News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Climate industry genius Joe Romm starts SunSpotGate, joins ClimateGate, channels Richard Nixon and famous 18 minute gap

If warmists said sun spots affected climate they might be found floating near the Maldives face down. ClimateGate figure KevinTrenberth does say sun spots affect climate in an email to Joe Romm which Romm publishes, then deletes. You're supposed to blame the American middle class for global warming (mostly) and ridicule anyone who says sun spots affect climate. A Tom Nelson reader noticed the sun spot reference and its subsequent disappearance from Joe Romm's post:

7/30/11, "SunspotGate: Warmist Kevin Trenberth admits in an email that sunspots are an external forcing of our climate system; Romm publishes this admission,
Tom Nelson
[After I wrote the post at the link above, a reader pointed out that Romm evidently deleted this interesting paragraph from warmist Kevin Trenberth from Romm's original post]

(Kevin Trenberth):

"In addition, I find the whole discussion to be out of touch with reality. The external radiative forcing of the climate system is mostly well known and comes from the changes in atmospheric composition (greenhouse gases) and
  • the sun spot cycle etc.
The part not so well known is the pollution (aerosol), but that is small. Nearly all of the variations in water vapor and clouds, except for those affected by aerosol, are a response to the weather and climate variations; they are NOT a forcing. This is a major error that continues in Spencer’s work."...
The deleted paragraph currently still lives on here (approx. para. 29) and here."


Above paragraph captured in the following:

7/29/11, "NEWSFLASH: Latest Anti-Climate Science Nonsense Debunked. Global Warming Continues Unabated." Sodahead, (see paragraph 29, middle of page)


Joe Romm deletes the paragraph in an "Update" of the post BUT MAKES NO MENTION TO READERS THAT A MATERIAL DELETION OR MODIFICATION HAS BEEN MADE in Trenberth's email and that he (Romm) has REMOVED the original version from his website:

"UPDATE: Trenberth and John Fasullo have a post at RealClimate debunking the piece, which I reprint below:"

Following appears to be part of the re-worked version of Trenberth's paragraph. It leaves out evil Sun Spots and drives the message that external factors such as clouds can't be blamed for climate. The new paragraph appears near the end of Romm's post.

"Even so, the Spencer interpretation has no merit. The interannual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity. Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results. The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper....

Reference: 7/29/11, "Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer," Think Progress, Joe Romm


Trenberth: "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," adding that "we can't definitively explain why surface

  • temperatures have gone down in the last few years.

11/23/09, "Climategate - A who's who of the scientists in the emails,", Tony Hake

"Kevin Trenberth

Head of the Climate Analysis Section - National Center for Atmospheric Research

Trenberth comes across in some of the messages as perhaps a bit of a skeptic and was particularly frustrated by computer models that failed to predict the cooling. He said, “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.” In a subsequent email he continues saying, “The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!”"...


Maldives president underwater trying to get money from the American middle class under the guise of criminal global warming.

via Tom Nelson, photo of Kevin Trenberth via

Thursday, July 28, 2011

New NASA satellite data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism, show heat escapes from atmosphere very quickly

7/27/11, "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism," Forbes, James Taylor

"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict

  • multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about

  • how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are."

via WZ comment

Certain important climate scientists are eager to reorganize society-Rogers

The climate industry is a parasite organism like the EU and the UN aimed at making trillions for its insiders while brutally raping the individual and the environment.

7/28/11, "Climate Witchcraft and Post-Normal Science," American Thinker, Norman Rogers

"Certain important climate scientists are very eager to reorganize society. They proclaim, on weak evidence, that the Earth is doomed by global warming unless we follow a green plan to remake the economy and the social order. We have to give up cars for trolleys. Windmills will become ubiquitous. The most famous climate scientist, James Hansen, wants to put his opponents on trial for crimes against humanity.[i] Implicit in all this is the idea that a central committee of Dr. Strangeloves should rule the world. Instead of prince this and duke that, we will have doctor this and doctor that. These radical intellectuals secretly despise the present system of rule by the rabble, otherwise known as democracy.

Some intellectuals think that they don't get attention and status commensurate with their importance. This is especially true in America, where the cleaning lady or plumber is inclined to treat them as equals. One way to be important is to proclaim a theory that something very bad is going to happen. If the theory has some scientific basis and is backed by other prominent scientists, the claims will be credible.

