Articles Tagged "Marc Sheppard"

As the evidence of climate fraud at the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climactic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who’ve been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media. But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the emails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that’s been perpetrated upon it, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.

First -- Let’s briefly review a few pertinent details.

We reported on Saturday that among the most revealing of the “hacked” emails released last week was one dated November 1999, in which CRU chief PD Jones wrote these words to Hockey-Stick-Team leaders Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes:

It seems that while scientists who accept funding from oil companies are branded as bought-and-paid-for shills, those financed by renewable energy interests remain unchallenged authorities in their fields. Words can’t adequately express my astonishment.

Amid the thousands of files apparently misappropriated from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last week sit two documents on the subject of the unit’s funding. One is a spreadsheet (pdj_grant_since1990.xls) logging the various grants CRU chief PD Jones has received since 1990. It lists 55 such endowments from agencies ranging from the U.S Department of Energy to NATO and worth a total of £13,718,547 or approximately 22.6 million USD. I guess cooking climate data can be an expensive habit, particularly for an oft-quoted and highly exalted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief climatologist.

But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of “energy agencies” they might put the bite on. Three -- the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative and the Energy Saving Trust -- are UK-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting “new energy” technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth -- Renewables North West -- is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest.

A folder containing documents, data and emails purportedly "hacked" from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) may be smoking gun proof of a worldwide conspiracy to exaggerate the existence, causation and threat of global warming. And the list of apparent conspirators includes many of the world's leading climate alarmists -- the very scientists on whose work the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is based.

In a Friday interview with Investigative Magazine's TGIF edition, CRU director Phillip Jones confirmed [PDF] that the incriminating documents, which have been widely disseminated online, are in fact genuine. Accordingly, whether indeed the labor of hackers, or instead that of a CRU whistleblower, the contents of the FOI2009 folder are now public record -- and that's nothing short of dynamite.

After all, the names of the email exchangers represent a who's who of the world's leading climate alarmism scientists, including Stephen Schneider, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen. And the words within seemingly betray an organized apparatus of deception.

In one particularly odious email dated November 1999, Jones writes to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes:

"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) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

The scariest story told this Halloween week had nothing to do with ghosts, goblins, or zombies, though it was certainly dripping with huge gobs of Gore. In fact -- the most terrifying words screeched in the past seven days came from the master of environmental horror himself.

According to Arab Internet services company Maktoob.com, our favorite greenhouse gasbag spent Tuesday afternoon outlining the reasons why attendees of the Leaders in Dubai Business Forum must change their wicked gas-guzzling ways:

“The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years.”

Such thaw, cautioned Gore, “could increase sea levels by 67 metres” and that “each one metre of sea level rise (SLR) is associated with 100 million climate refugees in the world.” That’s up a full 47 meters from the already horrifying predictions he’s made previously.

In yesterday’s article, UN Climate Reports: They Lie, we discussed the problems associated with a chart that appeared in the UN’s most recent climate report. One such issue was that the graphic, which claimed to establish a “correlation between temperature and CO2,” used a temperature plot immediately recognizable as the infamously debunked “Hockey Stick Graph.”

And the agency’s timing couldn’t have been worse. For starters, the immediate recognition of MBH98 on page 5 of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Climate Change Science Compendium 2009 sparked email exchanges which lead to this piece at Climate Audit, which, in turn, lead to immediate on-line outrage among many who write on the subject. Then, only days later, CA’s Steve Mcintyre received and analyzed data he had been denied for years, which allowed him to debunk the data alarmists had been using to defend the notion that 20th century warming was unprecedented for the millennium.

But as now reported by Anthony Watts at Watt’s Up With That, UNEP has replaced the embattled graphic, which was taken not from peer-reviewed journals but rather a 2005 Wikimedia posting by an unknown Norwegian research biologist, with a more traditional (and carbon free) chart from GISS. Curiously, no explanation was given for the switch. UNEP simply treated Hanno 2009 in the same deceitful manner they treat the MWP – as though it were never really there.

Click americanthinker.com link to read FULL report from Marc Sheppard.

For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large. But in the past week or so, it’s become more apparent than ever that those who’ve accused the international organization of politicizing science and manipulating data have been right all along.

This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous “Hockey Stick Graph.” The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium’s global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).

Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as gospel by all manner of proselytizers. In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that promise to be the Hockey Stick’s (HS) long overdue epitaph. And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart’s fraudulence, but also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders and leading UN sponsors.

But before delving into the sordid details, perhaps a little background is in order.

The largest and most wasteful tax-hike in the history of this republic just passed the House by a vote of 219 to 212. And while 44 wise Democrats crossed party lines to vote against it, 8 Republicans actually forgave an unforgivable 3AM airdrop and voted for this abomination anyway, giving the numbskulls one more yea than they needed We’ll know their names, and perhaps their inducements, soon.

Yesterday, the White House released an over-the-top climate report, meant to bolster waning public support (through fear-mongering) for the administration’s disastrous carbon taxation scheme. But as overly-alarming as was the document itself, its portrayal by ABC’s crack meteorologist Sam Champion on today’s Good Morning America may have redefined hysterical reporting.

Video Link

Over a dramatic video of surging seas, raging wildfires and hammering hurricanes, an ominous voice warns that “climate change is happening all over America and if we don’t act now it will drastically affect where and how we live in the future.” And then offers this stark advice: “If you’re thinking of retiring in Florida, think Twice.”

Can you imagine anyone being loony enough to declare an unproven solution to an unproven problem to be “enormously risky” and certain to “lead to troubling unforeseen consequences” and “international tension,” and then proceeding to advocate for it nonetheless? Or a highly respected international news source making the decision to publish such lunacy as a cover story?

Try this -- in today’s Wall Street Journal article It’s Time to Cool the Planet, Jamais Cascio, a San Francisco “Environmental Futurist,” claims that it’s too late to avoid an “unprecedented global catastrophe” by merely cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. No, in addition to shutting down progress in a futile effort to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, we must also take steps to counteract the warming we’ve already supposedly unleashed in order to “delay potentially catastrophic ‘tipping point’ events.” Such “geoengineering” would represent a “stay of execution” while we work toward “a pardon.” Oh brother.

Excerpt:
I must confess, I chose Spencer and Lindzen in part because many alarmists consider them among the "small number of credible skeptics out there," and thereby don't automatically dismiss them outright, as they so arrogantly do others. But keep in mind that although CO2 continues to climb, there's been no warming since 1998. Not only was this little anthropogenic global warming (AGW) glitch obviously not predicted by IPCC models, but it lends great credence to those scientists who believe Earth's greenhouse effect to be either non-existent or inconsequential.

Please click source link to read FULL article.