Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject:
Well I'm watching :
The Age of Stupid:Storyville
Quite fascinating stuff,billed as drama-documentary-animation hybrid about a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055,watching archive footage from 2008.Contains some strong languauge
Oh I forgot to add it's our old friend the BBC,specifically BBC Four.
They wouldn't lie to us now would they? _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
More lies from the Climate liars. Using a SINGLE site to gather "data" to "measure" the whole of the Antarctic continent temperature trend. Lengthy article - visit above link for a detailed explanation of the SCAM!
Quote:
Frigid Folly: UHI, siting issues, and adjustments in Antarctic GHCN data
13/12/2009
A couple of days ago I sent this email to Jeff Id of the Air vent, as he quite familiar with Antarctic surface temperature analysis, having outed the many problems with the Steig et al “Antarctica is Warming” paper, demonstrating poor statistical techniques used by Steig, with help from Michael Mann.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Anthony Watts wrote:
If Climategate Is No Big Deal, Why Are Questions About It Met With An Armed Response?
Dissenting opinions against the world government will not be tolerated
Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, Monday, December 14, 2009
The boilerplate response on behalf of the guardians of the global warming scam is to claim that the climategate scandal holds no significance whatsoever. If warmists really are that laid back over the whole controversy then why are questions about it by accredited journalists met with an armed response from UN thugs?
The latest effort to whitewash climategate comes in the form of an Associated Press “investigation” which involved a handful of AP writers looking through the leaked emails. Unsurprisingly for an organization that has vehemently thrown its full weight behind the climate change fraud, the AP concludes that “the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked,” despite emails which openly discuss using “tricks” to “hide the decline” in global warming.
However, even if we are to accept the ludicrous premise that climategate is a distraction or a non-issue, the question remains – if it’s such a side-issue and not severely damaging to the UN’s global carbon tax agenda, then why does mere mention of it by reporters cause United Nations officials to send in armed goons to silence them during press conferences?
Hundreds of thousands of people have now seen the video that emerged over the weekend of journalist Phelim McAleer being harassed and kicked out of a press conference by armed UN security for putting a question about climategate to Professor Stephen Schneider from Stanford University.
As soon as McAleer begins his question, UN officials swoop in and try to wrestle the microphone away from him. When this fails, an armed thug is sent in to threaten McAleer and his cameraman before eventually making them leave the press conference. The goon is insistent that his free speech crushing antics are not caught on film.
“I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference,” said McAleer. “Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.”
“This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.”
This is not the first time McAleer has been the victim of the climate cult thought police. During a question and answer session with Al Gore earlier this year, McAleer had his microphone cut off after asking Gore about the multitude of errors in his Inconvenient Truth movie.
It seems like the UN is so insistent on claiming that “the debate is over” that they will metaphorically (or not so metaphorically in this case) put a gun to the head of anyone who suggests otherwise.
Contrast what happened to McAleer to the events witnessed during Lord Monckton’s speech at a not too dissimilar conference last week.
Agitators with pro-UN, pro-man made global warming politics are allowed to gatecrash events, take over the stage and shut down the conference with no response whatsoever, but God forbid an accredited journalist ask a skeptical question of a scientist, otherwise he’ll be thrown out by armed goons.
This is the face of tyranny being imposed – no dissenting opinions against the world government will be tolerated.
The fact that these globalists and their scientist cronies will not even allow their religion to be questioned is proof itself that global warming is a contrived fraud protected not by solid science but by thuggery, intimidation and a stenchful loathing of free speech.
In continually silencing dissent against the global warming mantra, its disciples are borrowing a slogan from the Kafkaesque dictatorship portrayed in Patrick McGoohan’s 1960’s television series The Prisoner – “Questions are a burden to others, answers a prison for oneself.”
YIPPEEEE!! By the time that comes around the SCAM will be well and truly exposed by freezing temperatures "locally everywhere.
Quote:
From The Times December 14, 2009
Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years
The key decision on preventing catastrophic climate change will be delayed for up to six years if the Copenhagen summit delivers a compromise deal which ignores advice from the UN’s science body.
World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016.
The delay will anger developing countries who, scientists say, will face the worst effects of climate change despite having contributed relatively little of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
A draft text published by the UN says that there should be a review in 2016, which could result in an “update of the long-term global goal for emissions reductions as well as of the adequacy of commitments and actions”.
