From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenagen

Parturient montes: nascetur ridiculus mus

The mountains shall labor, and what will be born? A stupid little mouse. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who contacted their elected representatives to protest about the unelected, communistic world government with near-infinite powers of taxation, regulation and intervention that was proposed in early drafts of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is no Copenhagen Treaty. There is not even a Copenhagen Agreement. There is a “Copenhagen Accord”.

The White House spinmeisters spun, and their official press release proclaimed, with more than usual fatuity, that President Obama had “salvaged” a deal at Copenhagen in bilateral talks with China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, which had established a negotiating bloc.

The plainly-declared common position of these four developing nations had been the one beacon of clarity and common sense at the foggy fortnight of posturing and gibbering in the ghastly Copenhagen conference center.

This is what the Forthright Four asked for:
Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.
Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.
Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.
Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.
After President Obama’s dramatic intervention to save the deal, this is what the Forthright Four got:
Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.
Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.
Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.
Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.

Here, in a nutshell – for fortunately nothing larger is needed – are the main points of the ”Copenhagen Accord”:

Main points: In the Copenhagen Accord, which is operational immediately, the parties“underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time”; emphasize their “strong political will to urgently combat climate change”; recognize “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 C°” and perhaps below 1.5 C°; aspire to “cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible”; acknowledge that eradicating poverty is the “overriding priority of developing countries”; and accept the need to help vulnerable countries – especially the least developed nations, small-island states, and Africa – to adapt to climate change.

Self-imposed emissions targets: All parties will set for themselves, and comply with, emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted to the secretariat by 31 January 2010. Where developing countries are paid to cut their emissions, their compliance will be monitored. Developed countries will financially support less-developed countries to prevent deforestation. Carbon trading may be used.

New bureaucracies and funding: Under the supervision of a “High-Level Panel”, developed countries will give up to $30 billion for 2010-12, aiming for $100 billion by 2020, in “scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding” to developing countries via a “Copenhagen Green Fund”. A “Technology Mechanism” will “accelerate technology development and transfer” to developing countries.

And that’s it. Expensive, yes. Unnecessary, yes. But earth-shaking? No.

The disconnect between the gaseous halations of various grandstanding “world leaders” about the supposedly urgent need to “Save The Planet Now” and the puny outcome of the Copenhagen Non-Event is dazzling. And it is welcome.

For all the rhetoric – or the flatulence that passes for rhetoric these days – it has begun to dawn on the “leaders” of those nations that subject them to regular recall and re-election that the people no longer believe the mad scientists are telling them the truth. And the people are right.

What is more, after the failure of the mainstream news media to report what the malevolent and unpleasant scientists involved in the Climategate affair had written to one another about those with whom they disagreed, or about what they had done to invent, fabricate, contrive, fiddle, tweak, alter, massage, conceal, hide or even destroy scientific data for the sake of protecting and peddling the pseudo-science in which environment correspondents had so readily and so ignorantly believed, the people no longer trust the media.

And that is bad news for a governing class that has come to develop a far-too-cosy relationship with the mainstream media. It is also very bad news for the mainstream media themselves, which are now rapidly losing circulation and ad revenue as the people rightly desert them for the Internet, where - notwithstanding various expensive attempts by the over-funded international Left to interfere with Google and Yahoo searches - the truth is still available if you know where to look.

Copenhagen was the last-chance saloon not for the planet, which does not need saving, but for the UN’s world-government wannabes. They blew it, big-time, by believing their own overspun propaganda about planetary peril and thinking they had “world leaders” where they wanted them. They overreached themselves, and have paid the price.

Even though next year is an el Nino year accompanied by fast-recovering solar activity, 2010 may not, after all, set a new global-temperature record to overtop that which was set in 1998, the year of the Great el Nino. By the time the next yackfest takes place in Mexico City in December 2010, the steam will have gone out of the “global warming” scare. We should not let our guard down, but Copenhagen is more than the end of the beginning for Green fascism: it is the beginning of the end. The eco-Nazis’ attempt at global bureaucratic coup d’etat has failed, and no such attempt is likely to succeed again. Too many of you are watching.

CORRECTED

Remember the “hockey stick” tricked up by Climategate scientist Michael Mann - and adopted by the IPCC report he cowrote? Remember how it claimed to show we’d never been warmer, when, as Steve McIntyre demonstrated, the world had in fact been much warmer in Medieval times?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_hotter_it_truly_was/ 

Head Of Top UK Climate research Unit Under Investigation Over Corruption Of Science.


THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - Dec 2 2009

The British scientist at the heart of a scandal over climate-change research temporarily stepped down Tuesday as director of a prominent research group amid an internal probe that follows the release of hacked emails involving him and other scientists.

The University of East Anglia in the U.K. said Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit, has decided to step aside from the director's post.

The announcement comes less than a week before world leaders are set to meet for a climate summit in Copenhagen. The two-week conference, sponsored by the United Nations, is supposed to come up with tougher policies to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and slow global warming.

The need for such action has been buttressed in large part by research by Dr. Jones and his colleagues in East Anglia and around the world. But hackers recently stole emails and documents from the East Anglia center that suggested Dr. Jones and other like-minded scientists tried to squelch the views of dissenting researchers and advocated manipulating data.

The fallout from the hacked emails is spreading beyond the U.K. Also Tuesday, Penn State University confirmed that Michael Mann -- a climate scientist on its faculty who figures prominently in the emails -- is under "inquiry" by the university.

Dr. Mann's work reconstructing historic global temperatures has, over the past decade, become a focal point of debate. Penn State said in a statement that its inquiry, which stems from disclosed emails written by Dr. Mann, is a preliminary step to determine whether a full investigation is needed. He didn't respond to requests for comment.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama's top science adviser -- John Holdren, a climate scientist who sent one email among those hacked and posted -- is due to testify on Capitol Hill. The House committee holding the hearing has billed it as a way to explore "the urgent, consensus view...that global warming is real, and the science indicates that it is getting worse." Dr. Holdren's office declined to comment. Dr. Holdren has long spoken of the "overwhelming" evidence of man-made global warming.

The emails have led to calls for probes into the state of climate science from U.S. politicians skeptical that humans are causing global warming. They have also drawn criticism from some high-profile environmentalists.

In one email, Dr. Jones suggested to Dr. Mann that they should try to keep out of scientific journals the research of scientists who challenge the idea of man-made global warming. We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" the email says.

The East Anglia institute that Dr. Jones headed has become a key player in building evidence for the U.N.'s argument that humans are behind global warming. In statements released by the institute in recent days, Dr. Jones has defended the integrity of the institute's scientific work, while saying that he and his colleagues "accept that some of the published emails do not read well."

On Tuesday, Dr. Jones said the East Anglia institute couldn't continue to do its work with him as its director amid the controversy. "What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible," he said in the statement. "After a good deal of consideration," he wrote, he decided to step down from the director's job pending the investigation.

Longtime critics of the premise that humans are responsible for climate change cheered word of the move by Dr. Jones and the inquiry into Dr. Mann. "I think we're making headway," said Oklahoma's James Inhofe, the senior Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

On Tuesday, Mr. Inhofe sent a letter to the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), that called for hearings on whether any U.S. laws were broken by the scientists, or "any taxpayer-funded research deliberately obscured or manipulated." A spokesman for Ms. Boxer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125970198500271683.html

Climategate: Alarmism is underpinned by fraud


   Nov 25 2009 by Ian Plimer

In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.

Humans have adapted to live on ice sheets, deserts, mountains, tropics, and sea level. History shows that humans and other organisms have thrived in warm times and suffered in cold times.

In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.

Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.

There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.

Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.

The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/

'I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam'. George Monbiot


'Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.'  



Posted November 23, 2009

George Monbiot

“From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master’s second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet’s atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world’s glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master’s third grand law has been accepted: world government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse’s head turned up in James Hansen’s bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?

Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.”

This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

www.monbiot.com

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/#more-1224

Even Monbiot says the science now needs “reanalyising”


Andrew Bolt

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 07:14pm

Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. 
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…

If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_monbiot_says_the_science_now_needs_reanalyising/

Team of Scientists' Open Letter To U.S. Senators: 'Claim of consensus is fake'  

Plus: Science group 'reviewing its stance on global warming' after 160 physicists sign petition

Marc Morano - Climate Depot, Nov 2

The following letter signed by five physicists was sent to all 100 U.S. Senator's on October 29, 2009. The letter is reproduced in full below: 

A GAGGLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS

 

You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.

We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply to note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no. 

We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter. 

We also note that the American Physical Society (APS, and we are physicists) did not sign the letter, though the scientific issues at stake are fundamentally matters of applied physics. You can do physics without climatology, but you can't do climatology without physics. 

