From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Date: Mon Oct  5 10:03:02 2009

    Tom,
      Thanks for trying to clear the air with a few people. Keith is still working on a
   response. Having to contact the Russians to get some more site details takes time.
       Several things in all this are ludicrous as you point out. Yamal is one site and isn't
   in most of the millennial reconstructions. It isn't in MBH, Crowley, Moberg etc. Also
   picking trees for a temperature response is not done either.
     The other odd thing is that they seem to think that you can reconstruct the last
   millennium from a few proxies, yet you can't do this from a few instrumental series for the
   last 150 years!  Instrumental data are perfect proxies, after all.
       [1]http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html
    This one is wrong as well. IPCC (1995) didn't use that silly curve that Chris Folland or
   Geoff Jenkins put together.
    Cheers
    Phil
   At 02:59 05/10/2009, you wrote:

     David,
     This is entirely off the record, and I do not want this shared with
     anyone. I hope you will respect this. This issue is not my problem,
     and I await further developments.
     However, Keith Briffa is in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and I was
     Director of CRU for many years so I am quite familiar with Keith and
     with his work. I have also done a lots of hands on tree ring work, both
     in the field and in developing and applying computer programs for
     climate reconstruction from tree rings. On the other hand, I have not
     been involved in any of this work since I left CRU in 1993 to move to
     NCAR. But I do think I can speak with some modicum of authority.
     You say, re dendoclimatologists, "they rely on recent temperature data by which to
     *select* recent tree data" (my emphasis). I don't know where you get this idea, but I
     can assure you that it is entirely wrong.
     Further, I do not know the basis for your claim that "Dendrochonology
     is a bankrupt approach". It is one of the few proxy data areas where rigorous
     multivariate statistical tools are used and where reconstructions are carefully tested
     on independent data.
     Finally, the fact that scientists (in any field) do not willingly share their
     hard-earned primary data implies that they have something to hide
     has no logical basis.
     Tom.
     ++++++++++++++++++++++++
     David Schnare wrote:

     Tom:

     Briffa has already made a preliminary response and he failed to explain his selection
     procedure.  Further, he refused to give up the data for several years, and was forced to
     do so only when he submitted to a journal that demanded data archiving and actually
     enforced the practice.

     More significantly, Briffa's analysis is irrelevant.  Dendrochonology is a bankrupt
     approach.  They admit that they cannot distiguish causal elements contributing to tree
     ring size.  Further, they rely on recent temperature data by which to select recent tree
     data (excluding other data) and then turn around and claim that the tree ring data
     explains the recent temperature data.  If you can give a principled and reasoned defense
     of Briffa (see the discussion on Watt's website) then go for it.  I'd be fascinated, as
     would a rather large number of others.

     None of this, of course, detracts for the need to do research on geoengineering.  David
     Schnare
     On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu <mailto:wigley@ucar.edu>>
     wrote:
         Dear all,
         I think it would be wise to let Briffa respond to these
         accusations before compounding them with unwarranted
         extrapolations.
         With regard to the Hockey Stick, it is highly unlikely that
         a single site can be very important. M&M have made similar
         accusations in the past and they have been shown, in the
         peer-reviewed literature, to be ill-founded.
         Two recent papers you should read are those in the attached
         Word document (first pages only).
         Tom.
         ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
         Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
             David:

             I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my
             grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children
             will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and
             carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly
             in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE
             WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!
              -gene


             /Eugene I. Gordon/
             /(908) 233 4677/
             /euggordon@comcast.net/ <[2]http://euggordon@comcast.net/>
             /[3]www.germgardlighting.com/ <[4]http://www.germgardlighting.com/>


             *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
             <[5]mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
             [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
             <[6]mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] *On Behalf Of *David
             Schnare
             *Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM
             *Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
             <[7]mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
             *Subject:* [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds

             Gene:

             I've been following this issue closely and this is what I take
             away from it:

             1)  Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
             so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever.  It is
             impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
             nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight.  Indeed a single
             tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
             temperature reconstruction.

             2)  The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
             lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
             his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
             chapter.  It not only destroys the credibility of the core
             assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
             work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
             technical reports.  It also destroys the utility and credibility
             of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
             of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is,
             of course, the majority of such analyses.

             As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
             models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
             forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
             sitting on firm ground."

             Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely
             on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse
             gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a
             significant increase in global temperature.  Thus, research,
             including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques
             are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that
             the current alarmism is justified.

             David Schnare
             On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Eugene I. Gordon
             <euggordon@comcast.net <[8]mailto:euggordon@comcast.net>
             <[9]mailto:euggordon@comcast.net <mailto:euggordon@comcast.net>>>
             wrote:
             Alan:

             Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible
             but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with
             these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I
             dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I
             think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to
             gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare
             tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring
             to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The
             CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other
             factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may
             be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I
             postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial
             motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal
             to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations
             are increased and continued grant funding, university
             advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon
             control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and
             other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.

             Alan, this is nothing new. You and I experienced similar
             behavior from some of our colleagues down the hall, the Bell
             Labs research people, in the good old days. Humans are hardly
             perfect creations. I am never surprised at what they can do. _I
             am perpetually grateful for those who are honest and fair and
             thankfully there is a goodly share of those._

             -gene

             *From:* Alan White [mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net
             <[10]mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net> <[11]mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net>
     <[12]mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net>>]
             *Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:28 PM
             *To:* Gene Gordon
             *Subject:* Fw: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds

             more of the same.   what gives with these guys?