Related Links
In Denmark even anarchy is well organised
Copenhagen police arrest hundreds of protesters
'Don’t let West carry carbon burden'
The Times has learnt that negotiators from developed countries are planning to use the idea of a review to justify failing to agree the 25-40 per cent cut in the 1990 level of emissions by 2020, recommended by the IPCC.
Even the most ambitious provisional offers made by all the countries amount to a reduction of only 18 per cent.
Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, said leaders would be unable to deliver a deal in line with what the IPCC had recommended.
In an interview yesterday with The Times in Copenhagen, he said: “It would be a big mistake if we failed to get an agreement because we didn’t meet the highest expectations people have.
“Get the agreement, get it under way, and then understand you will inevitably have to change and adjust as you proceed.
“If you actually manage to cut emissions by 18 per cent by 2020, you would have made a very, very big change in the way economies work,” he said, before adding: “Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good.”
A joint report by Mr Blair’s office and the Climate Group, an environmental body backed by some of the world’s biggest companies, including BP, HSBC and Google, said that, even if all the provisional offers were delivered, emissions of CO2 in 2020 would still be 5 billion tonnes higher than the atmosphere could safely accommodate.
This would mean that global temperature would rise more than 2C above pre-industrial levels, with the result that large parts of the world would become uninhabitable.
The joint report, published yesterday, proposed a review of targets in 2015 to allow “scaling up of ambition”.
Countries are unlikely to improve on their provisional offers over the next five days, because the US has made clear it will not be raising its own relatively weak provisional target for cutting emissions.
President Obama has offered to cut US emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, subject to approval by the US Congress. The EU has committed to a 20 per cent cut over the same time scale, but said it would raise this to 30 per cent if other countries made comparable efforts.
Mr Blair discussed Mr Obama’s offer last week with Todd Stern, the US chief climate negotiator, and agreed that the focus should be on accelerating US emissions cuts in the decade after 2020 rather than before.
Mr Blair said that, while the scientific evidence of man-made global warming was very strong, it was much less clear how quickly temperatures would rise.
“When you come to very precise dates, percentages and so on [. . .] then the figures are somewhat more fudgeable.
“The important thing is to give a clear direction out of this conference. Don’t fixate on the precise percentage,” he said.
A source close to Britain’s negotiating team said Britain would continue to press publicly for a deal in line with the IPCC’s recommendation, but acknowledged that the targets emerging from the summit would need to be reconsidered at a later date.
Bernarditas Muller, lead negotiator for the G77 and China group of developing countries, said putting off the most difficult decisions on emissions cuts would be a betrayal of commitments made by rich countries under the UN Climate Convention.
“Developing countries have the most to lose if we do not agree a just and ambitious outcome in Copenhagen. We are simply asking developed countries, ‘Don’t shirk your responsibilities. Just do what you have already agreed to do under the Climate Convention’.”
Smaller developing countries were excluded yesterday from a meeting in Copenhagen of environment ministers from about 40 countries.
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said after the meeting: “We’re now getting close to midnight in this negotiation and we need to act like it.
“That means more urgency to solve problems, not just identify them, more willingness to shift from entrenched positions and more ambitious commitments.”
The Prince of Wales will address the summit tomorrow and Gordon Brown will meet other leaders in Copenhagen on Wednesday.
About 120 Prime Ministers and Presidents will attend the final day of the summit on Friday.
Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, Monday, December 14, 2009
Developing countries have walked out on the Copenhagen climate talks, but one of the primary reasons as to why nations like China and India have boycotted the summit is being hidden by the corporate media – namely the fact that the negotiations were doomed once poorer countries learned of the globalist’s neo-colonial agenda as a result of the Danish text leak.
“Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation,” reports the BBC.
“Delegations were angry at what they saw as moves by the Danish host government to sideline talks on more emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol. As news spread around the conference centre, activists chanted “We stand with Africa – Kyoto targets now”.
However, the media has completely failed to highlight the real reason behind the walk out – the fact that funds from climate financing, originally allocated to go to the UN and then be doled out piecemeal to third world nations, would instead be paid directly into the coffers of the World Bank and IMF, organizations that have made a habit out of looting poorer countries with crippling debts that cannot be paid back, forcing such countries to hand over their entire infrastructure to globalist loan sharks.
In the leaked Copenhagen text that emerged last week, leaders of third world countries were horrified to discover that developed nations would take on less of a burden than anticipated and that more would be demanded of poorer countries despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions would further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.
Billionaire elitist George Soros subsequently told Copenhagen delegates how poorer nations would be forced to take on what he described as “green loans” in the name of combating climate change, a policy that would land the already financially devastated third world with even more debt, payable to globalist institutions such as the IMF.
