Me sa shikoj mė sipėr, pėrveē qė pėrdorimin si kavie e konsiderojmė fat dhe s'pėrbėn mė risi..., tani paska dalė se panelet diellore janė mėnyrė qė shmang "ndotjen e atmosferes me gazra me efekt serre"... Dmth panelet diellore shmangkan "ndotjen" e atmosferės nga avujt e ujit?! Ku do i vendosin panelet, mbi oqean, qė t'i mbyllin grykėn bishės?! Apo mbi vullkane?!
Nga njėra anė s'di ēfarė tė thuash pėr kėta tanėt se nuk ėshtė se e vrasin shumė mendjen, por gjithsesi injoranca e kėtij kalibri nė shek. XXI tė lė shije tė keqe.
Ndėrkaq, nuk e di a e ka ndjekur njeri zhvillimin e skandalit mė tė fundit (tė mbiquajtur si "Climategate", qė provoi mė tej ato qė pėrmend dokumentari nė shkrimin e parė tė temės) pėr heshtjen dhe shmangien me stil tė tė dhėnave qė bien ndesh me dogmėn e "ngrohjes globale (si pasojė e njeriut)". Disa artikuj mė poshtė pėr tė interesuarit:
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
The Anthropogenic Global Warming myth has been suddenly exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”.
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium.
CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause.
This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media.
And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.
Here are a few links:
Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.
An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving “cherry-picked” data samples.
A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree. (No I don’t. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers’ money on a problem that may well not exist)
59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are “village idiots”
Comparing “Climate Change” to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb
Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?
UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry
and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media’s coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage of Climategate
Mė poshtė pėrmbajtja e korrespondencės elektronike tė skandalit:
- Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
- Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
- Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
- Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
- Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
- Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
- Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
- Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
- Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
- Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
- Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
- Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
- Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
- Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
- Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
- Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
- Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
- Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
- Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
- Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
- Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
- Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
- Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
- Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
- Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
- Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
- Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
- Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
- Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
- Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
- Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
- Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
- Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
- Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
- Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
- Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
- Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
- Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
- Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
- Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
- Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
- Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
- Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
- David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
- Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
- Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
- Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
- Phil Jones having problems with explaining issues over the Lamb image of global temps in the early IPCC reports. Says it shouldn't be discussed openly at Real Climate. Says better left buried.(1168356704)
- Phil Jones emails Steve [Schneider], editor of Climatic Change [plus others, editorial board of the journal?], telling him he shouldn't accede to McIntyre's request for Mann's computer code. In later email to Mann ("For your eyes only, delete after reading") Jones says he told Jones separately [presumably meaning without saying to the rest of the board] that he should seek advice elsewhere and also consult the publisher and take legal advice.(1074277559)
- Briffa says he tried hard to balance the needs of the IPCC and science, which were not always the same.(1177890796)
- An anonymous source says that robustness problems with the Hockey Stick are known to anyone who understands his methodology. The source says that there will be a lot of noise over McIntyre's 2003 paper and that knowing Mann'svery thin skin he will react strongly, unless he has learned from the past.(1067194064)
- Giorgio Filippo (University of Trieste) says that IPCC is not an assessment of published science but about production of results. Says there are very few rules and anything goes. Thinks this will undermine IPCC credibility. Says everyone seems to think it's OK to do this.(0968705882)
- IPCC review editor John Mitchell says that the issue of why proxy data for recent decades is not shown (he says it's because they don't show warming) needs to be explained. [Note to readers, this was not done Let's say that the explanation was nuanced - it said that the divergence problem, as this issue is known, was restricted to a few areas]. Also says that Mann's short-centred PC analysis is wrong and that Mann's results are not statistically significant.(1150923423)
Mbulimi nė media:
CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered
As the evidence of fraud at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who've been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media.
But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the e-mails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that's been perpetrated, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.
First, let's briefly review a few pertinent details.
We reported on Saturday that among the most revealing of the "hacked" e-mails released last week was one dated November 1999, in which CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote these words to Hockey-Stick-Team leaders Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:
Predictably, the suggestion of a climate-related data-adjusting "trick" being employed by such alarmist bellwethers ten years ago instantly raised more than a few eyebrows. And with similar alacrity, the Big Green Scare Machine shifted into CYA gear.
