Global Warming Theorists Computers Hacked

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sundancefisher

 

Your Trojan horse.......ex I would assume rather shortly

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...aked-emails-uea

 

 

Quote from Jones..."He added that he had long been under pressure from climate sceptics to further explain his research: "From about 2001/2002 I was getting emails from a number of people involved in the climate sceptic community. Initially at the beginning I did try to respond to them in the hope I might convince them but I soon realised it was a forlorn hope and broke off communication. Some of the emails I sent them subsequently appeared and were discussed on various sceptic websites."

 

That is what purely has my blood hound blood boiling! It is not his job as a scientist to CONVINCE other scientists. Handing over the so that other scientists can prove or refute the research, replicate it, expand on it is how science evolves and how scientists learn the truth.

 

This is just plain brazen attempts to halt the search for the facts. This is totally against any scientists reasonable right to restrict access to their data UNLESS their data include the missing link or really just a pigs jawbone :$*%&:

[Guest Sundancefisher]

seriously.

 

How can the IPCC say they have iron clad peer review. They don't allow anyone that does not believe in global warming to peer review. They don't have a leg to stand on. Bias breed bias breed bias. The emails show a proven track record of keeping data out of the hands of "skeptics" and trying to bully journals into refusing skeptics rights to publish. Tsk tsk tsk... This is not science but rather a pro global warming club with all member patting each other on the bum and high 5ing whenever another skeptic gets black listed. If they can't stand the heat...publish or provide ALL data not just the "cleaned" and altered data. Then just let the facts stand where they may. Or are they just all chickens?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...e-leaked-emails

 

 

Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairman

 

Rajendra Pachauri says there is 'virtually no possibility' of a few scientists biasing IPCC's advice, after UAE hacking breach

 

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC

 

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Photograph: Jay Directo/AFP/Getty Images

 

There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.

 

Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

 

The emails were made public this month after a hacker illegally obtained them from servers at the university.

 

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

 

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

 

"Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."

 

The IPCC, which was set up by the UN in 1988, is the world's leading authority on climate change. It advises governments on the science behind the problem and was awarded the Nobel peace prize along with Al Gore in 2007.

 

Pachauri was responding to one email from 2004 in which Professor Phil Jones, the head of the climatic research unit at UEA, said of two papers he regarded as flawed: "I can't see either … being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

 

Pachauri said it was not clear whether the wording of the emails reflected the scientists' intended actions, but said: "I really think people should be discreet … in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet … It is another matter to talk about this to your friends on the telephone or person to person but to put it down in writing was indiscreet. If someone was to say something like this in an IPCC authors' meeting then there are others who would chew him up."

 

Jones has denied any suggestion that he tried to suppress scientific evidence he disagreed with or that he manipulated data.

 

Some commentators, including the former chancellor Nigel Lawson and the environmental campaigner and Guardian writer George Monbiot, have called on Jones to resign but Pachauri said he did not agree. He said an independent inquiry into the emails would achieve little, but there should be a criminal investigation into how the emails came to light.

 

Pachauri said he doubted that trust in the IPCC would be damaged by the affair. "People who are aware of how the IPCC functions and are appreciative of the credibility that the IPCC has attained will probably not be swayed by an incident of this kind," he said.

 

He pointed out that five days after the emails were made public, Barack Obama announced a major commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

SL...

 

here are more facts

 

Michael Mann is being investigated. Looks like scientists now around the world are getting incensed with the idea that these guys were halting any chance of other scientists to refute the pro global warming side.

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-...r-investigation

 

 

Climategate: Penn State Professor Mann under investigation

November 30, 7:52

 

Michael Mann, Professor, Director of Earth System Sci. CenterPenn State University is home to the largest meteorology program in the nation. It's something they are proud of. They are also home to Professor Michael Mann, who was exposed for 'tricking data' in CRU documents recently released in what is now known as Climategate. Mann is responsible for developing the famous hockey stick diagram of historical global temperatures used in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. This was designed to highlight abrupt warming in the past century that looks like a hockey stick on a timeline. We now know that to not be true... The trick, unfortunately made some aspects of past climate hide extremes to exaggerate any warming in recent years. Here is the e-mail that was sent from Phil Jones at CRU to the authors of the hockey stick. In it, credit is given to Mike for his 'trick' to manipulate data:

 

From: Phil Jones

To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx

Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

 

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or

first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps

to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from

1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual

land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land

N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999

for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with

data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

 

Cheers

Phil

 

Prof. Phil Jones

Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx

School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx

University of East Anglia

Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx

NR4 7TJ

UK

 

Penn State has been overwhelmed with the response from the scientific community. It was left with no other option but investigate. The official Penn State statement:

 

University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information

Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann’s research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann’s seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.

In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.

 

My question: What does this say for the integrity of their entire department? It is hard to imagine that Mann was the only person involved in manipulating the data at Penn State. What other faculty, and perhaps even grad students were part of the scheme?

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ions-begin.aspx

 

Even the National Post is forced to say something...albeit as little as possible still. Since mainstream media has not only bought into global warming but has done a ton to sell it to the public and now sells many papers based upon the fear factor...it is little surprise that mainstream media is still fighting this.

 

****************************

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/...ils-copenhagen/

 

 

Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'

By John Lott

- FOXNews.com

 

A coordinated campaign to hide scientific information about climate change appears unprecedented. Could it wind up costing us trillions?

 

 

AP

Science depends on good quality of data. It also relies on replication and sharing data. But the last couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations. Computer hackers have obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These e-mails, which have now been confirmed as real, involved many researchers across the globe with ideologically similar advocates around the world. They were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims. The academics here also worked closely with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]." Professor Mann admitted that this was the exchange that he had and explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem, 'and not something secret.'" While the New York Times apparently buys this explanation, it is hard to see the explanation for "to hide the decline."

 

And there is a lot more. In another exchange, Professor Jones tells Professor Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Professor Jones further urges Professor Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?" In another e-mail, Professor Jones told Professor Mann and Professor Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona and Raymond S. "Ray" Bradley at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

 

Professor Jones complains to another academic: "I did get an e-mail from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting e-mails" and "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." We only have e-mails from Professor Jones' institution, and, with his obvious approach to delete files; we have no idea what damaging information has been lost.

 

Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discusses in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise be seen in the results. Professor Mann sent Professor Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he is sending shouldn't be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming. Time after time the discussions refer to hiding or destroying data.

 

Other global warming advocates also privately acknowledge what they won’t concede publicly, that temperature changes haven’t been consistent with their models. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and prominent man-made global warming advocate, wrote in an e-mail: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

 

There were also been discussions to silence academic journals that publish research skeptical of significant man-made global warming. Professor Mann wrote: "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Other emails refer to efforts to exclude contrary views from publication in scientific journals. Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, told The Wall Street Journal: "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."

 

The New York Times argues: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here." -- This from the same news organization that regularly publishes classified government documents! Yet, these e-mails were covered by England's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released when they were requested. Hiding data, destroying information, and doctoring their results raise real questions about many American academics at universities such as Pennsylvania State University, University of Arizona, and University of Massachusetts at Amherst. When at all possible available data must be shared.

 

Usually academic research is completely ignored by the general public but in this case proposed regulations, costing trillions of dollars, are being based on many of these claimed research results. This coordinated campaign to hide scientific information appears unprecedented.

