Monthly Archives: July 2010

BBC Suppresses News of Fund Cut to Climategate University

BBC kills story that British Climategate scientists had American funding dramatically cut. Corporation’s £8 billion green pension fund cited as key to news bias.

 

The story relates to recent developments from the US Department of Energy (DoE) which has not yet decided whether to reinstate the long-standing funding after the so-called Climategate scandal centered at the discredited British Climatic Research Unit (CRU) the institution at the heart of the Climategate scandal, housed at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

The story is covered by popular climate blog, WattsUpWithThat.

 BBC Mired in More Accusations of Broadcasting Bias

 

Rather than run the revelations on its national news network the BBC instead chose to subsume the story within its regional website content directed for the county of Essex (hat tip: Barry Wood).

 

The UEA confirmed the DoE has held off funding despite the unit being cleared. The University of East Anglia is in a region of the country unconnected to home counties, Essex. Disgraced CRU professor narrowly avoided criminal prosecution. Key culprit, Phil Jones was also allowed by one of the inquiries to help pick the evidence it reviewed.

 

By contrast the BBC ran prominent national news broadcasts covering the three British official inquiries that cleared UEA staff of any wrongdoing. Climate scientists at UEA have research grants of $200,000 (£131,000) suspended by the US government in a row over e-mails leaked onto the Internet in November 2009. The total U.S. funding of UK climate research is believed to run into many millions.


The contents of the e-mails raised grave questions about data fraud by researchers collating global temperatures. Some analysts are adamant the e-mails prove that records showing temperature rises at the end of the 20th century were fudged to suggest potentially catastrophic man-made global warming.

 

Knock-on Effect Snares International Green Energy Targets

 

International governments working via the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had hoped to use CRU data as justification to push through global green energy taxes at last December’s Copenhagen Climate summit. The summit failed in its targets in no small part due to the adverse publicity from the scandal.

 

The UK’s conservative Sunday Times first ran the U.S. story for its British subscribers last weekend behind a online paywall under the heading, ’Climate study funding at Norfolk university suspended,’ Left-leaning British press have ostensibly down played the matter. 

 

 BBC Pension Fund Linked to UN Green Investments

 

Essex is a much-maligned home counties urban sprawl adjacent to London once summed up by a television satirical show, Spitting Image as "a boil on the bum of the nation" and "where page 3 girls buy their mum a bungalow" -an unkind take on British popular culture.

 

Skeptics say the BBC purposely skews its agenda to favor environmentalism while censoring contrary viewpoints on climate change. Britain’s national broadcaster invests its entire £8.2bn corporation pension fund in schemes linked with other international investments funds closely linked to the United Nation’s green investments scheme. The total assets of this consortium is around €4 trillion (Euros), that in turn are invested in a larger consortium known as ‘UNEP FI’ worth about $15 trillion (US).

 

Despite accusations of bias and for poor value for money the BBC levies a compulsory license fee on every UK household that a television. Subscriptions are on average UK £145.50 (US $225) per year.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dr Roy Spencer Signals Greenhouse Gas Theory Paradigm Shift


Dr. Roy Spencer, a world-renowned climatologist, admits he is “open to the possibility” the greenhouse gas theory is in ‘error’: is a paradigm shift imminent?

 

Spencer, also an author and former NASA scientist, this week acknowledges a seminal move towards what would be a remarkable paradigm shift in climate science after a multitude of revelations emerge disputing the greenhouse gas hypothesis.


Dr. Spencer
admits on his website (July 17, 2010) that he’s “still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before." 

The ground breaking admission comes in yet another week where more scientists come forth to eviscerate the muddled concept of radiative back warming, that alleged ‘heat trapping’ effect of carbon dioxide (a minor trace gas composing a mere 0.03 percent of Earth’s atmosphere). Here we pinpoint the key movers and shakers at this watershed moment.

 

Greenhouse Gas ‘Deniers’ Holding Forth


 

It can’t pass without comment that Dr. Roy Spencer’s latest frank assessment is a shrewd acceptance of the momentum gained in recent months by the determined and growing ranks of scientists publishing critical assessments of the beleaguered greenhouse gas theory (GHG).

At the fore of the tide of GHG denialism are researchers, Alan Siddons, Dr. Martin Hertzberg and Hans Schreuder.  Siddons’ own article,

The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory’  in ‘American Thinker,’  (February 10, 2010) signaled a swathe of scientists were on the march not only out to prove there was never any scientific ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming, but that the greenhouse gas theory, itself, is utterly bogus.  

