The Impact of “Climategate”
One of the most prominent media frenzies surrounding the COP 15 is the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Here is a brief assessment of its impact on Copenhagen.
Has the incident affected the mood of the COP?
Those in Copenhagen for this conference are nearly all here with an agenda and set views on climate change. To believe that the delegates, climate activists, or deniers present have altered their views on climate change as a result of the leaked e-mails would be misguided. Aside from comments made by a Saudi delegate suggesting that anthropogenic climate change may be a myth, there is no indication that any countries participating have modified their respective stances on a climate change treaty. If there is no comprehensive agreement reached by the end of the COP, it is very unlikely to be a result of this “scandal”.
Nonetheless, public opinion on climate change has undoubtedly been impacted. This will probably make ratification by national parliaments a more complicated matter if a treaty is produced in the near future.
The IPCC response in person
I attended a side-event put on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) yesterday, where many of the bigwigs of the organization (Pachauri, Stocker, Barros, Field, etc…) were participants in a panel. The event was meant to address the progress of the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, due sometime in 2014, but it was predictably sidetracked into a Q&A session on “climategate” for the first 30 minutes.
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the organization, continued to stand by all the scientists involved, claiming that “the only issue is to find out who is behind this” (referring to the stealing of e-mail records). He responded defensively to many questions posed by journalists, affirming that there was no need for an investigation looking into wrongdoings by Phil Jones and the rest of his Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia.
While it is understandably difficult to turn his back on a colleague, Pachauri is holding a position that only weakens the legitimacy of the IPCC. Despite the incident finding its source in the illegal retrieval of private e-mails, the fact is that Jones is likely to have engaged in fraudulent behavior. Continuing to deny the possibility of fraud is tantamount to accepting flawed science. The IPCC has been the single most important institution in bringing climate change to the forefront of international debates, and this is only because it was founded as an organization committed to objectivity.
Calling all recent climate science into question as a result of this seemingly isolated incident is ludicrous. Phil Jones is only one of 450 lead authors of the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 by the IPCC, and the reasoning that leads one to believe that 1 bad climate scientist is equivalent to 450 of them is unjustified. Still, it is essential that Pachauri launch an investigation into potential transgressions within his organization to demonstrate that the IPCC is dedicated to good science, and not science with an agenda. His current attitude is certainly not helping.
Maybe you should read the work of John McLean who has audited the IPCC. There is a small group – maybe 5 scientists who dictate the work of the IPCC – also Phill Jones is one of the most referenced climate authors in the world. And there are others caught in this duplicity. All links are on my blog – it is worth a much more informative look!
If all 450 scientists are using the same value-added data sets, I would think it wise to scrutinize these data.
this is the unraveling of a religion.
don’t kid yourself, moses has just walked in on the golden-calf crowd…
The UN and vested interests will fall over themselves to make this go away.. The foundation data has been deleted and the final draft is in very severe doubt.. They cant defend their position because they have no position.. Cop-15 will come and go but CLIMATEGATE is here to stay.. Hockey stick, tree ring are political works of art and complete scientific failures..
Also now that health care is defeated by the Dems themselves.. Climate legislation is the only feather Obama has left before 2012.. His re election is more important than the truth it seems
The UN has no business being involved in an investigation and Al Gore has way too much invested to even offer an opinion.
This whole mess reflects very poorly on the scientific community.
Philippe de Koning, stop being a shill for the agw scammer. It’s digusting; you’re embarrassing your friends and family and ruing the good name of Standford.
In front of any jury, even beyond reasonable doubt, Phil Jones would be found guilty. He’s committed fraud and broken the FOI Act. The 10+ researchers in the emails are all very senior and it’s inconcevable that fraud and group think isn’t systemic in the climate science community. This is ideology of the sort that pervaded cold war academia. It’s not unusual and paradigmatic thinking like this should be seen as natural, but nevertheless avoidable.
Some of the analysis done by the cynics I have seen has been professional, throrough and mostly damning.
Climate science will continue. It won’t go away. The question is now, where is it going?
I hope these are just growing pains. I can’t be the only person to feel a great deal of immaturity in the culture. Climate science needs to grow up, be more transparent and move forward. I feel there is a great future for climate science, but it’s not the one the warmists had envisaged.
I’m generally opposed to the Copenhagen agenda. That said, some of the other commenters in this thread are pissing me off.
Despite hysteria to the contrary, I agree that the “climategate” emails don’t do much to refute the basic global warming hypothesis. They only relate to the magnitude of recent warming relative to historical fluctuation. I.e. how much of an effect are our emissions having?
Philippe’s position is that current levels of emissions are dangerous, and it’s worth making significant sacrifices to reduce them. Climategate weakens but does not destroy the case for the former. I do disagree with him on the value of the types of sacrifice being proposed, but I wouldn’t say his position is prima facie ridiculous, just inefficient. Maybe even that is too much to say — I don’t actually know his opinion on, say, geoengineering. Bottom line, if he’s wrong it’s probably because of an honest mistake… and the careless statements of so many on the other side aren’t helping him correct it.
