“Wildness and silence disappeared from the countryside, sweetness fell from the air, not because anyone wished them to vanish or fall but because throughways had to floor the meadows with cement to carry the automobiles which advancing technology produced. Tropical beaches turned into high-priced slums where thousand-room hotels elbowed each other for glimpses of once-famous surf not because those who loved the beaches wanted them there but because enormous jets could bring a million tourists every year — and therefore did.” - Archibald Macleish

“In wildness is the preservation of the world.” - Henry David Thoreau

“Only to the white man was nature a wilderness and only to him was the land ‘infested’ with ‘wild’ animals and ’savage’ people. To us it was tame, Earth was bountiful and we were surrounded with the blessings of the Great Mystery.” - Chief Luther Standing Bear of the Oglala Sioux

“A civilized society must count animals as worthy of moral consideration and ethical treatment. The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” - Jeremy Bentham

“Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures.” - the Dalai Lama

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it’s animals are treated. …I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man.” - Mahatma Gandhi

A few weeks ago, and unknown hacker broke into the British Climate Research Unit computer system at East Anglia University, since then in the Climate Debate circle there has been a massive uproar, with climate skeptics, such as those of ClimateDepot.com, pointing to the so-called incriminating statements in said emails as proof that global warming is a hoax. There have been many seemingly flawless statements made that these scientists tried to make other scientists who supposedly held a different viewpoints conform and that there was an attempt to hide the evidence of a decline in temperatures as indicated by tree-rings. But as it is usual in this case one need only go back to the source to find the truth. It always comes out; it’s merely a matter of time.

The people calling these series of emails “Climate gate” and proof that Global Warming is a lie, actually only succeed in proving their ignorance and single-mindedness. It is highly apparent, after reading these emails, that all of their statements made in regards to fraud, coercion and cooking the books are made with a complete lack of understanding of scientific process and terminology. For instance, terms such as forcing, plotting and schemes are made in direct reference to the hypothetical computer model, SCENGEN and MAGICC that are used to predict possible outcomes in climate scenarios based on current data, not the lay definition that would make them damning. These are terms used in working with data sets, not for nefarious behavior. The scenario generating computer models were not the basis of the science of Global Warming, but rather a tool at predicting our future, given we continue on the path we are on. The comments to withhold the SCENGEN data were made precisely for that reason; they were speculative models, not because they were trying to hide anything.

To the contrary of those purporting fraud, these scientists took great pains to ensure the actual data they presented to the public, to their peers and IPCC was factual and substantiated, and can be observed chastising each other in these emails to that end, the same emails that are supposed to be evidence of ridicule of those who held differing viewpoints. Obviously many of these climate nay-sayers have never been through either a masters or doctoral thesis, where one is harangued to the point of tears in some cases, but it is done to bring home the point that data must be accurate and substantiated. As a scientist, if you can not prove your hypotheses to be flawless and based on sound research, you are nothing. At least one of these so called “conformist efforts” was actually a rather steamed missive about how one of the scientists had included their personal opinion in something, as opposed to letting the facts speak for themselves. In science there is no room for ego or opinion, only fact, and that was the message of the email. It is the exact opposite of what some are trying to make it out to seem.

The now famous statement made about “hide the decline” refers to the tree ring data that is extensively covered in these emails, and if they were indeed trying to hide something, why did they publish a paper about it in Nature in 1997? Once again the statements are taken out of context and ignorant to scientific process, hide the decline refers to technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature, something that is quite common in scientific circles and nothing out of the ordinary. It had nothing to do with falsifying information as the discussion was in reference to the fact that the tree ring data of the last 50 years did not correlate with other data that did support the trend of Global warming. It also was made in reference again to the hypothetical climate scenario mapping computer programs, not deliberately misleading the public. These completely baseless claims made on the behalf of those purporting climate gate, are the true deception, for they are deliberately capitalizing on the fact that most will not take the time to read these emails, let alone understand them.