 

John R. Lott, Jr.is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics."

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...lets-except-fox

 

The big question still is why won't mainstream media in large part cover this story? It has the potential to be huge. It is part of a multi trillion dollar plan for the tax payers of Earth...mostly first world countries. It is a transfer of funds from the have countries to the have not countries.

 

No one can say because it is bogus news. Tell me one sensational story that is not covered in detail regardless of the facts. From Tiger Woods accident, to Brittany Spears breakdown...nothing is ever too small or too large to print.

 

The lack of actual investigative journalism in the US and other first world countries will end up being discussed eventually.

 

********************************************************************

 

ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)

November 24, 2009 - 11:03 ET

 

The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.

 

Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.

 

LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.

 

By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:

 

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

 

ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show

ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)

CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall

CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"

CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts

NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on

NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts

NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.

It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?

 

Also consider that the news divisions of ABC, CBS, and NBC broadcast many hours during the day besides their evening programs, and LexisNexis identified no ClimateGate reports in those either (through Monday).

 

As for CNN, it has been broadcasting for almost 100 straight hours since this story broke, and it appears the so-called "Most Respected Name In News" has yet to devote one second to this scandal.

 

By contrast, Fox News did at least four reports on this subject on Monday alone. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has also done multiple stories on this matter, as has BBC.com.

 

Yet, despite the seriousness of this issue, as well as a prominent Senator calling for hearings to investigate it, America's television news organizations appear to be actively boycotting this growing controversy.

 

Is this a replay of how they ignored September's ACORN scandal for many days until they were basically forced to cover what had gone viral across the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News?

 

What is it going to take for these so-called news outlets to begin sharing this subject with their viewers?

 

On a humorous related note, ABC might not be interested in ClimateGate, but it still is devoted to spreading climate fear.

 

On Tuesday, ABCNews.com's top story was, "Worse Than the Worst: Climate Report Says Even Most Dire Predictions Too Tame"

 

There's even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by 26 scientists from eight countries.

 

Sea level rise, ocean acidification and the rapid melting of massive ice sheets are among the significantly increased effects of human-induced global warming assessed in the survey, which also examines the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are causing the climate change.

 

"Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst-case projections" made three years ago by the world's scientists, the new Copenhagen Diagnosis said.

 

Nor has manmade global warming slowed or paused, as some headlines have recently suggested, according to the report, which you can see here.

 

Well, at least ABC is consistent.

 

Readers are advised that of the cable news networks, only CNN produces transcriptions of all its broadcasts. With this in mind, it is possible that MSNBC has reported on ClimateGate during programs not transcribed. It is also possible that Fox News has reported on ClimateGate more frequently than addressed.

 

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.

 

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Hopefully people keep an open mind and read the information flooding in.

**************************************************************

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

 

 

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal

 

By Dr. Tim Ball and Judi McLeod Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

 

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

 

“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

 

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

 

While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.

 

A throwback to the intro of the television series Dragnet, “Ladies and Gentlemen: “The story you are about to hear is true, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent”, the innocent in Climategate have already been thrown to the ravening wolves.

 

“There is a multitude of small but frightening stories in the massive files,” Ball writes. “For example I’ve known solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for a long time. I’ve published articles with Willie and enjoyed extensive communication. I was on advisory committees with them when Sallie suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray. I don’t know if the following events were contributing factors but it is likely.

 

“Baliunas and Soon were authors of excellent work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several scientists challenged the claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. They knew the claim was false, many warmer periods occurred in the past. Michael Mann ‘got rid’ of the MWP with his production of the hockey stick, but Soon and Baliunas were problematic. What better than have a powerful academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work.”

 

Indeed, Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”.

 

How the deed was done

“A perfect person and opportunity appeared. On 16th October 2003 Michael Mann, infamous for his lead in the ‘hockey stick’ that dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal; “

 

Dear All,

 

Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along…” At the time Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government. (Editor’s Note: He is now Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States Science Czar. )

 

““In an email on October16, 2003 from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we are told:

 

”“I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”

 

The Wednesday Breakfast Group

“This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group.

 

“I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.”

 

“The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003 Schulz wrote;

 

“In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [1 techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?”

 

“Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16 but comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies, “I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily, much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?” Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies, “But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.” No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolves to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a measure of the man’s blindness and political opportunism that pervades everything he says or does.

 

“Schulz provides a solid summary when he writes, “I’ll close by saying I’m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question. How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people?”

 

“We now know it was deliberately placed beyond the reach of the people by the group that he used to ridicule Soon and Baliunas. Holdren was blinded by his political views, which as his record shows are frightening. One web site synthesizes his position on over-population as follows, “Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

 

“Holdren has a long history of seeking total government control. He was involved in the Club of Rome providing Paul Ehrlich with the scientific data in his bet with Julian Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet. Holdren’s behavior in this sorry episode with Soon and Baliunas is too true to form and shows the leopard never changes his spots,” Ball concludes.

 

Meanwhile, even with an AWOL mainstream media, the Climategate snakes continue to slither out from under the rocks.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

 

Kind of a funny debate between two small fish in a gigantic pond. Interestingly enough I have heard that there is great concern in Russia with the "emergence" of malaria recently that shows recent global warming has caused malaria to move into Russia.

 

The Russian pro global warming guy says malaria has never been in Russia before and scoffed at the other guy saying there was.

 

In fact...malaria has always been a problem going back as far as the 1940's. Given science and medical advances...it is not unlikely that malaria was occuring as far back as people existed in the region. Malaria was around in Russia in the 1940's so why on Earth are we blaming global warming (actually cooling in the last 10 years) to a malaria outbreak today? The IPCC does not state that the 1940's was a man made global warming event.

 

 

http://www.uel.ac.uk/mosquito/issue12/russia.htm

 

Malaria vectors in European Russia

 

 

Marina I. Sokolova1 and Keith R. Snow2

 

1 Science & Information Department, Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Gubkin str. 3, 119991 Moscow, Russia. E-mail: msokolova@vigg.ru 2 School of Biosciences, University of East London, Romford Road, London E15 4LZ, UK E-mail: k.r.snow@uel.ac.uk

 

Abstract

 

The malaria vectors of European Russia are reviewed and the status of vector species in transmitting malaria in Russia is discussed.

 

 

Malaria in Russia in the 20th century

 

 

In 1946-1948 there were 1500-2000 cases of malaria per 10,000 of the population in the territories of the former USSR, including the Moscow region. Following the introduction of DDT for malaria control in 1945 the number of cases in the USSR was markedly reduced. In 1960 the Ministry of Public Health of the USSR announced the start of a campaign to eradicate malaria from the country. This was achieved mainly by administration of curative treatment to all malaria patients in order to eliminate the parasite reservoir. However, since 1966 the number of imported cases of malaria has increased and has led to renewed local transmission. Cases of local malaria now outnumber imported cases in the European Russia. During the year 2000 a total of 763 cases of malaria were registered in the Russian Federation, 47 of which were autochthonous (WHO, 2001).

 

Of the three species of malarial parasites recorded in Russia, Plasmodium vivax has always been and remains the most widely distributed. However, disease caused by the tropical Plasmodium falciparum was also present, with rare epidemics recorded in central and northern Russia and with serious foci in the Volga Region (Bruce-Chwatt & de Zulueta, 1980). Individual cases of autochthonous quartian malaria caused by Plasmodium malaria, were recorded in central and northern parts of Russia, but were more common in the south of the country. The fourth human malarial parasite, Plasmodium ovale, was recorded only in visitors from Africa, and local cases of infection with this species have never been reported.

