From: Phil Jones To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds Date: Mon Oct 5 10:03:02 2009 Tom, Thanks for trying to clear the air with a few people. Keith is still working on a response. Having to contact the Russians to get some more site details takes time. Several things in all this are ludicrous as you point out. Yamal is one site and isn't in most of the millennial reconstructions. It isn't in MBH, Crowley, Moberg etc. Also picking trees for a temperature response is not done either. The other odd thing is that they seem to think that you can reconstruct the last millennium from a few proxies, yet you can't do this from a few instrumental series for the last 150 years! Instrumental data are perfect proxies, after all. [1]http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html This one is wrong as well. IPCC (1995) didn't use that silly curve that Chris Folland or Geoff Jenkins put together. Cheers Phil At 02:59 05/10/2009, you wrote: David, This is entirely off the record, and I do not want this shared with anyone. I hope you will respect this. This issue is not my problem, and I await further developments. However, Keith Briffa is in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and I was Director of CRU for many years so I am quite familiar with Keith and with his work. I have also done a lots of hands on tree ring work, both in the field and in developing and applying computer programs for climate reconstruction from tree rings. On the other hand, I have not been involved in any of this work since I left CRU in 1993 to move to NCAR. But I do think I can speak with some modicum of authority. You say, re dendoclimatologists, "they rely on recent temperature data by which to *select* recent tree data" (my emphasis). I don't know where you get this idea, but I can assure you that it is entirely wrong. Further, I do not know the basis for your claim that "Dendrochonology is a bankrupt approach". It is one of the few proxy data areas where rigorous multivariate statistical tools are used and where reconstructions are carefully tested on independent data. Finally, the fact that scientists (in any field) do not willingly share their hard-earned primary data implies that they have something to hide has no logical basis. Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ David Schnare wrote: Tom: Briffa has already made a preliminary response and he failed to explain his selection procedure. Further, he refused to give up the data for several years, and was forced to do so only when he submitted to a journal that demanded data archiving and actually enforced the practice. More significantly, Briffa's analysis is irrelevant. Dendrochonology is a bankrupt approach. They admit that they cannot distiguish causal elements contributing to tree ring size. Further, they rely on recent temperature data by which to select recent tree data (excluding other data) and then turn around and claim that the tree ring data explains the recent temperature data. If you can give a principled and reasoned defense of Briffa (see the discussion on Watt's website) then go for it. I'd be fascinated, as would a rather large number of others. None of this, of course, detracts for the need to do research on geoengineering. David Schnare On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tom Wigley > wrote: Dear all, I think it would be wise to let Briffa respond to these accusations before compounding them with unwarranted extrapolations. With regard to the Hockey Stick, it is highly unlikely that a single site can be very important. M&M have made similar accusations in the past and they have been shown, in the peer-reviewed literature, to be ill-founded. Two recent papers you should read are those in the attached Word document (first pages only). Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Eugene I. Gordon wrote: David: I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY! -gene /Eugene I. Gordon/ /(908) 233 4677/ /euggordon@comcast.net/ <[2]http://euggordon@comcast.net/> /[3]www.germgardlighting.com/ <[4]http://www.germgardlighting.com/> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com <[5]mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com <[6]mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] *On Behalf Of *David Schnare *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM *Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@googlegroups.com <[7]mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> *Subject:* [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds Gene: I've been following this issue closely and this is what I take away from it: 1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall, nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century temperature reconstruction. 2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of his own work, where that work is the critical core of the chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is, of course, the majority of such analyses. As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground." Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research, including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that the current alarmism is justified. David Schnare On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Eugene I. Gordon <[9]mailto:euggordon@comcast.net >> wrote: Alan: Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations are increased and continued grant funding, university advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify. Alan, this is nothing new. You and I experienced similar behavior from some of our colleagues down the hall, the Bell Labs research people, in the good old days. Humans are hardly perfect creations. I am never surprised at what they can do. _I am perpetually grateful for those who are honest and fair and thankfully there is a goodly share of those._ -gene *From:* Alan White [mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net <[10]mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net> <[11]mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net> <[12]mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net>>] *Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:28 PM *To:* Gene Gordon *Subject:* Fw: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds more of the same. what gives with these guys? ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Peiser, Benny <[13]mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk> <[14]mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk>> *To:* CCNetMedia <[15]mailto:CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk> <[16]mailto:CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk>> *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 6:36 AM *Subject:* CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds CCNet 153/2009 - 2 October 2009 -- Audiatur et altera pars CRU'S HIDDEN DATA AND THE IPCC: A SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL UNFOLDS ------------------------------------------------------------ A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers. The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it. As the IPCC states, its duty is "assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as IPCC lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping the assessment. When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here? --Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009 Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data. Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored. --Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009 The official United Nation's global warming agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged stool that is fast losing its legs. To carry the message of man-made global warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground. --Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009 Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so far. I'm not sure whether this is because people are trying to digest what it means or whether it's "too hot to handle". None of the global warming supporters in the mainstream media have gone near it. The reaction of the Guardian - to delete any mention of the affair from their comment threads - has been extraordinary. --Bishop Hill, 1 October 2009 Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric cars and shut down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned recession' to avoid dangerous climate change. A new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous tipping point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020. This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned recession". --Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009 Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016 Olympics could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to mankind. "It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind," Ishihara told reporters at a Tokyo 2016 press event ahead of the vote. "Global warming is getting worse. We have to come up with measures without which Olympic Games could not last long. "Scientists have said we have passed the point of no return," said Ishihara. --Karolos Grohmann, Reuters, 30 September 2009 (1) TREEMOMETERS: A NEW SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009 (2) ANALYSIS: DEFECTS IN KEY CLIMATE DATA ARE UNCOVERED Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009 (3) OPINION: CLIMATE DATA BUSTER Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009 (4) OPINION: COOLING DOWN THE CASSANDRAS George F. Will, The Washington Post, 1 October 2009 (5) U.S. THROWS SPANNER INTO CLIMATE TALKS Times of India, 2 October 2009 (6) CAP AND TRADE MAY SINK OPPOSITION LEADER DOWN UNDER Lenore Taylor, The Australian, 2 October 2009 (7) THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN Jennifer Marohasy <[18]mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com> <[19]mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com>>> (8) COOLING? Rodney Chilton <[21]mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com> <[22]mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com>>> (9) RESOURCES DEPLETION WORRIES Steven Zoraster <[24]mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com> <[25]mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com>>> (10) COPENHAGEN SUMMIT: DO SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS SUPPORT GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING? Peter Kidson <[27]mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com> <[28]mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com>>] (11) A DEATH SPIRAL FOR CLIMATE ALARMISM? Robert Bradley <[30]mailto:rbradley@iertx.org> <[31]mailto:rbradley@iertx.org>>> (12) AND FINALLY: 'PLANNED RECESSION' COULD AVOID CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009 =========== (1) TREEMOMETERS: A NEW SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL The Register, 29 September 2009 <[32]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/> By Andrew Orlowski A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers. At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors. At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors. Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a choice open to a scientist's biases. Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold claims using tree ring data. In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures. How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is. At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery is no more. >From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages. In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked. Controversy has been raging since 1995, when an explosive paper by Keith Briffa at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia asserted that that the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. Both archaeology and the historical accounts, Briffa was declaring, were bunk. Briffa relied on just three cores from Siberia to demonstrate this. Three years later Nature published a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes based on temperature reconstructions which showed something similar: warmer now, cooler then. With Briffa and Mann as chapter editors of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this distinctive pattern became emblematic - the "Logo of Global Warming". IPCC's Assessment Report from 2001 - with the error bars in grey emphasised Hokey hockey sticks Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp server in a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.) Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann's statistical technique, which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in temperatures - which became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" - even using red noise. Similarly, all the papers that used the Yamal data have the same point to make. All suggest recent dramatic warming. Having scored a global hit with a combination of flawed statistics and dubious dendrochronology, the acts repeated the formula. "Late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere," wrote the two authors of Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2003 - Mann, and Phil Jones of CRU. For example, Briffa's 2008 paper concludes that: "The extent of recent widespread warming across northwest Eurasia, with respect to 100- to 200-year trends, is unprecedented in the last 2000 years." The same authors in 2004: It continues to this day. A study purporting to show the Arctic was warmer now than for 2,000 years received front-page attention last month. Led by Northern Arizona University professor Darrell S Kaufman, and including dendro veteran Mann, this too relied heavily on Yamal, and produced the signature shape. Now here's Yamal. And when Yamal is plotted against the wider range of cores, the implications of the choice is striking: A comparison of Yamal RCS chronologies. red - as archived with 12 picked cores; black - including Schweingruber's Khadyta River, Yamal (russ035w) archive and excluding 12 picked cores. Both smoothed with 21-year gaussian smooth. y-axis is in dimensionless chronology units centered on 1 (as are subsequent graphs (but represent age-adjusted ring width). "The majority of these trees (like the Graybill bristlecones) have a prolonged growth pulse (for whatever reason) starting in the 19th century," wrote Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre on his blog on Sunday. "When a one-size fits all age profile is applied to these particular tries, the relatively vigorous growth becomes monster growth - 8 sigma anomalies in some of them." McIntyre's determination to reproduce the reconstructions has resulted in the Yamal data finally coming to light. All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data. What went wrong? The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it. As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment. When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here? The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade. (r) Bootnote The Royal Society's motto from the enlightenment era is Nullius in verba. "On nobody's authority" or colloquially, "take nobody's word for it". In 2007, the Society's then president suggested this be changed to "respect the facts". Copyright 2009, ElReg ========== (2) ANALYSIS: DEFECTS IN KEY CLIMATE DATA ARE UNCOVERED Financial Post, 1 October 2009 <[33]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/01/r> oss-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx> By Ross McKitrick Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a famous result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph. Developed by a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick, scientists had held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making the scale of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The dramatic revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick's publication made it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless review reports. Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world. The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed bristlecone pine data. One of the panels, however, argued that while the Mann Hockey Stick itself was flawed, a series of other studies published since 1998 had similar shapes, thus providing support for the view that the late 20th century is unusually warm. The IPCC also made this argument in its 2007 report. But the second expert panel, led by statistician Edward Wegman, pointed out that the other studies are not independent. They are written by the same small circle of authors, only the names are in different orders, and they reuse the same few data climate proxy series over and over. Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that do have a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring curve from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith Briffa. Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers. In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn't release his raw data. Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data. Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored. Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data-sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite. It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset. But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa's small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium. Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site? Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science. I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion. I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am grateful for those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who continue to ask the right questions and insist on scientific standards of openness and transparency. Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming. Copyright 2009, FP EDITOR'S NOTE: More on the CRU's Yamal scandal and its impact, see: <[34]http://www.climateaudit.org/> <[35]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal> -tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/> <[36]http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.ht> ml> <[37]http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/10/1/yamal-the-debate-conti> nues.html> ============ (3) OPINION: CLIMATE DATA BUSTER National Post, 1 October 2009 <[38]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01> /terence-corcoran-climate-data-buster.aspx> By Terence Corcoran The official United Nation's global warming agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged stool that is fast losing its legs. To carry the message of man-made global warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground. Over the past month, one of the IPCC's top climate scientists, Mojib Latif, attempted to explain that even if global temperatures were to cool over the next 10 to 20 years, that would not mean that man-made global warming is no longer catastrophic. It was a tough case to make, and it is not clear Mr. Latif succeeded. In a presentation to a world climate conference in early September, Mr. Latif rambled somewhat and veered off into inscrutable language that is now embedded in a million blog posts attempting to prove one thing or another. A sample: "It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, you know, when the temperature cools, all right, relative to the present level...And then, you know, I know what's going to happen. You know, I will get, you know, millions of phone calls, you know -'What's going on?' 'So is global warming disappearing, you know?' 'Have you lied on us, you know?' So, and, therefore, this is the reason why we need to address this decadal prediction issue." The decadal prediction issue appears to be a combination of computer model problems, the unpredictability of natural climate variation, and assorted uncertainties. Making all this clear to the average global citizen will not be easy and climate scientists need to be able to make it clear, said Mr. Latif. "We have to ask the nasty questions ourselves, all right, or some other people will do it." All this is still swirling around the global climate issue today. But now along comes another problem. Canadian data buster Steve McIntyre has spend most of the last three years deconstructing the IPCC's famous claim that the last couple of decades of the 20th century were the hottest in a thousand years. Using what was called The Hockey Stick graph, the IPCC claimed to have the smoking gun that showed a sharp run up in global temperatures through to 1997. The validity of the IPCC data began to crumble when Mr. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of Guelph University found serious data problems that raised doubts about the graph and the claims of record high temperatures. As Ross McKitrick explains in his op-ed, Steve McIntyre has uncovered another data distortion that further undermines the original graphic claim that the world has set temperature records in recent years. If world temperatures may have been just as hot in the past as they have been recently, and if the the next two decades could be cooler than they have been recently, the theory of climate change becomes an even tougher case to make. The IPCC is now on wobbly legs at all four corners. Its models are inadequate and need overhaul, data integrity is at issue, the climate is not quite following the script, and the communication program for the whole campaign is a growing struggle. Copyright 2009, NP ========== (4) OPINION: COOLING DOWN THE CASSANDRAS The Washington Post, 1 October 2009 <[39]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR20090> 93003569.html> By George F. Will "Plateau in Temperatures Adds Difficulty to Task Of Reaching a Solution" --New York Times, Sept. 23 In this headline on a New York Times story about the difficulties confronting people alarmed about global warming, note the word "plateau." It dismisses the unpleasant -- to some people -- fact that global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate their apocalyptic warnings about it. The "difficulty" -- the "intricate challenge," the Times says -- is "building momentum" for carbon reduction "when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." That was in the Times's first paragraph. In the fifth paragraph, a "few years" became "the next decade or so," according to Mojib Latif, a German "prize-winning climate and ocean scientist" who campaigns constantly to promote policies combating global warming. Actually, Latif has said he anticipates "maybe even two" decades in which temperatures cool. But stay with the Times's "decade or so." By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere "plateau," not warming's apogee, the Times assures readers who are alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and that warming will continue: Do not despair, bad news will resume. The Times reported that "scientists" -- all of them? -- say the 11 years of temperature stability has "no bearing," none, on long-term warming. Some scientists say "cool stretches are inevitable." Others say there may be growth of Arctic sea ice, but the growth will be "temporary." According to the Times, however, "scientists" say that "trying to communicate such scientific nuances to the public -- and to policymakers -- can be frustrating." The Times says "a short-term trend gives ammunition to skeptics of climate change." Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are impervious to evidence. The theories are unfalsifiable, at least in the "short run." And the "short run" is defined as however many decades must pass until the evidence begins to fit the hypotheses. The Post recently reported the theory of a University of Virginia professor emeritus who thinks that, many millennia ago, primitive agriculture -- burning forests, creating methane-emitting rice paddies, etc. -- produced enough greenhouse gases to warm the planet at least a degree. The theory is interesting. Even more interesting is the reaction to it by people such as the Columbia University professor who says it makes him "really upset" because it might encourage opponents of legislation combating global warming. Warnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as evidence of warming becomes more elusive. A recent report from the United Nations Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit increase by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most ambitious pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions. The U.S. goal is an 80 percent reduction by 2050. But Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute says that would require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the 1910 level. On a per capita basis, it would mean emissions approximately equal to those in 1875. That will not happen. So, we are doomed. So, why try? America needs a national commission appointed to assess the evidence about climate change. Alarmists will fight this because the first casualty would be the carefully cultivated and media-reinforced myth of consensus -- the bald assertion that no reputable scientist doubts the gravity of the crisis, doubts being conclusive evidence of disreputable motives or intellectual qualifications. The president, however, could support such a commission because he is sure "there's finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us." So he announced last week at the U.N. climate change summit, where he said the threat is so "serious" and "urgent" that unless all nations act "boldly, swiftly and together" -- "time . . . is running out" -- we risk "irreversible catastrophe." Prince Charles agrees. In March, seven months ago, he said humanity had 100 months -- until July 2017 -- to prevent "catastrophic climate change and the unimaginable horrors that this would bring." Evidently humanity will prevent this. Charles Moore of the Spectator notes that in July, the prince said that by 2050 the planet will be imperiled by the existence of 9 billion people, a large portion of them consuming as much as Western people now do. Environmental Cassandras must be careful with their predictions lest they commit what climate alarmists consider the unpardonable faux pas of denying that the world is coming to an end. Copyright 2009, WP ============== (5) U.S. THROWS SPANNER INTO CLIMATE TALKS Times of India, 2 October 2009 <[40]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/US-t> hrows-spanner-into-climate-talks/articleshow/5079332.cms> Nitin Sethi, TNN NEW DELHI: The promise of a deal at Copenhagen seem to be turning into a pipedream as the US has refused to put down hard numbers for mitigation under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol at the ongoing climate negotiations at Bangkok. EU too seems to be taking a deal-breaking condition saying, "environmental integrity" was central to the UN treaty and "equity" of different countries' rights was just one element. The negotiations at various levels seem to be grinding into a logjam with US determined not to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. The US negotiators fought hard at different forums within the UN talks to block any progress on industrialized countries' commitments to reduce emissions in the mid-term under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol. India stood steadfast in demanding that the rich countries put up their offers in terms of hard numbers for emission reductions over 2012-2020 under the existing protocol. But, US and many other developed countries seemed determined to do away with the Kyoto Protocol entirely. This is not the first time that US has voiced its opposition to the Kyoto Protocol which demands quantified targets from rich countries. US had not signed on to Kyoto earlier and it continues to oppose the only tool the global treaty has for making measurable and comparable reductions in the dangerous greenhouse gases. The protocol is also seen by a select band of industrialized countries such as US and Japan as a wall of differentiation constructed in the convention. The parent treaty -- UN Framework Convention on Climate Change -- lays most of the burden of mitigation on the industrialized countries that caused it in the first place. The Kyoto Protocol activates this principle of burden sharing into hard actions and targets. The protocol in its first phase sets fixed percentages by which countries reduce their emissions by 2012 below 1990 levels. Many of the industrialized countries have not moved on a trajectory to achieve the targets for 2012. Part of the discussions in the UN talks have been to set a higher level targets for the second phase of Kyoto Protocol between 2012-2020. But the US, not keen to take on any commitments in the mid-term, has always shown interest in disbanding with Kyoto Protocol and instead taking on a series of actions that are decided by countries on their own -- say energy efficiency targets -- and merely presented to the UN forum. India and developing countries have pointed out that would make the targets incomparable and render it impossible to figure out if any significant reductions have been made in emissions to prevent a climate calamity. Other industrialized countries too have so far shown little interest in offering credible and robust targets for the second phase of the protocol. The offers so far on the table from the industrialized countries, if implemented, would only bring in reductions in the range of 11-18% by 2020 below 1990 levels. India and other developing countries have demanded that the industrialized countries follow the recommendations of the UN climate science panel -- IPCC -- and take cuts in the range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 which would put the world on a trajectory to avoid temperatures reaching dangerous levels in the decades to come. Copyright 2009, TOI ============= (6) CAP AND TRADE MAY SINK OPPOSITION LEADER DOWN UNDER The Australian, 2 October 2009 <[41]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153820-2702,00.htm> l> Lenore Taylor, National correspondent | October 02, 2009 MALCOLM Turnbull is on a collision course with his own back bench after staking his leadership on a demand that they back his climate change strategy. Several MPs immediately refused to do so. If the partyroom refused to back his strategy of negotiating amendments to the government's emissions trading scheme, Mr Turnbull said yesterday, the Coalition would "literally be a party with nothing to say ... a party with no ideas", and that was "not the party I am prepared to lead". Throwing down the gauntlet to his internal critics, Mr Turnbull