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.

Source:  Sarah Palin, “Copenhagen’s political science,” Washington Post, December 9, 2009

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan. Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil 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 has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse. Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.

A heretic I might be, but the religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming is and was allegedly based on science not faith.  As such, the story can begin and end with the data.

Almost since the beginning of Anthropogenic Global Warming, its purveyors horded their data, allowing only manipulated data to be released.  This control allowed them to say and do what they wanted.  In hindsight, shame on the governments that paid for the data, even participated.  As science, this data should have been freely available from day one for anyone to review, validate, or debunk.  Now faced with their scandalous email and software code that unmistakeably created desired Anthropogenic Global Warming results, they offer to release their data.  But, alas, as their own emails make clear, they already deleted their raw data (in some cases very intentionally to avoid disclosure) and can now only offer their manipulated data.

Setting aside the politics of the purveyors of Anthropogenic Global Warming, ignoring for a moment their control of the conversation, of what got published, and who participated in the conversations, the single most important element of Anthropogenic Global Warming is the data.  Without the source data Anthropogenic Global Warming is nothing.  It is not science and, at least for me, it is not a religion that I can take on faith.

Now, regarding the purveyors of Anthropogenic Global Warming that include Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and so many others, they are nothing more than liars and witch doctors to me.  I’ve had enough of their dire doomsaying, their holier-than-thou attitudes, their insinuations that deniers of their faith are not much better than Holocaust deniers.  Enough.

What is left?  Let’s all take a new look at the data–rebuild the raw data, evaluate it’s origins and credibility, and consider other possibilities.  Here in the U.S. the collection of data has evolved and some data is suspect (consider Mohonk Lake USHCN as an example, and look at the more comprehensive quality plot and surface station data).  Even more suspect than the data sources is the way that the resulting data is used and manipulated.  The purveyors of AGW became masters at adjusting this data to create desired results.

Regarding other possibilities, the influence of solar cycles and other non-man-made causes are roundly rejected by AGW purveyors.  That is, in public at least.  The recently released email tell a different story–that solar cycles do have impact.  But this was ultimately rejected and suppressed because it didn’t promote AGW.  Now that we are in what some are calling a solar minimum, even a potential mini-Ice Age, it is increasingly hard to ignore other causes of climate change.  Even AGW purveyors admit privately in their email that the ongoing weather does not sustain the religion of AGW.  For nearly a decade temperatures have decreased.  Furthermore, glimpses of data suggest that the AGW data was manipulated to suppress much warmer periods in the past and that pre-1960 data was incompatible with post-1960 data, suggesting recent cooling instead of global warming.

Finally, no one has conclusively said if global warming, if it can be proven, is really a bad thing after all.  Surely the increased growing seasons in the American midwest and Canadian plains is a good thing.  Milder winters in Siberia might also be very welcomed by Russians.

Bottom line for me is that (1) I want to see real data, not data faked to create a desired result and cover up inconvenient information; (2) let’s get real about what mankind can and does have ability to influence; (3) let’s discuss what is good and bad about climate change; and (4) let’s be more realistic about what mankind is really doing to the environment.

Regarding the latter, I am always dismayed to see ‘Blame America First’ as the quick response among AGW purveyors.  This is politically-motivated and incredibly shortsighted.  Granted that most AGW advocates may not have traveled extensively and are relying on the words of others, but I have traveled to 47 countries and can say without hesitation that the U.S. is among the cleanest, best kept areas on the planet.  The real problem areas–and the ones explicitly excluded by the AGW purveyors–are China, India, Mexico and other third world and developing countries.  These places are often absolutely filthy and there is no apparent regard for the environment.

Until someone can independently prove Anthropogenic Global Warming exists, it is dead.  The purveyors need to be held accountable for their scientific fraud, deceit, and actions.  In the meantime, maybe we can have a substantive discussion on what we can do to respect the environment?  Like, for starters, stop littering!

A few choice quotes from Monbiont’s drivel:

• I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial.
• …[Y]ou could argue that technically he [Phil Jones] has done nothing wrong. But a fat lot of good that will do.
• I feel desperately sorry for him [Jones]
• Some people say that I am romanticising science, that it is never as open and honest as the Popperian ideal. Perhaps.
• By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow.

Maybe Monbiont sees his only credibility and career on the line?  While he still promotes the religion of global warming in every other sentence, he has offered an abbreviated indictment of the scientific community for letting him down:

• …the emails are very damaging.
• Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities.
• One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”  …his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the IPCC process is biased.…[and] Jones’s statement.… is stark and easy to grasp.
• When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.
• …there is no helping it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get.  He has a few days left in which to make an honourable exit. Otherwise, .…he will linger on until his remaining credibility vanishes, inflicting continuing damage to climate science.
• …opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.
• The crisis has been exacerbated by the university’s handling of it, which has been a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond. .…the university knew what was coming three days before the story broke. As far as I can tell, it sat like a rabbit in the headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.
• When the emails hit the news on Friday morning, the university appeared completely unprepared. … When a journalist I know finally managed to track down Phil Jones, he snapped “no comment” and put down the phone. This response is generally taken by the media to mean “guilty as charged”.
• No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science.  We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.

Monbiont focuses his venom on Phil Jones, ignoring that the email implicate the entire scientific community.  By some accounts, and as evidenced in the email, the global warming clique involves 40 to 75 or more “leading” scientists.  Maybe Monbiont thinks making Jones the fall guy will protect the rest from scrutiny.