 

In European Russia the transmission of P. vivax occurred up to latitude 64 o N. Cases of malaria caused by P. falciparum are seldom found at such high latitudes; a rare example occurred in the Vologda and Arkhangelsk regions in 1936, when exceptionally high summer temperature of up to 35oC were recorded. The last locally transmitted cases of P. falciparum malaria in Russia were in 1962.

 

Malaria vectors in Russia

 

Although the first Russian record of a malarial mosquito (as Anopheles bifurcatus) was made in 1813 (Porchinskii, 1911) and the forerunner of the Institute of Medical Parasitology and Tropical Medicine was established by Martsinovsky in 1920, it was not until the period between 1940 and 1960 that Beklemishev and his colleagues developed the foundation of modern medical entomology in Russia. In particular the monograph by Beklemishev (1944), dealing with Anopheles maculipennis, was a significant landmark in the understanding of this taxon.

 

From 1970, and for several further decades, the standard work used for the identification of mosquito species in the USSR was the monograph by A.V. Gutsevich, A.S. Monchadsky, and A.A. Shtakelberg entitled Mosquitoes. Family Culicidae, published in the Fauna of USSR series by the Academy of Sciences of USSR. Gutsevich et al. (1970), following Beklemishev (1944), considered An. maculipennis to be a single, polytypic species with six Palaearctic subspecies: maculipennis s.s., messeae, melanoon (including the subalpinus form), labranchiae, atroparvus, and sacharovi. Of these only the subspecies labranchiae was considered to absent from Russia.

 

General acceptance that the individual members of the Maculipennis Complex are separate species came later (Artemiev, 1984), mostly with the work of Stegnii and collaborators (Stegnii, 1976, 1991; Stegnii & Kabanova, 1976; Stegnii et al., 1973). This work includes the chromosomal differentiation of An. maculipennis and Anopheles beklemishevi and led to the systematic re-appraisal of the An. maculipennis complex by White (1978).

 

Of currently recognised Palaearctic species of the Maculipennis Complex, only An. labranchiae and An. martinius have not been recorded in Russia. On the evidence of reproductive isolation between sympatric populations, melanoon and subalpinus, treated as synonyms by Gutsevich et al. (1970), were considered to be separate species by Cianchi et al. (1987). However, Stegnii (1991, 1993) reiterated his view that melanoon and. subalpinus were conspecific. Having reviewed the available evidence, Y.-M. Linton and R.E. Harbach (personal communication, 2002) intend to formally synonymise subalpinus Hackett & Lewis, 1935 with melanoon Hackett, 1934, pointing out that it is apparent that An. subalpinus and An. melanoon represent a single species which has polymorphic eggs. They are currently undertaking a morphological and molecular study in their laboratory to characterise An. melanoon and provide reliable diagnostic characters to differentiate this species from others of the An. maculipennis complex.

 

Also the presence of Anopheles (Anopheles) sinensis Wiedemann, 1828 has been revealed in Russia. According to Gordeev (1997), An. sinensis was wrongly identified as An. hyrcanus in the basin of the river Zeya (Stanovoy Province of eastern Siberia), and is, he believes, the sole malaria vector in that region. The eastern limits of the distribution of An. hyrcanus are not known, but may not extend into eastern Siberia; An. sinensis has a wide, imprecisely delimited, Oriental and eastern Palaearctic distribution and is a confirmed vector of malaria in Japan, Korea and northern China (Ramsdale, 2001).

 

For the European part of Russia (west of the Ural Mountains), Gornostaeva (2000) lists 12 Anopheles species: algeriensis, atroparvus, beklemishevi, claviger, hyrcanus, maculipennis, melanoon, messeae, plumbeus, sacharovi, subalpinus and superpictus. This listing will require modification when the synonomy of An. subalpinus with An. melanoon is formally proposed.

 

Epidemiological efficacy of malaria vectors

 

Beklemishev (1944) and Derbeneva-Ukhova (1974) listed eight major factors that determine epidemiological efficacy of malaria vectors in Russia:

 

· susceptibility of mosquitoes to Plasmodium parasites

 

· sporozoite survival in salivary glands

 

· female feeding behaviour

 

· absolute and relative number of mosquitoes

 

· seasonal dynamics of mosquito densities

 

· survival rate and infective period of mosquito females

 

· ambient temperature

 

· winter diapause of adult females in a state of gonotrophic dissociation.

 

The presence and abundance of oocysts and sporozoites in a female mosquito indicate its susceptibility to Plasmodium species. Specimens of An. maculipennis s.l. captured in the wild have been experimentally infected with three different Plasmodium species each of which develops as different rates (Nikolaev, 1935, cited by Sergiev & Yakusheva, 1956). When maintained at 25oC, it was found that development to the sporozoite stage of P. vivax required 10 days, of P. falciparum 12 days and of P. malariae 16 days. When these experiments were repeated with wild caught An. maculipennis s.l. fed on hospital patients infected with P. falciparum in Solvychegods (61oN) (Yakusheva, 1939, cited by Sergiev & Yakusheva, 1956), the mosquitoes became infected even when patients had a low level of blood gametocytes.

 

However, the European strains of P. falciparum used in malaria therapy experiments disappeared during the European Malaria Eradication Programmes. Moreover mosquitoes of the Maculipennis Complex in European Russia and elsewhere in Europe seem to be refractory to infection with extant strains of this parasite (de Zulueta et al., 1975; Dashkova & Rosnicyn, 1982).

 

Artemiev (1984) reported that An. superpictus and the non-European An. pulcherrimus have both been found to be susceptible to P. falciparum, where An. hyrcanus is more resistant. Apparently the majority of Anopheles species in Russia is susceptible to P. vivax. However comparative experiments conducted under controlled conditions have not been carried out (Artemiev, 1984). In the 1970s, Derbeneva-Ukhova (1974) reported that a high percentage of An. maculipennis s.l., An. superpictus, An. claviger and An. plumbeus could be infected with both P. vivax, and P. falciparum, while the percentage infection with An. hyrcanus and An. pulcherrimus was lower. However, those experiments should be repeated using modern experimental techniques.

 

The duration of sporozoite infection in the salivary glands has, apparently, been little investigated in natural Russian populations. It is known that in Uzbekistan, sporozoites of P. falciparum survive in hibernating females of An. sacharovi at winter ambient temperature above freezing. Such mosquitoes are, therefore, epidemiologically important throughout the year (Shishlyaeva-Matova, 1952).

 

The degree of exophily, endophily, exophagy and endophagy and levels of anthropophily are important factors in assessing the intensity of malaria transmission. Female behaviour can be complex, as, for example, with An. plumbeus which often feeds on people inside houses (endophagy) but always rests out-of-doors during the day (exophily) (Artemiev, 1984). The extent of feeding on human blood by more or less endophilic species of the Anopheles maculipennis complex or An. superpictus, or the more exophilic and exophagic An. claviger, An. hyrcanus s.l. (and in countries bordering southern Russia of An. pulcherrimus), all of which also feed on other mammals, depends to varying degrees on relative availability and other local conditions.