I agree with Chris here. The hysteria about these emails really glosses over the fact that they don’t really do all too much to refute the idea that the planet is warming. Yes, they reflect badly on some climate scientists and it’s unfortunate to see scientists of any stripe plotting revenge on science journals that “dared” to publish opposing papers, but beyond that distasteful behavior I don’t see them having a really damning effect on global warming science as a whole.
In particular, Albert, your claim that Philippe is “embarrassing [his] friends and family and ruing [sic] the good name of Standford [sic]” is outrageous. He is providing a valuable resource by reporting from Copenhagen and does indeed call for an investigation of Phil Jones. In no way does he embarrass anyone, least of all the Stanford name. To make that claim is absurd and insulting.
The name changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. Well as I look out at a foot of new fallen snow, I am glad that the hoaxsters are caught. It is certainly no warmer than the midevil warm period. So since the Global Freezing of the 70s didn’t get me I don’t think this new scare is going to get me either.
I call your attention to the case of Jan Hendrik Schön, a physicist at Bell Labs who faked his data. When Bell Labs conducted an inquiry into allegations that he had faked his data [from wikipedia...] the committee requested copies of the raw data but found that Schön had kept no laboratory notebooks. His raw-data files had been erased from his computer. According to Schön the files were erased because his computer had limited hard drive space. In addition, all of his experimental samples had been discarded, or damaged beyond repair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Schön
THE FACT that Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Tom Wigley, James Hansen et al have refused for several years to provide their code and data, with their work paid for by the taxpayers, is totally suspicious. Given the revelations from the CODE and DATA from the climategate files, we now know why. They have been trying to cover up their fraud.
The IPCC is not doing science. They are advancing an agenda. Whatever their original intent, they have become advocates for a position. It is clear from the emails that they are manipulating results, cherry-picking data that supports their conclusions, distorting the peer review process and then pointing to peer review as proof that they’re right!
Before we spend trillions of dollars impoverishing ourselves, I want the raw data to be reviewed and a full investigation of the 25 or so scientists driving all this (Briffa, Mann, Jones, Wigley, Trenberth, Oppenheimer, Santer, Overpeck, Osborne, Schmidt et al). These guys review each others papers, control chapters of the IPCC report, get journal editors who greenlight skeptical papers fired and, apparently manipulate and massage data and, definitely, refuse to provide it to non-insiders. On the basis of their word I am not ready for us to completely restructure the world economy around energy that will costs many times more than what we are paying now.
A 21st Century Psalm
December 7th has come and past
We must act, before Copenhagen is passed
If that Treaty is law I guarantee
Another occurrence of infamy
As they strip away democracy
We wish to debate the natural state
It was warm for awhile, but cold as of late
The scientist tried to hide the decline
Deny debate through deceit and design
The science was settled and the data deleted
All opposition was effectively defeated
From checking the facts, and results repeated
Who could prove the science was cheated
Man Made Global Warming is a lie
The CRU e-mails and codes do testify
The purpose, a Carbon Debt to apply
Kiss your money, technology and freedom goodbye
The silence is deafening across the land
As the revelations the public now understands
The weathers a carrot meant to disguise
A corrupt agenda before our eyes
And now we see light shining in Truth
Politicians, media, and search engines declare moot
You can glimpse the extent of the hypocrisy
In how they declare there is nothing to see
So much for transparency
Climategate Googlegate Copenhagengate
Who gave you permission to decide our fate?
Censoring discussion denying debate
The Spirit of Truth you desecrate
In all debate Truth intervenes
Asks does the end justify the means?
Demands that honesty remains supreme
That commitments aren’t made on fraudulent schemes
It’s time for the passive acceptance to end
It’s time to stand for freedom as free men
It’s time to expose the lies and deceit
It’s time to take it to the streets
Do not commit sedition do not get jailed
Non-Violent revolutions do not fail
The voice of the Prophets, Gandhi and King
Are calling for you to get marching
Or just sit back and take the vaccine.
I don’t think anyone can deny there has been some regional warming. The question is how serious is this and what is the cause. Anthropogenic Global Warming has turned into a faith or religion and as with all religions, any evidence that this faith is unfounded is met with extreme resistance. Mankind has devestated this planet and there seems to be a lot of chaos. It’s crowded – in a very short period of time (140 years) we have gone from 1 billion people to almost 7 billion people. I believe the emphasis on AGW is a knee-jerk reaction to these facts. Exactly what are we to do when the planet cools a little again as it did during the Little Ice Age a short while ago – release massive amounts of greenhouse gasses to counter the cooling? Isn’t it enough that 17,000 children die of hunger everyday or that 1 billion people don’t have ready access to clean water? I mean are there not enough very real and indisputable problems we must address ahead of the speculative problem of AGW. Living things have always had to adapt to a changing climate. Let us adapt, be sensible about energy consumption (that means Al Gore not using up as much energy as a dozen average american families) and let us come together to deal with the very real and ongoing problems and suffering that exist all around us right now.
