Climategate Round-Up #8

Alarmists act like rodents, Tony Blair says that science don’t matter and the Daily Mail won’t stop asking awkward questions. Life is good for skeptics and awful for weather hysterics, and there’s a hottie. Do Monday’s get any better than this?

The Leak/Hack

Deny, deny, deny. How damaging was the leak? Very, very damaging. And not just for the motley CRU:

ClimateGate doesn’t just bring down the scientists who wrote the emails, it brings down all the institutions and organizations that were supposed to have exacting standards and ought to have exposed the crimes years ago. The men whose work was so bogus, were lauded by the IPCC, published in Nature and Science, and defended by the National Academy of Science. This evidence of collusion, falsification, hiding data, and consistent deceit blows away the infrastructures of the practice of science. It doesn’t hurt the scientific method, but it destroys the premise that the IPCC expert review means anything, that peer review is capable of even picking up outright fraud, and that the National Academy of Science is functional.

Climategate Inconvenient Emails/Data

One atmospheric scientist suggests that the motley CRU “substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view“. The UK Met Office doubles down on stupid, but wait, what’s that… coercion? Facts, damned inconvenient when you’re trying to hobble the world’s economic engine. Steve McIntyre, statistician and kryptonite to corrupt scientists everywhere, eviscerates the IPCC ‘trick’. I believe those are Michael Mann’s credibility entrails on the floor. It has much to do with this image, read it all:

end of the green line?end of the green line?

The climategate leak/hack broke the dam, and now there is more evidence of data being maniupulated coming from around the world. The 60 second video that destroys the hockey-stick myth once and for all: .. UPDATE: CRU has removed data from it’s website. What PR advice are these folks getting? They have even less clue about how to manage the fallout from their misbehavior than they do about the scientific method.

Climategate in the Media

CNN hosted a debate between John Christy and Gavin Schmidt wherein Schmidt plays the victim and spins the email content wildly: .. Canada’s Globe and Mail notices Climategate, sort of. Reluctant acknowledgement of the scandal, complete with extra-spin cycle from Australia’s National Times:

…accusations of fraud will persist because the so-called ”debate” on climate change has veered into the realms of fantasy. The fog on the public relations battlefield has obscured the real question: how to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a fast but sensible way.

The UK’s Daily Mail does a special investigation into Climategate and gets to be the must-read link of the Round-Up:

However, Warmergate strikes at something more fundamental – the science that justifies the basic assumption that the present warming really is unprecedented, at least in the past few thousand years. Take the now-notorious email that the CRU’s currently suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, sent to his IPCC colleagues on November 16, 1999, when he wrote he had ‘just completed Mike’s Nature trick’ and had so managed to ‘hide the decline’. The CRU’s supporters have protested bitterly about the attention paid to this message. In the course of an extraordinary BBC interview in which he called an American critic an ‘****hole’ live on air, Jones’s colleague Professor Andrew Watson insisted that the fuss was completely unjustified, because all Jones had been talking about was ‘tweaking a diagram’. Davies told me that the email had been ‘taken out of context’ adding: ‘One definition of the word “trick” is “the best way of doing something”. What Phil did was standard practice and the facts are out there in the peer-reviewed literature.’ However, the full context of that ‘trick’ email, as shown by a new and until now unreported analysis by the Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre, is extremely troubling.

The Economist, once a respected paper, beclowned itself over Climategate and is taken to the woodshed for it. Seth Borenstein of The Associated Press is far too close to those he was supposed to report on, and is exposed in great detail as a shill for the warmers. Another in-the-tank ‘journalist’ Andy Revkin of the NYT repairs his reputation with the warmistas. Awkward. Climategate questions in the UK Houses of Parliament. So much for the ‘nothing to see here, move on now’ spin. A hard editorial from the Washington Times, the tip of the Climategate iceberg. Got questions about Climategate in Copenhagen? Better bring a flak jacket.

Hexploding Hippie Heads

Absent any real defense for the dishonesty and lies revealed in the Climategate emails, most hippies try to draw attention to the ‘illegal hack’ that blew the lid off their cozy hoax. But, as Horner suggests, it’s the substance, stupid. You know the difference between an alarmist and a hamster? There isn’t one. armor pantsed Head of the UN IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri has his head buried in the sand with his fingers in his ears and denies that the CRU emails and code represent a problem with climate science. A memo to members of the global warming cult. Heh. Pielke Jr. rogers the HuffPo for telling porkies. Another IPCC scientist defects from the hysteric crowd and calls the behavior ‘fraud‘. Ouch. Tony Blair, not content with having wrecked a perfectly good country, wants to see action at Hopenchangen “even if the science is not correct”. Which says it all, really.