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 (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Almost immediately after the news hit on Friday, Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition [PDF] that he "had no idea" what he might have meant by the words "hide the decline" a decade prior:
Baloney. Mere hours later, Jones's warmist soulmates at RealClimate offered an entirely different explanation:
They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they're talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it's just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.
And later that day, Jean S. at Climate Audit explained the reality of the quandary. In order to smooth a timed series, it's necessary to pad it beyond the end-time. But it seems that however hard they tried, when MBH plotted instrumental data against their tree ring reconstructions, no smoothing method would ever undo the fact that after 1960, the tree ring series pointed downward while the instrumental series pointed upward -- hence the divergence:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the "trick" is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.
As for the "decline", it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).
Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while "hiding" is probably a poor choice of words (since it is "hidden" in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
So the author of the email claimed the "trick" was to add instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his co-conspirators at Real Climate admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data due to a known yet inexplicable post-1960 "divergence" anomaly, and CA called it what it was -- a cheat.
So Mann’s solution [Mike’s Nature Trick] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.
The next day, the UEA spoke out for the first time on the subject when its first related press-release was posted to its homepage. And Jones demonstrated to the world the benefits a good night's sleep imparts to one's memory, though not one's integrity:
The word "trick" was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.
Of course, RealClimate also avowed there was "no [/url]evidence of the falsifying of data" in the emails. But as Jones chose not to walk back his statement that the "tricks" were rarely exercised, and even assured us that he was "refer[ring] to one diagram -- not a scientific paper," his explanation remained at odds with that of his virtual confederates at RC.
And as Jones must have known at the time, such would prove to be the very least of CRU's problems.
Getting with the Green Program(s)
One can only imagine the angst suffered daily by the co-conspirators, who knew full well that the "Documents" sub-folder of the CRU FOI2009 file contained more than enough probative program source code to unmask CRU's phantom methodology.
In fact, there are hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files buried in dozens of subordinate sub-folders. And many do properly analyze and chart maximum latewood density (MXD), the growth parameter commonly utilized by CRU scientists as a temperature proxy, from raw or legitimately normalized data. Ah, but many do so much more.
Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these "alterations" run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g., omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g., estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).
In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 "divergence problem," as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer's comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module "Uses 'corrected' MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."
What exactly is meant by "corrected” MXD," you ask? Outstanding question -- and the answer appears amorphous from program to program. Indeed, while some employ one or two of the aforementioned "corrections," others throw everything but the kitchen sink at the raw data prior to output.
For instance, in the subfolder "osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog," there’s a program (Calibrate_mxd.pro) that calibrates the MXD data against available local instrumental summer (growing season) temperatures between 1911-1990, then merges that data into a new file.
That file is then digested and further modified by another program (Pl_calibmxd1.pro), which creates calibration statistics for the MXD against the stored temperature and "estimates" (infills) figures where such temperature readings were not available. The file created by that program is modified once again by Pl_Decline.pro, which "corrects it" – as described by the author -- by "identifying" and "artificially" removing "the decline."
But oddly enough, the series doesn’t begin its "decline adjustment" in 1960 -- the supposed year of the enigmatic "divergence." In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to "correction."
And such games are by no means unique to the folder attributed to Michael Mann.
A Clear and Present Rearranger
In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.
Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):
These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval.
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75; fudge factor
As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930.
And the former apparently wasn't a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.
Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart:
Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.
Care to offer another explanation, Dr. Jones?
NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).
Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.
But here's what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.
And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.
Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of e-mail threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions. This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the now-irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may be the most important strike in human history.
Advocates of the global governance/financial redistribution sought by the United Nations at Copenhagen in two weeks, and also those of the expanded domestic governance/financial redistribution sought by Liberal politicians, both substantiate their drastic proposals with the pending climate emergency predicted in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life -- all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports. And the IPCC in turn bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by the research scientists at CRU -- largely from tree ring data -- who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U.N. panel.
CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined. Gotcha. We know they've been [url=/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html]lying all along, and now we can prove it. It's time to bring sanity back to this debate. It's time for the First IPCC Reassessment Report.
Human impact denied
The e-mails issue arose two weeks ago when hundreds of messages between scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and their peers around the world were posted on the world wide web, along with other documents.
It appears that the material was hacked or leaked; a police investigation has yet to reveal which.
CRU maintains one of the world's most important datasets on how global temperatures have changed.
Climate "sceptics" have claimed that the e-mails undermine the scientific case for climate change being caused by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions, dubbing the issue "ClimateGate".
But it has not until now materialised as an issue likely to influence the Copenhagen negotiations, which are supposed to agree a new global deal on combating climate change to supplant the Kyoto Protocol.
Saudi Arabia is an influential member of the G77/China bloc which leads the "developing world" side in many elements of the UN negotiations.
Mr Al-Sabban made clear that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit - to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.
"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News.
"Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons.
"So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability."
Some other countries shared this view, he said; and as a result, governments would not be prepared to countenance agreeing anything that would affect economic growth for many years, until "new evidence" settled the scientific picture.
However, governments might be willing to commit to "no-cost" measures to constrain emissions, he said, while Western nations should be prepared to assist poor vulnerable countries financially as they prepared for impacts of "the already happening natural climate change".
UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
LONDON – The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said Tuesday.
The university said in a statement that Phil Jones, whose e-mails were among the thousands of pieces of correspondence leaked to the Internet late last month, would relinquish his position as director of Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent review.
The university's Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research Trevor Davies said the investigation would cover data security, whether the university responded properly to Freedom of Information requests, "and any other relevant issues."
The statement said the specific terms of the review will be announced later in the week.
Jones has been accused by skeptics of man-made climate change of manipulating data to support his research. In particular, many have pointed to a leaked e-mail in which Jones writes that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures.
Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood, explaining that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."
Davies said there was nothing in the stolen material to suggest the peer-reviewed publications by the unit "are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."
But the correspondence from Jones and others — which appears to include discussions of how to keep critical work out of peer-reviewed journals and efforts to shield scientists' data and methodology from outside scrutiny — have been seized upon by those who are fighting efforts to impose caps on emissions of carbon dioxide as evidence of a scientific conspiracy.
United Nations to probe climate e-mail leak
LONDON – The United Nations will conduct its own investigation into e-mails leaked from a leading British climate science center in addition to the probe by the University of East Anglia, a senior U.N. climate official said in comments broadcast Friday.
Dhe OKBmunistja poshtė e sqaron vetė se rėndėsi ka pėr OKB-nė tė vjelė fonde, jo mėnyra se si i vjel:
UN presses for disaster aid at climate talks
GENEVA (AFP) – A senior UN official said on Thursday the Copenhagen climate summit next week needed to take action against growing weather-related disasters linked to climate change.
"The disasters are there, there are more of them, more people are being affected, it's costing more money, it's having a longer term effects on poverty... so that's the immediate issue," Margareta Wahlstroem, UN assistant secretary-general for disaster risk reduction said.
Wahlstroem said the UN summit on climate change in Danish capital should pledge at least 100 billion dollars (66 billion euros) a year to start to help the most vulnerable nations adapt to disaster risks.
Finance for adaptation is a core issue for Copenhagen, to help poorer nations, such as low lying islands, coastal regions or those afflicted by water shortages, adapt to their changing environment with floods, storms or other weather shifts.
"What we now really want is... a commitment to financing which in the next few years will give the confidence to those who need financing," Wahlstroem explained.
Ndėrsa BE-ja ėshtė shqetėsuar pėr kundėrshtimin e bėrė nga Polonia dhe Estonia, sepse kėto dy vende s'po zhvillohen "siē duhet":
EU appeals court ruling on Polish, Estonian emissions
BRUSSELS (AFP) – The European Commission announced Thursday it would appeal against court decisions which blocked EU attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions from Poland and Estonia.
"The commission is going to appeal... on several grounds," the EU executive arm's energy spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich told reporters in Brussels.