             ----- Original Message -----
             *From:* Peiser, Benny <[13]mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk>
     <[14]mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk>>
             *To:* CCNetMedia <[15]mailto:CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk>
     <[16]mailto:CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk>>
             *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 6:36 AM
             *Subject:* CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds

             CCNet 153/2009 - 2 October 2009 -- Audiatur et altera pars
             CRU'S HIDDEN DATA AND THE IPCC: A SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL UNFOLDS
             ------------------------------------------------------------
             A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent
             peer-reviewed climate papers. The scandal has serious
             implications for
             public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the
             science,
             not create it. As the IPCC states, its duty is "assessing the
             scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the
             understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It
             does not
             carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related
             data." But as
             IPCC lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping the
             assessment. When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that
             refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more
             general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review
             fails -
             as it did here?
               --Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009
             Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in
             prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a
             hockey
             stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend
             the Hockey
             Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC
             Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would
             question the
             Yamal data. Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top
             journals
             like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or
             editors ever
             required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated
             requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were
             ignored.
                --Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009
             The official United Nation's global warming agency, the
             Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged
             stool that
             is fast losing its legs.  To carry the message of man-made global
             warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
             models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
             forecasting and 4)
             communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground.
                --Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009
             Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so
             far. I'm
             not sure whether this is because people are trying to digest what it
             means or whether it's "too hot to handle". None of the global
             warming
             supporters in the mainstream media have gone near it. The
             reaction of
             the Guardian - to delete any mention of the affair from their
             comment
             threads - has been extraordinary.
               --Bishop Hill, 1 October 2009
             Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric
             cars and
             shut down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned
             recession' to
             avoid dangerous climate change. A new report from the Tyndall
             Centre for
             Climate Change Research says the only way to avoid going beyond the
             dangerous tipping point is to double the target to 70 per cent
             by 2020.
             This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned
             recession".
               --Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009
             Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016
             Olympics
             could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to
             mankind. "It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics
             in the
             history of mankind," Ishihara told reporters at a Tokyo 2016
             press event
             ahead of the vote. "Global warming is getting worse. We have to
             come up
             with measures without which Olympic Games could not last long.
             "Scientists have said we have passed the point of no return," said
             Ishihara.
               --Karolos Grohmann, Reuters, 30 September 2009
             (1) TREEMOMETERS: A NEW SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL
                Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009
             (2) ANALYSIS: DEFECTS IN KEY CLIMATE DATA ARE UNCOVERED
                Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009
             (3) OPINION: CLIMATE DATA BUSTER
                Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009
             (4) OPINION: COOLING DOWN THE CASSANDRAS
                George F. Will, The Washington Post, 1 October 2009
             (5) U.S. THROWS SPANNER INTO CLIMATE TALKS
                Times of India, 2 October 2009
             (6) CAP AND TRADE MAY SINK OPPOSITION LEADER DOWN UNDER
                Lenore Taylor, The Australian, 2 October 2009
             (7) THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
                Jennifer Marohasy <jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
             <[17]mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com>
             <[18]mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com>
     <[19]mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com>>>
             (8) COOLING?
                Rodney Chilton <maberrd@hotmail.com
             <[20]mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com> <[21]mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com>
     <[22]mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com>>>
             (9) RESOURCES DEPLETION WORRIES
                Steven Zoraster <szoraster@szoraster.com
             <[23]mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com> <[24]mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com>
     <[25]mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com>>>
             (10) COPENHAGEN SUMMIT: DO SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS SUPPORT GOVERNMENT
             ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING?
                 Peter Kidson <peterdkidson@googlemail.com
             <[26]mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com>
             <[27]mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com>
     <[28]mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com>>]
             (11) A DEATH SPIRAL FOR CLIMATE ALARMISM?
                 Robert Bradley <rbradley@iertx.org
             <[29]mailto:rbradley@iertx.org> <[30]mailto:rbradley@iertx.org>
     <[31]mailto:rbradley@iertx.org>>>
             (12) AND FINALLY: 'PLANNED RECESSION' COULD AVOID CATASTROPHIC
             CLIMATE
             CHANGE
                 Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009
             ===========
             (1) TREEMOMETERS: A NEW SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL
             The Register, 29 September 2009
             <[32]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/>
             By Andrew Orlowski
             A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent
             peer-reviewed climate papers.
             At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical
             temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant
             implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the
             IPCC's
             assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the
             British climate research centre CRU at the University East
             Anglia. In
             every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
             At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or
             dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the
             ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature
             anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of
             temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record
             humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.
             Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is
             problematic, and a
             dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In
             dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of
             creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a
             choice open to a scientist's biases.
             Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold
             claims using tree ring data.
             In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate
             papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in
             Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a
             newer and
             larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated
             pronounced
             and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
             How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the
             measurement data
             used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill
             procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other
             scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious
             peer
             reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to
             demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.
             At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical
             Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's
             mystery
             is no more.
              >From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees
             from a
             larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were
             cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no
             dramatic
             recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.
             In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which
             ten were
             alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the
             mid-19th
             century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.
             Controversy has been raging since 1995, when an explosive paper
             by Keith
             Briffa at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
             asserted that that the medieval warm period was actually really
             cold,
             and recent warming is unusually warm. Both archaeology and the
             historical accounts, Briffa was declaring, were bunk. Briffa
             relied on
             just three cores from Siberia to demonstrate this.
             Three years later Nature published a paper by Mann, Bradley and
             Hughes
             based on temperature reconstructions which showed something similar:
             warmer now, cooler then. With Briffa and Mann as chapter editors
             of the
             UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this
             distinctive
             pattern became emblematic - the "Logo of Global Warming".
             IPCC's Assessment Report from 2001 - with the error bars in grey
             emphasised
             Hokey hockey sticks
             Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed
             attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had
             forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of
             Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp
             server in
             a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.)
             Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann's statistical
             technique,
             which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in temperatures - which
             became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" - even using red noise.
             Similarly, all the papers that used the Yamal data have the same
             point
             to make. All suggest recent dramatic warming. Having scored a
             global hit
             with a combination of flawed statistics and dubious
             dendrochronology,
             the acts repeated the formula.
             "Late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly
             the past
             two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere," wrote the two authors of
             Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia published in
             Geophysical Research Letters in 2003 - Mann, and Phil Jones of CRU.
             For example, Briffa's 2008 paper concludes that: "The extent of
             recent
             widespread warming across northwest Eurasia, with respect to 100- to
             200-year trends, is unprecedented in the last 2000 years."
             The same authors in 2004:
             It continues to this day. A study purporting to show the Arctic was
             warmer now than for 2,000 years received front-page attention last
             month. Led by Northern Arizona University professor Darrell S
             Kaufman,
             and including dendro veteran Mann, this too relied heavily on
             Yamal, and
             produced the signature shape.
             Now here's Yamal.
             And when Yamal is plotted against the wider range of cores, the
             implications of the choice is striking:
             A comparison of Yamal RCS chronologies. red - as archived with
             12 picked
             cores; black - including Schweingruber's Khadyta River, Yamal
             (russ035w)
             archive and excluding 12 picked cores. Both smoothed with 21-year
             gaussian smooth. y-axis is in dimensionless chronology units
             centered on
             1 (as are subsequent graphs (but represent age-adjusted ring width).
             "The majority of these trees (like the Graybill bristlecones) have a
             prolonged growth pulse (for whatever reason) starting in the 19th
             century," wrote Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre on his blog on
             Sunday. "When a one-size fits all age profile is applied to these
             particular tries, the relatively vigorous growth becomes monster
             growth
             - 8 sigma anomalies in some of them."
             McIntyre's determination to reproduce the reconstructions has
             resulted
             in the Yamal data finally coming to light.
             All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who
             mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data.
             What went wrong?
             The scandal has serious implications for public trust in
             science. The
             IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it.
             As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific,
             technical
             and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of
             the risk
             of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new
             research nor
             does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead author,
             Briffa was a
             key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment.
             When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the
             idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and
             more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did
             here?
             The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged
             persistence of
             a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results.
             Steve
             McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and
             methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained
             elusive
             for almost a decade. (r)
             Bootnote
             The Royal Society's motto from the enlightenment era is Nullius in
             verba. "On nobody's authority" or colloquially, "take nobody's
             word for
             it". In 2007, the Society's then president suggested this be
             changed to
             "respect the facts".
             Copyright 2009, ElReg
             ==========
             (2) ANALYSIS: DEFECTS IN KEY CLIMATE DATA ARE UNCOVERED
             Financial Post, 1 October 2009