Soros said that $100 billion should be provided in loans to poorer nations to help slow global warming. The proposal would entail third world countries paying back interest to the governments of the richer nations to stem a perceived crisis that they have had little or no direct involvement in creating.
In what amounts to little more than modern day colonialism, debt forgiveness requires countries to sell their health, education, electric, water and other public services to globalist corporations. Such “structural adjustment conditionalities” have led to massive cuts to health and education budgets in the third world.
Poorer countries have also had to discontinue subsidies and trade restrictions that support local business and development.
As we have documented, third world nations are already laboring under skyrocketing food prices caused by climate change policies. This has led to millions of people starving to death because the cost of even the most basic staple foods has spiraled beyond their means. In places like Haiti, people who were scraping a living on mud pies now cannot afford them and are dying in droves.
Poorer countries continue to be politically neutralized and socially and economically dismembered by such policies. This is the primary reason why these countries are now boycotting the Copenhagen summit, but you won’t hear a word about it in the mainstream media, because it is owned by the same globalists who want to keep the lid on the fact that the global carbon tax scam is set up to benefit themselves and themselves only.
Poorer countries who were promised a slice of the pie are now discovering that they in fact face a further plundering as a result of the very same policies that were introduced in the name of helping them.
"“Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation,” reports the BBC."
Tony Blair says the science behind climate change theory doesn’t need to be true
Written by Tony Hake, Climate Change Examiner
Monday, December 14 2009 10:13
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived in Copenhagen yesterday for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15). In comments that are sure to raise eyebrows, Blair said that the world must act on the purported threat of manmade climate change, even if the science isn’t accurate.
The release of thousands of emails from the world’s top scientists – Climategate as it has come to be called – has cast doubts on the scientists and the science behind the manmade climate change theory. The ethics of many of the scientists have been called into question and each day at the climate summit last week, scientists and world leaders were forced to address the scandal.
It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be.
~ Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
The revelations appear to have Blair wondering about the science as well. He told the UK’s Telegraph, “It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity.”
Were the science shown to not be correct, the former prime minister said that the world’s nations still needed to take action. “Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible,” he said.
There is little doubt that the world as a whole needs to work to ensure a cleaner natural environment. Pollution as a result of carbon emissions and the world’s dependence on fossil fuel are issues that need to be addressed.
At issue however, is whether stringent measures that would be costly and thus damaging to nations’ financial health and consumers are needed. Indeed, the proposed cap and trade type schemes that would form the basis of any agreement are expected to do little to reduce carbon emissions. Many argue that more reasonable measures need to be taken, ones that can produce real results without harming economies or people.
Quite fascinating stuff,billed as drama-documentary-animation hybrid about a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055,watching archive footage from 2008.Contains some strong languauge
Oh I forgot to add it's our old friend the BBC,specifically BBC Four.
They wouldn't lie to us now would they?
Just to be clear, Frank: The Age Of Stupid was an independently produced and financed film (it was made with money raised by crowd-funding, ie small donations from a large group of individuals).
It was directed by Franny Armstrong, who was previously best known for her film McLibel, about the McDonald's libel trial. It wasn't produced or funded by the BBC in any shape or form. Yes, the BBC broadcast it recently, which was quite a coup for the production team. But that's the total extent of the corporation's involvement with the film.
Blair...Rosicrucian....don't think so. _________________ "Soon after the year 2000 has been written, a law will go forth from America whose purpose will be to suppress all individual thinking. This will not be the wording of the law, but it will be the intent" Rudolf Steiner: Gegenwärtiges und Vergangenes in Menschengeiste (The Present and the Past in the Human Spirit)
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:32 pm Post subject:
jomper wrote:
Frank Freedom wrote:
Well I'm watching :
The Age of Stupid:Storyville
Quite fascinating stuff,billed as drama-documentary-animation hybrid about a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055,watching archive footage from 2008.Contains some strong languauge
Oh I forgot to add it's our old friend the BBC,specifically BBC Four.
They wouldn't lie to us now would they?
Just to be clear, Frank: The Age Of Stupid was an independently produced and financed film (it was made with money raised by crowd-funding, ie small donations from a large group of individuals).
It was directed by Franny Armstrong, who was previously best known for her film McLibel, about the McDonald's libel trial. It wasn't produced or funded by the BBC in any shape or form. Yes, the BBC broadcast it recently, which was quite a coup for the production team. But that's the total extent of the corporation's involvement with the film.
