BREAKING!!! Climategate II, 5,000 New Emails Released Detailing Climate Change Hoax<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike,[Mann, Mr. Hockey Stick] The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-ii-5000-new-emails-relased.html


"making man made global warming a big joke for all, both rich and poor." Gerrard Winstanley; April 20, 1649

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/5/the_road_to_durban_tracking_global

AMY GOODMAN: It’s Climate Countdown. We’re broadcasting from the U.N. climate change summit in Durban, South Africa. It’s called the COP17. That’s Conference of Parties—some are calling it here "Conference of Polluters." Thousands of people marched in the streets this weekend. We were there and were inside, as well.

And right now we are joined by John Vidal. John Vidal is the environment editor for The Guardian of Britain. And John Vidal has done this remarkable piece that looks at his "Road to Durban."

John, I’m going to have you describe it to me. But you took a journey between Africa’s two most industrialized countries, Egypt and South Africa. Your route included one of Africa’s poorest nations, Malawi; its newest, Southern Sudan; its hungriest, Ethiopia. You visited some of the continent’s most remote tribes in Uganda and Kenya. Talk about this journey, why you took it, and how it relates to climate change.

JOHN VIDAL: We started in the north, in Egypt. And I’d been told that Egypt was going to be terribly affected by sea level rises, and whatever. What we found was that it’s basically climate change is affecting the poorest people, the people who can’t respond, the most. In Egypt, we found that the sea level rise is going to affect the farmers, because the soils have become salinated. There won’t be so much water coming down the rivers, and whatever. And we moved all the way further south, talking to scientists, talking to farmers, talking to the poorest people. They’re the ones who are getting it in the neck right now, let alone in 20, 30, 50 or a hundred years’ time. And it was a terrifying journey of reality, really, I think, showing that very little science has been done. Not enough science has been done. Much more needs to be done. But there’s absolutely no doubt about the consequences, which are going to be very much much hotter temperatures, making it almost impossible to live in many areas, huge effects on the poor people. The people living on the land are going to be the ones who are affected most.

AMY GOODMAN: Egypt, then take us to the next country.

JOHN VIDAL: That’s Egypt. Then you go down to the south, in the Southern Sudan. There, it’s very interesting, because we’ve had conflict there for generations and generations. But the question there is, how far is climate change feeding into conflict between different traditionally warring groups? And what you’re finding is the resources are stretched further and further, therefore you get people competing more for water, competing for land, and therefore you get more conflict. And now you can’t make that absolutely a direct thing. You cannot say that climate change has caused the war in Darfur. But you can say that it’s definitely aggregating it. It’s making things—putting it closer to the tipping point, so that these things become inevitable.

AMY GOODMAN: Take us further south, from Southern Sudan.

JOHN VIDAL: Further south, we went into—we went then into—

AMY GOODMAN: And how long was this journey that you took?

JOHN VIDAL: Well, I had to fly quite a lot, because the distances are absolutely enormous. You’ve got to remember about Africa is that it’s big enough to take the whole of India, the whole of China, the whole of the United States. I mean, the scale of Africa is very, very different to what most people imagine.

We went further south, a thousand miles south, went to Uganda. There, we were with the Karamojong, who are the traditional cattle herders, very, very old races of people who move their cattle. They are being affected more and more and more. And they haven’t got pasture lands. They haven’t got water. And they are terrified for their future. Now, there is—again, there are many, many other reasons why the Karamojong and other tribes are in trouble, but climate change is going to make it that much worse, and therefore it speeds up a process of alienation, which is going on anyway.

We then went to the coffee farmers in Uganda up in the Rwenzori Mountains. These are the—some of the highest mountains in Africa, 16,000 feet. One hundred years ago, there was seven square miles of ice cover there. Now there’s less than one mile. It is basically—within 20 years, they believe there will be no snow and ice on the Rwenzori Mountains. These are the Mountains of the Moon, which traditionally have fed the Nile, which were known to Ptolemy, which were known to the ancient Greeks and whatever. Traditionally, they were covered in cloud. We could see them, because climate change means, in a sort of bizarre way, that the weather is, in Western terms, better. You can see more. What it means is that actually there’s less rain. The coffee farmers are caught. They already have their production 20 percent down from what they used to get only 10, 15 years ago, and that’s very largely because the coffee they grow cannot grow in just even a one- or two-degree increase in temperatures. So they are really hurt.

AMY GOODMAN: Keep going.

JOHN VIDAL: And from there, we went to Kenya. And I was very interested in Wangari Maathai, who was the great tree planter. She won the Nobel Prize for Peace.