The APS is at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you. 

Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia

Professor Will Happer, Princeton University

Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford

Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil 

List of 160 signers of the APS petition available at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3606/Team-of-Scientists-Open-Letter-To-US-Senators-Claim-of-consensus-is-fake

Maldives President Ignores Science In Favour Of Lucrative False Sea Rising Scaremongering.
Oct 20 2009

On Oct. 17, Mohamed Nasheed, president of the Maldives, an island country off the coast of India, held a meeting of his Cabinet underwater to dramatize the risks he says his country faces from rising sea levels caused by global warming.  Yesterday, Swedish scientist Nils-Axel Mörner, a specialist in sea level changes, wrote Mr. Nasheed the following letter: 

Open Letter

October 20, 2009

To: President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives

From: Nils-Axel Mörner, Stockholm, Sweden

Mr. President,

You have recently held an undersea Cabinet meeting to raise awareness of the idea that global sea level is rising and hence threatens to drown the Maldives. This proposition is not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments.

Therefore, I am most surprised at your action and must protest its intended message.

In 2001, when our research group found overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years, I thought it would not be respectful to the fine people of the Maldives if I were to return home and present our results in international fora.

No New Taxes Except A Carbon Tax For Irish 2010 Budget


Irish Times Oct 13 2009

The Irish Department of Finance spokesman said: “The Minister stated in an interview with Matt Cooper (Radio Talk Show) on 17th September last that in the next budget there would, ‘be no new taxes except a carbon tax’, which was agreed as part of the initial programme for government.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1013/1224256509516.html

What Happened To Global Warming? 

By Paul Hudson 
Climate correspondent, BBC News, Oct 9 2009 

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.


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

 

Meet The Man Who Has Exposed The Great Climate Change Con Trick

James Delingpole July 2009

James Delingpole talks to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Shame on the publishers who rejected the book

‘I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.’

Plimer’s uncompromising position has not made him popular. ‘They say I rape cows, eat babies, that I know nothing about anything. My favourite letter was the one that said: “Dear sir, drop dead”. I’ve also had a demo in Sydney outside one of my book launches, and I’ve had mothers coming up to me with two-year-old children in their arms saying: “Don’t you have any kind of morality? This child’s future is being destroyed.’’’ Plimer’s response to the last one is typically robust. ‘If you’re so concerned, why did you breed?’

This no-nonsense approach may owe something to the young Ian’s straitened Sydney upbringing. His father was crippled with MS, leaving his mother to raise three children on a schoolteacher’s wage. ‘We couldn’t afford a TV — not that TV even arrived in Australia till 1956. We’d use the same brown paper bag over and over again for our school lunches, always turn off the lights, not because of some moral imperative but out of sheer bloody necessity.’

One of the things that so irks him about modern environmentalism is that it is driven by people who are ‘too wealthy’. ‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’ 

Click Link to Continue interview:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3755623/part_3/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml 

Infamous 'Hockey Stick' Graph Under Fire

US Congressional inquiries on 'hockey stick' graph claim it is fundamentally flawed, writes Christopher Booker. 

By Christopher Booker
Published: 5:05PM 12 Sep 2009

A number of readers wrote in to express surprise at the recent letter from the US scientist Dr Michael Mann claiming that his famous "hockey stick" graph, showing temperatures having suddenly soared at the end of the 20th century to unprecedented levels, had been endorsed by the US National Academy of Sciences. Neither of the two Congressional inquiries involving the NAS did anything of the kind. Both found that the computer model used to create Dr Mann's "hockey stick", completely rewriting climate history, was fundamentally flawed.

This is one reason why, despite all the efforts made to defend Dr Mann's graph by his academic colleagues (describing themselves as the Hockey Team), I have described it as "one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science".

Now the Hockey Team have done it again. As part of the general drive to hype up panic over global warming in the run-up to December's Copenhagen conference, several of them are among the authors of a paper, published in the September 4 issue of the US journal Science, which claims to rewrite the climate history of the Arctic. As in the original version, the new hockey stick-shaped graph produced by their computer model shows temperatures gently declining for 900 years, then suddenly shooting up in recent years to record levels.

As usual, there are several odd features of their model, which is largely based on data from Professor Philip Jones's Climate Research Unit in Norwich – the data he refuses to publish because it is a state secret. But perhaps the oddest aspect of all is the contrast between this new study and the comprehensive record of Arctic temperatures compiled by the Danish Meteorological Institute from 1959 to the present day.