Thanks for that jomper.This "drama-documentary-animation hybrid" is based accurately on the climate modelling scenarios do you think?
BBC4 are showing 'The Environment Debate' this evening at 22.00 for a full half hour,plenty of time to convince the "deniers" and maybe include a few clips of floods,hurricanes and what not,from the film made by BBC and other news outlets don't you think?
As Tony Bliar apparently said "It doesn't matter if the science is wrong",pretty similar to his sunday statement on WMD's in Iraq.
As we should know by now on here,it's the agenda that matters not the facts,they are manipulated to fit whatever global crisis scenario given us. _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
Quite fascinating stuff,billed as drama-documentary-animation hybrid about a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055,watching archive footage from 2008.Contains some strong languauge
Oh I forgot to add it's our old friend the BBC,specifically BBC Four.
They wouldn't lie to us now would they?
Yes:
With all this talk and planning about poulation and resources, what do you think we should do ? Regardless to the drama-documentary.
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:37 pm Post subject:
You can't dismiss all the "programs" on our screens about the global warming oops I meant climate change really out of hand.
We as a truth movement should be exposing the agenda behind it.
That is not to say I don't think being more environmentally friendly should not be endorsed,there is a massive amount of waste produced (intentionally imo) by our western society system of consumerism,a system (I am appalled by),as I've come to realise in recent years due to the exposure of certain truths is managed.
Back to the agenda then.I see the green movement (as John White has stated on here) has been corrupted by the agenda,and a great many well meaning people are in my opinion being used to forward the agenda of the green revolution ,also know as the first global revolution.This it seems to me over the recent years of my awakening looks like being driven by the United Nations,and at it's core seems to be a drive toward a new religion of Gaia,mother earth pantheistic type dogma.I hope you have noticed over the last few years the manipulated drive against the monotheistic religions of islam (war on terror lie),judaism (palestine/west bank issues) and christianity (Bush:god told me type thing,and Bliar's "the right thing to do" lies).
Notice the eastern religions are largely left alone from attack,which seem to me to indicate these eastern type philosopys will be merged with what's is left of the monotheistic religions to create a one world religion of Gaia etc (as mentioned above).
Exposure of the UN's Club of Rome agenda is in my opinion vital,along with THE WORLD COMMISSION ON
GLOBAL CONSCIOUSNESS & SPIRITUALITY which is a major player for our minds imo:
Incidentaly,the first time I heard of Gaia was on the BBC's 1980's anti-nuclear drama "The Edge of Darkness" a seed well planted do you think? _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
You can't dismiss all the "programs" on our screens about the global warming oops I meant climate change really out of hand.
We as a truth movement should be exposing the agenda behind it.
That is not to say I don't think being more environmentally friendly should not be endorsed,there is a massive amount of waste produced (intentionally imo) by our western society system of consumerism,a system (I am appalled by),as I've come to realise in recent years due to the exposure of certain truths is managed.
Back to the agenda then.I see the green movement (as John White has stated on here) has been corrupted by the agenda,and a great many well meaning people are in my opinion being used to forward the agenda of the green revolution ,also know as the first global revolution.This it seems to me over the recent years of my awakening looks like being driven by the United Nations,and at it's core seems to be a drive toward a new religion of Gaia,mother earth pantheistic type dogma.I hope you have noticed over the last few years the manipulated drive against the monotheistic religions of islam (war on terror lie),judaism (palestine/west bank issues) and christianity (Bush:god told me type thing,and Bliar's "the right thing to do" lies).
Notice the eastern religions are largely left alone from attack,which seem to me to indicate these eastern type philosopys will be merged with what's is left of the monotheistic religions to create a one world religion of Gaia etc (as mentioned above).
Exposure of the UN's Club of Rome agenda is in my opinion vital,along with THE WORLD COMMISSION ON
GLOBAL CONSCIOUSNESS & SPIRITUALITY which is a major player for our minds imo:
Climategate: Al Gore spews the usual nonsense but this time no one believes him
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 15th, 2009
Something truly remarkable happened at Copenhagen yesterday. Al Gore told yet another of his massive whoppers about ManBearPig. But this time no one believed him.
Here’s how the Times reported it:
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.
Interesting to see that story reported in the Times, of all places. Apart from The Independent, no British newspaper – not even George Monbiot’s home the Guardian – has been drinking the AGW Kool-Aid quite so fervently as the Times. From its vast hordes of Eco correspondents to its Op Ed editors and writers, the Times prides itself on being greener than Dr Rajendra Pachauri’s favourite green underpants after a month’s detox diet of spinach, wheat grass juice, parsley and pure essence of ultra-viridian greenness.