But let us dig deeper into this, and the circumstances under which these emails were obtained. The CRU’s computer system was hacked, these emails were stolen. Apparently one of the scientists involved in this, Dr. Weaver, had his office repeatedly broken into before this happened, proving that someone was trying to find something, anything, and was willing to go to illegal lengths to do so. This is shameful, but unfortunately a rather common tactic used in some circles in this country, and it is used because they know they are in the wrong when they play by the rules, and so instead try to circumvent them and then expect rational intelligent adults to look past the fact that they are criminals. They add to their list of sins not only greed and theft, but lying as in twisting the emails out of context, and passing off their regurgitations as fact, and now costing an innocent man his job, the researcher Phil Jones.

Billions of dirty energy dollars stand to be lost with carbon limits and that is the truth of why there is even a discussion about man made Climate Change possibly being a hoax. These people would put their own greed above the lives of their fellow human beings, above the lives of their families and children, and their grandchildren and great grandchildren yet to be born. Their selfishness is so overblown and caricatured that it would be laughable, if there weren‘t such high stakes involved. The really ridiculous part of all this is that they wouldn‘t even have to lose money necessarily, even though most of them have more money than any one man should need or want. There are plenty of green technologies to be invested in, plenty of money to be made in the new energy economy, if we really must always boil everything down to money. But these people are cowards, not only because of the tactics they will resort to in an effort to back up their shoddy claims of fraud and conspiracy, but for their unwillingness to change, when the truth is change is the only constant in the universe. They would sacrifice the lives of all their descendents, just to make a buck, and to not have to admit they are wrong. These are the death throes of Big Oil and Big Coal, the violent desperate attempts to cling to the old order, which is rotting in their hands. They shriek with the shrieks of the damned, as they begin to realize how doomed they really are.

These people who would perpetuate this nonsense know that as the climate talks in Copenhagen continue, their policies of destruction, of desecration, of greed are going to be outlawed. They know that with the grassroots organizing of groups like 350.org, the momentum is against them. Even Phil Jones made the point that “This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks,“. The questions need to be asked, who broke into those computers, how did they do it, and the real question is who paid for it?

I would think the first possible answer to this would be to look at the people who are perpetuating the lie that these emails were incriminating. The conservative right would be the most likely candidate. The supposed balanced environmental discussion (balanced as in Fox news) that is ClimateDepot.com, would be the logical place to start. This site is run by an individual by the name of Marc Morano. Mr. Morano until spring of 2009 (which should be noted was the beginning of Obama’s term and the end of Bush’s) served as the communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works where he worked for Senator Inhofe, a man that is vehemently against Gay rights, has denied Global Warming all along, and whose major campaign contributors were large industries in the aircraft, defense and energy sectors. Which leaves the undeniable fact that this supposed balanced site is indeed run by the same Republican lackeys that are in bed with Big Oil and Big Coal. Mr. Morano is also the man behind the 2004 smear campaign done against Senator Kerry, run by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group later discredited, as many of the veterans who were a part of it would have never served with Kerry. Mr. Morano also was the producer for Rush Limbaugh show in the 1990’s.

To further the point one need only research the group behind ClimateDepot.com. It says at the top of the page that the site is run by CFACT, and one need only click on the link to go to the website of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative anti-environmentalism think tank. This non-profit with a 1.5 million dollar budget has received money from Exxon and Chevron. There is no balance here. Climate Depot is the one cooking the books, not the CRU scientists whose careers have been severely damaged if not ruined. I think if people really would like to investigate the crime here, they should look no further than whoever the thief was who hacked these emails, and the Republican dirt bags who funded him, and who would most profit from the very real threat of climate change being undermined, and who stand to lose the most if a meaningful climate change treaty were agreed to in Copenhagen.

There are plenty of flashy graphics, and catchy headlines, on ClimateDepot.com, but where is the evidence to back this up? Give us the names of these reputable scientists and groups, who they work for if there is such overwhelming scientific evidence against Global Warming, instead of opinion blogs and cartoons. The numbers are on the side that Climate Change is real, and that they coincide with the Industrial Age, as those emails you try to hold up as proof of conspiracy actually show the very real evidence of alteration of climate since 1850 as proven by those infamous tree rings, and even though the data falls off in the mid 20th century, the very next sentence states that the basal area of young trees explodes. But forget the tree rings; there are plenty of other sources from which to glean an understanding of the issue of Global Warming. Here are data tables from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the University of Illinois, NASA, and NOAA. Are you going to discredit them as well?

