Last week’s meeting of 700+ scientists, policymakers, and concerned citizens in Chicago to discuss the science and economics of global warming at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change was a huge success as measured by the intent of its sponsors: to establish once and for all that the climate realist position is increasingly the accepted conclusion among thinking people in the three categories noted above. That position is this: manmade global warming is not a crisis.
Yes, all parties at the conference pretty much agreed that there was a good deal of warming in the 1980s and 1990s, and that the trend stopped and reversed in the current decade. Global temperatures have been falling in recent years, even though the weather stations and other data chosen to represent the official temperature records are in fact skewed to show higher and more-rising temperatures than are actually occurring.
A year ago, climate sceptics seemed to be fighting a losing battle. Then along came Climategate. Then COP15 failed. Then Glaciergate. The scandals emerging from climate alarmist circles are now hard to keep up with. We’re all sceptics now. Except of course, for the new UK government, who seem committed to this stupid idea of putting up wind farms where they are not wanted.
Chris Huhne of the Liberal Democrats is the Con-Dem coalition’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and replaces Ed Miliband, who was also a fan of wind. Here is Huhne, banging on about how great wind is at an event in Leicester Square.
Germany, Italy, Ireland and Spain leading the push
TechEye.net
A draft of the European Union's plans for wind and solar energy has been leaked, revealing EU intentions to quickly build wind turbines and solar terminals throughout member states.
The leaked documents were intended for delivery to the European Commission by midnight on Wednesday, but the deadline was missed by many and the plans were kept under wraps until Reuters managed to get its hands on them, revealing substantial plans for renewable energy.
Italy is to increase its on-shore wind farm capacity by 230 percent, Ireland by 130 percent, Spain by 74 percent, and Germany by 30 percent.
There are also plans to begin off-shore wind energy generation, with Germany taking the lead with plans to increase generation from zero megawatts to 10,000 megawatts. Spain follows with 3,000 megawatts, then Ireland with 2,300 megawatts, and Italy with 1,000 megawatts.
1. State-funded climate scientists are sacking subordinates who tell the truth, eg Phil Mote, director of Oregon Climate Change Research Inst. at Oregon State University, who fired Mark Albright, Associate State Climatologist
2. Politicians are firing top scientists who tell the truth, eg Governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski forced out George Taylor, head of Oregon Climate Services
3. The Climategate investigation of data fraud has been a whitewash in the UK and the USA
4. Academic freedom in this area is nearly non-existent: political correctness and the need for carbon taxes take priority
More Political Climate Science
by Patrick J. Michaels | Townhall.com
In today’s odd academic culture, including the world of climate science, academic freedom applies selectively. People use their positions and their email for politicking and electioneering and have no trouble retaining their jobs. But using your email to send out some inconvenient, apolitical weather data that says something your boss or your governor may not like can get you fired.
I can’t count the number of emails I received in my thirty years at University of Virginia where this faculty member or that administrator urged me to support some piece of legislation. But the latest email kerfluffle, involving Phil Mote, director of the Oregaon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University, goes a bit further.
Mote was upset that Art Robinson, a physician from Cave Junction, Oregon, won the Republican primary for Oregon’s fourth congressional district.
That’s because Robinson was behind the “Oregon Petition Project,” in which over 31,000 people, largely science professionals (including over 9,000 with doctorates), signed on to a document stating that there was “no scientific evidence” that greenhouse gas emissions could cause “catastrophic heating” in the foreseeable future.
Robinson did not harp on this issue in the campaign. Instead he ran against the general politics of 12-term incumbent Pete deFazio, including his March vote for President Obama’s health care bill. With that one, deFazio probably voted himself out of Congress.
The European Union could seize control of green taxes across the continent in order to make low-carbon energy cheaper.
By Rowena Mason | Telegraph
Biofuels and wind or wave power would become less costly than energy produced from fossil fuels, under draft plans obtained by Reuters, the news agency.
The EU wants to overhaul Europe's €240bn (£201bn) annual taxation of energy, which varies between countries and often creates paradoxical incentives that encourage the biggest polluters.