Climategate Hottie

Sticking with the hack movie linkery, 1995’s The Net told a tale of online chicanery. It also featured Sandra Bullock, which was nice. Welcome then, Mrs. Jesse James to the Round-Up:


Thanks for reading.Source

Farmer not allowed to farm because of climate laws, goes on hunger strike

By Justin Credible, ILCD Editor

An email we just recieved. Quite astonishing.


Peter Spencer is an Australian farmer conducting a hunger strike on his property. Peter is unable to clear his land and therefore earn an income. This is because the ban on land clearing is being used to enable Australia to meet its treaty commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Our Prime Minister is in Copenhagen at the moment, he refuses to pay any compensation, talk to Peter or intervene in the case. Don’t let Peter become the first casualty of ‘Climate Change’ in the western world!

To help Peter’s cause you can spread this news around and join the network set up for him by clicking here.

Copenhagen Climate Conspirators should all Walk Home

For Immediate Release 13th December 2009 A Statement by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia.
“They should all Walk Home.”
The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that the Climate Conspirators attending the Copenhagen Carnival should all walk home.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes, added:

“Right now, over 15,000 green hypocrites, mostly funded by the world’s suffering tax payers, have winged their way in comfortable carbon-fuelled air travel to Copenhagen’s best VIP accommodation. There they will be seeking ways to forcibly reduce our carbon footprint while inflating theirs.

“Top rated airlines are booming as prominent people top up their frequent flyer carbon credits. Concierges are smiling as limousines glide in, full of exalted envoys with their entourage of minders and courtiers. Lights are blazing, air conditioners humming, kitchens cooking, champagne bubbling and caviar disappearing.

“The Global Warming Industry will also be there, creating scares, drowning polar bears, melting ice, generating publicity, demanding handouts, seeking exemptions, defending paper credits, and pushing for subsidies and special deals.

“And of course we will have battalions of largely gullible and fawning media, many also from government media monoliths touring on the tab of the tax payers.

“We are told that Australian tax payers have sent 114 official delegates there, all concerned to reduce our consumption of carbon fuels.

“If they are fair dinkum, they should all lead by example, use Green Energy, and walk home.”

UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate

By Mike Flynn

A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book. McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns. He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming. Professor Phil Jones, the head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit, has temporarily stood down pending an investigation into the scandal. Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited. During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question. However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider. The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.
McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour. “It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.” “These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.” Two officers corralled the film crew and one officer can be seen on tape threatening the cameraman. The Guard can also be heard warning that if the crew did not stop filming their would seize the equipment and the journalists expelled from the conference. McAleer says he has made an official complaint tabout the incident. “I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.” “This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.” Professor Schneider was interviewed for McAleer’s “Not Evil Just Wrong” documentary but lawyers later wrote to McAleer saying he was withdrawing permission for the interview to be used. McAleer, who is from Ireland, has gained quite a reputation for asking difficult questions of those who have been promoting the idea of man-made Global Warming. His microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations. Almost 500,000 people have watched the incident on youtube.Source

Sarah Palin reacts to Climategate: "The President should boycott Copenhagen"

Copenhagen’s Political Science

By Sarah Palin

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.
“Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse. The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.
Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate — far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure. But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen — which actually allow them to increase their emissions — President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people. In fact, we’re not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia’s Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science. Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.
UPDATE: Steven Hayward has a great article in The Weekly Standard on the Climategate scandal. Be sure to check it out.

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it.

However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science. Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.

Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.

– Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin was the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009.


Baby, It's Cold Outside

By Alan Caruba

One of the great ironies of the Climate Change Conference taking place in Copenhagen is that its focus is on “global warming” at a time when Planet Earth has been in a cooling cycle for the passed decade.

That fact alone is testimony to another one; the United Nations conference has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with a binding treaty that would ultimately transfer power from the individual sovereign nations whose representatives are attending to centralized governance by unelected bureaucrats.

