Comment Log Display

The state of concern here is that how much law has been made with
false information. Just in case you haven't heard about University
of East Anglia 64 mg emails of information about climate change or
global warming from the scientific community were “faked” to make
the world think that global warming” is happening when in fact it
is not. The fact you are continuing with plans to shrink carbon
foot print is a huge concern. Given the lack of money and the fact
that California is itself is bankrupt why would you not consider
not to go forward with any more CARB programs until the need can
actually be proven. Case in point is the on road truck regulation
that used false data was known, and yet the program was put in
place. "Mary Nichols knew about this when she presided over the
public hearings, and she chose not to disclose it. This is a
damning indictment of CARB’s process." Pushing in programs that
take away our God given right to earn a living must stop!

I have great concern about any regulation CARB comes up with will
likely wreck what we in the bio-diesel production have done for the
environment. Case in point we now have to have pay $400.00 per year
for a license to pick up waste vegetable oil was done to make money
and there is no need. All regulations end in for fees and forms and
a huge regulatory agency to manage it. Instead of encouraging
business why is the State and Governor continuing to discourage
business. 

Since I have had “Asthma” since birth or 64 years I feel that I am
as much an expert as any of the groups that profit from asthma. I
have lived with diesel engine the fumes for over 50 years. My
“Asthma”  has never been affected by diesel exhaust. A simple act
of changing a  bus exhaust to vertical diesel or gas engine would
greatly improve the air that people breath and at very low cost.

Business closures and unemployment is still on the increase. The
S.F. East Bay Alameda & Contra Costa County's '08 7,887
bankruptcies in '09 12,564 bankruptcies or 59% higher. And state
wide the people and business are leaving the state, high taxes and
fees on business contribute to the exit. We cannot continue to
loose the tax base AB 32 and Carbon Trading and many more programs
with fees and fines does not help the trucking, construction,
transportation and all other things that consume energy. We are
getting choked by the onslaught of regulations.

I include the following 3 articles to submit. I hope you will read
and rethink what you intend to do at CARB.

Article 1

From The Telegraf.com.uk 11/23/09
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes
Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from
computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil
Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.
 

Published: 2:56PM GMT 23 Nov 2009

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of
adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie,
from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask
the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims
the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted
 
Related Articles

    *
      Scientist at centre of leaked email row stands by his
findings
    *
      Climategate: Phil Jones accused of error of judgment
    *
      Is climate change debate misleading?
    *
      Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over
data manipulation claims
    *
      Ask Rick 046: DVD-RAM Troubles, DVD to MP3, Vista Mail
Defailts, Nagging Office Licence, Save CHanges in Word, Disable
Shift
    *
      Ask Rick 045: Freeware Security, Ink Stinks, Mobile
Broadband Go-Slow, Mail Fonts, Digital Line Detect Error

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University).
July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to
redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change.
The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge
the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric
Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"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... Our observing system
is inadequate"

Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming
sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased
over the past 10 years.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing
more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.”

Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor
of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers
downplaying climate change.

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise."

Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws
to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as
AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the
data to be made public.

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of
Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms
from the idiots in the near future."

The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate
change sceptics who request more information about their work. 

 Article 2

Climategate

Written by William F. Jasper
Monday, 23 November 2009 15:30
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2383-climategate-e-mail-scandal-could-melt-copenhagen-plans

climate gateAs was reported here previously, the release of
thousands of e-mails and documents from a climate research center
threatens to expose some of the biggest scientific names in the
global warming debate to serious charges of fraud, unethical
attacks on colleagues, censorship of opposing viewpoints, and
possible criminal destruction and withholding of evidence.

Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Oppenheimer,
Stephen Schneider, Kevin Trenberth — these are but a few of the
"big guns" of global warming alarmism who are unfavorably exposed
in the documents that were posted on the Internet by unknown
hackers who penetrated the computer system of the Climate Research
Unit (CRU) at Britain's University of East Anglia.

Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, especially comes off very
poorly in the newly revealed documents. In an e-mail of January 29,
2004 to Michael Mann, Jones refers to the recent death of global
warming critic John L. Daly with this churlish comment: "In an odd
way this is cheering news!" In the same e-mail, Jones then suggests
to Mann that he has obtained legal advice that he does not have to
comply with Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests from other
scientists to release data and codes underlying his research
claims. Devising ways to delay and deny FOI requests is the subject
of additional e-mails, such as one from Jones to Gavin Schmidt
(with a copy to Michael Mann) of August 20, 2009, arguing that the
data from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
is exempt from these requests. Jones writes:

The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any
countries FOI — the skeptics have been told this.

The IPCC's reports, of course, have been presented as the "last
word" on climate science by Al Gore and most of the major media.
Like all other UN agencies and programs, the IPCC claims to adhere
to the highest standards of "transparency." However, many
distinguished scientists, including former IPCC scientists, have
objected to the IPCC's opaque process and criticize the
unwillingness of the IPCC to release data it cites as the basis for
its extravagant claims.

Some of the e-mails seem to confirm concerns that Jones, Mann, et
al, have destroyed data that could expose their fraudulent methods.
That appears to be the case here, where Jones suggests to Mann that
he delete certain e-mails that apparently dealt with the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was released in 2007. He also
suggests they get other colleagues to delete related
material.

 In another e-mail to Mann, Jones may have
set himself up for legal prosecution for attempting to thwart the
UK's newly passed FOI law. Jones says, "I think I'll delete the
file rather than send [it] to anyone," and "We also have a data
protection act, which I will hide behind."

"Hockey Sticks" and Hokey Data

Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center
(ESSC) at Pennsylvania State University, is the lead author of the
now-discredited "Hockey Stick" graph used by the IPCC and Al Gore
(most notably in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth) to "prove"
man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW). 

In
a particularly damning e-mail exchange from 2003, Mann and Jones
discuss a scheme for getting rid of Hans Von Storch, the editor of
the journal Climate Research, for publishing the contrary research
of distinguished fellow scientists.*

This theme of getting rid of Von Storch appears again in other
e-mails, such as this exchange between climate alarmists Tom Wigley
and Timothy Carter (with a copy to Phil Jones).

 And
Hans Von Storch is not the only professional targeted by the
climate activists, who appear to have taken political correctness
to new levels in silencing those in the scientific community that
voice disagreement with their apocalyptic scenarios. Among other
examples is an October 12, 2009 e-mail exchange among Stephen
Schneider, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenbreth, and one of Schneider's
students. The student brings to their attention a BBC report that
deviates from the BBC's usual The-Sky-Is-Falling! AGW propaganda.
The student writes:

Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote
that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific
oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not
outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics' views.

The BBC report, in this case, was on the mark, as most scientists
now agree (and even many of the alarmists now admit — though some
still try to explain away) that global temperatures actually have
cooled for the past decade. (See, for example here, here, and
here.) Stephen H. Schneider, professor of environmental studies at
Woods Institute for the Environment, passes on the student's query,
asking his colleagues if they would like to try explaining "the
past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis," which he
recognizes as a problem in terms of keeping the public panicked
over climate change.

Yes, this is the same Stephen Schneider who prior to 1978 was
proclaiming that man-made CO2 emissions were going to drive planet
Earth into global cooling and a new Ice Age. It is also the same
Stephen Schneider who admitted in a 1996 paper that "scientists"
sometimes have to use scare tactics, exaggerations, and suppression
of doubts and contrary evidence in order to win public support for
desired political policies. He said winning support required "loads
of media coverage," and to obtain that scientists would have to
"offer up scary scenarios." Here is the full quote:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to
the
 scientific method, in effect promising to tell the
truth, the whole
 truth, and nothing but — which means that
we must include all the
 doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands,
and buts. On the other hand, we
 are not just scientists but
human beings as well. And like most people
 we'd like to see
the world a better place, which in this context
 translates
into our working to reduce the risk of potentially

disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some
broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of
course, entails getting
 loads of media coverage. So we have
to offer up scary scenarios, make
 simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts
 we might
have.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between
being effective and being honest.

Michael Mann responds to Schneider's October 12, 2009 e-mail
indicating that he will contact the Met Office (the British
meteorological agency) and the BBC about the Paul Hudson report,
which was causing the alarmists so much angst. Based on the other
e-mails, as well as on what has been previously reported elsewhere
about other retaliatory attacks, it may not be far-fetched to infer
that Mann was intimating that he would have pressure applied to
Hudson to toe the AGW line.