A lot of this doomsday science, disguised as environmental concern, has been going around during the last 50 years. Global warming is just the latest example of ideologically motivated catastrophe theory. James Delingpole's book, Watermelons, describes the phenomenon in amusing detail. Like radical environmentalists, watermelons are green on the outside and red on the inside.

If it weren't for the prophecies of doom, climate science would be an obscure academic niche. Global warming has made everyone in the field rich, at least in academic currency if not dollars. The wealth has spread to other academic niches that have become more important in light of connections to climate. Global warming is a huge bonanza for the do-good environmental organization industry. Organizations like the Sierra Club or the Environmental Defense Fund[ii] need a perpetual stream of impending environmental disasters. When the public becomes bored with an impending disaster that never materializes, a new impending disaster must be found.

Climate science has embraced computer climate models as the tool it uses to compute the magnitude of the warming effect of CO2. The climate models are riddled with problems. Kevin Trenberth, a noted climate scientist and a prominent promoter of global warming alarmism, said this about the models: "none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate." The effect of CO2 is measured by a theoretical number called climate sensitivity. There are more than 20 climate modeling groups around the world. These groups each spend millions on programmers and supercomputers, searching for the value of climate sensitivity. They all get different answers, differing by a ratio of more than two to one. This failure of consensus would normally be considered a sign that the approach is not working. But if climate science can't make predictions of doom, it will cease to be important and funding will collapse. The climate science establishment had to relax the normal rules of science for its own survival and for the sake of its post-normal-science political goals.

The global warming establishment devised a solution. They decided to take the average of the various disagreeing models and claim that the average is closer to the truth than any of the models incorporated in the average. They call this a multi-model ensemble. The skeptic will ask if averaging together the results from more modeling groups makes the result better, why not spend a few billion dollars more and establish another 20 or 50 modeling groups to still better zero in on the truth? To read the justifications for multi-model ensembles is to enter a reality distortion field.

The climate models make predictions that cannot be tested because you would have to wait 50 or 100 years to see if the predictions are correct. The models are evaluated and calibrated by simulating the observed climate of the 20th century. The entirely unjustified assumption is made that if the models can match the 20th-century climate they must be working well and will be able to predict the future. This is known as backtesting. The problem with backtesting is that models may fit the historical data for the wrong reasons. If a model is complicated, with enough adjustable parameters, it may be capable of fitting almost anything. Many people have devised stock market models that work well when tested against history. If such models could predict the future movement of markets or pick winning stocks it would be far easier to make money in the stock market than it is.

The climate models have dozens of adjustable parameters. Inputs to the models, related to physical drivers of climate, are highly uncertain. For example, one input is aerosols or reflective particles injected into the air from smokestacks and natural sources. These have an effect on climate but the historical aerosol record is difficult to quantify. We don't know very accurately how much and what kind of aerosols there were year by year in the 20th century, and we don't know what the effect on the energy flows was. In order to model the 20th century, you must supply the model with a historical record of the effect of aerosols. Since this is poorly known you might be tempted to fabricate the historical record so as to make the model fit the 20th century better.[iii] This is either a clever strategy or circular reasoning.
Climate scientists call this the inverse method of computing the effects of aerosols.[iv] Ocean heat storage provides another example of a necessary but poorly known aspect of climate models. Adjusting the internal model parameters related to this effect provides another lever for making a model fit the historical climate of the 20th century. The unfortunate result is that different climate models treat ocean heat storage quite differently, but the Earth has only one way of treating ocean heat storage.[v]

The International Panel on Climate Change, otherwise known as the IPCC, or perhaps as the Vatican of climate change, has an established procedure for making predictions using multi-model ensembles. Each of the modeling groups is instructed to fit or calibrate its model to the 20th century and then to run the model into the 21st century to get a prediction of the future. Each group is directed to use inputs as it deems appropriate for the 20th-century fitting.[vi] The modeling groups can independently adopt their own set of assumptions about the reality of the 20th-century climate. It's like the parallel Earths, in parallel universes, often seen in science fiction. There is only one Earth. There are no parallel universes.

