portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

environment

US Military Goes to War with Climate Skeptics

Political action on climate change may be mired in Congress, but one arm of government at least is acting: the Pentagon.

 http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/21-2
by Jules Boykoff

Federal legislation to combat climate change is quashed for the foreseeable future, scuttled by congressional climate cranks who allege the climate-science jury is still out. What's become clear is that, for some, the jury will always be out. We can't stack scientific facts high enough to hop over the fortified ideological walls they've erected around themselves. Fortunately, though, a four-star trump card waits in the wings: the US national security apparatus.

In 2006, I participated on a panel at the United Nations climate change conference in Nairobi called "Communicating Climate Change". With Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chair Rajendra Pachauri and respected Arctic scientist Pål Prestud on board, we aimed to figure out ways to convey climate change and its effects with greater precision and weight.

An hour before the panel commenced, we learned the communications director for climate curmudgeons, Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) had elbowed his way onto the rostrum. Bleating bias - the panel skewed toward the widely held scientific consensus that climate change is real and humans are causing it - the infiltrator proceeded to hijack the panel. Rather than engaging the topic at hand, he questioned the scientific existence of climate change, leveled ad hominem attacks against various panelists, while brandishing "A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism" (a document produced by his office).

During the discussion period, the largely international audience responded in good faith, attempting to convince Inhofe's righthand man that the most up-to-date science undercut his worldview, that scientists weren't a grant-hungry cabal fiending for the next funding fix. Unfazed, he didn't budge - not a single part per million.

Five years later feels like a timewarp, with the political promise of 2006 suspended in a molasses haze. 2011 brought a fresh congressional crop content to ignore what the rest of the world accepts: the IPCC's scientific consensus on climate change. When Henry Waxman (Democrat, California) tried to amend to the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, to put the House of Representatives on record recognizing that climate change is occurring, is caused in large part by humans and presents serious public health risks, it was summarily shot down. Only one Republican broke ranks and voted in favor (David Reichert of Washington state).

Enter what some might view as a counter-intuitive counterweight: US military brass. A recent report, "A National Strategic Narrative" (pdf), written by two special assistants to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Mike Mullen, argued, "We must recognize that security means more than defence." Part of this entails pressing past "a strategy of containment to a strategy of sustainment (sustainability)". They went on to assert climate change is "already shaping a 'new normal' in our strategic environment".

For years, in fact, high-level national security officials both inside the Pentagon and in think-tank land have been acknowledging climate change is for real and that we need to take action to preserve and enhance US national security interests. The Pentagon itself stated unequivocally in its February 2010 in its Quadrennial Defense Review Report (pdf), "Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment." It noted the department of defence is actively "developing policies and plans to manage the effects of climate change on its operating environment, missions and facilities".

CNA Corporation, a nonprofit that conducts research for the Navy and Marines, echoed the Pentagon's urgency, writing, "Climate change, from the Military Advisory Board's perspective, presents significant risks to America's national security." The Army Environmental Policy Institute, the National Intelligence Council and the Centre for a New American Security have issued similar reports on the dangers of runaway climate change and what it could mean for geopolitics.

This isn't a tree-hugging festival. It's the US military and its partners making clear-eyed calculations based on the best available climate science.

So, why this quiet camaraderie between scientists and military higher-ups? The answer, most certainly, is uncertainty.

Uncertainty is an inherent element of honest science. But in the political sphere, uncertainty has been harnessed as an alibi for denial and inaction. The military, however, operates under conditions of uncertainty all the time. Like scientists, they wade through the unknown to assess varying degrees of risk. As CNA Corporation put it, military leaders "don't see the range of possibilities as justification for inaction. Risk is at the heart of their job."

Climate cranks - many of them the same people perpetually hectoring us about the perils of national security - are choosing to ignore the seriousness of climate change even when the national-security experts they champion are telling us to do just that. Talk about cherry-picking data.

While Congress members like Fred Upton (Republican, Michigan) yowl about the EPA's efforts to regulate carbon emissions as "an unconstitutional power grab" and attach the term "job-killing" to every piece of environmental legislation with a political pulse, national security officials have been offering dire warnings about the perils of climate disruption and its offshoots like food shortage, water depletion and massive migration.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has been holding shambolic hearings on climate change, should invite climate-minded national security gurus to testify. Perhaps they can lob some reality into the ideological fortress of denial before whipsaw climate volatility becomes our everyday reality.
© 2011 Jules Boykoff

the climate religion is a fraud 23.May.2011 01:01

me

The climate cult is a huge lie. Oil companies support the massive transfer of wealth that is carbon credits. Environmentalists have been duped by the oil companies into supporting these frameworks, when they do absolutely nothing to remove carbon and just make billions off it instead.

