The Great Global Warming Swindle!!!

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: )

Priceless: Greens say "The whaler deliberately rammed us"

HWH's picture

French carbon tax struck down

William Scott Scherk's picture

France's constitutional court has thrown out the carbon tax scheme that was to come into effect this week. An embarrassing setback for the big man Sarkozy. The ruling, however, can't be said to be a victory for anti-alarmists. Seems like the court ruled the carbon tax taxed the wrong folk. The Guardian reports:

Nicolas Sarkozy's dreams of putting France on the frontline of the fight against
global warming were in disarray today, after his flagship carbon tax was ruled
unconstitutional two days before it was due to come into effect.

In an unexpected and embarrassing blow, the court responsible for ensuring the
validity of French legislation rejected the reform as ineffective and unfair.

It ruled that rather than being the revolutionary measure Sarkozy promised, the tax
would have let off many industrial polluters, while placing a disproportionately
heavy burden on ordinary households.

"The large number of exemptions from the carbon tax runs counter to the goal of
fighting climate change and violates the equality enjoyed by all in terms of public
charges," said the constitutional council in its eleventh hour ruling last night.

WSS

Good Science, Bad Politics

Marcus's picture

Happy New Year. I am away for the next 10 days!
...........................................................................................

WSJ

DECEMBER 22, 2009,

Good Science, Bad Politics

'Climategate' reveals a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results useful to a political agenda.

By HANS VON STORCH

"Frankly, he's an odd individual," a well-known climatologist wrote about me in a private e-mail to a friend in the U.K. On this, we agree—I am an odd individual, if by that we mean a climatologist whose e-mails would not document a contempt for such basic scientific virtues such as openness, falsifiability, replicability and independent review.

The colleague is a member of the CRU cartel—the influential network of researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and their colleagues in the U.S.—whose sanctum was exposed last month when a whistleblower or hacker published e-mails and documents from the CRU server on the Internet. What we can now see is a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results that are useful to a political agenda by blocking papers in the purportedly independent review process and skewing the assessments of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The effort has not been so successful, but trying was bad enough.

We—society and climate researchers—need to discuss now what constitutes "good science." Some think good science is a societal institution that produces results that serve an ideology. Take, for instance, the counsel that then-Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave to scientists at a climate change conference in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters: "I would give you the piece of advice, not to provide us with too many moving targets, because it is already a very, very complicated process. And I need your assistance to push this process in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that."

I do not share that view. For me, good science means generating knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method. The merits of a scientifically constructed result do not depend on its utility for any politician's agenda. Indeed, the utility of my results is not my business, and the contextualization of my results should not depend on my personal preferences. It is up to democratic societies to decide how to use or not use my insights and explanations.

But it seems I am an odd individual for taking this position. As a scientist, I strive for independence from vested interests. I am in the pocket of neither Exxon nor Greenpeace, and for this I come under fire from both sides—the skeptics and the alarmists—who have fiercely opposing views but are otherwise siblings in their methods and contempt.

I am told that I should keep my mouth shut, that criticizing colleagues is not "tactful," and will damage the reputation of science—even when the CRU e-mails have already sunk that ship. I hear that the now-notorious "trick" is normal, that to "hide the decline" is just an unfortunate colloquialism. But we know by now that the activity described by these words was by no means innocent...

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

BBC Newsnight

"One of the problems underlying the climate change debate is that whatever the majority of scientists say about global warming a lot of people remain sceptical about whether climate change is really man made.

So Newsnight decided to invite two top scientists round to Justin Rowlatt's house and challenge them to prove the case for global warming in a kitchen filled with members of the public and people who had been in the BBC Top Gear audience."

Watch Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/pro...
........................................................................................................................

Reversing retailers' open door policy hinges on public campaign

Close the Door wants shops to shut their doors in winter and save huge amounts of energy – who are the worst offenders?

Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 23 December 2009

Just one more shopping day left till Christmas. I'll certainly drink to that. But come Boxing Day, many of us will be out there again, elbows primed and credit cards at the ready, to do battle for the "bargains" on offer in the sales.

This means that our shops will only be closing their front doors for one day over this festive period. Which is a pity, because of all the winter gripes that Scrooges such as myself like to mutter and moan about, it's the issue of shop doors being left open that causes a hefty slice of anguish.

Why do our high streets collectively waste so much heat by leaving their front doors open? It's an issue that comes up every winter, but is never seemingly addressed seriously by politicians and retailers, let alone resolved. The shops claim that an "open door" policy attracts customers. Furthermore, it would take all the shops to leap at once and collectively shut their doors, otherwise whoever went first would lose customers to their rivals.

But there are at least signs of a fightback by irritated customers. The Close the Door campaign announced this week that research has begun at the University of Cambridge's Engineering Department to establish just how wasteful the open door policy can be, and that other countries are interested in receiving the study's findings...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...

George Monbiot's Alternative Universe

Marcus's picture

The Spectator

Alex Massie

Tuesday, 22nd December 2009

George Monbiot isn't everyone's cup of char, not least in these parts. I don't write much about climate change because the subject* bores me and so I'm happy for Monbiot to promise that the end of the world is just around the corner and I don't spend too much time worrying about it. I suspect, for what little it's worth, that he's an anti-Cassandra: wrong but believed.

Anyway, I do write about American politics so I feel confident in saying that Monbiot doesn't appear to know anything about the realities of life in Washington. In his Guardian column this week he complains that Copenhagen was a dud and that:

The immediate reason for the failure of the talks can be summarised in two words: Barack Obama.

"The man elected to put aside childish things proved to be as susceptible to immediate self-interest as any other politician. Just as George Bush did in the approach to the Iraq war, Obama went behind the backs of the UN and most of its member states and assembled a coalition of the willing to strike a deal that outraged the rest of the world. This was then presented to poorer nations without negotiation: either they signed it or they lost the adaptation funds required to help them survive the first few decades of climate breakdown.

[...] Why would he do this? You have only to see the relief in Democratic circles to get your answer. Pushing a strong climate programme through the Senate, many of whose members are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the energy industry, would have been the political battle of his life. Yet again, the absence of effective campaign finance reform in the US makes global progress almost impossible."

Oh please. If Monbiot is really concerned about reducing carbon emissions he should be thankful that Copenhagen didn't produce a treaty. Ratifying a treaty would require 67 votes in the Senate and there is, frankly, no way that's going to happen. Getting to 60 will be enough of a battle; 67 is impossible.

Nevertheless, Monbiot prefers to believe in unicorns.

Then again, what can one say to a man who seems to think that the President need only snap his fingers to have Congress, even when controlled by his own party, come to heel? It doesn't work like that and, as we've seen with health care, the final decision-making power is vested in the moderate centre - the 60th least liberal Senator - it is not held by the left. If Monbiot doesn't appreciate this it's time he did; if he does, he shouldn't mislead his readers...

http://www.spectator.co.uk/ale...
..............................................................................................................................................................


...................................................................................................................................................................

Christmas Day drivers warned over icy roads

Icy conditions that have caused chaos on the roads continue over Christmas period as cold weather lingers

Haroon Siddique and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 December 2009

Icy conditions that have caused chaos on the roads and disrupted holiday travel plans could continue well into Christmas Day, the Met Office has warned, with millions of people facing Christmas away from their loved ones.

Fresh travel warnings have been issued predicting an 80% or greater probability of "widespread icy roads" in north-east and south-west England, Wales and most of Scotland, lasting until late on Christmas morning. There is also a moderate risk of heavy snow in Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland on Christmas Day.

Snowfall in parts of Scotland is likely to reach 5cm to 10cm and in Northern Ireland more than 5cm of snow is expected, particularly in the west. The Met Office forecast offers little comfort for motorists who have been delaying their journeys in the hope conditions on the roads would improve. It said there was also a moderate risk of widespread icy roads in Yorkshire and Humber, London and the south-east and the Midlands.

The AA said roads were expected to be "very busy and dangerous due to snow and black ice" and advised motorists to delay non-essential trips.

David Grunwell, from the Highways Agency, said conditions were "very challenging"...

Most of the major UK airports reported delays and cancellations on Christmas Eve, with easyJet grounding 16 flights. The bad weather axed a number of train services from Glasgow Central station, while engineering works meant disruption in other areas. A broken-down train at Guiseley resulted in delays in Yorkshire between Ilkley and Leeds/Bradford Forster Square.

There were lengthy queues at the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras, in London where police helped to control the crowds. Eurostar resumed services on Tuesday after a three-day suspension following tunnel breakdowns.

The company was running about two-thirds of its normal daily services between London and Paris and Brussels. A spokeswoman said anyone with tickets for 19-23 December could travel and they were "hoping to get everyone away for Christmas".

The lowest temperature on Christmas Day is forecast to be in Tarbet, in Scotland, where it is expected to reach -9C in the early hours. Temperatures will reach negative figures in other parts of southern Scotland, the north-east and Wales, according to the Met Office...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2...

It was in October here...

Marcus's picture

...probably the book has only just been released in the US.

Anyway, it has much better damaging effect coming out post-Copenhagen and post-climategate Evil
...........................................................................................................................................

I posted it here (third article down):

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

“Mr Vale, an architect who specialises in sustainable living, said: "There are no recipes in the book. We're not actually saying it is time to eat the dog.
"We're just saying that we need to think about and know the (ecological) impact of some of the things we do and that we take for granted."
He explained that sustainability issues require us to make choices which are "as difficult as eating your dog".

Gregster comment on it here:

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Time to Eat the Dog

Jmaurone's picture

Was all over the news here in the U.S. yesterday.

Yes Ellen...

Marcus's picture

...I posted it a few months ago.

When quizzed the author said that he did not mean people should literally eat their dogs.

He said he was just trying to get attention for his book, which he definitely did.

Will the last cockroach..

gregster's picture

..turn off the lights?

[Meaning- even animals are in the firing line.] Yes we heard that horrific tirade by the gruesome Kiwi enviro-Nazis. Wasn't long ago.

"Time to Eat the Dog" - by New Zealanders

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Have the New Zealand list denizens heard of this? (news.yahoo.com link)

(Apologies if it's already been cited and I missed it.)

Looks as if it's a real book. (amazon uk link)

 

~~~

Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

Man's best friend …
by Isabelle Toussaint and Jurgen Hecker – Sun Dec 20, 3:23 pm ET

PARIS (AFP) – Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.

But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.

The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.

"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.

[....]

~~~

Climate change alliance crumbling

Marcus's picture

Financial Times

Climate change alliance crumbling

By Fiona Harvey in London, Amy Kazmin in New Delhi, Geoff Dyer in Beijing and Jonathan Wheatley in Sao Paulo

December 22 2009 22:23

Cracks emerged on Tuesday in the alliance on climate change formed at the Copenhagen conference last week, with leading developing countries criticising the resulting accord.

The so-called Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – backed the accord in a meeting with the US on Friday night, and it was also supported by almost all other nations at the talks, including all of the biggest emitters.

But on Tuesday the Brazilian government labelled the accord “disappointing” and complained that the financial assistance it contained from rich to poor countries was insufficient.

South Africa also raised objections: Buyelwa Sonjica, the environment minister, called the failure to produce a legally binding agreement “unacceptable”. She said her government had considered leaving the meeting.

“We are not defending this, as I have indicated, for us it is not acceptable, it is definitely not acceptable,” she said.

There was even harsher criticism from Andreas Carlgren, environment minister of Sweden, current holder of the rotating European Union presidency, who proclaimed the Copenhagen accord “a disaster” and “a great failure”.

These responses contrasted with praise of the accord from India and China, and may presage problems for the United Nations in keeping the fragile alliances formed in Copenhagen together. The UN wants to sign a legally binding treaty by the end of 2010, but will struggle if countries repudiate the accord.

However, Todd Stern, US special envoy for climate change, noted that more than 100 countries had backed the accord, including the EU, Australia, Japan, the African Union and the Alliance of Small Island States.

China hit back at claims from the UK and other developed countries that it vetoed two key targets in the accord, and thus scuttled a more ambitious deal. Jiang Yu, a foreign ministry spokeswoman, called criticism from Ed Miliband, the UK’s climate secretary, “plainly a political scheme” to provoke disagreement among developing countries...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c945...
..............................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 23, 2009

The inconvenient truth about climate change

Carl Mortished: World business briefing

Forget what you have been told: Copenhagen was a great success, a triumph of diplomacy, a game-changing event on which the world must now build. This is the view in Delhi and in Beijing, where Premier Wen Jiabao has been puffing China’s “important and constructive” role at the Climate Change talks. Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Environment Minister, boasted that he had thwarted attempts to impose binding targets for carbon reduction on India.

If this seems to make no sense (and that’s the view of Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, who squarely blamed China for wrecking the final agreement), it is because we are deluding ourselves over what Copenhagen was about.

Mr Miliband did not attend the same conference as his counterpart, Mr Ramesh. Nor did Gordon Brown or President Obama. They came to Copenhagen to assert the moral authority of the West. The leaders of the Free World came to Copenhagen as the self-appointed guardians of the planet, guarantors of the Earth’s environmental integrity.

The Chinese snubbed Mr Obama. The President thought he was at Copenhagen to talk about Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth”, the subject of the former vice-president’s film about global warming. But the Chinese and the Indians attended a different conference, the same conference that failed in Cancún in 2003, in Hong Kong in 2005 and in Geneva last year. Those world trade talks were “scuppered” by the intransigence of developing nations in the face of attempts by America to assert political power. Such talks, whether about trade or climate, war or peace, will continue to fail until we recognise a second inconvenient truth: China is now in charge...

http://business.timesonline.co...
...................................................................................................................................

Coates

gregster's picture

"Tim Montgomerie, of grassroots website, Conservative Home, urged sceptics to still to give money to protect poor countries from “extreme weather” even if they don’t believe its origins are man-made. “You don’t have to believe that climate change is man-made to agree that many developing countries could do with help in protecting their people from hurricanes, flooding and other natural disasters,” he said."

Skeptics should contribute to any agency that will assassinate the poor countries' corrupt leaders and assist the natives' conversion to Capitalism. And many of our leaders are morally in the same territory - the cross hairs should be on them too. Is there a gradation of immorality?

Ominous Parallels

Jmaurone's picture

None of that surprises me...the Left's dissatisfaction with Obama is, once again, reminiscent of the disappointment with weakness of the Social Democrats that enabled a Hitler. Watch this space...

Naomi Klein bashes Obama!!!

Marcus's picture

The hard left are in a tizzy after Copenhagen, turning on their own and eating their own babies.

Even Monbiot is at it:

"So what happens now? That depends on the other non-player at Copenhagen: you. For the past few years good, liberal, compassionate people – the kind who read the Guardian – have shaken their heads and tutted and wondered why someone doesn't do something. Yet the number taking action has been pathetic. Demonstrations which should have brought millions on to the streets have struggled to mobilise a few thousand. As a result the political cost of the failure at Copenhagen is zero. Where are you?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...
................................................................................................................................................

Copenhagen's failure belongs to Obama

The American president has been uniquely placed to lead the world on climate change and squandered every opportunity

Naomi Klein
guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009

...I understand all the arguments about not promising what he can't deliver, about the dysfunction of the US senate, about the art of the possible. But spare me the lecture about how little power poor Obama has. No president since FDR has been handed as many opportunities to transform the US into something that doesn't threaten the stability of life on this planet. He has refused to use each and every one of them. Let's look at the big three.

Blown Opportunity No 1: The Stimulus Package
When Obama came to office, he had a free hand and a blank cheque to design a spending package to stimulate the economy. He could have used that power to fashion what many were calling a Green New Deal – to build the best public transit systems and smart grids in the world. Instead, he experimented disastrously with reaching across the aisle to Republicans, low-balling the size of the stimulus and blowing much of it on tax cuts. Sure, he spent some money on weatherproofing, but public transport was inexplicably short-changed while highways that perpetuate car culture won big.

Blown Opportunity No 2: The Auto Bailouts
Speaking of the car culture, when Obama took office he also found himself in charge of two of the big three carmakers, and all of the emissions for which they are responsible. A visionary leader committed to the fight against climate chaos would obviously have used that power to dramatically re-engineer the failing industry so that its factories could build the infrastructure of the green economy the world desperately needs. Instead Obama saw his role as uninspiring downsizer-in-chief, leaving the fundamentals of the industry unchanged.

Blown Opportunity No 3: The Bank Bailouts
Obama, it's worth remembering, also came to office with the big banks on their knees – it took real effort not to nationalise them. Once again, if Obama had dared to use the power that was handed to him by history, he could have mandated the banks to provide the loans for factories to be retrofitted and new green infrastructure to be built. Instead he declared that the government shouldn't tell the failed banks how to run their businesses. Green businesses report that it's harder than ever to get a loan.

Imagine if these three huge economic engines – the banks, the car companies, the stimulus bill – had been harnessed to a common green vision. If that had happened, demand for a complementary energy bill would have been part of a coherent transformative agenda.

Whether the bill had passed or not, by the time Copenhagen had rolled around, the US would already have been well on its way to dramatically cutting emissions, poised to inspire, rather than disappoint, the rest of the world.

There are very few US presidents who have squandered as many once-in-a-generation opportunities as Obama. More than anyone else, the Copenhagen failure belongs to him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...
.....................................................................................................................................................................................

BBC News

Friday, 18 December 2009

"The government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has alleged that the hacking of climate change emails was a tactical move by powerful "agencies" to disrupt the Copenhagen summit.

Emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit suggested that some scientists were exaggerating data to steer conclusions about global warming in one direction.

Sir David made the comments on BBC's Newsnight. Cliff Saran, technology editor of Computer Weekly, analyses the allegations."

Listen here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi...
......................................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 22, 2009

Conservatives to push Senate over US climate Bill

Sam Coates

Senior Conservatives are to lobby Republicans in the US Senate to persuade them to back a climate emissions Bill. As the Tory leadership struggled to prevent party sceptics from dominating the environmental argument after the Copenhagen summit, David Cameron pledged to continue the work started in Denmark in trying to find a legally binding climate change agreement.

He said: “We should be thankful for the small things that have been achieved like the 2C limit on temperature rises and the good work on rainforests.

“But it’s disappointing overall because there are no carbon reduction targets, the details on help for poorer countries to tackle global warming is vague and it’s not a legally binding treaty. We need now to step up the work to get that done.”

If his party gains power in May, he could face a critical climate change summit in Bonn four weeks after the election.

Tory environment ministers believe that they can play a role nudging moderate Republicans to support the Bill.

The Bill is stalled until President Obama completes his healthcare reforms. Mr Obama’s failure to produce legislation to reduce carbon emissions before the Copenhagen summit began was a key reason for its failure...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...

Marcus:

Frediano's picture

Do you think it is any wonder at all that BNP-Paribas is all over this green nonsense?

(BNP-Paribas , exclusive financiers extraordinaire of the UN Oil for Food scam.)

Or, that Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental panel on climate change, is rubbing elbows with
BNP Paribas at events like the Paris Conference of The Long Term Investors Club?

Can you blame smart people for taking advantage of the current Madness of Crowds, and leaping into the water with jaws wide open?

There is only one remarkable feature of any of this, and that is, they aren't even -trying- to hide it from anybody. The corruption is totally bullet-proof.

Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment

Marcus's picture

From The Times

December 21, 2009

Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment issues

Ben Webster, Francis Elliott

A new global body dedicated to environmental stewardship is needed to prevent a repeat of the deadlock which undermined the Copenhagen climate change summit, Gordon Brown will say tomorrow.

The UN’s consensual method of negotiation, which requires all 192 countries to reach agreement, needs to be reformed to ensure that the will of the majority prevails, he feels.

The Prime Minister will say: “Never again should we face the deadlock that threatened to pull down those talks. Never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries. One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship.

“I believe that in 2010 we will need to look at reforming our international institutions to meet the common challenges we face as a global community.” The summit failed to produce a political agreement among all the countries. Delegates instead passed a motion on Saturday “taking note” of an accord drawn up the night before by five countries: the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
.........................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North write.

20 Dec 2009

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.

It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading ‘climate official’ can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC’s recommendations.

The issue of Dr Pachauri’s potential conflict of interest was first publicly raised last Tuesday when, after giving a lecture at Copenhagen University, he was handed a letter by two eminent ‘climate sceptics’. One was the Stephen Fielding, the Australian Senator who sparked the revolt which recently led to the defeat of his government’s ‘cap and trade scheme’. The other, from Britain, was Lord Monckton, a longtime critic of the IPCC’s science, who has recently played a key part in stiffening opposition to a cap and trade bill in the US Senate...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

The Copenhagen farce is glad tidings for all

Marcus's picture

From The Sunday Times

December 20, 2009

The Copenhagen farce is glad tidings for all

Dominic Lawson

After two weeks of increasingly ill-tempered negotiations, one of the European delegates at the Copenhagen summit “to save the planet” had clearly reached breaking point; or perhaps it was the ingratitude of the people he was trying to save that caused this negotiator to tell the BBC’s science correspondent, Susan Watts, that millions of Africans now “deserve” to be incinerated.

Watts was reporting a conversation she had had with an unnamed “European negotiator” after South Africa decided to join the quartet of America, India, China and Brazil in putting its name to a statement rejecting any binding emissions targets, and thus comprehensively sabotaging the entire conference. “South Africa has signed up to this!” the delegate told Watts. “They’re going to fry — and they’ll deserve it.”

One’s heart does not warm to anyone expressing such sentiments, but it’s easy to understand the fury that must have overcome this delegate. Here was Europe offering to impose vast costs on its own industries and peoples to save Africa from the alleged perils of runaway CO2 emissions — and that continent’s most powerful international voice says, thanks very much for the offer, but we think we can best provide health and prosperity to our people by being free to expand our economy exactly as you did in the industrial revolution, by using the wonderfully cheap forms of energy that nature affords: fossil fuels. After all, why is it that in the US many fewer people die as a result of very high temperatures than used to be the case a hundred years ago? Air-conditioning.

I know that for those thousands of “climate activists” who descended on Copenhagen, the idea of air-conditioning in African homes is something almost too revolting to contemplate; but then they have never understood that, for the real inhabitants of the developing world, the American example of achieving health and comfort through technology and subverting harsh nature for human ends is something to be emulated, not shunned...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
...................................................................................................................................................

Washington Times

Sunday, December 20, 2009

EDITORIAL: Obama's cold day in Denmark

The White House is being outmaneuvered by Red China

Copenhagen was a cold town last week for the global-warming crowd. The expected reorganization of the world economy to fit the green template vanished amid blizzard conditions in a country that has had just seven white Christmases in the past century. God certainly has a sense of humor.

President Obama showed up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference having been assured he would be able to make history, only to find that the proceedings were a flop. The promised treaty - billed with the characteristic understatement of the alarmist community as "the single most important piece of paper in the world today" - was an anticlimax. Earlier drafts conjured images of world government, command economies and a future free of the evils of greenhouse gasses. It promised a green utopia.

However, as the conference neared, huge gaps in the treaty language persisted. The final three-page version was tossed together in the closing hours with little deliberation and wound up saying little. The much-ballyhooed treaty promises next to nothing, other than a $100 billion slush fund for Third World dictators to "adapt to climate change," which probably involves buying mansions in southern France.

