It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.
In May 1989, a few months after NASA scientist James Hansen declared that global warming had arrived, he would provide another testimony to clarify the risks of future climate change.
But before Hansen could make his presentation to Senator Al Gore's subcommittee, the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) intercepted the testimony and rewrote its conclusion. According to the revised copy, the cause of climate change was still unknown.
NASA Headquarters said Hansen could accept the changes or not testify, he later recalled.
It was not the first OMB revision of a Hansen testimony. This time, he decided, would be different. Hansen notified Gore that his testimony did not reflect his actual opinion, which led Gore to frame the hearing's questions to reveal the OMB edits. It was the lead story on all major television networks that night.
Horner has represented CEI as well as scientists and Members of the U.S. House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in the federal courts including the Supreme Court.
In the 2008 election cycle, Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership PACs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories. In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).
The primary PACs donating to his campaigns were: Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association $55,869, United Parcel Service $51,850, National Association of Realtors $51,700, National Rifle Association $51,050, American Medical Association $51,000. Additionally, if company-sponsored PACs were combined with employee contributions, Koch Industries would be Inhofe's largest contributor, with $90,950 (less than 0.6% of total contributions), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.
1. “We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." --Kevin Trenberth, lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change 
Misinterpretation: The evidence for global warming isn’t there. 
Fact: The statement stems from the inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. Trenberth was not referring to the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, nor was he suggesting that recent temperatures were unusual in the context of short-term natural variability. 
2. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [a scientific journal] trick of adding in the real temps... for the last 20 years...to hide the decline” -- Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
Perception: This sentence sounds like climate scientists are deliberately changing the data to suit their needs. 
Fact: Tree rings are a tool used by climate scientists to approximate past temperatures. In recent years, recorded global temperatures and the temperatures implied by tree ring data have deviated. For better precision, direct “thermometer” temperature measurements were used to represent the past 20 years instead of temperatures implied by tree ring data. This substitution is the “trick” Jones references [16, 22].
Note: Since tree-ring data is unreliable for the recent past, it questions the ability of tree rings to estimate historic temperatures from hundreds of years ago. However, tree ring temperatures are consistent with other temperature approximation methods. Ice core samples, for example, still show much the same temperature change over the past 1,000 years .
3. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"-- Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
Perception: A group of scientists that supports anthropogenic global warming is trying to manufacture a consensus by censoring opposing views in IPCC reports.
Fact: The papers referenced by Jones appeared in the final version of the Fourth Assessment Report from the United Nations' IPCC. Jones, however, defended the right of IPCC authors to select which papers are included in the report. He rationalizes that since the IPCC report is an assessment, and not a review, authors should use their expertise to exclude papers that are scientifically weak or irrelevant. 
Several “Climategate” investigations by independent organizations, scientific bodies, and two federal governments concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Investigation
The 14-member committee's investigation was launched because of its potential “serious implications for UK science." The committee found that the focus on Jones and CRU had been largely misplaced, but it recommended that the climate science community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies .
U.S. Department of Commerce Investigation
Email correspondences between UEA and NOAA scientists triggered a US federal investigation by the Department of Commerce Inspector General. The Inspector General examined if the NOAA scientists were responsible for improper data manipulation, failure to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures, or failure to comply with public information requests. The report found no reason to suspect faulty data but suggested that NOAA improve responses to data requests .
Science Assessment Panel Investigation
A Science Assessment Panel was set up by UEA in order to “assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit in the light of various external assertions.” The panel’s investigation focused on review of 11 works published by the CRU and evaluation of the integrity of the Unit’s research rather than its correctness. Their report found no “evidence of deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the CRU ... rather [it found] a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers” .
They also commented that they were surprised by the fact that “research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” and that collaboration between the CRU and a broader scientific community outside of their temperature specialty would be mutually beneficial .
Independent Climate Change E-mails Review
A fourth investigation was conducted by the Independent Climate Change Email Review, which was funded by the UEA but was completely independent of the university. It focused on the hacked email exchanges and other information to “determine whether there [was] any evidence of manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice.” The final report cleared the scientists of any dishonest behavior and did not find evidence that undermined IPCC conclusions. The report did, however, find a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness .
Penn State University Investigation
After the Climategate emails were made public, Pennsylvania State University began to receive a large volume of public complaints against Professor Michael Mann, a university meteorologist associated with the Climategate emails. Mann is noted for his work on reconstructed temperatures over the past 1000 years, best known as the “hockey stick graph” . He was accused of manipulating data, destroying records, and “colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming” .
The university launched its own investigation of Dr. Mann because the accusations could have been construed as research misconduct and a violation of Penn State policy. The Penn State Investigatory Committee, after careful review of its evidence, unanimously determined that there was no substance to the allegations against Dr. Mann .
National Science Foundation Investigation
The National Science Foundation (NSF), a US government agency that funds research, was unsatisfied with the Penn State report because the university did not interview any of the experts critical of Michael Mann's research. The NSF believed critics may have additional information that might support the allegations, and therefore, launched a separate investigation.
As a part of the investigation, all reports and documentation the University provided were reviewed, as well as a substantial amount of publicly available documentation concerning both the Professor Mann’s research and parallel research conducted by other scientists in the climate science field. Similar to the other investigations, the NSF found no evidence of research misconduct .
FOX mentions global warming alarmism more than any other network mentions anything about climate change.
Six years ago China overtook the U.S. as the world's biggest CO2 emitter.
Nor can you do it by playing politics as you are doing in your OP.