Nations have traditionally resisted Brussels' interference on tax but the chance to overhaul levies has arisen because it could help indebted countries raise revenue without increasing income tax.
Under the draft plans, the new taxes would be phased in between 2013 and 2018,...
'The Wind Farm Scam' by John Etherington. Published 2009; paperback, 198 pages. Reviewed by Michael Jose, UKIP, EFD Group, European Parliament
Overview
Author Dr John Etherington was Reader in Ecology at the University of Wales, Cardiff until retirement in 1990. He is a Thomas Huxley medallist (Royal College of Science), and former editor of the Journal of Ecology.
• Climate scares and EU targets drive the industry. Part of the agenda is to create a common EU power grid using wind power as a Trojan horse to force change. In conjunction with the EU 20/20 legislation, Tony Blair bound the UK to energy and greenhouse gas reduction targets which may mean the UK will be forced to join a European supergrid to prevent blackouts.
- The 'ABS Windpower Report' (2006) noted that 'Wind power has been promoted for politico/environmental reasons and wind developers have benefited from substantial subsidies, leading to exaggerated claims. A reality check is needed.' (p.152)
- Conclusion: the UK will be at the mercy of European power supply if we join such a grid. Leaving the EU will be made economically highly dangerous and damaging for us if this occurs.
• Wind power cannot supply predictable and reliable energy to the national grid as the wind stops and starts. The electricity is not stored and must be used as produced and supplied to the grid, thus making grid regulation more complex.
• As wind power varies, all wind power which is relied on must be backed up with equivalent and expensive conventional rapid response power stations kept on standby, these are gas and coal-fired stations normally. Blackouts in Spain and the USA have occurred where this has not been the case (p.68)
• Wind power is very expensive to build and run. This extra cost is hidden by the legalised RO (Renewables Obligation) subsidy, and tax breaks which are added to every electricity bill in Britain.
• The UK government exchequer actually benefits from the 'green' tax of renewables collected by the 'Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency', and has done since at least 2005. Some is used to promote renewable energy, the rest goes into the Consolidated Fund (p.150), estimated at about an extra £1 billion in 2010.
Tomorrow's top decision makers have decided that UKIP's stance on so-called 'man-made climate change' is right.
The world's most famous debating society, at Oxford University, heard from a range of noted climate experts, but were swayed by the UK Independence Party's eco spokesman Lord Monckton.
Monckton argued that the actual warming effect of CO2 was only a tiny fraction of what had previously been predicted by scientists.
He showed that even if all the world's industry was shut down for the next 40 years, global temperatures would only decrease by 1 degree.
The arguments centred around whether economic growth should be a higher priority than combating climate change, and after hearing from Monckton, the world's top students agreed that global warming is not a threat.
At times the exchange became heated, as Monckton repeatedly challenged Labour Peer and trade unionist Lord Whitty (who believes in climate change) state where his figures had come from.
Lord Whitty was unable to explain where his ‘evidence' had come from and sat down simply saying ‘everyone knows its true'.
When the eco-warriors tried to return fire by asking where Monckton had got his evidence from, he drew cheers from the audience, stating: "IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2"
Monckton won the vote by 135 votes to 110.
Lord Monckton said: "The worlds brightest students are finally getting fed up with all the groundless extremist propaganda getting rammed down their throats by people who seem to think they are stupid.
"For years, those set to profit from the ever increasing number of ‘eco policies' have pulled the wool over the public and governments' eyes, but as soon as you pit them against the academic elite, all their arguments unravel."
The result is a major boost for UKIP, whose climate policy has previously been attacked by the ‘green band-wagon'.
26 of Britain's Prime Ministers were educated at Oxford, including David Cameron, Tony Blair, Thatcher and Wilson.
It now seems likely that the country's future rulers agree with UKIP's long held views.
News of the result comes at a time when EU bureaucrats are set to force member countries to stump up an extra £30billion towards reducing emissions by 30% come 2020.
