Global Warming: 'Fixing the Climate Data Around the Policy'

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently
by Michel Chossudovsky: Obama
and the Nobel Prize: WhenWar Becomes Peace, When the Lie Becomes
theTruth

More than
15,000 people will be gathering in Copenhagen for COP 15: the 15th
Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).

Official
delegations from 192 nations will mingle with the representatives
of major multinational corporations, including Royal Dutch Shell,
British Petroleum, The representatives of environmental and civil
society organizations will also be in attendance. Parties
& Observers

Heads of
state and heads of government are slated to be in appearance in
the later part of the Summit event. (See
The essentials
in Copenhagen – COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference
Copenhagen 2009
.)

It is worth
noting that key decisions and orientations on COP15 had already
been wrapped up at the World Business Summit on Climate Change
(WBSCC)
held in May in Copenhagen, six months ahead of COP15.

The WBSCC brought
together some of the World’s most prominent business executives
and World leaders including Al Gore and UN Secretary General Ban
Ki Moon. (The
World Business Summit on Climate Change
, includes webcast.)

The results
of these high level consultations were forwarded to the Danish government
as well as to the governments of participating member states. A
so-called summary report for policymakers was drafted by PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, on behalf the corporate executives participating in the event.
This report has very little to do with environmental protection.
It largely consists in a profit-driven agenda, which uses the global-warming
consensus as a justification. (For details see Climate
Council: The World Business Summit on Climate Change.
)

"The
underlying ambition of the Summit was to address the twin challenges
of climate change and the economic crisis. Participants at the
Summit considered how these risks can be turned into opportunity
if business and governments work together, and what policies,
incentives, and investments will most effectively stimulate low-carbon
growth." (Copenhagen
Climate Council
)

The agenda
of the Copenhagen Climate Summit (7–18 December 2009), is upheld
both by the governments, the business executives and the NGO community
as "one of the most significant gatherings in history. It
is being called the most complex and vital agreement the world has
ever seen."

CO2 emissions
are heralded as the single and most important threat to the future
of humanity.

The focus of
the Summit is on strictly environmental issues. No mention of the
word "war" – i.e. the US-NATO led war and its devastating
environmental consequences.

No mention
of the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of "peacemaking."

No mention,
as part of an environmental debate, of the radioactive fallout resulting
from the Pentagon’s humanitarian nuclear bombs. Tactical nuclear
weapons, according to scientific opinion commissioned by the Pentagon
are "safe for the surrounding civilian population."

No mention
of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification
techniques" (ENMOD) and climatic warfare.

No mention
in the debate on climate change of the US Air Force 2025 project
entitled "Owning the Weather" for military use. (See FAS,
AF2025
v3c15-1 | Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning… | (Ch 1)

see also SPACE.com
– U.S. Military Wants to Own the Weather
)

Despite a vast
body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations
for military use is no longer part of the UN agenda on climate change.
It was, however, part of the agenda of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
(See Michel Chossudovsky, Environmental
Warfare and Climate Change
, Global Research, 27 November 2005.
See also Michel Chossudovsky, Weather
Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic
warfare
, The Ecologist, December 2007.)

CO2 is the
logo, which describes the Worldwide crisis. No other variable is
contemplated.

Moreover, no
meaningful anti-pollution clean air policy directed against CO2
emissions can be formulated as an objective in its own right,
because the reduction of CO2 emissions is subordinate to the Global
Warming consensus.

The words "poverty,"
"unemployment" and "disease" resulting from
a global economic depression are not a matter of emphasis because
authoritative financial sources state unequivocally: "the economic
recession is over."

And the war
in the Middle East and Central Asia is not a war but "a humanitarian
operation directed against terrorists and rogue states."

The Real
Crisis

The Copenhagen
Summit not only serves powerful corporate interests, which have
a stake in the global multibillion-dollar carbon-trading scheme,
it also serves to divert public attention from the devastation resulting
from the "real crisis" underlying the process of economic
globalization and a profit-driven war without borders, which the
Pentagon calls "the long war."