 

The predominant species is likely to be major malaria vector if inter-relationship with humans, and physical conditions permit. In the district of Solnechnogorsk (Moscow Region) there was an incidence of about 2000 malaria cases per 10,000 of the population in the mid-1940s. At this time the density of female An. messeae was around 2,000 per shed. Buildings in this district were sprayed with DDT from 1949 onwards and by 1953 densities had fallen to 3-10 females per shed. In 1959 transmission had ceased and malaria eradication in this region appeared to have been achieved. DDT spraying ceased in 1960. However, by 1977 increasing densities of An. messeae in the region has reached the level of the 1940s (Sokolova & Volegova, 1980). The Moscow Region should, therefore, because of high levels of importation of malaria and migration of malaria carriers from the south, be considered as a focus at risk of renewed malaria transmission, a situation susceptible to intensification by climate warming.

 

The period required for the development of Plasmodium in mosquitoes at the prevailing range of temperature has been determined experimentally for each malarious zone in Russia, as has the time required for egg development following a blood meal. Ageing mosquitoes by examination of the ovaries has facilitated the gathering of information on the life expectancy of anopheline vectors; a method pioneered by Polovodova (1949). However, it is important to note that when the method of assessing the physiological age of mosquitoes was fully developed (Detinova, 1962), malaria had already been eradicated from most parts of the former USSR, and only local foci in Dagestan, Central Asia and Azerbaijan persisted. Therefore experimental data were obtained from laboratory cultures of mosquitoes. It would appear that consequential estimations of physiological age assessed by the number of ovipositions (using the number of ovariole dilatations) was overestimated in the 1960s and 1970s. For example, around the Istra River reservoir in Moscow region, An. messeae females, captured in a shed, where the access to cows was practically unlimited, oviposited 1-2 times (Sokolova, unpublished). However, according to the data of Detinova (1962), at the end of May, August and September the majority of An. messeae females were multiparous, with 3 and more dilatations. Sokolova (1995) also examined females of An. messeae from rice farms in the Krasnodar Region in the summer of 1981. This area is considerably south of the Moscow Region. The largest group of mosquitoes was found to be 2-parous, with only half as many 3-parous females present. Detinova (1962) found the same pattern for Moldova, where the climate is much milder than that of the Moscow region.

 

Many studies have been performed on age-grading of mosquitoes in Russia and the former USSR and there are many reports on methods employed and population studies e.g. Detinova (1962), Sokolova (1982, 1994a, 1994b, 1995), Sokolova & Smirnov (1985), WHO (1999). Of the methods available, retrospective analysis of reproductive age of female mosquitoes (Sokolova, 1994, 1995; Sokolova & Smirnov, 1985) provides comprehensive information on the reproductive profiles of populations.

 

The ambient temperature and the duration of periods of warm weather determine whether or not Plasmodium is able to develop within the vector species. An. messeae is a poor vector in the northern part of Russia largely because of the low ambient temperature. However, there have been times when the temperature in the north was high and malaria transmission could occur, as for instance in 1936, when the temperature reached 35oC in Arkhangelsk (Sergiev & Yakusheva, 1956).

 

Hibernation of female An. atroparvus in a state of gonotrophic dissociation has been well researched in Europe. Similar behaviour is indicated in An. maculipennis in Georgia, where these mosquitoes were responsible for winter cases of malaria (Kalandadze & Lemmer, 1957, cited by Soprunov & Khromov, 1988). In southern parts of Russia, when ambient temperature permits, it is also possible for such mosquitoes to be responsible for the transmission of autochthonous malaria.

 

Malarious zones in European Russia

 

The following four malarious zones may be recognised in European Russia:

 

I Mid and south taiga

 

Vectors: An. messeae, An. maculipennis and An. beklemishevi.

 

Two, less often, three generations of mosquitoes occur per year. The duration of sporogony of P. vivax is 38-53 days.

 

II Deciduous-coniferous woodlands

 

Vectors: An. messeae, An. maculipennis, An. beklemishevi, An. atroparvus and An. claviger.

 

Three to four generations occur each year. The duration of sporogony of P. vivax is 29-37 days.

 

III Deciduous forests

 

Vectors: An. messeae, An. maculipennis, An. atroparvus, An. claviger and An. plumbeus.

 

Four generations occur each year. The duration of sporogony of P. vivax is 24-29 days.

 

IV Steppe zones and southern areas

 

Vectors: An. messeae, An. maculipennis, An. atroparvus, An. claviger, An. plumbeus, An. hyrcanus s.l. and An. sacharovi.

 

Five generations occur each year. The duration of sporogony of P. vivax is 17-19 days and hence malaria epidemics are possible.

 

References

 

 

 

Artemiev, M.M. (1984) Anopheles mosquitoes - malaria vectors in the USSR. In: Malaria control with the ecologically safe methods. Textbook for international courses. Moscow 2, 44-60 (In Russian).

 

Beklemishev, V.N. (1944) Ecology of malaria mosquito (Anopheles maculipennis Mgn). Medgiz, Moscow. 299 pp (In Russian).

 

Bruce-Chwatt, L.J. & de Zulueta, J. (1980) The rise and fall of malaria in Europe: a historico-epidemiological study. New York. Oxford University Press. 240pp.

 

Cianchi, R., Sabatini, A., Boccolini, D., Bullini, L. & Coluzzi, M. (1987) Electrophoretic evidence of reproductive isolation between sympatric populations of Anopheles melanoon and An. subalpinus. In: 3rd International Congress on Malaria and Babesiosis, p. 1560. International Laveran Foundation, 7-11 September, 1987, Annecy, France.

 

Dashkova, N.G. & Rosnicyn, S.P. (1982). Review of data on susceptibility of mosquitoes in the USSR to imported strains of malaria parasites. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 60, 893-897.

 

Derbeneva-Ukhova, V.P. (Ed.) (1974) Manual of Medical Entomology. Moscow. 360 pp (In Russian).

 

Detinova, T. S. (1962) Age-grouping methods in Diptera of medical importance. WHO Monograph 47, Geneva, 216 pp.

 

de Zulueta, J. Ramsdale, C.D. & Coluzzi, M. (1975) Receptivity to malaria in Europe. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 52, 109-111.

 

Gordeev, M. I. (1997) Resistance to starvation as an element of adaptive strategy in malaria mosquito larvae. Genetica 33, 844-851.

 

Gornostaeva, R.M. (2000) A revised checklist of the mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae) of European Russia. European Mosquito Bulletin 6, 15-19.

 

Gutsevich, A.V., Monchadskii, A. S. & Shtakelberg, A.A. (1970) Mosquitoes. Family Culicidae. In: Fauna of the USSR. Diptera “Nauka”, Leningrad, 3(4), 384 pp. (In Russsian) (English translation, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem. 1974. 408 pp.)

 

Polovodova, V.P. (1949) Physiological age assessment in female Anopheles, namely the number of gonotrophic cycles. Meditsinskaya Parazitologiya i Parazitarnye Bolezni (Medical Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases) 4, 352-355 (In Russian).

 

Porchinskii, I.A. (1911) Malarial mosquito (Anopheles claviger F.) in relation to marsh fever, its life, peculiarities and control. Proceedings of the Entomological Bureau, S.-Petersburg, V, 141 pp. (In Russian).

