The new Kerry-Lieberman climate bill mandates a 17% reduction in US carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. It first targets power plants that provide reliable, affordable electricity for American homes, schools, hospitals, offices and factories. Six years later, it further hobbles the manufacturing sector itself.

Like the House-passed climate bill, Kerry-Lieberman also requires an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Once population growth and transportation, communication and electrification technologies are taken into account, this translates into requiring US emission levels last seen around 1870!

House Speaker Pelosi says “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory,” to ensure that America achieves these emission mandates. This means replacing what is left of our free-market economy with an intrusive Green Nanny State, compelling us to switch to unreliable wind and solar power, and imposing skyrocketing energy costs on every company and citizen.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is implementing its own draconian energy restrictions, in case Congress does not enact punitive legislation.

It’s time to ask these politicians some fundamental questions.

1) Even slashing carbon dioxide emissions to 80% below 2005 levels would reduce projected global average temperatures in 2050 by barely 0.2 degrees F, according to a study that used the UN’s own climate models. That’s because China, India and other developing countries are building new coal-fired power plants every week, even as the United States and Europe shackle their economies and send more jobs overseas. How do you justify such destructive, punitive, meaningless legislation?

2) Reflecting agreement with thousands of scientists, most Americans now say climate change is natural, not manmade. Fully 75% are unwilling to spend more than $100 per year in higher energy bills to “stabilize” Earth’s unpredictable climate. What provision of the Constitution, your oath of office or your duty to the overall health and welfare of this nation permits you to ignore the will of the people, the mounting evidence that “climate disasters” are the product of computer models, manipulated data and falsified UN reports, and the job-killing impacts of the laws and regulations you seek to impose?

3) If carbon dioxide is causing “runaway global warming,” why have average global temperatures not risen since 1995, and why have they been COOLING for the past five years – even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise to levels unprecedented in the modern era?

4) What properties does manmade carbon dioxide have that enable it to replace the complex natural forces that clearly caused the Ice Ages, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Dust Bowl, ice-free Arctic seas in 1822 and 1922, Alaska’s 100 degree F temperature record in 1915, and all the other climate and weather changes and anomalies, blessings and disasters that our planet has experienced during its long geologic and recorded history?

5) What physical or chemical properties does manmade carbon dioxide have that would enable it to overturn the laws of thermodynamics – and cause temperatures in Antarctica to rise 85 degrees F, from an average of minus 50 F to plus 35 F year-round (or 48 degrees C, from -46 C to +2 C), to melt that continent’s vast ice masses, raise sea levels 20 feet or more, and flood coastal cities?

6) Precisely what chemical, physical and thermodynamic processes would drastic carbon dioxide reductions alter, and how? Precisely what weather and climate improvements would those reductions achieve? Precisely how will CO2 reductions stabilize planetary temperature, climate and weather systems that have been turbulent, unpredictable and anything but stable throughout Earth’s history?

7) Is there ANY direct physical observation or evidence that would falsify your climate crisis thesis, and cause you to admit human greenhouse gas emissions are not causing a planetary climate disaster? Or do you think everything that happens confirms your climate disaster hypothesis: warmer or colder, wetter or drier, more snow and ice or less, more hurricanes and tornadoes or cyclical periods with few such storms?

8) Replacing hydrocarbons with unreliable, subsidized “green” energy will require millions of acres of land for wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines – plus hundreds of millions of tons of steel, copper, concrete, fiberglass and rare earth minerals for all those facilities.

Do you support delaying wind, solar and transmission projects for years, to protect the rights and property of local communities and private landowners? Or do you favor regulatory edicts and eminent domain actions, so that government can seize people’s property and expedite construction of these projects?

Do you support opening US public lands for renewed exploration and development, so that we can produce these raw materials and create American jobs? Or do you intend to keep US lands off limits, and force us to depend on imports for renewable energy, too?

Do you support relaxing environmental study, endangered species and other laws, to fast-track approval of these projects, despite their obvious impacts on wildlife and habitats? Or do you want them subjected to the same rules that have stymied thousands of other energy projects, so that renewable energy projects cannot be built, either – and we have massive blackouts?