Just as Communism concentrates all power in the “State” and relegates its citizens to “property” of the state, the UN Climate Change program would subjugate entire nations in the name of “saving the Earth.” It needs saving, but not from a fraudulent “global warming”. The present greatest danger to mankind is the various power centers represented by the delegates to the conference.

There is, however, another danger and it is the climate; not a warming one, but one that is at the tail end of the latest interglacial period between ice ages. The last ice age ended about 11,500 years ago, though some argue it was only 10,000 years.

The late Dr. Theodore Landscheidt, founder of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity in Waldmuenchen, Germany, was a giant in the field of climatology. This science looks at climate trends in terms of millions or thousands of years.

Before his passing in 2004, Dr. Landscheidt predicted a new Little Ice Age similar to what the northern hemisphere experienced from around 1300 to 1850. He based this on an analysis of the sun’s activity in the last two millennia and he believed it would arrive by 2030. Meteorologists are in general agreement that the current cooling cycle will continue for another two decades. Thereafter it gets really cold!

Meteorology is about the weather that is occurring now and predicting what that weather will be in the near future. As we know, even short range predictions of a few days are subject to variations. Modern meteorology depends on computer climate models, but none can factor in the role of clouds on the weather because they remain a mystery. Other unknown factors include countless active undersea volcanoes.

The Sun, however, can and is closely monitored and, since it is the primary source of warming and cooling cycles, predictions can be made. Dr. Landscheidt wrote, “The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend.”

Winter will grow colder and last longer. By 2030, people in the northern hemisphere will experience what occurred between 1300 and 1850. History is filled with examples from the devastation of Napoleon’s army when he invaded Russia to Valley Forge in America. In England, the Thames froze over.

My friend, Robert W. Felix, the author of “Not by Fire, but by Ice” and editor of the Internet site,, has been predicting not just a Little Ice Age, but a full-fledged Ice Age like the one that occurred about a million or more years ago and did not end until about 10,000 years ago.

“We’re beginning to realize,” Felix wrote, “that earth is a violent and dangerous place to live. We’re beginning to realize that mass extinctions have been the rule, rather than the exception, for the 3.5 billion years that life has existed on this planet.”

Civilization as we know it is relatively new. Homo sapiens, humans, began their dominance around 10,000 years ago and the development of agriculture and other aspects of modern civilization are only about 5,000 years old. When you stack that up against vast epochs, it is a historical blip on the radar screen. Not that long ago in America, the only means of transportation were horses.

What is occurring in Copenhagen is an obscenity. The fact that the President of the United States and other world leaders would attend and endorse its lies calls out for a massive repudiation.

The “science” on which it is based has been revealed to have been deliberately falsified by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and we may yet confirm that even NASA’s and NOAA’s data was inaccurate as well.

As the White House and Congress try to impose a “Cap-and-Trade” bill, a huge tax on all energy use, on Americans, what scientists have been trying to explain for years is that no evidence exists that carbon dioxide (CO2) effects global temperature.

This puts the lie to the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement that it intends to regulate CO2 emissions in order to avoid a global warming that is not happening or that CO2 poses a health risk. We are witnessing gangsterism masquerading as regulation.

There isn’t even evidence that CO2 is a so-called “greenhouse gas” or that a greenhouse effect even exists. There is no evidence that the seas are rising at an alarming rate or that glaciers and polar caps are melting.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the sponsor of the Copenhagen conference, should be disbanded for being nothing more than a political instrument intended to coordinate a massive international fraud. All U.S. legislation based on “global warming” or “greenhouse gas emissions” should be repealed.

The worldwide mass media’s self-inflicted damage to its credibility requires a major effort to report the actual science and prepare the Earth’s population for some ugly consequences of the cooling that is occurring and is likely to accelerate in the decades immediately ahead.

It’s going to get colder and all the lies flowing from a morally debased United Nations will not change that.

Caruba blogs at He is an author, business and science writer.

Surprise, Surprise, Many Scientists Disagree On Global Warming

There is hardly unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind’s role in producing it. But you wouldn’t know it if you just listened to the Obama administration.