     <[33]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/01/r>
     oss-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx>
             By Ross McKitrick
             Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a
             famous
             result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph.
             Developed by
             a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical
             compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air
             temperatures
             had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the
             20th
             century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick,
             scientists had
             held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making
             the scale
             of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The
             dramatic
             revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick's
             publication made
             it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured
             prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
             Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless
             review reports.
             Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick
             were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect
             bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two
             expert
             panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to
             investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media
             followed
             the story around the world.
             The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey
             Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed
             bristlecone
             pine data. One of the panels, however, argued that while the
             Mann Hockey
             Stick itself was flawed, a series of other studies published
             since 1998
             had similar shapes, thus providing support for the view that the
             late
             20th century is unusually warm. The IPCC also made this argument
             in its
             2007 report. But the second expert panel, led by statistician Edward
             Wegman, pointed out that the other studies are not independent.
             They are
             written by the same small circle of authors, only the names are in
             different orders, and they reuse the same few data climate proxy
             series
             over and over.
             Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th
             century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that
             do have
             a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the
             National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the
             studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring
             curve from
             the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith
             Briffa.
             Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval
             period
             actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this
             claim
             depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the
             Polar
             Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber
             produced a
             much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very
             different
             story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th
             century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published
             those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from
             their
             climate reconstruction papers.
             In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated
             from tree
             ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced
             Hockey
             Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising
             in the
             20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an
             undisclosed number
             of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in
             producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the
             individual
             tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn't release his raw
             data.
             Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in
             prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a
             hockey
             stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend
             the Hockey
             Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC
             Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would
             question the
             Yamal data.
             Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like
             Nature
             and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required
             Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated
             requests for
             them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.
             Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published
             a paper
             using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical
             Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict
             data-sharing
             rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and
             this time
             an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to
             release their
             data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve
             could
             finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.
             It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead
             (partially
             fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp
             uptrend
             in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees
             alive as of
             1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific
             standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a
             publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century
             portion of
             the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year.
             But that
             portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does
             is the
             late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a
             dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least
             reliable
             portion of a dataset.
             But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve
             searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree
             ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been
             used to
             increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34
             up-to-date
             core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than
             Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa's small
             group the
             20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely
             unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.
             Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual
             step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a
             different
             composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were
             gathered
             more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the
             primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with
             as the
             Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the
             readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa
             seek out
             additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and
             not for
             the inadequate Yamal site?
             Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been
             invoked to
             support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series,
             depends on the
             influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of
             readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on
             here, it
             is not science.
             I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a
             decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have
             consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what
             lies at
             the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The
             surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a
             significant warm
             bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated
             evidence in
             its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross
             disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing
             with each
             passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has
             departed
             from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and
             low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a
             member last
             time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told:
             Conflicts of
             interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically
             ignored and
             there are no effective checks and balances against bias or
             distortion.
             I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to
             know
             better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without
             bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific
             discrepancies and
             procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global
             warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to
             collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to
             start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am
             grateful for
             those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who
             continue to ask
             the right questions and insist on scientific standards of
             openness and
             transparency.
             Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the
             University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled
             Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.
             Copyright 2009, FP
             EDITOR'S NOTE: More on the CRU's Yamal scandal and its impact, see:
             <[34]http://www.climateaudit.org/>