9) Over 1.5 billion people in Africa, Asia and Latin America still do not have electricity, for even a light bulb or tiny refrigerator. Millions die every year from diseases that would be largely eradicated with electricity for refrigeration, sanitation, modern hospitals, and industries that generate greater health and prosperity. How can you justify using taxpayer money to finance UN and environmental activist programs that claim global warming is the biggest threat they face, and they need to get by on wind and solar power, and give up their dreams of better lives, because YOU are worried about global warming? Doesn’t that violate their most basic human rights to improved living standards, and even life itself?

10) If you’re so sure about your data and conclusions – and intend to use climate disaster claims to justify sending our energy costs skyrocketing, killing millions of factory jobs, controlling our lives, and totally overhauling our energy, economic and social structure – why do you refuse to allow fair, open and balanced congressional hearings and debates on climate science and economics? Why do you refuse to debate skeptical experts in a public forum, or even answer questions that challenge your alarmist thinking? Why do you refuse to require that scientists who get taxpayer money for their research must share and discuss climate data, computer codes, methodologies and analyses?

11) How much money and campaign help have you gotten from companies and activist groups that benefit from renewable energy mandates and subsidies, carbon offset and trading schemes, coal mining and oil leasing bans, and other provisions of climate and energy legislation?

12) What if you vote for these job-killing, anti-growth, anti-poor, anti-human-rights “climate disaster prevention” laws – and it turns our you are WRONG on the science or economics? What will you do? Give up your congressional seat, home, pension and worldly wealth – and pledge yourself and your children to an austere life of service to the people you have harmed? Or just say, “Oh I’m so sorry,” and then pass more intrusive, oppressive laws, before retiring to collect a nice government pension – while millions freeze jobless in the dark?

13) If you can’t or won’t answer these questions, then why do you think you have a right to tell anyone on this planet that we have a “climate crisis,” and dictate how they must live their lives – especially when you’ve done so little to slash your own taxpayer-funded air travel, staff, and home and office energy use?

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (a.k.a Cap and Trade)

By:  Mary Ann Mobilian, PharmD

May 15th^t, 2010:   Reading the tea leaves this week is going to take a little of your time, but trust me, it’s worth it.  The newly named “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (a.k.a Climate Bill, Cap and Trade) introduced September, 2009 by Senators Kerry and Lieberman, shows once again how the Obama regime thinks that putting  lipstick on a pig will fool the American people into believing it’s not a pig. (Remember The War on Terrorism, now called the Overseas Contingency?).  But this pig is going to cost us a LOT of money and possibly our whole system of governance.  Think that I’m being an alarmist?  Let’s look at some facts.

What is “Cap and Trade”?

A central authority, usually a government, sets a “cap” on the amount of pollutants that an entity, usually a business, can emit.  The offending entities are issued emission permits and credits.  The emission credits represent the amount of pollutants the entity is allowed to emit, which of course, can’t exceed the “cap”, the majority of permits have been free under a process called “grandfathering”.  Entities that need to emit more pollutants than allowed by their cap, can purchase excess credits from those entities that remain below their cap. This transfer of credits, or allowances, is referred to as a “trade”.  But these “trades” aren’t limited to businesses; there is a huge global carbon trading market.  The 2005 Kyoto Treaty attempted to regulate six greenhouse gas emissions by developed nations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control, IPCC, set the emission reduction caps for the participating countries; the U.S. opted out (Thank you Pres. Bush).  Participating countries can “trade” their allowances through the International Emissions Trading (IET) which allows countries that use less than their assigned allotted units to sell them to nations that exceed their quota.  Participating countries can also get tradable carbon credits, or offsets, by sponsoring greenhouse projects in other countries. While cap and trade limits the availability of trading between entities, the offset projects are a license to print new cheaper and less regulated permits.  All cap and trade schemes allow offset credits to be traded through “linking mechanisms”, including the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and the cap and trade scheme currently passing through the US Congress.

The creation of a global market for emissions trading by the Kyoto Treaty has led to multi-billion dollar financial markets, such as the EU ETS, which is the world’s largest carbon market. 

How is it working?

So how is all of this working since passing the 1997 Kyoto Treaty in 20005? Great question; but I’m afraid the answer isn’t so great.