Mr. Obama's speech reflected the general frustration of the hour and was uncharacteristically flat and angry. The president fumed that it was "not a time to talk but to act," but we wonder why he's in such a hurry. There is no particular crisis. The inflated gravitas of the event was punctured by the ongoing collapse of the scientific basis for global-warming theory in the wake of the scandal about fudged scientific research...

http://www.washingtontimes.com...
...............................................................................................

Copenhagen: The last-ditch drama that saved the deal from collapse

In the end it came down to frantic horse trading between exhausted politicians. After two weeks of high politics and low cunning that pitted world leaders against each other and threw up extraordinary new alliances between states, agreement was finally reached yesterday on an accord to tackle global warming. But the bitterness and recriminations that bedevilled the talks threaten to spread as environmental activists and scientists react to what many see as a deeply flawed deal.

John Vidal and Jonathan Watts
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 December 2009

The Copenhagen accord was gavelled through in the early hours of yesterday morning after a night of extraordinary drama and two weeks of subterfuge. It is a document that will shape the world, the climate and the balance of power for decades to come, but the story of how it came into existence is one of high drama and low politics.

Amid leaks, suspicion, recriminations and exhaustion, the world's leaders abandoned ordinary negotiating protocol to haggle line-for-line with mid-level officials. An emergency meeting of 30 leaders was called after a royal banquet on Thursday evening because of the huge number of disputes still remaining.

China and India were desperate to avoid this last-minute attempt to strong-arm them into a deal. The Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh's plane mysteriously developed a problem that delayed his arrival. Chinese premier Wen Jiabao simply refused to attend, sending his officials instead. In a collapse of protocol, middle-ranking officials from the two countries negotiated line by line on a text with Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Germany's Angela Merkel and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Gordon Brown felt the only way to overcome the logjam was for leaders to descend into the detail and take on officials. Yet there was still no agreement by 7am on Friday.

"I thought it was meltdown," said Ed Miliband, Britain's secretary of state for energy and climate change. Brown returned to the fray, cranking out 13 amendments designed to overcome the objections of the developing nations and press home Europe's desire to commit to a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050 and a determination to make the process legally – not just "politically" – binding on all parties. Both goals were rejected by China and India, which had formed a strong alliance...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
............................................................................................................................................

BBC News

Sunday, 20 December 2009

China and Indonesia welcome Copenhagen summit deal

Asian giants China and Indonesia have hailed the Copenhagen UN climate summit outcome, despite its cool reception from aid agencies and campaigners.

Beijing's foreign minister said it was a new beginning, and Indonesia's leader said he was pleased with the result.

Earlier, US President Barack Obama defended the accord he helped broker with China and other main powers.

The non-binding pact, called the Copenhagen Accord, was not adopted by consensus at the summit in Denmark.

Instead, after two weeks of frantic negotiations, the 193-nation conference ended on Saturday with delegates merely taking note of the deal...

Germany will host the next climate change conference in six months in Bonn, to follow up the work of the Copenhagen summit.

The final outcome is supposed to be sealed at a conference in Mexico City at the end of 2010.

US President Barack Obama defended the deal after arriving back in Washington on Saturday, describing it as "the foundation for international action in the years to come".

The Copenhagen Accord is based on a proposal tabled on Friday by a US-led group of five nations - including China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

It was lambasted by some delegations when put to a full session of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the summit.

A few developing countries said it was a cosy backroom deal between rich nations that violated UN democracy and would condemn the world to disastrous climate change.

Before the summit, China for the first time offered to limit its greenhouse gas output.

It pledged to reduce its carbon intensity - use of fossil fuels per unit of economic output - by up to 45%, although critics said this would not necessarily lead to any overall cut in its emissions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci...
.........................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen accord keeps Big Carbon in business

The Copenhagen summit achieved its main aim, to maintain the carbon-trading system established by the Kyoto Protocol, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
19 Dec 2009

...Copenhagen was not about global warming but money. The cash that Hillary Clinton so dramatically plonked on the table, rising to $100 billion by 2020, which includes the £1.5 billion offered by Gordon Brown (money which of course he hasn't got) and which like a crazed gambler he last week upped to £6 billion (even more money he hasn't got), was merely a "sweetener" to persuade the developing countries to maintain the money-machine set in motion by Kyoto.

This is the new global industry based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year, which through schemes such as the UN's Clean Development Mechanism and the EU's Emissions Trading System is making a small minority of people, including Al Gore, extremely rich.

The only really concrete achievement of Copenhagen was to win agreement to the perpetuating of those Kyoto rules that have created this vast industry, which has two main beneficiaries. On one hand are that small number of people in China and India who have learnt how to work this system to their huge advantage. On the other are all those Western entrepreneurs who have piled into what has become the fastest‑growing commodity market in the world.

The part played at Copenhagen by all the tree-huggers, abetted by the BBC and their media allies, was to keep hysteria over warming at fever pitch while the politicians haggled over the real prize, to keep the Kyoto system in place...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com...

Rich and poor countries blame each other for failure

Marcus's picture

Rich and poor countries blame each other for failure of Copenhagen deal

Wealthy nations accused of bullying tactics to get developing countries to sign 'death warrant'

John Vidal in Copenhagen
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 December 2009

The blame game over the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks started last night with countries accusing each other of a complete lack of willingness to compromise.

The G77 group of 130 developing nations blamed Obama for "locking the poor into permanent poverty by refusing to reduce US emissions further."

"Today's events are the worst development for climate change in history," said a spokesperson.

Pablo Solon, Bolivian ambassador to the UN, blamed the Danish hosts for convening only a small group of countries to prepare a text to put before world leaders. "This is completely unacceptable. How can it be that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the majority of the 190 nations."

But rich countries said that developing countries had wasted too much time on "process" rather than the substance of the talks. An epic stand-off over whether to ditch the Kyoto protocol's legal distinctions between developed and developing countries and their obligations to cut their emissions caused a huge delay to the negotiations...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
.........................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate conference: global warming talks meltdown

The Bella Centre in Copenhagen looks more like the aftermath of a particularly messy house party rather than the place where 120 of the most powerful men and women have just met to discuss saving the planet.

By Louise Gray, in Copenhagen
19 Dec 2009

The largest gathering of world leaders in recent history began with hope and excitement as President Barack Obama himself swept into town.

He said America was ready to fight climate change by cutting greenhouse gases as long as other countries also cut their emissions - and crucially agree to being monitored by the outside world.

“Yes we can!”

Umm, actually no we can’t.

It soon became clear that China was not signing up to any treaty that allowed other countries to snoop around in their dirty emissions laundry.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reportedly left for his hotel in a huff and suddenly the whole conference was plunged into chaos.

Despite two weeks of hardcore talks it now seemed like the world could not agree after all – or rather the two main superpowers would not agree.

Negotiations were cancelled and thousands of delegates wandered the corridors looking confused and rather sad...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
.............................................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 19, 2009

Copenhagen cuts corners on climate change safeguards

Ben Webster and Sam Coates in Copenhagen

Key safeguards on climate change were sacrificed yesterday as world leaders struggled to achieve a compromise at the Copenhagen summit.

The final text of the deal merely repeated a previous commitment to limit the global temperature increase to 2C without explaining how countries would achieve that.

It said that “deep cuts in emissions” would be required but failed to set out what they would be. All the targets that had appeared in various drafts were deleted from the final text, indicating the depth of the disagreement among the 192 countries.

They agreed to set “emission reduction targets” across their economies before February 1, but this was a sign of failure because they had all come to Copenhagen with pledges on cutting emissions. Many of the pledges were conditional on other countries making comparable efforts and, despite two weeks of talks, there was clearly too little trust that others would shoulder their share of the burden.

A commitment to turning the “Copenhagen accord” into a legally binding treaty within a year was deleted from the final text...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
.........................................................................................................................

Chinese debate positive side of global warming

Dynasties were more prosperous' when weather was warm

Steph Davidson, National Post
Published: Friday, December 18, 2009

Academics in China are debating whether global warming could benefit rather than harm the country, with some historical climatologists believing the country did better during warmer periods.

They point to studies that show a drop in temperature and desertification accelerated the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.

"With the cold temperatures there was a drought in Mongolia. Since people were eating livestock, which fed on the grasslands, they needed to go south," Xie Zhenghui of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' International Center for Climate & Environmental Sciences told the Los Angeles Times...

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/ne...
....................................................................................................................................................................

Wouldn't it be ironic...

Marcus's picture

...to think the world-wide green communism agenda dreamed up in Copenhagen might have been derailed by a communist country, China?

Of course, I have no illusions that our deluded leaders will let matters rest, even if there is no deal.

Sadly I think they are beyond the pale in terms of ever letting the facts, reason or voter disapproval get in the way of this great gravy-train of doom.

Leaders to agree to climate change deal - but it will fall short

Marcus's picture

From The Times

December 18, 2009

Leaders to agree to climate change deal - but it will fall short of UN minimum

Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Sam Coates

A global deal to address climate change is likely to be agreed today but the commitments it contains on cutting greenhouse gases will fall short of the minimum target set by the UN’s science body.

The European Union is preparing to increase its commitment on cutting emissions as part of an endgame at the Copenhagen summit which will see other countries making similar concessions.

A pledge yesterday by the United States to contribute to a $100 billion (£60 billion) annual climate protection fund appeared to have won sufficient support from developing countries, which are desperate not to walk away empty-handed from the summit.

President Obama, who will join 120 other heads of state in Copenhagen today, may announce a specific financial contribution to make up for not improving on the emissions target he announced last month.

Another big obstacle to a deal was swept away when the US and China appeared to agree a compromise on the issue of independent scrutiny of emission reductions reported by each country. China accepted the need for transparency but stopped short of saying that it would abide the findings of any external audit of its emissions.

Gordon Brown will present the deal as a success but gloss over the fact that the total emissions reductions pledged by developed countries are below the level recommended by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
......................................................................................................................................

Better to have no deal at Copenhagen than one that spells catastrophe

The only offer on the table in Copenhagen would condemn the developing world to poverty and suffering in perpetuity

Naomi Klein
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 December 2009

...Europe, he says, fully understands how much money will be made from carbon trading, since it has been using the mechanism for years. Developing countries, on the other hand, have never dealt with carbon restrictions, so many governments don't really grasp what they are losing. Contrasting the value of the carbon market – $1.2 trillion a year, according to leading British economist Nicholas Stern – with the paltry $10bn on the table for developing countries for the next three years, Stilwell says that rich countries are trying to exchange "beads and blankets for Manhattan". He adds: "This is a colonial moment. That's why no stone has been left unturned in getting heads of state here to sign off on this kind of deal … Then there's no going back. You've carved up the last remaining unowned resource and allocated it to the wealthy."...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...
.........................................................................................................................................................

They call this a consensus?

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent...

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/s...

Plimer v Monbiot video: thugs, murderers and cannibals

William Scott Scherk's picture

Australia's ABC network broadcast a Lateline discussion between arch-alarmist George Monbiot of the Guardian and arch-skeptic Ian Plimer. Plimer is the author of Heaven and Earth. There is a bit of history† between these two gents, with extreme snark reminding me of certain exchanges here . . .

It is a very snappy, and sometimes uncomfortable exchange.

Three parts of the ABC show via Youtube:



WSS

_________

† the link is to correspondence between the two. There is following material at Chris Colose's blog, here. Among the other online resources examining Plimer's claims are a point-by-point critique of the debate questions Plimer put to Monbiot at wikia.ocm.

Hammers and sickles are out in force

gregster's picture

See here.

"It was truly shocking to arrive at a climate action rally in Copenhagen and literally see a sea of red flags and banners with hammers and sickles,” says CFACT President David Rothbard. “I don’t believe most environmentalists are secretly communists, but it interesting to see that many communists believe the green agenda is the best path toward socialist policies.”

Some marchers wore hats saying, “Save the Planet. Scrap Capitalism.” One marcher said, “We fight for a socialist society and a socialist program for the climate. I believe in international solidarity in socialism. That’s the way forward.”

Hillary Clinton offers $100 bn per year at Copenhagen

Marcus's picture

The meeting of the world's greatest thugs, murderers and cannibals. All they need now is the Hammer and Sickle, Swastikas and Heil Chavez salute (Oh, yeah, they've already done that!).

Steve Forbes lashes back FOR Capitalism

Jmaurone's picture

How Capitalism Will Save Us: Why Free People and Free Markets Are the Best Answer in Today's Economy

He even mentions Rand a few times, favorably, in contrast to turncoat Greenspan.

Chavez, Morales, Mugabe lash out at Capitalism to applause

Marcus's picture

ABC News

Chavez, Morales, Mugabe lash out at Copenhagen

Thu Dec 17, 2009

Firebrand leaders Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Robert Mugabe turned up the heat at the UN climate talks, dumping the blame for global warming squarely at the feet of capitalism.

In speeches greeted with occasional ripples of applause, the long-term critics of Western policy lashed out at what they called the hypocrisy of the world's wealthy elite.

Mr Chavez, the President of Venezuela, was one of the first world leaders to take the podium at the venue of the Copenhagen talks.

He seized the occasion to characterise newly-minted Nobel Peace laureate US President Barack Obama as a warmonger.

"I don't think Obama is here yet," said Mr Chavez.

"He got the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day as he sent 30,000 soldiers to kill innocent people in Afghanistan."

Mr Obama, who picked up his Nobel last Thursday, is expected to arrive in Copenhagen on Friday for the climax of the 12-day world conference on climate change, according to the US delegation.

Mr Chavez, paraphrasing Karl Marx, said "a ghost is stalking the streets of Copenhagen... it's capitalism, capitalism is that ghost."

"The destructive model of capitalism is the eradication of life," he said...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto...
..................................................................................................................................


................................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 17, 2009

Chinese undermine hopes of Copenhagen climate deal

Sam Coates and Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen

China has indicated that it is likely to scupper a far-reaching climate deal at Copenhagen as Gordon Brown downgraded his ambitions for the outcome of the 192-nation summit on global warming.

The Prime Minister used a speech to ministers and fellow world leaders this morning to urge agreement around six broad principles, including preventing global temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees on pre-industrial levels and cutting emissions from developed nations by 80 per cent by 2050. He also said that developing countries should show a "significant reduction from business as usual".

"Hurricanes, floods, typhoons and droughts that were once all regarded as the acts of an invisible God are now revealed to be the visible acts of Man," he said.

However, he acknowledged that a detailed agreement was unlikely to be drawn up this week and downgraded his timetable for a deal, suggesting that it should be reached within a year rather than the six months he previously pledged. His speech echoed downbeat comments from other delegations...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
..................................................................................................................................................

Daily Mail

Met Office 'manipulated climate change figures' says Russian think tank linked to President Putin

By Will Stewart
17th December 2009

An explosive new claim that the Meteorological Office in Britain 'manipulated' climate change figures has come from a leading Russian think-tank founded by a former adviser to Vladimir Putin.

As the Copenhagen summit comes to a climax on Friday, it was alleged that Siberian weather statistics were selected in a way that masks evidence not showing global warming.

The think tank strongly disputes the use of data from the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Change which were released in a bid to diffuse the recent row over hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia.

The emails were seized upon by global warming sceptics as evidence that academics were massaging the figures.

The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) claimed the Hadley Centre used statistics from weather stations in Russian and Siberia that fitted its theory of global warming, while often ignoring those that did not...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

If Obama signs anything it should be seen as a bonus

Marcus's picture

From The Times

December 16, 2009

If Obama signs anything at Copenhagen it should be seen as a bonus

Giles Whittell: Analysis

Belching carbon but laden with good intentions, Air Force One will take off tomorrow night for Copenhagen on one of the most delicate and daunting missions of President Obama’s first year in office.

His tasks divide into essentials and desirables. He must be able to argue on his return that the trip was worth it, and he must resist committing America to emissions targets that prove impossible to enforce. Those are the essentials. He would like to be hailed as a world leader on climate change, and the signs are that he would also, on a personal level, like to do what he can to stop global warming. Those are the desirables.

In the Obama bubble American politics comes first and the state of the planet second. That is not how he or most of the 20,000 delegates would wish it, but it is his — and their — reality.

It is a truth that Britain recognises. The deal being brokered by the British delegation would accept Mr Obama’s pledge to cut US emissions by 17 per cent relative to 2005 levels even though it is much less ambitious than European targets, but it is about much more than numbers: it recognises that if the President cannot turn his undertakings into law they are worth nothing.

By committing the US at Kyoto in 1997 to a carbon reduction scheme to which the US Congress was opposed, Al Gore raised expectations that were then dashed when the Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The UN climate change talks have taken 12 years to recover...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
....................................................................................................................................................

Obama is not saviour of the world. He's still an American president

The reality is that this man must represent the contradictory interests of a country still way behind on climate change

Jonathan Freedland
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 December 2009

For the second time in just over a week, Barack Obama is on his way to Scandinavia, his mission once again to confront impossible expectations with a cold bucket of reality. Last week he was in Oslo to pick up a Nobel peace prize, apologetically explaining that in the real world away from Norwegian dreams he was a war president who had just escalated the US presence in Afghanistan. On Friday he will touch down in Copenhagen, this time required to offer his regrets that, despite the hopes he stirred round the world a year ago, he will not be able to pull out his pen and, at a stroke, sign the deal that saves the planet.

This is fast becoming Obama's role on the world stage: managing disappointment. The gap between what international opinion demands of him and what he can deliver widens with each passing month, and it falls to him to explain why. If he could be completely frank, he might well tell the climate activists in the Danish capital that, were it purely up to him, he would give them everything they desire. After all, he is the same man whose stump speech two years ago used to open with a declaration that "the planet is in peril". But it is not purely up to him. He has to represent the multiple, complex and contradictory interests of the country he now leads. His job is not saviour of the world. As the climate adviser to a 19-strong group of African nations puts it ruefully: "He's still an American president."...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...
................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate summit: Desmond Tutu calls for climate justice

Justice cannot wait for a deal to stop global warming at the Copenhagen climate conference, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
15 Dec 2009

The Nobel Laureate joined an “international climate hearing” organised by Oxfam that allowed 1.5 million “witnesses” to the damage caused by climate change around the world to make their case for action.

Witnesses included farmers in Uganda going hungry because of drought and families from Bangladesh affected by floods.

Archbishop Tutu said he has seen for himself the effects of climate change in his home country of South Africa.

“I too, stand before you as a witness. I have seen with my own eyes the changes in my homeland, South Africa. The Southern Cape is currently experiencing the worst drought anyone can remember. There is not enough food. There is too little water. The situation is becoming increasingly desperate,” he said.

Mary Robinson, former UN Commissioner for Human Rights, said climate change was “undermining human rights on an unprecedented scale.”

“International human rights law says that ‘in no case may a people be deprived of its means of subsistence’. Yet because of excessive carbon emissions, produced primarily by industrialised countries, millions of the world’s poorest people’s rights are being violated every day. This is a deep and global injustice," she said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
.................................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate summit: Prince Charles warns climate change will drive starvation and terrorism

The world has only seven years before climate change causes a “point of crisis” that will drive food shortages, terrorism and poverty, the Prince of Wales has warned.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent, in Copenhagen
15 Dec 2009

Speaking at the opening ceremony of the ministerial segment of the Copenhagen climate conference, the Prince said the “survival of the species” was in peril.

The talks have been dogged by walk-outs and protests as the poor world becomes increasingly frustrated at the lack of refusal by richer countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Yesterday Yvo de Boer, the head of negotiations, admitted things are moving “too slowly” as pressure grew on the world’s two biggest emitters China and the US to compromise over cutting carbon emissions and committing money to climate change.

Prince Charles said world leaders owe it to “our children and grand children” to make a difference.

“The future of mankind can be assured only if we rediscover ways in which to live as a part of nature, not apart from her,” he said. “The grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control.”

He pointed out that climate change is a “risk multiplier”.

“Reducing poverty, increasing food production, combating terrorism and sustaining economic development are all vital priorities, but it is increasingly clear how rapid climate change will make them even more difficult to address,” he warned.

The Prince, who flew in by private jet, joined Arnold Schwarzenegger the Governor of California and Al Gore, the former US Senator, who also flew in to add impetus to the talks.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, is also working hard behind the scenes to “bash heads together” over key issues like the amount of money the rich world is willing to pay poor countries to help them reduce emissions...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
...............................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate conference: Nick Griffin calls world leaders mass murderers

Nick Griffin has accused world leaders at the Copenhagen climate conference of the “biggest hoax in history” that will kill more people than the great famines under Stalin and Mao.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent in Copenhagen
15 Dec 2009

The leader of the British National Party and MEP is at the international summit as a representative of the European Parliament.

But he said global warming was a “hoax” designed to impose tax increases on the citizens of the world through putting up the price of energy.

He said world leaders and advocates of action on climate change such as Al Gore are “mass murderers” by supporting biofuels.

He said land for growing food is being taken to grow fuels for crops and it will cause starvation greater than the famines caused by Russian dictator Stalin during the 1930s and Chairman Mao in the 1950s.

"It is a crime against humanity which in future will be seen as an enormous man-made famine. Under Stalin 20 million people died, under Chairman Mao 30 million died. This will be the third and the greatest famine of the modern era and I regard that as a crime.”

However Mr Griffin’s own party would not give more money to the Third World.

“Britain is bankrupt. We cannot afford to go giving money to the third world,” he said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
.........................................................................................................................

100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made

Marcus's picture

Daily Express

Tuesday December 15,2009
By Martyn Brown

...The report, by the respected European Foundation, also argues that a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main greenhouse gas – is not a problem because it helps to boost crop yields.

And it claims that the warming we are now experiencing is “mostly natural”, pointing to historic shifts in the climate such as when Vikings farmed on Greenland in medieval times.

Political analyst Jim McConalogue, who wrote the report, said: “This demonstrates how tenuous, improper and indeed false the scientific and political claims are for man-made global warming, from claims that climate change can be controlled by human activity to the proposition that CO2 emissions represent a severe threat to our way of life, when in fact there is little evidence to support any of these claims.”

He warned that the Copenhagen climate summit was likely to lead to “nonsensical targets” to reduce emissions, which would result in a “burdensome regulatory agenda”. After Copenhagen, voters around the world “will see what travesty has been done in their name, as foolish politicians and indifferent industry associations have engulfed their countries in emissions legislation”...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts...

See List Here:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/...

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his sums don't add up

Marcus's picture

From The Times

December 15, 2009

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

Hannah Devlin, Ben Webster, Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Climate change is 'natural not man-made'

Climate change is "natural and not man-made", according to a report that lists "100 reasons why" to back the theory.

15 Dec 2009

They include the controversial claim that there is "no scientific proof" that the rising levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (C02) are caused by human activity.

The report, by the European Foundation, also argues that increased levels of C02 are not a problem because it helps to boost crop yields.

It also points to historic shifts in the climate, such as when Vikings farmed on Greenland in medieval times, to argue that the warming we are now experiencing is "mostly natural".

Political analyst Jim McConalogue, who wrote the report, told the Daily Express: “This demonstrates how tenuous, improper and indeed false the scientific and political claims are for man-made global warming, from claims that climate change can be controlled by human activity to the proposition that CO2 emissions represent a severe threat to our way of life, when in fact there is little evidence to support any of these claims.”