Paradigm Shifters Unified in their Cogent Dissent

 The move among international scientists towards a unfied spirit of dissent is in no small part due to the success of the blogosphere in faciliting real-time open and frank peer-review of dissenting ideas to the GHG hypothesis. Unlike the shady world of government climate research frank exchanges by scientists such as Dr. Charles Anderson, Dr. Jeffrey Glassman, Gary Novak and many others has seen a mini-rennaissance of climate inquiry unfold.

 

For example, Dr. Heinz Thieme with his, "On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric Backradiation", and ably backed up by 130 German scientists, astutely pinpointed that it was misunderstanding of vector field calculus that wrongly led  doomsaying researchers to believe carbon dioxide had the ability to ‘back radiate’ energy it received to Earth.

 

‘Back radiation’ meme Dupes Many

 

It is the ‘back radiation’ meme that has duped so many and has been taken up as an issue by Alan Siddons and his co-authors, Hertzberg and Shreuder in their ground-breaking exposition, ‘ A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?’

 

Their shocking revelations indicate that NASA had proof that the GHG theory was bogus over 40 years at the time of the Apollo moon landings.

 

Siddons et al. highlight the fact that CO2 has very narrow band IR response: 2.7, 4.3, and 15 uM are the three generalized wavelengths in which it reacts. All of these wavelengths are absorbed to extinction within the first 30 feet from the ground. Adding more CO2 simply reduces that distance from 30 to 29 or 28 feet-not trapping further energy.

 

Cruel summer for Climate Doomsayers


 

As reported on the ‘Hockey Schtick’ blog, Summer 2010 has been unrelentingly cruel to global warming alarmists as two new research papers pile more misery onto hapless climate doomsayers. ‘A null hypothesis for CO2’ by Roy Clark, Ph.D found it is “impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change to the Earth’s climate.”

While Arthur Rörsch Ph.D affirms we are solidly in the midst of a “paradigm shift” undermining belief in the ‘greenhouse effect.’

 

It is, in fact, conduction and convection rather than radiation that spreads heat throughout the atmosphere while that dense gas CO2 will always hug closely to the ground due to its mass.

 

Even within the IPCC fresh cracks have opened up after recent legal affirmation that ‘Amazongate was, after all, a major blow to its integrity. IPCC expert reviewer,

Dr. Vincent Gray has long known he was working for a government advocacy group spouting junk. It is those who refuse to give up adherence to the debunked theory who are now referred to as the true ‘flat-earthers.’

 

Statistical Incompetence Skews Data Further

 

Despite the official Climategate whitewashes the general public is fully aware that governments have connived with well-funded university researchers to unlawfully deny access to their work for several years in breach of Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.

 

Even with the soft touch of self-serving governmental inquiries into alleged misconduct of government researchers, those official outcomes could do no other than concede, at mininum, a distinct lack of mathematical competence.

 

We now know why there was so much secrecy; climate scientists were not just failing to apply the same physical ‘laws’ as other scientists; they weren’t even folllowing the same core principles.

The IPCC is now exposed for its numerous scandalous misrepresentations such as

‘Amazongate’ and ‘Judithgate’ which shows their ‘consensus’ of science on solar effects is just one scientists.

 

Greenhouse Gas Theory ‘Has no Solid Physical Basis’

 

Also joining the ranks of the new deniers is Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. Johnson, seeing the flaws in the theory, pertinently observes, "Radiative heat can only by itself transfer from high to low frequency, that is from high to low temperature. The Swede rejects the greenhouse gas theory entirely because the idea of ‘back radiation’ has no solid physics basis.

He writes, “it is not described in the physics literature and so is a free invention.“ Professor Johnson asserts that climate boils down to being a ‘heat transfer equation’ and the carbon dioxide role is either statistically zero or as a slight coolant!

 

 

Charles Anderson PhD, a materials physicist, goes further; he has recently calculated that the cooling effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) is 100x greater than its warming effect.

 

German Physicists Supreme in GHG Debunkery


 

Meanwhile, German physics doctors, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph Tscheuschner also affirm that “The greenhouse hypothesis has been disproven by the law of physics.”


Their peer-reviewed study,
"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics," has sat unrefuted since 2007 and points out that the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory.


