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: )

http://news.google.com/news/m

John Donohue's picture

http://news.google.com/news/mo...

888 news stories, Washinton Post, Guardian UK, etc.
I don't watch news on TV so don't know if it made the evening newcasts.

A kid named Eric

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Christopher Booker writes in a Daily Mail article Marcus linked below: "Should we not then be extremely worried - and even very angry - if it emerged that those scientists had been conspiring among themselves to fiddle the evidence for what they were telling us?"

John Donahue writes: "As for 'the consensus' admitting exaggeration etc? Even Al Gore admits it. He claims the end justifies the means, because the general misuse of the planet and threat to it caused by oil/coal/gas cheap energy boosting population must be stopped. If he (Gore et al) didn't form a consensus and didn't spin and didn't make lurid, exaggerated -- even baseless -- claims, there would be no chance to curtail the rape of the planet."

It's even admitted in the IPCC "Summary for Policy Makers."

 

Several years ago, the summer of 2006 or maybe it was as far back as 2005, Larry and I were having dinner at a Chili's (for non-US readers who might not know, Chili's is the name of a chain of Mexican restaurants). We were talking about -- guess what? -- "global warming" issues. The waiter, a young man named Eric, a college student waiting tables during the summer, overheard part of the conversation and interjected about the issue being his favorite issue because of the great importance of lighting a fire in the general populace to the cause of "taking care of the envirionment." What exactly limiting human CO2 production has to do with "taking care of the environment" was one of the issues discussed -- this young man, like so many, confused "pollution" with the AGW thesis.

Another issue which was raised was that of something called "truth." Upon our pointing out the lack of actual evidence supporting AGW alarm, the young man replied to the effect (and at first with a wink, expecting us, as scientifically knowledgeable persons, to agree), You have to exaggerate to get the public's interest; the goal is so important, and action won't be taken if people aren't frightened into doing the right thing.

I commented that he seemed to have a dim idea of the intelligence of the general populace. He acknowledged that he did.

So, I continued, you consider that you have to lie to people to get them to do what you think they ought to be doing.

"I didn't say that!" he said; "I wouldn't call it lying."

"I would," I told him. Then asked, "And suppose they find out about the deception? Where is that going to leave the scientific reputation of those who have deceived them? Do you care about the ultimate backlash and the black mark on the image of science?"

He was getting red in the face by then and hemming and hawing. Well, it wouldn't be good to have scientific integrity in ill repute, but the need was so urgent...

I've thought of and mentioned that kid numerous times in Larry's and my discussions during the years since. For short, we've dubbed the "you gotta lie to 'em because the cause (say I) is so important" argument "the Eric syndrome."

Needless to say, the group of physicists with whom Larry has been working trying to arouse concern in the physics community at the erosion of scientific integrity which has been going on in the AGW cause are rather enjoying the hemming and hawing and (visualized) redness of face of certain dishonest persons who call themselves scientists.

I will say, though, that L and I and cohorts are now in an "ends justifies the means" situation ourselves: It isn't that we approve of hacking. But there is a desire to give a high award, to pin a medal on whoever did the hacking in this particular case.

--

Question to John Donahue re the MSM.

You wrote, "The story has been picked up by the MSM including NYTimes."

Except for the Wall Street Journal and the NYTimes (by Andy Refkin, another whose red face I'm enjoying imagining), where has it been picked up by the MSM?

Ellen

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA data manipulation

Marcus's picture

Incredibly, or not, the Independent who ran front-page headlines a few years ago that AGW science was settled, have not even reported on the e-mail scandal, let alone put anything on the front-page!
.........................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'

Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

By Matthew Moore
23 Nov 2009

Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.

He claimed that the credibility of the university's world-renowned Climatic Research Unit - and British science - were under threat.

"They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme.

"If there's an explanation for what's going on they can make that explanation."

Around 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents were stolen from UEA computers by hackers last week and uploaded on to a Russian server before circulating on websites run by climate change sceptics.

Some of the correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers.

One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Prof Jones has insisted that he used the word "trick" to mean a "clever thing to do", rather than to indicate deception. He has denied manipulating data.

Another scientist whose name appears in the documents accused the hackers of attempting to undermine the drive for a global consensus at next month's Copenhagen summit.

Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research accused climate change sceptics of cherry-picking the documents and taking them out of context.

Meanwhile, hopes that a legally binding treaty on cutting emissions will be agreed at Copenhagen have been boosted by the news that more than 60 world leaders plan to attend...

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

Daily Mail

The devastating book which debunks climate change
By Christopher Booker

23rd November 2009

Just imagine if we learned we were about to be landed with the biggest bill in the history of the world - simply on the say-so of a group of scientists. Would we not want to be absolutely sure that those scientists were 100 per cent dependable in what they were saying?

Should we not then be extremely worried - and even very angry - if it emerged that those scientists had been conspiring among themselves to fiddle the evidence for what they were telling us?

This is the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves thanks to news reported in Saturday's Daily Mail which has raised huge question marks over the reliability of the science behind the theory of global warming.

Hundreds of emails leaked from the internal computer system of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia show how a small group of highly influential senior British and U.S. scientists have for years been secretly discussing ways in which their evidence could be manipulated to make the threat posed by global warming sound much worse than it is.

To place the significance of these revelations into context, let us recall how exactly a year ago, Parliament passed, virtually unopposed, what was far and away the most expensive new law ever put before it. On the Government's own figures, the Climate Change Act is going to cost Britain £18 billion a year - that's £720 for every household in the country - every year from now until 2050...

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

Climate change sceptics and lobbyists put world at risk, says top adviser

• Chance to limit warming squandered, says scientist
• World needs to prepare to cope with at least 3-4C rise

David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 22 November 2009

Climate change sceptics and fossil fuel companies that have lobbied against action on greenhouse gas emissions have squandered the world's chance to avoid dangerous global warming, a key adviser to the government has said.

Professor Bob Watson, chief scientist at the department for environment and rural affairs, said a decade of inaction on climate change meant it was now virtually impossible to limit global temperature rise to 2C. He said the delay meant the world would now do well to stabilise warming between 3C and 4C.

His comments come ahead of key UN negotiations on a new global climate treaty in Copenhagen next month that the UK government insists should still aim for a 2C goal, despite doubts over whether a meaningful deal can be sealed.

In an interview with the Guardian, Watson said: "Those that have opposed a deal on climate, which would include elements of the fossil fuel industry, have clearly made making a 2C target much, much harder, if not impossible. They've clearly put the world at risk of far more adverse effects of climate change."

The decision of former US president George W Bush to walk away from the Kyoto protocol, the existing global treaty on carbon emissions, sent a message to other countries not to act, he said. "The last decade was a lost opportunity. Elements within the fossil fuel industry clearly had major implications for the Bush administration."

He added: "I think they've clearly been partly to blame, without any question at all. But you have to say it is not just the fossil lobby. Within the US, there is not strong support for the Kyoto protocol in both parties. Even Obama now will have to persuade a still somewhat sceptical Senate that we should be doing this."

The Copenhagen talks are not expected to deliver a legally binding treaty as originally hoped, but could still make progress on issues such as emissions cuts for rich countries and financial assistance for the developing world. A strong agreement rests on how far Obama is willing to push towards strong carbon cuts in the US...

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

Another "highlight reel"

gregster's picture

Here at Wishart's blog. Hat tip PC. (See PC, Wishart ain't all stupid. Eye )

Google and enjoy

William Scott Scherk's picture

One of the persons featured in the hacked emails is Gavin Schmidt of Realclimate.org (he is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York). He has two threads devoted to the CRU hacking, the first of which has over a thousand comments.

Much of the discussion has roamed over the content of the small part of the 63MB (that's a lot of emails) that has been commented upon in the press and online. This is a huge story with legs, and hard to trawl though in detail. I recommend the Realclimate.org threads not for the pro-AGW stance, but for the breadth of opinion. On this occasion it seems the moderators have opened the door.

One commenter in particular took the time to defend some of the email fragments that have been quoted in the skeptic zone. It's instructive, as each of the 19 points includes the emails in question:

Comment 349

Your mileage may vary in interpreting the poster's defense, but the inclusion of the actual text is very useful for those who follow all sides of the issues.

The nice lady gawdbotherer says: "they have been colluding to manipulate and distort climate data for purely political and socio-economic reasons: they admit to lying and falsifying historical data in order to make it seem as if there's been a global warming trend."

I don't know if the lady can match the emails to the claims she makes for them. The full set of hackery is now posted to Wikileaks. I find interesting the remarks there that suggest the materials had been at one time assembled for a Freedom of Information request:

This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents, computer code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.

The CRU has told the BBC that the files were obtained by a computer hacker 3-4 days ago.

This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.

The archive appears to be a collection of information put together by the CRU prior to a FoI redaction process.

(there is no index to the Wikileaks material, but a commenter at Realclimate.org has provided a 'highlight reel.')



WSS

Ms Purchas

gregster's picture

The irony of your re-appearance to seemingly concur with us about the second greatest hoax of Man after "belief in God."

Hack all they want...

Jmaurone's picture

but NBC will STILL do it's annoying "Green in Universal" week where all the shows have eco-themes while trotting out guest appearnances by Al Gore and harrasing the viewers to take their shoes off indoors(????). I wonder if all that is the reason they're the lowest-rated network...

Stall? where's the non-stall?

John Donohue's picture

The story has been picked up by the MSM including NYTimes.

Ironic that the post below submitted by Marcus on Fri, 2009-11-20 01:24 cites Hadley itself putting an actual number on the "Stall". "Hadley" is the familiar name of the CRU.

This is not the first time that data from Hadley has spoiled the game for the AGW. It's not easy to spot in my elaborate page on climate, but I think Hadley has at least a certain core of competence and you can use data from their historic records to knock down the more outrageous claims of the AGW Orthodoxy.
Earth In Time

As for "the consensus" admitting exaggeration etc? Even Al Gore admits it. He claims the end justifies the means, because the general misuse of the planet and threat to it caused by oil/coal/gas cheap energy boosting population must be stopped. If he (Gore et al) didn't form a consensus and didn't spin and didn't make lurid, exaggerated -- even baseless -- claims, there would be no chance to curtail the rape of the planet.

My favorite page right now is this.
Time Lapse of the Arctic
Considering that the ice coverage in the Arctic is supposedly the most obvious and scary evidence of non-natural warming, this video is pretty crushing. The "Stall" is not only evident, it is difficult to even see the non-Stall.

John Donohue

More about the Hackers

Rosie's picture

Regarding the hackers who broke into the servers of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia -- apparently, a very important research institution for this issue; one that influences policy of governments and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the U.N. Hackers broke into the servers and streamed out 61 megabytes of private e-mails from the CRU climate scientists in which they ADMIT that they have been colluding to manipulate and distort climate data for purely political and socio-economic reasons: they admit to lying and falsifying historical data in order to make it seem as if there's been a global warming trend, when in fact, the globe was warmer thousands of years ago and we have been undergoing a cooling trend --- so much for CO2 causing anything. One YouTube video you can check out here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Mainstream media are ignoring the issue, but it's exploding on the Internet.

You can Google for more videos and articles. Enjoy!

From Whale Oil Beef Hooked

gregster's picture

About the criminal ETS Scam completing with behind the scenes corruption involving Maori:

How can the biggest danger to our economy be passed under urgency so that New Zealand and its aging kapa haka group can wave a piece of paper at a dead conference in Copenhagen to say we were first and all based on science that is daily proven to be a lie?

Shock! Climate Berlin Wall falls!

Marcus's picture

At least that's how Climate Depot describes it.

I am however less optimistic, this story did not make the front-page haedlines of any main-stream media group as far as I am aware.

James Delingpole, decribes it well when he concludes in his blog (the broken link for Sandi), the one I quoted in the Fox article below:

"Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight."

However, perhaps there are cracks starting to appear in the foundations, which the alarmists are now scrambling to paper over.
......................................................................................................................

WSJ

NOVEMBER 21, 2009

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

By KEITH JOHNSON

The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit.

Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers sometime Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s as well as scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University officials confirmed the hacker attack, but couldn't immediately confirm the authenticity of all the documents posted on the Internet.

The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that influence policy makers around the world.

The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, meant to lay the groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by the economic slump, which has put environmental issues on the back burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend in global temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in climate models such as the IPCC's.

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.

Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate scientists have dismissed those claims...

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

Barack Obama ready to offer target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions

Suzanne Goldenberg, Washington
The Observer, Sunday 22 November 2009

President Barack Obama is considering setting a provisional target for cutting America's huge greenhouse gas emissions, removing the greatest single obstacle to a landmark global agreement to fight climate change.

The Observer has learnt that administration officials have been consulting international negotiators and key players on Capitol Hill about signing up to a provisional target at the UN global warming summit in Copenhagen, now less than three weeks away.

Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, said the administration recognised that America had to come forward with a target for cutting its emissions. The US, which with China is responsible for 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, is the only major developed nation yet to table an offer.

"What we are looking at is to see whether we could put down essentially a provisional number that would be contingent on our legislation," Stern said from Copenhagen, where he was meeting Danish officials. "We are looking at that, there are people we need to consult with."

A provisional target – if accepted by other nations – would solve Obama's dilemma. The Senate will not have passed a domestic law before Copenhagen, meaning that, if he makes an offer there, it could subsequently be rejected in Washington. But if he makes no offer, the deal is likely to crash anyway, and with it hopes of rapidly combating global warming...

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

Daily Telegraph

Van Rompuy wants the EU to run on CO2

Carbon taxes will provide the EU with its own revenue stream. That's the dream of the new EU President, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
21 Nov 2009

No doubt as we contemplate the figure who has rocketed from obscurity to became "the President of Europe", we have all made silly little jokes about "Mr Rumpy". After the eight tortuous years it has taken to get the "Constitution for Europe" into place, with all the talk of how vital it was for the EU to have a figurehead to represent Europe on the world stage as the equivalent of the President of the United States, some may now think of the poet Horace's famous line, parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus ("the mountains are in labour, and will give birth to a ridiculous mouse").

But it would be wrong to underestimate Herman Van Rompuy, the first permament president of the European Council. This Belgian economist is a clever and ruthless political operator. Once, to win a political battle, he changed the locks to prevent his opponents entering a crucial meeting. (For details of his character, see the Brussels Journal blog by one of his former colleagues, Paul Belien.) And the reason why he was very much the preferred candidate of the European Commission is that the one thing for which President Van Rompuy can be relied on is a determination to use all his crafty skills to further the power of our new government in Brussels.

At the heart of the "European project", there has always been one core goal in all it does – to absorb ever more of the powers of national governments into the centre. And almost the only thing we know about Mr Van Rompuy's ambitions in his new office is that he wants "more Europe".

Much of his wish list may have been drearily familiar ever since the Addenino report of 1985: more flying of the "ring of stars" flag, more singing of the "European anthem", EU number plates on cars, EU identity cards. But the one thing the EU has needed to make its powers complete, and which not even its Constitution could give, was the power to levy its own direct taxes. It is no accident that this is now at the top of Mr Van Rompouy's list – nor that the way in which he plans to raise those taxes is by levying new charges on every kind of activity that emits CO2.

Way back in1991, Brussels first proclaimed its intention to give a "moral lead" to the world in "combating climate change". The following year it published plans for an EU-wide "carbon tax". Ever since, saving the planet has risen steadily higher on the EU's agenda, as the perfect idealistic cause to justify more new laws – from the landfill directive that has reduced our rubbish collection to chaos, to the legislation that forces us to encumber our countryside with useless wind turbines, and to use nasty, inefficient, mercury-filled light bulbs...

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

Self-confessed liar Schneider

gregster's picture

This is how they operate. One dissenting news item on their beloved BBC and they coordinate their lies:

From: Stephen H Schneider
To: Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones"

, Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , trenbert , Michael Mann , Michael Oppenheimer
Subject: Fwd: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:32:11 -0700 (PDT)

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve

Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao"
To: "Stephen H Schneider"
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate

Steve,

You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC‚s reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that there‚s been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics‚ views.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...
te-change/

BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.

Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

Narasimha

-------------------------------

PhD Candidate,

Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones"

, Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007.
see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?

mike

On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun",

Cheers,
Steve

Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment

Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org

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

From: Tom Wigley
To: Kevin Trenberth
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:01:24 -0600
Cc: Michael Mann , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones"

, Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id n9E71pl4015864

Dear all,

At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not
agree with this.

Tom.

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

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Kevin

Sceptics Smoking gun!!!

Marcus's picture

Thanks for that Sandi.

Wow! I wake up this morning and all has broken loose in the GW blog/ news.

It is always informative to see how the warmists are responding, so look no further than the Guardian/ BBC who are already questioning the validity of the incriminating evidence.
..................................................................................................................................................

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists

Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online

Leo Hickman and James Randerson
guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 November 2009

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.

The veracity of the emails has not been confirmed and the scientists involved have declined to comment on the story, which broke on a blog called The Air Vent...

In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

This sentence, in particular, has been leapt upon by sceptics as evidence of manipulating data, but the credibility of the email has not been verified. The scientists who allegedly sent it declined to comment on the email.

"It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating," said Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. "You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."

In another alleged email, one of the scientists apparently refers to the death of a prominent climate change sceptic by saying "in an odd way this is cheering news".

Ward said that if the emails are correct, they "might highlight behaviour that those individuals might not like to have made public." But he added, "Let's separate out [the climate scientists] reacting badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics] to the idea that their work has been carried out in an inappropriate way."

The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data - reconstructing past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings. "Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just paleoclimate data," he said. "At the heart of this is basic physics."...

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

BBC News

Saturday, 21 November 2009

Harrabin's Notes: E-mail arguments

In his regular column, the BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, assesses the arguments sparked by the leaking of information on climate change.

...The climate science website RealClimate sees the CRU computer raid as the latest attempt by lobbyists to discredit mainstream climate science at a critical time.

It explains in detail what it says is the legitimate scientific rationale behind some of the apparently incriminating emails, and says they offer a glimpse into the real world of science.

It says people should not be shocked by "scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in 'robust' discussions; scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense...

"It's obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this," says RealClimate. "But it's important to remember that… gravity isn't a useful theory because Newton was a nice person."

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

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

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

Friday, November 20, 2009

Fox News

Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline," apparently in temperatures.

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the theft of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.

"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact the police about the data breach.

TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999. He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.

"That was an e-mail from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?" he said.

The Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...) has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...
............................................................................................................................

Climate change denial MEP attacks church

Roger Helmer says Anglican hierarchy has dropped the gospel in favour of 'the new religion of climate alarmism'

Allegra Stratton, political correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 November 2009

A Tory MEP has accused the Church of England of having "abandoned religious faith entirely and taken up the new religion of climate alarmism instead".

Roger Helmer, who resigned from the Tory frontbench in Europe when the Westminster leadership dumped its promised referendum on the Lisbon treaty, used a magazine article to urge the Church to "get back to the gospel".

Referring approvingly to the work of another writer who said bishops were spending more time "preaching climate change than the gospel of salvation", Helmer wrote: "The recent multi-faith conference at Windsor suggests that other world religions are taking the same line on climate change. This is particularly ironic at a time when the world is cooling and when more and more scientists around the world are breaking cover to challenge the theory of man-made global warming. Perhaps world religions should have more faith in God, and less in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."...

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

Daily Telegraph

Nigel Lawson: Thatcher's Chancellor takes on the planet alone

As he challenges conventional wisdom on climate change, Kate Weinberg visits Lord Lawson at his French home

21 Nov 2009

...On Monday, Lord Lawson will once again place himself squarely in the minority. Two weeks before the international climate change summit in Copenhagen, he is establishing a think-tank that will act as a check on sweeping environmental reform.

He is not, like George Bush, a "climate change denier" (although he believes that the science is far from certain). His point is less about the fact of climate change, than our response to it – he believes we should not "slow down economic growth" by spending billions in trying to prevent what might be happening, but rather wait until it happens and respond more economically then.

Lord Lawson knows he will win few friends with his views. (His arguments may be rational and cogent, but there is a certain haziness about the amount of lives in the balance as he talks about "the possibility that the climate will get warmer and this will be uncomfortable for certain people".)

But then, he is not a fan of people-pleasing politics. "You must never believe that what are conventionally thought to be the bounds of the politically possible are fixed: you need to push them forward. That is what we did. It takes guts – and Margaret had guts – and, except towards the end, political skill."

Lord Lawson's belief in the importance of standing by unpopular policies, as well as his distaste with the "showbusiness element", clearly serves as a message for David Cameron's "compassionate Conservatives" and the man who is likely to be Britain's next Chancellor, George Osborne...

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

Good find Sandi

gregster's picture

There are all sorts of machinations going on in that download of many files. Your Telegraph link isn't working yet, so I haven't replied so you can fix it.

There's a file "Harry Read Me" full of the computer climate modellers' notes on trying to get their things to work. Massive waste of money and the hours they spend on this SHIT.

See part of the infamous Michael Hockey Stick Mann's letter from MannHouseReply.pdf:

July 15, 2005

Via Federal Express

Joe Barton, Chairman
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Ed Whitfield, Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Barton and Chairman Whitfield:

This letter responds to your letter of June 23, 2005, which seeks information on
issues relating to my research on the historical record of temperatures and climate
change.1 Your letter lays out a number of “concerns” about the research my colleagues
and I have conducted about global warming. Your letter also inquires about the role I
played in the preparation of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Third Assessment Report (the so-called “TAR”).

I will address each of your questions in turn. Before doing so, however, let me
state that my research findings, which support the conclusion that the earth’s surface
is warming, and that recent warming is due in large part to human influences, are
consistent with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. My research
has been subject to intensive peer-review. Other scientists have replicated all facets of
my research and have found it accurate and reliable. The specific conclusion published
by my colleagues and me that late 20th century Northern Hemisphere warmth is
anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium is common to many studies.
Based on multiple supporting studies, the TAR came to a similar conclusion. The TAR
did not rely solely on the work of my colleagues and me in reaching this conclusion.
Recent work since the TAR has provided further support for this conclusion, which is
now common to more than a dozen independent studies published in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature. (I have provided for reference a comprehensive review by Jones and
Mann in the journal “Reviews of Geophysics” of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU).) The criticisms your letter cites have been soundly rejected by the scientific
community.

etc
...................................................

An email from the UK to a bunch of Russians who are also trying to con as much money from Western governments for their dubious ends:

From: Keith Briffa
To: tatm@insec.quorus.e-burg.su
Subject: the Yamal data
Date: Wed Oct 30 17:45:53 1996

Dear Rashit,
As always I seem to have been away bullshiting and politiking in
various meetings for weeks! I try to convince myself that this is of use to us as a dendrochronological community but I am not so sure how much that is really
true these days. I have the data you sent and I had to get someone here to
decode it for me . That is fine now so I would like to try and reformat and RCS it . I will be back in touch soon. Your paper is in review for Denrochronologia.
I am very keen to get a much more detailed paper in The Holocene dealing with
this stuff and I hope you and Stepan will consider this - perhaps for some time in spring next year. Sorry I wasn't in touch sooner. Please give my regards
to Stepan and Valerie.
very best wishes
Keith

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

One sent to the head honcho at Anglia:

From: gjjenkins@meto.gov.uk
To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, deparker@meadow.meto.govt.uk
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: llivingston@meadow.meto.govt.uk, djcarson@meadow.meto.govt.uk, ckfolland@meadow.meto.govt.uk

Phil

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.

3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
Dec

5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??

6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

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

What would a storyline entail I wonder? And from Cyclotron Road!:

From: Nebojsa Nakicenovic
To: "Joseph M. Alcamo" , "Knut H. Alfsen" , Dennis Anderson , Zhou Dadi , "Gerald R. Davis" , Benjamin Dessus , Jae Edmonds , (although he cancelled) Joergen Fenhann , "Stuart R. Gaffin" , Henryk Gaj , Ken Gregory , "A. Gruebler" , Erik Haites , William Hare , Michael Hulme , Michael Jefferson , Tae-Yong Jung , Tom Kram , Emilio Lebre La Rovere , Mathew Luhanga , Douglas McKay , Julio Torres Martinez , Laurie Michaelis , Shunsuke Mori , Tsuneyuki Morita , Richard Moss , "Youssef H. Nassef" , William Pepper , "Hugh M. Pitcher" , Lynn Price , Hans-Holger Rogner , Cynthia Rosenzweig , "Jim F. Skea" , Priyadarshi Shukla , Leena Srivastava , Rob Swart , "H.J.M. de Vries" , "John P. Weyant" , Ernst Worrell
Subject: Invitation to the SRES meeting in Berkeley
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:50:47 +0100

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to confirm that we will hold the next SRES meeting on 7-8 February

at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. Lynn

Price is the organizer of the meeting. Below is her contact information.

Ms. Lynn Price

Energy Analysis Program

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

MS 90-4000, 1 Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

U.S.A.

(001-510) 486-6519

(001-510) 486-6996

e-mail: lkprice@lbl.gov

The main purpose of the meeting is to review the work progress of the four

modeling groups that have been involved in first quantifications of the

four storylines. My expectation is that we can harmonize various model

runs into four initial scenarios. Thus, this will be primarily a modelers'

meeting focusing on technical issues, storyline interpretation and

consistency of first quantifications. It will not have the character of a

Lead Authors meeting in the strict sense. It is nevertheless an important

meeting for all modeling groups who have volunteered to quantify

storylines, since this work needs to proceed in order for us to meet our

original timetable and cannot be postponed until the next Lead Authors'

meeting in the spring.

I hope that most of you can attend. Your input would be

valuable in this early stage of modeling work. Furthermore, it would be

good to also take the opportunity of this meeting to review the so-called

zero-order-drafts (ZODs). The deadline for the submission of the final

versions of the ZODs is 15 January (Thursday), so I expect that we will

also have new material to discuss.

Although I realize that this meeting will take place on rather short

notice and not all of you will be able to obtain the necessary approvals

and visas to attend, I nonetheless believe that it is important at this

stage to hold an informal meeting with the four modeling groups. I have

funds available for the four lead authors from developing countries:

Matthew Luhanga, Zhou Dadi, Henryk Gaj, and Emilio La Rovere. As noted

above, a more formal meeting of the complete writing team will be held

sometime in March or April, at which time I hope everyone will be able to

attend.

Please confirm your attendance for the February meeting with me as soon as

possible (this week if you can), so that we can reserve sufficient hotel

space in Berkeley.

Again, for those of you who are working on Zero Order Drafts, please

remember that this Thursday is the deadline for completion. I look forward to

receiving these.

Best Regards,

Naki

Katalin Kuszko

Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies

International Institute for | Email: kuszko@iiasa.ac.at

Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: +43 2236 807 319

A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: +43 2236 71313

"Climategate" The greatest scientific scam is exposed

Sandi's picture

A hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet.

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Fox News states that Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU has confirmed that the leaked data is real.

The Telegraph has a great write up, although it is not a front page headline.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

I've downloaded the file and look forward to some interesting reading.

http://www.filedropper.com/foi...

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Marcus's picture

Der Spiegel

11/19/2009

Stagnating Temperatures

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

By Gerald Traufetter

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.

Reached a Plateau

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory...

http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
.......................................................................................................................................

The Climate Skeptics Party launch television ads in Australia...


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

Daily Telegraph

Polar bears suffer brutal deaths in a new advert by climate change campaigners Plane Stupid

The controversial climate change group Plane Stupid has been criticised over an advert which shows bloodied polar bears falling from the sky.

By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent
20 Nov 2009

The advert, which aims to raise awareness of the carbon emissions associated with short-haul flights, has been criticised as “distasteful” and “distressing”.

Opening on what at first appear to be unidentified objects descending from the heavens, the viewer eventually can see that the objects are in fact dead polar bears plummeting to the ground as a plane is heard overhead.

As the advert continues, the computer generated bears meet their deaths, crashing against buildings, leaving a trail of blood, and landing on cars.

The 50-second ad ends with a message equating the 400kg of greenhouse gases produced per passenger on the average European flight to the weight of an adult polar bear.

The Plane Stupid advert will be shown across cinemas from today and has a 15 certificate.

Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a climate change sceptic, said: “Not only is this distasteful and disrespectful, is a fraudulent piece of scaremongering.

“To grab headlines in this way is a cheap, tasteless and childish, no doubt to get attention in time for the Copenhagen Summit. Plane Stupid has surpassed itself."...

Watch here:

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

Daily Telegraph

Antarctic temperatures between ice ages '6C warmer than today'

Temperatures in Antarctica during warm periods between ice ages soared to up to 6C warmer than the present day, a study has shown.

20 Nov 2009

The findings could help us understand more about rapid climate changes, scientists said.

Until now temperatures during the warm periods between ice ages - known as interglacials - were thought to be only slightly warmer than those of the present day, British Antarctic Survey (BAS) scientists explained.

But the findings, published this week in journal Nature, show brief spikes in temperature, which recur roughly every 100,000 years and last a few thousand years, seem to have been a lot warmer...

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

New Zealand's 'Kyoto forests' sow the seeds of massive emissions

Marcus's picture

New Zealand's 'Kyoto forests' sow the seeds for a massive emissions surge

When New Zealand's sink forests are harvested in the 2020s, as is likely, all that carbon will return to the atmosphere

Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 November 2009

The government of New Zealand responded with some irritation to my column last week, which castigated a national strategy for meeting its Kyoto climate targets by allowing greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 22% from 1990 to 2007.

All was well, it said. The 600,000 hectares of forests that were planted in the 1990s would soak up all the excess CO2 – around 90m tonnes of it between 2008 and 2012. In fact, the country was likely to be ahead of its Kyoto target of stabilising emissions at 1990 levels.