Instead of watching TV ads or the latest clips on you tube and believing everything you hear from critics, do something the critics haven’t done… READ. You know, that outdated thing called books, magazines, trade articles, and reports, yeah that… with those big words and all.

I am a bit irritated with all the buzz about climate change not happening. Tell that to the people across the seas suffering who think we are a bunch of arrogant idiots. Tell that to the thousands of people whose homes are being destroyed by weather patterns being perpetuated by human being’s and their 142% increase in methane over the last decade.

Before you decide to among the illierate, read these links…all of them .

For anyone who even pondered on the idea that the critics may be correct, here is some resources for you, read them

ALL before you decide to
follow the masses without thinking.

A key element is what could be called “conspiracism” — a quasi-religious (if perhaps subconscious) belief system
that is prejudiced toward — and even relies upon — belief in the existence of shadowy, globe-curdling conspiracies
in order to try and make sense of a complex and confusing world.
As Richard Hofstadter in 1964 described in “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” (http://bit.ly/3XvRob), a
significant element of society for centuries has ceaselessly searched for bogeymen to demonize, and to link to what
they see as the ultimate evils of the world — such as taxation, state control, and world government (all of which
may, of course, equal Communism or the Anti-Christ, or both…).
The internet, especially the comments sections on blogs and newspaper websites, allows for the rapid spread of such
memes, and for new information to confirm what is already “known to be true”. Thus, before most people had ever even
heard that climate-related emails had been hacked, many thousands of people were convinced — as convinced as any
human being could ever be convinced of anything — that climate change was the greatest hoax of all time, motivated
through a cabal led by Al Gore and Barack Obama as a pretext to tax, control, and enslave America/humanity, etc.
At least that is what I have witnessed.

Thanks for your interesting response!! I think that is vey sad when the appearance of overlapping groups of
skeptical is a results from an organized attempt to replace scientific analysis with political ideology. Science
inevitably intervene with politics. – AnaDP 1 hour ago

Some replys to my blog…
1

Why should anyone believe this global warming hoax now? The data has been tampered with and the massive fraud has
been exposed. There news is all over the place.
•http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/20/global-warming-fraud-exposed-t
•conservativehideout.com/wordpress/?p=2184
•discussglobalwarming.com
•dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/un-global-warming-climate-change-data-fraud-british-professor-phil-
jones-east-anglia-climatic-research-unit-global-warming-scientists-emails-hacked-russian-ip-name-foia-international
-climate-change-tr/
•greenhellblog.com/2009/11/25/must-see-video-hide-the-decline/
and in hundreds of other sites all over the place.
Why would anyone give this the time of day anymore is beyond me. I refuse to pay a dime to anyone, in the name of
global warming.
Sorry, but there no more denying the hoax.

