Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic
Quote:China Consolidates Grip on Rare Earths


KEITH BRADSHER, On Thursday September 15, 2011, 7:46 pm EDT
BEIJING — In the name of fighting pollution, China has sent the price of compact fluorescent light bulbs soaring in the United States.

By closing or nationalizing dozens of the producers of rare earth metals — which are used in energy-efficient bulbs and many other green-energy products — China is temporarily shutting down most of the industry and crimping the global supply of the vital resources.

China produces nearly 95 percent of the world’s rare earth materials, and it is taking the steps to improve pollution controls in a notoriously toxic mining and processing industry. But the moves also have potential international trade implications and have started yet another round of price increases for rare earths, which are vital for green-energy products including giant wind turbines, hybrid gasoline-electric cars and compact fluorescent bulbs.

General Electric, facing complaints in the United States about rising prices for its compact fluorescent bulbs, recently noted in a statement that if the rate of inflation over the last 12 months on the rare earth element europium oxide had been applied to a $2 cup of coffee, that coffee would now cost $24.55.

An 11-watt G.E. compact fluorescent bulb — the lighting equivalent of a 40-watt incandescent bulb — was priced on Thursday at $15.88 on Wal-Mart’s Web site for pickup in a Nashville, Ark., store.

Wal-Mart, which has made a big push for compact fluorescent bulbs, acknowledged that it needed to raise prices on some brands lately. “Obviously we don’t want to pass along price increases to our customers, but occasionally market conditions require it,” Tara Raddohl, a spokeswoman, said. The Chinese actions on rare earths were a prime topic of conversation at a conference here on Thursday that was organized by Metal-Pages, an industry data firm based in London.

Soaring prices are rippling through a long list of industries.

“The high cost of rare earths is having a significant chilling effect on wind turbine and electric motor production in spite of offsetting government subsidies for green tech products,” said one of the conference attendees, Michael N. Silver, chairman and chief executive of American Elements, a chemical company based in Los Angeles. It supplies rare earths and other high-tech materials to a wide range of American and foreign businesses.

But with light bulbs, especially, the timing of the latest price increases is politically awkward for the lighting industry and for environmentalists who backed a shift to energy-efficient lighting.

In January, legislation that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007 will begin phasing out traditional incandescent bulbs in favor of spiral compact fluorescent bulbs, light-emitting diodes and other technologies. The European Union has also mandated a switch from incandescent bulbs to energy-efficient lighting.

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is running for the Republican presidential nomination on a platform that includes strong opposition to the new lighting rules in the United States and has been a leader of efforts by House Republicans to repeal it.

China says it has largely shut down its rare earth industry for three months to address pollution problems. By invoking environmental concerns, China could potentially try to circumvent international trade rules that are supposed to prohibit export restrictions of vital materials.

In July, the European Union said in a statement on rare earth policy that the organization supported efforts to protect the environment, but that discrimination against foreign buyers of rare earths was not allowed under World Trade Organization rules.

China has been imposing tariffs and quotas on its rare earth exports for the last several years, curtailing global supplies and forcing prices to rise eightfold to fortyfold during that period for the various 17 rare earth elements.

Even before this latest move by China, the United States and the European Union were preparing to file a case at the W.T.O. this winter that would challenge Chinese export taxes and export quotas on rare earths.

Chinese officials here at the conference said the government was worried about polluted water, polluted air and radioactive residues from the rare earth industry, particularly among many small and private companies, some of which operate without the proper licenses. While rare earths themselves are not radioactive, they are always found in ore containing radioactive thorium and require careful handling and processing to avoid contaminating the environment.

Most of the country’s rare earth factories have been closed since early August, including those under government control, to allow for installation of pollution control equipment that must be in place by Oct. 1, executives and regulators said.

The government is determined to clean up the industry, said Xu Xu, chairman of the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters, a government-controlled group that oversees the rare earth industry. “The entrepreneurs don’t care about environmental problems, don’t care about labor problems and don’t care about their social responsibility,” he said. “And now we have to educate them.”

Beijing authorities are creating a single government-controlled monopoly, Bao Gang Rare Earth, to mine and process ore in northern China, the region that accounts for two-thirds of China’s output. The government is ordering 31 mostly private rare earth processing companies to close this year in that region and is forcing four other companies into mergers with Bao Gang, said Li Zhong, the vice general manager of Bao Gang Rare Earth.

The government also plans to consolidate 80 percent of the production from southern China, which produces the rest of China’s rare earths, into three companies within the next year or two, Mr. Li said. All three of these companies are former ministries of the Chinese government that were spun out as corporations, and the central government still owns most of the shares.

The taxes and quotas China had in place to restrict rare earth exports caused many companies to move their factories to China from the United States and Europe so that they could secure a reliable and inexpensive source of raw materials.

China promised when it joined the W.T.O. in 2001 that it would not restrict exports except for a handful of obscure materials. Rare earths were not among the exceptions.

But even if the W.T.O. orders China to dismantle its export tariffs and quotas, the industry consolidation now under way could enable China to retain tight control over exports and continue to put pressure on foreign companies to relocate to China.

The four state-owned companies might limit sales to foreign buyers, a tactic that would be hard to address through the W.T.O., Western trade officials said.

Hedge funds and other speculators have been buying and hoarding rare earths this year, with prices rising particularly quickly through early August, and dipping since then as some have sold their inventories to take profits, said Constantine Karayannopoulos, the chief executive of Neo Material Technologies, a Canadian company that is one of the largest processors in China of raw rare earths.

“The real hot money got into the industry building neodymium and europium inventories in Shanghai warehouses,” he said.

Stephanie Clifford contributed reporting from New York
it would have been better  to outsource the Sierra Club
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
19 September 2011 Last updated at 06:08 ET
Times Atlas 'wrong' on Greenland ice
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News

[Image: _55451176_greenland624.jpg]
Scientists say the Times Atlas map (left) does not follow the ice extent line as viewed from space (right)
Quote:Leading UK polar scientists say the Times Atlas of the World was wrong to assert that it has had to re-draw its map of Greenland due to climate change.

Publicity for the latest edition of the atlas, launched last week, said warming had turned 15% of Greenland's former ice-covered land "green and ice-free".

But scientists from the Scott Polar Research Institute say the figures are wrong; the ice has not shrunk so much.

The Atlas costs £150 ($237) and claims to be the world's "most authoritative".
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:The latest edition of the world’s most prestigious atlas should be pulped because it exaggerates climate change, scientists said yesterday.

The £150 Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World has changed a large coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an extreme  acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

After a group of eminent Cambridge scientists wrote a letter condemning the change, the publishers admitted that they had overestimated the extent of the ice loss in publicity material accompanying the launch of the new atlas.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
[Image: 314527_303240706368962_166854740007560_1...8657_n.jpg]
party naked next?
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
By David Rose

Last updated at 5:41 AM on 30th October 2011

Comments (221) Add to My Stories Share

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.
Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree  centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.
Hot topic: The plight of polar bears captures the hearts of many, but are the ice caps still shrinking?
It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.
The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.

