What Climategate story? On to Copenhagen!

Climategate gets a pass by the media, in favor of the Copenhagen Summit. Neal Boortz spells it out:

THE CLIMATE CHANGE CIRCUS

Have you been keeping up with this Climategate story? If you limit your information gathering to The New York Times, you may have missed it.

Let's start at the beginning.

Where did this global warming nonsense come from in the first place? See how this fits:

The international community, working through the basically anti-American United Nations, starts dreaming of world-wide wealth redistribution. Well ... actually wealth isn't distributed, at least not here in the United States. Here, for the most part, it is earned. Even the poor, poor pitiful poor in this country earn whatever wealth they have. They don't exactly do it by punching a clock. Why go through all that trouble when all you have to do is punch a ballot.

OK ... so you have all these half-assed third world countries with their dictators of various stripes eyeing the wealth of the developed, industrial nations. They want some of that wealth, though they aren't willing to earn it. Why would some dictator tolerate a productive economy that might threaten his continued rule? Freedom - the necessary ingredient for a productive economy - has a way of causing domestic intranquility for dictators. So working through free markets isn't going to cut it. They will simply have to arrange whatever wealth they cannot seize handed to them. The best conduit for this wealth would be the UN.

OK ... so you're going to use the United Nations to transfer wealth from the big, fat wealthy nations to the corruption-plagued third world. But you're going to need a pretext? Hmmmmm. You need to come up with some way these nations are hurting you; some action these ugly rich nations are taking that is causing you harm. You're not under military attack. Your property isn't being conquered and seized ... at least not by the U.S. and Western Europe. But there is one thing! Now I don't have any idea how this idea was brought to fruition ... but it's brilliant!

When the cold war ended the world was littered with disaffected and discouraged communists and socialists. Their precious ideal of one world under Communism had melted away before their eyes. The Berlin Wall was aggregate and the Soviet Union was breaking apart. The precious hammer and sickle was being replaced by a Russian flag of red, white and blue stripes. These lost communists and anti-capitalists needed a new next. They were homeless. Where to turn?

The founder of the environmental group Greenpeace can tell you where these lost communists went. They headed straight for the environmental movement. Within weeks of the fall of the Soviet Union Greenpeace offices and rallies were suddenly crowded with unkempt people wearing Che Guavara t-shirts and Mao hats. This was the chosen new way to attack capitalism; not through the recitation of Communist doctrine, but through phony environmental concerns. Now capitalism was to be attacked not for its oppression of the working man, but for its affect on pour creeks, our lakes, and the air we breathe. The environmental movement became the home of anti-capitalists around the world.

What a perfect fit for third-world countries desirous of arranging for mighty transfers of wealth from the evil rich nations! They could work with the environmentalists to attack capitalism for all of the evil things that capitalists do to the fish and birds and stuff --- and for heating up our earth! These rich nations will need to pay! First we'll cook up some treaty that will slow down their economic growth ... then we'll find a way through the UN to make them pay for the damage they've already done. We can cripple their evil capitalist empire and get our hands on their wealth with a grand global warming scare campaign!

OK ... I need to cut this short. The United Nations and various environmental groups started pouring money into global warming research. Other nations, including the United States, joined in. After all, if you don't fund research into the affects of global warming, you really don't care what happens to our climate, do you? The scientists wanted to keep the money coming. To do that they knew they would have to bow to the dictates of political correctness ... and political correctness being a left-wing creation these scientists knew that they had better determine that man is going to cause this earth to become some sort of a convected oven if we don't slow down ... and the United Nations is just the crowed to do it.

So now we have discovered that one of the premiere research facilities involved in global warming research has been ... well, "faking it" is not too strong a phrase to use here.

Many of us already knew global warming to be a fraud. When scientists refuse to acknowledge the cyclical nature of solar activity in a discussion on global warming you have to scratch your head in wonder. Plus - when someone tells you that the science "is settled" and that there is "nothing left to debate;" you know that the science is anything but settled and there is plenty to debate.

The first news broke a bit over a week ago. Someone got into the computers at The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. This is one of the premiere global warming research institutes and has been constantly cited in stories warning us that we are cooking ourselves. Now there are thousands of emails from the East Anglia CRU detailing the "tricks" that were used to cook the data and the efforts made to ignore and to create a virtual exile for any scientists who dared to disagree with man-made global warming doctrine.