If back radiation were true then the radiation leaving the Earth (reflected visible and emitted infrared) travels all the way back to the Sun and warms it.  If this occurred then the temperature of the Sun would have reached Armageddon point about a billion years ago. 

 

The junk science has crumbled to dust leaving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a spent and bogus force as the Establishment conduit for a global policy on green taxes.

 

The big issue is not whether human emissions of fossil fuels will ever cause runaway global warming (they can’t), but how so many were duped for so long by the bogus greenhouse gas theory.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

United States Halts Gravy Train for British Global Warming Unit

United States Halts Gravy Train for British Global Warming Unit

 

British newspaper, The Sunday Times reveals that the U.S. government has announced it will stop funding U.K. university at the center of the Climategate scandal.

 

The  Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia (CRU), the hub of the climate controversy over leaked emails discrediting research into man-made global warming, has been dealt a heavy blow from a key funding source: the U.S. Department of Energy.

 

Under the header, ‘US halts funds for climate unit’ (July 18, 2010) The Sunday Times report reads, “The American Government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last November’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.” (Hat Tip: Barry Woods).

 

 The CRU has been the primary source of information for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that world governments had looked to for the science to substantiate their cap-and-trade green tax policies.

 

Setback Comes After Official Reviews Give all Clear

 

The news is a particular blow for the UEA. The university had been upbeat in the wake of three British official inquiries which all cleared the much-maligned CRU of any wrongdoing. However, critics slated each of the inquiries for alleged whitewashing.

 

The article continues, “The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work assembling a database of global temperatures…”

 

The announcement will gravely undermine confidence in climate scientists hoping for further research funds from the world’s largest funding source, the U.S. federal government.

 

Scandal Caused Adverse Public Reaction

 

Ben Stewart, head of media at Greenpeace, conceded the Climategate scandal influenced public opinion; "It’s pretty hard to say what the impact has been but it would be hopelessly naive to say it has not had an effect.”

 

Public concerns will not be assuaged by recent revelations that Lord Oxburgh’s committee failed to address the actual science.
 

Official Inquiries Dismissed as ‘Whitewashes’

 

Despite independent scientists finding evidence supportive of misconduct a Parliamentary hearing and the Oxburgh Inquiry affirmed that researchers at the CRU were “subjective” and cherry-picked data, but had done no wrong.

 

Although Lord Oxburgh did conclude that climate researchers were “poor data handlers” and would benefit by consulting outside statistical experts.

 

Dr. John P. Costella, an independent Australian scientist who studied the leaked emails, took a harsher line referring to what he found as proof of  “shocking misconduct and fraud.”

 

Dr. Costella concluded that the “climate science” community was a façade and that “their vitriolic rebuffs of sensible arguments of mathematics, statistics, and indeed scientific common sense were not the product of scientific rigor at all, but merely self-protection at any cost.”

 

Government Investigators Ignore Key Witness

 

As reported on the Climate Audit blog run by McIntyre, Muir Russell review made no attempt to contact the Canadian who originally filed the Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests that CRU unlawfully denied over a three-year period.

 

Canadian climate analyst, Steve McIntyre had made a compelling impression on attendees at The Guardian debate on Climategate in London on Wednesday July 14, 2010. 

 

By contrast Phil Jones still looks a broken man despite his immediate reinstatement to his post upon his recent exoneration. Jones escaped criminal prosecution only a technicality according to the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) the agency charged with investigation the FOIA abuses in the scandal.
 
Accusations of Official ‘One-sidedness’

 

But the official British line appears to have cut no ice with the Americans. As The Sunday Times adds, “The DoE peer review panel will now sift through the (Muir Russell) report and decide if American taxpayers should continue to fund the unit.”

 

The review carried out by Sir Muir Russell, also condemned as a whitewash, was notable for the total absence of any evidence from the principle opposing witness, statistical expert, McIntyre.

 

The Sunday Times correspondent asked Trevor Davis (head of UEA) to confirm whether Phil Jones (head of CRU) attended a private meeting with Muir Russell in January before the investigating panel was convened in February. Davis confirmed Jones had met Sir Muir Russell privately in January.


Climate Scientists Accused of Cherry-picking Data

 

Skeptics of the man-made global warming theory point out that police found no evidence of any theft. They argue that the 1,000+ emails and 62MB of data that flooded the blogosphere on November 19, 2009 were not stolen but leaked onto the Internet by a whistleblower within university research department.