More...Scientist whose climate change research on polar bears was cited by Al Gore will face lie detector test over 'integrity issues'
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Royal Mail has betrayed its glorious legacy

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of  trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no  scientific basis.
Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:Two years ago, it was “Study says global warming shrinks birds” now thanks to impressive further study, they’ve discovered it’s “Bigger birds in central California, courtesy of global climate change.“

Can’t they get their story straight? Why don’t they ask Jim Henson Hansen?

From San Francisco State University

Bigger birds in central California, courtesy of global climate change
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

.Map: The Climate Change Scare Machine — the perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarm
Two professors of sociology think they can explain why “Climate Deniers” are winning.  But Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright start from the wrong assumption and miss the bleeding obvious: the theory was wrong, the evidence has changed, and thousands of volunteers have exposed it.

The real question sociologists will be studying for years to come is: how was an exaggerated scare, based on so little evidence, poor reasoning and petty namecalling, kept alive for two whole decades?

Climate Change Scare Machine Cycle: see how your tax dollars are converted into alarming messages

The Full PDF version
The key points
1. The money and vested interests on the pro-scare side is vastly larger, more influential, and more powerful than that on the skeptical side. Fossil fuel and conservative-think-tanks are competing against most of the world financial houses, the nuclear and renewable energy industry,  large well financed green activists (WWF revenue was $700m last year), not to mention whole government departments, major political parties, universities dependent on government funding, the BBC (there is no debate), the EU, and the entire UN.

2. Despite this highly asymmetrical arrangement, the skeptics are winning simply because they’re more convincing — they have the evidence. The other team avoid debate, try to shut down discussion (only their experts count), they imply the audience is too stupid to judge for themselves, and then call everyone who disagrees rude names. The dumb punters are figuring them out. Vale free speech.

The evidence changed, but who wanted to know?
When the evidence began rolling in showing how the assumptions were wrong, the graphs were flawed, the thermometers were biased, and the “expert” scientists were behaving badly — who exactly would benefit from risking their career, cutting off the cash cow, being exiled from friends and colleagues, and being called a “Denier” for speaking the truth?

The perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarmism has it’s own momentum — Create a scare and siphon up the taxes, fees, fines, charges and donations. As a bonus, activists feel like heroes, some collect awards and tributes while they trash the tenets of reason and logic, and hail false Gods of Science (as if any authority is above question). Others gratify base desires by pouring scorn on giants of science,  dismissing 40 years of top service with one tenuous association (there’s a certain kind of appeal to a certain kind of person.)

How could such poor reasoning triumph for so long in the “modern” era?
The key is that so many benefit from the status-quo once the alarm is raised. There is no need for a global conspiracy, and most of the organizations and groups named here are doing honest work with respectable intentions. The problem is not conspiratorial, its systemic. Monopoly-science is not the way to seek the truth. Monopolies don’t deliver: not in markets, religion, or government either (think “EU”).  We need competition.

Once an alarmist cycle is set up, with international bureaucracies, industries, taxes, associations, and activists in place, with careers riding on the perpetual alarm, what stops it? Volunteers?

Which university or government department do skeptical scientists apply to? What grant do they apply for?

The money, power, and influence is vastly larger on the side that benefits from the alarm
On the skeptical side, Exxon chipped in all of $23 million over ten years, but it’s chump-change. The fossil fuel industry doesn’t like carbon legislation, but it’s not life or death, unlike the situation for wind and solar, which would be virtually wiped out without the subsidies provided by the scare.

The US government has poured in $79 billion and then some. But the pro-scare funding is pervasive: for example — the Australian government spent $14 million on a single Ad campaign, and another $90 million every year on a Department of Climate Change. The UK government paid for lobbyists to  lobby it, and the BBC “partners” with the lobby groups. The EU doesn’t just subsidize renewables, it also pays them to push for more subsidies. Even the dastardly Exxon paid more than 20 times as much for a single  renewables research project than it did to skeptics.

Last year in carbon markets $142 billion dollars turned over, and $243 billion was invested in renewables. If the carbon market idea went global it was projected to reach $2 trillion a year. Every banker and his dog has a bone in this game. Why wouldn’t they?

Curiously, some just can’t see the vested interest of global financial houses and government bureaucrats in these policies. Andy Revkin suggests that the opposition to the alarmist juggernaut is “well coordinated” and “not contentious”. But how well coordinated are the IPCC? Which think-tank has two week long  junkets for tens of thousands of people including media reps from all over the world? Not skeptics.

The money side of the equation is so lop-sided, and eggregiously dominated by pro-scare funding at every level, that skeptics can thank Dunlap-McCright for bringing it up. We’ll take your minor millions and vague allusions to “influence” and up the ante a magnitude, so to speak. Yes, let’s talk about the vested interests?

As I wrote in early 2010:

Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed. Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.
The namecalling has to stop
It’s absurd self-satire when mere sociologists and journalists casually call Nobel Physics Prize winners: Deniers?  These “deniers” are guys who figured out things like tunneling electrons in superconductors. Just because they won a Nobel doesn’t make them right, but wouldn’t a true investigative reporter’s curiosity pique a little as skepticism rose and rose? Isn’t there a moment when it occurs to any open mind that it might be a good idea to actually phone up a NASA astronaut who walked on the moon and has spoken out as a skeptic and ask: Why?

*No a “consensus” is not evidence of how the climate works, and nor is a map of funding, they’re “evidence” of how human society works. They make good case studies of group-think-in-action. Sociologists and journalists who make the mistake of confusing one type of evidence for the other merely help to perpetuate the alarm. The  answer to planetary climate sensitivity won’t be found by following dollars.

Text within the The Climate Change Scare Machine
Renewable energy, nuclear power, electric cars, batteries, hydroelectric, geothermal, desalination plants:
e.g. General Electric, Seimens, Mitsubishi, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic, Phillips, Toshiba, Westinghouse, Toyota. “Solyndra”

Renewables: $243b invested in 2010.
Nuclear: valued at $217b in 2010
Solar PV market: $80b in 2010

Financial houses
GoldMan Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Citigroup, Barclays Investment Bank, Société Générale (SCGLY), Morgan Stanley, Fortis Bank Nederland, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Westpac, and many others… [more info]
Carbon Trading: $144b in 2010
Plus: Climate change exchanges, auditors, insurers, reinsurers… …Lloyds, American International Group (AIG)
Generation  Investment Management

Green Foundations
Soros funded groups: Open Society Institute ($5b in assets), Energy Action Coalition, Green for all, Natural Resources Defence Council, Alliance for Green Protection, Friends of the Earth, Earth Island Institute, Tides Foundation.
Turner Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Joyce Foundation, Blue Moon Fund, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation…

Government Funded Activists
IPCC & other UN groups (WMO, UNEP, UNFCCC), Government Departments (NOAA, EPA, BOM, NASA, Hadley Met Centre, -Dept Climate Change, CSIRO, Dept of Conservation …)

Universities & Scientists – $79 Billion to the scare, $0 to skeptics

Public Broadcasters — (e.g. BBC & ABC)

Green Groups
Greenpeace (US$300m), WWF ($710m), Sierra Club ($56m), Pew Charit. Trst. ($360m), Earth First,  UCS, Conservation Foundation, Center for American Progress, Environmental Defenders Fund, MoveOn, GetUP…
NB: Most donors are anonymous.

