CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED
Tuesday August 31 2010
THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.
A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
*** DEBATE: IS CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING JUST A CON?...***
The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed by research.
Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”
Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.”
The IAC, which comprises the world’s top science academies including the UK’s Royal Society, made recommendations to the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence” after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.
It condemned the panel – set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best scientific advice on climate change – for its “slow and inadequate response” after the damaging errors emerged.
Among the blunders in the 2007 report were claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent.
It also claimed that water supplies for between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will be at risk by 2020 due to climate change, but the real range is between 90 and 220 million.
The claim that glaciers would melt by 2035 was also rejected.
Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”
In yesterday’s report, the IAC said: “The IPCC needs to reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how to respond to climate change.”
The review also cast doubt on the future of IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri.
Earlier this year, the Daily Express reported how he had no climate science qualifications but held a PhD in economics and was a former railway engineer.
Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he denies, after it emerged that he has business interests attracting millions of pounds in funding. One, the Energy Research Institute, is set to receive up to £10million in grants from taxpayers over the next five years.
Speaking after the review was released yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: “We have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments.
“The scientific community agrees that climate change is real. Greenhouse gases have increased as a result of human activities and now far exceed pre-industrial values.”
"What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results. "
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown
interesting link is down already :0
Last Updated:Thu., Sep. 2, 2010, 01:30pm
Quote:
Page Not Found!
404 Error
We're sorry, the page you are looking for cannot be found or does not exist on NYPOST.COM.
Below is a list of today's stories but if you are looking for a story that is more than one day old, please use our search tool.
To report a technical problem, please fill out the form to the right.
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.
Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.
Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.
Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.
Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."
Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.
Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."
Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."
All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.
Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.
What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.
The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.
In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.
Matt Patterson is editor of Green Watch, a publication of the Capital Research Center .
Its just "weather" - not a harbinger of another bitter winter across the whole "locality" of the northern hemisphere.
Quote:
Low temperatures tie records at LAX, Oceanside
September 1, 2010 | 9:12 pm
Record low temperatures for the date were tied Wednesday at Los Angeles International Airport and Oceanside in San Diego County.
The temperature was 58 degrees at LAX, tying a record set in 1951, the National Weather Service said. Oceanside dropped to 66 degrees, tying a record that has stood since 1914.
Warm weather is expected across Southern California on Thursday and Friday as a high-pressure system builds over the region, the weather service said.
On Wednesday, a gun-wielding, bomb-toting eco-terrorist -- who claimed to have been "awakened" by Al Gore's Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth -- was shot and killed by police after holding several people hostage inside the Discovery Channel headquarters in Maryland.
Sadly, it's not the first incident of someone going berserk after taking in Gore's work.
This time, it was Jason Jay Lee. In a manifesto posted online, Lee stated, "Focus must be given on how people can live without giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution." He also declared we must "[f]ind solutions for global warming, automotive pollution, international trade, factory pollution, and ... the destruction of the planet!"
Lee's rant sounds similar to other eco-screeds that surfaced in the nineties. One uttered that the "assault on the earth is breathtaking, and the horrific consequences are occurring so quickly as to defy our capacity to recognize them, comprehend their global implications, and organize an appropriate and timely response. Isolated pockets of resistance fighters who have experienced this juggernaut at first hand have begun to fight back in inspiring but, in the final analysis, woefully inadequate ways."
Still another warned, "One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that it implies ... No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen."
The first eco-screed noted above was written by Al Gore in his book, Earth In The Balance. The latter was typed in a 120-square-foot Montana shack by Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber. Also found in Kaczynski's hovel: a copy of Earth In The Balance.
Kaczynski apparently was quite taken by Al Gore's missive. His copy of Earth In The Balance was dog-eared, underlined, marked, and well-worn. He obviously saw himself as some sort of "resistance" fighter.
Kaczynski terrorized the nation for seventeen years, killing three people and wounding 22 with his mail-bombs. But it could have been much worse. He managed to sneak a bomb onto American Airlines Flight 444 from Chicago to Washington, D.C. It exploded but caused only a small fire; otherwise, the Boeing 747 passenger jet might have fallen out of the sky on Nov. 15, 1979, killing all aboard. From his cabin in the Montana woods, the reclusive mathematician anonymously sent out bomb after bomb, followed by letter after letter haranguing victims who had survived his attacks and taunting the media.
Kaczynski was finally arrested in 1996, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison.
As I prove in my book, Climategate, Al Gore's writings, films, slideshows, and speeches are filled with deception. And the scam he spews is scary stuff -- so scary that many who believe it to be gospel are often compelled to take action. For some, the action entails buying a hybrid vehicle they don't need or can't afford. For others, like singer Sheryl Crow, it means using one square of toilet paper at a time -- to reduce thy carbon footprint.
For others, like Jason Jay Lee, it resulted in something unthinkable.
But it's not just the wild actions some employ in responding to Gore's continual message that the earth has a fever and it's mankind's fault. It's the way innocent children are reacting to Gore's lies.
I can't begin to count the number of people who have contacted me regarding how their children have been frightened to the core by Gore's film. I have a stack of communiqués from parents describing the nightmares their kids have experienced regarding floods, hurricanes, sea-level rise, polar bears drowning -- all caused by cars, air-conditioning, and fireplaces, and all supported with junk science, clever writing, and slick Hollywood graphics.
Al Gore is spewing poison. He needs to be held accountable before some other nut-job decides "to fight back in inspiring but, in the final analysis, woefully inadequate ways."
Brian Sussman is a former television meteorologist and the author of Climategate: a veteran meteorologist exposes the global warming scam. He hosts the morning show on KSFO, 560AM, in San Francisco.