So yes, for the Times to report on the Holy Father of the global AGW movement making a total dork of himself is indeed a landmark event.
This is not, of course, the first occasion on which Arctic sea ice coverage has proved stubbornly unhelpful to the Climate Fear Promotion lobby. In 2007 all the Warmists’ dreams seemed to be coming true when satellite images showed arctic ice coverage receding at record levels. (That’s since satellite records began way, waaaay back in 1978).
Robin McKie of the Observer crowed:
The Arctic’s sea covering has shrunk so much that the Northwest Passage, the fabled sea route that connects Europe and Asia, has opened up for the first time since records began.
Which was quite true providing – as Ian Wishart reminds us in Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming – you ignore the people who had successfully sailed through the Passage in 1903, the 1940s and 2000.
Still it was enough to inspire intrepid kayaker and human polar bear Lewis Gordon Pugh to launch a dramatic September 2008 expedition to raise awareness of AGW by kayaking all the way to the North Pole. Tragically about 600 miles short of his destination he got stuck by the ice.
After the inconvenient arctic sea ice recovery of 2008, Warmists attempted to finesse their argument by saying that although most of the ice seemed to have come back it was the WRONG KIND OF ICE. They called it “rotten ice” – something that deceives satellites into thinking its proper and thick when it is in fact rubbish and thin. This latest exercise in excuse-making has now been demolished on the Watts Up With That site, which points that not one of the major scientific institutions that monitor sea ice levels have supported this theory.
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate," continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 475 Location: North London
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:59 am Post subject: Death of climate change?
Potentially amazing news: CRU cherry-picked Russian temperature data.
This is from a press notice from the Institute of Economic Analysis, Moscow. Not sure who's funding them.
This could mean that in four years time no one will be talking about climate change. It is likely that Copenhagen will fail. If so, it means that the NWO will have to go to Plan B.
I think that during Bush's time there was a conflict over strategy between the Neo-Crazy psychopaths and the US hegemony sociopaths. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney supported the Armageddon strategy of false flag terrorism and war to get us world government. Obama, Zbig Brzezinski and Soros were more cautious and backed global warming as means to 'global governance'. It seems both strategies are failing.
But nonetheless could this mean a shift to the neo-crazies?
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate," continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
December 8, 2009
Here's Why People Don't Buy Global Warming
Mona Charen: Skepticism About Global Warming Predated The CRU Flap
An ominous cloud is hanging over the climate change summit in Copenhagen. Katie Couric comments on the scandal surrounding scientists who concealed evidence concerning global warming.
Though professional hysterics may seek to "hide the decline," there has been a noticeable drop in the number of Americans who believe that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. Pause on that for a moment. Though Americans have been harangued about global warming for more than a decade, only 35 percent told a recent Pew survey that global warming is a serious problem, compared with 44 percent the previous year.
This skepticism predated the exposure of the East Anglia e-mails - those playful missives that reveal some of the most prominent climate researchers to be, if not outright charlatans, at least partisans.
Why don't people buy global warming? Doubtless the poor economy has pushed less immediate worries to the background. But even before the e-mails revealed that supposed neutral truth seekers were prepared to "redefine peer review," and engage in statistical sleight of hand "to hide" inconvenient truths, there were ample reasons for skepticism.
* It's chilly. There is the pesky fact that, contrary to the dire predictions of climate alarmists, there has been no measurable increase in world temperatures since 1998. Yet the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere has continued to rise. The computer models immortalized by Al Gore did not anticipate this; in fact, they predicted that temperatures would continue to rise steeply more or less forever, except that human beings would all die in 50 years or so with unknown (though presumably salutary) effects on the by-then Venus-like surface of planet Earth.
* Bullying. Every time a scientist or policymaker slammed his hand on a desk and growled, "The science is settled!" he demonstrated how remote he was from the scientific method. In true science, nothing is ever settled.
* It's Freudian. The Viennese analyst taught that if you say you hate your mother, you hate your mother. And if you say you love your mother, you are in denial about hating your mother. Climate-change believers are like Freudians. If the weather is warm, it's proof of global warming. But if the weather is cool, this is evidence of the sinister tricks global warming can play.