But back home this policy is controversial, to say the least, with many experts accusing the government of a sleight of hand. They include the independent but prestigious Sustainability Council of New Zealand.

The central problem seems to be that when it comes to carbon, Middle Earth is a scientific minefield. And the Kyoto rules give the government considerable potential to pick and choose which carbon emissions and which carbon sinks from forests it declares for the purposes of meeting its targets.

There are, it turns out, two sets of carbon accounts.

The full statistics delivered to the UN Climate Change Convention show that the New Zealand landscape is, as the government says, absorbing more carbon today than it did in 1990. But only a bit more. Enough to cut its emissions growth from 22% to 18%. That is nowhere near enough to bring New Zealand into Kyoto compliance.

But, as the spokesman for the climate change minister, Nick Smith, pointed out to me this week, those are not the only numbers. "The convention inventory includes a wider set of activities than under the Kyoto protocol." In a nutshell, the Kyoto protocol allows New Zealand to ignore what is happening across the wider landscape and simply report the growth of its 600,000 hectares of new forests, planted mostly during the 1990s...

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

Daily Telegraph

Eco hero: David Bellamy, botanist and campaigner

Professor David Bellamy, 76, is one of Britain’s best-known botanists and an outspoken environmental campaigner.

By Jessica Salter
19 Nov 2009

I wanted to be a ballet dancer when I was a child, but when I was about 14 I had to face the fact that I was 14½ stone, and not likely to make it. My first job was as a lab boy at a technical college in Ewell, just outside London, where the teachers encouraged me to use my brain. Five years later I was a don at Durham University. I met my wife, Rosemary, there – she was a nursing student and we fell in love...

I’m sceptical about man-made climate change. There’s absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide will kill us all. It’s not a poison, it’s the most important gas in the world. Carbon dioxide is an airborne fertiliser. How can farmers grow increasing amounts of food without a rise in CO2?

I used to be very popular but most of the green people won’t even speak to me any more. When I was sacked from the Wildlife Trusts because of my views they didn’t tell me, I read about it in the paper...

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

WSJ

Revenge of the Climate Laymen

Global warming's most dangerous apostate speaks out about the state of climate change science.

By ANNE JOLIS

Barack Obama conceded over the weekend that no successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be signed in Copenhagen next month. With that out of the way, it may be too much to hope that the climate change movement take a moment to reflect on the state of the science that is supposedly driving us toward a carbon-neutral future.

But should a moment for self-reflection arise, campaigners against climate change could do worse than take a look at the work of Stephen McIntyre, who has emerged as one of the climate change gang's Most Dangerous Apostates. The reason for this distinction? He checked the facts.

The retired Canadian businessman, whose self-described "auditing" a few years ago prompted a Congressional review of climate science, has once again thrown EnviroLand into a tailspin. In September, he revealed that a famous graph using tree rings to show unprecedented 20th century warming relies on thin data. Since its publication in 2000, University of East Anglia professor Keith Briffa's much-celebrated image has made star appearances everywhere from U.N. policy papers to activists' posters. Like other so-called "hockey stick" temperature graphs, it's an easy sell—one look and it seems Gadzooks! We're burning ourselves up!

"It was the belle of the ball," Mr. McIntyre told me on a recent phone call from Ontario. "Its dance card was full."

At least until Mr. McIntyre reported that the modern portion of that graph, which shows temperatures appearing to skyrocket in the last 100 years, relies on just 12 tree cores in Russia's Yamal region. When Mr. McIntyre presented a second graph, adding data from 34 tree cores from a nearby site, the temperature spike disappears...

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

From The Times

November 19, 2009

Birth control: the most effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Investing in birth control to reduce population growth could be more effective in cutting greenhouse gas emissions than building wind turbines or nuclear power stations, according to a United Nations report. Taking action to prevent one billion births by 2050 would save as much carbon dioxide as constructing 2 million giant wind turbines.

The UN Population Fund report predicts that the global population could reach 10.5 billion by 2050, up from 6.8 billion today, unless urgent action is taken to reduce fertility rates.

It says that even its medium-growth forecast of 2.3 billion more people by 2050, which assumes a fall in average fertility from 2.56 to 2.02 children per woman, would make it much harder to achieve the cuts in carbon emissions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The report says that reducing population growth would allow the 2050 target for global average emissions per person to be increased significantly above the 2 tonnes recommended by Lord Stern, the author of an influential government report on global warming in 2006. Living standards would be higher because each person would be able to emit more CO2...

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

Fred Singer to speak at climate change sceptics conference

Marcus's picture

Right said Fred, I think you're right!
..........................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Fred Singer to speak at climate change sceptics conference

Climate change sceptics are fighting back in the run up to the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen with a series of talks and conferences.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
18 Nov 2009

Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist from the University of Adelaide, has already been in the UK to address an audience of more than one hundred. He will return to speak alongside Lord Monckton of Brencheley at a 'climate change lunch' in London in early December.

Today a conference in Brussels will ask Have Humans Changed the Climate? Professor Ross McKitrick from the University of Guelph in Ontario and Professor Tom Segalstad from the University of Oslo, who both question the conventional science, will address the issue of global warming.

The lead speaker is an American atmospheric physicist Professor Fred Singer from the University of Virginia.

Speaking before the conference, he said there was no evidence that the increases in carbon dioxide produced by humans causes global warming. He said the temperature of the planet has always varied and even if temperatures do go up, that will be good for humankind.

"We are certainly putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However there is no evidence that this high CO2 is making a detectable difference. It should in principle, however the atmosphere is very complicated and one cannot simply argue that just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas is causes warming," he said.

But Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said the link between carbon dioxide and global warming is now as well proven as the link between smoking and cancer...

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

From The Times

November 18, 2009

Obama aims for Copenhagen agreement that can take immediate effect

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

President Obama has attempted to restore confidence in international negotiations on climate change by saying that next month’s UN summit in Copenhagen should deliver an agreement on emissions with “immediate operational effect”.

The US President was speaking yesterday in Beijing two days after his officials had ruled out signing a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen. “Our aim is not a partial accord or a political declaration but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations and one that has immediate operational effect,” he said. Talks with the President Hu of China had resulted in agreement by the world’s top two greenhouse gas emitters to take “significant” action.

Mr Obama said that Washington and Beijing had committed to co-operation in areas including renewable energy, cleaner coal and electric vehicles. US officials have hinted that the President will help to break the deadlock in the negotiations by announcing a provisional target for cutting American emissions by as much as 20 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020.

Anders Carlgren, the Swedish Environment Minister, said: “Without a clear and ambitious number the whole agreement will be in danger.”

Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said: “The aim of Copenhagen continues to be to get a comprehensive and ambitious agreement. Today’s affirmation from Presidents Obama and Hu that this is their ambition is very welcome and necessary. With less than three weeks to go, we must strain every sinew for an agreement...

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

The Independent

World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists

Fast-rising carbon emissions mean that worst-case predictions for climate change are coming true

By Steve Connor and Michael McCarthy

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise – which would be much higher nearer the poles – would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation.

We are headed for it, the scientists said, because the carbon dioxide emissions from industry, transport and deforestation which are responsible for warming the atmosphere have increased dramatically since 2002, in a way which no one anticipated, and are now running at treble the annual rate of the 1990s.

This means that the most extreme scenario envisaged in the last report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2007, is now the one for which society is set, according to the 31 researchers from seven countries involved in the Global Carbon Project.

Although the 6C rise and its potential disastrous effects have been speculated upon before, this is the first time that scientists have said that society is now on a path to meet it.

Their chilling and remarkable prediction throws into sharp relief the importance of next month's UN climate conference in Copenhagen, where the world community will come together to try to construct a new agreement to bring the warming under control...

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

Marcus:

Frediano's picture

When they say they are running out of time, I think they mean, before the entire world is on to their nonsense.

Not again! Another 10-year climate 'tipping point'!

Marcus's picture

Not again! Another 10-year climate 'tipping point' warning issued -- Despite fact that UN began 10-Year 'Climate Tipping Point' in 1989!

Climate Depot Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global Warming 'Tipping Points' -- Earth 'Serially Doomed'

Sunday, November 15, 2009
By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Once again, the world is being warned of a climate “tipping point.” The latest bout of stern warnings comes from the UK Met Office.

'World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office - UK Telegraph – November 15, 2009

Excerpt: Pollution needs to be brought under control within ten years to stop runaway climate change, according to the latest Met Office predictions. [...] "To limit global mean temperature [increases] to below 2C, implied emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere at the end of the century fall close to zero in most cases."

Inconvenient History of Climate 'Tipping Point' Warnings

As early as 1989, the UN was already trying to sell their “tipping point” rhetoric on the public. See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year 'Climate Tipping Point' Began in 1989 – Excerpt: According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,' threatening political chaos.”

NASA scientist James Hansen has been warning of a “tipping point” for years now. See: Earth's Climate Approaches Dangerous Tipping Point – June 1, 2007 – Excerpt: A stern warning that global warming is nearing an irreversible tipping point was issued today” by James Hansen.

Former Vice President Al Gore invented his own “tipping point” clock a few years ago. Excerpt: Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the “climate crisis.” “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis,” Gore stated.

Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009. Excerpt: The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world. And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the "age of convenience" was over.

The UN chief Ban Ki-moon further shortened the "tipping point" in August 2009, when he warned of 'incalculable' suffering without climate deal in December 2009!

Newsweek magazine waded into the tipping point claims as well. Newsweek wrote: "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." But, Newsweek's "tipping point" quote appeared in a April 28, 1975 article about global cooling! Same rhetoric, different eco-scare...

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/...
...........................................................................................................................................

Apocalypse fatigue: Losing the public on climate change

Even as the climate science becomes more definitive, polls show that public concern in the US about global warming has been declining. What will it take to rally Americans behind the need to take strong action on cutting carbon emissions?

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, from Yale Environment 360, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 November 2009

...Three years after it seemed that "An Inconvenient Truth" had changed everything, it turns out that it didn't. The current Pew survey is the latest in a series of studies suggesting that Al Gore probably had a good deal more effect upon elite opinion than public opinion.

Public opinion about global warming, it turns out, has been remarkably stable for the better part of two decades, despite the recent decline in expressed public confidence in climate science. Roughly two-thirds of Americans have consistently told pollsters that global warming is occurring. By about the same majority, most Americans agree that global warming is at least in part human-caused, with this majority roughly equally divided between those believing that warming is entirely caused by humans and those who believe it to be a combination of human and natural causes. And about the same two-thirds majority has consistently supported government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since 1989.

This would be good news for action to address climate change if most Americans felt very strongly about the subject. Unfortunately, they don't. Looking back over 20 years, only about 35 to 40 percent of the U.S. public worry about global warming "a great deal," and only about one-third consider it a "serious personal threat." Moreover, when asked in open-ended formats to name the most serious problems facing the country, virtually no Americans volunteer global warming. Even other environmental problems, such as air and water pollution, are often rated higher priorities by U.S. voters than global warming, which is less visible and is experienced less personally than many other problems.

What is arguably most remarkable about U.S. public opinion on global warming has been both its stability and its inelasticity in response to new developments, greater scientific understanding of the problem, and greater attention from both the media and politicians. Public opinion about global warming has remained largely unchanged through periods of intensive media attention and periods of neglect, good economic times and bad, the relatively activist Clinton years and the skeptical Bush years. And majorities of Americans have, at least in principle, consistently supported government action to do something about global warming even if they were not entirely sold that the science was settled, suggesting that public understanding and acceptance of climate science may not be a precondition for supporting action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The more complicated questions have to do with why. Why have Americans been so consistently supportive of action to address climate change yet so weakly committed? Why has two decades of education and advocacy about climate change had so little discernible impact on public opinion? And why, at the height of media coverage and publicity about global warming in the years after the release of Gore's movie, did confidence in climate science actually appear to decline?

Political psychology can help us answer these questions. First, climate change seems tailor-made to be a low priority for most people. The threat is distant in both time and space. It is difficult to visualize. And it is difficult to identify a clearly defined enemy. Coal executives may deny that global warming exists, but at the end of the day they're just in it for a buck, not hiding in caves in Pakistan plotting new and exotic ways to kill us.

Second, the dominant climate change solutions run up against established ideologies and identities. Consider the psychological concept of "system justification." System justification theory builds upon earlier work on ego justification and group justification to suggest that many people have a psychological need to maintain a positive view of the existing social order, whatever it may be. This need manifests itself, not surprisingly, in the strong tendency to perceive existing social relations as fair, legitimate, and desirable, even in contexts in which those relations substantively disadvantage the person involved.

Many observers have suggested that Gore's leading role in the global warming debate has had much to do with the rising partisan polarization around the issue. And while this almost certainly has played a part, it is worth considering that there may be other significant psychological dynamics at play as well.

Dr. John Jost, a leading political psychologist at New York University, recently demonstrated that much of the partisan divide on global warming can be explained by system justification theory. Calls for economic sacrifice, major changes to our lifestyles, and the immorality of continuing "business as usual" — such as going on about the business of our daily lives in the face of looming ecological catastrophe — are almost tailor-made to trigger system justification among a substantial number of Americans.

Combine these two psychological phenomena — a low sense of imminent threat (what psychologists call low-threat salience) and system justification — and what you get is public opinion that is highly resistant to education or persuasion...

These same efforts to increase salience through offering increasingly dire prognosis about the fate of the planet (and humanity) have also probably undermined public confidence in climate science. Rather than galvanizing public demand for difficult and far-reaching action, apocalyptic visions of global warming disaster have led many Americans to question the science. Having been told that climate science demands that we fundamentally change our way of life, many Americans have, not surprisingly, concluded that the problem is not with their lifestyles but with what they've been told about the science. And in this they are not entirely wrong, insofar as some prominent climate advocates, in their zeal to promote action, have made representations about the state of climate science that go well beyond any established scientific consensus on the subject, hyping the most dire scenarios and most extreme recent studies, which are often at odds with the consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

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

From The Times

November 17, 2009

It was the Sun wot done it. Or was it?

A sharp drop in solar activity could soon tell us how much mankind and the Sun are responsible for warming the planet

Stuart Clark

Like it or not, it will soon be time to start placing bets for a white Christmas. If most climatologists are to be believed you are almost certainly throwing your money away.

The onward march of global warming is consigning such traditional Christmas card scenes to history. No more deep and crisp and even winters for Britain, replaced instead by damp and slush and stormy.

But, if a small group of maverick scientists are right, the chances of Yuletide snow may rise dramatically over the coming decades.

The difference of opinion hinges on what role — if any — the Sun plays in climate change. The vast majority of climate scientists maintain that the solar influence is limited or even negligible, and it is the unsustainable growth of industrialised nations that is driving the climate into chaos. The mavericks contend that the Sun’s activity dwarfs the human contribution, and that there is nothing we can do except wait for the Sun to change.

The public seems to agree with the mavericks. In a recent poll for The Times, only 41 per cent of UK voters thought the case for man-made global warning had been proved. Now, by a quirk of nature, the Sun has presented us with a golden opportunity to resolve this debate once and for all.

Satellite measurements for the past 30 years show that the Sun’s energy output has remained remarkably constant. What is changing is the level of solar activity. Solar activity governs the appearance of sunspots — dark blemishes on the solar surface. Sunspots form where magnetism reaches out from the Sun into space. In times of high solar activity, sunspots pockmark the solar surface for years and the Sun’s magnetic field balloons outwards to shield the Earth from deep space particles called cosmic rays...

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

Copenhagen climate talks: No deal, we're out of time, Obama says

Marcus's picture

Copenhagen climate talks: No deal, we're out of time, Obama warns

Brown still hopes to salvage climate talks as US rules out binding targets

David Adam, Jonathan Watts and Patrick Wintour
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 November 2009

Barack Obama acknowledged todaythat time had run out to secure a legally binding climate deal at the Copenhagen summit in December and threw his support behind plans to delay a formal pact until next year at the earliest.

During a hastily convened meeting in Singapore, the US president supported a Danish plan to salvage something from next month's meeting by aiming to make it a first-stage series of commitments rather than an all-encompassing protocol.

Postponing many contentious decisions on emissions targets, financing and technology transfer until the second-stage, leaders will instead try to reach a political agreement in Copenhagen that sends a strong message of intent...

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

Daily Telegraph

World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office

Pollution needs to be brought under control within ten years to stop runaway climate change, according to the latest Met Office predictions.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
15 Nov 2009

In the first study of its kind, climate scientists looked at how much pollution the world could afford to produce between now and the end of the century in order to keep temperature rises within a "safe limit".

A number of different scenarios were run and the most likely outcome was that carbon dioxide from factories and cars peaked somewhere between 2010 and 2020 and then fell rapidly to zero by 2100.

In the worse-case scenario, modelled by the Met Office Hadley Centre, emissions had to turn negative by 2050 to stand any chance of keeping the temperature rise below 2C (3.6F). This would mean using "geo-engineering" such as artificial trees that are designed to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere...

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

NZ Herald

Running hot and cold

By Chris de Freitas

Monday Nov 16, 2009

In a letter to the New York Times, atmospheric scientist Dr Martin Hertzberg accuses that newspaper of "continuously regurgitating fear-mongering, anecdotal claptrap of global warming propagandists".

An article reprinted from the UK Telegraph last week in the Herald's Green Pages, "Global warming: The nine most affected areas" might be a candidate for similar criticism.

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

I am grateful to the Herald for this opportunity to set the record straight.

Bangladesh - sea level

There is no evidence to link events in Bangladesh with global warming. The Bangladesh delta is subsiding because of the weight of river sediments deposited there. But considering this alone can be misleading, since sediments settle along the coast and create new land. An article in the science journal Nature in January this year reported: "It's adding nearly 20 sq km a year in the coastal areas."

Sudan - expanding deserts

Studies since 2003 have provided empirical evidence that the Sahara desert is shrinking as plants reclaim the land. Aerial data shows areas affected are in northwestern Niger, central Chad, much of Sudan and northern Burkina Faso.

Increased rainfall since the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s and improved farming techniques have reversed the trend towards desertification.

Caribbean - hurricanes

The number of intense hurricanes in the Atlantic declined during the 1970s and 1980s, and the period 1991-1994 experienced the smallest number of hurricanes of any four years over the past half-century. A research article this year by atmospheric scientist R.N. Maue reports that hurricane activity remains near 30-year historical lows.

Australia - droughts and bushfires

Findings based on CSIRO research in 2006 showed that recent droughts in Australia are the result of natural variations in climate. An article in Geophysical Research Letters confirmed that atmospheric circulation systems in the Indian Ocean are the main cause of major droughts and bushfires in southeast Australia...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/clim...

Global warming threatens to rob Italy of pasta

Marcus's picture

Italians will lose pasta, French will lose red wine...what's next? Dutch will lose wooden clogs?
.............................................................................................................................................

From The Sunday Times

November 15, 2009

Global warming threatens to rob Italy of pasta

Jonathan Leake

Scientists will this week warn that Italy may be forced to import the basic ingredients for pasta, its national food, because climate change will make it impossible to grow durum wheat.

In a report to be released by the Met Office tomorrow, scientists predict that Italy’s durum yields will start to decline from 2020 and the crop will almost disappear from the country later this century.

The report will say: “Projected climate changes in this region, in particular rising temperature and decreasing rainfall, may seriously compromise wheat yields.”

The warning is the latest example of the impact climate change could have on lifestyles and diets across Europe. It has emerged from the five-year Ensembles project, an EU-sponsored study straddling 66 research centres in 20 countries across Europe...

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


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

Independent

'Angry Mermaid' joins fight against climate change

Award inspired by Copenhagen's famous statue will go to organisation doing most to sabotage action over global warming

By Jonathan Owen

Sunday, 15 November 2009

A new environmental award will be launched tomorrow with some of the biggest corporations and lobbying outfits in the world in contention for the top prize. But the winner will have nothing to celebrate.

The inaugural Angry Mermaid award, inspired by Denmark's famous Little Mermaid statue, will go to the organisation "doing the most to sabotage effective action on climate change" in the run-up to climate change talks in Copenhagen next month.

Contenders include the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity for promoting "clean coal" and funding a letter-writing campaign in an attempt to weaken the US climate bill; the American petroleum industry for spending millions lobbying against climate legislation; and the European chemical lobby for attempting to undermine EU attempts to cut carbon emissions. The International Air Transport Association (Iata) is cited for promoting weak voluntary efforts to cut emissions, while the International Emissions Trading Association (Ieta) is listed because it promotes emissions trading and carbon offsetting as the solution to climate change. The biotech giant Monsanto is included for presenting GM crops as another climate-change solution, while the South African company Sasol is shortlisted due to its lobbying for carbon capture and storage to compensate for the conversion of coal into petrol. Shell is also in the running over its promotion of carbon capture while investing in environmentally destructive oil extraction from the Canadian tar sands...

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

The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker

Considerable effort has gone into Christopher Booker's definitive manual for sceptics. Shame he's talking bunk, says Philip Ball

Philip Ball
The Observer, Sunday 15 November 2009

Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph columnist and bete noir of climate campaigners, has here produced the definitive climate sceptics' manual. That's to say, he has rounded up just about every criticism ever made of the majority scientific view that global warming, most probably caused by human activity, is under way, and presented them unchallenged. If you share his convictions, you'll love it, and will dismiss the rest of this review as part of the cover-up.

Me, I was moved to a queer kind of admiration for the skill and energy with which Booker has assembled his polemic. Unlike other climate-sceptic diatribes such as the Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle or the writings of Nigel Lawson, this one cannot be dismissed with off-the-shelf knowledge. And some of it is true. But much, including the central claim, is bunk.

Some of Booker's stratagems are transparent enough. One is to introduce all climate sceptics with a little eulogy to their credentials, while their opponents receive only a perfunctory, if not disparaging, preamble. This reaches its apotheosis on the back cover with a quote from "the world's leading atmospheric physicist and 'climate scientist''', MIT professor Richard Lindzen. Unusually for sceptics, Lindzen does have significant academic status, but probably only his mother would endorse this description.

Another of Booker's techniques is to latch on to genuine flaws in the science or its dissemination with the tenacity of a bulldog. Predictably, he attacks the infamous "hockey stick" graph, a plot of global mean temperatures over the past 1,000 years produced by two scientists in 1998 which shows little change for the entire period until suddenly soaring in the 20th century...

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

Daily Telegraph

The staggering cost of crazed quangocrats

The Climate Change Act will present us all with a bill of mind-boggling proportions, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
14 Nov 2009

It is almost exactly a year since Parliament all but unanimously approved by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever put before it. The Climate Change Act, according to our Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, is due to cost us all £404bn, or £18bn every year until 2050, to reduce our carbon emissions by well over 80 per cent. Just what this will mean in practice we have lately been hearing from that galaxy of quangocrats who have clustered round the new Act like wasps round a honeypot.

Lord (Adair) Turner, chairman of the Government's Climate Change Committee (also chairman of the Financial Services Authority), tells us that we will all have to spend between £10,000 and £15,000 on making "a whole house approach to carbon efficiency". He also proposes that a "carbon tax" of £3,300 should be imposed on every new car, an idea coming from the Green Fiscal Commission, chaired by the former green activist Robert Napier, who is also chairman of the Met Office, one of the leading promoters of the global warming scare.

Then there is Lord (Chris) Smith, former culture secretary, now chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority and of the Environment Agency, who looks forward to wind turbines "all over the countryside" and wants us all to be issued with our own "personal carbon allowances". We would each, in effect, have a CO2 ration book, to be used every time we pay for petrol, an electricity bill or an airline ticket. When we exceed our allowance we shall then have to buy carbon credits from those who don't drive cars or fly off on holiday to the sun.

Mr Miliband also tells us that we shall have to spend £9.5 billion through our electricity bills to pay for the CO2 from coal-fired power stations to be piped away and buried in holes in the ground (even though the technology to do this hasn't yet been properly developed). Not to mention the further £100bn we shall all have to pay, according to Gordon Brown, for his dream of building 7,000 new wind turbines.

Even if these could all be built (which in practical terms is out of the question), these machines would still only generate little more electricity on average than the single giant coal-fired power station at Drax. But then we shall never again be allowed to build one of those because Mr Miliband will not allow it unless it is fitted with the technology that doesn't yet exist...

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

Global warming is not our fault, say most voters

Marcus's picture

From The Times

November 14, 2009

Global warming is not our fault, say most voters in Times poll

Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Peter Riddell

Less than half the population believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to an exclusive poll for The Times.

The revelation that ministers have failed in their campaign to persuade the public that the greenhouse effect is a serious threat requiring urgent action will make uncomfortable reading for the Government as it prepares for next month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen. Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.

Tory voters are more likely to doubt the scientific evidence that man is to blame. Only 38 per cent accept it, compared with 45 per cent of Labour supporters and 47 per cent of Liberal Democrat voters.

The high level of scepticism underlines the difficulty the Government will have in persuading the public to accept higher green taxes to help to meet Britain’s legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050...

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

BBC Radio interviews Ian Plimer

"Next month's Copenhagen environmental summit will hear a good deal about ways in which the world must and should combat carbon emissions in order to save the planet. But others say that the fundamental premise - that global warming is caused to a significant extent by carbon emissions and that we can do something about it -- is wrong. Professor Ian Plimer from Adelaide University in Australia is among the sceptics."

Listen here:

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

More than half of the UK population doesn't accept climate change is man-made
By Daily Mail Reporter

14th November 2009

In a poll published just weeks before the global climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, it has been revealed only 41% of British people accept as a scientific fact that the situation is largely man-made.

The Populus research shows while 28% believed climate change was "far and away" the most serious problem facing Britain and another 51% agreed it was a serious concern, many remained unconvinced of the role humans played.

The findings threaten to undermine Gordon Brown's position in Copenhagen, where he will push for international agreement to cut carbon emissions.

Mr Brown's hand in negotiations will be weakened if other countries think that he does not enjoy solid public support at home for his stance on global warming.

Around a third of those polled (32%) agreed global warming was happening but said it had not yet been proven to be man-made...

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

New Zealand was a friend to Middle Earth, but it's no friend!

Marcus's picture

Congratulations New Zealand on raising the bile of the Guardian enviro-NAZIs! Some achievement! Thank you! Big smile
..........................................................................................................................................

New Zealand was a friend to Middle Earth, but it's no friend of the earth

Lord of the Rings country trades on its natural beauty, but emissions have risen 22% since it signed up to Kyoto

Fred Pearce guardian.co.uk,
Thursday 12 November 2009

As the world prepares for the Copenhagen climate negotiations next month, it is worth checking out the greenwash that has followed the promises made 12 years ago when the Kyoto protocol was signed.

A surprising number of countries have succeeded in raising their emissions from 1990 levels despite signing up to reduce them. They include a bundle of countries in the European Union, which collectively agreed to let some nations increase their emissions while others (mainly Britain and Germany) cut theirs. Step forward Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece — all with emissions up by more than a quarter.

Then there are the US and Australia, which both reneged on the protocol after signing it. And Canada, which never reneged but still has emissions up by a quarter (worse than the US) and shows no sign of contrition or of being called to account by the other signatories.

But my prize for the most shameless two fingers to the global community goes to New Zealand, a country that sells itself round the world as "clean and green".

New Zealand secured a generous Kyoto target, which simply required it not to increase its emissions between 1990 and 2010. But the latest UN statistics show its emissions of greenhouse gases up by 22%, or a whopping 39% if you look at emissions from fuel burning alone.

Some countries with big emissions growth started from a low figure in 1990. Arguably, they were playing catchup. There is no such excuse for New Zealand. Its emissions started high and went higher.

They are today 60% higher than those of Britain, per head of population. Among industrialised nations, they are only exceeded by Canada, the US, Australia and Luxembourg. In recent years a lot of Brits have headed for Christchurch and Wellington in the hope of a green life in a country where they filmed the Lord of the Rings. But it's a green mirage.

To rub our noses in it, last year New Zealand signed up to the UN's Climate Neutral Network, a list of nations that are "laying out strategies to become carbon neutral".

But if you read the small print of what New Zealand has actually promised, it is a measly 50% in emissions by 2050 – something even the US can trump.

Where do all these emissions come from? New Zealand turns out to be mining ever more filthy brown coal to burn in its power stations. It has the world's third highest rate of car ownership. And, with more cows than people, the country's increasingly intensive agricultural sector is responsible for approaching half the greenhouse gas emissions.

You might expect the UN Environment Programme to throw New Zealand off its list of countries supposedly pledged to head for climate neutrality. Sadly no. These steely guardians of the environment meekly say that the network "will not be policed... nor will UNEP verify claims".

Indeed, it seems to go to great lengths to deny reality. Check the UNEP website and you will find an excruciating hagiography about a "climate neutral journey to Middle Earth", in which everything from the local wines to air conditioning and Air New Zealand get the greenwash treatment.

After extolling the country's green credentials, it asks: "Have you landed in a dreamland?" Well, UNEP's reporter certainly has. He cheers New Zealand's "global leadership in tackling climate change", when the country's minister in charge of climate negotiations, Tim Groser, has been busy reassuring his compatriots that "we would not try to be 'leaders' in climate change."

This is not just political spin. It is also commercial greenwash. New Zealand trades on its greenness to promote its two big industries: tourism and dairy exports. Groser says his country's access to American markets for its produce is based on its positive environmental image. The government's national marketing strategy is underpinned by a survey showing that tourism would be reduced by 68% if the country lost its prized "clean, green image", and even international purchases of its dairy products could halve...

