House Republicans Warn Obama on Copenhagen Accord — It’s A Climategate Christmas — Giant iceberg heading for Australia — Giant iceberg heading for Australia (AP Video) — Comprehensive network analysis shows Climategate likely to be a leak — Climategate chaos — Mia Rose – What would Christmas be like? (Official Video) — Islanders Blocked in Bid for Tough Climate Action — Sarah Palin: Copenhagen’s political science — Administration Warns of ‘Command-and-Control’ Regulation Over Emissions
House Republicans Warn Obama on Copenhagen Accord
Several dozen House Republicans have written a letter to President Obama warning him not to commit the United States to an emission reduction protocol at UN Climate Change Conference taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark.
“Only a treaty ratified by the United States Senate or legislation agreed to by Congress may commit our nation to any mandatory emissions reduction program,” said the letter dated December 4 and signed by House Republican leaders John Boehner (Ohio), Eric Cantor (Va.) and Mike Pence (Ind.) and over 20 other House members.
“We have several concerns with a binding emissions reduction scheme for the United States, including its negative impact on the American economy and specifically for small businesses and the manufacturing and agricultural sectors during these difficult economic times. It is clear that a binding plan agreed to in Copenhagen would cost jobs in the United States,”
A giant iceberg double the size of Sydney Harbour is on a slow but steady collision course with Australia, scientists have said.
Telegraph – By Bonnie Malkin in Sydney
The mammoth chunk of ice, which measures 12 miles long and five miles wide, was spotted floating surprisingly close to the mainland by scientists at the Australian Antarctic Division (ADD).
Known as B17B, it is currently drifting 1,000 miles from Australia’s west coast and is moving gradually north with the ocean current and prevailing wind.
Dr Neal Young, a glaciologist working for the ADD, said that if the iceberg eventually reached Australia waters, it would crash into the continental shelf causing a magnitude three to to four tremor.
However, Dr Young said the iceberg was unlikely to hit the Australian mainland. If it continued on its path north, it would eventually break up into hundreds of smaller icebergs, he said.
“As the waters warm, the iceberg will thin out, so it is not going to get to Australia, the further north it goes, the more it break up,” he said.
The smaller icebergs created when the larger berg broke up could become shipping hazards if they float closer to shore.
Dr Young said an iceberg the size of B17B had not been seen so far north since the days when 19th century clipper ships plied the trade route between Britain and Australia.
“Icebergs do come from time to time and they can be very big, but it can be a long time before we spot one – so it’s really a once-in-a-lifetime sighting.”
Originally three times its current size, the iceberg broke off Antarctica’s Ross Ice Shelf in 2000 along with several others.
B17B has since travelled thousands of miles and a third of the way around Antarctica thanks to ocean currents and winds.
It stayed completely still in one spot for about five years, but is now on the move again.
Dr Young originally spotted the iceberg using satellite images from Nasa and the European Space Agency.
It has an area equating to 87 square miles – roughly double the size of Sydney Harbour.
Several large icebergs have been sighted off Australia and New Zealand in recent weeks, but none rival B17B in size.
Last month a giant iceberg the length of seven football pitches was spotted off Australia’s Macquarie Island, about 930 miles southeast of Tasmania.
Dr Young said sightings of large icebergs could become more frequent if sea temperatures rise through global warming.
Icebergs are formed as the ice shelf develops. Snow falls on the ice sheet and forms more ice, which flows to the edges, onto the floating ice shelves.
Eventually, pieces around the edge break off.
I suggest that it isn’t feasible for the emails in their tightly ordered format to have been kept at the departmental level or on the workstations of the parties. I suggest that the contents of
./documentsdidn’t originate from a single monolithic share, but from a compendium of various sources.
For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities. The hacker would have to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents. The hacker would have to map the complete UEA network to find out who was at what station and what services that station offered. S/he would have had to develop or implement exploits for each machine and operating system without knowing beforehand whether there was anything good on the machine worth collecting.
The only reasonable explanation for the archive being in this state is that the FOI Officer at the University was practising due diligence. The UEA was collecting data that couldn’t be sheltered and they created FOIA2009.zip.
It is most likely that the FOI Officer at the University put it on an anonymous ftp server or that it resided on a shared folder that many people had access to and some curious individual looked at it.
If as some say, this was a targeted crack, then the cracker would have had to have back-doors and access to every machine at UEA and not just the CRU. It simply isn’t reasonable for the FOI Officer to have kept the collection on a CRU system where CRU people had access, but rather used a UEA system.
