Climategate

Monckton, in surprise questioning on street, defends himself over “Hitler Youth” video

Monckton “Hitler Youth” video is on The TimesOnline UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6954160.ece

at DailyMailOnline UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235187/Former-Conservative-peer-Lord-Monckton-labels-Jewish-activist-Hitler-Youth-climate-change-event.html
And it’spretty much getting wide coverage in the left wing political blogs, none of which I’ll list here—you can trip over them there’s so many. This video is getting quicker and broader coverage than ClimateGate did when it first broke

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

Result of Copenhagen—6 year delay?
World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts…are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016…..The Times has learnt that negotiators from developed countries are planning to use the idea of a review to justify failing to agree the 25-40 per cent cut…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6955237.ece
—————-
h/t u.k.(us)

More weather is not climate
Plenty of record cold and snow this week in the USA
HAMweather
http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin,snow

First this relates to:
The Scope of Medieval Warming, SCIENCE June 15, 2001
Bradley, MAnn, Briffa, Crowley, Hughes, Jones
Hemispheric mean temperatures that have been reconstructed with a wide range of climate proxies indicate that temperatures were warmer in Medieval times than during the subsequent “Little Ice Age” (~1550 to 1850) (1). However, all studies of large-scale climate variations reveal some regions that do not follow the global or hemispheric trend [for example, (2)], so selecting a few data points, as W. S. Broecker does in his Perspective (Science’s Compass, 23 Feb., p. 1497), adds little to resolving the title question he poses: “Was the Medieval Warm Period global·” ….
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2001/June30.htm
The Email I found was from THREE months earlier” Imagine
their surprise when they see that the ensemble averages you publish
have much smaller amplitude.”
From: Chick Keller
To: “Michael E Mann” , , “Phil Jones” , , tom crowley , “Jonathan Overpeck”, Tom Wigley , Mike MacCracken
Subject: Some thoughts on climate change proxy temperatures in the last 1,000 yrs
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:54:57 -0800
1. I read with some consternation Wally Broecker’s latest piece in
Science (23Feb. 2001). First you can all take up some other topic
since Wally says only Boreholes and treeline changes are accurate
enough to do low frequency trends. What does he mean by “only two
proxies can yield temperatures that are accurate to 0.5°C”? and do you
agree that tree rings and sediments, etc are not sufficiently accurate
to exhibit correct low frequency trends?
…,snip>…
And this brings up my question. How one averages these records.
One way would be to note that the temperature amplitude (1000 – 1950)
for each is ~1.5°C. Thus you could conclude that hemispheric/global
climate varied ay over a degree Celcius (although with regional
differences)
Another way would be to average the records. The resulting temperature
amplitude would be smaller because extremes would cancel since
variability is large and each region’s extremes occur at different
times.
Thus, if people simply looked at several records they would get the
impression that temperature variations were large, ~1.5°C. Imagine
their surprise when they see that the ensemble averages you publish
have much smaller amplitude. …….]
http://climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=219&keyword=their%20surprise%20when%20they%20see%20that%20the%20ensemble%20averages%20you%20publish

Do this artist a huge favor, science guys, and go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
where they have posted a bunch of drivel about how they KNOW it’s anthropogenic and warming and melting, yada yada. I’m about to have to write an *expletive deleted* science report to the editor at factcheck.org because he clearly isn’t going to come here and learn anything.
My correspondence below.
Rosemary Meling wrote:
Fact Check Article failed to check temperature records
Sir:
I see that the writer, Jess Henig, of “Climategate” December 10, 2009
managed to avoid doing a complete or wide-ranging job of fact
checking. I know, because he cited his sources below. I suggest he
consult the *actual temperature data* for the last decade or so – try
Andrew Watt’s site Watt’s Up With That (www.wattsupwiththat.com
) for very easy to understand
information and links to even further information.
I’ve quite lost confidence in your site.
REPLY:
editor [editor@factcheck.org]
Jess Henig is a female
And here’s some data on temperatures.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) – The Copenhagen climate talks will generate more carbon emissions than any previous climate conference, equivalent to the annual output of over half a million Ethiopians…..46,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide….
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BD4D020091214?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Al Gore arrived today. He added a lot himself, like several million tonnes, to that figure.

Always good to see how well informed greenpeace rent a mob are.
Now what we need is lord Monkton to start asking the newspaper editors and journalists who print any story put out by the global warming people (he could start at the bbc which seems to parot like run any warming story) where they are getting their information. No doubt the same well informed sorce that Green peace uses.

Bottom has dropped out of the Carbon Trading Scheme
“Last week, not a single carbon-futures contract was traded.”
“Indeed, the exchange has registered a mere 257 contracts that commit a buyer to deliver a specified amount of carbon-dioxide emission credits in either January, 2011, or September, 2011, the only two delivery dates traded so far.
“Chicago’s voluntary market was a pioneer, but the delays in regulation and the recession have undermined it. In mid-2008 – when both Republican and Democratic presidential nominees were backing cap-and-trade – the price for credits topped $7 (U.S.) per tonne of CO{-2} emissions. They’ve since fallen to 15 cents.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/emissions-trading-market-at-a-standstill/article1400137/
Always follow the money!

Someone needs to write about this with sources:
There are four data sets: CRU, NASA, NOAA, and University of Alabama. CRU is heavily compromised and NASA is being sued for the same data manipulation. Only NOAA and UA are ‘free of controversy.’ And the UA data shows ‘no statistically significant warming.’ And please don’t miss the point that each of the individuals in charge of three data sets are government appointees (with the exception of UA).