Ah, who cares about a little break-in to an obscure hotel that nobody’s ever heard of? What power does one inside informant have anyway? Nothing will come of this, just as nothing came of that non-issue, pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain burglary of what was once the Watergate Hotel.
I seen an enema coming. And some gnashing teeth from Climate Change Deniers (read=those who believe in an essentially statitc climate, one that could not/would not have changed without our meager contributions in the form of atmospheric trace gases).
All you really need to know is that the IPCC, Mann, Jones, et al, have ignored that big yellow thing in the sky. …iow, they don’t think that 99% of the (hot, burning) mass in the solar system has any effect upon earth’s climate. …and they can’t seem to make the connection between the sun’s current lack of sunspots and cooling temperatures around the globe or between the higher global temps and greater sunspot activity during prior decades.
Other than that, it’s been all about money and prestige, power and control.
As for those now, infamous, emails and documents? You can read them for yourself, here:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Do your own research. Do your own thinking.
It was much warmer during the medieval warming period.
There are Vikings buried in permafrost in Greenland.
The permafrost is not disturbed.
It was not frozen when they were buried.
I would call that warmer then today, a lot warmer.
The ironic thing is that this evidence of the medieval warming period is in a museum in Copenhagen.
The Fate of Greenland’s Vikings February 28, 2000 by Dale Mackenzie Brown
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland
Also, the medieval warming period was global.
Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data
joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data
For a satirical look at the climategate computer programming (hiding the decline):
Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
“I agree with Chris here. The hysteria about these emails really glosses over the fact that they don’t really do all too much to refute the idea that the planet is warming. ”
Is this list enough??
From Bishop Hill
Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
I just can’t believe that we’re going through this hocus pocus ’science’ in this day and age.
If Al would take the time to explain lightning to me I’d be all big ears.
Jeeez. it’s just so depressing and so obvious what it’s really about.
Climategate MUST BE EXPOSED. Take a Lesson from Australia. Minister of Australia Kevin Rude should be sacked and trialled for treason, treachery and fraud, along with his fabian socialist minions, and Malcolm Goldman Sachs Turnbull. People power has taken over Australian Politics last week, where we campaigned of the sacking of the Goldman Sachs Turnbull from the Liberal Party, and to vote NO on the ETS-Carbon Trading Scheme. Americans must take this as fuel for your fire to fight Obama and the fascist tyranny that has encapsulated the USA today. God Speed.
@Anand: No, that list is far from sufficient. As I said earlier, it’s clear that Phil Jones and crew were distasteful in their behavior, which is captured in your list (to describe the death of anyone except a heinous criminal as “cheering” is uncalled for, to say the least) and they may have committed scientific improprieties as well. From what I’ve read, it seems that some of the “tricks,” etc. were indeed unfortunate turns of phrase, but even if it seems that some of the Jones crew’s analyses were not on the level, I fail to see how that discredits the many other scientists working on this issue. Perhaps the globe isn’t heating as fast as they claim, but if it’s heating at even a moderate rate, action is still needed. We can retool our economy in a way that reduces its environmental impact without massive dislocations, but only if we begin acting now rather than doing it via crash course later. To keep our head in the sand is only to ensure that we will be forced to take harsher actions later.
Otis Reid:
That list *is* long. But what about the more critical points in it…
The trick – It is not that talking about the ‘trick’ itself is a bad thing. It is the actual trick that is bad. They substituted real temperatures for proxy tree ring inferred computer modeled ones. Look at what they achieved;
1) Why did they do that at all? It only means they wanted their data to show a pre-determined message. Will a scientist do that?
2) It means their tree ring data do not correspond well with recorded temperatures. How do we accept the computer models based off of tree ring measurements?
3) Even if we do admit the tree ring ‘evidence’. then take in the whole thing. Why has the Team repeatedly restrained itself from showing up the Medieval Warm Period in their graphs? (Because that would mean the globe was warmer when we were not burning huge amounts of fossil-fuels). It was there in the 1991 IPCC – the older graphs show it.
4) Lastly, they knowingly did it because they know the impact of a graph that shows a sharp continious upward trend – the diagram itself, would have on a lay audience. The graph without the hockey-stick trick looks like regular stuff.
All the emails where they talk about meddling in other people’s papers: As a scientist, you review the papers that you are handed. You have a say if you are the editor of a journal. what is your business with someone else’s papers, where they get published, the type of papers that are published in a certain journal? Sniping about it in emails is not a crime bu it certainly reveals the underlying mentality.