 

Dr. John P. Costella believes there is sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that a conspiracy existed between an inner clique of climatologists seeking to exaggerate the global historic temperature record.

 

It is alleged politicized researchers created the illusion that late 20th century global warming was potentially catastrophic and attributable to human emissions of carbon dioxide.

 

Repercussions for American Climate Researchers?

 

With British climate research in a financial pickle attention will turn next to those U.S. institutions also implicated in climate data shenanigans.

 

Currently NASA is facing a legal battle for also refusing to honor FOIA requests for the past three years. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has filed a legal challenge against the discredited space agency for also withholding crucial climate data requested by skeptical climate analysts. 

 

While in addition, alleged key U.S. ‘climate conspirator,’ Michael E. Mann is currently in court being pursued for grant fraud by Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

End of the road for Greenhouse Gas Theory : Bogus Budget Busted

End of the road for Greenhouse Gas Theory : Bogus Budget Busted

 

 Shocking new statistical error uncovered in NASA’s Earth Energy Budget equations: global warming numbers are incorrect not by factor of two, but three times over.

 

Long-time greenhouse gas theory denier, Alan Siddons, has done it again in exposing NASA’s climate change fraud. In an earlier article I reported how the former radio-chemist had uncovered a bogus ‘X-Factor’ in the Earth Energy Budget equations, or ‘Kiehl-Trenberth diagram’ (K-T). The K-T equations are the foundation of environmentalist claims that emissions from burning fossil fuels are raising global temperatures.

 

That article illustrated how, since 1997, NASA got away with double counting the ‘up and down’ heating effect of carbon dioxide by using the K-T calculations to exaggerate the heating effect of carbon dioxide by a factor of two.

 

Fallacy of the Perpetual Motion Heat Engine

 

What I sought to explain in my earlier article was that alarmist climatologists were suggesting that from the 168Wm-2 of heat received by our planet’s surface there comes an ‘up and down’ re-radiation so that half is always being ‘back radiated’ again to Earth’s surface.

 

Thus from 168Wm-2 would come a further 84Wm-2; from that in turn comes back radiated a further 42Wm-2, etc., etc. Thus the notion of ‘trapped’ atmospheric heat was born. Yet, as numerous highly qualified independent scientists have pointed out (e.g. Charles Anderson PhD, Professor Claes Johnson, physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph Tscheuschner , etc., etc.) such a cyclical re-heating effect is against the laws of physics. Such experts dismiss the entire hypothesis as an impossible perpetual motion heat engine better suited to the realms of science fiction.

 

However, not satisfied with leaving the debunkery at that, Siddons perused the numbers again after reading my last tome, ‘Kitchen Colander Proves Greenhouse Gas Theory Won’t Hold Water,‘ The eagle-eyed researcher soon spotted a flaw in my calculations; I had under-estimated the full extent of Trenberth’s (and thereafter, NASA’s) factoring errors.

 

Trenberth Comes Out to Answer His Critics

 

Siddons’ latest revelation surpasses even the malfeasance of that previously uncovered trickery. What is now being exposed is so damning it is sure to heap further embarrassment on the beleaguered space agency.

 

The climate researcher accuses Trenberth (and NASA) of using a multiple layered model that fraudulently allows doomsayers to triple the solar-originated energy in the atmosphere.

 

The fuse to the latest bombshell was lit last week when the ‘Hockey Schtick’ blog pitched an email query direct to Kevin Trenberth, the architect of the NASA equations. Calamitous Kevin of Climategate  infamy was asked to explain why he used a factor of three, not two in his grotesquely inflated number-crunching.

To our delight and amazement he replied, “the atmosphere is not a single layer, it is 3-dimensional.”

 

Siddons picked up on the subtle word play, “he’s almost explicitly declaring that multiple layers multiply energy.”

 

You can bet that on reading this new stunner NASA will be as tight-lipped as when we asked them to explain why their education department no longer publishes the K-T diagram in their high school textbooks.

 

Heat is Transferred According to Temperature Difference

 

To assist readers in better understanding the mire of this pseudo-science gobbledygook we need to make use of the "New Unphysical AGW Simulator."

 

By availing ourselves of the ‘AGW Simulator’ (thanks University of Colorado) we see that solar-originated atmospheric energy is almost exactly tripled according to the K-T method:

519 ÷ 169 = 3.07.  Thus a multiplying factor of 3.

