It's our good luck one of Earth's many ice ages ended 12,000 years ago.
Climate change activists are right. We are in for walloping shifts in the planet's climate. Catastrophic shifts. But the activists are wrong about the reason. Very wrong. And the prescription for a solution—a $27 trillion solution—is likely to be even more wrong. Why?
Climate change is not the fault of man. It's Mother Nature's way. And sucking greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is too limited a solution. We have to be prepared for fire or ice, for fry or freeze. We have to be prepared for change.
We've been deceived by a stroke of luck. In the two million years during which we climbed from stone-tool wielding Homo erectus with sloping brows to high-foreheaded Homo urbanis, man the inventor of the city, we underwent 60 glaciations, 60 ice ages. And in the 120,000 years since we emerged in our current physiological shape as Homo sapiens, we've lived through 20 sudden global warmings. In most of those, temperatures have shot up by as much as 18 degrees within a mere 20 years.
All this took place without smokestacks and tailpipes. All this took place without the desecration of nature by modern man.
The stroke of luck that's misled us? The sheets of ice in whose shadow we made a living for two million years peeled back 12,000 years ago leaving a lush new Garden of Eden. In that Eden we invented agriculture, money, electronics and our current way of life. But that weather standstill has held on for an abnormally long amount of time. And it's very likely that this atypical weather truce shall someday pass. Read more.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Police in a state
The Danish police, normally accustomed to dealing with a docile, over-socialized and even supine population, are suddenly up against some of the world’s best-trained international-Left agitators, who have gotten into the conference center under the umbrella of recognized non-government organizations, nearly all of which are handsomely taxpayer-funded, and have staged a riot.
The police over-reacted and panicked, egged on by the UN’s own security thugs, who have made themselves near-universally unpopular for their heavy-handedness. They closed the station at the conference center, so that delegates had to continue to the next station and walk more than a mile along cracking, windswept concrete past joyless steel-and-glass blocks and puddle-bespattered wastelands to get back to the entrance. There was not the slightest point in closing the station: it merely annoyed everyone. UN mistake no. 1.
But that was not all. The police, apparently at the instructions of the UN’s grim private police force, decided that while the riot was going on no one should be allowed into the conference center. That meant that ministers and negotiators from many nations were penned beneath the railroad tracks for hours, waiting to know whether they would be allowed in to do their job. Mistake no. 2. Read more.
The police over-reacted and panicked, egged on by the UN’s own security thugs, who have made themselves near-universally unpopular for their heavy-handedness. They closed the station at the conference center, so that delegates had to continue to the next station and walk more than a mile along cracking, windswept concrete past joyless steel-and-glass blocks and puddle-bespattered wastelands to get back to the entrance. There was not the slightest point in closing the station: it merely annoyed everyone. UN mistake no. 1.
But that was not all. The police, apparently at the instructions of the UN’s grim private police force, decided that while the riot was going on no one should be allowed into the conference center. That meant that ministers and negotiators from many nations were penned beneath the railroad tracks for hours, waiting to know whether they would be allowed in to do their job. Mistake no. 2. Read more.
Copenhagen summit veering towards farce, warns Ed Miliband
Climate talks at least 18 hours behind schedule as world leaders set to arrive in Copenhagen
Ed Miliband gestures during a press briefing at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen. Photograph: Anja Niedringhaus/AP
The climate change summit in Copenhagen was in jeopardy tonight with the complex negotiations falling far behind schedule as the climate secretary, Ed Miliband, warned of a "farce".
With just two days remaining, the inability to overcome disagreements about the shape of a deal to combat global warming led to hours of inaction today , while outside the negotiations police clashed with protesters who broke through a security cordon but failed in an attempt to storm the conference centre.
"We have made no progress" said a source close to the talks. "What people don't realise is that we are now not really ready for the leaders. These talks are now 18 hours late."
More than 115 world leaders arrive tomorrow and on Friday and had expected only to bargain over the final details in a prepared draft agreement but the earlier impasse could condemn the talks to failure. Read more.
Russia: Hadley Center “probably tampered with Russian climate data”
On Mar 31, 2004 Jones wrote to to Mann as follows:
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Climategate emails show that Phil Jones of CRU, acting as a reviewer of the CRU data used in the HadCRU gridded temperature, “went to town” to block the publication of criticisms of his handling of Russian data.
On Dec 15, 2009, it was reported that the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report “claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.” (h’t Jeff Id) There is an online technical report dated Dec 15, 2009, which states that it considered data released by the UK Met Office on Dec 8, 2009 in response to “increasing public pressure”. The Google translation needs volunteers. Russian version here. (h/t Anastassia) [Note: The Institute for Economic Analysis is not the Russian equivalent of the UK Met Office; the Russian Met Office may have a different view.] Read more.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Climategate emails show that Phil Jones of CRU, acting as a reviewer of the CRU data used in the HadCRU gridded temperature, “went to town” to block the publication of criticisms of his handling of Russian data.