The net result from these tricks is that fitting the models to the 20th century becomes an exercise in curve-fitting implemented by custom fudging with a different fudge recipe at each modeling laboratory. The result of this exercise in inventing historical data is illustrated by the figure below from the 2007 IPCC report.

The ensemble mean fits the observed temperature history[vii] very well, even taking dips when volcanos erupt and inject cooling aerosols. The only place where the fit fails is the early-20th-century warming from 1910 to 1940. The problem during that period is that there is nothing plausible to explain this early warming that is also consistent with the doctrine that CO2 is the only cause of the late-century warming. Most of the modelers assume that the early warming is due to a change in the sun's output, but they don't dare go too far with that because in general they have to minimize the effect of the sun and maximize the effect of CO2 to avoid giving comfort to the skeptic school that thinks climate is controlled mostly by the sun.

Multiple runs of the same model are included in the graph. Slightly different starting conditions are used for runs using the same model, so the results of different runs by the same model are not identical, and in fact exhibit considerable chaotic variation. The chaotic or random variations average out to a characteristic climate associated with that model, if enough runs from the same model are averaged. The interesting fact about the graph is that the 13 different models, averaged, give an excellent fit to the temperature history even though we know that the models disagree sharply on the effect of the rapidly rising CO2 in the second half of the 20th century.[viii]

The apparent good performance of the models in the graph is a consequence of stacking the deck by adjusting the assumptions about the Earth independently for each model. That adding more models to the mix makes the graph fit the observed climate better, as the IPCC claims, is an elementary result of curve fitting theory. If you use several different curve-fitting methods (e.g., different models) and the errors in the fits are random or uncorrelated, then the errors are reduced proportional to the square root of the number of fits averaged together. This has nothing to do with climate. It is a mathematical and statistical result.
  • Of course all this is well-known to climate scientists.

Why would the IPCC use such an unscientific scheme for predicting the future climate? A better scheme comes easily to mind. Why not have a contest to pick the best model? The conditions of the test against the 20th-century observed climate should be set strictly so that inputs are the same for all models and non-physical or physically inconsistent assumptions internal to the models would be prohibited. Although this scheme would hardly be guaranteed to result in reliable predictions of the future climate, it would surely be sounder than the corrupt scheme currently used.

But, wait a minute. If one laboratory out of 20 was picked as having the best model, what would the reaction of the other 19 laboratories be? After all, one can assume that the other 19 labs have 19 times the political influence that the winning lab would have. Wouldn't the other labs be deeply worried that their funding would be cut or diverted to the winning lab? Suppose the winning lab was an American lab. Might the European labs suspect cheating or bias? Suppose a French lab won. What would the Americans think? Would the Congress support research at a French lab, at the expense of the American labs? Obviously, a climate model shootout

  • would break the unity of the climate science establishment and is thus unthinkable.

Climate models are useful heuristic tools that help in understanding climate. Most of the work done in developing models is honest. But the models are not remotely good enough to make predictions about the future climate under the influence of CO2. The IPCC and its allies have created a bizarre scheme to force doomsday predictions out of the disagreeing models in order to pursue bureaucratic and political goals. The resultant predictions are looking very foolish in the face of 14 years of no general climate warming, and of

  • no ocean warming since a reliable monitoring system was deployed in 2003.

President Eisenhower anticipated post-normal science in his 1961 farewell address when he warned that public policy could become the captive of the scientific-technological elite. We are accustomed to various special interest groups cooking the books to promote their interests in Washington. We don't expect the science establishment to be cooking the science, but that is what is happening. The arrogance and irresponsibility exhibited by the science establishment is quite amazing. It will take a while for the public to adjust to the idea that organized science is


Mumbai vs Oslo: the crime seems to be reporting on acts of war against the West

7/28/11, "Mumbai vs. Oslo," American Thinker, Pamela Geller

"Just days before a barbarian (alone and belonging to no one, no group, just the twisted sickness of a legend in his own broken mind) murdered over seventy people in Norway, the city of Mumbai was attacked in a brutal jihad by Muslim extremists,
  • again.
  • Hear about that? Not so much.

But one cold-blooded killer who has been planning a slaughter in Norway (setting his plan in motion since before 9/11) has become the rallying cry of the dhimmedia in service to the most radical and extreme ideology

  • on the face of the earth.