He also warned that the Copenhagen climate summit was likely to lead to “nonsensical targets” to reduce emissions, which would result in a “burdensome regulatory agenda”...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
.....................................................................................................................................................

Independent

Brown offers £1.2bn in a bid to break climate deadlock

Prime Minister unveils fresh fund to help the Third World combat global warming – as Prince Charles flies in to Copenhagen to open crucial phase of talks

By Andrew Grice and Michael McCarthy in Copenhagen

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

Gordon Brown is preparing to offer more money from Britain to help the world's poorest countries combat climate change in an attempt to break the deadlock at the Copenhagen summit.

Aides to the Prime Minister, who has already announced £1.5bn over the next three years for African and other nations affected by global warming, said he is also planning to contribute to a separate £15.3bn global fund to reduce deforestation. A payment of similar proportions would mean an extra £1.2bn coming from British taxpayers.

However the Prime Minister faces questions about how Britain will find the money when it has a £178bn budget deficit in the current financial year. The £1.5bn will come from the existing budget of the Department for International Development. Any top-up would be new money which would have to found despite the squeeze on public spending signalled in last week's pre-Budget report.

Mr Brown will travel to Copenhagen today, as will the Prince of Wales, who is due to give an impassioned speech when he opens the Presidents-and-Prime-Ministers section of the meeting, which will see 120 world leaders come together in the Danish capital between now and Friday...

http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
.............................................................................................................................

Steven Chu pledges $350m clean tech fund to sweeten deal at Copenhagen

US energy secretary attempts to show Obama administration is serious about action on climate change

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 December 2009

The Obama administration tried to sweeten a climate change deal for developing countries today with the promise of a $350m fund for the development of new clean energy technologies.

The fund will be used to encourage the development of renewable energy projects such as wind and solar power and more energy efficient appliances in the developing world.

In an appearance at the climate change summit in Copenhagen, the energy secretary Steven Chu likened the initiative to the breakthrough of seed technology which helped lift countries in Asia out of poverty. "We need a gamechanger like the green revolution was for agriculture," he said.

Chu's appearance before a packed hall at the US pavilion was part of an ambitious outreach effort by the Obama administration to persuade a sceptical international community it is serious about taking action on climate change. It comes amid rising rancour between rich and poor countries. The talks were suspended for five hours today, with negotiators from African and other developing countries accusing the Danish chair of ignoring their concerns...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...

'We must get our act together,' says Ed Miliband

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate summit: 'We must get our act together,' says Ed Miliband

Environment ministers must ''get their act together'' to put international talks to tackle climate change back on track and deal with unresolved issues, Ed Miliband has said.

By Rowena Mason, in Copenhagen
14 Dec 2009

Speaking in Copenhagen, the Climate Change Secretary urged delegates to make progress before national leaders arrive later this week.

He said: ''We need to collectively get our act together and move on and find ways in which we can solve the difficult issues, because these issues that I've mentioned can't all be left to leaders.

''It may be the case that some final issues remain when leaders arrive.

''I've always said the leaders' role in this process is incredibly important to get the final pieces of the jigsaw in place. But what we cannot do is leave a whole slew of issues to leaders.

''I think that the very clear message for negotiators and ministers is we need to get our act together and take action to resolve some of the outstanding issues that we face.''

Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, has moved forward his arrival at the Copenhagen climate change summit two days early because talks are “moving too slowly”.

The Prime Minister has now twice pushed forward his appearance at the international summit, where disagreements have broken out between developed and developing countries over how much greenhouse gas emissions should be cut...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
................................................................................................................................................

Independent

Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists

Key claim of global warming sceptics debunked

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Monday, 14 December 2009

Leading scientists, including a Nobel Prize-winner, have rounded on studies used by climate sceptics to show that global warming is a natural phenomenon connected with sunspots, rather than the result of the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

The researchers – all experts in climate or solar science – have told The Independent that the scientific evidence continually cited by sceptics to promote the idea of sunspots being the cause of global warming is deeply flawed.

Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity – sunspots – and continue to be cited by climate sceptics, including those who attended an "alternative" climate conference in Copenhagen last week.

However, problems with the data used to establish the correlation have been identified by other experts and the flaws are now widely accepted by the scientific community, even though the studies continue to be used to support the idea that global warming is "natural".

The issue has gained new importance in the light of opinion polls showing that nearly one in two people now believe global warming is a natural phenomenon unconnected with CO2 emissions. Public distrust of the accepted explanation of global warming has been exacerbated by emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which appeared to suggest that scientists were engaged in a conspiracy to suppress contrarian views.

Many sceptics who accept that global temperatures have risen in recent decades suggest it is part of the climate's natural variability and could be accounted for by normal variations in the activity of the Sun. Powerful support for this idea came in 1991 when Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, published a study showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and the length of sunspot cycles...

Messrs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen stand by their studies and continue to believe there is evidence to support their sunspot theory of global warming, despite the doubts first raised by Laut.

"It's not a critique of the science or the correlations, it's a critique of person," Mr Friis-Christensen said. "It's a character assassination. [Laut] is not interested in the science, he's interested in promoting the idea Henrik did something unethical."

http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
.......................................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 14, 2009

Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years

Ben Webster, Environment Editor, in Copenhagen

The key decision on preventing catastrophic climate change will be delayed for up to six years if the Copenhagen summit delivers a compromise deal which ignores advice from the UN’s science body.

World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016.

The delay will anger developing countries who, scientists say, will face the worst effects of climate change despite having contributed relatively little of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A draft text published by the UN says that there should be a review in 2016, which could result in an “update of the long-term global goal for emissions reductions as well as of the adequacy of commitments and actions”.

The Times has learnt that negotiators from developed countries are planning to use the idea of a review to justify failing to agree the 25-40 per cent cut in the 1990 level of emissions by 2020, recommended by the IPCC...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
.................................................................................................................................................................


..................................................................................................................................................................

Think tank: Do-gooder Gore has it all wrong

Marcus's picture

From The Sunday Times

December 13, 2009

Think tank: Do-gooder Gore has it all wrong

Tony Allwright

Halfway through the climate change conference in Copenhagen, and still nobody seems to be willing to address the Climategate science fraud scandal that is crumbling the foundations of the global warming narrative.

In their new book Superfreakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner also challenge that narrative. They suggest that warming isn’t caused by human-generated carbon dioxide, to the predictable outrage of numerous “global warm-mongers”.

The contribution of carbon dioxide (CO2) to (alleged) global warming has become such an accepted piece of conventional wisdom that few seem to question it any more. “The science is settled,” we are admonished. We must curtail our CO2 emissions — or else. So cars are taxed according to their emissions; carbon levies and taxes are imposed; carbon-trading schemes are created; green ministers spend taxpayers’ money to “offset” CO2 emitted jetting around the world; the British government plans legislation to force people to reduce their carbon footprints; and we should all turn vegetarian.

Yet science, unlike some scientists, screams out that man’s CO2 cannot possibly cause global warming. Consider the molecular physics — it’s not that difficult...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
.....................................................................................................................................

Washington Times

EDITORIAL: The tip of the Climategate iceberg

Misleading 'evidence' is central to the global-warming fraud

A skeptical public repeatedly has been told that questions about purported global warming are closed. "I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science ... I think that this notion that there's some debate ... on the science is kind of silly," said President Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs when asked Monday about the president's response to the controversy. The flack was talking smack.

Contrary to the whitewash job conducted by propagandists, there are 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has collected more than 30,000 American scientists urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto Treaty, which pushes draconian measures to reduce carbon emissions. Much hay is made of 2,500 United Nations scientists who back Kyoto, but there are many more scientists with Ph.D.s among the 30,000 skeptics than there are among the oft-cited 2,500, most of whom are government bureaucrats without advanced degrees...

http://washingtontimes.com/new...
.....................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Jon Snow falls for Ed Miliband's figures

The climate change secretary was conservative, to say the least, in estimating the cost of his Climate Change Act on Channel 4 News, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
12 Dec 2009

A perfect reflection of the surreal nature of the "climate change debate" was the juxtaposition of two news items on the front page of the Telegraph website on Thursday. On the left was the headline "Met Office predict 2010 will be warmest on record". On the right was the story of how large parts of the US Mid- West had been brought to a halt, for the third winter running, by record-breaking blizzards.

The curious role of the UK Met Office, one of the leading promoters of climate change hysteria under its chairman Robert Napier, a former professional climate activist, has made it an international laughing stock. After its earlier prediction that 2007 would be "the warmest year on record', global temperatures plummeted by 0.7C, more than the entire net warming of the 20th century. Each year since then its winter and summer forecasts have been hilariously wrong (eg this year's prediction of a "barbecue summer"). And of course these forecasts were made with the help of a computer model – run by its Hadley Centre, in conjunction with the Climatic Research Unit now at the centre of the "Climategate" scandal – which is the same as the main one supplying temperature data to the UN' s IPCC...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com...
..................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate summit: Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe pocket €5bn

Carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn) mainly in Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland, according to Europol, the European law enforcement agency.

By Rowena Mason
10 Dec 2009

The revelation caused embarrassment for European Union negotiators at the Copenhagen climate change summit yesterday, where they have been pushing for an expansion of their system across the globe to penalise heavy emitters of carbon dioxide.

Rob Wainwright, the director of serious crime squad, said large-scale organised criminal activity had “endangered the credibility” of the current carbon trading system.

“We have been talking to Europol over the last weeks,” said one EU senior delegate, after she was asked whether the European Union-run scheme was still viable. “We are making some fixes.”

Yesterday, the UK delegation released a paper calling for the “expansion of carbon markets”, in order to use the profits for a fund to help developing nations tackle climate change.

Suspicions about an unprecedented level of carbon crime over the last 18 months have led investigators to believe criminals are using “missing trader” techniques to buy up carbon credits elsewhere in Europe where there is a cheaper rate of VAT.

Then they sell on the credits in the UK, charging the domestic rate, and pocket the difference. This has been commonplace among trading of very mobile commodities across European borders, such as phones, computer chips and cigarettes.

British investigators made seven arrests earlier this year over a suspected £38m VAT scam...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
........................................................................................................

Back to the bunker

The 'Climategate' emails have given new life to America's conservative sceptics – and they will be the biggest losers

John McQuaid
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 12 December 2009

Until recently, American conservatism's once-monolithic opposition to the very idea of global warming - based mostly, it sometimes seemed, on a common disdain for Al Gore - was starting to crack.

Outright denial – of the kind preached by Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe – was once the conservative movement's default position, and still is for many Republicans. The denialist camp even includes intellectuals such as George Will, who has penned a preposterous series of columns arguing, in essence, that climate change is a myth cooked up by scientists in service to a political agenda that will generate more grant money to produce more research into this mythical problem. In other words, a historically unprecedented worldwide scientific ponzi scheme.

Meanwhile, though, a steady stream of research reinforced the global scientific consensus, more real-world effects emerged in arctic regions and elsewhere, and even some Republican-friendly corporations began taking preemptive action. Even the Bush administration eventually conceded that anthropogenic climate change was real. So conservatives collectively began to pull their heads out of the sand - a little...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...

"It's a festival of phoniness."

Marcus's picture

Yes it is, but I still believe that billions of dollars will flow to the third world, possibily sparking wars, death and the decline of the west.

Don't forget they are already discussing the next summit post-Copenhagen.

These guys have a religious type zeal and wont let this thing drop.

Co-pomo-wankers!

gregster's picture

Contrivance in Copenhagen

"From the opening ceremony's video of a little girl running from an earthquake to the promises of emissions reductions, everything taking place in Copenhagen is contrived. The outcome of climate talks -- no treaty, no emissions reductions -- was known in advance. And yet participants pretend there is an unfolding drama. As such, Copenhagen is history's first completely postmodern global event. It's a festival of phoniness. With the ambitions of Versailles but the power of Davos, Copenhagen creates a cognitive dissonance for its creators, which results in ever-more manic displays of apocalypse anxiety and false hope. In the end, Copenhagen tells us more about ourselves -- our post-American world, our fragmented media environment, and our hyper-partisanship -- than about any attempt to slow global warming."

[..]

"What makes Copenhagen the first postmodern global event is not simply that it lacks a relationship to reality, but that so many continue to project such faith that a solution lies close at hand onto an effort that has so abjectly and obviously failed."

Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server

gregster's picture

This article (link below) explains "hide the decline."

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server

Russian secret service agents admitted yesterday that the hacked ‘Warmergate’ emails were uploaded on a Siberian internet server, but strenuously denied a clandestine state-sponsored operation to wreck the Copenhagen summit.

The FSB - formerly the KGB - confirmed that thousands of messages to and from scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were distributed to the world from the city of Tomsk, as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week.

Now, it has emerged that IT experts specialising in hacking techniques were brought in by the Russian authorities following this newspaper’s exposure of the Tomsk link.

They have gathered evidence about how and where the operation was carried out, although they are not prepared to say at this stage who they think was responsible.

A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation.

‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’ he said. ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done from outside Russia.’

The Kremlin’s top climate change official, Alexander Bedritsky, denied the Russian government was involved in breaking into the CRU’s computer system.

‘You can post information on a computer from any other country. It is nonsense to blame Russia,’ he said.

Thank you Russia.

Latest from the Spin Doctors

Jmaurone's picture

Here's the latest spin for pro-warmers:

Review: E-mails show pettiness, not fraud, Climate experts, AP reporters go through 1,000 exchanges

By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter

updated 12:18 p.m. ET, Sat., Dec . 12, 2009
LONDON - E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

But Marcus...

Frediano's picture

...she lost her Teddy bear.

It fell in the hole.

And then, the tsunami came. Or, maybe it was a tornado. Or Hurricane. Whatever.

I just know, she lost her Teddy bear.

Just....won't you please save the world?

Now do you understand?

It's for the Teddy bear.

It got wet.

Video: Monckton calls Copenhagen caterwaulers 'Hitler Youth'!!!

Marcus's picture

"Christopher Monckton berates a group of young activists for interrupting a meeting of climate sceptics in Copenhagen, calling them 'Nazis' and 'Hitler Youth'."


.....................................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 12, 2009

Copenhagen climate change summit in deadlock over rival texts

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The Copenhagen climate change summit is likely to end with two rival texts because the main countries cannot agree on the key question of how to share the burden of cutting emissions to a safe level.

The extent of the disagreement was exposed by the publication yesterday of two draft agreements, neither of which contained clear numbers or language on any of the most contentious issues, despite two years of negotiations before the summit.

The US refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol has forced negotiators to work on two separate texts and there is now little chance of the twin-track process producing a single document. The negotiators from 193 countries are hoping that the early arrival at the summit of several leaders next Wednesday, including Gordon Brown, will help to break the deadlock.

The only issues on which agreement is close are a commitment to a three-year climate fund to help poor countries to adapt to global warming and a pledge to limit the global temperature increase to 2C, although without a clear plan for delivering it...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
...................................................................................................................................

Copenhagen climate conference: Money talks

Editorial
The Guardian, Saturday 12 December 2009

Cash is the key to unlocking the grand climate bargain between the rich and poor world, as was apparent even before the brokering had got under way in Copenhagen. At the end of the first week of talking, this reality has become even starker, for a whole host of reasons.

For one thing, the first world is resisting moving things forward through the power of its own example. The European Council yesterday failed to make any immediate advance on its original offer of a 20% emissions reduction. This despite Gordon Brown's hope that Europe might soon firm up its more tentative talk of a 30% cut. In the absence of action, money will have to do even more of the talking. The indicative offers from developing countries are rather more encouraging – the environmental consultancy Ecofys suggests they are broadly in line with what the scientists demand – but these offers come with financial strings attached, making assistance still more important. Developing countries reject the rich world's tendency to brand such funds as aid, regarding them as reparations incurred by the globe's north for creating a problem which will do most damage in the south. The strength of the feelings showed, when a top negotiator on behalf of the poor countries dubbed Mr Brown worse than a climate-change denier for having squandered all the money on the banks...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...
....................................................................................................................................

WSJ

The EPA's Carbon Bomb Fizzles

DECEMBER 11, 2009

In the high-stakes game of chicken the Obama White House has been playing with Congress over who will regulate the earth's climate, the president's team just motored into a ditch. So much for threats.

The threat the White House has been leveling at Congress is the Environmental Protection Agency's "endangerment finding," which EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson finally issued this week. The finding lays the groundwork for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy, on the grounds that global warming is hazardous to human health.

From the start, the Obama team has wielded the EPA action as a club, warning Congress that if it did not come up with cap-and-trade legislation the EPA would act on its own—and in a far more blunt fashion than Congress preferred. As one anonymous administration official menaced again this week: "If [Congress doesn't] pass this legislation," the EPA is going to have to "regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."

The thing about threats, though, is that at some point you have to act on them. The EPA has been sitting on its finding for months, much to the agitation of environmental groups that have been upping the pressure for action.

President Obama, having failed to get climate legislation, didn't want to show up to the Copenhagen climate talks with a big, fat nothing. So the EPA pulled the pin. In doing so, it exploded its own threat.

Far from alarm, the feeling sweeping through many quarters of the Democratic Congress is relief. Voters know cap-and-trade is Washington code for painful new energy taxes. With a recession on, the subject has become poisonous in congressional districts. Blue Dogs and swing-state senators watched in alarm as local Democrats in the recent Virginia and New Jersey elections were pounded on the issue, and lost their seats.

But now? Hurrah! It's the administration's problem! No one can say Washington isn't doing something; the EPA has it under control. The agency's move gives Congress a further excuse not to act...

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

Ironically our 'fake' Christmas tree just arrived in the post today! Evil
.........................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Ditch fake Christmas trees to save planet

People should shun fake Christmas trees and buy a real one if they care about the environment, according to a Government quango which has issued a "green guide" to the festive season.

By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor
12 Dec 2009

Artificial Christmas trees, which have become increasingly popular over the last few years, have a carbon footprint at least ten times larger than a real tree.

Buying a 6 foot fake tree, made from plastic, is as damaging to the environment as toasting 5,222 slices of bread or driving 120 miles in an average-sized car.

The advice to shun the white, black, pink and glittery artificial trees that are being sold by supermarkets and department stores comes from the Carbon Trust, a Government-funded company which advises the public sector and businesses about how they can cut down on their carbon emissions.

Its advice about trees comes as part of some "top tips for cutting out our carbon impact over Christmas without cutting out the festive fun"...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...

Move to fund climate aid with global banking tax

Marcus's picture

Brown and Sarkozy move to fund climate aid with global banking tax

An EU summit in Brussels sought to boost the chances of a deal further by also pledging €2.4bn a year from January

Ian Traynor in Brussels
guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 December 2009

An international campaign to force the financial sector to pay for saving the planet from global warming was boosted yesterday when France joined Britain in championing a new global regime of so-called Tobin taxes on financial market transactions. The billions in potential proceeds would be earmarked for long-term measures to tackle global warming.

Days before the Copenhagen climate change conference reaches its finale with the arrival of Barack Obama and more than 100 other world leaders, an EU summit in Brussels sought to boost the chances of a deal further by also pledging €2.4bn a year from January in "fast-track" funds to help the world's poor countries cope with rising seas, floods and famines.

The figure agreed saw Gordon Brown almost double Britain's pledge from £800m to £1.5bn, apparently making the UK Europe's single most generous donor.

The figure was higher than expected and part of a broader package from the industrialised countries around the world tipped to total €7bn a year for the next three years...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...

Next year to be the world’s warmest on record, says Met Office

Marcus's picture

The Met Office seems to be in a desperate panic at the moment to dampen any AGW scepticism.
...............................................................................................

From The Times

December 11, 2009

Next year to be the world’s warmest on record, Met Office predicts

Ben Webster in Copenhagen

Next year is “more likely than not” to be the world’s warmest year on record and man-made climate change will be a factor, according to the Met Office.

It said that natural weather patterns would contribute less to next year’s temperature than they did in 1998, the current warmest year in the 160-year record.

El Niño effect, the cyclical heating of the Pacific Ocean, is much weaker than it was in 1998 but the Met Office expects the warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions to more than make up the difference.

It announced at the Copenhagen climate change summit that it expected the global average temperature next year to be almost 0.6C warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average. It forecast an annual average of 14.58C compared with 14.52C in 1998.

If the forecast proves correct it will be a significant blow to climate change sceptics, many of whom base their arguments on the fact that the temperature has not returned to the 1998 peak. Despite wrongly predicting a “barbecue summer” this year, the Met Office claims to have a good record of accurately predicting global temperatures...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
.............................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate change: 'US should spend as much on global warming as war'

Poor countries have demanded that the US spends as much on tackling climate change as it does on warfare.

By Louise Gray, Environment correspondent and Rowena Mason in Copenhagen

The row between the rich countries and the developing world intensified at the Copenhagen summit, as China and its supporters blamed America for “endangering the world” by refusing to hand over more cash.

Developing nations are pushing for £120bn ( $200bn) to help them tackle the effects of global warming, which is double the amount of money currently on the table.

In a new twist to the negotiations, Lumumba di-Aping, chief negotiator of the China and the G77 group of nations, made a direct appeal to US politicians to reapportion cash currently set aside for global financial emergencies...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
.......................................................................................................

Has Ukip got more than it bargained for in recruiting Viscount Monckton?

If the climate sceptic is to be believed, Ukip has landed a Nobel laureate, member of the Lords, saviour of the forces and inventor of the universal cure

George Monbiot Thursday 10 December 2009
guardian.co.uk

Lucky old UK Independence party (Ukip). With great fanfare in Copenhagen, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – the man who believes that action on climate change is a conspiracy to create a communist world government – announced this morning that he was joining them. He has made this momentous move, he tells us, because he has "become fed up with the hive mentality of British political discourse". British political discourse will doubtless miss him sorely, but does Ukip know what it is taking on?

I know that this party has become the last refuge of a marvellous collection of cranks and fabulists. In fact this seems to be its main role: care in the community for political eccentrics. But when even Rod Liddle, who is no friend of environmentalists, describes Monckton in his Spectator blog as a "swivel-eyed maniac", you can't help fearing that Ukip might be out of its depth...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
..........................................................................................................................................................

Daily Mail

Copenhagen climate change summit: The world is COOLING not warming says scientist Peter Taylor ... and we're not prepared

By Peter Taylor
11th December 2009

In his provocative book Chill, he warns that the world is cooling not warming and that solutions proposed at Copenhagen ignore the risks of a possible return of the Ice Age...

Like a magician who fools themselves but not audience, the Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) lobby have identified the wrong problem and the wrong solution.

Global cooling threatens disaster for humanity in the developed and developing world alike, yet the media and the scientific consensus ignores this peril.

The Climategate controversy revolves around whether warming has been real and why it has not persisted – but it misses the point.

Cycles are involved, not short-term trends, and many respected scientists, especially those in Russia and China, think that a cooling cycle is coming.

The AGW brigade have mistaken the current warm period for a trend caused by carbon emissions. But the detailed science says it could be natural and part of a cycle.

Behind the scenes at the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there is no consensus – the dissenting views have been covered over in the summary documents for policy makers – and among UK and EU politicians it’s even worse, and criminally expensive for the British taxpayer...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
.....................................................................................................................