On Dec 15, 2009, it was reported that the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report “claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.” (h’t Jeff Id) There is an online technical report dated Dec 15, 2009, which states that it considered data released by the UK Met Office on Dec 8, 2009 in response to “increasing public pressure”. The Google translation needs volunteers. Russian version here. (h/t Anastassia) [Note: The Institute for Economic Analysis is not the Russian equivalent of the UK Met Office; the Russian Met Office may have a different view.] Read more.
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. Read More.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. Read More.
The climate change conference from Hell
Let's see now...
Over in Copenhagen, we have Robert Mugabe, perhaps the most brutal and corrupt despot in Africa, whose life's work has been to destroy the once-prosperous country of Zimbabwe, lecturing the West on the "hypocrisy" of its position on climate change. (Zimbabwe doesn't have to worry about greenhouse gas emissions, because, thanks to Mugane, its economy is in a state of collapse.) Update: Here's Stephen Lewis talking about a new report on Mugabe's use of rape as a weapon.
We have the government of China, which won't allow its citizens free access to the Internet, complaining that the climate summit is "not transparent."
We have Hugo Chavez, who took time off from shutting down Venezuela's radio stations to fly to Denmark, complaining about western "dictatorship." (If anyone back in Venezuela disagrees, he'll toss them in jail).
We have "climate change activists" cutting down and desecrating the Canadian flag. More "activists" disrupting the talks and trying to break into the conference centre, beaten off by police in riot gear using tear gas and pepper spray.
We have the mayor of Toronto telling the world he's "embarrassed" by his country's policy while denying he already has a plum job lined up with an environmental organization when he finally, mercifully (and not a moment too soon) quits his job as mayor late next year. (Way to stand up for your country Mr. Mayor! Way to display pride at being Canadian). We have Al Gore, he of the energy-sucking mansion and private jets, who charges $1,200 a handshake to be fawned over by fans, announcing that new hot-off-the-presses data show the Arctic ice cap will be fully melted in seven years, the only problem being that it's not true. Read more.
Cope Notes #1: The Snows of Kilimancrazy
Before I head out to the demonstration this morning, I thought I’d throw up the first of my notes on the Copenhagen Climate Conference.
First the good news: it’s snowing out (big flakes, beautiful) and I didn’t drink too much last night.
Now the bad news: The rest. This whole event so far, what I can see of it anyway, is just silly. Basically, it’s a combination of a trade fair for eco products that are being flogged everywhere (I’m staying in a CO2 neutral hotel – you can see it on PJTV), third world operators looking for hand-outs (a couple of African scientists admitted to one of the skeptic scientists they knew AGW was a schuck, but it was a great oppo to get some cash) and leftover, re-upped hippies doing what they do — demonstrate and carry-on. I’m supposed to join them as they storm the Bella Center (conference central) today, for what I’m not sure. Well, I’m being disingenuous. It’s partly for a soupcon of more money for developing nations mixed with a dollop of the death of capitalism — the latter of which would be disastrous for them since they are the sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie on the dole from their parents. But what do they care? It’s action — and I’ll try to be there. Read more.
First the good news: it’s snowing out (big flakes, beautiful) and I didn’t drink too much last night.
Now the bad news: The rest. This whole event so far, what I can see of it anyway, is just silly. Basically, it’s a combination of a trade fair for eco products that are being flogged everywhere (I’m staying in a CO2 neutral hotel – you can see it on PJTV), third world operators looking for hand-outs (a couple of African scientists admitted to one of the skeptic scientists they knew AGW was a schuck, but it was a great oppo to get some cash) and leftover, re-upped hippies doing what they do — demonstrate and carry-on. I’m supposed to join them as they storm the Bella Center (conference central) today, for what I’m not sure. Well, I’m being disingenuous. It’s partly for a soupcon of more money for developing nations mixed with a dollop of the death of capitalism — the latter of which would be disastrous for them since they are the sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie on the dole from their parents. But what do they care? It’s action — and I’ll try to be there. Read more.
Ship of Lies 1
By The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an environmental non-governmental organization that – unlike just about all of the rest – does not believe “global warming” is a global crisis, yesterday made an unannounced visit to a Greenpeace ship in Copenhagen Harbor and slung from it a banner that read “Ship of Lies!”
Greenpeace, of course, now has a fleet larger than the Royal Navy. Much of the money to pay for this costly fleet comes from taxpayers round the world. More still may well come from nations unfriendly to the West, who have seen the opportunity to try to persuade the West to shut down its economies so that they will not have to compete with it for natural resources.