We are at the
crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. War and
economic depression constitute the real crisis, yet both the governments
and the media have focused their attention on the environmental
devastation resulting from CO2 emissions, which is upheld as the
greatest threat to humanity.

The Multibillion-Dollar
carbon-trading System

The carbon-trading system is a multibillion money-making bonanza for the financial
establishment. The stakes are extremely high and the various lobby
groups on behalf of Wall Street have already positioned themselves.

According to
a recent report, "the carbon market could become double
the size of the vast oil market
, according to the new breed
of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU’s
emissions trading scheme… The speed of that growth will depend
on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon
economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS
will expand around the globe." (Terry Macalister, Carbon
trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade, The
Guardian
, 28 November 2009)

The large financial
conglomerates, involved in derivative trade, including JP Morgan
Chase, Bank America Merrill Lynch, Barclay’s, Citi Bank, Nomura,
Société Générale, Morgan Stanley and
Goldman Sachs are actively involved in carbon trading. (FACTBOX:
Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters,
14 September 2009)

The legitimacy
of the carbon-trading system rests on the legitimacy of the Global-Warming
Consensus, which views CO2 emissions as the single threat to the
environment. And for Wall Street the carbon-trading system is a
convenient and secure money-making safety-net, allowing for the
transfer of billions of dollars into the pockets of a handful of
conglomerates.

"Every
major financial house in New York and London has set up carbon-trading
operations. Very big numbers are dancing in their heads, and they
need them to replace the "wealth" that evaporated in
the housing bust. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets
at Barclays Capital, told the New York Times, "Carbon will
be the world’s biggest market over all." Barclays thinks
the current $60 billion carbon market could grow to $1 trillion
within a decade. Four years ago Redshaw, a former electricity
trader, couldn’t get anyone to talk to him about carbon."
(Mark Braly, The
Multibillion-Dollar Carbon Trading
, RenewableEnergyWorld.com,
5 March 2008)

The Global
Warming Data Base

Is the Global-Warming
Consensus based on reliable data?

There are indications
that both the concepts and the data on temperature and greenhouse
gas emissions including CO2 have been adjusted and shaped to fit
the agenda of the UN Panel on Climate Change.

For several
years, the claims of the UN Panel on Climate Change (UNPCC) including
the data base have been questioned. (See Global
Research’s Climate Change Dossier: Archive of more than 100 articles
)

Critical analysis
of the climate change consensus has been conveyed in reports by
several prominent scientists.

There has been,
in this regard, a persistent attempt to silence the critics as conveyed
in the writings of MIT meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen. (See Richard
Lindzen, Climate
of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists
into silence, Global Research
, 7 April 2007)

Scientists
who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear,
their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges,
scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change
gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that
supposedly is their basis. (Ibid)

ClimateGate
and the Emails’ Scandal

In November
2009, barely a few weeks before the inauguration of the Copenhagen
Summit, a vast data bank of over 3000 email exchanges between key
Climate Change scientists and researchers was revealed.

While the emails
do not prove that the entire data base was falsified, they nonetheless
point to scientific dishonesty and deceit on the part of several
prominent scientists who are directly linked to the UNPCC.

The emails
suggest that the data was shaped, with a view to supporting a predetermined
policy agenda. "Fixing the climate data to fit the policy"
is the modus operandi as revealed in the email messages of top scientists,
directly linked to the work of the UN Panel on Climate Change?

The British
media has acknowledged that the scientists were intent upon manipulating
the data on Climate Change as well as excluding the critics:

[the comments
below the quotes are by The Telegraph].

From:
Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal]
trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last
20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to
hide the decline."

Critics
cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact
that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning
of "trick" has been misinterpreted.

From
Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July
8, 2004

"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC
report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if
we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The IPCC
is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists
did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that
global warming is genuine and man-made.

From:
Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research).
To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The
fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is
inadequate"

Prof Trenberth
appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics –
that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the
past 10 years.

From:
Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having
nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.”

Prof Jones
appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate
Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying
climate change.

From
Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re
AR4? Keith will do likewise."