     <[35]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal>
     -tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/>

     <[36]http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.ht>
     ml>

     <[37]http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/10/1/yamal-the-debate-conti>
     nues.html>
             ============
             (3) OPINION: CLIMATE DATA BUSTER
             National Post, 1 October 2009

     <[38]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01>
     /terence-corcoran-climate-data-buster.aspx>
             By Terence Corcoran
             The official United Nation's global warming agency, the
             Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged
             stool that
             is fast losing its legs.  To carry the message of man-made global
             warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
             models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
             forecasting and 4)
             communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground.
             Over the past month, one of the IPCC's top climate scientists, Mojib
             Latif, attempted to explain that even if global temperatures were to
             cool over the next 10 to 20 years, that would not mean that man-made
             global warming is no longer catastrophic. It was a tough case to
             make,
             and it is not clear Mr. Latif succeeded. In a presentation to a
             world
             climate conference in early September, Mr. Latif rambled
             somewhat and
             veered off into inscrutable language that is now embedded in a
             million
             blog posts attempting to prove one thing or another.
             A sample: "It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even
             two, you know, when the temperature cools, all right, relative
             to the
             present level...And then, you know, I know what's going to
             happen. You
             know, I will get, you know, millions of phone calls, you know
             -'What's
             going on?' 'So is global warming disappearing, you know?' 'Have
             you lied
             on us, you know?' So, and, therefore, this is the reason why we
             need to
             address this decadal prediction issue."
             The decadal prediction issue appears to be a combination of computer
             model problems, the unpredictability of natural climate
             variation, and
             assorted uncertainties. Making all this clear to the average global
             citizen will not be easy and climate scientists need to be able
             to make
             it clear, said Mr. Latif. "We have to ask the nasty questions
             ourselves,
             all right, or some other people will do it."
             All this is still swirling around the global climate issue
             today. But
             now along comes another problem. Canadian data buster Steve
             McIntyre has
             spend most of the last three years deconstructing the IPCC's famous
             claim that the last couple of decades of the 20th century were the
             hottest in a thousand years. Using what was called The Hockey Stick
             graph, the IPCC claimed to have the smoking gun that showed a
             sharp run
             up in global temperatures through to 1997. The validity of the
             IPCC data
             began to crumble when Mr. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of Guelph
             University found serious data problems that raised doubts about the
             graph and the claims of record high temperatures.
             As Ross McKitrick explains in his op-ed, Steve McIntyre has
             uncovered
             another data distortion that further undermines the original graphic
             claim that the world has set temperature records in recent years. If
             world temperatures may have been just as hot in the past as they
             have
             been recently, and if the the next two decades could be cooler
             than they
             have been recently, the theory of climate change becomes an even
             tougher
             case to make.
             The IPCC is now on wobbly legs at all four corners. Its models are
             inadequate and need overhaul, data integrity is at issue, the
             climate is
             not quite following the script, and the communication program
             for the
             whole campaign is a growing struggle.
             Copyright 2009, NP
             ==========
             (4) OPINION: COOLING DOWN THE CASSANDRAS
             The Washington Post, 1 October 2009

