“Great green tax” opponent elected Opposition Leader in Australia

Tony Abbott, who challenged Australian Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull for the latter’s support of cap-and-trade (called the “great green tax” by Andrew Bolt), defeated Turnbull by one vote in caucus to become the new Opposition Leader of Australia (see Bolt’s link).

This means that unless the governing Labor Party can force seven Liberals in the Senate to “cross the floor,” the Aussie cap-and-trade won’t pass – and it may just force an election Down Under.

Bolt is one of the very few journalists who has noticed Climategate’s role in all of this – which is why I suspect the Aussie elite could be in for a shock if this ever goes to the voters.

Stay tuned.

It’s getting harder to keep up with this

The scientific and academic communities (the real ones, not the political hothouses) are coming to grips with the reality of Climategate.

Eduardo Zorita – hardly a skeptic on “global warming” – has called for his tainted fellows to be banned from future input, knowing full well the consequences of his call (via Daily Telegraph, UK):

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.

Meanwhile, Professor Michael Mann (he of the “Nature Trick”) is under investigation from his own university – Penn State (Climate Change Examiner).  This could be the worst thing to hit Happy Valley since the 1994 national championship freeze-out.

Of course, the political left is still pretending this doesn’t exist.  Check out the “heated debate” among “experts” in the Guardian, led by none other than James Hansen.  As of this morning, the number of times Climategate is mentioned stands at zero (h/t Greg Pollowitz at Planet Gore).  You’d think someone would at least talk to George Monbiot about it – or did he blackball himself already?

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

Latest Climategate update

Well now, it appears Climategate has circled the world, and is now showing up on multiple fronts.

In London, some are wondering why the BBC sat on the “emails” (and the computer codes, and the Harry-Read-Me file) for over a month (Daily Mail, UK).

Speaking of the Harry-Read-Me file (about which I’ll admit to being lax in mentioning, as it just seemed too good to be true – but we’re more than a week in and it remains unrefuted), Lorrie Goldstein (Toronto Sun) has the best synopsis this side of Kate McMillan.  Of course, Kate reminds us (again) why there is no one compared to her on this.

Missing in action is . . . American MSM!  The folks at Planet Gore have the details on the part-blackout, part-whitewash (the first link is particularly instructive regarding the New York Times).

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

ClimateGate HQ admits to throwing away data

This is absolutely mind-blowing (The Sunday Times of London):

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Please forgive my language, but how f**king convenient.

The response of Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, says it all: “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science.”

No wonder the alarmists resorted to intimidation and data-fudging; in this case, the emperor knew he had no clothes!

h/t to – whom else? - Kate at SDA 

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

Will ClimateGate bring down Australia’s government?

Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun (Australia) has some of the details behind ClimateGate’s political earthquake Down Under.

The left-wing Labor Government has been trying to get a cap-and-trade deal passed before the Copenhagen fiasco, but it was running into trouble in the Australian Senate (unlike Britain or Canada, but like Japan, Australia elects its upper house, and thus it can make for some tough sledding on occasions like these).  So, after a few phone calls and various Landreu-like deals, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull rode to Labor’s rescue earlier this week and agreed to support the scheme (The Australian – but there’s a lot of bias to wade through).

Of course, this was all happening while ClimateGate spread its wings.  When it hit Australia, Turnbull quickly lost control of his own Liberal Party (outside North America, “liberal” tends to be a center-right term).  Nearly a dozen high-profile Liberals have resigned their party posts, and one of them (see the Bolt links) is openly challenging Turnbull for party leadership.

Moreover, as Kate as SDA and the Australian notes (see above link), should the Senate refuse to pass the cap-and-trade scheme, elections in both houses are mandated by law.  In other words, ClimateGate may – stress, may – take out Australia’s entire political elite in one fell swoop.

The Decline – Exposed!

Steve McIntyre manages to undo “Mike’s Nature Trick” and reveals the decline that Phil Jones et al tried so hard to remain hidden (re-scraped from Watts Up with That via SDA):

For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here.

Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true. The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001, though pre-calibration values were archived in a different NCDC file here. While the decline was shown in Briffa et al 1998 and Briffa 2000, it was not shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.) For now, here is a graphic showing the deleted data in red. A retrieval script follows.

Figure 1. Two versions of Briffa MXD reconstruction, showing archived and climategate versions.

The relevant IPCC 2001 graph, shown below, clearly does not show the decline in the Briffa MXD reconstruction. Contrary to Gavin Schmidt’s claim that the decline is “hidden in plain sight”, the inconvenient data has simply been deleted. The reason, as explained on Sep 22, 1999 by Michael Mann to coauthors in 938018124.txt, was to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”. Reasonable people might well disagree with Gavin Schmidt as to whether this is a “a good way to deal with a problem” or simply a trick.

Figure 2. IPCC 2001 Fig 2.21 showing Briffa, Jones and Mann reconstructions together with HadCRU temperature.

It reminds me of the warning given to all of us by the great economist Ronald Coase: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess.”

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

ClimateGate crosses the Pacific

Courtesy of Kate at SDA, a stunner from Andrew Bolt of the Australian Herald Sun.  Both New Zealand and Australian temperature data were “adjusted” – and in both cases, the adjustment was downward for the distant past and upward for the recent past: creating a warming trend that never really existed.

I particularly like this part (emphasis added):

Those adjustments were made by New Zealand climate scientist Jim Salinger, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who started work on the series when he was with the University of East Anglia, the centre of the Climategate scandal.

Why amd I not surprised?

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

EPA CO2 comment deadline for cars and light trucks fast approaching – get your comments in now

While you are enjoying your Thanksgiving, do take the time to act upon this.

Daniel Simmons writes:

Great work with Watts Up With That (RWL Note: WUWT is where I first found this – here) on the CRU email scandal. Hopefully this scandal will lead to increased openness in climate science.

With all of the noise about those emails I wanted to bring your attention to an EPA comment period that closes this Friday. As you previously covered on Watts Up With That, EPA is working on declaring that CO2 and GHGs greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare under the Clean Air Act.

That endangerment finding is the first step to regulating GHGs and the second is to develop the actual regulations to regulate GHGs for cars and light trucks. On Friday, the comment period for EPA’s proposed regulations on cars and light trucks closes. It would be very helpful to push back on the proposed endangerment finding by pushing back on the proposed regulations on cars and light trucks and sending EPA as many comments as possible on the proposed GHG regulations for cars.

We want to make sure as many people as possible know about this proposed rule and generate as many comments as possible. To facilitate people sending comments to EPA on the proposed rule, we put up a page that contains a model comment to send to EPA.  The model comment is completely modifiable (RWL Note: I myself sent a heavily modified version – see below).

Also, here is EPA’s Proposed Rule: and a direct link to the Docket to submit comments to EPA is here:

People can also send email on this rule directly to EPA at a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.

It would be very helpful if you would let your readers know about this comment period. Because of Thanksgiving and the cap-and-trade bills, this proposed rule hasn’t gotten very much attention and yet it relies on the same science as EPA’s other regulations and will help trigger a regulatory cascade of EPA inserting itself into many areas of life because those activities emit GHGs.

Here’s more background: To address climate change (and relying on the standards sources of climate science–the IPCC, NCDC, GISS, etc.) EPA is proposing to use the Clean Air Act to require 35 mpg fleetwide fuel economy standards by 2016—four years faster than Congress’ plan in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Not only will this rule drive up car and truck prices and limit consumer choice, it will start a regulatory cascade with EPA regulating GHGs using a number of sections of the Clean Air Act.

But EPA’s data show that the rule is all cost and no benefit. According to EPA, the proposed rule will increase car and truck prices an average $1,100. (74 Fed. Reg. 49460) As a result of less CO2 in the air, the rule will lead to decrease in global mean temperature by 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius (0.016°C) in 2100 and a decrease in mean sea level rise by 1.5 mm. (74 Fed. Reg. 49589) That’s not a joke—that’s what the rule says. Obviously 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius, 90 years down the road will not affect the climate in any way.