Smear Sites
DeSmog, Exxon Secrets, Sourcewatch, 10:10, Climate Progress, etc

Media (aka rubber stamp)
…turns official press releases into “News items”
Thus a Government funded scientist’s opinion (or best guess) becomes an undebatable “fact” backed by a University or govt department. Independent scientists criticisms are ignored or called “fringe”, “extremist” and “in denial”.

Duped: the well intentioned public pay for it all.

This is one “natural” cycle where positive feedback dominates.


Chart footer:

Produced by a self-taught, unfunded scientist (with help from a friend) determined not to let them get away with it.  WARNING: This sociological chart has no information about the planetary climate. Use only empirical evidence to try to predict the weather.

ClimateMadness did a fast “ parody of the same “Denier” chart and another cartoon parody today. 

The Science and Public Policy Institute reports that the New American responded to the Time Magazine article that sprang from the under-researched, name-calling  “Denier Chart”.

Paul A.T. Higgins of the American Meteorological Society, who is incidentally a proponent of the AGW hypothesis, wrote in his analysis of the proposed U.S. fiscal year 2011 budget that federal dollars spent on climate change research and development totaled $15.6 billion in 2009 and $17 billion in 2010. The 2011 budget proposed a 10 percent increase over the previous year. The total annual operating revenue of groups such as Cato ($20.4 million) and AEI ($28.8 million) are paltry in comparison. Yet these are the greedy muckrakers Walsh finds so offensive, though they receive no government funding whatsoever.

Perhaps the question Walsh should ask is, “Who’s bankrolling the climate change fanatics?”

UPDATE: James Hansen does quite well out of it all.
ATI obtained Dr. Hansen’s Form SF 278, which is required to be filed annually, also under the Freedom of Information Act. The disclosure revealed that Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment,

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:Al Gore is Campaigning for Profit!
Former Vice President Al Gore is making millions of dollars off the green energy movement.  From being a silent partner in several venture capital green energy firms, to being the creator of the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Gore is profiteering off of his fear-based energy crisis movement.  He is currently leading a venture investment of $75 million towards installing millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.  As global warming hype continues, Al Gore continues to grow richer.  He has gone from being public servant to now one of the richest Americans  of our time.

His Political Motives

Recently the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants.  Since Gore has many friends on Capital hill, his private company that he is a partner at, Silver Spring, won more than $560 million contracts of work from the government.  Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, have made millions of dollars from Gore’s relentless campaign of global warming and the new energy crisis.  While neither are a scientific fact, Mr. Gore has seemingly swayed Capital Hill into believing that there is a major global catastrophe on our hands if we do not adapt new green energy.

Is he an Environmental Philanthropist or a Profiteer?

It is hard to find any other public figure that has campaigned as heavily as Mr. Gore has on green energy restrictions.  As for when this green transformation will be in full effort, it will be Mr. Gore, not the citizens, who will be profiting.  In fact, Mr. Gore is positioned to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire”.  He is cashing in on government policies that he leads, which give billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.  While his private investments will continue to grow in billions of dollars, the US economy will quickly falter under the new strict environmental restrictions.

Where Does His Money Go?

Since campaigning for stricter carbon emission rules and trading, Mr. Gore has also invested millions of dollars in green energy and environmental business ventures, like solar energy, carbon trading markets, and waterless technologies.  Also, his political sidekicks have the inside scoop and are following his lead.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are not only leading the senate towards energy-saving policies, they also are investing their personal funds in Gores’ energy ventures.

Using Politics to Get Rich

Is it moral to advocate and promote energy policies that personally enrich public figures? This to me seems like an abuse of public office.  The purpose of public office is to serve the citizens, not to profit from their own carbon emission policies and insider investment ventures.  When Mr. Gore left government in early 2001, he had assets of less than $2 million.  Since that time, his environmental lobbying and his private investments have made him one of the richest Americans of the decade.  He will make billions of dollars off global warming and the green energy movement.

Tags: Al Gore, climate change, global warming, Left Wing
Category: Global Warming
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:German Professor Slams Global Warming Science – Calls Mann’s Hockey Stick “A Very Very Nasty Fabrication”
Source:  NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

Michael Krüger at our friends Science Skeptical brings us this jewel of German dissent. Professor Dr. rer. nat. Richard Dronskowski at Aachen University brings loud applause from what appears to be a lecture hall full of his students as he slams the AGW science and the hucksters behind it.

At the 1.10 mark he calls Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth “inconsistent” and reminds us how scientists “warned of cooling” in 1970s. At the 2.25 mark he brings up Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart:

No chart has been so falsified as the hockey stick chart. It’s an embarrassment for the IPCC.”
A little later he referred to it as a “nasty fabrication” that was debunked by a “Canadian think tank”. Dronskowski reminds his audience that the scientists are talking about “tenths of a degree” with error margins “of a full degree” and that “nobody can believe it”. At the 3:42 mark he again repeats:

“This hockey stick curve was a very very nasty fabrication designed to spread fear”.

At the 4.00 min. mark he shows the GISS temperature chart and reminds us at the 4.50 mark that:

It was supposed to get warmer, but the temperature hasn’t gone anywhere.”

He cautioned the audience that “the datasets are very shaky”. At the 5:45 mark he brings up consensus, and states emphatically:

There is absolutely no consensus. Zero consensus!”

And then slams Al Gore’s claim that CO2 caused warming, and not vice versa. At the 7.20 mark he tells the audience there is huge money in the game…”$100 billion a year flow because of climate change” and calls the government’s attempt to limit the temperature when it can’t even limit health insurance costs as “madness”. At this point the audience applauds loudly.

He then slams the corruptive effects that the funding has on academics: “I know colleagues who run entire institutes only with climate. There’s no way for them to back down, otherwise the institute will be ruined.”

At the 8.25 mark he reminds the audience:

I want to be clear. There is no causal effect! No consensus! Correlation is not proof!”

To illustrate the point he shows how US domestic oil production correlates with rock music quality, which brings thunderous applause from the audience.

This is indeed a surprising development for Germany. Prof Dronskowski should not wonder tomorrow morning why many other German scientists, who are swimming ingovernment climate funding, are suddenly no longer talking to him.