According to Carbon Trade Watch, a project of the Transnational Institute, during the 1^st phase begun in 2005, the “caps” were set based on historical emissions data provided by the industry itself, so there is a clear incentive to inflate the data so that the industry gets an excess amount of credits.  This is exactly what has happened in all of the cap and trade markets,  including the EU ETS, which awarded major polluters with more free pollution permits (called EUAs, European Union Allowances) than their actual level of carbon emissions.  As a result, there was no incentive to reduce emissions or buy permits, and the price of the permits collapsed. 

The 2^nd phase begun in 2008 was supposed to reflect changes based on lessons learned during phase I.  It initially appeared promising when, for the first time, polluters were awarded fewer permits than their actual level of emissions but the majority of industries still had a surplus of permits. Even though many industries reduced emissions due to the EU-wide recession, in 2009 they were scheduled to receive the same amount of permits.  The failure of the cap and trade scheme is even more apparent when “offsets” are taken into account.  The EU claimed that during 2008, emission reductions of 3%, or 50 million tons, from sectors including the EU ETS were achieved; however, at least 80 million tons of carbon offsets were bought as part of the cap and trade scheme. 

Who Profits from Carbon Trading?

          I can guarantee you it’s not going to be the average American citizen, but we will be footing the majority of the bill.  In a moment of unguarded honesty during an interview on January, 2008, President Obama said, ““Under my plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket..”

  Why?  Because free emission permits are like subsidies, and since the permits are based on historical emissions, the biggest environmental offenders get the largest subsidies.  Huge profits are gained by doing what is called “opportunity costs”.  A good example is how Power companies choose to meet their ETS target the cheapest way, which is usually buying credits from the UN administered Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), called CERs, Certified Emissions Reductions.  Conversely, they pass these costs on to the consumers as if they chose the most expensive option, which would be to actually reduce their emissions. Researchers predict that likely windfall profits made by Power companies during phase II could be between $23-71 billion and ironically enough, would be concentrated in countries with the highest level of emissions!!  So what this in effect has done is created a new way for industries to stick it to the consumers by charging them inflated costs to meet the ETS targets, while not reducing their emissions at all.  In fact, isn’t this really incenting them to continue generating high emissions?

Phase III is scheduled to begin in 2013, with renewed promises of reform.  The new system of permit allocation will be based on auctioning. However, the system of “banking” unused credits means that entities can carry over unused credits into 2013, thereby starting with a significant surplus.  Some projections show as many as 700 million surplus permits by the end of Phase II.  If entities bank their “offsets” as well, which is the cheapest option; this could lead to surpluses of 1.6 billion ton, enough to ensure that the ETS would not require emissions reductions for the next 7 years!  Additionally, European industries claim that the EU ETS puts their businesses at risk due to strict regulations on factory emissions, therefore it is projected that over ¾ of manufacturers will probably still be given free permits.

          Perhaps the biggest unintentional benefactor of carbon trading is Russia.  When Russian signed the Kyoto Treaty, it was given an annual emissions limit based on the astronomical pollutants being pumped out by the old, filthy Soviet industries in 1990.  Since then Russia’s industrial base has only used a fraction of its allowances.  One analyst report in cited in a 2008 TimesOnline article warned that “Russia must be singled out as a potential threat to the ability of the market to produce a meaningful carbon price.”  Because Russia is one of the world’s biggest supplier of coal, gas, and oil, it is therefore in control of the system for reducing emissions from these fuels.  That would mean that if we submit to cap and trade, we could end up paying Russia for fuel – and then paying them again for the right to burn it.

  The Environment Protection Agency, EPA, projects in the Economic Impact of the Clean Energy Jobs and the American Power Act dated October 23, 2009, that the increased cost to the American household will only be $80 - $110 annually, based on the assumption that energy usage will be reduced substantially and our benevolent government will fairly, and adequately, rebate Americans to offset increased costs.  Uhmmm…..wonder if they’ll do as good a job with the American Protection Act as they have with Social Security? Or maybe Medicare/Medicaid? Wait, those are all bankrupt…what about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?  Ooops, they just had to request another $19 billion from the Treasury Department after losing $21.1 billion during the first quarter of the year.   But I guess we’re supposed to be naïve enough to believe that somehow our ever efficient, benevolent government is going to make sure that we don’t have to bear the burden of these trading schemes while the UN and U.S. governments rake in profits.  Only the incredibly naïve would believe that the American taxpayer isn’t going to bear a substantial financial burden for funding yet another bill from the Obama regime.

What about all those “Clean Energy Jobs”?