Plenty of energy around as well that is clean and useful.

3 ruthless climategate interests are only thing you should think about 28.Mar.2011 16:32
me link

These three ruthless interests:

1. climategate fraudulent scientists
2. carbon measurement fraud in the carbon credits
3. oil and energy companies pressure this financially lucrative global carbon trading

The fourth 'interest' is likely the naive goodwill from people clueless about the real leadership in #1-#3 above they are following. Nothing in this expensive astroturfed campaign of 'climate change' or 'global warming' lies without clueless activists thinking that it's OK that the environmental movement has shrunk to carbon trading--instead of worrying about really protecting the environmental movement from charlatans of #1-#3 instead.

1.

There is massive corruption in the scientists who lie in their data to the public. And the corrupt governments keep them in the media and swimming in grants and cash despite their databases being entirely fabricated.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

1451 Comments

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times.

But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics.

Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely - not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it. [and the NZ dataset compilers had a court suit against them for fraud in their data--and lost. Michael Mann of the US, so close to Gore, heavily implicated in lying as well through mathematical 'adjustment' (fixing) of the data, just like the mafia 'fix' a horserace.]

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Related Articles

'Climategate' university performs data U-turn
28 Nov 2009
*
Climate emails sweep America
29 Nov 2009
*
BBC weatherman was sent climate change emails
30 Nov 2009

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is - what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide?

The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction - to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played - to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods - not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society - itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause - is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.

---
link to www.telegraph.co.uk


2.

SO CARBON CREDITS ARE A FRAUD AS WELL ON TWO LEVELS, THE SCIENCE THAT PRESSURES THEM (ABOVE) AND THE LACK OF MEASUREMENT OF CARBON FROM PROJECTS IS A DOCUMENTED FRAUD (BELOW IN HARPER'S SHAPIRO ARTICLE)

AND think about billions of dollars banks are trying to make off the back of these climate lies through carbon trading (i.e., trading something that they cannot monitor out of any particular project, so the whole thing is the next financial bubble waiting to collapse in the hundreds of billions of fraudulent carbon credits/futures.) Same banks as the mortgage bubble crimes/scandal as before are involved in this mess.

newswire article reposts global 14.Oct.2010 08:04
corporate dominance | media criticism

Carbon Credit Trading, the next financial bubble to burst?
author: Jonathan DuHamel

What would happen if a $300 billion commodity market were to suddenly evaporate? Of all the vested interests promoting the carbon cult of global warming, carbon credit trading is probably the largest and has the most to lose if the world comes to its senses. An article in Harper's Magazine titled "Conning the Climate, Inside the carbon-trading shell game" by Mark Shapiro, a senior correspondent at the Center for Investigative Reporting in Berkeley, California, takes one through this game. --- "Many studies have found that projects ostensibly designed to qualify as carbon offset programs fail to produce the amount of emissions reduction promised." When did we shrink environmentalism down myopically to this unscientific wild goose chase to sell carbon credits and to ignore the many more real and actually documented connections between pollution and health/ecological damage?

Carbon Credit Trading, the next financial bubble to burst?
by Jonathan DuHamel on Feb. 22, 2010, under climate change

here:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/10/402972.shtml

Read Shapiro's article here:

 http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf


3.

REMEMBER THAT THE OIL AND ENERGY COMPANIES FUND THIS GLOBAL CLIMATE NONSENSE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE THE MONEY IN THE CARBON CREDITS AS WELL--and BUSH'S FRIEND KEN LAY OF ENRON WAS THE ONE TO PRESSURE CARBON CREDITS IN THE USA FIRST

newswire article reposts global 04.Nov.2009 17:17
alternative media | government
Oil Companies Support Global Warming Alarmists, Not Skeptics
author: Paul Joseph Watson
A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil's call for a global carbon tax. [I.E., CARBON CREDIT TRADING BEING FORCED THROUGH TAXATION]

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/11/395231.shtml

Said above:

"When did we shrink environmentalism down myopically to this unscientific wild goose chase to sell carbon credits and to ignore the many more real and actually documented connections between pollution and health/ecological damage?"