Archive for the ‘Climate Gate’ Category

Lumin Consulting
April 15, 2012

In the hopes of creating awareness of what CISPA actually is and how it could effect the lives of every day people, we created this infographic. Feel free to share the graphic on your site. You can find quotes from Fortune 500 CEO’s who are endorsing the bill here. You can also write a letter to your local representative to protest CISPA here.

CISPA Infographic by Lumin ConsultingInfographic designed by Lumin Consulting


by Dr. Tim Ball

Recently by Dr. Tim Ball: There Is No Water Shortage

Problems are only problems if you are unaware of them. Once identified you’re over halfway to resolution. American voters rejected the Obama administration’s policies of increasing government control through energy, environment and economic policies. They voted for cessation and reversal. Now the new politicians and chastened survivors must act accordingly. Debt and deficit are serious problems and the solution depends partly on reduced government spending, but mostly on a vigorous growing economy and that depends on energy. Maurice Strong’s plan to collapse the industrial economies recognized this with his focus on fossil fuels and CO2, so that’s where the solution must begin.

Keynote speaker Vaclav Klaus, elected President of the Czech Republic in 2003 made a memorable comment for me at the first Heartland Conference on Climate Change in New York. He said we’ve just emerged from 70 years of communism and asked, incredulously, why anyone would go back. He was referring to the US and Europe and identified environmentalism and climate change as the vehicles for the transit. He made his case effectively in his book Blue Planet in Green Shackles where he writes, “The themes in the contemporary dispute (or perhaps clash) are clearly about human freedom – not about the environment.” His warnings are not surprising given his personal experiences, but they’re supported by similar comments and actions by Russia and China. The contradiction is not surprising and parallels evolution of human, social, economic and political systems.


We’ve really only tried two socio-economic systems, capitalism and communism. They evolved from two major 19th century works published just 8 years apart. Darwin’s Origin of The Species published in 1859 is the essence of capitalism with its theme of survival of the fittest. Karl Marx’s Das Kapital published in 1867 denounced capitalism and became the basis of communism. Now capitalist countries move toward communism in the form of total government control.

Some foolishly suggest a compromise is the oxymoron of State Capitalism. Trouble is capitalism requires free markets with little or no government interference. Ironically, one of the few places where free markets succeeded was the black market in the Soviet Union. One development that paralleled growth of capitalism was increasing government intervention in the market place. Malfeasance in the market place made people realize unbridled capitalism was not the answer. The problem is, once you start controls, how are they limited? This is where limits to growth really apply.

Maurice Strong engineered the attack on capitalism and industrialism, its engine of growth, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He focused on energy, particularly fossil fuels, and that marks the biggest difference currently between former capitalist and communist countries. Phony environmentalists with political agendas and those milking government for climate research funding, blame skeptics for the failures of climate conferences and the collapse of global climate policies. In fact, it was India and China who consistently blocked the plans as they moved to expand their economies. Russia sits cynically on the side doing only what benefits them. All three continue with extensive development of fossil fuels by ensuring access to supply and building energy facilities, especially coal and nuclear. Energy from these facilities is used to produce alternate energy products for nations who foolishly pursue an already proven unsustainable green agenda.

India, China and Russia did not reject IPCC findings simply to advance their economies. They did it because they knew the science was false. Consider the presentations made by Putin’s economic advisor Andrei Ilarianov clearly with approval.

Putin only changed when they threatened to deny access to the World Trade Organization (WTO) if he didn’t sign Kyoto.

Ilarianov resigned. All three paid lip service to Kyoto, but did not become enslaved to the carbon footprint that is stomping out economies of the so-called capitalist economies.

What To Do? Some Simple Inexpensive Solutions

There are simple steps essential to the US rebuilding energy sources and resources.

