So it's day three of the Copenhagen conference. Yesterday I mentioned the term "scientific consensus" that is used again and again to try to win the climate change debate.
Today, a group of scientists have issued yet another challenge to the "consensus" view of science.
141 highly qualified scientists have written to Ban Ki Moon, expressing their concern about the unsound foundations of the Copenhagen conference.
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate.Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
This will be interesting. No doubt the alarmists will find a conspiracy theory to explain why these scientists cannot be trusted, while accusing 'deniers' of creating conspiracy theories and character assassination.
It’s the second day of the Copenhagen talks on climate change. But what is it really about?
Aside from the usual clap-trap about ‘tipping points’, rising sea levels, polar bears and floods, if you listen, read or watch what has become known as MSM – the mainstream media – you will hear the same words used to describe this purpose of this conference.
You will, of course, hear the word “consensus” bandied about. This is the key word in the environmentalist’s dictionary. It is used to imply that all the scientists in the entire world agree with the same thing.
You will hear the word “deal” being used. The nations of the world are allegedly coming together to arrange a “deal”.
This deal implies an “agreement”.
When the agreement has been reached, “targets” will have been set for emissions reductions, throughout the world.
Finally, it is hoped that these targets will be “legally-binding”.
In other words, on the basis of a scientific consensus, world leaders are at Copenhagen to achieve an agreement about a deal to set legally-binding emissions targets.
The worn-out term “scientific consensus” is used as a stick to beat down any opposition to climate nonsense. Politicians and other players seeking the service of their own interests at these negotiations need to hide their interests behind a greater good. So when any questions emerge about the soundness of the science being used to make decisions, instead of answering them, the big players in the climate debate just trot out the same old lines. Take the words of non-climate-scientist IPCC chair, Rajendra Pachauri yesterday for instance. He said,
Excerpt: "A further example of the perverse consequences of the EU's method of "stopping climate change" was provided in this weekend's Sunday Times, which revealed that Britain's richest resident, the Indian steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal, is to benefit from a £1bn windfall in so-called "carbon credits".
"Mr Mittal had warned Brussels that if his "emissions cap" under the scheme was set too low for his liking he would move some of his steel plants out of Europe. So his company, ArcelorMittal, was given the right to emit 90 million tonnes of CO2 in the EU each year between now and 2012. Yet this year ArcelorMittal's European CO2 emissions are predicted to be less than half that figure of 90 million tonnes. If this level of output continues Mr Mittal will thus have £1bn worth of "carbon permits" to sell to other high energy users within the EU.
"As the company's spokesman told the paper, with a certain jauntiness: "ArcelorMittal's surplus carbon credits are an asset which will only grow in importance." Thus the biggest beneficiary of what is allegedly the world's most enlightened climate change policy turns out to be the wealthiest industrialist in Europe."
The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
Who needs tanks on the lawn when you have the Environmental Protection Agency? Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change Nuremberg Decrees shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état.
And what is the justification for this undemocratic action? The allegedly imminent threat from “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. There is always a supposed threat, when tyrants take the stage. The President of the United States has just reduced his moral authority to the level of any Third World dictator heading a “Government of National Emergency”. Fortunately, the world’s leading democracy, which he is trying to subvert, has guarantees of liberty so deeply embedded in its Constitution that US citizens are well placed to fight back.
Poland wants an impact assessment before the EU makes the leap from a 20 percent emissions cut to 30 percent.
"It is existing EU policy to shift from a 20 percent to 30 percent cut in the context of an ambitious deal," said Per Stig Moeller, the Danish foreign minister. "We have given a promise. There will not be time for an impact assessment before [Copenhagen]. We knew there wouldn't be time when we made that promise," he added.
Estimates of the potential size of the US cap-and-trade market range from $300 billion to $2 trillion.
Lisa KASSENAAR BLOOMBERG
Across Uganda, thousands of women warm supper over new, $8 orange-painted stoves. The clay-and- metal pots burn about two-thirds the charcoal of the open-fire cooking typical of East Africa, where forests are being chopped down in the struggle to feed the region’s 125 million people.
Four thousand miles away, at the Charles Hurst Land Rover dealership in southwest London, a Range Rover Vogue sells for 90,000 pounds ($151,000). A blue windshield sticker proclaims that the gasoline-powered truck’s first 45,000 miles (72,421 kilometers) will be carbon neutral.
That’s because Land Rover, official purveyor of 4×4s to Queen Elizabeth II, is helping Ugandans cut their greenhouse gas emissions with those new stoves.
Home > Blog > > 
.jpg)
.png){kind=small}
UK Independence Party in the European Parliament, Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, Rue Wiertz, 60 - 1047 Brussels
-