* Look at the graphs comparing sunspot activity since 1860 with global sea surface temperatures. They look like matching S curves (unlike the graphs comparing temperatures with CO2 output). Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon notes that 2008 may have been a cold year because sunspot activity was low. The sun has been quiet in 2009 too. "If this deep solar minimum continues," Dr. Soon explains, "and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society, in my opinion."
* Nuclear energy. Global-warming priests, while sermonizing about the need to spend trillions on new energy sources, almost never have a kind word for nuclear power - casting doubt on their motives. If the goal were really to reduce our carbon output (and not to recast our way of life), clean, efficient, affordable nuclear power would be the obvious choice.
* Fool me once. The same people whose hair is on fire now about climate change have dressed up in fright masks before. Thirty years ago they were (no joke) enormously agitated about the coming new ice age. From these same precincts (the Club of Rome, 1972) we were warned that the world was rapidly running out of oil, gas, aluminum, lead, zinc, copper, tin, and uranium. (We didn't.) At the same time, all of the smart people were absolutely convinced that overpopulation was the greatest threat to the globe and to humanity itself. Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, offered in 1980 that "if I were a gambler, I would bet even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." That same year, the Carter administration issued a global forecast predicting that "the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically . . . and the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today." Um, no.
The scaremongers' track record is poor. For people who seem to worship Mother Earth, they are oddly arrogant about their ability to understand complex systems like climate. Every day brings new discoveries about the incredibly complicated interplay of oceans, atmospheric gases, algae, wind, plants, animal excretions, solar radiation, and so forth.
The East Anglia e-mails reveal a priesthood becoming more and more hysterical as their certainty evaporates. Like all orthodoxies under duress, they are making war on heresy.
CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships in daring land and sea raids Activists tag Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior with “Propaganda Warrior” banner; Arctic Sunrise hit with “Ship of Lies” banner earlier in the day
Copenhagen, Denmark, December 16, 2009) Global warming skeptics from CFACT yesterday pulled off an international climate caper using GPS triangulation from Greenpeace's own on-board camera photos to locate and sail up long-side of the infamous Greenpeace vessel, Rainbow Warrior. Then in Greenpeace-like fashion, the CFACT activists unfurled a banner reading "Propaganda Warrior" which underscored how the radical green group’s policies and agenda are based on myths, lies, and exaggerations.
Earlier in the day the activists daringly boarded Greenpeace's Arctic Sunrise with neither stealth nor force, but by baffling the crew with doughnuts, and unfurled a banner that read “Ship of Lies” off the starboard side.
“Greenpeace has been using these kinds of tactics for decades, and now they can find out what it’s like to have a little taste of their own medicine, “ said CFACT executive director Craig Rucker who masterminded the operation.
CFACT unfurled the banners for two reasons, CFACT president David Rothbard explained. “Greenpeace ships, like the Rainbow Warrior and Arctic Sunrise, have become global symbols for radical environmentalism, and we wanted to call attention to the harm these groups are causing. And second, it seemed appropriate to use one of Greenpeace’s favorite tactics to make this point.”
Greenpeace protesters frequently hang banners from factories and office buildings, paint slogans on smokestacks, and employ other publicity stunts. Some are relatively harmless, but others reflect a willingness to lie or even destroy property to make a point.
In 1995, Greenpeace launched a $2-million public relations campaign against Shell Oil, claiming the company was planning to dump tons of oil and toxic waste in the ocean by sinking its Brent Spar platform as an artificial reef. It was a full year before the group issued a written apology, admitting it knew all along that there had been no oil or chemical wastes on the platform.
Greenpeace has frequently destroyed bio-engineered crops, wiping out millions of dollars in research efforts designed to develop food plants that are more nutritious, withstand floods and droughts better, and resist insect infestations without the need for chemical pesticides. It has also waged an unrelenting campaign against insecticides and insect repellants that could prevent malaria, a vicious disease that infects 500 million people a year, kills over 1 million and leaves millions more with permanent brain damage.
“Greenpeace employs the same deceitful tactics in opposition to nuclear, hydroelectric and hydrocarbon energy, even though 1.5 billion people still do not have electricity – and thus don’t have lights for homes, hospitals and schools, or power to purify water and run offices, shops and factories,” Rucker says.
Rothbard acknowledged Greenpeace was launched for the best of reasons. “But it radicalized its mission. The more power it acquired, the more it abused that power,” he said. “Some of Greenpeace’s original cadre has left, feeling they can no longer associate themselves with its current agenda.”
Greenpeace claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing “dangerous global climate change.” Hundreds of climate scientists and thousands of other scientists disagree with that assertion, as frequently noted by Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a CFACT advisor.