          One of the key debates over “Cap and Trade” is “carbon leakage”.  Industries claim that the strict regulations on factory emissions in one part of the world would encourage industries to move to less restrictive locations. 

          According to an article written by Bruce Gieselman in Waste & Recycling News, a report compiled on behalf of the Coalition for Affordable American Energy, which receives funding from more than 180 business groups, shows the proposed cap and trade legislation proposed by the Obama regime could result in the loss of more than 3 million jobs by 2030.  Additionally, the legislation could cost the average household $2,100 annually.  The study concluded that by 2030, natural gas and electricity costs will increase by more than 50% and motor fuels costs by 78 cents per gallon.  The combined effects of increased energy costs and restrictive regulations will force industries to re-locate and/or reduce productivity.  Again, leading to the loss of American jobs

          In a brief posted on May 5^th, 2010 and prepared by Bruce Arnold of the Congressional Budget Office’s Microeconomic Studies Division, the CBO analyzed the research on the effects that policies to reduce green house gases would have on employment and concluded that total employment during the next few decades would be slightly LOWER than would be the case in the absence of such policies.  In particular, job losses in the industries that shrink would lower employment more than job gains in other industries would increase employment.

Who is behind this and Why?

According to the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act: Overview, available on Senator Kerry’s web-site, the bill will “put Americans back to work and take charge of our security, our energy future and the fate of our planet.”  Wow!!  All of our problems solved by one little old bill, why would anyone possibly reject this?  Could it be because everywhere that these cap and trade schemes have been tried, they have failed to reduce emissions, increase jobs or reduce energy dependence?   

  In a recent Time Magazine article, Kerry and Lieberman confess to making concessions that included $54 billion in loan guarantees for up to 12 nuclear plants; major carbon emitters would receive FREE carbon allowances; carbon limits would not be phased in until 2013; and manufacturers would not be subject to a cap until 2016. 

          The bill would allow expanded offshore oil and gas drilling with restrictions.  States could veto offshore drilling in a neighboring state and opt out of drilling within 75 miles of its shores. States that allow drilling would retain 37% of the Federal royalties from oil and gas development (currently, all the money is kept by Washington).

          Senator John Kerry, during an interview, tried to sell the American people on how great this new bill was by saying that the support is broad among the American people including faith based organizations.  But when you look up these faith based organizations, The National Council of Churches of Christ for Eco Justice, you will discover they are part of the DemocracyInAction.org.  What is DemocracyInAction?  According to their own web-site, they are an organization that is dedicated to promoting the Progressive agenda, “A 501( C ) 3 Nonprofit organization itself, believes technology can be a decisive force for social change, we exist to empower those who share our values of ecological and social justice to advance the progressive agenda.”

But to really understand who is behind the whole cap and trade scheme, you have to look globally.  On the May15^th, Glenn Beck show, Fox News channel, Glenn made this statement about the people behind cap and trade; “We are talking about a group of people that want to fundamentally transform the world economy and set up a global governance system”

Glenn Beck deemed these characters as “Crime Inc.” and they include the Chicago Climate Exchange, CCX, which recently sold to an international company, the Emerald Cities Collaborative where a lot of the money stops, and all the workers of the world unite and global government people. 

Let’s take a look at one of the board of directors for CCX, Maurice Strong, as revealed on the same Glenn Beck show:

·        Advisor to China

·        Godfather of Kyoto treaty

·        Key player in UN world bank and earth council

·        Board of the Commission on Global Governance

·        Pushed to get $600 billion dollars sent to developing countries as “reparations” for a century of industrial development and environmental degradation

·        Worked with Al Gore while he was in the Senate on “environmental issues”

·        1995, Earth Day, VP Al Gore visits Strong’s green technology co. and later helps steer $35 million of taxpayer dollars to Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI).  Government hand-outs were the only source of revenue for this company, once they stopped the company went under.  By the way, Maurice Strong somehow knew to sell his stocks in this company right before it folded; of course the other investors were not so lucky.

      In answer to the question of why, perhaps we should start with a quote about cap and trade from another key player, Joel Rogers, a leading environmentalist and cap and trade activist, “I hope you all realize that you could eliminate every power plant in America today and you can stop every car in America.  Take out the entire power generation sector.  Take out all the transportation sector.  And you still would not be anywhere near 80% below 1990 levels. You would be closer to around 60% it would be around 68% percent and that is with bringing the economy to a complete halt. Basically.”