Well, his comment starts with a question. “Why should anyone believe this global warming hoax now?” It is true; it
is up to you to believe is hoax and it is up to you to believe that global warming exist.
It is up to you to believe that one single research center has the entire dataset of ALL the meteoroogical stations
of the world, for ALL the timeframe covered by measurements with instruments. The fact is that the Climate Research
Unit, at the University of East Anglia, has an exntesive dataset with climatic data. However, it is naive to think
that no one else in the world has a copy of the data, either electronically or in paper. As you mentioned, the news
on hackers and emails exchanged between Phil Jones (University of East Anglia, Director Climate Research Unit [CRU])
and other scientists (or as you want to call them) are everywhere and took every one by surprise. But to attribute a
“global” hoax to a small group of people is misleading. The CRU has an extensive database with land surface
temperatures which is used for climate modelling. THE CRU exists since 1972. If Mr. Jones (who, by the way, has been
involved as CRU’s director since 1998) and his group altered, deleted or manipulated in some way their data is just
them to blame. Assuming that it happened. The CRU is not the only research center with climatic data, nor are they
the only scientists working on climate and meteorology.
Meterological stations are distributed over the territory of many countries, and are operated and maitained by their
respective national meterological offices. Each one has its own dataset and performs quality control on it. Part of
this data may have been shared with CRU but the fact that CRU did something with it, does not mean that the rest of
the world opted to delete its own data and “secretly” created a global hoax. For instance, check the historical
dataset by the NOAA, in the United States: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php Also, you
could check the measurements made with satellites, or the results from the analysis of the content of dissolved
gases on ice samples collected from the Poles. Also you could check the measurements done on the sea level.
True. It is up to you to believe in both, the problem of global warming and the current news that they (CRU)
cheated.
The other issue, on you paying a dime in the name of global warming, is also up to you. You can vote and ask your
President, Prime Minister, Congress, Parliament or similar about which position your country should assume on the
issue; that includes the discussion and decision of putting public money from your country into the hands of others,
“in the name of global warming”. The same could be said for HIV/AIDS, assistance for development, or other problems
whose consequences may be international.
Thanks for sharing your stance. Have a nice day.
link|flag answered Dec 3 at 0:10
Juan Carlos Arredondo
375

This question is at the origin of the debate that has gone for a while but that in the past two years has concluded
that the current changes in our climate are mainly due to anthropogenic emissions.
Everyone can agree that the earth cycle has gone through some periods of ice age but what it is also very obvious is
that we humans have affected the emissions of carbon dioxide since the european industrial revolution. These
emissions have a direct impact in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which has a direct impact
on the earth’s greenhouse gas effect resulting in an increase in the temperature. In my opinion these are direct
relations to conclude that human kind has had an impact on the climate.
I would recommend to read the new IPCC report where details on the reasoning can be found: IPCC REPORT
link|flag answered Nov 16 at 23:32
Isha Lara
136
3

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has been actively following the climate change debate taking place at the
US Senate.
There are two important bills:
The American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey bill) , and the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
(Kerry-Boxer bill) .
I will post two answers, each one with a link to the corresponding summary.
link|flag answered Nov 9 at 18:34
Juan Carlos Arredondo
375

pewclimate.org/acesa – Juan Carlos Arredondo Nov 9 at 18:35
1
Kerry-Boxer pewclimate.org/short-summary/… – Juan Carlos Arredondo Nov 9 at 18:35
Thanks Juan, very useful links. Cheers – Karl Nov 12 at 23:12

2

I would recommend you to read the following summary, they will give you an quick overview of the Waxman-Markey bill
submitted to the senate:
http://www.edf.org/documents/10440_ACES_international_provisions_sum.pdf
link|flag answered Nov 5 at 23:47
Stephanie
111

2

Karl also take a look at the following one, it provides an excellent brief of the main bullet points:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-03-waxman-markey-bill-breakdown/
link|flag answered Nov 5 at 23:55
Adriana
51

2

The National Wildlife Federation did a thorough analysis which can be found at http://blogs.nwf.org/files/nwf-aces
-toolbox-final-8-14-09.pdf
link|flag answered Nov 9 at 11:23
Hans
21

This is a great toolkit! thanks so much Hans – Laura Smith Nov 11 at 21:55

This question is at the origin of the debate that has gone for a while but that in the past two years has concluded
that the current changes in our climate are mainly due to anthropogenic emissions.
Everyone can agree that the earth cycle has gone through some periods of ice age but what it is also very obvious is
that we humans have affected the emissions of carbon dioxide since the european industrial revolution. These
emissions have a direct impact in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which has a direct impact
on the earth’s greenhouse gas effect resulting in an increase in the temperature. In my opinion these are direct
relations to conclude that human kind has had an impact on the climate.
I would recommend to read the new IPCC report where details on the reasoning can be found: IPCC REPORT
link|flag answered Nov 16 at 23:32
Isha Lara

