Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011′ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent.

Full article here.

Although this is seedy and unlawful at any time, it also goes in the “bad timing” file, especially for the Obama Administration and the UN.

Just as a brand new book further exposes the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (whose scams I dissected here, and in more disturbing detail here), and on the heels of the weekend surprise of a 2005 memo showing President Obama’s cooling/warming/population zealot of a “science czar” John Holdren is the kind of guy Mitt Romney turns to for developing his “environmental”’ policies, we’ve exposed the Obama administration and IPCC have cooperated to subvert U.S. transparency laws, operating domestically out of Holdren’s White House office.

With this morning’s Freedom of Information Act request, the explaining they have to do must begin by providing the taxpayer certain records regarding — including but not limited to — user names and passwords for a backchannel ‘cloud’ established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA, thereby also seeking to undermine the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978.

The IPCC, you will recall, is Al Gore’s co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and the host over the years of numerous scandals involving fudged and twisted climate data, research plagiarized from student theses, popular magazine articles, and green-group press releases, and, of course, the infamous Climategate emails which showed coordinated efforts to “hide the decline” in temperature data. This is not just one more scandal, however. This is much bigger.

Until the Request is posted at CEI.org, consider the following:

* CEI’s FOIA request details how the UN informed participants that it was motivated by embarrassing releases of earlier discussions (“ClimateGate” key among them) and, to circumvent the problem that national government transparency laws posed, the group itself.

* CEI reminds OSTP that this practice was described as “creat[ing] non-governmental accounts for official business” and “using the nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications” in a recent analogous situation involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff. CEI expects similar congressional and media outrage at this similar practice to evade the applicable record-keeping laws.

* This effort has apparently been conducted with participation — thereby direct assistance and enabling — by the Obama White House which, shortly after taking office, appointed Holdren’s office to the lead role on IPCC work from the Department of Commerce. The plan to secretly create a FOIA-free zone was then implemented.

* This represents politically assisting the IPCC to enable UN, EU, and US bureaucrats and political appointees to avoid official email channels for specific official work of high public interest, performed on official time and using government computers, away from the prying eyes of increasingly skeptical taxpayers.

* CEI also reminds OSTP of a similar, ongoing effort by the administration to claim that records on U.S. government computers belong to the UN IPCC, refusing to produce them under FOIA. This practice was affirmed in a report by the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General earlier this year.

As talks resume next month to forge legislation to act as a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol, CEI looks forward to OSTP ceasing this unlawful activity and providing prompt access to the requested records so the taxpayer can know what they, and the IPCC, are up to.

So this morning, we requested all relevant records under FOIA, including all records sitting on that server, as they all were provided to US government employees for official purposes. This was filed with OSTP run by controversial “science czar” and, we now know, former Mitt Romney “climate” adviser John Holdren. The taxpayer deserves to know about this coordinated effort between Holdren’s OSTP and the UN.

Possibly one Republican candidate will call in the next debate for ending US funding of the IPCC, now shown to be actively working (with the Obama White House) to subvert US law. Enough is enough is enough. Possibly Governor Romney could defend Holdren and the IPCC.

In the meantime, we look for Rep. Henry Waxman to reprise the level of outrage he displayed over Abramoff to prove it was also not political and come down hard on the practice he so aggressively condemned and pursued, demanding preservation of records, threatening subpoenas, the whole works. With our request, that’s essentially what we’ve done, and we’d appreciate the company. You too, NPR.

Of course, it may not be of interest to the media, because it only uncovers unlawful dealings to hide an effort impacting our entire economy, the premise for that “fundamental transformation” of America, with the sleazy lobbying operation being the UN. We’ll wait on OSTP’s response and hope for the best from the Hill and Republican candidates.

James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. Reason.tv caught up with Delingpole in Los Angeles recently to learn more about his entertaining and provocative new book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it’s green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the “watermelons” of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.

Approximately 10 minutes.

Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.

Go to reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to our YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

When that silver-haired Republican candidate weighs in on the ‘climate’ debate I want to stick around until the end of the video. I love that line, “Good heavens, Miss Nakamoto, you’re beautiful!”

Wait, that’s not Magnus Pyke?

Seriously. Mr. Huntsman, beyond the pose: what would you do? “Science!” is a talking point. More of a pose, really, of being the thoughtful man while its success depends on no more than Pavlovian nodding and clucking in response. Anything else ultimately arrives at the question Hunstman’s pose begs:

What. Would. You. Do.?

What’s your point? You’re down with the kidz on campus and your media base can rest easy because you’re not, you know, ‘crazy’ as you say? Or you’re going somewhere with this? Is it cap-and-trade? Kyoto? Kyoto II? Carbon (dioxide…meaning ‘energy’) taxes?

