Climate change
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
There is no evidence that the email/date file was hacked /stolen as opposed to leaked. It suits the interests of UoEA CRU to say they were hacked though. There is a third possibility : that the file (apparently assembled for a possible FOI request) was inadvertently left on a publicly accessible ftp server. This would not be the first time this has happened at CRU.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
As far as I'm concerned it does not matter if they were leaked, Hacked or disseminated by other means. The fact is the so called scientists have been suppressing data to help their cause, if not telling outright porkies!
In Australia our Government (with the help of the opposition) are pushing through what they call an Emission Trading Scheme, which I call an Emission Tax scheme, and it is based on smoke, mirrors, vested interest and false and misleading data.
It will raise bucket loads of revenue for the Bastards though.
(translation for my American friends...Porkies=Porky Pies=Lies)
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
For those of you that really give a fig and live in the UK, why not sign up to this petition to stop the University of East Anglia from partaking for the moment. The
facts speak for themselves - they have tried to rewrite history to make it fit with their model - and been found wanting.
Petition to: suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body. | Number10.gov.uk
Sorry about that - it's political again and one of our brethren on the gt40s.com website might have a panick attack or a brain bleed reading anything political.
Poor vixer......
Not a good time of year for turkeys.!
facts speak for themselves - they have tried to rewrite history to make it fit with their model - and been found wanting.
Petition to: suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body. | Number10.gov.uk
Sorry about that - it's political again and one of our brethren on the gt40s.com website might have a panick attack or a brain bleed reading anything political.
Poor vixer......
Not a good time of year for turkeys.!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
In response to recent revelations contained in leaked e-mails originating from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the GWPF, has called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into the matter. While reserving judgment on the contents of the e-mails, Lord Lawson said these are very serious issues and allegations that reach to the heart of scientific integrity and credibility:
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."
"There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."
Lord Lawson added:
"Since the CRU is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and is part of the University of East Anglia, we call on Edmund Wallis, the chairman of the NERC and Brandon Gough, the Chancellor of the UEA, to jointly commission an independent inquiry into the revelations, including, of course, their veracity."
Professsor David Henderson, the Chairman of the Academic Advisory Council of the GWPF said:
"The evolution of climate policies needs to be linked to a process of inquiry, review and advice that is more open, thorough, balanced and objective than is now the case. This is the mission of the Global Warming Policy Foundation."
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."
"There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."
Lord Lawson added:
"Since the CRU is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and is part of the University of East Anglia, we call on Edmund Wallis, the chairman of the NERC and Brandon Gough, the Chancellor of the UEA, to jointly commission an independent inquiry into the revelations, including, of course, their veracity."
Professsor David Henderson, the Chairman of the Academic Advisory Council of the GWPF said:
"The evolution of climate policies needs to be linked to a process of inquiry, review and advice that is more open, thorough, balanced and objective than is now the case. This is the mission of the Global Warming Policy Foundation."
I wonder how "His Fatness" Al Gore is taking this!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Armageddon is not nigh. The planet has been cooling for almost a decade and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.
And now damning emails leaked from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia have implicated some famous climate scientists in a conspiracy to manipulate data and suppress evidence to exaggerate the case man-made ''runaway'' global warming is threatening the planet. We see clearly the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven the world to the brink of insanity on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.
More than 1000 emails and 3000 documents, covering correspondence between climate scientists for more than a decade, was posted on a Russian website with a link to the climate sceptic blog Air Vent on November 17, by someone using the name FOIA (presumably after the Freedom of Information Act). FOIA wrote: ''We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.''
We knew but never before had seen such proof of bad faith, overwhelming in its small detail, its shameless dishonesty, its meanness, its totalitarian tactics, pouncing on every deviation from The Word, as handed down by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The head of the agenda-setting Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, in an email to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, the American scientists who created the now discredited ''hockey stick'' graphs, which claim to show rapidly escalating temperatures is quoted thus: ''I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.''
Mann, in another email dated Oct 27, 2009, writes: ''As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, it's about plausibly deniable accusations.''
Phil Jones writes in another email about his alarm over new freedom of information laws, as he has been trying to block FOI requests for monthly global surface temperature data from retired Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, the editor of the sceptic blog Climate Audit. ''The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone . . ."
The fact it was a retired statistician and not a news organisation pounding the FOI requests that precipitated this flood of information is a sad reflection on the state of journalism.
There is also a revolting email from Jones to Mann, describing the premature death from a heart attack of Tasmanian author and climate sceptic John L. Daly as ''cheering news!"
