News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Monday, November 21, 2011

BBC analyst who influenced corp. execs on 'climate' took money from ClimateGate U, Harrabin also changed BBC copy to appease climate activist in 2008

11/20/11, "BBC Environment Analyst Received 15000 Pounds From ClimateGate University," NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard

"For years NewsBusters has informed readers of the tremendous financial ties to spreading the anthropogenic global warming myth.

On Sunday, coincidentally the second anniversary of 2010's ClimateGate scandal, Britain's Daily Mail exposed the BBC's Roger Harrabin for having taken £15,000 from the very university at the heart the damning email messages demonstrating a nefarious collusion between the world's top climate alarmists:

  • (UK Daily Mail): "A senior BBC journalist accepted £15,000 in grants from the university at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ scandal – and later went on to cover the story without declaring an interest to viewers.

  • Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’, used the money from the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research to fund an ‘ad hoc’ partnership he ran with a friend.
  • Mr Harrabin, an influential figure who both broadcasts and advises other BBC journalists, later reported extensively about Climategate."...

Readers might recognize Harrabin as the BBC reporter who materially altered an article back in April 2008 to incite climate hysteria.

  • It was later
  • under pressure from a global warming activist.

Now as the Daily Mail reports, we find out that he's taken money from ClimateGate U:

  • (Daily Mail): "In none of Mr Harrabin’s reports on the [ClimateGate] were the grants that he and his friend Dr Joe Smith had received from UEA ever mentioned. However, BBC insiders claim that the use to which the money was put – annual Real World seminars for top BBC executives on issues including climate change –
  • had a significant impact on the Corporation’s output.
  • ‘The seminars organised by Roger and his friend were part of a process which has effectively stifled all debate within the BBC about man-made global warming, said one senior journalist.
  • ‘As far as the high-ups are concerned, the science is settled.’"...

But there's more:

  • "Disclosure of the payments to Mr Harrabin’s private partnership comes in the wake of a damning report last week by the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee.
  • It revealed ‘sponsored’ documentaries on environmental issues, whose production costs had been met by ‘non-commercial’ bodies such as the UN Environmental Programme, have been shown frequently on the BBC World news channel without viewers being made properly aware of their funding.
  • Trust investigators discovered that of a sample of 60 sponsored programmes broadcast between February and July this year,
  • a total of 15 breached the BBC’s editorial guidelines.
  • The investigators said some of the breaches involved direct conflicts of interests – with the funders being the subjects of the programmes they were paying for – and that others failed to observe BBC rules on telling viewers where the programme budget had come from."...

That's some pretty ugly stuff when you think about it. And it gets worse as Christopher Booker of Britain's Telegraph reported Saturday:

  • "The story of the BBC’s bias on global warming gets ever murkier. Last week there was quite a stir over a new report for the BBC Trust which criticised several programmes for having been improperly funded or sponsored by outside bodies. One, for instance, lauded the work of Envirotrade, a Mauritius-based firm cashing in on the global warming scare by selling “carbon offsets”, which it turned out had given the BBC money to make the programme.
  • Just as this scandal broke, I was also completing a report, to be published next month by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, on the BBC’s coverage of climate change. It ranges from the puffing of scare stories dreamed up by “climate activists”, to BBC reporting on wind farms, often no more than shameless propaganda for the wind industry. Part of the story told in my report is the unhealthily close relationship that developed between the BBC and
  • organisations professionally involved in the “warmist” cause.
  • while climate sceptics, or “deniers” as the BBC calls them,
  • should be kept off the airwaves.
  • A key moment in developing the new party line was a “high-level seminar” in 2006, attended by a bevy of top BBC executives. It was organised by Roger Harrabin, one of its senior environmental correspondents, and Dr Joe Smith, a geographer and climate activist from the Open University. They had set up the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme to promote the consensus line on global warming, funded by, among others, the
  • Department for the Environment (then in charge of government policy on climate change)
  • and WWF, one of the leading warmist pressure groups."...