Anthony Watts's Watts Up With That blog (see the blog posting on September 4) created an animated graphic showing the DMI's temperature changes over the past 50 years. Far from confirming the hypothetical upward spurt claimed by the Hockey Team's computer, the most remarkable feature of the actual record is that it shows no significant change whatever.
The unshakeable faith in computer models shown by the scientists who programme them would be the envy of any religious sect in the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6179713/New-hockey-stick-graph-

 

http://carbon-sense.com/2009/09/19/temp-vs-co2/

SCIENTIST SAYS...

 6 oct 2009

The planet has warmed and cooled several times over the past 150 years, all within the range of natural climate variability. There are no published scientific papers that show irrefutable proof that any of this is human-caused. Proof is not to be mistaken for the output of hypothetical climate models, none of which has been shown to reliably predict climate. Proof is not merely evidence of warming coupled with the default conclusion “it must human-caused” when we don't how else to explain it. This is nothing more than admission of ignorance. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges changes we have seen may be natural. The following statement appears in a major IPCC report “Climate Change 2001”.

“The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19^th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural.”

 

The notion of an unchanging climate has been used to deceive us. It is a conveniently forgotten fact that most of the industrialised world went into hysterics during the forty years of global cooling beginning in the late 1930s. It has been replaced by global warming hysteria over a temperature rise over 100 years of less than one degree, a trend that started before modern industrialisation caused atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to rise. 

Chris de Freitas is climate scientist and associate professor at the University of Auckland New Zealand.



http://www.nzcpr.com/guest166.htm 

Climate Song: The Beds Are Burning But Where's Chris Martin?

The low-star wattage means this charity single is unlikely to become the rallying anthem for the climate-conscious generation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBTZOg6l6cA

 

 

Paul MacInnes Oct 1 2009

The first thing that strikes you about the climate cover version of Beds are Burning, is the distinct absence of Chris Martin. Where is he? The clock is ticking towards Copenhagen, the awareness-raising single has been recorded, and yet the philanthropic lead singer of the world's biggest group is nowhere to be seen.

He's not the only one who's missing. There's no Bono, no Sting, no Shakira, not even, and for this relief much thanks, the Black Eyed Peas. In fact none of the usual suspects appear on this charity record at all, despite its undoubted significance. The best they can offer is Simon Le Bon and a couple of Scorpions.

The cast list of a charity single is crucial, far more important than the quality of the song itself. Midge Ure may have written and produced a veritable dirge in Do They Know It's Christmas, but the awesome effect of watching a singing relay that passed from George Michael, to Le Bon (backed by Sting) and Spandau Ballet's Tony Hadley occasioned spines to tingle across the world. The response, it's safe to say, will not be the same when listeners hear former French tennis star Yannick Noah pass the baton to model-cum-actress-cum-designer Milla Jovovich.

A massive turnout of stars for the ultimately underwhelming Live Earth concerts proved that there is support for the cause, so the absence of big names here may have more to do with the song's origin, in the belly of the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum. Perhaps lacking the connections to pull in household names, they may also have decided that diversity (thereare Chinese pop stars alongside European rockers) was the way to go.

Whatever the explanation, the low-star wattage means Beds Are Burning is unlikely ever to become the rallying anthem for the climate-conscious generation. In fact, it's not even a particularly good version of the song, originally composed by Australian band Midnight Oil as a call for reparations to the Aboriginal community. The tempo's slow, the melody of the chorus has been tweaked for the worse. In fact, the best bit of the whole thing is Kofi Annan's menacing introduction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/oct/01/beds-are-burning-climate-song-review

Climate Change Is Just A Big Con 

(Letter From Irish Citizen To Irish Independent Newspaper)

Thursday October 01 2009

In reply to Nessa Childers ('Vote Yes to fight climate change', Letters, September 30), I still find it exasperating that people can't seem to grasp reality when it comes to the matter of climate change. What has Lisbon got to do with the weather?

I seriously wonder if any of these people have ever read one article or book about the subject, or looked at the growing evidence that the whole matter of man-made climate change is being exposed as a completely bogus threat. When will people wake up to this con?

Will it take abject poverty due to ever increasing carbon taxes, more long wet summers, colder winters and even more information refuting the whole scam before they realise that climate change is simply a natural cyclical event called weather?

People need to begin by ignoring TV and mainstream media propaganda when it comes to the whole argument surrounding climate change and many other issues, and start to do some logical, common sense thinking for themselves.