Nature will decide Earth's future

By Professor Bob Carter

The Daily Telegraph December 09, 2009

AS the core samples from deep underground pass through the logging sensor before me, the rhythmic pattern of ancient climate change is clearly displayed. Friendly, brown sands for the warm interglacial periods and hostile, sterile grey clays for the cold glaciations. And for more than 90 per cent of recent geological time the Earth has been colder than today.

We modern humans are lucky to live towards the end of the most recent of the intermittent but welcome warm interludes. It is a 10,000 year-long period called the Holocene, during which our civilisations have evolved and flourished.

The cores tell the story that this period is only a short interlude during a long-term decline in global temperature - they also warn of the imminence of the next glacial episode in a series stretching back more than 2 million years.

Together with 50 other scientists and technicians, I am aboard the drilling ship Joides Resolution. JR, as it is affectionately known, is the workhorse of the Ocean Drilling Program, an international program that is to environmental science what NASA is to space science.

JR's drilling crew can retrieve cores up to 1km or more below the seabed and we are drilling today about 80km east of South Island in New Zealand. The ancient muds and sands that make up the sediment layers we pass through are the most important record of ancient climate that scientists possess. And they tell the tale that climate always changes...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com....
......................................................................................................................................

Unfortunately this disgraceful piece of Danish Government propaganda shown at Copenhagen Conference is #6 on the viral video chart this week.


....................................................................................................................................

Knavery & thinly-veiled rage

William Scott Scherk's picture

It was quite obvious from early on that Scherk has thinly-veiled rage towards the ClimateGate scandal.

Bullshit. I think the scandal is a good thing for climate science, it sharpens the debate, and lifts the cover on what McIntyre and others wanted to have released via FOIA requests --this is the meat that the anti-AGW forces have wanted. I like that the CRU is under investigation, I like the IPCC inquiry, I like the inquiry at APS, and I like that folks behind the AGW barricades (at CRU and elsewhere) have to respond. It's an exciting story with long legs. That's how I led my comments, and I stand by them. In this thread, if you have a gander back, you will be hard-pressed to quote anything that resembles rage against the scandal, thinly-veiled or otherwise.

He referred to the the person who set up the website with the ClimateGate emails as a "concerned citizen", then linked to Gavin Schmidt's rebuttals on RealClimate, such as Schimdt's laugably stupid defense that the data was "hidden in plain sight.".

I posted a link to the searchable East Anglia emails, and I recommended people read the 'damage control' threads at RealClimate.org, and I posted a link to a 'hilight reel' and pointed to a 19 point 'explanation.' I don't know if you read any of the material linked. I think not. I think you might have missed this:

I again recommend the RealClimate.org site for the continuing discussion between (some of) the principals and the critics. ClimateAudit is down, probably due to server overload. The usually decent skeptic sites have made this a dance-around-the-bonfire moment rather than an opportunity to explain the devilry. It's not enough for the skeptic side to dance, they have to make the pitch to the mainstream media, and help the underfed public understand the issues.
And with that, I am off to read the final 833 emails at the site noted above.

He wanted to hear both sides of the story, you know, and RealClimate is the perfect place for that.

RealClimate is more-or-less the mouthpiece of the AGW side, and has the largest footprint. As I noted, several of the major contributors and guest writers at RC are named in or copied to or originated emails in the hacked files. RC usually has a hard-core moderation policy, but in the aftermath of the disclosures, the comment threads (some 3000 posts) burgeoned. Here was where the frontline of the AGW 'side' were responding to the skeptics. Do you recommend that folks here do not read those threads at RC, seriously?

Scherk always wants to hear both sides of this debate, continuously reminding us of that and the fact he's just an outside observer.

Michael, who doesn't always want to hear from all 'sides'? I suppose a fair inquiry would hear from only a single 'side'? I don't believe that's what you would recommend -- only reading and following skeptical views. You aren't suggesting that you are anything but an outside observer yourself, are you?

Yet, he seems to love to cite the number of scientists in favor of AGW and hack Ellen to death on this point. He veers off into the question of motivations, and criticizes, criticizes, criticizes--with his typical snark.

Three major points in my recent exchanges with Ellen -- the first, that while making note of this week's mailout by Austin et al, she didn't mention that the APS had rejected the petition. The second, that the nit and the grit were missing in her airy dismissals of nameless 'Thems.' Third, that I liked her discussion-starters.

Why not debate Ellen on the science, instead of diversionary issues?

I would love for someone, anyone here -- even you, Michael -- to get past the slogans and the sneers. That's the problem here, as I see it.

If Ellen is up for it and Scherk is up for it, I, for one, would definitely find THAT more entertaining and worthwhile.

Well, as Ellen drily puts it, she has been aware for a long time that I don't begin to know the science enough to debate. That closes this particular door.

Mind you, I'm not quite as good at divining competence as Ellen. I like her. She's smart. She's been around. Her husband's a physicist. She has been engaged. She's tough. I love tangling with her, because I always end up smarter. I think of any person here at SOLO, she is well-placed to make strong and detailed cases for her views, whether the motivations of AGW-believers, or the conceptual vacancy in "anthropogenic global warming."

But, can we really assess her competence except on her say-so, though? if she arrogates to herself the final verdict without laying out the case?

I guess we will have to accept that she could, if she wanted, answer anything we put up. I assume she knows her history, knows her Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and Callendar, her Högbom, Chamberlin, Koch, Kaplan, Plass, Suess, Revelle, Bolin, Ericksson, Budyko and Keeling. I must assume that she is more than glancingly familiar with the long-drawn 'discovery' of AGW, its participants and their findings. Everywhere in there, Ellen, because She Knows The Science, could tease out for we dullardly SOLOists the warp and weave of mendacity and error that has led her investigations to conclude fraud.

Sadly, because I am not worthy of her attention on matters physical, we devolve into boilerplate. Ellen notes that there are "crucial debates occurring daily with scientific-community supporters of alarm." I presume these are quality debates that may or may not be of interest to me and other SOLOists. Perhaps none of us are smart enough to follow these crucial debates, and so won't be graced with the details.

Michael, you are a late-comer to discussion on AGW, I see. I have zero idea what your thoughts are. If they consist of more than blurts about about laughably stupid people, knaves, dogma, Ellen hacked to death, snark, diversionary issues, I would be surprised. So far, you source nothing, you quote nothing, and your observations are spurious. Can we expect a little more oomph from you too, or will you also curl your lip and drift from the stage?



WSS

MM, I have no interest in debating WSS on the science.

Ellen Stuttle's picture

He doesn't begin to know the science enough to debate -- I've been aware of this for a long time.

Meanwhile, there are crucial debates occurring daily with scientific-community supporters of alarm -- I'm speaking of those with some scientific integrity, not [the ringleaders]. The issue of where best to expend one's limited time looms large and immediate.

Ellen

Edited on "the precautionary principle." Evil

Top scientists rally to the defence of the Met Office

Marcus's picture

From The Times

December 10, 2009

Top scientists rally to the defence of the Met Office

Ben Webster, Environment Editor in Copenhagen

The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change...

One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.

Professor Slingo denied that the Met Office had put anyone under pressure. “The response has been absolutely spontaneous. As a scientist you sign things you agree with, not because you are worried about what the Met Office might think of you,” she said.

The 1,700 signatories, a fraction of the research scientists working in Britain, include Sir John Houghton, former chairman of the science working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sir Brian Hoskins, head of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College, and Professor Lord Hunt of Chesterton, a climate scientist at University College London.

Professor Slingo said the statement was carefully worded to avoid claiming all climate scientists were beyond reproach. It says the evidence for man-made global warming is “deep and extensive” and comes from “decades of painstaking and meticulous research by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity”.

Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which claims man-made climate change has been exaggerated, said the petition showed that the Met Office was rattled.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
..................................................................................................................................

Independent

'Only 50/50' chance that 2C climate target will be met

Limiting the global temperature rise will require a huge effort

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor, in Copenhagen

Thursday, 10 December 2009

Keeping the global temperature rise caused by climate change to 2C, which is widely regarded as the limit of what the Earth can safely stand, is going to be extremely difficult and will involve an enormous effort by the world, new research by British scientists indicates.

The 2C target, first proposed by the European Union in 1996 and now seen as a norm, is likely to be adopted by the international community as a whole next week at the end of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen.

But the new study, unveiled at the conference yesterday, shows that hitting the target is crucially dependent on the year in which global emissions of greenhouse gases peak, and the later the peak, the more drastic the emissions cuts will have to be.

Furthermore, even the earliest potential peaking date now offers only a 50/50 chance of staying below the 2C threshold, the study suggests.

The 2C figure refers to the rise above the global average temperature before the Industrial Revolution, when large-scale burning of fossil fuels began to produce big emissions of greenhouse gases.

The global temperature currently stands at about 0.75C above the pre-Industrial level, and the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere is thought to have committed the world to a further rise of about 0.6C – so there is only just over half a degree left before 2C is hit...

http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
..........................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate summit: Sarah Palin calls on Barack Obama to boycott meeting

Sarah Palin has called on President Barack Obama to boycott the Copenhagen climate change conference and to stand up to the "radical environment movement".

10 Dec 2009

The former Alaska Governor seized on news that climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia have been accused by global warming sceptics of falsifying data to make the case that the phenomenon is real and man-made, something they deny.

Writing on the editorial page of The Washington Post Mrs Palin said: "The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue."

She added: "'Climategate', as the e-mails have become known, exposes a highly politicised scientific circle - the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies been pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather but they would change our economy for the worse.

"Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicised conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen."

Mrs Palin's article appeared at a time when the scandal over the leaked e-mails was gaining increasing exposure in the US and being used by Republicans to fuel climate sceptic arguments.

A recent poll released revealed that now only 45 per cent of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity, down from 56 per cent two years ago...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
.............................................................................................................................

Copenhagen's sceptic conference thanks China for emitting CO2

Hacked emails were from whistleblowers and Eskimos are happy: tales of the expected from climate sceptics

John Vidal in Copenhagen
Thursday 10 December 2009
guardian.co.uk

The only clue I find to where the world's leading climate sceptics are meeting in Copenhagen is a large round sticker on a pavement outside a house down a side street. It depicts a happy-looking Eskimo standing on a clearly melting ice flow with a cheerful sun beaming down on him and his ice-cream under the words "Hurra global warming".

Up the stairs, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow is meeting. Seventy five people, mostly men over 50, are crushed into an ornate room whose walls and ceiling are covered in oil paintings.

Fred Singer, emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and co-author of a classic global warming denial book, is in full flow about "climategate" and how he believes scientists deliberately distort data:

"…..It's easy. You collect it from cities and where temperatures are higher because of the heat island effect… you misapply temperature trends; you mix data from buoys and ships, you hide raw data, try to avoid freedom of information requests, misuse the peer review process… cause editors to resign."

The audience is loving it. Singer is to denialists what George Monbiot is to environmentalists, a genuine superstar, full of statements and suggestions. "They [he does not specify who] control the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process; they try to smear their opponents. Rajendra Pachauri [the IPCC chair] should return his Nobel prize and the UN Environment Programme should disband the whole panel. Yvo de Boer [head of the UN climate conference] should call off the meeting and send the delegates home."....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...

Scherk Debating the Merits?

Michael Moeller's picture

It was quite obvious from early on that Scherk has thinly-veiled rage towards the ClimateGate scandal. Always speaking derogatorily towards deniers, but no similar language about the knaves. Being a knave himself, I am sure he is quite sympathetic to those knaves, especially since they apparently share the same leftist dogma. Scherk is no stranger to leftist dogma either.

He referred to the the person who set up the website with the ClimateGate emails as a "concerned citizen", then linked to Gavin Schmidt's rebuttals on RealClimate, such as Schimdt's laugably stupid defense that the data was "hidden in plain sight". He wanted to hear both sides of the story, you know, and RealClimate is the perfect place for that. Scherk always wants to hear both sides of this debate, continuously reminding us of that and the fact he's just an outside observer. Uh huh.

Yet, he seems to love to cite the number of scientists in favor of AGW and hack Ellen to death on this point. He veers off into the question of motivations, and criticizes, criticizes, criticizes--with his typical snark.

Well, instead of these side issues, how about Scherk lays out why he supports the AGW position? Why doesn't he go forth, lay out, and contribute to the underlying issues of the AGW that he so desperately longs for? Why not debate Ellen on the science, instead of diversionary issues? If Ellen is up for it and Scherk is up for it, I, for one, would definitely find THAT more entertaining and worthwhile.

Michael

Cute sophism

gregster's picture

“My problem with grasping one angle of argument against AGW theses, Ellen, is that the argument uses much abstract invective and global models of badness -- but not a lot of mooring to actual error by actual people.”

William of Shirk, the perpetual masochist sophist, again displays his peculiar talent for argument for argument’s sake. The onus of proof is on those who offer AGW theses. So far none has been forthcoming. In fact after fact, quite the opposite, and the AGW theories have been demonstrated to be shot with holes. Though, if one is intelligent enough to follow the wisdom of that grand repository of scientific knowledge – The United Nations, one will puzzle over the ‘badness’ accusations and equally confident invective.

“If some commenter sets himself up as an arbiter of scientific goodness and probity without getting into the nit and grit of the judgements, without naming names and works, without finishing the argument that began with the conclusion, my mind drifts off. I just don't see the beginning and middle of the argument that concludes: AGW is bad science, and those who don't accept this are . . . in error or very bad, very wrong and worse. I want the details, not the slogans, from both 'sides' of the fence.”

The Shirker should cite evidence for the theory of AGW threatening anything other than the Poms being disastrously returned to the prospect of tending vineyards up north instead of whining in their local snowed-in lock-in. In the absence of evidence, it happens upon one to conclude that indeed something untoward is operating. Something of the night.

“It would probably not be fun for you to pen a sprawling Randian deconstruction of the concept anthropogenic global warming. Nobody is up to it at the moment, so I shouldn't expect you to do the business, although I thought your quote on OL was a great jumping off point. I also like the items you raised as discussion-starters . . . of 'sloppy definitions'
-- generally dim understanding of what "the greenhouse effect" might properly mean, the image conveyed, that of an actual greenhouse, being inaccurate
Well, what are you saying here? Is it a bad concept?”

Shirk has a talent for arbitrary pronouncements and we now learn that nobody is up to penning an objective deconstruction of the AGW concept.

“Nobody is up to it.” Déjà vu William, you said that about economics, another field of which you admit profound weakness.

Let us begin with “warming.” Is the Earth warming? Let’s suppose that it is. Is the warming other than natural? Can this be proven? Unfortunately for the ‘goodies’ it cannot. Show us how and where if I’m mistaken.

Is the attribute ‘warming’ of itself negative? Not at all, some warming would benefit humanity, and raise the standard of living for the poorer by lowering the cost of food, for a humble starter.

Is this ‘warming’ problematic? Does this ‘warming’ warrant the dismantling of the industrial age in mitigation? Must we wish vehicular hybrids upon ourselves as self-flagellation for existing?

Where did the talk of ‘warming’ originate? From academia from which all mutant philosophies originate. Add to the concoction any number of computer models and unsurprisingly the resultant incoherent anti-mind, anti-life is stillborn.

The Earth has emerged from a cooler period, after a prior pre-industrial warmer period, and this is called AGW, therefore as this temperature tie with Man is tenuous, would it be sensible to suppose that the Earth could return to another cooler period? Yes. Of course. And it will. Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect are vastly over-ruled by solar radiation cycles and Earth’s orbit, and more. The Earth’s heat exchange with space is relatively constant, as proven by specimens evolved even to your level.

"Global" warming thereby is rendered invalid in the AGW context. Global too is the pet theory, not localised. They'd be better off trying on AW instead of AGW!

The invalidity is further compounded by asserting "anthropogenic."

It's anti conceptual. It cannot be related to cognition. It is falsified by existing incontrovertible evidence. Look up Wiki all you like, they're on the slime side.

Good God

Brant Gaede's picture

Scherk! First it's you like Obama now AGW! I guess they go together. Going to Copenhagen?

--Brant
why wrap up opinions in bullshit and mud?

Scientific Fascism

Sandi's picture

 

Dire moral defects of the AGW-believers

William Scott Scherk's picture

Ellen, I should have been more careful using the term 'dire moral defects.' Thanks for the correction. Of course, lying, ignorance, greed, fear, power-madness, cowardice, deception and fraud are not all dire moral defects. And of course not all AGW-believing scientists are corrupt, lying frauds. As you wrote to Orson, it can be difficult to divine motivations in any particular case.

I accept that there is no grave moral defect in expecting probity and integrity from scientific colleagues. Maybe it would have been fairer to ask if you see moral defects in those scientists' who actively promote the varied strands of research supporting a thesis of anthropogenic global warming.

********************

Orson had quoted John Tierney in the New York Times, who found much to criticize in behaviour highlighted in the CRU emails. I read Orson as asking how to discern the difference between groupthink and religiosity, and I understood him to be referring only to the hoaxers and liars and corruptors and fraudsters at Hadley and NASA and elsewhere.

In some quarters (the wingiest of the nutbar wing of the skeptic side) what I find crude is the reduction -- if Scientist A (let's say, Weart) promotes or agrees with the AGW concept, and we wonder why, we are given a similar short list of possible motivations. Weart could be ignorant, greedy or fearful, hiding away from controversy or tolerant of corruption. He could also be power-mad or fraudulent, or lying, or . . . perhaps simply not expecting that some other AGW-accepting scientists would lie in their work.

Are there other possibilities in the case of Weart? Is he stupid? Is he misinformed, technically out of his depth? Is he unduly accepting of a peer's probity? Is he evil, a drone, a hack, a mouthpiece? Has he been too lazy or uninterested in recognizing bias, error, political shenanigans, lies, fraud and corruption? Is he too gulled and hypnotized to understand the flaws in what he believes to be solid research? Where are his errors?

My problem with grasping one angle of argument against AGW theses, Ellen, is that the argument uses much abstract invective and global models of badness -- but not a lot of mooring to actual error by actual people.

If some commenter sets himself up as an arbiter of scientific goodness and probity without getting into the nit and grit of the judgements, without naming names and works, without finishing the argument that began with the conclusion, my mind drifts off. I just don't see the beginning and middle of the argument that concludes: AGW is bad science, and those who don't accept this are . . . in error or very bad, very wrong and worse. I want the details, not the slogans, from both 'sides' of the fence.

It would probably not be fun for you to pen a sprawling Randian deconstruction of the concept anthropogenic global warming. Nobody is up to it at the moment, so I shouldn't expect you to do the business, although I thought your quote on OL was a great jumping off point. I also like the items you raised as discussion-starters . . . of 'sloppy definitions'

-- generally dim understanding of what "the greenhouse effect" might properly mean, the image conveyed, that of an actual greenhouse, being inaccurate

Well, what are you saying here? Is it a bad concept?

WSS

"dire moral defects" - WSS

Ellen Stuttle's picture

WSS: "With regard to my tongue in cheek question about how physicists have been gulled into accepting the whole awful hoax and swindle. I have looked at your listing of possible motives. They all seem to imply dire moral defects, and read as if any physicist who accepts anthropogenic global warming is ignorant or lying, greedy or fearful, power-mad or fraudulent, hiding away from controversy or tolerant of corruption."

No, they don't all imply "dire moral defects." Not expecting lying from one's scientific colleagues isn't a moral defect of any degree, dire or less. I wouldn't say that the fearfulness of not getting tenure, or the lack of desire to be engaged in the controversy, or even, up to a point, looking the other way because of (mistakenly) perceived beneficial results of government action limiting the use of fossil fuels, are necessarily moral defects; depends on the case and the degree to which the person has looked into the issue and has cause to recognize what's being done to the scientific enterprise in the name of science.

 

"It could be fun to read a considered expansion of this fundamental assertion [I made in the other place in the context of a discussion of Rand on definitions]. If the concept is, roughly, 'anthropogenic global warming,' running the definition through the Randian ringer makes sense.

"What are the rotten parts in that concept?"

Maybe it "could be fun" to read an exegesis, but maybe I have other things to be doing besides providing you with fun. Eye

Here are some additional examples of sloppy defining (including one example -- ''climate change" -- where there isn't even a concept):

-- generally dim understanding of what "the greenhouse effect" might properly mean, the image conveyed, that of an actual greenhouse, being inaccurate;

-- general unclarity on the idea of "global mean temperature" and why it might be thought to have significance;

-- the very idea of classifying CO2 as a "pollutant" -- scientists en masse should be screaming about that one;

-- the sliding labeling of what the supposed human-produced danger is, from the initial "warming" to the indefinable and untestable "climate change."

Along with fairly rampant conceptual botch-ups, there's employment of logical fallacies galore.

The whole alarmist "case" is an epistemological nightmare from every direction.

 

Re: "But, what's the important, essential difference [between an accurate and inaccurate report of who in the APS decided against revising the policy statement on 'Climate Change']? For example, if the UK cabinet decided to reject a proposal to change policy, a headline could read 'UK Cabinet rejects proposal' or 'UK rejects proposal.' If the rejection of the proposal was announced by the Prime Minister as in 'The government has rejected the proposal' then the headline might read 'UK rejects climate policy revision.'

"I see the distinction between the official policy process in the example and the APS machinations, but the impact is similar. The effect is the same."

The important, essential difference in both cases you describe, that of the APS council and the UK cabinet, is one of accuracy as to *who* is making the decision. Although the populace at large might tend to substitute correctly in the case of a government body deciding and a report attributing the decision to the country governed, the shift regarding the APS I think is much less likely to be noticed; thus the inaccurate wording adds to the widespread false idea that there's a scientific "consensus" on the subject.

Ellen

The lying colleagues

William Scott Scherk's picture

Ellen writes: Re the official November 10 announcement -- "The American Physical Society (APS) has 'overwhelmingly rejected' a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change."
Substitute the accurate wording: The executive committee of the APS "overwhelmingly" (though not unanimously) rejected a proposal [...].

The headline announcement via November 10 APS press release reads "APS council overwhelmingly rejects petition to replace society's current climate change statement." It's the Physicsworld.com story that reads as you have noted above. They are not exactly the same thing.

But, what's the important, essential difference? For example, if the UK cabinet decided to reject a proposal to change policy, a headline could read "UK Cabinet rejects proposal" or "UK rejects proposal." If the rejection of the proposal was announced by the Prime Minister as in "The government has rejected the proposal" then the headline might read "UK rejects climate policy revision."

I see the distinction between the official policy process in the example and the APS machinations, but the impact is similar. The effect is the same. How the APS is governed doesn't alter the fact that the APS will not be changing its policy statement's "clarity and tone" while it waits for the work of the internal panel to be concluded -- in April 2010.

I meant to give fuller context, Ellen. In publicizing the email sent out this week, you didn't mention the outcome of the Council meeting.

APS President Cherry A. Murray writes on the APS site*: [The] Council of the American Physical Society, at its meeting on November 8, overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society's 2007 statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming

Further process notes from Murray below.

The present front page at the APS site also has this:

Unsolicited Climate Change Email

To APS Members

On Thursday and Friday, December 3 and 4, a number of APS members received
email messages from Bob Austin, Hal Lewis, Will Happer, Larry Gould, and
Roger Cohen regarding Climate Change. Please be assured that these were not
official APS messages, nor were they sent with APS knowledge or approval.

A number of our members have complained about this intrusion. We are
continuing to investigate how the senders obtained APS member email
addresses.