A report on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on behalf of the world's leading scientific academies, last week provoked even some of the more committed believers in man-made global warming to demand the resignation of Dr Rajendra Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC. But is the report all that it seems?
...
When, some years ago, I began the research for my book The Real Global Warming Disaster, nothing surprised me more than discovering how widely the nature of the IPCC is misunderstood. It is invariably portrayed as a body representing the top scientists in the world, objectively weighing the complex forces that shape Earth's climate. In reality, it's nothing of the kind.
The men who set up the panel – led by its first chairman Bert Bolin, a Swedish meteorologist, and John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office and first chairman of the IPCC's scientific working group – were already believers in what they called "human-induced climate change". The IPCC was, from the start, essentially a political pressure group, producing evidence to support the view that global warming was the most serious crisis facing the planet. This guided the selection of all the key scientists chosen to compile the IPCC's findings (such as those involved in the Climategate affair). And this explains all the searching questions that have built up around its hugely influential reports ever since.
...
Perhaps the most telling controversy arose over the notorious "hockey stick" graph, the centrepiece of the IPCC's third report in 2001. It rewrote climate history to show a world that was now dramatically hotter than it had been for at least 1,000 years. Promoted by Houghton and others as the ultimate emblem of the cause, it was eventually shown to have been no more than the result of trickery with a computer programme.
...
Again and again the 2007 report has been found to be in flagrant breach of the IPCC's own rules. For instance, it cited no fewer than 16 articles from a single issue of one climate journal – which had been published after the IPCC's official cut-off date and should therefore have been disallowed. In each of the thousands of instances where the IPCC broke its rules, the claims it made were all in one direction: to hype up alarm over the extent and effects of climate change beyond anything science could justify.
Through all this the IPCC has been exposed for what it truly is: not a proper scientific body but an advocacy group, ready to stop at nothing in hijacking the prestige of science for its cause.
_________________ Currently working on a new website
"Presenting the linkage between solar magnetic field and the degree of cloud cover on Earth, which influences temperatures. Note in part 2 how the IPCC slammed their research as a threat to the human-caused global warming agenda."
A report on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on behalf of the world's leading scientific academies, last week provoked even some of the more committed believers in man-made global warming to demand the resignation of Dr Rajendra Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC. But is the report all that it seems?
...
When, some years ago, I began the research for my book The Real Global Warming Disaster, nothing surprised me more than discovering how widely the nature of the IPCC is misunderstood. It is invariably portrayed as a body representing the top scientists in the world, objectively weighing the complex forces that shape Earth's climate. In reality, it's nothing of the kind.
The men who set up the panel – led by its first chairman Bert Bolin, a Swedish meteorologist, and John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office and first chairman of the IPCC's scientific working group – were already believers in what they called "human-induced climate change". The IPCC was, from the start, essentially a political pressure group, producing evidence to support the view that global warming was the most serious crisis facing the planet. This guided the selection of all the key scientists chosen to compile the IPCC's findings (such as those involved in the Climategate affair). And this explains all the searching questions that have built up around its hugely influential reports ever since.
...
Perhaps the most telling controversy arose over the notorious "hockey stick" graph, the centrepiece of the IPCC's third report in 2001. It rewrote climate history to show a world that was now dramatically hotter than it had been for at least 1,000 years. Promoted by Houghton and others as the ultimate emblem of the cause, it was eventually shown to have been no more than the result of trickery with a computer programme.
...
Again and again the 2007 report has been found to be in flagrant breach of the IPCC's own rules. For instance, it cited no fewer than 16 articles from a single issue of one climate journal – which had been published after the IPCC's official cut-off date and should therefore have been disallowed. In each of the thousands of instances where the IPCC broke its rules, the claims it made were all in one direction: to hype up alarm over the extent and effects of climate change beyond anything science could justify.
Through all this the IPCC has been exposed for what it truly is: not a proper scientific body but an advocacy group, ready to stop at nothing in hijacking the prestige of science for its cause.
"It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day"
-- Jacques--Yves Cousteau, oceanographer and humanist, The UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1991, page 13
---
"The commitment of government to deal with the population issue is of course essential...There are many ways to make the death rate Increase."
-- Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense, New Solidarity, March 30, 1981
---
The distribution of birth control devices and the imposition of mandatory abortion practices in the third world countries is now ecologically insufficient and unfairly out of world social balance. The white, upper and middle class females of modern society are too healthy and fertile to be exempted from some imposed regulation of international law or mandate. An American born child is environmentally too expensive to maintain to his or her adulthood in a world economy. American women must be subjected to some manner of regulation beyond licensing or immediate and mandatory abortion practices. Unconventional and extreme measures must be implemented and enforced by global U.N. mandate as it is deemed necessary. The bodies of these world eco--criminals should be commercially yielded for reintroduction in the world's natural systemic food and nutrient chains, in order to restore a more natural biological balance and order to our Sacred Earth."
-- Jacques Cousteau, in his address to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 1992
---
Quote from Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”
Global warming is 'bulls**t' says Ryanair boss O'Leary
Michael O'Leary claims there is no link between man-made carbon and climate change.
By Martin Hickman, Friday September 10 2010
Charging for toilets, weighing passengers and flying with a lone pilot: Ryanair's combative boss Michael O'Leary is renowned for backing unusual ideas, but some passengers may feel that even he has overstepped the mark with his latest comments – denying the existence of global warming.
In an interview with The Independent littered with expletives, the chief executive of Europe's largest airline branded the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is heating up the planet with potentially grave consequences for the future of humanity as "horseshit".
He agreed the climate was changing but denied it was caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, such as those from his planes. "Nobody can argue that there isn't climate change. The climate's been changing since time immemorial," he said.
"Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bs. But it's amazing the way the whole * eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'."