As the federal “Cap and Trade’ bill falters in”Congress, and resistance to the”EPA’s 18,000“page new regulation document grows, globalists are trying to bring about expanded control, using the discredited excuse of man made global warming, on a State and local level.”"
Californians, finally realizing the magnitude of the cost of a”statewide“‘Cap and Trade’“scheme, in addition to a massive increase in government control, lined up to sign a petition to freeze any action on AB 32 (Cap & Trade scheme voted into law in 2006, to be implemented in 2012). Only 435,000 signatures were needed to get the initiative to suspend AB 32 on the ballot in November, but they got over 800,000 signatures. Thanks to ‘Climategate’ and the numerous other UN”science frauds“that have been exposed, people are beginning to understand the overall agenda: Agenda 21 Sustainable Development (which uses environmental issues to depopulate and control the masses).
This matters to everyone across the country because the Agenda 21 battle is from global to local. It will not stop here, but will continue to be pushed in local governments, in the private sector, schools and local UN programs like“ICLEI. ” Mayors are a major target in local governments.” When people become aware of the deceit, it loses its power. Therefore, it is important to understand the game plan behind the Cap & Trade scheme, by looking at the implications of the”AB 32 ‘Scoping Plan’:
The scoping plan uses scare tactics based on false science; for instance, it warns that California will lose 90% of its snowpack in the Sierras by the end of the century, due to man made global warming (pg 9).
The British lawyer who last week called for introducing international laws through the United Nations which would make it a crime against humanity to question the reality of man-made global warming has close ties with the Club of Rome - the ultra elitist organization which openly bragged of how it invented the climate change scare as a means of manipulating the global population to accept world government.
British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins (pictured top) recently launched an initiative to have the UN put pressure on national governments to pass laws that would declare the mass destruction of ecosystems a crime against peace, punishable by the International Criminal Court.
Under the guise of going after big corporations and polluters for the war crime of emitting the gas that humans exhale and plants breathe, the proposal would actually target individuals and people who merely express skepticism towards man-made global warming.
"Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change," reported the London Guardian.
Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?
Life has become "awful" for Phil Jones. Just a few months ago, he was a man with an enviable reputation: the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, an expert in his field and the father of an alarming global temperature curve that apparently showed how the Earth was heating up as a result of anthropogenic global warming.
Those days are now gone.
Nowadays, Jones, who is at the center of the "Climategate" affair involving hacked CRU emails, needs medication to fall sleep. He feels a constant tightness in his chest. He takes beta-blockers to help him get through the day. He is gaunt and his skin is pallid. He is 57, but he looks much older. He was at the center of a research scandal that hit him as unexpectedly as a rear-end collision on the highway.
The IPCC’s 1990 First Assessment Report made wildly-exaggerated projections of how global temperature would rise. Yet for the past 15 years there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” at all, as a leading IPCC scientist has now admitted. For nine years there has been a rapid cooling trend. None of the IPCC’s computer models predicted that.
The 1995 Second Assessment Report, in the scientists’ final draft, said five times there was no discernible human influence on climate. Yet one man rewrote the report, replacing all five statements with a single statement saying precisely the opposite. He later said IPCC processes permitted this single-handed rewrite, which has been the official policy ever since.
The 2001 Third Assessment Report contained a graph contradicting the First Report by falsely abolishing the medieval warm period, which, like the Roman, Minoan, and Holocene optima, and 7500 of the past 11,400 years, and each of the four previous interglacial warm periods, and most of the past 600 million years, was warmer than today. Some 800 scientists from more than 460 institutions in 42 countries over 25 years have written peer-reviewed, learned papers providing evidence that the Middle Ages were warmer than today.
The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report’s key conclusion that, with 90% confidence, most of the warming since 1950 was manmade is disproven by measurements. A natural decline in global cloud cover from 1983-2001 (Pinker et al., 2005) caused most of that warming.
The IPCC’s false “90% confidence” estimate was not reached by scientists: it was decided by a show of hands among political representatives who had few scientific qualifications.