Now according to the Daily, we find out that Harrabin and Smith received money from UEA:

  • "Mr Harrabin’s partnership with Dr Smith – the Cambridge Media Environment Programme (CMEP) – began in 1996. That was when Mr Harrabin spent a sabbatical at Cambridge University, where Dr Smith was working at the time. [...]
  • [Smith's] own opinion, which he sets out on his website, is that ‘everyday human activity – moving, eating, keeping warm or cool – is gently stoking a slow-boil apocalypse’. He calls climate change ‘one of the challenges of the age’ and urges the world to take radical action. A Freedom of Information Act disclosure obtained by Andrew Montford, who writes the climate-change blog Bishop Hill, reveals that
  • the Tyndall Centre provided £5,000 a year for three years from 2002."...

So individuals with tremendous sway over the BBC's reporting on global warming had been receiving money from the university at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal since 2002.

Isn't that special?"

=================

11/19/11, "BBC's Mr Climate Change accepted £15,000 in grants from university rocked by global warning scandal," UK Daily Mail, David Rose

--------------------

11/19/11, "The BBC's hidden 'warmist' agenda is rapidly unravelling," UK Telegraph, Christopher Booker

--------------------

4/6/2008, "BBC Changes 'Temperatures Decrease' Article to Incite Climate Hysteria," NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard

"On Saturday, NewsBusters shared with readers a BBC.com report that astoundingly proclaimed "Global Temperatures 'To Decrease.'"

Some time after this was posted, the third paragraph of the original piece was changed in a fashion that radically altered the meaning of the entire article (picture courtesy AP).

In fact, what was once a realistic portrayal of new data released by the World Meteorological Organization suddenly became another hysterical report espousing doom and gloom at the hands of manmade global warming.

Here was how the piece began before Saturday's edits (emphasis added):

"Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."

For the record, a website called Gribbit's Word cut and pasted those three opening paragraphs exactly the same way on Friday at 12:19 PM.

Yet, some time on Saturday after NewsBusters posted its piece at 12:22 PM, the third paragraph was mysteriously changed to this (emphasis added):

"But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases."

Some difference, wouldn't you agree? Maybe more fascinating is that the time stamp at the top of the article doesn't reflect that any changes were made since Gribbit or I cut and pasted the version we shared with our readers: "Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK."

For those unfamiliar, 00:42 GMT on Friday would be 7:42 PM EST Thursday. So, according to BBC.com, this piece was last updated on Thursday evening.

Yet, Gribbit's cut and paste Friday afternoon, and mine on Saturday afternoon, are different than what one now sees if you click on the links we both posted for this piece. And, since mine was posted at 12:22 PM Saturday, it means

  • this third paragraph was changed at least 40 hours after the last "official" update.

Why? Was someone at the BBC displeased with the tenor of this piece, but didn't want folks to know it was being altered so long after it had been posted?

*****Update: Jennifer Marohasy reports that the headline of this article was changed a couple of times as well --

Moving on to the strange happenings surrounding a subsequent 4th April article by the BBC's Roger Harrabin, blogged here, entitled, Global temperatures 'to decrease' , which was later changed to, Global warming 'dips this year, ' and then subsequently changed back to Global temperatures 'to decrease.' The changes in the text, however, did not revert back to the text in the original article.

Makes sense. After all, the alarmists certainly couldn't have an article out there titled "Global Warming 'Dips This Year.'""

=================

4/7/2008, "Global Warming Activist Pressures BBC to Significantly Alter Article," Newsbusters, Noel Sheppard

NewsBusters has just learned that a British "climate activist" was responsible for getting the BBC to radically alter its "Global Temperatures 'To Decrease'" article last Friday.

As reported Sunday, the third paragraph of what previously had been a very balanced piece about

  • how global temperatures have been declining since 1998

was totally reworded in order to make the report just another hysterical climate change pronouncement.