“The continuing scandal over falsified and destroyed temperature data, manipulated climate models, and a perverted scientific and peer review process further demonstrates that there is no valid basis for this anti-energy, wealth-redistribution, global governance Copenhagen treaty,” said Rucker.
Anti-energy policies represent a “clear and present danger to the health and welfare of billions,” he added. Mandates for wind and solar would send energy prices skyrocketing, sharply constrict economic opportunities and destroy jobs.
“People in developing countries simply want to improve their living standards, and give their children a chance to live past age five,” Rothbard said. “Greenpeace is diametrically opposed to giving them access to the modern technologies that would help them do
Greenpeace is one of the “most unethical and irresponsible corporations on Earth,” said Christina Wilson, a recent graduate from the University of Minnesota-Duluth. “It’s time to expose it for what it is, and help promote real environmental justice. So I was really excited to participate in this human rights effort.”
“The ‘Ship of Lies’ and ‘Propaganda Warrior’ banners are part of CFACT’s long-term effort to bring sense and balance back to the environmental debate,” said Rothbard.
Watch the video of CFACT dropping the banner on the Arctic Sunrise HERE.
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 16th, 2009
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.
Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….
Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.
Ban Ki-Moon hints that Obama will be the savior of Copenhagen in a last minute turnaround for the globalists
Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, Wednesday, December 16, 2009
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has again publicly admitted that the agenda behind the Copenhagen summit and the climate change fraud is the imposition of a global government and the end of national sovereignty.
Speaking about the agenda to impose targets on CO2 emissions, as well as a global tax on financial transactions and a direct tax on GDP, Ban Ki-moon told the Los Angeles Times in an interview, “We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.”
“We need to have a very strong, robust, binding political deal that will have an immediate operational effect. This is not going to be a political declaration, just for the sake of declaration. It is going to be a binding political deal, which will lead to a legally binding treaty next year,” he told the Times’ Bruce Wallace, adding that a formal treaty would be signed by mid-2010.
Ki-moon also hinted that the arrival of President Barack Obama could grasp victory from the jaws of defeat for the globalists, who up until now have looked like failing in their efforts to secure a multilateral agreement at Copenhagen that includes China, India and the United States.
Could Obama roll in as the “savior” of Copenhagen in an eleventh hour turnaround?
The Secretary General has not been shy in proclaiming the unfolding agenda for a global dictatorship to override national parliaments.
In an October New York Times editorial entitled “We Can Do It,” Ki-moon wrote that efforts to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions “Must include an equitable global governance structure.”
Fellow globalist and environmentalist David De Mayer Rothschild also disclosed the agenda for global governance in a recent interview with Bloomberg news.
“It’s past the point of talking. We know historically that the global governance sort of agenda to these issues is very hard to… with all the best intentions it’s very hard to actually activate.” Rothschild noted.
New EU President Herman Van Rompuy said earlier this month that the Copenhagen conference was, “The first step towards the global management of our planet.”
Similarly, Al Gore said in a speech earlier this year that attempts to regulate CO2 emissions would be driven through “global governance and global agreements.”
Ten years ago, people who warned about a coming new world order bossed by a global government were called paranoid conspiracy theorists. Is the march towards a one world government still a conspiracy theory, even as its architects openly announce its implementation?
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:02 pm Post subject:
Controlling the fund
However, those closely following the financial negotiations say that the big game is all about controlling resources and securing power.
"It certainly is a big power game," said a senior European representative actively involved in negotiations. "The fund will run into billions and getting to control it will mean you will be powerful in the world order."
Given the high stakes and the conflicting positions and passions involved, devising a mechanism, to which all parties agree, to manage and channel the new climate fund is surely the hardest task of all.
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:08 pm Post subject:
Just saw last nights showing of "The Environment Debate' on BBC4, which
was a follow-up to the previous nights showing of 'The Age of Stupid'.
They had:
Professor Bob Watson chief scientist at DEFRA in the studio.No guesses to what side he was on.
Bjorn Lomberg author of 'Skeptical Environmentalist',who said he was not a climate skeptic,but was a climate policy skeptic!
and
Professor of Meteorology (sp) Richard Lindzen of MIT,the skeptic.
No prizes for who had the loudest voice,and most input to this farce of a "debate".
Richard Lindzen did relatively ok in the face of the opposition,and the set-up. _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:40 am Post subject:
Credit is due to the Daily Express for being (AFAIK) the only mainstream news source to headline the Russian claims of Met-office data manipulation, unlike the Times for example which won't even report it..... This newspaper is really going up in my estimation.