 

Ramsdale, C. (2001) Internal taxonomy of the Hyrcanus Group of Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae) and its bearing on the incrimination of vectors of malaria in the west of the Palaearctic Region. European Mosquito Bulletin 10, 1-8.

 

Sergiev, P.G. & Yakusheva A.I. (1956) Malaria and its control in the USSR. Medgiz, Moscow, 307 pp (In Russian).

 

Shishlyaeva-Matova, Z.S. (1952) Changes in oocysts and sporozoites of Plasmodium falciparum in mosquitoes during hibernation. Meditsinskaya Parazitologiya i Parazitarnye Bolezni (Medical Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases) 5, 433-439 (In Russian).

 

Sokolova, L.V.& Volegova, K.V. (1980) Changes in population number of Anopheles messeae Fall 1926 in the Moscow Region after DDT application cessation (on an example of Solnechnogorsky region). Meditsinskaya Parazitologiya i Parazitarnye Bolezni (Medical Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases) 49, 68-69 (In Russian, English abstract).

 

Sokolova, M.I. (1982) Reproduction of blood-sucking mosquito (Diptera, Culicidae) populations. PhD dissertation/thesis, Moscow. 246 pp./22 pp (In Russian).

 

Sokolova, M.I. (1994a) Reproductive history of blood-sucking mosquito females (Diptera, Culicidae) Meditsinskaya Parazitologiya i Parazitarnye Bolezni (Medical Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases) 2,42-47 (In Russian, English abstract).

 

Sokolova, M.I. (1994b) A redescription of the morphology of mosquito Diptera: Culicidae) ovarioles during vitellogenesis. Bulletin of the Society for Vector Ecology 19, 53-68.

 

Sokolova, M.I. (1995) Contributions of female mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of different reproductive age to the reproduction of populations. Journal of Vector Ecology 20, 121-128.

 

Sokolova, M.I. & Smirnov, N.A. (1985) Analysis of reproductive cycles of blood-sucking mosquitoes Diptera, Culicidae). Doklady Academii Nauk (Bioogical Sciences) 7, 32-37. (in Russian, English abstract).

 

Soprunov, F.F. & Khromov A.S. (Ed) (1988) Fundamentals and application of malaria control. Center for International projects GKNT, 193 pp (In Russian).

 

Stegnii, V.N. (1976) Revealing of chromosome races in the malarial mosquito Anopheles sacharovi (Diptera, Culicidae). Tsitologiya (Cytology) 18, 1039-1041.

 

Stegnii, V.N. (1991) Population genetics and evolution of malarial mosquitoes. Tomsk University, Tomsk, 137 pp (In Russian).

 

Stegnii, V.N. (1993) Genome architectonic, system mutations and evolution. Novosibirsk University, Novosibirsk, 110 pp (In Russian)

 

Stegnii, V.N. & Kabanova, V.M. (1976) Cytological study of indigenous populations of the malaria mosquito in the territory of the USSR. I. Identification of a new species of Anopheles in the maculipennis complex by the cytodiagnostic method. Meditsinskaya Parazitologiya I Parazitarnye Bolezni (Medical Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases) 45, 192-198.

 

Stegnii, V.N., Pestriyakova, T.S. & Kabanova, V.M. (1973) Cytogenetic identification of sibling species of the malarial mosquitoes An. maculipennis and An .messeae. Zoologichesky Zhurnal 52, 1971-1676 (In Russian).

 

White, G.B. (1978) Systematic reappraisal of the Anopheles maculipennis Complex. Mosquito Systematics 10, 13-44.

 

WHO. (1999) Physiological age-grading in blood-sucking mosquitoes. Video, CD & Manual.

 

WHO (2001) Progress with roll back malaria in the WHO European Region. Regional and country updates. April 2001. Copenhagen. Denmark.

 

________________________________________________________________________________

_____

 

 

 

Just published

 

 

 

A CD-ROM is now available entitled The Mosquitoes of Europe. This has been prepared jointly by teams at the Laboratoire/Cellule Entomologie, EID Mediterranee, France and the Laboratoire de Morphotaxonomie des Vecteurs, IRD, Montpellier, France, with the assistance of colleagues throughout Europe. This CD-ROM will be helpful to all entomologists involved in the study and control of mosquitoes in Europe, and to researchers and teachers of biology and wetland ecology. It contains information on the morphology, ecology and distribution of the mosquitoes of Europe with more than 800 original illustrations and photographs, and access to a knowledge base on their taxonomy, bio-ecology, distribution, medical and veterinary importance, and control. An indexed bibliography of 325 references is included.

 

 

 

In contrast to dichotomy keys, the identification software allows identification using a number of criteria. At each step, the user selects a morphological, ecological or distributional criterion. The user progresses towards the identification of the species by successive choices suggested by images. At the end of the process, taxonomic cards allow the result to be checked and compared with closely related species. The CD-ROM allows the identification of one hundred mosquito species, covering thirty-seven European countries plus Madeira. Belarus, Cyprus, Moldova, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine are not included. This bilingual CD-ROM (English/French) includes all species reported from Europe with the exception of two species present only in Russia.

 

 

 

The CD-ROM (PC compatible) is available at a cost of 54.35 Euros (plus 7 Euros postage). Enquiries to: Francis Schaffner, Laboratoire/ Cellule Entomologie, EID Mediterranee, 165 av. Paul Rimbaud, F-34184 Montpellier cedex 4. Email: fschaffner@eid-med.org

 

 

 

 

[rehsifylf]

Pachauri said it was not clear whether the wording of the emails reflected the scientists' intended actions, but said: "I really think people should be discreet … in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet … It is another matter to talk about this to your friends on the telephone or person to person but to put it down in writing was indiscreet. If someone was to say something like this in an IPCC authors' meeting then there are others who would chew him up."

 

Is this person serious? What he is suggesting is that it is fine that these scientists were manipulating the process, just not okay that they wrote emails about it. In other words, they didn't follow the proper protocal for a conspiracy to defraud the public.

 

Would he suggest that it is okay to beat your wife as long as you don't leave any visible bruises?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Is this person serious? What he is suggesting is that it is fine that these scientists were manipulating the process, just not okay that they wrote emails about it. In other words, they didn't follow the proper protocal for a conspiracy to defraud the public.

 

Would he suggest that it is okay to beat your wife as long as you don't leave any visible bruises?

Exactly...

 

Firstly I just hope that everyone gets access to data. Secondly I hope that people become more critical of what they are hearing. Every day in the news we hear...giant jellyfish invade Japan...may be global warming; increase in atmosphereic CO2 may increasing ocean acidity and may kill off deep sea creatures; flooding may be caused by global warming....

 

All this may this..may that can not be vetted by scientists without free and open and honest access to information. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical. They are supposed to challenges assumptions and hypotheses, they are NOT supposed to hide data and trick data and manipulate data. We can't have ONLY global warming advocates doing peer reviews.

 

Scientists have a valid job to do. Whether that be poking holes, patching holes or going off on newly discovered tangents...whenever someone professes to protect their data from view of people with a contrary opinion or someone just wanting to redo the study to prove repeatability, you have to seriously question their work and their motives.

 

Saying "deniers" are not allow access is a huge JOKE...

 

Guys like SL who rely solely on media reports without looking any closer at the data is the all the norm. You can't blame him personally but anyone trying to convince others should at least have looked more critically at the data and the proof.