Where is the same obsessive drive to determine the motivation and the manifesto behind the jihad? Where are the investigative reports on the imams and the mosques that teach, advance, and prescribe violence? Where is the Woodward and Bernstein team to investigate what motivated a Muslim

  • to gun down

Where's the round-the-clock coverage of the Muslim Najibullah Zazi, who plotted to blow up the New York subway system with the help of his father and his imam on the anniversary of 9/11? Where's the relentless outcry and hand-wringing over the ideology that attracts young Muslims in America to join Muslim armies in Somalia? Why are there no television specials on why Osama bin Laden quoted Allah and the Koran extensively? What manifesto incited four Muslims in a jihad plot to bomb New York City synagogues and shoot down military planes with stinger missiles?

Where is the pained outcry over Fort Hood jihadi Major Nidal Malik Hasan and his PowerPoint presentation on Islam and the jihadic doctrine? What motivated a Pentagon attack suspect back in June (a Marine, no less) to plot to bomb the Department of Defense? Was it his religious Al Qaeda notebook? This same pious Muslim was found to be responsible for recent random shootings at military installations in and around Washington, D.C.

  • Diane Sawyer, call your office.

Did Brian Williams, who tried to smear Robert Spencer Monday night with this Norwegian nut, look deeply into the ideology and manifesto that motivated more than one imam who was found guilty of plotting to blow up the fuel tanks at JFK airport, which would have

  • made 9/11 look like amateur hour?

Where is the New York Times' in-depth investigation of who and what inspired six American Muslims (including two imams), who were charged with aiding the jihad by providing the Taliban "material support to a conspiracy to murder, maim and kidnap persons overseas, as well as conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization"?

Where is the probe on bomb-making classes in madrasas? Or Islamic belly bombs to beat airport security? Or brutal Islamic "constitutions" in Bangladesh, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran (the world's most brutal nations)? Where is the media feeding frenzy on groups in the United States that are plotting to overthrow the current system of governance and install "The United States of Islam"? Where are the headlines on the Muslim Brotherhood figure and former spokesman in the West's call to establish a global Islamic state? Where is the media outrage on the Bible ban in Pakistan? What and who was responsible for the Chicago Muslim who was found guilty in a plot to blow up a Danish newspaper? Where was the killer media on the Islamic leader who called for American Muslims to buy guns and start shooting people? Why isn't the media pounding on the manifesto that inspired Muslims' deadly attacks on Christian villages, leaving
Where is the Washington Post and the New York Times front-page splash on the Indonesian Muslims who planted a big bomb near a major church ahead of Easter?

CNN, why aren't you rabid in your pursuit to uncover what inspired the Muslim bomb plotters in the NYC synagogue attack, who were quoted as saying, "I hate Jews" and "I want to kill them"?

Believe me, folks, I could go on and on and on and on. This is just the last couple of months.

Where is the relentless pounding of the Islamic teachings that command jihad, ethnic cleansing, gender apartheid, and hatred of non-Muslims? Where are the media exposés on the fatwa issued from the leading Islamic university, Al Azhar in Cairo, calling for the death of apostates, hypocrites, and blasphemers?

No. The crime, ladies and gentlemen, is reporting about these

  • acts of war
  • on the West.

And I am guilty as charged. And will continue to be."


Commenters to AT article


FeralCat Today 02:50 AM

"Where is the pained outcry over Fort Hood jihadi Major Nidal Malik Hasan and
his PowerPoint presentation on Islam and the jihadic doctrine?"

Well there is none, as our wonderful all career Army's generals, who also have a great fondness for PowerPoint presentations btw, although theirs are more along the lines of "See no Islam, Hear no Islam, Speak no Islam, Know no Islam", pass some more cups of tea sweet partners in peace, and the most convoluted flow charts you never want to see, say that it had nothing to do with Islam. Nothing I tell you, nothing! They are the brave and capable warriors defending a grateful nation, are they not? Who are we to question? Every single one of them studied in depth all the great generals throughout history from Sun Tzu to Charles Martel to George S. Patton, yes? Of course they did. Don't worry needlessly and sleep well, our fate is surly in the best of hands."