But .. here's the kicker. I alluded to it at the beginning of this bit. Now these scientists at the East Anglia CRM have admitted that they disposed of the raw data they used to conjure up their tales of man-made global warming. Just in case you're not a scientist .. throwing away your raw data is considered a big-time no no. There is, however, one really big reason why you might want to do this - toss the raw data into the garbage - and that would be if the data doesn't support your "learned" conclusion.

So now we will never be able to look at the original data these scientists gathered. Now we're truly at the point that were we have nothing left to do but take their word for it. Sorry .. .but when much of the undeveloped world is gunning for my bank account, I'm not sure I want to take these scientists word for anything.

Perhaps the more interesting story at this point is the failure of the ObamaMedia to pick up on the story. I guess the global warmers are going to have to find some other cause to disguise their wealth seizure and re-distribution schemes.

None of this seems to be slowing down The Community Organizer. He's heading to Copenhagen where the left and those after our wealth are going to try to cobble together a replacement for the hideous Kyoto Treaty.

Recently there has been an uptick in the number of stories on climate change. Here are a few of my favorites:

-Doctors in Great Britain are being told to educate their patients on the benefits of tackling climate change and lowering their carbon footprint.

-Experts say that lights on expressways should be turned off at night in order to protect the environment. It stops pollution and prevents the disruption of the life cycles of birds and bats and other wildlife.

-The president of Brazil says that the "gringos" should pay Amazon nations to prevent deforestation. By "gringos" he means Western nations .. aka. the United States.

It's a fraud, folks. How long are we going to tolerate these asinine ideas?

Obama, who originally said he would not attend the summit when people began to object, has of course changed his mind at the last minute, as I knew he would. So it will be onward with the Democrats agenda:

UN upbeat on Copenhagen global climate deal

[...] Ahead of Monday's talks, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hit back at claims that human influence on global warming has been exaggerated.

It said it was standing by its findings in response to a row over the reliability of data from a UK university.

Hacked e-mail exchanges from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit have prompted climate change sceptics to claim that data has been manipulated.

Top Swedish climate official Anders Turesson told the BBC that he hoped the issue "will be investigated".

However, Mr Turesson, who will also be leading EU negotiations as Sweden currently holds the rotating EU presidency, added: "But I cannot see it will in any way affect the negotiations here." [...]

That's right, we wouldn't want to confuse people with the facts, would we?

I'm thinking we need to upgrade our electrical grid at the RV Park with meters at each site, to charge for electricity. It seems certain that rates are going to go up after this. I think that those who voted for our current Democrat government can now start paying "their fair share", as the consequence of their choices.
     

Climate Change Fraud Exposed. Scandal?

Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)
The man who challenged Al Gore to a debate is furious about the content of the leaked CRU emails — and says why you should be, too.

This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.

[...]

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset — the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.

Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be. [...]

And how much exposure is all this getting in the MSM? Hardly any.

     

Is Obama about to sign away our Sovereignty?

It sure sounds like it, if Monckton is right:



Lord Monckton’s warning to America

Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, spoke at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN last week on the UN Climate Change treaty scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. He was hosted by the Minnesota Free Market Institute.

Minnesota Majority posted the video of his speech, entitled “Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?” [...]

Obama will sign it. Pretty much any of the Democrat leadership would. Monckton maintains that it will not be reversible, and that we must stop it now. How can we stop it, with a Democrat majority running everything?
     

Our climate, the weather, our grid and the Sun

Sun entering weakest cycle since 1928
NOAA releases new predictions for solar cycle

The sun has entered its weakest cycle of magnetic activity since 1928, meaning fewer solar flares and coronal mass ejections, scientists predicted in a May 8 teleconference. A panel of solar scientists assembled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Space Weather Prediction Center reports that the cycle, which scientists believe began in December 2008, will peak in May 2013.

Storms of solar magnetic activity cause flares and ejections that can spit X-rays, UV light and billions of tons of charged particles into space, and toward Earth. These outbursts can make Earth’s upper atmosphere expand, potentially knocking out electrical grids and disrupting satellite communications — and can harm spacewalking astronauts.

“It’s fair to say we probably won’t see a whole lot of solar storms from this cycle,” Douglas Biesecker of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colo., said at the teleconference. “But a weaker cycle won’t lessen the intensity of the storms, just the number of them.” [...]