TV is not reality and if anyone can show me physical evidence that man is causing the weather to change, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

I know someone will write to refute this by pointing to numerous reports by so-called 'experts', but I can easily point to as many refuting them; so wherein lies the truth?

This is your life to live. Don't be conned by lies and propaganda, think for yourselves.

NEIL FOSTER
Ballyfarnon, Co Roscommon

Irish Independent

 http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/climate-change-is-just-a-big-con-1901115.html

AL Gore Invests In €1bn Irish Insulation Company

By Nick Webb

Sunday August 30 2009

NOBEL Prize and Oscar-winning former US vice president Al Gore has become the second largest shareholder in €1bn-valued Irish plc Kingspan.

Gore's private equity firm Generation Investment Management has doubled its stake in Gene Murtagh's Cavan-headquartered insulation firm and now holds a near 12 per cent chunk of the business. Gore's stake is worth close to €120m. The Kingspan stake is Generation's largest single investment in a listed firm.
Climate change activist Gore co-founded Generation Investment Management after his bid to become US president failed in 2000, when George W Bush was elected in the wake of the "hanging chads" controversy in Florida. Gore serves as chairman of the group, which invests in green, socially responsible and sustainable firms.
His co-founder David Blood was chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, which has led to the firm being nicknamed "Blood and Gore". Former Irish President Mary Robinson has advised the firm.

Although widely described as a building materials company, Kingspan is one of the most innovative "green" businesses on the island. Teams of company scientists and chemists are working on ways of reducing heat emissions by improving high performance insulation. It is estimated that around 40 per cent of carbon emissions come through poorly insulated buildings.
The company also invented the world's first carbon neutral house -- the Lighthouse in Watford, England. Kingspan has also diversified into solar energy through the purchase of Thermomax in 2007. It is also moving into the rainwater harvesting sector.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/al-gore-builds-up-12pc-stake-in-83641bn-kingspan-1873211.html

Carbon Trading May Dwarf That of Crude Oil 

By: Trevor Curwin,, Special to CNBC.com | 29 Sep 2009


If carbon cap-and-trade becomes a reality, get ready for a potential multi-trillion dollar commodities market that could sprout up quickly, but not without growing pains.

“I’m estimating carbon markets could be worth $2 trillion in transaction value – money changing hands – within five years of trading (starting),” says Bart Chilton, a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) commissioner, who's also chairman of its energy and environmental markets advisory committee. “That would make it the largest physically traded commodity in the US, surpassing even oil.”


US carbon markets are just getting started.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/32540966

Carbon Criminal’ WANTED Poster Campaign Goes to G-20 Meeting in Pittsburgh

By Steve Milloy

Sept 24 2009

JunkScience.com announced today that it was taking its “Carbon Criminal” WANTED poster advertisement campaign to Pittsburgh for the G-20 economic summit. The campaign will protest the CEO of Pittsburgh-based Alcoa, Klaus Kleinfeld, who is lobbying for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation that will wreck the U.S. economy.

 

“Klaus Kleinfeld personifies the non-thinking corporate stampede toward economy-killing and environmentally-ineffectual greenhouse gas regulation,” says Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com and author of the Amazon.com Best-selling book “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.” 


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15043 

 

U.N. Climate Meeting Was Propaganda: Czech President

Tue Sep 22, 2009 

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus sharply criticized a U.N. meeting on climate change on Tuesday at which U.S. President Barack Obama was among the top speakers, describing it as propagandistic and undignified.

"It was sad and it was frustrating," said Klaus, one of the world's most vocal skeptics on the topic of global warming.
"It's a propagandistic exercise where 13-year-old girls from some far-away country perform a pre-rehearsed poem," he said. "It's simply not dignified."

At the opening of the summit attended by nearly 100 world leaders, 13-year-old Yugratna Srivastava of India told the audience that governments were not doing enough to combat the threat of climate change.
Klaus said there were increasing doubts in the scientific community about whether humans are causing changes in the climate or whether the changes are simply naturally occurring phenomena.
But politicians, he said, seem to be moving closer to a consensus on climate change.
"The train can't be stopped and I consider that a huge mistake," Klaus said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon organized the climate summit to help create momentum before a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December to reach agreement on new targets for reducing so-called greenhouse gas emissions.
However, new proposals by China and a rallying cry from U.S. President Barack Obama did little to break a U.N. deadlock about what should be done.