 

 That’s how our imaginary "greenhouse" of gases goes from having one pane of glass to 3 panes!

 

By Trenberth’s ‘magic’ we can have multiple "layers;” all the better for us to then multiply our data by a factor of three because the “atmosphere is not a single layer, it is three-dimensional.”

 

As Siddons says, “It’s similar to heating a 70 degree pair of pants with a 200 degree iron. The temperature of the pants doesn’t rise to 270 but only to 200 at most. Heat is transferred according to the temperature difference, not according to a sum.”

 

Thereafter, all climate scientists, taking the equation on trust, wrongly concluded that human emissions of carbon dioxide were far more significant to climate change than they are.

 

Why fudge by two, if three looks Better?

 

This kind of wanton fakery has long been enshrined in the ‘bible’ of doomsaying: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report.

 

The IPCC’s Report of 2001 (in ‘Figure 1.2’) states that, “Of the incoming solar radiation, 49% (168 Wm-2) is absorbed by the surface. That heat is returned to the atmosphere as sensible heat, as evapotranspiration (latent heat) and as thermal infrared radiation. Most of this radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, which in turn emits radiation both up and down.“

 

Did you see it? That old double counting ‘up and down’ hoax gets slipped in to fool the unwary yet again.

 

The fraudulent ‘X-Factor’ of energy released from carbon dioxide is justified by claiming it forms a "two-sided surface" (in the atmosphere). This swindle has been well sold to unthinkers like politicians and the ‘useful idiots’ in the mainstream media who long ago scorned old fashioned virtues such as due diligence and investigative responsibility.

‘Back radiation’ as unphysical as ‘back conduction’ or ‘back convection’

 

Like other analysts, I refuted this ‘up and down’ gambit that K-T used to multiply the effects of CO2 by a factor of two because this ‘back radiation’ folly has no precedent in the laws of science. For over 30 years a clique of climatologists (collective noun: a ‘conspiracy’?) has been trying to get away with skewing the laws of physics when applied to radiation.

 

As a simple comparison, no scientist claims there is such a thing as ‘back-convection’- likewise, none claim there is such a thing as ‘back-conduction’ as both these concepts would be so preposterous as to be universally laughed at. Yet somehow the proposition of ‘back radiation’ gets a ‘free pass’ supposedly avoiding all accountability in the laws of thermodynamics: sorry, my ‘denier’ associates and I don’t buy that!

Pointing out the Purpose of Poynting Vectors

 

Kiehl, Trenberth and the rest of the doomsaying fraternity also ‘forget’ that when calculating any transport of electro-magnetic energy (radiation) all such flow is to be determined by field vector calculus (i.e. Poynting’s vector theorem) which is an energy conservation law: see the ‘gold standard’ textbook by John David Jackson Classical electrodynamics.


Vectoring laws must be applied in any three-dimensional calculus of electro-magnetic forces in motion (i.e. radiation). As Trenberth has explicitly stated his intention is to model in 3-D, therefore there is no escaping the requirement of applying Poynting’s laws.

 

Poynting’s theorem specifically requires that when the direction of such energy flow is equal and in opposite motion (that spurious K-T ‘up and down’) all such flows must be summed to zero.

 

In the doomsayers’ failure (and in mine), the true extent of the misapplication of calculus was overlooked.

 

This is a mighty hefty debunk because this is the core of NASA’s preferred calculation of our planet’s energy budget. The K-T diagram has risen then fallen just as ignominiously as the discredited ‘hockey stick’ graph of Michael Mann.

 

Satellite Data Says Siddons is Correct

 

Finally, to reassure ourselves the real world concurs with our take on the physics, if we check the satellite evidence from ERBE, as shown by Lindzen and Choi (2009) and admitted to by Trenberth, back radiation appears to present no impediment to the outward flow of radiation.

 

Thus, empirical observations, the laws of thermodynamics and Poynting’s vector calculus together deliver the GHG hypothesis a knock out blow. Falling with it is all vestige of scientific credibility of that doomsaying ilk associated with Kevin Trenberth, NASA and the IPCC.

 

References:
Dr. Hertzberg, M., Siddons, A, & Schreuder, H., ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?" (May 2010).
Lindzen, R. S., & Choi, Y., ‘On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data,’ (August 2009), Geophysical Research Letters, Vol: 36, L16705.