said: "I am asserting my authority as the leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition." "If the partyroom were to reject my recommendation to them, that would obviously be a leadership issue. That's perfectly plain, perfectly clear," he told ABC Radio in Adelaide. "I could not possibly lead a party that was on a do-nothing-on-climate-change platform." His critics were not cowed, despite the fact that both mooted leadership alternatives -- Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott -- support Mr Turnbull's stance. West Australian backbencher Wilson Tuckey said: "Mr Turnbull has made the ETS a leadership issue and we will now treat it as such." His leader's ultimatum did not alter his "total opposition to an ETS and to the suggestion that we might amend it". Victorian Liberal senator Julian McGauran said he stood by his vow to vote against the ETS in November, no matter what amendments were negotiated. Nationals senators also remain implacably opposed to the scheme. "He hasn't got the partyroom with him on this one ... we are going to stand up for what we believe in," said senator Ron Boswell. "This is not just another issue. This is not one we can let go through to the keeper," said senator Barnaby Joyce. Mr Tuckey appeared to suggest Mr Turnbull's deputy, Julie Bishop, as an alternative leader, saying there were "many good potential leaders in the Liberal Party ... and perhaps some people who have had their reputations tarnished by backgrounding from our side now deserve reconsideration for the top job". FULL STORY at <[42]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153820-2702,00.htm> l> ======== e-mails to the editor ===== (7) THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN Jennifer Marohasy <[44]mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com> <[45]mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com>>> Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer Marohasy <[46]http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-> must-explain-or-resign/> MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year of the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over the last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph. Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data - which he had been asking for since 2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom's Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. [1] Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the 'hockey stick'. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre, in particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces. This week's claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated with the UK Meteorology Bureau have been less than diligent are serious and suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the methodology is laid bare. This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is archived at the UK Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets that spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while complete data sets are kept hidden from the public - including from scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre. It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign. [1] Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009 [47]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD ================ (8) COOLING? Rodney Chilton <[48]mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com >> Dear Benny: Recently, there has been considerable discussion concerning the slight cooling of the earth's overall climate since about 2005. The result of the cooling has brought some scientists into the forefront to be openly critical of the still prominent view that climate changes over the century or so have predominately been man caused. The proponents of human initiated climate changes are of the opinion that the recent cooling is but a temporary interruption in what soon again will be a rapid climate warming. I think one of the keys to alleviate some of this discussion is to attempt to determine the triggers for two other climate shifts in earlier times. The first of these, the "Little Ice Age" is generally regarded by most scientists as resulting from a reduced output of energy from the sun. Coinciding as it did with an interval of very little to almost no sunspot activity, a time known as the "Maunder Minimum", many solar scientists suggest that as little as 0.25% decrease in solar output initiated this cold climate period. Similarily, during the mid 20th Century during the years from the end of the 1940's to about the mid 1970's, the sun was in one of its quiet modes (very few sunspots). The cause for what was a slightly cooler interval could logically be linked to decreased energy from the sun. However, the quite recent thirty year period is more commonly linked to increased dust in the earth's atmosphere. Consistent with this view is the idea that perhaps the Little Ice Age too, was forced not by a decrease in the sun's output, but by an increase in dust, not that produced by man, but by extraterrestrial dust from a comet encounter. More details of this particular scenario can be seen at the following website: <[49]http://www.bcclimate.com <[50]http://www.bcclimate.com/> <[51]http://www.bcclimate.com/>> All of this raises the questions, what drove both the Little Ice Age and the thirty year interval in the middle of the last century? It is possible that they were driven by the two different causes outlined. It is vital I think that the reason(s) for the two climate shifts be determined. This would go along way to settle the recent debate as to the importance of solar minima in initiating climate changes over more than just a few years. Further to this, the picture of the future will be clarified. If for example, decreases in solar output is proven to be of less importance during the past, then surely the present climate downturn will be likely only a temporary respite from the inexorable upward trend in temperatures worldwide. If on the other hand the solar cycles accompanied by low sun activity over decades and even longer can be proven as significant, then I believe