"The Norway Terrorist (NT) claimed to be anti-Islam, but he couldn't have done more to help them. From now on his act will be used to diminish the importance of Islamic terrorist acts. The MSM can point out that there are also white Christian terrorists (about 1 every 15 years), so Muslim terrorists are no big deal and shouldn't get special attention, even though there are hundreds more of these attacks. It's hard to believe that the NT thought he was hurting the Islamists by killing young, innocent Norwegians. How exactly was that supposed to work? One wonders what he really wanted to accomplish.""


Wednesday, July 27, 2011

US Islamist indicted, bit federal agents in Pennsylvania, solicited others to engage in terror acts in US

July 14, 2011, "Pennsylvania Man Indicted for Soliciting Jihadists to Kill Americans," US, Washington (video follows used in evidence, while shooting says 'Allah Akbar'))

"Emerson Winfield Begolly, 22, of New Bethlehem, Pa., was indicted by a federal grand jury in soliciting Islamic extremists to engage in acts of terrorism within the United States and posting

The indictment was announced by Lisa Monaco, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Neil H. MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office; and David J. Hickton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania....

“Emerson Begolly is accused of repeatedly using the Internet to promote violent jihad against Americans,” said U.S. Attorney MacBride. “These allegations demonstrate how young people in the United States can become influenced by – and eventually participate in – jihadist propaganda that is a serious threat to the safety of us all.”...

According to the two-count indictment, Begolly has been an active moderator of a popular, internationally known Islamic extremist web forum, the Ansar al-Mujahideen English Forum (AMEF), used by its members to promote and distribute jihadist propaganda. The indictment alleges that since July 2010, Begolly has placed a number of postings encouraging attacks within the United States, including the use of firearms, explosives and propane tanks against targets such as

  • police stations,
  • post offices,
  • synagogues,
  • military facilities,
  • train lines,
  • bridges,
  • cell phone towers and
  • water plants.

Following the reported shootings in Northern Virginia at the Pentagon and the Marine Corps Museum in October 2010, Begolly allegedly posted a comment online that praised the shootings and hoped the shooter had followed his previous postings encouraging similar acts of violence that might

  • “seem small but cause big damage.”

On Dec. 28, 2010, Begolly allegedly posted links to a 101-page document that contains information on how to set up a laboratory, conduct basic chemistry and manufacture explosives.

The indictment charges Begolly with solicitation to commit a crime of violence, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, and distribution of information relating to explosives, destructive devices and weapons of mass destruction, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

On Feb. 2, 2011, Begolly was indicted for allegedly assaulting federal agents and firearms-related charges in the Western District of Pennsylvania. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted of the charges filed in that district."...


Video of Begolly presented in evidence. At 1:24 he is clearly heard to say "Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar"

Video via Creeping Sharia


2/9/11, "Man Pleads Innocent to Biting FBI Agents," WESB Newsradio 1490

"The man accused of biting two FBI agents investigating his alleged criminal activities has pleaded not guilty to assault.

21-year-old Emerson Begolly of Mayport is accused of reaching for a 9mm semi-automatic handgun and then biting the agents on January 4.

Prosecutors say Begolly had an arsenal in his bedroom; trained with guns on his father's farm; and posted jihadist songs and poetry online including an original song on YouTube that pays tribute to Osama Bin Laden."

via Atlas Shrugs

This CFL light bulb 'almost burned my house down.' Thanks again to GOP House 'leadership'

7/26/11, "This CFL bulb almost burned my house down!" American Thinker, Dee Mansfield

"This caught on fire in my living room. Why are these going to be the only light bulbs we can buy after 2012?

I was also using them in my hay barn. I keep a light on all the time to keep out the bats, and to provide a little night light for my horses.

After this happened in my living room, I ran to the barn and took out all the CFL bulbs. I also wrote to the company that manufactured them and got no reply at all. I sent them the above photo also.

I am just reporting this because NO one will listen to me. These bulbs are dangerous, and it is absolutely ridiculous that they are going to be the only bulbs we can buy pretty soon.

Does our government ever see these comments? I've seen complaints since they were first made. Is there anyone who will listen before there is a

  • death from a fire that these bulbs can cause?"