Yet, for some reason, the media here never ask any of the true-believers in the “global warming” superstition any questions about their funding. It is only the doubters who are badgered with questions about it.
The media ask such questions because they no longer dare ask any questions about the science. Roger Harrabin, the excitable and relentlessly ill-informed environment correspondent of the unspeakable BBC, for instance, came bounding up to me in the conference center and said, “Are you making any converts?”
I looked at him as though he had crawled out from under a stone and said, “Converts? What do you think this is? A religious convention? Science is not a belief system, Roger.”
For puir wee Harrabin, though, that’s just what it is. When I told him that in a recent piece about “ocean acidification” he had covered every aspect of the story except the inconvenient truth that it hasn’t happened in a billion years and can’t happen now, and cited one of the world’s most expert geologists on the point, he said: “But he’s out of line with the Consensus of thousands of scientists round the world.”
In the end, the environmental lobby, of which the BBC is – contrary to its charter – an integral and politically-active part, almost always falls back on the “consensus” argument. It is all they have left. Read more.
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an environmental non-governmental organization that – unlike just about all of the rest – does not believe “global warming” is a global crisis, yesterday made an unannounced visit to a Greenpeace ship in Copenhagen Harbor and slung from it a banner that read “Ship of Lies!”
Greenpeace, of course, now has a fleet larger than the Royal Navy. Much of the money to pay for this costly fleet comes from taxpayers round the world. More still may well come from nations unfriendly to the West, who have seen the opportunity to try to persuade the West to shut down its economies so that they will not have to compete with it for natural resources.
Yet, for some reason, the media here never ask any of the true-believers in the “global warming” superstition any questions about their funding. It is only the doubters who are badgered with questions about it.
The media ask such questions because they no longer dare ask any questions about the science. Roger Harrabin, the excitable and relentlessly ill-informed environment correspondent of the unspeakable BBC, for instance, came bounding up to me in the conference center and said, “Are you making any converts?”
I looked at him as though he had crawled out from under a stone and said, “Converts? What do you think this is? A religious convention? Science is not a belief system, Roger.”
For puir wee Harrabin, though, that’s just what it is. When I told him that in a recent piece about “ocean acidification” he had covered every aspect of the story except the inconvenient truth that it hasn’t happened in a billion years and can’t happen now, and cited one of the world’s most expert geologists on the point, he said: “But he’s out of line with the Consensus of thousands of scientists round the world.”
In the end, the environmental lobby, of which the BBC is – contrary to its charter – an integral and politically-active part, almost always falls back on the “consensus” argument. It is all they have left. Read more.
Russia affected by Climategate
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Read more.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Read more.
Real World - by Bob Richard
My position is economic in premise, given that the industry I work in (automotive) is grossly affected. However, further arguments against irresponsible global trade extend hugely into environmental, carbon footprint, foreign ownership, loss of technology, jobs, pay equity, pensions, national security, health care, and so on..... There are literally hundreds of cases where our environment is being ravaged due to massive global transport - starting with the Japanese beetle in 1916, through to the present day zebra mussel, purple loosestrife, emerald ash borer, Asian carp, and the list goes on.
There are dozens of reasons and thousands of real world examples of how irresponsible global trade has hurt us and the developing industrial countries, yet, no one seems to care or do anything about it. The carbon footprint is another major reason. Worldwide production of cardboard has more than tripled in the last decade for overseas shipping. They take our trees and send us wood furniture goods, wrapped in cardboard, most in absurdly poor quality.
It needs to stop. We're being sold out. Our children are those who stand to loose the most. Our wealth, our freedom, our environment, our resources, and our sovereignty are compromised.
There are dozens of reasons and thousands of real world examples of how irresponsible global trade has hurt us and the developing industrial countries, yet, no one seems to care or do anything about it. The carbon footprint is another major reason. Worldwide production of cardboard has more than tripled in the last decade for overseas shipping. They take our trees and send us wood furniture goods, wrapped in cardboard, most in absurdly poor quality.
It needs to stop. We're being sold out. Our children are those who stand to loose the most. Our wealth, our freedom, our environment, our resources, and our sovereignty are compromised.
Chaos at climate conference
COPENHAGEN — The Copenhagen climate change conference appeared to be imploding from within and exploding from without on Wednesday.
Police fired tear gas, brandished batons and detained more than 200 protesters who tried to push through the security cordon around the Bella Center, as negotiations inside bogged down, for the second time this week, over differences between China and the West over emissions, funding issues and transparency.
"People around the world [are] actually expecting something to be done from us,” red-faced Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen lectured delegates from nearly 200 nations.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the highest-ranking American yet to appear at the talks, urged attendees to put aside their differences and “make Friday our day of success.” Read more.