Prof. Richard Dronskowski a chemist and physicist. He has a faculty position at the Solid State and Quantam Chemistry Department at the RWTH Aachen and is the winner of the Otto Hahn Award of the Max Planck Society. He’s a member of the Collegium of the German Research Society, member of the German Physical Society, and the American Chemical Society.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:Feds Attack Klamath Basin Ranchers and Farmers With the ESA
November 15, 2011 by ppjg

W.R. McAfee Sr. © copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved


On April 7, 2001, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ignored state and federal law in the name of the ESA and stopped water to more than 200,000 acres and some 1,400 canal-irrigated family farms near Klamath Falls, Ore., plunging the community toward bankruptcy and devastating families.

Why? Because the bureau said two species of bottom-feeding suckerfish and a Coho salmon, in a reservoir the farmers depended upon, might be “affected” if water was released during the current drought.

The ESA had already been used to cut off water to a group of California farmers, causing their crops to dry up.

In Colorado, the forest service threatened another agricultural operation with a by-pass flow that would have resulted in an 80-percent loss of the dry-year water supply from a key reservoir, with a direct economic loss of between $5 and $17 million.

They also attempted to impose a “by-pass flow” that would have taken some 50 percent of the dry-year water supply provided from a Colorado municipal water storage facility.

In Idaho, a federal permittee was told he would have to bypass water to protect aquatic species or obtain an alternate source of water at a cost of $120,000.

In Arizona, where state law requires water rights be held by the person making the beneficial use of the water, the regional forester had demanded that water rights owned by grazing permittees be transferred to the feds – rights long established under state law for livestock purposes.

Federal agencies nationwide are using the ESA to try to override established water rights, state laws and the McCarran Act.
Under the Water Rights Act of 1952 (McCarran Amendment) it’s illegal for anyone – federal agency or citizen, without exception – to force water bypasses or withhold water along natural flowing streams, rivers and their tributaries.

It also waives the sovereign right of the United States to be sued – by anyone – if the United States appears to own or be in the process of acquiring rights to any such water.

The Supreme Court has upheld the McCarran Act several times. Bennett W. Raley’s testimony before Congress laid a clear picture of the importance of the McCarran Act:

“…because federal agencies are unwilling to accept the water rights priorities that are established in the McCarran Act adjudications, they are currently engaged in a concerted attempt to use the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws to control the use of water.

“For example, Forest Service asserts that it has the authority to impose bypass flow conditions on the operation of water facilities, which are different from or inconsistent with its federal reserved water rights. Likewise, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has attempted to use Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act to reallocate water from those who own water rights to federal environmental purposes.

“Simply put, if federal agencies can use the ESA and other federal environmental or land management statutes to control existing and future water uses, then relative priorities established in the McCarran adjudications are meaningless. Water users must either stand and fight these attempts to destroy the value of the McCarran adjudications, or accept that they will have little or no meaning.”

None of this mattered to the feds when they stopped water to Klamath Falls’ farms and ranches. This action reduced a thriving multi-million dollar agricultural economy and community to dust for a couple of fish and theESA, putting approximately 4,000 families into local food bank lines.

Land values for farmland, depending upon the water, dropped from $800 to $50 an acre. It became ripe pickings for any envirogroup to come in, buy up the land at fire sale prices, close out the farmers and let it return to the desert it was in 1906 before farmers began reclaiming it with water rights guaranteed to them by both the state and the feds.

If the Bureau of Reclamation, or any other federal agency, feels land belonging to 1,400 farm families is worth sacrificing for the ESA, the public good and three fish, then government should condemn the farmland and pay its owners fair market value for their acreage like the Constitution specifies, or pay them fair market value for the use of their land and the income they’ve lost.

Taking it in the name of suckerfish is wrong.

Word of this latest ESA charade is spreading via the Internet and agricultural organizations.

Smug politicians and their handlers who thought America’s key votes resided in the nation’s cities, where opinion is easily swayed by 30-second sound bites should pay attention. Those who ignored landowners’ pleas for relief during the ‘90s while bureaucrats hauled private property owners before sympathetic federal judges for insane infractions of theESAare starting to hear the footsteps.

The 2,434 counties – 73 percent of America’s counties representing 143 million people and 2,427,000 square miles of American heartland – that voted solid bloc in the last election are watching Klamath Fallsand the politicians engaged. These are thinking people all with long memories who don’t easily forgive bureaucrats that shut off water to families for fish, a Gibbs vs. Babbitt, or a “law” like the ESA.

And even though the ESA and landowner relief wasn’t a factor in the presidential campaign, it may be on the radar – as they like to say inside the beltway.

If landowners are forced by government to give up the use of portions of their property because of ESA regulations, then under the Fifth Amendment they should be compensated market value for the use of their land.

Without property rights protection or compensation for use of private land, disincentives are created for both the property owner and the regulator. The property owner has a disincentive to maintain and create wildlife habitat. The regulator, who’s not required to compensate the landowner, can adversely affect the value of a property owner’s land at will because it’s not costing the regulator anything to engage the landowner withESAmandates.

Theorists, who’ve never made a land payment, turned a shovel, worked a pen of calves or prayed for enough rain to make fall feed or a crop, created this regulatory swamp for landowners without consideration for their constitutional rights.

When the ESA put 1,000 acres of Ben Cone’s North Carolina timber off limits to him – at an estimated loss of $1.8 million – so “endangered” red-cockaded woodpeckers could eat insects in his older trees, he responded by cutting his remaining timber as young growth.

He did this to prevent the feds from confiscating the rest of his trees to feed woodpeckers when the trees got older.

Then he filed suit against the federal agency that had cut him off from the use of his property and collected. Fortunately, he had the resources to do it.

In this case, everyone lost. Cone lost the use of 1,000 acres of his property. The woodpeckers lost because once the trees the feds put off limits to Cone are gone, there will no more habitat generated on his property. And the taxpayer lost because dollars spend by federal regulators involved with this madness ended up harming the very bird they were spent to protect.

Michael Bean of the Environmental Defense Fun, whose statement to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee training session was included in recent Congressional testimony, commented:

“…the strategies that have been used to date to conserve this (red-cockaded woodpecker) species…on private land have probably contributed to the loss of the ecosystem upon which the bird depends.”

Larry McKinney, with the Texas Parksand Wildlife Department, referring to The Great Texas Cedar Chop when ranchers took the same measures with cedar that Cone took with his timber, put it in fewer words.

“I am convinced that more habitat for the black-capped vireo and especially the golden-cheeked warbler has been lost in those areas ofTexassince the listing of those birds than would have been lost without the Endangered Species Act at all,” he said.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute said it still another way. “The risk of being regulated out of business has driven some landowners to shoot, shovel and shut up when endangered species are found on their land. Many others simply destroy the animal’s habitat so as to avoid the ESA’s onerous land use regulations.”

With eager bureaucrats and environmentalists telling ranchers, farmers and property owners with endangered species on their land what they can and cannot do – all armed with mandates that can cause serious economic hardship for these same landowners – property owners are going to take whatever defensive measures they need to survive.

In short, federal land use controls do not save endangered species, and the ESA, by failing to provide landowners incentives to support the act, is causing the opposite of what was intended.

If government is sincere about preserving wildlife, they need to stop punishing the people who took care of it the last half century and stop fining and threatening to jail ranchers and farmers for protecting their livestock.

Landowners most of all care about wildlife. They will support government efforts to protect wildlife and will work with government officials and their programs if the feds will just utilize common sense when working with property owners.

Good examples already exist. Predator-resistant wood duck boxes built by duck hunters and placed in swamps brought the wood duck population back to near 3 million –enough to support an annual harvest of some 800,000.

When hunters became aware the number of wild turkeys was declining, they helped restore them to their original range. Today, wild turkeys are found in virtually every state in the nation.

When Gulf Coast fisherman saw red fish being decimated by netters, they formed the Gulf Coast Conservation Association and stopped it.

And there are more rare African antelope on Texas ranches than there are in Africa.

For years, local property owners and state and local wildlife conservation officials have had successful working relationships, many of which are still in place. But when the feds unleashed the ESA, trust between landowners and the FWS disappeared.

Now, well-heeled environmental organizations are filing record numbers of lawsuits to “force government agencies to push more and more environmental regulations onto private landowners.         

Headed by directors that draw six-figure salaries, the major envirogroups pour their organization’s money into emotionally charged and mostly inaccurate “stop the slaughter before it’s too late” telemarketing and direct mail fund-raising schemes. Most of the money goes back into more fund-raising activities and congressional efforts.

These envirogroups file “citizen” lawsuits against government agencies, but not for the benefit of landowners. Instead, they identify an area they want to force people out of – or stop all human activity from occurring in. This includes getting ranchers whose cattle have grazed federal land for decades off federal land or denying the use of forest roads to families who’ve lived for generations on private land inside fed forests.

Once the area is identified, they file a lawsuit against the federal agency responsible for the area.

The federal agency is then “forced” to enforce ESA “law” to stop an activity (grazing) or cut off the water (Klamath Falls) to protect whatever endangered species or habitat is cited in the lawsuit. The rancher, farmer or landowner is either being enjoined by both groups in court – the outcome of which almost always favors the feds and enviros – or forced to settle out of court with similar results, not having the funds to contest the suit.

Envirogroups then are authorized by the ESA to use tax dollars to pay their lawyers and “expert” witness fees when they’re “successful,” or when they “win” in court – a largess privilege also extended to any “citizen” who wants to sue a private property owner whom they believe is in violation of theESA.

Landowners opposing either group – or both – have to dig into their own pockets and use their own money to fight back. This is wrong.

There are many who believe the ESA should be repealed and Congress should start over with a law that would protect endangered species and private property owners alike.

To get this done, private property owners are going to have to join forces with agricultural organizations as well as outside organizations with common interests.

With nothing in place to stop it, and with landowners caught completely off guard, the government’s “legalized,” moneyed foray into controlling privately owned property with environmental regulations blitzkrieged the agricultural community during the ‘90s.

And when national media refused to inform the nation what was happening to independent ranchers, farmers and landowners under the ESA, agricultural organizations and the Internet became their only outlet.

The question is: Why was this perpetrated on the American landowner in the name of wildlife?

Government already owns more than half of America. The feds alone own more than 835 million acres of land – right at a third of all America– and they don’t pay a nickel in taxes.  State, local and quasi-governmental units own another 20 percent ofAmerica.

The Grace Commission, which completed a massive documentation of government waste, fraud and ineptness a few years ago, recommended the federal government sell off much of its land.

Given what was perpetrated on property owners this past decade, that doesn’t appear likely. And whatever the reasons behind the ESA, it’s not helping animals, their habitat or the people who take care of both.

*  *  *

For in-depth information about the Klamath Falls tragedy, see
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:The feds alone own more than 835 million acres of land – right at a third of all America– and they don’t pay a nickel in taxes.
Ok, yes they own alot of land, but how the hell is the government going to pay taxes?! Either they would have to print money to pay them, or spend tax dollars to pay these taxes. Better idea, just give the land to the states to do with what they want.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
(11-16-2011, 03:49 PM)Tarius link Wrote:
Quote:The feds alone own more than 835 million acres of land – right at a third of all America– and they don’t pay a nickel in taxes.
Ok, yes they own alot of land, but how the hell is the government going to pay taxes?! Either they would have to print money to pay them, or spend tax dollars to pay these taxes. Better idea, just give the land to the states to do with what they want.
the FED plan now
is to Tax You
for more Green Power on Fed Land
Then You
get to Pay the FED for Your "GREEN" power needs

I agree
give the land back to the locals who live there

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Quote:Klamath Claptrap
September 22, 2011 1:00 PM House Floor Remarks in Opposition to Klamth Dam Removal.  Mr. Speaker:
  This generation is facing spiraling electricity prices and increasingly scarce supplies.  Californians have had to cut back to the point that their per capita electricity consumption is now lower than that of Guam, Luxembourg and Aruba.

What is the administration’s solution?

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced yesterday that the administration is moving forward with a plan to destroy four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River capable of producing 155 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet – enough for 155,000 homes.

Why would the administration pursue such a ludicrous policy?

They say it’s is necessary to help increase the salmon population.  We did that a long time ago by building the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery.  The Iron Gate Fish Hatchery produces five million salmon smolts each year – 17,000 of which return annually as fully grown adults to spawn.  The problem is, they don’t include them in the population count!

And to add insult to insanity, when they tear down the Iron Gate Dam, we will lose the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery and the five million salmon smolts it produces every year.

Declining salmon runs are not unique to the Klamath.  We have seen them up and down the Northwest Pacific Coast over the last ten years as the result of the naturally occurring Pacific Decadal Oscillation – cold water currents that fluctuate over a ten year cycle between the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.  During the same decade that salmon runs have declined in the Pacific Northwest, they have exploded in Alaska.  We’re at the end of that cycle.

The cost of this madness is currently pegged at a staggering $290 million – all at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers.  But that’s just the cost of removing the dams.  Consumers will face permanently higher prices for replacement power, which, we’re told, will be wind and solar.

Not only are wind and solar some three times more expensive, but wind and solar require equal amounts of reliable stand-by power – which is precisely what the dams provide.

We’re told that yes, this is expensive, but it will cost less than retro-fitting the dams to meet cost-prohibitive environmental requirements.  If that is the case, then maybe we should re-think those requirements, not squander more than a quarter billion dollars to destroy existing hydro-electric dams.  Or here’s a modest suggestion to address the salmon population: count the hatchery fish!

We’re told this is the result of a local agreement between farmers and other stakeholders.  Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the Klamath Agreement was the result of local farmers succumbing to extortion by environmental groups that threatened lawsuits to shut off their water.  And obviously the so-called stakeholders don’t include the ratepayers and taxpayers who would pay dearly for the loss of these dams.  Indeed, local voters have repeatedly and overwhelmingly repudiated the agreement and the politicians responsible it.  The locally-elected Siskiyou Board of Supervisors vigorously opposes it.