On Monday, Jennifer Marohasy, the director of the Environment Unit at Australia's Institute of Public Affairs, received and published an e-mail exchange between the article's author, Roger Harrabin, and a climate activist affiliated with the British Campaign Against Climate Change:

"From Jo, April 4, 2008

Climate Changers,

Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it's been subject to spin or scepticism.

Here's my go for today. The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for, but I'm not really sure if the result is that much better.

Judge for yourselves..."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

from Jo Abbess
to Roger Harrabin
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:12 AM
subject Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"

Dear Roger,

Please can you correct your piece published today entitled "Global
temperatures 'to decrease'" :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

1. "A minority of scientists question whether this means global
warming has peaked"

This is incorrect. Several networks exist that question whether global
warming has peaked, but they contain very few actual scientists, and
the scientists that they do contain are not climate scientists so have
no expertise in this area.

2. "Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007"

You should not mislead people into thinking that the sum total of the
Earth system is going to be cooler in 2008 than 2007. For example, the
ocean systems of temperature do not change in yearly timescales, and
are massive heat sinks that have shown gradual and continual warming.
It is only near-surface air temperatures that will be affected by La
Nina, plus a bit of the lower atmosphere.

Thank you for applying your attention to all the facts and figures available,

jo.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

from Roger Harrabin to Jo Abbess , date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"

Dear Jo

No correction is needed

If the secy-gen of the WMO tells me that global temperatures will
decrease, that's what we will report

There are scientists who question whether warming will continue as
projected by IPCC

Best wishes
RH

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from Jo Abbess to Roger Harrabin , date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM
subject Re: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"

Hi Roger,

I will forward your comments (unless you object) to some people who
may wish to add to your knowledge.

Would you be willing to publish information that expands on your
original position, and which would give a better, clearer picture of
what is going on ?

Personally, I think it is highly irresponsible to play into the hands
of the sceptics/skeptics who continually promote the idea that "global warming finished in 1998", when that is so patently not true.

I have to spend a lot of my time countering their various myths and
non-arguments, saying, no, go look at the Hadley Centre data. Global
Warming is not over. There have been what look like troughs and
plateaus/x before. It didn't stop then. It's not stopping now.

It is true that people are debating Climate Sensitivity, how much
exactly the Earth will respond to radiative forcing, but nobody is
seriously refuting that increasing Greenhouse Gases cause increased
global temperatures.

I think it's counterproductive to even hint that the Earth is cooling
down again, when the sum total of the data tells you the opposite.
Glaringly.

As time goes by, the infant science of climatology improves. The Earth
has never experienced the kind of chemical adjustment in the
atmosphere we see now, so it is hard to tell exactly what will happen
based on historical science.

However, the broad sweep is : added GHG means added warming.

Please do not do a disservice to your readership by leaving the door
open to doubt about that.

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from Roger Harrabin to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:57 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"

The article makes all these points quite clear

We can't ignore the fact that sceptics have jumped on the lack of increase since 1998. It is appearing regularly now in general media

Best to tackle this - and explain it, which is what we have done

Or people feel like debate is being censored which makes them v
suspicious

Roger

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from Jo Abbess to Roger Harrabin , date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM
subject Re: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"

Hi Roger,

When you are on the Tube in London, I expect that occasionally you
glance a headline as sometime turns the page, and you thinkg "Really
?" or "Wow !"

You don't read the whole article, you just get the headline.

A lot of people will read the first few paragraphs of what you say,
and not read the rest, and (a) Dismiss your writing as it seems you
have been manipulated by the sceptics or (b) Jump on it with glee and
e-mail their mates and say "See ! Global Warming has stopped !"

They only got the headline, which is why it is so utterly essentialy
to give the full picture, or as full as you can in the first few
paragraphs.

The near-Earth surface temperatures may be cooler in 2008 that they
were in 2007, but there is no way that Global Warming has stopped, or
has even gone into reverse. The oceans have been warming consistently,
for example, and we're not seeing temperatures go into reverse, in
general, anywhere.

