The Climate Dispatch - October 6, 2011
Knowledge empowers us. Actions Unite Us.
A publication of
the Maine Center for
Constitutional Studies
Portland, ME 04103
MCCS

wMCCS Webradio
LIVE every Tuesday evening at 7:00pm for the most recent episode of Climate Crusaders with Joe D'Aleo and Art Horn. Interviews and discussions with climate experts from around the World.
See also icecap.us and weatherBell.com

Last Guest:
  • Sept.13 David WhiteHouse, PhD. - "His knowledge of space and astronomy is remarkable." Sky News

    LIVE every Thursday evening at 7:00pm for the most recent episode of Topics In Education with Ken Capron and Bruno Behrend. Interviews and discussions with Education leaders on topics from around our Nation.

    Upcoming and Recent Guests:
  • Barbora Nevicka
    Department of Psychology
    University of Amsterdam
  • Oct.13 Joanne Jacobs
  • Oct 6 Domenich Maglio
  • Sept.29 Chicago Math coming to Portland, Maine
  • Sept.15 Ayn Samuelson
  • Sept.8 Katharine Beals
  • Sept.1 Laurie H. Rogers
  • Aug.25 Niki Hayes - Biographer of John Saxon, math teacher/author/publisher (Saxon Math)
  • Aug.18 Larry Sand - founder of California Teachers Empowerment Network
  • Aug.11 Dr. James Morse, Supt. Portland, ME on The Role of the Superintendent

    To Access our Live show:
    1. Listen Live:

    2. SKYPE users: Go online with Skype, then add the following 'Skype Name' - "FreeConferenceCallHD.7605697676". Place your Call. After connecting, use the dial pad to enter Access Code 604286.

    3. Call-in live at 1-760-569-7676 using Access Code 604286.

    4. New:

    Mobile Players


  • Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Set your email preferences here

    Textbook Rentals





    affiliate_link



    Upromise_Transform Little Dreams Into Big Reality



    Save $5 Zoobooks Magazine

    Every Tuesday at 7:00pm Eastern:
    Join us LIVE for "Climate Crusaders"

    October 5, 2011

    Listen Live

    Starting AGAIN on November 1st

    Please Vote Every Day for
    The American Heritage History Bee
    BIG Problems for Global Warmists:
    • GAO: 42% of USHCN Weather Stations Fail to Meet NOAA Standards

    • "outright lies" being spread about oil by "the media, politicians and environmental activists"

    • 'Global temp records from HadCRUT & GISS show from 1910-1940 warming nearly as quickly as period from 1970-2000'

    • CO2 uptake data casts doubt on climate models

    • Michael 'Climategate' Mann Suffers Three Legal Blows in Court Escapade

    • Penn State Inquiry Committee will be discussing the Mann misconduct "inquiry
    OUCH!

    Climate News from Around The Globe

    GAO: 42% of USHCN Weather Stations Fail to Meet NOAA Standards

    Link to GAO Report
    Washington, D.C. - Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today welcomed a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled "NOAA Can Improve Their Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)." This report quantifies lingering questions concerning proper siting of weather stations, finding about 42% of the active USHCN stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of NOAA’s siting standards. GAO says the two standards most commonly unmet are "distance to obstructions [such as buildings and trees] and distance to extensive concrete or paved surfaces."

    Additionally, the report notes, "NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards...nor does it have an agency-wide policy regarding stations that don’t meet standards." The report continues, "Many of the USHCN stations have incomplete temperature records; very few have complete records. 24 of the 1,218 stations (about 2 percent) have complete data from the time they were established." GAO goes on to state that most stations with long temperature records are likely to have undergone multiple changes in measurement conditions.

    "I want to thank GAO for conducting this report examining the proper siting of climate network weather stations in the United States," Senator Inhofe stated. "The GAO has confirmed what many have long suspected: A substantial number of USHCN stations fail to meet many of NOAA’s own citing standards. Additionally, NOAA has no established policy to track adherence to standards system-wide. I will continue monitoring NOAA’s consideration of GAO’s recommendations."