  1. Put Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma in charge of a Commission to get climate and energy policies back from the edge of disaster. He is the only politician who understood the climate corruption and spoke out about it despite ridicule and nasty attacks.
  2. Immediately cancel all plans for Cap and Trade or similar strategies.
  3. Withdraw from the IPCC and cancel all research on climate carried out by government agencies. Reassign employees to extensive and better data collection on a multitude of environmental factors. This must include accurate information on all energy resources to avoid the exploitation of the argument we are exhausting resources, a fundamental tenet of the Club of Rome.
  4. Produce reliable, fully documented, material that explains why CO2, especially human production, is not the cause of global warming or climate change. Launch a vigorous campaign to educate people about the science in ways they can understand.
  5. Cancel all climate research funding and redirect it to identifying real problems with workable solutions. Academics have shown they’ll sell integrity for funding so have them produce really relevant rather than contrived work.
  6. Produce reliable, fully documented, material that explains how the climate issue was manipulated. This must include the motive and the mechanism.
  7. Cancel all subsidies to alternate energies. There are some uses for alternate energies, but they are very limited and very expensive, a problem completely masked by the subsidies.
  8. Review and reduce all unnecessary restrictions on expansion of oil, coal and gas reserves established to reduce CO2.
  9. Review and reduce all unnecessary restrictions on nuclear power development established after environmentalists, following Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, exploited public fears. It is no longer necessary with new technologies.
  10. Reverse the Supreme Court decision that CO2 is a toxic substance. It was based on the falsified work of the IPCC. This will remove control of CO2 from the EPA.
  11. Remove all energy subsidies and allow market forces to determine development. This will likely result, in nuclear and coal producing electricity; natural gas powering vehicles; and oil sustaining petrochemical industries.
  12. Cancel legislation and funding introduced to deal with CO2, carbon footprints or any other extension of the idea.
  13. Reduce taxes on all fuels as a direct benefit to the entire society. They’ve become a “sin” tax to punish us for causing climate change.
  14. Review all environmental policies evolved from the false climate science.
  15. Government can offer significant prizes for private citizens, the source of American exceptionalism, to influence innovation that solves basic energy problems. These include efficient large-scale storage of electricity and superconductivity.

Rejection of the Obama agenda includes exploitation of climate as a vehicle for total government control. The White House appointment of John Holdren, member of the Club of Rome, as Science Czar confirmed the commitment. It’s time for the newly elected politicians to team up with Senator Inhofe and roll back the policies. Beyond the increased debt, the climate basis for the energy policy has done much to destroy the economy and will do more unless quickly reversed. It then becomes the solution rather than the problem.

November 30, 2010

Dr. Tim Ball [send him mail] is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science, and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Copyright © 2010 Tim Ball


Tuesday, 05 October 2010 16:33 GreenWise

Businesses have begun to distance themselves from the carbon-cutting campaign 10:10 over a promotional film the organisation premiered last week that depicts schoolchildren, office workers and celebrities being blown up for not taking action on climate change.

Sony UK and Kyocera Mita, two corporate partners of the 10:10 campaign, both condemned the short film ‘No Pressure’, directed by Richard Curtis, today, for being “tasteless” and “shocking”. The film was intended to be funny, but had to be pulled by 10:10 at the weekend, following a storm of protest over its content after being premiered on The Guardian newspaper website. The four-minute spoof features two schoolchildren, office staff and ex-footballer David Ginola and actress Gillian Anderson being blown up for not signing up to carbon-cutting action.

Business reaction

In a statement, today, Sony said it “strongly condemned the release” and that it was “disassociating itself” from the climate change campaign group for the time being as a result.

“Sony considers [this film] to be ill-conceived and tasteless,” the company said.

Document imaging company Kyocera Mita, one of the first company’s to become an official 10:10 partner earlier this year, said it was “shocked” by the film, describing it as “a grave error” of judgement.

Tracey Rawling Church, director of Brands and Reputation at Kyocera Mita, said: “We are not happy with the content of the film. We were very shocked by the movie and consider it to represent a grave error of judgement.”

Rawling Church, who was keen to point out that the Kyocera Mita had had no part in the film, or knowledge of it, said the company was now considering its sponsorship relationship with 10:10.