AMY GOODMAN: And just died a few weeks ago.

JOHN VIDAL: Who just died. So we went to see her operation. And I was amazed, actually. And some really good things are happening, partly because of her initiatives. Kenya has decided it is going to plant seven billion—not million—seven billion trees in the next 20 years. Now, that is, you know, 20, 30, 50 times more than Wangari ever managed to do. But it shows what can happen when a government actually does say, "Yes, this is—we need to do this." So there, the issue was water. The five great water towers of Kenya are drying out. And that means there’s no hydroelectric power. That means there’s no electricity for the cities. That means there’s greater poverty. Just in the north of Kenya, you have an enormous drought, which is the fifth one in 10 years, looking like it could become permanent.

Just to the north of Kenya, you have Ethiopia, and you have a terrifying drought there, which, as we know, has led directly to thousands of people dying. Now we’re not saying that climate change is going to cause these droughts; we’re going to say that climate change, on top of all the other actions which are taking place, is going to make things much worse.

AMY GOODMAN: John, you’ve now made it to Durban, South Africa. We are now inside the belly of the beast. In Copenhagen, we called it the "Bella of the beast," because it was the Bella Center. But right here, behind us today, you just had Todd Stern speaking, the chief U.N. climate negotiator. You had the climate representative from China also addressing the delegates and the media. Talk about the status of the talks. We don’t have much time, but—and where the U.S. stands in all of this—a great deal of anger being expressed against the United States by so many inside the conference and outside in the streets.

JOHN VIDAL: OK. The big story right now is whether Europe can come up with a parallel plan, which would somehow bring in all the countries. And what Europe wants to do is have a new treaty, and which would somehow bring in America, bring in China, bring in India, whatever. It’s cloud cuckoo land. I mean, they haven’t got a chance in heck, because the Indians and the Chinese and whatever are just not ready to do this. But Europe is trying to cover its ass to make sure that we don’t get another Copenhagen. We’re lining up to blame China. I can see this happening right now, is that the—Europe is saying, "Come and join us, come and join us, come and join us." China is saying, "No, no, no, no, no, no. We’ve got hundreds of millions of people. We can’t." And I fear that what’s going to happen is that China, as it did in Copenhagen, will get the blame for no progress in these talks. Otherwise, it’s not going very well at all.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, you have 16 chief American NGOs, nonprofit environmental groups, a big base of constituency for President Obama, really harshly criticizing Obama, saying that he’s become the chief obstacle to climate negotiations.

JOHN VIDAL: I think—I think that’s been sort of an ever-present in the last—the last four or five years, America has been seen as the problem. America is playing a very clever hand, basically sort of saying, "If other countries want to sign up their own legally binding agreement, that’s their problem. They can do that. We won’t do it." They only will do it if China will do it and if India will do it. And if those won’t, then it won’t. It knows perfectly well they won’t, therefore it doesn’t have to do anything at all. And that’s its "get out" clause.

AMY GOODMAN: What should—what do you think the United States should be doing right now? And why do you think it would serve the U.S. economy, as opposed to why so many in the United States are saying we can’t do anything about a global climate fund because we are dealing with a broken economy in the United States?

JOHN VIDAL: This is not going to cost America anything at all, actually. It’s going to—America could take the world lead very, very easily. It could switch just like that. It could become absolutely the hero of these talks. It’s chosen not to. It hasn’t changed its position in three years.

AMY GOODMAN: And where does Kyoto fit into this, mandatory limits for greenhouse gas emissions at this point in the earth’s history?

JOHN VIDAL: America doesn’t want Kyoto part two. It’s as simple as that. And therefore, the rest of the world is not going to get it. America is the ultimate behind-the-scenes bully. It is pulling all the strings in these talks. That is why Europe is trying to find a separate, parallel track, and everybody under them.

AMY GOODMAN: Why won’t the United States accept mandatory limits?

JOHN VIDAL: Because it fears—it fears—it seems it fears absolutely the words "legally" and "binding." It cannot accept that, because of its own internal political problems and whatever. But it does—will not commit itself legally to another agreement.

AMY GOODMAN: And if it did commit itself legally, how could it help the United States, not to mention the rest of the world?

JOHN VIDAL: If it did, it would only do it on the terms that every other country would do it, in which case all countries would go together, and it would not lose anything at all. The gains would be immeasurable economically, socially, politically and environmentally.

AMY GOODMAN: John Vidal, I want to thank you for being with us. John Vidal is the Guardian environment editor. He’s covering COP17 here in Durban, recently finished a series about his trip between Africa’s two most industrialized countries. We will link to "The Road to Durban" at democracynow.org.