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

Daily Telegraph

Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing global warming

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes and is not responsible for climate change, a scientist has claimed.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
12 Nov 2009

Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist from Adelaide University, argues that a recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles and other "extra terrestrial" forces.

He said carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, widely blamed for global warming, is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes erupting...

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

From The Times

November 13, 2009

Government’s emissions target is unachievable, says study

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Britain has no chance of meeting its main carbon-reduction target because it lacks the engineering and manufacturing capacity to deliver the required renewable energy, a study has found.

The Government has made a legally binding commitment to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 but has failed to set out how this could be achieved.

The study by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers says that the target, the central plank of Britain’s negotiating position at the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen next month, is “an act of faith” with no grounding in reality. Britain would need to build the equivalent of 30 nuclear power stations by 2015 to be on course to meet the target, the study says. On Monday the Government said it hoped that private companies would build ten by 2025.

The institution calls on the Government to accept the “uncomfortable reality” that the 80 per cent target, mandated in the Climate Change Act, is unachieveable. It says: “Given the magnitude of the engineering challenge and the pace of action required, the institution concludes that the Climate Change Act has failed even before it has started. It seems likely that the Act will have to be revisited by Parliament or simply ignored by policymakers.”...

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

Everyone Out of the Water!

Damn the pesky models! Full speed ahead.

By George F. Will | NEWSWEEK

Published Nov 7, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Nov 16, 2009

In last week's NEWSWEEK, the cover story was a hymn to "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man." Beneath the story's headline ("The Evolution of an Eco-Prophet") was this subhead: "Al Gore's views on climate change are advancing as rapidly as the phenomenon itself." Which was rather rude because, if true, his views have not advanced for 11 years. (Click here to follow George F. Will)

There is much debate about the reasons for, and the importance of, the fact that global warming has not increased for that long. What we know is that computer models did not predict this. Which matters, a lot, because we are incessantly exhorted to wager trillions of dollars and diminished freedom on the proposition that computer models are correctly projecting catastrophic global warming. On Nov. 2, The Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball reported some inconvenient data. Soon after the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—it shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Thinking Man's Thinking Man—reported that global warming is "unequivocal," there came evidence that the planet's temperature is beginning to cool. "That," Ball writes, "has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect."

Models are no better or worse than their assumptions, and Ball notes how dicey these assumptions can be: "The effects of clouds, for example, are unclear. Depending on their shape and altitude, clouds can either trap heat, warming the earth, or reflect it, cooling the planet." It gets worse: "The way that greenhouse gases affect cloud formation—and how clouds in turn affect temperature—remains a subject of debate. Different models treat these factors differently."

Some scientists say the cooling is a product of what Ball calls "the enigmatic ocean currents." Others say that even if the cooling continues for several decades, as some scientists think it might, warming will resume.

And if it does not? A story in the April 28, 1975, edition of NEWSWEEK was "The Cooling World." NEWSWEEK can recycle that article, and recycling is a planet-saving virtue.

Meanwhile, however, the crusade against warming will brook no interference from information. With the Waxman-Markey bill, the House of Representatives has endorsed reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 83 per-cent below 2005 levels by 2050. This is surely the most preposterous legislation ever hatched in the House...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/221...

Arctic vs Antarctic Sea Ice COver trends

Frediano's picture

Here is the arctic trend... http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c...

and here is the antarctic trend... http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c...

Opposite trends at the two poles... points to solar, not manmade cause.

Why?

1] Perihelion and Aphelion
2] Earth's inclined axis of orbit.

The southern summer is closer to the sun than the northern summer.
The southern winter is farther from the sun than the northern winter.

Sea ice coverage is the net of winter freezing and summer melting; there is a strong reason to believe that the impact of solar variability should not be the same in the two hemispheres, whereas if the primary driver is CO2, because of thorough hemispherical mixing, we should expect the impact to be the same in both hemispheres.

If the effect is primarily solar, we should expect different trends in the Northern and Southern hemispheres.

In order to blame this on CO2, we have to imagine an amazing MaxWell's Demon at the equator, which keeps CO2 from mixing in the two hemispheres. But, this contradicts the claims of 'complete and rapid and thorough mixing' from the aerosol studies, back when we were all worried about Ozone holes and CFCs. The Green Religious Zealots don't get to claim 'thorough mixing' in one case, and 'effective CO2 isolation' in another.

It also flies in the face of any 5 second look at water vapor imagery of the earth's full disk. Of course the hemispheres thoroughly mix, that is apparent.

We are seeing a trend explained by solar variability, and that is without even mentioning Mars.

regards,
Frediano

There is no new IPCC report...

Marcus's picture

...as far as I am aware.

There has just been a new prediction of high sea-level rise which exceeds the 2007 IPCC report prediction from Victoria University Antarctic Research Centre.

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/p...

You might be interested in this....
...................................................................................................

Science is in on climate change sea-level rise: 1.7mm

Drew Warne-Smith and James Madden From:
The Australian
November 07, 2009

SEA levels on Australia's eastern seaboard are rising at less than a third of the rate that the NSW government is predicting as it overhauls the state's planning laws and bans thousands of landowners from developing coastal sites.

The Rees government this week warned that coastal waters would rise 40cm on 1990 levels by 2050, with potentially disastrous effects.

Even yesterday Kevin Rudd warned in a speech to the Lowy Institute that 700,000 homes and businesses, valued at up to $150 billion, were at risk from the surging tide.

However, if current sea-level rises continue, it would not be until about 2200 - another 191 years - before the east coast experienced the kind of increases that have been flagged.

According to the most recent report by the Bureau of Meteorology's National Tidal Centre, issued in June, there has been an average yearly increase of 1.9mm in the combined net rate of relative sea level at Port Kembla, south of Sydney, since the station was installed in 1991.

This is consistent with historical analysis showing that, throughout the 20th century, there was a modest rise in global sea levels of about 20cm, or 1.7mm per year on average...

http://www.theaustralian.com.a...

Marcus ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Anything on this latest IPCC report? I caught snatches of it on the TV news tonight. Apparently the Antarctic is vanishing 100 times faster than earlier thought, or some such. I expect NZ will collide with one the consequent icebergs any day now.

World getting cooler, not warmer, insists Bellamy

Marcus's picture

The Irish Times - Wednesday, November 11, 2009

World getting cooler, not warmer, insists Bellamy

RONAN McGREEVYWORLD-RENOWNED botanist and broadcaster Prof David Bellamy has predicted the world will get cooler over the next 30 years rather than warmer, as many climate scientists have predicted.

He said a period of global cooling had already begun, citing evidence that the Alps had more snow last winter than at any time for the last 26 years.

Prof Bellamy has been one of the best-known sceptics of man-made global warming, despite being an environmentalist. Yesterday, as patron of the Tree Appeal, he helped children at Cabinteely Community School to plant trees. The initiative aims to plant 100,000 trees in the UK and Ireland to encourage biodiversity and to act as a learning resource.

Prof Bellamy said temperature fluctuations are part of the natural process. “The argument [for man-made global warming] is going downhill. Climate change is a completely natural thing. It is based on the sun, and at the moment we are into the 24th sun cycle and there has been no sunspots for two years. The last time that happened, the Thames froze over.”

Prof Bellamy said the climate conference at Copenhagen will fail, and that many countries were already trying to pull out of it...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news...
........................................................................................................................................

WSJ

NOVEMBER 11, 2009

Climate Bill Likely on the Shelf For Rest of the Year

By IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON -- Key Senate Democrats Tuesday said it is unlikely there will be any more major committee action on climate-change legislation this year, the strongest indication yet that a comprehensive bill to cut greenhouse-gas emissions won't be voted on until at least next year.

Although the Senate Environment Committee last week approved a version of the bill, the proposal will face strong revisions from moderate Democrats, particularly from senators on the Finance and Agriculture committees.

"It's common understanding that climate-change legislation will not be brought up on the Senate floor and pass the Senate this year," Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said on the sidelines of a caucus lunch.

Mr. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, said he planned to hold a number of hearings on climate legislation and eventually mark up a bill in his panel. "But I don't know that I can get a bill put together by this year, as important as climate-change legislation is," he said.

Mr. Baucus was the lone dissenting Democratic vote on the Environment Panel last week because he wanted weaker emission-reduction targets and stronger provisions to protect energy-intensive industries and encourage clean-coal technologies.

"I wouldn't want to bet my paycheck that all the relevant committees will report out legislation by the end of this year," said Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.).

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation...

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

Independent

Ethical travel company drops carbon offsetting

Critics say the scheme merely permits people to continue polluting

By Jerome Taylor

Saturday, 7 November 2009

One of Britain's leading ethical travel operators has launched a scathing attack on the carbon offset industry and has decided to stop offering offsets to its customers as a way of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Justin Francis, the founder of responsibletravel.com, said he had decided to abandon offsets because he believes they have become a "medieval pardon that allows people to continue polluting".

In 2002 his company became one of the first British travel operators to begin offering customers the opportunity to buy into an offsetting scheme. By paying money to a third party operator that ran carbon-reducing projects in the developing world, holidaymakers could jump on board flights supposedly happy in the knowledge that any carbon dioxide released during their journey would eventually be reduced by the equivalent amount somewhere else.

Supporters of the scheme, which has now become a multibillion pound industry, say it is a vital way of quickly reducing the world's carbon emissions and combating climate change. But a growing number of critics say it is simply a way for people and businesses in the developed world to buy their way out of a problem without actually committing themselves to reductions in their own emissions. After years of falling into the former camp, Mr Francis has now joined the growing number of offset critics.

"Carbon offsetting is an ingenious way to avoid genuinely reducing your carbon emissions," he said yesterday. "It's a very attractive idea – that you can go on living exactly as you did before when there's a magic pill or medieval pardon out there that allows people to continue polluting."

As some of the top polluters, the aviation and travel industries have been keen to promote carbon offsetting to their customers. Until a fortnight ago responsibletravel.com used Climate Care, a major offsetting company which was recently acquired by the investment bank JP Morgan. But Mr Francis said he became increasingly uneasy about the way the travel industry was using carbon offsets and pulled his company out of the scheme...

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

Exactly, and no surprise.

Frediano's picture

his is exactly the quality that is supposed to be so very obnoxious about religion.

That is because Social Scientology is a religion.

"Society is the True God, and the machinery of state is it's proper church" has been sweeping up religious nuts for over a hundred years. The world is thick with these nuts. There is no other way to explain our current sprint towards history's latest totalitarian FAIL, except as religious fanaticism.

The debate isn't with the instructed zealots marching around today. The argument is with those who instructed those who instructed those who instructed those who instructed the zealots marching around today.

Unfortunately, the minds behind all the marching acolytes of the religion are generations dead.

Study shows Earth is still absorbing carbon dioxide

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Climate change study shows Earth is still absorbing carbon dioxide

The Earth has developed stores to absorb excessive levels of carbon dioxide, according to a study that challenges the conventional thinking on climate change.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
11 Nov 2009

The research, by Bristol University, suggests that despite rising emissions, the world is is still able to store a significant amount of greenhouse gases in oceans and forests.

According to the study, the Earth has continued to absorb more than half of the carbon dioxide pumped out by humans over the last 160 years.

This is despite emissions of CO2 increasing from two billion tonnes per year in 1850 to current levels of 35 billion tonnes per year.

Previously it was thought that the Earth's capability to absorb CO2 would decrease as production booms, leading to an accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But Wolfgang Knorr, author of the new study, found that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained just over 50 per cent, with only tiny fluctuations being recorded despite the massive hike in output.

He pointed out that his study relied entirely on empirical data, including historical records extracted from ice samples in the Antarctic, rather than speculative climate change models.

"Previous studies suggested that in the next ten years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will accelerate because there is a lot less uptake by the Earth, there is no indication of this," he said...

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

From The Times

November 11, 2009

Watchdog warns of $500bn annual cost of delaying action on climate change

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor

The world is facing a bill of $500 billion (£300 billion) for every year that it delays in reaching a global deal on climate change, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said yesterday.

Fatih Birol, chief economist with the IEA, told The Times that the annual cost of inaction — roughly equivalent to the annual GDP of Switzerland — would result from a steady build-up of additional concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as the burning of fossil fuels accelerates.

“We need to make a major transition,” he said, speaking at the launch of the IEA’s 2009 World Energy Outlook in London. “But this will only happen if we get a global agreement as soon as possible.”

Last week, negotiators at United Nations climate talks in Barcelona conceded that the world would need another six to twelve months to reach a legally binding deal to curb greenhouse gas emissions, despite hopes that such a deal could be agreed next month at a meeting in Copenhagen.

Mr Birol said that every delay of a year beyond 2010 would add an extra $500 billion to the expected investment of $10.5 trillion required between 2010 and 2030 to cut emissions by building more low-carbon sources of renewable and nuclear power and reducing energy waste...

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

Population control is not what makes climate change a feminist issue

Women contribute less to global warming yet will be hit harder by its effects. Reproductive justice is a separate issue

Jess McCabe guardian.co.uk,
Monday 2 November 2009

Last week Mary Fitzgerald argued that climate change is a feminist issue on the basis that population control is a way to prevent the situation spiralling out of control. And, she posited, this could be achieved by giving more women more autonomy over their own bodies, through improved access to contraception and abortion.

I'm not going to get into the arguments around whether population control is a good solution to climate change. Others have already done so; George Monbiot's piece barely more than a month ago, for this newspaper, is a great place to start.

Ensuring all women have full reproductive freedom and reproductive justice is a necessary goal in its own right moving towards a more equal and just world. I get that it might be tempting to hitch this issue to climate change, which has so much political capital.

But, as Betsy Hartmann said recently in On the Issues magazine, "A world of difference exists between services that treat women as population targets and those based on a feminist model of respectful, holistic, high-quality care."

Although Fitzgerald does say that rich countries as well as poor countries need to look at population control, in reality this is not on the political agenda, as countries such as Germany are already incentivising women to have more children. The resource consumption of a German resident is considerably higher than the resource consumption of a child born in countries likely to be targeted – any population control efforts are realistically likely to target mostly poor women and mostly women of colour.

But Fitzgerald is completely right that climate change is a feminist issue. Everyone stands to suffer if climate change is allowed to spiral out of control, of course, but a gender analysis of both the impacts and causes of climate change shows that globally women contribute less to the problem and yet are likely to be hit especially hard...

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

The Obamessiah

gregster's picture

truly believes he walks on water.

"my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over [the] edge then certainly that's something that I will do,"

Baarrry, your ugly presence in world politics is already tipping us over the edge. No doubt you mean to continue that almighty influence.

Australian Coalition MPs deny man-made climate change

Marcus's picture

ABC News

Coalition MPs deny man-made climate change

Mon Nov 9, 2009

The Liberal Leader in the Senate, Nick Minchin, says a majority of his colleagues do not believe humans are causing climate change.

The Government and Opposition are locked in negotiations over changes to the proposed emissions trading scheme.

The Government wants its emissions trading scheme passed before the Copenhagen summit.

But Senator Minchin has told ABC's Four Corners program most Coalition MPs do not think human activity is causing global warming.

"I'd say a majority don't accept that position," he said.

"We did vote against the bill in August for good reason."

The Coalition's chief negotiator, Ian Macfarlane, has told Four Corners any deal needs to have the backing of a majority of Coalition MPs and that is going to be difficult...

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

WSJ

NOVEMBER 9, 2009

Climate-Change Panic Down Under

Kevin Rudd's attack on 'skeptics' is instructive-and bodes poorly for Copenhagen.

Tough economic times have a way of clarifying political priorities and forcing people to distinguish among needs, wishes—and fantasies. So you might think a politician as canny as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would know better than to blame his country's new-found skepticism about the risks of global warming on something other than an evil conspiracy.

In a speech in Sydney on Friday, Mr. Rudd claimed "climate-change skeptics, the climate-change deniers, the opponents of climate-change action are active in every country." The prime minister then linked this global conspiracy to "vested interests" bent on "slowing and if possible destroying the momentum towards a global deal on climate change."

Mr. Rudd went on to attack, by name, "the vocal group of conservatives who do not accept the scientific consensus"; opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, who has questioned the wisdom of taxing the most productive sectors of Australia's economy during the downturn; and "world government conspiracy theorists" who worry about devolving tax-and-spend powers to unaccountable United Nations bureaucrats.

Well, who's left? Inconveniently for Mr. Rudd, who based his election in 2007 on his environmental bona fides, the public. Electorates all over the world are starting to question the climate-change received wisdom. A recent poll by the Lowy Institute—where Mr. Rudd gave his speech Friday—showed climate-change had fallen to the seventh "most important" foreign-policy goal for the public—down from first two years ago. There is receding support in the U.S. and Europe too, which is why next month's Copenhagen confab is expected to be such a dud.

Like the U.S., Australia is ignoring this common sense and pushing ahead to impose an expensive cap-and-trade regime on its economy. At the very least, such a fundamental change deserves a lively debate, not a defensive denunciation of anyone who disagrees with Mr. Rudd...

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

India 'arrogant' to deny global warming link to melting glaciers

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri accuses Indian environment ministry of 'arrogance' for its report claiming there is no evidence that climate change has shrunk Himalayan glaciers

Randeep Ramesh in Delhi
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009

A leading climate scientist today accused the Indian environment ministry of "arrogance" after the release of a government report claiming that there is no evidence climate change has caused "abnormal" shrinking of Himalayan glaciers.

Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, released the controversial report in Delhi, saying it would "challenge the conventional wisdom" about melting ice in the mountains.

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could "disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner".

Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers." The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not "historically alarming".

However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."

Ramesh said he was prepared to take on "the doomsday scenarios of Al Gore and the IPCC".

"My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem," he added...

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

Daily Telegraph

Barack Obama says he will go to Copenhagen climate change conference

President Barack Obama has said he will go to Copenhagen next month to secure an international deal on climate change.

10 Nov 2009

A key global treaty to stop global warming almost collapsed last week after poorer nations threatened to walk out unless rich countries like America agree to cut their emissions.

However President Obama said he thinks a deal can still be done and he will go to Denmark in mid-December to make sure it happens.

"If I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge then certainly that's something that I will do," he told Reuters.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen has been billed as the world’s last chance to stop temperature rise going above 2C (3.6F).

The latest round of UN talks in Barcelona last week ended in deadlock, after the US and other rich countries refused to cut their greenhouse gas emissions in line with the poor world’s demands.

It is difficult for the US to sign up to legally-binding emission targets until the level of cuts have been approved by the Senate.

President Obama acknowledged that the US Senate would not pass the crucial legislation before Copenhagen.

But he said a “framework” agreement can still be thrashed out that commits the world to tackling global warming...

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

We're doomed without a green religion

Marcus's picture

We're doomed without a green religion

Arguments about climate change show up the incoherence of any purely individual morality

Posted by
Andrew Brown Friday 6 November 2009

The justification for burning heretics was perfectly simple: dissent threatened the survival of society. Nothing was worse than anarchy. This is a viewpoint most people in the West today find pretty much incomprehensible. It is a self-evident truth to them that morality must be a matter of individual choice. And if you believe that, the arguments around the Tim Nicholson case are very difficult to resolve. If there is a moral imperative to preserve the human race, or as much of it as possible, collective consequences must follow. It is not enough for us to do the right thing. Others must as well. If you don't believe that, then there is no point in agitating for success in Copenhagen.

But if collective consequences follow, others must be forced to do things against their will by our moral imperatives. This is exactly the quality that is supposed to be so very obnoxious about religion.

The idea that morality is and must be a matter of individual choice is taken as axiomatic in these debates. It is thought true in the sense that it is held to describe a fact about the world. Very often the same people who believe this will also believe, and maintain with equal vehemence in other contexts the belief that morals are merely opinions, or at least that there couldn't in the nature of things be moral facts: true or false statements about whether something or someone is good or bad...

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

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate change deal could be two separate treaties

A climate change deal at the end of the year could end up being two treaties because the Americans refuse to sign up to existing global agreements.

By By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
09 Nov 2009

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December has been billed as the last chance for the world to stop catastrophic global warming.

But the latest round of negotiations in Barcelona last week ended in acrimony with the developing countries threatening to walk out of the talks.

At the heart of the matter is what kind of treaty the world will sign up to in a month’s time. Two possibilities are on the table, but if the world cannot agree on one of them countries could sign separate agreements:

1) The Kyoto Protocol (KP): The original climate change treaty signed by most of the world more than ten years ago. The Kyoto Protocol required the rich countries to cut carbon emissions by five per cent on 1990 levels by 2012. However it made no comparable legally-binding requirements on poor countries and the US under George Bush refused to sign up. During a UN meeting in Bali in 2007 it was decided that the Kyoto Protocol should continue after 2012 by deciding new targets for rich countries.

2) Long-term Co-operative Action (LCA): There was also agreement in Bali to look at a new climate change deal that could include the US and require more of the developing countries. The new deal would eventually bring in all the countries and ensure the world has an agreed policy on climate change.

At the moment the two treaties are being discussed in a “twin track” approach but it is hoped eventually the world will be able to bring the two streams together.

However, it is clear that the Americans will not sign up to certain aspects of the Kyoto Protocol: Namely, the legal requirement for rich nations to sign up to a world target enforced by the UN.

They want different countries to propose their own targets that are agreed by the rest of the world but enforced by domestic — not international — law in a system known as “pledge and review”. A new treaty must also include legally-binding targets for developing countries. Not necessarily on carbon cuts but “actions” such as introducing a certain amount of renewable energy or phasing out dirty coal.

The US argues that a new deal would in fact be stronger than Kyoto by requiring legally-binding actions from the developing countries and ensuring more stringent domestic monitoring.

However the developing countries have threatened to walk out if certain aspects of the Kyoto Protocol, that require the rich countries to cut emissions, are not included...

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

Daily Mail

Nuclear sites given the go-ahead amid warnings of energy shortage

By Tim Shipman
09th November 2009

A new generation of nuclear power stations will today be approved by ministers, who insist they are a necessary source of energy to combat global warming.

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, is expected to give the green light to most of the 11 potential sites unveiled earlier this year - and could even back all of them.

The Government will also introduce planning laws to make it quicker and easier for future sites to get the go-ahead.

Mr Miliband will warn that Britain faces energy shortages after 2015 unless construction begins soon on the plants.

Although a backlash against the regulations is expected from Labour MPs, he will insist that energy firms need to know they will not fall foul of planning chiefs if they invest in new sites.

Nine of the 11 on the shortlist are next to existing reactors, including two at Sellafield in Cumbria, Sizewell in Suffolk, Wylfa in North Wales and Dungeness in Kent.

In each instance the communities concerned are believed to support expansion because it will create jobs...

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

From The Times

November 9, 2009

Carbon ration account for all proposed by Environment Agency

If people used up their yearly ration early, they would have to buy extra from those who had not used their full allowance

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Everyone should be given an annual carbon ration and face financial penalties if they exceed it, under a proposal by the Environment Agency.

Lord Smith of Finsbury, the agency’s chairman, will say today that rationing is the fairest and most effective way of meeting Britain’s legally binding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

People would be given a “carbon account” and a unique number that they would have to submit when making purchases of carbon-intensive items such as petrol, electricity or airline tickets. As with a bank account, people would receive statements showing the carbon weight of each purchase and how much of their ration remained.

If they used up their ration within a year, they would have to buy extra credits from those who had not used their full allowance.

Lord Smith, who was Culture Secretary in Tony Blair’s Government, believes that the system would encourage people to think about the carbon cost of their purchases as well as reward those who lived frugally and did little travelling, who could make a significant profit from selling their unused credits.

Speaking at the agency’s annual conference in London, Lord Smith will say that carbon rationing would help people to “judge how they want to develop their own quality of life in a sustainable way”...

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

Non-believers fill the church of green gods

Marcus's picture

From The Sunday Times

November 8, 2009

Non-believers fill the church of green gods

Dominic Lawson

‘Al Gore, who art in thy fully offset private jet; Nobel-prized be thy name; thy carbon-free kingdom come; on planet Earth (otherwise known as Gaia) as it should be after Copenhagen; give us this day our daily meat-free diet; and forgive us our emissions, though we don’t forgive any other big fat Americans who emit against us; lead us not into exotic holiday flights; and deliver us from climate denial; for the science is settled. Amen.”

That lacks a certain resonance, I must admit; but now that a British judge has ruled that believers in man-made global warming catastrophe should be protected under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, we should try to come forward with some suitable prayers for this newly identified faith.

Mr Justice Burton, of the High Court, is the man behind the ruling. He found for a “sustainability officer” called Tim Nicholson, who claimed he had been made redundant by the property company Grainger because of his beliefs in imminent man-made climate catastrophe. To be precise, the judge did not say that Nicholson had actually been sacked for that reason; only that he had the right to sue for unfair dismissal under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations.

Why should Tim Nicholson (who looked sweet with his fold-up bicycle outside the High Court) have wanted to establish this as the reason for his dismissal? Possibly it was a desire to become an ecological hero; but I am equally inclined to see the hand of some very clever employment lawyers. In a “normal” redundancy, the departing employee is entitled only to a statutory minimum payoff together with anything already defined in his contract; but when a court finds that the employee has been sacked as a result of some form of discrimination, then there is no legal limit to the amount that can be claimed.

This is why there have been a number of multi-million-pound payouts for City women winning claims that they have been victims of sex discrimination at work. It may seem unlikely that Nicholson’s case, even if it ultimately succeeds at the forthcoming tribunal, will be followed by many others; but given the number of “sustainability officers” employed in the soon-to-be-cut-back public sector and the ingenious opportunism of employment lawyers, who knows?

The more perceptive environmental campaigners did not join in Nicholson’s rejoicing at his victory. They noted that in Burton’s judgment a belief qualified for protection only if it could be said to be “not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available”. In other words, said the judge, Nicholson’s views on man’s influence on climate — which had brought him into conflict with his chief executive over allegedly excessive air trips — went beyond evidence and were more a form of philosophy, or even faith.

Interestingly, Burton is the very same judge that two years ago found for a Kent school governor who brought a case against the government’s plans to supply every school with a DVD of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. The judge agreed that the film was flawed. He decreed that it contained nine scientific errors and that the government should accompany any DVDs sent to schools with guidance pointing out, among other things, that polar bears are not drowning in the absence of sufficient quantities of ice. Put away those hankies, children: they’re going to be all right.

It’s one of the properties of established religions that people profess to believe even when they don’t, really. That may seem hypocritical, but social pressure is a powerful force that can make even the most independent minds quail. Richard Dawkins is probably right, for example, when he says there are many Americans who are privately atheist but find it much easier to pretend to be Christians. A similar point was made to me by one of the only five Conservative MPs to vote against the Climate Change Bill. When I told him I was surprised so many Tories felt the carbon cutbacks required by the bill were achievable, he laughed. “None of them do, but they want to be seen to be virtuous.”...

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

Daily Telegraph

Kilimanjaro's snows have been vanishing for a very long time

The latest warmist warning sign - the retreating snows of Kilimanjaro - has been well documented for over 100 years, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
07 Nov 2009

In their desperation to keep the panic going before next month's Copenhagen climate conference, the media warmist groupies last week wheeled out, yet again, one of their favourite but long-discredited scare stories, the one about the melting snows of Kilimanjaro. Their excuse was a new study by Al Gore's friend Dr Lonnie Thompson, claiming to show that the ice on Africa's highest mountain is vanishing due to soaring temperatures.

Indeed Kilimanjaro's snow and ice is receding, as I saw for myself when I climbed it a few years back. But, as a small army of international experts have shown, this has nothing to do with global warming (temperatures on the summit, at 19,346ft, never rise above freezing). It has been going on since 1880, due to the decline in precipitation caused by widespread clearance of forests around the volcano's base.

The rate of the ice shrinkage (as I note in my new book on the climate change scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster) was in fact at its greatest in the years before 1950, long before those rising 20th-century temperatures set off the panic over global warming. Ironically, no one puts this more forcefully than Dr Philip Mote, a US expert who is a firm believer in man-made warming. He complains that citing Kilimanjaro in this way can only discredit the cause because it is so demonstrably at odds with the facts. This hasn't prevented the likes of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton claiming that their fairy story "cannot be refuted by any scientist". But actually it can – by every scientist who has studied Kilimanjaro (apart from Mr Gore's friend Dr Thompson).

Unsurprisingly, the media groupies were far too busy with Kilimanjaro to report the latest figures from the US National Climate Data Center showing that last month the USA enjoyed its third coldest October since 1880, four degrees Fahrenheit colder than the 20th-century average (for details see the Watts Up With That blog)...

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

Row breaks out over Gordon Brown's plan to tax City profits

International levy on financial trading would help developing world deal with climate change

Kathryn Hopkins and Heather Stewart
The Observer, Sunday 8 November 2009

A row blew up last night after Gordon Brown promoted plans for an international tax on City dealing that could raise funds for the world's poor and help developing countries tackle climate change.

No sooner had the prime minister floated the idea of a tax on bank transactions than it was shot down by US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, Canadian finance minister Jim Flaherty and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the IMF.

At a G20 meeting in St Andrews, Scotland, Brown said the "social contract" between financiers and the British public had broken down and needed to change. Keen to show that Labour would be tougher on bankers than the Conservatives, who are leading the row over bonuses, the prime minister urged fellow world leaders to back plans for a "transaction tax", which could be used to meet the costs of future banking bailouts, and to fund development projects, including helping developing countries to develop greener technology.

However, he then suffered a series of rebuffs – led by Geithner, who said that "a day-by-day financial transaction tax is not something we are prepared to support". The reality is that without American backing the move would collapse. Flaherty said: "We are not in the business of raising taxes, we are in the business of lowering taxes in Canada. It is not an idea we would look at."