Your word "debate". This is not an issue of "debate". This is an issue
of emerging truth. I don't think you should worry about whether people
feel they are countering some kind of conspiracy, or suspicious that
the full extent of the truth is being withheld from them.

Every day more information is added to the stack showing the desperate plight of the planet.

It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is
heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing
the emergence of the truth.

I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.

Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.

I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution,
unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your
comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to
happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.

Respectfully,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from Roger Harrabin to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:28 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"

Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier

We have changed headline and more

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

ORIGINAL
================

Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst

"Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."...

------------------------

[For the reader, changes are made at this point, entire email follows:

Instead of saying, "But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years,"

  • Harrabin inserts stronger language then adds a contortion attributed to the WMO--the source Harrabin had minutes earlier cited to the activist as proof that cooling was happening:

"But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C."]

(notes to NewsBuster article by blog editor)

-----------------------------

(continuing, BBC story email. Original version): "But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.

Rises 'stalled'

La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

Watching trends

A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."

Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

UPDATED VERSION (note : the page date and time has not changed)
==============================================

Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK

Global temperatures 'to decrease'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst

"Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."...

  • (Ed. note, copy changes at this point from the original)

(continuing, BBC email via NewsBusters): "But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.

Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.

Rises 'stalled'

La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

Watching trends

A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

Animation of El Nino and La Nina effects

But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."

China suffered from heavy snow in January

Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."

  • End of email reporting on Jo's activities.

Wow. For those interested, "Climate Changers" appears to be a Yahoo message board group Abbess belongs to. Also, Abbess posted the entire e-mail exchange at CACC's website.

Isn't it refreshing to know that a major, international press outlet like the BBC can be so easily pressured to change the content of one of its stories?

*****Update: More about Jo Abbess:

Jo Abbess writes:

I replaced Bruce Valpy at the Ealing Churches Together "Our World - What Future ?" event on Tuesday evening as part of One World Week, speaking on campaigning, and representing Christian Ecology Link's Operation Noah. The other panel members were Bishop John Oliver and Laurie Michaelis, of Quaker Green Action and leading light in the Living Witness Project.

All the Christian Ecology Link Climate Covenant cards I had with me vanished like hot cakes, so I must have done something right ! Also, leaflets for the Campaign against Climate Change advertising the Climate March on 3rd December were circulated and eagerly pocketed.

Questions from the floor were excellent, and covered all aspects of environment, community, politics and science. The speakers mainly focussed on Climate Change and our personal and corporate response. Frustration about Government policy was evident, and hopes for a less energy intensive life were aired freely.

I am attaching my prepared notes which I had to ad-lib a bit to dovetail with what the other two speakers said before me.

==================================================
25th October 2005 : Ealing Abbey Personal Presentation :

Hello. My name is Jo Abbess, and I get nervous when I have to speak in public, so
please forgive me if I start to resemble cranberry jelly...

Over the last few years I have been busy reading and reporting on Energy Trends, Climate Change and Resource Depletion; and as a direct result I am morphing into an environmental campaigner. Along the way, I became a member of Christian Ecology Link, gratefully recognising there are others of faith who are on a similar journey.

My particular viewpoint is that Energy Reduction and Resource Adaptation, which people are committing to on a personal level, must be matched by rock solid policy in the public domain.

Research by the World Wildlife Fund indicates that about 50% of the changes required are at the private or household level, but that means that 50% of the changes required are in the public realm. Loading individuals with the burden of change is not ethical, neither can it ever be a complete solution !

As a nation, we are learning that we have to adapt our Energy and Resource use. This Adaptation has to happen at every level and across every sector In order to adapt, we need to ADOPT. It is exciting to see that there is a large groundswell of people learning and taking radical action, in their
daily lives, their homes and communities. Business and industry are also moving, making a virtue out of necessity.

But it is becoming alarmingly clear to me that uptake on a voluntary basis is not sufficiently widespread, or emerging fast enough, despite extensive mainstream media and public education. The conclusion for me is that Adoption will need to be imposed through regulation, from the top.