Monday, July 25, 2011

Donald Trump: Republicans hold all the cards. If default, history will remember only Obama

7/25/11, "Trump: If There Is A Default, Americans Will Blame ‘One Name And That’s Obama’," MediaIte, Matt Schneider

"Donald Trump spoke with the hosts of Fox & Friends this morning and revealed an uncompromising position on the debt negotiations that he hopes Republicans adopt. With his eye on the prize of making sure President Obama does not get a second term as President, Trump seems to be arguing that the Republicans have just three choices: (i) accept a “deal” where they compromise on nothing and get everything they want; (ii) agree to a short-term extension, forcing Obama to engage in these debt talks again during his re-election campaign; or (iii) don’t raise the debt ceiling and if the country defaults it’s Obama fault.

The author of the best-selling book The Art of the Deal seemed less interested in securing a “deal” and more excited by how vulnerable Obama could be. Trump’s advice to Republicans, who according to him, have all of the leverage:

“The fact is unless the Republicans get 100 percent of what they want, and that may include getting rid of Obamacare, which is a total disaster, then they should not make a deal other than a minor extension, which would take you before the election, which would assure that Obama doesn’t get elected, which would be a great thing.”

And despite Brian Kilmeade warning Trump polls indicate that if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, most Americans blame Republicans and not Obama, Trump’s response was to ignore such a prediction. “When it comes time to default, they’re not going to remember any of the Republican’s names, they’re going to remember in

via Weasel Zippers

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Oil companies BP and Shell gave money for formation of ClimateGate unit at University of East Anglia in 1971

Page 285, BP and Shell contributed in 1971 to the formation of East Anglia's CRU. They are also thanked on CRU's own web page under 'Acknowledgements,' along with "The Sultanate of Oman." 34% of Oman's oil production is owned by Royal Dutch Shell Oil (US State.Gov, Oman, Economy, 2p)
CRU's first director came from the UN and

"A specialist area of ENV which rose to prominence in the 1970's was the Unit of Climatic Research established in 1971...with sponsorhip from the Nuffield Foundation, Shell Oil, BP, and others. (49) It's first director was Hubert Lamb who had been in charge of the Meteorological Office's research on climate variation and was the Chair of the United Nations World Meteorological Organisation....Professor Lamb came to Norwich as "the ice man," attracting much attention for
  • his prophecy
  • and a future ice age within 10,000 years.
Within a few years in Norwich in which the heat wave of 1975-76 had intervened, he had
with dire predictions of forest and crop belts being shifted, melting ice caps, and drowned cities. A holocaust within a century was an even more exciting prospect than an ice age in 10 millenia, and it all
  • helped to shape contemporary attitudes to global warming.
It also drew much attention to UEA as did two international conferences in 1973 and 1975 which he hosted in Norwich.

photo from google books website


Climategate unit seeks money from big oil:

CRU Climategate emails, Jan. 10, 2000 and July l5, 2000 about funding meetings with Shell, BP, Esso. This was not a crime, just means they were partners with 'big oil.'
12/4/2009, "Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support," Anthony Watts, WUWT
"One of the favorite put-downs from people who think they have the moral high ground in the climate debate is to accuse skeptics with this phrase:

  • “You are nothing but a shill for Big Oil”...
Now it appears CRU is the one looking for “big oil” money. See the email:

See the entire email here:
There’s more.

"But wait that’s not all!
Further down in that email, look at who else they were looking to for money.... They were looking to not only BP but, but EXXON in its Esso incarnation:
See the entire email here:
Now who is the shill for Big Oil again? Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this."
UN IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri's appointment was at the insistence of Saudi Arabia, per ClimateGate emails:
Email from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones and others, 4/19/2002:
"Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was elected as Chair of the (UN) IPCC at a plenary meeting in Geneva. ...
  • Although reports from Geneva are still sketchy, our sources on the ground
  • tell us that there was
intense behind-the- scenes
from East Anglia confirmed emails from CRU.
Oil companies were in on the 'climate' deal from the beginning. Why doesn't big media want people to know?
From CRU's own website, it thanks donors including BP, Shell, The Sultanate of Oman, the US Dept. of Energy, the US EPA, WWF, Greenpeace, the EU, and the UN.
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council, British Petroleum, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)."


3/7/11, "Background Note: Oman", US Dept. of State,


University of East Anglia CRU personnel were in effect salesmen on commission, relied on 'soft money' grants and contracts for income til 1994, US government diverted taxpayer money from the beginning

University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit personnel were in effect salesmen or scientists on commission. The people who paid them had financial interest in the outcome. US politicians were there from the beginning. US EPA and Dept. of Energy are listed in CRU "Acknowledgements" (end of this post).