If you have additional questions, please contact us via webmaster@aps.org.
Best regards,

Cherry Murray APS President

Kate Kirby APS Executive Officer

+++++++++++++++++

With regard to my tongue in cheek question about how physicists have been gulled into accepting the whole awful hoax and swindle. I have looked at your listing of possible motives. They all seem to imply dire moral defects, and read as if any physicist who accepts anthropogenic global warming is ignorant or lying, greedy or fearful, power-mad or fraudulent, hiding away from controversy or tolerant of corruption.

If we assess on the 'believing' side a perhaps-willful ignorance, a disinclination to accept the fact that AGW-believing scientists are corrupt, lying frauds or otherwise shamefully motivated by cupidity or fear, it certainly makes difficult the ongoing efforts to affect a change.

I don't think anyone is 'having fun' in the debates over AGW, unless perhaps those who thrill at slagging supposed enemies. It surely could be more fun to sling slogans that to build an argument. Me, I rather grimly follow discussion in a variety of venues, both AGW-supporting and AGW-denying. The level of vituperation has increased in the wake of Climategate. But vituperation does not advance understanding alone.

As an aside, I was struck by one of your themes in a discussion at The Other Place.

You wrote:

Today starts a conference which has the potential of producing rather disastrous real-world results of false definitions. (Even though probably nothing which is passed in Copenhagen, if anything is, will end up being adhered to, still, the amount of false referents of concepts employed in the predictions of man-made climate disaster couldn't be a better case in point demonstrating the correctness of Rand's statement that "The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions [of concepts]." (ITOE p65))

It could be fun to read a considered expansion of this fundamental assertion. If the concept is, roughly, 'anthropogenic global warming,' running the definition through the Randian ringer makes sense.

What are the rotten parts in that concept?

WSS
______________________

* Current APS president Murray:

As you may have already heard, the Council of the American Physical Society, at its meeting on November 8, overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society's 2007 statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming. The original motion, made by councilor Robert Austin at the May 1 Council meeting, had been tabled to allow time for further consideration.

Subsequently, in my role as APS president, I appointed an ad hoc committee chaired by MIT physicist and APS Fellow Daniel Kleppner to review the 2007 climate statement and the proposed wording in the Austin petition and to advise the presidential line on what actions to take. A more complete history of the petition and subsequent actions were detailed in a front page article in the October 2009 APS News, sent to all APS members.

In that APS News article, members who wished to express their input on the matter were encouraged to contact their councilor before the November Council meeting. I thank the over 200 APS members who personally sent me their thoughtful input. A number of councilors received hundreds of emails as well.

The Kleppner committee recommended to me that the current APS statement be allowed to stand, but advised that it be referred to the Society's Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) for possible improvements in clarity and tone. The Council voted to follow this recommendation, and POPA has been tasked with this request. After POPA has done its review, the statement and any clarifications will be posted for member comment and input in advance of the report back from POPA to Council at the April, 2010 Council meeting.

The APS News October article "Climate Statement Gets Renewed Scrutiny" notes the context of the proposal:

The motivation for requesting this review was expressed by Austin and five other physicists in the “Correspondence” section of the July 23 issue of Nature. In part they state: “We are among more than 50 current and former members of APS who have signed an open letter to the APS Council this month, calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 policy statement on climate change. The letter proposes an alternative statement, which the signatories believe to be a more accurate representation of the current scientific evidence.” They go on to decry the “subversion of the scientific process and the intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue.” In addition to Austin, those signing the communication were S. Fred Singer, Hal Lewis, Will Happer, Larry Gould, and Roger Cohen.

Conhackin' Summit: wealthy nations accused of carbon colonialism

Marcus's picture

From Times Online

December 9, 2009

Copenhagen Summit: wealthy nations accused of 'carbon colonialism'

Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen

Britain and its partners at the Copenhagen climate summit were accused of 21st century "carbon colonialism" today over a draft agreement that developing nations say would discriminate against them.

The so-called "Danish text" was leaked yesterday and prompted an angry reaction from the G77 bloc of developing nations, which warned that its members would not sign an "inequitable" deal when the conference ends with a summit of world leaders next Friday.

The G77's chair, Lumumba Stanislaus Di Aping of Sudan, went on the attack again today, telling journalists that the Danish text "seemed to secure 60 per cent of the global atmospheric space for 20 per cent of the world's wealthiest nations".

Mr Di Aping was especially critical of the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, whom he accused of being desperate to achieve a deal at any price.

He issued an appeal to Barack Obama, who is scheduled to arrive in Copenhagen next Friday, not to join in any attempt to strong-arm developing nations into signing a deal that would leave their countries exposed to the ravages of global warming.

"We humbly ask of President Obama that the new dawn of multilaterialism that he promised should not be simply business as usual – the West prevailing at the expense of the rest of the developing countries," Mr Di Aping added.

European delegates pointed out that the text in question was dated November 27 and had never been formally tabled. "It's a storm in a teacup," one said...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
..............................................................................................................................

Independent

Met Office reveals last decade was the hottest ever recorded

Data show that Earth is not cooling as some sceptics had claimed, but is hotter now than at any point since 1860

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

Wednesday, 9 December 2009

The first decade of this century has been by far the warmest on record, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the UK Met Office announced yesterday - and this year is likely to have been the fifth hottest.

At the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen, officials from both organisations said the new figures showed that the world was not in a cooling phase, as some sceptics have asserted, but that the warming trend seen for the past 40 years was continuing.

The 10 years up to the end of 2009 have been the hottest in the 160-year instrumental record of global temperatures, and significantly warmer than the 1990s, the 1980s or any other decade since global surface temperature measurements began in 1860, the WMO and the Met Office said in separate announcements at the meeting, where the world community is trying to construct a new global warming treaty.

Taken as a whole, the first decade of the 21st century has been 0.4 degrees hotter than the current baseline for measuring global temperatures – the average for the years 1961-1990, which was 14C. By comparison, the 1990s were 0.23 degrees hotter and the 1980s were 0.08 degrees hotter, while all the previous decades stretching back to 1850 showed averages that were lower.

"This is an indication that the world has not been cooling since 1998," said Dr Vicky Pope of the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, referring to claims by climate change sceptics that since 1998, the hottest year of all, the trend has changed from warming to cooling...

http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
......................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'

Global warming is caused by radiation from the sun, according to a leading scientist speaking out at an alternative "sceptics' conference" in Copenhagen.

By Louise Gray
08 Dec 2009

As the world gathered in the Danish capital for the UN Climate Change Conference, more than 50 scientists, businessmen and lobby groups met to discuss the arguments against man made global warming.

Although the meeting was considerably smaller than the official gathering of 15,000 people meeting down the road, the organisers claimed it could change the course of negotiations.

Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.

He said the last time the world experienced such high temperatures, during the medieval warming period, the Sun and the Earth were in a similar cycle.

Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, said sea level rise has also been exaggerated by the “climate alarmists” using computer models.

He said observational data from lake sediments, coast lines and trees show sea levels have remained stable...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
........................................................................................................................

'We won't let sceptics hijack climate talks'

Marcus's picture

These guys are so far up their own asses you can hear the pips squeak!!!!
..............................................................................................................................

Independent

'We won't let sceptics hijack climate talks'

Global warming scientists join attack on email theft as Copenhagen summit begins

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor in Copenhagen

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

....Day One: The highlights

*UN Climate Conference, two years in preparation, opens in Copenhagen with 15,000 delegates, observers and media personnel in attendance.

*United Nations climate chief and head of American delegation attack climate sceptics and defend science behind global warming.

*110 heads of state and government, including US President Barack Obama, now preparing to attend conference finale next week.

*European Union says it wants stronger commitments from the US and China to cut CO2 before raising its own ambitions.

*South Africa is final big developing country to announce a climate target.

*Danish Prime Minister apologises to delegates for lack of Little Mermaid figurine in their conference kits.

http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
.................................................................................................................................................................

Brain food: how voters' whims could scupper Copenhagen

'Rationally irrational' voters could stall any deal on the environment.

Aditya Chakrabortty
The Guardian, Tuesday 8 December 2009

As if the slog of summitry, disputes over the science and the haggling for cash were not enough, the politicians and advisers gathering at Copenhagen this week have one more huge obstacle: their voters.

Not that the public is against fighting climate change. From Iran to the US, polls show that voters want to tackle global warming, even if it costs money and jobs. Yet whenever a specific policy comes up – higher taxes on petrol or flying, say – public support melts away faster than you can say polar ice caps.

General principles often get lost in political translation. US voters typically oppose free trade – until they go shopping for Chinese electronics. They're hostile to immigration, but are loyal customers at their Korean corner store. Political theorists put this disconnect down to public ignorance, or a sense of individual powerlessness (especially against giant lobby groups) but American academic Bryan Caplan has another explanation: "Voters are worse than ignorant. They are irrational – and vote accordingly."

In fact, he believes such voters are "rationally irrational". In a large democracy, no single ballot paper settles the result, so there's no point in someone swotting up on the options. As long as voters pay no direct cost for supporting a policy, they'll call for whichever seems most pleasant or socially respectable. But when there's a price, the option lightest on the wallet usually wins...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
...........................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

By Andrew Gilligan
05 Dec 2009

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
.....................................................................................................................................

From Times Online

December 7, 2009

World Agenda: Oil-for-Food scandal 'a warning for all at Hopenhagen'

James Bone in New York

...The lesson of the Oil-for-Food scandal is that such a system almost begs decision-makers to make politicised, if not outright corrupt, rulings.

From 1996 to 2003 the UN supervised the sale of $64 billion of Iraq’s oil and its use of the money to buy humanitarian goods such as food and medicine. Saddam Hussein was able to corrupt the humanitarian programme through and through.

Dozens of politicians and influential business leaders around the world received pay-offs from Iraq in the form of vouchers to sell underpriced Iraqi oil. The head of the UN programme was charged with corruption for allegedly taking cash bribes from the brother-in-law of the former UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali. The company that employed the son of Kofi Annan, the UN chief at the time, won a key inspection contract from the UN. The list goes on and on.

Years later it emerged from a defector that the Russian UN overseer entrusted with pricing Iraq’s oil was actually a serving Russian military intelligence officer who diverted almost half a billion dollars to top Russian officials.

Even where UN officials were elected, corruption surfaced. The elected Russian head of the UN’s powerful budget oversight committee was convicted in a US court and sentenced to four years in prison.

The UN record bodes exceedingly ill for the expanded offset system foreseen by the Copenhagen leaders. Third World governments have an obvious interest in promising emissions reductions that they do not deliver; UN officials will be under intense pressure from those governments to certify the promised emission reductions. Indeed, these official might also — perish the thought — get bribed by the firms that stand to benefit.

It’s a recipe for what Saddam might call the Mother of All Scandals.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
................................................................................................................................

From Times Online

December 8, 2009

Copenhagen sceptics have a slogan: 'The world isn't getting warmer, it's going mad'

Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen

On a sidestreet in a trendy part of Copenhagen a group of scientists and campaigners meet to discuss what one calls "the biggest lie ever told".

There are about 30 of them – mostly grey-haired men – crammed into an upstairs room at the Danish Writers' Union for a two-day seminar on the fallacies of global warming.

These are the sceptics, the renegades who refuse to accept the global consensus on man-made warming and insist that there really isn't a problem. And they're in buoyant mood even though they know that across town 15,000 people are meeting to hammer out a $2 trillion deal to protect the Earth from greenhouse gas emissions using scientific projections that the sceptics say are rubbish.

The most obvious reason for their ebullience is the emergence of hundreds of hacked e-mails suggesting that British experts deliberately skewed the science on climate change to fit with a bigger political agenda. That scandal has brought the sceptics back into the mainstream debate...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
.................................................................................................................................

Are you having fun, William?

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Re the official November 10 announcement -- "The American Physical Society (APS) has 'overwhelmingly rejected' a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change."

Substitute the accurate wording: The executive committee of the APS "overwhelmingly" (though not unanimously) rejected a proposal [...].

"What I can't figure out is who sent out the current round of emails, and why, if the petition has been delivered already."

This is a second attempt, following Climategate, and a second batch of emails (although the email to which I was referring was from the earlier replies).

What the number of signatories is at the moment I don't know; it keeps increasing. And do notice, requests for opinions were sent randomly to a sample of members. No one has had time by a long way to track down every one of 47,000 members.

"How have so many physicists been gulled into accepting the whole awful hoax and swindle, Ellen, do you figure?"

Easily; they don't expect lying from colleagues. See my post "Motives" on Orson's thread (post #81782).

And a lot of them have not looked into the issue but instead have presumed. More and more are starting to look now. At this point, any (good) scientist who doesn't doubt that there's cause for alarm simply hasn't yet looked.

Ellen

Saudi's raise "Climategate" at Smokenhagen

HWH's picture

I wouldn't have been more surprised had it been "Dinner Jacket" from Iran

Petitionitis

William Scott Scherk's picture

Ellen, I did a google search on APS petition and found a press release from the APS dated November 10th: APS council overwhelmingly rejects petition to replace society's current climate change statement.

I also found a longer story on Physicsworld.com headlined APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change. It had this kind of thing to say about the petition reception (along with some of the details of deliberations):

The American Physical Society (APS) has "overwhelmingly rejected" a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. The APS turned down the request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The committee was set up by APS president Cherry Murray in July, when the society received the proposal for changing its statement, which had originally been drawn up in November 2007. It has spent the last four months carrying out what the APS calls "a serious review of existing compilations of scientific research" and took soundings from its members. "We recommended not accepting the proposal," Kleppner told physicsworld.com. "The [APS] council almost unanimously decided to go with that."

Interesting that though the petition drive failed in council, the APS will farm out to a panel an examination of the statement "for improvements in clarity and tone." The Physicsworld story highlighted this note: Princeton University atomic physicist Will Happer, who was one of those leading the proposal for change, sees that fact as a form of vindication. "They basically sent both statements back to their committee on public affairs and asked them to reconsider," says Happer. "I think it's a big victory for us. Many of [the people who signed the petition] took quite a bit of risk in signing this statement."

I found several antiantialarmist site mentions, along with a very long document tracing the petitioner's demographics and social network by the obvious obsessive (or at least energetic!) John Mashey. **

Other top pages via google indicate 206 signatories (APS members). Is this correct, as far as you know? If so, the scant signatures sure shows how deeply the hocus-pocus has taken hold among the 47,000-strong throng of physicists that belong to the big club. How have so many physicists been gulled into accepting the whole awful hoax and swindle, Ellen, do you figure?

What I can't figure out is who sent out the current round of emails, and why, if the petition has been delivered already.

Anyhow, for the moment this still stands as the APS's statement on climate change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

WSS

** The American Physical Society (APS) was petitioned by 206 people, about 0.45% of
the 47,000 members, to discard its climate change position and declare decades of
climate research non-existent. The Petition was “overwhelmingly” rejected, but
this anti-science campaign offers a useful case study. The Petition signers'
demographics are compared to those of APS in general.

Then, the social network behind the petition is analyzed in detail, person by
person for the first 121 signers. This might seem a grassroots groundswell of
informed expert argument with the existing position, but it is not.

Rather, it seems to have originated within a small network of people, not field
experts, but with a long history of manufacturing such things, plausibly at the
Heartland Institute‘s NYC climate conference March 8-10, 2009. APS physicists can,
do, and will contribute strongly to solving the 21st century?s conjoined
climate+energy problem, but this petition was a silly distraction, and rightly
rejected. However, its existence was widely touted to the public
[John Mashey quoted from Desmogblog]

Five Physicists (including Larry) Petition APS

Ellen Stuttle's picture

This is cross-posted from HWH's op-ed "Climategate Clobbers Con-Men."

This petition, made public on the web, is an episode in a long ongoing process attempting to get the executive committee of the APS to put its statement on global warming on hold for reconsidering.

I wish I could make public some of the letters members have sent. One in particular should be immortalized as a statement of the meaning and nature of science. Eventually we will endeavor to get permission to publish some of the letters.

The post was picked up by instapundit, where we're told it had gotten 80,000 hits as of early this morning. I don't know where the hit figures are given.

http://tiny.cc/Roxl9

 

~~~

Physicists Ask American Physical Society to Rescind Its Statement on Global Warming Because It Was Based on “Cheat[ing]” and “Corrupted” Work

Jim Lindgren • December 7, 2009 2:29 am

While the wider world is just beginning to realize that the subfield of paleoclimatology is in shambles (and has been for the last decade), scientists in related disciplines are increasingly fighting back against the shoddy work and orthodoxy that was foisted on them.

A small group, including several prominent physicists, are asking the American Physical Society to rescind its political statement on climate change (tip to Bishop Hill):

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled “The Climate Science isn’t Settled,” for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.

Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

[Fred Singer would have been a signatory but he's in Copenhagen participating in an anti-conference and there wasn't time to reach him.]

~~~

Marc Morano...

Marcus's picture

...claims that if Obama goes the EPA route that they [the EPA] will be tied up in law suits for decades.

I hope he is right!

the Obama administration is

Mark Hubbard's picture

the Obama administration is poised to declare carbon dioxide a public danger, sending a powerful signal that America will act on global warming

No, sending a powerful signal they've finally lost the last shred of sanity they had. They're short of a quid these fools.

Okay, lets take away CO2, just on the North American continent, and see how they get on ... (I hope they're not too attached to eating).

Gordon Brown says climate change deal must be legally binding

Marcus's picture

Gordon Brown says climate change deal must be legally binding in six months

• PM urges world to make historic agreement
• Obama acts to cut US emissions

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 December 2009

Gordon Brown raises the bar for climate change negotiations, urging world leaders to give their promises at Copenhagen the full weight of international law within six months.

In an article in the Guardian, the prime minister underlines the historic nature of the summit, which has been described as the most important international gathering since the end of the second world war. "Sometimes history comes to turning points," he writes. "For all our sakes the turning point of 2009 must be real."

He calls on the 100 heads of government and state expected in Copenhagen on the final day of the talks to move quickly to reinforce an anticipated political deal with a full-fledged, legally binding treaty. "Our aim is a comprehensive and global agreement which is then converted to an internationally legally binding treaty in no more than six months," he writes.

The appeal comes amid fresh signs of momentum – in Copenhagen and Washington – in advance of the two-week meeting. In Washington, the Obama administration is poised to declare carbon dioxide a public danger, sending a powerful signal that America will act on global warming – with or without a law in Congress – by 2010.

The official declaration would allow Obama to use the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency to begin cutting greenhouse gas emissions. That would avoid waiting for action from Congress, where a proposed climate change law has stalled in the Senate...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/poli...
...........................................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 7, 2009

Copenhagen emissions targets ‘not enough to avert catastrophic warming’

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Emissions cuts proposed by the world’s leading countries fall far short of what is needed to prevent catastrophic global warming, according to a study released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate change summit.

Even if countries adopted the most ambitious targets that each has put forward, the global average temperature would still rise by 3.5C by the end of the century and make large parts of the world uninhabitable.

The UN’s top climate change official appealed to the 192 nations taking part in the summit to strengthen their targets during the two-week summit to help deliver a global deal.

Yvo de Boer said: “Copenhagen must be a turning point. The scientific community has told us we have 5 to 10 years to turn an upward emissions trend into a downward emissions trend...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
............................................................................................................................

Copenhagen climate summit: 'long way to go' to convince sceptics, says Ed Miliband

Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has admitted there is still a "long way to go" to change the minds of climate change sceptics as the Copenhagen summit is set to begin.

By Aislinn Laing
07 Dec 2009

Mr Miliband said politicians face a "huge challenge" to convince people that action on global warming should be a priority since much of the evidence is invisible.

He conceded that the row over leaked emails from scientists in East Anglia which appeared to suggest data making the case for man-made climate change was manipulated had been "damaging".

But he insisted that there was "as close to a scientific consensus as possible" that global warming is happening and is man-made.

"I think what's really important for politicians like me is that scientific debate is put in context – there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists and the science community that this is really happening," he told BBC Breakfast.

"I think it's partly because this is a threat that you cannot see or feel – it's not an army massing on our borders and people are focused on other things in their lives.

"There are also people who want to cast doubt on the science therefore it's not surprising that some people are not convinced.

"Therefore, we have to redouble our efforts, the scientific community has to redouble its efforts to persuade people...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
....................................................................................................................................

Independent

Protest against carbon trading

By Alan Jones, Press Association

Monday, 7 December 2009

A group of climate activists staged a demonstration in the City of London today to protest against carbon trading as a "false solution" to climate change.

Around 15 people set up tents outside the European Climate Exchange building in Bishopsgate, to coincide with the start of the crucial climate change conference in Copenhagen.

One of the activists said: "Carbon trading is part of the false solution being put forward in Copenhagen by the same people who brought us the financial crisis."...

http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
.........................................................................................................................

Well here's the text of what

Mark Hubbard's picture

Well here's the text of what these idiot (now) 56 papers are going to print tomorrow. Read it and weep Hilton:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...

Thanks Mark

HWH's picture

The key snippet from that piece by Booker seems to be this , yet here in Australia "Nine News Network" has not even mentioned the word "Climategate" since the story broke. Now why would that be lest they're either being bribed or threatened?

__________________________________

In other words, what has become arguably the most influential set of evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked into touch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy.

Little of this extraordinary story been reported by the BBC or most of our mass-media, so possessed by groupthink that they are unable to see the mountain of evidence now staring them in the face. Not for nothing was Copenhagen the city in which Hans Andersen wrote his story about the Emperor whose people were brainwashed into believing that he was wearing a beautiful suit of clothes. But today there are a great many more than just one little boy ready to point out that this particular Emperor is wearing nothing at all.

I will only add two footnotes to this real-life new version of the old story. One is that, as we can see from the CRU's website, the largest single source of funding for all its projects has been the European Union, which at Copenhagen will be more insistent than anyone that the world should sign up to what amounts to the most costly economic suicide note in history.

Climategate reveals 'the most

Mark Hubbard's picture

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'

Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit show how the world's weightiest climate data has been distorted, says Christopher Booker.

Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary scientific detective stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree in Siberia dubbed "the most influential tree in the world". On this astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could hang in considerable part the future shape of our civilisation. Right at the heart of the sound and fury of "Climategate" – the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest. If all those thousands of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted the world to see.

To appreciate its significance, as I observed last week, it is first necessary to understand that the people these incriminating documents relate to are not just any group of scientists. Professor Philip Jones of the CRU, his colleague Dr Keith Briffa, the US computer modeller Dr Michael Mann, of "hockey stick" fame, and several more make up a tightly-knit group who have been right at the centre of the last two reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On their account, as we shall see at this week's Copenhagen conference, the world faces by far the largest bill proposed by any group of politicians in history, amounting to many trillions of dollars.

It is therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods by which these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they have been working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmer today than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has been necessary to eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 years ago was, for entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-called Medieval Warm Period).

The most celebrated attempt to demonstrate this was the "hockey stick" graph produced by Dr Mann in 1999, which instantly became the chief icon of the IPCC

...

I think this is one of the

Mark Hubbard's picture

I think this is one of the worse stories I've read in a long time - hat tip http://twitter.com/bernardchickey

More than 50 papers join in front-page leader article on climate change

Opinion piece to be published in 56 papers across 46 countries – including the Guardian, Le Monde and two Chinese papers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medi...