So the more people you can march, the more real the hoax will be?
Your "climate experts" are busted again! 5000 global warmer emails is very telling and should convince you that if they have to fake the data, the science is just no fucking good!


"<2009> Briffa:
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
<2775> Jones:

I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.


<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:
I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:
if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.

Never mind the bollocks dude... just look at the glaciers. Whoosh!

Green Energy: Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s Company Scored $1.4 Billion Taxpayer Bailout

I have said too many times to count we should not be subsidizing failed, inefficient technology like solar cells. As with the ethanol fetish of the 2000s, solar energy has been spearheaded by a government leader who surrounded himself with scientific true believers rather than objective scientists who would look critically at claims. The billions wasted on keeping inefficient technology afloat could instead have been spent on basic research that might actually get us real solar technology.

America narrowly avoided having progressive anti-vaccine kook Robert Kennedy, Jr. (I know, anti-vaccine and progressive is redundant, since all of them are progressives) in the Obama administration - losing $1.4 billion in a bailout for his company, BrightSource, through a loan guarantee issued by a former employee-turned Department of Energy official, is likely a bargain if he had made the EPA even less scientific than it is now with his quackery.

How did a company with $17 million in total revenue get $1.4 billion from the government? They claimed they would create 1,400 jobs if everything went really, really well - like a miracle occurred. And $1 million a job was a pretty good deal to the Obama administration when they thought the economy was based off of Monopoly pretend money and they could just print more.

Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s ‘Green’ Company Scored $1.4 Billion Taxpayer Bailout by Wynton Hall BigGovernment.com www.science20.com/cool-links/green_energ...r_bailout-84712

Kerry Kennedy Could Make $40 Million From Rain Forest Advocacy and Attacking Big Oil

The Kennedy family name still carries a lot of weight in American politics and pop culture. An influence that may even have a price tag.

A New York Post report alleges that Kerry Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy’s daughter, John F. Kennedy’s niece and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s ex-wife, was secretly hired by a lawyer representing Ecuador and paid up to millions for her public advocacy against damage to oil-drilled rain forests in the country now involved in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Chevron. The New York Post writes:

“Kennedy, 52, was secretly hired as a ‘public-relations consultant’ by the lawyer representing the Ecuadoreans in an $18 billion lawsuit against Chevron, according to court documents.

Cashing in on her respected family name and legacy, Kennedy raked in tens of thousands of dollars and was given a 0.25 percent stake — worth as much as $40 million — if the $18 billion judgment handed down by an Ecuadorean judge is ultimately upheld. (Chevron has not yet paid pending its countersuit in Manhattan federal court.)

Kennedy was paid a flat $50,000 by lead attorney Steven Donziger on Feb. 22, 2010, bank statements made public in the case show.

She was set to pull down an additional $10,000 per month, according to a September 2010 draft budget by the law firm. And she was to get another $40,000 in expenses in June 2010, according to an invoice from Donziger.”

Kennedy appeared on CNN on Oct. 22, 2009, and wrote a column for the Huffington Post on Nov. 4, 2009, where she wrote about what she saw on her trip to the South American nation.

“Nothing could prepare me for the horror I witnessed,” Kennedy wrote, as the Post notes that it was never mentioned in media appearences that she was hired by the law firm or has a financial stake in the case.

“We–consumers investors, elected officials, journalists, activists, and citizens–must hold Chevron accountable for its actions, and see that justice is done,” Kennedy went on to write.

Kennedy is a human rights advocate serving as president for the RFK Memorial Center for Human Rights.

The issue Kennedy was lobbying for involved damage oil companies have caused to the Ecuadorean town of Lago Agrio, where 1,700 square miles of rain forest have been destroyed and people sickened. In 1993, 30,000 villagers sued Texaco for dumping crude oil and emitting toxins into the watershed and air while drilling 325 wells. The Post reports that Chevron bought Texaco in 2001 and has already completed a $40 million cleanup, approved by the Ecuadorean government.

Kennedy did not return calls or e-mails from the Post seeking comment.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/kerry-ke...acking-big-oil/

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...l#ixzz1kuTmCUSs

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.


Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.


Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...l#ixzz1kuUUKODa
So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.


She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...l#ixzz1kuV8SD82

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...zing-again.html

hoax definition(hks)
n.
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
tr.v. hoaxed, hoax·ing, hoax·es
To deceive or cheat by using a hoax.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man made global warming = hoax.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...zing-again.html