EU biofuels 10% targets cause millions of peope to go hungry and increase food prices and landlessness, says report
EU companies have taken millions of acres of land out of food production in Africa, central America and Asia to grow biofuels for transport, according to development campaigners. The consequences of European biofuel targets, said the report by ActionAid, could be up to 100 million more hungry people, increased food prices and landlessness.
The report says the 2008 decision by EU countries to obtain 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020 is proving disastrous for poor countries. Developing countries are expected to grow nearly two-thirds of the jatropha, sugar cane and palm oil crops that are mostly used for biofuels.
Yesterday the United Kingdom Independence Party unveiled its new policy on climate change ahead of the general election, due within the next few months.
The policy, which took a sceptical position, was unveiled by the party’s leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor on scientific policy to Margaret Thatcher’s government. He also warned the then prime minister of the possible threat posed by global warming and supported greater research into the issue.
Lord Monckton, who joined UKIP last year, said that his new party would be against taking drastic action to defeat climate change on both scientific grounds and on democratic grounds.
I have been asked why I believe that there has been no global warming for the last decade or so. It has also been suggested that we've made it all up at UKIP HQ.
There are four organisations which provide global temperature data. Graphs from the data follow, with links to the data, so that you can see for yourself.
The multi-billion dollar global warming fraud is truly beginning to crumble, with even vehement man-made climate change advocates like the BBC acknowledging that the credibility of the IPCC is shot.
“The bloggers are all over the UN IPCC 2007 report, the bible of global warming, which predicted all manner of dire outcomes for our planet unless we got a grip on rising temperatures — and it seems to be crumbling in some pretty significant areas,” writes the BBC’s Andrew Neil in an article entitled ‘The dam is cracking‘.
There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years. But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?
New Zealand's National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is responsible for New Zealand's National Climate Database. This database, available online, holds all New Zealand's climate data, including temperature readings, since the 1850s. Anybody can go and get the data for free. That’s what we did, and we made our own graph.
(CNSNews.com) – After a groundless claim about vanishing Himalayan glaciers found its way into a key United Nations climate report, the chairman of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) faces new calls to resign.
BRUSSELS bureaucrats gave climate change groups more than £1.5million of taxpayers’ money last year to promote the theory that human activity is causing global warming, it emerged yesterday.
The payouts came to light after questions by UKIP Euro MP Godfrey Bloom. He said the cash was perpetuating unfounded claims about global warming.
UKIP member Lord Christopher Monckton is again interviewed by Alex Jones (4 DEC).
"The Copenhagen Green Fund... is going to be the recipient of all this money that we will have to pay... and what it really is going to be used for, of course, is not to help the poorer countries of the world to adapt to climate change, because there is nothing to adapt to. It will be spent, instead, on setting up and growing the expensive, corrupt, central government bureaucracy of the new, very left wing, virtually Marxist, world government...," Lord Monckton told Alex Jones. PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5
So Copenhagen is over. A deal to “save the planet” from the ravages of global warming have failed. Meanwhile, in spite of all the hot air blowing in from Scandinavia, almost the entire of the UK has been under a sheet of snow and ice. Some parts of the UK have recorded temperatures as low as -16C.
What people will say to this is that weather is not climate. It’s a fair argument. But this weather is colder than the average by more than the amount of warming that alarmists get their knickers in a twist about. My point here is that while people are panicking about a rise of 2 or 3 degrees C over the next 100 years, a bigger drop in temperature has left many thousands of people across the UK – myself and my neighbours in Yorkshire included – stranded. It has caused travel chaos. It has caused accidents. It has cost a lot of money. It is cold weather that kills and costs.
Chapters in the full version: 1. When the Berlin Wall Opened, 2. Life Under Communism, 3. Europe Today: Treaty of Lisbon, 4. European Unification vs. Sovereignty, 5. Currency problems, 6. Global Warming is a Myth, 7. Relationship between Communism and Global Warming, 8. Becoming a Free Market Economist in a Communist Regime
Amid all the mainstream media reports of the talks in Copenhagen “limping” to a close and having failed, Lord Monckton, reporting from the summit, has stated that the only goal of the conference was to implement the framework and the funding for a world government – which he asserts has been achieved.
UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom analyses aspects of Gordon Brown's speech in Copenhagen, Dec. 17, and substantiates why Brown is a "historical nonentity".
"Brown is an empty vessel, a cipher," writes Godfrey Bloom on his blog. "He stands for nothing. Zilch. He shall not be remembered for saving the planet. He won’t even be remembered for trying to save the planet. If he is remembered for anything, it will be for being the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the time leading up to the biggest economic crisis for generations, and the unelected Prime Minister of a nation who signed up to an agreement that surrendered what sovereignty it had not yet given to Brussels."
It’s a sight we have all become familiar with in the media over the years. Greenpeace activists sneaking on board commercial ships and buildings, draping homemade banners adorned with radical environmental slogans over the ship’s bow. This week in Copenhagen saw the first-ever opening salvo by climate sceptics returning direct fire back to the very green campaign groups who uphold the globalists’ climate change global mantra. An entirely new breed of activist has been born- the “climate skeptivist”.
Lord Christopher Monckton takes GreenPeace to task on the many different levels of corruption, deceit, and true weather occurrences. He absolutely floors them, pay attention and you may learn too. As pointed out by a viewer, this vid just proves that it (Global Warming) is really a religion. Climatology the new world church (of the sheeple).
A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.
McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.
He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.
Greenshirts disrupt anti-scam conference,
Lord Monckton speaks to Alex Jones,
Dec. 10 (Part 1)
PART 2 - There will be investigations and prosecutions!
Christopher MONCKTON in Copenhagen
Here in Copenhagen, the “global warming” conference is hotting up despite the freezing weather. A couple of nights ago, a peaceful meeting of Americans for Prosperity was broken up by several dozen chanting preppie goons from SustainUS, a Hitlerian environmental pressure-group largely funded by US taxpayers. The thugs and thugettes were determined to exercise their right of free speech at the expense of ours.
These animals’ loutish assault on our meeting, and my conversation about it the next day, have gone viral on the internet as people realize – many for the first time – that, in today’s environmental movement, the intolerance, arrogance, and viciousness of Nazism is back – and this time it is worldwide.
A student at a British university did not like it when the members of our audience – reported by me on German television and subsequently worldwide - gave their opinions that the SustainUS thugs were no better than the Hitler Youth. Here, in full, is his complaint, and my reply.
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.
Saudi climate negotiator calls for Climate Research Unit investigation
AFP
COPENHAGEN — Saudia Arabia told global warming talks on Monday that trust in climate science had been "shaken" by leaked emails among experts and called for an international probe.
"The level of trust is definitely shaken, especially now that we are about to conclude an agreement that ... is going to mean sacrifices for our economies," said Mohammed al-Sabban, the kingdom's top climate negotiator, told delegates at the opening of December 7-18 UN talks.
Al-Sabban called for an "independent" international investigation, but said that the UN climate science body was unqualified to carry it out.
The United Nations panel on climate change is to investigate claims that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit manipulated global warming data.
The controversy was sparked by the publication of hacked emails on websites run by climate change sceptics, possibly in a bid to derail next week's Copenhagen conference.
The websites suggested that scientists had manipulated data to support a theory of man-made climate change.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), told BBC Radio 4's The Report programme the claims were serious and he wanted them investigated.
''We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it,'' he said.
''We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.''
With the release of over 60 megabytes worth of incriminating emails, and the world getting a glimpse into the world of fanatical pseudo-science, there is little that can be done by the professors who are now on intellectual trial. Whether the emails were leaked or hacked, the people responsible for getting the information out have helped uncover the truth about “climate change” like no news story before it. While there have been piles of evidence to expose the global warming fraud in the past, a written exchange in their very own words is the ultimate proof (Infowars.com)
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.
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.
Calls for an independent inquiry into what is being dubbed “Climategate” are growing as the foundation for man-made global warming implodes following the release of emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.
Former British chancellor Lord Lawson was the latest to demand an impartial investigation be launched into the scandal, which arrives just weeks before the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. “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.