What scientist/group will harbor reasonable doubts (as seen in conversations between themselves) about a theory in private, but speak out the exact opposite in public? It is obvious that Kieth Briffa doesn’t buy Mann’s Hockey stick but has he ever said anything to that effect in public? No. When faced with contradicting evidence, a natural tendency would be to tone down the level of certainty in your pronouncements. These guys don’t do that. They always sound certain about unrelenting global warming. Why? and more importantly how? Kevin Trenberth says in his emails that it is a travesty that we cant account for the lack of warming at present but he tells us that the globe is warming in TV interviews. Why the split-face?
It is not some emails by themselves that are a problem. Put the emails in the context of the debate about ‘climate change’, as it evolved and as the events unfolded in the last 8-10 years when the scientific ‘consensus’ was built, and a lot of things make sense. This is clear, less than exemplary, politically-motivated behaviour from the highest echelon of climate scientists. This group must have reviewed hundreds of papers (gatekeeper effect). It is now evident they were less than scruplous with their own work. Why would they have been so in the work they reviewed? A feedback effect would have definitely taken place in the scientific community. People would have realized what words and concepts to put in their papers to get them published, behaviour this group apparently actively encouraged. Such is the nature of built-up evidence for global warming.
“… but if it’s heating at even a moderate rate, action is still needed. ”
I would say, the real science and debate about AGW has never taken place. The study of climate is politicised because if you report warming you may have a green agenda (because the green agenda came to existance before the science) and if you report cooling you may be a shill for big oil. The real questions are therefore unanswered. It is precisely because of this do we find that a Toronto businessman, someone totally unconnected to either side of the debate has managed to debunk AGW, or atleast knock it off its pedestal. Who knows the rate of heating reliably now? How much of it is anthropogenic?
Science builds on citations. The CRU dataset is extremely influential. The other scientists you speak about, base their conclusions on earlier papers and work which all draw on CRU’s work. Many people believe their research data is correct because it resembles Jones’ and Mann’ conclusions. We know they are wrong/faulty. That only means such data was coincidentally similar and was misunderstood to be true. CRU refused to release their raw data, say they have lost it, release a portion of it, want three years time to release it etc etc. Would we have known about this without the emails?
The best thing now therefore is not to retool anything at all. Wait and watch.
Make no mistake, there is far, far too much money riding on this to allow a few hundred smoking-gun emails to derail the global warming economy-to-be. They will get their prize. While its clear scientists the world over have been dependent upon government largess since………..well always, they must realize their greed will simply de-fund every other worthwhile government funded science for a generation or more. In fact, after a trillion dollars have been spent and it becomes clear years down the road what a hoax this always was, scientific research will depend forevermore on private funding. Scientists ought to wise up and realize credible science is on the verge of becoming an oxymoron.
We cannot wait until the old boys receiving huge grants from the governments to support the CO2 lobby will say “Sorry we have made a mistake”.
The ultimate solution: The Open Pannel on Climate Change (not controlled by 4-5 persons only who determine today what can be published in the scientific journals) – with access of all scientists.
This OPEN PCC should be funded by citizen donations from all over the world.
@Otis Reid: “Perhaps the globe isn’t heating as fast as they claim, but if it’s heating at even a moderate rate, action is still needed.”
Why? “Action is still needed”??? Why?
The evidence we have from a period much warmer than today, the Medieval Warm Period, is that it was an era of bumper crops from extended growing periods, excellent weather, extended growing areas (for instance, wine grapes now found in the Mediterranian area were growing in northern England) and a lift from the subsistence living of the Dark Ages, definitely a precursor to the Renaissance in Europe.
Rising oceans? The Dutch solved that little problem with 11th century technology. Perfectly ordinary dikes solved it. The IPCC’s worse case scenario has the oceans rising about 13 inches in the next 100 years. Are we less capable than the 11th century Dutch?
Storms? Says who? Not hurricane specialists. THEY say that a COLD stratospheric wind is necessary to cause a warm spot in the ocean to start rotating. A warming stratosphere is one of the main things from the greenhouse gas theory that has NOT shown up. And if it does, it takes away one of the precursors of hurricanes.
The Medieval Warm Period was a period of EXCELLENT weather. That was one of the reasons the Vikings were out viking. They were no longer afraid of winter ice locking them out of their home ports. That was why they were going on their extended voyages.
Check out the Copenhagen Document leaks, this knowledge may save your life! Do what you can with your Government Reps in your country to have these infringements on your life eliminated! You will literally be fighting for your and your family’s existence, Click the videos below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAqqAnUxACY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KH-WMZuw0
Request that PM Harper DOES NOT sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom, email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca
Sign the petition to protest the Inaccurate Science measurements that are being used to base the Copenhagen Treaty off of: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html