Front page pieces to push action at Copenhagen.

No matter where you stand on this issue, this is not being done in the editorials, but on the front pages. The MSM is no longer 'an inquiring mind', it sees itself there to push social issues and the Left political agenda.

Fuck them.

If The Press runs with this, they can consider my subscription canceled.

Break-in targets climate scientist

Marcus's picture

Break-in targets climate scientist

New incident raises fears of a smear campaign

Robin McKie
The Observer, Sunday 6 December 2009

Attempts have been made to break into the offices of one of Canada's leading climate scientists, it was revealed yesterday. The victim was Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and a key contributor to the work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In one incident, an old computer was stolen and papers were disturbed.

In addition, individuals have attempted to impersonate technicians in a bid to access data from his office, said Weaver. The attempted breaches, on top of the hacking of files from British climate researcher Phil Jones, have heightened fears that climate-change deniers are mounting a campaign to discredit the work of leading meteorologists before the start of the Copenhagen climate summit tomorrow.

"The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can … take out of context," said Weaver. The prospect of more break-ins and hacking has forced researchers to step up computer security...

However, there was more encouraging news last week when India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, announced he would attend the summit, joining Gordon Brown and President Barack Obama on the final day of the meeting. India is the world's fourth biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and has just pledged to cut its carbon emissions by 20-25% by 2020. India had previously been reluctant to commit itself to carbon cuts. Singh's new stance suggests his country is now prepared to be more co-operative.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie...
...........................................................................................................................

Independent

'Until the West makes sacrifices, nothing will change'

Photographer Martin Parr visited a Vietnamese village to capture the lives of people for whom flooding caused by climate change is a fact of life

By Nina Lakhani

Sunday, 6 December 2009

Capturing the reality of climate change – stripping away the political point scoring and scientific sophistry to focus on its real, human impact – has become almost impossible. Nevertheless, Martin Parr, a British documentary photographer, accepted the challenge from Oxfam to do just that.

Best known for his photographs of the wealthy West, he produced these pictures during a week spent travelling across Vietnam to meet people in the areas worst affected by floods in recent years.

Parr found and photographed families with well-developed emergency plans, who knew what possessions they would rescue the next time their homes flooded. For them it is a question of when, not if, the next floods come.

"This notion of people actually living and accepting flood conditions, and therefore having decisions made as to what they would most value when it comes to the quick evacuation, or the quick ascent into the mezzanine, is fascinating," Parr said.

In this series of photographs Parr has captured the resignation of some of the world's poorest communities. People who know that the weather has changed irrevocably and although not part of the cause, they are the ones who have to deal with the worst effects...

http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
...................................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 5, 2009

Scientist’s Himalayan mission provides unwelcome proof: glaciers are dying

Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent

Inching over the treacherous surface of the Rathong glacier, almost 5,000 metres (16,400ft) high in the eastern Himalayas, Dr Shresth Tayal stooped to inspect a 7m steel rod he buried vertically in the ice six months ago.

After a decade studying Himalayan glaciers, he had expected to find at least half the rod exposed — an alarming enough indication of how fast the Rathong is melting — but even he was surprised by what he found last week.

“Six metres in six months,” he cried, breathing hard in the thin mountain air as The Times and the rest of his team stepped gingerly between hidden crevasses and gushing rivulets of freshly melted ice.

“It’s pathetic,” he said. “The glacier is dying.”...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...

Of course...

Marcus's picture

...it is quite shocking from what I have posted below that the politicians are acting like Stalin on this issue.

"No, no, no," they complain, "one is not allowed to doubt the science at this stage because you will disrupt our conference."

In other words, the facts behind why they need the agreement are not allowed to even be discussed, questioned or refuted by an ignorant public, whom they treat as if they were weak-willed idiots. Father knows best.

Block your ears little children to the evil deniers! We don't want you to think impure thoughts when we have an agenda to push!

You're just getting in the way with your petty scandals of corruption!

Fuck off and leave us adults to get on with the business of squandering your money and bankrupting you!

A Carny Hucksters Ploy

Frediano's picture

A witch doctor comes to the tribe one day, with an idea: "We must all tithe 10% of the harvest to me and my high priests, or else the rain won't come."

The tribe asks, "Are you sure? We have doubt."

The witch doctor gives the huckster's answer, "No, but ... what if you are wrong? Maybe its 20%."

This carny huckster move, the short-cut to political power, is nothing new. It is the flip side of the promise of eternal riches --- paid off in the next world -- in exchange for power in this world. The promise of infinite return, paid for with ... nothing but gas in this world. Nobody has ever come back to demand a refund, or complain.

But in the present case, the cargo cult political scientists huckster scam is the opposite: the threat of infinite punishment, though once again, paid for with nothinng but hot air in this world.

It's the same old, same old. Gore needs to take his mediocre middlin' Harvard transcript, his fumbling around as an English/political science/government major who took 'a' course with Revelle and apparently never looked back except to try and suppress scientific papers, and seek out a willing carnival somewhere.

The Gore Revell Story

Frediano's picture

Climategate is not new, it has a longstanding history, that left a paper trail, including, lawsuits.

Old news, but worth rereading. I notice S. Fred Singer is referenced several times in this thread, but I don't think I saw a link to this paper, which is well worth a reread at this point. My apologies if this is redundant, I might have just missed it somewhere in this tsunami...

http://media.hoover.org/docume...

Maybe should be 'The Reverand Gore - Revelle Story."

In that disagreement between scientist and political scientist who once sat in for 'a' course, I think I'll believe the scientist.

DP

Frediano's picture

DP

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

Marcus's picture

From The Times

December 5, 2009

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
..............................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Tories attacked as 'climate saboteurs'

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

Friday, 4 December 2009

The Conservative peer Lord Lawson, the Tory MP David Davis and other politicians who have been casting doubt on the science of global warming in advance of next week's Copenhagen climate conference were "climate saboteurs", Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said yesterday.

In a robust defence of the general scientific consensus on climate change – that it is happening, and is man-made – Mr Miliband hit out at climate sceptics in general and the two Tory politicians in particular, saying they were “profoundly irresponsible.”

Lord Lawson, who as Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s Government, is chairing a think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, to challenge the accepted view of climate science. Mr Davis, who was Shadow Home Secretary under David Cameron until he resigned his post over the issue of 42 days’ detention, wrote an article in Wednesday’s Independent attacking the setting of carbon-cutting targets as a “ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies” and doubting that the atmosphere was actually getting warmer...

http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
...............................................................................................................................

Copenhagen climate conference: Cash for climate change could encourage warfare

A plan to give billions of pounds to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change could fuel conflicts as rivals fight over the cash, a new report has warned.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
05 Dec 2009

Many of the nations expected to be hardest hit by climate change are vulnerable because they are badly governed and war torn.

But new funds, set to be agreed as part of an international deal on climate change at Copenhagen, could make the situation worse.

The Chatham House Report Climate Change, Conflict and Fragility warns that billions of pounds could foment violence as rivals fight over the spoils.

The think tank calls for all money to be linked to development so that it is helping to build strong government, educate the population and fight poverty. This will mean the cash should help resolve conflicts as well as fighting climate change.

The UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference next week will seek to reduce greenhouse gases in order to stop global warming. Rich countries will be expected to reduce their own emissions while also paying poor countries to take action.

This could amount to huge amount of cash for countries with weak often corrupt government. At the moment the annual fund could be £6 billion from next year rising to £60 billion by 2020 and £120 billion per annum beyond that.

Dan Smith, the Secretary General of International Alert and one of the authors of the report, said such large streams of additional money coming into fragile nations would have huge security implications, and could heighten the risk of violent conflict as effectively as climate change itself.

"If you put an awful lot of money into adaptation for climate change in conflict-ridden and fragile countries there is an enormous risk that money will go astray and end up doing more harm than good," he said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
............................................................................................................

Barack Obama shifts Copenhagen travel plans to boost climate change deal

US president bows to international pressure to join other world leaders in crunch negotiating sessions

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 5 December 2009

Barack Obama has bowed to international appeals for America to demonstrate commitment to action on global warming, and said he will join other world leaders for the crunch negotiating sessions of the Copenhagen climate change summit.

The White House, in a statement from the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, last night said Obama would adjust his original travel schedule, under which he would have dropped in on the summit on 9 December, en route to receiving his Nobel peace prize in Oslo.

"The president believes that continued US leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference on December 18th," the statement said. "There are still outstanding issues that must be negotiated for an agreement to be reached, but this decision reflects the president's commitment to doing all he can to pursue a positive outcome."

The decision avoids a potentially awkward situation which would have seen Obama arrive in Copenhagen a ahead of even senior negotiators or ministers, let alone prime ministers and heads of state. The timing would have created an embarrassing American absence on the last day of negotiations which nearly 100 other world leaders are expected to attend.

The US otherwise was planning to put on a major presence at Copenhagen, with appearances from half a dozen cabinet secretaries and senior officials.

The new schedule for Obama reinforces a building sense of optimism in recent days after the biggest emitters, the US and China, agreed for the first time to some action on global warming. The White House said last week that Obama would call for cutting US emissions by 17% from 2005 levels – far less than the levels dictated by the science, but welcomed by negotiators as a good first step...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

Gordon Brown attacks 'flat-earth' climate change sceptics

Marcus's picture

It's enough to make me want to leave the country! At least he will be out of power soon!
......................................................................................................

Gordon Brown attacks 'flat-earth' climate change sceptics

'Dangerous, deceitful' attempts to derail Copenhagen summit condemned

Damian Carrington and Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 December 2009

Gordon Brown tonight led a chorus of condemnation against "flat-earth" climate change sceptics who have tried to derail the Copenhagen summit by casting doubt on the evidence for global warming.

Sceptics in the UK and the US have moved to capitalise on a series of hacked emails from climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia, claiming they show attempts to hide information that does not support the case for human activity causing rising temperatures.

On the eve of the Copenhagen summit, Saudi Arabia and Republican members of the US Congress have used the emails to claim the need for urgent action to cut carbon emissions has been undermined.

But tonight the prime minister, his environment secretary, Ed Miliband, and Ed Markey, the man who co-authored the US climate change bill, joined forces to condemn the sceptics...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...

From one of Mark's links:

Frediano's picture

"In the history of the academy, not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded. I think they should rescind this one," Mr. Simon said Thursday.

News that British and American scientists had manipulated global warming statistics to suit their agenda was made public two weeks ago after their personal e-mails were posted on the Internet.

The film version of Mr. Gore's book "An Inconvenient Truth" won two Oscars in 2007 -- for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.

===

OK, but in all fairness... couldn't they just re-classify the Oscars as "Best adaptation of a work of fiction?"

The AlGorian True Believers should stop weeping and relax, there is no reason to pull a JonesTown and start drinking(yet more of)the Kool-Aid. Besides, there is plenty of room on his face for all of that egg.

How I wish that the global warming deniers were right

Marcus's picture

Independent

Johann Hari: How I wish that the global warming deniers were right

Are you prepared to take a 50-50 gamble on the habitability of the planet?

Friday, 4 December 2009

Every day, I pine for the global warming deniers to be proved right. I loved the old world – of flying to beaches wherever we want, growing to the skies, and burning whatever source of energy came our way. I hate the world to come that I've seen in my reporting from continent after continent - of falling Arctic ice shelves, of countries being swallowed by the sea, of vicious wars for the water and land that remains. When I read the works of global warming deniers like Nigel Lawson or Ian Plimer, I feel a sense of calm washing over me. The nightmare is gone; nothing has to change; the world can stay as it was.

But then I go back to the facts. However much I want them to be different, they sit there, hard and immovable. Nobody disputes that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, like a blanket holding in the Sun's rays. Nobody disputes that we are increasing the amount of those greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And nobody disputes that the world has become considerably hotter over the past century. (If you disagree with any of these statements, you'd fail a geography GCSE).

Yet half our fellow citizens are choosing to believe the deniers who say there must be gaps between these statements big enough to fit an excuse for carrying on as we are. Shrieking at them is not going to succeed...

http://www.independent.co.uk/o...
.........................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate conference: 'climate saboteurs', including senior Tories, risk a deal

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has accused two senior Tories who questioned the science behind global warming of being "profoundly irresponsible".

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
04 Dec 2009

Mr Miliband suggested climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson - who has set up a thinktank questioning the scientific consensus behind climate change - and the former shadow home secretary David Davis were "climate saboteurs".

On the eve of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Mr Miliband said it was important for all parties to get behind an ambitious deal to cut greenhouse gases.

But he warned "climate sceptics" like Lord Lawson and Mr Davis were risking the deal by suggesting that man made global warming was not scientifically proven.

Lord Lawson's thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has repeatedly questioned the prevailing scientific consensus around climate change, Mr Davis recently warned that a deal to cut greenhouse gases at Copenhagen would bring "crippling costs to the economy".

Mr Miliband said: "I think it is profoundly irresponsible for people who have held positions of high office such as Nigel Lawson [the Tory former chancellor of the exchequer] and David Davis [shadow home secretary] to be doing what they are doing...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
.................................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 4, 2009

Take climate seriously. Make a joke of it

For many of us global warming is worthy but dull. We need to find a new way of talking about it

Antonia Senior

We are expecting a lot from the climate change conference in Copenhagen: emissions targets, a new concord between developed and developing worlds, a plan to save the world. And we can probably expect hot air, diplomatic failures and stirring speeches too. What we don’t expect is any gags. Not even a sneaky one about polar bears.

Polar bears are off limits, where paedophiles are not. We are a nation that prides itself on its black humour yet there is a limit, it seems, and it is green. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must have leached all the humour from the Earth. If we could take the mickey out of German bombs, surely we can manage melting ice caps?

The climate change movement is so worthy, so unleavened by wit or irreverence that it is disappearing up its own righteousness. And this creates a huge problem.

Climate change is a bit dull. A bit of a turn-off. Important? Yes. The biggest challenge mankind has faced? Possibly. But exciting? Admit it. How many times have your eyes glazed past the latest slice of gloom and doom, in search of something a bit more fruity? Tiger Woods’ apparent taste in plastic waitresses with weirdly plump lips; or bankers’ bonuses...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
........................................................................................................................................................

Rich nations to offset emissions with birth control

Radical plan to cut CO2 argues that paying for family planning is developing world is the best bet

John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 December 2009

Consumers in the developed world are to be offered a radical method of offsetting their carbon emissions in an ambitious attempt to tackle climate change - by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries to curb the rapidly growing global population.

The scheme - set up by an organisation backed by Sir David Attenborough, the former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell and green figureheads such as Jonathon Porritt and James Lovelock - argues that family planning is the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

Optimum Population Trust (Opt) stresses that birth control will be provided only to those who have no access to it, and only unwanted births would be avoided. Opt estimates that 80 million pregnancies each year are unwanted.

The cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the trust claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. Every £4 spent on contraception, it says, saves one tonne of CO2 being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in emissions would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...

The wheels are really falling

Mark Hubbard's picture

The wheels are really falling off the ponzi scheme now:

Al Gore suddenly cancels going to Copenhagen, no reason given:

http://washingtontimes.com/new...

Scathing editorial in the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

And it looks like another scandal brewing with the Nasa data, quote:

Proper science unlocks secrets; it does not create them. The scientific method is a social enterprise and requires openness to function properly. Data must be freely available and methodologies subject to strict scrutiny in order to assess whether results can be verified, reproduced and subjected to reliability tests. There is no reason to trust any results based on hidden data and some very good reasons to distrust them. This is the gist of a prospective lawsuit against NASA by Christopher C. Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which calls on the space agency to produce the climate data it has been keeping under wraps. These data are not classified information and should be part of the public record. NASA's stonewalling is suspicious and could augur that another scandal is brewing.

Global warming was an academic Ponzi scheme. Its leading proponents were mini-Madoffs, peddling a vision of global catastrophe to gullible activists, bureaucrats and policymakers. The vision was so vast, the fear it inspired so pervasive, that it seized popular imagination, aided ably by hucksters like former Vice President Al Gore and his science-fiction feature film "An Inconvenient Truth." But like any Ponzi scheme, global warming only worked if everyone kept investing and no one looked at the books. Once the truth came out - of manipulated findings, phony data, rigged peer-review processes and intimidation of skeptics - the scheme began to collapse.

Occam's Razor

gregster's picture

Not sure if someone's already linked this one of 22 Nov by Ian Plimer, an heroic individual!

"The greatest biomass on Earth has always been bacteria and bacteria are the only life on Earth that has ever made great changes to the atmosphere. Since the first photosynthetic bacteria on Earth more than 2,500 million years ago, life has been sequestering carbon dioxide.

Over the last 500 million years, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has been sequestered into algal and coral reefs, shells, cements, precipitates, fossil fuels and sediments. During these times of very high atmospheric carbon dioxide, the oceans were not acid. As a result, the atmospheric carbon dioxide has been decreasing over time despite massive additions from natural processes.

To state in public that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a public advertisement of a lack of basic school child science. Pollution kills, carbon dioxide leads to the thriving of life on Earth and increased biodiversity. Carbon dioxide is plant food."

>>>

Marcus

gregster's picture

Hansen's more of a stooge for President BO and more dangerous and/or ludicrous than ever. He says Copenhagen won't go far enough for his liking. He is bonkers or a very evil man. He's talking bollocks to try and peddle his book of nonsense to neanderthals. From that Guardian (Guardian of what?) article:

"In Hansen's view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the compromises that rule the world of elected politics. "This is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill," he said. "On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%.""

Sir Muir Russell to head CRU review

William Scott Scherk's picture

The BBC says Russell will head the CRU emails inquiry, and is expected to report his findings in the spring of 2010. The remit of the review:

  • Examine e-mail exchanges to determine whether there is evidence of suppression or manipulation of data at odds with acceptable scientific practice which "may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes".
  • Review CRU's policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and "their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice".
  • Review CRU's compliance or otherwise with the UEA's policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) for the release of data.
  • Review and make recommendations about the management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.



WSS

Headline News: James Hansen wants Copenhagen talks to fail!

Marcus's picture

On the front page of all the newspapers today!

He doesn't like Obama or Gore either. Who would have thought it, coming from a leading enviro-NAZI?
......................................................................................................................................

Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist

Exclusive: World's leading climate change expert says summit talks so flawed that deal would be a disaster

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 December 2009

The scientist who convinced the world to take notice of the looming danger of global warming says it would be better for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in collapse.

In an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen, the world's pre-eminent climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.

"I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it's a disaster track," said Hansen, who heads the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing then [people] will spend years trying to determine exactly what that means." He was speaking as progress towards a deal in Copenhagen received a boost today, with India revealing a target to curb its carbon emissions. All four of the major emitters – the US, China, EU and India – have now tabled offers on emissions, although the equally vexed issue of funding for developing nations to deal with global warming remains deadlocked...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
.......................................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 2, 2009

Global warming measures will cost ‘twice as much as predicted’

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Preventing runaway global warming may be twice as expensive as previously thought and Britain will have to incur billions of pounds of additional debt to cover its share of the cost, according to the world’s most influential climate change economist.

Lord Stern of Brentford said that future generations would find it easier to pay off the debt than to cope with the consequences of climate change.

He called for air passengers to pay a significant proportion of the cost through a new global tax on flights, and shipping should also contribute through a new tax on bunker fuel.

The author of the 2006 Stern review on the cost of tackling global warming admitted that the latest science indicated that he had been too optimistic in that report. Cuts in CO2 emissions would have to be deeper and made more quickly to have a 50-50 chance of keeping global temperatures from rising more than 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.

Lord Stern said that Britain should pay about $3 billion (£1.8 billion) a year by 2015 to a global fund of $50 billion a year to help poor countries to adapt to climate change. He called on Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, to “make financial commitments to the developing world” in next week’s Pre-Budget Report...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
............................................................................................................................

Independent

Cameron's team turn on Davis for attack on green agenda

Battle rages in Tory party after Independent reveals revolt on climate change

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

Thursday, 3 December 2009

Conservative climate change sceptics are "eccentrics" who will not be allowed to influence the party's environmental policy, an ally of David Cameron insisted yesterday.

Tim Yeo, the former environment minister, criticised David Davis for writing that targets for cutting carbon emissions were “destined to collapse”, and dismissed the former shadow Home Secretary as having “no authority on this subject”.

Mr Yeo, who now chairs the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, hit back at Tory critics of Mr Cameron’s stance on green issues and predicted that climate change sceptics will have disappeared in five years.

Mr Yeo said: “A significant number of core Conservative voters – mostly among older people – are reluctant to accept the [climate change] evidence. I don’t think they [doubting Tory MPs] will be a significant influence in the next parliament and will gradually diminish in the population.

“The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about [there being] a man-made contribution to climate change.”

He declared that Mr Cameron would head a “green” government after the general election and would not water down his commitment to the environment...

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
....................................................................................................................................

Climate change denial is the new article of faith for the far right

Despite a complete lack of evidence, the leaked emails hysteria has encouraged more deniers to emerge from the shadows

Bob Ward
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 December 2009

It is now 12 days since the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia first appeared online, and the propaganda machine for the climate change denial lobby is in overdrive.

The University of East Anglia has rightly announced an independent investigation into the hacking episode. It is essential that the investigation examines, thoroughly and transparently, the substance of the email messages and establishes whether there has been any wrongdoing. From what I have seen, there is no evidence of research misconduct, but the only way to clear the air now is through an investigation.

Some people have already, and predictably, taken on the role of judge, jury and executioner, and have called for Phil Jones, the director of the unit, to resign. Yesterday Jones announced he would be temporarily standing down while an inquiry is carried out. But such a hysterical witch hunt is a sign of desperation rather than justice.

Despite nearly two weeks of frantic brandishing of the "smoking gun", there is still no evidence of the alleged bullets that would constitute an overturning of 200 years of climate research. The greenhouse effect still exists and the Earth is still warming.

Nevertheless, the denial lobby – and it is denial rather than scepticism because they reject all of the evidence they don't like and embrace any alternative theory no matter how flaky – is claiming victory. And to some extent they have succeeded – by confusing the public and perhaps reducing public pressure on politicians to reach a strong and effective agreement at Copenhagen climate talks this month...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
.........................................................................................................................................

Sensible scepticism can bring the electorate around

Barry Cohen From: The Australian

December 02, 2009

THEY arrived at my office carrying a 60cm pile of papers tied with rope, plonked it on my desk and stared at me po-faced. Eventually I broke the silence, "Well?"
'It's the environmental impact statement for Olympic Dam."

I could feel the sweat beginning. "It's OK." I sweated through a succession of question times but no one attempted to test my scientific knowledge.

I mention this because I have sympathy for our elected representatives debating global warming and climate change. I cannot recall an issue where, to coin a phrase, so much is debatedby so many knowing so little.

To grasp the fundamentals of the issue du jour, a background in a number of scientific disciplines is essential. I wondered how our representatives measured up. A butchers at the federal parliamentary handbook provided a guide to the 346 degrees held by 180 of our 226 members and senators.

Business studies, eight; commerce-economics, 32; education, 24; general degrees (BAs), 94; law, 91; medicine-health,11; science, 11; others, 75. Total, 346.