Strauss-Kahn was also unimpressed, saying he believed such a tax was unlikely to be adopted as "transactions" were difficult to measure.

Brown had demanded that "there must be a better economic and social contract between financial institutions and the public based on trust and a just distribution of risks and rewards". He stressed that for the levy to work, it would need to be implemented worldwide. "Let me be clear: Britain will not move unless others move with us.

"I do not in any way underestimate the enormous and difficult practical and technical issues that will need to be overcome that a globally cohesive system raises. But I do not think these difficulties should prevent us from considering with urgency the legitimate issues I have discussed."

Following his success last year in leading the international debate on the rescue of banks, the prime minister is determined to push himself forward as a leader of other global initiatives such as the fights to limit climate change and to combat poverty in the developing world. But on this occasion his views received, at best, a mixed reception. After Brown's intervention, G20 finance ministers asked IMF experts to complete by April a detailed study on how such a tax could be levied, to allow world leaders to make a decision on whether it should be implemented.

The prime minister's conversion to the idea, which is commonly known as a "Tobin tax" after the Nobel prize-winning economist who first proposed it, stunned the anti-poverty campaigners who have long fought to force a transaction tax on to the economic agenda and have been repeatedly rebuffed by a pro-City Labour government...

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

Obama set to announce US target for cutting emissions at summit

Marcus's picture

From The Times

November 7, 2009

Obama set to announce US target for cutting emissions at summit

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

President Obama is preparing to break the deadlock in negotiations on a global deal on climate change by announcing a target for cutting US greenhouse gas emissions.

The US is the only developed country yet to propose an emissions target. Poorer nations, including most of Africa, are threatening to walk out of a UN summit in Copenhagen next month unless Mr Obama commits to an ambitious reduction.

Mr Obama may wait until the final stages of the negotiations in Copenhagen in order to achieve maximum political impact with his announcement and give other countries little opportunity to demand deeper cuts from the US.

The US delegation at pre-summit talks in Barcelona hinted that Mr Obama was considering offering a range of possible reductions rather than a single number. This would make it easier for the President to persuade Congress to pass legislation making the target legally binding.

During his election campaign, Mr Obama proposed that the US should cut emissions by 14 per cent on 2005 levels. A bill passed by the House of Representatives last summer would cut emissions by 17 per cent.

A second bill, tabled in the Senate by John Kerry, the former Democrat presidential candidate, would cut emissions by 20 per cent...

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

Civil unrest has a role in stopping climate change, says Gore

Ahead of Copenhagen summit, former US vice-president says 'non-violent lawbreaking' is legitimate in persuading governments to cut emissions

Oliver Burkeman in Los Angeles
guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 November 2009

Al Gore has sought to inject fresh momentum into the Copenhagen build-up, saying he is certain Barack Obama will attend and predicting a rise in civil disobedience against fossil-fuel polluters unless drastic action is taken over global warming.

Amid increasing incidents of climate protesters disrupting the operations of fossil-fuel industries and airports in Britain and elsewhere, Gore suggests the scale of the emergency means non-violent lawbreaking is justified. "Civil disobedience has an honourable history, and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable, and it has a role to play," he says. "And I expect that it will increase, no question about it."

In his only UK newspaper interview to mark the publication of his new book, entitled Our Choice, Gore says it is crucial for Obama to attend Copenhagen in person, adding: "I feel certain that he will."

He remains optimistic, he insists, that the US Senate will pass a climate change bill before Copenhagen – a move widely seen as vital for persuading the world, especially developing countries, that the US is serious about reducing emissions...

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

Australian PM warns skeptics 'are too 'dangerous to ignore' and are 'holding the world to ransom' -- Climate Depot Responds

'Yes, we plead guilty to promoting 'inaction' -- 'Skeptics will proudly celebrate the collapse of Copenhagen Treaty'

Friday, November 06, 2009

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spewed out a rhetorical barrage on climate skeptics worldwide. See: Australian PM warns skeptics 'are too 'dangerous to ignore' and are 'holding the world to ransom' – November 6, 2009.

Climate Depot has undertaken a point by point rebuttal to Rudd's claims.

Rudd Claim: Skeptics are “powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond.”

Climate Depot Response: Yes, skepticism, the foundation of science, is and always has been strong enough to derail lavishly funded and politically motivated science based on wildly speculative climate model “predictions” and distortions of past climate records. A “scientifically meaningless” domestic carbon trading or international treaties will not impact global climate in any detectable ways, but will have huge human impacts.

Rudd Claim: Skeptics “constitute a powerful global force for inaction.”

Climate Depot Response: On the contrary, skeptics constitute a powerful force for scientific truth and morality based vibrant energy expansion to the developing world's poor. To the extent that we can prevent “scientifically meaningless” climate treaties and regulations from passing, then yes, we plead guilty to promoting “inaction.” As former Thatcher science advisor Lord Christopher Monckton has said: "Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."

Rudd Claim: “Climate skeptics are quite literally holding the world to ransom.”

Climate Depot Response: Reality check Mr. Rudd. Science, economics and reality are holding man-made global warming fear promoters like Rudd to ransom. It must be frustrating Mr. Rudd to have once believed you could hoodwink the people of your nation and the world to believe in climate fears and your purely symbolic “solutions.” Polling data from the U.S., the UK, Canada and your Australia show the public growing more skeptical. (See: Polls: 'More Americans believe in haunted houses than man-made global warming' - 37% vs. 36% ) The only “ransom” involved in this debate is the financial demands placed on countries to redistribute money based on collapsing climate fears. See: Reparations: Africa seeks climate change cash...demands billions in compensation for 'damage caused by global warming' & Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference & 'Controlling climate? More like controlling humans': Beware of 'unprecedented transfer of wealth, power and control to domestic and global governance'...

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/...

All hope is lost for Copenhagen climate treaty, officials say

Marcus's picture

From The Times

November 6, 2009

All hope is lost for Copenhagen climate treaty, British officials say

Ben Webster, Environment Editor, in Barcelona

A world treaty on climate change will be delayed by up to a year and is likely to be watered down because countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions are refusing to commit to legally binding reductions.

British officials preparing for next month’s UN summit in Copenhagen said the best that could be hoped for was that national leaders would make “political agreements” on emission cuts and payments to help poor countries to adapt to climate change. These agreements would be non-binding, however, and could later be revised or rescinded by national parliaments.

At pre-summit talks in Barcelona, the officials said the final agreement would not emerge until at least six months after the Copenhagen summit, which ends on December 17. They said they hoped another meeting would be convened by next December to allow leaders to sign the treaty...

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

Daily Telegraph

Global climate change deal 'a year away'

A global deal to stop catastrophic climate change won't be agreed for another year, officials have warned, as rich and poor nations wrangle over the sacrifices each will have to make.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent in Barcelona
05 Nov 2009

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December has long been held up as the “last chance” for humanity to stop dangerous global warming.

World leaders, including Gordon Brown, have repeatedly called for a legally-binding treaty that would force rich countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

However in the latest round of negotiations in Barcelona rich countries have failed to agree on targets for cutting carbon, prompting the African nations to walk out in protest at one point.

Officials are now frantically watering down expectations and talking about another year of talks before a treaty can be finalised.

The US, that has been unable to pass key legislation on cutting emissions before the talks in December, has been blamed for the stalemate.

Angry environment groups warned that the delay will prolong the suffering of countries vulnerable to climate change and subject the world to further temperature rises...

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

When the twin religions of 'global warming' and shopping collide...

By Richard Littlejohn
06th November 2009

So that's it, then, we're all doomed. The chances of a new deal on 'climate change' at Copenhagen appear to be dead in the water, marooned like an albatross in an oil slick.

Better start laying in supplies of baked beans and bottled water, since environmental armageddon must surely follow.
Gordon Brown told us weeks ago that we had only 50 days to save the planet.

Failure to reach a legally-binding global agreement to cut carbon emissions would mean the end of the world.
By that reckoning, we've got about a fortnight before the Earth turns to molten lava and we're eaten by marauding packs of polar bears, floating into town on what's left of the ice caps.

Think I'm exaggerating? Only this week, a former deputy mayor of London warned that we were all going to die in our sleep because police were advising householders to leave a light on at night to deter burglars.

Jenny Jones, from the Monster Raving Green Party, is demanding an urgent meeting with Met chief Sir Paul Stephenson, insisting that he stops encouraging home-owners to install motion-sensing security lights.

'The Met simply does not get climate change,' she wailed. 'They need a basic education in these issues before we all drown in our beds.'
Clearly, this is a woman in need of psychiatric help. She's like that nutter with the sandwich board who used to stand outside McDonald's in Oxford Street shouting at shoppers about the impending apocalypse

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

Senate panel approves Democratic climate bill
Thu Nov 5, 2009

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A controversial climate change bill cleared its first hurdle in the U.S. Senate on Thursday, allowing President Barack Obama to tout progress in the run-up to next month's global warming talks in Copenhagen.

Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ignored a Republican boycott and used their majority to approve the legislation that would require U.S. industry to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 20 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels.

"I think this is a great signal for Copenhagen that there's a will to do what it takes to advance this issue," committee Chairman Barbara Boxer told reporters after her panel voted.

The committee vote also came as international negotiators held a contentious climate change meeting in Barcelona, their final session before the Copenhagen summit starts December 7.

But Democrats are likely to fall far short of their goal of passing legislation in the full Senate before Copenhagen as Boxer's bill lacks enough support for full approval...

http://www.reuters.com/article...
.....................................................................................................

Radio 2GB in Sydney, Australia

Thursday, 05 November 2009

Barnaby Joyce in the studio

Senator Barnaby Joyce joins Alan Jones in the studio to discuss emissions trading.

Listen here:
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?...

Damn this false God!

Marcus's picture

Daily Mail

DANIEL JOHNSON: Damn this false God! How in the name of sanity can being green be a religion?

By Daniel Johnson
05th November 2009

Have you ever noticed how closely green zealotry resembles religious fanaticism? Well, now the law has, in effect, recognised environmentalism as a religion.

An employee who claimed his boss showed 'contempt' for his green beliefs has won the right to seek unlimited damages for unfair dismissal.

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Barton found in favour of Tim Nicholson, who was made redundant by the property company he worked for.

The judge argued that a 'philosophical belief which is based on science' should receive the same protection as religious beliefs.

Some of us would question whether the more extreme opinions of green activists have any basis in science at all...

Green zealotry is one of the most influential of the pseudo-religions that today substitute for Christianity. It offers a view of the world in which the true believer in, say, manmade global warming can feel morally superior to the sceptic.

One of the arguments by which Mr Nicholson persuaded Mr Justice Barton was his claim that he no longer travels by aircraft, because air travel produces carbon emissions.

Yet the prejudice against air travel is preposterous humbug. Not only do the most zealous advocates of extreme environmentalism, such as Al Gore, turn out to have the largest 'carbon footprint', but the entire green movement, not to mention such global jamborees as next month's Copenhagen climate change summit, is made possible only by air travel.

Mr Nicholson and others who share his views are entitled to do without air travel. That is their right in a free society. But they are not entitled to bully others who wish to fly abroad for work or pleasure.

Yet that is the consequence of elevating their zealotry into a legally protected realm. How many employers will discipline an employee who tries to make colleagues feel guilty every time they take a trip by air?

Mr Justice Barton has contributed to placing the greens above the law. In doing so, he is following a trend.

Last year, six Greenpeace activists were cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage at Kingsnorth in Kent, the first of a new generation of coal-fired power stations.

The Greenpeace zealots persuaded the court at Maidstone that they were entitled to damage the power station - which they claimed was causing climate change - because climate change might cause even greater damage to the planet.

This dangerous verdict, which legitimised violent protests, has now been reinforced by Mr Justice Barton's ruling that green politics should enjoy the status of a religion.

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

US scales down hopes of global climate change treaty in Copenhagen

• Binding agreement not expected in Copenhagen
• Administration working towards treaty next year

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and John Vidal in Barcelona
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009

The US has given up hope of reaching a global climate change treaty at Copenhagen and is working towards a deal late next year, the Obama administration said today. The decision ends hopes of a legally binding deal being sealed next month.

"We have to be honest in the process and deal with the realities that we don't have time in these four weeks to put the language together and flesh out every crossed t and dotted i of a treaty," said John Kerry, who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee.

Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, agreed. "It doesn't look like it's on the cards for December," he said. "We should make progress towards a political agreement that hits each of the main elements."

The scaling back of US ambitions follows a growing international consensus that a binding legal agreement on global warming could not be reached at Copenhagen – now just 32 days away. The US shift resets expectations for what will be accomplished at Copenhagen, once billed by the UN as a last chance to avoid catastrophic global warming...

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

Daily Telegraph

Climate change talks on knife-edge

Climate change talks are locked in a stand off between rich and poor nations.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
05 Nov 2009

More than 190 countries are trying to thrash out the details of a new deal on global warming to be decided in Copenhagen in December.

But already the African nations have walked out of the latest round of UN talks in Barcelona and are threatening to do so again unless the rich nations commit to cutting carbon.

It is the latest blow to any international climate change deal, which is now looking increasingly unlikely unless President Obama steps in to convince the poor world that rich nations are serious about taking action.

The key sticking point is over how much developed nations are willing to cut greenhouse gases.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended that developed nations cut their emissions by between 25 and 42 per cent by 2020 on 1990 levels.

However at the moment most rich nations have not signed up to anything close to those targets. The EU have committed to cuts of between 20 and 30 per cent. The US cannot sign up anything until key legislation is passed by the Senate and even then are unlikely to cut emissions by more than four per cent on 1990 levels.

In the last few days of negotiating time, the African nations refused to take part unless developed nations increased their targets in line with the scientific evidence . They were backed by the G77 group of developing nations and China...

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

The Beck-Monckton...

Ross Elliot's picture

...was a good show.

Nice to see some hardcore unapology from a Brit.

Bolton simped out, which is illustrative of how conservatives go limp when asked to stick their dicks in the mincer.

Al Gore denies he is 'carbon billionaire'

Marcus's picture

Independent

Al Gore denies he is 'carbon billionaire'

As he publishes a new book, critics say climate change has made him rich

By David Usborne in New York

Wednesday, 4 November 2009

Al Gore, the former American vice-president, yesterday hit back at critics who are labelling him the first "carbon billionaire" from his earnings as an investor in green technology, dismissing them as "global-warming deniers".

Since leaving office in 2001, Mr Gore has become a powerful advocate of government policies to limit carbon dioxide emissions. This week sees the launch of his latest book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, a sequel to his earlier work, which was also a successful film, entitled An Inconvenient Truth.

As the Copenhagen talks on a new climate-change treaty approach and the US Congress grapples with draft laws to curb emissions, Mr Gore's profile will only swell further. But as it does, so does the chorus asking if his advocacy for action on climate change is about self-enrichment as much as saving the planet.

Some of his green investments were outlined yesterday by The New York Times. Mr Gore is a partner in the Silicon Valley venture-capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers, which has interests in companies developing alternative energy and energy-efficient technologies. He is also a co-founder of London-based Generation Investment Management, which has holdings in eco-energy companies.

He defended his business activities on ABC TV and denied he was on the way to becoming a carbon billionaire. "I am proud to have put my money where my mouth is for the past 30 years," he said. "And though that is not the majority of my business activities, I absolutely believe in investing in accordance with my beliefs and my values."...

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

Glenn Beck talks about Al Gore


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

From The Times

November 3, 2009

Battle over the causes of Kilimanjaro's melt hots up

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Climate change sceptics have seized on several scientific studies in recent years that have appeared to cast doubt on whether Mount Kilimanjaro’s diminishing glaciers are evidence of global warming.

Al Gore is the sceptics’ bête noire and they like claiming to have found inaccuracies in his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The former US Vice-President presented the melting snows on Africa’s tallest peak as one of the most dramatic visible signs of the impact of man-made greenhouse gases.

The studies have not questioned that the glaciers are rapidly melting but have suggested that the cause is more likely to be regional factors, such as deforestation of the foothills owing to extensive farming. Lack of trees has contributed to a loss of humidity and cloud cover, resulting in drier conditions. There are fewer clouds to protect Kilimanjaro from solar radiation and there is less snowfall to replenish the ice fields.

Philip Mote, a climate expert at the University of Washington, wrote in 2007: “Kilimanjaro is a grossly overused mis-example of the effects of climate change.” He attributed the glacier loss largely to sunlight and dry air causing sublimation, when ice is converted directly to water vapour without passing through the liquid phase...

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

US puts climate debate on hold for five weeks despite plea by Merkel

• Senate delay means no bill likely before Copenhagen
• German leader makes historic Congress address

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 November 2009

International negotiators lost one of the key elements to a successful deal on global warming today after Democratic leaders in the US Congress ruled out passing a climate change law before 2010. In the latest obstacle on the road to the UN summit in Copenhagen next month, Senate leaders ordered a five-week pause to review the costs of the legislation.

The delay, which would push a Senate vote on a climate change bill into next year, frustrates a last-minute push by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, to get America to commit itself at home to cut greenhouse gas emissions before the Copenhagen meeting. World leaders – and US officials – have repeatedly said US legislation is crucial to a deal on global warming.

Merkel used a historic address to a joint session of Congress today to urge America to act on climate change, stating that success at Copenhagen rested on the willingness of all countries to accept binding reductions in carbon emissions.

The first German leader to ever address both houses of Congress, Merkel said a deal was comparable in importance to the tearing down of the Berlin wall 20 years ago. "We need the readiness of all countries to accept internationally binding obligations," she said to loud applause from Democrats. Republicans largely sat in silence. "There is no doubt about it. In December, the world will look to us: the Europeans and the Americans. I am convinced once we … show ourselves ready to adopt binding agreements we will also be able to persuade China and India."...

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

The Australian

Seeing through hoax of the century

Janet Albrechtsen Blog | November 04, 2009

INCREASINGLY, the road to Copenhagen resembles a suburban street on Halloween with the number of climate change freak shows and stunts reaching a nadir in recent weeks. Nicholas Stern says we should turn vegetarian in order to combat climate change. If you must eat meat, eat kangaroos, says Ross Garnaut, because marsupials emit negligible amounts of methane. And that champagne you drank on Melbourne Cup day? Scientists scolded us with a report that a 750ml bottle of bubbly could produce 100 million bubbles, releasing five litres of carbon dioxide.

Yet far from rallying people to the cause of immediate action on climate change, every new cri de coeur may be turning people away. Could it be that those derided as the great unwashed are beginning to ask more questions than their smart political leaders or the bastions of intellectual curiosity in the media?

Late last month, activists gathered at Sydney Opera House to listen to Sydney mayor Clover Moore announce that “the time for talk is past”.

“Already we know that this building, our Opera House, for decades a symbol of optimism and the human spirit, is under threat from global warming,” she says.

The Opera House under threat? That would be from rising sea levels, right? Just like the small island nation of Maldives where, last month, the president conducted a cabinet meeting underwater to remind the world that his country would be rendered uninhabitable by rising sea levels. Kitted out in full scuba-diving outfits, Mohamed Nasheed and his ministers sat at a table underwater off the coast of the capital of Male.

As planned, the president’s stunt made headlines across the globe. Send us money - and lots of it - is his message. The media love stunts. They are so easy to report.

Sadly, the media is not inquisitive enough to report those who question the circus acts of climate change. A week after the Maldives underwater show, Nils-Axel Morner - a leading world authority on sea levels - wrote an open letter to the president telling him that his stunt was “not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments”...

http://blogs.theaustralian.new...

Beck & Monkcton - double barrel KASSERS

HWH's picture

Thank Galt for those two...it seems they are the only two with the
courage to keep their fingers plugging the dyke on this side
of an ocean of deceit.



Here,  Lord Monckton
exposes Obamas "minimi" Rudd for the Janus-faced traitor he is, and how
his silence on the treacherous Copenhagen farce is placing the freedom
and prosperity of Australia and other independent nations squarely in
the eye of the storm.



I can only hope the chickens come home and upend him and his
duplicitous cronies at the next election.















large format scanner

Simple Linz...

Marcus's picture

...I just keep pinching myself so I can be sure this is not part of some nightmare I'm dreaming.

It also helps to keep a sense of humour about you.

What will they say next? What is the limit of credulity of the public? How far can they push doublethink?

After years of doing this, I'm still shocked on a daily basis.

That's quite a feat as I usually get bored quickly. The resourcefulness of the alarmists is astounding. And the sad thing is Objectivists (or even just pro-capitalists) lost the world to the self-sacrificial politically correct 'pragmatist' majority decades ago. It would take a miracle to change things back now.

We are doomed, after all!

Marcus ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Keep going. But I'm curious. How the hell do you keep your equilibrium whilst documenting all this foulness?

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument

Marcus's picture

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate

Nobel winner adapts fact-based message to reach those who believe they have a moral duty to protect the planet in Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 November 2009

Al's Gore's much-anticipated sequel to An Inconvenent Truth is published today, with an admission that facts alone will not persuade Americans to act on global warming and that appealing to their spiritual side is the way forward.

In his latest book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, the man who won a Nobel prize in 2007 for his touring slideshow on disappearing polar ice and other consequences of climate change, concludes: "Simply laying out the facts won't work."

Instead, Gore tells Newsweek magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message - now put out by hundreds of volunteers - to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.

"I've done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It's probably my favourite version, but I don't use it very often because it can come off as proselytising," Gore tells Newsweek...

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

Climate negotiators grow impatient at lack of leadership from America

UN and EU pile pressure on US to set ambitious carbon cuts and timetables to improve chances of deal at Copenhagen

John Vidal in Barcelona
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 November 2009

With just five days' formal negotiations left before the start of crucial UN climate talks in Copenhagen next month, key figures in the negotiations are showing clear signs of impatience at the US position.

At international climate talks in Barcelona, the United Nations and European Union, backed by international environment and development groups, today piled pressure on the US to set more ambitious targets and timetables to cut greenhouse emissions in order to reach an agreement.

"We expect American leadership. President Obama has created great expectations around the world. Now we urge [the US] to contribute in the way that we have," said Andreas Carlgren, Swedish environment minister talking on behalf of the EU presidency.

In a clear reference to the US, he added: "We are prepared to cut a deal. Other countries should demonstrate leadership and step up their current pledges."

Countries accept that the Obama administration's hands have been tied by delays in Congress but they urged the president to show more personal leadership and to instruct his negotiators to be less intransigent.

"I remind the US that it is not the only country in the world that has to have discussions with its domestic parliament," said Connie Hedegaard, the Danish environment minister who will host the talks in Copenhagen...

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

From The Times

November 3, 2009

Kilimanjaro's snows melt away in dramatic evidence of climate change

Hannah Devlin

The snows of Mount Kilimanjaro will be gone within two decades, according to scientists who say that the rapid melting of its glacier cap over the past century provides dramatic physical evidence of global climate change.

If the forecast — based on 95 years of data tracking the retreat of the Kilimanjaro ice — proves correct it will be the first time in about 12,000 years that the slopes of Africa’s highest mountain have been ice-free.

Since 1912, 85 per cent of the glacier has disappeared and the melting does not appear to be slowing down. Twenty-six per cent of the ice has disappeared since 2000.

The study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concludes that the primary cause of the ice loss is the increase in global temperatures. Although changes in cloudiness and snowfall may also play a role, these factors appear to be less important. Even intense droughts, including one lasting about 300 years, did not cause the present degree of melting...

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

No

Frediano's picture

They deal with every aspect of our life and they will infuence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.

With my last dying breath, I will insist instead that they would deal with every aspect of our lives and they will influence every aspect of our lives, our economies, our societies, even if I'm the last person in existence who believes that.

It is exactly our blindness to the fabrication of mythical forced singularities out of voluntary pluralities that enables the current religious fanaticism, the current Madness of Crowds...

regards,
Frediano

Western tax-payers to become the cash-cows of the third world!!!

Marcus's picture

The Independent

Money is the key to the success of Copenhagen

Developing countries want up to £245bn to reduce their carbon emissions while the EU thinks it should cost them as little as £20bn. Michael McCarthy reports on the huge gap

Monday, 2 November 2009

You think it's about greenhouse gases. You think it's about carbon emissions. And it is. But the Copenhagen agreement on climate change that the world community will attempt to sign in December is just as much about money – enormous, mind-boggling amounts of money.

In brutally simplistic terms, the essence of any deal will be to pay the developing countries of the world, led by China and India, to cut back on the carbon dioxide pouring out of their now-mushrooming economies, which will come to represent 90 per cent of all future emissions growth, and the inducement for them to do this will have to be substantial.

It has hardly dawned on the general public just how big are the sums of cash that the developing world is seeking, and that the rich world will have to go some way towards providing, if the vital pathway to keeping global temperature rises below C is to be mapped out...

Just how costly the developing world thought it would be became clear at the end of August, when the G77-plus-China, as the nations are collectively known, put forward a formal proposal for financing a new climate agreement. Their "enhanced financial mechanism" suggested that the rich countries should pay between 0.5 and 1 per cent of their gross national product every year. For the European Union, this would be between $90bn (£55bn) and $180bn annually; for the US, between $70bn and $140bn; for Britain alone, between $13bn and $26bn. The full total would be between $200bn and $400bn, a range from nearly double to nearly four times the amount of all current overseas aid flows. Moreover, it would have to be on top of existing aid, the developing countries said – it must be "new and additional", above all current overseas development assistance.

There have been no negotiations about this, because that figure has lain on the table for two months without any of the rich countries responding. But on Friday, at last, the European Union became the first rich-country bloc to come up with its own financial proposals. The EU thinks that the full amount of extra public money needed to pay for climate change in the developed world is €22bn to €50bn annually, depending on what actions the poorer countries undertake (the sum is nearly the same in pounds sterling; in dollars it is about $32bn to $72bn). Europe would probably end up paying about 20 to 30 per cent of this, perhaps €5bn to €12bn, of which Britain itself would probably pay about €1bn. The full regime would be in place by 2020, with lesser sums coming earlier.

The key point about these figures is that they are a start; they allow officials from the 192 countries involved in the treaty, including Britain, at last to start talking about money from today, when the final week of pre-Copenhagen negotiations begins in Barcelona. Oxfam recognised this at the weekend, even while protesting that the level was too low – the charity thinks that more than double the public finance is required. "Finally coming forward with numbers is a positive step but the proposed figure falls well short of the €110bn needed to help poor countries adapt to climate change and curb their carbon emissions," said Robert Bailey, Oxfam's Senior Policy Advisor on climate change...

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

Herald Sun

Flannery’s hope: a global treaty to influence your every move

Andrew Bolt
Friday, October 30, 2009 at 07:14pm

To be honest, I thought - and said - Christopher Monckton was exaggerating a bit in claiming the the United Nation’s Copenhagen meeting on global warming would negotiate the creation of a new world government:

At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed...I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t.

But now Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, on yet another gassy overseas junket, suggests this is indeed the intention - and his most fervent hope for these talks:

We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will infuence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.

Mark Steyn rightly asks;

Did you know every aspect of your life was being negotiated at Copenhagen?...

http://blogs.news.com.au/heral...
....................................................................................................................

CSIRO bid to gag emissions trading scheme policy attack

Nicola Berkovic | November 02, 2009
Article from: The Australian

THE nation's peak science agency has tried to gag the publication of a paper by one of its senior environmental economists attacking the Rudd government's climate change policies.

The paper, by the CSIRO's Clive Spash, argues the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is an ineffective way to cut emissions, and instead direct legislation or a tax on carbon is needed.

The paper was accepted for publication by the journal New Political Economy after being internationally peer-reviewed.

But Dr Spash told the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics conference that the CSIRO had since June tried to block its publication...

http://www.theaustralian.news....
.........................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Britons least concerned about climate change

Britain is less concerned about climate change than any other country in the world, according to a new survey.

02 Nov 2009

The annual Climate Confidence Monitor found the number of people worrying about global warming worldwide has fallen by eight per cent to just over a third in the last year as the economic downturn kicked in.

Just fifteen per cent of people in Britain worry about climate change and how the world responds to the problem, the lowest figure for any of the 12 countries surveyed. The figure is down from 26 per cent last year. In the US 18 per cent of people said global warming was one of their biggest concerns followed by 22 per cent in Australia.

In general people in developing countries are more concerned about climate change, with more than half of people in Mexico citing the issue as a major problem and 42 per cent in Brazil and India.

Britain was also the most pessimistic about the world's ability to tackle climate change, with almost half believing nothing can be done compared to 38 per cent worldwide.

However, people still believe that action should be taken. On average, almost half of people say they are taking some action to reduce their carbon footprint such as switching off lights, walking rather than driving or recycling. This is a rise of seven per cent since 2007.

In the run up the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, nearly two thirds of people in the world think a global deal to cut emissions is important. The US, the world's second largest emitter, was the only country where less than half the population thought world needed to take action compared to 86 per cent in Brazil and 75 per cent in China - the world's biggest emitter.

The report, that has been running for three years, questions 1,000 people in each country...

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

The ice isn't melting, hell,

Mark Hubbard's picture

The ice isn't melting, hell, we're heading for an ice age:

http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/...

Quote:

'Apparently last summer, the ice melt in Antartica was at a 30 year low...

Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention?
The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.
Such was the finding reported 3 weeks ago by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.'

And the graph makes interesting viewing.

Warmists turn up the heat ahead of the Copenhagen conference

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Warmists turn up the heat ahead of the Copenhagen climate conference

The approach of the Copenhagen climate conference in December exposes us to even more overheated opinions, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
31 Oct 2009

When historians look back at the much-touted Copenhagen "climate conference" of December 2009, they may be unable to resist a wry smile at all the last-minute efforts made to keep warmist hysteria at fever pitch.