An amusing admission against interest in the above exchange
(October 12, 2009) is this comment by Kevin Trenberth, who can't
figure out what to say about the historic low temperatures:

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the
past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of
snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F,
and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low
was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record
low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
freezing weather).

Trenberth then goes on to admit: "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." 

However, the alarmists' admitted
inability to explain away this enormous fact has not lessened their
certitude nor dampened their zeal for implementing a planetary
climate regime.

The release of the e-mails has come at an inopportune time for
many of the "experts" who may be appearing at — or whose scientific
research is prominently tied to — the fast approaching United
Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. Claiming that
man-made emissions are causing calamitous global warming, the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to
be voted on in Copenhagen will call for global governmental
mandates to regulate and tax all human activities.

Public awareness of the content of the CRU e-mails could
significantly undercut support for the UNFCCC. Thus, many of the
media organs that have been most vociferous in promoting the global
warming hype have been curiously subdued in reporting on the recent
"Climategate" scandal. The University of East Anglia said that the
purloined e-mails and documents had been selectively leaked to
undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting
the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous." And,
it seems, much of the media are content to go with that spin.

Many of the scientists in the "realist" or "skeptic" community,
including those who have borne the brunt of attacks by Mann, Jones,
et al, have not weighed in on the matter yet. Many voices on the
realist/skeptic blogs and web sites expressed the need for caution,
suggesting the e-mail releases could even be a hoax, or that false
e-mails and documents could be mixed in with those that are
genuine. That is a possibility. However, according to reports in
the New York Times and elsewhere, some of the emails have been
confirmed as genuine by the named authors. It may be some time
before all of this massive trove of documents is vetted and
certified. In the meantime, one of the websites that has sifted
through a significant number of the emails and provided helpful
summaries of their content, can be accessed here.



* Those scientists mentioned by name are: Willie Soon, a physicist
at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an astronomer at
the Mount Wilson Observatory; Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at
the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar,
Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division and Senior Scientist at
the George C. Marshall Institute; Patrick Michaels, retired
Research Professor of Environmental Sciences from the University of
Virginia and former state climatologist for Virginia; and William
Gray, a pioneer in hurricane forecasting, Emeritus Professor of
Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of
the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU.

Article 3
http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2009/Dec09/113009/120309-02.htm
 December 3, 2009

Research fraud spurs CARB member to call for truck rule
suspension

It appears Christmas may be coming early for truckers this year.

A brewing scandal at the California Air Resources Board has
resulted in one CARB board member calling for the suspension of
CARB’s most expensive truck rule to date.

Written under the authority A.B. 32 – the 2006 law that addresses
global warming, the Truck and Bus rule requires trucking fleets to
acquire diesel particulate matter filters and upgrade their truck
engines beginning in 2012.Most small trucking businesses –
including fleets of one to three trucks –will be exempt until
2014.

Numerous California and national news organizations reported this
week that several top CARB officials, including CARB Chairman Mary
Nichols, knew a year ago that the team leader and researcher on
diesel pollution fatalities was a fraud and hadn’t earned the
doctorate degree he claimed on his resume.

The revelation came at least as early as December 2008, the day
before CARB considered and approved its controversial Truck and Bus
rule. The rule, which CARB research then estimated would cost the
transportation industry $6 billion to $10 billion to comply with,
requires diesel particulate filters and new engines for commercial
trucks and buses on California roads and highways.

According to emails posted at www.killcarb.org, a CARB board
member unearthed the scandal that top agency officials had managed
to keep quiet for more than a year by asking Nichols and other CARB
board members about the research and qualifications of agency
employee Hien T. Tran.

In e-mails sent between CARB board members, Nichols and a head of
the California EPA, Tran was revealed to not have a degree. The
agency and state officials defended him although he was later
disciplined internally.

CARB’s Truck and Bus rule was approved partly because of Tran’s
research in the report, “Methodology for Estimating Premature Death
Associated with Long-Term Exposure to Find Airborne Particulate
matter in California.” In the report, Tran falsely claimed that he
had a doctorate degree in statistics from The University of
California at Davis.