"Well, hang on, we've had an ice age. We've also had a couple of very hot spells during the Middle Ages, so nobody can deny climate change. But there's absolutely no link between man-made carbon, which contributes less than 2pc of total carbon emissions [and climate change]."
He suggested scientists had invented and perpetuated the theory in order to gain research grants. "Scientists argue there is global warming because they wouldn't get half of the funding they get now if it turns out to be completely bogus," he said.
"The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat... I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the * weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the * global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horseshit."
He mocked global warming campaigners, describing the United Nations as "one of the world's most useless organisations", its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "utter tosh", and US politician Al Gore as someone who "couldn't even get * re-elected" after a boom.
Of air passenger duty in Britain, which will rise by between £1 and £30 in November, Mr O'Leary said: "When they introduced it the Treasury said: 'We will ring-fence this money and use it for global climate change initiatives'.
We've written to them once every six months – they never answer the letter – saying: 'What do you use the money for?' It's a straight-forward tax scam... My average fare is £34. I pay passenger tax of £10: I pay 33pc of my revenues in these aviation taxes.
"Aviation gets a nonsense deal. This is the great historical justification among environmentalists for taxing air travel: 'They don't have tax on fuel'. The only reason we don't pay tax on fuel is that governments can't tax it because you'll upload fuel somewhere else if they tax it."
To date, the US, UK, Germany, Japan, India, and China have all agreed on the existence of global warming, but have failed to agree binding emission targets to limit it. More than 2,500 scientists contributed to the IPCC's fourth assessment report in 2007, which warned that freak weather events such as flooding and drought will intensify, threatening agriculture and the livelihoods of millions.
Greenpeace issued a light-hearted response to Mr O'Leary's comments. "Personally, I wouldn't trust 'O'Really' to tell me the price of a seat on his own airline, but to be fair his position does have the support of such intellectual heavyweights as Nick Griffin, Sarah Palin and George W Bush," said Joss Garman, a Greenpeace spokesman.
O'Leary's views: A rebuttal
O'Leary "The climate has been changing since time immemorial. Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bs."
Dr Emily Shuckburgh, of the British Antarctic Survey "Over tens of thousands of years, the orbit of the Earth about the Sun slowly varies, and with it the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. When the orbit is such that the radiation dips low enough, it triggers an ice age. Since the Earth has not suddenly jumped into a different orbit in the past century, a different mechanism must explain the recent increase in global temperatures."
O'Leary "It used to be global warming but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'."
Dr Shuckburgh "It is wrong to say global warming has stopped in the past 12 years. The weather changes day to day, and even when the temperature is averaged globally and over a full year, there are still considerable variations from year to year. When this is taken into account, no reduction is found in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20C per decade."
O'Leary "There's absolutely no link between man-made carbon – which contributes less than 2pc of total carbon emissions, most of it is naturally emitted – [and] climate change."
Dr Shuckburgh Vast amounts of carbon are exchanged each year back and forth between the land, oceans and atmosphere – some 200 GtC/yr [GigaTons of Carbon per year] are naturally emitted and 200 GtC/yr are naturally reabsorbed. Man is now emitting more than 8GtC/yr, about half of which remains in the atmosphere. The impact has been significant. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels were about 280ppmv [parts per million by volume]. Man-made emissions have increased that to nearly 390ppmv.
O'Leary "The same [scientific] community was telling us in the mid-1970s the world was heading into a new ice age. I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the global temperatures will be in 100 years' time."
Dr Shuckburgh Of course it is not possible to predict with precision the weather in 100 years. But we can characterise – to within a range – the long-term climate trend that underlies the chaotic weather.
O'Leary "The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is a load of utter tosh."
Dr Shuckburgh The facts are that errors in the IPCC's fourth assessment report were identified and acknowledged, and the fundamental findings of the report were unaltered. This valuable scrutiny has strengthened, not discredited, the conclusions.
O'Leary "The only [IPCC economic growth scenario] that gives rise to this inexorable rise of man-made CO2 emissions linked to climate change... is 7pc compound economic growth into infinity. That's already been torn up in the last two years. We've already had a worldwide decline."
Dr Shuckburgh Carbon emissions do not have to rise inexorably for there to be climate change. If we stopped all emissions now, which is impossible, the temperature would increase for many years due to the emissions we have already made. Moreover, current CO2 emissions, even with the global recession, are in the mid to upper range of IPCC scenarios.
Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science. If you’re looking for one volume during the upcoming holiday season to share with friends who haven’t been following matters closely, it’s a great choice. No one with an open mind can read that book and not conclude there’s something seriously amiss in climate science.
Today, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has released a 54-page report (PDF here) authored by Montford. Titled “The Climategate Enquiries,” it examines three investigations conducted in the wake of the release of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) documents into the public domain in late 2009.
Those inquires were intended to restore public confidence, but they have done nothing of the sort. I haven’t had an opportunity to read Montford’s report in its entirety, but below are some of his findings:
Regarding the Parliamentary Inquiry:
* Comments made by Phil Willis suggest that he was not a neutral chairman.
* The select committee appears to have accepted that scientists can leave out important information about the reliability of their results when presenting findings to policymakers.
* The committee did not consider the issue of cherrypicking of data despite having several examples put to them.
* The committee appears to have exonerated [Phil] Jones of the charge of fabrication without any evidence to justify such a conclusion.
* The committee dismissed allegations of threats to [scientific] journals on the basis of explanations provided by Jones. No attempt was made to obtain evidence from the journal editors themselves.
* The select committee does not appear to have investigated a serious
allegation of a breach of scientific standards.
* Although the committee are clear that the law of freedom of information
was flouted, no attempt seems to have been made to identify the individuals responsible.
