“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the public believes is false.”
William Casey, CIA Director (first staff meeting, 1981)
This blog deals with what has been called “anthropogenic (“caused by humans”) climate change”. This used to be called “global warming” but then, oops it was discovered that the earth actually wasn’t warming at all as the computer models from the Climate Research Unit (“CRU”) at the University of East Anglia said but was cooling instead. Never mind, just change the name to “Climate Change”!
Now the genuine scandal “Climategate”, dubbed “one of the biggest scientific scandals of all times” has occurred that exposes the whole scam. Of course the Globalist-controlled media is doing everything that it can to keep this news off the front pages in the wake of the Copenhagen Conference, in the hope that it will just go away and we can wake up in 2010 to being ruled by an unelected world government with a Malthusian agenda.
The Guardian UK, once a respected newspaper, has published an article that follows the old Nazi propaganda line, namely, “the bigger the lie, the easier it sells” and has produced an article telling us that the whole “climate change” thing is not only true but the situation is even worse than we thought. This comes on the back of a peer-reviewed paper from Richard Lindzen that totally refutes the whole global warming also known as climate change phenomena.
You may well wonder how once-respected scientists could get things so hopelessly wrong. Surely it’s just a matter of measuring temperatures world-wide and then processing the data. Well, this Climategate ‘scientists’ rejected this approach in favour of computer models. There is only one problem with computer models and that is that they can’t accurately predict the temperature more than about a fortnight ahead. When their models produced results that did not conform to the reality, these so-called “scientists” sacrificed reality and cooked the books, rather than rejecting their inaccurate approach. All this is of course unscientific!
“It has recently been calculated that to produce an accurate forecast of the climate even as little as ten years ahead would require all of the world’s computers to run not for ten years but for 100 billion billion billion years. The age of the universe is only 13.7 billion years. So anyone who claims that any computer model can produce reliable results 100 years ahead is making a claim that goes not only well beyond the laws of mathematics, as explained by Lorenz, but also well beyond the capacity of today’s computers.”
(See “Dangerous Climate Change is Coming”
by Christopher Monckton | April 30, 2009
Science and Public Policy
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/dangerous_climate_change_is_coming.html)
The real problem is that Climate Change is really a religion now! Some people are just too stupid to understand the science so they parrot off what the Malthusians, basically the Club of Rome and their cronies want us to believe. Even such simple things like global temperatures rising and increases in CO2 levels lagging 800 years behind the temperature increase is too much for them, they can’t connect the dots, namely, if CO2 increases follow global warming, they can’t cause global warming! This is the real clincher and it comes from half a million years of ice core data! This also shows that there have been global warming cycles before that took place before humans were on the planet. The Mediaeval global warm period was hotter than today but the alarmists tell us that we’ll all cook if we don’t get CO2 emissions down. CO2 is not a noxious gas, it’s part of the carbon cycle and it’s what plants breathe in and you breathe out!
There’s no hot spot in the Troposphere either, which is sufficient of itself to refute the whole global warming thing.
(See Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming
Alex Jones Infowars
http://www.infowars.com/top-rocket-scientist-no-evidence-co2-causes-global-warming/
Date Accessed: 28.10.09)
The junk science of global warming or climate change is contributing to worldwide starvation because in an effort to solve a non-existent problem, namely, global warming caused by fossil fuels there has been a move to biofuels and that has forced world food prices up. Consider this information from a report leaked to the Guardian UK:
“Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% – far more than previously estimated – according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.”
(See Secret report: Biofuel caused food crisis
Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive
Aditya Chakrabortty
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 July 2008 19.35 BST
Article history
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy/print
Date Accessed: 3.12.09)
I have added the article Global Warming: “Fixing the Climate Data around the Policy” by Michel Chossudovsky from Global Research as an Annexure. This provides an update on the situation. Please remember to contact your Local Federal Member and the Members of the Senate as well by sending the letter like the one I attached to Newsletter 9 and please do request an appointment to discuss the provisions that were found in the Draft of the Copenhagen Treaty because we don’t want these in any other document that our government signs!