Tran purportedly confessed on Dec. 10, 2008, one day before CARB’s
December board meeting began, and two days before the board
approved its most expensive rule yet.

“I believe the legitimacy of the (truck and bus rule) vote to be
in question,” wrote CARB Board member John Telles, a cardiologist,
almost a year later in a Nov. 16 letter to CARB’s chief counsel.

Later, he said a “fundamental violation of procedure,” combined
with the agency’s failure to reveal that information to the board
before it voted to approve the truck and bus measure “not only
casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the Truck (and Bus) rule, but
also upon the legitimacy of CARB itself.”

Telles’ words have caused headlines nationally, and appear to be
particularly damning to the air quality agency, which prides itself
on being more restrictive than any such agency in the world. CARB
is scheduled to approve eight different research projects next week
that carry a combined $2.4 million price tag.

So far in 2009, CARB has collected $9.7 million in total fines,
according to press releases from January to October. The figures
were calculated by www.killcarb.org.

OOIDA Director of Regulatory Affairs Joe Rajkovacz, who has
attended CARB board meetings, said the recent controversy should
make California lawmakers question the power they’ve given the air
quality agency.

“What else have they hidden?” Rajkovacz said. “Mary Nichols knew
about this when she presided over the public hearings, and she
chose not to disclose it. This is a damning indictment of CARB’s
process. The board should have delayed the Truck and Bus rulemaking
until they evaluated the data by real professionals.”

The December 2008 CARB Board meeting, which lasted nearly 12
hours, included several hours of discussion between agency staffers
and board members regarding the effect the Truck and Bus rule would
have on small businesses, particularly in trucking.

Eventually, the board approved the rule.

“It turned out the public hearing on the Truck and Bus rule was
nothing but a dog and pony show,” Rajkovacz said after finding out
about the questionable research.

“You cannot defend data that was assembled by an ethically
challenged individual. People have been defending the statistics by
saying it was peer reviewed – well, big deal. The individual who
compiled the data did not possess the academic credentials claimed.
Tran didn’t, and CARB’s top executives defended him.

“Mary Nichols didn’t have the courage to even bring up this
information during last year’s hearing.”

CARB spokesman Leo Kay told Land Line Now’s Reed Black Thursday
that CARB would probably address the Tran situation and a potential
change in the Truck and Bus rule’s implementation at its board
meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 9.

The down economy has given CARB staff reason to look at whether
down vehicle miles traveled and fuel purchases could indicate
corresponding decreases in greenhouse gas emissions, Kay said. That
could lead to a relaxing of the rule’s emissions standards.

“Trucks are sitting idle, and some off-road equipment is sitting
idle as a result of the bad economy,” Kay said. “We have a plan to
allow for some of the reduced emissions that we’ve got. We’ll
present the board with a few different options: Do we stay the
course on current deadlines, do we allow a little more room, or
maybe even a Plan C. It’s up to the board next week.”

Kay described the Tran scandal as an “unfortunate set of
circumstances,” and said Nichols felt some regret.

“I think in retrospect, she feels she should have told the whole
board as soon as we knew,” Kay said. At the time, things were
moving quickly. It was just a day or so before the hearing when the
news broke.”

One blog post by The San Diego Tribune revealed a photo of the
address listed for Thornhill University, the New York school from
which Tran claimed he gained his doctoral degree. The building in
the picture is a small United Postal Service storefront.

During the December 2008 CARB board meeting’s discussion of the
Truck and Bus rule, Telles questioned whether CARB should include
an “off-ramp” should the rule prove to be more expensive than small
trucking businesses could handle.

“I don’t think the state of California wants to put people out of
work,” Telles said then.

Nichols responded quickly.

“We’ve never adopted a rule that didn’t have severe opposition,”
she said in December 2008. “We always go by data given to us by
sources, and methods of compliance turned out to be somewhat
different than they were at the beginning. It’s the difficulty of
this work we do in the air regulatory field that we’re always
betting. When we get close to the brink, if we’re wrong – we have
to change.”

– By Charlie Morasch, staff writer
charlie_morasch@landlinemag.com

Thank You,
Darryl Mueller