Regarding the Climate Change Emails Review aka the Muir Russell report:
* Despite concerns that some of the appointed CCE panel members were unsuitable, the committee accepted [Muir] Russell’s vague expressions of hope that they would act in an objective fashion.
* Only two interviews were held with key [Climatic Research Unit] staff. The majority of the panel, including the chairman, Sir Muir Russell, did not attend.
* No interviews were held with critics of the CRU.
* The panel appear to have exonerated CRU staff of undermining the peer review process without any evidence beyond unrecorded statements from Phil Jones. The panel themselves acknowledge that such uncorroborated testimony is inadequate.
* The panel misunderstood the nature of the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process, almost certainly affecting their conclusions in result.
* The panel refused to publish the evidence of one of the most important
witnesses [David Holland].
* The panel failed to ask Jones whether he had deleted emails, but said they had not seen anything to suggest he had, despite having evidence to the contrary.
* The panel failed to consider important evidence of breaches of Freedom of Information legislation.
Regarding the Scientific Assessment Panel aka the Oxburgh report:
* The panel appears to have been deliberately selected to have a majority who would not address the review objectively and to exclude sceptical views entirely.
* [The University of East Anglia] appointed [Ronald] Oxburgh as chairman of the panel in the full knowledge that he had conflicts of interest.
* The papers examined by the panel were selected by UEA and appear to have been cleared with [Phil] Jones himself.
* Lord Rees said that he had consulted with experts about the papers. In fact he had only discussed them with Sir Brian Hoskins, who had said he did not know [the Climatic Research Unit's] work.
* Many of the papers examined were obscure and had not been questioned by critics. Many of the papers that had been criticised were not examined.
* Contrary to the strong recommendation from the Science and Technology Committee, the inquiry did not carry out its interviews in public, nor did it make notes, recordings or transcripts of interviews.
* At least one panellist had serious concerns over CRU science and how it was used in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports. There was no word of these concerns in the Oxburgh panel report.
Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun's face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
Sunspots appear when upwellings of the sun's magnetic field trap ionized plasma—or electrically charged, superheated gas—on the surface. Normally, the gas would release its heat and sink back below the surface, but the magnetic field inhibits this process. From Earth, the relatively cool surface gas looks like a dark blemish on the sun.
Astronomers have been observing and counting sunspots since Galileo began the practice in the early 17th century. From those studies, scientists have long known that the sun goes through an 11-year cycle, in which the number of sunspots spikes during a period called the solar maximum and drops—sometimes to zero—during a time of inactivity called the solar minimum.
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning.
Since 1990, solar astronomers Matthew Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, have been studying the magnetic strength of sunspots using a measurement called Zeeman splitting. Named after the Dutch physicist who discovered it, the splitting is the distance that appears between a pair of lines in a spectrograph of the light given off by iron atoms in the sun’s atmosphere. The wider the splitting, the greater the intensity of the magnetic field that created it. After examining the Zeeman splitting of 1500 sunspots, Penn and Livingston conclude that the average magnetic field strength of sunspots has declined from about 2700 gauss—the average strength of Earth's field is less than 1 gauss—to about 2000 gauss. The reasons for the decrease are not clearly understood, but if the trend continues, sunspot field strength will drop to 1500 gauss by as early as 2016. Because 1500 gauss is the minimum required to produce sunspots, Livingston says, at that level they would no longer be possible.
The phenomenon has happened before. Sunspots disappeared almost entirely between 1645 and 1715 during a period called the Maunder Minimum, which coincided with decades of lower-than-normal temperatures in Europe nicknamed the Little Ice Age. But Livingston cautions that the zero-sunspot prediction could be premature. "It may not happen," he says. "Only the passage of time will tell whether the solar cycle will pick up." Still, he adds, there's no doubt that sunspots "are not very healthy right now." Instead of the robust spots surrounded by halolike zones called penumbrae, as seen during the last solar maximum (photo), most of the current crop looks "rather peaked," with few or no penumbrae.
"It is a very interesting sequence of observations," says solar physicist Scott McIntosh of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The researchers "have carefully analyzed their data and the trend appears to be real," he says.
Solar physicist David Hathaway of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, agrees but with a caveat. "It's an important paper," he says. But the sunspot magnetic field calculations don't take into account a lot of small sunspots that appeared during the last solar maximum. Those sunspots have weaker magnetic fields, which, if not included, could make the average sunspot magnetic field strength seem higher than it really was.
It was so cold at the Santa Monica Pier Monday that the temperature tied a record low of 55 degrees, according to the National Weather Service.
The old record was set in 1949.
Record low temperatures for the day were tied at other coastal locations in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties.
The temperature hit a low of 66 in Newport Beach, which tied a record set in 1934. At Oceanside Harbor, the temperature was also 66, tying a record set in 1953, according to the weather service.
Temperatures across the Los Angeles region will continue to remain below normal for much of the week as an onshore flow pushes coastal low clouds and fog inland, the weather service reported.
Record cold, wet month in central Australia
BRETT DUTSCHKE, WEATHERZONE
17 Sep, 2010 06:38 AM
MUCH of central Australia, including Uluru, is in the midst of its coldest and wettest Septembers on record.
This week has been particularly cold and wet.
Rain on Wednesday brought 20 millimetres to Uluru and kept the temperature below 13 degrees all day, making it the coldest September day on record. It's more than four degrees colder than the previous record, set a little over a week ago.
Uluru is averaging a maximum of only 23 degrees so far this month, more than six degrees below the long-term September average.
With several more cold days to come this will almost certainly turn out to be the coldest September on record, colder than the previous coldest in 1984 when the maximum averaged 25.9.
The 68 millimetres of rain this month so far is 29mm more than the previous wettest September.
This comes after the wettest August on record and a wetter than normal July.