What? And after you answer that, well, without using the word “science(!)”, please then state why?

Here’s the problem for today’s stylish poseur: Nothing ever proposed would, according to anyone or any computer model on which the entire argument is premised, detectably impact temperature or climate.

The schemes are all pain, no gain. According to all. Is that not the kind of consensus you can get behind? There is no disagreement about this, and it is surely too-little discussed. These models also belie a fallback notion that well, every little bit helps. It’s doing ’something’. Not according to them.

I debated a UN IPCC lead author, a computer modeler,  in June and he readily admitted it — he had little choice, really, the event was being videotaped. He even volunteered that what is required is total and complete elimination of human greenhouse gas emissions.

I wonder if politicians know what that means. Anyway, I’m told by the conference organizers that he does not agree to release the video, but possibly you could look into this. It seems quite relevant.

Another idea is that you’re remaining silent as to what lies behind the sneering hauteur because you actually share Rick Perry’s policy stance, but don’t want to admit it? Could it be that you really do protest too much?

The problem with the silence is that the public deserve to hear your vision, even at risk of alienating that media base. Got your pose. Check. How about what you would do? John McCain, whose campaign manager you swooped up, was clear about his intentions, being lead co-sponsor of the cap-and-trade legislation for years. Until he backed out and got vague when he began his campaign for the White House.

2008 deprived the public of a debate. And this led to the ugly House cram-down of cap-n-trade, abandoned by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

So, now, you tweet and reply in debate against “comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said”. Yes. That’s the response the self-selecting universe who says such things were hoping for.

For what it’s worth, I’m partial to this post-ClimateGate ‘open letter’ from a former luminary in the climate movement now exiled as a ‘heretic’ for putting the agenda and gravy train at risk:

No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.”  Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda.  There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.

Ouch. Ah, but who is the head of Georgia Tech’s School of Atmospheric Sciences compared to the IPCC’s “chief climate scientist”, who turns out to be a railway engineer? I bet she doesn’t even read the New York Times.

Because you see, these scientists who never tire of saying no one ought dare opine about their field who is not a ‘climate scientist’ (broadly defined, on a case-by-case basis ultimately determined by whether you give the desired answer), they have no problem spending most of their time playing policy expert, demanding laws. Climactically meaningless ones (begging another question — whether this can really be about the climate). And as Dr. Curry notes these demanders of policies are activists with science degrees.

Adopting any of these futile, all-pain no gain schemes claiming to be ‘responsible’ by ‘doing something’, despite that the basis for your action, climate models, all claim otherwise would not only be reckless. It would be, well, anti-scientific. Again, ouch.

Finally, if that whole climatically meaningless thing doesn’t bother you, can you then tell us who is your model for policies to follow? As candidate, Obama had the courtesy to acknowledge he wanted to impose an EU-style cap-and-trade scheme that would cause “electricity rates [to] necessarily skyrocket”, “bankrupt[ing]” anyone who tried to build a coal-fired power plant, and that “this would also raise billions of dollars.” To no climatic effect, recall.

And he told us eight times to look at his model, Spain. He no longer gives those speeches. Politics abhors a vacuum. Would you please step up? What policies do you seek?

Running for the presidency is not a Thomas Dolby video, let alone governing. We’re now bearing the costs of buying empty phrases, leaving more than a few unpleasant details to be revealed too late. Mr. Huntsman, please move beyond the “Science!” pose and tell us: On ‘climate’, what would you do?

***

Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.” [See above - ed.]

The research was conducted by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which invented the World Wide Web, built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and now has constructed a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth’s atmosphere. The climate study involved scientists representing 17 of Europe’s and America’s premiere research institutes. The results demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that can grow and seed clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere; the temperatures then fall as the density of the clouds increase. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere; the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Nature Journal has been the holy-grail of scientific research publication since it was established in England in 1869. Its original editors gave the title to their new scientific journal in celebration of a line by British poet William Wordsworth: “To the solid ground of nature trusts the Mind that builds for aye”. Because research scientists are the primary audience this most prestigious of journals, the magazine strives to retain its stamp of approval as the pinnacle of scientific credibility for original research. Nature first introduced its readers to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently mapping of the human genome.

But Nature’s reputation suffered a huge black eye on November 21, 2009 when a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and released 1079 emails and 72 documents exposing willful fraud in several scientific papers published in Nature that supported Al Gore’s theory Anthropogenic Global Warming. CRU houses the most world’s most extensive data base on atmospheric temperatures and the e-mails exposed blatant exaggerations of the warming data, possible illegal destruction of evidence, and conspiracy to manipulate or suppress data not supporting of the man-made Global Warming theory.