     <[39]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR20090>
     93003569.html>
             By George F. Will
              "Plateau in Temperatures Adds Difficulty to Task Of Reaching a
             Solution"
              --New York Times, Sept. 23
             In this headline on a New York Times story about the difficulties
             confronting people alarmed about global warming, note the word
             "plateau." It dismisses the unpleasant -- to some people -- fact
             that
             global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate
             their apocalyptic warnings about it.
             The "difficulty" -- the "intricate challenge," the Times says -- is
             "building momentum" for carbon reduction "when global
             temperatures have
             been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the
             next few
             years." That was in the Times's first paragraph.
             In the fifth paragraph, a "few years" became "the next decade or
             so,"
             according to Mojib Latif, a German "prize-winning climate and ocean
             scientist" who campaigns constantly to promote policies
             combating global
             warming. Actually, Latif has said he anticipates "maybe even two"
             decades in which temperatures cool. But stay with the Times's
             "decade or
             so."
             By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a
             mere "plateau," not warming's apogee, the Times assures readers
             who are
             alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and
             that
             warming will continue: Do not despair, bad news will resume.
             The Times reported that "scientists" -- all of them? -- say the
             11 years
             of temperature stability has "no bearing," none, on long-term
             warming.
             Some scientists say "cool stretches are inevitable." Others say
             there
             may be growth of Arctic sea ice, but the growth will be "temporary."
             According to the Times, however, "scientists" say that "trying to
             communicate such scientific nuances to the public -- and to
             policymakers
             -- can be frustrating."
             The Times says "a short-term trend gives ammunition to skeptics of
             climate change." Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the
             accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from
             man-made
             climate change are impervious to evidence. The theories are
             unfalsifiable, at least in the "short run." And the "short run" is
             defined as however many decades must pass until the evidence
             begins to
             fit the hypotheses.
             The Post recently reported the theory of a University of Virginia
             professor emeritus who thinks that, many millennia ago, primitive
             agriculture -- burning forests, creating methane-emitting rice
             paddies,
             etc. -- produced enough greenhouse gases to warm the planet at
             least a
             degree. The theory is interesting. Even more interesting is the
             reaction
             to it by people such as the Columbia University professor who
             says it
             makes him "really upset" because it might encourage opponents of
             legislation combating global warming.
             Warnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as
             evidence of
             warming becomes more elusive. A recent report from the United
             Nations
             Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit
             increase
             by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most
             ambitious
             pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions. The U.S. goal
             is an 80
             percent reduction by 2050. But Steven Hayward of the American
             Enterprise
             Institute says that would require reducing greenhouse gas
             emissions to
             the 1910 level. On a per capita basis, it would mean emissions
             approximately equal to those in 1875.
             That will not happen. So, we are doomed. So, why try?
             America needs a national commission appointed to assess the evidence
             about climate change. Alarmists will fight this because the first
             casualty would be the carefully cultivated and media-reinforced
             myth of
             consensus -- the bald assertion that no reputable scientist
             doubts the
             gravity of the crisis, doubts being conclusive evidence of
             disreputable
             motives or intellectual qualifications. The president, however,
             could
             support such a commission because he is sure "there's finally
             widespread
             recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us." So he
             announced
             last week at the U.N. climate change summit, where he said the
             threat is
             so "serious" and "urgent" that unless all nations act "boldly,
             swiftly
             and together" -- "time . . . is running out" -- we risk
             "irreversible
             catastrophe." Prince Charles agrees. In March, seven months ago,
             he said
             humanity had 100 months -- until July 2017 -- to prevent
             "catastrophic
             climate change and the unimaginable horrors that this would bring."
             Evidently humanity will prevent this.
             Charles Moore of the Spectator notes that in July, the prince
             said that
             by 2050 the planet will be imperiled by the existence of 9 billion
             people, a large portion of them consuming as much as Western
             people now
             do. Environmental Cassandras must be careful with their
             predictions lest
             they commit what climate alarmists consider the unpardonable
             faux pas of
             denying that the world is coming to an end.
             Copyright 2009, WP
             ==============
             (5) U.S. THROWS SPANNER INTO CLIMATE TALKS
             Times of India, 2 October 2009

     <[40]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/US-t>
     hrows-spanner-into-climate-talks/articleshow/5079332.cms>
             Nitin Sethi, TNN
             NEW DELHI: The promise of a deal at Copenhagen seem to be
             turning into a
             pipedream as the US has refused to put down hard numbers for
             mitigation
             under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol at the ongoing climate
             negotiations at Bangkok. EU too seems to be taking a deal-breaking
             condition saying, "environmental integrity" was central to the
             UN treaty
             and "equity" of different countries' rights was just one element.
             The negotiations at various levels seem to be grinding into a logjam
             with US determined not to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. The US
             negotiators fought hard at different forums within the UN talks
             to block
             any progress on industrialized countries' commitments to reduce
             emissions in the mid-term under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol.
             India stood steadfast in demanding that the rich countries put
             up their
             offers in terms of hard numbers for emission reductions over
             2012-2020
             under the existing protocol. But, US and many other developed
             countries
             seemed determined to do away with the Kyoto Protocol entirely.
             This is not the first time that US has voiced its opposition to the
             Kyoto Protocol which demands quantified targets from rich
             countries. US
             had not signed on to Kyoto earlier and it continues to oppose
             the only
             tool the global treaty has for making measurable and comparable
             reductions in the dangerous greenhouse gases.
             The protocol is also seen by a select band of industrialized
             countries
             such as US and Japan as a wall of differentiation constructed in the
             convention. The parent treaty -- UN Framework Convention on Climate
             Change -- lays most of the burden of mitigation on the
             industrialized
             countries that caused it in the first place. The Kyoto Protocol
             activates this principle of burden sharing into hard actions and
             targets. The protocol in its first phase sets fixed percentages
             by which
             countries reduce their emissions by 2012 below 1990 levels.
             Many of the industrialized countries have not moved on a
             trajectory to
             achieve the targets for 2012. Part of the discussions in the UN
             talks
             have been to set a higher level targets for the second phase of
             Kyoto
             Protocol between 2012-2020.
             But the US, not keen to take on any commitments in the mid-term, has
             always shown interest in disbanding with Kyoto Protocol and instead
             taking on a series of actions that are decided by countries on
             their own
             -- say energy efficiency targets -- and merely presented to the UN
             forum. India and developing countries have pointed out that
             would make
             the targets incomparable and render it impossible to figure out
             if any
             significant reductions have been made in emissions to prevent a
             climate
             calamity.
             Other industrialized countries too have so far shown little
             interest in
             offering credible and robust targets for the second phase of the
             protocol. The offers so far on the table from the industrialized
             countries, if implemented, would only bring in reductions in the
             range
             of 11-18% by 2020 below 1990 levels. India and other developing
             countries have demanded that the industrialized countries follow the
             recommendations of the UN climate science panel -- IPCC -- and
             take cuts
             in the range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 which would put the
             world on a trajectory to avoid temperatures reaching dangerous
             levels in
             the decades to come.
             Copyright 2009, TOI
             =============
             (6) CAP AND TRADE MAY SINK OPPOSITION LEADER DOWN UNDER
             The Australian, 2 October 2009