Jackson, J. D. ‘Classical electrodynamics’ (1998), (Third ed.), New York: Wiley. ISBN 047130932X

 

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

New US Court Battle Starts After Disputed Climategate Inquiries

 

 

 Climategate, the global warming scandal that won’t be swept away despite the best efforts of international governments, now moves to a Virginia court showdown.

After several Climategate inquiries all dismissed by critics as whitewashes, this is where the real climate war begins, say opponents. Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli has fired his latest legal salvo with a 41-page brief in a Virginia state courtroom. 

On Tuesday the Albemarle County Circuit Court was presented with the state prosecutor’s case as to why the University of Virginia (UVA) cannot refuse to answer a subpoena to disclose documents pertaining to an alleged $500,000 grant fraud by former employee and climate researcher, Michael Mann. 

Lawyers for UVA have countered that Cuccinelli’s request violates Mann’s academic freedom and that the attorney general has no reasonable basis to believe fraud took place. They’ve asked a judge to set the demand aside.


Leaked Emails Prove Mann’s Intent

 

Cuccinelli seeks to establish the culpability of Michael Mann as a funding fraudster. The key issue that must be proven is whether Mann acted consciously to hide the failures in his data, which would be fraud, rather than that Mann is just another incompetent climate data handler, as was determined by three official British investigations into Climategate.

 

Mann appeared to implicated himself in his leaked Climategate emails, such as that of October 27, 2009 in which he confessed, ”As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”

 

Other leaked Climategate files accredited to Mann labeled "CENSORED" and "FIXED" appear to confirm that a 14 bristlecone pine series had been intentionally excluded from Mann’s climate proxy calculations and kept secret.

 

Royal Statistical Society Proves Mann’s Fudging

 

The Royal Statistical Society recently carried out a full statistical analysis of Mann’s disputed numbers and found that the former UVA tree-ring counter had used “inappropriate methods” resulting in an exaggeration of the global warming phenomenon. Professor Hand, in declaring the Society’s verdict wrote, “The change in temperature is not as great over the 20th century compared to the past as suggested by the Mann paper.”

 

The Society singled out one 1998 paper by Mann (when he was a UVA employee) as being the worst example.

 

Incompetence or Willful Fraud?

 

Cuccinelli’s legal team argues that the documents that the University of Virginia (UVA) refuses to hand over may be key to the attorney general’s ongoing fraud investigation. This, says the state’s most senior attorney, is the only standard governing whether the university is legally compelled to answer his subpoena for those documents.

The big question here for Virginia’s taxpayers is, did discredited researcher, Mann obtain five grants from public funds with the intention of faking global warming data?

 

Withholding Evidence Proves the Crime

 

Mann and his former employers, UVA, are accused of cynically and persistently obstructing efforts to find out the facts.

Virginia’s own laws relating to the intentional withholding of evidence provide that “[w]here one party has within his control material evidence and does not offer it, there is [an inference] that the evidence, if it had been offered, would have been unfavorable to that party.” Charles E. Friend, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 10-17, at 338 (5th ed.1999).

 

Endemic International Climate Government Cover Up

 

Over several years key government-funded university climate researchers had unlawfully refused Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests. Opponents of global climate taxes argue that it was those institutions that unlawfully refused to disclose such data that precipitated the leaking of emails during the so-called Climategate scandal of November 2009.

The British and American governments, among others, had hoped to premise substantial green energy taxes on the findings of researchers such as Michael Mann.

 

As Washington Post’s Helderman reports, “Cuccinelli (R) now contends that academic freedom does not shield the university from turning over documents in a fraud probe conducted by his office. But he also seizes the opportunity to dispute climate change research.”

 

Hockey Stick Graph Relied on Poor Proxy Data

 

Mann allegedly fudged his hockey stick graph to hide the fact tree rings are proven to be poor proxies when compared to modern temperatures.

 

Thus, the skeptics argue, if tree ring data is proven to not correlate well with modern temperature records why should we believe they are good proxies of historic temperatures?

 

Profiting from Deceit?

 

The so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph has long been the iconic image of environmentalist campaigners and the global warming establishment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used it as a prominent graphic in its literature as did Al Gore in his award-winning and controversial documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore and the IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.

 

Former U.S. Vice President Gore predicted, among other catastrophes, that sea levels would rise by more than 20 feet in the "in the near future."