 

Is this man made global warming proved or just a guess? How vague are the assumptions? Are there any other variables that could be logically expected to have caused the issue at hand? For instance...the latest reports that large jellyfish in the sea of Japan are their due to global warming. What is the study? Well...if the media looked closely they would see that no study has been done to PROVE this hypothesis. In fact...common sense would say either seasonal peaks, life cycle peaks, or maybe their predators...fish and turtles have been wiped out in the sea of Japan by over fishing? Conjecture is not science. Look to the actual news article to see if a real STUDY has been done or if it is just some guys blaming something they have not explained yet on global warming.

 

Sigh...

 

Maybe it is just less frustrating if we all just believe, ignore the costs, ignore the fudged data, ignore lack of facts and just do as we are told. Nahhh... I am not a follower...I am going to have to think for myself...just like you are doing!

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[hydropsyche]

The big question still is why won't mainstream media in large part cover this story? It has the potential to be huge. It is part of a multi trillion dollar plan for the tax payers of Earth...

 

I'm waiting for Micheal Moore to make a "documentary". Do you think I'll have long to wait?

 

If all this is true (and I can't see how anyone can deny or spin their way out of this), then it is a dark day indeed. Not only for the AGW congregation but for the scientific community as a whole. I mean, if we can't trust the authorities, who can we trust and when will that trust ever be restored?

 

There is more at stake here then who was right or wrong, its about the population loosing faith in the authorities when it is very important that they don't (ie: H1N1 vaccines). This might be why mainstream is ignoring it.

 

What is probably going to happen is we'll see AGW fade away and forgotten before we ever see prosecution of fraudsters.

[nebc]

Your factoid is entirely irrelevant to the average I posted.

It appeared to me that indeed yours was also completely irrelevant to the topic.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

2005 was the warmest year in a century (NASA).

 

2006 was the fifth warmest year on record. (NASA).

 

There has been a cooling 'trend' (see reference to 'trend' in previous post) since 1998 if you choose to present the data in a particiular way (see below).

 

Top five warmest years since 1890 (according to NASA).

 

1998

2002

2003

2005

2006

 

You talk about cherry picking data? If you look at this 'trend' and begin in 1997 or 1999 (thus removing the hottest year on record from the start of the analysis) instead of 1998 the 'trend' of cooling is debunked.

 

The 'trend' margin of cooling while using the starting point of 1998 amounts to ~.1%, that is not signifcant enough to form an actual major change in the direction of the Earths climate; you as a biologist should know this.

 

SL...

 

You laugh at my wikipedia links. Clearly you just googled "warmed years on Earth". That site is from Feb 07.

 

Unfortunately the IPCC believe silence protects the "CAUSE" regardless of the facts at hand.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

 

Among other quotes from the IPCC...

 

"To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years."

 

In the link the IPCC itself admits no warming since 1998 on their data...but...but...but...they now try to spin the story. The IPCC spokesperson I saw on a TV news show a while back and I state again...stated they revised their computer models once again...with the new data...and picked a model that shows quite clearly the temperature rises...then falls...then rises...again. That is such a huge crock of you know what. What he described is a global temperature CYCLE that is formed by as yet unknown reasons...hence past ice ages that we warmed up from WITHOUT the use of CO2 from man.

 

I forgot to respond to this as I thought you were kidding...since I figured you were keeping more up to date on the information coming in. The newest data does not show this from the IPCC. After they "Corrected" their major mistake...1998 was the last warmer year. Then the numbers actually drop from there.

 

But...if you want to talk science...then statistically speaking the last 17 years has show no statistically relevant increases.

 

If you still want to say your numbers are correct...you now have to also consider that the emails discussed...

 

1) hiding the declines

2) fixing data to show increases

3) problems with cherry picking data such as the tree ring data that has been rigorously defended...out of multiple tree rings...just taking those that match your assumptions is extremely poor science bordering on fraud.

4) THE EARTH HAS BEEN COOLING SINCE 1998!

 

we can continue to list.

 

But I can tell from your numbers that you are using old data and not the current generally accepted numbers that the IPCC are even using.

 

Therefore...please do some reading and we can chat further. Also please check your website to make sure you are not quoting old data. Understanding most media outlets and the average person still believes in the hockey stick model...which the IPCC quietly and quickly removed all reference to in current documents...because it was PROVEN FALSE!

[TerryH]

[jest]

For all you deniers lurking out there, the world really is coming to an end because of global warming -- really. Go to this site for a list of all the things caused by global warming, complete with links to more detailed articles on each item. It's scary reading.

 

Things caused by global warming

 

Terry [/jest]

[dryfly]

I am not even going to get going on this ... other than to toss out this ditty.

 

A report about the Arctic.

 

THE ARCTIC IS MELTING

 

You are likely aware that a considerable change of climate has taken place in the Arctic. The severity of the cold that has for the past few centuries enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes with an impenetrable barrier of ice has greatly abated in the last two years. This is ample proof that new sources of warmth have caused the Arctic seas to open and may make the Arctic more accessible to shipping than for centuries.

 

Scoresby (research boat commander) observed last year that some 50,000 km of ice that once covered the Greenland Seas (between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N), has entirely disappeared in the past two years. He has never been before able to penetrate to the west in these latitudes and this year was able to proceed much farther to the west than in previous years.

 

This is totally true and it and it comes from a supposedly credible source.

 

Pretty shocking stuff. Anyone care to tell us the source? Any takers?

[Jeffro]

I am not even going to get going on this ... other than to toss out this ditty.

 

A report about the Arctic.

 

THE ARCTIC IS MELTING

 

You are likely aware that a considerable change of climate has taken place in the Arctic. The severity of the cold that has for the past few centuries enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes with an impenetrable barrier of ice has greatly abated in the last two years. This is ample proof that new sources of warmth have caused the Arctic seas to open and may make the Arctic more accessible to shipping than for centuries.

 

Scoresby (research boat commander) observed last year that some 50,000 km of ice that once covered the Greenland Seas (between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N), has entirely disappeared in the past two years. He has never been before able to penetrate to the west in these latitudes and this year was able to proceed much farther to the west than in previous years.

 

This is totally true and it and it comes from a supposedly credible source.

 

Pretty shocking stuff. Anyone care to tell us the source? Any takers?

If I'm not mistaken it comes from a source that predates our current recorded weather history

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I am not even going to get going on this ... other than to toss out this ditty.

 

A report about the Arctic.

 

THE ARCTIC IS MELTING

 

You are likely aware that a considerable change of climate has taken place in the Arctic. The severity of the cold that has for the past few centuries enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes with an impenetrable barrier of ice has greatly abated in the last two years. This is ample proof that new sources of warmth have caused the Arctic seas to open and may make the Arctic more accessible to shipping than for centuries.

 

Scoresby (research boat commander) observed last year that some 50,000 km of ice that once covered the Greenland Seas (between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N), has entirely disappeared in the past two years. He has never been before able to penetrate to the west in these latitudes and this year was able to proceed much farther to the west than in previous years.

 

This is totally true and it and it comes from a supposedly credible source.

 

Pretty shocking stuff. Anyone care to tell us the source? Any takers?

 

The latest information says that the sea ice grew this year. The pro and against camp are arguing. Against man made global warming say that growth in the sea ice combined with a decline in average Earth temperatures over the past 10 years indicates no proof of IPCC's contentions. Pro global warming says that moderate increases in ice over some years of decline means nothing.