    The USHCN was designated in 1987 as a subset of historical weather-monitoring stations in the Cooperative Observer Program. The purpose of these 1,218 stations is to monitor the nation’s climate and to analyze long-term surface temperature trends.
    Summary The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a network of weather-monitoring stations known as the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which monitors the nation's climate and analyzes long-term surface temperature trends. Recent reports have shown that some stations in the USHCN are not sited in accordance with NOAA's standards, which state that temperature instruments should be located away from extensive paved surfaces or obstructions such as buildings and trees. GAO was asked to examine
    (1) how NOAA chose stations for the USHCN,
    (2) the extent to which these stations meet siting standards and other requirements, and
    (3) the extent to which NOAA tracks USHCN stations' adherence to siting standards and other requirements and has established a policy for addressing nonadherence to siting standards.

    GAO reviewed data and documents, interviewed key NOAA officials, surveyed the 116 NOAA weather forecast offices responsible for managing stations in the USHCN, and visited 8 forecast offices.

    In choosing USHCN stations from a larger set of existing weather-monitoring stations, NOAA placed a high priority on achieving a relatively uniform geographic distribution of stations across the contiguous 48 states. NOAA balanced geographic distribution with other factors, including <> a desire for a long history of temperature records, <> limited periods of missing data, and <> stability of a station's location and other measurement conditions, since changes in such conditions can cause temperature shifts unrelated to climate trends. NOAA had to make certain exceptions, such as including many stations that had incomplete temperature records.

    In general, the extent to which the stations met NOAA's siting standards played a limited role in the designation process, in part because NOAA officials considered other factors, such as geographic distribution and a long history of records, to be more important. USHCN stations meet NOAA's siting standards and management requirements to varying degrees. According to GAO's survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature-measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device--which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards. NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agencywide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards. Performance management guidelines call for using performance information to assess program results. NOAA's information systems, however, are not designed to centrally track whether stations in the USHCN meet its siting standards or the requirement to update station records. Without centrally available information, NOAA cannot easily measure the performance of the USHCN in meeting siting standards and management requirements.

    Furthermore, federal internal control standards call for agencies to document their policies and procedures to help managers achieve desired results. NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy, however, that clarifies for agency staff whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open because the continuity of the data is important, or should be moved or closed. As a result, weather forecast offices do not have a basis for making consistent decisions to address stations that do not meet the siting standards. GAO recommends that NOAA enhance its information systems to centrally capture information useful in managing the USHCN and develop a policy on how to address stations that do not meet its siting standards. NOAA agreed with GAO's recommendations.

    'Fossil fuels are wonderful', claims US documentary

    New Mexico filmmaker makes a 'pro-truth' film about oil,
    but he needs to be more open about his own links to pro-oil advocacy.



    Here's a new documentary that I suspect we're going to hear lots more about in the coming months.

    An Albuquerque-based filmmaker called Mark Mathis has produced a film called Spoiled, which promises to expose the "outright lies" being spread about oil by "the media, politicians and environmental activists". Mathis says it's now time to "fill up on the truth".

    The film is just starting to be shown outside his hometown - it premiered at the Albuquerque Film Festival in August - but there are scheduled screenings in California later this year.

    In an interview with the Farmington Daily Times, Mathis sets out why he made the film:

    There has been a string of films that have tried to portray oil and gas and other energy sources as bad. This is the first film that questions the premise...I would describe it as first, a pro-truth film. The truth is that fossil fuels are wonderful...We're not addicted[ to oil]; we're spoiled. We're spoiled by these resources like oil and natural gas that have given us this incredibly high quality of life.
    Mathis says he is expecting and prepared for a hostile reaction from environmentalists:
    They're very committed to their delusions. As the awareness of the film grows, we fully expect that people who are not fans of fossil fuels will line up to criticize the film.
    The only clue to the film's deeper content and arguments is the trailerthat is currently posted on the film's website. The viewer is introduced to half a dozen or so (unlabelled) talking heads, including Senator James Inhofe, all of which help to feed into the film's central premise of why we need "an open and honest discussion about energy". (The film's co-writer Kevin Miller also talks about the film on an Atlanta-based Christian TV station.)

    The Farmington Daily Times put the obvious question to Mathis: who is funding the documentary?
    Mathis acknowledges that some of the film's funding came from individuals with interests in the oil and gas industry. But he said he maintained the film's independence. "I told these investors they would have no input in the content of the film," he said. "Some of the content they would like, some they might not"...

    Mathis interviews several prominent supporters of oil and gas development, including Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe has been a vocal opponent of measures to combat global warming.