Nearby, Alice Springs and Yuendumu are in the middle of a cold, wet week too. It's unlikely to exceed 15 degrees for the next few days as 20 to 40mm of rain falls.
Today was one of their coldest September days on record. Alice struggled to 12 degrees, 15 below average, whilst Yuendumu only reached 13, 17 below.
White House solves the problem of global warming overnight... by officially changing the phrase to 'global climate disruption'
By Carol Driver
Last updated at 1:11 PM on 17th September 2010
Global warming could be a thing of the past, thanks to the Barack Obama administration.
No, the White House has not single-handedly managed to stop the apparent rising temperature – but it does think the terminology oversimplifies the problem.
According to U.S. science adviser John Holdren, the public should start using the phrase ‘global climate disruption’ because it makes the situation sound more dangerous.
During a speech in Oslo, Norway, Mr Holdren said global warming is a ‘dangerous misnomer’ and is not an accurate description of the issues facing the planet.
It comes as Congress prepares to adjourn for the season without completing work on the stalled climate bill, which, after facing a barrage of obstacles, was declared effectively dead in the Senate in July.
But advisers believe using the new terminology could help to drive the message to ordinary people - and put the bill back on the agenda for next year's legislative session.
Referring to the Democrats launch of a new logo, Republican pollster Adam Geller told Fox News: ‘They’re trying to come up with more politically palatable ways to sell some of this stuff.’
Mr Geller added that the phrase ‘global warming’ is easy to criticise.
‘Every time we’re digging our cars out – what global warming? (Global climate disruption is) more of a sort of generic blanket term, I guess, that can apply in all weather conditions.’
Mr Holdren is not the first scientist to make the recommendations. In 2008, NASA said the term ‘global warming’ should be avoided because temperature change ‘isn’t the most severe effect of changing climate’.
‘Changes to precipitation patterns and sea levels are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone,’ its report said.
It’s not the first terminology change the White House has pushed for – previous examples include ‘man-caused disaster’ and ‘overseas contingency operation’.
"Mr Geller added that the phrase ‘global warming’ is easy to criticise."NO!!!!
Warming Alarmists Had Their Chance And They Blew It
September 21, 2010 by toryaardvark
The Warming Alarmists had it all, Universities and Professors making up the data to support the man made Climate Change scam, the IPCC run by a railway engineer and producing reports that were no more than precis of WWF propaganda mailshots, the UN working hard to set itself up as a one world government and the conspiracy of left wing leaders like Barack “Settled Science” Obama, Gordon “50 Days to Save The World Brown, Hugo “Give Me All Your Money” Chavez and all the rest, either standing with hands out for our money or about to give our wealth away.
The vast majority of MSM outlets towed the party line and spouted the AGW lie, in Britain the BBC we are forced to pay for by the television tax prayed daily at the Church of Climatology, more due to the fact that some fool invested significant portions of the BBC pension fund in Green Industries, the old saying about fools and money soon being parted springs to mind. So to protect their pension fund the BBC spread verbatim the AGW lies of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, impartiality at the BBC went out of the window, trampled flat by personal gain.
No pressure group in history has ever had the advantages that the warming alarmists had So where did it all go wrong?
George Monbiot thinks he knows
The closer it comes, the worse it looks. The best outcome anyone now expects from December’s climate summit in Mexico is that some delegates might stay awake during the meetings. When talks fail once, as they did in Copenhagen, governments lose interest. They don’t want to be associated with failure, they don’t want to pour time and energy into a broken process. Nine years after the world trade negotiations moved to Mexico after failing in Qatar, they remain in diplomatic limbo. Nothing in the preparations for the climate talks suggests any other outcome.
Not quite true George, the reason most people are attending COP16 is to jostle for position as the next UN Climate Supremo when Yvo de Boer retires as senior snake oil salesman.
In 2012 the only global deal for limiting greenhouse gas emissions – the Kyoto protocol – expires. There is no realistic prospect that it will be replaced before it elapses: the existing treaty took five years to negotiate and a further eight years to come into force. In terms of real hopes for global action on climate change, we are now far behind where we were in 1997, or even 1992. It’s not just that we have lost 18 precious years. Throughout the age of good intentions and grand announcements we spiralled backwards.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions George, it does not matter how noble or good the intentions of the cause, it was all founded on a lie and a lie is a lie no matter how you dress it up, what Aardvark is saying is “George you cant polish a turd“.
Hanging over everything is the growing recognition that the United States isn’t going to play. Not this year, perhaps not in any year. If Congress couldn’t pass a climate bill so feeble that it consisted of little but loopholes while Barack Obama was president and the Democrats had a majority in both houses, where does hope lie for action in other circumstances? Last Tuesday the Guardian reported that of 48 Republican contenders for the Senate elections in November only one accepted that man-made climate change is taking place. Who was he? Mike Castle of Delaware. The following day he was defeated by the Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell, producing a full house of science deniers. The enlightenment? Fun while it lasted.
George is right this time, 47 out of 48 Republican candidates don’t believe in AGW and with Christine O’Donnel it is indeed a full house of junk science deniers.
Poor old George stuck in time, like a throwback from a bygone era, “science deniers” since when did science and the Church of Climatology have any thing in common?
Science is about constantly questioning and looking for answers, not blasted the data for spurious graphs and then deleting it when anyone asks to see it.
Where does this leave us? How should we respond to the reality we have tried not to see: that in 18 years of promise and bluster nothing has happened? Environmentalists tend to blame themselves for these failures. Perhaps we should have made people feel better about their lives. Or worse. Perhaps we should have done more to foster hope. Or despair. Perhaps we were too fixated on grand visions. Or techno-fixes. Perhaps we got too close to business. Or not close enough. The truth is that there is not and never was a strategy certain of success, as the powers ranged against us have always been stronger than we are.