Klaus published a book in 2007 on the worldwide campaign to stop climate change entitled "Blue Planet in Green Chains: What Is Under Threat -- Climate or Freedom?"
In the book, Klaus said global warming has turned into a new religion, an ideology that threatens to undermine freedom and the world's economic and social order.

 http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58L6ID20090922

 

Irish Climate Analysis and Research Unit (ICARUS), Supports Unverifiable Science - Directly Influencing Irish Government Carbon Tax Policy Makers.

 

http://icarus.nuim.ie/

ICARUS is the main climate research unit in Ireland and the above quote dominates the front page of their web site. A clear message from the IPCC to the Irish People. Notice the use of the word 'Likely', not exactly convincing science is it, especially now that it has been exposed as unverifiable and unreliable by so many International scientists.    http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php



The Head of ICARUS Professor John Sweeney served as a contributing author and editor of the IPCC influential Fourth Assessment, published in 2007. This fact might naturally lead one to believe that his scientific opinion on matters of Anthropogenic Climate Change are not exactly balanced.


His most recent report for the Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units at NUI Maynooth, projected that temperatures in Ireland will increase by more than two degrees by the end of the century with significant changes in rainfall. 

This is a very confident prediction of the future and I am curious about his scientific methods in forecasting especially when the experts at met eireann can only confidently predict temperatures a few days in advanced. Where does this confidence come from, a crystal ball perhaps!?


http://communications.nuim.ie/press/180609.shtml


Mr Sweeney is also on the board of directors of Friends Of The Earth Ireland who are also heavily engaged in persuading the Irish Government to bring in a Carbon Tax ASAP based on unscientifically verifiable science from the IPCC. In fact the Irish FOE Official Mission Statement is: To shift the balance of Irish policy and practice in favour of environmental justice and sustainability at home and internationally.

http://www.foe.ie/about/board.html

 Irish Government Climate Change Science Adviser Admits Pet Hate.  

"..the idea that this is an equally balanced topic.." 

   Professor John Sweeney

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=CLJ20090610.xml&Node=H2&Page=3 


What Balance????

Icarus

In Greek myth, the son of the inventor Daedalus. Daedalus worked for the Cretan king Minos. When he fell out of favor and he and his son were imprisoned, Daedalus fashioned wings out of feathers and wax so he and Icarus could fly out of their prison. Icarus, however, giddy with the thrill of flight, flew so high that the sun's heat melted the wax; he plunged into the sea and drowned.

(Farmer in the Sky)             Ironically it just so happens that the scientific evidence from the Sun is currently melting the unverifiable projections of the Irish ICARUS.    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all    carbonman   Sept 2009                  

Ban Ki-Moon Makes The Agenda Very Clear ON Where the UN and The IPCC Stand, And The Direction They Are DICTATING For The Future, With Or Without Legitimate Verifiable Scientific Evidence.

22 September 2009

Opening remarks to the United Nations Climate Change Summit Plenary.

Excellencies,

"Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. We will soon reach critical thresholds. Consequences that we cannot reverse.
The world’s leading scientists warn that we have less than ten years to avoid the worst-case scenarios projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC].
Indeed those worst-case scenarios are becoming ever more likely.
We must halt the rise in global emissions.
Earlier this month I was in the Arctic. I was alarmed by the rapid pace of change. The Arctic could be nearly ice-free by 2030.
The consequences will be felt by people on every continent."

"The true test of leadership is to take the long view. National leaders must become global leaders to meet the needs of their own people.
Copenhagen offers a new path. It can catalyze a global economy based on low-emissions growth that can strengthen sustainable development and lift billions out of poverty.
Success in Copenhagen will have positive ripple effects for global cooperation on trade, energy, security and health.
Failure to reach broad agreement in Copenhagen would be morally inexcusable, economically short-sighted and politically unwise.
We cannot go down this road. If we have learned anything from the crises of the past year, it is that our fates are intertwined.
Climate change links us more directly and dramatically than any other issue.
Now is the moment to act in common cause.
History may not offer us a better chance."




http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=582

 Obama Cries Wolf To Convince "CHANGE".
Just Another Sad Mouth Piece For Climate Catastrophe Predictions.
 




Published: September 22, 2009  New York Times


Below is an extract from President Obama's speech on Tuesday to the United Nations General Assembly, as released by the White House.

"No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out."


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/us/politics/23obama.text.html?_r=1