"History of the Climatic Research Unit," CRU, University of East Anglia, UK

"Since its inception in 1972 until 1994, the only scientist who had a guaranteed salary from ENV/UEA funding was the Director. Every other research scientist relied on 'soft money' - grants and contracts - to continue his or her work. Since 1994, the situation has improved and now three of the senior staff are fully funded by ENV/UEA and two others have part of their salaries paid. The fact that CRU has and has had a number of long-standing research staff is testimony to the quality and relevance of our work. Such longevity in a research centre, dependent principally on soft money, in the UK university system is probably unprecedented. The number of CRU research staff as of the end of July 2007 is 15 (including those (3) fully funded by ENV/UEA)."...

Universally used data sets took years

"The area of CRU's work that has probably had the largest international impact was started in 1978 and continues through to the present-day: the production of the world's land-based, gridded (currently using 5° by 5° latitude/longitude boxes) temperature data set. This involved many person-years of painstaking data collection, checking and homogenization. In 1986, this analysis was extended to the marine sector (in co-operation with the Hadley Centre, Met Office from 1989), and so represented the first-ever synthesis of land and marine temperature data - i.e., the first truly global temperature record, demonstrating unequivocally that the globe has warmed by almost 0.8°C over the last 157 years. This work continues year-on-year to update and enhance the record and its publication is eagerly awaited around the world. The most recent innovation has been the development of a comprehensive set of error estimates at the grid-box and larger scales (see Brohan et al. 2006 Adobe Portable Document Format fileand IPCC AR4 chapter 3 Adobe Portable Document Format file).

Besides the global temperature data set, there has been much CRU effort devoted to the compilation of a comprehensive, quality-controlled precipitation data base. This, together with CRU's high-resolution (0.5° by 0.5°) monthly datasets (for maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation, rainday counts, vapour pressure, cloudiness and wind speed) for all the world's inhabited land areas, has provided many researchers, in the UK and overseas, with their basic data for a whole range of studies....

As it became clearer, in the 1980s, that the world was warming, a question that was asked with increasing frequency was how much, if any, of the warming was a consequence of human activity? CRU had made an important contribution to the posing of that question, so was in an excellent position to attract some more research funding to address it. The UK Government became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s, following a meeting between Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher and a small number of climate researchers, which included Tom Wigley, the CRU director at the time. This and other meetings eventually led to the setting up of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, within the Met Office. At the same time, other governments were also taking notice and wanted more information. As this need was not being met by international scientific bodies and institutions at the time, they set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was under the United Nations Framework (later the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC) and led to assessments being produced in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. CRU staff have been heavily involved in all four assessments, probably more than anywhere else relative to the size of an institution (see IPCC AR4 Authors)....

In 1995...a team of researchers from American institutes and from CRU, using the computer simulations of climate change caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, and sulphate aerosols (developed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA), was able to detect the effects of these climate forcing factors in the climate observations. The results were in stark contrast to the consensus view expressed by IPCC in 1990,
  • when it was stated that the effect of increased carbon dioxide concentrations could not yet be identified in the observed record.
This work played a critical role in the conclusion reached by the 1995 assessment of the IPCC that "the balance of evidence suggests that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate". Subsequent IPCC reports have strengthened these statements...and led most governments, industries, multi-national companies and the majority of the public to accept that the climate is warming, and humans are part of the cause. Accepting the evidence is one thing,
  • but not all governments appreciate the full scale of the problem yet.
CRU has also played a major role in attempts to predict future anthropogenic climate change, and some of its consequences. In the late 1970s, rapid advances were being made elsewhere in atmospheric climate modelling... and, unlike the computer-intensive GCMs, they allowed the consideration of the consequences of a wider range of future emission scenarios and an assessment of the uncertainties.... CRU's work with these models led directly to the global-mean temperature
  • projections given by the IPCC in 1990 and to
  • corresponding projections of sea-level rise....
The dramatic increases in computer power over the last 30 years have mainly been used to increase the spatial and vertical resolution of GCMs and to simulate many more aspects of the climate system.... Earth System Models or Global Environmental Models (as GCMs are sometimes called) require the largest and fastest computers in the world. These resources are best allocated to improving the comprehensiveness of the models, as opposed to running extensive scenario combinations for IPCC reports every few years. MAGICC and other similar developments around the world,
  • therefore, continue to fill an important niche....
CRU researchers have also pioneered several approaches to the construction of regional climate change scenarios which can be used in climate impact assessments, environmental planning and climate policy debates.... In the 1990s, CRU incorporated model-based scenarios into integrated assessments of climate change undertaken for the UK, European and US governments. This work has led to the creation of several scenario software applications which are widely used by the research communities. This scenario
  • work has also been
  • incorporated into IPCC reports. ...
This moved the agenda from the scientific determination of the global warming problem to how to solve the problem. In the late 1990s, the UK Research Councils recognized the need for a centre to address these issues. CRU, ENV and other groups across the UK were successful with their bid, and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research was born in 2000. The Tyndall Centre focuses on solutions to the problem of climate change, while CRU continues to work on all aspects of climate science. CRU and Tyndall work together on some projects, but their specific aims and agendas are different. The growing practical applicability of CRU work is nonetheless reflected in the increasing range of academic users, stakeholders, decision makers and professional bodies with which CRU is involved, as well as the range of impacts sectors covered. The latter include agriculture, water, health, energy and, most recently, the built environment. These aspects of CRU work in the UK are also facilitated by strong links with the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) which was set up in 1997 - based at the University of Oxford. ...