Greens are a puny force by comparison to industrial lobby groups, the cowardice of governments and the natural human tendency to deny what we don’t want to see. To compensate for our weakness, we indulged a fantasy of benign paternalistic power – acting, though the political mechanisms were inscrutable, in the wider interests of humankind. We allowed ourselves to believe that, with a little prompting and protest, somewhere, in a distant institutional sphere, compromised but decent people would take care of us. They won’t. They weren’t ever going to do so. So what do we do now? George Mobiot
George then plays the “puny force” card, the whole Green movement are just a bunch of impoverished sandal wearing hippies, which is about a far from the truth, as man made climate disruption is.
Any movement that numbered at one time or another, organisations like the UN, WWF, OXFAM, Greenpeace, the government of the USA, Britain, Australia, France, Germany, Mainstream Media globally is hardly impotent or impoverished.
The real reason that the AGW scam crashed and burned is because there is a finite limit on Hitlers dictum that if you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough people will believe it as the truth, the problem for the followers of Al Gore is that the lie this time, was just too * big.
Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco-Gulags To Re-Educate Climate Deniers
Source: Paul Joseph Watson/Infowars Tuesday, September 21, 2010
A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.
Philosopher Pentti Linkola has built an enthusiastic following of self-described “eco-fascists” receptive to his message that the state should enact draconian measures of “discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression” in order to make people comply with environmental dictates.
Linkola’s barbaric and dictatorial philosophy has remained relatively obscure but is now gaining traction as the mask of environmentalism is lifted to unveil its true nature – a justification for 21st century tyranny on a grand scale, characterized by eugenics, sterilization, gulags, police states, and total government control over every aspect of our existence.
Linkola’s doctrine is more extreme, repulsive, and threatening to liberty than anything carried out by history’s worst dictators, Hitler, Stalin and Mao – combined. Indeed, Linkola laments that such monsters didn’t go far enough in wiping out many more millions of people.
Under Linkola’s proposal to save earth from man-made climate change, “only a few million people would work as farmers and fishermen, without modern conveniences such as the automobile.” This system would be enforced by the creation of a “Green Police” who would abandon “the syrup of ethics” that governs human behavior to completely dominate the population.
Linkola calls for forced abortions, while also adding that another world war would be “a happy occasion for the planet” because it would eradicate tens of millions of people. The environmentalist believes that only jackbooted tyranny can help to save mother earth from “the worst ideologies in the world” which he defines as “growth and freedom”.
“Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy,” he writes. “There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.”
Those who refuse to be enslaved by Linkola’s new eco-tyranny would be abducted and sent to the mountains for “re-education” in eco-gulags, according to the environmentalist, who says that the only solution “lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.”
As part of his eco-fascist hell, Linkola calls for ‘killing defectives’ by means of sterilization, licenses for births, tight regulation of electricity, forcing humans to eat rats, the confiscation of private cars, travel to be restricted to members of the elite only, and businesses to be terminated as the economy is entirely handed over to the control of the state.
The heart of Linkola’s dark philosophy revolves around the need to slaughter masses of humans. “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die,” he writes.
BRITAIN’S CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT MAY BE CUT
By 21st Century Wire
By Patrick Henningsen
Sept 22, 2010
With the current protracted recession still in play and a government budget deficit to reconcile, Her Majesty’s Government may be looking to trim some fat by giving its bloated £3.2 billion Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) the royal chop.
Such budget austerity measures for UK government spending should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the political slate since the keys were exchanged at Downing Street this past June. It’s an all too familiar story in Westminster and the thing that all bureaucrats fear the most. When your departmental number is called, you realise that all the liquid lunches, expense accounts, canape receptions and conference junkets could soon come to an end. So it was only a matter of time before fiscal reality came home for a seat at DECC’s own annual gravy dinner.
The fact that Britain’s DECC is on the butcher’s block also signals that some ministers and policy gurus might be reconsidering whether the highly politicised global warming movement should be a top priority for the country, and evidence that some are now doubting the legitimacy of such a department. Policy makers are now weighing up the benefits of such a massive bureaucratic department which is steering a politcal agenda based solely upon what is now deemed to be highly questionable science by some- and outright fraud by others.
An article published on Sept 22nd in the Guardian, details the move brought on by the inevitable spending cuts pledged by Britain’s new coalition government:
“Climate change secretary Chris Huhne is fighting to defend his department’s funding and independence, fending off a suggestion that his civil servants should be moved to the Treasury to cut costs.”
“But when all government departments were asked to model the effect of 40% cuts over the summer, officials at Decc told ministers that cuts of that level to its £3.2bn budget would make it unable to stand alone as a viable entity. At that time it was suggested it merge with the business department, but that was never formally suggested to the Treasury. Instead the Treasury renewed a push to get Decc relocated.”
“The news came today as Huhne gave his speech to the Liberal Democrat conference. His pitch was that the government wanted to foster a “third industrial revolution” in low-carbon technology. But the techno-optimism of the speech sat awkwardly with the news that he has been forced to contemplate breaking up his department.”
Today’s announcement in the UK and recently events like the unravelling and near collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange’s (CCX) in the US, where carbon trading prices have bottomed out at a rather lackluster .10 cents per tonne (see fire sale), have added additional momentum to previously unpopular common sense, or climate realist cause.
What preachers of Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) and climate change are slowly discovering is that no amount of spin and political propaganda can cover up a lack of results over a long stretch. Money eventually runs out, people start losing interest and the gravy train always stalls as a result.