Inevitably the biggest coverage last week went to Lord Stern's call for us all to save the planet by giving up meat. He presumably means that we should kill off all cows, sheep and pigs, say goodbye to wool and leather, and abandon large tracts of our countryside to brambles and bracken (and the wind turbines his lordship is also keen on).

This coincided with a new book by two New Zealanders, solemnly explaining that a major part of the climate change catastrophe is due to meat-eating pets. A large dog, they claim, is the cause of more greenhouse gas emissions each year than a Toyota Land Cruiser driven 6,000 miles. So goodbye also to dogs and cats.

Then there was the official Australian report, supported by their quaintly named Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, calling for a ban on all new buildings anywhere near the sea, lest warming should plunge them below the waves (this in a country 80 per cent of whose people live on the coast).

Finally, as if to confirm that belief in global warming has become a substitute for religion, we had the statement from Lambeth Palace on behalf of all Britain's "faith groups" (led by the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster, but also including Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians and presumably Rastafarians). They called on the governments of the world to ban fossil fuels, thus restricting any further warming of the planet to precisely 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Presumably we shall see wind turbines sprout from every church, mosque and synagogue, to keep all those clerical word-processors churning out yet more "faith-based" advice to the world's politicians...

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

Yorkshire Post

Bernard Ingham: The world may bankrupt itself in this dubious fight against global warming

Published Date: 28 October 2009
NEVER in the field of human deceit have so few taken so many for a ride to so little effect. I refer, with apologies to Churchill, to the ridiculous competition among our politicians to scare us silly about global warming.
This week, Lord Turner of Ecchinswell paused from threatening the City as chairman of the Financial Services Authority to seek, as boss of the Green Fiscal Commission, a re-balancing of the tax system against carbon, even to the tune of a £3,300 levy on new cars.

He said it would not lead to more overall taxation.

If you believe that in view of Gordon Brown's gargantuan debt legacy, you will believe anything.

Last week, the PM said we had only 50 days to save the planet. That was 50 days after Prince Charles, speaking in advance of the great UN global warming jamboree in Copenhagen, in December, gave us the 100-day warning.

Yesterday, Lord Stern, the author of the Government's 2006 review on climate change, urged people to become vegetarian today, to help beat global warming. He said methane emissions from cows and pigs were putting "enormous pressure" on the world, and people needed to think about what they ate.

Next week, no doubt, Nobel Peace prizewinner Al Gore will emerge with a new vision of New York under water, Britain half-drowned and the Commonwealth minus a member – the Maldives.

It is all a load of baloney...

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk...
............................................................................................................

Copenhagen is only the start of climate change

Editorial

The Observer, Sunday 1 November 2009

THERE ARE five weeks left to the opening of the climate-change summit in Copenhagen. Virtually every national leader is expected to gather in the Danish capital in an attempt to hammer out a deal to bring unity to the battle against global warming. All that is required is an agreement to find a method to achieve one simple goal. Emissions of carbon dioxide from the planet's factories, power plants, cars, planes and homes must be made to peak in a few years so that by 2020, a substantial decline in the world's output of greenhouse gases will have begun.

Only then, say scientists, will it be possible to prevent global temperatures from rising by 2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. This figure, they argue, is the maximum warming that our planet can tolerate. If we go beyond it, we will face global calamity in the form of spreading deserts, increasingly violent storms, destruction of swaths of farmland, flooding and widespread loss of life. It is a grim list, one that should guarantee delegates give maximum concentration to their work in Copenhagen. This is their last chance, if not to save the world, then at least to prevent major losses of life later in the century. Failure should not be an option.

Yet there are now signs that a deal which would tie every nation on Earth to a declared cut in their carbon emissions, and which would do so much to tackle global warming, will not be achieved...

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

Beck/ Monckton and Bolton for one hour

Marcus's picture

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

From The Times

October 31, 2009

Merkel: no chance of Kyoto-style agreement at Copenhagen

David Charter and Sam Coates in Brussels

Angela Merkel tried to give the world a wake up call to the glacial progress being made towards a climate deal in Copenhagen yesterday by writing off the chances of achieving a succesor to the Kyoto treaty this year.

Alarmed by the impasse gripping pre-Copenhagen talks, the German Chancellor warned fellow EU leaders that only a broad political framework was now possible from the negotiations due in the Danish capital in December. She said that the chances of a comprehensive treaty had disappeared.

"It is realistic to say that in Copenhagen we will not be able to conclude a treaty but it is important to lay down a political framework which will be the basis of the treaty," she said at the end of the two-day EU summit in Brussels...

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

BBC News

Friday, 30 October 2009

Climate a weighty burden for EU

By Laurence Peter
BBC News, Brussels

The Brussels summit provided a sharp foretaste of the hard bargaining the world can expect at the crucial Copenhagen summit on climate change in December.

There is still an east-west divide in the EU over national contributions to climate targets, with former communist countries such as Poland and Hungary arguing against specific funding pledges at this stage...

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

Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions

Marcus's picture

From The Times

October 30, 2009

Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions, scientists warn

Mark Henderson, Science Editor

Exaggerated and inaccurate claims about the threat from global warming risk undermining efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and contain climate change, senior scientists have told The Times.

Environmental lobbyists, politicians, researchers and journalists who distort climate science to support an agenda erode public understanding and play into the hands of sceptics, according to experts including a former government chief scientist.

Excessive statements about the decline of Arctic sea ice, severe weather events and the probability of extreme warming in the next century detract from the credibility of robust findings about climate change, they said.

Such claims can easily be rebutted by critics of global warming science to cast doubt on the whole field. They also confuse the public about what has been established as fact, and what is conjecture...

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

Daily Telegraph

Climate change deal under threat as Europe fails to 'put money on the table'

European Union leaders have failed to agree a financial deal for measures to combat climate change, despite a plea from the UN for a breakthrough in negotiations.

By Bruno Waterfield
30 Oct 2009

Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary general, pleaded for the EU to take the lead in the run up to a key climate change summit in Copenhagen by pledging to give money to poorer nations to help them fight global warming.

However, although EU leaders agreed the world should pay around £90 billion a year by 2020, they failed to pledge a certain amount from Europe. Only £45 billion of the global fund would come from public money and the rest would be from the private sector through carbon trading.

Environmental campaigners have attacked EU leaders for failing “to put its money where its mouth is”.

It is now feared that developing countries will fail to sign up to a deal in Copenhagen in December unless the United States takes a lead and promises to give money...

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

Daily Mail

Flight taxes hiked to bail out banks: It's nothing to do with environment, says Darling

By Jason Groves
30th October 2009

Flight taxes are being raised to help bail out the banks, Alistair Darling admitted yesterday.

In an extraordinary intervention, the Chancellor said the higher air passenger duty being introduced tomorrow was needed to plug gaps in the national finances.

He made no attempt to justify the move - which will add £340 to the ticket for a family of four flying long haul - on environmental grounds, the official reason for the tax.

Airlines warned yesterday that the tax would cost thousands of jobs and do nothing to combat global warming...

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

Thirst for ice-coffee poses threat to environment, says Al Gore!

Marcus's picture

Just a joke, but tragically all too possible!
...................................................................................................

Thirst for oil poses threat to US national security, says military adviser

Democratic senators today pivoted from the economy to national security in push for climate change bill

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009

America's thirst for oil is a gathering threat to its national security – and the risk will grow further as the world's population touches 7 billion, a military adviser to the Pentagon told the Senate today.

In a second day of debate on energy, Democratic senators today pivoted from the economy to national security to try to make the case for a climate change bill.

The threat to Americans' security ranged from the here and now – with troops in Afghanistan and Iraq tied down by their reliance on gas-guzzling equipment – to years into the future when extreme temperatures and rising sea levels could lead to a widespread social breakdown...

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

The Dark Side of Green

Gaming the global-warming fight.

By Stefan Theil | NEWSWEEK
Published Oct 24, 2009

Climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades. Each year as much as $100 billion is spent by governments and consumers around the world on green subsidies designed to encourage wind, solar, and other -renewable-energy markets. The goals are worthy: reduce emissions, promote new sources of energy, and help create jobs in a growing industry. Yet this epic effort of lawmaking and spending has, naturally, also created an epic scramble for subsidies and regulatory favors. Witness the 1,150 lobbying groups that spent more than $20 million to lobby the U.S. Congress as it was writing the Clean Energy bill (which would create a $60 billion annual market for emission permits by 2012). Government has often had a hand in jump--starting a new -industry—both the computer chip and the Internet got their start in American defense research. But it's hard to think of any non-military industry that has been so completely and utterly driven by regulation and subsidies from the start.

It's a genetic defect that not only guarantees great waste, but opens the door to manipulation and often demonstrably contravenes the objectives that climate policy is supposed to achieve. Thanks to effective lobbying by American and European farmers, the more cost--efficient and environmentally effective Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol is locked out of U.S. and EU markets. Even within Europe, most countries have their own "technical standard" for biofuels to better keep out competing products—even if they are cheaper or produce a greater cut in emissions. Because the subsidies are tied to feedstocks, there is zero incentive to develop better technology...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/219...
.............................................................................................

Independent

Power station protest ends with arrests

By Lauren Turner, Press Association

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

A climate change protest being staged on top of a power station chimney came to an end today.

The nine environment activists who remained at Didcot Power Station, Oxfordshire, after breaking into the site on Monday came down of their own accord in the early hours of this morning.

The four women and five men, who spent two nights on the emissions chimney, were arrested on suspicion of aggravated trespass, Thames Valley Police said.

A further 11 people who staged a protest at the site's coal conveyer had been arrested on Monday.

A spokeswoman for RWE npower, which owns the site, said: "We can confirm that the nine protesters that were at the top of our chimney stack came down of their own accord at around 4am this morning.

"We are relieved that they have come down safely."

The RWE npower spokeswoman said she believed the nine protesters left the 200m tower because they "got tired".

She added: "They hadn't managed to affect our running. We were still generating power."

The group, who met at the Camp for Climate Action earlier this year, used power tools to cut through gates at the power station.

Referring to security measures in place at the site, the spokeswoman added: "We were going through a full security upgrade with enhanced fences and lighting. It was unfortunate it wasn't completed when the protesters turned up on Monday."

Amy Johnson, a 20-year-old student from Oxford, said last night the group was in "good spirits" and that they were planning to stay on the chimney until their provisions ran out...

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

Daily Mail

Giving up meat to save the planet is the most facile idea I've ever heard
By Christopher Booker

29th October 2009

Scarcely a day goes by without a supposed expert advising us of the latest step we must take to save the world from a global warming apocalypse. But this week's proposal from Lord Stern of Brentford out-trumps them all.

A former civil service economist plucked from semi-obscurity by Tony Blair to become a guru on 'climate change', he now tells us the best way to stave off global warming is to give up eating meat.

This, he explains, is because one of the most damaging contributions to the greenhouse effect is the methane given off by all those cows and sheep when they pass wind.

Even by the Green lobby's standards of self-deceiving absurdity, this must be a front-runner for the most fatuous proposal so far. Yet Lord Stern, alas, is not the first anti-global warming zealot to issue such an absurd missive.

Last year, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the railway engineer who is head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a similar suggestion to a conference organised by Compassion in World Farming.

As a Hindu vegetarian, it might be understandable that Dr Pachauri should want the rest of us to give up eating meat - though he conveniently didn't mention the 400 million sacred cows in his native India, which pass wind just as often as the cattle in the fields of carnivorous Britain...

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

with Iced Coffee?

Jmaurone's picture

Fighting global warming with iced coffee? I'll drink to that...

-enjoying my new coffee maker, a slave to Starbucks no more.

Coincidence?

Frediano's picture

A retired Indian engineer is waging his own one-man battle to stop global warming melting away the Himalayan glaciers: He claims he has discovered a way to create new glaciers.

https://www.dunkindonuts.com/a...

I don't think so.

Blame the cows!

Marcus's picture

Spectator

Blame the cows!

Really, this is beyond parody. Nicholas Stern, whose absurd and ignorant report on the economic consequences of man-made global warming has embarrassed even the warmists because of the scorn and ridicule it provoked from other economists let alone scientists, has now decided what we must all do to avoid the imminent climate Armageddon: stop eating meat. The Telegraph reports:

"Lord Stern, author of the 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, predicts that eating meat could in the future become as socially unacceptable as drink driving. Livestock farming has come under fire in recent years from environmental campaigners because methane from cattle and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank, believes that the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December should call for an increase in the price of meat and other foods that contribute to climate change. In an interview with The Times, he said: ‘Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.’"

So even though man-made global warming theory has now imploded under the pressure of falling global temperatures, increasing global ice cover, static seas and record numbers of happy polar bears, not to mention more and more evidence that the research underpinning the theory is flawed or bent and the opinion of hundreds of leading scientists that the whole thing is total rubbish, Lord Stern not only continues to predict imminent doom for the planet but has now decided that the cause of this non-catastrophe is the farmyard cow or pig...

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

Beck on eating meat


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

From The Times

October 28, 2009

Critics round on Lord Stern over vegetarian call

Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor

Farmers and meat companies across Britain reacted with a mixture of anger and exasperation yesterday after one of the world’s leading climate change campaigners urged people to become vegetarian to help to fight global warming.

The offensive by Lord Stern of Brentford in The Times was especially timely as about 100 leading meat and farm industry figures sat down to breakfast in the elegant Cholmondeley Room in the House of Lords to celebrate champions in the pig industry.

The occasion was also an opportunity to show the vegetarian Farming Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick, the efforts being made to reduce the carbon footprint of livestock farms...

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

Daily Telegraph

Indian engineer 'builds' new glaciers to stop global warming

A retired Indian engineer is waging his own one-man battle to stop global warming melting away the Himalayan glaciers: He claims he has discovered a way to create new glaciers.

By Dean Nelson in New Delhi
28 Oct 2009

Chewang Norphel, 76, has "built" 12 new glaciers already and is racing to create five more before he dies.

By then he hopes he will have trained enough new "icemen" to continue his work and save the world's "third icecap" from being transformed into rivers.

His race against time is shared by Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister who called on the region's Himalayan nations, including China, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan, to form a united front to tackle glacial melting.

The great Himalayan glaciers, including Kashmir's Siachen glacier, feed the region's most important rivers, which irrigate farm land in Tibet, Nepal, Bangladesh and throughout the Indian sub-continent. The apparent acceleration in glacial melting has been blamed for the increase in floods which have destroyed homes and crops.

Chewang Norphel, the "Iceman of Ladakh", however believes he has an answer.

By diverting meltwater through a network of pipes into artificial lakes in the shaded side of mountain valleys, he says he has created new glaciers.

A dam or embankment is built to keep in the water, which freezes at night and remains frozen in the absence of direct sunlight. The water remains frozen until March, when the start of summer melts the new glacier and releases the water into the rivers below...

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

Europe puts figure on green aid to push climate change deal

David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 October 2009

Europe is to breathe life into the faltering search for a new global deal on climate change by pledging billions of pounds in financial support for poor countries, the Guardian can reveal.

European heads of state will formally recommend this week that rich countries should hand over around €100bn (£90bn) a year to nations such as India and Vietnam by 2020 to help them cope with the impact of global warming. The pledge is expected to come at the end of a two-day summit of European leaders on Thursday and Friday, and before negotiations on a new climate treaty in Copenhagen in December.

The move marks a victory in Brussels for the UK and Gordon Brown, who appears to have won arguments with member states including Germany over whether Europe should commit to climate funding ahead of the Copenhagen talks. Brown was the first western leader to put hard figures on the table when he said in a speech earlier this year that rich countries needed to provide $100bn (£61bn) a year by 2020.

A draft copy of the European summit's conclusions obtained by the Guardian spells out that a "deal on financing will be a central part of an agreement in Copenhagen" and that Europe is ready to "take on its resulting fair share of total international public finance".

The document says: "It is estimated that the total net incremental costs of mitigation and adaptation in developing countries could amount to around €100bn annually by 2020, to be met through a combination of their own efforts, the international carbon market and international public finance."

It adds: "The overall level of the international public support required is estimated to lie in the range of €22bn to €50bn per year by 2020 … this range could be narrowed down in view of the Copenhagen summit." The document does not specify how much money Europe is willing to provide, though previous estimates have put their likely contribution at about €10bn-€15bn each year. That could land European taxpayers with a bill of about €5bn-€7.5bn each year...

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

It's YOUR fault the kittens and puppies will drown, Daddy!

Marcus's picture

Daily Mail

It's YOUR fault the kittens and puppies will drown, Daddy!

By James Delingpole
26th October 2009

A tide of green propaganda (like this £6m TV ad) is turning children into eco-tyrants, says one persecuted parent.
When my 11-year-old son confessed the other day that he'd blurted out to his teacher in a typically eco-minded geography class 'My dad says --manmade global warming is rubbish!', I couldn't have been more proud.

In my schooldays, geography used to be about unarguable facts such as the shape of an Oxbow lake or the capital of Australia. Now the subject has been so corrupted by the pious sermons of the green lobby that it ought really to be rechristened 'The-planet-is-doomed-and-it's-all-our-fault' studies.

Imagine my dismay a few weeks ago when I had an email from one of Ivo's teachers.

'I want to tell you how pleased I am with your son,' it read.

'Ivo has just taken part in an interschools Eco Conference in Oxford, and performed brilliantly. At the end, unexpectedly, the boys were asked to make speeches and field questions from the floor, and though some boys chickened out, your son rose to the occasion and spoke fluently and confidently.'

Well, what could I do? Cancel his pocket money? Confiscate his iPod? Of course, I'm joking - well, half-joking. Part of me felt a huge surge of paternal pride. But another part was absolutely horrified.

Who had got to my boy? How had he been turned? It reminded me of that awful moment in The Stepford Wives when you discover that even free-thinking Katharine Ross has been transformed into a supine robot creature parroting the same predictable lines.

I'm not the only parent to feel this way. All over Britain, mums and dads are asking themselves the same thing: 'Since when did my children turn into such rabid eco-fascists?'

In the old days, children were content to satisfy their inner bossy prig by simply pinching your cigarettes and chucking them in the bin 'for your own good'. Now, they seem determined to police every aspect of our lives.

Our homes have been transformed into mini police states where our children monitor our eco correctness like tinpot Al Gores.

'Dad,' says Ivo, surveying my Ford Mondeo, 'why can't we have an electric car like the Bielies?' (Our insanely eco German friends.)....

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

Daily Telegraph

Climate change protesters arrested over Didcot power station demonstration

Ten environmental activists have been arrested during a protest at Didcot Power Station in which demonstrators climbed its chimney.

27 Oct 2009

Those arrested were part of a group which broke into facility in Oxfordshire at about 5am on Monday as part of a climate change demonstration.

Nine people who climbed to the top of the emissions chimney at the station were on Monday evening preparing to stay there overnight and said they may not leave for weeks.

A Thames Valley Police spokesman said of the protesters who scaled the chimney: "We have been negotiating with these protesters but at present they cannot be physically moved due to their location and safety issues.

"A police presence will remain on the site until the protest is over.

"We continue to liaise with the site authorities to resolve the situation to a peaceful conclusion."

The group, who met at the Camp for Climate Action earlier this year, used angle grinders to cut through gates at the station on Monday morning.

Those who were arrested had gone to a coal conveyer building, while the others scaled a chimney.

A spokeswoman for RWE npower, which operates the power station, said: "We have stopped using the coal conveyor to ensure the safety of the protesters.

"However, we have coal stocks ready and other means of delivering coal to the boilers."

She said the safety of the staff and protesters remained their priority, and added: "Power stations are only safe working environments for people who are trained and supposed to be there."

Protester Amy Johnson, a 20-year-old student from Oxford, said a total of 13 people went to the coal conveyer on Monday morning.

She said: "It's inevitable there would be some arrests. We're taking this action because of the consequences of climate change.

"We're not really worried about the personal consequences of being arrested. It's certainly not dampening our spirits.

"We're preparing for the night ahead and have set a tent up on the roof of the chimney.

"The sunrise from up here will be outstanding."...

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

Green tax proposals 'would increase household energy bills by £800 a year'

A proposed green tax to cut carbon emissions would lead to an £800 increase in the average annual household energy bill over the next decade

By Murray Wardrop and Myra Butterworth, Personal Finance Correspondent
27 Oct 2009

Plans put forward by the Green Fiscal Commission (GFC), a Government-supported think tank, would see the tax on gas and electricity rise every year.

By 2020, the new levy would amount to 80 per cent of the cost of the average gas bill and 30 per cent of the average electricity bill.

The tax forms part of a £150 billion package of proposed measures, including a tripling of fuel duty over the next decade and a tax of up to £3,300 on new cars.

The GFC says that the scheme is essential to shifting Britain onto a lower carbon lifestyle and meeting international targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

However, critics claim that asking customers to pay even more for energy will push many hard-up families to breaking point...

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

BBC News

Friday, 23 October 2009

In praise of scepticism

In a light-hearted essay, Clive James takes a look at Montaigne, golf-ball crisps and our attitude towards climate change sceptics....

In Montaigne's day you could get into terminal trouble for taking scepticism too far, which is probably one of the reasons why not even he pushed it on the subject of religion.

Since then, a sceptical attitude has been less likely to get you burned at the stake, but it's notable how the issue of man-made global warming has lately been giving rise to a use of language hard to distinguish from heresy-hunting in the fine old style by which the cost of voicing a doubt was to fry in your own fat.

Whether or not you believe that the earth might have been getting warmer lately, if you are sceptical about whether mankind is the cause of it, the scepticism can be enough to get you called a denialist.

It's a nasty word to be called, denialist, because it calls up the spectacle of a fanatic denying the Holocaust. In my homeland, Australia, there are some prominent intellectuals who are quite ready to say that any sceptic about man-made global warming is doing even worse than denying the Holocaust, because this time the whole of the human race stands to be obliterated.

Really they should know better, because the two events are not remotely comparable. The Holocaust actually happened. The destruction of the earth by man-made global warming hasn't happened yet, and there are plenty of highly qualified scientists ready to say that the whole idea is a case of too many of their colleagues relying on models provided by the same computers that can't even predict what will happen to the weather next week.

In fact the number of scientists who voice scepticism has lately been increasing. But there were always some, and that's the only thing I know about the subject. I know next to nothing about climate science. All I know is that many of the commentators in newspapers who are busy predicting catastrophe don't know much about it either, because they keep saying that the science is settled and it isn't.

Speaking as one who lives at sea level, I don't relish the prospect of my granddaughter spending her life on a raft 30 feet above where she now plays in the garden, but I still can't see that there is a scientific consensus. There are those for, and those against. Either side might well be right, but I think that if you have a division on that scale, you can't call it a consensus...

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

Climate-ad piss-take

Marcus's picture

Sometimes the best weapon is humour!
....................................................................................


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

Daily Telegraph

The real climate change catastrophe

In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages

By Christopher Booker
25 Oct 2009

Next Thursday marks the first anniversary of one of the most remarkable events ever to take place in the House of Commons. For six hours MPs debated what was far and away the most expensive piece of legislation ever put before Parliament.

The Climate Change Bill laid down that, by 2050, the British people must cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by well over 80 per cent. Short of some unimaginable technological revolution, such a target could not possibly be achieved without shutting down almost the whole of our industrialised economy, changing our way of life out of recognition...

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

From The Times

October 26, 2009

Gordon Brown’s climate change finance package hangs in balance

David Charter and Philip Webster

Gordon Brown’s plan for Europe to lead the world in tackling climate change stands on the brink of failure as a row about its cost threatens to overshadow the European Council.

The Prime Minister was the first to call for a $100 billion (£60 billion) fund to help emerging nations to meet the terms of the replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, to be finalised at a United Nations summit in December.

As part of this, he wants the EU to pledge €10 billion (£9 billion) a year to the fund, but two groups of member states are fighting to block the plan at the council on Thursday and Friday.

Britain, already facing a public spending squeeze, has offered to find €1 billion a year to help to fund the scheme from 2020.

Poland leads nine eastern countries that say they cannot afford to help other nations when they have so much to do to cut emissions in their own coal-based economies. They want the scheme to be voluntary, at least in its early years. Germany, meanwhile, leads others, including France and Italy, that feel it is wrong to put a price on the plan before Copenhagen...

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

News Media Watchdog Holds 40th Anniversary Event in D.C.

Marcus's picture

"News Media Watchdog Holds 40th Anniversary Event in D.C.

Friday

Accuracy in Media, a conservative news media watchdog group, discussed The White House’s recent dispute with Fox News at their 40th anniversary conference in Washington. Panels included "The Failures of Liberal and Conservative Media," "Global Warming: Fact or Media Myth?," "New Media and the Future of Journalism" and other issues.
Washington, DC"

Marc Murano, Ann McElhinney and Christopher Monckton speak. Starts at 1:59:00. Well worth watching!!!

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Me...
.................................................................................................

Climate-change skeptics causing delays: Scientist

By Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service

October 21, 2009

Canadian climate-change scientists say growing skepticism about global warming in the media is confusing federal politicians and causing delays in action that could prevent dangerous changes in the Earth's atmosphere.

The warning comes as Conservatives and Liberals teamed up in Parliament on Wednesday in a vote to slow down legislation, proposed by the New Democrats, to set science-based targets for reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before an upcoming international climate summit this December in Denmark.

"MPs ought to base their work on the bill and vote on the bill on verified scientific consensus rather than on the flavour of the day in the never-ending debate over climate change," Louis Fortier, the scientific director at Laval University's Network of Centres of Excellence ArcticNet, told federal politicians earlier this week...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/n...
.......................................................................................................................

Barack Obama in new global warming fight

Stonewalling by opponents means key legislation is unlikely to be in place by Copenhagen summit

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
The Observer, Sunday 25 October 2009

Barack Obama's efforts to forge a new American consensus around the need for action on climate change has run into a brick wall of Republican opposition, with senators threatening a boycott of a proposed law to cut carbon emissions.

The Senate opens a three-day blockbuster of hearings on Tuesday, calling 54 administration officials and environment experts to try to push ahead on a climate change law before a meeting in Copenhagen that is supposed to produce a global action plan on climate change.

With that deadline looming, Obama has made his most forceful appeal to date for Congress to act on climate change. The president said on Friday that Americans had now arrived at a point of convergence on the need to move towards cleaner energy. "I do believe that a consensus is growing," he said. Those still unpersuaded, he said in a speech at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), were outside the mainstream.

"The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalised," Obama said. "The closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we'll hear from those whose interests or ideology run counter to the much-needed action that we're engaged in."

But a threat by a powerful Republican senator to stay away from bill-drafting sessions diminishes the already slim hopes that Congress will pass a law reducing US greenhouse gas emissions before international negotiations in Copenhagen in December.

James Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator who gained notoriety for calling global warming a hoax, told reporters late on Friday that he and fellow Republicans on the environment and public works committee might refuse to participate.

Inhofe said Republicans would stay away from bill-writing sessions unless they got enough time to review more than 800 pages of proposals in detail. That stay-away would deny the committee a quorum...

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

From The Sunday Times

October 25, 2009

Study challenges the idea of global warming wars

John Burns

Al Gore got a Nobel peace prize, in part, for helping to prevent war by highlighting global warming and helping to slow it. In fact, climate change is not likely to cause conflict in the future, according to a study co-authored by Professor Richard Tol of the Economic and Social Research Institute (Esri) in Dublin.

The conclusion challenges predictions made by the likes of Hillary Clinton, the American secretary of state, and John Reid, the former British defence secretary, who have forecast that future conflicts will be caused by rising temperatures. Earlier this year Clinton told her Senate confirmation hearing that climate change is a security threat. “At the extreme, it threatens our very existence,” she said. “But well before that point, it could well incite wars of an old kind over basic resources like food, water and arable land.”

Tol’s study concludes that, if anything, it’s lower temperatures that cause conflicts, and even this link has weakened since the industrial revolution. “This implies that future global warming is not likely to lead to war between European countries,” says the study, published in the Climatic Change journal...

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

Daily Telegraph

Maldives' underwater cabinet meeting was a sorry stunt

A world expert on sea-levels wants to tell the people of the Maldives they are not in danger of being inundated, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
24 Oct 2009

In the avalanche of publicity stunts being staged in advance of December's Copenhagen conference on climate change, none was more bizarre than the meeting of the cabinet of the Maldives government 20 feet beneath the waves. President Mohammed Nasheed and his ministers sat before desks in scuba gear to discuss the forthcoming submergence of their country, due to global warming.

This prompted an open letter to President Nasheed from Dr Nils-Axel Morner, the former head of the international Inqua Commission on Sea Level Change. The Swedish geologist, who has been measuring sea-level change all over the world for over 30 years, reminded the president that his commission had visited the Maldives six times in the years since 2000, and that he himself had led three month-long investigations in every part of the coral archipelago. Their exhaustive studies had shown that from 1790 to 1970 sea-levels round the islands had averaged 20 centimetres higher than today; that the level, having fallen, has since remained stable; and that there is not the slightest sign of any rise. The most cautious forecast based on proper science (rather than computer model guesswork) shows that any rise in the next 100 years will be "small to negligible"...

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

Go figure...

Marcus's picture

...the authors were from NZ too!

Why does GW alarmism allow the lunatic asylum fringe to suddenly be taken seriously?

That one was funny

gregster's picture

"Pet dogs as bad for planet as driving 4x4s, book claims"

The Real Guide to Sustainable Living suggests eating your pets. "Sustainable" from a central planning socialist/communist. Sustainability as they use it is in fact unsustainable, or economically ruinous not to mention immoral.

The next one was a good read from David Wiegel.

