PDA

View Full Version : Book Review - Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam




FrankRep
09-17-2010, 07:11 AM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/Review_9-2009/2619-climategate.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935071831?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1935071831)
Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935071831?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1935071831)




Climategate is a veritable bible arming readers with information they need to refute the claims of environmentalists that humans can adversely influence climate. by Rebecca Terrell


A Global-Warming Primer (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/4606-a-global-warming-primer)


Rebecca Terrell | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
17 September 2010


Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935071831?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1935071831), by Brian Sussman, Washington, D.C.: World Net Daily, 2010, 224 pages, hardcover.

Gideons International should obtain rights to this title and place a copy in every hotel room in the United States. It is a veritable bible arming readers with information they need to refute the claims of environmentalists that humans can adversely influence climate.

Americans need to understand this issue, because devastating public policy is being crafted based on faulty science cooked up by those who stand to make a lot of money off the hoax.

Readers of The New American in San Francisco will recognize the author, Brian Sussman. He is an award-winning science reporter and meteorologist and hosts a top-rated talk radio program in the Bay area. He has more than 20 years’ experience in climate science and is dedicated to refuting the claims of those who promote the idea of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW).

As the title indicates, Sussman’s book tells the story of Climategate, the incident of November 2009 in which hackers pirated hundreds of e-mails from a British university. The correspondence revealed that top UN climate scientists from around the world had for more than a decade been fraudulently reporting data to favor their alarmist climate agenda.

Science

However, Sussman’s book does not stop there. In fact, he began writing it more than two years ago. As he was wrapping up the final version, Climategate broke, and he redrafted the entire work, incorporating important highlights of the scandal along with background information about the perpetrators. Evidence from these e-mails significantly reinforces many of the points Sussman makes in his exposé of fabricated climate science.

For example, he gives a brief explanation of the cyclical nature of climate, citing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) when global temperatures were considerably higher than those of the present day, and the subsequent Little Ice Age (LIA), during which once-fertile Greenland became buried under ice. He shows how proof of global climate fluctuations is based on physical evidence and historical observations. More importantly, he reveals — from both personal experience and Climategate e-mails — a concerted media coverup of the truth.

There are many other climate myths that Sussman debunks in his page-turning book. For example, it is a common media-inspired misconception that the United States is withering under its hottest weather in history. Sussman reports on the shockingly large number of official U.S. weather monitoring stations compromised by increasing urbanization in their immediate vicinities. The results of these and other setting violations are false recordings significantly higher than actual surface temperatures. Additionally, he shows that corrected official temperature records rank the 1930s as the hottest decade in the last century and reveal a net cooling since that time despite increased consumption of fossil fuels during the same period.

Next, Sussman zeros in on the main object of climate-change propaganda: carbon dioxide. Hardly a pollutant, CO2 is a vital component of the Earth’s atmosphere yet makes up only 0.038 percent of it. Of that scant amount, human activity accounts for 3 percent of the atmospheric CO2 — or little more than one thousandth of a percent of the atmosphere! Even if doubled, the amount would be infinitesimal.

Economics and Public Policy

Sussman’s book encompasses more than science, because his purpose in writing is not merely to refute errors. The climate debate would not exist if unscrupulous politicians did not intend to use the concocted data to enact public policies set to cripple developed nations’ economies and force consumers back to archaic levels of energy consumption. “Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life,” said Dr. Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in 2007.

His words have already played out in real life. In December, Ed Hiserodt reported for The New American, “Last January the government of Chad outlawed charcoal because of its emissions of CO2. This caused a riot in the streets by women whose only method of cooking for their families was being taken from them to pacify the environmental extremists. Their plea was, ‘Kill us now. That is better than starving to death.’”

Sussman warns his readers that eco-fanatics have the same thing in mind for the United States. New technologies with chillingly Orwellian potential are already in use that will allow government authorities to monitor home appliances and control them remotely. For example, updated building codes now mandate the use of Programmable Communicating Thermostats (PCT), which “allow the utility to change settings on the thermostat based on load or other factors.” Meanwhile, companies such as GE, Google, Microsoft, and IBM stand to make fortunes on the development of such technology. Hardly surprising is Al Gore’s stake in many of these eco-mercenaries. Equally damning is Barack Obama’s interest in the Chicago Climate Exchange, a commodity market poised “to become the designated carbon trading depot” if the President’s dreams of carbon-taxing cap-and-trade become reality.

Almost Perfect

There are only two issues Sussman raised that deserve a more complete explanation.* They involve his discussion of alternatives to fossil fuel energy sources. Chapter Nine is devoted to analyzing the pros and cons of several, including wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear. In addressing wind power, Sussman states, “I’m not denying the validity of wind power — those turbines really do spin out energy.” He goes on to explain how unreliable and dangerous wind turbines are, which is true. But the energy they “spin out” is totally unsuitable for powering an industrial economy and must always be backed up with some reliable form of generation that always must be kept running because wind is intermittent and can stop at any time.