He did it again - Al is making it up as he goes along.
Another Al Gore Reality Check: “Rising tree mortality”?
In this Reuters story (15 December 2009) they report: “Describing a ‘runaway melt’ of the Earth’s ice, rising tree mortality and prospects of severe water scarcities, Gore told a UN audience: ‘In the face of effects like these, clear evidence that only reckless fools would ignore, I feel a sense of frustration’ at the lack of agreement so far.”
Now to most people, “rising tree mortality” raises the specter of a world with less greenery. But how does real world data compare with the virtual modeled world? Is the world getting less greener? Is there any hint of the virtual world in the real world data?
Satellite data for the real world (not the one Mr. Gore lives in) can help give us an idea.
Global
Globally net primary productivity (NPP) has increased. As the IPCC’s WG II report (p. 106) says:
Satellite-derived estimates of global net primary production from satellite data of vegetation indexes indicate a 6% increase from 1982 to 1999, with large increases in tropical ecosystems (Nemani et al., 2003) [Figure 1]. The study by Zhou et al. (2003), also using satellite data, confirm that the Northern Hemisphere vegetation activity has increased in magnitude by 12% in Eurasia and by 8% in NorthAmerica from 1981 to 1999.
In this Reuters story (15 December 2009) they report: “Describing a ‘runaway melt’ of the Earth’s ice, rising tree mortality and prospects of severe water scarcities, Gore told a UN audience: ‘In the face of effects like these, clear evidence that only reckless fools would ignore, I feel a sense of frustration’ at the lack of agreement so far.”
Former US Vice President Al Gore speaks at a presentation on melting ice and snow at the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen December 14, 2009. Credit: REUTERS/Bob Strong
Now to most people, “rising tree mortality” raises the specter of a world with less greenery. But how does real world data compare with the virtual modeled world? Is the world getting less greener? Is there any hint of the virtual world in the real world data?
Satellite data for the real world (not the one Mr. Gore lives in) can help give us an idea.
Global
Globally net primary productivity (NPP) has increased. As the IPCC’s WG II report (p. 106) says:
Satellite-derived estimates of global net primary production from satellite data of vegetation indexes indicate a 6% increase from 1982 to 1999, with large increases in tropical ecosystems (Nemani et al., 2003) [Figure 1]. The study by Zhou et al. (2003), also using satellite data, confirm that the Northern Hemisphere vegetation activity has increased in magnitude by 12% in Eurasia and by 8% in NorthAmerica from 1981 to 1999.
Figure 1: Climate driven changes in global net primary productivity, 1982-1999. Source: Myneni (2006), p. 5. This is the same figure as in IPCC AR4WGII, p. 106, but with a different color scheme.
Dangerous Climate Change Is Coming
The Scare:
Two papers published in Nature in spring 2009 say that the rise in global temperature is unlikely to remain below the politically-defined threshold of “dangerous climate change”, if global economic growth continues at its current pace. The papers are based on computer simulations of the climate response to greenhouse-gas emissions.Policymakers have adopted a goal of keeping the global rise in mean surface temperatures to no more than 2 C° (3.6 F°) above pre-industrial levels.
Myles Allen et al. simulate the mean “global warming” that would result from a given cumulative carbon emission. They conclude that a trillion tonnes of carbon emissions (about 3.7 trillion tonnes of CO2, roughly half of which has already been emitted) produces a “most likely” warming of 2 C° (3.6 F°).
Malte Meinshausen et al. take a slightly different tack by modelling the probability of global temperature rises across a range of greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios. They find that total emissions from 2000 to 2050 of about 1,400 gigatonnes of CO2 yields a 50% probability of exceeding 2 C° warming by the end of the 21st century. Emissions for the last seven years were almost 250 gigatonnes, implying that even without future increases in CO2 emissions the total emissions from 2000-2050 may well exceed this 50% probability.
The Truth:
Nature is one of many “scientific” journals that have openly declared an editorial prejudice in favor of a frankly alarmist viewpoint on the climate. In short, Nature adamantly refuses to publish any paper suggesting – however compelling the evidence and arguments – that anthropogenic “global warming” will not be as significant as the UN’s climate panel suggests. Nature’s selection process is, therefore, openly prejudiced ab initio. In reality, Nature is now a religious rather than a scientific journal.
As is now usual, the two papers foretelling “dangerous climate change” are based not on real-world observations but on computer games. This is the “X-Box 360” method of doing science. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the discoverer of the science underlying the aurora borealis and one of the dozen most-cited scientists in the world, has pointed out that computer models of the climate such as those relied upon in the two papers in Nature are instructed from the outset to assume that the temperature response to CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere will be substantial. The Playstations do not tell us that there will be major warming as a result of our activities – we tell the Playstations.