     <[41]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153820-2702,00.htm>        l>
             Lenore Taylor, National correspondent | October 02, 2009
             MALCOLM Turnbull is on a collision course with his own back
             bench after
             staking his leadership on a demand that they back his climate change
             strategy. Several MPs immediately refused to do so.
             If the partyroom refused to back his strategy of negotiating
             amendments
             to the government's emissions trading scheme, Mr Turnbull said
             yesterday, the Coalition would "literally be a party with
             nothing to say
             ... a party with no ideas", and that was "not the party I am
             prepared to
             lead".
             Throwing down the gauntlet to his internal critics, Mr Turnbull
             said: "I
             am asserting my authority as the leader of the Liberal Party and the
             Leader of the Opposition."
             "If the partyroom were to reject my recommendation to them, that
             would
             obviously be a leadership issue. That's perfectly plain, perfectly
             clear," he told ABC Radio in Adelaide.
             "I could not possibly lead a party that was on a
             do-nothing-on-climate-change platform."
             His critics were not cowed, despite the fact that both mooted
             leadership
             alternatives -- Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott -- support Mr Turnbull's
             stance.
             West Australian backbencher Wilson Tuckey said: "Mr Turnbull has
             made
             the ETS a leadership issue and we will now treat it as such." His
             leader's ultimatum did not alter his "total opposition to an ETS
             and to
             the suggestion that we might amend it".
             Victorian Liberal senator Julian McGauran said he stood by his
             vow to
             vote against the ETS in November, no matter what amendments were
             negotiated.
             Nationals senators also remain implacably opposed to the scheme. "He
             hasn't got the partyroom with him on this one ... we are going
             to stand
             up for what we believe in," said senator Ron Boswell.
             "This is not just another issue. This is not one we can let go
             through
             to the keeper," said senator Barnaby Joyce.
             Mr Tuckey appeared to suggest Mr Turnbull's deputy, Julie
             Bishop, as an
             alternative leader, saying there were "many good potential
             leaders in
             the Liberal Party ... and perhaps some people who have had their
             reputations tarnished by backgrounding from our side now deserve
             reconsideration for the top job".
             FULL STORY at

     <[42]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153820-2702,00.htm>         l>
             ======== e-mails to the editor =====
             (7) THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
             Jennifer Marohasy <jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
             <[43]mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com>
             <[44]mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com>
     <[45]mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com>>>
             Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer
             Marohasy