It would be bad enough if the rule only imposed exorbitant costs and with no benefits. But this will start the regulatory cascade that many of us have written about. To finalize this rule, EPA would also finalize their “endangerment finding” (in other words, EPA would find that GHGs from motor vehicles harm public health and welfare). CO2 and GHGs will become subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards, New Sour Performance Standards, Hazardous Air Quality Standards, among other regulatory schemes.

If EPA makes an endangerment finding for GHGs, that action would make two permitting programs apply to GHGs—prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V. PSD applies to stationary sources which emit more than 250 tons a year and Title V applies to stationary sources which emit 250 tons per year. According to EPA, this would force as many as 6 million buildings (school, churches, hospitals, office buildings, farms, etc.) to comply with the Clean Air Act’s permitting provisions. To try to address this problem, EPA has proposed a “tailoring rule.” The point of the tailoring rule is that 250 tons per year of emissions can be read to mean 25,000 tons per year. Again, that’s not a joke.

I know, I know, we’re two days out, and Thanksgiving is one of those days, but it took me less than five minutes to hit the IFE’s page and put together my “model” – which, for anyone who wants it, is as follows:

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

RE: Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not justified in regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Not only will these regulations will only increase the cost of our cars, harm our economy, and limit our transportation options, but they are also based on a scientific theory (man-made global warming) that has come into serious question with the release of the East Anglia University files.  We need efficient, affordable transportation to rebuild our economy and create American jobs, not regulations derived from questionable theories.

According to the proposed regulations, EPA wants to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks, “because of the critical need to address global climate change.” (74 Fed. Reg. 49454).This regulation does not achieve EPA’s stated goal because, according to EPA data, it does not reduce global warming or sea level rise in a meaningful way. The regulation states that the carbon dioxide reductions “are projected to reduce global mean temperature by approximately 0.007–0.016°C by 2100, and global mean sea level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06–0.15 cm by 2100.”

To be clear, EPA is proposing to increase the price of automobiles by $1,100 per car (74 Fed. Reg. 49460) in exchange for (according to EPA) a global temperature decrease of 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius in 90 years. Also, according to EPA, sea level won’t rise by an extra 1.5 millimeters. These tiny amounts are so inconsequential that they will not affect global climate at all nor will they affect “public health and welfare” (See Clean Air Act Sec. 202).

The proposed regulations will, however, have dramatic and harmful consequences for our economy. To make matters worse, these regulations would start a regulatory cascade. EPA would start regulating emissions from millions of sources, including large buildings, churches, sports arenas, office buildings, farms, schools, hospitals, etc. EPA will be empowered to regulate greenhouse gases with many sections of the Clean Air Act, including sections 108, 111, and 112. This will further harm our economy, reduce American jobs, and worsen unemployment.

EPA should not regulate carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. These regulations will make our high unemployment even worse. It does not make sense for EPA to reduce American jobs, increase the price of cars and trucks, and make America less economically competitive in exchange for an immeasurable and meaningless reduction in global temperature.  These costs far outweigh a minimal reduction in carbon dioxide for a scientific hypothesis that remains unproven and has relied on extraordinary deviations from the scientific method in order to avoid scrutiny.

See?  That’s not so hard, is it?

So please, go to the IFE or the EPA, and make your voice heard.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

Did he not notice election day?

Outgoing Governor Tim Kaine is proposing tax increases to balance the gap in the upcoming budget (Norm @ TQ).

After all, it’s not as if the last fellow to call for a tax increase went down to the greatest landslide defeat in almost fifty years . . .

Health care “reform” now below 40% in popularity

One of the myths in which the Democrats are bathing themselves is that all will be well for them politically if they just man up and pass health care “reform.” The voters are saying otherwise (Rasmussen):

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

The opposition number (56%) is tied for the highest it’s ever been.

Here in Virginia, Senator Mark Warner has already said he won’t support any “reform” that doesn’t serious reduce cost – but his history with the truth tells me he’s a “yes” vote regardless of what he says now.  Mr. Webb, by contrast, has been nearly silent, but he’s never shown any respect for markets.

Sadly, it appears the battle against “reform” will be fought and won elsewhere.