Are we right to tell the models that climate sensitivity will be high? No. Lorenz (1963), in the landmark paper that founded chaos theory, said that because the climate is a mathematically-chaotic object (a point which the UN’s climate panel admits), accurate long-term prediction of the future evolution of the climate is not possible “by any method”. At present, climate forecasts even as little as six weeks ahead can be diametrically the opposite of what actually occurs, even if the forecasts are limited to a small region of the planet. For instance, in April 2007 the UK Met Office predicted that that summer would be the hottest, driest and most drought-prone since records began, just weeks before the commencement of the coldest, wettest and most flood-prone summer since records began. In Autumn 2008, the Met Office predicted a warmer-than-average winter, just weeks before the coldest winter in two decades began. Read more.
Police battle climate activists as talks stalemate
COPENHAGEN -- Police battled demonstrators outside the UN climate summit on Wednesday as leaders of developing nations let rip at wealthy counterparts, exposing the mighty obstacles facing a deal to tame global warming.
Police with dogs fired teargas and arrested around 260 marchers near the Bella Center, while inside the conference venue fears swelled that ministerial wrangling could wreck hopes for a deal.
Around 1,500 demonstrators tried to march on the closely guarded complex, where 194 nations are seeking to forge a strategy to head off the dangers from rising oceans, droughts, plagues and storms threatened by soaring temperatures.
Inside the conference centre, a man and a woman stormed on to the main stage after a speech by Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, repeatedly shouting "Climate justice now!" before being taken away by security.
Read more.
7 Basic Science Principles
Written by Ernst Hartmut Laemmert
As a man of science I find the ongoing dispute of climate crisis highly suspect by those who profess concerns and fears as a “belief”, equating it to a quasi-religious tenet. I would therefore want to logically pose several fundamental and basic principles that should not be objectively and factually arguable, regardless of his/her position on the subject.
1. Any scientific debate, or philosophical argument, must at its outset have a basic agreement by the parties (Example: are we all relying on the same raw “unprocessed data). Without such an initial common starting point no scientific debate can be undertaken, because the parties do not agree to dispute each other in the same framework of reference. This will only produce two monologues without any exchange of fact-based reasoned thought.
2. The “consensus“ argument pointing to a majority (?) of scientists concurring on the issue of GW is a major fallacy in thought. True scientific research and discovery has never been a matter of populist consensus. By its very nature scientific discovery has always been a solitary and minority product. If it were otherwise man could have never evolved to its present form. Therefore the argument that many scientists believe in GW, has no scientific standing whatsoever. The basis of the issue at hand must be incontrovertible scientific analysis without any bias from political, social or economic expedience or, democratic consensus.
3. Any scientific finding can and must be replicable by anyone with the education and intellectual competence in that field. This is obviously not what has taken place. The overlays of adjustments, modifications and redactions from basic climate data make it virtually impossible to conduct a solid and scientifically accurate peer review of the conclusions drawn by the GW proponents, who are now further shying away from scrutiny under the guise of proprietary data. If the world is on the brink of disaster as it is being claimed, not sharing every iota of that knowledge, and the complete process to arriving at that conclusion would not only be an ethical transgression of major proportion but a criminal act of colossal magnitude. If anyone, let alone hundreds of scientific dissenters can make a cold, logical and scientifically unbiased analysis of the actual raw observed data, and come to a very different conclusion, that would by its very nature necessitate an open, unlimited scientific debate without regards to a predetermined conclusion. Only then would the world come to know what the real facts really are and what, if anything, they imply for us.
4. There is now a widely held school of thought that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and thus inimical to the existence of man (the EPA has just defined it as such by executive fiat). This school of thought is based on the belief that there is a correlation – no causality – between the Co2 content of the atmosphere and a geometric progression into catastrophic GW, without consideration of the fact that there are many intricately interdependent factors influencing global climate, some of which are counterbalancing the effects of others. Global Co2 during the 50 million years of the dinosaur age was reportedly many times (!) that of what it is today, without the earth and its climate collapsing (and no, the dinosaurs did not expire from excessive Co2). And they were around a lot longer than mankind has been. With the current politically driven climate hysteria it is totally overlooked that Co2 is not only a necessary, normal and integral part of our atmospheric and physical dynamic but that it is also just a small part of it (0.038%), of which the manmade addition amounts to another small fraction of a percent. That puts the anthropogenic Co2 addition to the atmosphere in a worst case scenario in the magnitude of 0.01% or less of the earth’s atmosphere. It is a (little known) fact that volcanic activity is a far greater contributor of Co2 to the atmosphere than all man-related activity combined. And the global climate has neither collapsed nor “flipped” in the millions of years of such ongoing geological activity.