Occam’s razor concludes that “the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one”. The simplest explanation in this case is that someone at UEA found it and released it to the wild and the release of FOIA2009.zip wasn’t because of some hacker, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples.
Monday 7 December 2009
Google search for ‘Climategate’:
Beginning of November: Nil
28 November: 10.4 million hits and rising.
6 December: 31.6 million and still rising!!!!
The international stakes are monumental.
Never in the history of science has a single issue generated so much interest and controversy.
Looking closer, never in the history of science has there been such a flagrant disregard for the fundamental requirements of scientific endeavour. These are clearly described in the UNESCO/ICSU Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge (1999).
The following are passages from the declaration that are directly relevant to the climate change issue. The emphases are mine.
We seek active collaboration across all the fields of scientific endeavour, i.e. the natural sciences such as the physical, earth and biological sciences, the biomedical and engineering sciences, and the social and human sciences.
Today, there is need for a vigorous and informed democratic debate on the production and use of scientific knowledge…Greater interdisciplinary efforts, involving both natural and social sciences, are a prerequisite for dealing with ethical, social, cultural, environmental, gender, economic and health issues.
Scientists have a special responsibility for seeking to avert applications of science, which are ethically wrong or have adverse impact.
The practice of scientific research and the use of knowledge from that research should always aim at the welfare of humankind.
The social responsibility of scientists requires that they maintain high standards of scientific integrity and quality control, share their knowledge, communicate with the public and educate the younger generation.
There are obviously many scientists who are deeply disturbed by the climategate affair and its inevitable consequences on the image of science as an honourable profession. For example, this is what the UK Prime Minister is reported to have announced.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown led a chorus of condemnation against “flat-earth” climate change sceptics who have tried to derail the Copenhagen summit by casting doubt on the evidence for global warming. [ My emphasis.]
As Shakespeare once wrote – herein lies the rub.
Surely, it is elementary high school science that in order to prove that A is a consequence of B, it is a fundamental requirement to demonstrate that B is not the consequence of C or D. In the case of global warming there is another possible cause. An obvious alternative to human causality is that the warming may be the consequence of changes in received solar energy and its poleward redistribution via the atmospheric and oceanic processes.
This possible linkage has been the subject of investigations in South Africa alone for more than 100 years, but completely ignored by the climate change scientists. They blithely maintain that the changes in received solar energy are too small to influence climate. However, they still have to explain what causes El Nino that everybody agrees has a large influence on climate. If it is not related to the effects of variations in solar activity what alternative explanation is there?
In 1889, more than 100 years ago, the Knysna forester D E Hutchins reported as follows in his book Cycles of drought and good seasons in South Africa.
This confirmation comes from the Cape Town Observatory. The returns for thirty years from the Cape Town Observatory show a close correspondence between sun-spots and temperatures the maximum of temperature lagging a year behind the minimum of sunspots. (p17).
At Cape Town, the correspondence between the mean rainfall and mean sunspot frequency has long been an established fact. (p25).
For these reasons we ought to consider the Cape Town Observatory rainfall figures as of great importance to ourselves, an importance enhanced by the fact that they go back to the year 1842. For the three cycles comprised in the period 1842 to 1875 the mean annual rainfall at the Royal Observatory, Cape Town, was: –
During Minimum Sunspot years 21.05 inches.
“ Intermediate “ 23.59 “
“ Maximum “ 27.95 “
In 1970 the South African Commission of Enquiry into Water Matters recommended that research be undertaken on the possible solar influence on water resources.
Two days ago the UK Met Office buckled under public pressure. It announced plans to release, early next week, station temperature records for over one thousand of the stations that make up the global land surface temperature record. I can be of assistance. One of the records will be that of the South African weather station at Cape Agulhas. This is the southern tip of the African continent. It is far removed from urbanisation or other disturbing influences.
This is one of my early sketches. While there was an increase in temperature from 1918 to 1986 it was associated with increases in both solar activity and beneficial increases in widespread rainfall. This confirms Hutchin’s observations 100 years earlier. It negates the claim that temperature increases will have undesirable consequences and result in our planet becoming uninhabitable.
Concurrent increases in sunspot activity, temperature and widespread rainfall.
A more sophisticated and incontestable linkage is shown in the following figure from one of my early presentations.
Comparison of the characteristics of annual sunspot densities with corresponding characteristics of the annual flows in the Vaal River.