 

Fact is that the north west passage was open before in human history. Why then and why almost now? Neither group can say exactly other than saying it shows a cycle of the ice coming and going natural. Why did the ice go regionally when the Earth was cooling?

 

What I see when combining average Earth temperature with Arctic ice is that we see regional changes. Ignoring the whole Earth and fixating on a regional change is silly when the argument is Global warming. We as humans have always seen regional climate changes. Warm years, cold years, wet years, dry years. It has never been stable. Weather is unstable and unpredictable.

 

IMHO Weather is probably driven primary by the Sun and then regional changes are influenced by hundreds if not thousands of highly variable and unpredictable variances in indirect factors.

 

Things such as clouds, humidity levels, mixing air temperatures, ocean current, wind direction, jet stream, mountains, oceans, tides, forests, prairies, deserts, maybe even cities and roads (asphalt creates micro climates in city and airports that can be as much as 3 degrees warmer than the surrounding communities.

[dryfly]

Jeffro wins. The text posted was updated to modern language. The original text (some of it below) was written in 1817!! Unfortunately the Royal Society is sucked up in this nonsense, of AGW.

 

Ref. President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.

 

There is a nice "Arctic ice" summary here. There are many good source about historical global ice ... particularly Arctic ice. It comes it goes. The current alarmism is based mainly on a mere 30 years of satellite data.

 

This is perhaps the most sensible review you can read. This chap is one of the world's leading atmospheric physicists.

 

FROM THE MINUTES, 1817

“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated….

 

….. this affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”

 

”Mr. Scoresby, a very intelligent young man who commands a whaling vessel from Whitby observed last year that 2000 square leagues (a league is 3 miles) of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared. The same person who has never been before able to penetrate to the westward of the Meridian of Greenwich in these latitudes was this year able to proceed to 10°, 30′W where he saw the coast of East Greenland and entertained no doubt of being able to reach the land had not his duty to his employers made it necessary for him to abandon the undertaking.

 

This, with information of a similar nature derived from other sources; the unusual abundance of ice islands that have during the last two summers been brought by currents from Davies Streights (sic) into the Atlantic.

The ice which has this year surrounded the northern coast of Ireland ( see footnotes1) in unusual quantity and remained there unthawed till the middle of August, with the floods which have during the whole summer inundated all those parts of Germany where rivers have their sources in snowy mountains.”

[wtforward]

Yes what a travesty. But what concerns me is that because of 4+ player's

exchange of e-mails the pseudo science is out the window ?? What about

all the other 1496 soles who have spent their entire lives working in the field?

Are they all in this conspiracy together? Is some of there findings crap also ?

I am not condoning their actvities and my own position is of no importance

but I think considering what may be at stake we still need climate science

to continue if for no other reason than to refute civilization's activities contributing

towards global warming. That might not be possible if sources of funding

dry up. The climate science community really needs to stand up and renounce

the serious lack of judgment of these individuals and insure that their climate

investigation careers are finished. Hey there is hope though, with this kind of stuff

going on maybe, just maybe world oil supply has not peaked either.

[wtforward]

And this just in.....don't it make you proud..were

finally getting noticed.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...en-climate-deal

[Guest Sundancefisher]

And this just in.....don't it make you proud..were

finally getting noticed.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...en-climate-deal

 

LOL

 

There is another case of a journalist getting facts from other stories rather than seeing for themself.

 

People complain about the huge, giant tracks of oilsands that are getting ripped up yet in fact only a small percentage can ever be developed at any one time.

 

The exotics cancers etc. are not shown to be oil sands related. This river has been heavily, heavily polluted for years by the pulp and paper industry. Many studies have been done on the dioxin levels resulting from the bleaching processes.

 

Leachate into the river was always happening. The only reason this are was first discovered was due to large oozing seems of oil dripping into the Athabasca River from the banks for probably millions of years. I believe that some oil eating bacteria was discovered here and is used in remediation of spills worldwide. Natives also used this seeping oil to caulk their canoes.

 

The two headed fish found downstream that made international headlines was actually just a dried up healthy goldeye.

 

A lot of the oil sands actually produced via SAGD. Wellbores rather than mines.

 

Reclamation is actually happening and is mandated by the regulations. Anyone saying otherwise does not understand the process. Beware people that know nothing about the but speak a lot and drive to protests.

 

Water usage is closely regulated with the vast majority of water being recycled. Settling ponds while monitored and mitigated to try and prevent birds from landing is an unfortunate problem especially when process problems occur. Understanding the numbers of dead birds needs to be put into perspective. Understanding the stastistical relevance of the number. If correct...by 2020...300,000 birds will die from wind turbines in the US alone each year... No one seems to scream when birds hit high rises, turbines, power lines cause they are dirty looking...they just look like they are sleeping maybe?

 

By ROBERT BRYCE

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

 

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

 

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

 

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.

 

Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.

 

The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies.

 

"Somebody has given the wind industry a get-out-of-jail-free card," Mr. Fry told me. "If there were even one prosecution," he added, the wind industry would be forced to take the issue seriously.

 

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the industry's trade association, each megawatt of installed wind-power results in the killing of between one and six birds per year. At the end of 2008, the U.S. had about 25,000 megawatts of wind turbines.

 

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to be producing 20% of its electricity from wind. Meeting that goal, according to the Department of Energy, will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, a 12-fold increase over 2008 levels. If that target is achieved, we can expect some 300,000 birds, at the least, to be killed by wind turbines each year.

 

On its Web site, the Wind Energy Association says that bird kills by wind turbines are a "very small fraction of those caused by other commonly accepted human activities and structures—house cats kill an estimated one billion birds annually." That may be true, but it is not much of a defense. When cats kill birds, federal law doesn't require marching them to our courthouses to hold them responsible.

 

During the late 1980s and early '90s, Rob Lee was one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's lead law-enforcement investigators on the problem of bird kills in Western oil fields. Now retired and living in Lubbock, Texas, Mr. Lee tells me that solving the problem in the oil fields "was easy and cheap." The oil companies only had to put netting over their tanks and waste facilities.

 

Why aren't wind companies prosecuted for killing eagles and other birds? "The fix here is not easy or cheap," Mr. Lee told me. He added that he doesn't expect to see any prosecutions of the politically correct wind industry.

 

This is a double standard that more people—and not just bird lovers—should be paying attention to. In protecting America's wildlife, federal law-enforcement officials are turning a blind eye to the harm done by "green" energy.

 

Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'" (PublicAffairs, 2008).

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3308399048.html

 

[wtforward]

Sun

I will leave it to you to update but the best I could find is about

100+ hectares out of over 400,000 hectares officially certified

as reclaimed. It may be better than that. But equally as important

is the reclamation bonding held by the us maybe $500 million

in total. Assuming $150,000 per hectare to reclaim and the

above 400,000 (give or take) figure above you might conclude

that Albertans are taking on more than their fair share of risk.

I don't know if the 100+ hectares included any tailing area(s)

which one would thing would be quite a bit more per hectare

to reclaim.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun

I will leave it to you to update but the best I could find is about

100+ hectares out of over 400,000 hectares officially certified

as reclaimed. It may be better than that. But equally as important

is the reclamation bonding held by the us maybe $500 million

in total. Assuming $150,000 per hectare to reclaim and the

above 400,000 (give or take) figure above you might conclude

that Albertans are taking on more than their fair share of risk.