Clearly they are not dills, but there is a distinct shortage of scientists (five Coalition, five Labor, one Green). About 5 per cent of our legislators have science degrees, which is slightly below the national average of 7.5 per cent, and that brings me to the point of this column. How has the nation become embroiled in this debate when such a minuscule proportion of the population has the knowledge to understand it?

To quote Ian Plimer: "An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archeology and history." Well, that's a relief; I thought it was going to be difficult.

What surprises is that so many people who can't spell half of the above know precisely what's happening and anyone who asks questions is seen as a charlatan.

Once the worst thing you could call someone was a pedophile. Now it's a climate change denier...

http://www.theaustralian.com.a...

Hat tip Shane Pleasance's

Mark Hubbard's picture

Hat tip Shane Pleasance's Twitter stream ( http://twitter.com/ShanePleasance ) Al Gore is charging US$1,209 to have a photo taken with him at Copenhagen.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

And John Key is on record as saying the only reason to go is for the photo opportunity.

Bend over and get your wallets out taxpayers.

'Mad Monk' Tony Abbott plays with fire

Marcus's picture

From The Times

December 2, 2009

'Mad Monk' Tony Abbott plays with fire

Anne Barrowclough in Sydney

On Monday the Australian papers were filled with rather unsettling pictures of Tony Abbott, then just a Liberal frontbench MP, wading out of the surf in “budgie smuggler” trunks and the red-and-gold cap of his surf lifesaving club.

Twenty-four hours later he was the new leader of the opposition party — a party that had taken an even more disturbing lurch to the right.

Australians have become used to seeing pictures of Mr Abbott plastered over newspapers and television semi-clothed in various postures to show off his obvious fitness. But despite the beefcake pictures the new leader of the Liberal Party is an unabashed conservative whose values are far closer to the former Prime Minister John Howard than to Malcolm Turnbull, the liberal Liberal he ousted yesterday.

Pugnacious and at times divisive, he is a deeply committed Catholic, ardent monarchist and anti-abortionist who has fought passionately against a number of progressive moves from the introduction of same-sex marriages to embryonic stem-cell research.

His nickname, the “Mad Monk”, comes from an early flirtation with the priesthood but it has stuck, partly because of his maverick nature, which has been particularly highlighted in recent months during the climate change debate.

The man who now vows to fight Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) was once an apparently fervent supporter — he has already changed his stance on the measure three times. He dismissed climate change as “crap” in an interview with the BBC but insisted yesterday that he was not a climate sceptic and believes that humans have contributed to global warming.

Born in London in 1957, Mr Abbott moved to Australia with his parents as a child but returned as an Australian Rhodes scholar to the University of Oxford, where he won a Blue for boxing. Despite his maverick nature, blunt language and undiplomatic style, he is respected as a leading party intellectual and political heavyweight. However, some analysts believe that his elevation will turn the Liberals into an unelectable fringe party. He might have gained the support of hardline Liberal rebels on the ETS but his stance on many issues is repellent to a great number of voters. And his position on climate change might well come back to haunt him.

Australia is at the start of a long, hot summer, and has already had days of “catastrophic” fire danger, the highest fire threat rating. With the memory of February’s Black Saturday still scorched into memories, Australians have been warned to expect a particularly severe bushfire season, which environmentalists are citing as further proof of global warming...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
..............................................................................................................................

Independent
(Yes that David Davis, the rebel Tory who quit as shadow home secretary over the 42-day detention bill!)

David Davis: Why this ferocious desire to impose hair-shirt policies?

Wednesday, 2 December 2009

As the dignitaries gather for the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, dark clouds are gathering over environmental policies. Copenhagen itself has been presaged by troubling signals that it will be harder than usual to get agreement. These will probably be resolved, but it is debatable whether that will make any real difference. In Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the international community promised cuts by 2000. In Kyoto in 1997, they promised even greater cuts by 2010. Neither happened.

The row about whether global warming exists gets even more virulent. The case is not helped by the fact that the planet appears to have been cooling, not warming, in the last decade. Last week, the row was fuelled after a hacker revealed emails between the world's leading climate scientists that seemed to show them conspiring to rig the figures to support their theories. So it is unsurprising that more than half the public no longer believe in global warming.

Today, the economic climate makes people question whether we can afford the expense of these policies. The UK's environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55bn, before taking into account the impact on economic growth.

The fixation of the green movement with setting ever tougher targets is a policy destined to collapse. The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – would cause a reaction in any democratic country.

This adverse reaction will be reinforced if, as predicted, we suffer power shortages in the next decade. Lights going out around Britain could be an electoral off-switch for environmental policy. This will happen at the same time as fuel bills rise by 30 per cent.

Paradoxically, the Government's strategy is going to have a number of deleterious consequences for the environment. Biomass fuels will increase atmospheric pollution in the countryside, with harmful effects on health. The Government's own estimate of this policy-led pollution says it could cost as many as 1,750,000 man-years in lost or shortened lives.

Similarly, the wind strategy is encouraging the building of large clusters of enormous wind turbines in the countryside that will scar the landscape, and whose noise levels could ruin people's lives. The planning blight alone will afflict hundreds of thousands of families and damage the value of many homes – and all with enormous taxpayer subsidies.

We often worry, properly, about the potential effects of global warming on the poorer parts of the world. We should also worry that cutting the world's growth will condemn millions of people to continuing poverty in the decades to come.

So what do we do about it? Much environmental policy is beneficial to the public. It is intelligent to conserve resources, to insulate homes, to encourage lean-burn engines and efficient power generation. Along with the sensible use of renewables, this is worthwhile in its own right. It will have the important side-effect of reducing our dependence on energy sources in unstable parts of the globe.

There is also a pressing need to protect elements of the natural world under immediate threat.

So is there a middle way in environmental policy? Can we devise a mixed policy that has realistic prospects of success in cutting carbon dioxide production at less-than-crippling cost, and also acts to accommodate the effects that we cannot prevent? Is there a smart green alternative?

Just to pick one example, micro-generation is a technology which is often overlooked. Micro-combined heat and power systems just about to enter the market would provide the same heat as a regular boiler, produce most of the electricity needs of the property, and cut carbon emissions by anything up to 50 per cent.

This sort of local power generation has a number of benefits. It avoids the waste associated with transmitting from central power stations; it would keep running through any blackouts; and it could make a major contribution to domestic reductions in carbon emissions in the long term.

Like it or not, a major increase in nuclear power must also be central to any sustainable future energy policy. It will be costly in the short term, but it will be a reliable ongoing source of power, and is a true zero-carbon option with enormous benefits for climate change.

But the single biggest change in mindset that is necessary is to give more prominence to a policy of adaptation. This should range from basic lo-tech ideas such as reversing the policy of abandoning sea defences, to very hi-tech developments, such as maximising cloud reflectivity – the technology for which is still some way off, but should not be dismissed.

Many of the people signed up to the green movement instinctively believe in statist, regulatory, dirigiste regimes. They forget these approaches have failed many times before – or perhaps believe the sheer importance of the cause will carry them through policy weaknesses. But the importance of the issue should make us doubly careful to get the policies right...

http://www.independent.co.uk/o...
.....................................................................................................................................


....................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagan: On the climate change front line in Bangladesh

If the scientists are right, Bangladesh will be one of the countries to suffer most from global warming, reports Louise Gray.

By Louise Gray
02 Dec 2009

Asma doesn't know much about global warming but she knows what it is like to burn her fingers every day making bangles for other people to wear. The 10-year-old was sent to work after flooding forced her family to move from a low-lying island on the Ganges to the slums of Dhaka.

Sosi hasn't heard of climate change either, but he can tell you what it is like to lose everything in a terrifying torrent of water. And Hasina, who is living on one meal a day after her home was destroyed in a cyclone, just wants to know that she will be able to feed her baby tomorrow.

These Bangladeshis are living on the margins, their aim not much more than survival, yet, in a week's time, they and others like them will be the centre of attention as world leaders meet in Copenhagen to discuss climate change.

Chronic poverty, weak government and lack of resources are behind many of the problems of Bangladesh and other developing countries. On top of that, Bangladesh lies on the Ganges delta and has always suffered floods. But, according to scientists, charities and non-governmental organisations, global warming is set to make life significantly worse for millions of people in similar situations around the world.

In Bangladesh, aid workers describe climate change as a fact of everyday life, "like the traffic in London". The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says the region is the most vulnerable to global warming and the World Bank has described Bangladesh as the most "climate vulnerable in the world".

This week, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) warned that by 2100, as polar ice melts, sea levels will rise by almost five feet (1.4m). This is more than double previous estimates, and for Bangladesh it could be catastrophic...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...

Fortunately...

Frediano's picture

...through the efforts of folks like this http://www.gbcertified.com/hom...

... it may someday be possible to get self-identifying lists of businesses that are run by complete and total idiots.

Certification for Small Business
by number of employees/Deposit/Total

One (1) Employee/$95/$190
Two (2) Employees/ $110/$220
Three (3) Employees/$130/$260
Four (4) Employees/ $155/$310
Five (5) Employees/$185/$370

Phil Jones steps down

William Scott Scherk's picture

According to Associated Press, Phil Jones has stepped down as the CRU director "until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented." The New York Times Andy Revkin opines, "Presuming that the inquiry is as independent, probing and transparent as advertised, some clarity may emerge on many fronts."

Peter Liss will become acting director of CRU, says the official University announcement of the Jones resignation.

Details of the inquiry are expected this week. Some have speculated that any such review will be a whitewash (if under the auspices of the Royal Society at least, exemplified by Lord Rees). The remit has yet to be published.



WSS

The Climate Science Isn't Settled

Marcus's picture

Right on, Linz! I hope the Australian Liberals success will start a chain-reaction world-wide of political parties openly opposed to AGW policies.
.......................................................................................................................................................................

WSJ

NOVEMBER 30, 2009

The Climate Science Isn't Settled

Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.

By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern...

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

Fox News

Document Reveals U.N.'s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks

Monday, November 30, 2009

By George Russell

Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion "as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity," according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog.

The purpose of the paper, put together after an unpublicized day-long session in Switzerland by some of the world's top environmental bureaucrats: to argue for a new and unprecedented effort to move environmental concerns to "the center of political and economic decision-making" around the world — and perhaps not coincidentally, expand the influence and reach of UNEP at the tables of world power, as a rule-maker and potential supervisor of the New Environmental Order...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...
...................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Leaked climate change emails 'won't bias UN global warning body' says chairman

The leaked emails from the University of East Anglia will not affect the UN's advice on global warning, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's climate change body.

30 Nov 2009

Mr Pachauri said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) received contributions from scientists worldwide and had a rigorous peer review system which ensured a balanced view.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he told The Guardian.

His comments came after the apparent suggestion in the leaked emails that work on climate change which the scientists did not agree with was not included in the IPCC's fourth assessment report, published in 2007.

Mr Pachauri was asked about a 2004 email in which Professor Phil Jones, head of climatic research at UEA, is alleged to have commented on two papers which he considered to be flawed.

Prof Jones allegedly wrote: "I can't see either... being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

"Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Thousands of emails and documents allegedly stolen from the UEA were posted online which indicated that researchers had massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

The emails sent between world's leading scientists apparently showed researchers discussing how to 'spin' climate data and how that information should be presented to the media.

Mr Pachauri said: "Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified.

"So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
..................................................................................................................................

Antarctica may heat up dramatically as ozone hole repairs, warn scientists

As blanket of ozone over southern pole seals up, temperatures on continent could soar by 3C, increasing sea level rise by 1.4m

Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 December 2009

The hole in the Earth's ozone layer has shielded Antarctica from the worst effects of global warming until now, according to the most comprehensive review to date of the state of the Antarctic climate. But scientists warned that as the hole closes up in the next few decades, temperatures on the continent could rise by around 3C on average, with melting ice contributing to a global sea-level increases of up to 1.4m.

The western Antarctic peninsula has seen rapid ice loss as the world has warmed, but other parts of the continent have paradoxically been cooling, with a 10% increase in ice in the seas around the region in recent decades. Many climate change sceptics have used the Antarctic cooling as evidence against global warming.

But John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey said scientists are now "very confident" that the anomaly had caused by the ozone hole above Antarctica. "We knew that, when we took away this blanket of ozone, we would have more ultra-violet radiation. But we didn't realise the extent to which it would change the atmospheric circulation of the Antarctic."

These changes in weather have increased winds in the Southern Ocean region and meant that a large part of the continent has remained relatively cool compared with the western peninsula. But because the the CFC gasses that caused the ozone hole now been banned, scientists expect the damage to repair itself within the next 50-60 years. By then the cooling effect will have faded out and Turner said the Antarctic would face the full effects of global warming. This means an increase in average air temperatures of around 3C and a reduction in sea ice by around a third...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
..............................................................................................................................

From The Times

December 1, 2009

Major cities at risk from rising sea level threat

Hannah Devlin and Robin Pagnamenta

Sea levels will rise by twice as much as previously predicted as a result of global warming, an important international study has concluded.

The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) calculated that if temperatures continued to increase at the present rate, by 2100 the sea level would rise by up to 1.4 metres — twice that predicted two years ago.

Such a rise in sea levels would engulf island nations such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean and Tuvalu in the Pacific, devastate coastal cities such as Calcutta and Dhaka and force London, New York and Shanghai to spend billions on flood defences.

Even if the average global temperature increases by only 2C — the target set for next week’s Copenhagen summit — sea levels could still rise by 50cm, double previous forecasts, according to the report...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...

The key thing ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is that Turnbull lost not to his wishy-washy challenger but to Tony Abbott, who wants Rudd to fight an election on climate change. "Bring it on," he says. Woo-hoo!!!!

http://southern-courier.wherei...

Turnbull pummelled by climate change skeptics (Australia)

gregster's picture

30 NOV 09 @ 10:00AM BY LEESA SMITH & NICK MONCRIEFF-HILL

Malcolm Turnbull stood firm on passing the ETS, but lost the Liberal leadership.

Malcolm Turnbull put the Liberal leadership on the line over climate change before the forthcoming round of climate talks in Copenhagen - and lost.

But Mr Turnbull’s decision not to be “bullied” into delaying a decision on the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) is being backed up by leading climate scientists, who have issued a grim diagnosis for the planet and a stern warning for world leaders ahead of Copenhagen.

[Acutely aware that post-‘Climategate’ ever more shriller stories must be spouted]

The coming round of climate talks will have “profound” consequences for human civilisation and the planet’s ecosystems, the scientists say in their report, The Copenhagen Diagnosis.

[The patient urgently requires resuscitation.]

Despite immense pressure to back down on the ETS, Mr Turnbull stood his ground.

[and now must wish he never had the hotline from John Key put in]

He said most Australians expected their political leaders to take effective action on climate change because this was an important issue for them and their children.

[An arrogant admittance by Turnbull, much like saying most Australians are dimwits.]

“This is a difficult issue for many liberals, many Australians, but most people who doubt the science also know that it makes sense to take out insurance . . . to manage the risk and to give the planet the benefit of the doubt until any risk is either averted or proven wrong,” Mr Turnbull said.

[Nevermind that said ‘insurance company’ is run by fraudsters.]

University of NSW senior research fellow Ben McNeil, a co-ordinating member of the Copenhagen Diagnosis report that was the crunch point for the bitter divide between the Liberal conservaties and moderates that prompted today’s leadership spill, said he admired Mr Turnbull for standing by what was of national interest.

“I think he’s not really a typical politician, because he speaks in native tongue and speaks quite honestly,” he said. “I’m not traditionally a conservative voter, and none of my friends are either, but I think they warm to Turnbull because he is progressing the conservatives forward to be somewhat parallel to a new generation.”

[The lost generation of government-indoctrinated airheads.]

Dr McNeil said the scheme was also of economic importance.

[How’m I supposed to maintain payments for the Beamer and the beachfront holiday home now?]

“Don’t just think about it from an environmental point of view. We are actually trying to transform the economy to be more productive and wealthy.

[Just so long as I get there first – to hell with Joe Average.]

“It’s not a feel-good exercise here, for us to stick our head in the sand and say ‘let’s do nothing’. It’s actually going to be imposed on us and in 10 years’ time there will be a greater cost to us because we haven’t done the transition,” he said.

[We’d all be equally fucked in ten years time.]

The Copenhagen Diagnosis report spells out the high stakes on the table at the climate-change talks that begin on December 7 and makes the case for drastic cuts in heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

[There are also plans afoot to rein in the Sun.]

It is “imperative” that world leaders commit to a legally binding treaty to reduce emissions, Dr McNeil said. Dr McNeil and 25 colleagues from climate centres in Europe, North America and Australia describe their report as the final scientific briefing book for the negotiators from 192 countries.

If emissions are allowed to continue soaring “business as usual”, the report estimates global mean temperatures will climb four to seven degrees by 2100, “locking in climate change at a scale that would profoundly affect human civilisation and the world’s major ecosystems”.

[The Poms will be growing grapes in the North again, competing with our Barossa Valley.]

The Federal Environment Minister, Kingsford Smith MP Peter Garrett, expressed considerable frustration over the uncertain future of the ETS because of discord within the Opposition.

Mr Garrett said time and money spent developing the legislation could be lost with Mr Abbott, a climate change skeptic, at the helm of the Liberal Party.

[Hooray.]

[Gregster]

Global warming is real

Marcus's picture

Thanks for that gregster. Excellent piece.
..............................................................................

From The Sunday Times

November 29, 2009

Global warming is real

Bryan Appleyard

There are so many good reasons not to believe in global warming: summers lately have been cool and wet; since 1998 global temperatures have actually fallen; dissident scientists say it’s not happening; green believers are irritating — they wear Tibetan hats that only look good on Tibetans, and are so often wrong that they’re probably wrong about the Big One; large parts of the punditocracy say it’s all nonsense, usually that it’s a left-wing plot against capitalism; the rainforest is growing back faster than it’s being cut down and polar bears are, apparently, doing quite well. Global warming? Yeah, right!

But here’s the best reason of all not to believe, to sit back and relax. Global warming is just the latest apocalyptic story. There is always someone, somewhere predicting the end of the world...

There is, I saw, a fine line between the hard-head and the bone-head. The denialist hard-head swaggers his way through life hearing only what he wants to hear, that warmism is either a hoax, a gross error or just another End-of-the-World scare story. But if you suspend your prejudices and your vanity for a moment, everything changes. You find out that the following statements are true beyond argument.

The climate is warming. It is almost certain this is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. Nobody has come up with an alternative explanation that stands up. If the present warming trend continues, nasty things will probably start happening to humans within the next century, possibly the next decade. Something must be done. If nothing is done, then the benign climatic conditions that have sustained human civilisation for 10,000 years are in danger of collapse to be replaced by… well, write your own disaster movie...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
...........................................................................................................................

Telegraph Blog

Climategate won't make global warming go away, despite what Delingpole tells you

By Will Heaven Politics

November 29th, 2009

Imagine a Premier League of cranks and conspiracy theorists. Who do you reckon would top it? It’s a tough call. I think Holocaust deniers would lift the cup, with 9/11 truthers not far behind. But there’s a new lot on the rise, recently promoted from Division One: global warming sceptics. Fuelled by the hype surrounding Climategate, those who believe that climate change has nothing to do with mankind’s release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere have had a storming week – led, in case you hadn’t noticed, by our very own James Delingpole.

Well, brilliant though he is, Delingpole’s about as much of a scientist as he is the captain of the England rugby team. So I was delighted to read Hugo Rifkind expertly ribbing him in this week’s Spectator:

Where has it come from, this sudden consensus among Britain’s right-wing punditry that there’s some kind of scam going on here? Yes, Delingpole, I mean you, and plenty of others, too. What gives you the right? It’s like your hairdresser diagnosing multiple sclerosis… I’ve watched it develop and spread over the past couple of years, first with amusement, then with alarm, and now with a sort of horrified panic. Guys, you’re not just fiddling while Rome burns. You’re actively going out and smashing up the fire engines. You’re terrifying me.

Rifkind is also spot on about Climategate: “So some of them are crooks. It’s like giving up on doctors because of Harold Shipman.” There’s no point, in other words, pretending the Climategate emails aren’t very dodgy...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...
....................................................................................................................

Copenhagen summit: It's money that matters in the backroom talks

Vast sums will be needed to lubricate the settlement rich and poor nations must achieve to combat global warming. John Vidal considers the prospect of the biggest transfer of funds in history

John Vidal, environment editor
The Guardian, Monday 30 November 2009

The most powerful lobbyists stalking the corridors of the Copenhagen climate summit will not be the noisy environmentalists or even the global charities who will press politicians for a strong deal that avoids the worst of global warming.

Ecology and morals count in the public arena, but as the negotiations progress and world leaders arrive to take the stage, money will dominate the backroom talks. It is likely to be the deal maker or breaker. Copenhagen may lead over the next 20 years to the largest transfer of money in history from the global north to the south, dwarfing the amount that developing countries now receive in aid.

Industrialists, financiers, bankers, business groups and carbon traders know there is much more in play at the Danish capital than a concern for the health of the planet. They all have a stake in the decisions made and see climate change as the driver of a global energy revolution and the chance to trade in technologies that could shift the world economy.

Those money men will be pressing for a deal that sets up new markets, accelerates investment in clean technologies and gives a clear signal to investors that the low-carbon future lies ahead.

At a conservative estimate, the burgeoning climate change industry expects Copenhagen to open the door to more than $10tn of investment in low carbon technologies by 2030. That, says the International Energy Agency, is what is needed to limit carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million, and give a decent chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. The summit could also lead to new carbon markets which will eventually be worth trillions of dollars a year.

But developing countries on the frontline of global warming say it is not just money at stake in Copenhagen – it is the survival of their people. Their negotiators are holding out for at least $400bn a year by 2020, and more later. They have already won the argument that they should be compensated for damage caused by the carbon emitted as developed nations grew rich. They say if western nations expect them to reduce their future emissions with technology that they cannot afford, then the rich must pay for it. So far, ministerial meetings in Edinburgh, London and elsewhere have failed to break the deadlock. Gordon Brown proposed that rich countries together contribute around $100bn a year. The EU improved this to become a firm proposal to transfer €100bn a year to poor countries by 2020. The money would start flowing from 2012.

But developing countries say that rich countries must contribute at least 1% of their GNP by 2020. It's not much, they argue, compared to what was found to stave off a global recession, and nothing at all compared to the eventual likely costs of ignoring climate change altogether...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
....................................................................................................

Daily Mail

Global warming? Don't wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count in control

By Ian Plimer, Professor Of Geology At The University Of Adelaide

29th November 2009

Perhaps it is comforting to believe that science is an absolute discipline: immune from fads, fanatics and frauds, untroubled by extremists, evangelists, glory-seekers and bigots. But it is not. It is as vulnerable to the vested interests and biases of its practitioners as any corporate entity or political party.
Uncomfortable truths are suppressed and dubious evidence given undue prominence.

Nowhere is this more worryingly obvious than in the science of climate change. As a field of research it has become so heavily politicised that opposing views are spoken of in terms of religion: believers and non-believers, with the accent being on the righteousness of the former and the benighted state of the latter.

Those who believed scientists to be relentless seekers of the truth will have been shocked by the row sparked by a hacker who got hold of emails sent by staff at the University of East Anglia.