The biggest problem is Carbon Dioxide. Many experts are concluding that a global cap on Carbon Dioxide emissions is necessary, and that the Global Carbon Budget will need to be fairly shared, and progressively reduced, in the coming years : this is Contraction and Convergence.

Beyond personal and corporate responsibility, we need national strategy and international cooperation. Currently there is the brave but faltering Kyoto. The United States is in a state of clinical denial. Meanwhile, the UK Government seems to be suffering schizophrenia, as it continues to promote airport expansion, plan new roads and build energy-poor housing; whilst at the same time urging energy restraint and offering grant schemes for green energy systems.

I think the key questions are : Will we decide on Carbon Taxation or Carbon Rationing ? When will we realise that centralised energy provision is too wasteful ? How are we going to finance localised Renewable Energies and Biofuels ?

And if we refuse to consider changing our high maintenance lifestyles : How many Climate Refugees will it take before we admit there is a crisis ? How long will it be before the growing gap between energy demand and energy supply destroys the global economy ? How long before crop loss halts international food trade ?

Over the weekend I was at a workshop in a public building, and on the notice board was a sign : "No Smoking". And underneath, the sign : "Please Recycle Your Waste". The first, an imperative, the second an invitation. How long does it take to move from "Please" to "No" ? If I think back, it has been about ten years between the first anti-smoking campaigns and the public buildings ban.

I expect it could take ten years to get effective Climate and Energy policy into the legal framework of this country. However, it might take less time to start Climate Justice proceedings in an international court. My campaigning has to be focussed on influencing a faster move from
voluntary change to institutional policy : ten years might be too slow, considering the fact that the Siberian permafrost is already melting. Everything I do from now on, making changes in my life, in my work and in my words, has to bring the future forward.

Global problems such as Climate Change, Peak Oil and Energy Security need global solutions and, happily, since each of us is a global citizen, we can all do something useful. This is One World Week, so make your promises to the planet. And don't forget to sign the Climate Covenant with Operation Noah !""

===================
It must be noted the BBC is owned and operated by the UK government which itself is financially dependent on the success of global warming alarmism. Revenues, fees, and taxes from the climate industry are taken in by the state to meet its budget. Even the UK monarchy's financial future depends on belief in global warming. It collects 10's of millions each year in lease fees for off shore wind farms. ed.

Re: Gordon Brown, 1/25/10, "Don't let the carbon market die," UK Guardian, by Oliver Tickell,UK Guardian:

"No less chagrined must be Gordon Brown, who sees the carbon market as key to the global response to climate change, and
  • to the economic fortunes of the City of London.
  • As Brown told WWF in 2007, the government wanted binding limits on developed country emissions in a post-2012 climate agreement, because London was the world's carbon trading capital,
and "only hard caps can create the framework necessary for a global carbon market to flourish". Thus he made it clear that the
took a rather higher priority than the health of the climate system."...

(The author of the article is a believer in both global warming and carbon dioxide trading). ed.

------------------------

Reference: 12/31/10, "One's in the money! Why Prince Charles's secret 20-year campaign could make him the richest king in history," UK Daily Mail, G. Levy

---------------------

A BBC employee in the Weather Dept. was forwarded the ClimateGate emails on Oct. 12, 2009. He did nothing with them but says they appear authentic. Several weeks later concluding that no one in the media would discuss the matter, the emails were released in another manner. Hudson surmises he was sent the emails due to one of his recent articles.

11/23/2009, "'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications," Paul Hudson, BBC Weather

"But I will in the meantime answer the question regarding the chain of e-mails which you have been commenting about on my blog, which can be seen here, and whether they are genuine or part of an elaborate hoax.

I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic."...

10/9/2009, "What happened to global warming?" Paul Hudson, BBC

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up."

"Update - 1300, Tuesday 13 October 2009: Paul Hudson has written a blog entry about his article here: Paul Hudson's blog"





via Climate Depot

No comments:

Followers

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.