Climate Change Skeptics Embrace ‘Freakonomics’ Sequel

Marcus's picture

I read the first 'Freakonomics' book and enjoyed it. I think I will have to get this book too Smiling
...........................................................................................................................

Washington Independent

Climate Change Skeptics Embrace ‘Freakonomics’ Sequel

Global Warming Chapter Attracts Criticism From Environmental Journalists

By David Weigel 10/23/09


SuperFreakonomics and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) (HarperCollins, WDCpix)

The early reviews for “SuperFreakonomics” have been harsh. The book, wrote Brad Johnson in The Guardian, is a “super freaking mess.” According to environmental journalist Joe Romm, it contains “many, many pieces of outright nonsense” and “major howlers.” In The New Republic, Brad Plumer attacked the book for “garden variety ignorance.” And all of those pans appeared before the book actually hit the shelves this week.

Authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner didn’t face anything like this three years ago when they published “Freakonomics,” a surprise smash that sold 4 million copies. Unlike that book, which was based entirely on Levitt’s economic research from the University of Chicago, “SuperFreakonomics” is a guided tour of other peoples’ contrarian research and ideas. The final chapter deals with global warming, characterizing the beliefs of pessimistic environmentalists as “religious fervor,” and arguing that the climate change solutions proposed by Al Gore and many Democrats are ineffective and unworkable. It repeats claims that environmental journalists have debated or debunked for years. As a result, the authors are getting some early support from climate change skeptics who feel that attitudes toward their stances are getting brighter.

“It reminds me of what happened when Michael Crichton wrote ‘State of Fear,’” said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, which gets some of its funding from the energy industry. “The problem for the left is that there are still some people who don’t toe the party line who have megaphones. And anyone who has a megaphone, they’re going to go after.”

Ebell’s reference to “State of Fear” demonstrated just how meaningful “Freakonomics” could be to people who challenge conventional wisdom about climate change. The late author’s novel, published in 2004, cast as villains environmentalists and eco-terrorists who were perpetrating hoaxes to maintain their power. Coming after Crichton had made some well-publicized and much-maligned remarks skeptical of climate change science, the book was pilloried by environmentalists. It sold more than 1.5 million copies anyway...

http://washingtonindependent.c...
................................................................................................................

Freakonomics without the facts

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's bogus claims on climate change have riled up scientists. Maybe that was the point

Kate Sheppard
guardian.co.uk, Friday 23 October 2009

I thought I had read enough about Superfreakonomics and its horrifyingly ignorant chapter on climate change to prepare myself for the actual text. But nothing could prepare me for the assault on science, logic and the English language that is this excerpt.

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner managed to pull together just over 43 pages on science they clearly don't understand, with contradictory assumptions, clichés and gimmicky analogies. The chapter reads like a student term paper, a compilation of various factoids accumulated over the semester but displaying no real grasp of the subject matter. The logical leaps between sentences and at times bizarre sentence structure make me wonder if they actually farmed this chapter out to an undergraduate.

The scientific flaws are numerous, starting with the claim that the majority of scientists worried about global cooling just a few decades ago. This idea, based largely on a 1975 Newsweek story, is categorically false. It was never a widely accepted idea, and besides, the magazine has since acknowledged that the projections in the story cited so often in this chapter were "spectacularly wrong".

Levitt and Dubner also seem to think that scientists are not aware that water vapour exists, which, I assure you, isn't the case, and they argue that carbon dioxide was not responsible for historical warming, when, in fact, it was.

All of these are things that a simple deployment of The Google might have helped them avoid, but they don't seem very interested in facts. I won't dwell on the scientific flaws, as actual scientists have covered them quite well already (see William Connolley, Joe Romm and Melanie Fitzpatrick to start).

Besides, Levitt and Dubner are economists. I can forgive them for some misunderstanding. I'm more interested in their blatant disregard for the truth. They came into the chapter, it seems, believing that global warming science has "taken on the feel of a religion", are they wanted to seek out the "heretics"...

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

Daily Telegraph

Pet dogs as bad for planet as driving 4x4s, book claims

Owners should consider doing without, downsizing or even eating their pets to help save the planet, according to a new book.

By Paul Stokes
23 Oct 2009

It claims that the carbon footprint left by domesticated animals is out of proportion to the size of their paws.

A medium-sized dog has the same impact as a Toyota Land Cruiser driven 6,000 miles a year, while a cat is equivalent to a Volkswagen Golf.

But rabbits and chickens are eco-friendly because they provide meat for their owners while a canary or a goldfish has little effect on the environment.

At the same time a pair of hamsters do the same damage as running a plasma television, suggests the book Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living.

New Zealand-based authors Robert and Brenda Vale base their findings on the amount of land needed to grow food for pets ranging from budgerigars to cats and dogs.

They say an average Collie eats 164kg of meat and 95kg of cereals a year, giving it a high impact on the planet.

But a pair of rabbits can produce 36 young annually, which would provide 72kg of meat and help decrease the owner's carbon footprint.

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"...

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

From The Times

October 24, 2009

President Obama won’t talk climate change in Copenhagen

President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, The Times has learnt.

With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and no prospect of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen, Mr Obama may disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a breakthrough.

The White House would not comment on Mr Obama’s travel plans yesterday, but administration officials have said privately that “Oslo is plenty close” — a reference to the Nobel ceremony that falls on December 10, two days into the Copenhagen meeting.

The White House confirmed that the President would be in Oslo to accept the prize, but a source close to the Administration said it was “hard to see the benefit” of his going to Copenhagen if there was no comprehensive deal for him to close or sign. Another expert, who did not want to be named, said he would be “really, really shocked” if Mr Obama went to Copenhagen, adding that European hopes about the power of his Administration to transform the climate change debate in a matter of months bore little relation to reality. The comprehensive climate change treaty that for years has been the goal of the Copenhagen conference was now an “unrealistic” prospect, Yvo de Boer, the UN official guiding the process, said last week...

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

I know Ellen...

Marcus's picture

"56% of Americans think the United States should join other countries..."

It seems to be the same case in the UK.

People in general don't believe in the human caused GW, because they can see the level of exaggeration and hyperbole around the issue which is not attached to any other issue - not even drugs, immigration or abortion.

On the other hand, if you ask them if the Government should reduce emissions the majority say yes. Why? Because they all believe that pollution is a bad thing. And in some cases, they're right it is a bad thing - but usually perpetuated by the Government itself.

Just look how clean the environments of the former communist countries were - i.e. not at all.

Christopher Monckton is currently making #7 on this week's viral video charts, and he talks about the dreaded communist world Government that environmentalists would like to see!

Is the survey good news or bad?

Ellen Stuttle's picture

The percentage who report being worried, if accurate, is still way too high.

And notice:

"On the other hand, more than half (55%) say they haven’t heard about so-called “cap and trade” legislation being considered in Congress. (Then again, Sen. John Kerry says he doesn’t know what “cap and trade” means, either.)"

HELLO???

People I talk to at restaurants and stores and just generally "around" often don't know either. They have some vague idea with no details, if they've so much as heard about "cap and trade," and no idea of what the legislation would mean for their lives. Or any idea of the science in dispute.

Regarding the science and the reliance on "well, all those scientists say...," I'm chronically reminded of graffiti I saw on a restroom wall in Seattle years ago -- and have seen repeated elsewhere a number of times since:

"Eat shit; 5 million flies can't be wrong."

If they only knew -- as I proceed to try to inform them -- that those American scientific organizations they think support AGWA have had resolutions passed by a handful of folks on an executive committee, not even polling of the membership. "Consensus," what a disgrace, both from being so wrong epistemologically and from being wildly inaccurate as a "head count" of what the scientific community really thinks.

Ellen

Survey Says: Americans Not Worried About Global Warming

Marcus's picture

WSJ

October 22, 2009,
Survey Says: Americans Not Worried About Global Warming

By Stephen Power
A new poll out today on Americans’ attitudes about climate change presents sobering findings for those that favor aggressive action to curb U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases.

The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who see solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. According to the survey, conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, fewer respondents also see global warming as a very serious problem; 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

The survey also points to a decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

Not everything in the poll is bad news for those that favor capping U.S. emissions. According to the survey, a majority (56%) of Americans think the United States should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change, while 32% say that the United States should set its own standards. And half of Americans favor setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if this may lead to higher energy prices.

On the other hand, more than half (55%) say they haven’t heard about so-called “cap and trade” legislation being considered in Congress. (Then again, Sen. John Kerry says he doesn’t know what “cap and trade” means, either.)

The poll’s findings come just days before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is scheduled to hold hearings on legislation that calls for cutting U.S. emissions 20 percent beneath 2005 levels by 2020...

http://blogs.wsj.com/environme...
........................................................................................................

From The Times
October 23, 2009

Foreign Secretary David Miliband accuses public of climate change apathy

Hannah Devlin

The Foreign Secretary accused the public yesterday of lacking a sense of urgency in the face of the potentially devastating consequences of climate change.

David Miliband said that people had grown apathetic about the issue when they needed to be galvanised into action before the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.

“For a lot of people the penny hasn’t dropped that this climate change challenge is real and is happening now,” he said. “There isn’t yet that feeling of urgency and drive and animation about the Copenhagen conference.”

Mr Miliband and his brother, Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, were opening an exhibition at the Science Museum in South Kensington designed to illustrate the potential impact of world temperatures increasing by 4C. Current models predict that this could happen by 2060 if no action is taken...

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

US coal stands in way of Copenhagen

It's not India and China that threaten the success of a new climate change treaty, but senators of coal-producing US states

Jeffrey Sachs
guardian.co.uk, Friday 23 October 2009

The UN climate change treaty, signed in 1992, committed the world to avoiding "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". Yet, since that time, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar.

The US has proved to be the biggest laggard in the world, refusing to sign the 1997 Kyoto protocol or to adopt any effective domestic emissions controls. As we head into the global summit in Copenhagen in December to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto protocol, the US is once again the focus of concern. Even now, American politics remains strongly divided over climate change – though President Barack Obama has new opportunities to break the logjam.

A year after the 1992 treaty, President Bill Clinton tried to pass an energy tax that would have helped the US to begin reducing its dependence on fossil fuels. The proposal not only failed, but also triggered a political backlash. When the Kyoto protocol was adopted in 1997, Clinton did not even send it to the US Senate for ratification, knowing that it would be rejected. President George Bush repudiated the Kyoto protocol in 2001 and did essentially nothing on climate change during his presidency.

There are several reasons for US inaction – including ideology and scientific ignorance – but a lot comes down to one word: coal. No fewer than 25 states produce coal, which not only generates income, jobs and tax revenue, but also provides a disproportionately large share of their energy...

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

The bare-faced BBC

By Daily Mail Comment
23rd October 2009

...Until very recently, the BBC systematically censored any debate about immigration into Britain, a nation which, as was revealed yesterday, is on its way to a population of 70million.

It also treats global warming with the fervour of a religion, and is so pro-Brussels that even a report commissioned by the BBC itself found that it was hopelessly biased against the Eurosceptic position.

It's an institution that by its very nature promotes alternative lifestyles and minority groups at the expense of traditional values, and it doesn't have much time for Christianity, capitalism, or the countryside either.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of letting Mr Griffin onto Question Time, the BBC can't pretend that some sacred principle of political impartiality had anything to do with it.

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

Rush Limbaugh goes the extra mile in rant about New York Times

Marcus's picture

Rush Limbaugh goes the extra mile in rant about New York Times reporter

Shock jock turns on Andy Revkin after his comments on population and greenhouse gas emissions

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
Wednesday 21 October 2009
guardian.co.uk

US radio host Rush Limbaugh's main reason for existence is to go too far — and then drag mainstream conservative discourse out there with him.

But even by Limbaugh's standards — and remember this is a man who has over the years referred to Greenpeace and Sierra Club as "econazis" and "environmentalist wackos" — he seems to have gone the extra mile in calling the New York Times environmental reporter, Andy Revkin, a jihadi and a terrorist and telling him to kill himself.

As Revkin's colleague, Paul Krugman, says on his blog: "Always good to know what we're dealing with."

Limbaugh started off by ranting against militant environmentalists likening them to "jihad guys" (Media Matters for America has audio):

They convince these families to strap explosives on who? Not them. On their kids. Grab your 3-year-old, grab your 4-year-old, grab your 6-year-old, and we're gonna strap explosives on there, and then we're going to send you on a bus, The jihad guys have to maintain control. The environmentalist wackos are the same way.

Then Limbaugh turns on Revkin:

This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr Revkin, why don't you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?

The talk show host was raging about remarks Revkin delivered by Skype to a conference last week in which he talked about how population growth would raise greenhouse gas emissions...

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

Financial Post

Maldives’ president all wet on sea level

Posted: October 20, 2009 by NP Editor

On Oct. 17, Mohamed Nasheed, president of the Maldives, an island country off the coast of India, held a meeting of his Cabinet underwater to dramatize the risks he says his country faces from rising sea levels caused by global warming. Yesterday, Swedish scientist Nils-Axel Mörner, a specialist in sea level changes, wrote Mr. Nasheed the following letter:

Open Letter

October 20, 2009

To: President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives

From: Nils-Axel Mörner, Stockholm, Sweden

Mr. President,

You have recently held an undersea Cabinet meeting to raise awareness of the idea that global sea level is rising and hence threatens to drown the Maldives. This proposition is not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments.

Therefore, I am most surprised at your action and must protest its intended message.

In 2001, when our research group found overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years, I thought it would not be respectful to the fine people of the Maldives if I were to return home and present our results in international fora. Therefore, I announced this happy news during an interview for your local TV station. However, your predecessor as president censored and stopped the broadcast.

When you became president, I was hoping both for democracy and for dialogue. However, I have written to you twice without reply. Your people ought not to have to suffer a constant claim that there is no future for them on their own islands. This terrible message is deeply inappropriate, since it is founded not upon reality but upon an imported concept, which lacks scientific justification and is thus untenable. There is simply no rational basis for it.

Let me summarize a few facts.

(1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level.

(2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today

(3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level

(4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise.

(5) Therefore, we are able to free the Maldives (and the rest of low-lying coasts and island around the globe) from the condemnation of becoming flooded in the near future...

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.co...
.....................................................................................................................

Council to crack down on Guy Fawkes bonfire permits
By KAROLINE TUCKEY - Manawatu Standard

22/10/2009

Student flatters may be banned from lighting bonfires this Guy Fawkes season as the city council plans a crackdown on the annual tradition.

Palmerston North City Council wants to do away with bonfire permits in known student areas, suburbs with infill housing – and even in some of the more expensive parts of the city.

Environmental officer Bryon Foster said that was because they usually tended to get out of control.

He said people needed to have a good reason for having a fire outdoors over the Guy Fawkes period or at any time during the year...

"Everything's getting worse every year, so the sooner they ban Guy Fawkes, the better."

Mr Foster said the council was also concerned the carbon from Guy Fawkes bonfires might add to global warming. He also blamed houses being built closer together for the increased dangers of fires in the city.

Guy Fawkes falls on Thursday, November 5.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawat...

Government climate change ad investigated after 350 complaints

Marcus's picture

Government climate change ad investigated after 350 complaints

Advertising Standards Authority to look into £6m campaign accused of scaremongering and misleading the public

Mark Sweney
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 October

The advertising regulator has launched an investigation into the government's climate change TV campaign after receiving more than 350 complaints accusing it of scaremongering and misleading the public.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change launched the £6m campaign, in which the government states for the first time that scientific evidence has confirmed that climate change is man-made, earlier this month.

The Advertising Standards Authority has received 357 complaints about the campaign.

Some of the complaints argued that there is no scientific evidence of climate change. Others claimed there was a division of scientific opinion on the issue and that the ad should therefore not have attributed global warming to human activity.

Another complaint was that the ad, which features a father telling his daughter a scary bedtime story about climate change in which a cartoon dog drowns, is inappropriate for children because it is "upsetting and scaremongering".

The ASA has said it intends to investigate the complaints and the assertions on which the campaign has been based...

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

ABC News

Liberal MP rubbishes human link to climate change

By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers

Posted Tue Oct 20, 2009

Federal Liberal MP Dennis Jensen says the cause of climate change is still in dispute and has attacked environmentalists as "anti-democratic alarmists".

Dr Jensen, who has spoken out previously on the issue, has also called for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be disbanded.

His comments come as the Coalition struggles with internal division on climate change policy.

In a speech to open the Australian Environment Foundation's annual conference in Canberra today, Dr Jensen said the question of whether climate change was caused by human activity was still up for debate.

"It will come as no surprise that I am sceptical on the anthropogenic component of climate change," he said.

"Climate change is real - the liability of humans in questionable."

Dr Jensen criticised the climate change science and accused the environmental movement of wanting to overthrow democracy.

"While the gap between climate observations and model projection outputs continue to diverge, the ardour and shrill character of the alarmists increases," he said.

Dr Jensen's attack comes as the Coalition begins negotiations with the Government over its emissions trading scheme, an issue which has threatened Malcolm Turnbull's leadership in recent weeks...

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

Daily Telegraph

Barack Obama may attend Copenhagen summit if there is climate change progress

President Barack Obama will attend the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen later this year if sufficient progress is made on a deal to stop global warming, US officials said on Monday night.

20 Oct 2009

Speaking at a special meeting in London to progress the talks, Todd Stern, the US Special Envoy for Climate Change, said Mr Obama agrees that a deal on climate change must be made in December.

“If the kind of progress is made that warrants the presence of leaders then we will certainly consider that,” he said.

Earlier in the day Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, had warned there is “no plan B” if the world fails to stop global warming, and urged Mr Obama to attend the meeting. Without his presence, any agreements would be seen as worthless.

The US has been unwilling to sign up to tough cuts in carbon emissions, while developing nations like China do not want to restrict their own growth by cutting down on fossil fuels...

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

US Chamber of Commerce falls victim to 'fraud' over climate hoax

Marcus's picture

US Chamber of Commerce falls victim to 'fraud' over climate hoax

Environmental activists held spoof press conference announcing U-turn in the organisation's stance on climate legislation

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
Monday 19 October 2009

It looked – at first – eerily like a routine news event. A man in a nondescript dark suit standing at a podium in one of the smaller meeting rooms on the 13th floor of the National Press Club. But then suddenly it wasn't.

"There is only one way to do business and that is to pass a climate bill quickly so this December President Obama can go to Copenhagen and negotiate with a strong position," said the speaker – who said he represented the US Chamber of Commerce.

The statement represented a complete repudiation of the Chamber's earlier opposition to climate change legislation. The hard line had triggered walk-outs from Apple and a handful of other high-profile companies in the past few weeks. The companies are trying to press the business organisation to support the bill by the senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer that is to be debated by the Senate next week.

Or maybe not. Barely 20 minutes into the Q&A section of the press conference, an agitated spokesman for the Chamber burst into the room, screaming that the event was a hoax.

Score one for the Yes Men, who claimed responsibility for the prank. A number of news organisations and environmental groups were taken in.

Several green organisations tweeted or blogged on the about-face. Reuters news agency put out a straight news story about the Chamber's apparent U-turn, and the Washington Post and New York Times put the story on their news sites (both later removed the stories from their websites). CNBC actually sought – and got – comment from analysts. It also broke its programming to have a reporter read out the fake press release.

The spoof got under way with a press release inviting journalists to a morning news conference. Most reporters overlooked the misspelling of the Chamber president's name...

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

Councils should be forced to set aside land for wind farms says John Prescott

Councils should be forced to put aside land for wind farms just as they currently have to do for traveller sites, John Prescott has suggested.

By Louise Gray
20 Oct 2009

Speaking at the British Wind Energy Association annual conference on Monday, Mr Prescott blamed local protest or "Nimbyism" for stopping the development of wind farms in Britain.

He said approvals for wind farms have fallen to a record low this year, with only a quarter actually getting planning permission.

Mr Prescott said that when he was Deputy Prime Minister he faced a similar problem with travellers [=Gypsies], as local people would protest wherever travellers chose to put their site.

Therefore, he made local authorities assign land for travellers to ensure there was always an official site.

"I made local authorities assign sites which travellers could use. This made it far more strategic, far more harmonious and far more convenient for all concerned. The travellers had a site and the council had proactively located a place that was of the least inconvenience to them and their constituents.

"We should bring this approach to wind farms. We already know where the best areas are for wind so let’s work with councils to ensure they allocate suitable areas for development."...

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

Daily Mail

A bedtime story about drowning kittens and puppies... Labour's £6m campaign to highlight the dangers of climate change

By Kirsty Walker
20th October 2009

It begins with the heartwarming family scene of a father reading a story to his daughter.

But the bedtime tale turns out to be a terrifying account of drowning puppies, rabbits dying of thirst and the end of the world as we know it.

This is the Government's controversial television commercial about the dangers of global warming, which has led to more than 200 complaints being lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority...

A Downing Street petition that calls on the Government to 'stop wasting taxpayers' money on climate change propaganda designed to frighten our children' has attracted more than 100 signatures.

Tory MP Philip Davies called the film 'ludicrously appalling'. He said: 'This advert shows how threadbare the Government's argument is when it has to resort to scaring children about climate change.

'If the Government really wanted to stop puppies drowning it would stop building thousands of new houses on flood plains.'...

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

PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'

Marcus's picture

BBC News

Monday, 19 October 2009

PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'

The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.

Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".

He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".

World delegations meet in Copenhagen in December for talks on a new treaty.

'Rising wave'

The United Nations (UN) summit will aim to establish a deal to replace the 1997 Kyoto treaty as its targets for reducing emissions only apply to a small number of countries and expire in 2012.

Mr Brown warned that negotiators were not reaching agreement quickly enough and said it was a "profound moment" for the world involving "momentous choice".

"In Britain we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods," he told delegates.

"The extraordinary summer heatwave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths...

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

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop wasting taxpayer's money on climate change propaganda designed to frighten our children."

Sign up here-

http://petitions.number10.gov....

Meanwhile, back in cold reality...

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Meanwhile, back in cold reality...

For the third year running there are signs of an abnormally hard winter in many parts of the world, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
17 Oct 2009

Not many people in Britain were aware, I suspect, that 20 per cent of the entire United States was last week covered in snow, the greatest October snow cover the country had known for years (for details see the Watts Up With That website). Similarly unseasonable snowfalls blanketed central Europe and the Alps. Freak October snows caused traffic chaos in New Zealand. Hundreds of Tibetan herdsmen had to be rescued when blizzards swept their summer pastures weeks early.

This is now the third year running when there have been signs of an abnormally cold winter across large parts of the world. Last year's October snowfalls in the US broke records which in some cases had stood for over a century, prefacing one of America's coldest winters for decades. This summer's Arctic ice-melt stopped nearly 1 million square kilometres short of its record low in 2007. Around Antarctica this year's sea ice-melt was the lowest recorded since satellite data began in 1979, leaving the ice 30 per cent above its 30-year average...

The debate on global warming has truly become "a tale of two planets", as I say towards the end of my new book, The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the most costly scientific delusion in history? On one planet – where David Cameron proved himself to be at home on Friday – we see all these increasingly reckless attempts to keep the panic afloat. On the other, evidence piles up to show that this is the greatest scare story the world has ever known. Alas, it is those who inhabit that first planet who still control the high gound in politics and the media. As we shiver through yet another cold winter, it is high time reality began to break in on their mad dreams.

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

Copenhagen is fast approaching, but a deal seems further away

Brazil, Indonesia and Norway have made positive steps in the past few weeks, illustrating the value of the bottom up approach

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
Friday 16 October 2009

It sometimes seems as if the closer we get to Copenhagen, the further we get from a deal.

There weren't many signs of progress at the last three big gatherings on climate change. Barack Obama disappointed at the United Nations by failing to press the Senate to move forward on climate change legislation, while Hu Jintao offered no specifics on how far China would go to reduce its future greenhouse gas emissions. At the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the industrialised economies fell short of expectations they would produce a package on climate finance. And climate talks in Bangkok this month ended in even deeper acrimony between the developing and developed economies...

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

The Independent

Obama envoy warns of 'no deal' summit

Negotiations for the Copenhagen meeting are going 'too slow'

By Jonathan Owen

Sunday, 18 October 2009

Talks to save the world from the catastrophic effects of global warming may fail, President Obama's climate change envoy said last night.

Todd Stern said pre-summit negotiations had been "too slow" and warned that it was "certainly possible" there will be no deal at December's Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen.

"This is a tough negotiation. What we need to have happen is for China and India and Brazil and South Africa, and others, to be willing to take what they're doing, boost it up some, and then put it into an international agreement – where they're standing behind what they say, just the way we're standing behind what we say we're going to do," he added. He was speaking on the eve of crucial talks in London at the Major Economies Forum, which represents some of the world's biggest polluting nations and which today begins trying to resolve disagreements ahead of Copenhagen.

A major stumbling block preventing an agreement is about where the money will come from to pay to help developing countries go low-carbon – which could cost $100bn (£61bn) a year by 2020.

Months of talks have failed to break a deadlock between developing nations, which blame the West for creating the problem, and richer countries uneasy at the prospect of footing the bill to help poorer nations go green...

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

Quadrant

Climate Modelling Nonsense

John Reid

The less a thing is known, the more fervently it is believed.

—Montaigne

In effect a new religion has grown out of secular humanism. Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytising the new faith.

There are major differences, however. Whereas it is not possible to call oneself a Christian without entertaining the central belief in the Resurrection, it is certainly possible to be deeply concerned with the order and condition of humanity and so call oneself a humanist without entertaining a corresponding belief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Belief in a Resurrection which supposedly occurred some 2000 years ago is a matter of personal faith, whereas AGW is a scientific hypothesis which can and should be tested by observation. Imagine the consequences both to science and to secular humanism should this hypothesis turn out to be untrue and the dire predictions of the climate models fail to materialise.

The quasi-religious nature of AGW is evidenced by the rancour which is generated when people like me express scepticism about the theory. Scepticism is an essential part of science which has, until recently, been a “small-l liberal” pursuit in which the opinions of doubters were respected. Now we sceptics are called “deniers” and, by implication, lumped in with neo-Nazis who question the Holocaust. The accusation that we are somehow in the sway of the oil companies and similar big business interests is commonplace and indeed is the chief argument of non-scientist supporters of the AGW theory. This echoes the “work of the Devil” argument of fundamentalist Christians; it is a mental trick by which the faithful avoid facing the real issues.

Why then do a majority of scientists support the theory? I believe it is largely a matter of loyalty. Very few of us physicists know enough genetics to justify our belief in Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection but most of us support it because we believe it to be the outcome of rigorous scientific processes similar to those carried out in our own discipline. Most scientists would support the AGW theory for much the same reason...

John Reid is a physicist who lives in Cygnet, Tasmania. His interests include alternative energy and the environment.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/mag...

The environment in the decade of climate change

Marcus's picture

The environment in the decade of climate change

'The world is locked into insanely complex talks, and green groups and government shout as one that we have only a few years to avoid apocalypse'

John Vidal
The Guardian, Saturday 17 October 2009

My, how things have changed! In 2000, scientists from the Worldwatch thinktank in Washington teamed up with the UN to spot the greatest threats to the planet over the coming years. Top of the list was ecosystem collapse, such as deforestation and the demise of corals; second were health and diseases, such as Sars and Aids; and third was global poverty. The world's top environmental analysts gave climate change only four paragraphs in an eight-page essay – little more than malaria, trade, air pollution, population, fresh water or food supplies. Carbon emissions, they reported, were "continuing to decline" and global temperatures were "steady".

How quaint. Ten years later, climate change is equal top of the international agenda. The world is locked into insanely complex talks to reduce emissions, and green groups and government shout as one that we have only a few years to avoid apocalypse. The polar bear on the melting ice flow has become an iconic picture of the decade, business has painted itself green, we've changed our lightbulbs and wind power has taken off. As Al Gore – in 2000 the new presidential nominee of the Democratic party – said, "We are all environmentalists now."

All this in a decade? What on earth happened?...

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

Daily Telegraph

Sceptics' figures on global warming simply don't add up

Almost all climatologists expect warming to continue in the long term, but – because of natural fluctuations – they disagree about the immediate future, writes Geoffrey Lean.

By Geoffrey Lean
16 Oct 2009

Recent media reports suggested that global temperatures have not increased since 1998. Some sceptics say this proves that global warming has stopped, or reversed. I wish it were so. Alas, no such hopeful conclusion can be drawn.

Temperatures don't go steadily up or down, they naturally fluctuate around a trend: a cold week in April does not mean that winter will come in June. In any general trend, there will periods when they seem to go the other way.

Besides, it all depends on the dates picked: 1998 was anomalously hot because of an exceptionally strong El Nino, which always warms up the weather. Using it as a starting point produces a very different result than choosing the much cooler 1996, 1997, 1999 or 2000. On any long-term basis, temperatures have risen fast. The hopeful theory relies on Met Office temperature measurements. Nasa, which also takes readings, has the thermometer going up since 1998, with 2005 even warmer. The difference? The Met Office excludes the Arctic Ocean – the fastest-warming area on Earth.

Almost all climatologists expect warming to continue in the long term, but – because of natural fluctuations – they disagree about the immediate future. Part of the conclusion of one paper – "global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade…" – is often cited by the sceptics. They rarely quote the rest of sentence "…as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming"...

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

From The Times
October 16, 2009

Ed Miliband calls on Barack Obama to save Copenhagen climate summit

Ben Webster, Environment Editor and Giles Whittell in Washington

President Obama must intervene personally to rescue a proposed global deal on climate change that is hanging in the balance, the British Energy and Climate Change Secretary has told The Times.