Finally, the administration boasts of 1,400 short-term jobs that will be created to tear down these dams.  Just imagine how many jobs we could create if we tore down the Hoover Dam.  Or Duluth, Minnesota.   

Mr. Speaker, amidst a spending spree that threatens to bankrupt this nation, amidst spiraling electricity prices and chronic electricity shortages – to tear down four perfectly good hydro-electric dams at enormous cost is insane.  And to claim that this is good for the economy gives us chilling insight into the breathtakingly bad judgment that is misguiding our nation from the White House. 

The President was right about one thing when he spoke here several weeks ago.  Fourteen months is a long time to wait to correct the problem.

Fortunately, the President will need congressional approval to move forward with this lunacy, and that will require action by this House.  Earlier this year, the House voted to put a stop to this nonsense.  I trust it will exercise that same good judgment as this administration proceeds with its folly.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

They forgot to mention that there was 10 times as much ice loss at that glacier prior to 1941.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
EPA Blames Increasing Texas Precipitation On Global Warming, While The IPCC Blames Decreasing Texas Precipitation On Global Warming
Posted on November 18, 2011 by Steven Goddard
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:A senior BBC journalist accepted £15,000 in grants from the university at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ scandal – and later went on to cover the story without declaring an interest to viewers.
Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’, used the money from the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research to fund an ‘ad hoc’ partnership he ran with a friend.
Mr Harrabin, an influential figure who both broadcasts and advises other BBC journalists, later reported extensively about Climategate. The scandal erupted two years ago when emails were leaked from the Tyndall Centre’s sister department, the  Climatic Research Unit at the same university.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:Climate Minister buys a castle with 16 bathrooms... and a massive carbon footprint
By Victoria Allen and Tamara Cohen

Last updated at 11:29 PM on 18th November 2011
Comments (153) Add to My Stories Share

He is the climate change  minister who pledged to ‘lead by  example’ in the fight against global warming.
But Charles Hendry is facing accusations of hypocrisy after buying himself a 20-bedroom castle – with a potentially massive carbon footprint – as a second home.
Blair Castle in Ayrshire, which went on the market for £2.5million, has three storeys, 16 bathrooms and a heated outdoor swimming pool set in 260 acres of beautiful countryside
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
(11-20-2011, 06:29 PM)Wook link Wrote:
Quote:Climate Minister buys a castle with 16 bathrooms... and a massive carbon footprint
By Victoria Allen and Tamara Cohen

Last updated at 11:29 PM on 18th November 2011
Comments (153) Add to My Stories Share

He is the climate change  minister who pledged to ‘lead by  example’ in the fight against global warming.
But Charles Hendry is facing accusations of hypocrisy after buying himself a 20-bedroom castle – with a potentially massive carbon footprint – as a second home.
Blair Castle in Ayrshire, which went on the market for £2.5million, has three storeys, 16 bathrooms and a heated outdoor swimming pool set in 260 acres of beautiful countryside
I dont really care if its hypocritical, something that large is just plain wasteful to begin with if you arnt there full time.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
Here We Go Again: Climategate 2.0
Today, November 23, 2011, 1 hour ago | Alex
The Intel Hub
By Madison Ruppert – Editor of End the Lie
November 23, 2011

A mere two years after the original Climategate which exposed massive deception perpetrated by the scientists promulgating the theory of anthropogenic global warming, a massive batch of previously unreleased hacked emails have been released.

The emails were hacked by an unknown entity and contain private correspondence between both British and American scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

This comes a mere five days before almost 200 countries are sending delegates to Durban, South Africa to attempt to come to an agreement on a new internationally recognized global warming treaty which would create the current treaty which is going to expire next year, called the Kyoto Protocol.

The major so-called scientists exposed in the original Climategate scandal return with a vengeance including Michael Mann, Ken Trenberth, Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tom Wigley revealing the fact that they once again are deceiving the public.

The new dump of emails paints the promoters of man-made global warming in quite an ugly light indeed, showing that they are continuing to exaggerate the extent of global warming by privately admitting that the evidence in support of their position is quite lacking indeed.

As James Delingpole, a blogger for the British Telegraph, aptly put it, “what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.”

Yet the promoters of the anthropogenic global warming theory that is abused by criminals like Al Gore in order to rob the world blind in the name of saving the world continue to pretend it is based on hard science.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the George Soros funded Media Matters continues to promote the discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its recent report that claims “climate change will likely worsen certain extreme weather events like heat waves, floods, droughts and storms.”

Hopefully the rest of the media will not be ignorant enough to ignore the massive and widespread fraudulent activity of the scientists involved in promoting the man-made global warming theory.

That being said, the British Independent writes that, “A series of reviews in Britain and the US later cleared researchers of any scientific impropriety and said the affair had not undermined the scientific basis of global warming,” although to anyone who read the emails this conclusion seems a bit absurd.

UEA did not yet officially confirm if the emails were real while saying that they indeed “had the appearance” of being part of the batch of original Climategate emails that were released in 2009.

The emails date from before 2009 and are between the foremost researchers in the field of climate change in both the United States and the United Kingdom, which includes a leading figure in the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office, Sir John Houghton.

Of course so-called climate experts are claiming that, once again, the emails do not undermine the anthropogenic global warming theory, regardless of the fact that, as the Independent puts it, they “show climate scientists squabbling, politicking, calling each other names and, in effect, plotting how to present their information in the best possible light.”

If the data was truly there, the science would be irrefutable and there would be no need to attempt to put information in “the best possible light.”

Did Newton scheme about how to present his information in order to give the best possible impression? Of course not, if it is true science, there is no need for politicking and “plotting how to present their information in the best possible light.”

To any real scientist, this should be an affront to everything that science stands for, yet Bob Ward of the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change claims, “The emails… do not raise any questions of substance that have not already been addressed by the independent inquiries into the original publication of hacked messages in November 2009.”

“None of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or serious misconduct by climate researchers, but they did conclude that levels of transparency should be improved. These emails, like the last batch, show that climate researchers are human and prone to the same rivalries and disputes that occur in many professions,” Ward told the Independent.

How can Ward make such a clearly demonstrably false assertion? I’m not quite sure but it appears he has a dogmatic attachment to the theory of man-made global warming that allows him to completely set aside reality in favor of his manufactured paradigm.

For instance, Geoff Jenkins who was formerly the head of climate change prediction at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre wrote, “Would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for Kilimanjaro glaciermelt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?”

Phil Jones, the Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia wrote, “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]”

How exactly does discounting a “wealth” of studies showing no rise in temperatures in the tropical troposphere “not raise any questions of substance that have not already been addressed” as Ward asserts?

Jones also made a quite damning comment in writing, “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts [such as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which would require giving information to the public]. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”

If the science is legitimate, what need would there be to delete any emails? I’m not sure how Ward and others can take such blatant examples of misconduct in stride.

Another example of the science being discounted by the second Climategate leak is seen when the researchers mention the snow and ice cover on Mount Kilimanjaro which Al Gore cited as proof of man-made global warming in his propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

As Anthony Watts covered (also see this article),  an email from Phil Jones to Geoff Jenkins of the UK Met Office reads, “I’ve heard Lonnie Thompson talk about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some local temperatures – that we don’t have access to, and there was little warming in them. The same situation applies for Quelccaya in Peru and also some of his Tibet sites. Lonnie thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation, but he can’t pin anything down.”

Jenkins wrote, “I got [P]hilip [B]rohan to look at temps there (see attached) and there isn[‘]t any convincing consistent recent warming in the station data. […] would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for [K]ilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?”

Clearly the science of climate change is far from settled and the claims being made by so-called climate change experts are far from accurate and truthful.

I find it somewhat disturbing that these “scientists” would be so comfortable deceiving the entire world in order to justify an enormous scam like carbon trading.

I sincerely hope that the establishment media doesn’t choose to ignore or selectively cover this latest leak as it is damning evidence showing that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is far from the iron-clad science they are making it out to be.

If you would like to explore the leaked emails yourself, take a look here where they are all made available to the public and even available to search or browse through.

I encourage anyone and everyone to actually take it upon themselves to look through these and decide for yourself if you side with the so-called experts or those who think that science shouldn’t be a politicized and misrepresented field.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
BBC’s Kirby admission to Phil Jones on “impartiality”
Posted on November 24, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Alex Kirby Photo: BBC
Climategate 2.0 email 4894.txt shows just what Alex Kirby of BBC thinks of climate skeptics as he conveys it to Dr. Phil Jones. Clearly, there an incestuous relationship between climate science and the BBC.


date: Wed Dec  8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby” <>

At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:

Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can
well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we
are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any
coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and
being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it
clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
—–Original Message—–

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit


h/t to WUWT reader “varco”. If I lived in the UK, I’d stop paying my BBC TV and radio license.

Here’s the Wikipedia bio on Kirby:

Alex Kirby is a British journalist, specializing in environmental issues. He worked in various capacities at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for nearly 20 years. From 1987 to 1996, he was the environmental correspondent for BBC News, in radio and television. He left the BBC in 1998 to work as a freelance journalist. He also provides media skills training to companies, universities and NGOs. He is also currently the environmental correspondent for BBC News Online, and hosted BBC Radio 4‘s environment series, Costing the Earth. He has no formal scientific training.

He writes a regular column for BBC Wildlife magazine.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

By Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
November 23, 2011
© 2011

Josephine County, Ore. -- Two months ago Gil Gilbertson, the sheriff of this rural county in southern Oregon, drafted a 10-page report exploring the origins and extent of federal power within a state and emailed his findings to various parties, asking for comment.

Since the report was in rough-draft form he was somewhat surprised that it went viral, but it shows there are a lot of people hungry for information about how much power (particularly law-enforcement power) the federal government actually wields within a state, where that power comes from, and the limits to that power.

Gilbertson continued his research and recently completed a 13-page revised and updated version, retitled: Unraveling Federal Jurisdiction within a State. It is highly footnoted with references to statutes and court decisions.

This a “must read” for anyone concerned about infringements against the 10th Amendment and federal encroachments in general – like road closures, Wild Lands and Monument designations, mining and other resource uses. In other words, this is for anyone and everybody with an interest – no matter how casual -- in accessing the public lands, either as a “resource user” (a rancher or miner) or simply a casual vacationer who enjoys weekend camping.

“If you’d told me two years ago that I would be writing such a document, I would have probably walked away from you shaking my head,” the sheriff notes in the introduction.

“This paper is a result of a clash with the federal [U.S. Forest Service] law enforcement in this county, from citizens complaining of what can only be described as harassment and violations of their rights,” he explains. “The first time I approached the USFS the door closed regarding any discussion. The USFS advised me to file a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. “

Eventually Gilbertson was able to discuss the issue with the Forest Service. “Most of my questions were answered except for one: Where does the USFS’s authority come from? (bold-face in original). The answer(s) were surprising.”

Finding the answer is one of five tasks he set himself, which he lists as follows:

1. Identify true jurisdictional authority of the Federal Government
2. Examine and expose how the reserved powers of the States are usurped by federal agencies writing and enforcing their self-imposed codes and regulations
3. Examine how the health, safety, and welfare of the Citizens within the State are undermined
4. Provide a positive and equitable solution
5. Coordinate with like-minded Sheriffs to take a formal stance on these issues.
Mission Creep

To sum up his conclusions regarding federal authority in a very small nutshell: the original idea was for the federal government to hold public lands within a state in trust, with the intention being for eventual disposal. Gilbertson writes:

“The public lands (out West) were considered by many as the ‘problem lands.’ However, the approved procedure, since the passage of the Resolutions of October 1780, was that the central government held the lands in trust. Upon a state being admitted to the Union, the federal government had the trust authority and obligation to dispose of the lands for expansion, exploration, occupancy, and production by setters.

“Slowly, over the years many of these ‘public lands’ held in trust seemingly became more desirable to retain, rather than for disposal. Newly formed federal regulatory agencies worked their way into existence, each taking an increasingly expanding role (enter ‘mission creep’). By 1976 complete and total disregard for the trust obligation to dispose of public land was made clear in the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which states: ‘…that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership.’”

Sheriff Gilbertson talked with NWV about his report, expanding on his views about the division of power between federal and state governments.

[Book predicts the safest place in America to ride out the coming apocalypse is Josephine County, Oregon]

He strongly questions the legality and constitutionality of executive orders and various regulations, as well as laws like FLPMA, observing that Congress has the sole authority to make law, not the president, not the agencies. Not surprisingly he takes sharp issue with President Obama who has declared he’ll “circumvent the Constitution” through the use of executive orders.

“The Constitution is clear on who has police and legislative powers. Those executive orders are not law,” said Gilbertson.

And while FLPMA is a congressionally passed statute, it delegates undue powers to the agencies. “Congress cannot give an agency the ability to write rules and regulations and enforce them as if they were law,” he said. “Congress has to do that. These agencies write their own rules and regulations as they go along and enforce these as law.”
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
24 November 2011 Last updated at 20:14 ET
Climate sensitivity to CO2 probed
By Jennifer Carpenter
Science reporter, BBC News

Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests.

The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.

The results are published in Science.

Previous climate models have used meteorological measurements from the last 150 years to estimate the climate's sensitivity to rising CO2.

From these models, scientists find it difficult to narrow their projections down to a single figure with any certainty, and instead project a range of temperatures that they expect, given a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels.

The new analysis, which incorporates palaeoclimate data into existing models, attempts to project future temperatures with a little more certainty.

Lead author Andreas Schmittner from Oregon State University, US, explained that by looking at surface temperatures during the last Ice Age - 21,000 years ago - when humans were having no impact on global temperatures, he, and his colleagues, show that this period was not as cold as previous estimates suggest.

"This implies that the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought," he explained

By incorporating this newly discovered "climate insensitivity" into their models, the international team was able to reduce their uncertainty in future climate projections.

The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7 to 2.6 degrees C.

That is a much tighter range than suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2 to 4.5 degrees C.

The new analysis also reduces the expected average surface temperatures to just over 2 degrees C, from 3.

The authors stress the results do not mean threat from human-induced climate change should be treated any less seriously, explained palaeoclimatologist Antoni Rosell-Mele from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who is a member of the team that came up with the new estimates.

But it does mean that to induce large-scale warming of the planet, leading lead to widespread catastrophic consequences, we would have to increase CO2 more than we are going to do in the near future, he said.

"But we don't want that to happen at any time, right?"

"At least, given that no one is doing very much around the planet [about] mitigating CO2 emissions, we have a bit more time," he remarked.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
[Image: global-warming.gif]
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:In one email Professor Jones explains to researchers how to best hide their work to prevent anyone from being able to replicate it and find errors:

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.  Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.  I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Of course Phil Jones and his supporters will likely claim that the emails were taken out of context of some larger more appropriate discussion.  But as a researcher it's pretty damning to make comments that even would seem to imply that you were engaging in trying to suppress peer review of questionable data -- academic fraud.

Particularly trouble is the phrase "cover yourself", which suggest a conspiratorial, political undertone to what is supposed to be a transparent field of research.

Quote:II. Forget Science: You're Either For the Cause, Or You're Against It

In a later email, Professor Mann implies AGW advocacy is a political/pseudo-religious "cause" and that those who question it on scientific merits are enemies of the "cause".  He writes, "I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause."

Ironically, Professor Curry appears to be the only one behaving like a true scientist.  The emails neglect the forgotten truth that the distinguished Georgia Institute of Technology began as a believed in man-made global warming, publishing a notable 2005 study published in the prestigious Science journal investigating the potential correlation between hurricanes and man-made temperature increases.

The study earned scathing criticism from warming skeptics, but rather than treat her work as religious dogma, she carefully considered the criticism.  Supported by her co-author, she personally met with some prominent critics and considered their claims.  After all, she recalls in a Scientific American interview, "We were generally aware of these problems when we wrote the paper, but the critics argued that these issues were much more significant than we had acknowledged."

Quote:III. When in Doubt, Deny

Already AGW advocates are jumping to the defense of the researchers implicated in the scandal.  Writes Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard:

Rather than smearing scientists, reporters might want to try some actual reporting.

The new round of hacked emails from climate scientists floating around the internet hasn't generated the same buzz as the last iteration—at least not yet. But in certain circles, it's playing out much like the first batch of emails did in 2009. In addition to the tranche of emails, the poster included a list of "greatest hits"—short quotes from the emails taken out of their context that are intended to paint scientists as scheming or lying. The entire batch was quickly posted in searchable format on another site.

But such critical reports have thus far failed to actually provide virtually any such contextual explanations, despite their suggestion that they must exist.  Further, the critics of the email publication are ignoring the fact that there are certain types of things that researchers should know to never say -- such as making comments that even sound like suggesting the destruction of academic evidence.

The reports also ignore the fact that while it's easy to accuse the media, the oil industry, et al. for a mass conspiracy to silence anthropogenic global warming advocates, there's just as compelling a cause for AGW proponents to conspire to silence their critics in a dogmatic, non-scientific fashion.

Such an approach not only guarantees researchers lucrative research grants, it guarantees their political allies potential billions of dollars in windfalls in "carbon credits" and other AGW-inspired wealth redistribution schemes.  Al Gore in particular has made close to a billion dollars based on his evangelizing AGW in lectures, film; via carbon credit investments; and by pushing the government to funnel money to his high-risk "green energy" investments in the name of fighting AGW.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:and they are happy about not releasing the original station data
This is damning enough in itself. Hiding original data only has one purpose, and thats to cover up dishonesty.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Hiding The Incline In Arctic Ice
Posted on December 3, 2011 by Steven Goddard
Government experts  have been telling us this week that Arctic ice has continued to decline since 2007 at record rates.

WASHINGTON – Federal officials say the Arctic region has changed dramatically in the past five years – for the worse.

It’s melting at a near record pace, and it’s darkening and absorbing too much of the sun’s heat.

Actually, the ice is freezing at record rates.

[Image: ssmi1_ice_ext-1.png]

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Inhofe to climate conference: Nobody’s listening any more
Posted on December 8, 2011 by Editor | 1 Comment
Perhaps not entirely true – there’s about 14,500 of them all talking to each other…
Inhofe to climate conference: Nobody’s listening any more – Two years ago, the Obama administration practically staged an airlift of leading Democratic officials to the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Barack Obama himself made an appearance, as did Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and even Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, who went to represent the AGW skeptics and demand answers to the then-breaking Climategate scandal. In the end, Obama could only produce a non-binding agreement that even he didn’t agree to sign, while domestic support for climate-change policy collapsed underneath him.

Fast forward two years. We have Climategate 2.0 accompanying another UN conference on climate change, this time in Durban. The one big difference? The White House has completely ignored it. Senator Inhofe sends his greetings to the Durban conference and gleefully points out that they have become irrelevant:

Quote:ed gallagher | December 8, 2011 at 7:10 am | Reply Who says Republicans don’t have a sense of humor,(say hello to Al Gore for me). Sen. Inhofe is like a Holy Crusader in the fight against the voodoo scientists and social engineers that would force the human race to devolve in to living conditions of 150 years ago. He has brought to the forefront the truth of the issue. It is not about warming, climate or C02. It is about imposing a socialist agenda on the worlds population under the guise of environmentalism. What the leftists have not been able to achieve at the ballot box they hope to achieve through regulatory labyringths that strangle economic growth and siphon off capital used to fund that growth. Defeating Obama should be the #1 priority of everyone who values liberty and individual rights over the suffocating embrace of an omnipotent government.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Hide the decline - satire on global warming alarmists
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:GLOUCESTER, Mass. — Federal regulators are considering the unthinkable in New England: severely restricting — maybe even shutting down — cod fishing in the Gulf of Maine, from north of Cape Cod clear up to Canada. New data suggest that the status of the humble fish that has sustained the region for centuries is much worse than previously thought.

Fishermen insist that there are plenty of cod and that the real problem is fuzzy science. They say the data are grossly inconsistent, pointing to a 2008 federal report that concluded that Gulf of Maine cod, though historically overfished, were well on the way to recovery.

The news is causing high anxiety in Massachusetts, where a wooden “Sacred Cod” has hung in the State House for more than 200 years and the fishing industry, though struggling, still figures prominently in the state’s identity.

“I can’t think of another fishery shutdown that would have the economic consequences of this,” said Steven Cadrin, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, who helped with the assessment

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Al Gore lies about ClimateGate on CNN and MSNBC - "the most recent one(email) is like 10 years ago"
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)