    He also interviews Michael Economides, an energy analyst and petroleum engineering professor at the University of Houston, who spoke in August at the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico's annual conference.

    Mathis said the film is not necessarily pro-industry...

    Some of the funding for "Spoiled" came from a Farmington investor whom Mathis declined to name. Mathis said the film cost "several hundred thousand dollars" but declined to be more specific.
    Of course, it doesn't automatically undermine the film's argument if it is, say, being funded in part by "Big Oil". But if you are seeking an "open and honest discussion", as the film claims, then it seems sensible to be entirely transparent about any possible links with vested interests. Having not seen the film, one can only assume that Mathis makes all this clear within the documentary.

    What Mathis has done is write "The Story of Spoiled" on the film's website. He explains:
    Frustration is what drove me to make spOILed. I began learning about oil/gas and energy in general after I was tapped by a small oil and gas organization to help them with their media needs in 2002. What I learned blew me away. After years of study and analysis I became alarmed at the deception taking place in the US and around the world. Much of the deception was/is intentional and systematic. Varied groups, all pursing their own individual interests, have misled us. The end result is that most people are completely unaware of the biggest problem ever faced by humanity—a problem that will become obvious to all sometime soon. Instead of giving people the truth and paving the way toward real solutions, politicians have actually made the problem worse.

    With few people willing to take a realistic, sobering look at our oil use, I knew I had to accept this mission. The idea of spOILed was born. Now I needed some money. I knew no major oil company would touch this project, but just to be sure I asked a few executives from "Big Oil" if they would consider an investment of this kind. They suppressed their laughter (mostly) and politely declined. I ultimately found the investment I needed from a small group of independent investors. Yes, some of them have oil/gas interests. However, I told these investors they would have no input in the content of the film. Some of the content they would like, some they might not (such as the considerable amount of time devoted to the BP Gulf Oil Spill of 2010 and the Santa Barbara Spill of 1969, and even the issue of Peak Oil).

    I know there are those who will attack spOILed because the investment used to make the film did not come from some mythical, disinterested entity. Here's a shocker—no other documentary filmmaker has managed to find such a benevolent, neutral investor. We welcome criticism from others, so long as they have the integrity to attack our data and analysis, which we believe is sound and true.
    Mathis defends his film - and its funding - with passion, but he doesn't appear to tell the whole story (unless, as I said before, it is explained in the film). He gives the impression that, as an independent documentary maker, he is an even-handed neutral in this debate, with or without funding from vested interests. However, his background suggests this film is far being from neutral.

    The website describes Mathis, thus:
    "spOILed" is the latest venture for Mark Mathis, who has spent most of his adult life challenging conventional thinking. Mathis's resume includes a 10-year career as a TV news reporter/anchor, two stints as a talk radio host, owner of a media training business, founder of an energy-education non-profit (CARE), author ("Feeding the Media Beast "), speaker, actor ("The Astronaut Farmer") and documentary film producer ("Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed").
    By CARE, he refers to the Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy, a non-profit advocacy group dedicated to "abundant, affordable energy" from which he has drawn a salary in recent years. You really need to take a tour of its website to get a sense of where it is coming from, but, to give a flavour, it includes sections called "smash the watermelons" andstatements such as "fossil fuel use in total is estimated to be responsible for less than 1% of the emissions deemed to contribute to global warming" and "scientists cannot even agree whether there IS a global warming trend at this time, much less agree to its cause".

    Mathis, as he admits, used to provide media consultancy to a "small oil and gas organization". He is referring to the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, which states on its website that "we educate the public about the enormous positive impact our industry has on New Mexico's economy, and we challenge anti-industry attack groups who seek to intentionally deceive the public."

    And then there is the reference to him producing a documentary calledExpelled: No Intelligence Allowed. What he doesn't appear to have time to explain is that this pro intelligent design documentary was mired in controversy which was best summarised by the American Association for the Advancement of Science when it took the extraordinary step of condemning the film's "profound dishonesty" ( a point also made byRichard Dawkins):
    The movie includes interviews with scientists who report that they were deceived into appearing as part of such a production, and advance segments [of the film] broadly depict those who accept evolution as racist and sympathetic to Nazis. Such generalized insults are untrue and grossly unfair to millions of scientists in the United States and worldwide who are working to cure disease, solve hunger, improve national security, and otherwise advance science to improve the quality of human life.
    Mathis may well have made a very persuasive documentary in Spoiled, but for him to imply that he is a neutral, independent voice in this debate seems to be asking an awful lot of his audience.

