, studies supporting recent shrinkage or growth depend on limited measurements that are subject to high temporal and regional variability, and it is too early to say how the Antarctic ice sheet will behave in a warmer world. [32]**

johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

 

[Barry_Gabriel]

4elise, nice reflection. But the US will be impacted. An eighteen inch sea level rise would put two of the SF Bay Area’s airports under water during storms, ramshackling the economy. Every major seaport would be faced with costly infrastructure changes; New Orleans might be very soggy again, Holland would have to pay enormous amounts to raise and shore up its dikes, and we could probably kiss most of Florida goodbye. Even Republicans should be worried about that last prosect!

StAnastasia

I live in Canada, by the Atlantic ocean. I personally do not see the sea rising. I have been observing this for the past 25 years. Of course, I wasn’t here 150 years ago, but so far the sea seems, at least here, to be fairly stable (except when there’s a storm). :nope: If truth be told, I encourage every Canadian to get a case of hairspray and spray away. I would like to see this area get a few degrees warmer. So far, there isn’t any global warming where I live.

 

[buffalo]

12 Facts about Global Climate Change That You Won’t Read in the Popular Press

1 Temperatures have been cooling since 2002, even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise. 2 Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and by itself will produce little warming. Also, as CO2 increases, the incremental warming is less, as the effect is logarithmic so the more CO2, the less warming it produces.
3 CO2 has been totally uncorrelated with temperature over the last decade, and significantly negative since 2002.
4 CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food.

more…

 

[buffalo]

Science fascism? What is the alternative – Creationist Noah’s Ark science?

Scores of Peer-Reviewed Studies Contradict Global Warming Alarmism - by Compiled by Peter Risdon - Environment & Climate News

1,500-Year Climate Cycle
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice (Nature 316, 591 - 596, 15 August 1985) - C. Lorius, C. Ritz, J. Jouzel, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates (Science, vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1257 - 1266, 14 November 1997) - Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate (Science, vol. 294. no. 5546, pp. 1431 - 1433, 16 November 2001) - Richard A. Kerr
Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic (Science, vol. 301. no. 5641, pp. 1890 - 1893, 26 September 2003) - Feng Sheng Hu, Darrell Kaufman, Sumiko Yoneji, David Nelson, Aldo Shemesh, Yongsong Huang, Jian Tian, Gerard Bond, Benjamin Clegg, Thomas Brown
Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin (Global and Planetary Change, vol. 34, issues 3-4, Pages 313-325, November 2002) - W. H. Bergera, U. von Rad
Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications (Geology, vol. 26; no. 5; pp. 471-473, May 1998) - Ian D. Campbell, Celina Campbell, Michael J. Apps, Nathaniel W. Rutter, Andrew B. G. Bush
Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model (Nature 438, 208-211, 10 November 2005) - Holger Braun, Marcus Christl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andrey Ganopolski, Augusto Mangini, Claudia Kubatzki, Kurt Roth, Bernd Kromet
The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 97, no. 8, 3814-3819, April 11, 2000) - Charles D. Keeling, Timothy P. Whorf
The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records (Climate of the Past Discussions, vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 679-692, 2007) - M. Debret, V. Bout-Roumazeilles, F. Grousset, M. Desmet, J. F. McManus, N. Massei, D. Sebag, J.-R. Petit, Y. Copard, A. Trentesaux

more…