 However, Gore has recently spent $6 million on prime California seafront real estate, as reported by James Delingpole of the UK’s Daily Telegraph (‘California Welcomes the Poodle of Lurve,’ July 12, 2010).

 

Legal Arguments in Cuccinelli’s Brief

 

The brief justifies the legal standard for issuing the Civil Investigative Demand that Cuccinelli sent to the school in April. He seeks to ascertain whether documents held by UVA are relevant to the investigation. Cuccinelli’s lawyers argue academic freedom is no defense to obstruct a legal investigation into whether fraud has been committed with taxpayer dollars.

 

The university must respond to the attorney general’s brief by July 20 and oral arguments have been set for August 20.

 

The first part of the brief is a 17-page description of why Cuccinelli has "reason to believe" that Mann might have committed fraud as he sought public grants for his research. An earlier investigation by Penn. State University, Mann’s current employer since 2005, cleared him of wrongdoing.

 

Cuccinelli’s brief states, "Simply put, the other investigations confirm that there is substantial reason to inquire, but none can ‘clear’ Mann of violating FATA because no one, other than the Attorney General, has asked that question," they write.

The story, by Rosalind Helderman, features in the Washington Post (July 13, 2010).

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Kitchen Colander Proves Greenhouse Gas Theory Won’t Hold Water



A climate researcher who disputes greenhouse gas theory has come up with a novel way to sieve out global warming spin: use a metal colander.

 

Alan Siddons, who along with Dr. Martin Hertzberg and Hans Schreuder co-authored the groundbreaking paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?’ has devised a simple and ingenious analogy involving a metal strainer and a light bulb to allay fears about global warming created by theorists of greenhouse gases (GHG).

 

Understanding this explanation makes it far easier to go on and comprehend how the Earth’s atmosphere actually behaves. Siddons shows that, like the colander, the GHG hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

 

Add a Light bulb to the Equation

 

He asks us to, "Imagine inverting a colander over a light bulb to make it a lamp shade. Since it’s got holes in it, some of the light will leak out. But since it’s also like a mirror, a lot of light will be reflected back. Thus, less light will escape and it will illuminate what’s under the colander rather than lighting up the ceiling. That’s basically how most people think of the greenhouse effect."

 

The lightbulb is the earth emitting heat rays in this analogy, the colander is a layer of ‘greenhouse gases,’ and what’s above them both is outer space, the "ceiling." So where’s the snag?

 

Well, by the tenets of greenhouse theory, the colander doesn’t actually reduce how much the lightbulb emits. Instead, the colander becomes so bright that the ceiling receives as much light as it did before!

 

"The colander now radiates what the light bulb isn’t radiating, making it appear that the colander isn’t doing a thing to prevent light from escaping. Thus this magical colander simultaneously stops light from getting out and releases all of it too."

 

That’s the actual theory in a nutshell, which even many perceptive people have a hard time grasping.

 

This exposition is both simple and effective in exposing the nonsense of what climatologists try to convince us is heating via ‘back radiation,’ a bogus mechanism they allege will ‘trap’ excess heat in carbon dioxide which they say, will cause runaway global warming: all because of our continued burning of fossil fuels.

Despite the trumped up fears about the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ Earth still keeps on emitting the same amount of energy it receives.

 

Thus, unlike what a real colander would do, our atmosphere doesn’t ‘trap’ any of the energy we get from the sun.

 

Earth’s Energy Budget Always in Balance

 

Analogies are all well and good but what actual proof do we have that solar energy transported via atmospheric gases won’t overheat our planet?

 

Well, we have the detailed spectral radiative-transfer analysis of huge archives of atmospheric data from NASA and elsewhere. The data received from satellites plus radiosondes, etc. proves our planet’s energy budget remains balanced with no excess heat build up.

 

Researchers Lindzen and Choi (2009) showed that, averaged over a period of time, the outgoing magnitude of longwave radiation is equal to the incoming magnitude of shortwave; our planet was thus not over-heating and the Kiehl-Trenberth Earth Energy Budget Diagram (1997) used by NASA, who were recently exposed as having proof the GHG effect was bogus 40 years ago, was discredited.

 

Official: Government Climatologists are Poor Statisticians

 

Kiehl and Trenberth had ignored Kirchoff’s law of thermal radiation and vector field calculus and wrongly determined that the upward and downward longwave radiation should be multiplied by two, thus falsely doubling the heating effect, when it ought to have been factored at zero, meaning extra heating.