Quote:
Daily Express 17th December 2009
CLIMATE CHANGE 'LIES' BY BRITAIN
By Anil Dawar and Will Stewart
THE Meteorological Office was last night facing accusations it cherry-picked climate change figures in a bid to increase evidence of global warming.
UK climatologists “probably tampered with Russian-climate data” to produce a report submitted to world leaders at this week’s Copenhagen summit, it is claimed.
The Met Office’s study, which says the first decade of this century has been the warmest on record for 160 years, is being used to trumpet claims that man is causing global warming.
But experts at the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis say the British dossier used statistics from weather stations that fit its theory of global warming, while ignoring those that do not.
They accuse the Met Office’s Hadley Centre of relying on just 25 per cent of Russia’s weather stations and over-estimating warming in the country by more than half a degree Celsius.
Last night, leading global warming sceptic Dr Fred Singer, of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, said: “I have long suspected that this selective fiddle took place but have not assembled all the evidence.
“We know, and have published, that between 1975 and 2000 the number of weather stations was reduced from nearly 7,000 to only 3,000 with many of them in the former Soviet Union.
“The effect of this would be to produce an artificial temperature trend which we don’t see in the satellite data. So the warming of the past 30 years is likely to be an illusion.”
Professor Patrick Michaels, an environmentalist from the Cato Institute in Washington, said: “There is a significant lack of data coming from Russia in the last decade and a half.
“There will be many questions in the future about any reports that use what data there is. We want to know more about the Hadley Centre’s report but they won’t show us the raw data.”
The IEA’s report claims the Hadley Centre used incomplete findings from Russian meteorological stations “far more often than those providing complete observations” in order to build up a picture of overall warming.
It said the Hadley data overestimated warming in Russia by up to 0.64C between the 1870s and 1990s.
“Analysing the temperature trends received from Met stations, it is hard to get rid of the impression that they do not show any noticeable trend to warming in second half of the 20th and beginning of 21st centuries,” the IEA said.
It also said that since Russia was the world’s biggest country, any global theories drawn from its incomplete weather statistics would be invalid.
Russia’s semi-official RIA Novosti news agency said the Hadley Centre “probably tampered with Russian- climate data” by using statistics from only a quarter of available weather stations.
But last night a spokesman for the Hadley Centre said its scientists did not choose which weather stations to collect its data from.
He said: “The World Meteorological Organisation chooses a set of stations evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land. We don’t pick them so we can’t be accused of fixing the data. We are confident in the accuracy of our report.”
Critics of the Russian report also point out the huge vested interests of the Russian state, which is rich in oil, coal and gas, to avoid action needed to fight man-made climate change.
The IEA was founded by Andrey Illarionov, a former aide to premier Vladimir Putin who has a track record of opposing the climate change lobby.
The Met Office data follows the row over hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia, seized upon by global warming sceptics as evidence that academics were massaging the figures.
On Monday the Daily Express revealed a dossier by the respected European Foundation think-tank detailing 100 reasons why global warming is a natural cyclical event.
And in a recent poll of readers 98 per cent said they believed they were being conned over global warming.
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:47 am Post subject:
More kudos are due to the Daily Express for reporting what we knew all along.....
Quote:
Daily Express - Thursday December 17,2009
£26BILLION GREEN TAX 'RIP-OFF'
By Daily Express reporter
FAMILIES are being ripped-off by green taxes that have nothing to with climate change, it was claimed yesterday.
Taxes on energy, air travel and motoring rose to £26.4billion in the past year, says a new report.
Yet even using UN figures, the cost of climate change said to be caused by human activity in Britain was £4.6billion.
The revelation will fuel worries that green taxes have become another money-making activity for the Treasury.
Matthew Sinclair, research director at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which produced the report, said: “Rising electricity prices have hit the poor and elderly in particular. “The cost is expected to increase massively in the years to come.”
He warned this would create a crisis as families faced “intolerably large” bills.
He said: “Families up and down the country have been overcharged on everything from turning on the TV to flying abroad.”
He claimed people living outside big cities are hit hardest.
Typically, urban residents drive less and live in smaller, energy-efficient homes, like flats.
So a family in London’s Camden paid £136 per person in green taxes over the real cost of climate change last year. In Maldon, in rural Essex, the cost soared to £622.
Despite this, Britain’s carbon emission have continued to rise.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
out of hand.