These two examples are a very small sample of our well documented studies on the solar linkage during the past thirty years. The linkage is unequivocal.
Despite a diligent analysis of a comprehensive hydroclimatic database of more than eleven thousand annual observations, we were unable to detect any trends or abnormalities in the data that could be attributed to human activities. Why are we vilified for our solidly based scientific endeavours? There can only be one reason. Our conscientious studies completely undermine the very basis of climate alarmism. There is abundant, well documented evidence demonstrating the solar connection, but none at all that supports human causality. We are not sceptics. We simply presented the facts based on thorough, prolonged studies. Our publications and reports are freely available. They include the data and analytical methodologies.
Where do we go from here?
The millions of Google hits (about a million per day) confirm that there are thousands of scientists and others who share our concerns. The climate change scientists and their institutions have painted themselves into a corner from which there is no escape. If the investigations that are now underway confirm that global temperatures increased during the past century this is still a long way from proving human causality.
When the Met Office provides global temperature data do you think that they will provide concurrent rainfall data from the same stations? If not, then why not? If rainfall decreased synchronously with temperature increases this would provide undeniable proof of a linkage. Why did they not follow this route? Once again the answer is obvious. There is no scientifically believable linkage between temperature increases and rainfall decreases. Rising temperatures will increase the habitability of our planet and the welfare of its citizens.
The most recent development is that on 4 December Working Group 1 of the IPCC issued a statement that it firmly stands behind the conclusions reached in its 2007 assessment reports, “The key finding that the warming in the climate system is unequivocal.” This is still a long way from proving human causality. The only proof that they can offer is manipulated deductions from limited tree ring measurements in remote areas of the globe that show that present global temperatures are higher than any experienced in the past thousands of years. Therefore the increases must be due to human activities. I repeat my question. Why did they not base their conclusions on solid analyses of rainfall and river flow measurements during the past 100 years?
Their statement also defends the integrity of the individual scientists involved in the climategate affair. I share the view that the individuals should not become the scapegoats for the scientifically corrupt system. I have personal experience of the extent to which climate alarmists are prepared to go to silence the opposition.
An unforeseen consequence of the working group’s proclaimed support for the individuals and their tactics in particular, now places the whole IPCC structure in the same boat. If the investigations confirm serious shortfalls in procedures used in the two institutions, then by its own admission, the same criticisms must apply to the IPCC itself.
h/t: Climate Realists
What would Christmas be like without you here
I’m sitting at the bottom of the mistletoe waiting for you to come home,
What would Christmas be like without the songs
Sitting by the fire place reminiscing while we sing along..
And i always believed there’s magic on Christmas eve
then Santa comes round, & im so glad we found this love we swore to keep
And we walk in the snow, letting our troubles go
to a far away place so that we embrace Christmas spirit all around and i say
Merry Merry Christmas… today
What would Christmas be like without the wait
Crowded round the presents counting minutes, even seconds till we celebrate
What would Christmas be like without the smiles
laughing with the twilight moon shining through our window room as we smile..
And i always believed there’s magic on Christmas eve
then Santa comes round, & I’m so glad we found this love we swore to keep
And we walk in the snow, letting our troubles go
to a far away place so that we embrace Christmas spirit all around and i say
Merry Merry Christmas… today
Wiki: Mia Rose (Maria Antónia Sampaio Rosa)
With survival at stake, islanders seek tough climate action at UN meeting but are gaveled down
ABC News – By CHARLES J. HANLEY
Declaring “it’s a matter of survival,” one of the world’s tiniest nations, speaking for imperiled islands everywhere, took on global industrial and oil powers Wednesday at the U.N. climate conference — and lost.
“Madam President, the world is watching us. The time for procrastination is over,” Ian Fry, delegate of the mid-Pacific state of Tuvalu, declared as he asked the full conference for more aggressive curbing of greenhouse gas emissions than is being considered.
The rejection illustrates the rich-poor divide that overshadows the conference, a reality that has already led some islands to consider evacuation should international action on climate ultimately fall short.
Specifically, Tuvalu asked to amend the 1992 U.N. climate treaty to require sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, deeper than major powers are considering.
The amendment would have obliged the world’s nations to keep global warming — the rise in temperatures accompanied by rising seas — to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. That’s just 0.75 degrees C (1.35 degrees F) higher than the increase to this point. Rich countries are aiming for emissions cuts that would limit warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F).
It also would have made controls on fossil-fuel use legally binding for the U.S. and for China, India and other developing nations that until now have not faced such obligations.