10:10 campaign

Thousands of businesses, organisations and individuals have signed up to the 10:10 campaign since it was launched last year by Franny Armstrong, director of climate change documentary ‘The Age of Stupid’. The aim of the campaign is to engage all sectors of UK society and business in reducing carbon emissions by 10 per cent during 2010.

The campaign released ‘No Pressure’ to raise awareness about carbon emissions – something it seems to have achieved in the wake of the furore. The film has received over [1 million] views on YouTube while the story has had massive press coverage around the world.

Future of 10:10

However, it has left a question mark over the future of 10:10 as those who have supported the campaign begin to review their involvement with the group.

Sony UK was one of the companies planning a series of carbon cutting activities in partnership with 10:10 this week, in the build up to its ‘Day of Doing’, a major event 10:10 is planning for Sunday October 10. It said today: “[This] video risks undermining the work of the many thousands of members of the public, schools and universities, local authorities and many businesses, of which Sony is one, who support the long-term aims of the 10:10 movement and are actively working towards the reduction of carbon emissions.”

GreenWise contacted 10:10 for comment but has not yet received a response.

GreenWise, 5 October 2010

By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, August 2, 2010

John Topping, who served as editor of portions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report (FAR) concerning impacts of climate change, wrote an article titled, “Massachusetts v. EPA: A Turning Point for the US on Climate Change?

He sees the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) loss as a victory because they can now control CO2, fossil fuels, and the US economy. Frighteningly, it’s based on completely falsified science and is totally unnecessary. It’s what President Obama really meant when he talked about change. In a pre-election interview he revealed his true intention, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” EPA has launched the rocket with its economy-destroying warhead.

Cap and Trade Failure Not A Problem

Cap and Trade, or control of CO2, is more important to the Obama administration than Healthcare or Financial Regulation. They knew it would be more difficult legislation to pass, as is proving the case.

Public sentiment is the key. Most agreed healthcare needed reform; the issues were method and extent of government involvement. Financial regulation had some sympathy because of traditional antipathy to Wall Street and bankers. Besides, neither implied serious negative impact on the economy or jobs. Cap and Trade is a different situation. The Senate knows from its forerunner, the Kyoto Accord, the impact on jobs and economy are very negative. They voted 95-0 against Kyoto in July 1997, but it’s closer now because they can’t get 60 votes for approval. When Kyoto was considered, the public sentiment was more in favor of global warming as a problem than it is today. Polls show neither global warming nor climate change is of concern to the public. The science has failed and been exposed as a deliberate fraud. The fact more politicians want to approve Cap and Trade underscores how political the issue has become.

Obama keeps pushing because it is the heart of attacks designed to destroy the industrialized, fossil fuel driven, capitalist economy. He’d prefer the financial benefits of Cap and Trade because the budget submitted to Congress in 2009 saw yields of $78.7 billion in 2012 and $645.7 billion by 2019.

Without the revenue, the budget deficit and the debt increase dramatically. However, neither are concerns for Obama whose objective is to undermine the economy and then offer government control as the savior. Latest opinions are it will not survive.

Ironically, losing the vote on Cap and Trade is to Obama’s benefit. It will fool opponents into believing they have some control and he can argue that he respects the democratic process.

Bureaucratic Bypass

Actually, it’s a typical bait and switch, the standard ploy of Obama’s administration. He presented himself as centrist, but is now the most liberal President in US history. He uses Executive orders and bureaucratic rulings to bypass Constitutional checks and balances and exclude the people’s representatives. EPA control of CO2 uses the bait of clean and alternate energy. As EPA Director Lisa Jackson proclaims, “Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy,” “A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation.” Alternate energies don’t work and people know these policies have failed wherever they were tried. The switch is to total government control of energy.

As Editor Judi McLeod noted, CanadaFreePress identified quite early the bureaucratic process used to introduce control over CO2.
The next phase of the process has occurred and the EPA is on the verge of implementing draconian control using CO2 as the excuse. On July 29th the Agency rejected challenges to its claim that, “climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gas is a danger to public health.”