So if that’s true, what do the powers behind the whole cap and trade scheme really expect to gain?

Let’s again look to our  featured key player, the UN Secretary of the Energy Summit during 1990, Maurice Strong, and the quote that he insists was only a thought for a book (that over a decade later, still hasn’t been written);

“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?  Isn’t our responsibility to bring that about?”  Calgary Sun, 12/2/2002

Pretty scary stuff, huh?  I think the following quote gives the only logical explanation of why the Progressives support cap and trade in spite of all its problems:

“The American Power Act has nothing to do with “American” power unless it means the re-distribution of Americas power from the American people to the Global Elite”  Glenn Beck, The Glenn Beck show, Fox News, May 15^th,2010.

Son of Climategate! Scientist
says feds manipulated data
Reporting points in coldest regions
simply eliminated by U.S. agencies

Posted: January 16, 2010
12:20 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh

WorldNetDaily

In a one-two series of Climategate aftershocks that assuredly will further rattle the global warming community, a report has been issued by U.S. researchers accusing government agencies of cherry-picking temperature readings used to assess global temperatures, and a series of embarrassing e-mails were released revealing what happened when a blogger dared to point out a mistake by NASA climate scientists.

The new report is from scientist Joseph D'Aleo and was highlighted in a report on global warming on KUSI television in San Diego.

It comes only weeks after the tumultuous climategate e-mail scandal in Britain erupted, proving top global warming scientists manipulated data there.

The report from D'Aleo, a retired climatologist who has been skeptical of global warming, contends climate data has been corrupted and skewed by "urbanization and other local factors such as land-use-land-cover changes and improper siting."

He blamed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which he described as "seriously complicit in data manipulation and fraud."

(Story continues below)

The East Anglia e-mail leak focused on the work at the Climate Research Unit there, but the director there has confirmed "almost all the data" in the archive "is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center," D'Aleo said.

But he noted that an analysis by San Jose computer programmer E.M. Smith of the data "found they systematically eliminated 75 percent of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations."

Unlock the mysteries now! Get "Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"

"The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs," he said.

For example, the report said the number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35 with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations plummeted.

Further, a vast majority of the climate stations reporting in the U.S. were either poorly or very poorly sited, taking temperature readings from paved driveways, in a waste treatment facility, on rooftops or near the exhaust from idling jet engines, rather than in open areas.

Stations in such locations as the Andes and Bolivia have virtually vanished, meaning that temperatures for those areas now are "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon."

"This of it this way," D'Aleo told the television station, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St. Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis' temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?"

D'Aleo said that the coolest stations in a particular reporting period sometimes disappeared in the next.

"This would indicate a deliberate attempt to create a warm bias on the part of NOAA because in calculating the average temperatures in this way it would ensure that the global average temperature for each month and year would now show a positive temperature anomaly," the report said.

Such anomalies, it added, make climate reports based on those figures simply unreliable.

"You can trust in the data that shows there has been warming from 1979 to 1998, just as there was warming the around 1920 to 1940. But there has been cooling from 1940 to the late 1970s and since 2001. It is the long term trend on which this cyclical pattern is superimposed that is exaggerated," the report said.

Meanwhile, Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog Judicial Watch has released several hundred pages of e-mails from U.S. government scientists reacting – sometimes with disdain and arrogance – when an independent investigator pointed out an error in their global warming statistics.

When the mistake ultimately was corrected, the tables reflected slightly lower temperatures for years following 2000, and the reshuffled rankings revealed that several years from the 1930s were, in fact, warmer than during the last decade.

That, of course, undercut arguments that the life of modern man is generating emissions that would, if left unchecked, eventually threaten life on earth because of melting ice caps, rising seas and climates too hot to support food production.

In the British scandal prior to Christmas, purloined e-mails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, one of the world's premier global warming investigative organizations, included references to a "trick" to "hide the decline."

The NASA issue developed around 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA's handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 at its Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The issue was that temperature readings apparently weren't handled in a consistent fashion, leaving them open for challenge. Sometimes "raw" data was used, while other times it was adjusted for "time of observation."

The mistake noted by McIntyre prompted the government agency to "re-process" data to eliminate an "artificial step" in the charts.