Additionally, Sussman devotes only two pages to nuclear power. Though he defends it against undeserved alarmism continuing ad nauseam since the 1979 Three Mile Island incident, he omits the vital point that nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and by far most efficient and readily available answer to the so-called “energy crisis.” There is nothing wrong with fossil fuels, but nuclear is unquestionably superior and should be the main source of power generation in the United States and around the world. Considering spent fuel reprocessing potential, current reserves are sufficient for millennia, which gives a completely new twist to the term “renewables.” The “energy crisis” is perpetrated by government policies that shackle nuclear while funneling taxpayer money to inefficient and wasteful wind, solar, and other misnamed renewable energy sources.

Despite these points, Climategate deserves high praise and is a must-read for every patriotic American interested in saving his country from assassins masquerading as eco-do-gooders. Sussman closes his book with a prayer all should willingly echo: “May God give us the grace to do what is right.” Amen.



* There is actually a third issue Sussman discussed, which is beside the point of this article but nonetheless needs correcting. In Chapter Seven he compares the persecution of AGW deniers to the Catholic Church’s treatment of scientists throughout the centuries. This is a very poor analogy. For example, Sussman says that the Catholic Church persecuted those who defied the theory of geocentrism — the belief that the Earth is the center of the universe — prior to the revelations of Nicolas Copernicus, who had to work in secret for fear of church authorities. On the contrary, Copernicus, a Polish canon of Frauenburg Cathedral, based his heliocentric findings on a theory originally proposed by Aristarchus of Samos, a Greek scientist of the third century B.C. It was the Catholic Church’s reverence for science that kept the findings of Aristarchus alive and made them available more than 1,700 years later to Copernicus, whose research provided the basis for the Gregorian calendar. Moreover, as a devoted churchman, he neither could nor would have conducted his research without permission from his superiors. To claim otherwise is to do his memory great injustice. Sussman’s other examples, including ones on Giordano Bruno and Galileo, are equally flawed.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/4606-a-global-warming-primer

reillym
10-01-2010, 11:24 AM
Every single scientific organization in the world supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Unless every single scientific organization is colluding together, this book is a fraud. Let's try to think which one is more likely.

Travlyr
10-01-2010, 12:48 PM
Every single scientific organization in the world supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Unless every single scientific organization is colluding together, this book is a fraud. Let's try to think which one is more likely.

Well then this is kinda troubling for the scientific community... :o

All the money and research ... they still don't know?
Which is it?

Global Warming (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)
Global Cooling (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783)

Climate Change (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/) - Which is what the Earth has ALWAYS had and ALWAYS needs. Nothing new here. Doesn't take a lot of research to figure that out.

The scientific organizations are either colluding or inept. Which is more likely?
Or are they waiting to hear from meteorologists to tell them?

teacherone
10-01-2010, 12:56 PM
Every single scientific organization in the world supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Unless every single scientific organization is colluding together, this book is a fraud. Let's try to think which one is more likely.

yeah and EVERYONE believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

and NO ONE could have ever predicted the housing bubble burst...


lol... these types of ridiculous one liners piss me off. .what a crock

reillym
10-01-2010, 08:47 PM
yeah and EVERYONE believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

and NO ONE could have ever predicted the housing bubble burst...


lol... these types of ridiculous one liners piss me off. .what a crock

Everyone? Um, maybe republicans. Educated people, though, did not.

reillym
10-01-2010, 08:49 PM
Well then this is kinda troubling for the scientific community... :o

All the money and research ... they still don't know?
Which is it?

Global Warming (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)
Global Cooling (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783)

Climate Change (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/) - Which is what the Earth has ALWAYS had and ALWAYS needs. Nothing new here. Doesn't take a lot of research to figure that out.

The scientific organizations are either colluding or inept. Which is more likely?
Or are they waiting to hear from meteorologists to tell them?

Science works by facts. If there's something wrong with the theory, it would be found. That's how science works. Simple as that. Until the theory is disproven, and denier is just peddling the arguments of big business.

agitator
10-01-2010, 09:20 PM
You guys don't ignore reillym by now? Lol

phill4paul
10-01-2010, 09:40 PM
Parrot says a meteorologist does not a climatologist make.

torchbearer
10-01-2010, 09:42 PM
Parrot says a meteorologist does not a climatologist make.

most of the "climatoligist" at the U.N aren't climatologist either. yet, its seems some people worship at their alter of world truth.
thinking for yourself is dangerous. go back to sleep. the matrix is real.

reillym
10-01-2010, 09:46 PM
most of the "climatoligist" at the U.N aren't climatologist either. yet, its seems some people worship at their alter of world truth.
thinking for yourself is dangerous. go back to sleep. the matrix is real.