we must re-examine the increased carbon dioxide scenario. Rodney Chilton ============ (9) RESOURCES DEPLETION WORRIES Steven Zoraster <[53]mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com> <[54]mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com>>> Benny, Certainly someone with access to the hard numbers and more knowledge than I can do better proving or disproving the following argument about the ERoEI of nuclear power in the United States: Today, 104 nuclear reactors supply 20% of the electricity used each year in the United States. [1]They have been doing this for approximately 25 years. [2] Many existing reactors have now been approved to operate for 60 years. While the initial costs measured in energy use 25 years ago were high and construction often took 5 years, I doubt that the construction process for all 104 reactors, required greater energy than the equivalent of 20% of annual electricity used 25 years ago over a 5 year period. (I include the cost of design, obtaining permits, fighting environmental lawsuits, manufacturing parts, and actual construction, etc., in the total energy cost.) Today the annual operating costs of maintaining, fuelling, and repairing existing reactors are low compared to alternate sources of electricity except hydroelectric. The nuclear waste from these reactors has been safely stored at the reactor sites without causing a single human death. Conclusions: Assuming the generation of electric energy in the US since about 1985 has been and will be constant, the ERoEI of nuclear power using 25 year old technology is greater than 12. (Twenty percent of all electric energy generated over 60 years divided by 20% of the same amount of pre-atomic electricity generated over 5 years.) Given that total electricity use in the US has almost doubled in the last 25 years [3], the ERoEI may be greater than 24. More modern proposed reactor designs, with greater standardization, simpler fuel cycles, fail safe features, and increased automation, can be expected to have higher ERoEI. (I have not included the cost of decommissioning reactors. Numbers I found online are often estimates and seldom given in terms of energy. Because fuel costs today and to be expected in the future are low, ignoring the option of recycling used fuel is not a significant factor in my calculations.) Steven Zoraster [1] [55]http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerpl ants/ [2] [56]http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html Reactors were being completed between 1957 and 1996. The first large commercial reactors date to 1968. The longest "build time" is 24 years. Some reactors have been closed after being built and have been ignored in my argument. My use of 25 years in these calculations is certainly a suspect approximation or average. [3] [57]http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html (Then click on "Electricity" on the left side of the page.) ========== (10) COPENHAGEN SUMMIT: DO SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS SUPPORT GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING? Peter Kidson <[59]mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com> <[60]mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com>>] Hi Benny You might perhaps want to publicise this public debate <[61]http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217> <[62]http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217> <[63]http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217> <[64]http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217>>> Note that you need to reserve seats. Regards -Peter ========== (11) A DEATH SPIRAL FOR CLIMATE ALARMISM? Robert Bradley <[66]mailto:rbradley@iertx.org >> Ken Green's post at MasterResource today should be of interest. <[67]http://masterresource.org/?p=5036> Things are getting very shrill from the Climate Industry, but there is a rethink going on starting with the physical science. Robert L. Bradley Jr. CEO & Founder, Institute for Energy Research Houston, Texas 77057-3527 IER Website: [68]www.energyrealism.org <[69]http://www.energyrealism.org/> <[70]http://www.energyrealism.org/> Political Capitalism website: [71]www.politicalcapitalism.org <[72]http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/> <[73]http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/> Energy Blog: [74]www.MasterResource.org <[75]http://www.masterresource.org/> <[76]http://www.masterresource.org/> ============= (12) AND FINALLY: 'PLANNED RECESSION' COULD AVOID CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009 <[77]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6248257/Planned-recession-co> uld-avoid-catastrophic-climate-change.html> By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric cars and shut down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned recession' to avoid dangerous climate change. At the moment the UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by a third by 2020. However a new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research said these targets are inadequate to keep global warming below two degrees C above pre-industrial levels. The report says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous tipping point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020. This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned recession". Kevin Anderson, director of the research body, said the building of new airports, petrol cars and dirty coal-fired power stations will have to be halted in the UK until new technology provides an alternative to burning fossil fuels. "To meet [Government] targets of not exceeding two degrees C, there would have to be a moratorium on airport expansion, stringent measures on the type of vehicle being used and a rapid transition to low carbon technology," he said. Prof Anderson also said individuals will have to consume less. "For most of the population it would mean fairly modest changes to how they live, maybe they will drive less, share a car to work or take more holidays in Britain." More than 190 countries are due to meet in Copenhagen in December to decide a new international deal on climate change. Speaking at an Oxford University conference on the threat of climate change, Prof. Anderson said rich countries will have to make much more ambitious cuts to have any chance of keeping temperature rise below four degrees C. "If we do everything we can do then we might have a chance," he said. Copyright 2009, TDT ---------------- CCNet is a science policy network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to <[79]mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk> <[80]mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk>>> ("subscribe CCNetMedia"). To unsubscribe send an e-mail to <[82]mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk> <[83]mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk>>> ("unsubscribe CCNetMedia"). Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor. <[84]http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/> -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at [85]http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html 2. http://euggordon@comcast.net/ 3. http://www.germgardlighting.com/ 4. http://www.germgardlighting.com/ 5. mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 6. mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 7. mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 8. mailto:euggordon@comcast.net 9. mailto:euggordon@comcast.net%20%3Cmailto:euggordon@comcast.net 10. mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net 11. mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net 12. mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net 13. mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 14. mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk 15. mailto:CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 16. mailto:CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk 17. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com 18. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com 19. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com 20. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com 21. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com 22. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com 23. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com 24. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com 25. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com 26. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com 27. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com 28. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com 29. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org 30. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org 31. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org 32. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/ 33. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/01/r%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 34. http://www.climateaudit.org/ 35. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 36. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.ht 37. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/10/1/yamal-the-debate-conti%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 38. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01 39. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR20090%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 40. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/US-t 41. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153820-2702,00.htm%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 42. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153820-2702,00.htm 43. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com 44. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com 45. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com 46. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 47. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 48. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com%20%3Cmailto:maberrd@hotmail.com 49. http://www.bcclimate.com/ 50. http://www.bcclimate.com/ 51. http://www.bcclimate.com/ 52. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com 53. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com 54. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com 55. http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerpl 56. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html 57. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html 58. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com 59. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 60. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com 61. http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217>%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 62. http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217 63. http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217>%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 64. http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217 65. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org 66. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org%20%3Cmailto:rbradley@iertx.org 67. http://masterresource.org/?p=5036 68. http://www.energyrealism.org/ 69. http://www.energyrealism.org/ 70. http://www.energyrealism.org/ 71. http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/ 72. http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/ 73. http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/ 74. http://www.masterresource.org/ 75. http://www.masterresource.org/ 76. http://www.masterresource.org/ 77. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6248257/Planned-recession-co%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 78. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk 79. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0 80. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk 81. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk 82. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk 83. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk 84. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/%3E%A0%A0%A0 85. http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en