Most importantly Brussels argues that the European court of first instance, in its September ruling, "interpreted too narrowly" the commission's powers as regards national allocations of emissions allowances.
Poland, Estonia and other eastern EU nations rely on heavily polluting solid fuels for much of their energy needs. Six other EU countries -- Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania -- are pursuing a similar appeal to Poland's.
The Luxembourg-based court has ruled that the commission overstepped its authority by slashing the National Allocation Plans (NAPS) of Poland and Estonia, by more than a quarter and almost half respectively.
The plans are a major part of EU policy for fighting global warming. Under them, governments fixed the total number of allowances they would allocate to industry for the 2008-2012 period, part of efforts to meet emission targets.
These pollution permits are granted to around 10,000 installations in the 27-nation bloc's energy and industrial sectors which combined account for about half the EU's emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.
The commission then assesses the plans to see whether they are compatible with EU guidelines.
The court ruled, that in this case, the commission had overstepped its authority by rejecting the plans based only on doubts it had about how the countries collected their data.
The commission spokeswoman argued that the court had not taken sufficient account of the "fundamental purpose" of the emissions trading scheme, ETS to reduce overall EU emissions which requires "equal treatment of member states."
The dispute is an embarrassment to the EU as it prepares for international climate talks in Copenhagen next week, where it will bang the drum for more ambitious emission cuts in order to restrict global warming to two degrees centigrade.
Ndėrkohė Kina bėhet gati pėr eksportin e "paneleve diellore":
China solar panel makers see boost from Copenhagen
China is now the world's top producer of the cells -- the tile-like engines of solar panels -- and firms like Trina see next week's climate talks as a potential key moment in the wider adoption of renewable energies like solar.
"The Copenhagen talks, from our point of view, are going to be positive," Terry Wang, Trina's chief financial officer, told AFP in an interview.
"A global target for emissions cuts would have a positive impact across all 20 countries we sell to."
Dhe tė "mullinjve me erė":
Chinese wind power companies target global markets
BEIJING – China's Goldwind Science & Technology Ltd. is one of the world's biggest makers of wind turbines — a cornerstone of the booming clean power business — but is unknown outside its home country.
Goldwind aims to change that. In a Minnesota farmer's cornfield, the company is erecting three 20-story-tall windmills in its first American project and hopes it will help to woo other buyers.
"There are a lot of leads and we are following them up," said Kerry Zhou, Goldwind's director of development. "We certainly expect that by 2011 we can get good results."
China's market for wind equipment is on track to overtake the U.S. this year as the world's largest, spurred by a government campaign to promote renewable energy to clean up its battered environment and curb surging demand for foreign oil and gas.
Now the biggest Chinese manufacturers want to expand to the United States, Europe and other markets. Western suppliers could face new competition as low-priced Chinese rivals seek to profit from global efforts to limit climate change.
Duke e pėshtjelluar pak gjendjen se po prish tregun "e rezervuar"...
Mbase pyetja e dikujt ėshtė se "ē'na kėrcet ne nė Shqipėri pėr kėto muhabete, kėto janė fare larg nesh, kemi halle tė tjera?"
Na kėrcet, qoftė dhe pėr vetėdijėsim, sepse eksperimentet e BE/OKB-sė bėhen gjithmonė mbi kaviet e Ballkanit nė fillim dhe vende tė tjera jokurrizore si Meksika, Algjeria, Libani... Ndėrsa ato qė kanė kurriz (Estonia, mes tė tjerash, ėshtė shembull vendi tė vogėl me politikė tė qartė kombėtare) janė nė frontin tjetėr.
Siē e pėrmend dhe artikulli shqip mė sipėr, OKB e ka gati "skemėn" se si do tė fillojė vartėsia nga "panelet diellore dhe mullinjtė e erės", pra vartėsia e vazhdueshme teknike/etj. pas shitėsit tė teknologjisė pėrkatėse, pavarėsisht se nuk e thotė shprehimisht me ato fjalė, por e vesh me retorikėn e zakonshme pėr shpėtimin e tė vuajturve. Dhe vartėsi do tė thotė kėtu zhvatje.