That may be true.

But then what about the thousands and thousands of non-UN scientists? Are they all colluding to steal our money and push a leftist green agenda that forces us to buy hybrids?

Really, people? You believe this?

phill4paul
10-01-2010, 10:04 PM
most of the "climatoligist" at the U.N aren't climatologist either. yet, its seems some people worship at their alter of world truth.
thinking for yourself is dangerous. go back to sleep. the matrix is real.

Parrot says "thinking is dangerous, go to sleep, matrix is real.":D

teacherone
10-02-2010, 02:18 AM
Everyone? Um, maybe republicans. Educated people, though, did not.

you're pretty slow aren't you....

torchbearer
10-02-2010, 08:43 AM
That may be true.

But then what about the thousands and thousands of non-UN scientists? Are they all colluding to steal our money and push a leftist green agenda that forces us to buy hybrids?

Really, people? You believe this?

I believe that any scientist that came out against the theory was crushed by the big associations, lost their jobs, lost their renown. so most scientist just went with the program in order to keep their job and status.

reillym
10-02-2010, 01:32 PM
you're pretty slow aren't you....

Every single scientific organization in the supports AGW.

You still lose, no matter what personal attacks you throw at me.

reillym
10-02-2010, 01:33 PM
I believe that any scientist that came out against the theory was crushed by the big associations, lost their jobs, lost their renown. so most scientist just went with the program in order to keep their job and status.

Science doesn't work that way. Even scientists working for oil companies support it. A world wide cover up would be impossible. We have the internet know. If any reputable evidence is out there that refutes AGW, we would see it.

torchbearer
10-02-2010, 05:37 PM
Science doesn't work that way. Even scientists working for oil companies support it. A world wide cover up would be impossible. We have the internet know. If any reputable evidence is out there that refutes AGW, we would see it.

do you know what they do to scientist who challenge your divine belief?
(see this thread for example)

torchbearer
10-02-2010, 05:42 PM
Here is how your science works:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese


Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.


Link to this audio Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-*Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up".

The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.

It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.

The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 – and UEA having been criticised last week by the deputy information commissioner for refusing valid requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Guardian has learned that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Jones headed up to the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

The temperature data from the Chinese weather stations measured the warming there over the past half century and appeared in a 1990 paper in the prestigious journal Nature, which was cited by the IPCC's latest report in 2007.

Climate change sceptics asked the UEA, via FOI requests, for location data for the 84 weather stations in eastern China, half of which were urban and half rural.

The history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang's 1990 study, as it concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of global climate changes rather the warming effects of expanding cities.

The IPCC's 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that "any urban-related trend" in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two "coordinating lead authors" for the relevant chapter.

The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang's work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. "Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?" he asked Jones. He continued: "Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?"

Jones said he was not able to comment on the story.

Wang said: "I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more.

"Some of the location changes were probably only a few metres, and where they were more we corrected for them."

In an interview with the Observer on Sunday Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, warned of the danger of a public backlash against mainstream climate science over claims that scientists manipulated data. He declared a "battle" against the "siren voices" who denied global warming was real or caused by humans. "It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there," he said.

Last week the Information Commissioner's Office – the body that administers the Freedom of Information Act – said the University of East Anglia had flouted the rules in its handling of an FOI request in May 2008.

Days after receiving the request for information from the British climate change sceptic David Holland, Jones asked Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the United States: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.

"Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann, also from Boulder] to do the same."

The University of East Anglia says that no emails were deleted following this exchange.

reillym
10-02-2010, 07:12 PM
Here is how your science works:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

Every single scientific organization in the world supports AGW. Saying there is a massive coverup is just silly.

kojirodensetsu
10-06-2010, 07:15 PM
If CO2 caused out-of-control global change then the earth would have become uninhabitable hundreds of millions of years ago. Also, CO2 increases AFTER the globe warms, not before. This is a fact that most people seem to ignore. Even on the chart Al Gore has shows that the earth warms before CO2 rises.

torchbearer
10-06-2010, 07:59 PM
for the rtard who believes in the u.n. reports:
YouTube - Cloud Streaks & Ship Tracks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M01aHw_mToc)

pollution causing global cooling?
the ships sulfate exhaust creates a brighter cloud which reflects more light back into space cooling the earth.
we could terraform the earth into a cooler planet with legions of ships traveling the oceans.

Dr.3D
10-06-2010, 08:11 PM
The climate changes every year. Sometimes it 90 degrees outside and other times it's below zero, at least around were I live. The only way they are going to stop climate change is to remove the tilt of the Earth's axis so we don't have seasons anymore. Of course that would really mess things up. Perhaps it's best to just let nature take it's course.

FrankRep
11-07-2010, 03:30 PM
bump