5. GW proponents generally argue from the basis of a fait accompli of a doomsday scenario, and do not bother to explain their hyperbole conclusions in terms of dry scientific fact based on actual transparent “unprocessed” and “unadjusted” data. If they did, it would become eminently clear that earth climate is not significantly affected by, let alone brought to a catastrophic collapse by anthropogenic Co2 addition, regardless whether mankind completely closes down shop or pursues a responsible course of global economic development.
6. The cost/benefit ratio is hardly ever brought home by GW proponents, because they have enamored themselves with frequently peer-cloned computer model theories of imminent global cataclysm to such a degree that the relative cost AND benefit aspects appear too insignificant a consideration to be given any serious thought. Any genuine scientific thought always has been, always should be, subject to critical analysis. The GW proponents commit the ultimate scientific sin by denying its critics an open and equal forum with the reasoning that “the science (on the issue) is conclusive”, the “case is closed” and that anyone not in concurrence is a “scientific heretic” and not deserving to be heard. That train of thought is anathema to any scientific endeavor that by its very nature always questions the common beliefs of the time by independent and analytical thought, and is reminiscent of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”.
7. The reality is that A.C.G.W. is a debated and contested theory, but with greater certainty will be more likely A. G. E. C. or Anthropogenic Global Economic Collapse, a manmade worldwide disaster to the detriment of virtually the entire world population and its economies, and to the enormous benefit of an oligarchic few, not unlike a Ponzi scheme. Our global climate is well within the range of the oscillations that have existed for hundreds of millions of years. Unaltered and unfiltered observations verify that fact. If anything, global climate has been cooling for nearly a decade now, a phenomenon totally unexplained by the GW proponents. But then, the expedient move to the “Climate Change” moniker can now conveniently make ANY possible event under the sun responsible for it. The sun, which incidentally by its relative phases of activity and inactivity has produced the only reliably observable and verifiable principal causal factor affecting our global climate.
As a man of science I find the ongoing dispute of climate crisis highly suspect by those who profess concerns and fears as a “belief”, equating it to a quasi-religious tenet. I would therefore want to logically pose several fundamental and basic principles that should not be objectively and factually arguable, regardless of his/her position on the subject.
1. Any scientific debate, or philosophical argument, must at its outset have a basic agreement by the parties (Example: are we all relying on the same raw “unprocessed data). Without such an initial common starting point no scientific debate can be undertaken, because the parties do not agree to dispute each other in the same framework of reference. This will only produce two monologues without any exchange of fact-based reasoned thought.
2. The “consensus“ argument pointing to a majority (?) of scientists concurring on the issue of GW is a major fallacy in thought. True scientific research and discovery has never been a matter of populist consensus. By its very nature scientific discovery has always been a solitary and minority product. If it were otherwise man could have never evolved to its present form. Therefore the argument that many scientists believe in GW, has no scientific standing whatsoever. The basis of the issue at hand must be incontrovertible scientific analysis without any bias from political, social or economic expedience or, democratic consensus.
3. Any scientific finding can and must be replicable by anyone with the education and intellectual competence in that field. This is obviously not what has taken place. The overlays of adjustments, modifications and redactions from basic climate data make it virtually impossible to conduct a solid and scientifically accurate peer review of the conclusions drawn by the GW proponents, who are now further shying away from scrutiny under the guise of proprietary data. If the world is on the brink of disaster as it is being claimed, not sharing every iota of that knowledge, and the complete process to arriving at that conclusion would not only be an ethical transgression of major proportion but a criminal act of colossal magnitude. If anyone, let alone hundreds of scientific dissenters can make a cold, logical and scientifically unbiased analysis of the actual raw observed data, and come to a very different conclusion, that would by its very nature necessitate an open, unlimited scientific debate without regards to a predetermined conclusion. Only then would the world come to know what the real facts really are and what, if anything, they imply for us.
4. There is now a widely held school of thought that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and thus inimical to the existence of man (the EPA has just defined it as such by executive fiat). This school of thought is based on the belief that there is a correlation – no causality – between the Co2 content of the atmosphere and a geometric progression into catastrophic GW, without consideration of the fact that there are many intricately interdependent factors influencing global climate, some of which are counterbalancing the effects of others. Global Co2 during the 50 million years of the dinosaur age was reportedly many times (!) that of what it is today, without the earth and its climate collapsing (and no, the dinosaurs did not expire from excessive Co2). And they were around a lot longer than mankind has been. With the current politically driven climate hysteria it is totally overlooked that Co2 is not only a necessary, normal and integral part of our atmospheric and physical dynamic but that it is also just a small part of it (0.038%), of which the manmade addition amounts to another small fraction of a percent. That puts the anthropogenic Co2 addition to the atmosphere in a worst case scenario in the magnitude of 0.01% or less of the earth’s atmosphere. It is a (little known) fact that volcanic activity is a far greater contributor of Co2 to the atmosphere than all man-related activity combined. And the global climate has neither collapsed nor “flipped” in the millions of years of such ongoing geological activity.