Mann, in another email, maps out a plan to ruin a journal, Climate Research, which has published sceptic papers. ''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."
Another email to Mann, from Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC lead author on October 12, titled ''BBC U-turn on climate'', states: ''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 . . . Our observing system is inadequate.''
The good thing is people can now see the tactics of the alarmists and their army of bovver boys. You can read the emails online and then you can read the sly attempts to explain away the misdeeds. Despite their feigned reasonableness and world-weary calm over the email scandal, climate alarmists are in a mad fumbling panic. They are exposed as dangerous megalomaniacs, foolish, but with enormous power.
Their power came from the complicity of the media and because it suited a certain type of politician to build a new bureaucracy and pose as an environmental saviour, never having to face up to the consequences of being wrong.
<!-- articleBody --></BOD>Source: theage.com.au Amanda Devine.
And now damning emails leaked from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia have implicated some famous climate scientists in a conspiracy to manipulate data and suppress evidence to exaggerate the case man-made ''runaway'' global warming is threatening the planet. We see clearly the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven the world to the brink of insanity on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.
More than 1000 emails and 3000 documents, covering correspondence between climate scientists for more than a decade, was posted on a Russian website with a link to the climate sceptic blog Air Vent on November 17, by someone using the name FOIA (presumably after the Freedom of Information Act). FOIA wrote: ''We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.''
We knew but never before had seen such proof of bad faith, overwhelming in its small detail, its shameless dishonesty, its meanness, its totalitarian tactics, pouncing on every deviation from The Word, as handed down by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The head of the agenda-setting Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, in an email to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, the American scientists who created the now discredited ''hockey stick'' graphs, which claim to show rapidly escalating temperatures is quoted thus: ''I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.''
Mann, in another email dated Oct 27, 2009, writes: ''As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, it's about plausibly deniable accusations.''
Phil Jones writes in another email about his alarm over new freedom of information laws, as he has been trying to block FOI requests for monthly global surface temperature data from retired Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, the editor of the sceptic blog Climate Audit. ''The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone . . ."
The fact it was a retired statistician and not a news organisation pounding the FOI requests that precipitated this flood of information is a sad reflection on the state of journalism.
There is also a revolting email from Jones to Mann, describing the premature death from a heart attack of Tasmanian author and climate sceptic John L. Daly as ''cheering news!"
Mann, in another email, maps out a plan to ruin a journal, Climate Research, which has published sceptic papers. ''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."
Another email to Mann, from Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC lead author on October 12, titled ''BBC U-turn on climate'', states: ''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 . . . Our observing system is inadequate.''
The good thing is people can now see the tactics of the alarmists and their army of bovver boys. You can read the emails online and then you can read the sly attempts to explain away the misdeeds. Despite their feigned reasonableness and world-weary calm over the email scandal, climate alarmists are in a mad fumbling panic. They are exposed as dangerous megalomaniacs, foolish, but with enormous power.
Their power came from the complicity of the media and because it suited a certain type of politician to build a new bureaucracy and pose as an environmental saviour, never having to face up to the consequences of being wrong.
<!-- articleBody --></BOD>Source: theage.com.au Amanda Devine.
From The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.
He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.Climate change data dumped - Times Online
November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.
He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.Climate change data dumped - Times Online
JimmyMac
Lifetime Supporter
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
What is not told in the story is the unprecedented flood of telephone calls and emails that were sent to conservative politicians threatening them with electoral oblivion if the tax got through. A great victory for the people.
Most still want to do something about pollution but saw this proposed bill as a huge tax based on flawed science and pushed forward with unseemly haste by a ego-maniacal Prime minister who wanted a throphy for Copenhagen.
Heard on BBC Radio 4 this morning their comments about how Big U.S. Companies are trying to discredit climate change. The following is from Policy Research, and quotes the Telegraph.
CLIMATE CHANGE: THIS IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF OUR GENERATION
The reason why there has been an expression of total shock and dismay over the leaked University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails is that the senders and recipients of the mails constitute a cast list of scientific elite. They are the authors of global temperature record that is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and governments rely -- not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it, says author Christopher Booker.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world, say Booker:
Source: Christopher Booker, "Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation," The Telegraph, November 28, 2009.