A main thrust of the Unit's research programme since the early 1980s has, therefore, been global warming: the human contribution, the future climate response, and possible impacts of future climate change, with an increasing emphasis on adaptation to these impacts. But this was not to the exclusion of other research, much of it of commercial relevance. A few examples follow. From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP's Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases, covering estimates of data quality and climate variability as well as standard climatological means, and a series of reports on specific issues, such as navigation capabilities through the Canadian Archipelago. Assessment of the wind energy resource over the UK led to the development of predictive schemes to assess the potential power production at candidate wind turbine sites. Research on predicting canopy wetness as a vector for disease in cocoa plantations has been of special interest to Brazilian cocoa producers. Advice from CRU has been sought on far-future climate states in relation to the long-term safety of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste storage sites. On shorter-term timescales, work on extreme events with implications for nuclear power station operation has been undertaken. Perhaps, not surprisingly, the insurance and re-insurance industries have been a regular sponsor of research with studies evaluating the risk of hurricane landfall on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the US, the impacts of severe storms in Europe and the characteristic of the typhoon risk over Japan. Former public utilities, such as the Central Electricity Generating Board (and latterly National Power) commissioned work from CRU on acid rain, wind energy, and surface ozone.
  • Work has also been undertaken for Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace....
Today, CRU is still dependent upon research grant income to maintain the size and breadth of our research and student communities. The European Commission of the European Union (EU) provides the largest fraction of our research income under the Environment and Climate Change Programme. Since the mid-1990s, CRU has co-ordinated 9 EU research projects and been a partner on 16 others within the 4th, 5th and 6th Framework Programmes. Although EU funding is very important, we also endeavour to maintain the diverse pattern of funding reflected by the research described in this "history of CRU" and in the list of Acknowledgements below. ...

A number of CRU staff have been awarded medals, certificates or fellowships from the Royal Meteorological Society, the European Geosciences Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the Leverhulme Trust."...
  • (All with financial interest. ed.)
(continuing): "Over the last 35 years also, several staff have been on the editorial boards of a number of major climatic journals  (International Journal of Climatology, Climatic Change, Weather, Atmospheric Science Letters, Journal of Climate, The Holocene, Boreas, Climate Research, Theoretical and Applied Climatology ). ...


This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council, British Petroleum, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and
  • the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)."

"Climate" issue is first and foremost about "profound transformation in world society":

3/23/2008, "Fundamental Inadequacies of Carbon Trading for the Struggle Against Climate Change," by Daniel Tanuro,

"As a last word, let me state that the profound transformation of world society that is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change
  • real democracy, climate justice
  • will be essential for its success."
"Daniel Tanuro is the ecological correspondent of La Gauche, newspaper of the Belgian Socialist Workers Party. This is the text of his talk at the Conference on the future of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading in the EU organized by the Slovenski E-forum, Focus and the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, on March 21, 2008"



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.