In the last 12 months radical climatism has certainly faltered from its lofty position in modern mythology… back down to Earth. The economic reality in any democratic nation is that taxpayers cannot back departments, much less policies, that do not deliver benefits to the public welfare. Here in the UK, we have a government department which is busying itself with an apocalyptic event… that is not even happening.
Skeptics have two things on their side: one is science and the other is mother nature. If science can rediscover its old backbone, it will simply present the data (what the UN’s CRU at East Anglia did not do) of what mother nature has really been doing all this time, namely, the data which shows that there has been no global warming since 1998.
Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker spelled out the current insanity behind UK government energy policy recently, “If all this sounds like pure lunacy, we must recall that two years ago, our MPs voted all but unanimously for the Climate Change Act. This commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to cutting its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, at a cost of up to £18 billion a year, or £734 billion in total. This is what our politicians have made the law of the land, although in practice it could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economy”.
There are numerous gov’t departments around the globe, including the UN’s own IPCC that have been erected in recent years to “tackle the climate change problem”. Although they market themselves as an environmental concern, they have their roots and structure firmly based around politics. Like East Germany stepped up to dismantle its greatest Cold War symbol, will Britain be the first EU country to bring down its “Carbon Wall”? Perhaps. It’s certainly clearer now in 2010, that might not have been back in 2006- that the whole concept of global warming is fatally flawed. Henceforth, any policies or budgets attached to it need to be discarded. There is no other sane alternative in such a policy debate.
History will demonstrate that no matter how popular an ideology might be at any one time, it cannot survive very long if it is divorced from the reality outside of bureaucratic rooms. In this case, it’s real science and cost vs benefit economics. If the UK falls out of love with AGW, expect more climate change bureaucracies around the globe to find themselves thin ice too.
Monbiot asked visitors to his Guardian thread to come up with evidence of Dr Pachauri’s unreliable bookkeeping.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/9/18/george-monbiot-scrubb ing-the-record-clean.html _________________ "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)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11395194 _________________ "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)
The interview linked below is a couple of years old now but still fascinating. We are far more in danger of an ice age than a warming planet according to Robert Felix and here he explains his views.
26 December 2009 No Comment
December 21, 2009 by
Originally published: December 20, 2009
Lord Christopher Monckton is Chief Policy Advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. He was Special Advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher from 1982 to 1986. Lord Monckton’s father Maj-Gen the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was president of the British Association of the Sovereign Order of Malta. Like father like son Lord Christopher Monckton is a life long member of the Knights of Malta.
Lord Monckton is being hailed as the answer to the pollution troubles of the coal industry by big coal publications like Coal News with the headline “No Climate Crisis,”Lord Monckton Says. Monckton is being propped up as a climate expert although he graduated with a diploma in journalism.[1] He is funded through Science and Public Policy Institute (SIPP), which has a direct tie to the Exxon funded Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, Inc through its President Robert Ferguson.
According to the organization’s web site, “Frontiers has grown from a start-up organization with big ideas to a preeminent think tank that is making a real and tangible difference advancing common sense ideas for government. One of our greatest sources of pride has been our position on the front lines in the battle to make a national missile defense system a reality. Our efforts earned us a seat across the table, literally, from President Bush on the day he announced our withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. In addition, we have both provided and received briefings from Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Dundes Wolfowitz. We are proud to be considered an asset to the national security community during these times of serious global insecurity.”
The Knights of Malta are fueling both sides of the Climate Debate. Through active operatives like David Rockefeller and David De Rothschild pushing the Carbon Tax Scheme in effort to clinch the “Global Governance” plan that Al Gore speaks of.
On the other end of the spectrum active Knights of Malta operative Lord Christopher Monckton posing as a patriot warning you of a secret plot for world government. One order controls both sides. You need to ask yourself what do they gain controlling both sides? Order out of chaos.
This is the same order out of chaos that the Knights of Malta have been waging with operative Erik Prince and the Blackwater defense contracting firm said Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe.”
“The painful saga of modern Arab-Muslim history evokes the battles fought in Crusades of the 11th century – when the Knights of Malta began their operations as a Christian militia whose mission it was to defend the land conquered by the Crusaders.These memories return violently to mind with the discovery of links between the so-called security firms in Iraq such as Blackwater have historic links with the Order of Malta. You cannot exaggerate it. The Order of Malta is a hidden government or the most mysterious government in the world.”- Jordanian MP Jamal Muhammad Abidat, from an editorial in the United Arab Emirates daily Al-Bayan entitled “The Knights of Malta – more than a conspiracy”. Abidat describes the role played by the Knights of Malta during the Crusades, and that the Order is playing a similar role in the Middle East today, citing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Make no mistake there is an active attempt at the formation of a “One World Government” and it is being accelerated under the umbrella of “saving the earth”. It should be noted that any opportunity for globalists to push an “international framework” is being met with resistance. Independent news websites are a buzz with talk about the formation of a New World Order being built under the guise of saving the earth. “Poor nations push for ‘New World Order’ in Copenhagen”
With the carbon tax, cap and trade scheme who stands to gain? Mainly the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties and their subsidiaries. The globalist corporate interests steer public opinion through “think tanks” and chip away national sovereignty by, not so secret, societies like the Knights of Malta playing both sides against the middle to maintain the “order out of chaos”.
Lord Monckton is not a patriot. He is not friend to freedom, sovereignty or the environment, he is an active operative for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and a member of the Roman Catholic Mass Media Commission.
TruthMovement.com
Make no mistake, this is the SAME Knights of Malta that is pushing “global governance” agenda through round table groups like the C.F.R., C.N.P, Bilderberg Group and through operatives like David Rockefeller and environmental front man David De Rothschild who recently quipped about “Global governance” being tough to activate in Copenhagen.