For text:
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
For more on Global Warming:
Global Warming - Page 1 | National Center for Policy Analysis
CLIMATE CHANGE: THIS IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF OUR GENERATION
The reason why there has been an expression of total shock and dismay over the leaked University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails is that the senders and recipients of the mails constitute a cast list of scientific elite. They are the authors of global temperature record that is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and governments rely -- not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it, says author Christopher Booker.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world, say Booker:
- A series of emails shows how Professor Philip Jones, head of the CRU, and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws; scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
- Other emails show how the scientists manipulate data through their tortuous computer programs, always to point in only the one desired direction -- to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.
- Lastly, the emails demonstrate the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods -- not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work.
Source: Christopher Booker, "Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation," The Telegraph, November 28, 2009.
For text:
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
For more on Global Warming:
Global Warming - Page 1 | National Center for Policy Analysis
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Gore wrong about snow melt, why am I not surprised?
Pajamas Media Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro
Pajamas Media Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
No Surprises as 48 Third World Commonwealth Countries Support “Climate Change” Payouts — TO THEMSELVES
==============================================
December 1, 2009 by APP News | Print this post
It was no surprise at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) when 48 Third World nations enthusiastically agreed to the First World paying them out billions for so-called “climate change” damage.
The $10 billion fund — taken directly from taxpayers in First World nations — is supposed to allow these Third World nations to “build defences against flooding” and to “reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”
The CHOGM also unanimously agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement for this ongoing swindle and called for what they described as the “strongest possible outcome” at this month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.
It was announced at the CHOGM meeting that the quite-mistakenly called “global fund” (it is not “global,” but First World only) fund is aimed at distributing “money from rich countries to the developing countries to help them adapt and pay for low-carbon alternatives.”
In other words, it is little more than yet another First World guilt trip, this time imposed by interest groups whose scientific premise is increasingly being challenged by large numbers of dissenting scientists and specialists from across the globe.
A partial list of these scientists and their conclusions follows:
* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg, has produced research which says that “[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.
“Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. … By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.”
* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 … there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.”
* Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: “The two main ’scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible’. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.”
* Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists: “Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”. He has also said, “It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it.”
* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: “Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity. Ascribing ’greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated…Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”
* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.”
* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: “The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation …, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities … . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”
* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.”
* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.
“I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.”
These and a range of additional referenced comments and conclusions can be seen here.
Despite this, and the recent leaking of a large number of documents which show that climate change proponents in Britain falsified data to prove their case, the great handout of taxpayers’ cash to the Third World seems set to continue at the Copenhagen Summit next month.
Fortunately, there will be at least one voice of sanity at the Copenhagen Conference: British National Party leader Nick Griffin will be attending as part of the EU delegation.
“Those who warn of the consequences of climate change had reached an Orwellian consensus not based on scientific agreement, but on bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics,” Mr Griffin said in a speech in the EU parliament last week.
“The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology… But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao.”
*The full list of Commonwealth countries who welcomed the cash handouts are as follows:
Antigua and Barbuda; Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Botswana; Brunei; Cameroon; Dominica; Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guyana; India; Jamaica; Kenya;
Kiribati; Lesotho; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius; Mozambique; Namibia; Nauru; Nigeria; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; Rwanda; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Swaziland; Tanzania;
Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tuvalu; Uganda; Vanuatu; and Zambia.
* It will be noted that Mozambique is also a Commonwealth nation member, despite never having been a British colony.
==============================================
December 1, 2009 by APP News | Print this post
It was no surprise at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) when 48 Third World nations enthusiastically agreed to the First World paying them out billions for so-called “climate change” damage.
The $10 billion fund — taken directly from taxpayers in First World nations — is supposed to allow these Third World nations to “build defences against flooding” and to “reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”
The CHOGM also unanimously agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement for this ongoing swindle and called for what they described as the “strongest possible outcome” at this month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.
It was announced at the CHOGM meeting that the quite-mistakenly called “global fund” (it is not “global,” but First World only) fund is aimed at distributing “money from rich countries to the developing countries to help them adapt and pay for low-carbon alternatives.”
In other words, it is little more than yet another First World guilt trip, this time imposed by interest groups whose scientific premise is increasingly being challenged by large numbers of dissenting scientists and specialists from across the globe.
A partial list of these scientists and their conclusions follows:
* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg, has produced research which says that “[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.
“Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. … By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.”
* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 … there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.”
* Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: “The two main ’scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible’. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.”
* Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists: “Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”. He has also said, “It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it.”
* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: “Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity. Ascribing ’greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated…Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”
* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.”
* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: “The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation …, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities … . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”
* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.”
* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.
“I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.”