The emails were leaked at the end of last week after hackers penetrated the servers of the Climatic Research Unit, which is based at the University of East Anglia, in eastern England. The CRU is described as one of the leading climate research bodies in the world.
The hacked documents and communications reveal how top scientists conspired to falsify data in the face of declining global temperatures in order to prop up the premise that man-made factors are driving climate change. Others illustrate how they embarked on a venomous and coordinated campaign to ostracize climate skeptics and use their influence to keep dissenting reports from appearing in peer-reviewed journals, as well as using cronyism to avoid compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests.
NEW DELHI -- As countries around the world prepare to flex their negotiating muscles at next month's climate-change summit in Copenhagen, India has begun to question the Western model of computing global warming statistics.
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a report last week that says there is no conclusive evidence that climate change has caused the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. The report says that not all of the glaciers are receding at alarming rates and that a few are even advancing.
The report, an analysis of data from the past four decades, is part of India's efforts to produce a body of indigenous research assessments on the subject.
"So far, we have been depending on research conducted by the West on what is happening to our glaciers and environment," he said after releasing the report, which was prepared by a former scientist with the Geological Survey of India and included a disclaimer that it did not necessarily reflect the government's view.
"There is an urgent need to have our own studies by our scientists," he said.
A folder containing documents, data and, e-mails purportedly "hacked" from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) may be smoking-gun proof of a worldwide conspiracy to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming. And the list of apparent conspirators includes many of the world's leading climate alarmists -- the very scientists on whose work the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is based.
In a Friday interview with Investigative Magazine's TGIF Edition, CRU director Phillip Jones confirmed [PDF] that the incriminating documents, which have been widely disseminated online, are in fact genuine. Accordingly, whether indeed the labor of hackers, or instead that of a CRU whistleblower, the contents of the FOI2009 folder are now public record -- and that's nothing short of dynamite.
After all, the names of the email exchangers represent a who's-who of the world's leading climate alarmism scientists, including Stephen Schneider, Gavin Schmidt, and James Hansen. And the e-mails themselves seemingly betray an organized apparatus of deception.
Should we surrender our economic sovereignty (and more) to the United Nations?
Mark DUCHAMPS 18 November 2009
The coming Copenhagen conference “COP 15” is more about transferring one trillion euros from our taxpayers to the Third World than it is about saving the planet. If we want to address poverty and hunger in the world, then we should start by ensuring that our present aid does not find its way into private bank accounts. That would be a positive, meaningful first step forward.
As for climate change, the science is far from being settled. The world's mean temperature stopped warming after 1998 and has actually been cooling since 2007. Ice volume is growing again in the Arctic. Many glaciers are advancing throughout the world, and sea levels have stabilised.
Over 31,000 scientists are denouncing the half-lies and statistical manipulations of the United Nations’ IPCC, but their voices are not allowed to reach the wider public. They have been collectively banned from television appearances for being “deniers”. Science is being muzzled as it was in the Middle Ages, and green zealots bank on this to establish the embryo of a world government under their control.
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” support the statement that greenhouse gases are “likely” to be responsible for “most” of the observed global warming in the past few decades. But in reality, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears ( the critical chapter 9 “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” ). And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. And then again, of the written comments made by the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors as they did not fit the political agenda. This is what global warming activists feed to the public as being a "global scientific consensus”. It's a scam, really.
There is more : climate alarmism claims that CO2 is a pollutant. But nothing could be further from the truth. CO2 is as essential to life as is oxygen. It is plant food. It makes crops more abundant and it greens deserts. As for carbon, it is an essential building block of life – ask any biologist. So we are being lied to, quite simply.
Climate change exists and has always existed. It warms and cools the planet according to cycles that are poorly understood. Variations in solar radiation, volcanic activity, and warm/cool cycles in ocean currents are the main “drivers” of changes in climate. As it stands, some IPCC scientists, the Met Office, and even the BBC have admitted we have entered a cooling cycle in spite of increased emissions of CO2. IPCC scientists are clueless about how long the cooling will last, but they make more warming predictions to save face and to secure funding.