"Obviously, combining the uncorrected [data] with the [corrected] records for earlier years caused jumps in the records at those stations," a government e-mail responded. "The net effect averaged over the U.S. was an error of about 0.15C or less in the post-2000 years."

However, 0.15 degrees Centigrade is one-third of a degree Fahrenheit, which could be considered a significant change in an overall climate average.

The e-mails show the impact was that while 1998 previously had a deviation of 1.24 degrees Centrigrade, that should have been 1.23 – bringing it below 1934. The lists for the highest deviations, the e-mails show, had listed 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921, 1931, 1999, 1953, 2001, 1990 and 1938.

The new list was changed to: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.

Instead of simply correcting the errors, however, government scientist Jim Hansen responded by labeling McIntyre a "pest," and suggested that those who disagree with global warming "should be ready to crawl under a rock by now."

"This e-mail traffic ought to be embarrassing for NASA," said Tom Fitton, chief of Judicial Watch, which obtained the documents under a Freedom of Information Act request. "Given the recent Climategate scandal, NASA has an obligation to be completely transparent with its handling of temperature data."

"Instead of insulting those who point out their mistakes, NASA scientists should engage the public in an open, professional and honest matter," he said.

The hundreds of pages of documents concern what the government described as a "glitch" in official assessments of temperatures.

Judicial Watch noted that a Bloomberg reporter had e-mailed to Hansen, "The U.S. figures showed 1998 as the warmest year. Nevertheless, NASA has indeed newly ranked 1934 as the warmest year…"

Hansen responded, "We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934."

To which NASA scientist Makiko Sato told Hansen, "I am sure I had 1998 warmer at least once on my own temperature web page..."

Fitton told WND the e-mails reveal at "unflattering portrait of NASA scientists who, rather than deal forthrightly with their error, attacked those who called them on it."

He said he would leave to scientific experts the exact analysis of the impact of the flaw. But he said the dispute – and the government's response – "calls into question other data that is being presented by NASA [and others] in the global warming community."

"One has to wonder whether or not it would have been caught but for a diligent researcher," he said. "These are not everyday scientists in the private sector who can do whatever they want to do. These are government scientists trashing citizens and bloggers."

He said the e-mails make it appear the government didn't even want to engage in a discussion over the mistake – but for political, not scientific reasons.

One of the newly revealed e-mails documents a government scientist writing about those who were questioning the government's mistake: "This seems to be a tempest inside somebody's teapot dome… It is unclear why anyone would try to make something out of this, perhaps a light not on upstairs? Or perhaps this is coming from one of the old contrarians? They can't seem to get over the fact that the real world has proven them to be full of malarkey! You would think that they would be ready to crawl under a rock by now!"

McIntyre's website comment on the e-mail revelation today was that, "If anyone is wondering whether e-mails by U.S. government employees are 'private' and 'personal' – an assertion sometimes made in respect to emails at CRU, an institution subject to UK FOI – the answer in respect to NASA GISS appears to be no."

The previous e-mails from East Anglia, posted online after a hacker found them, said, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Suggestions to suppress information also were documented at East Anglia, "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."

They also suggest how "warmists," as critics label those who believe in global warming, conspired to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer-review process.

Myron Ebell, of the GlobalWarming.org website where "cooler heads prevail," had described the East Anglia e-mails as "shocking."

"It's kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community," he said.

The documents, he said, "raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community.

"What I've seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issue. It's very improper," he said. "One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientists, and policy can be handled in public debate."

There also is an effort called the Petition Project which was launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. The effort, assembled by Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and cofounder of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in 1973, now lists tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorse this:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

WND also reported recently on the United Nation's summit in Copenhagen, which failed to produce a global carbon emissions agreement as advocates had sought.

That meeting, instead, was simply about American money, according to Steve Stockman, a former Texas congressman who was in the Danish capital for the two-week event before Christmas.

"It was about transferring the wealth of taxpayers," he said. "This has nothing to do with science."

Further, a Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as "the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" said the East Anglia e-mails "are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well-organized international climate-warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years."

The comment came from Colorado State University's William Gray, whose annual hurricane forecasts are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, and he has served as weather forecaster for the U.S. Air Force. He is emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU and heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.

He had forecast that U.S. researchers eventually would be caught by their own e-mails, too.

"This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publicly funded climate-research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public," he said at the time.