Ed Miliband said that there was a much greater chance of a successful deal being agreed in December if Mr Obama travelled to Copenhagen to lead the US delegation to the UN conference.

Gordon Brown has said that he will attend the conference but Mr Obama and most other world leaders have yet to commit themselves to going. White House officials offered no new assurances yesterday, saying only that the Administration would be represented at the “appropriate level”.

The British challenge will add to the pressure on Mr Obama to attend, but the case for staying in Washington to shepherd his healthcare reforms into law may prove irresistible...

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

Ring your Bell - they're getting desperate for souls

gregster's picture

Up the road from me is the local monumental tribute to Man's folly. The church.

I'm not greatly surprised to see the "Anglicans" adding the friendly gas carbon dioxide to their list of immoralities.

Busybody fucks. The state of organised religion? Oh, and it's up the road from John Key for when he's not whoring it in Wellington.

More than 200 complaints at government's climate change TV ad

Marcus's picture

More than 200 complaints at government's climate change TV ad

Advertising regulator fields claims that hard-hitting Act on CO2 ad is misleading and excessively scary

Mark Sweney guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 October 2009

The advertising regulator has received more than 200 complaints that the government's latest TV campaign on climate change is misleading.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change launched the £6m campaign, in which the government throws its weight behind the scientific evidence that climate change is man-made and will affect us all, last Friday.

The campaign, by ad agency AMV BBDO, marked a significant change in the government's marketing around its umbrella Act on CO2 initiative. The DECC said it has taken the stronger approach because research has shown that more than half of the UK public think climate change will have no effect on them.

However, over the past week the Advertising Standards Authority has received 202 complaints about the campaign.

Some have argued that there is no scientific evidence of climate change; others claim there is a division of scientific opinion on this issue and therefore the ad should not have attributed global warming to human activity.

Another complaint was that the ad, which features a father telling his daughter a scary bedtime story about climate change, is inappropriate to be seen by children because it is "upsetting and scaremongering"...

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


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

WSJ

OCTOBER 14, 2009

Congressional Budget Chief Says Climate Bill Would Cost Jobs

By IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON -- The head of the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday countered Obama administration claims that a landmark climate bill would be a boost to the economy.

President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats championing the bill have said mandating greenhouse-gas caps, renewable energy and efficiency standards would be a boon to an ailing economy, creating new low-carbon industries. Millions of so-called green jobs would be created under the cap-and-trade legislation being considered in the Senate, Democrats say.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned a Senate energy panel that there would be "significant shifts" from emissions-intense sectors such as oil and refining firms to low-carbon businesses such as wind and solar power.

"The net effect of that we think would likely be some decline in employment during the transition because labor markets don't move that fluidly," Mr. Elmendorf said, testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

"The fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people does not mean there aren't substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms and affected industries," he said...

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

Looking Forward

Jeff Perren's picture

I look forward to the day when the phrase "needs 'a more progressive stance on this issue'" is met in the public imagination with the same horror as would "needs a more Nazi stance..."

[Aside: It's sad, when you think of it, that violating a form of Godwin's Law is about the only way to get someone's attention, that "a Communist stance," "an Islamic stance," "a Green stance," or "a Progressive stance" don't yet do it.]

Someday... But, hopefully, we won't have to go through the existential circumstances of 1930s Germany, to get there.

Whatever happened to global warming?

Marcus's picture

Whatever happened to global warming? How freezing temperatures are starting to shatter climate change theory

By Daily Mail Reporter
14th October 2009

In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of revolution hangs in the air.

And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the -10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for the wintry snap's repercussions.

The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday, breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C.

Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.
Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change.

But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics.

According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth's hottest recorded year was 1998.

If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.

Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man's abuse of the environment.

Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon - global cooling.

The evidence for both remains inconclusive, which is unlikely to help the legions of world leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December to negotiate a new climate change deal...

Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/...
................................................................................................................................

WSJ

OCTOBER 14, 2009.Apple, Nike and the U.S. Chamber

Putting green politics above the interests of shareholders.

The recent corporate resignations from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have played in the media as a case of enlightened corporate stewardship vs. blinkered old businesses. But there's far more to this story—not least the way that Apple and Nike are putting green political correctness above the long-term interests of their own shareholders.

The Chamber needs "a more progressive stance on this issue" of climate change, declared Apple Vice President Catherine Novelli in a letter of resignation from the business lobby on October 5. Added Nike, announcing its resignation on September 30 from the Chamber board though retaining its membership: "US businesses must advocate for aggressive climate change." Both decisions were ostentatiously leaked to the media.

The first point to understand is the role of Al Gore, who is a member of the Apple board and perhaps the leading supporter of President Obama's cap-and-tax anticarbon legislation. Mr. Gore has also invested in renewable energy technologies that could make him even richer than he already is if new climate rules make renewables more competitive with carbon energy.

Meanwhile, Apple's Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook happens to sit on the board of . . . Nike. We're told that Nike CEO Mike Parker didn't discuss the Chamber move with his full board of directors before it was announced, and Nike didn't return our phone call asking for comment. In any case, we doubt it's an accident that Nike and Apple acted against the Chamber at the same time—and just when Democrats are trying to build new momentum for cap and trade in the Senate...

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

US aims for bilateral climate change deals with China and India

Fresh commitments may breathe life back into Copenhagen deal as India prepares to announce cap and trade scheme

Suzanne Goldenberg and Jonathan Watts
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 October 2009

The Obama administration is hoping to win new commitments to fight global warming from China and India in back-to-back summits next month, the Guardian has learned, including the first Indian emissions trading scheme.

The US hopes the new commitments will breathe life into the moribund negotiations to seal a global treaty on climate change in Copenhagen in December, by setting out what action each country will take. But many observers say such bilateral deals also risk seriously weakening any Copenhagen agreement by allowing the idea of a global limit on greenhouse gas emissions to be abandoned.

The US's twin diplomatic push will see Barack Obama meeting China's president Hu Jintao in Beijing on November 16-17 before playing host to India's prime minister Manmohan Singh at the White House on November 24. The visits appear timed to provide a much-needed boost to a proposed law to reduce US emissions now before the Senate, as well as to the Copenhagen talks.

At preparatory UN talks in Bangkok earlier this month, the US and other rich countries were accused by a group of 131 nations of trying to "fundamentally sabotage" the Kyoto protocol, which the group said must be the basis for its successor. Kyoto — which made no demands on developing countries and which the US refused to ratify — remains political kryptonite in Washington. The US wants to move away from a legally binding global agreement to one where individual countries pledge cuts in their national emissions...

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

Daily Telegraph

Arctic will be ice-free in a decade, according to Pen Hadow

The Arctic will be largely ice-free during the summer within a decade, according to new evidence collected by Pen Hadow and his team.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
15 Oct 2009

The explorer trekked more than 269 miles towards the North Pole this winter in temperatures below -40 degrees C to measure the depth of the ice.

The average thickness of ice floes was 1.8 metres, suggesting the ice sheet is now largely made up of first year ice rather than "multiyear" ice that will have built up over time.

An analysis by Cambridge University has concluded that the Arctic is now melting at such a rate that it will be largely ice free within ten years, allowing ships to cross the Arctic Ocean.

Further analysis by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) warned that the "irreversible trend" will cause dangerous feedback because water absorbs more heat from the sun than ice, therefore further speeding up the global warming process. The melting of the ice could also trigger extreme weather patterns as the ocean currents change and release even more greenhouse gases stored under the ice.

The results will be presented to a UN meeting this December in Copenhagen as further evidence that the world must reduce carbon emisisons in order to prevent the Arctic melting at an even faster rate.

The Catlin Arctic Survey, led by Mr Hadow, came in for criticism after the team only managed to get half way to the North Pole because of extreme weather conditions and the hi-tech radar equipment for measuring the ice failed in the first few days...

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

Climate change theories debunked by Captain Cook and Darwin

Marcus's picture

Mail On Sunday

Climate change theories face being debunked by Captain Cook and Darwin

By Claire Bates
12th October 2009

Weather reports made by famous explorers such as Captain James Cook and Charles Darwin are helping scientists to study climate change.

Although there are numerous weather reports from the 18th and 19th century covering entire continents the oceans have largely been uncharted territory.
Now a new project has transcribed and digitised nearly 300 ships' logbooks dating back to the 1760s to help scientists fill in the gaps in the world's recent climate history. Until now they have been an untapped resource of scientific data.

Some ship logs have already revealed evidence that climate change may not be as rapid as believed, with many charting little or no change in Arctic sea temperatures compared with today...

Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/...
......................................................................................


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

Dr Rowan Williams says climate crisis a chance to become human again

Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 October 2009

People should use the climate change crisis as an opportunity to become human again, setting aside the addictive and self-destructive behaviour that has damaged their souls, the Archbishop of Canterbury said today.

Dr Rowan Williams, head of the Church of England and leader of the worldwide Anglican communion, told an audience at Southwark Cathedral that people had allowed themselves to become "addicted to fantasies about prosperity and growth, dreams of wealth without risk and profit without cost".

The consequences of such a lifestyle meant the human soul was "one of the foremost casualties of environmental degradation"...

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

From The Sunday Times
October 11, 2009

Irish urged to eat less meat to save planet

Gabrielle Monaghan

Irish households should stop gorging on beef and embrace vegetarianism if they are serious about saving the planet, according to the authors of a report prepared by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).

They point out that the country’s love of meat, sourced from flatulent farm animals, means we have the second-lowest rate of vegetarianism among 29 countries measured. Ireland produces proportionately more methane than its European counterparts, and the report argues that this could be changed if we ate less meat.

While vegetarianism doubled in Ireland to 0.6% of the population in 2004, up from 0.3% in 1987, the country still ranks near the bottom of the EU table for meat-free diets. Only the Serbs have a lower level.

The ESRI report says an increase in vegetarianism is needed if Ireland is to meet its commitment to cutting carbon emissions by one-fifth before 2020. Richard Tol, one of the authors, said: “Ireland is really a country of meat-eaters. It has the number of vegetarians that one would expect from a country in a much earlier stage of development.”

Meat-lovers could find a compromise in kangaroo, Tol points out. Scientists in Australia are already investigating whether the animal could help combat global warming. The bacteria in kangaroos’ stomachs helps process the food they eat, reducing the amount of methane they produce...

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

Global blushing

Marcus's picture

Financial Post

October 09, 2009

Growing ice, the mob and red-faced professors: Warmists are having yet another bad week
By Lawrence Solomon

It’s hard to be green when you’re red-faced all the time. It’s easy to be red-faced when your cause is global warming doomsterism.

This week, the doomsters were embarrassed to learn, once again, that the planet was not in grave peril. Antarctica, their greatest candidate for catastrophe, was not melting at an ever-faster rate, according to a report in Geophysical Research Letters, but at the slowest rate in 30 years. To add to their frustration, they couldn’t even lash out at the lead author, Marco Tedesco of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department of City College of New York — the doomsters had praised his previous reports showing high rates of Antarctic melt.

The latest news from the Arctic — delivered daily via satellite — is no better. Two years ago with the Arctic ice in rapid retreat, the doomsters, convinced of the coming of an ice-free Arctic, could scarcely contain themselves. Now, with the Arctic ice in rapid return, their anticipation of disaster seems more a cruel hoax of Nature. The doomsters now dread to track the satellite data beamed down to us courtesy of the International Arctic Research Center and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency — you can see why they cringe each day by going to the satellite website and following the red line: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/e....

The red faces aren’t all caused by Nature’s refusal to cooperate in Earth’s demise. The clean carbon folks have recently discovered that they’ve been in bed with organized crime. Scotland Yard and Europol, among numerous other law enforcement agencies across Europe, are hot on the trail of scam artists believed to have made off with £1-billion by illicitly trading carbon credits. In Australia, authorities are investigating claims that a supplier to Carbon Planet, a carbon trading business, has been using fake carbon trading certificates to persuade forest dwellers in Papua New Guinea to sign over the rights to their forests under a UN scheme called REDD, for “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.’’ Australia’s REDD-faced Climate Change Minister Penny Wong may now be unable to tout Carbon Planet — about to list on the Australian stock exchange on the promise of A$100-million in REDD assets — at the upcoming climate change meetings in Copenhagen. Other dodgy carbon dealings led to the suspension of the UK branch of SGS, one of the world’s largest clean energy auditors, and of the Norwegian certification company DNV...

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.co...
........................................................................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Greenpeace protesters refuse to leave roof of Palace of Westminster

More than 20 Greenpeace campaigners are still on the roof of the Palace of Westminster after scaling the building in a protest over climate change.

12 Oct 2009

The environmental activists hope to greet politicians as they arrive for the start of Parliament on Monday morning with a 12-point manifesto calling for zero carbon emissions by 2030, a stop to airport expansion, more wind power and new pollution taxes.

The group is looking to forthcoming climate talks in Copenhagen as the ideal opportunity to address the climate problem.

Forty demonstrators climbed on to the roof, ramparts and a turret on top of Westminster Hall on Sunday, unfurling yellow banners which read: ''Change the politics, save the climate.''

They said there was little resistance from police when they moved quickly to prop ladders against the wall and climb on to the roof.

After four and three quarter hours on the roof, 20 protesters climbed down one by one using a ladder and safety harness and were arrested for trespassing on a ''protected site''.

A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said all 20 remained in custody.

Perched high on the roof of Westminster Hall, full-time Greenpeace activist Anna Jones, 28, from Headingley in Leeds, said on Monday morning: ''We can't stress enough how important this is. The clock is ticking – scientists are telling us we have just a few years left to act to save the planet.

''Now is the time to start putting policies in place to make sure we are on the right trajectory to peak our emissions and bring them down. But instead we have a government that is prepared to lock us into high carbon projects like the third runway at Heathrow.''

She said direct action was necessary and effective.

''Climate change is the biggest challenge we are facing. It takes action like this to make the politicians wake up.

''They are letting us down and letting down citizens around the world.''

Ms Jones added that there had been very little police presence as activists quickly scaled the building.

She said the protesters had managed to get some sleep on the roof overnight and had even spotted shooting stars.

''We're planning to stay here for the day. It's quite cold up here but we have had hot meals and are cosy huddled up under one of the big banners,'' she said.

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: ''We've got to raise the temperature of the debate because we are really running out of time.

''We are at a minute to midnight and there is so little time left but so much to do...

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

From The Times

October 12, 2009

Tax motorists more to help save the planet, Government is urged

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Motorists should pay higher taxes in the form of a national road-pricing system to cut carbon dioxide emissions, according to the Government’s climate change advisory body.

The speed limit on all motorways should be strictly enforced and may have to be reduced to 60mph to help to meet the Government’s legally binding carbon reduction targets.

The Committee on Climate Change, which devised the targets and advises the Government on how to meet them, says that a “step change” is needed in emissions reduction. In its first annual report to Parliament , the committee says that emissions cuts since 2003 have been “far slower than now required to meet (carbon) budget commitments”. Emissions fell by an average of 0.5 per cent in each of the five years to 2008. The committee says that emissions cuts of 2-3 per cent a year are needed every year from now until 2050 to meet the targets.

Its most controversial recommendation is that the Government should consider imposing road pricing as an additional tax on motorists. Ministers had previously proposed a revenue-neutral road-pricing system, with the sum raised in per-mile charges offset by reductions in fuel duty. The Government abandoned this idea two years ago after 1.8 million drivers signed a petition opposing road pricing on the Downing Street website...

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

CO2 is Green

gregster's picture

An ex-oil industry gentleman has come up with this campaign. Very good.

Liars

Jeff Perren's picture

"The point the article is making is that views about climate change are hotly contested. To characterise this as some sort of change in position is simply wrong.”

Liars.

Sceptics welcome BBC report on 'global cooling'

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Sceptics welcome BBC report on 'global cooling'

Climate change sceptics have welcomed a “surprise” BBC decision to give prominence to evidence from leading scientists that there could be 30 years of “global cooling”.

By Richard Savill
12 Oct 2009

Under the headline `Whatever happened to Global Warming?’, the BBC has reported that the warmest year recorded globally was 1998, and for the last 11 years no increase in global temperatures has been observed.

The report by the BBC climate correspondent, Paul Hudson, which provoked a strong debate on the Corporation’s website, quotes a climatologist as saying there could be 30 years of cooling due to the falling temperatures of the oceans.

Last night, one solar scientist, Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, said: “It is interesting the BBC is prepared to tolerate him (Hudson) writing these things.

“It is a surprise – a welcome one - that the BBC has put it as bluntly as they have. More often than not they (the BBC) put forward the brainwashing views of CO2-driven, man-made climate change.

“Possibly some people in the BBC have worked out that the whole shooting match will collapse and they had better be ahead of the game.”...

However the BBC said: “We have always reported a range of views and this article is no different.

"The point the article is making is that views about climate change are hotly contested. To characterise this as some sort of change in position is simply wrong.”

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

Greenpeace protesters spend night on parliament roof

Greenpeace protesters plan to remain on roof of Westminster Hall for first day of parliament after chilly night under stars

Helen Pidd and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 October 2009

Thirty-one Greenpeace activists remained on the roof of the Palace of Westminster this morning protesting about climate change, the environmental group said.

Another 23 protesters have been arrested, three of whom remained in custody, according to a Metropolitan police spokesman. Greenpeace said there had been 24 arrests in total.

The demonstrators climbed on to the roof, ramparts and a turret on top of Westminster Hall yesterday, unfurling yellow banners that read: "Change the politics, save the climate." They said there was little resistance from police when they moved quickly to prop ladders against the wall and climb up.

The activists hope to greet politicians as they arrive for the start of parliament this morning with a 12-point manifesto calling for zero carbon emissions by 2030, a stop to airport expansion, more wind power and new pollution taxes.

After four and three-quarter hours on the roof last night, some of the protesters climbed down one by one using a ladder and safety harness and were arrested for trespassing on a "protected site". The remainder climbed into bivvy bags in an attempt to keep warm through the night, Greenpeace UK said on its Twitter feed...

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

From The Sunday Times

October 11, 2009

Germans seek to oust Czech president Vaclav Klaus over EU treaty

Bojan Pancevski in Brussels

Revelling in the fuss he was causing, Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, calmly tucked into a plate of steamed shellfish on the terrace of the elegant Adriatic hotel in the Albanian seaside resort of Durres last week.

In faraway Brussels furious diplomats were calling for his impeachment and even his country’s expulsion from the European Union because of his obstinate refusal to sign the Lisbon treaty. Klaus, now the only European leader holding out against ratifying the document, made it clear he did not give a damn.

European leaders were told he was not available to take their calls. The Eurosceptic president and his wife Livia were completing a brief tour of the Balkan country where Klaus, 68, attended the launch of the Albanian edition of his controversial book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, which argues there is no such thing as man-made global warming.

The trip had clearly been planned to coincide with the diplomatic blitz that Brussels launched after last weekend’s referendum in Ireland, which appeared to remove the final hurdle to ratification. Klaus seemed to have other ideas...

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

BBC indulges an unusual fit of objectivity on GW...

Marcus's picture

Friday, 9 October 2009

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject...

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

Reuters UK

Few think climate change will hit them, kids
Fri Oct 9, 2009

Less than half of Britons believe climate change will affect them during their lifetime and fewer than a fifth think it will disturb their children, a government survey showed Friday.

In the YouGov poll for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, 69 percent of respondents said flooding would be the most likely consequence in Britain, but only 26 percent believed the country was already feeling the impact of climate change.

"Recent research shows the public are unclear on what causes climate change and what the effects are," the department said...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/...
..................................................................................................

From The Times
October 9, 2009

I refuse to freeze with the green Nimbys

The Kingsnorth protesters think they’ve won a victory. They haven’t

Hugo Rifkind

Picture a climate criminal. What does he look like? Mine is a white bloke, in his twenties, and with dreadlocks. He was in this newspaper yesterday, and on his naked chest were written the words “No New Coal”.

I doubt he’d much like to be called a climate criminal. I suspect, in fact, he might be a bit miffed. But it’s thanks to the likes of him that the energy company E.ON has shelved plans for a new coal power station at Kingsnorth in Kent. Is that, unequivocally, a victory for the environment? I’m not so sure. I’m worried it might be the exact opposite.

You see, Dreadlocks Man, logically, there are two possible scenarios for the future of coal. In one scenario, nobody burns any more coal, ever again. Not E.ON, not anybody. Not even in the developing world, where they’ve got access to vast amounts of cheap coal and a rapidly expanding appetite for power, and an opinion on man-made global warming that is, roughly speaking, analogous to our opinion on the tooth fairy. The other scenario is that people do continue burning coal, but just not here.

Tell me, Mr Dreadlocks, which of these scenarios do you consider to be the more likely? Don’t rush. I’ll go first. Let’s see, I dunno, hmmm, maybe the second? At a push? I mean, the first would be lovely, and I’m obviously particularly attracted by the way that vast swaths of people would probably freeze to death, but, let’s be honest, it’s a bit of a pipe dream, isn’t it? Until the recession, after all, they were building two Kingsnorths a week in China. And all those pesky selfish bastards in Africa are going to want tellies and fridges eventually, too, aren’t they? So, I reckon people probably will keep burning coal, cynic that I am...

Coal isn’t going to disappear from the world just because it disappears from a small corner of Kent. Why isn’t that obvious? The more I try to be green, the more the showy extremism of the green lobby infuriates me. Not because it’s pious and hypocritical — although it is — but because it’s so wantonly ineffectual. Face it, Dreadhead, it’s time for some pragmatism. People in the developing world aren’t going to spend their lives in dank holes, eating weevils, however much you might like them to. Failure to accept that will only hold us back. You might even call it criminal.

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

Most people in denial over climate change, say psychologists

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Most people in denial over climate change, according to psychologists

The majority of people in Britain are in denial about the risk of global warming in our lifetimes, according to a new study into the psychology of climate change.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
03 Oct 2009

The Met Office has warned that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate temperatures will rise above four degrees C in the next fifty years.

This will cause sea level rise, droughts, floods and mass collapse of eco-systems.

However Clive Hamilton, Professor of public ethics at the Australian National University, said the majority of the population is still in denial about the risks of climate change.

He compared the situation to the psychology of the British and German populations before the Second World War and said the only way to make people change their behaviour is to "ramp up the fear factor."

Prof Hamilton applied traditional psychological reactions to the threat of future risk.

In a paper presented to an Oxford University conference this week, he said people react in three different ways to a frightening situation: denial, apathy or action.

In the case of climate change, he said a minority of people in Britain are in complete denial and refuse to believe man-made greenhouse gases are causing the temperatures to rise. He said a smaller minority are taking action by lobbying Government and adapting their lifestyles through driving less, not eating meat and generally living a low carbon lifestyle.

However, Prof Hamilton said the majority of people use "maladaptive coping strategies" such as ignoring the situation, blaming someone else or simply having a good time.

He said people do this to cope with the anxiety...

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

From The Times

October 9, 2009

Ministers target climate change doubters in prime-time TV advert

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting government advertising campaign that will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.

The £6 million campaign, which begins tonight in the prime ITV1 slot during Coronation Street, is a direct response to government research showing that more than half the population think that climate change will have no effect on them.

Ministers sanctioned the campaign because of concern that scepticism about climate change was making it harder to introduce carbon-reducing policies such as higher energy bills.

The advertisement attempts to make adults feel guilty about their legacy to their children. It features a father telling his daughter a bedtime story of “a very very strange” world with “horrible consequences” for today’s children.

The storybook shows a British town deep under water, with people and animals drowning.

Carbon dioxide is depicted as rising in clouds of black soot from cars and homes, including from a woman’s hairdryer. The soot gathers into a jagged-toothed monster menacing the town.

The daughter asks her father if the story has a happy ending and a voiceover cuts in, saying: “It’s up to us how the story ends” and directs viewers to the Government’s Act on CO2 website...

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

Daily Mail

Michael Palin: Britons should stop apologising for their colonial past and be proud of our Empire's achievements

By Neil Sears
02nd October 2009

...In 1997 Tony Blair apologised for the 19th century Irish potato famine and three years ago he expressed 'deep sorrow and regret' for Britain's involvement in the slave trade.

Palin, however, told Geographical magazine that we should stop fixating on what are now perceived to be crimes in the distant past.

The TV star said: 'If we say that all of our past involvement with the world was bad and wicked and wrong, I think we're doing ourselves a great disservice.
'It has set up lines of communication between people that are still very strong.

'We still have links with other countries - culturally, politically and socially - that, perhaps, we shouldn't forget.'

Mr Palin, who carved out a new career for himself after Python when he began travelling the world in series of BBC travel shows, also said that he wanted geography to be treated more seriously as an academic subject.

'It's a subject that still seems to be neglected,' he said.

'It's seen as a slightly nerdy subject, and I can't really begin to think why when you look at what's happening in the world.

'Whether it's endemics, terrorism, or global warming, knowing the geography is so vitally important. I want to overcome the feeling that geography isn't really a serious subject, or a subject you should choose to study - and say that it's the subject you ought to choose.'

Despite so spanning the globe that it came to be said that 'the sun never sets on the British empire', Britain never set out to achieve dominance over a quarter of the world's population.

Victorian Prime Minister Lord Palmerston claimed that the empire was 'acquired in a fit of absentmindedness', and it is broadly true that our overseas territories did expand by a series of accidents rather than thanks to an aggressive master plan...

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

White House gloats at chamber of commerce exodus over climate bill

• PG&E, Exelon and Apple break with chamber
• Climate change bill now before the Senate

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 8 October 2009

The Obama administration took a deliberate step into the row that has engulfed the business world today, gloating at a mini-exodus from the US chamber of commerce because of its climate change policy.

In the administration's first comments on the row, the energy secretary, Steven Chu, did not conceal his delight that high-profile companies like California's PG&E, Exelon and Apple had broken with the chamber because of its opposition to a climate change bill now before the Senate and moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency.

"I think it's wonderful," Chu said.

"I think companies like that - Exelon and others - are saying we have recognised the reality," he said. "They are saying we can't be a party to this denial and foot-dragging."

Not that the chamber is ready to listen. Earlier today, a combative head of the chamber, Thomas Donohue, made it clear he was in no mind to rethink the organisation's policies because of the high profile defections.

"If people want to attack us, bring em on," he told reporters...

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

Copenhagen blabfest is a load of hot air

Marcus's picture

NZ Herald

Copenhagen blabfest is a load of hot air

Thursday Oct 08, 2009
By Garth George

Buried on a far back page of world news in this newspaper on Monday was an item recording that an international carbon credits scam worth more than $2.2 billion is being investigated by detectives in at least five European countries.

The fraud, covering Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark (scene of the upcoming Copenhagen international climate negotiations conference in December) and Sweden involves the buying and selling of emission allowances across borders to avoid value added tax.

For those of us who have known for years that man-made carbon dioxide emissions have nothing to do with global warming, and who recognise that an unnecessary international carbon trading scheme would be wide open to abuse, this comes as no surprise.

We go along with Bjorn Lomborg, director of Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank, who, writing in the Wall Street Journal, pointed out that some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opin...
.................................................................................................................................................

US threatens to derail climate talks by refusing to include Kyoto targets

Protocol seen as basis for Copenhagen negotiations but America refuses to be 'stuck with agreement 20 years old'

John Vidal in Bangkok guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 7 October 2009

The US threatened to derail a deal on global climate change today in a public showdown with China by expressing deep opposition to the existing Kyoto protocol. The US team also urged other rich countries to join it in setting up a new legal agreement which would, unlike Kyoto, force all countries to reduce emissions.

In a further development, the EU sided strongly with the US in seeking a new agreement, but said that it hoped the best elements of Kyoto could be kept. China and many developing countries immediately hit back stating that the protocol, the world's only legally binding commitment to get countries to reduce emissions, was "not negotiable".

With only a few days of formal UN negotiations remaining before the crunch Copenhagen meeting in December, and the world's two largest emitters refusing to give ground, a third way may now have to be found to secure a climate change agreement. Last night it emerged that lawyers for the EU are in talks with the US delegation urgently seeking a way out of the impasse that now threatens a strong climate deal...

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

From Times Online
October 2, 2009

Rich countries 'must slash living standards' to fight climate change

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Living standards in Britain and other rich countries must fall sharply over the next decade if the world is to avoid catastrophic global warming, according to a leading climate research centre.

Consumption of energy-intensive goods and services should be cut and remain capped until low-carbon alternatives are available, said the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

The study says that Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions need to fall twice as fast as planned by the Government. It concludes that global greenhouse gas emissions are rising much faster than previously thought.

It says that Britain should commit to making all energy, including for electricity, heating and cars, zero-carbon by 2025, at least 25 years earlier than planned.

The centre, a partnership of seven universities including Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester, says that the economies of developed nations will have to shrink and consumption of almost all types of goods will have to fall “in the short to medium term”...

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

Daily Telegraph

Captain Cook's log books help scientists chart climate change

Weather logs kept by Captain James Cook and other 18th and 19th century explorers are being used by scientists to predict the change in climate.

06 Oct 2009

Captain Cook's weather reports from Discovery and Resolution, made at noon each day on his voyages to unknown lands, William Bligh’s Bounty and 300 other vessels are being transcribed and digitised.

The project will allow climatologists to trace weather patterns and climate change .

The log books, stored in the National Archives at Kew, contain a unique and highly accurate account of temperature, ice formation, air pressure and wind speed and direction in remote locations all over the world.

Now the UK Colonial Registers and Royal Navy Logbooks project, a partnership that includes the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of Sunderland, is making all the logs available online.

The weather reports are being charted to allow instant comparisons between past observations and current conditions...

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

New Zealand taxes itself just for the sake of being green.