By John Lott
As the Climate-gate controversy continues to grow, amid charges of hiding and manipulating data, and suppressing research by academics who challenge global warming, there is one oft-repeated defense: other independent data-sets all reach the same conclusions. “I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science … I think that this notion that there’s some debate . . . on the science is kind of silly,” said President Obama’s Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, when asked about the president’s response to the controversy on Monday. Despite the scandal, Britain’s Met, the UK’s National Weather Service, claims: “we remain completely confident in the data. The three independent data sets show a strong correlation is highlighting an increase in global temperatures.” But things are not so clear. It is not just the University of East Anglia data that is at question. There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty. Thus, there is hardly the unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind’s role in producing it. But even for the sake of argument, assuming that there is significant man-made global warming, many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people’s health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth. Let’s take the issue of data. The three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report came from the University of East Anglia, NASA, and the British Met Office. As noted in my previous piece for the Fox Forum, the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the University of East Anglia. NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia (ocean temperatures were collected separately), though there are signs that things might be speeded up. Neither the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia nor the British Met are able to provide their raw data to other research scientists because of the confidentiality agreements that Professor Phil Jones at CRU entered into. Unfortunately, Jones did not keep records of those agreements and, according to the British Met, can neither identify the countries with the confidentiality agreements nor provide the agreements. Earlier this year the British Met wrote the following to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit: “Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.”A press spokesman for the British Met, John Hammond, confirmed this statement in a telephone conversation on Monday to But the claimed confidentiality restrictions have hardly been followed consistently. When asked why the University of East Anglia was allowed to release the data to the Met but not to other academics, Mr. Hammond e-mailed back: “This is a question for the UEA.” Unfortunately, however, neither the University of East Anglia nor anyone associated with the CRU was willing to answer any questions about the climate research conducted at the university. But why would countries want confidentiality agreements on decades old data that they are providing? “Climate data continues to have value so long as it is commercially confidential,” Mr. Hammond says. But when pushed for evidence that this was in fact the concerns that countries had raised, Mr. Hammond said: “Although I do not have evidence to hand at the moment, some nations, especially in Africa for example, believe that the information does have commercial value.” Earlier, in July, the Met had raised a different issue — that scientists in other countries would be less willing to share their scientific research if the Met could be expected to pass on the data to others. However, professional meterologists are unimpressed by the claimed reasons for confidentiality. “Research data used as the basis for scientific research needs to be disclosed if other scientists are to be able to verify the work of others,” Mike Steinberg, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, told In addition, while the data access may be restricted in some countries because they sell data and forecasts, that doesn’t explain why the data isn’t released for all other countries. It is not just the University of East Anglia that has been accused of massaging the data (what they called creating “value added” data). Recently, New Zealand has also had its temperature series from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) challenged. Still the NIWA continues to insist that the “Warming over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal.” Indeed, the institute claims that the New Zealand warming trend was 50 percent higher than the global average. But the difference in graphs between what NIWA produced after massaging the data and what the original raw data showed was truly remarkable and can be seen here. As the Climate Science Coalition of New Zealand charged: “The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below.” Similar concerns have also been raised about Australian temperature data. Global warming advocates may believe that if they just keep shouting that everyone agrees with them, they will be able to enact their far-reaching regulations before everyone catches on. With President Obama’s — and the Democrats’ — fondness for more spending and increased regulations, our hope may have to rest with India and China to finally bring the Copenhagen conference to its senses. John R. Lott, a contributor. He is an economist and author of “Freedomnomics.”Source

I just shoveled 6 inches of global warming off my driveway

By William D. Zeranski

The UN announced 2000-2009 to be the warmest decade as the country braces for a massive winter storm as reported by Weather Channel:

Winter Blast hauls blizzard, heavy snow, rain

The system that brought heavy snow and gusty winds across the West yesterday will impact much of the rest of the country today and tomorrow. Heavy snow and gusty winds are expected over much of the country.

As of 6 a.m. Eastern time this morning, 22 states were under some advisory, watch, or warning for wind, with 30 states under some sort of advisory, watch, or warning for wintry weather, both stretching from California to Maine.

There’s a list of other nasty weather stories, which include deep snow and low temperatures, and no immediate signs of improvement.

As the climate circus continues to parade through the streets of Copenhagen, we must ponder how we will answer our grandchildren when they ask “What did you do during the climate change conference?”

Our response just might be, “Oh, I missed it, because I was shoveling out the driveway while waiting for the electricity to be turned back on.”

Of course, we know the UN and the Obama Administration are using fraudulent, yet convenient, numbers. We also know, as we face thirty below in many states, that what’s going on in the real world just doesn’t matter.


BREAKING: Over 140 scientists challenge UN's climate claims in open letter

Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Signed by: [click here to view the entire list of scientists]

Visit for more information.