    Still Waiting On Warmist Rapid Response Team to Answer: 'Global temp records from HadCRUT & GISS show from 1910-1940 warming nearly as quickly as period from 1970-2000'

    from Climate Depot
    Inconvenient Questions for Warmists: '1913 set the all time temperature record in N. America, and during the 1930s, as much as 80% of US simultaneously suffered from drought. 1935 saw the most powerful hurricane to ever hit the US,and 1940s saw the most US hurricane strikes of any decade. What caused these severe climatic patterns during the first half of the century?'

    Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming

    from ICECAP
    Neo-colonial land grabs carried out on behalf of World Bank-backed British company. Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com
    Friday, September 23, 2011

    Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against "global warming," a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.

    The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the "carbon credits" on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.

    The company claims residents of Kicucula left in a "peaceful" and "voluntary" manner, and yet the people tell a story of terror and bloodshed.

    Villagers told of how armed "security forces" stormed their village and torched houses, burning an eight-year-child to death as they threatened to murder anyone who resisted while beating others.

    "We were in church," recalled Jean-Marie Tushabe, 26, a father of two. "I heard bullets being shot into the air."

    "Cars were coming with police," Mr. Tushabe said, sitting among the ruins of his old home. "They headed straight to the houses. They took our plates, cups, mattresses, bed, pillows. Then we saw them getting a matchbox out of their pockets."

    "But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming," reports the New York Times.

    An Oxfam report documents how the British outfit has worked with the Ugandan government to forcibly expel over 20,000 people from their homes using terror and violence as part of a lucrative scramble for arable land that can be used to satisfy the multi-billion dollar carbon trading ponzi scheme, which is worth $1.8 million a year to the company.

    "I no longer own any land. It’s impossible to feed my children - they have suffered so much. Some days all they eat is porridge from maize flour. When people can’t eat well their bodies become weak - there have been lots of cases of malaria and diarrhoea. Some days we don’t eat anything at all," said former farmer Francis Longoli, whose land was stolen by New Forests.

    As we have previously documented, the manufactured threat of man-made global warming is being used as a tool of neo-colonialism in the third world, not only through the seizure of land and infrastructure, thereby preventing poor nations from using their resources to develop, but by literally starving poverty-stricken people to death.

    Climate change alarmism and implementation of global warming policies is a crime of the highest nature, because it is already having a genocidal impact in countries like Haiti, where the doubling of food prices is resulting in a substantial increase in starvation, poverty and death, with the population being forced to live on mud pies.

    As a National Geographic Report confirmed, "With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies," by "eating mud," partly as a consequence of "increasing global demand for biofuels."

    In April 2008, World Bank President Robert Zoellick admitted that biofuels were a "significant contributor" to soaring food prices that have led to poor people dying from starvation as a result of biofuels dominating land that would normally be used to harvest food.

    Even man-made global warming advocate George Monbiot admits that promotion of biofuels "is causing starvation in the poor world," particularly in Swaziland, where the decision to allocate several thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production despite the country being in the grip of a famine was labeled "a crime against humanity" by Jean Ziegler, the UN’s special rapporteur.

    But it’s not just biofuels, a product of global warming alarmism, that are unleashing a genocide against black people in poorer countries, it’s the whole anti-development mantra embraced by climate change activists that is being enforced by supranational organizations like the World Bank and the IMF in the name of reducing carbon dioxide, the evil life-giving gas that plants breathe and humans exhale.

    Indeed, poorer countries rejected the 2009 Copenhagen climate agreement precisely because it discriminated against third world nations.

    In addition, the Obama administration, firmly supported by Al Gore, last year ordered the World Bank to keep "developing" countries underdeveloped by blocking them from building coal-fired power plants, ensuring that poorer countries remain in poverty as a result of energy demands not being met.

    By preventing poor nations from becoming self-sufficient in blocking them from producing their own energy, the Obama administration is ensuring that millions more will die from starvation and lack of access to hospitals and medical treatment.