Please do continue to look at Lord Monckton and Alex Jones videos on YouTube as well as visiting www.prisonplanet.com and www.infowars.com as well AlterNet and Global Research. I’ve removed the Guardian from the list because it treated the Bilderbergers as something that only bothers conspiracy theorists – bad move, that’s about half the world now! There is a lot of confronting stuff there that people really need to know so that they can take action to avoid the dangers that have not yet come. It is for this unusual reason that I am once again asking you to forward this information to people on your contact list and ask them in turn to do the same, because the more people know, the better: We all need to be prepared!
“If you will not fight for the right, when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish, than to live as slaves.”
Winston Churchill
Rochelle Macredie
BA BSc LLB
Oliveri Lawyers
rochelle_macredie@aapt.net.au
http://rochellemacredie.blog.com
www.twitter.com/vigilantlawyer
0407 896 832
Guardian UK – Climategate Lies
Guardian Co UK
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate sciencehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science
The report’s authors (who include the preeminent (sic) Stephen Schneider) write about a number of matters.
Below are the key findings from the report in summary are:
The Ice Sheets are Melting
Rising Sea Levels
Surging Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Correspondence was Hacked
Urgency to Stop Global Warming
I will deal with each of these in these in turn as each of them is substantially untrue.
Melting of Ice Sheets
The new diagnosis finds that arctic sea ice is melting 40 percent faster than the panel estimated just a few years ago. Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.
Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40 percent greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.
The Response
It has been stated that the Arctic has melting 40% faster than estimated just a few years ago by the panel. It has also been stated by Al Gore that the Artic has been warming faster than the rest of the planet. Neither statement is true! The Arctic has in fact been cooling over the past 60 years and is now 1° C cooler than it was during the 1940’s. While it is in general true that during periods of warming (whether natural or anthropogenic) the Arctic will warm faster than other regions it has not been warming at all, so the statement is misleading in the extreme!
It has also falsely been claimed that Greenland and the Antartic ice-sheets are losing mass at an extreme rate. The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%.
(See Science and Public Policy
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/Press-Release_No-Climate-Crisis.pdf
Date Accessed: 2.12.09)
The ice caps haven’t been melting as the alarmists and the models predicted they should. The Antarctic, containing nearly 90 per cent of all the ice in the world, has actually been cooling over the past 30 years, not warming.
(See “The real climate change catastrophe”
The Telegraph UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html
Date Accessed: 25.10.09)
There was a record amount of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere in 2001. Several vessels were icebound in the Arctic in the spring of 2007, but few newspapers reported this, no doubt because it did not conform to the accepted “truth” and there was no doubt a genuine desire that if published, people may have to confound their opinions with facts!
Nor is the sea ice melting in response to so-called global warming. What was represented as a response on the part of nature to anthropogenic climate change was in fact a trend that was in place long prior to the commencement of the so-called “global warming”. The newspapers reported that the North-West Passage was free of ice in 2007, and said that this was for the first time since records began which is once again misleading because it implies that there is a great deal of data going back years but the records, taken by satellites, had only began 29 years previously (my italics). The North-West Passage had also been open for shipping in 1945, and, in 1903, the great Norwegian explorer Amundsen had passed through it in a sailing ship in 1903 and the trend was evident then!http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Greenland ice sheet “unstable”
There are a number of gross inaccuracies here, namely, in stating that “global warming” is making the Greenland ice sheet unstable. The ice sheet is not unstable!
Ø Greenland ice grows 2” (51 mm) a year.
Ø The Greenland ice sheet survived each of the previous three interglacial periods, each of which was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present.
Ø It survived atmospheric CO2 concentrations of up to 1000 ppmv (compared with today’s 400 ppmv).
Ø It last melted 850,000 years ago, when humankind did not exist and could not have caused the melting.
Ø There is a close correlation between variations in Solar activity and temperature anomalies in Greenland, but there is no correlation between variations in CO2 concentration and temperature changes in Greenland.
Ø The IPCC (2001) says that to melt even half the Greenland ice sheet would require temperature to rise by 5.5 degrees C and remain that high for several thousand years.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
The Ultimate Deception of the Global Warming Pseudo-scientists is the statement that mountain glaciers worldwide “disappearing”
Gore says that “the ice has a story to tell, and it is worldwide.” He shows several before-and-after pictures of glaciers disappearing. However, the glacial melt began in the 1820s, long before humankind could have had any effect, and has continued at a uniform rate since, showing no acceleration since humankind began increasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Total ice volumes in three of the last four Ice Ages were lower than they are today, and “global warming” had nothing to do with that.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Satellites have found that the global average for rising sea levels was 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2008. The IPCC estimated it would be 1.9 mm for that period—short by 80 percent.
Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be ~80 percent above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.
Sea-level predictions revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.
Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental icesheets, Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increases strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.
The Response
Rising Sea Levels
I have a question to ask of the IPCC and the Alarmist scientists and that is, why use estimates instead of measurements? Why estimate when you have the actual data?
On the question of rising sea levels, I offer the following:
“Ever since the TOPEX/JASON sea-level monitoring satellites began transmitting data in 1993, they have shown sea level as rising at a near-linear rate equivalent to 1 ft/century, compared with the 8 in/century previously estimated for the 20th century by the use of tide-gages. However, it is thought likely that the apparent increase in the rate of sea-level rise is chiefly an artifact of the change in mensuration from tide-gages to satellites in 1993. Furthermore, in response to the very sharp global cooling of the last few years, the rate of increase in sea level appears to have slowed somewhat, though it is not yet clear whether the trend will continue, and no data from the JASON satellite has been published since the late summer of 2008. In 2007 the UN reduced its high-end estimate of sea-level rise from 3 ft to less than 2 ft over the 21st century. The mean rate of sea-level rise over the past 10,000 years has been 4 ft/ century, though The Times was very careful not to provide this perspective in its article.”
Global Warming
Science and Public Policy
Sea Level Rise
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/sea_level_rise.html
Date Accessed: 2.12.09
Here is an example relating to local sea levels in Australia:
According to the most recent report by the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Tidal Centre, issued in June, there has been an average yearly increase of 1.9mm in the combined net rate of relative sea level at Port Kembla, south of Sydney, since the station was installed in 1991.
Science is in on climate change sea-level rise: 1.7mm
Drew Warne-Smith and James Madden From: The Australian November 07, 2009 12:00AM 42
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/science-is-in-on-climate-change-sea-level-rise-17mm/story-e6frg6nf-1225795202916
Date Accessed: 7.11.09
Rainforests
There is another lie claiming that the Amazon Rainforest could be pushed into an abrupt and irreversible decline. This is not true!
It has been reported by Al Gore that the Union of Forest Research Organizations, with 14 international collaborating partners, reported that forests may lose their carbon-regulating service and that it “could be lost entirely if the earth heats up 2.5 degrees Centigrade.” Throughout the American west, tree deaths are now at record levels, year after year. For the same reason, Canada’s vast forest is now contributing CO2 to the atmosphere rather than absorbing it. The Amazon, the forests of Central Africa, Siberia, and Indonesia are all now at risk.
This is totally false since CO2, with water, chlorophyll, and solar radiance, is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis, it is not a noxious substance, it is in fact what plants breathe and part of the carbon cycle. Prof. Will Happer of Princeton testified before the Senate recently, the planet’s atmosphere is currently starved of CO2 – now at <400 ppmv when it has been >1000 ppmv for most of the past 600 million years, and sometimes as high as 7500 ppmv (IPCC, 2001). Satellite assessments of vegetation density show that plant productivity is increasing rapidly worldwide as CO2 starvation gradually ends. As a result, as figures by US Forest Service show, there has been a rapid increase in the rate of growth – and hence in the volume – of standing timber. Forests worldwide are indeed at risk worldwide, but not from CO2, which is nothing but a boon to them. They are at risk from the chainsaws of the loggers.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/monckton_on_gore.html
Monsoons
It has been suggested that anthropogenic global warming is causing changes in the West African Monsoon. There is no evidence that anthropogenic global warming, which is not occurring since the world has been in a statistically significant cooling period for the last seven years, can cause any change in monsoons, West African or otherwise!
Prior to the commencement of the cooling trend there was no anthropogenic signal is evident in the temperature record of the past 150 years. The warming rate from 1975-1998 is identical to the warming rates from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940. In the two earlier periods, humankind cannot have had any influence on the warming rate.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/wet_office_.html
If any change is occurring the culprit cannot be global warming, since someone appears to have a 5,000 year record of changes and that threat activity is controlled by El Niño and weather in West Africa – there is no suggestion that hurricane activity is controlled by greenhouse gases, planetary temperature, or sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic!
The facts: Given that global temperatures have been increasing by 0.5 degrees K (1 F) per century since at least 1800 and arguably since 1700 (Akasofu, 2008; Central England Temperature Record; etc.), by now some adverse effect on the reliability of the South-East Asian monsoon rains ought to have become apparent. However, there has been no trend whatsoever!
Gore’s 10 Errors Old and New
Science and Public Policy
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/gores_10_errors_old_&_new.htm
Date Accessed: 2.12.09
Consider the following:
“…Don’t look now, but an article has appeared in the prestigious journal Nature entitled “Intense hurricane activity over the past 5,000 years controlled by El Niño and the West African monsoon.” The title suggests that someone has a 5,000 year record of hurricane activity and that the activity is controlled by El Niño and weather in West Africa – there is no suggestion that hurricane activity is controlled by greenhouse gases, planetary temperature, or sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic.”
World Climate Report
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/07/03/lessons-from-a-5000-year-hurricane-record/
Date Accessed: 2.12.09
The trend towards global warming has stopped and we are now in a statistically significant cooling period that has been going on for seven years!http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/wet_office_.html
Surging greenhouse gas emissions
The report’s authors write that “if global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly.” If you’re keeping score, 2015 is just over five years away—somewhat less comforting than the distant “2050″ you used to hear so much about.
Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25 percent probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding 2°C warming.
Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19°C per decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual, but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.
The Response
Consider the following quotes from Climatologists and associated scientists in relation to anthropogenic climate change:
They’ve said “if the C02 goes up then the temperature will go up” but the ice core record shows the complete opposite…so the most fundamental assumption of the whole thing that climate change is due to humans is shown to be wrong”
Dr Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist, Global Warming Swindle
What half a million years of ice core data shows is that the temperature increases and that the CO2 levels lag behind on average by 800 years, so CO2 levels can’t cause global warming!Al Gore Snowjob
YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8&NR=1
Date Accessed: 28.10.09
“The warming produced the C02”
Professor Fred Singer, Former Director US Weather Service, Global Warming Swindle
It has been claimed by those who advocate that anthropogenic climate change is occurring that C02 is a major contributor to greenhouse gasses, however, since the warming precedes the increase in CO2 levels by on average 800 years, how can the CO2 increases cause the global warming?
“Temperature is leading C02 by 800 years”
Professor Ian Clark, University of Ottawa, Earth Sciences, Global warming Swindle
Al Gore Snowjob
YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8&NR=1
Date Accessed: 28.10.09
“The warming produced the C02” is what Professor Fred Singer, Former Director US Weather Service, Global Warming Swindle states.
Al Gore Snowjob
YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8&NR=1
Date Accessed: 28.10.09
We often see misleading pictures that show so-called “global warming pollution” but what these pictures actually show is steam and possibly smoke, they cannot show CO2, since C02 is an invisible gas. CO2 is colourless, odourless and tasteless.
Also, another significant fact is that 95% of greenhouse gasses are water vapour.
If it’s greenhouse gas warming you get more warming in the middle of the Troposphere, the first 10 or 12 kilometres of the atmosphere than you do with the surface – there are good theoretical reasons for that having to do with how the greenhouse works.”
Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT, Global Warming Swindle
“The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gasses – a small percentage of them, we call greenhouse gasses and of that very small percentage of greenhouse gasses 95% of it is water vapour”
Dr Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist, Global Warming Swindle
“Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, by far, the most important greenhouse gas.”
Professor John Christy, University of Alabama, Hunstville, Global Warming Swindle
The truth is that the global warming is lies!
Correspondence was hacked
“In a time when the correspondence of scientists is hacked and stolen and as a matter of political strategy, some will no doubt dismiss the group’s research entirely. And even IPCC fans may question whether its decision-making process is swift enough to remain relevant. It certainly seems that events are outpacing the political system’s ability to deal with them.”
The Response
Correspondence wasn’t hacked at all it was leaked by an insider at the CRU since a BBC climate correspondent received these some five weeks before they were published on the website. What is more, Phil Jones admitted to Associated Press that those emails were genuine. Given that it has been confirmed by a BBC correspondent that he received copies of the emails some five weeks before they were published it appears that the leaking of the emails was the work of an insider in the CRU and not a hacker. The point is, it doesn’t matter whether the emails were leaked or hacked, they and the comments in between the lines of computer code show deliberate distortion of data, collusion, bullying those who question anthropogenic climate change and cronyism to suppress contrary views.
BBC Climate Correspondent Was Forwarded CRU Emails Five Weeks Before They Were Made Public
Further indication that “climategate” data was leaked by an inside sourceSteve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009
http://www.infowars.com/bbc-climate-correspondent-was-forwarded-cru-emails-five-weeks-before-they-were-made-public/
Date Accessed: 25.11.09)
The reply to a request for the raw data by another scientist was met with the following reply from Phil Jones:
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?”
A further attempt to get the raw data from the UK Met Office by Steve McIntyre was under a Freedom of Information Request was unsuccessful when the Met Office refused to disclose the data citing a non-disclosure agreement that they had with Dr Jones, “the documentation for which they could no longer find”. How convenient! Professor Tim Ball questions why the secrecy. The attitude of Phil Jones and the CRU is out of keeping with the standards of transparency demanded by science and Professor Ball contends that the refusal to disclose the raw data invites the implication that Phil Jones cooked the books!
(See Climate Change Bombshell: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
Accessed 27.11.09)
As Anthony Watts writes, attempts to claim e mails are “out of context,” as the defence has been from CRU, cannot apply in this instance.
“One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre’s director, in 1999, reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” ” reports the London Telegraph.
The author admitted to the Associated Press that the e mail was genuine! In another example, researchers discuss data that is “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”. Apparently, the “real temperatures” are whatever global warming cheerleaders want them to be.”
“You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.”
Further indication that “climategate” data was leaked by an inside source
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009
http://www.infowars.com/bbc-climate-correspondent-was-forwarded-cru-emails-five-weeks-before-they-were-made-public/
Date Accessed: 25.11.09
This information that Phil Jones so assiduously refused to release was collected at the expense of the taxpayers – it is not the property of the CRU!
Urgency to act to stop Global Warming
The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2 °C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society—with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases—needs to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
The Response
Warming effect is less than 1/6 that of what was previously thought! (This has been shown by direct measurement rather than the computer model predictions of the CRU.) Radiation is escaping into space the way it always has and is not trapped in the greenhouse layer as CRU says it is! These measurements have been made over twenty years. There is only enough CO2 emissions to cause 1/25 ° F.
Even if UN predictions were correct it would still take 33 years with zero carbon emissions at all to forestall just 1º F of warming, so there’s nothing that we can do anyway!
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has written a paper that replaces the guesswork of computer models with straight forward measurements and this paper indicates that there is no global warming.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
The Corbett Report
Interview with Lord Monckton of Brenchley
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091027_monckton.htm
Date Accessed: 30.11.09
Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports. Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/Press-Release_No-Climate-Crisis.pdf
Science and Public Policy Institute http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Date Accessed: 30.11.09
They’ve said “if the C02 goes up then the temperature will go up” but the ice core record shows the complete opposite…so the most fundamental assumption of the whole thing that climate change is due to humans is shown to be wrong”
Dr Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist, Global Warming Swindle
Al Gore Snowjob
YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8&NR=1
Date Accessed: 28.10.09
There is no global warming or anthropogenic climate change, so there is no need to take any action on climate! People do pollute with carbon monoxide, plastics, detergents, and chemical wastes, to name some prominent causes. People do harm the environment with deforestation, nuclear testing, pesticides and genetically modified crops, to name some of the causes. Anthropogenic Climate Change is a fallacy based on junk science! A sinister motivation lurks behind it and that is one world government – if you don’t believe me look at the following reference:
New EU President Rompuy announces 2009 as “first year of global governance”
Daniel Taylor
OLd-thinker News
November 20, 2009
Infowars
http://www.infowars.com/new-eu-president-rompuy-announces-2009-as-first-year-of-global-governance/
Date Accessed: 22.11.09
This says it all!
Why are the global elitists (pronounced “very rich”), Malthusians embracing so-called ‘climate change’ with such gusto?
Rochelle Macredie©
BA BSc LLB
Oliveri Lawyers
rochelle_macredie@aapt.net.au
http://rochellemacredie.blog.com
www.twitter.com/vigilantlawyer
0407 896 832
Global Warming: “Fixing the Climate Data around the Policy”
Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Prison Planet
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-fixing-the-climate-data-around-the-policy-2.html
Date Accessed: 3.12.09
More than 15,000 people will be gathering in Copenhagen for COP 15: the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Official delegations from 192 nations will mingle with the representatives of major multinational corporations, including Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, The representatives of environmental and civil society organizations will also be in attendance. Parties & Observers
Heads of state and heads of government are slated to be in appearance in the later part of the Summit event. (See The essentials in Copenhagen – COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009)
It is worth noting that key decisions and orientations on COP15 had already been wrapped up at the World Business Summit on Climate Change (WBSCC) held in May in Copenhagen, six months ahead of COP15.
The WBSCC brought together some of the World’s most prominent business executives and World leaders including Al Gore and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. (The World Business Summit on Climate Change, includes webcast)
The results of these high level consultations were forwarded to the Danish government as well as to the governments of participating member states. A so-called summary report for policymakers was drafted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, on behalf the corporate executives participating in the event. This report has very little to do with environmental protection. It largely consists in a profit driven agenda, which uses the global warming consensus as a justification. (For details see Climate Council: The World Business Summit on Climate Change)
“The underlying ambition of the Summit was to address the twin challenges of climate change and the economic crisis. Participants at the Summit considered how these risks can be turned into opportunity if business and governments work together, and what policies, incentives, and investments will most effectively stimulate low-carbon growth.” (Copenhagen Climate Council)
The agenda of the Copenhagen Climate Summit (7-18 December 2009), is upheld both by the governments, the business executives and the NGO community as “one of the most significant gatherings in history. It is being called the most complex and vital agreement the world has ever seen.”
CO2 emissions are heralded as the single and most important threat to the future of humanity.
The focus of the Summit is on strictly environmental issues. No mention of the word “war” –i.e. the US-NATO led war and its devastating environmental consequences.
No mention of the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of “peacemaking”.
No mention, as part of an environmental debate, of the radioactive fallout resulting from the Pentagon’s humanitarian nuclear bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons, according to scientific opinion commissioned by the Pentagon are “safe for the surrounding civilian population”.
No mention of “weather warfare” or “environmental modification techniques” (ENMOD) and climatic warfare.
No mention in the debate on climate change of the US Air Force 2025 project entitled “Owning the Weather” for military use. (See FAS, AF2025 v3c15-1 | Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning… | (Ch 1) see also SPACE.com — U.S. Military Wants to Own the Weather)
Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use is no longer part of the UN agenda on climate change. It was, however, part of the agenda of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Environmental Warfare and Climate Change, Global Research, 27 November 2005, See also Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, The Ecologist, December 2007 )
CO2 is the logo, which describes the Worldwide crisis. No other variable is contemplated.
Moreover, no meaningful anti-pollution clean air policy directed against CO2 emissions can be formulated as an objective in its own right, because the reduction of CO2 emissions is subordinate to the Global Warming consensus.
The words “poverty”, “unemployment” and “disease” resulting from a global economic depression are not a matter of emphasis because authoritative financial sources state unequivocally: “the economic recession is over”.
And the war in the Middle East and Central Asia is not a war but “a humanitarian operation directed against terrorists and rogue states.”
The Real Crisis
The Copenhagen Summit not only serves powerful corporate interests, which have a stake in the global multibillion dollar carbon trading scheme, it also serves to divert public attention from the devastation resulting from the “real crisis” underlying the process of economic globalization and a profit driven war without borders, which the Pentagon calls “the long war”.
We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. War and economic depression constitute the real crisis, yet both the governments and the media have focused their attention on the environmental devastation resulting from CO2 emissions, which is upheld as the greatest threat to humanity.
The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading System
The carbon trading system is a multibillion money-making bonanza for the financial establishment. The stakes are extremely high and the various lobby groups on behalf of Wall Street have already positioned themselves.
According to a recent report, “the carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU’s emissions trading scheme… The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe.” (Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade, The Guardian, 28 November 2009)
The large financial conglomerates, involved in derivative trade, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank America Merrill Lynch, Barclay’s, Citi Bank, Nomura, Société Générale, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are actively involved in carbon trading.( FACTBOX: Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters, 14 September 2009)
The legitimacy of the carbon trading system rests on the legitimacy of the Global Warming Consensus, which views CO2 emissions as the single threat to the environment. And for Wall Street the carbon trading system is a convenient and secure money-making safety-net, allowing for the transfer of billions of dollars into the pockets of a handful of conglomerates.
“Every major financial house in New York and London has set up carbon trading operations. Very big numbers are dancing in their heads, and they need them to replace the “wealth” that evaporated in the housing bust. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, told the New York Times, “Carbon will be the world’s biggest market over all.” Barclays thinks the current $60 billion carbon market could grow to $1 trillion within a decade. Four years ago Redshaw, a former electricity trader, couldn’t get anyone to talk to him about carbon.” (Mark Braly, The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading, RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 5 March 2008)
The Global Warming Data Base
Is the Global Warming Consensus based on reliable data?
There are indications that both the concepts and the data on temperature and greenhouse gas emissions including CO2 have been adjusted and shaped to fit the agenda of the UN Panel on Climate Change.
For several years, the claims of the UN Panel on Climate Change (UNPCC) including the data base have been questioned. (See Global Research’s Climate Change Dossier: Archive of more than 100 articles)
Critical analysis of the climate change consensus has been conveyed in reports by several prominent scientists.
There has been, in this regard, a persistent attempt to silence the critics as conveyed in the writings of MIT meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen (See Richard Lindzen, Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence., Global Research, 7 April 2007)
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. (Ibid)
ClimateGate and the Emails’ Scandal
In November 2009, barely a few weeks before the inauguration of the Copenhagen Summit, a vast data bank of over 3000 email exchanges between key Climate Change scientists and researchers was revealed.
While the emails do not prove that the entire data base was falsified, they nonetheless point to scientific dishonesty and deceit on the part of several prominent scientists who are directly linked to the UNPCC.
The emails suggest that the data was shaped, with a view to supporting a predetermined policy agenda. “Fixing the climate data to fit the policy” is the modus operandi as revealed in the email messages of top scientists, directly linked to the work of the UN Panel on Climate Change?
The British media has acknowledged that the scientists were intent upon manipulating the data on Climate Change as well as excluding the critics:
[the comments below the quotes are by The Telegraph].
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of “trick” has been misinterpreted
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate”
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics – that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.
From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
“Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future.”
The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work
(University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes – Telegraph, 23 November 2009).
The complete list of contentious emails can be consulted at Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable published by eastangliaemails.com:
What is significant is that the authors of the emails are directly involved in the UN Panel on Climate Change:
“[They are] the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history. (Prof. Christopher Booker, Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of our Generation, The Telegraph, 28 November 2009)
One of the contentious emails by Dr Jones (published by eastangliaemails.com) points to the deliberate manipulation of the data:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Source: Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable published by eastangliaemails.com
US Congressional Probe
Barely two weeks before the inauguration of the Copenhagen Summit, the US Congress is now probing into “the Global Warming Emails”:
“U.S. congress has begun investigating climate scientists whose emails and documents were hacked into to see if their global warming theories have misrepresented the truth behind the cause of climate change.
Investigators have begun “studying” the 1,079 e-mails and over 3,800 documents that hackers stole last week from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in the U.K, Rep. Darrel Issa from California told the Wall Street Journal.
Some of the leaked e-mails and files – which were posted on sites like www.Wikileaks.org and www.EastAngliaEmails.com – show growing tensions between scientists and skeptics. Others are mundane announcements of upcoming conferences or research trips.
According to his website, Rep. James Inhofe from Oklahoma said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.”
The White House Science Adviser John Holdren has also come under investigation, after one of his emails written in 2003 to Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, was hacked.
“I’m happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange. I think anybody who reads what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious and balanced treatment of the question of ‘burden of proof’ in situations where science germane to public policy is in dispute,” Holdren said.
Meanwhile, The University of East Anglia said it will cooperate with police and proceed with its own internal investigation. The University posted a statement calling the disclosure “mischievous” and saying it is aiding the police in an investigation.
The statement also quotes Jones, CRU’s director, explaining his November 1999 e-mail, which said: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Jones said that the word trick was used “colloquially as in a clever thing to do” and that it “is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”
The leaked data comes just two weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen will begin on Dec. 7 -18, when 192 nations will meet to discuss a solution on how to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. (International Business Times, November 24, 2009)
Meanwhile, the “international community” (supported by the mainstream media) has launched a counteroffensive, accusing the critics of waging a smear campaign:
The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, stood by his panel’s 2007 findings last week. That study is the foundation for a global climate response, including carbon emission targets proposed this week by both the US and China.
So far, climate scientists say nothing in the leaked emails [that] takes away from the fact that the climate change evidence is solid. In fact, a new study in the journal Science shows the polar ice cap melting is happening at a faster rate than predicted just a few years ago.
In a teleconference call with reporters this week, one of the scientists whose emails were leaked, Pennsylvania State University paleoclimatologist Michael Mann, said that “regardless of how cherry-picked” the emails are, there is “absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change.”
…
This is a “smear campaign to distract the public,” added Mann, a coauthor of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, the report on climate change released this week ahead of the Copenhagen. “Those opposed to climate action, simply don’t have the science on their side,” he added.
Professor Trevor Davies of the East Anglia CRU called the stolen data the latest example of a campaign intended “to distract from reasoned debate” about global climate change ahead of the Copenhagen summit. (As Copenhagen summit nears, ‘Climategate’ dogs global warming debate | csmonitor.com, Christian Science Monitor, 28 November 2009, emphasis added)
But what is significant in this counteroffensive, is that the authenticity of the emails has not been challenged by the IPCC scientists.
The scientists are not saying “we did not do it”. What they are saying is that the Global Warming Consensus holds irrespective of their actions to selectively manipulate the data as well as exclude the critics from the scientific debate on climate change.
What is the Stance of the Civil Society and Environmentalist Organizations
Civil society organisations are currently mobilizing with a view to pressuring the official governmental delegations:
“Two years ago, at a previous UN climate conference in Bali, all UN governments agreed on a timetable that would ensure a strong climate deal by the time of the Copenhagen conference. The implications of not achieving this goal are massive, and nearly unthinkable. Turn to our great partners film – the Age of Stupid – if you need to be convinced why.
The meeting – which should include major heads of state for the last three days, will attempt to reach a massively complex agreement on cutting carbon, providing finance for mitigation and adaptation, and supporting technology transfer from the North to the South.
This is a major milestone in history, and one where civil society must speak with one voice in calling for a fair, ambitious and binding deal. We are ready, but we need to let the leaders know the world is ready too. Are you? (COP-15 Copenhagen Climate Conference | TckTckTck)
Where do civil society activists stand in relation to the climate change email scandal?
Will these civil society organizations, many of which are funded by major foundations and governments, continue to unreservedly endorse the Global Warming consensus?
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace are among several key civil society organizations which are pushing the Copenhagen agenda. Their position is unchanged.
Environmentalist organizations are demanding a reduction in CO2 emissions, not as a means to tackling polution, but as an instrument to reverse the process of global warming. For many of these organizations, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the “bible”. It cannot be challenged even if the climate data base which supports the Global Warming Consensus turns out to be questionable or contentious.
While the mainstream NGO lobby groups including Greenpeace and WWF continue to support the consensus, there is a small and growing movement which challenges the legitimacy of the Copenhagen CO15 Summit agenda, while also accusing the UNPCC of manipulating the data. This manipulation of the data also serves the profit driven carbon trading scheme.
The Alternative Summit: KlimaForum09
The NGOs will be meeting in a parallel alternative summit, KlimaForum09. More than 10,000 people a day are expected to attend the sessions of KlimatForum09
Major international NGOs and environmentalist groups will be in attendance including Friends of the Earth, Campaign against Climate Change among others.
Klimaforum09 is to finalize a draft declaration which “will put forth a vision of a more socially just world society, [while] emphasizing the need to create substantial changes in the social and economic structures of society in order to meet the challenges of global warming and food sovereignty.” (See Declaration · Klimaforum09)
While there is fierce opposition to the multibillion carbon trading system within the NGO community, the Alternative Summit will not challenge the Global Warming consensus and its underlying data base. (All events · Klimaforum09).
While critical and active voices will emerge from within the various sessions of the Alternative Forum, the organizational envelope of KlimaForum09 remains compliant to the official agenda. In many regards, the rhetoric of the KlimaForum09’s Danish organizers ties in with that of the host government of the offical Summit, which coincidentally also funds the Alternative Summit. (Political Platform · Klimaforum09“). What this means is that the boundaries of dissent within the Alternative Summit have been carefully defined.
There can be no real activism unless the falsehoods and manipulations underlying the activities of the UNPCC, including the data base and the multibillion profit driven carbon trading scheme, are fully revealed, debated and understood.