Climate
change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain
raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The
scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to
be made public.

From:
Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh).
Date: Aug 10, 2004

"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms
from the idiots in the near future."

The scientists
make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics
who request more information about their work.

(University
of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes – Telegraph
,
23 November 2009).

The complete
list of contentious emails can be consulted at Alleged
CRU Emails – Searchable
published by eastangliaemails.com.

What is significant
is that the authors of the emails are directly involved in the UN
Panel on Climate Change:

"[They
are] the small group of scientists who have for years been more
influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than
any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of
the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor
Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets
of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link
to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most
of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature
record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data
on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their
predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless
trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is
also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British
scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures
conveyed by Michael Mann’s "hockey stick" graph which
10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that,
after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently
shot up to their highest level in recorded history. (Prof. Christopher
Booker, Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of
our Generation, The Telegraph, 28 November 2009)

One of the
contentious emails by Dr Jones (published by eastangliaemails.com)
points to the deliberate manipulation of the data:

Dear Ray,
Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today
or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd
from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH
land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for
1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999
with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil
Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Source: Alleged
CRU Emails – Searchable
published by eastangliaemails.com

US Congressional
Probe

Barely two
weeks before the inauguration of the Copenhagen Summit, the US Congress
is now probing into "the Global Warming Emails":

"U.S.
congress has begun investigating climate scientists whose emails
and documents were hacked into to see if their global warming
theories have misrepresented the truth behind the cause of climate
change.

Investigators
have begun "studying" the 1,079 e-mails and over 3,800
documents that hackers stole last week from the Climate Research
Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in the U.K., Rep. Darrel
Issa from California told the Wall Street Journal.

Some of
the leaked e-mails and files – which were posted on sites
like www.Wikileaks.org and
www.EastAngliaEmails.com
– show growing tensions between scientists and skeptics.
Others are mundane announcements of upcoming conferences or research
trips.

According
to his website, Rep. James Inhofe from Oklahoma said on Monday
the leaked correspondence suggested researchers "cooked the
science to make this thing look as if the science was settled,
when all the time of course we knew it was not."

The White
House Science Adviser John Holdren has also come under investigation,
after one of his emails written in 2003 to Michael Mann of Pennsylvania
State University, was hacked.

"I’m
happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange. I think anybody
who reads what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious
and balanced treatment of the question of ‘burden of proof’ in
situations where science germane to public policy is in dispute,"
Holdren said.

Meanwhile,
The University of East Anglia said it will cooperate with police
and proceed with its own internal investigation. The University
posted a statement calling the disclosure "mischievous"
and saying it is aiding the police in an investigation.

The statement
also quotes Jones, CRU’s director, explaining his November 1999
e-mail, which said: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick
of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years
(i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the
decline."

Jones said
that the word trick was used "colloquially as in a clever
thing to do" and that it "is ludicrous to suggest that
it refers to anything untoward."

The leaked
data comes just two weeks before the U.N. climate conference in
Copenhagen will begin on Dec. 7–18, when 192 nations will
meet to discuss a solution on how to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. (International
Business Times
, November 24, 2009)

Meanwhile,
the "international community" (supported by the mainstream
media) has launched a counteroffensive, accusing the critics of
waging a smear campaign:

The chairman
of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, stood by his panel’s 2007
findings last week. That study is the foundation for a global
climate response, including carbon emission targets proposed this
week by both the US and China.

So far,
climate scientists say nothing in the leaked emails [that] takes
away from the fact that the climate change evidence is solid.
In fact, a new study in the journal Science shows the polar ice
cap melting is happening at a faster rate than predicted just
a few years ago.

In a teleconference
call with reporters this week, one of the scientists whose emails
were leaked, Pennsylvania State University paleoclimatologist
Michael Mann, said that “regardless of how cherry-picked”
the emails are, there is “absolutely nothing in any of
the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus
of climate change.”

This is
a “smear campaign to distract the public,” added Mann,
a coauthor of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, the report on climate
change released this week ahead of the Copenhagen. “Those
opposed to climate action, simply don’t have the science
on their side,” he added.