I had done an earlier post about the current solar minimum being extended, almost two years longer than it's expected cycle. The decrease in sunspot activity seems to coincide with colder than normal temperatures globally.

I can only wonder, if solar activity can slow down to the point where it extends beyond it's predicted cycle, might it not also move in the other direction too? Sort of like a pendulum, that swings in one direction, then back again an equal distance in the opposite direction? If we see below normal sunspot activity now, will we see higher than normal activity later?

The first article mentioned above made reference to solar storms. The earth has experienced many solar storms in it's past, but not any really big ones since humankind began using electricity on a large scale. The last great solar storm happened in 1859:

Relatively mild sunspot cycle predicted, but even 1 solar storm can damage Earth

WASHINGTON — When the sun sneezes it’s Earth that gets sick.

It’s time for the sun to move into a busier period for sunspots, and while forecasters expect a relatively mild outbreak by historical standards, one major solar storm can cause havoc with satellites and electrical systems here.

Like hurricanes, a weak cycle refers to the number of storms, but it only takes one powerful storm to create chaos, said scientist Doug Biesecker of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s space weather prediction center.

A report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a storm as severe as one in 1859 occurred today, it could cause $1 trillion to $2 trillion in damage the first year and take four to 10 years to recover.

The 1859 storm shorted out telegraph wires, causing fires in North America and Europe, sent readings of Earth’s magnetic field soaring, and produced northern lights so bright that people read newspapers by their light.

Today there’s a lot more than telegraph lines at stake. Vulnerable electrical grids circle the globe, satellites now vital for all forms of communications can be severely disrupted along with the global positioning system. Indeed, the panel warned that a strong blast of solar wind can threaten national security, transportation, financial services and other essential functions.

The solar prediction center works closely with industry and government agencies to make sure they are prepared with changes in activity and prepared to respond when damage occurs, Biesecker said in a briefing.

While the most extreme events seem unlikely this time, there will probably be smaller scale disruptions to electrical service, airline flights, GPS signals and television, radio and cell phones. [...]

Read the whole thing. It says that sunspot measuring has been going on since the 1750's. When it comes to climate and weather, most of us only think in terms of what we've experienced directly, in our lifetime. But there is so much more historically. It's too easy to get hysterical about climate change, without that historical understanding of past changes and a scientific understanding of all the factors affecting our climate and weather, the sun being the most powerful.

People fear what they don't understand. If we understand the dynamics of climate change on earth, we can adapt to it when necessary and work with the ebb and flow of nature, instead of uselessly struggling to control it. We simply cannot control the sun.


Another article from NASA that mentions the 1859 solar storm:

New Solar Cycle Prediction

[...] It is tempting to describe such a cycle as "weak" or "mild," but that could give the wrong impression.

"Even a below-average cycle is capable of producing severe space weather," points out Biesecker. "The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we’re predicting for 2013."

The 1859 storm--known as the "Carrington Event" after astronomer Richard Carrington who witnessed the instigating solar flare--electrified transmission cables, set fires in telegraph offices, and produced Northern Lights so bright that people could read newspapers by their red and green glow. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a similar storm occurred today, it could cause $1 to 2 trillion in damages to society's high-tech infrastructure and require four to ten years for complete recovery. For comparison, Hurricane Katrina caused "only" $80 to 125 billion in damage. [...]

I'm not saying it's going to happen again soon. But it is likely to happen again sometime. And those who know the history of the sun and it's potential behaviors won't be taken completely by surprise by it. And hopefully, will be prepared for it. Katrina was also predicted, and would have been less damaging if more people had paid attention and acted accordingly.
     

Was 2008 the year that Global Warming was finally debunked as Unscientific Nonsense?

Ask one of those polar bears that have failed to drown like they should have.


Or better still, read this article by Christopher Booker from the Telegraph:

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

[...] Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.

As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world. [...]

We can only hope. But fantasies don't always die easily. I expect that just like Holocaust deniers, the hard core of the Global Warming Chicken Littles will always be with us.

And of course, since global warming has failed to materialize, it's adherents now claim that, no matter what the weather does, it's all proof that their theory is true anyway:

"Global warming" is a pseudo-science like astrology

A theory that can't be disproved, because no matter what happens, it's true anyway? What's science got to do with it? Nothing that's demonstrably true.