These and a range of additional referenced comments and conclusions can be seen here.
Despite this, and the recent leaking of a large number of documents which show that climate change proponents in Britain falsified data to prove their case, the great handout of taxpayers’ cash to the Third World seems set to continue at the Copenhagen Summit next month.
Fortunately, there will be at least one voice of sanity at the Copenhagen Conference: British National Party leader Nick Griffin will be attending as part of the EU delegation.
“Those who warn of the consequences of climate change had reached an Orwellian consensus not based on scientific agreement, but on bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics,” Mr Griffin said in a speech in the EU parliament last week.
“The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology… But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao.”
*The full list of Commonwealth countries who welcomed the cash handouts are as follows:
Antigua and Barbuda; Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Botswana; Brunei; Cameroon; Dominica; Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guyana; India; Jamaica; Kenya;
Kiribati; Lesotho; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius; Mozambique; Namibia; Nauru; Nigeria; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; Rwanda; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Swaziland; Tanzania;
Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tuvalu; Uganda; Vanuatu; and Zambia.
* It will be noted that Mozambique is also a Commonwealth nation member, despite never having been a British colony.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
<B><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=blue><FONT face=Arial><B><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
<st1
lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
<st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City> is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of <st1lace w:st="on">Middlesbrough</st1lace>.
By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:55PM GMT 05 Dec 2009
On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of <st1lace w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City></st1lace>'s biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.
"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."
Climate Express sets off for <st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City> Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from <st1:country-region w:st="on">Germany</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Sweden</st1lace></st1:country-region>."
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Denmark</st1lace></st1:country-region>, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Sweden</st1:country-region> – to park, returning to <st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> to pick up their VIP passengers.
As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region> senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.
At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, <st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City>'s clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over <st1lace w:st="on">Europe</st1lace>. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".
The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.
And this being <st1lace w:st="on">Scandinavia</st1lace>, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of <st1lace w:st="on">Middlesbrough</st1lace>.
The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.
Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.
Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – <st1:country-region w:st="on">Britain</st1:country-region> excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Kyoto</st1lace></st1:City>.
And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Australia</st1lace></st1:country-region> has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.
In <st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the <st1lace w:st="on"><st1laceType w:st="on">Institute</st1laceType> of <st1laceName w:st="on">Social Ecology</st1laceName></st1lace>. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."
As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> this week.
In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.
Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from <st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.
And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.
The <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region>, which rejected <st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Kyoto</st1lace></st1:City>, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in <st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City> may signal some sort of agreement between <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">China</st1lace></st1:country-region>: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.
The hot air this week will be massive and the whole proceedings eminently mockable. <o></o>
<o></o>
lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges<st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City> is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of <st1
lace w:st="on">Middlesbrough</st1lace>. By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:55PM GMT 05 Dec 2009
On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of <st1
lace w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City></st1lace>'s biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200. "We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."
Climate Express sets off for <st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City> Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from <st1:country-region w:st="on">Germany</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Sweden</st1lace></st1:country-region>." And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Denmark</st1lace></st1:country-region>, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish." The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Sweden</st1:country-region> – to park, returning to <st1:City w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> to pick up their VIP passengers. As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region> senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges. At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, <st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City>'s clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over <st1
lace w:st="on">Europe</st1lace>. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth". The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.
And this being <st1
lace w:st="on">Scandinavia</st1lace>, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning. At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of <st1
lace w:st="on">Middlesbrough</st1lace>. The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.
Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.
Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – <st1:country-region w:st="on">Britain</st1:country-region> excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Kyoto</st1lace></st1:City>. And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Australia</st1lace></st1:country-region> has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause. In <st1:City w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the <st1lace w:st="on"><st1laceType w:st="on">Institute</st1laceType> of <st1laceName w:st="on">Social Ecology</st1laceName></st1lace>. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys." As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> this week. In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.
Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from <st1:City w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1lace></st1:City> itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens. And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.
The <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region>, which rejected <st1:City w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Kyoto</st1lace></st1:City>, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in <st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City> may signal some sort of agreement between <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">China</st1lace></st1:country-region>: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks. The hot air this week will be massive and the whole proceedings eminently mockable. <o
></o><o
></o>
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
From the Telegraph..Dec 10th.
Copenhagen climate summit: Blindfolds at Copenhagen are hiding the crucial issues - Telegraph
Copenhagen climate summit: Blindfolds at Copenhagen are hiding the crucial issues - Telegraph