I don't know if the 100+ hectares included any tailing area(s)

which one would thing would be quite a bit more per hectare

to reclaim.

 

You are assuming that they are finished or at a point when they can reclaim. You are also assuming all lands leased for mining have been stripped of over burden and mined. That is extremely far from where industry is today. These are intensive operations that require moving lots of over burden. Then they back fill and reclaim. These leases produce for a long, long time so this is not a case of dig for a month then reclaim that area. A very small area of land holds lots of oil, lots of over burden and lots of oil sands. Reclamation management is way more complicated than that. Alberta tax payers are not on the hook for reclamation. The oil companies are on the hook for that.

 

I would have to check the exact numbers but while the mines themselves are permitted to a large footprint (ie lots of land under lease)...they only actively mine a very small portion...very small percentage...once that area is mined out...they start reclamation and start digging up more land. Think from a cost versus reward perspective. Syncrude has 258,000 hectares under lease. If they spend all the money up front to clear all that land...a) were would they put that massive, massive pile of over burden? and; any profit for the next 50 years would be lost on operating costs to clear the land.

 

Syncrude again as an example has about 4500 hectares reclaimed which is 22% of the surface area currently disturbed.

 

One of the biggest fallacies perpetuated by Green Peace etc. is that hundreds of thousands of hectares are a barren unused wasteland...where in fact most is untouched and after the company is done reclamation starts behind it.

 

Whether you believe websites from oil companies or not...http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5909 they are now at 22% reclaimed...the rest they are still using or getting started on reclamation.

 

I also don't have the permit and reclamation requirements in front of me but typically these sorts of projects will have a bond...$500,000,000 sounds about right. When you put into context that these projects are long, small parcels of land are worked then reclaimed...normally such a permit will require them to keep up a certain percentage with an acreage limit reclaimed. If they get behind...the government can draw on the bond to bring them back up to regs and even maybe shut them down from further work until they catch up.

 

Just like for oil companys and dry hole wells...oil companies pay into an orphan fund to cover wells that get ditched on the government. They rarely draw on this however since regulations allow the government to go back in time to the next available company with money and MAKE them pay. If they can not find someone then the orphan fund is used. At the same time...companies maintain a certain level of dry holes to their market cap size. If they exceed that they have to post additional bonds. Don't think for a moment that oil sands get a free ride on any thing. Their costs are thru the roof.

 

Hope that answers some questions for you.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[tonyr]

this is why you never trust oil companies or the people that work for them. my favorite line in this video is you are lucky. just like the oil companies

tell the people of alberta and fort mac

........................................................... http://vimeo.com/3213063 ...........................

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Australia says enough about carbon credits

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8389909.stm

 

 

 

Australian Senate rejects Kevin Rudd's climate plan

 

Kevin Rudd's hopes to pass the bill by Copenhagen are over

Australia's Senate has rejected a bill on the government's flagship climate change policy for a second time.

 

Two opposition senators crossed the floor but it was not enough to secure passage of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to reduce greenhouse gases.

 

The vote came a day after the opposition Liberal Party ousted leader Malcolm Turnbull, who had promised to back the bill.

 

Deputy PM Julia Gillard said the bill would be resubmitted next year.

 

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had hoped to have the legislation passed by next week's Copenhagen summit on climate change.

 

He had secured opposition backing from Mr Turnbull, but his party revolted and replaced him with Tony Abbott on Tuesday.

 

The Liberals went on to oppose the bill and it was voted down by 41 votes to 33 in the Senate.

 

Mr Abbot said on Wednesday that it would be premature for Australia to adopt a carbon trading scheme before the rest of the world.

 

'Calmer heads'

 

Analysts had suggested Mr Rudd could use the rejection of the bill as a legal trigger for a snap election - after which the bill could be passed at a special joint session of parliament.

 

 

 

But Ms Gillard - who is standing in for Mr Rudd while he is overseas - said that the government would resubmit the legislation to parliament early next year.

 

"We will come to parliament again, we will seek passage of the bill," she told journalists. "All options are on the table as to what happens next."

 

She said that she hoped the break would give "calmer heads" within the Liberal Party time to reconsider.

 

The ETS is part of a package aimed at reducing Australia's carbon emissions by up to 25% below 2000 levels by 2020.

 

Australia has the highest per-capita carbon emissions among developed nations and coal is its biggest export.

 

But some lawmakers question the scientific case for global warming and say that the ETS will damage Australia's economy

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Calgary Sun

Climategate heats up

Missing raw data means global warming research can't be verified

 

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

 

Last Updated: 2nd December 2009, 3:53am

Email Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Share with:

Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Newsvine Reddit Technorati Feed Me Yahoo Simpy Squidoo Spurl Blogmarks Netvouz Scuttle Sitejot + What are these? In the latest shocking development in climategate, scientists at the world's leading research facility studying climate change have admitted they threw out much of the raw temperature data on which they built their theory of man-made global warming.

 

The revelation in the London Sunday Times, reported by environment editor Jonathan Leake, means the original work that led to modern climate change theory developed at the now under fire Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia, cannot be independently verified by other academics, critical of CRU's methods.

 

They allege CRU manipulated data to exaggerate global warming, which it attributes to mankind's burning of fossil fuels.

 

These critics have been seeking CRU's raw data for years. Its research is central to the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming poses a major threat to mankind, the subject of an international meeting in Copenhagen starting Dec. 7 to draft a successor agreement to the Kyoto accord, aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

 

CRU e-mails and other documents recently leaked by a computer hacker describing, among other things, efforts by CRU director and lead scientist Phil Jones to block the release of this data, even if, as Jones wrote in one e-mail, it meant deleting a file subject to a Freedom of Information request, sparked climategate.

 

Jones has subsequently said while his choice of words was poor, he didn't delete files, he stands by his research, CRU has never inappropriately manipulated data and its findings are similar to those of other leading institutions studying global warming.

 

But in a statement released on its website, where, CRU boasts, it steered global warming theory out of the "academic backwater" into a major "political pre-occupation," it acknowledges: "We do not hold the original raw data, but only the value-added (quality-controlled and homogenised) data."

 

The facility said the original raw temperature data, collected from weather stations globally and stored on paper and magnetic tape, were thrown out when CRU moved to a new building in the 1980s, at a time when global warming was not as big an issue and before Jones was in charge.

 

CRU said it retained the adjusted data it extrapolated from these raw figures, which took into account variations in the way temperatures were collected. CRU also announced it was reversing its earlier refusal to disclose this data and would now release it once it gets clearance from third parties for whom much of the research was done.

 

Scientists critical of CRU say without the original raw data, it will be impossible to independently verify its work.

 

While CRU supporters disagree, saying the adjusted data can be used to confirm CRU's original research, that's unlikely to satisfy critics, especially in light of one of the leaked climategate documents, a 274-page computer file known as "HARRY_ READ_Me.txt."

 

In it, a climatologist/programmer with CRU engaged in a huge project from 2006 to earlier this year to update CRU's database, repeatedly complains about massive problems, including missing data, corrupted files and bug-ridden computer programs.

 

Near the end of the effort, he appears to give up in frustration, citing "the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

 

LORRIE.GOLDSTEIN@SUNMEDIA.CA

http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/columnis...004206-sun.html