5. GW proponents generally argue from the basis of a fait accompli of a doomsday scenario, and do not bother to explain their hyperbole conclusions in terms of dry scientific fact based on actual transparent “unprocessed” and “unadjusted” data. If they did, it would become eminently clear that earth climate is not significantly affected by, let alone brought to a catastrophic collapse by anthropogenic Co2 addition, regardless whether mankind completely closes down shop or pursues a responsible course of global economic development.
6. The cost/benefit ratio is hardly ever brought home by GW proponents, because they have enamored themselves with frequently peer-cloned computer model theories of imminent global cataclysm to such a degree that the relative cost AND benefit aspects appear too insignificant a consideration to be given any serious thought. Any genuine scientific thought always has been, always should be, subject to critical analysis. The GW proponents commit the ultimate scientific sin by denying its critics an open and equal forum with the reasoning that “the science (on the issue) is conclusive”, the “case is closed” and that anyone not in concurrence is a “scientific heretic” and not deserving to be heard. That train of thought is anathema to any scientific endeavor that by its very nature always questions the common beliefs of the time by independent and analytical thought, and is reminiscent of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”.
7. The reality is that A.C.G.W. is a debated and contested theory, but with greater certainty will be more likely A. G. E. C. or Anthropogenic Global Economic Collapse, a manmade worldwide disaster to the detriment of virtually the entire world population and its economies, and to the enormous benefit of an oligarchic few, not unlike a Ponzi scheme. Our global climate is well within the range of the oscillations that have existed for hundreds of millions of years. Unaltered and unfiltered observations verify that fact. If anything, global climate has been cooling for nearly a decade now, a phenomenon totally unexplained by the GW proponents. But then, the expedient move to the “Climate Change” moniker can now conveniently make ANY possible event under the sun responsible for it. The sun, which incidentally by its relative phases of activity and inactivity has produced the only reliably observable and verifiable principal causal factor affecting our global climate.
Ship of Lies 2: The Al Gore Fibfest continues
From the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen
Next up, after Bob Corell (see previous posting), was Mr. Jonas Gahr Store, the nattily-dressed Foreign Minister of Norway. He told us, with all the panicky solemnity and solemn panic that is the hallmark of every politician’s speech at this conference, that “We Have To Reduce Methane By 180 Million Tons A Year!” Or Else. No, Jonas, we don’t. There’s so little methane in the atmosphere, and its concentration is rising so slowly, that we’d hardly be able to measure the warming it causes even after 1000 years.
The next scare he thought up was Black Carbon. This, he told us in the unreferenced, I-just-made-it-up manner that everyone here is adopting, has caused “12% of warming to date.” No, it hasn’t. Nearly all of the Earth’s albedo – its capacity to reflect sunlight harmlessly straight back into space – comes from clouds, whose reflectance is near-totally unaffected by particulate pollution. For this reason, having a little soot in the air – almost entirely from environmentally ill-regulated third-world countries such as India and China – makes practically no difference to temperature.
Mr. Gahr Store then told us that much of the black carbon came from smoky cooking-stoves in third-world countries. So let’s see if I have this straight. 12% of “global warming” is coming from third-world emissions of black carbon. I want them to pay us our Climate Debt now! Rewrite the Treaty! Africa Must Pay!
Outside – not that we could see this, because in the excitingly dull conference center the concept of the window as an architectural form has not been exploited much – it was beginning to snow heavily. That, of course, is the cue for The Great One – Al Gore himself.
Gore no longer lives on the same planet as the rest of us. When he swept into the room surrounded by a cloud of security goons in suits that bulged in all the wrong places, the goon in front of him stepped aside to let him take his seat – and, to Gore’s evident horror, he found himself facing none other than your correspondent. Read more.
Next up, after Bob Corell (see previous posting), was Mr. Jonas Gahr Store, the nattily-dressed Foreign Minister of Norway. He told us, with all the panicky solemnity and solemn panic that is the hallmark of every politician’s speech at this conference, that “We Have To Reduce Methane By 180 Million Tons A Year!” Or Else. No, Jonas, we don’t. There’s so little methane in the atmosphere, and its concentration is rising so slowly, that we’d hardly be able to measure the warming it causes even after 1000 years.