Tuvalu’s gambit, seconded by Grenada, the Solomons and other island states one by one on the floor of the cavernous Bella Center, quickly ran into stiff opposition from oil giant Saudi Arabia, which would be hurt by sharp rollbacks in fuel use, and from China and India. The U.S. delegation remained silent.
Connie Hedegaard, Danish president of the conference, said her decision on the motion would be “very difficult and yet also very easy,” since action to advance the proposal would have required consensus approval. She refused to refer it to a “contact group,” the next step in the process.
“This is a moral issue,” Fry objected. “It should not be put off any longer.”
Later Wednesday, hundreds of young international climate activists, chanting “Tuvalu! Tuvalu!” and “Listen to the islands!” thronged the conference hall entrance as the Americans and other delegates filed in for an afternoon session.
The dramatic showdown over basic issues came in the third day of the two-week conference, widely expected to produce no better than a political agreement on emissions reductions — obligatory for industrial nations, voluntary for China and other emerging economies — to be formalized in a treaty next year.
Those reductions would replace the quotas set for 37 industrialized nations by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expire in 2012. The U.S. rejected the Kyoto pact.
The Copenhagen conference’s finale comes late next week when President Barack Obama and more than 100 other national leaders converge on the Danish capital for the final hours of what may be tense, down-to-the-wire talks.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sponsored scientific network, says seas are rising by about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year. Its worst-case scenario sees the oceans rising by at least 60 centimeters (2 feet) by 2100, from heat expansion and runoff of melted land ice. British scientists note that current emissions are matching the IPCC’s worst case.
Such sea-level rises particularly threaten nations on low-lying atolls, like Tuvalu and Kiribati in the Pacific, and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.
“Sixty centimeters can make a really, really big difference in a place like Kiribati,” Australian coastal management expert Robert Kay said Wednesday in a presentation on the sidelines of the Copenhagen conference. Kay displayed time-lapse projections of how the ocean will eat away at narrow — sometimes 200-meter-wide — islands like Tarawa in Kiribati…]
The Washington Post
By Sarah Palin
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
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.
The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in way that could hurt business.
The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in a way that could hurt business.
The warning, from a top White House economic official who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity, came on the eve of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s address to the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jackson, however, tried to strike a tone of cooperation in her address Wednesday, explaining that the EPA’s new powers to regulate greenhouse gases will be used to complement legislation pending in Congress, not replace it.
“This is not an ‘either-or’ moment. It’s a ‘both-and’ moment,” she said.
But while administration officials have long said they prefer Congress take action on climate change, the economic official who spoke with reporters Tuesday night made clear that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own.
And it won’t be pretty.
“If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”
Climate change legislation that passed the House is stuck in the Senate, but the EPA finding Monday was seen as a boost to the U.S. delegation in Denmark trying to convince other countries that Washington is capable of taking action to follow through with any global commitments.
The economic official explained that congressional action could be better for the economy, since it would provide “compensation” for higher energy prices, especially for small businesses dealing with those higher energy costs. Otherwise, the official warned that the kind of “uncertainty” generated by unilateral EPA action would be a huge “deterrent to investment,” in an economy already desperate for jobs.
“So, passing the right kind of legislation with the right kind of compensations seems to us to be the best way to reduce uncertainty and actually to encourage investment,” the official said.
Republicans fear that the EPA will ultimately end up stepping in to regulate emissions — though many oppose the congressional legislation as well. They had urged Jackson to withdraw the finding in light of leaked e-mails from a British research center that appeared to show scientists discussing the manipulation of climate data.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, said Tuesday he is going to attend the Copenhagen conference to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the United States until the “scientific fascism” ends.
“I call it ‘scientific fascism,'” Sensenbrenner said during a press conference with fellow climate change skeptics. Sensenbrenner said, “The U.N. should throw a red flag” on scientists who support global warming to the exclusion of dissent.
Administration officials, though, said the e-mails do not change the debate.
Former Vice President Al Gore, a leader in the movement on man-caused climate change, told CNN on Wednesday that the e-mails in questions were 10 years old and taken “out of context.”
Melting Copenhagen Ice Bear (Matthew McDermott)
Rocket Scientist’s Journal: THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
COP15: US fires back at China
Mother Nature Network: U.S. Republicans vow to rain on Copenhagen parade
The Australian: Poor nations threaten walkout on Copenhagen deal
Washington Post: A lingering pool of disbelief
Updated Related Links – end