One e-mail describes tricks used supporting Anthropogenics in major Nature article:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

As the Wall Street Journal and other conservative media hyper-ventilated over the hacker leaks they referred to as the “Climategate Scandal”; Nature quickly retaliated in defense of Anthropogenic Global Warming with a scathing editorial titled: “Climatologists Under Pressure” stating: “Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.” The editorial skewered academic doubters of man-made Global Warming as the “climate-change-denialist fringe” and in a shocking Freudian-slip the Nature editorial roared its political partisanship:

“This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.”

For Nature to now publish research that eviscerates the Anthropogenics theory heralds a tectonic rejection by academia of support for United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UN protocol requires every nation on earth to reduce their atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gas to 94.8% of 1990 levels to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The U.S. Senate legislation that Nature sought to stridently lobbying for is named “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007”; commonly known as the Cap-and-Trade Bill.

The Heritage Foundation estimated that the costs of complying with Cap-and-Trade would include; a 29% increase in the price of gasoline, losses of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and lead to reductions of $1.7 to $4.8 trillion of the U.S. GDP by 2030. Furthermore, Cap-and-Trade would set up a gargantuan intergovernmental bureaucracy that would likely ban natural gas fracking, steam injection of tar sands, and surface coal mining for exploration and development of America’s immense energy reserves.

After 20 years of academic supremacy and hundreds of billions of dollars of costs; the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory seems headed for the dust bin of history. Perhaps the admirable action of the Nature Journal of Science to place scientific integrity above partisan politics will be a valuable lesson for the scientific community in the future.

Feel Free to Forward and Follow our Research at www.chrissstreetandcompany.com

And, wouldn’t you know it! Al Gore emerges from his palatial, energy-sucking estate for a media blitz (here, here, and here) in which he peddles his usual hokum: ”If you don’t do what I say … we’re all doomed. DOOMED, I say!!! Why won’t you LISTEN TO ME!!! YOU FOOOOOOLS!!!!” (Blah, blah, blah … and paraphrasing)

We couldn’t ask for a more timely example of why we put on these conferences. Thanks, Al. By the way, the invitation for you to speak and/or debate at our climate conference still stands — if you’re up for it. And the offer is real.

In Rolling Stone this week, Gore slimed those who don’t agree with his view that the planet is at mortal peril. If Gore doesn’t accept the invitation, it might be because he’s out of energy after putting out the 7,000-word opus Rolling Stone saw fit to publish.

Gore starts out with a cute, anecdotal lead that harkens to a childhood memory of attending a pro wrasslin’ match. In Gore’s moralistic fable, only children — or idiots and rubes — think wrasslin’ is real. And to believe (or see) that the observable scientific data continually proves the climate models wrong is to be as dumb as a Triple H fan.

But Gore’s real problem is not with the Triple H fans, but the media that plays the part of the “referee” that is always looking at the distraction created by the villain’s manager while the bad wrassler cracks the hero over the head with a folding chair. Writes Gore:

Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it’s a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.

That childish set-up for Gore’s thesis — the global warming debate as a wrasslin’ match — should do just fine for Rolling Stone’s readers, who would fall for such an absurd morality play: the dark and muscular “Poisonous Polluter” on one side, and the scrawny but heroic “Science and Reason” on the other. Only the ideologues who edit Rolling Stone would allow an author 6,700 more words to follow that juvenile set-up. They obviously have no standards for what qualifies as a logical argument. But Gore’s a Nobel Laureate and an Oscar winner! And Jann Wenner is easy to impress. Oh, well. It only gets sillier from there.

But whatever the cause, the referee appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the “rules” of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made “legal” and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (Question: Would Michael Jordan have been a star if he was covered by four defensive players every step he took on the basketball court?)

We’ll get to the “pseudoscientists” stuff later. But … please. I guess there’s no money in alarmism — despite the tens (or probably hundreds) of millions in government funding that goes to Gore-approved scientists world-wide. And there’s no lobbyists on that side, either. Sure. And if you believe that, I can hook you up with a lobbyist who will lobby against lobbying.

Gore, of course, equates those who deny alarmism with those who denied smoking cigarettes causes cancer. But “this time,” Gore writes, the scientific consensus that man is killing the planet “is even stronger” than the scientific consensus that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. And we’ve “been sowing doubt even more effectively than the tobacco companies before” us.

[Global warming] has been has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged ”unequivocal.”

But wait! The good guys transgressed the rules of decorum, as evidenced in their private e-mails that were stolen and put on the Internet. The referee is all over it: Penalty! Go to your corner! And in their 3,000-page report, the scientists made some mistakes! Another penalty!

And if more of the audience is left confused about whether the climate crisis is real? Well, the show must go on. After all, it’s entertainment. There are tickets to be sold, eyeballs to glue to the screen.