How did they get to this point? It began with a challenge before the US Supreme Court by the State of Massachusetts, plus 11 other States, that the EPA was not regulating greenhouse gases, including CO2, from the transportation sector as required. Some believe the EPA orchestrated this challenge deliberately because if they lost they gained. It makes sense considering the sequence of events. First EPA challenged Massachusetts’ right to challenge, that is whether they had ‘standing.’ The Court ruled they did. Then EPA argued they lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 or other greenhouse gases. The Court ruled greenhouse gases were a danger to health through climate change and the EPA was required to resolve the problem. By losing the case EPA established the legal authority to act independent of the legislative branch.

There was one more hurdle. The law allows challenges to their claims that greenhouse gases were a danger to health through climate change.

Ten submissions were examined and rejected. The outcome was pre-ordained by a completely self-serving process of self-examination. As Senator Inhofe said, “EPA could have chosen to have an open, transparent process to look at the implications of climategate,” “But EPA chose instead to dismiss legitimate concerns about data quality, transparency, and billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded science as products of ‘conspiracies.’” They concluded, “The scientific evidence supporting EPA’s finding is robust, voluminous, and compelling. Climate change is happening now, and humans are contributing to it. Multiple lines of evidence show a global warming trend over the past 100 years.” The conclusion is wrong. There is no evidence humans are contributing to climate change and everything that is occurring is natural and within natural climate variability. EPA hypocrisy is seen in the argument made in opposing the Massachusetts’ charge. They told the court that, “…. even if it (EPA) was granted authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, it would be “unwise to do so at this time,” stating that it might conflict with the current administration’s effort to address climate change, particularly with regard to international climate negotiations.” It’s a shallow argument that supports the charge they wanted to lose. It also reflects the politics of a supposedly neutral bureaucracy.

The Missile is Launched

Obama’s first budget allowed $19 million for the EPA to determine sources of CO2 emissions. EPA Director Lisa Jackson will use such information to limit or close down industries that drive the US economy. But we shouldn’t be too surprised because, when playing the bait and switch game, true intentions are occasionally revealed.

When Obama made his “skyrocket “ comment he also said, “If somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” EPA now has the authority to bankrupt them and the entire fossil fuel industry that drives the US economy.

US east coast digs out after record blizzad AFP – Walkers trudge through the snow in front of the Capitol Building in Washington, DC, February 6. Residents …

By BRYAN WALSH Bryan Walsh Wed Feb 10, 3:50 pm ET

As the blizzard-bound residents of the mid-Atlantic region get ready to dig themselves out of the third major storm of the season, they may stop to wonder two things: Why haven’t we bothered to invest in a snow blower, and what happened to climate change? After all, it stands to reason that if the world is getting warmer – and the past decade was the hottest on record – major snowstorms should become a thing of the past, like PalmPilots and majority rule in the Senate. Certainly that’s what the Virginia state Republican Party thinks: the GOP aired an ad last weekend that attacked two Democratic members of Congress for supporting the 2009 carbon-cap-and-trade bill, using the recent storms to cast doubt on global warming. (See pictures of the massive blizzard in Washington, D.C.)

Brace yourselves now – this may be a case of politicians twisting the facts. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter – in December and during the first weekend of February – are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely.

But there have been hints that it was coming. The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years. While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That’s in part because of global warming – hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall. (See pictures of the effects of global warming.)

Climate models also suggest that while global warming may not make hurricanes more common, it could well intensify the storms that do occur and make them more destructive. (Comment on this story.)

But as far as winter storms go, shouldn’t climate change make it too warm for snow to fall? Eventually that is likely to happen – but probably not for a while. In the meantime, warmer air could be supercharged with moisture and, as long as the temperature remains below 32°F, it will result in blizzards rather than drenching winter rainstorms. And while the mid-Atlantic has borne the brunt of the snowfall so far this winter, areas near lakes may get hit even worse. As global temperatures have risen, the winter ice cover over the Great Lakes has shrunk, which has led to even more moisture in the atmosphere and more snow in the already hard-hit Great Lakes region, according to a 2003 study in the Journal of Climate. (Read “Climate Accord Suggests a Global Will, if Not a Way.”)