     <[46]http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists->
     must-explain-or-resign/>
             MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various
             reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest
             year of
             the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered
             over the
             last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to
             data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support
             the idea
             that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures
             over the
             last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph.
             Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data - which he had been asking
             for since
             2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the
             United Kingdom's Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small
             subset of the available data to make their claims that recent
             years have
             been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is
             used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears
             completely. [1]
             Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics
             behind
             the 'hockey stick'. But scientists at the Climate Research
             Centre, in
             particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the
             upswing
             in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an
             artifact of
             the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these
             same
             scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data.
             Recently they
             were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they
             published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a
             journal which
             unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving
             which it
             enforces.   This week's claims by Steve McInyre that scientists
             associated with the
             UK Meteorology Bureau have been less than diligent are serious and
             suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for
             anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the
             methodology is laid bare.
             This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is
             archived
             at the UK Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets that
             spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while
             complete data sets are kept hidden from the public -  including from
             scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
              It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre
             associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr
             McIntyre is
             in error or resign.
             [1] Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27
             September 2009
             [47]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
             Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD
             ================
             (8) COOLING?
             Rodney Chilton <maberrd@hotmail.com <mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com>
             <[48]mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com <mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com>>>
             Dear Benny:
             Recently, there has been considerable discussion concerning the
             slight
             cooling of the earth's overall climate since about 2005. The
             result of
             the cooling has brought some scientists into the forefront to be
             openly
             critical of the still prominent view that climate changes over the
             century or so have predominately been man caused. The proponents of
             human initiated climate changes are of the opinion that the recent
             cooling is but a temporary interruption in what soon again will be a
             rapid climate warming.
             I think one of the keys to alleviate some of this discussion is to
             attempt to determine the triggers for two other climate shifts in
             earlier times. The first of these, the "Little Ice Age" is generally
             regarded by most scientists as resulting from a reduced output
             of energy
             from the sun. Coinciding as it did with an interval of very
             little to
             almost no sunspot activity, a time known as the "Maunder
             Minimum", many
             solar scientists suggest that as little as 0.25% decrease in solar
             output initiated this cold climate period. Similarily, during
             the mid
             20th Century during the years from the end of the 1940's to
             about the
             mid 1970's, the sun was in one of its quiet modes (very few
             sunspots).
             The cause for what was a slightly cooler interval could logically be
             linked to decreased energy from the sun. However, the quite recent
             thirty year period is more commonly linked to increased dust in the
             earth's atmosphere. Consistent with this view is the idea that
             perhaps
             the Little Ice Age too, was forced not by a decrease in the sun's
             output, but by an increase in dust, not that produced by man, but by
             extraterrestrial dust from a comet encounter. More details of this
             particular scenario can be seen at the following website:
             <[49]http://www.bcclimate.com <[50]http://www.bcclimate.com/>
             <[51]http://www.bcclimate.com/>>
             All of this raises the questions, what drove both the Little Ice
             Age and
             the thirty year interval in the middle of the last century? It is
             possible that they were driven by the two different causes
             outlined. It
             is vital I think that the reason(s) for the two climate shifts be
             determined. This would go along way to settle the recent debate
             as to
             the importance of solar minima in initiating climate changes
             over more
             than just a few years. Further to this, the picture of the
             future will
             be clarified. If for example, decreases in solar output is
             proven to be
             of less importance during the past, then surely the present climate
             downturn will be likely only a temporary respite from the inexorable
             upward trend in temperatures worldwide. If on the other hand the
             solar
             cycles accompanied by low sun activity over decades and even
             longer can
             be proven as significant, then I believe we must re-examine the
             increased carbon dioxide scenario.
             Rodney Chilton
             ============
             (9) RESOURCES DEPLETION WORRIES
             Steven Zoraster <szoraster@szoraster.com
             <[52]mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com> <[53]mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com>
     <[54]mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com>>>
             Benny,
             Certainly someone with access to the hard numbers and more knowledge
             than I can do better proving or disproving the following
             argument about
             the ERoEI of nuclear power in the United States:
             Today, 104 nuclear reactors supply 20% of the electricity used
             each year
             in the United States. [1]They have been doing this for
             approximately 25
             years. [2] Many existing reactors have now been approved to
             operate for
             60 years. While the initial costs measured in energy use 25
             years ago
             were high and construction often took 5 years, I doubt that the
             construction process for all 104 reactors, required greater
             energy than
             the equivalent of 20% of annual electricity used 25 years ago
             over a 5
             year period. (I include the cost of design, obtaining permits,
             fighting
             environmental lawsuits, manufacturing parts, and actual
             construction,
             etc., in the total energy cost.)
             Today the annual operating costs of maintaining, fuelling, and
             repairing
             existing reactors are low compared to alternate sources of
             electricity
             except hydroelectric. The nuclear waste from these reactors has been
             safely stored at the reactor sites without causing a single
             human death.
             Conclusions: Assuming the generation of electric energy in the
             US since
             about 1985 has been and will be constant, the ERoEI of nuclear power
             using 25 year old technology is greater than 12. (Twenty percent
             of all
             electric energy generated over 60 years divided by 20% of the same
             amount of pre-atomic electricity generated over 5 years.) Given that
             total electricity use in the US has almost doubled in the last
             25 years
             [3], the ERoEI may be greater than 24. More modern proposed reactor
             designs, with greater standardization, simpler fuel cycles, fail
             safe
             features, and increased automation, can be expected to have higher
             ERoEI.
             (I have not included the cost of decommissioning reactors. Numbers I
             found online are often estimates and seldom given in terms of
             energy.
             Because fuel costs today and to be expected in the future are low,
             ignoring the option of recycling used fuel is not a significant
             factor
             in my calculations.)
             Steven Zoraster
             [1]
             [55]http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerpl
             ants/
             [2]
             [56]http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html
             Reactors were being completed between 1957 and 1996. The first large
             commercial reactors date to 1968. The longest "build time" is 24
             years.
             Some reactors have been closed after being built and have been
             ignored
             in my argument. My use of 25 years in these calculations is
             certainly a
             suspect approximation or average.
             [3] [57]http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html (Then click on
             "Electricity" on the left side of the page.)
             ==========
             (10) COPENHAGEN SUMMIT: DO SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS SUPPORT GOVERNMENT
             ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING?
             Peter Kidson <peterdkidson@googlemail.com
             <[58]mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com>
             <[59]mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com>
     <[60]mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com>>]
             Hi Benny
             You might perhaps want to publicise this public debate
             <[61]http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217>
     <[62]http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217>
             <[63]http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217>
     <[64]http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217>>>
             Note that you need to reserve seats.
             Regards
             -Peter
             ==========
             (11) A DEATH SPIRAL FOR CLIMATE ALARMISM?
             Robert Bradley <rbradley@iertx.org <[65]mailto:rbradley@iertx.org>
             <[66]mailto:rbradley@iertx.org <mailto:rbradley@iertx.org>>>
             Ken Green's post at MasterResource today should be of interest.
             <[67]http://masterresource.org/?p=5036>
              Things are getting very shrill from the Climate Industry, but
             there is a
             rethink going on starting with the physical science.
              Robert L. Bradley Jr.
             CEO & Founder, Institute for Energy Research
             Houston, Texas 77057-3527
             IER Website: [68]www.energyrealism.org
             <[69]http://www.energyrealism.org/> <[70]http://www.energyrealism.org/>
             Political Capitalism website: [71]www.politicalcapitalism.org
             <[72]http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/>
             <[73]http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/>
             Energy Blog: [74]www.MasterResource.org
             <[75]http://www.masterresource.org/> <[76]http://www.masterresource.org/>
             =============
             (12) AND FINALLY: 'PLANNED RECESSION' COULD AVOID CATASTROPHIC
             CLIMATE CHANGE
             The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009