Lord Christopher Monckton on AIDS and Martial Law Tactics:
“Monckton’s views on how the AIDS epidemic should be tackled have been the subject of some controversy. In an article for The American Spectator entitled “AIDS: A British View”,[41] written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that “there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.” This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States.”
If Lord Monckton would do this to people with aids, do you think he would support the globalist plot to exterminate 80% of the population to “save the earth” as outlined in the Georgia Guidestones?
So Lord Monckton's constant attacks on the push for a world government makes him a proponent of........ world government!!!! Rather like man's activities are causing a greenhouse effect which is causing a rise in temperatures worldwide and....... a fall in temperatures worldwide. The incessant drivel from the climate alarmists is never going to stop even as all the liars are exposed and the world gets worse and worse winters in the next few years. No wonder humanity is in such a pickle when a blatant hoax like Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climate Disruption is believed by the masses. Still, never mind the facts when an ad hominem will do.
The incessant drivel from the climate alarmists is never going to stop even as all the liars are exposed and the world gets worse and worse winters in the next few years. No wonder humanity is in such a pickle when a blatant hoax like Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climate Disruption is believed by the masses. Still, never mind the facts when an ad hominem will do.
What are the facts and how do you know one way or another? One thing we can be certain of is that people who say they know what the facts are, are liars.
One thing we can be certain of is that people who say they know what the facts are, are liars.
No. Maybe YOU can be certain but I only know SOME of them are liars.
Quote:
What are the facts and how do you know one way or another?
I listen to both sides of the argument and use my judgement. Revolutionary I know to someone of "faith" but its the best I can do. Fortunately the Global Warming hoax is so laughably transparent it takes little efort to see through the lies. Rather like the 9/11 hoax. What are the facts about that event and how do you know one way or another?
One thing we can be certain of is that people who say they know what the facts are, are liars.
No. Maybe YOU can be certain but I only know SOME of them are liars.
Quote:
What are the facts and how do you know one way or another?
I listen to both sides of the argument and use my judgement. Revolutionary I know to someone of "faith" but its the best I can do. Fortunately the Global Warming hoax is so laughably transparent it takes little efort to see through the lies. Rather like the 9/11 hoax. What are the facts about that event and how do you know one way or another?
"Rather like the 9/11 hoax. What are the facts about that event and how do you know one way or another?"
I don't know who or what was responsible 100% but I do know that government hirelings 100% are breaking the Law 100% and people who enforce those policies; and should be brought to Justice.
China and US clash at climate talks
US negotiating stance deemed 'totally unacceptable' by China after American climate envoy accuses delegates of trying to renegotiate Copenhagen accord
The world's two biggest carbon emitters clashed at UN climate talks in China today as the United States' top climate envoy accused his counterparts of trying to renegotiate last year's global climate agreement, and threatened to pursue alternatives to the United Nations negotiation track. China retaliated by calling the US's overall negotiating stance "totally unacceptable."
Jonathan Pershing, the US deputy special envoy for climate change, said the first three days of talks in Tianjin had yielded disappointing results because participants were revisiting old arguments over procedure rather than building on the Copenhagen accord.
"What is frustrating in these negotiations is to see countries not using that as the basis, but relitigating things that we more resolved over the course of the Copenhagen negations," he said.
His comments underline the wide differences between nations despite efforts to try to identify common ground this week so that a partial agreement can be signed at a ministerial level meeting in Cancún later this year.
Given the slow rate of progress, Pershing said there was a concern that no agreement would be possible in Mexico. Echoing comments made this week by EU negotiators, he said it could damage the UN system. "It something to be considered seriously, because the process is going to be very hard-pressed to continue to meet and to continue to have these enormous sessions with a lot of people travelling to them unless we can use the process to good effect," he said. "It may mean that we don't use this process exclusively as the way to move forward."
While there is no suggestion of a full withdrawal from the UN process, the US appears to have hardened its position since Copenhagen amid rising domestic political pressure and the absence of climate legislation.
China has responded in kind. Dropping the diplomatic language that characterised public statements on the first two days, Xie Zhenhua, the head of the host's negotiating team, made little attempt to conceal the target of his frustration.
"A developed country I won't name hasn't done a job for itself. It has not provided financing or technology to other countries, yet it asks them to accept stringent monitoring and voluntary domestic actions," Xie told reporters. "It's totally outrageous. It's quite unacceptable."
There were other signs of rising stress at the halfway point, when the workmanlike calm of the first three days gave way to heated exchanges during a stock-taking session.
When the chairman of the session drew up a to-do list for an agreement at Cancun, the proposal was denounced by China and other developing nations as "premature and imbalanced."
Progress was registered on the issues of forestry, technology transfer and financing for poor nations to cope with climate change, but discussions on the key topic of emission reduction targets were blocked by developing nations.
European officials described the tactics as inexplicable. "We are losing a tremendously important issue," said Jürgen Lefevere, climate strategy adviser to the European commission. "The Cancún target should be to anchor the targets pledged so far, to get them on a paper with a UN heading."
Poorer nations are reluctant to have their pledges mixed with those of richer nations, which have a greater historical responsibility for climate change, particularly given the political uncertainty surrounding the ability of the US to achieve its goals.
Without locking the existing commitments in place, EU officials say it will be difficult to move the discussion forward to the more ambitious goals needed to achieve the Copenhagen target of keeping global warming within 2C by 2050.
The need for greater action was highlighted in a new report published today by WWF, which showed that even if every country lived up to its Copenhagen pledges by 2020, global emissions would be at least 20% higher than the 40 gigatonne budget needed to avoid dangerous climate change.
"It's clear that some countries are facing up to the necessary transformations of their economies but other countries have failed to endorse this new trend speedily and are risking the safety and prosperity of all," said Gordon Shepherd, leader of WWF's global climate initiative.
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