 

Trenberth lamented the ‘missing’ energy in a recent admission in Science (April, 2010). While NASA’s Gavin Schmidt famously repeated the K-T error while ‘moonlighting’ over on his blog at ‘Real Climate.’

 

However, we shouldn’t be surprised that climatologists are not good number crunchers; it was the Oxburgh Inquiry into Climategate that concluded that expert statisticians should be brought in to help sharpen up their dodgy mathematical skills.

 

Thus these third-rate doomsayers of science have been scratching their heads for years in vain wondering when their ‘runaway global warming effect’ was going to kick in; it never did and never will – because there is no ‘magical kitchen colander’ in our atmosphere.

 

References:

Dr. Hertzberg, M., Siddons, A, & Schreuder, H., ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?" ( May, 2010).

Lindzen, R. S., & Choi, Y., ‘On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data,’ (August 2009), Geophysical Research Letters, Vol: 36, L16705.

 


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Mouthy Guardian Columnist Monbiot Apologizes to Climate Skeptic

 

Humiliated journalist for UK national daily, The Guardian humbly admits misrepresenting the Amazongate scandal. Libel action now averted.

 

Battered eco-warrior, George Monbiot has made a humiliating climb down under pressure from his employer’s lawyers. It seems the newspaper’s forced retraction over allegations made against respected global warming researcher, Dr. Richard North pre-empted the embarrassing climb-down, reports James Delingpole, Daily Telegraph (July 3, 2010)

 

Full and Frank Admission

 

The statement of apology is self-explanatory and reads:

 

“In criticising Dr Richard North, below, for not having checked whether there was a reference to the claim that up to “40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” in the WWF Report, I was unaware of, and therefore omitted to mention, that Dr North had himself later spotted that there was a reference to the 40% figure in the WWF report. His initial mistake had been corrected on another page  (before the Sunday Times article had been written) and he had added a cross-link to the original page, which I failed to note. Apologies.”

 

Dr. North had earlier threatened legal action over the "complete fabrication.” North reveals in more detail on his blog, EU Referendum, what was so objectionable about Monbiot’s lies.

 

Prior History of Gaffes

 

Mealy-mouthed Monbiot (‘mealy-mouth:’ unwilling to state facts or opinions simply and directly) has become a laughing stock not only among skeptics of the man-made global warming fraud, but also die-hards in his beloved tree-hugging fraternity.

 

Famously, ‘Moonbat’ chose not to be an apologists for green climate crimes when he agreed with skeptics (climate realists) that disgraced Climategate professor Phil Jones should have resigned at the outbreak of the scandal in November 2009.

 

Leaked emails proved unlawful conduct by scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) when Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests were disobeyed. A British government investigation conceded  Phil Jones escaped prosecution on a technicality due to the expiration of the short six-month statute of limitations.

 

Final Result: Delingpole 1-0 Monbiot

 

Nemesis and intellectual superior, James Delingpole of rival paper the Daily Telegraph characterized his facile foe, “prancing about like Muffin the Mule on angel dust” for his undignified playground antics in misrepresenting a Sunday Times retraction of North’s scoop on ‘Amazongate.’

 

Monbiot’s retraction in turn puts into context the earlier inexplicable back peddling of the Sunday Times for needlessly withdrawing their own story supportive of North’s take on the Amazongate controversy.

 

 When the Sunday Times made its bizarre retraction Moonbat ranted:

 

“Now that the IPCC has been vindicated, its accusers, North first among them, are exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood. Ashes to ashes, toast to toast.”

 

Amazongate Story Affirmed by Legal Opinion

 

As may now be inferred by The Guardian retraction, there were eminently good legal grounds for the Sunday Times not to have apologized over their Amazongate scandal revelations. 

Finally, the big bonus for climate skeptics from these calamitous capers is that Amazongate remains extremely bad news for the IPCC, Monbiot and idiotic international governments still pursuing ill-conceived carbon taxes.

References:

Delingpole, J., ‘Daily Telegraph,’ blogs.telegraph.co.uk (website accessed: July 4, 2010).His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.

Dr. North, R., ‘And Now for Amazongate,’ eureferendum.blogspot.com (website accessed: July 4, 2010).

 

.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized