arrest the crimatologists
Featured
Featured content
Climategate 2.0: Al Gore + Kilimanjaro = alarmist hype
by Anthony Watts / via WattsUpWithThat.com / January 20, 2012 /
I’ve said many times that the claims of receding glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro by Al Gore in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth, and by extension, the claims of Dr. Lonnie Thompson are nothing more than alarmist hype. The cause, deforestation leading to reduced evapotranspiration of moisture, rendering upslope winds less moisture laden, and thus depositing less precipitation on the summit. The ice then sublimates away. “Global warming” hasn’t anything to do with it.
A Climategate 2 email shows that Dr. Lonnie Thompson agrees privately, but spouts alarmism publicly. Now we have more on the story from the Miami Herald. It seems tour guides are seeing increased glacier growth now.
Climategate 2.0: Hulme says not enough evidence to start reducing emissions
via Tom Nelson / January 9, 2012 /
1: Do you believe human activities are at least in part responsible for driving global climate change? [Hulme] YES
2: Do you feel the evidence for this is sufficiently strong to start reducing emissions?
[Hulme] NO – to reduce emissions requires more evidence than that humans are altering climate. We need to know something about the potential risks associated with future climate change, whether these risks can be minimised through adaptive action and then have some socially negotiated basis for deciding about the necessity and extent of desirable emissions reductions. On none of these issues do we have a good basis to work from. The precautionary principle, if chosen, would imply start reducing emissions now – but I am not convinced a blind application of the precautionary principle in this case is the most appropriate instrument.
Mike Hulme – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1988, after four years lecturing in geography at the University of Salford, he became for 12 years a senior researcher in the Climatic Research Unit, part of the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. In October 2000 he founded the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, a distributed virtual network organisation headquartered at UEA, which he directed until July 2007
Editorial: Full Emails Show Climategate 2.0 is More Than Just Hot Air
via DailyTech /
Full emails show inarguably the researchers fought transparency, to keep public in the dark
Some commenters on our recent article on the snippets of the alleged “Climategate 2.0″ emails — leaked correspondences between U.S. and UN researchers with officials at the UK University of East Anglia‘s embattled Climate Research Unit (CRU) — complained that the commentary was too biased or misleading. That’s not suprising — similar criticism has been leveled against reports on the topic in Forbes, The New York Times, and other top publications.
And there is at least one fair point in most of these criticisms. Thus far very few major news publications have published full emails so it’s been left for the readers to blindly decide whether to trust reporters who imply the emails are disturbing and those who claim they’re innocent. While we won’t possibly have the chance to review all the emails, here’s an in depth review of at least one of the more important email threads — something readers elsewhere have deserved, but haven’t received.
Fox News: EPA Ponders Expanded Regulatory Power In Name of ‘Sustainable Development’
[Editor's Note: With the ongoing collapse of the IPCC and the debacle of the UNFCCC in Durban, watch for the "sustainable development" meme to gradually replace the global warming scare as the next hoax to corral the public into accepting green tyranny.]
By George Russell / FoxNews.com
/ December 19, 2011 /
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants to change how it analyzes problems and makes decisions, in a way that would give it vastly expanded power to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of “sustainable development,” the centerpiece of a global United Nations conference slated for Rio de Janeiro next June.
The major focus of the EPA thinking is a weighty study the agency commissioned last year from the National Academies of Science. Published in August, the study, entitled “Sustainability and the U.S. EPA,” cost nearly $700,000 and involved a team of a dozen outside experts and about half as many National Academies staff.
Its aim: how to integrate sustainability “as one of the key drivers within the regulatory responsibilities of EPA.” The panel who wrote the study declares part of its job to be “providing guidance to EPA on how it might implement its existing statutory authority to contribute more fully to a more sustainable-development trajectory for the United States.”
Or, in other words, how to use existing laws to new ends.
Interview: Donna Laframboise on the IPCC
via CorbettReport.com / December 13, 2011 /
Donna Laframboise is the editor of a climate blog, NoFrakkingConsensus.com, and the author of a new book, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. She joins us today to discuss the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), how it functions, and who is really behind the production of its coveted Assessment Report, often referred to as the “Climate Bible.”
Listen: Play in new window | Download
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.