     <[77]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6248257/Planned-recession-co>
     uld-avoid-catastrophic-climate-change.html>
             By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
             Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric
             cars and
             shut down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned
             recession' to
             avoid dangerous climate change.
             At the moment the UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by
             a third
             by 2020.
             However a new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
             Research
             said these targets are inadequate to keep global warming below two
             degrees C above pre-industrial levels.
             The report says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous
             tipping
             point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020.
             This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned
             recession".
             Kevin Anderson, director of the research body, said the building
             of new
             airports, petrol cars and dirty coal-fired power stations will
             have to
             be halted in the UK until new technology provides an alternative to
             burning fossil fuels.
             "To meet [Government] targets of not exceeding two degrees C, there
             would have to be a moratorium on airport expansion, stringent
             measures
             on the type of vehicle being used and a rapid transition to low
             carbon
             technology," he said.
             Prof Anderson also said individuals will have to consume less.
             "For most of the population it would mean fairly modest changes
             to how
             they live, maybe they will drive less, share a car to work or
             take more
             holidays in Britain."
             More than 190 countries are due to meet in Copenhagen in December to
             decide a new international deal on climate change.
             Speaking at an Oxford University conference on the threat of climate
             change, Prof. Anderson said rich countries will have to make
             much more
             ambitious cuts to have any chance of keeping temperature rise
             below four
             degrees C.
             "If we do everything we can do then we might have a chance," he
             said.
             Copyright 2009, TDT
             ----------------
             CCNet is a science policy network edited by Benny Peiser. To
             subscribe,
             send an e-mail to <listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
             <[78]mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk> <[79]mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk>
     <[80]mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk>>> ("subscribe CCNetMedia"). To
             unsubscribe send an e-mail to <listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
             <[81]mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk> <[82]mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk>
     <[83]mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk>>> ("unsubscribe
             CCNetMedia"). Information circulated on this network is for
             scholarly
             and educational use only. The attached information may not be
             copied or
             reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the
             copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints
             expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet
             contributions do
             not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the
             editor. <[84]http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/>


             --         David W. Schnare
             Center for Environmental Stewardship
     -- David W. Schnare
     Center for Environmental Stewardship
     --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
     You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
     "geoengineering" group.
     To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
     To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
     geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
     For more options, visit this group at
     [85]http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
     -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

   1. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html
   2. http://euggordon@comcast.net/
   3. http://www.germgardlighting.com/
   4. http://www.germgardlighting.com/
   5. mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
   6. mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
   7. mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
   8. mailto:euggordon@comcast.net
   9. mailto:euggordon@comcast.net%20%3Cmailto:euggordon@comcast.net
  10. mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net
  11. mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net
  12. mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net
  13. mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  14. mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk
  15. mailto:CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  16. mailto:CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk
  17. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
  18. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
  19. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
  20. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com
  21. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com
  22. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com
  23. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
  24. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
  25. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
  26. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com
  27. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com
  28. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com
  29. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org
  30. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org
  31. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org
  32. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
  33. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/01/r%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  34. http://www.climateaudit.org/
  35. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  36. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.ht
  37. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/10/1/yamal-the-debate-conti%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  38. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01
  39. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR20090%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  40. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/US-t
  41. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153820-2702,00.htm%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  42. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153820-2702,00.htm
  43. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
  44. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
  45. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
  46. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  47. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
  48. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com%20%3Cmailto:maberrd@hotmail.com
  49. http://www.bcclimate.com/
  50. http://www.bcclimate.com/
  51. http://www.bcclimate.com/
  52. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
  53. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
  54. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
  55. http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerpl
  56. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html
  57. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html
  58. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com
  59. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  60. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com
  61. http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217>%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  62. http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217
  63. http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217>%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  64. http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=217
  65. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org
  66. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org%20%3Cmailto:rbradley@iertx.org
  67. http://masterresource.org/?p=5036
  68. http://www.energyrealism.org/
  69. http://www.energyrealism.org/
  70. http://www.energyrealism.org/
  71. http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/
  72. http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/
  73. http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/
  74. http://www.masterresource.org/
  75. http://www.masterresource.org/
  76. http://www.masterresource.org/
  77. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6248257/Planned-recession-co%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  78. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
  79. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
  80. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
  81. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
  82. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
  83. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
  84. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/%3E%A0%A0%A0
  85. http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en