    While ignorant environmentalist leftists preach all day about the effects of global warming having the most impact on poorer countries, it is in fact the poorer countries and their people who are suffering most from global warming alarmism, and predators like the banker-backed New Forests Company.

    The seizure of arable land in the name of "global warming" is set to become big business, which is why the United Nations recently announced it is preparing to roll out an army of green helmeted "climate peacekeepers" to intervene in poorer countries to protect "shrinking resources".

    Transnational corporations, in league with western governments and offshore banks, have seized upon the climate change scam to carry out genocidal policies and land grabs in the pursuit of selling carbon credits to other transnational corporations who then merely pass on the cost to the consumer.

    See report here. By the way, instead of protesting on Wall Street, the third world like mob, most of whom local media in NYC report have no clue about the issues they are said to be protesting like corporate greeda and global warming should move acress town to the UN or find a Greenpeace or Sierra Club building or even City Hall where Mayor Mike Bloomberg has given a few of his millions to the Sierra Club to stop coal firerd plants that provide hald this country’s electricity. Although he and other politicans Nd enviros provide plenty of hot air, it can’t keep the growing poor population in this country warm.

    Neo-colonial land grabs carried out on behalf of World Bank-backed British company

    Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com
    Friday, September 23, 2011

    Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against "global warming," a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.

    The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the "carbon credits" on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.

    The company claims residents of Kicucula left in a "peaceful" and "voluntary" manner, and yet the people tell a story of terror and bloodshed.

    Villagers told of how armed "security forces" stormed their village and torched houses, burning an eight-year-child to death as they threatened to murder anyone who resisted while beating others.

    "We were in church," recalled Jean-Marie Tushabe, 26, a father of two. "I heard bullets being shot into the air."

    "Cars were coming with police," Mr. Tushabe said, sitting among the ruins of his old home. "They headed straight to the houses. They took our plates, cups, mattresses, bed, pillows. Then we saw them getting a matchbox out of their pockets."

    "But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming," reports the New York Times.

    An Oxfam report documents how the British outfit has worked with the Ugandan government to forcibly expel over 20,000 people from their homes using terror and violence as part of a lucrative scramble for arable land that can be used to satisfy the multi-billion dollar carbon trading ponzi scheme, which is worth $1.8 million a year to the company.

    "I no longer own any land. It’s impossible to feed my children - they have suffered so much. Some days all they eat is porridge from maize flour. When people can’t eat well their bodies become weak - there have been lots of cases of malaria and diarrhoea. Some days we don’t eat anything at all," said former farmer Francis Longoli, whose land was stolen by New Forests.

    As we have previously documented, the manufactured threat of man-made global warming is being used as a tool of neo-colonialism in the third world, not only through the seizure of land and infrastructure, thereby preventing poor nations from using their resources to develop, but by literally starving poverty-stricken people to death.

    Climate change alarmism and implementation of global warming policies is a crime of the highest nature, because it is already having a genocidal impact in countries like Haiti, where the doubling of food prices is resulting in a substantial increase in starvation, poverty and death, with the population being forced to live on mud pies.

    As a National Geographic Report confirmed, "With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies," by "eating mud," partly as a consequence of "increasing global demand for biofuels."

    In April 2008, World Bank President Robert Zoellick admitted that biofuels were a "significant contributor" to soaring food prices that have led to poor people dying from starvation as a result of biofuels dominating land that would normally be used to harvest food.

    Even man-made global warming advocate George Monbiot admits that promotion of biofuels "is causing starvation in the poor world," particularly in Swaziland, where the decision to allocate several thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production despite the country being in the grip of a famine was labeled "a crime against humanity" by Jean Ziegler, the UN’s special rapporteur.

    But it’s not just biofuels, a product of global warming alarmism, that are unleashing a genocide against black people in poorer countries, it’s the whole anti-development mantra embraced by climate change activists that is being enforced by supranational organizations like the World Bank and the IMF in the name of reducing carbon dioxide, the evil life-giving gas that plants breathe and humans exhale.

    Indeed, poorer countries rejected the 2009 Copenhagen climate agreement precisely because it discriminated against third world nations.

    In addition, the Obama administration, firmly supported by Al Gore, last year ordered the World Bank to keep "developing" countries underdeveloped by blocking them from building coal-fired power plants, ensuring that poorer countries remain in poverty as a result of energy demands not being met.