Question 1: the 2°C increase is versus the average recorded for the planet over the last (at least) 30 years.
According to the World Meterological Organizatio (WMO) if you take weather measurements very single day and several
times during the day, for at least 30 years, you can obtain a description of the climate in that place. [Climate is
what you expect, weather is what you get in a single day].
Question 2: I may be wrong, but is around 14°C, considering the mean temperature of the ocean and the mean
temperature of the land. Maybe the Global Carbon Project, the NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html, or the NASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
have the most updated number about it. The mean has increased by about half a degree in the 20th century.
Question 3: Scientists consider the +2°C as the temperature increase where climate may not reach an irreversible
change point. That is based in probabilities with a certain degree of confidence. Take a look at the work done by
the Joint Programe on the Science and Policy of Global Change, at MIT (http://globalchange.mit.edu/) They have the
“Greenhouse Gamble” to explain some aspects of the 2°C. (http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/)

Well, the thought that we are being deceived is not nat new. Anytime someone changes something there are

controversies. When the automobile was starting to take the place of the horse, there was the thought that it was a

government conspiracy to cripple the farmers.

I guess we can look at it from a business perspective, why would a government invest hundreds of millions of dollars

in something just to “trick” the public? That seems a bit much to me. The conspiracy would need to be world wide as

well. Scientists all over the world coming from different background have come to the same conclusion. I happen to

be part of the front line in developments and knowledge on the scientific front, so perhaps have information many do

not.

Another aspect is looking at it from a logistical perspective, have you ever seen the government put something so

large into place so quickly? What are the implications of that? Knowing that they have access to many of the leading

scientists, governments all across the world have implemented much the same approach.

Considering that we were not the first, but near the end of the line, of countries to be involved in the first

place, this would mean that smaller countries started this conspiracy and we just decided to join in…(?) What

would be the purpose? What finacnial objectives could there possibly be that would justify this?

Many theories have been put out by all the articles but no point is made. If the problem is that we do not know if

the world will suffer an ice age or a desert effect, what difference would it make if we know that we are

contributing to the problem and to future death tolls?
We could say that climate change is natural, which it is, and that what would the point be to alter the way we live;

but germs are natural too and yet we try to prevent deaths by giving vaccines. Can we guarantee that the bacteria or

virus would kill someone? No, but we have seen the amount of people die from such illnesses decline.

I guess we could wait and see, but if you are the type of person that gets a mammogram or a prostrate check or a

check up, I do not see why the logic would not apply here.

If the geovernment is covering something up, I am afraid it has to do with the severity of what we face. The common

person does not put things into perspective, and cannot corelate something on the other side of the world with their

home. Scientific models, unfortunately, are not accurate because we did not anticipate that the change would be so

great. There are many many factors involved with predictions on a global scale, many of the variables are changing

rapidly. Many people do not know that there have been halts in the hyaline belt of the ocean. This is of a greater

concern that what we are lead to believe. I happen to have the priveledge of being among discussions of the greatest

scientific minds here, and I can tell you they do not care about political office much less have anything to do with

covering something up or making up stories. These people have their reputation and their tenure on line when they

publish, they are very exacting.

If nothing else, take the personality of most scientists into account. They are diligent, if not fanatical, single

minded; almost absent minded on anything else. They scoff at people that write articles like this and do not care

that the populace thinks it is real. It is this fact that has been the scientific communities achilles heel.

So in the end, I guess it is up to each of us. Who benefits by spreading pseudo knowledge around on the internet?

What is the media playing to? What are each of their goals? Are they benefiting financially?

I sure as heck know that the pay scientists and college professors get, is not even a quarter of what media

spokespersons get. Ask your local professor.

Sites like this get their pay by having people blog on them and click the ads they have posted. The more

controversial your subject matter, the more people you get to your site, the more money you make. Same for media.

Unfortunately it does not work that way in the doctorate world usually- unless you put out a pseudo science book and

become popular, even then you run the risk of becoming a pariah among the community of scientists.

www.midwesternsolar.org

www.energycommunity.ws

www.wisconsinsolar.info

In celebration of both Christmas and hosting this year’s UN Conference on Climate Change, the city of Copenhagen has unveiled a totally “green” Christmas tree for the 2009 Holiday Season.