Marcus's picture

WSJ

SEPTEMBER 29, 2009

Kiwi Carbon Race

New Zealand taxes itself just for the sake of being green.

The global warming religion runs so deep today that most politicians figure it's best enact some sort of green policy, regardless of whether or not that policy actually reduces global warming. Exhibit number one is New Zealand.

The National Party-led government announced last week amendments to the country's existing emissions-trading scheme, fulfilling a campaign pledge. Some sectors will now enter the scheme earlier than planned, while the country's largest export industry, agriculture, will get a two-year reprieve. Wellington's bureaucrats will also measure businesses' "emissions intensity" rather than set hard emissions targets, so that firms aren't penalized for their expansion plans.

The Minister for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith, said the changes take "a responsible approach to the climate-change problem caused by greenhouse gas emissions while being realistic about how much a small country like New Zealand can contribute." The Nationals are nominally conservative and keen to appear pro-business.

What Mr. Smith didn't say is that from an environmental perspective, it doesn't really matter what New Zealand does. The island nation contributes 0.2% of total global emissions. The amended scheme isn't expected to reduce even that already-miniscule figure much.

The economic cost to business is also hard to estimate, given that the new bill contains carveouts for certain industries and provisions to amend the legislation in future. The government says by 2030, the fiscal cost could reach 2.2 billion New Zealand dollars ($1.6 billion). Independent economists put that figure much higher because Kiwi businesses will become less competitive internationally as their costs rise...

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

Barack Obama demands carbon targets from US government offices

President calls for state to 'lead by example' as Democrats seek progress on climate change before Copenhagen summit

Associated Press
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 6 October 2009

President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Monday requiring all arms of the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas output in an effort to curb climate change.

Each federal agency will have to set its own targets for reducing carbon emissions from its buildings, fleets and workers' commutes, and has 90 days to tell the White House how it plans to measure and limit emissions by 2020. Targets for employees' commutes and travel are due in June 2010.

"As the largest consumer of energy in the US economy, the federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said in a statement.

The government mandate comes as the Obama administration begins to demand greenhouse gas reductions from car manufacturers and large industrial facilities. The White House is anxious to show some progress on emissions before more than 180 nations meet in Copenhagen in December to hammer out a new international treaty on global warming...

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

Independent

Maldives cabinet meets underwater to stress threat from rising sea levels

By Andrew Buncombe, Asia Correspondent

Wednesday, 7 October 2009


Members of the Maldives cabinet pose with their scuba instructors near the capital Male yesterday. They are training for a meeting 6 metres beneath the ocean surface

The president of the Maldives is desperate for the world to know how seriously his government takes the threat of climate change and rising sea levels to the survival of his country. He wants his ministers to know as well.

To this end, Mohamed Nasheed has organised an underwater cabinet meeting and told all his ministers to get in training for the sub-aqua session. Six metres beneath the surface, the ministers will ratify a treaty calling on other countries to cut greenhouse emissions.

Ahead of the meeting, scheduled for 17 October, cabinet members have been squeezing into wet-suits and practising their underwater skills. The President was not present at the first session, held over the weekend, because he is already a qualified diver.

Mr Nasheed, a former political prisoner who was elected President last year, has made the issue of climate change one of his most pressing priorities. Earlier this year, The Independent revealed his plan to transform the Maldives into the world's first carbon neutral country within 10 years. The leader of a nation made up of 1,200 atolls, 80 per cent of which are no more than a metre above sea level, he has also established a fund to seek an alternative homeland, possibly in Sri Lanka, India or Australia for its 330,000 citizens...

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

Daily Telegraph

Greenland ice sheet could be lost even if CO2 levels are slashed

Global warming could cause the huge Greenland ice sheet to melt past "tipping points" from which it could not fully recover - even if carbon dioxide levels were slashed, a Met Office report has warned.

07 Oct 2009

Research has shown that the 1.7 million kilometre square ice sheet could melt entirely over several thousand years if temperatures continue to rise unchecked, causing sea level rises of up to seven metres.

Now a study from the Met Office Hadley Centre shows that there could be thresholds in melting which, once crossed, could prevent the ice sheet from re-growing to its former extent even if the carbon dioxide concentrations driving climate change are reduced to pre-industrial levels.

Met Office scientists urged action to cut CO2 emissions now, to prevent the ice melting past the tipping points and causing large sea level rises in the coming centuries.

Climate modelling combined with a 3D simulation of the ice found that if the sheet melted by more than 15 per cent, which could occur within 300 years, it would be locked into further decline from which it could only recover to around 80% of its current size.

Such reductions in the ice cover would lead to "irreversible" sea level rises of 1.3 metres, the research published in the journal Climate Dynamics warned.

And if the Greenland sheet melted to half its current size it would pass another point of no return, with the ice locked into further declines and only stabilising at a fifth of its original extent.

This would cause sea level rises to the tune of five metres.

Once the tipping points had been crossed, the only way to undo the damage would be if global temperatures plunged back into an ice age, making the Earth cool enough for the ice to rebuild itself.

But according to current predictions, this is unlikely to happen for tens of thousands of years, the Met Office said...

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

Is this really Margaret Thatcher?

Marcus's picture

I hope so!
...............................................................................

From a debate in The Economist

Margaret Thatcher's comments

Responding to this article: http://www.economist.com/world...

October 2, 2009

Dear Sir,

Well, the voting gap is closing fast. But not fast enough. I suppose the Greenpeace-bots, taking their emailed marching orders from Greenpeace Director Mr Liepold, are fizzling out. [Or perhaps it is due to the Economist's very user-unfriendly website.]

This debate was based on a preposterous question, which could have been better framed by a moron advised by idiots. But in reality, the question was deliberately framed by intelligent people with an agenda, in order to appeal to the unthinking eco-Luddites who wouldn't know "carbon" [by which is meant carbon dioxide, a gas] from their craniums. Idiocracy rules the new millennium...

It will be quite a spectacle watching the tax sucking elite jetting first class to Copenhagen from around the world, feasting on caviar, lobster and brie, clinking their champagne glasses whilst toasting their commitment to everything "green" – just so long as being green means that we working stiffs must give up much more of our earnings to these doubleplusungood scam artists, who could not care less about their "carbon footprint," as they party the week away in gluttonous luxury that would excite even the most depraved ancient Roman senator, whilst promoting fads that will grind the poor into even more abject poverty, and reassuring each other that they are being good and saintly for doing so.

The UN's shenanigans will be on the world's stage for all to see, and will elevate "hypocrisy" to a new level. And now, with carbon credits selling for under ten pence - just 1/70th of their price last spring - they can buy cheap "carbon" indulgences to salve their guilty consciences as they connive to make our lives more miserable, based on the repeatedly falsified notion that CO2 is harmful...

October 5, 2009 22:13pm

Carbon dioxide is an extremely beneficial trace gas, essential to all life on Earth. It is every bit as harmless and necessary to life as H2O. As carbon dioxide levels rise, agricultural output has been increasing in direct proportion, helping feed a hungry world where 1 billion people live on less than $1 a day.

The canard that human emissions of CO2 causes any measurable global warming has been repeatedly debunked. But there are so many individuals and governments salivating at the prospect of "carbon" taxes (by which they mean carbon dioxide; a gas) that the demonization of CO2 based on greed has taken over.

For most of the past decade, global temperatures have been flat to declining, while CO2 levels have risen - thus falsifying the claim that human emissions of CO2 cause global warming. Further, according to the IPCC itself, for every one molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity, 34 molecules are emitted naturally by the Earth.

Every claim that alarmists such as Dr Schmidt (a government bureaucrat with a vested interest in continuing the global warming hue and cry) has been false. Every one of them: global warming is killing polar bears - false. Oceans are acidifying and killing corals - false. Sea levels are rising - false. Global sea ice is disappearing - false. Global temperatures are outside the range of normal historical fluctuations - false. And so on.

Furthermore, the UN/IPCC has explicitly stated that computer models can not predict the climate. But none of this matters. In December over 4,000 UN and government employees will jet off to Copenhagen to try and force through an agreement that hobbles Western economies, while China continues building 3 - 4 new coal-fired power plants per week. India, Russia, Brazil and a hundred smaller countries will continue to emit CO2 while paying lip service to reducing emissions.

There is no empirical (real world) evidence that CO2 causes the climate to warm. There are GCMs (computer models) that speculate on rising temperature, but in fact they have been consistently wrong.

Keep that in mind when you see the reports of thousands of taxpayer-funded UN gluttons feasting on lobster, caviar and brie when they fly into Copenhagen, emitting thousands of tonnes of CO2 along the way, and wringing their hands over the plight of the poor - which their misguided restrictions on the harmless and beneficial trace gas CO2 will only make poorer.

The CO2 scare is simply a hoax, no more and no less. Dr Schmidt consistently runs away from any formal, face to face debate over the issue. That should tell you all you need to know about whether CO2 is a problem or not. If the science backed up Schmidt, he would not be afraid to debate it publicly...

http://www.economist.com/membe...
....................................................................................................................................................

China leads accusation that rich nations are trying to sabotage climate treaty

Angry statement from 131 countries at climate talks in Bangkok claims rich nations are rejecting historical responsibilities

John Vidal, environment editor in Bangkok
guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 October 2009

The US and other developed countries are attempting to "fundamentally sabotage" the Kyoto protocol and all-important international negotiations over its next phase, according to coordinated statements by China and 130 developing countries at UN climate talks in Bangkok today.

As 180 countries started a second week of talks, the developing countries showed their deep frustration at the slow pace of the negotiations on a global climate deal, which are planned to be concluded in two months' time in Copenhagen.

"The reason why we are not making progress is the lack of political will by Annex 1 [industrialised] countries. There is a concerted effort to fundamentally sabotage the Kyoto protocol," said ambassador Yu Qingtai China's special representative on climate talks. "We now hear statements that would lead to the termination of the protocol. They are introducing new rules, new formats. That's not the way to conduct negotiations," said Yu...

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

From Times Online
October 2, 2009

Opportunities for Christians in "post-secular age" says Bishop

The Bishop of London says modernisation is being accompanied by a more serious approach to faith

Andrew Riley

Britain may be entering a “post-secular age” that offers a huge opportunity for Christians, the Bishop of London said this week. The Right Rev and Right Hon Richard Chartres was responding to recent comments by Lord May of Oxford that religion may have helped to protect human society from itself in the past and may be needed again.

Lord May, president of the British Science Association and a self-proclaimed atheist, said last month that he feared the world was on a “calamitous trajectory” brought on by a failure to co-ordinate measures against global warming, and that “a supernatural punisher might be part of the solution”.

The Bishop said that, far from religion being marginalised, modernisation in some countries was being assisted and accompanied by a deeper seriousness about faith. He knew and “deeply respected” Lord May, a former president of the Royal Society and a former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, who had experienced an “inverse epiphany” at the age of 11.

“He (Lord May) suggested that only God was capable of evoking an appropriate response to the ecological challenges currently facing humanity. While this country may not be described as religious, we may be entering a period that is post-secular. For those of us who are believers, this is a huge opportunity. It is a very exciting time to be a servant of Jesus Christ...

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

Daily Telegraph

Lily Allen and Duran Duran record climate change song

Duran Duran, Lily Allen and Bob Geldof are among 60 musicians who have recorded a 'Band Aid'-style song to raise awareness of climate change.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
02 Oct 2009

The world's first musical petition is a re-recording of the Midnight Oil song Beds are Burning. Mark Ronson, Jamie Cullum and Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas also took part.

The song has been launched to raise awareness of global warming in the run up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December.

Lyrics include: "How can we dance when our world is turning? How can we sleep when the beds are burning?"

Every download will count as support for the "Tck, Tck, Tck" campaign calling for world leaders to sign up to a tough international deal on climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Kofi Annan, former UN chief and head of the Global Humanitarian Forum that is behind the campaign, described the movement as the "Band Aid for the internet generation"...

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

There's a shock...

Frediano's picture

President Barack Obama, in a September 22 speech at the United Nations "climate summit," said, "We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations."

So, we're not supposed to notice the self-serving conclusion? That 'we will meet our responsibility to future generations' consists of ... taxing the living crap out of everything that moves, to fund whatever whim he can dream up?

Who wouldn't want to get away with such totally specious crap?

"I've determined that meeting my responsibility to future generaitons requires of me to ... collect $50,000 from every living man, woman, and child in the nation, and implement my pet grad Soc. student thesis. It's a sacrifice that I'm willing to ask others to make...and not a moment too soon."

Treemometers: A new scientific scandal

Marcus's picture

The Register

Treemometers: A new scientific scandal

If a peer review fails in the woods...

By Andrew Orlowski

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.

Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a choice open to a scientist's biases.

Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold claims using tree ring data...

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

Daily Telegraph

What makes Met Office long-term forecasts so wrong?

Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
03 Oct 2009

Most people are aware that the UK Met Office has in recent years become something of a laughing stock. Its much-derided forecast that Britain would enjoy a "barbecue summer" this year was only the latest of a string of predictions that proved wildly off-target. Three years ago it announced that 2007 would be "the warmest year ever", just before global temperatures plunged by 0.7 degrees Celsius, more than the world's entire net warming in the 20th century. Last winter, it forecast, would be "milder and drier than average", just before we enjoyed one of our coldest and snowiest winters for years. And in 2009 it promised us one of the "five warmest years ever", complete with that "barbecue summer", when temperatures have been struggling to reach their average of the past three decades.

What should be rather better known, not least since it helps to explain these relentlessly optimistic forecasts, has been the leading part played by our Met Office in promoting the worldwide obsession with global warming, notably through its Hadley Centre for research into climate change. In 1988 the then-head of the Met Office, Dr (now Sir) John Houghton, was one of the two men chiefly responsible for setting up the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded on their belief that rising CO2 would inevitably lead to higher temperatures.

In 1990, thanks to lavish funding from Mrs Thatcher, Houghton set up the Hadley Centre, which has continued to play a central role in shaping the IPCC's increasingly alarmist reports ever since. Not least, it chooses many of the scientists who write those reports, most of whom are sure to be "on message". In conjunction with the Climate Research Unit run by Professor Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, equally firmly on side, the Hadley Centre also controls the most influential of the world's four official sources of global temperature data.

Nothing more tellingly reflects the Met Office's partisanship, however, than the fact that its present chairman is Robert Napier, a green activist who previously ran WWF UK, one of the most vociferous of the climate change lobby groups. Mr Napier now helps run not only the Met Office (which has been part of the Ministry of Defence ever since its forecasts came "from the Air Ministry roof") but also an array of other bodies centrally involved in driving the political climate-change agenda...

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

National Post

The media, polls and even scientists suggest the global warming scare is all over but the shouting

By Lawrence Solomon

The great global warming scare is over — it is well past its peak, very much a spent force, sputtering in fits and starts to a whimpering end. You may not know this yet. Or rather, you may know it but don’t want to acknowledge it until every one else does, and that won’t happen until the press, much of which also knows it, formally acknowledges it.

I know that the global warming scare is over but for the shouting because that’s what the polls show, at least those in the U.S., where unlike Canada the public is polled extensively on global warming. Most Americans don’t blame humans for climate change — they consider global warming to be a natural phenomenon. Even when the polls showed the public believed man was responsible for global warming, the public didn’t take the scare seriously. When asked to rank global warming’s importance compared to numerous other concerns — unemployment, trade, health care, poverty, crime, and education among them — global warming came in dead last. Fewer than 1% chose global warming as scare-worthy.

The informed members of the media read those polls and know the global warming scare is over, too. Andrew Revkin, The New York Times reporter entrusted with the global warming scare beat, has for months lamented “the public’s waning interest in global warming.” His colleague at The Washington Post, Andrew Freedman, does his best to revive public fear, and to get politicians to act, by urging experts to up their hype so that the press will have scarier material to run with...

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.co...

Scientific Fraud

Sandi's picture

On July 22, 2009, the Science and Public Policy Institute released a study showing that the U.S. government alone has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers' money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, public relations campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. The study documents that audits of the science involved has been left to unpaid volunteers. They cite how a dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of "global warming" theory competing with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopoly and how major errors have been exposed again and again.

What is becoming clearer is that the concept of "manmade global warming" may be one of the greatest hoaxes in world history. How soon this will become generally known will depend on how forcefully the political effort seeking both national and international control of industry and wealth redistribution can keep the hoax hidden by intimidation and forcefully amplified rhetoric while systematically jeopardizing the economies of America and other developed nations.

Full Article Here

Americans are 'illiterate' about climate change, claims expert

Marcus's picture

[I will be away for the rest of the week - Marcus]
...............................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Americans are 'illiterate' about climate change, claims expert

America's lack of knowledge on climate change could prevent the world from reaching an agreement to stop catastrophic global warming, scientists said in an attack on the country's environmental policy.

28 Sep 2009

Professor John Schellnhuber, one of the world's leading global warming experts, described the US as "climate illiterate"

He said Americans have a lower understanding of the problems of climate change than people in Brazil or China.

More than 100 scientists are meeting at Oxford University to discuss the dangers of climate change causing droughts, floods and mass extinctions around the world.

The conference is designed to put pressure on world leaders coming together at the end of the year for the "most important meeting in the history of the human species".

The UN Climate Change Conference in December will try to reach an international deal on cutting carbon emissions so global warming stays below an increase of 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.

Prof Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change, said the chance of getting such a deal was "pie in the sky" because rich countries like America are unwilling to sign up to ambitious enough targets.

"In a sense the US is climate illiterate. If you look at global polls about what the public knows about climate change even in Brazil, China you have more people who know about the problem and think deep cuts in emissions are needed," he said...

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

Senate Democrats unveil climate bill calling for a 20% cut in emissions

Leading senators say ambitious climate change bill will give America a chance to reclaim its energy independence

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009

Democratic leaders took on the epic challenge of getting the US Senate to act on global warming today with the formal unveiling of a bill proposing an ambitious 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions.

Senate Democrats turned out in strength for today's launch, which was seen at home and abroad as a crucial moment for advancing Barack Obama's agenda.

But the difficulties ahead were underscored by the senators' deep reluctance to use the words 'climate change' — even in the title of the bill, which is called the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

Instead, senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer couched their bill as a chance for America to reclaim its energy independence by reducing oil imports.

"This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our energy future," said Kerry. "It is our country's defence against the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate change."

Today's bill sets out a more ambitious target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions than the 17% cut from 2005 levels by 2020 passed by the House of Representatives in June.

The draft would push for a 20% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050.

The targets appear chosen for their resonance with European and Asian leaders...

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

Reuters

Olympics-2016 Games could be the last, says Tokyo governor
Wed Sep 30, 2009

By Karolos Grohmann

COPENHAGEN, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016 Olympics could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to mankind.

Tokyo is bidding to host the 2016 summer Olympics with Chicago, Rio de Janeiro and Madrid also in the running. The International Olympic Committee will elect the winning candidate during its session on Oct. 2 in the Danish capital.

"It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind," Ishihara told reporters at a Tokyo 2016 press event ahead of the vote.

"Global warming is getting worse. We have to come up with measures without which Olympic Games could not last long...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie

By James Delingpole Politics
September 29th, 2009

For the growing band of AGW “Sceptics” the following story is dynamite. And for those who do believe in Al Gore’s highly profitable myth about “Man-Made Global Warming”, it will no doubt feel as comfortable as the rectally inserted suicide bomb that put paid to an Al Qaeda operative earlier this week.

Now read on.

Those of you who saw An Inconvenient Truth may remember, if you weren’t asleep by that stage, the key scene where big green Al deploys his terrifying graph to show how totally screwed we all are by man-made global warming. This graph - known as the Hockey Stick Curve - purports to show rising global temperatures through the ages. In the part representing the late twentieth century it shoots up almost vertically. To emphasise his point that this is serious and that if we don’t act NOW we’re doomed, Al Gore - wearing a wry smile which says: “Sure folks, this is kinda funny. But don’t forget how serious it is too” - climbs on to a mini-lift in order to be able to reach the top of the chart. Cue consensual gasps from his parti pris audience.

Except that the graph - devised in 1998 by a US climatologist called Dr Michael Mann - is based on a huge lie, as Sceptics have been saying for quite some time. The first thing they noticed is that this “Hockey Stick” (based on tree ring data, one of the most accurate ways of recording how climate changes over the centuries) is that it seemed completely to omit the Medieval Warming Period.

According to Mann’s graph, the hottest period in modern history was NOT the generally balmy era between 900 and 1300 but the late 20th century. This led many sceptics, among them a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre to smell a rat. He tried to replicate Mann’s tree ring work but was stymied by lack of data: ie the global community of climate-fear-promotion scientists closed ranks and refused to provide him with any information that might contradict their cause....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...
.........................................................................................................

From The Times
September 29, 2009

Third World population controls won't save climate, study claims


Sir David Attenborough has called for population restraint in all the nations of the world

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The population explosion in poor countries will contribute little to climate change and is a dangerous distraction from the main problem of over-consumption in rich nations, a study has found.

It challenges claims by leading environmentalists, including Sir David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt, that strict birth control is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The study concludes that spending billions of pounds of aid on contraception in the developing world will not benefit the climate because poor countries have such low emissions. It says that Britain and other Western countries should instead focus on reducing consumption of goods, services and energy among their own populations...

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

Jeremy Clarkson: 'People are bored of climate change'

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Jeremy Clarkson: 'People are bored of climate change'

Jeremy Clarkson has claimed that people are "bored" of hearing about climate change and would rather watch Top Gear than worry about the environment.

By Murray Wardrop
26 Sep 2009


Jeremy Clarkson claims people are bored of climate change

The outspoken television presenter, who was targeted by environmental campaigners last week, said people should be able to enjoy sunny days without feeling guilty about global warming.

Clarkson, 49, made the claims at the launch of Top Gear's Live World Tour, which will include flaming rally cars, underground street racing and stunt driving led by The Stig.

Speaking at London's Royal Geographical Society on Friday, Clarkson said he was not concerned what people might make of the environmental effects of his long-haul flights to complete the tour.

He said: "Every time they put a climate change programme on, 42 people will watch that, eight million or seven million will watch Top Gear.

"I think people are rather bored with the idea of climate change and, when we do get a lovely day, let's just enjoy it, not get guilty."

Clarkson will be joined by Richard Hammond and James May for the shows, which will be based on the BBC television motor programme.

He added that there were no plans to stop making the hit show because they were all having so much fun.

Clarkson said: "We would stop doing Top Gear when we didn't enjoy making it any more, but, at the moment, it is just the most fantastic fun you can have.

"Motor racing can be quite boring, if we're honest – they are even crashing on purpose these days – so we decided to have a race where the cars are set on fire before they start."

Organisers said the shows would play to over 340,000 fans in London, Birmingham, Dublin, Amsterdam, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Sydney, Auckland and Hong Kong.

The worldwide appeal of the programme is something that still surprises Clarkson.

"I'm startled about Top Gear's popularity outside of the UK, even in countries where, as far as I can tell, it isn't on television, like America," Clarkson said.

"We just came back this morning from Romania and I'm not exaggerating when I say thousands of people walked up a mountain just because they thought they might see Richard Hammond's elbow sticking out of a Ferrari."

The first show is at London's Earl's Court from November 5-8 and tickets are available now.

Climate change activists last week dumped horse manure on the lawn at Clarkson's manor house in Chipping Norton, Oxon, in protest at his treatment of the environment...

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

Barack Obama is cooling on global warming

The President's speech to the UN on climate change was commitment-lite, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
26 Sep 2009

Just as President Obama was exciting the frustration of the greenies by making his conspicuously commitment-free speech to the UN about global warming, a Bloomberg poll reported that, asked what was the most important issue facing their country today, 46 per cent of Americans replied "the economy".

This was followed by health care (23 per cent), the budget deficit (16 per cent) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (10 per cent). Way at the bottom of the list, on 2 per cent – as Obama is doubtless aware – was "climate change". As he dithers around over Afghanistan and so many other issues, it seems that, now the great campaigner is in office, his slogan has subtly morphed from "Yes we can" to "No we can't"...

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

From The Sunday Times
September 27, 2009

Obama chooses his words to dodge any deeds

Irwin Stelzer: American account

Veni, vidi, dixi. That about describes President Obama’s week. Five, count them, five Sunday morning talk shows, a comedy talk show on Monday, followed by talks at an international conference on climate change, at the UN General Assembly to apologise for America's sins before he moved into the Oval Office, at a session on nuclear disarmament, at the Security Council, and at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh. To be followed by talks with the Iranians, on their terms, later this week.

On the global warming front the president for once used his ability to disguise policy with rhetoric in a constructive way. He promised an end to American obstruction to international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and then refused to sign on to legally binding international treaties to do just that. Instead, he laid out his plans to subsidise green energy, and encourage a shift from the oil-based internal combustion engine to electric cars.

Never mind that he failed to mention just where all that new electricity would come from, or that much of the subsidy money would be wasted. A small price to pay for avoiding the sort of binding commitments that might slow the economic recovery. This year has seen a sharp drop in CO2 emissions, largely because shuttered factories don’t produce any — or anything else, including jobs. And jobs win elections, emissions reductions do not...

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

Getting God to do their dirty work

Marcus's picture

Thanks Ellen for your generous comments.
...............................................................................................

Spiked.com

Tuesday 15 September 2009

Frank Furedi

Getting God to do their dirty work

In seeking to use religion to force people to change their eco-unfriendly behaviour, greens are debasing both religious belief and scientific truth.

We live in world where the cynical manipulation of people’s fears and anxieties often overrides informed public debate. Principles and beliefs seem to have become negotiable commodities, and all too often the search for truth gives way to doing ‘whatever works’. In recent decades religious figures have, at various times, embraced the authority of science, therapy and the environment as a way of communicating their messages. Indeed, the old statement ‘our faith demands…’ has increasingly given way to the claim that ‘the research shows…’. If Christian fundamentalists can reinvent their dogma in the language of ‘creationist science’, how long before atheist scientists seek to justify their moral crusade in the language of religion?

Well, Lord May, president of the British Science Association, has risen to the occasion with his call last week to mobilise religion as part of the crusade against global warming. May said that mainstream religions should play a key role in convincing people to become more aware of environmental issues and to change their behaviour in order to ‘save the planet’. By making this opportunist demand for the effective rehabilitation of God, an atheist moral entrepreneur has shown that it is possible to debase both religion and science at the same time.

May’s call to use religion to promote the cause of climate change awareness is the logical conclusion to a project – environmentalism – which in every respect is a moral crusade. Back in September 2003, the late American writer Michael Crichton characterised environmentalism as a powerful new religion. He was possibly thinking of the Lord Mays of this world when he said that ‘environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists’...

http://www.spiked-online.com/i...
......................................................................................................................

From The Times
September 25, 2009

Farmers told to stop ploughing land to protect soil

Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor

The ploughed field, one of the most cherished images of the English countryside, could become a rare sight under government plans to protect soil.

Farmers are being urged to adopt technology that allows “no tilling and low tilling” in a move that would also reduce the environmental impact of food production. The suggestion is part of a “soil strategy” published yesterday by Hilary Benn, the Rural Affairs Secretary.

“Precision farming” is already widely used by the traditional “barley barons” who in recent years have invested in machines that do not churn up the earth. Instead the equipment merely turns over the top layer and new seed is planted on soil that includes stubble from the previous crop. Ministers want the technique to become standard practice...

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

EU says rich states must pay up to save climate agreement

José Manuel Barroso outlines what is needed for an agreement on global warming at Copenhagen

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
The Guardian, Friday 25 September 2009

The EU set aside diplomatic language and issued a bare-boned challenge to industrialised countries to come up with the cash developing countries need to deal with climate change today.

The unusually blunt language from the European commission's president, José Manuel Barroso, on what was needed for an agreement on global warming at Copenhagen was delivered as leaders began arriving in Pittsburgh for a G20 summit of major economies.

In a speech at Pittsburgh University, Barroso said the industrialised economies would have to make significant reductions in emissions as well as make "a credible financial commitment" to help developing states obtain new greener technology. "In other words, no money, no deal," he said...

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

Daily Telegraph

Climate change accelerating – UNEP

Climate change is happening faster than previously thought, according to a new report from the UN Environment Programme.

24 Sep 2009

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published in 2007 is widely considered the most authoritative report on global warming.

However a new report looking at the science that has been produced since found that temperature rises could be even higher because of increasing amounts of pollution in the atmosphere, speeding up of melting glaciers, collapsing ecosystems and acidification of the oceans.

The Climate Change Science Compendium 2009 looked at 400 scientific reports released through peer-reviewed literature, or from research institutions.

It said an increase in global greenhouse gas concentrations made a rise of between 1.4 and 4.3 degrees Celsius (2.5 to 7.75 F) above pre-industrial temperatures more likely – this is above the range of between 1 to 3 degrees C (2 to 5.4 F) that could lead to the end of summer Arctic sea ice and the eventual melting of the Himalayan glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, the report said...

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

Marcus, special thanks for...

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Marcus,

As always, I much appreciate your collection of newspaper items. I just wanted to say special thanks for a couple from the recent posts, the piece by Myron Ebell * (he is a sharp cookie; I found his talk at Heartland crystal-clear informative about the political scene) and the one from The Australian **.

* "Obama's Climate Fantasies"

This line is a zappy sound-bite line: "President Obama’s policy prescriptions are energy rationing and energy poverty disguised as growth and prosperity."

** "Global warming hotheads freeze out science's sceptics" by Christopher Pearson

The specifics of people's experience with being kept in line are useful.

Both articles are helpful in presenting easy-to-grasp material for lay audiences.

Ellen

Comment viewing options

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