The next scare he thought up was Black Carbon. This, he told us in the unreferenced, I-just-made-it-up manner that everyone here is adopting, has caused “12% of warming to date.” No, it hasn’t. Nearly all of the Earth’s albedo – its capacity to reflect sunlight harmlessly straight back into space – comes from clouds, whose reflectance is near-totally unaffected by particulate pollution. For this reason, having a little soot in the air – almost entirely from environmentally ill-regulated third-world countries such as India and China – makes practically no difference to temperature.
Mr. Gahr Store then told us that much of the black carbon came from smoky cooking-stoves in third-world countries. So let’s see if I have this straight. 12% of “global warming” is coming from third-world emissions of black carbon. I want them to pay us our Climate Debt now! Rewrite the Treaty! Africa Must Pay!
Outside – not that we could see this, because in the excitingly dull conference center the concept of the window as an architectural form has not been exploited much – it was beginning to snow heavily. That, of course, is the cue for The Great One – Al Gore himself.
Gore no longer lives on the same planet as the rest of us. When he swept into the room surrounded by a cloud of security goons in suits that bulged in all the wrong places, the goon in front of him stepped aside to let him take his seat – and, to Gore’s evident horror, he found himself facing none other than your correspondent. Read more.
The Real Reason Behind The Copenhagen Walk-Out
I cannot go along with this assessment, but I do agree that the whole walk-out was about money. One talking point that seems to go unchallenged is that the poor will be hit the hardest by global warming - It appears to me that poor countries with less industry create less so called greenhouse gas. It is environmentalists that hurt the poor by calling for a ban on DDT which causes millions of people to die of malaria.
Developing countries have walked out on the Copenhagen climate talks, but one of the primary reasons as to why nations like China and India have boycotted the summit is being hidden by the corporate media – namely the fact that the negotiations were doomed once poorer countries learned of the globalist’s neo-colonial agenda as a result of the Danish text leak.
“Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation,” reports the BBC.
“Delegations were angry at what they saw as moves by the Danish host government to sideline talks on more emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol. As news spread around the conference centre, activists chanted “We stand with Africa – Kyoto targets now”.
However, the media has completely failed to highlight the real reason behind the walk out – the fact that funds from climate financing, originally allocated to go to the UN and then be doled out piecemeal to third world nations, would instead be paid directly into the coffers of the World Bank and IMF, organizations that have made a habit out of looting poorer countries with crippling debts that cannot be paid back, forcing such countries to hand over their entire infrastructure to globalist loan sharks. Read more.
Environmentalism in the Third Reich
With COP15 well underway, we are witnessing the complete mutilation of freedom worldwide. When lord Christopher Monckton was rudely interrupted by chanting automatons the other day, he was quite right to refer to them as “Hitler Youth”. Why? Because they too blindly served a system that had a murderous and tyrannical apple-core, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of people. The same applies to the current world government being constructed at the expense of developing nations, but (horribly ironical) implemented in the name of those same developing nations. The endgame was, is and always will be the extermination of a great many people. It is the New World Order’s intent to shake the tree of liberty so furiously, that most apples fall to the ground to rot and die. If the world government will be ratified, it will also snap the trunk.
Read more if you dare.
Read more if you dare.
UN Sponsored Poster Campaign Depicts Humans As Evil Monsters
A new poster campaign sponsored by the United Nations depicts humans as evil horror movie monsters intent on slaughtering wildlife, another abhorrent example of how eugenicists are following through on the Club of Rome’s 1991 promise to portray Homo sapiens as the enemy in an effort to construct a world government around the pretext of saving the earth.
The three posters reverse the roles of famous horror movies Jaws, King Kong, and Tarantula, characterizing humans as rampaging monsters out to kill defenseless species. They were produced by the Center for Migratory Species.
The poster campaign is being sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental arm of the global government now being advanced in Copenhagen. Each poster features the UNEP logo at the bottom of the image.
UNEP is the regulatory body that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the politicized organization that has attempted to slam the lid shut on global warming skepticism by claiming it is the supreme authority, despite the fact that scientists used by the IPCC were caught manipulating data and conspiring to “hide the decline” in global warming during the climategate scandal.
The three posters reverse the roles of famous horror movies Jaws, King Kong, and Tarantula, characterizing humans as rampaging monsters out to kill defenseless species. They were produced by the Center for Migratory Species.
The poster campaign is being sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental arm of the global government now being advanced in Copenhagen. Each poster features the UNEP logo at the bottom of the image.
UNEP is the regulatory body that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the politicized organization that has attempted to slam the lid shut on global warming skepticism by claiming it is the supreme authority, despite the fact that scientists used by the IPCC were caught manipulating data and conspiring to “hide the decline” in global warming during the climategate scandal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)