Professor
Trevor Davies of the East Anglia CRU called the stolen data the
latest example of a campaign intended “to distract from reasoned
debate” about global climate change ahead of the Copenhagen
summit. (As
Copenhagen summit nears, ‘Climategate’ dogs global warming
debate | csmonitor.com, Christian Science Monitor
,
28 November 2009, emphasis added)

But what is
significant in this counteroffensive, is that the authenticity of
the emails has not been challenged by the IPCC scientists.

The scientists
are not saying "we did not do it." What they are saying
is that the Global Warming Consensus holds irrespective of their
actions to selectively manipulate the data as well as exclude the
critics from the scientific debate on climate change.

What Is
the Stance of the Civil Society and Environmentalist Organizations?

Civil society
organizations are currently mobilizing with a view to pressuring
the official governmental delegations:

"Two
years ago, at a previous UN climate conference in Bali, all UN
governments agreed on a timetable that would ensure a strong climate
deal by the time of the Copenhagen conference. The implications
of not achieving this goal are massive, and nearly unthinkable.
Turn to our great partners film – the Age of Stupid –
if you need to be convinced why.

The meeting
– which should include major heads of state for the last
three days, will attempt to reach a massively complex agreement
on cutting carbon, providing finance for mitigation and adaptation,
and supporting technology transfer from the North to the South.

This is
a major milestone in history, and one where civil society must
speak with one voice in calling for a fair, ambitious and binding
deal. We are ready, but we need to let the leaders know the world
is ready too. Are you? (COP-15
Copenhagen Climate Conference | TckTckTck
)

Where do civil
society activists stand in relation to the climate change email
scandal?

Will these
civil society organizations, many of which are funded by major foundations
and governments, continue to unreservedly endorse the Global Warming
consensus?

The World Wildlife
Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace are among several key civil society organizations
which are pushing the Copenhagen agenda. Their position is unchanged.

Environmentalist
organizations are demanding a reduction in CO2 emissions, not as
a means to tackling pollution, but as an instrument to reverse the
process of global warming. For many of these organizations, the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the "bible."
It cannot be challenged even if the climate data base which supports
the Global Warming Consensus turns out to be questionable or contentious.

While the mainstream
NGO lobby groups including Greenpeace and WWF continue to support
the consensus, there is a small and growing movement which challenges
the legitimacy of the Copenhagen CO15 Summit agenda, while also
accusing the UNPCC of manipulating the data. This manipulation of
the data also serves the profit-driven carbon-trading scheme.

The Alternative
Summit: KlimaForum09

The NGOs will
be meeting in a parallel alternative summit, KlimaForum09. More
than 10,000 people a day are expected to attend the sessions of
KlimatForum09

Major international
NGOs and environmentalist groups will be in attendance including
Friends of the Earth, Campaign against Climate Change among others.

Klimaforum09
is to finalize a draft declaration which "will put forth a
vision of a more socially just world society, [while] emphasizing
the need to create substantial changes in the social and economic
structures of society in order to meet the challenges of global
warming and food sovereignty." (See Declaration
· Klimaforum09
)

While there
is fierce opposition to the multibillion carbon-trading system within
the NGO community, the Alternative Summit will not challenge the
Global Warming consensus and its underlying data base. (All
events · Klimaforum09
).

While critical
and active voices will emerge from within the various sessions of
the Alternative Forum, the organizational envelope of KlimaForum09
remains compliant to the official agenda. In many regards, the rhetoric
of the KlimaForum09′s Danish organizers ties in with that of the
host government of the official Summit, which coincidentally also
funds the Alternative Summit. (Political
Platform · Klimaforum09"
). What this means is that
the boundaries of dissent within the Alternative Summit have been
carefully defined.

There can be
no real activism unless the falsehoods and manipulations underlying
the activities of the UNPCC, including the data base and the multibillion
profit-driven carbon-trading scheme, are fully revealed, debated
and understood.

This article
originally appeared on GlobalResearch.ca.

December
8, 2009

Michel Chossudovsky
is the publisher of GlobalResearch.ca.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare