The Great Global Warming Swindle!!!

  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
  • warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/ on line 343.
Marcus's picture
Submitted by Marcus on Sat, 2007-03-10 19:12

Surprise, surprise.

You can watch the entire thing now - for free - already on Google Video.
Watch it while you can, here is the link below.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle.

This astounding documentary was aired last Thursday night (8th of March) in the UK.
What it illustrates both clearly and definitively is that global warming through human activity is the most contrived pseudo-science of the last 30 years. The scale of the swindle is both frightening. As the film narrator boldly states:

“Everywhere you are told that man-made climate change is proved beyond doubt, but you are being told lies. Each day the news reports grow more fantastically apocalyptic. Politicians no longer dare to express any doubt about climate change.
This is the story of how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology.
It is the story of the distortion of a whole area of science. It is the story of how a political campaign turned into a bureaucratic band-wagon. This is a story of censorship and intimidation. It is a story about westerners invoking the threat of climatic disaster to hinder vital industrial progress in the developing world. The global warming story is a cautionary tale of how a media scare became the defining idea of a generation.”

This film proceeds to completely strip away the emperor clothes of the theory of global warming caused by man-made CO2. It’s main points against the theory are that:

1) “We are told that the earth’s climate is changing, but the earth’s climate is always changing. In earth’s history there have been countless periods when it was much warmer and much cooler that it is today. When much of the world was covered by tropical forests or else vast ice sheets. The climate has always changed, and changed without any help from us humans.”

“The polar bears obviously survived that period, they are with us today, they are very adaptable and these warm periods in the past posed no problem for them.” Says Professor John Clark – Dept of Earth Sciences – University of Ottawa.

2) If you take the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere of all gases, it is 0.054%. The proportions that human are adding is even smaller, the main source in fact coming from the world’s oceans. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. The geological records show that in fact CO2 does not precede warming, but lags behind it by some 300 years. So as Gore rightly says in his film “An Inconvenient Truth” that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. However it is not a positive one, but a negative one, in fact often an inverse correlation.

3) The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases and a small percentage of them are the greenhouse gases. And of that small percentage, 95% of it is water vapour, and that is by far the most important greenhouse gas often in the form of clouds. Further, solar activity is the most accurate way of predicting climate changes on earth. The interplay between water vapour and solar activity being the main determinants of earth’s climate and human beings have almost no influence upon.

4) If greenhouse warming were presently occurring you would get more warming in the troposphere, because greenhouse gases trap heat from escaping the atmosphere in the troposphere. However, that is just not the case. The data collected from satellites and weather balloons show that the earth is in fact warmer than the atmosphere. This evidence damns the theory of greenhouse effect upon climate through CO2.

Surprising is the origins of this political scandal. Apparently it originated from a desire of Margaret Thatcher in the eighties to discredit fossil fuels in favour of nuclear power.

Even more shocking is that the entire present global warming lobby, hijacked from Thatcher by neo-Marxists and Environmentalists, has become in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats an evil “gravy train” of the millions of tax dollars pocketed in this disgusting “global warming” industry which is based upon a lie.

“Fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on Global Warming right now. It’s a big business.” Says Professor Patrick Michaels – Dept of Environmental Sciences – University of Virginia.

“Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.” Says Dr Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader – NASA.

As the film spells out for us:

Man-made global warming is no ordinary theory. It is presented in the media as having the stamp of authority of an impressive international organisation. The UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change or IPCC.

“The IPCC like any UN body is political. The final conclusions are politically driven. It’s become a great industry in itself and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there would an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.” Says Professor Philip Scott – Dept of Biogeography – University of London.

“This claim that the IPCC is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists: you look at the bibliographies of the people and it is simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists. Those people that are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there are a number of them I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this “2500 of the worlds top scientists”. We have a vested interest in causing panic, because then, money will flow to climate science.” Says Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC and Pasteur Institute of Paris.

“And to build up the number to 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and Government people and so on, anyone who has been close to them. And none of these people are asked if they agree, many of them disagree. People have decided that you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees - you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science you know that it is pure propaganda.” Says Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC and M.I.T.

Unfortunately as the Times notes, the whole Global Warming bandwagon has evolved into “less an issue and more a doom-laden religion demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil fuel-driven ways.”

“There is such intolerance. This is most politically incorrect thing possible to doubt this climate change orthodoxy.” Says Lord Lawson of Blaby (In 2005 a House of Lords enquiry was set up to examine the scientific evidence of man-made cause of Global Warming and Lord Lawson was a member of it.) He goes on to comment - "We had a very thorough enquiry and took evidence from a whole lot of people expert in this area and we produced a report. What surprised me was to discover how weak and uncertain the science was. In fact there are more and more thoughtful people, some of them a little bit frightened to come out in the open. But who quietly privately and some of them publicly are saying ‘hang on, wait a moment, this simply just does not add up’."

“I often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true.” Says Professor John Christy – Lead Author IPCC

And finally the definitive comment of the documentary must belong to Nigel Calder – the Former Editor of the New Scientist.

“I have seen and heard their spitting fury at anybody that might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way. The whole global warming business has become like a religion and people who disagree are called heretics. I am a heretic. The makers of this programme are all heretics.”

After this documentary and more publicity, hopefully not heretics for much longer!!!

( categories: )

Morano's New Web Site

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Arctic Ignorance!

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Shoot pollution particles into atmosphere to cool Earth, says Obama adviser

President Barack Obama's new science adviser has said that global warming is so dire, the new administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
08 Apr 2009

John Holdren said that the idea of geo-engineering the climate is being discussed. Options include cloud-seeding and shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.

"It's got to be looked at," he said, even if such experimental measures were only used as a last resort. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

In a further departure from the Bush administration's policy on global warming, Mr Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching.

Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, the chances of "really intolerable consequences" increased substantially, he said...

Scientist Links Melting Polar Ice to Greenhouse Effect but His Group's Own Research Shows Otherwise

Tuesday, April 07, 2009
By Edwin Mora

...Meier said he thinks there is a link between higher temperatures and increased greenhouse gases. But he admitted that sea ice has changed a lot through time and his understanding of long-term ice change is limited “somewhat” to century-old data.

“How it (Arctic sea ice) varied before our satellite record, which started in 1979, which is relatively short, is harder to say,” Meier told, “although we have fairly good records at least back to the 1950s and somewhat that’s good through the early 1900s.”

But a veteran climatologist who questions the global warming idea, told that NSIDC'’s own data refute Meier’s claim – and point to “solar activity” as a prime cause for the melting ice pack.

Dr. Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project [ICECAP], said the depletion of sea ice in the Arctic is part of the Earth’s cycles – and “solar activity”

“The Arctic temperatures undergo a cyclical change every 60 to 70 years tied to cycles on the sun and in the oceans,” said D’Aleo, who was the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel.

“You can see very warm temperatures in the 1930s then cooling and another warming in the last few decades in close correlation with solar activity,” he added, “but with a poor correlation with CO2.”

D’Aleo said that NSIDC’s own research put a spotlight on the correlation between melting Arctic ice sheets and solar activity back in 2007.

“One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, pointed out that ‘pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia,’” D’Aleo said.

“These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth.” ...

Apr 8, 2009
'Curious' Why The Sun Has Been So Dim Lately


"The Sun is the all encompassing energy giver to life on planet Earth," said Dr. Willie Soon, an Astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

And these days the sun is getting a lot of attention from scientists.

"The Sun is just slightly dimmer and has been for about the last 18 months," said Dr. Soon. "And that is because there are very few sunspots."

Sunspots are giant islands of magnetism on the Sun and the appearance of sunspots runs in 11 year cycles. When sunspots are abundant during the cycle, it is called the "solar maximum" and when there are few sunspots, it is considered to be the "solar minimum."

"Right now we are in the deepest solar minimum of the entire Space Age," stated Dr. Soon. "In fact, this is the quietest (fewest sunspots) Sun we have had in almost a century."

And those lack of sunspots have a link to our climate...

CATO ad anomalies, technical note for Ellen

William Scott Scherk's picture

Blick the creationist is not the only one of the CATO ad signatories to be mocked in the AGWA blogosphere . . . several sites have had a whack at the list, among them Inactivism**, Capital Climate, Deltoid, with 'Cato copies the Discovery Institute,' and several others, including NYT's Dot Earth, and of course, Real Climate (Grist takes issue not with signatories, but with a footnoted study used by the ad as support [Compare with Pielke's note at WUWT]).

A whole lot of mocking and smirking going on, which occasioned a response from Jerry Taylor of the National Review, "The Desultory Climate Change Debate."

Taylor has a couple of points . . .

So-and-so does not publish in this field — So what? The fact that a scientist does not undertake original research on subject x does not have any bearing on whether that scientist can intelligently assess the scientific evidence forwarded in a debate on subject x.

So-and-so lacks sufficient credentials to be deemed an expert on this matter and we should only be listening to the experts — Didn’t stop them from giving Al Gore a Nobel Prize, did it? Besides the simple observation that this objection is obviously used erratically and only at convenience, it ignores the fact that highly credentialed experts are as often found to be wrong as less credentialed individuals.

Fair enough, but some of the folks do appear to be cranks of one sort or another: De Meo with his Orgone theories, Ferreyra with his AIDS/HIV denialism, and so on, as dug up by the blogs above. Even the doyen of AGW skepticism could be seen as a crank, being a full-on creationist.


Incidentally, for the shut-ins who didn't make it to the Heartland Conference, the Proceedings page continues to be populated with videos, texts and presentation links.

Video (opens full screen Flash video player):

Joanne Nova
Laurence Gould
Vaclav Klaus
Christopher Monckton
Richard Lindzen


Ellen, I figured each comment likely had a unique ID, so that it could be retrieved from a database entry. And, by looking at the HTML code (right-click in Firefox, Control-U in Chrome, dunno in IE), I found out it did . . .e.g., <div class="comment" id="div-comment-110087">. Not too much of a hassle to hunt down the keywords [control-F] in the HTML, if you are geekish like me . . .

I then appended the ID to the URL with the hash mark #:
http://wattsup [ . . . ] advertisement/#div-comment-110087



** snarky image from Inactivism:

Scientists speaking out against alarmist media!

Marcus's picture

The threat to the Amazon rainforest should not be overstated

Highlighting only the most catastrophic scenarios could backfire, say Yadvinder Malhi and Oliver Phillips

Yadvinder Malhi and Oliver Phillips
The Guardian, Tuesday 7 April 2009

Your article stated that "global warming will wreck attempts to save the Amazon" (Too late to save Amazon forest from catastrophe, climate experts warn, 12 March). "Even under the most optimistic climate-change scenarios, the destruction of large parts of the forest is 'irreversible'," you reported.

As representatives of a UK-wide community of scientists which has been studying the impacts of climate change on the Amazon rainforest for over a decade, we believe the article greatly overstated the inevitability of severe forest dieback...

The Blick issue (re the CATO ad)

Ellen Stuttle's picture


Although I agree with commenter Brendan H. (Hutching?) (on the WattsUpWithThat thread discussing the CATO ad that young-earth beliefs would pose severe problems for the credibility of anyone debating paleoclimatology, Brendan H. doesn't seem to notice that none of the three statements in the CATO ad refers to events prior to the last century.

I do still wonder myself why Blick was asked to sign. It isn't as if there weren't plenty of others available, and Blick's inclusion invites just the sort of scoffing it's received.

How did you manage to link an individual comment? I haven't found any way I can do that using either Safari or Firefox.

Sorry about the defective link. Usually I check to be sure a link works, but I guess I forget to check that one. I'd mistyped "href=" as "haref" in the code.


Poor nations led by air-heads!

Marcus's picture

Poor nations call for 'levy' on air tickets to help adapt to climate change

World's poorest 49 countries tell UN meeting that aviation industry must help them cope with global warming by raising money from a tax on airline tickets and emissions trading scheme

John Vidal,
environment editor,
Monday 6 April 2009

A levy on all airline tickets and a global trading system for aircraft emissions are the contrasting proposals presented today to tackle the impact of flying on climate.

Negotiators at UN climate talks in Bonn were told by the world's poorest 49 countries that the annual 760m international air passengers should each pay a levy of about $6 (£5.4) on every flight to help those nations adapt to climate change.

The least developed group of countries (LDCs) said a modest levy could raise up to $10bn (£6.8bn) a year and help countries in the frontline of climate change adapt to the intense floods, droughts, sea level rises and crop failures that poor nations are experiencing as a result of global warming.

The proposed levy, they said, would increase the average price of an international long-haul fare by less than 1% for standard class passengers, but up to $62 for people travelling first class...

Washington Post

Climate Change's Dim Bulbs

By George F. Will
Thursday, April 2, 2009

Fervent. 1. Hot, burning, glowing, boiling.

"Fervently" is how America will henceforth engage in talks on global warming. So said the president's climate change negotiator Sunday in Germany, at a U.N. conference on reducing carbon emissions. This vow was fervently applauded by conferees welcoming the end of what the AP news story called the Bush administration's "eight years of obdurate participation" in climate talks.

Reducing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming, which is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics published by the World Meteorological Organization, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998. Regarding the reversing, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change has many ambitions, as outlined in a working group's 16-page "information note" to "facilitate discussions."

For example:

"Tariffs can be lowered to grant special preference to climate-friendly goods, or they can be maintained at high levels to discourage trade in GHG- [greenhouse gas-] intensive goods and services." The working group says protectionism "in the service of climate change objectives" might virtuously "shelter domestic producers of climate-friendly goods." Furthermore, using "border carbon adjustment," a nation might virtuously "impose costs on imports equivalent to that [sic] faced by domestic producers" operating under a carbon tax. Or a nation with a cap-and-trade regime regulating carbon emissions by domestic manufacturers might require foreign manufacturers "to buy offsets at the border equal to that [sic] which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the good been produced domestically." Cynics will see only potential for mischief by governments, including the U.S. government, using such measures to give a green patina to protectionism. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is having its own problems with one "climate-friendly good" that might not be. Last week, the New York Times front page carried this headline: "The Bulb That Saved the Planet May Be a Little Less Than Billed."

The story recounted some Americans' misadventures with the new light bulbs that almost all Americans -- all but those who are filling their closets with supplies of today's incandescent bulbs -- will have to use after the phaseout of today's bulbs in 2014. (You missed that provision of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007?)...

Young Earth Creationist counters AGW claims

William Scott Scherk's picture

Ellen notes a wee kerfuffle on Watts Up With That -- a leading anti-AGWA site.**

Edward F Blick is a signatory to the CATO ad, and a retired professor of Petroleum and Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. He is the author of "Scientific Analysis of Genesis," "Correlation of the Bible and Science," and "Special Creation vs. Evolution." He also published "The Religion of Global Warming II (excerpts at first link, full text here).

The article may be Blick's only article on AGWA issues, though he has presented a talk about 'The New Religion of Ba'al' at earlier religious conflabs . . .

The kerfuffle at WUWT is instructive. One of the critical voices, not cited by Ellen -- perhaps an AGWA skeptic himself -- takes the CATO ad to task for including a Creationist on a list of presumably authoritative leaders and scientists.

-- his point is that the ad represents the weight and authority of PhDs carried by those who don't support AGW alarums. He wonders that CATO trusts Blick's scientific competence, since Blick believes that science supports a 6000 year-old earth.

Here's an excerpt from Blick's latter-day opus. Apparently any peer-review was conducted by his pals at the outreach site Twin Cities Creation Science , who weren't able to catch the spelling howlers:

For thousands of years our earth has undergone cooling and warming under the control
of God. Man cannot control the weather, but he can kill millions of people in his vain
attempt to control it, by limiting or eliminating the fuel that we use. How does God
control our warming and cooling? Scientists have discovered it is the Sun! Amazing,
even grade school children know this. The Sun’s warming or cooling the earth varies
with sunspot and Solar flairs. Astronomer William Hershel discovered this relation in
1801. He found when sunspot activity was high the price of wheat fell. When sunspot
activity was low, the price of wheat rose. High sunspot activity increases earth’s
temperature with a higher yield of wheat, which depresses its price and vice versa.
Scientists have done a detailed study of the earth’s temperature and sunspots going
back 400 hundreds years.

Some who queried Creationist Blick's inclusion on CATO's list were slagged off as ad hominem bitchers, although one of them managed to sum up the concerns before the thread was clipped off by the owner:

I think the point that sod and others (and myself) are making is that its
difficult for us to take a creationist serious when they comment on climate
science since they believe the earth was not even around the last time
glaciers covered the midwest.

I am not saying that the folks at CATO have no argument because their list
of PhDs has a creationist, I am just saying that I find it difficult to
take folks who are creationists serious when they speak on maters of Earth
[direct link]

WUWT often has closely-reasoned discussions in its comment threads, and fairly sophisticated contributors. Sometimes the partisan volume and the sniping obscures the solid arguments, as in the above thread about Blick. It's useful to compare threads on WUWT with corresponding threads from The Dark Side. For example, Real has a Cato ad discussion stretching over 300 comments.


** Ellen's link to WUWT is malformed: see here to read the thread she references.

Marc Morano debates Joe Romm on Roll-Call TV.

Marcus's picture

Marc Morano debates Joe Romm

RC TV - Green Politics - pt 1

RC TV - Green Politics - pt 2

Daily Telegraph

Trees are growing faster and could buy time to halt global warming

Plants and trees are growing faster because of rising carbon dioxide levels, potentially buying Earth more time to address global warming, according to scientists.

By Urmee Khan
06 Apr 2009

The phenomenon has been discovered in a variety of flora, ranging from tropical rainforests to British sugar beet crops.

It means they are soaking up at least some of the billions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans that would otherwise be accelerating the rate of climate change.

Plants survive by extracting CO2 from the air and using sunlight to convert it into proteins and sugars.

Since 1750 the concentration in the air has risen from of CO2 278 parts per million (ppm) to more than 380 ppm, making it easier for plants to acquire the CO2 needed for rapid growth.

A study by the University of Leeds, published in the science journal Nature, measured the girth of 70,000 trees across 10 African countries and compared them with similar records made four decades ago.

On average, the trees were getting bigger faster and researchers found that each hectare of African forest was trapping an extra 0.6 tons of CO2 a year compared with the 1960s.

If this is replicated across the world's tropical rainforests they would be removing nearly 5 billion tons of CO2 a year from the atmosphere...

Yet more mind-boggling figures on global warming

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Yet more mind-boggling figures on global warming

Are we really to believe that the benefits gained from the Climate Change Act will amount to £1,024 billion, wonders Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
04 Apr 2009

Last October the House of Commons passed, by 463 votes to three, the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. The only MP to question the cost of the Climate Change Act, requiring Britain to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent within 40 years, was Peter Lilley. It was also Mr Lilley who, just before the MPs voted to stop runaway global warming, drew the House’s attention to the fact that, outside, London was experiencing its first October snow for 74 years.

What made the MPs’ lack of interest in the cost of this Act even more curious was that the Government’s own “impact assessment” showed that, whereas its benefits were estimated at £110 billion, its costs were £205 billion. The MPs thus happily voted for something that would be twice as costly as any benefit...

The Independent

Hopes for climate treaty set back by G20's weasel words

World further from agreement than two years ago

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor.

Sunday, 5 April 2009

It was meant, in Gordon Brown's words, to strike "a global green new deal" to tackle climate change and pull the world out of recession at the same time. In fact, the G20 meeting has sharply put back the chance of an international pact to stop global warming running out of control.

Far from being at the heart of last week's London summit, the looming climate crisis was relegated to a brief, vague and weaselly-worded afterthought at the very end of the communiqué. This has had an immediate dampening effect on negotiations on a new treaty supposed to be agreed at a vital meeting in Copenhagen at the end of the year.

Participants in the negotiations – now under way in Bonn – say that, partly as a result, they are now further from reaching agreement than they were towards the end of George Bush's presidency, despite the new energy and commitment brought to environmental matters by the Obama administration. Rich and poor countries now appear to be further apart than at the end of 2007, when the former president was still trying to obstruct progress.

It was not supposed to be like this. Gordon Brown and the other leaders – with the notable, if eccentric, exception of Silvio Berlusconi – have long been verbally signed up to "low carbon growth" as the best way out of the recession, since it promises more jobs and more opportunities for innovation than business as usual. Indeed, a new study by the University of Massachusetts-Amherst shows that investing in the green economy creates nearly four times as many jobs as traditional investment...

Antidote to Monbiot and RealClimate on CATO ad

Ellen Stuttle's picture

I've gotten around to starting to read the comments on a WattsUpWithThat entry which cross-posts supporting remarks by Roger Pielke.

Someone using the screen name "BTW" is hassling over Edward F. Blick being a signatory.

I will say I wondered myself about why Blick was asked -- I didn't know the name previously, but it was quickly pointed out on the RealClimate thread that Blick is a young earther.

Here's some explanation re Blick's qualifications:


3/31/09 - Tim McHenry (10:58:30) :


Is it, without arguing the facts of the matter, logical to say that what one believes in one field is invalidated because of what one believes in another field of study? Are you really prepared to say that that is a valid way to reason? Dr. Blick co-authored “Introduction to Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer” so whatever it says in that book must be wrong because, after all, he believes in God. Dr. Blick authored “The 1-2-3 Engineering Math Handbook: Engineering and Scientific Numerical Calculations Using Microcomputers and Lotus 1-2-3 Spreadsheets/Book and Di”, but whatever he said in that book must be wrong because, after all, he believes in a young earth! Dr. Blick was a U.S. AirForce Weatherman, but he simply must have caused great havock and failed at the job because, after all, he doesn’t believe in abiogenesis! Dr. Blick was many years at the University of Oklahoma, but he couldn’t have been a competent professor since he doesn’t like pie! Do you really want to defend the logic of this approach?

On the other hand, if you have some substantive flaw to state about his critique of AGW in “The Religion of Global Warming” or some other work, then fire away.



And here's a clever quip re Obama's belief in AGW (Anthony Watts had interjected earlier disagreeing with someone who says that Obama's statement of belief is a lie):



3/31/09 - Mike from Canmore (11:29:48) :

“For it to be a lie, Obama would have to know it to be not true. Unfortunately, he apparently believes it. - Anthony”

As a politician I know said to me. “There are 2 types of politicians. Those who know AGW is a revenue generating scam and those who are stupid”

Hmmm. Which one is Pres. Obama?



An amusing (to me) detail: Someone using the screen name "papertiger" has posted a couple comments in the material I've read thus far. One of those Anthony deleted:



3/31/09 - papertiger (10:19:47) :

[snip - leave out the insults when taking about people - Anthony]


Is "papertiger" a certain ex-poster from this list?


And, ending on an admiring note:

I want to add a third name to those whose posts I previously mentioned with approval from the Monbiot comments:

A guy who posts as "masonmart" much impresses me with his sure-footed finding his way to the reliable material through the muck (some years back he was of the opinion that AGW was probably true and then he began researching).


Senate snubs Obama!

Marcus's picture

Financial Times

Senate blow to climate change laws
By Andrew Ward and Sarah O’Connor in Washington

Published: April 2 2009

President Barack Obama’s plan to push through climate change legislation as part of his $3,600bn (£2,508bn) federal budget appeared all but dead on Thursday after the Senate ruled out fast-track action on the issue.

A Republican-sponsored amendment passed on Wednesday night ruled that Congress should not try to set up a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as part of the budget “reconciliation” process.

While not binding, the amendment, which drew support from more than 20 Democratic senators, showed the Obama administration had little chance of forcing through climate change measures as part of the budget.

It also underscored the difficulty that Mr Obama will face winning support for his proposed cap-and-trade system even outside of the budget process, raising the possibility of the US arriving empty-handed at the next round of United Nations talks on climate change in Copenhagen in December...

Obama's timid new world

The president's science advisers constitute a who's who of antagonists toward modern technology

Henry Miller, Friday 3 April 2009

...The president's nominee for science adviser, John Holdren, is known primarily as a long-time advocate of policies to slow population growth and as an activist on global warming. During the 1980s, Holdren calculated that famines due to climate change could leave a billion people dead by 2020. He now concedes that that is "unlikely". Although Holdren will head the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he has no history of advocacy for technology...

G20 doesn't go green! What a pity if you're a left-wing nut-job.

Marcus's picture

G20 forgets the environment

Climate breakdown, peak oil and resource depletion all dwarf the financial crisis in financial and humanitarian terms

Posted by
George Monbiot
Thursday 2 April 2009

Here is the text of the G20 communique, in compressed form.

"We, the Leaders of the Group of Twenty, will use every cent we don't possess to rescue corporate capitalism from its contradictions and set the world economy back onto the path of unsustainable growth. We have already spent trillions of dollars of your money on bailing out the banks, so that they can be returned to their proper functions of fleecing the poor and wrecking the Earth's living systems. Now we're going to spend another $1.1 trillion. As an exemplary punishment for their long record of promoting crises, we will give the IMF and the World Bank even more of your money. These actions constitute the greatest mobilisation of resources to support global financial flows in modern times.

Oh - and we nearly forgot. We must do something about the environment. We don't have any definite plans as yet, but we'll think of something in due course."

The G20's strategy for solving the financial and economic crisis, in other words, is detailed, innovative, fully costed and of vast scale and ambition. Its plans for solving the environmental crisis are brief, vague and uncosted. The environmental clauses - which contradict almost everything that goes before - have been tacked onto the end of the communique as an afterthought. No new money has been set aside. No new ideas are proposed; just the usual wishful thinking: let's call the whole package green and hope for the best...

The Daily Telegraph

G20 summit: Green movement labels G20 a missed opportunity to tackle global warming

Environmental campaigners have labelled the G20 meeting of leaders in London as a "missed opportunity" to fight climate change.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
02 Apr 2009

Peaceful demonstrations calling on world leaders to take action against global warming went on alongside more violent protests throughout the meeting. A "Climate Camp" was set up in the centre of the City while trade unions, charities and faith groups under the banner "Put People First" continued to call on world leaders to put the environment at the centre of any stimulus package.

However a report released to coincide with the G20 meeting found public spending on the table at the moment at the moment is actually at risk of locking the world into a future of continued greenhouse gas emissions.

The study commissioned by environmental charity WWF and the low-carbon group E3G found Gordon Brown's £20 billion fiscal stimulus package would have a negative impact overall in the fight against climate change because it includes £500 million investment in roads.

Even the international measures being proposed are not enough.

The countries giving highest priority to green measures were the US and Germany, but their investment totalled only around 0.5 per cent of GDP, compared to the 1-3 per cent thought necessary to keep global temperature rises below two degrees Celsius, said the report.

Kim Carstensen, director of WWF's Global Climate Initiative, said it was a missed opportunity.

"These packages amounting to billions of dollars provide a clear opportunity to shift to a more environmentally-sustainable economy when planning a recovery from the world's global recession," she said...

Daily Telegraph

G20 summit: leaders agree to look at Prince Charles's multi billion plan to save rainforests

G20 leaders have agreed to consider a multi-billion pound "emergency package" to save the rainforests following a meeting with the Prince of Wales.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
02 Apr 2009

...The world leaders present, including representatives from rainforest nations like Indonesia and Brazil as well as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the President of the World Bank, agreed to try and set up a means of raising the emergency funding. Financial mechanisms could include asking insurance and pension companies to invest in "rainforest bonds".

In the long term an international working group will look at the Prince's other proposals as well as a ideas to save the rainforests from other charitable organisations and governments.

The Prince told the meeting that halting deforestation, which accounts for around a fifth of global carbon emissions, was key to tackling climate change...

Monbiot item: INGSOC 1984 & Geoff Chambers

Ellen Stuttle's picture


I'm reading the comments on the Monbiot item "Climate Change Deniers: The Usual Suspects with No Credibility."

Two of the commenters especially are standing out, imo: INGSOC 1984 ("Ing Soc" is English Socialism in Orwell's 1984). I'm wondering if the poster using that screen name is someone from CATO.

The other, Geoff Chambers, I discovered upon Googling, is a frequent commenter on a blog called "OmniClimate".

Here's something he says on an "OmniClimate" entry from February called "Climate Expertise Inflation By The BBC".



[(01:55:07), 2/26/09 - there isn't a direct link to the entry.]


It’s fascinating to see the different reactions to the same story in blogs by the BBC’s Richard Black and the Guardian’s Monbiot/Randerson. Black uses the same technique as your man at the NYT - sweet reason and a tsunami of links to drown all but the strongest sceptic - while Monbiot and co at the Guardian go for the more aggressive approach - “And when did you stop shitting on your planet?”

Just how the different media treat the AGW story is fascinating in itself and important for the development of the story. The great AGW hysteria is soluble, not in the pure essence of rational scientific discussion, but - I suspect - in the soft-scientific soda of newspaper-reader/voter psychology. Who will benefit politically from the unwinding of the AGW fable? What will be the effect on the credibility of scientific expertise? How will all that grass-roots carbon-related energy be dissipated?

Whether Chris Field is a climate expert or not is a question of monumental triviality. How the BBC, the serious press, and other political and social actors emerge from this saga is important . The maintream media can’t see this story, because they’re right in the middle of it.

You,,and a tiny number of other blogs, like Bishop Hill and Climate Resistance, are working on the scoop of the century. Keep at it.



I often have imaginings of how this whole sorry episode will look 100 years from now (with all the usual caveats as to whether civilization and science survive, etc.). 100 years ago the eugenics episode was getting well underway. It doesn't look pretty looking back at it. This one's going to look way worse -- darkest episode in science to date.


Impenitent Nazi Pelosi pushes ahead with GW bill

HWH's picture

This was her reply when confronted with doubts from moderate demscum in the house and senate.

Notice that she says they are building their consensus (not facts). Reminds me of a movie I watched about the trial of Joan de Arc at the hands of the Catholic inquisitors. Obviously facts didn't matter and she was burnt on condemnation of consensus that she was a witch. Their motive was just to get rid of competition, and in Pelosi's case her passing of the bill is to fulfill promises of pull.

"We're building our consensus," Pelosi said, "and when we're ready, we'll bring it to the floor. I've never been driven by a Senate timetable or what they're willing to pass. We set our own pace and our own standard here."

full story here

Hopefully the GOP will come up with a bit of a show like they did here against Pelosi shutting congress down for debate about local oil production

Glenn Beck on Earth Hour

Marcus's picture

Prince Charles, the King of Green.

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Prince Charles warns world leaders of climate change 'misery'

The consequences of the global financial crisis could pale into insignificance when compared with the human misery caused by failing to address climate change, the Prince of Wales told world leaders on Wednesday.

01 Apr 2009

In a meeting at historic St James's Palace in London, the Prince told a number of heads of state attending tomorrow's G20 summit that more must be done to protect the rainforests as a means of slowing the rate of climate change.

Opening the meeting, the Prince said: "As important and concerning as the global financial crisis is, its challenges and consequences will pale into insignificance when compared with the scale and extent of human misery and suffering, social and economic if our actions to tackle climate change are too little or too late or both."

Among those attending were US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon...

Wartime frugality needed to help fight climate change, says Energy Saving Trust

People should return to the "wartime frugality" of make-do-and-mend, holidaying at home and using every scrap of food to help tackle climate change, according to a Government-funded agency.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
01 Apr 2009

The Energy Saving Trust campaign will revive a number of ideas seen during the Second World War, such as the "Dig for Victory" campaign to encourage people to grow fruit and vegetables and "Don't be Fuelish", encouraging people to cut their energy use.

But this time instead of saving resources because the country is at war, the effort is intended to cut waste and carbon emissions in an effort to slow global warming.

A survey of more than 1,500 people commissioned by the EST found around 70 per cent thought local communities should work together more to help manage resources in an echo of the communal nature of the wartime effort.

Examples could include sharing leftover food with neighbours or car sharing.

More than half of respondents thought measures such as rationing or personal daily allowances were needed to help...

Scepticism alive and kicking in the UK too...

Marcus's picture

...Ellen, just look at the comments to Monbiot's piece. People often turn up to tell him he's a left-wing nut-job talking nonsense.

The other day I heard Lord Stern (the architect of the famous Stern report) interviewed on talk radio about his new book, Blueprint for a Safer Planet. The vast majority of responses from the public said that it was a load of nonsense. In general, the public is becoming less and less convinced of AGW the more they see politicians cynically cashing in on it.

Stern's response to any criticism from the public was the same. "Well, he or she doesn't know the science like I do and should therefore go-away and do some more reading."

Skepticism going mainstream & Monbiot

Ellen Stuttle's picture

The Sunday NYTimes running that article about Dyson is watershedish -- not as if Dyson hasn't been a skeptic for a number of years, but the NYT wouldn't have featured a story saying so until recently.

A couple other close-to-home little signs: Larry's only gotten the one irate comment which I already reported. On the other hand, he's gotten calls from two popular local columnists who want to interview him, and who sound as if they mean to be fair.

Also, last night he gave a presentation for some students in an environmental program. About 20 attended. He said at the start that he had a couple questions he wanted to ask them: How many believed there's a threat of AGW?; among those who believed, for what reasons? Not one of the students attending raised a hand at the first question. Of course, the audience was expected to be mostly comprised of those with doubts, or at least willingness to hear counter-evidence to alarmist claims. Still, it's a sign of a shift in opinion occurring that about 20 environmental program students attended, none indicating belief at the outset of the talk.

Re Monbiot, what he's saying is what others are saying, too. The expected. Re the number of retirees -- of course; retirees aren't under threat of losing their jobs.


RealClimate comment re "facts" of global warming

Ellen Stuttle's picture

I've been reading parts of the RealClimate thread re the CATO ad.

291 comments last I looked.

Here's one (#291 - see below) which I find interesting because of its repeating the litany of supposed "facts" which are claimed to be beyond dispute.

Notice the weasel language:

- "large"; relative to what? (not large -- about 3% -- relative even to the total atmospheric CO2);

- "dramatically"? oh, really? (to all of about 388 ppm, when the CO2 has been much higher at other times);

- "more of the Sun's energy" being retained? (as in how much more, if the purported effect is even occurring?)

- the Earth's supposed "heat[ing] up"? (by how much? and is the temperature increase global or local? and how accurate is the record, given badly placed reading stations and other problems?);

- "rapid and extreme changes"; oh, REALLY? Do tell.

(The parts I deleted ask good questions of a previous commenter re scientific epistemology and the meaning of "fact" in science. However, the good points are then thrown away by the poster's assertions.)


direct link

SecularAnimist Says:
1 avril 2009 at 9:41 AM


The science relevant to Obama’s statement — the ~fact~ that human activities, principally the burning of fossil fuels, are releasing large quantities of previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, the ~fact~ that this has dramatically increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2, the ~fact~ that this anthropogenic increase in CO2 is causing the Earth system to retain more of the Sun’s energy, the ~fact~ that this is causing the Earth to heat up, the ~fact~ that this anthropogenic warming is already causing rapid and extreme changes to the Earth’s climate, hydrosphere and biosphere — all of this science is beyond dispute.




Bob Carter's current Quadrant article

Ellen Stuttle's picture

I was thinking as I read it (thanks for the link, Marcus) that it's an extension including details specifically for Australia (and minus the graphics) of his lunch talk at Heartland. He says as much at the end.

I'll copy most of the concluding section -- the part relevant to every earthly locale. See the full text for the final remarks pertinent specifically to Australia:



Bob Carter
A New Policy Direction for Climate Change
April 2009
Volume LIII Number 4

It is time to move away from “he-says-she-says” arguments about whether human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous warming, and on to designing effective policies of hazard management for all climate change, based on adaptation responses that are tailored for individual countries or regions. For the key issue on which all scientists agree is that natural climate change is real, and recent history exemplifies the substantial human and environmental damage that it can cause.

The current public “debate” on climate is not so much a debate as an incessant and shrill campaign to scare citizens into accepting dramatic changes in their way of life in pursuit of the false god of preventing dangerous global warming. Furthermore, this “debate” is consistently misrepresented by the media as being between morally admirable “believers” and morally challenged “deniers”. Such shallow moralities have nothing to do with science, which derives its considerable moral and practical authority from the objective use of facts, experiments and analytical reasoning to test hypotheses about the natural world.

The global warming issue has become big business indeed for bureaucrats, politicians and business, as well as for scientists and environmental NGOs. It has been estimated that Western countries alone are currently spending at least $5 billion annually on global warming-related research or policy formulation. This buys a lot of science and influences a lot of adherents. Doug Hoffman and Allen Simmons (in The Resilient Earth, 2008) estimate that currently the United Nations alone funds 60,000 projects that deal with (human-caused) climate change. The ascendancy of President Obama to his Washington throne has been greeted by a more than 300 per cent increase in global warming lobbyists to Washington, with 770 companies and interest groups hiring 2340 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change in the past year.

All of this activity, and much more besides, is predicated upon the supposition that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming. Instead, the hard reality is that after twenty years of intensive research effort, and great expenditure, no convincing empirical evidence exists that the human effect on climate (which is undeniable locally) adds up to a measurable global signal. Rather, it seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.

The IPCC’s Plan A, therefore, is a dead parrot. For “greenhouse gas reduction”, by any means, becomes an irrelevancy when it can only deal with as-yet-unmeasured, human-caused global warming, at a time when the globe has been cooling for ten years. But just as the “science” that is cited in favour of dangerous human warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions shows all the hallmarks of orchestrated propaganda, so too the real science shows beyond doubt that the wide array of extreme natural events—which include climatic warming trends, cooling trends, step-events, heat waves, droughts, cyclones, floods and snowstorms—pose great dangers for humanity.

Australia therefore now needs a Plan B [...].

This article represents an expanded version of a paper given at the Heartland International Climate Change Conference, New York, in March this year. Bob Carter reported on Homeland-2 for Quadrant Online and his reports can be found here.
Further information relevant to the issues discussed can be found on Bob Carter’s website.



Climate change scepticism is going mainstream!

Marcus's picture

From The Times
April 1, 2009

Chill winds take heat off global warming

LA Notebook: Climate change scepticism is going mainstream

Chris Ayres

Well, that didn't take long, did it? After six months of economic hardship and one unusually chilly winter, it seems that Americans are beginning to conclude that perhaps global warming wasn't such a big deal after all. Blowing $30,000 on a solar roof doesn't seem such a great move these days. And for the price of a Toyota Prius you can now buy a three-bedroomed house in Detroit with enough left for a pick-up truck (this isn't a joke - the median house price in Motor City is $7,500).

The ranks of America's “climate sceptics” have been growing quietly for some months now. And at the weekend a watershed was reached: the usually left-wing New York Times put the British-born physicist Freeman Dyson on the front of its Sunday magazine. The article inside revealed that Professor Dyson - 85 years old and based in Princeton - not only possesses one of the finest noodles on Planet Earth, but also happens to think that most of what Al Gore and his band of Unmerry Men preach amounts to little more than yuppie self-loathing.

“All the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated,” is how Professor Dyson puts it. He adds that while it's true that human-caused carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, the Earth is still going through a relatively cool period in its history, and that most of the evolution of life took place in a warmer era. Professor Dyson is also fond of pointing out that carbon dioxide helps plants to grow - so having too much of the stuff hanging around might not be such a bad thing.

Out in the blogotwittersphere, the Greens can hardly believe that the same media that once helped Mr Gore to win both an Oscar and a Nobel prize are now promoting such heresy. To make matters more infuriating, Professor Dyson isn't even a conservative: he's a left-wing, Obama-voting, peace-marching, boho-academic genius who argues that coal-produced electricity has liberated millions in China from poverty, and that “greens are people who've never had to worry about grocery bills”...

NY Times

Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession

Published: March 28, 2009

WASHINGTON — Windmills and solar panel arrays have become symbols of America’s growing interest in alternative energy. Yet as Congress begins debating new rules to restrict carbon dioxide emissions and promote electricity produced from renewable sources, an underlying question is how much more Americans will be willing to pay to harness the wind and the sun.

Curbing carbon dioxide emissions — a central part of tackling climate change — will almost certainly raise electricity prices, experts say. And increasing the nation’s reliance on renewable energy will in itself raise costs.

Fifteen months into a recession, that prospect does not sit well in some quarters.

“Consumers right now are extremely price-sensitive,” said Barry Moline, executive director of the Florida Municipal Electric Association, whose member utilities serve about three million people...

Quadrant Magazine

April 2009

A New Policy Direction for Climate Change
Bob Carter

Famously, during the 1992 US election Bill Clinton’s staff hung a sign on the wall of his campaign office that read, “It’s the economy, stupid!” It was no coincidence that Mr Clinton won the subsequent election, because focusing on real issues is what real leaders do.

In contrast, Australia currently possesses leaders of both its government and opposition who are lost in an imaginary world of virtual reality about one of the most important public issues of the day. They need a new and different sign on their desk, namely: It’s natural climate change, stupid!

For, whether it reflects simple ignorance or the sophisticated seeking of political advantage, and it must be one or the other, both Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull have declared themselves in favour of the introduction of carbon dioxide taxation in order to help “stop” a wholly imaginary human-caused global warming. Their beliefs are supported only by speculative computer climate models already known to be wrong, and they will implement an emissions trading system (ETS) at their own political peril and to the great detriment of the Australian people.

Get this. First, there has been no recent global warming in the common meaning of the term, for world average temperature has cooled for the last ten years. Furthermore, since 1940 the earth has warmed for nineteen years and cooled for forty-nine, the overall result being that global average temperature is now about the same as it was in 1940...

Ellen, I warned you that Monbiot is a nasty piece of work!

Marcus's picture

Climate change deniers: the usual suspects with no credibility

Rightwing Cato Institute fails to impress with predictable list of debunkers

Posted by
George Monbiot
Tuesday 31 March 2009

I was waiting with bated breath. Last week the Cato Institute — one of the scores of wildly rightwing lobby groups that masquerade as thinktanks in the US — circulated an ad that it intended to place in American newspapers. It was the same old rubbish, debunked a thousand times:

We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated … no net global warming for over a decade .. computer models failing to explain recent climate behavior etc etc

But what observers found intriguing was the draft list of signatories.

Who was this mysterious 'Professor Name Here'? And how had they managed to clone him? Just what is going on in the back offices of the Cato Institute?

Of course, they were fishing for someone, anyone, other than the usual suspects, to sign up to their nonsense. I couldn't wait to see who they found. So when it came [PDF] I was sorely disappointed...


Ellen Stuttle's picture

So far, Larry's only gotten one irate response -- a phone call from a woman who didn't give her name, merely identifying herself as an area "academic." She said she's embarrassed anyone from the University of Hartford signed, and that he's done "a disservice to the nation and to future generations." Also, she misstated the message of the ad as being that the need for action can be postponed.

What we wonder is why Fred Singer isn't a signatory. Maybe he just didn't see the request in time -- they had a strict deadline.


With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

Marcus's picture

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect...

The Independent

Leaders to meet in summer for special climate change talks

Obama's call hits home, writes Geoffrey Lean

Sunday, 29 March 2009

Leaders attending the G20 meeting in London plan to gather again in the summer for a special summit on tackling climate change, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

The new summit – which is being called on the initiative of President Barack Obama as part of a US drive to get a new international agreement on tackling global warming – is to take place alongside the annual G8 gathering of world leaders on the island of La Maddalena off Sardinia.

Scientists and environmentalists will hope that it will make up for a failure by the leaders at this week's meeting to do more than agree warm words about the need for a "green new deal" and the importance of building low-carbon economies. Every nation attending has flatly refused to discuss any commitment to devote an agreed percentage of its financial stimulus package to green measures, insisting instead on focusing on relatively short-term measures to tackle the immediate financial crisis...


Marcus's picture

...the author must be an editor.

Perhaps this one?

Deputy Managing Editor/News
Geoff Etnyre

...but take your pick.

"The issue [...] is SETTLED." (by Monckton?)

Ellen Stuttle's picture

(First: Why is the line length so long on this thread? Can it be fixed?)


The Washington Post editorial Marcus linked below, "Protect us from the EPA," doesn't say who wrote it (that I could find), but whoever, I wonder if the author was conferring with Christopher Monckton during the latter's post-Heartland sojourn in Washington.

The points made are well laid out and indicate background briefing.

The comments to the article are worth reading.

I'll copy in full a 2-parter by someone signing as "Obambi."

I would not be at all surprised if this is by Monckton:



March 30, 2009 at 2:37 a.m. & 2:39 a.m.


Sorry to disappoint you skeptics, but the issue of Global Warming is SETTLED.

How could it possibly be otherwise? The evidence for catastrophic global warming is overwhelming. Consider these points:

Firstly and most importantly, Hollywood has closed ranks on this issue. If that isn't the very definition of "settled science," then what is? Just who do you think produces all the Discovery & History & Weather Channel docudramaturdizations? Yes, I hear rumors that not all Hollywoodheads are behind Climate Hysteria, but if they value their careers, they know better than to open their yaps. And hey, it's not just the movie stars/starlets, but it's all the top rock artists as well. Issue settled!

Secondly, re$earch in$titute$ all over America do be$t when $cientific i$$ue$ are hyperpoliticized so as to scare politicians into doling out the big buck$. The demise of the Cold War has been an unmitigated di$a$ter for re$earch in$titution$, and the recent re$earch $$ scared up by Global Warming Hy$teria still hasn't begun to fill the gigantic post-1992 financial hole. Countless examples abound of GW skeptic scientists who are fired, marginalized, muzzled, defunded, reassigned to Patagonia and otherwise intimidated, to stop their Traitorous speech. That's right, I used the T-word, because any member of a group who speaks out in a way endangering the incoming cash spigots, naturally is seen as a Traitor by his/her colleagues. A reputation of "GW Skeptics" for any research team leads to less funding. Less funding leads to downsizing. If your colleague's "free speech right" endangers your employment, then, by golly, Honest Scientific Inquiry Be Damned. Conscience Be Damned. (Take that, Galileo). Issue settled!

Thirdly, the GW issue, more than any other since WWII, appears to be the Holy Grail that UN supporters have long been questing for. If leading nations such as the US can be convinced to agree to a worldwide tax to support the UN for some Vitally Important global issue that's perceived as too large for one nation to tackle, and threatens the very future of the human race if some massive intervention isn't undertaken soon, then several humongous precedents can be established: 1) UN taxing authority (no matter how small it first starts out as), and 2) The entrusting of a major amount of authority to the UN, along with widespread acknowledgement of how vitally important the UN is to humankind's future. Leading voices of the American Left have been pushing for decades for America to cede authority to the UN, with the ultimate goal of having the detested, loathed, US military absorbed into UN "peacekeeeping" forces eventually. GW is the most promising issue to come along in years for these Americans who are abjectly ashamed of the political and military power their country wields, and who will only sleep soundly when that power is largely transferred to the UN. Issue settled!

Fourthly, the Mainstream Media has closed ranks on this issue. Issue settled!

Fifthly and sixthly, Congressional leadership and the White House have closed ranks. Cap-And-Trade could end up being the biggest new tax on America ever levied, with its entire justification resting on GW hysteria. If we don't have use of the trillions of $$ from Cap-And-Trade to prop up the Auto Unions, NEA Unions, and (soon to come) Nationalized Health Care Unions, just where will we get that kind of money? Issue settled!

So forget about trying to "open up" this issue for debate any time soon. Issue settled!


Bjorn Lomborg, Traitor

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Was on Fox today in an Earth Hour retro. Completely conceded the case that human beings caused GW and said the only problem with Earth Hour was that it *increased* carbon emissions when the lights were switched on again. The bastard! A snake in our midst.

James Lovelock "A dangerous green ideology". He should know!

Marcus's picture

'Windfarms' are just the product of a dangerous green ideology

A campaign is being fought that uses social rejection to make us accept industrial-scale wind energy stations across the UK

James Lovelock, Sunday 29 March 2009

In Prague Castle at a Forum 2000 conference hosted by President Vaclav Havel, I heard the distinguished novelist and freedom fighter Wole Soyinka say with great passion that political correctness is evil. He argued that while brute force is one way to take away our democratic rights, they can be lost as easily by the social rejection of political correctness.

It seems we are now subject to a campaign that uses social rejection as a force to make us accept industrial-scale wind energy stations across the UK; to call them windfarms is disingenuous.

As part of this campaign, the great and the good are hectoring on the moral need to embrace wind energy. No less a person than the environment minister, Ed Miliband, said: "Opposition to windfarms should be as unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt."

Knowing that seatbelts are a legal requirement, those who care for freedom should beware. To reinforce the minister's warning, the Green party pleaded for wind energy in a broadcast as if it were holier than motherhood. Even that much-loved and respected charity, the RSPB, is now using our subscriptions to lobby for wind energy.

If wind energy were the one practical and affordable answer to global warming then I would grit my teeth at the loss of the countryside and accept it. But I know that windfarms are no answer to global warming in northern Europe.

The Germans, who have invested more than anyone in this form of energy, are finding, according to Der Spiegel, that despite more than 17,000 wind turbines across Germany the nation is emitting more CO2 than before it built them...

Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Protect us from the EPA

Sunday, March 29, 2009

One man's meat may be another man's poison, but the Environmental Protection Agency has taken the idea to an absurdity. EPA has just sent a proposal to the White House that would classify carbon dioxide as a health hazard.

But if there wasn't carbon dioxide around, there would be no plants. And, for that matter, neither would there be any people or pets if we weren't allowed to exhale. The claimed "health hazard" from carbon dioxide is, of course, global warming, yet the data we have seen, such as Stanford economist Thomas Gale Moore's work, show that warmer temperatures and higher incomes are associated with healthier, longer-living people. In case environmentalists haven't noticed, bio-diversity is also much greater when temperatures are higher.

Over history, human civilizations have expanded during warmer periods but declined when it got cold. For a history lesson, we recommend University of California Professor Brian Fagan's excellent book, "The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History."...

From The Times
March 30, 2009

America ‘can’t wave magic wand’ on climate change

Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter, Bonn

Expectations of what can be achieved by the United States in fighting global warming are unrealistic, climate change negotiators from more than 170 countries have been told.

Hopes raised by a new willingness in the White House to take action to control climate change must be balanced by a realisation that there are limits to what the US can do, they were told.

Todd Stern, President Obama’s special envoy on climate change, moved to play down hopes as the US joined UN talks on global warming in Bonn. These are designed to smooth the path to a summit in Copenhagen in December when it is hoped that international agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions can be reached.

“The US is going to be powerfully and fervently engaged in this process,” Mr Stern said shortly before the talks started. “That doesn’t mean that anyone should be thinking that the US can ride in on a white horse and make it work, because it can’t. What we can do is return to the table with energy and commitment, and commitment to science and pragmatism to getting a deal that will be doable. We are all going to have to do this together. We don’t have a magic wand.”...

He's not taking the mickey Sandi

gregster's picture

But with a name like Great Dick (Geert Dierick), I can understand your apprehension.

"Transition Aotearoa" should sound alarm bells. Transition to dirt-worshipping statism. The enemy.


gregster's picture


Dumb verus Clever

Sandi's picture

I came across this wee gem from the Transition Aoetearoa Forum.

"Especially worrying is the Climate Science Coalition. There are several websites of these, including one in New Zealand. There is a list of 33 recommended websites on this site, all more or less focussed on 'debunking' Climate Change. Sites like 'The carbon sense coalition', 'It's a scam!' and 'Ice Age now'.

There are complete videos there with interviews with 'scientists' and 'scientific evidence' that Climate Change isn't happening or at least not caused by human activity.

What is the best response to these Climate critics?

Do we ignore them with the risk that their efforts indeed convince an important part of the population and make strong action even more difficult. Or do we actively discuss their arguments and presence, and work to make people realise that these arguments are false and the motives biased.

I would go for option two. "

Is this guy for real or do you think someone is taking the mick?

Oh good, we are exporting all the nutcases to you! :-)

Marcus's picture

From The Sunday Times
March 29, 2009

British eco-migrants flee to New Zealand

Jonathan Leake and Anna Rushworth

NEW ZEALAND is seeing its first influx of British eco-migrants, environmental refugees who have quit the UK because they fear the long-term impacts of climate change.

The country’s islands, renowned for their temperate climate, clean environment and low population, have often been put forward by greens as potential “lifeboats” for a world suffering serious warming.

Recently, James Lovelock, the scientist and creator of the Gaia theory, said in his new book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, that New Zealand could be one of the world’s last havens as climate change fundamentally changes the planet.

Such effects are expected to take years or decades to happen but some families are already trying to anticipate them.

Among them are Lizzy and Mike Larmer-Cottle who have moved their family from London to Albany, half an hour north of Auckland on North Island, surrounded by rolling hills and beaches...

Daily Telegraph

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.

Christopher Booker
28 Mar 2009

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about...

Archbishop of Canterbury: "God will not save us!"

Marcus's picture

God won't protect humanity from environmental 'doomsday', warns Archbishop
By Daily Mail Reporter

26th March 2009

God is not going to intervene to prevent humanity from wreaking disastrous damage to the environment, the Archbishop of Canterbury warned last night as he called for a 'radical change of heart' to prevent runaway climate change.

Dr Rowan Williams said there needed to be a 'conversion' by humanity away from selfishness and greed that leads us to turn a 'blind eye' to the destruction of the environment and to our interdependence with the natural world.

He warned in a lecture at York Minster that God would not guarantee a 'happy ending' and as just as God gave us free will to do 'immeasurable damage' to ourselves as individuals it seemed 'clear' that we had the same 'terrible freedom' as a human race.

'I think that to suggest that God might intervene to protect us from the corporate folly of our practices is as unchristian and unbiblical as to suggest that he protects us from the results of our individual folly or sin,' he said.

'This is not a creation in which there are no real risks - our faith has always held that the inexhaustible love of God cannot compel justice or virtue - we are capable of doing immeasurable damage to ourselves as individuals, and it seems clear that we have the same terrible freedom as a human race...

Our duty to the earth

God will not step in to save us from our own folly, greed and neglect

Rowan Williams, Thursday 26 March 2009

...All this echoes what St Paul touches on in Romans 8: creation is in some sense frustrated so long as humanity is "unredeemed". The world is less than it might be so long as human beings are less than they might be, since the capacity of human beings to shape the material environment into a sign of justice and generosity is blocked by human selfishness. In the doomsday scenarios we are so often invited to contemplate, the ultimate tragedy is that a material world capable of being a manifestation in human hands of divine love is left to itself, as humanity is gradually choked, drowned or starved by its own stupidity. The disappearance of humanity from a globe no longer able to support it would be a terrible negation of God's purpose for a world in which created intelligence draws out the most transformative and rich possibilities in its material home. As is true in various ways throughout the whole created order, humanity and its material context are made so that they may find fulfilment in their relationship. Without each other they are not themselves. And the deliberate human refusal of this shared vocation with and within the material order of things is thus an act of rebellion against the creator...

Now it may be a long way from the technicalities of recalculating economic gains in terms of environmental cost to the experience of "erotic joy" in relation to God. But the distinctive Christian approach to responsibility for our environment has somehow to hold these two languages together. Finally, our care for the world we inhabit is not simply a duty laid upon us but a dimension of life made whole: a redeeming activity grounded in the character of our own redemption, a revelation of the true "face" of creation as we ourselves undergo the uncovering of our own human face before God. Going back to the root meaning of the Hebrew word, what we're asked to undertake is in fact a conversion – a turning – towards the truth: towards the God who is eternally active and giving in ways beyond our concepts, towards the hidden depths of who we ourselves are – and thus towards the face of the earth, seeing it freshly in its unfathomable interrelatedness. As Ps 104 (vv 29-30) has it, when God hides his face, creation is locked in fear and slips towards death; when he breathes on creation (when he "sends his spirit"), creation happens all over again, and the face of the earth is renewed. That turning of the Spirit towards the earth is the movement that carries our love and intelligence in the same direction, so that we can properly make answer for, be responsible for, our world.

I said it here

gregster's picture

World Will Agree No Climate Deal, Mr Gore.

Good to see that's what will eventuate.

Liked the Stupid Franny vs Clever Martin. Smiling


Ellen Stuttle's picture

attended a talk Larry gave at Princeton on AGW issues, I think it was last September (daren't go off-screen to look, since the site is still blowing my browser, and I want to post while I have a working screen).

If I knew how to post an image, I'd post a photo of the poster for Larry's talk; it's a really good photo of him.

Larry says Dyson is still very sharp.


Science Demi-God Dyson an AGW Heretic, despite leftie leanings

HWH's picture

IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO that Dyson began publicly stating his doubts about climate change. Speaking at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University, Dyson announced that “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.” Since then he has only heated up his misgivings, declaring in a 2007 interview with that “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” and writing in an essay for The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin, that climate change has become an “obsession” — the primary article of faith for “a worldwide secular religion” known as environmentalism. Among those he considers true believers, Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”

Find full story at

Franny vs. Martin. Stupid vs. Clever on BBC news.

Marcus's picture

Good news! May the opposition continue...

Marcus's picture

Barack Obama may delay signing up to Copenhagen climate change deal

Patrick Wintour, Wednesday 25 March 2009

Barack Obama may be forced to delay signing up to a new international agreement on climate change in Copenhagen at the end of the year because of the scale of opposition in the US Congress, it emerged today.

Senior figures in the Obama administration have been warning Labour counterparts that the president may need at least another six months to win domestic support for any proposal.

Such a delay could derail the securing of a tough global agreement in time for countries and markets to adopt it before the Kyoto treaty runs out in 2012.

American officials would prefer to have the approval of Congress for any international agreement and fear that if the US signed up without it there would be a serious domestic backlash...

The British government view, including that of the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, is that the Obama administration can and will strike a deal at Copenhagen, but officials in Washington fear America may be running out of time. They have even been looking at whether an agreement would be seen as an international treaty requiring a two-thirds majority in Congress, or whether it could be forced through as a presidential executive order.

But the opposition within America is potentially substantial, and might be hardened if Obama looks like he is presenting Congress with a fait accompli.

There are thought to be as many as 15 Democratic senators who represent "rust-belt" states dependent on coal mining, steel production and heavy manufacturing, all big emitters of carbon.

There have also been suggestions that the cost of any climate change legislation may be higher than the $646bn (£444bn) suggested by the Obama administration...

Daily Telegraph

Wind farm plans in doubt after investor cuts programme

The world's biggest investor in wind power is scaling back its programme in Britain, threatening to scupper plans to build hundreds of new wind turbines.

By Murray Wardrop
26 Mar 2009

Iberdrola Renewables will cut its British investment by more than 40 per cent, it was reported.

The £300 million withdrawal could have paid for a wind farm capable of powering 200,000 homes.

The news is the latest blow to Gordon Brown's target of generating 35 per cent of Britain's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Iberdrola Renewables' chief executive, Xabier Viteri, whose Spanish parent owns ScottishPower, blamed the economic crisis for the cutback, The Times reoprted.

It came a day after Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Minister, angered rural campaigners by saying opposition to wind farms is as socially unacceptable as failing to stop at a zebra crossing...

Thanks Ellen and Linz...

Marcus's picture

...however the things I post here never fail to amaze me, despite how many thousands I have now seen.

I still have to shake my head all the time and think, can the Alarmists really think that we (the public) are that stupid?

Obviously they do.

Leeches nervous about lack of blood!

Marcus's picture

State intervention vital if Britain is to meet its green energy targets, says former BP boss

• Browne says markets need new strategic direction
• Consumers will have to pay more for renewables

Alan Rusbridger and David Adam
The Guardian, Wednesday 25 March 2009

Britain must revert to greater state control of energy markets to hit ambitious targets on renewable energy and climate change, according to the former head of BP.

Lord Browne of Madingley warns that market mechanisms are failing to deliver the necessary growth in clean energy. Crucial offshore wind projects could be cancelled unless there is an urgent rethink of energy policy, he says.

In a speech tonight at Cardiff University, Browne will say: "Competition has been the guiding star of UK energy policy since the 1980s and it worked well while there was a surplus of energy infrastructure capacity. But price competition is now failing to deliver the new, more diversified infrastructure that we urgently need to bolster energy security and meet our climate change targets.

"I remain convinced that the market is the most effective delivery unit available to society. But the market will need a new strategic direction and a new framework of rules, laid down by government."

Under EU efforts to combat global warming, Britain must generate 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. The bulk of this is expected to be met by the electricity sector, and ministers have announced plans to build thousands of offshore wind turbines off the UK coast.

In an interview with the Guardian in advance of the speech, Browne, president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said there was a real risk that many of these windfarms would not be built, because of high costs, falling power prices and more expensive credit. His words echo the concerns of others in the industry...

EPA sends CO2 'danger' assessment to Obama. Zombies stir

William Scott Scherk's picture

Bloomberg is one of many sites to report on the EPA's “Proposal for Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases” which is now being mulled by the Obama administration. Readers interested in the political ploys to be expected can find the full story here, and several hundred links to other coverage here. The upshot is that EPA's regulatory hand would not be in action for years, whereas the cap and trade scheme could be passed much earlier -- if the administration rolls . . . and the opposition rolls over. Report by Catherine Dodge.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed declaration that greenhouse gases pose a health danger will ratchet up pressure on Congress to pass new limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants and factories.

Approval of the finding would clear the way for the EPA to impose the first limits on carbon dioxide emissions from carmakers such as General Motors Corp., utilities such as American Electric Power Co., along with steelmakers and other manufacturers. Administration officials said yesterday that the proposal had been sent to the White House for review.

Still, President Barack Obama, business and environmental groups all say they prefer that Congress, not the EPA, develop rules for U.S. industrial polluters so that competing interests would have a say. Congress is under pressure to act because the so-called endangerment finding by the EPA would let the agency write rules without input from lawmakers.

[ . . . ]

Bill Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology, and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said an endangerment finding by the EPA is the wrong path to limiting emissions.

“The unintended consequences could be great,” he said. “The safest way is for EPA to leave it to Congress.

[ . . . ]

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is drafting legislation on a so-called cap and trade system, and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have promised votes this year.

“The president has made quite clear on this that the way to deal with greenhouse gases is to work with Congress in order to put together a plan that deals with this and creates a market for renewable energy,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said yesterday.

[ . . . ]

Thomas Gavin, a spokesman at the Office of Management and Budget, said the White House has received the EPA’s proposed finding and “we hope to expedite the review process.”

An OMB Web site shows that the White House is reviewing the EPA document, titled a “Proposal for Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases.” The Web site doesn’t contain other details.

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the proposal was sent to the White House March 20. She wouldn’t confirm the content of the finding.

Before any finding becomes final, there would be a period of public comment, she said in a statement yesterday. The document the EPA submitted doesn’t propose requirements on greenhouse gas emitters or new regulations on current projects, she said.

[ . . . ]

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide could be restricted by the government under the Clean Air Act, and ordered the EPA to determine whether the emissions endangered the public. Former President George W. Bush declined to curb the emissions.

The U.S. produces about 20 percent of the planet’s man-made carbon-dioxide emissions, according to Energy Department figures.

U.S. Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who heads House global warming panels, said in a written statement that the EPA finding “will officially end the era of denial on global warming.”

Since Obama took office in January, the EPA has taken steps to prepare for regulating greenhouse gases. The agency in March proposed requiring factories to submit annual reports to the federal government on their emissions.

The first reports would be submitted in 2011 and cover emissions in 2010, according to the proposal. Car and engine makers would begin their reports for 2011 models.

See also the Washington Post brief "EPA: Global Warming Endangers Health, which page also features a Q&A with Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch . . .

New York, N.Y.: Since global warming does not exist, how can it affect our health?

Since CO2 is essential to all growth in the world, and anthropogenic emissions recycle two or more times annually, how can you honestly call it pollution?

If you reduce CO2 emissions significantly what would happen? All animal life (that's all of us) life would be dead.

Frank O'Donnell: Thank you for your question.

I doubt that many credible scientists would agree with the assertion that global warming does not exist. About a year ago, I was on a televised panel discussion with an industry lobbyist who readily agreed the planet is getting warmer. He said that is very clear, and that the issue is what to do about it. I agree completely with him.

As to your question about health, the EPA scientists have noted that climate change is expected to lead to increases in regional ozone pollution, with associated risks in respiratory infection, aggravation of asthma, and premature death. This is consistent with the findings of the United Nations scientific panel that had studied the issue.

I will leave it up to the scientists to respond to the interesting thought that "all animal life" would die if CO2 emissions drop, but I would note that many people did live years ago when atmospheric CO2 levels were at the levels being targeted by reputable scientists.

Obama's cap and trade scheme meets lobbyist muscle

William Scott Scherk's picture

-- as reported by Marianne Lavelle of Yale's Environment 360 site (emphasis added):

Climate action advocates found the sign they had been waiting for in Summary Table 4 of President Obama’s budget plan: The administration intends to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions that would cost fossil fuel industries $646 billion through 2019 — creating a new pot of federal money in the process.

That stark row of numbers also gave opponents of climate legislation what they had been waiting for: a call to arms. “The Obama budget did more to help us consolidate and coalesce the business community than anything we could have done,” William Kovacs, who heads up regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told The Wall Street Journal.

If the stage is now set for the climate battle to begin, there is no shortage of combatants. A Center for Public Integrity analysis shows that, by the end of last year, more than 770 companies and interest groups had hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change. That’s an increase of more than 300 percent in just five years, and means that Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.

[full text]

Hey, hooray for Joanne Nova!

Ellen Stuttle's picture

That's good news about her Handbook.

(And, once again, expressing my thanks for this thread.)



Lindsay Perigo's picture

This thread must now be - or would be if enough folk knew about it - one of the most valuable resources in the world in the campaign against the GW hysterics. Just letting you know, again, that it's appreciated.

Green dictatorship comes ever closer!

Marcus's picture

US to review global warming health threat

Barack Obama reviewing suggestion that global warming is threat to public health – bringing possible end to George Bush's 'era of denial', Tuesday 24 March 2009

The White House is reviewing a suggestion by the US environmental agency that global warming is a threat to public health and welfare.

Such a declaration by the Environmental Protection Agency would be the first step to regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the US Clean Air Act and could have broad economic and environmental ramifications...

Opposing wind farms should be socially taboo, says Ed Miliband

Allegra Stratton, political correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday 24 March 2009

Opposition to wind farms should become as socially unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt, Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, has said.

Speaking at a screening in London of the climate change documentary The Age of Stupid, Miliband said the government needed to be stronger in facing down local opposition to wind farms.

He said: "The government needs to be saying, 'It is socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area - like not wearing your seatbelt or driving past a zebra crossing'."...

Lewis Gordon Pugh

Marcus's picture

From Wikipedia:

"In September he attempted to kayak from Svalbard, across the Arctic Ocean, towards the North Pole to further highlight the melting sea ice. The expedition coincided with some scientists predicting that the North Pole could be free of sea-ice for the first time this summer; however, Pugh was forced to abandon his planned 745-mile (1,199 km) trip about 500 miles (800 km) from the North Pole due to ice."

I wonder why the BBC, after promoting his attempt, never actually reported the outcome?

Bias, perhaps?

The Skeptics Handbook - Spreads En masse 150,000 Copies

Marcus's picture

By Joanne Nova

"A donor in the US felt The Skeptics Handbook was so worthwhile that they have paid to print and post 150,000 copies of the booklet through Heartland. Just soak in that number. A “bestseller” only has to notch up 5,000 copies. As always, Joseph Bast and his team are efficient and ambitious."

First Democrat Sceptic

Marcus's picture

Must Listen: Lord Monckton on Gordon Liddy radio show

Marcus's picture

Interview with heroic sceptic Lord Monckton. Listen to the end (after Liddy says goodbye) because he then brings Monckton back for extra time.

Edit: Also an interview with Monckton at the Hearland Conference

The climate change Taliban

Marcus's picture

Great party, shame about the leader!

The Independent

Cameron fury at 'climate change Taliban' jibe

By David Birchall and Geoffrey Lean

David Cameron yesterday slapped down a senior Tory who compared climate change activists to the Taliban, as he continued his attempt to green his party, despite the recession and opposition from sceptics.

Sources close to the Conservative leader described as "inappropriate" a website entry by Roger Evans, a London Assembly member, describing anti-airport campaigners as "the climate change Taliban".

And a spokesman for Boris Johnson, London's Mayor – who once compared concern about global warming to "Stone Age religion" – added: "This is not language that the Mayor would use."

The assembly's assessment sub-committee is now determining whether the remark should be investigated by its standards board.

Ironically, "the Taliban" is also the epithet privately used by green Tories for the party's climate change sceptics...

Daily Telegraph

Carbon footprint labels should be displayed on new products say MPs

Labels showing a product's carbon footprint should be displayed on goods and services to help consumers tackle climate change, according to an influential committee of MPs.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
23 Mar 2009

Some foods are already displaying "carbon reduction labels" alongside the ingredients to show how much of the greenhouse gas was produced in the manufacture of a product.

However a report from the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) said a proliferation of different environmental labels are confusing for consumers and allow companies to appear more eco-friendly than they actually are in a method known as "greenwash"

The committee wants a robustly monitored system of environmental labels to show the impact of each product, including labels showing the carbon emissions produced, so that consumers can make a more informed choice.

Colin Challen, a member of the committee, said it was essential goods display carbon content if consumers are to help the UK meet its target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

"Given the challenge we face in decarbonising the economy, the committee believes carbon labelling may prove the single most important environmental measure in promoting behavioural change at home, at work and in business," he said...

The (r)age of stupid

Marcus's picture

The rage of stupid

The passion displayed by The Age of Stupid is no substitute for the intelligence that effective propaganda requires

David Cox Monday
23 March 2009

Who'd go to see a film that's out to prove that most of us are stupid? Not, it must be feared, the supposedly stupid themselves. They'd be too stupid, wouldn't they?

Sadly, such an exercise seems more likely to attract the elect few already blessed with the wisdom that their fellows are deemed to lack. For them, however, the price of a ticket won't buy much-needed enlightenment, but only big-screen authentication for a pre-existing sense of self-righteous superiority...

Fans of The Age of Stupid claim that its passion and verve easily eclipse the plodding exposition of An Inconvenient Truth. God knows, Al Gore's slideshowfest was a dreary watch. Nonetheless, he did try to offer filmgoers a properly argued case. He may not have done too much for the climate cause, but at least he probably didn't set it back.

Memo to future cinematic propagandists: don't assume that those who disagree with you must be stupid; and try to avoid stupidity yourself.

Opposing Global Warming Alarmism = discrimination!

Marcus's picture

Gregster, on friday they had Martin Durkin (GGWS) debate Franny Armstrong (Age of Stupid) on the BBC evening news. Durkin basically said that her film was based on nonsense science, Armstrong basically ignored him.


Sacked executive can sue for unfair dismissal over his green beliefs


An executive, who is devoted to saving the environment, has been given permission to sue his employers for unfair dismissal for allegedly discriminating against his views on climate change.


By Andrew Pierce 
19 Mar 2009 


Tim Nicholson's commitment to green causes was enshrined in law by an employment tribunal as a "philosophical belief" under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations.


The landmark ruling could now pave the way for hundreds more discrimination claims against companies who have ridden roughshod over employees' support for climate change.


Mr Nicholson, 41, was made redundant while head of sustainability at Grainger, Britain's biggest residential property investment company, in July last year.


In the first case of its kind he has been given permission to sue his former employers for unfair dismissal, arguing that his beliefs on the environment prompted clashes with other senior executives, and led to his sacking...

The 'Global Warming Three' are on thin ice

Marcus's picture
[A post that I made twice has gone missing. If it doesn't turn up by tomorrow, as other posts have, I will post it again.]


Daily Telegraph
The 'Global Warming Three' are on thin ice
The ony problem with a project to prove that Arctic ice is disappearing is the fact that it is actually getting thicker, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
21 Mar 2009

Pen Hadow

What a wonderful parable of our time has been the expedition to the North Pole led by the explorer Pen Hadow. With two companions, he is measuring the thickness of the ice to show how fast it is “declining”. His expedition is one of a series of events designed to “raise awareness of the dangers of climate change” before December’s conference in Copenhagen, where the warmists hope to get a new treaty imposing much more drastic cuts on CO2 emissions.

Hadow’s Catlin Arctic Project has top-level backing from the likes of the BBC, the WWF (it could “make a lasting difference to policy-relevant science”) and Prince Charles (“for the sake of our children and grandchildren, I pray that we will heed the results of the Catlin Arctic Survey and I can only commend this remarkably important project”).

With perfect timing, the setting out from Britain of the “Global Warming Three” last month was hampered by “an unusually heavy snowfall”. When they were airlifted to the start of their trek by a twin-engine Otter (one hopes a whole forest has been planted to offset its “carbon footprint”), they were startled to find how cold it was. The BBC dutifully reported how, in temperatures of minus 40 degrees, they were “battered by wind, bitten by frost and bruised by falls on the ice”. ..

Great film review

gregster's picture

I like that guy Brendan O'Neill. Funny too.

"This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. And bear in mind that I have seen both Digby the Biggest Dog in the World and Miss Congeniality II. It strikes me that where officialdom and the environmentalist lobby have created a new elite language to validate their petty and pious political outlook - talking about ‘tipping points’, ‘future generations’, ‘The Science’, ‘denial’ - there is currently no clear, positive cultural defence of aspiration, ambition, the desire for material wealth and more personal choice. So in The Age of Stupid the grinning Indians boarding a GoAir flight can be presented as so many deluded picaninnies and even a Nigerian woman living in poverty can be subtly chastised for wanting more. We urgently need to stand up for the concrete interests of humanity over the paper-plotted fantasy interests of The Planet, if we are to prevent ours from fully becoming the Age of Rationing, of Restraint, of the Rule of the Few."

Brendan O’Neill

At last someone has some sense!

Marcus's picture

Japanese scientists cool on theories

Peter Alford, Tokyo correspondent | March 14, 2009
Article from: The Australian

THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

"I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate," Kanya Kusano told The Weekend Australian.

It could take 10 to 20 years more research to prove or disprove the theory of anthropogenic climate change, said Dr Kusano, a research group leader with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science's Earth Simulator project.

"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth," writes Shunichi Akasofu, founding director of the University of Alaska's International Arctic Research Centre.

Dr Kusano, Dr Akasofu and Tokyo Institute of Technology geology professor Shigenori Maruyama are highly critical of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's acceptance that hazardous global warming results mainly from man-made gas emissions.

On the scientific evidence so far, according to Dr Kusano, the IPCC assertion that atmospheric temperatures are likely to increase continuously and steadily "should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis"...

From The Times
March 18, 2009

Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor

Royal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.

Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.

“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing...

The Independent

Darling vetoes plans for green revolution in snub to Mandelson

Brown says low-carbon plans are 'imperative', but Treasury block could hit new accord with Obama

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Sunday, 8 March 2009

Alistair Darling is blocking a multibillion-pound plan to green Britain, even though Gordon Brown last week described it as an "urgent imperative" for economic recovery, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

The Chancellor's opposition, which has lasted for months, has led to Britain falling far behind other countries in launching a Green New Deal, even as the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers promise to "lead the world" on this path out of the recession.

Mr Darling is frustrating a drive by Ed Miliband and Peter Mandelson, the new Energy and Business secretaries, to launch a "low-carbon industrial revolution" to combat climate change and boost business – and threatens to undermine an increasingly close partnership between Mr Brown and President Barack Obama to push the greening of the global economy at next month's G20 summit in London...

Now the Hansen wants a dictatorship!

Marcus's picture

Leading climate scientist: 'democratic process isn't working'

David Adam, environment correspondent, Wednesday 18 March 2009

Protest and direct action could be the only way to tackle soaring carbon emissions, a leading climate scientist has said.

James Hansen, a climate modeller with Nasa, told the Guardian today that corporate lobbying has undermined democratic attempts to curb carbon pollution. "The democratic process doesn't quite seem to be working," he said.

Speaking on the eve of joining a protest against the headquarters of power firm E.ON in Coventry, Hansen said: "The first action that people should take is to use the democratic process. What is frustrating people, me included, is that democratic action affects elections but what we get then from political leaders is greenwash.

"The democratic process is supposed to be one person one vote, but it turns out that money is talking louder than the votes. So, I'm not surprised that people are getting frustrated. I think that peaceful demonstration is not out of order, because we're running out of time."...

Washington Times

Obama climate plan could cost $2 trillion
Tom LoBianco
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

President Obama's climate plan could cost industry close to $2 trillion, nearly three times the White House's initial estimate of the so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation, according to Senate staffers who were briefed by the White House.

A top economic aide to Mr. Obama told a group of Senate staffers last month that the president's climate-change plan would surely raise more than the $646 billion over eight years the White House had estimated publicly, according to multiple a number of staffers who attended the briefing Feb. 26.

"We all looked at each other like, 'Wow, that's a big number,'" said a top Republican staffer who attended the meeting along with between 50 and 60 other Democratic and Republican congressional aides...
Daily Telegraph

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
16 Mar 2009

In a report on the impact of the recession on attempts to transform the UK into a low-carbon economy, an influential Commons committee reveals that levels of green taxes are now falling while overall tax revenues increase.

And the MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee warn that without tax rises or radical cuts in public spending elsewhere, the Government will not be able to afford to continue the "green stimulus package" announced in the pre-Budget report in November...

Stupid, feckless, greedy: that’s you, that is

Marcus's picture

Monday 16 March 2009

Brendan O’Neill

Stupid, feckless, greedy: that’s you, that is

Imagine a film in which an Asian businessman who spoke loftily of ‘eradicating poverty’ was cast as the villain, while an insufferably middle-class wind-turbine developer from Cornwall was held up as the hero.

Imagine a film in which the audience was encouraged to giggle at the sight of the wealthy Asian using a red carpet to board his plane - ha ha, who do these foreigners think they are! - and was then cajoled into crying when the wind-turbine developer phoned his mum to break the news that Bedford Council refused him permission to build 10 new windmills. Imagine a film which played so promiscuously fast and loose with the ‘scientific facts’ that it strongly implied that the Asian businessman’s penchant for flying was responsible for fatal rainstorms in Mumbai, and that Bedford Council’s rejection of our heroic wind-turbine developer’s planning application led to Bedford’s ‘worst ever floods’ in 2007.

No one would make such a morally warped film, right? Wrong. All of the above comes from The Age of Stupid, a half-documentary, half-‘peril porn’ hybrid, which has been hailed by commentators as ‘the most powerful piece of cultural discourse on climate change ever produced’, but which left this reviewer feeling more than a little nauseous at its solar-powered, carbon-lite premiere in London yesterday. The film is so cretinous it makes Michael Moore look like a modern-day Bergman; so scientifically vacuous it makes Lysenko look like Einstein; so achingly middle-class it makes The Good Life look like a kitchen-sink drama about miners’ wives.

Indeed, the film’s only virtue - and admittedly this is a big plus in its favour - is that it has exposed finally, beyond all reasonable doubt, the ugly elitism and end-of-days mania of the environmentalist movement...

Is the EU moving the goalposts on climate change?

Bryony Worthington
Wednesday 18 March 2009

Just six weeks before the start of negotiations that will lay the groundwork for international talks in December on a successor to Kyoto there are still important disagreements between the EU and UN. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the man charged with brokering a deal in December has accused the EU of moving the gloalposts on its bargaining position...

A new Alarmist exit-strategy?

Marcus's picture

If we behave as if it's too late, then our prophecy is bound to come true

George Monbiot
The Guardian, Tuesday 17 March 2009

Quietly in public, loudly in private, climate scientists everywhere are saying the same thing: it's over. The years in which more than 2C of global warming could have been prevented have passed, the opportunities squandered by denial and delay. On current trajectories we'll be lucky to get away with 4C. Mitigation (limiting greenhouse gas pollution) has failed; now we must adapt to what nature sends our way. If we can.

This, at any rate, was the repeated whisper at the climate change conference in Copenhagen last week. It's more or less what Bob Watson, the environment department's chief scientific adviser, has been telling the British government. It is the obvious if unspoken conclusion of scores of scientific papers. Recent work by scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, for instance, suggests that even global cuts of 3% a year, starting in 2020, could leave us with 4C of warming by the end of the century. At the moment, emissions are heading in the opposite direction at roughly the same rate. If this continues, what does it mean? Six? Eight? Ten degrees? Who knows?...

Prince Charles only hears the science he wants to hear

Simon Singh
Monday 16 March 2009 18.08 GMT

..."If we once more redouble our efforts to unite the world in meeting perhaps its greatest and most crucial challenge, then we may yet be able to prevail. And thereby to avoid bequeathing a poisoned chalice to our children and grandchildren we only have 100 months to act."

I do not understand why "100 months" is a key time frame, but on the issue of climate change, it seems as if Prince Charles listens to scientists and promotes the view backed by the overwhelming evidence, namely that global warming is real, it is largely caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions, and we are in trouble unless we do something about it.

But on the issue of detox (and alternative medicine more generally), the Prince of Wales seems to ignore scientists. When Ernst and I wrote Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial, we dedicated it to HRH The Prince of Wales and pointed out that there is no reliable evidence in favour of detox and many forms of alternative medicine. Nevertheless, he continues to promote all sorts of odd and unproven remedies.

So why does Prince Charles listen to scientists in relation to climate change, but not listen to them in relation to alternative medicine? My suspicion is that he never really pays attention to any scientists and has no real understanding of how science works. Instead, he has a set of firm prejudices, and if the science backs up the prejudice then great, and if it does not then the science must be wrong...

A different "Plan B"

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Marcus quotes a headline:


From The Sunday Times
March 15, 2009
Plan B: scientists get radical in bid to halt global warming ‘catastrophe’
Jonathan Leake


At the Heartland conference, Bob Carter proposed a different kind of Plan B: Addressing real problems that we do know exist -- such as being prepared for hurricanes and brush fires where those events have a high probability of occurring.

Here's something I tried to post in the comments on Melanie Phillips' "The Inescapable Apocalypse Has Been Seriously Underestimated" Spectator article. For some reason, the post didn't show up.



[A poster had said that we need to consider the amount and speed of the change and the number of people who would be affected.]

Here is a "point" to consider: If whatever the change is, it isn't human-caused, then how do you help anything by trying to control CO2 output by humans?

Among the talks at the Heartland conference was one by Bob Carter of Australia speaking to just that point.

Here's the proceedings URL:

Carter spoke at the final luncheon. Apparently you can watch uncut video of his talk.

An example, which I gave to an IPCC economist with whom I spoke the next day:

Suppose there were a threat to NYC's shoreline from rising oceans (there's no evidence that there is, but suppose there were), how would limiting the CO2 emissions of a farmer in Kansas be of any help if CO2 isn't in fact "driving 'climate change'"?

I'm very much reminded of the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under a lamplight, and, upon being asked by a passerby if that was where he'd lost his keys, replying, "No, but it's where I can see."

In other words, trying to fix the wrong problem is no help whatsoever with preparations for possible real problems.


More from Melanie in the Spectator

Marcus's picture

Melanie Phillips

Shallow science and its victims

Sunday, 15th March 2009

More from last week’s International Conference on Climate Change in New York (which I wrote about here)-- the one that was supposed to have ben attended by just a handful of cranks who don’t agree that it’s environmental apocalypse now...

Resistance is futile!

Marcus's picture

From The Sunday Times
March 15, 2009

Plan B: scientists get radical in bid to halt global warming ‘catastrophe’

Jonathan Leake

THE director of a Nasa space laboratory will this week lead thousands of climate change campaigners through Coventry in an extraordinary intervention in British politics.

James Hansen plans to use Thursday’s Climate Change Day of Action to put pressure on Gordon Brown to wake up to the threat of climate change - by halting the construction of new power stations and the expansion of airports, with schemes such as the third runway at Heathrow.

The move by a leading American researcher is the highest-profile example to date of the way climate change is politicising scientists.

It follows last week’s climate science summit in Copenhagen where 2,500 leading climate scientists issued a stark warning to politicians that unless they took drastic action to cut carbon emissions, the world would face “irreversible shifts in climate”...


World will agree new climate deal, says Al Gore

Leo Hickman
The Guardian, Saturday 14 March 2009

Al Gore, the former US vice-president, delivers an upbeat assessment of the global response to climate change today, saying he believes a "political tipping point" has been reached which will enable leaders to avert environmental catastrophe...

Responding to James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia theory, who said the European trading system for carbon was "disastrous", Gore says: "James Lovelock has forgotten more about science than I will ever learn. But in analysing political systems he is perhaps allowing his ... frustration ... to obscure some of the opportunities for change in the political system. There are tipping points in nature, but there are also tipping points in politics."

Daily Telegraph

Nobody listens to the real climate change experts

The minds of world leaders are firmly shut to anything but the fantasies of the scaremongers, says Christopher Booker.

March 14

Considering how the fear of global warming is inspiring the world's politicians to put forward the most costly and economically damaging package of measures ever imposed on mankind, it is obviously important that we can trust the basis on which all this is being proposed. Last week two international conferences addressed this issue and the contrast between them could not have been starker.

The first in Copenhagen, billed as "an emergency summit on climate change" and attracting acres of worldwide media coverage, was explicitly designed to stoke up the fear of global warming to an unprecedented pitch. As one of the organisers put it, "this is not a regular scientific conference: this is a deliberate attempt to influence policy".

What worries them are all the signs that when the world's politicians converge on Copenhagen in December to discuss a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, under the guidance of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there will be so much disagreement that they may not get the much more drastic measures to cut carbon emissions that the alarmists are calling for.

Thus the name of the game last week, as we see from a sample of quotations, was to win headlines by claiming that everything is far worse than previously supposed. Sea level rises by 2100 could be "much greater than the 59cm predicted by the last IPCC report". Global warming could kill off 85 per cent of the Amazon rainforest, "much more than previously predicted". The ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are melting "much faster than predicted". The number of people dying from heat could be "twice as many as previously predicted".

None of the government-funded scientists making these claims were particularly distinguished, but they succeeded in their object, as the media cheerfully recycled all this wild scaremongering without bothering to check the scientific facts...

Evil Climate Crooks

gregster's picture

Equity Dimensions?

”An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.”

Here, we have it, these evil bastards, under the cloak of ‘climate change,’ have again revealed their true intentions.

Meeting the Challenge?

”..innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.”

The only challenge they’re talking about is a propaganda war, and they are panicking now, with recession hitting governments’ abilities to pour trillions down the plugholes.

sustainability,” that dreadful word again. They’re commies kids. Watch out. And I mean it.

Back in season: Six ways to save the world

Marcus's picture

Six ways to save the world: scientists compile list of climate change clinchers

Scientists at this week's conference in Copenhagen summarise findings for policy makers to discuss at UN summit in December, Thursday 12 March 2009

The scientists' six key messages are:

1) Climatic trends

Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario projections (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

2) Social disruption

3) Long-term strategy

4) Equity dimensions

5) Inaction is inexcusable

6) Meeting the challenge...

Daily Mail

Back in season: Freezing winter means spring is on schedule - for the first time in a decade
By David Derbyshire

13th March 2009

Last month's snowstorms may have seemed like freak weather for many, but for the country's flowers they provided a welcome return to normality.

Recent mild winters have led to spring creeping further and further forward, but the severe cold snap appears to have reset nature's clock, the Woodland Trust has said.

Last year snowdrops were out soon after Christmas in may parts of the country, while daffodils were appearing in February.

But thanks to a bitterly cold January and last month's snow, this year's spring flowers have only just begun blooming.

Shaun Nixon, of the Trust's Nature's Calendar survey, said: 'This is much more typical of an average year. The fact that people think we have had such a cold winter, and a late spring, shows how much we have got used to the milder weather of the last couple of decades.'
'We are so used to seeing daffodils out in February, that it's a shock when they don't appear until March.'
The survey looks each year for signs of spring, which officially starts this year on March 21.

For the past decade, the signs have arrived earlier and earlier - the result, the Trust says, of global warming...

The inescapable apocalypse has been seriously underestimated

Marcus's picture

The Spectator

Melanie Phillips

The inescapable apocalypse has been seriously underestimated

Thursday, 12th March 2009

The atmosphere is cooling, the ice is expanding, the seas are not rising -- even though carbon emissions are increasing. The evidence is now crystal clear to anyone with an unwashed brain that man-made global warming theory is sheer unadulterated bunkum. So how do the warmers react to the ever more embarrassing evidence that they have hitched their reputations to the biggest anti-scientific scam in history? By ratcheting up the hysteria to fever pitch and shrieking that their predictions about the impending irreversible environmental apocalypse have grievously underestimated the catastrophe which is going to be far, far worse.

At the international climate change conference in Copenhagen this week, we were told that the seas would rise by as much as a metre by 2100, that they would turn into acid, and that even the rainforests would be felled not by the loggers’ chainsaws but by the greatest pollutant in the history of the universe, carbon dioxide.

Read these reports carefully and you can see the scam at work. All of these hysterical predictions revolve around a massive ‘if’. They are all based on the assumption that rising carbon dioxide levels produce runaway global warming and inevitable ecological catastrophe. Ignoring the self-evident fact that this theory has already been proved false – as CO2 levels have risen, the climate has stayed pretty flat and in recent years has even cooled -- they then apply this bogus premise to topics not previously covered – the acidity of seas, rainforests – and hey presto, a fresh range of even greater catastrophes is conjured up from their computer models...

Global warming will save millions of lives, the response won't

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Global warming will save millions of lives

Dire predictions about climate change and health omit the cost of cold, says Bjorn Lomborg.

By Bjorn Lomborg.
12 Mar 2009

Global warming will increase the burden on the British health system because more people will suffer from heat-caused illness. This was the message delivered to a conference in Copenhagen this week by Alistair Hunt, a researcher at Bath University. "I am trying to bring home the impact of climate change to everyone," he said.

There is one significant impact that the researcher did not "bring home" in interviews about his work: warmer temperatures will save lives...

From The Times
March 13, 2009

Motorway lighting to be cut despite risk of more accidents

Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

Lighting will be turned off late at night on hundreds of miles of motorway despite an admission from the Highways Agency that a small increase in crashes is the likely result.

The measure is being introduced primarily to reduce carbon emissions but it will also save the agency several million pounds a year in electricity costs...

Putting the wind up Global Warmists!

Marcus's picture

From The Times
March 10, 2009

What do cars and cows have in common? No, not horns
Carl Mortished, World Business Editor

Proposals to tax the flatulence of cows and other livestock have been denounced by farming groups in the Irish Republic and Denmark.

A cow tax of €13 per animal has been mooted in Ireland, while Denmark is discussing a levy as high as €80 per cow to offset the potential penalties each country faces from European Union legislation aimed at combating global warming.

The proposed levies are opposed vigorously by farming groups. The Irish Farmers' Association said that the cattle industry would move to South America to avoid EU taxes.

Livestock contribute 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases believed to cause global warming, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. The Danish Tax Commission estimates that a cow will emit four tonnes of methane a year in burps and flatulence, compared with 2.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide for an average car. ..

Protesters fought the law, but the law fought back ... very, very loudly

Paul Lewis
The Guardian, Thursday 12 March 2009

Protesters gathered at Kingsnorth power station last August may have many reasons to feel aggrieved at their treatment by police. But they might concede that officers had a sense of humour. How else to explain the song police chose to blare out in an attempt to deprive activists of sleep: I Fought the Law and the Law Won.

A report into the policing of last year's Climate Camp demonstration, to be presented today in parliament, has criticised Kent police for its apparent use of "psychological operations".

To wake protesters during the week-long protest last August, police are accused of using vans to play loud music that included Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries and the theme from 80s sitcom Hi-de-Hi.

On the final day of the protest the van departed and - in what was taken as a smug gesture of triumphalism - blasted out "I fought the law and the law won", the lyrics to the Clash's rowdy cover...

Barack Obama faces a 'revolution'? Really? I can' wait! :-)

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Barack Obama faces 'revolution' if he imposes tough carbon targets, warns IPCC

By Richard Alleyne,
Science Correspondent in Copenhagen
11 Mar 2009

Barack Obama faces a "revolution" if he imposes emission cuts on the US similar to those set in Europe, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has conceded.

But Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nation's body tasked with leading the fight against climate change, also questioned the value of a new global climate deal without such a US pledge.

He said political constraints such as creating new jobs made it impossible for the new president to announce the measures that scientists believe are necessary...

UN climate chief: US carbon cuts could spark 'revolution'

David Adam in Copenhagen
The Guardian, Wednesday 11 March 2009

...Speaking on the fringes of a high-level scientific conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Pachauri told the Guardian: "He [Obama] is not going to say by 2020 I'm going to reduce emissions by 30%. He'll have a revolution on his hands. He has to do it step by step."

Pachauri's remarks echo those of Todd Stern, the US president's new chief climate negotiator, who said last week that it was "not possible" for the US to aim for 25-40% cuts by 2020.

Such a stance could threaten attempts to agree a new global deal to regulate carbon emissions to replace the existing Kyoto protocol, the first phase of which expires in 2012. Campaigners say a new treaty must be agreed at UN talks in Copenhagen this December...

Heartland-2: session three

Marcus's picture

Looking forward to hearing back from you. Great work Ellen Smiling

Heartland-2: session three
by Bob Carter

March 11, 2009

John Sunumu: Nature will respond to climate change in the future in a self-stabilising way, as it always has in the past.

Willie Soon: The first order of business is that the null hypothesis is that the climate change we observe is due to natural variability.

Bob Carter: IPCC climate policy (Plan A) – to prevent hypothetical human-caused climate change by reducing CO2 emissions - hasn’t worked and won’t work. Policy Plan B needs to be that countries develop their own capacity to prepare for and adapt to real, natural climate change; they will then be well positioned to cope with hypothetical (human-caused) climate change, should any eventuate.

Lord Christopher Monckton: There was no climate crisis, there is no climate crisis and there will be no climate crisis. The correct solution to global warming is to have the courage to do nothing...

Checking in

Ellen Stuttle's picture

I posted a brief comment on the thread about Vaclav Klaus.

He was extraordinary; the whole event was extraordinary. It will go down as that in history, I predict.

Off to dinner with Bob Carter in a few minutes.

Coleman and Booker are among those with whom I had some conversation.



Heartland-2 update

Marcus's picture

Heartland-2: session one
by Bob Carter

March 9, 2009

President Vaclav Klaus reports latest poll from the Czech Republic: only 11 per cent of people believe that man has a significant influence in warming the climate.

West Australian Joanne Nova’s Climate Skeptics Handbook launched, and a 150,000 print run announced.

“We will win this debate”, says Dr Richard Lindzen, “for we are right and they are wrong”.

Heartland-2: session two
by Bob Carter

March 10, 2009

Terry Dunleavy & John McLean - Of 62 reviewers of the crucial Chapter 9 of IPCC 4AR (attribution of cause of climate change), 55 were conflicted; of the remaining 7 apparently independent persons, only ONE explicitly endorsed the most important statement about human attribution in the chapter.

Lawrence Solomon - Environmentalists in the third-world are not buying the carbon offsets mechanisms set up to serve the Kyoto Protocol, and are organizing into strong local groups to fight to maintain their property rights.

Arthur Robinson – Western countries are committing technological genocide - and again especially against third-world countries - by planning carbon dioxide tax and trade measures to increase greatly the cost of provision of basic electricity supplies.

Tom McClintock – When politicians feel the heat, they see the light.

Good news!

Marcus's picture

From The Times
March 9, 2009

Hopes of climate change accord 'are sinking'
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter

Two leading climate scientists have broken ranks with their peers to declare that hopes of getting a meaningful deal on halting global warming this year are already lost.

Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, and Professor Trevor Davies, one of the centre's founders, told The Times that it was time to start looking for alternatives to an international deal.

They made their comments on the eve of a three-day conference in Copenhagen this week in which thousands of climate change researchers will meet to discuss the latest discoveries in the field. The findings will be used in December when world leaders attend a UN summit, also in Copenhagen, to try to work out an international treaty on greenhouse gas emissions.

Professor Anderson and Professor Davies expect politicians at the summit merely to pay lip service to scientific evidence that greenhouse gas emissions need to be brought under control within a decade, if not sooner. They said that rather than wait for an international accord it was time now to consider what action could be taken...

Czech leader joins meeting of climate change deniers

• US convention aimed at escalating confrontation
• Klaus to attack 'arrogant, unscrupulous ideology'

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 9 March 2009

It is billed as the largest ever gathering of climate change deniers, a convention that kicked off last night with a title suggesting global warming is a thing of the past, and a guest list that includes a hurricane forecaster, a retired astronaut and a sitting European president.

Entitled Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis? and featuring some of the most prominent naysayers in the climate change debate, this week's conference in New York sets out to escalate its confrontation with the scientific establishment, the vast majority of whose members subscribe to the view that humans are the principal cause of climate change.

Conference organisers were celebrating something of a coup in securing as a keynote speaker the Czech president, Václav Klaus, at a time when his country holds the rotating presidency of the EU. Klaus, a Eurosceptic, believes that efforts to protect the world from the impact of climate change are an assault on freedom.

In his remarks last night, Klaus accused European governments of being "alarmist" on the subject of climate change and in thrall to radical environmentalists.

"They probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back," he said.

He received a standing ovation. But Klaus admitted that his position was a lonely one...

AGW real? - When hell freezes over maybe

HWH's picture

Due to the freezing temperatures, civil disobediancers could not be
civilly disobedient;  Vandals weren’t able to vandalize the HVAC
systems serving many buildings employing thousands of people; Members
of congress suddenly became invisible; Nancy Pelosi thinks the
Architect of the Capitol shovels coal; Michelle Obama couldn’t read due
to the cold; HUD couldn’t formulate more plans for taxpayer-funded
housing, and Afganistan’s defense minister is all humpy because he was

Meanwhile Al Gore
reluctantly admitted that meteorologists and other climate scientists
are not credible on the topic of global warming, as none of the
nay-sayers have government research funding, and none have served as
vice president in any country, province or protectorate.

Story here


I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

Microfilm scanning

Roger Revelle & Al Gore: Coleman's Video Report

Marcus's picture

Roger Revelle & Al Gore: Coleman's Video Report, 3/6/09

Revelle was a powerful man, a noteworthy scientist and a significant force in San Diego in the 1950s. There is no doubt he is largely responsible for the respect given Scripps Institute of Oceanography and for locating the University of California at San Diego, UCSD, in La Jolla.

Watch here:

Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder

Christopher Booker is bemused by the wild rhetoric of the climate change lobby.

By Christopher Booker
07 Mar 2009

...Even Drayson is outbid, however, by the groupies in The Guardian, who now suggest that people like Christopher Booker should no longer be compared to "Holocaust deniers" but consigned to even more outer darkness by branding them as climate "Creationists", the dirtiest word they know. Meanwhile at the University of the West of England in Bristol this weekend, a conference of "eco-psychologists", led by a professor, are solemnly exploring the notion that "climate change denial" should be classified as a form of "mental disorder".

I myself am off this weekend to New York, to join all the top "deniers", "creationists" and victims of psychic disorder at a conference organised by the Heartland Institute. It is an honour to be asked to speak alongside such luminaries as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr Fred Singer, founder of the US satellite weather forecasting service, and the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus (not to mention those two revered climate bloggers, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts). I shall report on this historic event next week.

Clinton: Never waste a good opportunity for fascism!

Marcus's picture

Anti-CO2 Campaign Like An Atom Bomb On U.S. Economy
Friday, March 06, 2009

The CO2 wars have begun. Presumably following White House directions, the EPA is ready to issue an "Endangerment Finding" on carbon dioxide, paving the way for regulations to control CO2 emissions. But with over one million "major stationary sources," a full-blown application of the Clean Air Act would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the US economy — all without any scientific justification. Hence there is speculation that the White House strategy is to use the threat of EPA regulation to force Congress to take action...

Clinton: 'Never waste a good crisis'


Friday, 6 March 2009

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today told an audience "never waste a good crisis", as she highlighted the opportunity of rebuilding economies in a greener, less energy intensive model.

Highlighting Europe's unease the day after Russia warned that gas exports to the EU via Ukraine might be halted, she also condemned the use of energy as a political lever.

Clinton told young Europeans at the European Parliament global economic turmoil provided a fresh opening: "Never waste a good crisis ... Don't waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security."...

US ethanol producers urge Obama to up ethanol content of motor fuels

• Wesley Clark says move would create American jobs
• Lobbyists want corn-based fuel content to increase to 15%

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Friday 6 March 2009

America's ethanol producers, who have been hit hard by the economic recession, today urged the Obama administration to raise the ethanol content in blended motor fuels to 15%.

Wesley Clark, a former Nato commander and Democratic presidential candidate who now lobbies for the ethanol industry, said the move to use more of the corn-based fuel would help America create jobs at home and cut back on the use of imported fuel.

"This is about jobs, energy security for America, improving the environment and meeting our legal responsibilities," Clark, the chairman of Growth Energy, a coalition of ethanol firms, said in a statement.

Growth Energy filed a formal request with the Environmental Protection Agency asking for the limit on ethanol in motor fuel be raised from the existing 10% ceiling to 15%...


Marcus's picture

Daily Express


Friday March 6 2009
by Emily Garnham

...In our video interview, Dr David answers EXPRESS.CO.UK readers’ questions - after an overwhelming response.

He responds to his “lampooning” by journalist George Monbiot and explains why he will never use “scientific codswallop” in peer review journals to back up his theories...

Logical outcome of politicians green eco-bullshit

Marcus's picture

Climate change protester throws green custard over Mandelson

Business secretary calls action by Plane Stupid activist an 'adolescent protest'

Stephen Bates, Friday 6 March 2009

Lord Mandelson was hit in the face with a cup of green slime by an anti-airport protester as he arrived to attend a low-carbon energy summit in central London this morning.

News cameras showed the minister genially approaching a young woman after he got out of his car and receiving a large proportion of the emerald green liquid – later identified as custard containing added colouring – that she threw at him from a cup from a distance of only a couple of feet. Mandelson ducked, but not in time to prevent the liquid hitting him on the left side of his face, in his eye and on his coat. The young woman then walked away, unarrested.

She was afterwards named as Leila Deen, 29, a supporter of the Plane Stupid activist group campaigning against airport expansion. Deen told reporters she had been motivated by reports that the minister had held a meeting with lobbyists for the British Airports Authority, which wants a third runway at Heathrow, a few days before the government endorsed the plan.

She said: "The only thing green about Peter Mandelson is the slime coursing through his veins. That he is trying to make political capital out of climate change ... is an insult to my generation. He is unelected and only represents business interests."...

Countries that block global climate change deal risk isolation: Miliband

Climate minister says Obama's commitment to environment has raised prospects of global agreement at UN summit in December

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Friday 6 March 2009

Countries that stand in the way of a global warming treaty now risk international isolation because of the US's new commitment under Barack Obama to reaching a deal, the climate change secretary, Ed Miliband has said...

Glenn Beck on Obama's Global Warming Agenda...

Marcus's picture

I don't think they will

Brant Gaede's picture

be able to seize much of anything as almost all airliners have serious liens on them from lenders. They are basically flying collateral. Political noise for public consumption is what I hear. Contrary, they can be seized if they can be and the seizers--the government--deal with airline bankruptcy. Or, in the worldwide recession with less flying, a good way to get rid of planes? Insane stupidity incarnate.


Green Communism again!

Marcus's picture

Airlines that break emission rules could have planes seized

Juliette Jowit
The Guardian, Wednesday 4 March 2009

The Environment Agency is to be given powers to seize planes from airlines which break the rules of a new scheme to limit flights' carbon emissions.

The transport secretary, Geoff Hoon, and the climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, will today announce the government agency's new role, which goes far wider than its regulation of other UK industries...

Tony Blair urges Barack Obama not to let economic crisis overshadow environment

By Tom Leonard in New York
04 Mar 2009

Warning of the danger of putting environmental concerns "to one side", the former Prime Minister argued that the current economic problems "provide us not with an excuse for inaction but a reason for acting" on global warming.

Writing on The Daily Beast website just as his former Labour party rival met the US president in Washington, Mr Blair said that 2009 should be the year when the world - including America - agreed a new treaty on climate change.

"Some say that due to the economic crisis, action on the environment should be postponed. But either the climate is changing or it isn't," he said.

"If it is - and the scientific consensus on this is now vast - we cannot ignore it. To do so would be to multiply the risks to our future economy as well as the environment."

Welcoming the president's support for cleaner energy in his stimulus plan, Mr Blair said economic growth could be stimulated by investing in alternative energy and energy efficiency.

The world would be ready to cope when oil prices rose once more, he added...

Oh, the irony! #2

Marcus's picture

EDITORIAL: The Gore Effect

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Driving snow froze the hopes of organizers of "the biggest global warming protest in history" Monday in Washington. With the government on a two-hour snow delay and the speaker of the House unable to attend because her flight was grounded by inclement weather, shivering protestors gathered on the west front of the Capitol, the latest victims of a climatological phenomenon known by the scientific community as the Gore Effect.

The Gore Effect was first noticed during a January 2004 global warming rally in New York City, held during one of the coldest days in the city's history. Since then, evidence has mounted of a correlation between global warming activism and severely cold weather.

A year ago a congressional media briefing on the Bingaman/Specter Climate Bill was cancelled due to a cold snap. In October 2008 London saw the first snow since 1922 while the House of Commons debated the Climate Change Bill. That same month Al Gore's appearance at Harvard University coincided with low temperatures that challenged 125-year records. Tellingly, the average global temperature for each of the 366 days in 2008 was below the average for Jan. 24, 2006, the date Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was released at the Sundance Film Festival.

Critics claim the Gore Effect is mere coincidence, though one could also argue that coincidence is also the basis for the anthropogenic theory of climate change. Alternative theories, e.g., citing the influence of sun spot activity, have gained increasing credence as scientists have noted global warming in recent years on other planets, which presumably have been human-free. Significant data issues have also arisen, such as the recent discovery of a chunk of Arctic sea ice the size of California that satellites had missed (but which in all probability had been known to polar bears)...

TV drama 24 gets pomowanked

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

TV drama 24 to go carbon neutral

The American TV network Fox has announced that their long-running spy drama 24 is the first carbon neutral production in TV history.

03 Mar 2009

Fox is following through on a promise made by executives two years ago and are also launching a public service campaign during a two-hour special aired on Monday.

Kiefer Sutherland, who plays the show's hero Jack Bauer, is due to promote the joys of green living and will ask viewers to follow 24's lead in helping to combat global warming.

Over the last few years, the makers of 24 have already cut the show's carbon footprint by 43 per cent. However, in areas where that proved impossible - for example the carbon dioxide emissions released when a car is blown up - producers bought carbon offsets, such as wind-power plans in India.

According to Fox, producers also made on-set upgrades, such as swapping incandescent lighting for compact fluorescent lighting and turning off all electrical equipment when not in use.

"This is a passion project for us at 24, and we're amazed by how much we were able to achieve this past season in terms of conserving energy and reducing carbon emissions," Howard Gordon, the show runner, said.

"But now the really important work begins, which is to inspire our audience to make changes in their own lives."...

Oh, the irony!

Marcus's picture

Ellen, yes, I think you are correct. Please tell us all about the Heartland Conference. I am looking forward to reading about it.

Pelosi Snowed-Out of Global Warming Rally
Monday, March 02, 2009
By Josiah Ryan and Ryan Byrnes

( – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had to cancel an appearance Monday at a global warming rally in Washington, D.C., that was hit by a snowstorm because her flight was delayed, her office told

Brianna Cayo-Cotter, the spokesman for the Energy Action Coalition that held the rally, told a group of reporters that she had been in contact with Pelosi and that her flight had been delayed because of inclement weather.

A blizzard Sunday night and early Monday morning blanketed the nation’s capital with snow, causing events to be cancelled and delayed across the city...

Decision on new coal-fired plant delayed again

Juliette Jowit
The Guardian, Monday 2 March 2009

Decisions about any new coal-fired power plants in the UK have been delayed until the autumn, prompting warnings from energy companies about the growing risk that the country could run out of electricity generating capacity.

Ministers were due to make a decision last year on an application to build the first new coal plant in the UK for a generation at Kingsnorth in Kent - a move expected to trigger submissions for further projects.

However, insiders said the decision was not now expected until after the summer because of a decision by the energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, to order a fresh review of coal policy. The Guardian revealed last week that Miliband was considering plans for tough new limits on global warming emissions from coal plants and wanted the government to help fund more carbon capture and storage projects to make this happen...

Climate change protest disrupts flights at Aberdeen airport

Seven members of campaign group Plane Stupid cut through airport's perimeter fence

Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent, Tuesday 3 March 2009

Climate change protesters today disrupted one of Scotland's busiest airports, setting up a barricade on a taxiway and forcing flights to be suspended.

The Plane Stupid campaign group said seven of its members cut through a perimeter fence at Aberdeen airport at about 4am, building a wire "fortress" on the apron used for North Sea oil industry helicopters.

Other protesters, many dressed in the style of the US property tycoon Donald Trump – who is building a golf resort north of Aberdeen – climbed on to the airport's terminal roof...


Ellen Stuttle's picture

"Going back to the Happer's statement to the Senate. Surely if the following is undisputed science 'fact' - it completely negates any argument for a CO2 emission cap or restriction?"


Are you meaning: logically it should negate such an argument? Wink

Those who want a cap or restriction don't want to hear negating argument.

Also, I think that Will's statement that there's "little argument in the scientific community" is iffy. I'm guessing he means, amongst that part of the scientific community which he considers reputable. Mann, e.g., best I know, still upholds the hockey-stick model. I'm not sure if Hansen outright upholds it, but he still talks of "tipping points" and catastrophic potentials.



Marcus's picture

Going back to the Happer's statement to the Senate. Surely if the following is undisputed science 'fact' - it completely negates any argument for a CO2 emission cap or restriction?

"There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree.

Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can."

Tipler's comments

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Frank Tipler:

"Increasingly, government grants are used to defend dogma, not discover new truth: [...]. I myself no longer trust the data claims appearing in the leading science journals..."


Ain't it the truth?

Larry watched the entirety of the Congressional hearing where Will Happer testified. Happer was badgered by Boxer and others.

At one point Madame Boxer said (quoting from memory from Larry's report): "Put it into the record. The Marshall Institute [in which Happer is prominent] receives funds from Exon."

It's taken for granted that private funding means bias -- and to say that an organization or individual researcher receives any funding from an oil company is as much as to say, "Don't believe a word they tell you."

Yet it's the government-funded research which is so corrupting of science at this point as to make the most prestigious organizations and publications untrustworthy. Also read into the record at the hearing was that the (proclaimed) fact of AGW is endorsed by the APS, the American Meteorological Association, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences (and others). Dogma has a stranglehold.

Tipler isn't the only one who's been agitating against government funding. Dick Lindzen is a prominent scientist who has begun to say outloud that science has to be weaned from government support. Possibly the majority of the scientists who are going to speak at Heartland think the same. I know in the case of some of them that they've said so; I suspect that most of them think so.

It won't be easy, however, eliciting wide support from the scientific community for cutting the government purse strings. We have to hope that there are still enough scientists with enough scientific honor, when it's well borne home on them the extent of the corruption of science which is occurring because of bad science being foisted as good, there will be massive revulsion. But are there enough young scientists who really know what the honor of science is? The young ones have grown up in a skewed environment.

I hope, but I don't feel confidence, the tide will turn.

Unfortunately I think that Tipler won't be listened to by many. He has a bit of a reputation for being a "kook" because of his Anthropic Principle theories. But maybe his speaking up will help encourage others to do so.


PS: Christopher Booker's "Obarmy" is good -- let's hope it gets picked up.

‘Stimulating’ Scientists Into Proving Global Warming

Marcus's picture

‘Stimulating’ Scientists Into Proving Global Warming

February 27, 2009 - by Frank J. Tipler

The trillion-dollar plus porkapalooza Wreak-America Bill just passed by Congress will throw a huge amount of money into scientific research. This will be a good thing for certain scientists, but a very, very bad thing for science.

Young scientists do most of the great science. Einstein was 26 when he published his relativity theory. In 1980, when I got my first government research grant at the age of 33, some 22 percent of National Institute of Health (NIH) grants were given to scientists under the age of 35. In 2005, only three percent of NIH grants went to those under 35, while the percentage given to those over 45 increased from 22 to 77.

Increasingly, government grants are used to defend dogma, not discover new truth: 28 percent of the scientists supported by NIH admitted recently to cooking data to support establishment theory, and 66 percent admitted to cutting corners to achieve the same end. I myself no longer trust the data claims appearing in the leading science journals...

The dangers of breathing

Marcus's picture

Yes, good on the Japanese!

Christopher Booker
01 Mar 2009

"There’s been so much global warming lately in Oslo that the city has had to dump vast loads of snow into the sea, to the rage of environmentalists who protest that this is “pollution”. Back in the 1990s, when Boston similarly dumped the snow cleared from gritted streets into its harbour, the US Environmental Protection Agency filed a multi-million dollar suit against Massachusetts for “polluting” the sea with salt. Last week President Obama upheld a Supreme Court ruling empowering the same agency to regulate all emissions of CO2 as a “pollutant”. We must hope that Obarmy wasn’t breathing out as he did so."

Oh, hooray, re "Japan's boffins"

Ellen Stuttle's picture

From Marcus' post below quoting

Andrew Orlowski in Environment, 25th February 2009:

"Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside..."

Um, I guess he means the deliberately obfuscating and convoluted language typical of such reports, language designed to prevent anyone from quite telling what in particular is being said.

"Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares [the simulation work] to ancient astrology."

Good comparison.

"Akasofu['s] harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact."

Applause. (He's a really sharp guy in general, and I like his wit.)

Oh, yea; this is cheering news. Thanks for posting the item, Marcus.


Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

Marcus's picture

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report

By Andrew Orlowski

Posted in Environment, 25th February 2009

Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside...

Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.

Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:

"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:

"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "

Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.

"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.