    By preventing poor nations from becoming self-sufficient in blocking them from producing their own energy, the Obama administration is ensuring that millions more will die from starvation and lack of access to hospitals and medical treatment.

    While ignorant environmentalist leftists preach all day about the effects of global warming having the most impact on poorer countries, it is in fact the poorer countries and their people who are suffering most from global warming alarmism, and predators like the banker-backed New Forests Company.

    The seizure of arable land in the name of "global warming" is set to become big business, which is why the United Nations recently announced it is preparing to roll out an army of green helmeted "climate peacekeepers" to intervene in poorer countries to protect "shrinking resources".

    Transnational corporations, in league with western governments and offshore banks, have seized upon the climate change scam to carry out genocidal policies and land grabs in the pursuit of selling carbon credits to other transnational corporations who then merely pass on the cost to the consumer.

    See report here. By the way, instead of protesting on Wall Street, the third world like mob, most of whom local media in NYC report have no clue about the issues they are said to be protesting like corporate greeda and global warming should move acress town to the UN or find a Greenpeace or Sierra Club building or even City Hall where Mayor Mike Bloomberg has given a few of his millions to the Sierra Club to stop coal firerd plants that provide hald this country’s electricity. Although he and other politicans Nd enviros provide plenty of hot air, it can’t keep the growing poor population in this country warm.

    CO2 uptake data casts doubt on climate models

    from Climate Realists by Co2sceptic
    by Emma Woollacott - The global uptake of carbon by land plants could be much higher than previously thought, meaning that the carbon cycle models used to predict climate change could be wrong.

    Scientists at the University of California in San Diego say that plants are taking up as much as 45 per cent more CO2 than previously thought, based on the variability of heavy oxygen atoms in atmospheric carbon dioxide driven by the El Niño effect.

    The team found that the oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide were converted faster than expected during the El Niño years. Instead of 120 petagrams of carbon, says the team, the annual global vegetation uptake probably lies between 150 and 175 petagrams of carbon.

    And changing this figure would have significant consequences for the coupled carbon cycle-climate model used to predict future climate change.

    The team evaluated the data for the global isotopic composition of CO2 - 18O/16O and 13C/12C - over the last 30 years, and found variation between years that was connected with the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific.

    Click source (tgdaily.com) to read FULL report from Emma Woollacott

    Read in full with comments »

    Michael 'Climategate' Mann Suffers Three Legal Blows in Court Escapade

    White House officials were warned about Solyndra's prospects

    Seminar on Penn State "Inquiry"

    from Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre
    penn-state-wall William Brune, who acted as a "consultant" to the Penn State Inquiry Committee will be discussing the Mann misconduct "inquiry" in Boulder tomorrow Wednesday, October 5, 2:15 PM (Refreshments at 2:00 PM) at the David Skaggs Research Center, Room 2A305. Directions

    The seminar is a Chemical Science Division seminar entitled "Climategate, Michael Mann, and Penn State’s investigation":
    *********************************************************************
    Please note: this special seminar will precede the usual CSD seminar.
    There will be a 15 minute break in between the two.
    *********************************************************************

    The release of emails purloined from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University inflamed the passion and politics that surround climate science. As one of the climate scientists whose emails were released, Professor Michael Mann, who I recruited to Penn State, became a focal point of this passion in the United States.

    Intense pressure was put on Penn State to investigate Professor Mann, initiating a process that led to his exoneration eight months later. As Professor Mann’s department head, I was a participant in Penn State’s investigative process. At David Fahey’s request, I will tell what I can about Climategate, Michael Mann, and Penn State’s investigation.
    Brune was a consultant to the first stage - the (preliminary) inquiry (report); the second stage report is here.

    Some of the findings of the inquiry flew in the face of facts known to thousands - see tagged CA posts here.

    Clive Crook elegantly summarized the Penn State process at Atlantic Monthly saying that the reports in which Brune participated would be "difficult to parody":
    The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann - the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" - would be difficult to parody.
    Crook continues:

    the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers - so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

    You think I exaggerate?

    This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research...

    Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions...

    Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.
    If any readers have an opportunity to attend this seminar, reports would be welcome.
    Maine Center for Constitutional Studies
    1375 FOREST AVENUE, PORTLAND, ME 04103 (207) 797-7891
    Visit maineccs.org or contact newsletter@maineccs.org