That’s right. It’s all a show. It’s just entertainment — says the man who made an Oscar-winning movie to promote his views. Yet everyone in the media and the larger American culture is against him. Right. Heartland certainly hopes we have lots of eyes glued to the live-stream of our next climate conference. Yet despite us being one of the most prominent and active promoters of a science-based view that is an alternative to Gore’s dystopia, we’d have to pry open the eyes of tens of millions of folks Clockwork-Orange-style to even approach the audience he enjoyed — which was propped up by mandatory school showings, an Oscar, and a Nobel Prize.

Yet Gore is the victim here. He’s put upon. His view isn’t being sufficiently drilled into the mind of the culture. C’mon, Al. Whining should be beneath you.

But lets put the whining aside and get to more substance. You’ve got to love how Gore dismisses with a wave of the hand the incriminating Climategate emails, which exposed a conspiracy to rig the data and “hide the decline” to keep the myth of catastrophic global warming going. Gore fails to mention how those Climategate emails exposed the warmists’ blackballing from scientific journals colleagues who saw data that went against the faith. No matter (since Gore is a “denier” on that fact), we’re back to wrasslin’! If you point out mistakes? You’re just like a dufus referee of the WWE.

Just one more excerpt for now, because I can hardly take anymore:

To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public’s respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants, or secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues — many financed or employed by carbon polluters — accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.

Despite the libelous beginning of that paragraph, Gore probably committed the most truth in that passage.

Alarmist scientists are “regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants” because many of them are guilty. Alarmist scientists are accused of “secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government” because that’s what they (and Gore) have been doing for decades. And I’d like to see the tax returns of the top 10 most famous alarmist scientists and advocates and compare them to those of the top 10 most famous “deniers.” I’d bet my modest tax refund this year that it would be no contest of who is more “greedy” and wealthy – on the alarmist side.

Like I said, I’d get back to Gore — who is no scientist — calling those who disagree with him “pseudoscientists.” He undoubtedly puts the scientists in Heartland’s conference lineup in that category.

So … If they are so wrong. If they are so easily refuted. This is your chance! We have reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the cable networks registered as credentialed media attending this event. Scores of bloggers — including warmist friendlies from The Huffington Post — will also be there. We’ll make any schedule adjustments you require Al. Come and prove those “pseudoscientists” wrong to the world. Put action behind your Rolling Stone piece. We’d love to have you attend.

(Follow Heartland’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change on Twitter: #ICCC6)

What else can one say about this?

Governor Christie to Talk Global Climate Change with Scientists

Governor tells NJ Environmental Federation his original doubts were due to not having a “fully formed opinion.”

The Republican governor, who caused a stir when he told a town hall meeting he was unsure about the science of global warming, plans to sit down this week with a couple of climate change scientists recommended by the New Jersey Environmental Federation.

As I have noted, translated, the latter means a Castro toady and some of his pals.

Wait, lemme guess: his doubts arising from an unfully formed opinion have evaporated under further scrutiny, making this the first time further scrutiny led to siding with the global warming movement?

Er, maybe. There’s another option, and that’s that he’s seen the New Hampshire Senate fold like a cardboard suitcase on withdrawing from the RGGI regional cap-n-trade energy tax and has decided to throw in with the go-along-to-get along crowd. In his defense, and not much of one, one could say as Andrew Dice Clay once did about a famous painting I won’t mention here as it would make the gag’s crudeness too obvious: he needed the money.

Yes, yes, I know, running for president brings out the Pander Bear in all of them. But Christie’s entire shtick is that he’s the guy speaking truth to all of these entrenched powers, industries, political sacred cows et al.

So, particularly before we know what his ‘fully formed opinion’ is, I cannot interpret what is behind this. But if it is as seems most likely, we know it this is not a move to position himself for higher office. Yes, it would gain him some McCain-style (that is, conditional and temporary) media love — in the form of proclaiming proof that global warming is real and most Americans are extremists and wrong! — soon to turn to ever-more demanding fury.

But he won his office, in NJ, admitting his doubts. He sees how past pandering indiscretions like Pawlenty’s, Huckabee’s, Huntsman’s and others’ are viewed by the majority. The agenda failed in Congress and greatly contributed to a change in management. ClimateGate remains a fatal wound to be proved as much by the next penny when it drops.

It would just be so boneheaded. It would show no ability to approach something free of politics and simply exercise judgment. It would reveal crass political calculation if economic illiteracy. It would be on the side that demands a ‘wrenching transformation of society‘ that they also admit will be climatically meaningless, thereby admitting it isn’t about the climate.

So that just can’t be it. But we shall see.