Conclusion
At Copenhagen in December, governments will agree to commit to a process that will lead to useless yet hugely espensive decarbonisation schemes, and to the granting of supranational powers to a new bureaucracy largely influenced by alter-mundialist NGO’s and by the UN.
Unemployment will soar. Ill-conceived energy policies based on ineffective yet costly wind farms will ruin both our landscapes and wildlife while causing financial losses and physical sufferings to neighbours. It is high time to stop this devastation, and UKIP is calling for the dismissal of the Copenhagen Conference lest our sovereignty is taken away by anti-democratic forces.
Do we want green bureaucrats to run our lives? Haven’t we learned enough from the soviet experience?
"If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves ! " - Abraham Lincoln
UN’s “Kyoto” climate model was promoted in many places by the US ex-president Al Gore in his film and book “an inconvenient truth”. It was introduced by the Danish climate minister Connie Hedegaard, 28-3-2007, in my local cinema, “Gladsaxe Bio”. Al Gore postulated “climate crisis”, rising sea level and flooding low lands, due to the sun and the greenhouse effect caused by human use of coal and gas could melt the polar ice with. This cannot compensate for the heat loss during the Polar Nights. Hence, his “climate crisis” is false. I called it a “convenient politically lie”, 10-4-2007, in our local newspaper. He ignored the Polar Night climate model.
Of course only a few have experienced the Polar nights and measured their influence on the deep, cold, Arctic oceans with their specialised arctic marine life. Fishmarkets sell some Arctic species like the “Deep Sea Prawn”, the “Greenland Halibut”, the “redfish”. They belong to the basic, arctic, marine food chain. On top of this energy flow are toppredators like Polarbear and Whalrus. The icebergs from the glaciers float in the Arctic oceans, surrounded during summer by boats fishing “deep sea prawn”. During winter the “Greenland Halibut” is fished through holes in the sea ice. The global heat loss during the Polar nights has during million of years created the polar Oceans with the well adapted polar species The polar oceans and the ocean currents control the global climate. Human use of coal and oil, hot air, greenhouse effect, CO2 quotas etc are of no influence.
Polar Bear and Icebergs are erroneously used as victims for a “climate crisis”, for instance the Polar Bear by “Politiken”, and Icebergs by the large Swedish bank “Nordea”.
US president Barack Obama wants China to allow rights of free speech and free press without censurship. Barack Obama can demand the same from the Danish Government and medias, who suppressed all “Kyoto” critics in articles, lectures etc. I asked the EU parliament, 7-5-2009, to secure my rights of free speech for “Kyoto” critics. The curageous “Frederiksborg Amts Avis” referred it , 25-5-2009, as ”A convenient climate lie”. EU accepted, 13-10-2009, my plea for free speech to “Kyoto” critics. They refer the Polar night climate model to the commision for food resources. They refer my right for free speech to the Danish “Folketingets Ombudsmand".
There is a huge finansiel and NGO pressure to a global agreement on CO2 quotas with all the taxes and number of conflicts. Several countries are clever enough to win the position as victims for a hypotized “climate crisis”. As victims they claim compensation from EU as responsible for “climate changes”. It leads to endless cases known from insurance compagnies. EU accepted UN’s “Kyoto” agreement without own independent studies of the model, the expences etc.
The politicians selected one “scientific “ model as the “truth” and supressed all critics. This brings our civilisation back to the times before Galileo.
I hope this paper to “The Copenhagen Climate Challenge”, 6-12-2009, will bring some common sense and scientific knowledge to politicians and medias at COP-15 in the “Bella Centre”.
G. Høpner Petersen
Pens. Docent, dr. phil Zoologisk Museum
Aldershvilevej 120, I, th.
DK 2880 Bagsværd
Tlf. 44 98 99 81
email: lisring @ oncable .dk
Home > Blog > > 
UK Independence Party in the European Parliament, Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, WIB 02M021/23, Rue Wiertz, 60 - 1047 Brussels. info@ukipmeps.org (16.12.2009) 
-
PART 2
Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?
.jpg)
.png){kind=small}