Ultimately, however, it’s a mistake to use any one storm – or even a season’s worth of storms – to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate. Of course, that doesn’t help you much when you’re trying to locate your car under a foot of powder.

See TIME’s special report on the Copenhagen climate-change summit.

Original Document of Climate Gate

Posted: 12/14/2009 by Lynn Dartez in Climate Gate

This is one of the many original Climate Gate file that hacker took. I have all the files and am reading  from the originals. Will post as I find out more info. Anyone that wants them  please let me know.  I will get the files too you.

God Bless,

Lynn Dartez

Review of Schmidt

This paper is timely as it clearly shows that the results claimed in dML06 and MM07 are almost certainly spurious. It is important that such papers get written and the obvious statistical errors highlighted. Here the problem relates to the original belief that there were many more spatial degrees of freedom. This is a common mistake and it will be good to have another paper to refer to when reviewing any more papers like dML06 and MM07. There is really no excuse for these sorts of mistakes to be made, that lead to erroneous claims about problems with the surface temperature record.

My recommendation is that the paper be accepted subject to minor revisions. I have grouped my comments into minor changes that are needed, and a second set of thoughts that the author might like to consider to help clarify his arguments. It is certain that this paper will get read by a particular type of climatologist, so it ought to be as clear as possible. I’m happy if all the thoughts are ignored.

Minor Comments

  1. The appropriate IPCC chapter isn’t Forster et al. (2007). It should be Chapters 3/4/5, so Trenberth et al., Lemke et al. and Bindoff et al.
  2. p5, line 22, change ‘a’ to ‘an’. I’ve used the IJC line numbering, which is off from the lines in the paper.
  3. p6, line 5, add ‘a’ before minimum.
  4. A basic reference to AMIP style runs would be useful.
  5. p7, line 3, how ‘small’ is small?
  6. It might be worth saying which UAH version Christy et al. (2003) is?
  7. Is the version of EDGAR used EDGAR2?
  8. p8, line 12, add ‘to’ before each method. Also in brackets say (and differences only depend upon missing values).
  9. p8, line 27, dML07 to dML06.
  10. p8, line 39, add’ ensemble’ before fall.
  11. p10, line 7, dML07 to dML06, again.
  12. p11, line 34, in wondering what the ‘other variables’ were, I realized that the paper doesn’t refer to Tables 1, 2 and 3. The author’s Table 1 should be introduced at this point and also in the next section, where MM07’s Table 2 is reproduced (the author’s Table 1). The author’s Table 2 should be introduced on p12 (about line 36-40) and Table 3 should be introduced on p13 (line 10-12).
  13. p14, lines 15-17, there seem to be a couple of points in northern India as well.
  14. Figures 1 and 2. Although obvious from the error ranges, it would be useful to include the number of grid boxes foe each bin of the CO2 threshold. The count could be on the y-axis on the right. It might have to be a log scale, but it would get over the point that Figure 3 also shows.
  15. Figure 1 caption, line 29, change ‘is’ to ‘are’.


  1. In the first paragraph of the Introduction, I’d put the two interpretations the other way around – in the second sentence.
  2. I’d also emphasize that the 1979-2001 period is just 23 years.
  3. Waste heating may be important at the grid box scale. Some HadRM3 work by Mark McCarthy raised temperatures in London even more than just urban tiling, by adding extra heat. Probably not published yet.
  4. One could argue that the range of trends in the main paragraph isn’t the same areas. The observational data is for the whole globe, while the model is for one grid box from a number of ensembles. Difficult to know what else to do.
  5. Is the forcing strictly uncorrelated between the ensemble members (p6, line 48)?
  6. The last sentence of p7 is probably true. I guess Table 1 implies this.
  7. The sentence on p8, lines 20-24 could refer to a Santer et al paper, where adding the trend estimate uncertainties is discussed.
  8. eclectic’ is a great word here!
  9. The last few sentences before section 4 indicate that it is all down to the calculation of spatial degrees of freedom. This problem is harder for many climatologists to comprehend.
  10. I’m not convinced that the last sentence is a useful final one to make.

Phil Jones