It has been claimed that the emails exchanged by members of the university's Climate Research Unit showed statistics had been finessed using 'tricks' and material that didn't fit the computer model of Climate Change presented to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was allegedly suppressed.
In my book Heaven And Earth, I hinted at the existence of this sort of activity and was pilloried by those who have everything to gain from keeping the climate-change gravy train rolling. Because that is what it has become.

Sensationalist theories are generated by scientists who have evolved into professional alarmists who can influence the IPCC and reap rewards in research grants and fame. The trouble is that the only way to protect this position - and transmit their message of doom and gloom - is for the elite little coterie of climate comrades in the UK and United States to ignore geology, archaeology, history, astronomy and solar science. You see, these are the things that don't fit...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb...

Canada - putting the economy first

gregster's picture

NZCPR Guest Forum

Canada - putting the economy first
David Seymour
29 November 2009

Of all the arguments for adopting a nationwide carbon emission reduction policy such as the Emissions Trading Scheme, one of the most peculiar runs something like this: New Zealand should adopt emission reduction legislation even if it wouldn’t make the slightest difference to the climate because other countries will punish us with trade barriers if we don’t.

Helen Clark made this argument in a leadership debate last election. Colin James recently opined similarly (NZ Herald >>>) as did Rod Oram (see >>>). On and on they all go.

The first thing to do when faced with a threat is to ask how real it is. More specifically, would other countries really have blocked New Zealand exports or stop patronising our tourism industry if we hadn’t adopted an Emissions Trading Scheme or similar? Or could it be that those who present the threat within New Zealand are bluffing, exaggerating the threat in order to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with New Zealand’s trade relationships with other countries?

As I’m currently exiled in Canada, I’d like to share a few observations of how the Great White North has dealt with the international politics of climate change. Perhaps the quickest way is to describe a cartoon circulating in Canadian papers this week of the Prime Minister bending over to give a gesture Tame Iti would be proud of.

Symbols aside, it is worth looking at the path Canada has taken over the past few years with respect to carbon emissions policy...

Climate change denier Nick Griffin to represent EU at Copenhagen

Marcus's picture

Climate change denier Nick Griffin to represent EU at Copenhagen

BNP leader who believes climate change activists are 'cranks' will be member of European parliament's delegation

Toby Helm
The Observer, Sunday 29 November 2009

Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, is to represent the European parliament at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, which opens next week.

Last night politicians and scientists reacted furiously to news that the far-right politician and climate change denier should be attending the summit on behalf of the EU.

Griffin, who was elected to the European parliament in June, confirmed last night that he would attend as the representative of the parliament's environmental committee. World leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, are hoping to forge a new global agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.

Without such a deal, scientists warn that world temperatures will increase by more than 2C by the end of the century, triggering ice cap melting, sea-level rises, widespread flooding, the spread of deserts and devastating storms.

In a speech in the parliament last week, Griffin denounced those who warn of the consequences of climate change as "cranks". He said they had reached "an Orwellian consensus" that was "based not on scientific agreement, but on bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics".

"The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology… But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao."

Griffin will be one of 15 representatives chosen to speak on behalf of the EU in Copenhagen. The shadow climate change secretary, Greg Clark, condemned the move last night. "It is utterly ridiculous that someone who doesn't even believe in climate change should be seeking to represent Europe in Copenhagen. The BNP does not command the support of the people of Britain, let alone of the rest of Europe," he said.

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "Membership of the European parliament's delegation to Copenhagen is a matter for the European parliament. Its delegates do not represent the UK government or its views. Nick Griffin will not be part of the UK delegation."

Tim Yeo, chairman of the Commons environmental audit committee, said the decision to choose Griffin showed the "bizarre way" the parliament operated. He added: "If the future prosperity of the human race, in the face of climate change, depends on the contributions of people like Nick Griffin, there is little hope for any of us."...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
.................................................................................................

From The Sunday Times

November 29, 2009

Taking the private jet to Copenhagen

Any celebrity flying the green flag needs glittering eco-credentials. But how do they justify the fleet of customised planes, the luxury homes and the posse of servants?

Hypocrisy is the vice we find hardest to forgive, but it’s also the one we most enjoy discovering in others. And nothing piques our interest more than eco-hypocrisy as practised by the “green” celebrities who have been spouting green virtue but spewing out hundreds of tons of carbon from their private jets or multiple holiday homes around the globe.

There was Sheryl Crow, who had called upon the public to refrain from using more than one square of toilet paper per visit (“except on those pesky occasions when two or three are required”) and who was leading a Stop Global Warming concert tour across America. It was revealed that while Crow travelled in a biodiesel tour bus, her 30-person entourage followed in a fleet of 13 gas-guzzling vehicles.

John Travolta notoriously encouraged the British public to do its bit to fight global warming — after flying into London on one of his five, yes, five private jets (one of which is a Boeing 707). In 2006 his piloting hobby produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions, more than a hundred times the output of the average Briton, according to the Carbon Trust.

It is less well known that Tom Cruise — who has campaigned for the LA-based environmental group Earth Communications Office — also has an air fleet and a licence to pilot his five planes, including a top-of-the-line customised Gulfstream jet he bought for his wife, Katie Holmes.

Harrison Ford, who is vice-chairman on the board of Conservation International, voices public-service messages for an environmental federation called EarthShare, and once shaved his chest hair to illustrate the effects of deforestation, is another hobby pilot. He once owned a Gulfstream but now makes do with a smaller Cessna Citation Sovereign eight-seater jet, four propeller planes and a helicopter.

Oprah Winfrey, who preaches eco-virtue from her TV pulpit, travelled in a 13-seat Gulfstream IV private jet for years — the preferred model for celebrities and the super-rich. (She has replaced it with a faster Bombardier Global Express.) The public first became aware of her private-jet habit when her plane had to make a forced landing in California in 2005; it was reminded of it this year after one of her stewardesses was fired for allegedly having sex with the pilot while Oprah and other passengers were asleep...

http://women.timesonline.co.uk...
.........................................................................................................................

Independent

Brown unveils £13bn climate fund

Money will help poor nations before Copenhagen treaty comes into force

By Jane Merrick in Port Of Spain

Saturday, 28 November 2009

Gordon Brown warned of a worldwide "climate emergency" last night as he unveiled a £13.4bn global fund to help poor countries cope with the effects of global warming.

At the Commonwealth heads of government summit in Trinidad, the Prime Minister called on developing nations to start cutting their greenhouse gas emissions immediately and tackle what he called the "new historic injustice" of climate change.

Mr Brown said the resources, including £800m of British money over three years, would "kickstart" the Copenhagen climate change process ahead of the crucial UN talks in the Danish capital next month.

The Copenhagen Launch Fund has the backing of Commonwealth nations, and the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, who arrived in Trinidad to address Commonwealth leaders yesterday after attending the Amazon summit in Brazil. Sources said it would also be backed by the US. The money will be available from next year and will fund measures to alleviate and adapt to climate change, including paying countries to halt deforestation and build flood defences and renewable power stations.

It will be split 50-50 between grant in aid to help countries adapt to rising sea levels, hurricanes and drought, and "payment by results" to nations that mitigate the effects of rising emissions...

http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Satellites to monitor countries for climate change under Gordon Brown plan

An international satellite monitoring system to check countries comply with new climate change targets was proposed by Gordon Brown last night as a way of binding developing nations into a new deal on the environment.

By Andrew Porter, Political Editor in Port of Spain
28 Nov 2009

It is part of a desperate bid by the Prime Minister to ensure a climate change deal can be salvaged at the Copenhagen summit in 10 days time.

Last night at a meeting in Trinidad he reached agreement with Commonwealth leaders and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, to put forward a new £10 billion fund to tackle what Mr Brown said was “a climate emergency.”

He said the Launch Fund would allow the world to break the “deadlock” over a deal at Copenhagen and “get moving on climate change as quickly as possible”.

Mr Brown said: “'Together the collective power of the Commonwealth must be brought together to tackle a new historic injustice, that of climate change.”

Ahead of the UN-sponsored climate change conference in the Danish capital, Mr Brown proposed a £10 billion rich-world fund - to which Britain would contribute £800 million - to give incentives to developing countries to halt deforestation, develop low-carbon energy sources and prepare for the effects of a warmer climate.

To police the new deal satellites would monitor countries, like Papua New Guinea, Guyana and Indonesia, responsible for deforestation. Any country found not to be abiding by the deal would have their funding halted.

But some countries, not least China, are likely to be very wary of allowing international satellites to spy on their country...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...

Booker: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
28 Nov 2009

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com...

Who's to blame for Climategate?

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Who's to blame for Climategate?

The publication of damning emails about climate change could literally change the world. Gordon Rayner reports.

By Gordon Rayner
27 Nov 2009

...Rupert Murdoch's Fox News has described the emails as a "game-changer" for Obama cap and trade bills. Fox's climate change commentator, John Lott, suggested that Prof Jones was guilty of an "unprecedented co-ordinated campaign to hide scientific information". Meanwhile Matt Drudge, arguably the most influential reporter on the internet and the man who broke the story of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, has helped direct millions of hits to websites reporting on the email scandal by featuring it prominently on his Drudge Report website.

Nor are journalists the only ones predicting Climategate will influence US policy. Senator Peter King suggested the emails would "have some impact in slowing down or stopping the cap and trade bill" while fellow Republican senator James Inhofe has called for an investigation into the emails – some of which were sent to government-funded researchers in the US – and alerted the relevant US government agencies to their content.

President Obama's climate tsar Carol Browner has even been forced to make a public statement on the emails, insisting the science on global warming remains sound.

In Australia, meanwhile, the scandal has helped stoke a growing rift in the opposition Liberal Party, which had been poised to back Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's carbon pollution bill, but which is hopelessly split on the issue after 10 of its most senior politicians resigned, threatening to challenge party leader Malcolm Turnbull if he does not oppose the legislation.

Many critics have expressed incredulity that Prof Jones has not been sacked, but his fate is of little consequence compared with the effect the scandal could have on world climate change policy.

Prof Jones is in little doubt that the timing of the leak – two weeks before the start of the Copenhagen conference – was a "concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change" at the most sensitive possible time. Next month's Copenhagen conference has been billed as the last chance for world leaders to prevent an irreversible change to the planet's climate. Unless they can reach a binding agreement on reducing global emissions, mankind could face a bleak future, according to the majority of the scientific community.

The hacker who exposed the emails no doubt hopes Climategate will tip the scales decisively against an agreement – an outcome which is likely to be supported by a minority of hardliners in the US, such as Bryan Zumwalt, legislative counsel for Republican senator David Vitter, who said earlier this week that the CRU emails were evidence of what "could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history" and suggested that "nearly all of the international data and models supporting the theory of global warming would have been influenced by data corruption and fraud".

However Bob Ward, a climate change expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, believes world leaders will pay little attention to the scandal surrounding the CRU, arguing that politics, not science, will decide the fate of the Copenhagen summit.

"The politicians won't be swayed by this," he said. "It's basic physics that the world is being warmed by greenhouse gases, and politicians can see through the sceptics' arguments. If Copenhagen fails to produce an agreement, it won't be because of these emails. And in the US, President Obama's cap and trade bills will be decided by 12 or 13 Democratic senators who represent states with large coal and oil reserves."

Mr Ward does not believe the emails reveal any evidence of impropriety, but supported Lord Lawson's calls for an independent investigation so the matter can be cleared up.

He said: "I don't believe there is any evidence here of fraud, but it's regrettable that this has happened and I regret the fact that some members of the research community have dismissed out of hand those who have tried to make a counter-argument."

Whether or not Climategate influences the outcome of the Copenhagen summit, it seems that its long-term legacy will be to make the ongoing war of words between "warmists" and "coolists" more poisonous than ever.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
..........................................................................................................

NY Times

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 27, 2009

Some prominent climate scientists are calling for changes in the way research on global warming is conducted after a British university said thousands of private e-mail messages and documents had been stolen from its climate center.

The scientists say that the e-mail messages, which have circulated on the Internet and which disclose the inner workings of a small network of climatologists who chart the planet’s temperature, have damaged the public’s trust in the evidence that humans are dangerously warming the planet, just as many countries are poised to start reining in greenhouse gas emissions.

“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.

She and other scientists are seeking more transparency in the way climate data is handled and in the methods used to analyze it. And they argue that scientists should re-evaluate the selection procedures used by some scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel that in 2007 concluded that humans were the dominant force driving warming and whose findings underpin international discussions over a new climate treaty.

A fierce debate over the significance of the hacked material erupted as soon as the e-mail messages and other documents surfaced on Web sites just over a week ago. Some see in the e-mail correspondence — which includes heated discussions about warming trends, advice on deleting potentially controversial e-mail messages and derisive comments about climate skeptics — evidence of a conspiracy to stifle dissenting views and withhold data from public scrutiny, or, as some have put it, “Climategate.”

To others, the e-mail messages are merely evidence that climate scientists can be as competitive, proprietary, defensive and caustic as people engaged in any other high-level enterprise. They cast as villains those who disclosed the e-mail correspondence and who now, they say, are distorting the contents...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11...
...........................................................................................................................

Washington Times

EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up

Climate-change researchers admit their data is 'garbage'

The climate-gate revelations have exposed an unprecedented coordinated attempt by academics to distort research for political ends. Anyone interested in accurate science should be appalled at the manipulation of data "to hide the decline [in temperature]" and deletion of e-mail exchanges and data so as not to reveal information that would support global-warming skeptics. These hacks are not just guilty of bad science. In the United Kingdom, deleting e-mail messages to prevent their disclosure from a Freedom of Information Act request is a crime.

The story has gotten worse since the global-cooling cover-up was exposed through a treasure trove of leaked e-mails a week ago. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been incredibly influential in the global-warming debate. The CRU claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 report.

Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU and contributing author to the United Nation's IPCC report chapter titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes," says he "accidentally" deleted some raw temperature data used to construct the aggregate temperature data CRU distributed. If you believe that, you're probably watching too many Al Gore videos.

Mr. Jones is the same professor who warned that global-warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Other revelations hit at the very core of the global-warming debate. The leaked e-mails indicate that the people at the CRU can't even figure out how their aggregate data was put together. CRU activists claimed that they took individual temperature readings at individual stations and averaged the information out to produce temperature readings over larger areas. One of the leaked documents states that their aggregation procedure "renders the station counts totally meaningless." The benefit: "So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

Academics around the world who have spent years working on papers using this data must be in full panic mode. By the admission of the global-warming theocracy's own self-appointed experts, the data they have been using is simply "garbage."...

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Climategate: the whitewash begins

Marcus's picture

Telegraph Blog

Climategate: the whitewash begins

By James Delingpole
November 27th, 2009

Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen.

Here’s the (so far unconfirmed) story:

1) Lord Rees (Royal Society) to be asked by UEA to investigate CRU leak.

2) Foreign Office and government leaning heavily on UEA to keep a lid on everything lest it destabilises Copenhagen.

3) CRU asked to prepare data for a pre-emptive release in past couple of days but trouble reconciling issues between data bases has stopped this.

The appointment of Lord Rees, if confirmed, is especially worrying. It’s the rough equivalent of appointing King Herod’s grand vizier to investigate a mysterious outbreak of mass baby killing in Judaea...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...

Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots..

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...
.........................................................................................................................................................

Financial Post

New Zealand's Climategate

Posted: November 26, 2009

by Lawrence Solomon

An agency of the New Zealand government has been cooking the books to create a warming trend where none exists, according to a joint research project by global warming skeptics at the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. The chief cook? Dr. Jim Salinger, considered one of the country's top scientists, who began the graph in the 1980s when he was at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. CRU, of course, has become ground zero of Climategate as Dr. Salinger has maintained close relations with CRU since, as seen in the Climategate emails.

What do the uncooked books show? Rather than warming over the last hundred years, New Zealand's temperature has been steady...

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.co...
...........................................................................................................

WSJ

NOVEMBER 26, 2009

How to Forge a Consensus

The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.

The climatologists at the center of last week's leaked-email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of the some of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science, which is as certain as ever.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."

Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week.

We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. His May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" does not "read well," it's true. (Mr. Mann has said he didn't delete any such emails.)

But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start...

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

Denmark approves new police powers ahead of Copenhagen

Controversial legislation gives police sweeping powers of 'pre-emptive' arrest and extends custodial sentences for acts of civil disobedience

Felicity Carus guardian.co.uk,
Thursday 26 November 2009

The Danish parliament today passed legislation which will give police sweeping powers of "pre-emptive" arrest and extend custodial sentences for acts of civil disobedience. The "deeply worrying" law comes ahead of the UN climate talks which start on 7 December and are expected to attract thousands of activists from next week.

Under the new powers, Danish police will be able to detain people for up to 12 hours whom they suspect might break the law in the near future. Protesters could also be jailed for 40 days under the hurriedly drafted legislation dubbed by activists as the "turmoil and riot" law. The law was first announced on 18 October.

The Danish ministry of justice said that the new powers of "pre-emptive" detention would increase from 6 to 12 hours and apply to international activists. If protesters are charged with hindering the police, the penalty will increase from a fine to 40 days in prison. Protesters can also be fined an increased amount of 5,000 krona (671 Euros) for breach of the peace, disorderly behaviour and remaining after the police have broken up a demonstration.

The Danish police also separately issued a statement in August applying new rules and regulations for protests at the climate conference, warning that "gatherings that may disturb the public order must not take place"...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
..................................................................................................................................

Scientists target Canada over climate change

Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 November 2009

Prominent campaigners, politicians and scientists have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies.

The coalition's demand came before this weekend's Commonwealth heads of government summit in Trinidad and Tobago, at which global warming will top the agenda, and next month's UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Despite criticism of Canada's environmental policies, the prime minister, Stephen Harper, is to attend the Copenhagen summit. His spokesman said today: "We will be attending the Copenhagen meeting … a critical mass of world leaders will be attending."

Canada's per capita greenhouse gas emissions are among the world's highest and it will not meet the cut required under the Kyoto protocol: by 2007 its emissions were 34% above its reduction target. It is exploiting its vast tar sands reserves to produce oil, a process said to cause at least three times the emissions of conventional oil extraction.

The coalition claims Canada is contributing to droughts, floods and sea level rises in Commonwealth countries such as Bangladesh, the Maldives and Mozambique. Clare Short, the former international development secretary, said: "Countries that fail to help [tackle global warming] should be suspended from membership, as are those that breach human rights."

The World Development Movement, the Polaris Institute in Canada and Greenpeace are among the organisations supporting the plan. Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: "If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada's membership immediately."

Canada's environment department refused to comment on the call for it to be suspended...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
....................................................................................................................................................

Not really to my taste, but it is #6 on this week's viral video charts. That's a positive.

Unfortunately this is #2

"Fraying at the edges"

Marcus's picture

That was the description of the AGW consensus on a BBC current affairs program today.

Although they are still in the minority, all sorts of people are coming out of the woodwork in the UK, unafraid to say that they are sceptical of the AGW theory.

The e-mail scandal has made it more acceptable, at least this week, to be openly sceptical of AGW in the MSM.

I hope this trend gains momentum.

US Congress investigates Climategate e-mails

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

US Congress investigates Climategate e-mails: this could be the beginning of the end for AGW

By Gerald Warner
November 26th, 2009

The United States Congress has begun the process of investigating the leaked climate change e-mails from the University of East Anglia, which means all attempts to suppress and shut down the scandal have failed. Already aides to Representative Darrell Issa (Republican, California), who is the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, have begun analysing the correspondence exposed by hackers.

At the same time, in the upper house, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has been told by Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) that unless it acts promptly on the matter he will call for an investigation into the state of climate science. The e-mails are of huge interest to American legislators because one of them was sent by White House Science Adviser Dr John Holdren, in 2003, when he was at the Woods Hole Research Center, Massachusetts, to support Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University.

In his own e-mail, which he has defended and not denied, Mann suggested colleagues should be encouraged to stop submitting papers to the journal Climate Research, as it had published a paper to which he objected. The involvement of a White House adviser has given the controversy political traction on Capitol Hill, where legislators are considering the Obama administration’s plans for cap and trade laws, just when Obama has committed himself to restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and personal attendance at the Copenhagen climate summit in a month’s time.

At this most sensitive moment the whole climate scare is threatening to unravel with literally immeasurable consequences. The seriousness with which the Americans are treating this has highlighted just how pivotal the CRU at East Anglia is to the global warming hype. As American newsmen are pointing out, East Anglia claims the world’s largest temperature data set and its findings and mathematical models were incorporated into the IPCC’s 2007 report, which the US Environmental Protection Agency admits it “relies on most heavily” in deciding that carbon dioxide emissions must be curbed...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...
.......................................................................................................................................

Obama in Copenhagen: A fleeting presence

The Guardian, Thursday 26 November 2009

From his first day in office, environmentalists have pressed Barack Obama to attend next month's climate conference in Copenhagen. But when it emerged yesterday that he was heeding the call there was as much green bafflement as green joy. While the fact of his outing to the wonderful city is wondrous indeed, the timing seemed plain weird.

The president will briefly turn up en route to Oslo, where he will pick up that premature peace prize, disappearing more than a week before the end of the talks. His fellow politicians were not even planning to be in town at the time – still less ready to seal a meaningful deal. Unless all the plans change, the great orator's visionary keynote will be delivered to a hall packed with the officials who co-ordinate the diaries of those who actually count. Mr Obama's personal carbon footprint may be flattered by his refusal to fly to Scandinavia twice, but it was yesterday sorely tempting to conclude that his response to global warming is to vent hot air...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...
........................................................................................................................

Australia's Copenhagen climate strategy is smoke and mirrors

Australian PM Kevin Rudd talks a good climate game, offering 25% emissions cuts. But do the numbers add up?

Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 November 2009

...But since Australia is the world's hottest and driest continent, it is potentially more vulnerable to climate change than any other. That suggests another path would be prudent. And, to be fair, Rudd is aware of that. But he has a tough task persuading his industrialists and hugely powerful coal industry (Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal.)

So what is Australia bringing to Copenhagen? Rudd will be there in person. His headline grabber is the offer of a 25% cut in emissions. Except that the "conditions" he sets the rest of the world for this are so stringent that he is unlikely to have to deliver.

For instance, as the government spokesperson said, it would only be "fair" for Australia to make cuts that deep if other "advanced" countries made cuts "in the middle of the range identified by the IPCC" – that is, between 25-40%.

That's an odd definition of fairness. It is based, according to the spokesperson, on the fact that "Australia faces higher economic costs to achieve equivalent emissions reductions… than most other advanced countries." Funny, but I don't remember Australia offering bigger cuts in Kyoto because it was cheap and easy to end deforestation. Quite the contrary.

Otherwise, Rudd offers a range of reductions from 5-15%. That doesn't sound too bad until you remember the deforestation discount that Australia won in Kyoto. Along with other land-use changes since then, even a 15% "cut" would still allow Australians to emit more from burning coal in power stations, running cars and industry than they did in 1990. About 1% more, according to the analysis by the Sustainability Council of New Zealand.

A new beginning in Copenhagen? Rudd's Copenhagen plan looks like a greenwashed version of the old Kyoto plan...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
.................................................................................................

Stuart Varney of fox news, illustrates how one should interview an environmentalist

Comment viewing options

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